Home - List All Discussions

Planned Parenthood, Hitler & KKK

Planned Parenthood's Black genocide makes the Klan & Hitler look like amateurs

by: terry

Here's your chance on comment on the newest weapon in the war over abortion - http://www.KlanParenthood.com - a new site with facts on abortion's effects on the Black community and Planned Parenthood's success at reducing the Black population. (Blacks are a lower race according to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, who openly states that she was once the speaker at a KKK meeting).
 
Today there are almost as many black babies killed before birth, than are allowed to be born. The Ku Klux Klan couldn't even  dream of killing as many Blacks as Planned Parenthood has and here is a new brochure that presents the facts:  http://www.KlanParenthood.com/Planned_Parenthood_Ku_Klux_Klan_KKK_Nazis/

The Choice Nazi exposes the SangerHitler, Planned Parenthood connection, the parallels between the Nazi holocaust & America’s abortion holocaust, and shows how abortion has produced a Black genecide in America. Read it or get a FREE COPY at http://KlanParenthood.com/Pro-choice_Nazi_Abortion_Facts/

reply from: yoda

Good points, Terry, and here's some more interesting information:

NAACP Criticized for Blocking Pro-Life Efforts to Overturn Abortion Policy

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In February, the NAACP adopted a position in favor of abortion for the first time in the history of the nation's largest civil rights organization. Now, the group is preventing pro-life delegates at its national convention from putting forward an effort to reverse the decision. A local NAACP chapter in Macon, Georgia says the national organization has refused to allow it to present a resolution overturning the pro-abortion decision. Loretta Grier, president of the affiliate, was shocked when she was told by NAACP officials that her resolution was invalid because they claim her group had not properly filed a financial document for her chapter. "That was absurd," Grier said in response. "I checked with our secretary and she assured me that the report was filed well before the cut off date.”

http://www.lifenews.com/nat640.html

reply from: BorisBadanov

In the ghetto of Warsaw, during WW II, the Germans hired and used only Jews to keep order as policemen, city officials, etc.  This way, those marked for extermination wouldn't suspect anything. 

reply from: terry

Here's more proof of the eugenic nature of the abortionists, as if more were needed.  This retiring abortionist just comes right out and admits she's on a mission to sterilize all the people she doesn't like. 

http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2004-07-15/tailpipe.htmlhttp://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2004-07-15/tailpipe.html

At least she doesn't try to hide behind tired arguments about controlling the "bad elements" of society, or basing who gets sterilized on any sort of criteria.  Nope, if she doesn't like you, you can't reproduce.

Are you comfortable with your daughter's friends getting reproductive advice from someone like this?

reply from: Bits

I never knew that the NAACP was a supporter of the Pro -Choice movement. It really makes no sense to me.

reply from: terry

Not only does it make no sense, it's pretty sick, really.  Maragaret Sanger and Clarence Gamble, two of the founders of reproductive health clinics in the US, purposely recruited black ministers to spread the message of birth control and abortion to the black community.  They said black ministers could help straighten things out if anyone got the idea that these rich socialites from New York City were trying to exterminate the black race.

reply from: babegirlkris

i think that abortion is terrible and all you people that force it and do it on your own are killers and ya'll need to think about things before you do it. What if your the one that was getting killed. You wouldn't like that. And honestly, all races should be equal. I do not agree with the kkk program or the hitler. Thats not for me.

reply from: mcnutts2u

Overall, nice work on the "Klan Parenthood" stuff!  May want to add that statistical evidence also indicates that black mothers are even more likely to die from abortion complications, due largely to racist attitudes common among abortionists.

I occasionally still hear people assert that Nazi Holocaust - abortion holocaust comparisons are inaccurate, inappropriate, etc.  Perhaps so, in the sense that the abortion holocaust is far worse; 6 million killed compared to 46 million and still counting?!

There is no humane way to do an intrinsically inhumane thing.

For some good background reading, see eugenics-watch.com;
another good online read is "Eugenics and Other Evils" by G.K. Chesterton.

Oh, and since October (Breast Cancer Awareness Month) is just around the corner...why not post the "Hidden Killer" chapter from Lime5 online, and keep it there, pink ribbons and all?! It's a little dated -- it only lists 24 studies linking induced abortion with breast cancer, and I'm told that there are now 29 -- but there still seems to be a lot of denial about the 24.

More info on that at abortionbreastcancer.com, for those interested in stopping by your local Komen Foundation March and saying "Hi"...or, "Why", as in "Why aren't women being told?"

As if we don't know...

Cheers,

mcnutt

reply from: 123erica

This is the very reason that even though I am self employed and I could use the social status, I absolutely refused to join the NAACP. 
I will not give my money to an organization that thinks it is ok to chop babies up into hamburger meat and be sold into pharmaceuticals and beauty product companies.
That is insane.
Love you lots,

reply from: shiprah

Cool!  Welcome to the site 123erica!

reply from: Sheila17

I AM DOING A PROJECT ON ABORTION.  i CHOSE TO TELL PEOPLE WHY THEY ARE WRONG FOR DOING THIS.  IT IS MURDER AND THAT IS PUTTING IT NICELY.  I KNOW GOD SAYS NOT TO HATE BUT I FIND IT HARD NOT TO!!!!!!!!   i BELIEVE THAT IF YOU ARE ADULT ENOUGH TO HAVE SEX, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ADULT ENOUGH TO HANDLE YOUR CONSECUNCES.

reply from: Sheila17

I FELL THE SAME WAY YOU DO .  THE MINUET YOU ARE CONCEVED YOU ARE HUMAN.  I BACK YOU UP A 100%

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Sheila! You are in good company here. Would you mind lowering the case when you type? (All caps look like shouting).

Thanks for posting!

reply from: SheilaDFogarty

I've also read about the relationship regarding abortion AND contraception as proponents to breast/cervical/uteran cancer. The studies indicate that women who have the manipulation or abrupt stopping of natural hormones contributes to these diseases.

reply from: chooselife

I think part of the problem is our thinking.  We use terms like "handle the consequences".  (Please do not take offense sheila).  In our society today children are viewed as diseases.  They are something to be "prevented".  I have plenty of pro-life friends who will comment on a pregnant friend and make a comment like, "She already has 3 kids...now she is going to have another child the gov't will have to support".  What is being implied here is that only certain people are "worthy" of reproducing.  What saddens me is that my friends don't even realize their prejudice.  EVERY child has the right to be born irregardless of their socio-economic standing.  This is why child abuse is on the rise.  Children used to be seen as the wonderful precious gifts from God that they are.  Now we have reduced them to a disease, or a thing that will get in the way of what we really want.  It is a sad state for the world. 

reply from: yoda

Exactly chooselife, I've heard proaborts say that pregnancy IS a disease.

reply from: yourethenazis

And yet you people support the war in Iraq.  Are you aware more than 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed?  Not to mention the number of American lives that have been lost.  You say pro-choise people are nazis, but what's more Hitler-esque here?  Aborting a fetus, or discriminating against people of a certain (middle-eastern) ethnicity?  Or the government being able to take people prisoner for no reason and hold them without bail and deny their legal right to an attorney?  How a government that continually controls and censors the media, or just outright lies to its citizens?  We live in the "land of the free," and we're trying to bring freedom to Iraq, yet we deny basic freedoms to people here everyday.  Average income disparities between gender and race are still enormous.  There is a severely unequal distribution of wealth in this country, and the wealthy are blatantly favored by this "administration."  Gays and Lesbians are denied their civil rights are guaranteed to them by the Constitution.  There is an increasing blur between church and state, as the two are practically inseparable from each other under Bush's regime.  The only regime that was more "Nazi" than this was the Nazi regime itself.  You people need to realize that even if abortion were outlawed, it would still be performed, only under much less safe conditions, which would result in more hospital visits, which could result in your losing money (many county hospitals receive public funding).  Or, people could just go to Canada or Mexico, which could hurt our economy which could make you lose money.  You people should all be ashamed of yourselves.  I'm hardly pro-choice, but even I can see that you are all just as crazy as the liberal leftists that you hate so much.

reply from: shiprah

A bunch of us are liberal leftists.  We don't hate them.
You seem to be deeply affected by societies evils. So are we?  So why are you against every evil but one, abortion?

reply from: BorisBadanov

I'm not sure who you're ranting against.  Most of us on this forum are pretty critical of President Bush.  In addition, a large chunk of the posters here are agnostics or atheists -- hardly part of the "religious right."  

As for comparisons with Nazi Germany, you're quite correct that mass murder in general should wake us all up and help us realize that the Nazi legacy is still alive and well.  We pro-lifers don't accuse abortionists of being the only ones who act like Nazis.  Communists, terrorists and regrettably some members of the US military also deserve that term.  

We're just pointing out that those who support abortion also deserve the title. 

reply from: dadserna

Dear yourthenazis
I hope you will stick around long enough to get to know the people on this forum. You will see that we have a very diverse range of opinions on many subjects. You will be pleased to know that although the british medical journal Lancet estimated that over 100k Iraqi civilians have died since the war started, it has since been learned that they included insurgents in that number. Since the enemy does not wear a uniform it is very difficult to get an accurate count. osama Bin Laden stated just before the election that there were 18k. I don't think he would sugar coat it so I am relieved somewhat that more Iraqis have not been killed. I don't say this as a matter for debating the pro/anti war points. I am simply thankful that it is not more.
Having said all that, I think you should think your position through more clearly. I honestly don't understand what your thought process might be.
Middle eastern people are discriminated against, so let's kill babies?
Our government lied to us, so let's kill babies? 
We have an income disparity based on gender and race, so let's kill babies.
We do not allow same sex marriage, so let's kill babies.
It seems pretty clear that the real victims of discrimination are babies. This discrimination is so strong that you don't even see them. I hope that you will eventually see that we are defending the same people, we just start a little sooner.
Jay

reply from: yoda

There's your first mistake. "You people" is a stereotyping, lumping together phrase that most fair minded people avoid. Second mistake: This is a forum about abortion, not war. Third mistake: very little has been said about the war in Iraq on this forum, so you are just guessing.

What's the point in comparing two bad things? Why not just say they're both wrong?

"You people" again? I can tell you this about "we people" on this forum, most of us don't measure the worth of human lives in dollars and cents. Abortion and murder have long existed, in spite of the law, so what else is new? And if you're not prochoice/proabortion, you sure missed a good chance.

reply from: dignitarian

Hey, I’m going to go out on a limb here.   Just between all us pro-lifers; my bet is that with a name like “yourethenazis” this is not a person we are likely to hear back from anytime soon.  Dialogue is not likely his plan.


Regards,
Dignitarian

reply from: BorisBadanov

True, but judging by the number of "views" on this thread, there are a lot of people reading our responses who think like him.

reply from: Sandpounder

This is my first posting and I'm very pleased to discover such an active Forum on this issue.  If one depends upon the media to convey the depth of concern, one would get the impression that the only pro-lifers are extremists.

Frankly, IMHO, the woman exercised her "choice" when she engaged in behavior that led to a pregnancy.  The overwhelming majority of abortions are to terminate an "unwanted" pregnancy as a result of such behavior, not rape or incest which is the inevitable argument mounted by the opposition.

The problem that Pro-Lifers have is that the justification for abortion has been gaining ground in an increasingly immoral society that is replete with pornography, licentious standards, and  slavish subordination to the lack of any societal norm based on the politically correct necessity to tolerate everything.   Effectively, the USA (as well as much of the advanced world) is entering the phase of its development comparable to the final chapters in the histories of the great empires of the past.  Virtually all great societies began with discipline, morals, and a clear vision.  Most ended not with a bang, but with a self-indulgent whimper uttered by a people who had by then become dedicated to their own comfort, pleasure, and avoidance of inconvenience.
And babies .... to the selfish, self-centered, and self-indulgent are an inconvenience.

reply from: dignitarian

BorisBadanov:  Thanks.  Your point is well taken.  Actually I was kind of hoping "yourethenazis" would seize the challenge and stay with us for a while. 

However, there is another side of this coin.  The type of discussion that is typically generated after a post like the one from "yourethenazis" tends to reflect the superficiality and disjointedness of the original argument/rant.  Don't get me wrong, I think the posts by Shiprah, Dadserna, Chooselife, and Yodavater (and yours) are excellent prolife responses, and I agree that these responses must be made.  I would have made a few of them myself. 

But here is the point.  We all know that the pro-abortion position is largely based upon arguments that are subjective and ends-oriented.  Their arguments also employ guilt by association and innuendo.  And in a pinch, intimidation and name calling are thought to be valid tools of persuasion.

On the other hand, pro-life can be supported by objective, rational argument based upon universally accepted premises.  In the most fundamental sense, the pro-life position is founded upon principles that any reasonable person would be embarrassed to reject, such as inalienability of rights, the objective order of justice, and even the cause of human happiness. 

The problem is, whenever we argue on their terms, we automatically forfeit the chance to argue on ours.

Regards,
Dignitarian>>

 

reply from: abortnow

abortion is good you militant fundamentalist fascist

reply from: Christian4life

Anyone else laughing at this person?  Sorry, but I just can't help it.  Now that we know how intelligent and informed some people really are, doesn't it just blow your mind to realize how wrong all us fascist pro-lifers are to expose the roots of abortion and genocide?

Boy I sure feel foolish.  Someone calling me fascist sure feels acredible when they are the ones talking about killing one 3rd of the next generation.

reply from: shiprah

How can something that kills the innocent be good?  Shouldn't all be militant about the slaughter of kids?  Are you a fundamenatalist just because you don't think kids should die?  Would we be equally facist if we were opposing the slaughter of women, for example, or are facists only those who oppose the killing of babies?

reply from: yeahjusthateme

Has it ever occured to you that maybe the black population is more willing to have abortions than the white...it's not as if their going out and searching for black women to give abortions is it?

reply from: yeahjusthateme

has it ever occured to you that maybe a higher number of black women want abortions, it's not as if PP is going out and looking for these women is it?

reply from: shiprah

Planned Parenthood is aiming for minority women.  We know this from the teachings of its founder Margaret Sanger, from the lawsuits it still gets today from black employees protesting the racist work environment, and the fact that the majority of its clinics are in black neighborhoods.  Black people don't want abortions, but because of poverty they think abortion is a viable option -- they are lied to by prochoicers who hide from them prolife crisis pregnancy centers that help moms and babies.

reply from: Allizdog2000

It's true, I do monitor Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Abortion websites, they are currently targeting Hispanic  women, namely Mexican American women,   I noticed their prior top two cover stories were on the "Promotora" it's the Spanish word for Promoter, they are working in Southest Texas, story below that is some sad story about a woman that womans at an abortion clinic in Central and North Arizona Planned Parenthood.  and a few stories below that is "Vox goes international" they are mobilizing their Mexican activists in Tiajuana, BC, Mexico.

It's obvious they are targeting Mexicans. 

Why is this?  and this is just theory.  Planned Parenthood is located in the US and Abortion is Legal in Canada, and Abortion in Mexico is for the most part illegal (with medical exceptions), They are going there for BUSINESS REASONS, If Planned parenthood, presuaded the voter youth in Mexico, they could turn the tide in Mexico, to accept the Culture of Death, Mexico's politico-judicial system is very simular to the US with all the checks and balances,  a case simular to Roe Vs. Wade could very well be in Mexico's supreme court future.  (not sure if their Supreme Court and over ride the president or if the president can over rise the Supreme court).  
What all this means, if the American abortion corporation Planned Parenthood were to open it's doors in the large to major Mexican cities, it would mean millions of dollars annually for Planned Parenthood.

My recommendations, the Catholic and Pro-life Groups in the US and Mexico, need to counter this    

reply from: shiprah

Now that three out of five black pregnancies are terminated, I guess Planned Parenthood feels pretty confident about their success in killing my people off.  Now they have to go after Hispanics because they are becoming a large, powerful, vocal minority.  I can almost guarantee you that we're going to be seeing more vigilant Catholic for Choice organizations simply because that's a way of perpetuating genocide against Hispanics.

reply from: chooselife

Shiprah - Aren't hispanics the largest minority group now? One would have to assume this is largely in part of the high abortion rates among blacks. I live in Canton, Ohio and our Planned Parenthood is launching a large hispanic initiative to reach out to the hispanics in our community. Planned Parenthood just disgusts me. It is about 500 feet away from my church (where I work). I have to pass it every day on my way to work and it just sickens me. However my church agreed to pay a lease for our local pregnancy center to have a satellite location right smack across the road from my church. So this location is going to be a few doors down from Planned Parenthood!! Yet our clinic will offer free ultrasounds...while PP is still charging for them. Thankfully this PP is not an abortion facility. However I see plenty of girls in my peer counseling sessions at the Pregnancy Center who rec'd birth control from PP and became very promiscuous and all of a sudden the Pill wasn't working for them. There isn't enough time to list all of the evils of PP.

reply from: shiprah

Yes, Hispanics are the largest minority group now.  Blacks were in the eighties.  I just hope Hispanics can take a lesson from what happened to us.

reply from: mom2

I live in a rural southern state.  The largest two cities nearest to me have Planned Parenthoods.  I'll let you take just ONE guess as to where they are located...

Yes, in the "heart" of the black community.  I really don't need to know other facts about Planned Parenthood... that tells me everything I need to know. 

If they wanted to "target" all races, well, there are plenty of areas surrounding the cities to locate a facility.  But they didn't. 

reply from: whosays

Here is a link http://www22.brinkster.com/anerioja/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18 for anyone who would like information on the Planned Parenthood - Margaret Sanger - Hitler connection in Spanish.  This is a translation of the http://choicenazi.com/DeathCamps/Holocaust.cfmAmerican Death Camps abortion holocaust page.

reply from: whosays

Planned Parenthood sued for racism
(http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42443)http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42443
Well it's about time! Here's to a lengthy, highly visible courtroom battle.

If they have to go on the record under oath, then the penalty of perjury may scare the truth out of them. 

reply from: honeypie

Klanned Parenthood,

My fiance and I are staunch pro-lifers, and we've taken an interest in your site. I was wondering if you could explain the stat on the home page more:

"Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent."

I was appalled, so I looked up the U.S. census data for blacks in 1970: 22.5 million and blacks in 2002: 36 million.

Obviously, not an overall decrease in black population, so I thought I'd ask if you could explain that one more.

Thanks!

reply from: chooselife

Honeypie - I know that 3 out of every 5 black children are aborted.  Maybe they are taking into account how many more blacks there would be had these abortions not taken place. Welcome to our forum. I thought the statistic was interesting that more black children are aborted every day than were ever killed in the history of the KKK.

reply from: terry

Honeypie,

Since 1973, approx. 13 million black children have been killed by abortion.  Those children were people, and we count them as part of the population. 

13 million is 25% of the projected 49 million black people conceived.  

reply from: honeypie

Thanks Chooselife and Terry,

I did a quick growth rate calculation based on the U.S. Census data.

If I did my math right...

black population 1970: 29,986,060

black population 2002: 36,000,000

Increase: 20%

white population 1970: 177,748,975

white population 2002: 194,822,000

Increase: 9.6%

The good news, I guess, is that whatever some people's intentions, any attempts at genocide seem to be failing miserably. My uneducated guess would be because abortion is used as an alternative form of birth control; post-abortive women either already had lots of kids or went on to have more later. Thoughts? The statistical information I used can be found at http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/black.html

Not to be devil's advocate or anything. I just think the pro-life movement is important enough to explain all stats clearly. It doesn't help to be misunderstood or to seem to mislead people.

reply from: honeypie

Like, maybe a more clear way to express that statistic would be to say:

The black population could be X% greater than it is if 13 million children hadn't been killed.

or

The growth rate of the black population has been slowed an estimated X%

rather than giving the impression that there are actually fewer black people in the U.S. today than there were in 1970.

But even the above statements are kind of hard to estimate. If a woman named, say, Janet, believed that abortion was wrong, maybe she would have had her tubes tied after baby number five rather than aborting baby number six. If abortion ceased right now, it doesn't mean that the population would increase by the same number of people as if all the children who would have been aborted had been allowed to live, you know what I mean?

What I'm saying doesn't mean that those 13 million children are not people. It just means that there are more factors to the population than just abortion. If population is what you want to talk about, calculating number of abortions isn't a very effective way of projecting the number of people in that parallel universe where abortions don't exist. There are probably a significant number of people running around out there who are alive because someone else isn't. I was talking to a woman the other day who miscarried and became pregnant with her next child three months later. That's a boy who wouldn't exist if the first child had been carried to term. It doesn't mean it isn't wrong to kill the first child; it just means it's hard to project what the population would be sans abortion.

reply from: shiprah

Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from
AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and
almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

About 13 percent of American women are black, but they
submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
these quotes are from blackgenocide.com

reply from: shiprah

The American Feminist

../../1995/winter/index.htm

Imitating the EnemyIn an article titled "What Can the White Man Say to the Black Woman?" Alice Walker asks,

Ms. Walker, the author of The Color Purple, answers her own question by pointing out that these children died at the hands of the white man. But whereas her facts are historically correct, her conclusion is confusing (at least to this writer). I say this because on the one hand Ms. Walker condemns these atrocious acts, as she should, but then turns around and uses the injustices that the white man has inflicted upon various populations to "justify" the black woman's right to take the life of her own child.

Unfortunately, Ms. Walker is not alone in this train of logic.

Black "radicals" who are adept at talking about how the white man - whom some refer to as the enemy - used black people during slavery for economic gain and genocide, are willing to defend the rights of abortionists - usually white men - to profit from the killing of black babies.

"Conservative" African-Americans who see black-on-black violence as the #1 enemy in our neighborhoods rightly plead with youngbloods to put an end to this violence. But they will stand by the black woman's "right" to abort her black child.

Many a preacher in the black church will spend hours every week telling the world right from wrong, what we ought and ought not to do, taking every opportunity to remind us that sin is the enemy. These preachers scream and shout about adultery, lying and stealing (all the "politically correct" sins), and yet when it comes to the "A" word, they suddenly get laryngitis.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that this attitude of "it's genocide if another group kills mine but 'freedom of choice' when I kill my own" is restricted to the African-American community. The pro-choice feminist movement is the most glaring example of this. What's really interesting is that those who are extremely knowledgeable and claim to care for the underprivileged (and I really do believe that they care) are the same people who deny the most helpless of all - the preborn baby - the right to live.

Pro-abortion feminists lecture at universities about how violent men can be - scratch that - make that, how violent men are (as in innately). In the opinion of some pro-choice feminists, "all men are rapists and therefore the enemy." Yet some of these same women make demands to protect a man's (the abortionist's) "right" to penetrate a woman's body in what amounts to mechanical rape and kill her child.

How is it that the same women who speak endlessly about how women around the world are valued less than men are shocked to find out that in places like India, out of 8,000 fetuses aborted, 7,999 were female? (2) Why are they surprised to find out that in countries like China, where there is a one-child policy, baby girls are often drowned so that a couple can try for a boy? There is no doubt that circumstances that make a woman even consider having an abortion are traumatic, to say the least. But allowing a man to enter her body and destroy her child is about as effective a solution to her problems as it is when blacks retaliate against racism by burning down their own neighborhoods.

What, then, is the solution? I believe that it begins the moment one stops imitating the "enemy." African-Americans have been oppressed for centuries. It wasn't until the '60's that they really began to make progress. Why? Black pride.

When James Brown started singing, "Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud"; when a black man named Muhammad Ali said, "I'm the greatest"; when Jesse Jackson chanted, "I am somebody"; when we grew our Afros and wore ethnic clothing - that's when we began to grow as a people.

I believe that the same could be said for women. As Daphne de Jong stated in "Legal Abortion Exploits Women," "The womb is not the be-all and end-all of women's existence. But it is the physical center of her sexual identity, which is an important aspect of her self-image and personality. To reject its function, or to regard it as a handicap, a danger or a nuisance, is to reject a vital part of her own personhood. Every woman need not be a mother, but unless every woman can identify with the potential motherhood of all women, no equality is possible. American Negroes gained nothing by straightening their kinky hair and aping the white middle class. Equality began to become a reality only when they insisted on acceptance of their different qualities - 'Black is Beautiful.'" (3)

Alice Walker was right. Some white men are responsible for the genocide of the Mandinka, the Ibor, the Ashanti, as well as the rape and abuse of white women. But unlike our ancestors, who fought to protect themselves and their children, today we unite with this kind of white man for the "right" to kill our children through what can only be called cooperative genocide.

Until we as a people begin to celebrate that which makes us unique, and love ourselves for who we are, we will continue to participate in self-destructive acts. For how can we love ourselves while we are consumed with imitating the enemy?
1 The Nation: May 22, 1989, p. 691, "What Can the White Man Say to the Black Woman?," by Alice Walker
2 Newsweek: January 30, 1989, p. 12, "In India, They Abort Females," by Jo McGowan
3 Abortion? Opposing Viewpoints, p. 163: "Legal Abortion Exploits WOmen," by Daphne de Jong

Leon Jones, President, Blacks for Life
Reprinted from The American Feminist, Winter 1994/1995

reply from: Navynate

Shiprah,

Actually I think that the Black community has lost people since Roe VS Wade, they actually have a negative population growth. More black people are dying then are being born, but that wouldn't be true if Abortion were illegal. Margaret Sanger intentionally targetted the black community to keep them from reproducing. Sterilazation was another thing that many people used to keep those they didn't like to keep from reproducing, and then if they were going to have a baby then abortion was the best thing that a large family could do.  Maggie Sanger said that the best thing a large family can do to one of it's members is to kill it. I think that certain people deserve the hatred that people have for their memory, Hitler, Stalin, and other barbarians who were blood thirsty and incredibly diabilicle in how they treated others, I would have to put Margaret Sanger in with that group. She was extremely racist and hated other groups as well. Only blissfully ignorant or those who are hardcore prochoicers wouldn't see the connection between PP, Hitler and the KKK.   

reply from: shiprah

Barbaric is the key word for these people.   One evil leads to others and abortion is an entity that creates breeds prejudice in a variety of ways, not only by being a genocidal practice, but by forcing prochoicers to create hypocritical bigoted defenses.  It never ceases to amaze me how one can condemn cannibalism and support stem cell research -- the exact same thing.  Or how an anthropologist can frown at the live burial of an unwanted baby while supporting partial birth abortion.  Or how my world religions teacher is horrified by Aztec human sacrifice and supports abortion. Or how a feminist opposes the punishment of women who are victims or rape, and then wants to be able to kill the child conceived by it.  We accuse the Chinese of killing their girls, when 75% of American abortions are of girls.  Abortion causes us to look at the human rights abuses of others as evil while codifying are own into a justifyable practice, blinding ourselves and sanctioning the abuse of the most vulnerable members of our society.  Ignoring the barbarism of our culture while pointing out the flaws in other cultures is another element of abortion related racism.

reply from: Navynate

Well said Shiprah!!!!

reply from: honeypie

Shiprah,

Anthropologists who frown on anything that we might call a moral issue may be found on a case by case basis. When I was in community college, my Anthropology 101 professor told of an anthropologist who went into a tribal area to study the people. He sufficiently won their friendship that they gave him a 12-year-old girl as companion for the night. He didn't refuse.

I believe it was the Yanomami people who, according to our text book, were frequently at war with neighboring villages, usually over women. A band would come in, kidnap all the young women, gang rape them and then award one of the raiding band a new, freshly raped wife.

This was all presented from a "scientific" it's-not-wrong-only-different point of view. It's just the way they do things over there.

People get very confused when they don't have an immovable moral standard, such as the timeless command of an eternal God.

A society without that merely does its best to please the majority of the people in it. Or rather the majority of the people who have power. The government "by the people and for the people" has worked pretty well in our society, owing, I believe, to a historically deeply moral population who largely agreed that the Bible held an absolute and relevant standard of right and wrong.

As the hearts of the people in the U.S. move away from caring what God thinks, it is my opinion that the law will not be able to hold up under the weight of the resulting rise in crime. The law only works when most people are striving to do good in their own lives because of their deep inner convictions. In our society, where the law does not buckle under the pressure of rising crime rates, it changes to reflect the changing will of the people in power: the voters -- whether that will is just or not.

We can do our part, use our vote and our voice to defend the voteless and voiceless on this issue -- and we should. But I think it's a losing battle unless we can also live out our relationship with God and communicate the life-changing gift of Jesus in such a way that more people are changed from the inside out. Then, not only will they vote righteously on this one polarizing issue, but God Himself will be bringing their (and our) hearts into line with all the things that He is passionate about, both on a legal and personal scale.

Our battle really isn't against flesh and blood, but spiritual in nature. (Eph. 6:12)

(stepping off soapbox now)

reply from: mom5

See, this is where our society went wrong with the law allowing a woman to kill her unborn child.  A society who sees its country has absolutely no regard for the innocent unborn... thus resulting in crimes of every nature.  This is why we are seeing an increase in crimes.

This is my opinion... in other words..abortion is the root of all evil.

reply from: shiprah

I agree with you.  As a Christian, there's no doubt in my mind that abortion is a tool of the devil.

reply from: Dmourning

Ok, so never mind that people have been using religious ideals as the basis of committing murder and other acts against people for centuries, though, right? Never mind that corporations after a fatter bottom line are exploiting people and committing state sanctioned robbery against consumers, though, right? Oh yeah, don't forget that we have a larger population than any time in history. I mean, when crime goes up proportionately with the population, there's no other explanation for it than abortion, right?

reply from: honeypie

Shiprah,

If you think of the name of the woman anthropologist, I'd like to update my knowledge of the Yanomami.

I think the scary part is that, even if misinformed about the violence against women among the Yanomami, the enlightened academic community would sit at their desks, rubbing their chins and thinking, "How very interesting that they do things like that over there," rather than, "Hey, we need to step in somehow and protect the oppressed."

reply from: honeypie

Well...

Truthfully, I think it's a mistake to define Christians by the abortion issue. I'd have to disagree that abortion is the root of all evil. The Bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. It doesn't mention anything precisely like abortion, though it has plenty to say about infanticide, which was done by many idolatrous people who were seeking the well-being of their crops over the lives of their children. A kind of love of money, no?

So, presuming Christians are living by the Bible, (Micah 6:8, "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?") we are seeking justice in all kinds of realms. Not just the protection of the unborn, but economic justice, as Dmourning mentioned, and protection for people in situations of rape, incest, false imprisonment, and many more terrible things that are all symptomatic of rebellion against the God of love and justice.

Dmourning, it's true that historically a lot of violence has been committed in the name of religion. I hope that you'll sometime take the time to check into which people were doing what. Jesus had a TON to say about people who said they were doing one thing but with their actions were doing evil things instead.

Something else to consider is the human rights abuses by godless societies, e.g. communism. John Lennon sang a beautiful song, but there's nothing like the story of The Killing Fields in Cambodia or the slaughter by Stalin to make you really deeply ill inside.

On the flip side, there are many faith-based organizations striving for legal and economic justice throughout the world (see World Vision, World Relief, International Justice Mission), and many Christians are pouring in huge dollars and some are even risking their lives in third-world countries and inner cities in the States because they are so dedicated to this.

reply from: shiprah

I've edited the post since you've read it, the woman anthropologist is Alcida Rita Ramos.  But I agree with you that people can take the tolerance issue way too far.

reply from: mom5

Ok, so never mind that people have been using religious ideals as the basis of committing murder and other acts against people for centuries, though, right? Never mind that corporations after a fatter bottom line are exploiting people and committing state sanctioned robbery against consumers, though, right? Oh yeah, don't forget that we have a larger population than any time in history. I mean, when crime goes up proportionately with the population, there's no other explanation for it than abortion, right?

I said that was my opinion - and you of all people will not change it... you can try until you are blue in the face instead of red and white.

Once again you have picked at something that is of opinion.... I am personally tired of it! 

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

An American Planned Parenthood's spokeswoman made much last week of the two Klansmen carrying anti-abortion signs at the Ku Klux Klan rally, which I saw on TV. She said, "It just shows what kind of people oppose abortion"

I was a little puzzled by this statement. Is the spokeswoman saying that the millions of Americans who identify themselves as pro-life are members of the Ku Klux Klan? If so, that’s pretty damned stereotypical. However, its also fair to point out that pro-choicers count among their supporters the North American Man-Boy Love Association--a group of homosexual paedophiles who want to legalise sex between adults and children, Queer Nation, ACT-UP, and assorted eco-terrorist groups whose members drive spikes into trees so lumberjacks will be injured or killed trying to cut them down.>>

The reality is any movement with millions of people is going to have a few unsavoury characters lurking around the fringes. And when you consider how evil a practice abortion is, it shouldn't be surprising that even the nastiest of people recognise that it is wrong.>>

If the Planned Parenthood spokeswoman wants to tar all pro-lifers with the Klan brush, it has to work both ways. She has to be willing to paint all pro-choicers as violent, cross-dressing, homosexual, child-molesting tree-huggers.>>

It just shows that the spokeswoman knows how morally bankrupt her position is. She can't defend it on its own merits, because it has none. So she is reduced to making absurd and irrelevant statements based on a couple of pathetic carrying signs.>>

Let's assume the KKK really does oppose abortion. The KKK also opposes adultery. Does that mean that all men who don't cheat on their wives parade around the woods at night with sheets over their heads? Does it also mean that adultery is good because the KKK is against it? If a local pastor speaks out against adultery, does that place him in league with the KKK?>>

The reality is, saintly people like Mother Teresa oppose abortion, as do ordinary people who occasionally drive over the speed limit, yell at their kids, or don't return their library books on time. >>

The bigger point is this: When even a sub-moronic conehead from the KKK has enough sense to recognise that abortion is not only the killing of a child, but is risky elective surgery, performed by immoral and substandard doctors, that all too often leaves a perfectly healthy woman mutilated or dead, we have to wonder about people like the Planned Parenthood spokeswoman. She doesn't just tolerate abortion--she has made it her life's work to make sure as many abortions as possible take place. She spends her life defending and promoting something that even bigoted and ignorant people know is wrong. >>

That says very little about Klansmen, but it says an awful lot about abortion enthusiasts.

And on the subject of abortion being the root of all evil....
Money and abortion have close ties when it comes to abortion enthusiasts' motives (which, surprise surprise is actually money)

An abortion procedure may cost "just" a couple of hundred bucks. But it's also a really quick procedure that doctors are able to perform with minimal effort, with little to no follow up care. And when you're able to do something quickly, you can do it many times, and the amount of revenue quickly adds up. http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0029432.cfmPlanned Parenthood performed 227,385 abortions last year. At $200/abortion, that amounts to over $45 million in revenue. What does PP make through adoption referrals? My guess is probably nothing. So it's no surprise that it only made 2,000 of them last year. So for every adoption referral, PP performed 113 abortions. It's hard for any pro-choicer to make the claim that this isn't about money for them.

Though I'm sure no one is disagreeing that abortion is evil, just what is the primary source of evil. Both money and abortion have close ties.

I find it similarly ironic that when a 15-year-old girl comes into an abortion mill with no money, no clothes, no food, no home to go to, no one else to help her, and no intention of having an abortion, what services does that facility provide for her?>>

The truth is, the abortion industry doesn't actually provide any services other than abortion. And if you go to work in a crisis pregnancy centre, you learn that when a woman, or young girl, needs help but doesn't want an abortion, the abortion mill will give her the number of the many crisis pregnancy organisations! That's fine with me, but it says a lot about the people who say their only mission in life is to help women.>>

I’ve heard claims that pro-lifers only care about life from conception to birth (another pro-choice fallacy) but the truth is the reverse. Its pro-choicers who only care about women from conception until their abortion. If a woman doesn't want an abortion--or if she is injured by the abortion--they lose interest.>>

Think about it. Planned Parenthood has an annual budget of over $300 million, much of which is taxpayers' money. How many homes for unwed mothers do they run? None! Once a woman makes the decision not to abort, she is no longer a possible source of income, and therefore she is no longer a source of interest.>>

If a woman is poor, does Planned Parenthood give her nappies and baby cream? Does Planned Parenthood baby-sit for her so she can attend classes at the community college? Does Planned Parenthood take calls from her at>3:00 a.m. when the baby is crying and she doesn't know what to do? No. They take all that tax money and do one thing with it--kill children.>>

 

reply from: Navynate

Right on. Prochoice groups claim to care so much about women, but if they get injured then they care about not getting sued for everything they have. Dr. Tiller (abortionist in Wichita) killed one lady a few weeks ago and today another lady was taken to the hospital from his clinic. His partner Dr Carhart was scheduled to work today, so he was probably the one who messed up. Have you seen any of the parts lists for aborted babies to be sold to companies to do experiments on the body parts or on complete aborted babies? What kind of people could ever support doing experiments on the babies or on their body parts for science? Thinking about this should bring images of Doctor Magele doing horrible things to people in Auschwitz. And speaking of Auschwitz, Dr. Tiller has a little cramatorium there at his abortion clinic in Wichita, people from Operation Rescue West can see the smoke coming from his chiminy when he's killing babies. And some idiots say that the Holocaust and abortion are totally different. They would be wrong. They both have the same twisted and demented mentality behind them.
 You should read what Carol Everatt has to say about the motivation behind abortion. She says it's all money, money, money and that they don't care about the women they injure or kill. They will drive more miles to take someone injured to a hospital that will cover up their mistakes for them then to go to a hospital that's closer.    

reply from: jcgspam

Actually, I saw an interview with a klansman once. It seems that the klan is opposed to abortion if a white woman wants one, but they feel it should be required for black women. They are not exactly what I would call pro-life, so her statement was grossly inaccurate to begin with. HTH

Julie

reply from: bettylow92

It definitely brakes my heart to know that some people in the world today can be brutal enough to actually be able to kill someone..and yeah abortion is homicide!!a baby is a living human being! And I think that if you take to responsibility to have sex then you can take the responsibility for the consequences!!How would you like it if someone came to your house and ripped your body apart?? I dont think anyone would like that.

reply from: shiprah

Exactly, and the younger you are the more you feel pain, so if you imagine all of the pain of  being scalded by saline, or dismembered, or having your brain vacuumed out of your head, the unborn person feels it much worse.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Betty. :-)

reply from: chopperpilot

First I need to point out that a fetus does not feel any pain during abortions in the 1st trimester. The central nervous system has not developed yet, and therefore a fetus in this stage has no brain, no thoughts, and no feelings.

It is fine to disagree with abortion on moral grounds
But, there is no OBJECTIVE scientific proof that a fetus has "personhood" - (as defined by the law)
In fact it can be proven without a doubt that a fetus in the early stages (currently legal for abortions) does not possess the necessary requirements to be given "personhood" under the law.

Problems with the argument that a fetus has LEGAL [not moral] "personhood" arise when we consider that:
a fetus in the early stages does not have a central nervous system. Therefore it would not be capable of feeling pain, being aware of its own existence, or thinking. 
LEGALLY [not morally] a fetus in the early stages could be compared to a brain dead patient on life support. Neither has a functioning brain (one has no brain at all), and neither can exist without outside sources.

It is [morally sound] to speculate that a "soul" is implanted into a zygote upon conception, but it is not [LEGALLY] or [FACTUALLY] sound to assert this as [SCIENTIFIC] fact.
And, that is exactly what we're trying to do when we assert a pro-life argument on the basis that a fetus has LEGAL [not moral] "personhood" 

"Human life is a continuum that is comprised of stages, in all of these stages human life is "living" even (sperm & egg cells are "living"), but sperm & egg cells are not a fetus, a fetus is not a baby, a baby is not a child, and a child is not an adult. Each stage is unique, and "living", but "human life" does not deserve the same LEGAL rights and protection in all stages. This is currently why children cannot vote, drink alcohol, sign contracts, own weapons, drive, etc..." - SNF
"LEGAL definitions should focus on what something currently IS not what something has the POTENTIAL to become" - SNF

Criminals are placed in jail because they are currently criminal. Lawyers cannot successfully assert arguments based on what the criminal has the POTENTIAL to become with psychiatric help. Though it may reduce his sentencing, it will not render him not guilty for the crime he has committed.

Though a fetus has the potential to become a "person" [as legally defined not morally]
It is not a "person" [as legally defined not morally] and therefore cannot be treated as such during the stages of development where it is not viable outside of the mother's body or at the very least the stages where it has not yet even developed a brain, and the ability to think, and feel.

If we want to make abortion illegal we should be careful about trying to pass laws that give the fetus the same LEGAL protection based on its POTENTIAL to have "personhood"
We can argue that a fetus is a "human being", but we cannot argue that a fetus deserves LEGAL [not moral] "personhood" under the law because we currently do not extend legal "personhood" to sperm cells & egg cells.

LEGALLY "personhood" is a complex definition that includes a hierarchy of physical, emotional, social, psychological, and developmental requirements. 
All of which the fetus will fail.
Similar tests are applied to brain dead patients, and this is why it is not murder to turn off their life support. Criminals are executed for failing many of the social, emotional, and psychological requirements society has set forth for LEGAL "personhood"....

Anyone can argue that morally convicts are human beings, and have moral "personhood", but it is nearly impossible to imply that they have LEGAL "personhood"...
Lawyers argue all the time that death row inmates have "CHANGED" or that they have the "POTENTIAL" to change into functioning members of society. But, this does not negate what they "CURRENTLY" are.
Their actions, and demonstration of their inability to function in our society caused them to forfeit their LEGAL "personhood" under the law, hence the legal system can execute them without being sued for wrongful death or murder by the estate of said convict.

The same can be said for a brain dead patients:
They no longer have the ability to think, they are unaware of their own existence, and they are incapable of thought, or reason, and they do not feel any emotion, or physical pain. This is why they are considered legally dead, even if they "ARE" currently physically alive. The law makes exceptions for the "MENTAL" status of life when the "PHYSICAL" status of life is still present.
It could be argued that many of these "physically" alive, but "mentally" dead patients have the "POTENTIAL" to recover if new science and medical research were discovered, and therefore they should be kept alive until they cannot be kept alive any longer.
Yet, currently in our law, this is not the case and families, doctors, and hospitals can turn off the life support of a "BRAIN DEAD" person who is still "PHYSICALLY" alive without being prosecuted for murder because the law has determined that "BRAIN DEAD" patients do not have LEGAL [not moral] "personhood" under the law....
I am sure the family member of any brain dead person that disagreed with the hospitals decision to terminate the life support of their loved one would argue to you that said loved was in all ways a "person", and thought this is "MORALLY" true it is not "LEGALLY & SCIENTIFICALLY" true.

If we wish to outlaw abortion we must do so in a way that does not try to define a fetus as something it is not. Laws based on clouded and inaccurate facts do not remain. History has shown us this. 

A possible "LEGAL" situation that could lead to the "OVERTURN" of "NEW" laws "PROHIBITING" abortion would be a legal argument asserted by some fanatics that claim:
sterilization, masturbation, condoms, and birth control are wrong. If we were to pass laws protecting a fetus (which scientifically [not morally] speaking is a mass of human genetic material) because it has the POTENTIAL to become a person, it would be LEGALLY sound to assert an argument that we must ban condom use, masturbation, and birth control as well, because both would prevent "human genetic material (ergo egg & sperm cells)" from the POTENTIAL to become "human life".

Bad legal definitions, clouded facts, and inaccurate laws will lead to chaos. 
Some less respectable sects of the pro-life debate will take advantage of the weakness in such laws and use them as a way to force abstinence and keep women subservient to their fathers and husbands.
These sects of the debate aren't really about pro-life at all, and this is why they don't care if we come up with a LEGALLY [not morally] sound reason for why abortion is wrong. 

Outlawing abortion has got to be "LEGALLY" & "FACTUALLY" sound or it will not stick.
Simply "inaccurately modifying" definitions for "personhood" will not stick

(because it is not LEGALLY sound).>>

When problems arise and chaos begins the definition of "personhood" will be modified yet again, then the "FLAWED" abortion laws will be "OVERTURNED" and nothing will have been accomplished. 

Another problem facing anyone that is pro-life is the issue of morality, and the fact that despite the law one person's morals cannot be forced on others. This is why we still have members of the KKK walking around after desegregation, and why we will still have many women traveling over to EUROPE/CANADA/MEXICO for their LEGAL abortions if the Roe v. Wade decision is overturned.

without revealing my opinion on the subject or offering any solutions to the problem I'll say in conclusion that:
Anyone who fully supports pro-life should be commited to a LEGALLY sound overturning of Roe V. Wade...

Having a "BAD" plan is no substitute for "NO" plan at all.

reply from: April1988

         I think your 100% right . Thats so wrong , why take a chance at getting pregnant and not live up to your resposibility Its sick people that kill inocent babies . I hope it haunts you for life and you go to hell for killing another humanbein , your own fleshing blood . Its murder , and people are getting away with it .

reply from: NoApologies

That site is complete and utter garbage.

"Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and

almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods."

Hmmm ... I wonder why this could be. Maybe, just maybe, it's because Planned Parenthood offers their services (which include much more than just abortion; a majority of PP clinics don't even perform abortions) on a sliding scale. Many times for free. So, logically what PP would do is put their clinics in the areas where they are most needed - low-income neighborhoods, minority neighborhoods, etc. It's these people that need PP's services the most. Not rich, white American neighborhoods with white picket fences and Lassie clones.

Where does this site even get its information and stats from? The sky? How can you trust anything that comes from there? It's blatantly obvious that it has been created by a group of prejudiced, biased people, whose sole objective is to create outlandish propaganda.

reply from: yoda

That's an unscientific proclamation. No one knows, or has any way to test what a fetus (or an embryo) feels or does not feel at the moment of death. No CNS is needed for death to affect every fiber of a living organism, and no one knows how it feels to die.

You are confusing the legal concept of "person" with science. Legalisms are not bound to scientific fact, they are decreed by courts and legislatures at their pleasure. "Person" in the (much older) vernacular sense is defined as "the body of a human being".

I've never heard a ProLifer make that claim. Roe specifically counters that claim.

You are rather confused in your proclamations about word definitions. Here are some REAL, linked definitions for you to consider:

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

You are certainly entitled to YOUR OPINION about what "rights" unborn humans deserve or don't deserve, but you ought to realize that your opinions are just that, and nothing else. Children are not deprived of the rights you mention because adults think they "don't deserve" those rights, adults think they are too young to be able to handle them wisely. Do you think unborn humans are too young to be able to handle the "RIGHT TO STAY ALIVE" wisely?

Yes, a (human) fetus IS a human being, and it is a person (in the vernacular):

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being

2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per•son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

No, it's not at all complicated. Legal personhood is awarded upon live birth, period.

You are quite naive if you don't recognize that nearly all our criminal laws are based on the percieved morality of the majority of society, as interpreted by legislatures and courts.

live to fly; flight is freedom

I already have, I'm an instrument rated private pilot.

reply from: yoda

Well, we can certainly see that YOU aren't biased, are you?

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

Ultimately, how much pain an unborn child goes through in the abortion procedure is irrelevant to whether abortion is moral or not. If pain were the relevant consideration, it would be moral to kill any person at any time as long as it was done in a way that they felt no pain.

chopperpilot:

There's quite a bit of evidence that unborn children feel pain during the abortion. Do you really want to base your opinion on the degree of pain being felt by children of different ages?

reply from: Allizdog2000

Nah, I believe you are the one with the outlandish propaganda.   

So, logically what PP would do is put their clinics in the areas where they are most needed - low-income neighborhoods, minority neighborhoods, etc
It's not unfair for some people to have less opportunity than others to kill the innocent. 
Alot of this is rooted in Racism and eugenics.  Which is mentioned numberous times in this forum.  

Your handle is "NoApologies" no apologies for your Pro-Abortion position? Or for the abortion the committed?  

reply from: dignitarian

If we insist on separating "personhood" from a "being of human origin", where then do we draw the line?

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Roe v Wade all drew an arbitrary and subjective line. 

The only OBJECTIVE perspective is that every being of human origin is a person from conception to natural death.  Could it be any clearer than this?

Dignitarian  

reply from: antiaphrodite

no

and hi to everyone! God bless you all

reply from: NoApologies

Well, we can certainly see that YOU aren't biased, are you?

No. I'm just pro-choice and well-informed. There's a difference.

Nah, I believe you are the one with the outlandish propaganda.   

So, logically what PP would do is put their clinics in the areas where they are most needed - low-income neighborhoods, minority neighborhoods, etc

It's not unfair for some people to have less opportunity than others to kill the innocent. 

Alot of this is rooted in Racism and eugenics.  Which is mentioned numberous times in this forum.  

Your handle is "NoApologies" no apologies for your Pro-Abortion position? Or for the abortion the committed?  

Where is my "outlandish propaganda?"

What's unfair is when low-income and/or uninsured and/or minority women do not have the same options as rich, white women. PP counteracts this by providing their services on a sliding scale or at no cost.

PP today is not rooted in either racism nor eugenics. It's rooted in the belief that all women should have access to the same reproductive health options/choices/information/resources no matter their social or economic status.

About 80% of Wal-Marts and Targets are located in minority neighborhoods. Thus, Target and Wal-Mart are obviously controlled by the forces of racism and eugenics.

Or not.

No Apologies is a Nirvana song. It also (more accurately) portrays my unapologetic stance in the pro-choice movement. It also is a symbol of my belief that ALL women everywhere should have easy access to affordable, private, safe abortion services on demand without shame or apology.

Do you know why minority women are more likely to have abortions than white women? Because minority women are more likely to not have access to contraceptive options and accurate, comprehensive sexual health information than white women. That's why. Not because PP has some EVEEEEEL master plan to eliminate minorities.

reply from: mom5

CG - It's just another reason for the pro-aborts to try to justify abortion. 

I really wouldn't choose a Nirvana song for my "fight song" - Kurt had alot of shame in his life.

Also, women who have abortions owe apologies to only two people as far as I am concerned... one not being me.   Unfortunately, these apologies come 5, 10, 15 years after the abortion and usually with some shame.  Really unfortunate that women have to sufer like this.

reply from: shiprah

Nah, I believe you are the one with the outlandish propaganda.    So, logically what PP would do is put their clinics in the areas where they are most needed - low-income neighborhoods, minority neighborhoods, etc It's not unfair for some people to have less opportunity than others to kill the innocent.  Alot of this is rooted in Racism and eugenics.  Which is mentioned numberous times in this forum.   Your handle is "NoApologies" no apologies for your Pro-Abortion position? Or for the abortion the committed?  

Since most welfare recipients are rural white people, why aren't most Planned Parenthoods in those neighborhoods?

reply from: yoda

Good point. Welcome to the fray! :-)

reply from: yoda

That's funny. You use outlandish adjectives to express your totally subjective opinion, and then say you aren't biased. That's hilarous.

So you advocate an "equal opportunity to kill your child" for everyone? My, how very kind of you!

.

reply from: NoApologies

I really wouldn't choose a Nirvana song for my "fight song" - Kurt had alot of shame in his life.

Also, women who have abortions owe apologies to only two people as far as I am concerned... one not being me.   Unfortunately, these apologies come 5, 10, 15 years after the abortion and usually with some shame.  Really unfortunate that women have to sufer like this.

I don't recall claiming that the Nirvana song was "my fight song." I picked NoApologies first and foremost to convey my beliefs about abortion. It just happened to be a Nirvana song, as well. "Kurt had a lot of shame in his life." Judge much?

Women who have abortions owe no one an apology. And the majority of women who have abortions don't suffer as you and the "pro-life" movement claim.

Nah, I believe you are the one with the outlandish propaganda.    So, logically what PP would do is put their clinics in the areas where they are most needed - low-income neighborhoods, minority neighborhoods, etc It's not unfair for some people to have less opportunity than others to kill the innocent.  Alot of this is rooted in Racism and eugenics.  Which is mentioned numberous times in this forum.   Your handle is "NoApologies" no apologies for your Pro-Abortion position? Or for the abortion the committed?  

Since most welfare recipients are rural white people, why aren't most Planned Parenthoods in those neighborhoods?

Well, first of all, I'd like to see the source where the website got its original statement of, "Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods." Also, what is the source for your information?

In any event, you say that these people live in rural neighborhoods? Unfortunately, rural neighborhoods bear the burden of not having as many facilities (whether they be medical or entertainment or educational) as urban areas. People tend to place facilities in areas where more people can access them.

Why aren't most major hospitals in rural areas?

Why aren't most shopping malls in rural areas?

Etc., etc.

Because there aren't enough people in that particular area to warrant those types of facilities.

That's funny. You use outlandish adjectives to express your totally subjective opinion, and then say you aren't biased. That's hilarous.

So you advocate an "equal opportunity to kill your child" for everyone? My, how very kind of you!

Outlandish adjectives?!?!?! Oh my! At least, I don't blatantly spread outlandish lies and falsehoods.

And no, I don't advocate the killing of children. I advocate an equal opportunity for women to have access to the same, quality reproductive healthcare, information, and options, including (but not limited to) abortion.

reply from: shiprah

go to blackgenocide.com

reply from: mom5

I really wouldn't choose a Nirvana song for my "fight song" - Kurt had alot of shame in his life. Also, women who have abortions owe apologies to only two people as far as I am concerned... one not being me.   Unfortunately, these apologies come 5, 10, 15 years after the abortion and usually with some shame.  Really unfortunate that women have to sufer like this. "Kurt had a lot of shame in his life." Judge much? Women who have abortions owe no one an apology. And the majority of women who have abortions don't suffer as you and the "pro-life" movement claim. quote:

I know two women personally who suffer today from abortions they had 7 - 10 years ago... and there is one lady on this forum.... having said that... go to Silent No More website as well as look up other websites that have testimonies from women who have had abortions.  To me if just one woman suffers and one woman dies.. that's too much.  Majority?  Now the medical community won't even acknowledge Post Abortion Stress Syndrone... Pro-Life organizations are the ones who help with the healing of post abortive women... I wouldn't expect you to agree that a large majority of women do suffer since the Pro-choice folks don't even acknowledge it. Let's see, what is it they say.. "expect immediate relief after your abortion, and some emotional feelings, but this is normal since your hormones are high now"  don't mention years from now.  Likewise, I will say, I am sure there are alot of women who do not regret their abortions, just personally the one's that I know (and the only women I know that have had an abortion) do regret it!  

 Guess that I need to spell it out about Kurt... although it's really not the issue here... he committed suicide... no judging done by me... just a fact.  The song is your "symbol"  "belief" sounds like a fight song to me.

And "pro-life" movement is real.... no sense to use quotation marks.

reply from: antiaphrodite

respectfully, the title is "all apologies". and i'm not sure kurt was talking about pro-choice issues in the song.

reply from: terry

Just to clear up any misconceptions about the Klanparenthood website:

The number of clinics in minority areas comes from Planned Parenthood's own records.  They know their market, they don't just arbitrarily throw up clinics and see what works.  They do research, and that research is published in their periodicals.  They admit they are seeking to increase the number of clinics in minority areas.

As for the "cause and effect" question that was brought up, there are a number of studies by the Alan Guttmacher Institute that show women will choose to continue their pregnancy if a clinic is not conveniently located.  They call distance a "barrier to access" because they know women don't see abortion as something they need come hell or high water.  For many women, abortion is a temptation more than it is a necessity.  Alan Guttmacher also has published studies showing that when an abortion clinic opens up in a community, the abortion rate rises.  It's pretty obvious that the presence of a clinic is creating the demand, not vice versa.

Besides, saying minorities "need abortions" is patently offensive.  For someone to claim to be encouraging choice and then talk about certain groups of people "needing abortions" is not only hypocritical, but I think it highlights the racist strain in pro-choice thought that the website is trying expose. 

reply from: BorisBadanov

Chopperpilot:

Please do not spout off about that which you know nothing about.  You're legal analysis of the term "person" is so off the mark in so many ways, that even a layperson like me without any legal education can see you don't know what you're talking about.

The legal term "person" designates an entity with rights.  Case law in this regard tends to be inclusive, not exclusive.  Cities are "persons," corporations are "persons," and yes, in many areas of the law, the unborn are "persons."  For instance, an unborn child can be the beneficiary of a will.  The unborn are recipients of certain forms of welfare, and the unborn of aliens have certain rights, as well.  These rulings would be impossible if the unborn we're categorically denied status as a "person."  Cats and dogs have been deemed "persons" in certain areas of the law.

You are correct that Roe v. Wade ruled the unborn are not "persons" as designated by the Fourteenth amendment.  But that was not a status change regarding the legal situation of the unborn.  (It WAS a barbaric, illogical and contradictory decision by Blackmun, in my uneducated opinion).  In fact, if prior to Roe v. Wade the unborn had categorically been considered "persons" in all cases, it would have been uncostitutional for any state to pass a law allowing abortion.  Blackmun states as much in his opinion. But the declaration that fetuses are not persons is in regard to the Fourteenth amendment, and pretty obviously not categorical.

Furthermore, Roe v. Wade did not base its decision on the legal status of the fetus.  It was based on the privacy rights of women.  Thus, the state does not have an interest in fetal life that would trump a women's right to privacy.  The court attempted to dodge as much as possible the status of fetuses as persons, and said with no consensus, the court can not stand on an inherent right to life of the fetus.

So, to sum up.  In many areas of law fetuses can be "persons."  Roe v. Wade does not exclude the possibility that fetuses are persons, but tries to side step the issue by saying without a public consensus, they cannot construe that fetuses were to be included under the Fourteenth amendment as "persons," and therefore the States had no compelling interest to deny a woman her right to privacy in regard to a pregnancy.  This dos not establish that "LEGALLY (not morally) fetuses are non-persons."  No such decision exists.

Blackmun inserted an interesting section in Roe v. Wade that pro-lifers should pay attention to.  He stated that if it was ever shown that a fetus was a person, they would naturally be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  In other words, the question would not simply go back to the states to decide, abortion would be banned in all fifty states, in all circumstances.  Very interesting, if you ask me.     

reply from: chopperpilot

>

The question here isn't IF someone has already given the fetus some LEGAL status as a person i.e. as it relates to “personhood”.
The question here is have they ACURATELY done so, at what cost, and who gets to decide it?>>>

Someone makes a good point that blacks once were not considered to have "legal personhood”


But, we have to ask ourselves how did that happen and why were those laws overturned.
1. It happened because people tried to legislate morality and prevent the mixing of the races.
2. It was overturned because the so called "FACTS" of the case were flimsy at best (as many of the pro life "facts" are) and for the most part completely void of any logic or reason (as much of the pro life argument is).

If we do not properly address the issues then the entire process is void, no matter which side the end turns out to be in favor of.
If there are FLAWS in the logic of the argument or the definitions we can all rest assured that the abortion issue will again be debated, the FLAWS exposed and the resulting decision “OVERTURNED”

All I can say is thank god for my PhD, and my objective mind.
There are so many problems with the "FACTS" surrounding this debate on both sides.

For the most part both sides of the debate or riddled with inaccurate use of scientific definitions and concepts. Asserting morality as fact, mixing religious views and faith with reality, ignoring the potential problems associated with legislation in favor of both sides.

Of course there are many more, but we will be here all day some more tangible examples are listed below:

1. laws are and should be based on morals. (This is an ideal not a fact)
Laws should not and are not based on morality entirely. This is because morality is relative, and often times cannot be proven, backed up, or supported with "FACTS". Laws are about order, some based on morality, and many not.

For example:
A fetus is not more important than an infant (I'm sure that we'd all agree), yet a person killing an infant in a DUI would face less jail time than a person killing said infant 3 minutes before it had been born (like say when the mother was on her way to the hospital for delivery).

Where is the logic in that?
http://medlawsociety.tripod.com/id21.html - this man faced 15 years in prison
http://www.itsnotanaccident.com/ - this man faced 6 years in prison
both committed essentially the same crime.

"Hart contends that there is no necessary logical connection between the content of law and morality, and that the existence of legal rights and duties may be devoid of any moral justification.3 Thus, he explains that his interpretation of the relation between law and morality differs from that of Ronald Dworkin, who in Law’s Empire suggests that every legal action has a moral dimension. Dworkin rejects the concept of law as acceptance of conventional patterns of recognition, and describes law not merely as a descriptive concept but as an interpretive concept which combines jurisprudence and adjudication." - H.L.A. Hart>>

Related Articles:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_n3_v29/ai_18498221
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/scientific-ethics.html
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/hart.html

2. A fetus deserves legal "personhood"

Well, wait a minute. When, why, and who gets to decide that?
Problems with the current arguments surrounding legal "personhood" is that everybody has a different idea of when this begins:

http://www.trinp.org/MNI/BoF/5/2/3.HTM
http://www.kheper.net/topics/augeoides/definitions.html

Logic would dictate that not everyone's view of what "personhood" is can be right.
Nor, should everyone's view of "personhood" be applied to our legal system for practical reasons.

But, if we can't apply everyone's view of "personhood" to the legal system whose do we apply?
And, who gets to decide that?
After all the definition of "personhood" will govern the masses. 

-the only logical solution is to approach the definition of "personhood" from a 3 dimensional view, and look for a model of "personhood" that works, and gives legal protection or "personhood" to the stages of human development and existence that deserve it.   
- if we can't get both sides to leave their emotions out of the debate, this will never happen.

http://www.jetpress.org/volume6/death.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=psychology+personhood
http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art119.html

3. Status should be given to something based on what it has the "POTENTIAL" to become not what it "IS"...
Well, that's murky territory, and we should be careful about legislating "POTENTIAL" into law.
With scientific and medical advancement many things will have the "POTENTIAL" to become many other things in the near future.
- Also sperm and egg cells have the "POTENTIAL" to become a legally recognized person.
So, where does it stop? Will legislation preventing masturbation, condoms, and birth control soon follow?

http://www.trinp.org/MNI/BoF/5/2/3.HTM
http://www.jetpress.org/volume6/death.htm
http://www.medstudents.com.br/neuro/neuro5.htm
http://www.kidney.org/atoz/atozItem.cfm?id=50

Will everyone with the potential to have legal "personhood" be protected from loss of life?
I ask because....
Currently we do not extend this kind of protection to inmates suffering from mental illness who are scheduled to be executed by the state, even though with the advancement of psychology and psychiatry they have the "POTENTIAL" to be cured of their illness and thus resume a status of contributing members of society.  

http://www.changesurfer.com/2004/01/mentally-ill-inmate-put-to-death-after.html

4. Another problem is there are no clear lines drawn between when the rights of the fetus begin and the rights of the mother end..

Will we allow abortions for women who refuse to have C-sections but, whose fetus has been medically determined to die at or during birth?

If Not, Why? The fetus no longer has the potential to obtain legal "personhood"

Or, we will force the mother to under go surgery to save her fetus.
- Well the answer to that is yes, because we are already doing that.

But, is that really constitutional?
Probably not, unless we start forcing everyone who could possibly help or save the life of another individual to undergo surgery to do so.

What happens if the hospital was wrong and the fetus ends up dying, do we now charge all medical staff involved with 1st degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder because they went against the wishes of the mother and subsequently caused the death of the fetus?

Perhaps we will start prosecuting the women who refuse c-sections with murder..
- Oh wait, we're already doing that...

http://www.alternet.org/story/18493
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/19/colb.csection/
http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/angela.htm

Many of you keep mentioning the effect that abortion is having on minorities. I think that this effect you are implying (without discussing its validity) is more accurately related to poor women which we all know can be either (white/black/hispanic/asian/etc).

But, let’s take a look at the impact pro life legislation is having on minority women as well as poor women.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001587.html
http://www.crlp.org/pub_bp_punwom.html
http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-10-16/pregnant.html

"As a report from the Southern Regional Project on Infant Mortality observed: Newspaper reports in the 1980's sensationalized the use of crack cocaine and created a new picture of the "typical" female addict; young, poor, black, urban, on welfare, the mother of many children and addicted to crack. In interviewing nearly 200 women for this study, a very different picture of the "typical" chemically dependent woman emerges. She is most likely white, divorced or never married, age 31, a high school graduate, on public assistance, the mother of two or three children, and addicted to alcohol and one other drug. It is clear from the women we interviewed that substance abuse among women is not a problem confined to those who are poor, black, or urban, but crosses racial, class, economic and geographic boundaries. 27 "

"African American women, however have been disproportionately targeted for arrest and punishment, not because they use more drugs or are worse mothers, but because, as Dorothy Roberts explains "[t]hey are the least likely to obtain adequate prenatal care, the most vulnerable to government monitoring, and the least able to conform to the white middle-class standard of motherhood. They are therefore the primary targets of government control." 28"

To read more visit: http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/ruddick.htm

it is no surprise that members of the KKK would be for minority abortion. Just as there would be no surprise if members of some minority militant groups were for the abortions of white women.
All of that is irrelevant, unless you are saying that women be they (white or minority) are victims; who are not capable of making their own decisions about abortion because (they(the women) are incompetent, less intelligent than men, "insert any other ridiculous argument here") thereby making these women subject to the trickery of ill intentioned (smarter) persons of the opposite race.>

reply from: yoda

The Supreme Court of the United States, unless a constitutional ammendment is passed which specifically addresses that issue. Who "should" decide that? Only the highest authority in the land, IMO, and that is the people of the United States.

Are women "competent" to decide whether to kill their newborns? Unless you can show how there is a moral difference between killing an unborn baby and a newborn baby, your question is irrelevant.

reply from: chopperpilot

Anyone else wanting to assert that our laws are based on morailty alone should consult

- imigration law (children born here are citizens, yet their parents are not, spouses must apply for the citizenship of spouses) The morality of it can be argued, but we can all agree that such stipulations restores ORDER
- laws for curfews
- bankruptcy law (no exceptions for elderly, sick, or disabled who came to be bankrupt based on life events not their own irresponsible actions.)
One could argue it would be moral to allow them to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy and not wait the 7 to 10 years for said bankruptcy to disappear from their credit. 
But, that would be chaotic because many people become poor as a result of events they could not control. Chaos would result if we tried to determine who was guilty of mismanaging their money and who was a victim of tragic life events. So to preserve ORDER we ignore the MORAL aspect of what the bankruptcy code probably should be.
- laws banning illegal substances
- tax laws (maintain financial ORDER in the government, yet poor, unmarried college students aren't getting back their entire refunds, and some rich people can jump through loopholes and pay no taxes at all.)
- loitering laws targeted at the homeless (can't let them hang around in the doorways of businesses and homes for shelter because thats undesireable. There is nothing moral about that, but it does restore social ORDER by preventing altercations, and beggers from requesting money from unwilling citizens.)
- laws regarding theft (there are no exceptions for starvation)
- death penalty (there are exceptions to the criminal act of murder in this case)
- murder resulting from self defense (there are exceptions to the criminal act of murder in this case)

Yet, no exception to theft for starvation...
Hmmmm,
I wonder why that is....
Most likely because poor people stealing things at random to keep from starving would result in chaos, so there are no laws allowing exceptions for theft so that ORDER not MORALITY can be maintained in our society.

reply from: chopperpilot

The question is not irrelevant in the context. We aren't talking about abortion in that question, we are talking about the illeged genocide that planned parenthood is commiting against the black community.
How can we say someone is commiting genocide of a certain race or group of people, unless we are saying that that race or group of people are being forced?

In the case of abortions, which are an ELECTIVE procedure in this country, how can a women be forced by someone else (abscent the use of physical force) to have an abortion, unless they are not CAPABLE of making their own decision regarding the matter.

you aren't JUST arguing that abortion is wrong when you are talking about the genocide of black babies, you are ALSO arguing that black women are not able to make an informed decision about abortion by implying that they alone are being subjected to genocide by planned parenthood.

If you were not you would be saying that planned parenthood is guilty of trying to establish the mass genocide of white babies as well...

reply from: shiprah

Chopperpilot, unless you can quote an embryologist who says that a fetus or embryo isn't a person, your other arguments don't have merit.

reply from: NoApologies

I really wouldn't choose a Nirvana song for my "fight song" - Kurt had alot of shame in his life. Also, women who have abortions owe apologies to only two people as far as I am concerned... one not being me.   Unfortunately, these apologies come 5, 10, 15 years after the abortion and usually with some shame.  Really unfortunate that women have to sufer like this. "Kurt had a lot of shame in his life." Judge much? Women who have abortions owe no one an apology. And the majority of women who have abortions don't suffer as you and the "pro-life" movement claim.

And I know X amount of women personally who have NOT regretted their abortions years after the fact. Just because you know one or two people that supposedly fit the mold of "Post Abortion Syndrome" doesn't mean it exists. The women you know who are suffering are suffering because the "pro-life" movement uses the majority of their energies to shame, ridicule, and lambast women who've had abortions. They tell them what they did was wrong. They tell them that they are murderers. You hear something so many times, you just might start believing it.

Do some women regret their abortions? Sure. But they are in the minority. Does the fact that they are in the minority mean I diminish or dismiss their feelings and emotions? No. They are entitled to their feelings emotions. And if they feel the need, they definitely should seek counseling.

Do MOST women NOT regret their abortions? Yes. Try checking out http://www.imnotsorry.net/ - you'll find plenty of women there who don't regret their abortions. I personally know two women who've had abortions and don't regret them. They've also had children and still don't regret their abortions. Imagine that, eh?

"Post Abortion Syndrome" was made up by the "pro-life" movement, just like the term, "Partial Birth Abortion," to emotionalize and sensationalize a routine medical procedure. They resort to these practices because they don't have facts on their side.

Yes. Kurt Cobain committed suicide. I know that. What's your point? How does suicide relate to shame? Do you wish to shame all severely depressed, mentally troubled individuals that committ suicide? That would definitely be compassionate.

And just so we can clear this up (YET AGAIN) NoApologies is symbolic of the pro-choice slogan/saying - Abortion on Demand and Without Apology. It's not based on a Nirvana song (it's not even the actual title of a Nirvana song as someone here was kind enough to point out).

I put "pro-life" in quotation marks because I don't believe that that term accurately describes your side of the movement. You've stolen the term "pro-life" and twisted it to fit your agenda. I'm pro-life, too. Someone can be pro-choice AND pro-life. *GASP* I'm not anti-life. I'm all about life. Life is great.

reply from: chopperpilot

"Chopperpilot, unless you can quote an embryologist who says that a fetus or embryo isn't a person, your other arguments don't have merit"

- too bad embryologist have no authority to solely determine when LEGAL "personhood" begins, they can only provide explanations as to the "INDIVIDUALITY" of the fetus and the BIOLOGICAL determination of "personhood", they are not neurologist, and therefore are not qualified to speak about the sentience of the fetus.
Embryologist definitely are not qualified to speak about the psychological or neurological aspects of LEGAL "personhood".

Many embryologists cannot agree amongst themselves when BIOLOGICAL "personhood" begins let alone start to argue about LEGAL "personhood",
everyone agrees that a fetus is a BIOLOGICAL "person" or a BIOLOGICAL "human being".
However biological "personhood" is not the same as legal "personhood" because LEGAL "personhood" must take into consideration the neurological, psychological, biological, and social aspects of "personhood", because it already does!

Playing word games does not make the pro life argument any less flawed. 

A leading American Embryologist says: 
"There's no question but that human sperm and egg are alive as well as human. The assertion that life begins at conception means the life of an individual has begun; the argument is that until the sperm and egg join to form an individual in the genetic sense, there is no protectable entity. But we have to define the kind of individuality we are talking about. The pro-life movement's contention that a person exists fully and absolutely from conception sidesteps the difficult questions. As I wrote in Science and the Unborn, extending full personhood to an individual cell that is barely visible makes no more sense than declaring acorns to be oak trees and selling them at oak tree prices. Hall: What kind of individuality exists at conception? Grobstein: Only genetic individuality, a set of hereditary properties that define an individual, is present at conception. But there are five other essential aspects of individuality still to come: developmental, functional, behavioral, psychic and social--which means that full individuality emerges in stages over time." - Clifford Grobstein [embryologist!]

Visit the following link: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n9_v23/ai_8082529

You people obviously cannot tell the difference between BIOLOGICAL "personhood" a biological "person" a biological "human being" and LEGAL "personhood"
Perhaps you yourself should consult some embryology/neurology/biology/psychology/genetic text books so that you may understand the difference. Each field of study has different definitions for "person", "human being", and "personhood" None of which can solely apply to the LEGAL and SOCIAL definition of "personhood" which needs to be approached by the abortion debate. 
 
No embryologist can claim anything more than a fetus is a "human life" it is a "human being" it is a BIOLOGICAL "person" but, they cannot accurately or scientifically claim that legally a fetus deserves LEGAL "personhood"
"personhood" has to be looked at from multiple dimensions from a LEGAL not a BIOLOGICAL stand point. This is because the LAW allows KILLING on certain occasions in our society. To determine when this should be allowed we cannot focus solely on the BIOLOGICAL aspect of "personhood" otherwise KILLING would NEVER be justified.  

It has already been proven that BIOLOGICAL "personhood" is not a requirement for protection against LEGAL KILLING in this country. I.e. the death penalty, termination of life support, killing for self defense.

I have a PhD in biochemistry and genetics, and am finishing a degree in law.
I know many embryologists who view a fetus as a "person" genetically speaking, but do not feel a fetus deserves legal "personhood" under the law.
Just as in genetics we concede that life begins at "conception" but we do not believe that "personhood" does hence the reason why we can morally and legally justify stem cell research.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/personhood.html

my argument has no "merit" to you because you are not capable of removing your emotion from this argument and thinking about it OBJECTIVELY.

"The Supreme Court of the lace u3:st="on">ffice:smarttags" />lace u5:st="on">lace w:st="on">United Stateslace>lace>lace>, unless a constitutional amendment is passed which specifically addresses that issue. Who "should" decide that? Only the highest authority in the land, IMO, and that is the people of the lace u3:st="on">lace u6:st="on">lace w:st="on">United Stateslace>lace>lace>."

Yes, well I believe that the Supreme Court has already made that decision i.e. Roe. V. Wade.
Yet you want to overturn this based on so called new "facts".
So, obviously there should be some concern over whose OPINION the Supreme Court uses when determining legal "personhood" for the fetus.
i.e.
not just legal minds, or ethics committees, or a psychologist, or an embryologist, or a neurologist, or an OBGYN, and whoever else.
Each field has its own idea of what "personhood" should be, and this is why there is no UNIVERSAL scientific LAW regarding multi-dimensional "personhood". If there were we would not be arguing the "right to life" aspect of the abortion argument.

If we continue to look at abortion in only 1 dimension we will all be back here arguing about this again when the NEW Supreme Court decision is debated and IF found to be based on FLAWED facts ends up OVERTURNED.

"Chopperpilot:
Please do not spout off about that which you know nothing about.  You're legal analysis of the term "person" is so off the mark in so many ways, that even a layperson like me without any legal education can see you don't know what you're talking about." >>

"In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution does not recognize a child in the womb of a mother as a "person" entitled to the protection of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To support this conclusion, they cited a number of constitutional provisions in which person can only be understood as referring to a human being who has been born. Roe v. Wade, 410, lace u7:st="on">lace w:st="on">U.S.lace>lace> 113, 156-57 (1973).">>

Take note that this a pro life site I am linking you to below:
to read more: http://www.conservativeusa.org/titus100.htmhttp://www.conservativeusa.org/titus100.htm

Really? 
I find that odd...
I suppose you are going to explain to me the OTHER reason why pro lifers are organizing for legislation to give the fetus "personhood" under the law. 
you seem to be blurring the lines between the legal definitions of NATURAL PERSON i.e. "personhood" and unnatural/corporate "personhood" i.e. that extended to corporations, cities, etc... 

Misjudging the intelligence of some:
I assumed for the sake of an ABORTION argument that the difference between the two types of legal "personhood" did not need to be explained.
However, when TWISTING the FACTS is the only basis of the argument comments and inaccurate analysis such as yours should have been expected.  >>

Perhaps it is you that should refrain from spouting off about things you know nothing about.>>

"I've never heard a ProLifer make that claim. Roe specifically counters that claim. >>

>>

, a fetus is not a baby, a baby is not a child, and a child is not an adult. >>

You are rather confused in your proclamations about word definitions. Here are some REAL, linked definitions for you to consider:

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus."
 

who says I am talking about Roe.
Twisting words, and superimposing definitions does not NEGATE the facts!

A fetus is not a baby i.e. (infant) as the words are widely used!
When talking about the continuum of human development and life. (Which I was) as you would have been able to see had you quoted me objectively.

Anyone who tries to assert an argument that there is no difference between a fetus and a baby i.e. (an infant) is surly confused about the nature of human development.
A fetus at say 15 weeks cannot exist outside of the mother's body, yet a baby i.e. (infant) that has been born is inherently different from a fetus because it can.
(not to mention the various other developmental differences between the two.)

A baby i.e. (an infant) is barely capable of reason at all. Object permanence is often times not even seen until 8 to 10 months and often times much later.
http://www.drhull.com/EncyMaster/O/object_permanence.htmlhttp://www.drhull.com/EncyMaster/O/object_permanence.html
So, anyone who would try to suggest that a baby i.e. an infant is the same as a child (developmentally) speaking is lacking a fundamental understanding of the basics of human development.

Children are not the same as adults for the same reasons! Mentally, physically, they are not at the same stages of development.

EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW THEY ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING!

Again, I will say this is why children cannot vote, and are subject to the will of their parents! You are so deluded by your subjective analysis of this matter that you cannot even discern the developmental difference between a fetus, a baby i.e. (infant), a child, and an adult. As was MEANT in the CONTEXT of my previous argument.

The rest of your argument is equally questionable, but we will be here all day if I try to answer every ridiculous statement lacking Objectivity, logic, or deductive reasoning on this site.

No amount of explanation can make up for self serving subjective analysis of the facts.>>

 

reply from: mom5

"To fit our agenda"...  we respect ALL life... fits doesn't it ?  "Life is great!"  Don't you think the 43 million aborted children should have had a chance to find out for themselves if "life is great", instead of someone else deciding for them?  Now, that's pro-life!

reply from: LegalGuy

establishing legal personhood establishes rights. If a fetus has been determined to be a person legally then abortion would be murder. Obviously Roe V Wade has determined that a fetus is not a person. However, not based solely on the 14th amendment. This is why new laws such as the "fetus protection act", and others like it are being signed into law. Courst are attempting to give a fetus personhood.

"The unborn are recipients of certain forms of welfare, and the unborn of aliens have certain rights, as well.  These rulings would be impossible if the unborn we're categorically denied status as a "person."  Cats and dogs have been deemed "persons" in certain areas of the law."

 

HAHAHA!
What the hell are you talking about! You cannot bring a law suit to court on behalf of a cat or dog it has to be done on behalf of the owner. This is because they are not considered “persons” under the law. OMG! Where the hell do you people come up with this stuff? That is also why cats and dogs can be purchased moron! Next you’ll be advocating against animal slavery I presume.



HAHAHA! Ok, seriously.
Wow! If you're making statements like that you should avoid insulting some one else’s interpretation of the law EVER!>>

By the way FYI you can leave an inheritance to your dog or cat, but if you don’t name a natural person to oversee the estate the cat will have no legal recourse to claim the monies in court.>>

Wanna guess why? You can also leave inheritance to future non existent children and guess what genius those "non-person" future kids still have no legal rights. You! The natural person leaving the will has the legal rights. That is why there is usually an executer of a will, just incase certain people named in said will are no longer alive, never were alive, or for whatever other reason are not able to receive their inheritance. 

Sir, you have a very poor understanding of the workings of the law. So many of your statements were so contradicting that I have no idea where to start to set you straight because first I would have to determine what you came to know through actual reasoning and what manner of the argument you simply pulled out of your ass. You have stated the fundamentals of the abortion argument so badly it is no surprise you misstated chopper pilot’s argument, which is legally sound.

I hope that you will take it upon yourself to read more than one article on the nature of Roe V. Wade, and study some separate aspects of the law before you start commenting on the legal aspects of this subject again. I will post some links to get you started on your way.

Here is some insight into "animal personhood"
http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/oct03/animalrights.htm
http://www.nabr.org/AnimalLaw/Personhood/
http://www.commandcollege.com/futures_files/abstracts/00000189.htm

The definition of a natural person
Before reading this note that the definition says living breathing human being. This is what chopper pilot and others are referring to when they say we must change the legal definition of personhood to include a fetus, or extend said definition to include a fetus. Currently it does not.>>

"This dos not establish that "LEGALLY (not morally) fetuses are non-persons."  No such decision exists."
Um, yes it does. A fetus is not extended the rights under the 14th amendment because it is not legally a person.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/childrens_rights.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

"And therefore the States had no compelling interest to deny a woman her right to privacy in regard to a pregnancy">>

Um, what! Are you serious? This is what you think abortion is about!>>

Yes, this is right:
"And therefore the States had no compelling interest to deny a woman her right to privacy in regard to a pregnancy" because a fetus is not legally a person!>>

At least not yet! If it was it would be protected by the Equal Protection Clause which states:>>

"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the>lace w:st="on">U.S.lace> Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws">>



If this was about the women’s right to privacy as you suggest then the women’s right to privacy would not have superceded the fetus' right to life. >>

Alas you have made my point for me.>>

I believe this is why a woman cannot kill her infant once it has already been born, if your legal analysis were correct she would be able to.>>

Notice how the definition says perhaps excluding the fetus. This is because it currently does not.
http://www.biologyoflaw.com/content/Illustrations/ILC11.htm
Notice how a functioning brain stem is a requirement to be legally alive.
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/philcasenote.html
http://www.braindeath.org/law.htm>>



Please, I am begging you. Read the links!>>

 

reply from: shiprah

You admit it.  Scientifically a zygote is human.  Actions don't have to be performed for something to be human.  Human rights aren't something that have to be earned.  Just being a human being give you the right to life.

reply from: Navynate

Roe VS Wade was decided on the right to have an abortion that was within the right to privacy. The right to privacy isn't in the Constitution. Blackmon said that in deciding Roe VS Wade was that it was the RIGHT THING TO DO AS FAR AS WOMEN'S RIGHTS WERE.  It had nothing to do with was a fetus a life or not a life. Blackmon said that it was the right thing to do. Well, he was wrong. Another fact that Roe VS Wade has a foundation of lies is another thing to think about. Norma McCorvey wasn't gang raped (like she had said that she was, she also did know the father of her baby). She admitted that she lied when she said that she had been gang raped and that she didn't know the father of her baby. She did know. Other lies that prochoice groups have said is that thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions and that the majority of Americans wanted abortion laws relaxed and abortion to be legal. The person who said those things is Dr. Bernard Nathanson, (cofounder of NARAL). he has admitted that he lied when he said that 1,000's of women died from illegal abortions (before Roe VS Wade) and that more then 50% of the American public wanted abortion laws to be relaxed and more permissable then before Roe VS Wade. These are lies that they've admitted to saying. Dr Nathanson said that telling the truth would've hurt their side of the debate, so he didn't correct his lies with the truth. Prochoice groups lie all the time.  Most of what they say is a complete and total lie. Even when prochoice groups have been proven to be a bunch of liers, prochoicers still believe them anyway. When they say that they haven't been targetting the black community, that is a lie. Now they're targetting hispanics too. Margeret Sanger made it obviously clear in what she believed that Minorites should be forced to be starilized or forced to use birth control. She said that the best thing that a large family can do to one of their own members is to kill it. She also spoke to a group of KKK members  as well. She agreed with their beliefs toward minorities. Ever hear of the Negro Project? Well look it up and find out what Maggy wanted to do to the black community and how she intended to do that.

reply from: chopperpilot

Scientifically a sperm cell is a human too.
Do they have a right to life?

"Just being a human being give you the right to life"

Right,
I guess that's why we have the death penalty, and a self defense clause in the criminal code. Because simply being human gives you a right to life.I can't wait to see how you argue that the inmates aren't human. Which based on your argument would be the case because as you say "just being a human being give you the right to life." More acurately being a "breathing" human being as stated in the legal definition for natural person is what gives you personhood, yet you can loose personhood through various criminal actions, or through the loss of your brain functions. Even though, in all cases you would scientifically be human.  

reply from: chopperpilot

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Blackmun







That is ridiculous!
If the fetus was considered a person by the supreme court judges deciding Roe V. Wade then the women's rights wouldn't have had anything to do with it unless we were talking self defense i.e. risk to mother's health. It is a matter of the women's rights because the fetus legally is not a person, and this is why the Supreme Court did not see any reason to infringe upon the women's rights. If the Supreme Court’s decision had simply been about the women’s right to privacy infanticide would also be legal up until it was determined that a fetus was a person. Yet, from studying the law, we can see that at least during the time of Roe V. Wade a fetus did not becoming a person until it took a breath, i.e. the “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th amendment. >>

Mommy and the fetus have equal rights once the fetus takes a breath, but they do not have equal rights before that, hence the reason why abortion currently is not murder & infanticide is. >>

Note the internationally recognized definition for live birth:>>

Laws such as the one being passed in the bottom 3 links are what will help to change the current legal status i.e. “personhood” of the fetus when the issue is revisited by the Supreme Court, but make no mistake the argument is all about the legal status of the fetus, i.e. the “personhood” of the fetus.>>

http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Live_birth_definition.htm>>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1401667.stm>>



http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/senator/vanwoerkom/news/2003/October2003/100103.pdf>>



http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1007/p02s01-usju.html>>



http://www.ppslr.org/Media/Articles/04March_13.htm>>



 

reply from: yoda

How about "anti-abortion"? Does that pass your test? Actually, "prochoice" does not pass my test, since it involves only ONE choice...... I'd say "proabortion" or "prodeath" would be more accurate.

reply from: BorisBadanov

My apologies to Chopperpilot:

I obviously stepped in it, and let my mouth run where it had no business going. Obviously, as I stated before, I have no legal education. Please accept my apoplogies, as I am a moron.

For those of you that do have law degrees or are currently studying the law, however, a few questions. If the negation of status as a "person" by the Supreme Court is universal, how do we have wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of fetuses, malpractice cases involving injuries to fetuses where no injury exists for the mother. How are people charged with vehicular homicide when fetuses are killed in car accidents? As I said before, aren't these cases where the courts recognize fetuses as "persons?"

reply from: yoda

Not by a long shot, many proaborts argue that a fetus is not a human being, not alive, and some even claim it does not exist until birth.

I'm gratified that you recognize the multiple usages of the term person, since so many proaborts refuse to do that. However, I'm quite puzzled as to what your alleged connection is between legal personhood and

"neurological, psychological, biological, and social aspects of "personhood" are. Are you not aware that the SCOTUS provided the only criteria required, which is birth?

First, I'm REALLY impressed that he mentions his authorship. Second, for a scientist he is making a remarkably unscientific statement! Is he suggesting that a zygote is not the same size, weight, or age as an adult human? Well, guess what? I AGREE!

"You people"? Getting rather testy, are you? Guess what, we are actually INDIVIDUALS.... ever consider that? But yes, we CAN tell the difference, and I personally am THRILLED that you can also.

Do you now claim "deserves" is a scientific concept? What branch of science specializes in "Who deserves things"?

That's a very strange comment, coming from a person who decorates her post generously with rather emotional comments.

Which of my comments indicate my desire to "overturn Roe"? Are you perhaps STEREOTYPING me?

Ah, so you are now claiming superior knowledge and authority to standard dictionaries? My, your claims are impressive!

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the word "baby" is used to describe both born and unborn human beings. Can you not imagine using the adjectives "unborn" and "born" with the noun "baby" to distinguish between them? Is that too complicated for you?

reply from: yoda

For a scientific person, you make a lot of unscientific statements. No, a sperm is not "a human". The word "human" (noun) is defined as a "human being". Neither sperm nor egg can be so defined, since they are specialized reproductive cells, each with only half the genetic material needed to form a human being.

reply from: chopperpilot

Perhaps the easiest way to understand this is to try and recognize that legally there are different stages of being a person. In an abortion argument we are speaking of "personhood" or "constitutional personhood", which is different from the "artifical person" status that is extended to corporations, etc...
Something can even be a legal person under the law and still not have legal "personhood" which provides it consittutional protection.
A fetus currently is not a natural person. i.e. it has no "personhood" i.e. it is not a "constitutional person"

Because the law is a hiereachy of concepts that build upon each other and can mean different things in different cases I will state that when discussing the "personhood" of a fetus in an abortion debate we are discussing the "constitutional personhood" of the fetus. Which, it currently DOES not have.
Which is why even the Federal Unborn Victims of Violenec act does not recognize a fetus as having "constitutional personhood" though it has defined the fetus as a legal "person" from the time of conception for the purpose of criminal prosecution. Just as a corporation can be defined as a legal "person" for the purpose of bamkruptcy, other legal proceedings etc...
Yet a corporation cannot infringe upon the "nautral or constitutional personhood" of say some guys brother and kill him in self defense because microsoft does not have "constitutional persomhood" and therefore is not covered under the 14th amendment. A fetus does not have "constitutional personhood" and this is why a fetus cannot infringe upon the rights of the mother to privacy. If the fetus had "constitutional personhood" then the fetus's right to life would trump the mother's right to privacy.

Here is a link to the constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

reply from: chopperpilot

For a scientific person, you make a lot of unscientific statements. No, a sperm is not "a human". The word "human" (noun) is defined as a "human being". Neither sperm nor egg can be so defined, since they are specialized reproductive cells, each with only half the genetic material needed to form a human being.

Read and embryology text book, if a human is human life and a embryologist say so, then a sperm is a human if we are going to play definition word games.

Human "comprised of human genetic material, or DNA"
You can test a person's DNA from their sperm cells, thus a sperm cell holds the DNA of a human, thus it is comprised of human genetic material, thus it is human life, thus it is human.

In science we refer to anything being comprised of human DNA as being scientifcally human.
Developmentally human, now there in lines a different and very much debated definition of what is and is not "human"

reply from: BorisBadanov

Aside from being able to justify using it for experiments, discarding it when it is no longer useful and other activities that we routinely do with embryos, why would we try to find language to designate an embryo as "non-human"

If its a human being, should we not protect an embryo?

reply from: chopperpilot

Consult this link for clarification.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Growth/WhenDoHumanBeings.htm#II.%20When%20does%20a%20human%20being%20begin?

Human Life - "anything comprised of human genetic material"
thus a human "sperm" cell is different from say the sperm cell of an ape.
So, yes a sperm cell is human.

A sperm cell however is not a "person" it is not an individual.
You are confusing the scientific definition of what makes something human, and what makes something a human being, or a person. Whic is not only a biological definition, but also psychological, neurpological, and genetic definition.

You obviously are not a scientific person. We can play word games all day, that doesn't make the nonsense people keep spitting out any less rediculose!

reply from: BorisBadanov

Just an observation:

Yodavader and Chopperpilot -- you two seem to agree with each other as to when human life begins. You both agree it begins when egg meets sperm and a new cell emerges with 46 chromosomes, right?

reply from: chopperpilot

I'm not saying that we should or we shouldn't.
That is something for a bioethics committee to decide. I don't think that limiting the fertility rights of infertile couples that could other wise have children would be a right course of action.
However, under the current laws prosecuting a doctor for murder for destroying or performing test on an "unwanted" embryo, which currently is not viable by any means would not be legally sound.

Again I stay away from the moral aspects of the abortion argument for 2 reasons.
1. I am a scientist and I deal with what is and is not. Morality is relative and this can never be approached objectively by one person.
2. As far as the law is concerned the moral aspect of one person is irrelevant, and often times the morality of many later becomes irrelevant as can be demonstrated by morality legislation that has been and is still being overturned.
I.e. the man act, legislation criminalizing adultery and premarital sex.

I'm not for or against either side in this debate. All I want to see is legislation that is legally and factually sound so that it actually sticks. I think both sides of the argument are guilty of exaggerating, stretching truths, playing word games, using science to mean something that it is not.

Pro lifers say that pro choicers say that a fetus is not a person. Then they quote some embryologist who said a fetus is human life. Yes, this s true and so is a sperm cell (scientifically speaking). (Not all are guilty of this)
Can you see the holes in this argument?
Later on some crazy is going to try to prohibit the use of condoms during sex and the law will be overturned, thus potentially leading the subsequent overturning of any decisions made about abortion.
 
Pro Choicers say that women have the right to choose.
Well, this is and isn't true. It all depends on rather or not the woman's choice is affecting another "constitutional person's" rights. So ignoring that the fetus has anything to do with the debate is ignorant on their part, and not factually sound. (Not all are guilty of this)

On the other hand incorrectly establishing "personhood" for a fetus, without specifying when, and scientifically justifying that establishment could potentially lead to an overturning of a ruling in favor of the pro lifers or pro choicers.

Take for example Europe's current laws on stem cell research, abortion, etc.
Once new scientific advancements start to be made as a result of stem cell research in Europe and other parts of the world, and somebody discovers say the cure for cancer, or AIDS, or significantly prolongs life. Americans will be lining up on the steps of the white house demanding we redefine the "constitutional personhood" of the fetus. I fear many people are not able to remove themselves emotionally from the debate, and this is why we always end up arguing in circles about nonexistent facts or irrelevant facts.

Factually speaking
-Genetically, biologically a fetus is a person
-physically (developmentally speaking) a fetus is not a person
-psychologically a fetus is not a person
-neurologically a fetus is not a person until at the very least functioning neurons in the brain can be verified.
- Morally a fetus may or may not be a person that is debatable
- religiously a fetus is a person if you are not Jewish, Buddhist, etc..

So, as long as Christians remain in the majority the definition of fetal constitutional personhood is clear, but if that majority where to shift out of their favor we would have a totally different situation on our hands and people would be questioning the validity that a fetus is a constitutional person simply because it is a biological one.>>>

reply from: chopperpilot

Perhaps.
I believe that "new" human life occurs at Fertilization, but I do not believe that this is yet "individual" human life, or what some may refer to as the potential human being. That has not yet been determined at this state. (At least not scientifically)
 
I believe that "individual" human life occurs at approx 14 days and the formation of the primitive streak.
At this point in development it is rarely possible for twinning to take place.
However,
rarely Siamese twins or fetus-in-fetu occur after this point so clearly this is just an estimate of when individuality occurs, not a guarantee.

For the most part I will concede to any argument that a fetus has acquired "individual" human life at approx 14 days.

reply from: yoda

I don't know how you define "natural person", but since you already agreed that a fetus is a "biological person" perhaps you'd like to distinguish between those two things?

reply from: yoda

For someone who claims such a high educational level, you are surprisingly confused about the distinctiion between nouns and adjectives. Are you really not aware of the difference?

Main Entry: human Function: noun : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)

Merriam-Webster Online, www.m-w.com

reply from: yoda

Not a doubt in my mind, Boris!

reply from: yoda

There is no reason to oppose abortion except on moral grounds, IMHO. Therefore those are the grounds on which I debate abortion. If you do not have a moral objection to the killing of innocent human beings, then I can see why you don't oppose abortion.

You are making this way, way too complicated. There are no separate definitions for the word "person" that deal with all the variables you introduce. There are only TWO distinct senses of the word "person", vernacular and legal. In the first, a fetus IS a person, and in the second it is NOT.

reply from: yoda

What refinement does the word "individual" add to this discussion? It simply adds the information that we are talking about ONE creature, rather than many:

Main Entry: individual Function: noun

1 a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=individual&x=0&y=0

Merriam-Webster Online, www.m-w.com

reply from: chopperpilot

Not by a long shot, many proaborts argue that a fetus is not a human being, not alive, and some even claim it does not exit until birth. I'm gratified that you recognize the multiple usages of the term person, since so many proaborts refuse to do that. However, I'm quite puzzled as to what your alleged connection is between legal personhood and "neurological, psychological, biological, and social aspects of "personhood" are. Are you not aware that the SCOTUS provided the only criteria required, which is birth? First, I'm REALLY impressed that he mentions his authorship. Second, for a scientist he is making a remarkably unscientific statement! Is he suggesting that a zygote is not the same size, weight, or age as an adult human? Well, guess what? I AGREE! "You people"? Getting rather testy, are you? Guess what, we are actually INDIVIDUALS.... ever consider that? But yes, we CAN tell the difference, and I personally am THRILLED that you can also. Do you now claim "deserves" is a scientific concept? What branch of science specializes in "Who deserves things"? That's a very strange comment, coming from a person who decorates her post generously with rather emotional comments. Which of my comments indicate my desire to "overturn Roe"? Are you perhaps STEREOTYPING me? Ah, so you are now claiming superior knowledge and authority to standard dictionaries? My, your claims are impressive! Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the word "baby" is used to describe both born and unborn human beings. Can you not imagine using the adjectives "unborn" and "born" with the noun "baby" to distinguish between them? Is that too complicated for you?

This entire argument is ridiculous because you've proven my point for me.
Yes, I recognize that there are different uses for terms baby, which is why there was no logical reason for the attack I received when trying to point out the developmental differences between a fetus and a baby i.e. (infant) as should have been VERY obvious in the context which it was originally written in my  argument; as I followed up the fetus baby analogy with the child adult analogy.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You have just made my point for me and you don't even realize it. Go back and read the originally post which prompted me to make that comment.

Otherwise:
If you want to prove to me that developmentally speaking a fetus is the same as a baby i.e. (infant) as used in the context of human development I am all ears.
It is a widely known fact that the same words are used to describe differernt things. This is why they must be taken in the CONTEXT of which they are written.

Furthermore I am not the one asserting that there is a psychological, neurological, etc definition for "personhood".
The law has done that for me. This is why doctors must verify brain death before stopping treatment of a patient or they are liable to face a wrongful death suit, negligence suit, murder prosecution etc...
- that would be the neurological aspect of personhood

The law has also defined the psychological and sociological aspect of "personhood"
which, is why criminals can be held against their will, some have lost their rights to vote, others are scheduled to be executed.
- They have proven that they can no longer or never have conformed to the social norms of society and thus have become dangers to themselves and others.

- Children cannot sign contracts this is because "psychologically, sociologically" they are not considered equal to adults. Children cannot vote, children cannot be sued, and under certain ages like say 4 to 6 years old children cannot even be prosecuted no matter WHAT they do.

- Mentally ill patients, those who do not posses the right to vote, also cannot be sued, cannot be prosecuted no matter WHAT they do. (Note I am referring to someone who is severely mentally ill, not some random person on Prozac)

- if you were to be involved in an accident tomorrow that left you severely mentally handicapped and you lost a significant degree of your mental capacity, you would lose a good majority of your rights, and become subject to the will of whomever has your medical power of attorney.

As I have said before personhood is a hierarchy of concepts, there are different test to use (consider these litmus tests if you will) for the degree of personhood that will be awarded to a certain group over another. (Again this is not what I do this is what the LAW currently does every day)

- this may seem unfair to some, but without criteria that erode at the level of which someone attains personhood under the law we would not legally be able to confine criminals (because that would be a violation of their constitutional rights), or execute them (that would definitely be a violation of their constitutional rights), or place the mentally ill in hospitals (again violation of constitutional rights).

Lets look at examples of why!

How about attempting to ground a teenager that claimed you were unlawfully detaining him or her in your house against their will because they broke curfew a few nights before and you refuse to let them go out and party with their friends?

What will happen if they call the police?
Unless you've hit them, or physically abused them nothing will happen.
What will happen if they run away?
You will call the police and they will be arrested.
Why?
Because they cannot be unlawfully detained by their parents, school officials, parentally approved adults, and other government officials.

If there were not levels of LEGAL personhood based on development you would be arrested, prosecuted, and likely jailed for committing a crime against your teenager.

If you are over the age of 18, 17 in some states and your parents try to ground or restrict you, you may leave.
Why?
Because you are legally an "ADULT" which is not the same as legally being a "CHILD" based on..
You guessed it!
You psychological and sociological development.
That’s right! The law at this stage in your development has decided that you deserve full legal personhood under the constitution as well as the law.

That is until that same 18 year old kid goes and kills and robs someone else, thereby forfeiting their LEGAL "personhood" thus reducing their RIGHTS and PROTECTIONS under the law, to those which are currently extended to criminals and convicts.
Now that 18 year old can be detained against their will and it is no longer a violation of his positional rights. This detention is based on a sociological act, which occurred as a result of his psychological state of mind.

Neurological personhood can be seen if you take a look at the legal definition of brain death!
If we did not consider neurology when defining personhood under the law we would not be able to terminate life support.

Now, this as it relates to abortion is simple. A fetus has "NO" natural or constitutional personhood, which is why it does not even receive even the most basic rights such as those stated in the "equal protection clause of the 14th amendment." However all human life in the later stages of development i.e. after birth has SOME varying degree of LEGAL personhood under the law.

reply from: chooselife

Chopperpilot: Please check out this link http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/peter_kreeft_--_personhood_begins_at_conception.htm 

I would be interested in hearing how you disagree with Peter's statements.  Also I found it interesting that you make the claim that a sperm cell is human.  Yes a sperm cell has dna - but the DNA exactly matches that of the male the sperm came from.  My hair follicle has DNA but it is absurd to think that my hair is human.  The reason a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. is different is because the zygote has a completely unique genetic code from his/her mother or father.  If I were pregnant all of my body cells would have the exact same genetic code EXCEPT for my child.  My child would have his/her own genetic code completely seperate from mine. My child could even have a different blood type and sexual organs than I do. So I think you should be able to do whatever you want to any part of your body that has your OWN genetic code. 

reply from: chopperpilot

Not by a long shot, many proaborts argue that a fetus is not a human being, not alive, and some even claim it does not exist until birth.

Ok, what are you talking about! There isn't a scientist alive that will try to argue with you that a fetus is not alive. Unless you are misinterpreting their definition of "human life", "human being", "person" or taking it out of context.
Furthermore I see no reason to even discuss the opinions of individuals who are so far gone they cannot recognize that a fetus is just as alive as a germ cell.

I'm gratified that you recognize the multiple usages of the term person, since so many proaborts refuse to do that. However, I'm quite puzzled as to what your alleged connection is between legal personhood and
"neurological, psychological, biological, and social aspects of "personhood" are. Are you not aware that the SCOTUS provided the only criteria required, which is birth?>>>

As I wrote in Science and the Unborn, extending full personhood to an individual cell that is barely visible makes no more sense than declaring acorns to be oak trees and selling them at oak tree prices. >>



He gives the only criteria for "basic" rights and protection, but as I have said before true legal "personhood" is very complex.
In a legal CONTEXT a legal person could be the IBM Corporation, yet we know that no woman gave "birth" to IBM.
 
Even among the category natural person or constitutional personhood there is a hierarchy.
Take for example:

The psychological and sociological aspects of personhood as it relates to human growth and development and stages of personhood granted under the law.

All "born" persons are currently given "personhood" under the law and the constitution.
Yet, not all of these "born" persons enjoy EQUAL rights and protections outside of the basic rights (see "equal protection clause of 14th amendment), and in some cases even those basic rights can be violated.

For example.
A baby i.e. (born infant) because of its "psychological and sociological" status does not have the right to education, and parents cannot be prosecuted for refusing to place said baby in either home school or public school.

But, once that baby reaches the age of say 6 years old. Public school becomes a RIGHT for that baby, and therefore it is MANDATORY for a parent to send said child to some form of school because said parent does not have the right to infringe upon the educational rights of the child.

Now, let’s visit that same child at the age of say 15. The child is unruly and the parents want to ground said child against the child's will.
 
Let's consider what will happen if the child calls the police screaming unlawful imprisonment by the parents.
So, what protection can the police provide for the 15 year old child from being grounded by his parents without physical or mental abuse being present?
NONE!
We all know (or at least we all should know) that a 15 year old child that calls the cops 
claiming unlawful imprisonment will be told to stop wasting the departments time. (Provided that child is not claiming it has been beaten or otherwise abused)
The parents will not be arrested and charged because a child cannot be unlawfully detained by its parents, school officials, authorized members of the government. ( this is based on the psychological, physiological, and sociological development of this child) This is how we legally and morally justify witholding some of the LEGAL rights of a minors.

Now, lets revisit this child, now legally an adult at the age of 18, same scenario. This 18 year old calls the police and claims that he no longer wishes to remain under the roof of his parents and they refuse to let him leave, thereby unlawfully imprisoning him.
 
What happens now when this 18 year old calls the police?

It's simple, the cops come and arrest the parents, the district attorney later charges them with false imprisonment, unlawful imprisonment, bla bla bla whatever other variation he/she deems fitting. 

So, Why is this legal?

Well, that's easy based on the "psychological and sociological" development of humans the law has determined that at the age of 18 human beings are legally ADULTS and therefore (psychological and sociologicaly i.e. mentally and socially) able to exercise full "personhood" and as a result should be given the freedom to exercise fully said rights under the constitution and the laws of the>lace w:st="on">USAlace>.

So, let’s visit that same 18 year old 3 weeks later when he realizes life is hard without his parents (a sociological situation) and he has no cash. So, he decides out of desperation (a psychological state) to rob and kill some guy for his cash. Now, even though he can no longer be detained by his parents against his will, he can and most likely will be detained by the cops.

But wait!

Didn't we say that as an adult he has full protection under the law, and can fully exercise his rights?

Well yeah, we did.

So, logically the next question is how and why did he loose those rights. And, the answer to that is simple. He has proven based on his emotional (there's that psychology again) state, and his behavior (Oh! more psychology), that he is not mentally (psychology again) fit to remain in society based on our determined social norms and laws (sociology comes into play).

Now, his legal rights are limited, and he can be required to remain in jail against his will, forced to turn over all personal property for inspection by law enforcement ( there goes that right to privacy) against his will, remain in the state or county he is being prosecuted in against his will.
 
Now, let’s say that the same jury convicts said 18 year old of 1st degree murder and he is sentenced to the death penalty. Well wait. The 14th amendment says that the government must extend to all its citizens equal rights and protection under the law, so surly we cannot kill this kid.

Well, that would be true if he still retained ALL of his constitutional rights, however when he proved to the courts by his actions and behavior (a psychological aspect) and to society that he could not conform to our laws and our norms (a sociological aspect) a jury or a judge forfeited some of his constitutional rights and protections as a result of his actions.

Hence the reason why the person flipping the switch on his electric chair, or placing the needle in his arm cannot be prosecuted for murder. If he still obtained all of the rights awared with full legal personhood killing him at any time or for any reason would be unconstitutional.

Now, let’s say that same 18 year old becomes severely injured during a fight in jail. Now, he is transported to a hospital and a doctor determines that he will never awake from his coma (a neurologically determined state).

Can we still execute this man?

Well, the answer is no!
Why you say.

Lets assume the doc puts the needle in the 18 year olds arm anyway as scheduled:
He gets prosecuted for murder, and heres why...

The 18 year old man is no longer "physically" able to proceed with his execution (see criminal law texts for explanation). Now as a result of his "neurological" and "physical" state some portion of his constitutional rights have been reinstated.

Under the law he will not be executed until he recovers from the coma (which is a neurologically determined state) In this case only a doctor, not a judge can rule when the 18 year old has recovered once that is done the judge will investigate and reaffirm and if all is well the execution will proceed. 

But, let's say he's not in a coma (which is a neurological state), but he is brain dead (another neurological state).
When that happens.
The doc still cannot proceed with the execution as scheduled, and if he were that would be quite illogical.

- because we all know (or should know) that upon brain death LEGAL "personhood" no longer exists. Essentially the 18 year old is legally DEAD now even though at this time he still remains physically alive and still retains his "biological personhood".

Yet, even at this stage, when the 18 year old clearly no longer has LEGAL personhood, he still has the basic right to a humane burial. But, in times of war, disease, other circumstances even this "basic" right of legal "personhood" can be violated. Even though in all circumstances "biological personhood" is always maintained.

- (this is why harvesting organs, terminating life support, etc, etc, is NOT murder, torture, mutilation, etc...) If however the brain dead person retained his LEGAL "personhood"
doing anything accept keeping him fed and hooked up to life support would be a crime.

So, we've established why the doc cannot kill an inmate who is already scheduled to die by execution to recap:
If the doctor were to do so he would be prosecuted for murder.
However, if the same 18 year old were to wake up 2 weeks later and that same doctor were to stick a needle in his arm to end his life, that same action that previously would have been murder now becomes legal killing. (based solely on the neurological state of the patient)
 
If the law looked at personhood and the right to life from merely a biological stand point, this would not be permissible.

In the case of this man the law takes into consideration not only the psychological and sociological aspects of his personhood, but also the physical and neurological aspects of his personhood. Before making a decision on what kind of rights he should be awarded. Upon turing 18 he got them all by default. But, later on his behavior/actions (the psycholgoical aspect) showed his unwillingness or inabaility to conform to social and legal norms ( the sociological aspect) which lead to the revocation of some of his legal rights as were previosuly awarded to him under the law.

Biologist can argue all day about the genetic or biological personhood of this kid, but the reality of it is that this doesn't gurantee him full access to ALL of his rights i.e. all of his LEGAL "personhood" under the law.

Lets also review what would have happened if it were to have been discovered that the 18  year old mentioned above suffered from some severe form of mental illness like I don’t know, paranoid schizophrenia (a psychological aspect) which effected the 18 year old from being able to tell the difference between right and wrong (both a psychological and sociological aspect). If a jury decided that this was the case the 18 year old would not be convicted of murder and if he had not been brought up on any other charges he would be found not guilty for reasons of insanity.
 
So, now he goes free All LEGAL personhood reinstated under the law?
Well, not really.

He goes to a state mental institution with or without his conscent still retaining some of his legal rights "personhood", but not all of them. Even though he is not anymore guilty of murder LEGALLY speaking than the members of the hospital staff detaining him.

So, let's get this straight. This guy is not a criminal, and he's an adult, but he still can't leave the mental institution if he wanted to?

Correct!

Why?

Well, because he does not have full "personhood" under the law, and this is based on his mental competance which is a (psychological aspect) required to have FULL personhood under the law.  

His rights will not and cannot be returned until:
Some panel of docs decides this guy can function in society without hurting someone else or himself. A decision which is based on the "psychological and sociological" status of the guy. 
Even though the entire time he retained his biological personhood.

So, it should now become clear that personhood is defined on more than one dimension by the law, and since this has been around long before I ever existed I doubt as if I had anything to do with it. The multidemnsional approach to personhood is currently the LEGAL approach to personhood the biological approach is currently only a scientific approach, but as you can see from the examples above is not the ONLY criteria for LEGAL "personhood" under the law.

reply from: chopperpilot

Yes, which makes your hair a human hair, and not a cat or dog hair.
And, your hair is alive therefore it is human life.

You are playing word games with definitions. You view the phrase "scientifically human" as if I were refering to a "human being"
I view the phrase "scientifcally human" as I refer to anything that is comprised of human genetic material thus diffrentiating it from say the genetic material of a cat or dog.

How, would you prefer I describe your hair when comparing it to that of another species?

I believe I made it very clear what my view of a "human being" i.e. a "individual human life" is in a earlier post.
However you will not get me to agree that the use of the phrase "scientifically human" to describe sperm cells is not acurate. Unless you can offer to me some other way in which I should describe something that is "living", which is comprised of "human" DNA.

Below you will find my views on when a "human being" i.e. "individual human life" begins.
Without using descriptive words like "individual" to describe human life everything that is comprised of human genetic material and is living is "human life" i.e. sperm cells, egg cells, cheek cells, skin cells, hair, etc...

All human, all living ergo all human life!

Perhaps.
I believe that "new" human life occurs at Fertilization, but I do not believe that this is yet "individual" human life, or what some may refer to as the potential human being. That has not yet been determined at this state. (At least not scientifically)
 
I believe that "individual" human life occurs at approx 14 days and the formation of the primitive streak.
At this point in development it is rarely possible for twinning to take place.
However,
rarely Siamese twins or fetus-in-fetu occur after this point so clearly this is just an estimate of when individuality occurs, not a guarantee.

For the most part I will concede to any argument that a fetus has acquired "individual" human life at approx 14 days.

reply from: chopperpilot

I don't know how you define "natural person", but since you already agreed that a fetus is a "biological person" perhaps you'd like to distinguish between those two things?

Consult the link I left, or a law text book, where NATURAL person is defined as a living "breathing" member of the human race, etc, etc,
there are variations.

the fetus fails the "breathing" criteria in that definition.
By the way, if it's in quotes it probably isn't MY definition.

reply from: chopperpilot

For someone who claims such a high educational level, you are surprisingly confused about the distinctiion between nouns and adjectives. Are you really not aware of the difference? Main Entry: human Function: noun : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) Merriam-Webster Online, www.m-w.com

Are you really unwilling to consult a science text book. Scientifically speaking something can be human i.e. belong to the human race, without being a human being.
I am not arguing the definition of human as a noun.
However in science every time we say human we are not talking about a human being! Are you really unwilling to recognize this!

i.e. "human" nature, "human" genetic material

Again I've got to ask how would you like me to describe ["insert your word here" material] when comparing it to say ["cat" genetic material, or "dog" genetic material]

Next I really need you tell me how you've determined that sperm, scientifically speaking, is not human.
Because what I said was that "scientifically speaking sperm is human"
And, this is true, as opposed to it being the sperm of a dog or a cat!

So let's do an example scentence shall we.

When testing the DNA of the sperm cell found at the crime scene it was determined that the sperm was comprised of "insert your word" genetic material.

I have no idea what you'd say, but what I'll say would be:

When testing the DNA of the sperm cell found at the crime scene it was determined that the sperm was comprised of "HUMAN" genetic material.

or

When testing the origin of the sperm cells found it was scientifically determined that the sperm cells found were human" 

Notice how human "DESCRIBES" the genetic material.

Just as the word human was "DESCRIBING" the type of life, or nature or origin of the sperm I was speaking of when I said that "Scientifically speaking sperm is human" i.e. comprised of human genetic material. 

"Scientifically speaking the behavior is human"

The word human can be used to describe something that is not a human being.
i.e. human hair
i.e. human behavior

We can play word games all day long, you can even find that I misspelled something along the way somewhere. That doesn't change the context or the meaning behind the sentence I wrote. You are implying that I am saying a sperm is a human being, if you read my post you will see that thought I believe a sperm involved in the human reporductive cycle is "HUMAN" I do not feel a sperm is an "individual human being" or "individual human life"

And, I have already explained what "individual human life" is in my opinion.

reply from: mom5

Gosh, Chopperpilot!

Pro-Lifers believe that an unborn child is human and has a right to life!

Bottom line!

COPY AND PASTE....COPY AND PASTE MORE.... COPY AND PASTE EVEN MORE..

POST WEB SITES...POST MORE WEB SITES... POST EVEN MORE WEB SITES...

DEFINE.... DEFINE MORE... DEFINE EVEN MORE...

You will make a good researcher one day because you seem to have much more patience than I do!

Again, I say.. the unborn has the right to life!

reply from: chopperpilot

More on definitions:

LEGAL definition of narutal person
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/61D37D9C-A50D-4E29-86A8E661D7D5E344/alpha/N/

as decided by the United States of America, not me (chopperpilot)
If you want an explanantion for the different between the 2 discuss this with the Supreme Court.
Although I believe that this is pro life organizers are currently trying to obtain "legal personhood" for the fetus as defined by the law, not me!

reply from: chopperpilot

I never said that it didn't. The legal system and the Supreme Court say this. I merely stated why.
The fact that the fetus must obtain legal personhood has nothing to do with the way that I feel about anything. It is a fact, not my opinion. Consult the constitution and legal journals regarding personhood for clarification.

Stating the facts doesn't make a person pro life or pro choice if the fact stated just happens to disagree with an opinion, moral, or value held by either side of the debate.
If that were the case I would be both for and againt abortion all at the same time. And, that would not be logical.

reply from: chopperpilot

There is no reason to oppose abortion except on moral grounds, IMHO. Therefore those are the grounds on which I debate abortion. If you do not have a moral objection to the killing of innocent human beings, then I can see why you don't oppose abortion. You are making this way, way too complicated. There are no separate definitions for the word "person" that deal with all the variables you introduce. There are only TWO distinct senses of the word "person", vernacular and legal. In the first, a fetus IS a person, and in the second it is NOT.

I never said I did or I didn't.
Obviously you cannot oppose something on moral grounds just because! You have to back it up with facts! Morally objecting something is fine and you are free to act as your morals tell you. But, your morality cannot become the laws of the land just because. There has got to be more criteria than that.

Morality is relative, and legislation based solely on morality is highly unpredictable (AND USUALLY DOES NOT LAST!). Consult the Man act, or legislation regarding sodomy, pre marital sex, segregation, women's right to vote etc, etc, if you need clarification.

reply from: chopperpilot

What refinement does the word "individual" add to this discussion? It simply adds the information that we are talking about ONE creature, rather than many: Main Entry: individual Function: noun 1 a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution http://www.archindy.org/prolife/dirvingbeginning.htm

And, now just so we are clear:
at approx 14 or so days "individual human life" has begun because theoretically (there are exceptions) there will be no more "POTENTIAL" fetus' resulting from these cells. Any twinning (dividing) should be completed at this point. So, at this point genetically speaking, scientifically speaking the process of forming "individual human life" should be complete. Not, the process of establishing "personhood"
I have alrady explained how biological personhood differes from legal personhood in my argument.

And, I'm not making this complicated badly defined legal terms and concepts did that for us. Lack of Universal scientific consensus on what a multi dimensional definition of personhood should be did that.
Now, thanks to that we can all sit around and argue from a million different perspectives why a fetus does or does not have legal personhood. Although, only an idiot would claim that it does not have biological personhood.

reply from: Tam

Perhaps.

I believe that "new" human life occurs at Fertilization, but I do not believe that this is yet "individual" human life, or what some may refer to as the potential human being. That has not yet been determined at this state. (At least not scientifically)

 

I believe that "individual" human life occurs at approx 14 days and the formation of the primitive streak.

At this point in development it is rarely possible for twinning to take place.

However,

rarely Siamese twins or fetus-in-fetu occur after this point so clearly this is just an estimate of when individuality occurs, not a guarantee.

For the most part I will concede to any argument that a fetus has acquired "individual" human life at approx 14 days.

Wait--is this to say that once there is no longer a chance that we're really dealing with TWO or more individuals, then and only then can we call the being an individual? As in, when it might be twins, it's not worth protecting, but once it's decided whether it's twins or not, then it's an individual?

Ok, what about the notion that while there exists the possibility that we're dealing with multiple individuals, the worth of that "lump of cells" is more, rather than less? Wouldn't that make more sense? This could be quints--five future adults!

reply from: yoda

Whatever, I was just curious about the term.

Are you aware that this vernacular use of the term "person" is older by several hundred years than our legal definition, and much more widespread?

per•son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

reply from: yoda

I think you are a bit confused about morality. It is not based on "facts" as much as on values. And our values are entirely subjective, even if they are supported by religious beliefs. But if you want "facts", then consider the "fact" that every abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Now, if the life of that human being has no value to you, then you won't have any moral objection, and I understand that.

Let me ask you a little favor. Hold off on your sermons about legality being based on morality until I actually say something that you can construe as an advocation of the criminalization of abortion, okay?

reply from: yoda

I'm not in the least interested in the finer legal points regarding abortion, I hope I am making that clear. The term "individual" is a very, very old vernacular term which simply means ONE.

That is completely meaningless to me. Whether twinning occurs or not, at least ONE innocent human being is killed by each abortion, and MORE if twinning occurs. Do you really think that killing MORE THAN one innocent human being is less immoral than killing one?

reply from: chopperpilot

That's a very strange comment, coming from a person who decorates her post generously with rather emotional comments.

Yes, again you have made my point for me. My comments are emotional, yet my argument is not. You have no idea what side of this debate I am on, because I have left out whatever moral opinions I may have about the issue. Obviously you feel I lack morality because I may not agree with the FACTS not the morality of every argument you’ve made.

Many of you are capable of believing in things that you cannot prove, based on your faith or maybe intuition. There are however "unlucky" people like me who cannot no matter how hard we try convince ourselves of something that we cannot factually prove, that we cannot logically analyze. 



I lost my brother, his wife, and their unborn child in a tragic accident a few years ago.
I hated my father for almost that entire time for allowing what I perceived to be the “MURDER” off my brother, by allowing the docs to terminate his life support even though I knew it was perfectly legal.>>



"I" couldn't accept the fact that he was dead, and I HATED myself for not becoming a neurologist because all I had was foolish HOPE that maybe if I had I would have somehow known how to save him. The death of them all was and still is HARDER for me than it is for everyone else in my family, because for me they are gone forever, there is no heaven, there is no afterlife.  

I "wish" I could believe, I "want" to believe that there is a God, and that they are there with him. I "wish" I could believe that their baby is in heaven with them. But, I just "CAN'T" I cannot bring myself to believe in something that I cannot prove with facts. In my desperation I spent a good majority of my free time statistically analyzing the probability that God exists. Thankfully my profs. placed me one of the University’s research teams studying the genetic mutations of the HIV virus. (there is a link below for anyone interested in learning more about that.)>>

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66198,00.htmlhttp://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66198,00.html  >>



If you are not "cursed" to think in the way in which I do, you cannot possibly understand what I mean. I cannot base my morals on "FAITH" because I don't have it. This makes people like me really good at analyzing the factual/scientific/legal side of any debate, but we are not qualified to even begin to speak about the morality of the issue. Which I DO believe should be considered just not ENTIRELY. So, you are wrong when you say I have no morals, they just are not formed on the same foundations that yours are.

If you ask me from a scientific standpoint does the fetus have legal personhood I rely on the legal research I've have done while in school and I reply no, this has nothing to do with my personal feelings about the issue.

If you ask me from a biological standpoint if a fetus has personhood I rely on the scientific research I have done while pursing degrees in biochemistry and genetics and I reply yes, again this is fact it has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the issue.

If you ask me morally if I feel that a fetus has personhood I'll tell you that morally speaking that would have to be based on the soul of the fetus, And since I am not capable of "FAITH" I will have to tell you that I don't know.>>



I have never spoken to a person that remembers being a fetus (and it has been confirmed) and though I cannot confirm that a fetus does NOT have a soul, I cannot confirm that it does either. Any scientist or atheist who responds differently to the morality question is lying to either himself/herself or you. Because unfortunately we cannot hook a machine up to a fetus and determine rather or not it has been given its soul yet, or worse yet if any of us ever were. 

Science has no consensus on the existence of God or the human soul.  >>

For the majority of people I am sure this is irrelevant when discussing abortion, but for someone like me even if I want to believe it I can't unless I can some how prove it.  

reply from: chopperpilot

I'm not in the least interested in the finer legal points regarding abortion, I hope I am making that clear. The term "individual" is a very, very old vernacular term which simply means ONE. That is completely meaningless to me. Whether twinning occurs or not, at least ONE innocent human being is killed by each abortion, and MORE if twinning occurs. Do you really think that killing MORE THAN one innocent human being is less immoral than killing one?

yes well scientifically speaking the embryo isn't "one" until approx 14 days upon which time no further twinning should occur,
But before that it could very well be 2 "babies" and not "one" baby

That is what I mean by the formation of "individual human life" at approx 14 days.

reply from: chopperpilot

Perhaps. I believe that "new" human life occurs at Fertilization, but I do not believe that this is yet "individual" human life, or what some may refer to as the potential human being. That has not yet been determined at this state. (At least not scientifically)   I believe that "individual" human life occurs at approx 14 days and the formation of the primitive streak. At this point in development it is rarely possible for twinning to take place. However, rarely Siamese twins or fetus-in-fetu occur after this point so clearly this is just an estimate of when individuality occurs, not a guarantee. For the most part I will concede to any argument that a fetus has acquired "individual" human life at approx 14 days.
Wait--is this to say that once there is no longer a chance that we're really dealing with TWO or more individuals, then and only then can we call the being an individual? As in, when it might be twins, it's not worth protecting, but once it's decided whether it's twins or not, then it's an individual? Ok, what about the notion that while there exists the possibility that we're dealing with multiple individuals, the worth of that "lump of cells" is more, rather than less? Wouldn't that make more sense? This could be quints--five future adults!

Nope, this is to say that as far as the facts go it is not yet an "individual human life" and could very well be "multiple human lives"
I never once suggest that it should not or that it should be protected.
someone asked me when I thought a human being was formed. I stated that I felt a human being formed when scientifically the cells become "individual" otherwise you quite possibly could have 2 or more human beings.

reply from: chopperpilot

I think you are a bit confused about morality. It is not based on "facts" as much as on values. And our values are entirely subjective, even if they are supported by religious beliefs. But if you want "facts", then consider the "fact" that every abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Now, if the life of that human being has no value to you, then you won't have any moral objection, and I understand that. Let me ask you a little favor. Hold off on your sermons about legality being based on morality until I actually say something that you can construe as an advocation of the criminalization of abortion, okay?

That is your interpretation of the facts.
Killing is a legal term as well as a biblical term. Killing in self defense or killing during war is not considered murder. Not even by the church, hence the crusades.

Killing is relative and subject to the morality of the person doing the killing. Unless we talk about a legal definition of word.

reply from: chopperpilot

I'm not in the least interested in the finer legal points regarding abortion, I hope I am making that clear. The term "individual" is a very, very old vernacular term which simply means ONE. That is completely meaningless to me. Whether twinning occurs or not, at least ONE innocent human being is killed by each abortion, and MORE if twinning occurs. Do you really think that killing MORE THAN one innocent human being is less immoral than killing one?

Again you assume we have the same definition of killing. Or that the next women you ask that question to will have the same definition of killing that you do.
That depends on her beliefs about personhood and what her morals.

reply from: Tam

I'm not in the least interested in the finer legal points regarding abortion, I hope I am making that clear. The term "individual" is a very, very old vernacular term which simply means ONE. That is completely meaningless to me. Whether twinning occurs or not, at least ONE innocent human being is killed by each abortion, and MORE if twinning occurs. Do you really think that killing MORE THAN one innocent human being is less immoral than killing one?

Again you assume we have the same definition of killing. Or that the next women you ask that question to will have the same definition of killing that you do.

That depends on her beliefs about personhood and what her morals.

Well, maybe if instead of saying "killing" we say "ending the life of" would that make more politically correct sense?

Bottom line: whether or not the unborn child is a legal "person" in the eyes of the current U.S. government is irrelevant to me. Just because the government of this country, whichever branch, says a thing does not make that thing true. That the unborn child is not recognized as a legal person and not currently afforded any protection from slaughter is of no importance, frankly. Am I remembering it wrong to think that there was a time when Jews were not legally recognized as people in Germany? Where they were considered expendable? Medical experiments performed on them, people slaughtered by the hundreds, thousands, etc. If Hitler decrees that a Jew is not a person under the law of the 3rd Reich, then the Jew is NOT a legal person in that place and time. Does that mean JACK to anyone with a brain and a conscience? I think not. Same goes for the current U.S. government's treatment of the unborn. Just because some court says something does not make it true. And basically, anyone with a brain and a conscience can see that abortion is just a politically correct term for the legal murder of unborn children who are for whatever reason not wanted by their mothers. Here's another question for ya--if, in Hitler's Germany, the mother of one of these non-person Jews AGREED with Hitler and thought her son or daughter was a non-person, would THAT make it true? What if the mother wanted her Jewish child killed? Would the fact that the mom wanted the child dead AND the law said it's ok THEN make it ok? Oh, only if the child were not yet born? Ah, that makes sense. Yeah. So what exact moment does the unborn child become a legal person worthy of legal protection? It's when the head exits the birth canal, isn't it? Until then, it's a piece of garbage that can be disposed of. Then, when the head exits the mom--this is why they call it the "miracle of birth"--because by a miracle, this lump of cells, this piece of garbage, this non-person worthy of nothing, is transformed! Changed into the most precious thing in the world, the most worthy of protection, the most innocent and most deserving of all--a newborn baby. Now THAT'S what I call a miracle! Like changing raw sewage into the finest wine! A non-person becomes a person! I suppose there are some pro-choice people who would argue that the magic miracle occurs earlier, but the government says it's when the head comes out, right? But hey, that's not you--you're one of those "moderate" pro-choicers who think there is a point at which the fetus becomes worthy of protection? What completely arbitrary point would that be, hmm? Quickening? Viability? The "second trimester"? The magic 14-day mark at which we can determine that we're not really dealing with multiple individuals?

reply from: mom5

Chooperpilot - all this research that you are doing and all this research that you feel you need to prove to yourself in order to "believe"... well, here is what I would like to ask you...

What do you feel in your heart?  How do you feel deep down about abortion? Put all these scientific "facts", these Supreme Court opinions and all worries aside for just a second...

Don't worry about when you become a "person"... don't worry about when you have a soul... don't worry about if a sperm cell is human... don't worry about when "legal personhood" starts... just don't worry..

I am right at 16 weeks pregnant... I just felt my child moving inside of me for the first time today... it's really exciting... do you really think that "personhood" and the other terms are important right now in this little life growing inside of me?   All I worry about is substaining its life until birth, then taking care of it just like my other children. It deserves as much protection right now as anyone else in this world!

You see, I believe my life to be alot more peaceful when I don't look to everything for facts.  This is just how I live.  Facts are good... but not always necessary.  Life can throw hard darts your way, as you well know, but we do not always have "facts" to tell us how to deal with them... that's were belief comes in.... that's were values and morals come in. 

So I challenge you to stop thinking with facts... stop asking yourself to answer this or that with your "factual mind" or with your "moral mind"  or with your "legal mind"  that all can get confusing and just answer!  Try valuing your own opinion rather than someone else's.

reply from: shiprah

Chopper, in the 1800's many people considered blacks to be a lower type of primate.  That was their justification for enslaving them.  Back then, there was no genetic test to see if blacks and had human DNA, no scientific way of knowing they were the human like whites, but I'm glad that abolitionists used their hearts to find the truth instead of waiting for science.
On the other hand, even though we know blacks have human DNA, what if we decided they didn't have rights because they lacked fair skin.  That wouldn't be right, but its the same as saying an embryo is human but lacks rights because of its size or appearance.
Or what if we said women weren't viable because they don't have the same upper body strength as men, that's as bad as saying that embryos aren't viable for the skills they lack.
Or, what if we were like President Andrew Jackson who felt Native Americans weren't "developed" enough to have human rights, and they should be on reservations until they became civilized.  Kind of like saying that an embryo has to behave a certain way or attain a certain status before it gets the right to life.
Or, what if we read the confederage diaries of people who weren't sorry they had slaves -- that wouldn't make slavery anyless wrong, just as websites like i'mnotsorry.net don't make abortion less wrong
Convicted murderers are sometimes given't the death penalty because they have decided that life doesn't have value by killing someone, and have therefore lost the value of their own lives.  Of course, many prolifers feel this is wrong.  In our society, I think there's too much racism around for a death penalty to be fair.  However, a baby hasn't done anything wrong.  When children can't drive or enter in to contracts or vote, that's for their safety and so they won't be taken advantage of, not because they aren't considered people.  Otherwise if you didn't want your six your old daughter you'd just burn her to death with saline, too.  Abortion differs from laws that don't let little kids drive, because it's designed to harm the child.  To deliberately kill them.  You say in one of your quotes that an acorn isn't the same as an oak, and of course an embryo isn't the same as a six year old.  But a twenty year old isn't the same as a fifty year old.  A thirty five year old may not have the wisdom of a sixty year old.  A special needs forty year old may not have the IQ of an eight year old, however, because of humanity, all deserve protection.  We can draw a line on the continum anywhere.  Once we start creating strata of humanity we're all vulnerable.  Whether you're hooked to life support, conscience, viable, not viable, can do or can't do what another can't, an innocent person has the right to life.  I say innocent, because if some guy tries to rape you, shoot him, go ahead.  But don't shoot a random guy walking down the street.  And if pregnancy will kill you, have an abortion.  When a woman is pregnant, her not wanting to be (displeasure) isn't equal to the baby's right to continue its life.  We have two people to think about.  I say treat them both equally -- you know, like we treat grown siamese twins when one could live without the other and one would die, but we still don't let the viable one disconnect.  Don't sanction the killing of innocents.  It is factually, scientifically, and yes, the dreaded word, morally wrong.

reply from: chopperpilot

  I'm not in the least interested in the finer legal points regarding abortion, I hope I am making that clear. The term "individual" is a very, very old vernacular term which simply means ONE. That is completely meaningless to me. Whether twinning occurs or not, at least ONE innocent human being is killed by each abortion, and MORE if twinning occurs. Do you really think that killing MORE THAN one innocent human being is less immoral than killing one? Again you assume we have the same definition of killing. Or that the next women you ask that question to will have the same definition of killing that you do. That depends on her beliefs about personhood and what her morals. Well, maybe if instead of saying "killing" we say "ending the life of" would that make more politically correct sense? Bottom line: whether or not the unborn child is a legal "person" in the eyes of the current>lace w:st="on">U.S.lace> government is irrelevant to me. Just because the government of this country, whichever branch, says a thing does not make that thing true. That the unborn child is not recognized as a legal person and not currently afforded any protection from slaughter is of no importance, frankly. Am I remembering it wrong to think that there was a time when Jews were not legally recognized as people in lace w:st="on">Germanylace>? Where they were considered expendable? Medical experiments performed on them, people slaughtered by the hundreds, thousands, etc. If Hitler decrees that a Jew is not a person under the law of the 3rd Reich, then the Jew is NOT a legal person in that place and time. Does that mean JACK to anyone with a brain and a conscience? I think not. Same goes for the current lace w:st="on">U.S.lace> government's treatment of the unborn. Just because some court says something does not make it true. And basically, anyone with a brain and a conscience can see that abortion is just a politically correct term for the legal murder of unborn children who are for whatever reason not wanted by their mothers. Here's another question for ya--if, in Hitler's lace w:st="on">Germanylace>, the mother of one of these non-person Jews AGREED with Hitler and thought her son or daughter was a non-person, would THAT make it true? What if the mother wanted her Jewish child killed? Would the fact that the mom wanted the child dead AND the law said it's ok THEN make it ok? Oh, only if the child were not yet born? Ah, that makes sense. Yeah. So what exact moment does the unborn child become a legal person worthy of legal protection? It's when the head exits the birth canal, isn't it? Until then, it's a piece of garbage that can be disposed of. Then, when the head exits the mom--this is why they call it the "miracle of birth"--because by a miracle, this lump of cells, this piece of garbage, this non-person worthy of nothing, is transformed! Changed into the most precious thing in the world, the most worthy of protection, the most innocent and most deserving of all--a newborn baby. Now THAT'S what I call a miracle! Like changing raw sewage into the finest wine! A non-person becomes a person! I suppose there are some pro-choice people who would argue that the magic miracle occurs earlier, but the government says it's when the head comes out, right? But hey, that's not you--you're one of those "moderate" pro-choicers who think there is a point at which the fetus becomes worthy of protection? What completely arbitrary point would that be, hmm? Quickening? Viability? The "second trimester"? The magic 14-day mark at which we can determine that we're not really dealing with multiple individuals?

You assume that my response was based on my wish for you to be politically correct.
You are asking me a moral question, based on your SUBJECTIVE view of the morality involved.
  
My answer had nothing to do with the political correctness of the term "killing"

Just as your question was SUBJECTIVE so was my answer. You are asking me if "I" feel something is wrong based on "your" moral values, not the moral values of "society i.e. the law".

Hence you are trying to get me to judge myself based on your morality not my own.
Below I will explain why. >>

Definitions for the purpose of THIS argument:
1. "personhood" - deserving of rights/respect/protection both legally and morally
2. "Biological personhood" - extending rights to someone or something based solely on their biological makeup, no consideration for any other aspects of personhood.
3. "rights/protection/respect" - "rights" - as given by the lace w:st="on">USlace> constitution; "protection" right to be free of harm from another individual & right to life. "Respect" acknowledging that subject deserves both "rights" & "protection" both morally and under the law
4. "Philosophical personhood" - personhood based solely on the religious concept of the soul, no consideration for any other aspect of personhood
5. "Multi dimensional personhood" - a definition of personhood which allows something to either pass or fail the "personhood" litmus test based on more than one aspect of its existence. I.e. the psychological/sociological/neurological/physical/developmental states of being

The OBJECTIVE legal answer to your question is obvious.
 
Now, for the less obvious SUBJECTIVE answer:

If you're asking me based on the fact that the fetus has "biological personhood" is abortion wrong then I would have to say, no.

If I say "biological personhood" is a good enough reason for me to extend MORAL rights/protection/respect to everyone then by my logic undesirable people like: child molesters, convicts, and rapists that tortured and killed their victims could not morally or logically be executed or punished for their crimes. 
 
If I believed only in "biological personhood" brain dead patients could never be taken off life support. I would be required by my own morality to keep them alive as long as I could with the aid of whatever machines and technologies I had available to me. If I NEVER considered the "physiological & neurological" aspects of their personhood (i.e. if I did not view personhood multi dimensionally) then terminating their life support to me would be the equivalent of walking away from a heart attack victim or someone who is drowning. They would be on the verge of biological death i.e. the loss of their biological personhood, and I would be required by my own morality to do everything that I could to prevent that.
Otherwise I would be a MURDERER by my own definition of the word.

Now, let’s talk about my philosophical ideals of personhood as they would relate to me SUBJECTIVELY answering this question.

I have no formulated opinions as to the existence of a “soul”, or the philosophical personhood of the fetus. So, if I answer honestly I would have to say that I don’t know if abortion is wrong if approached from a [“philosophical personhood” or “soul”] view point. I have no facts to back it up one way or the other.

In my SUBJECTIVE reality proving the existence of the "soul" is the only way anyone could logically explain the philosophical personhood of a fetus before the formation of a functioning central nervous system. >>

This is because "philosophical personhood" is based solely on the idea that the fetus is not just a biological being but an individual soul growing in the womb and therefore capable of feeling and "deserving" of love.

I come to this SUBJECTIVE philosophical conclusion for 2 reasons.
1. I cannot believe in anything that cannot be calculated, tested, proven, factually stated, analyzed, independently verified, T or Q tested, etc, etc, etc
2.As a result of the statement given above I have no FAITH >>



Now, once the fetus has fully developed a central nervous system and a functioning brain. I would be inclined to consider the fetus capable of personhood as I SUBJECTIVELY define personhood for “myself” not the “masses”. (Which means I am NOT saying my SUBJECTIVE view of the fetus should be passed into law) >>

Now here is where your logic begins to break down.   
You are asking someone a SUBJECTIVE question about THEIR PERSONAL morality and at the same time FORGETTING or REFUSING to acknowledge that many people are like the law in the sense that they do not have a one dimensional model of what fetal personhood should be for them both legally and morally.

If you ask them to JUSTIFY their SUBJECTIVE view of abortion based on your "MORALS" or your "SUBJECTIVE REALITY" you will always find them to be amoral, and they will always find you to be amoral. And, both of you will always be WRONG to each other because you're engaging in a SUBJECTIVE argument.

This is why I normally choose to argue ONLY the facts stated or asserted by each argument leaving my personal beliefs out of the picture. And, since I currently have no view at all on the MORAL "right" or "wrongness" of abortion this is easy for me to do.

We could go on and on forever talking about what is and is not SUBJECTIVELY moral.
Take the following arguments for example:

Do you believe using birth control is wrong? (Note studies show that some forms of birth control can lead to unintentional termination of pregnancy.) 

Depending on how the individual we are asking the question attributes fetal personhood each person will answer that question differently.

- One person will say they feel personhood begins at conception, and therefore birth control should be illegal, and anyone using birth control is guilty of killing their innocent babies.

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
http://catholicism.about.com/cs/nfp/a/nfp91002.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/33413

- Another person will say no they do not feel personhood begins at conception, and they do not believe in only "biological personhood" or only "philosophical personhood" so, the fact that the pill "might" cause a pregnancy to be terminated without their knowledge makes no difference to them because they do not believe that a pregnancy at the stage in which it would be effected by the birth control pill "deserves" protection/respect/rights, because to them it does not have "personhood".  

How do you feel about elective sterilization procedures?

- If you are against them you feel that they are a violation of God's expectations for marriage and human sexuality.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/06/17/MN163918.DTL
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/new/inthenews/062101Knife&Cross.htm

- if you are for them you're either an atheist, non-catholic, or you have a more relaxed opinion about reproduction and marriage then the catholic church and some other religions.

People on both sides of either argument will scream that the other is absolutely immoral. But, they cannot prove this unless they somehow include their own personal beliefs. So if we are talking SUBJECTIVE reality i.e. the reality of the "accusing party", then yes anyone who does not agree with the "values" of that party is "wrong" for obvious reasons.

Without introducing an OBJECTIVE argument regarding the FACTS not the MORALS of abortion both sides will be arguing the issue forever. There is really no other way to JUSTIFY abortion. Abortion arguments (either for or against) cannot be JUSTIFIED SUBJECTIVELY.
 >>

 

reply from: chopperpilot

Congratulations on your pregnancy. I am sure that your baby is very special to you, and NOBODY has the right to tell you any different.

Unless you've met me I fear I am nearly impossible to understand. I have an entire beliefe system of morals based purely on logic and facts. The rest of it that cannot be explained I remain objective about.

Facts are my life! I wish I could be like other people, but growing up with my father that just was never an opiton for me. I am the daughter of a Nuclear Physcists/Rocket Sciencetist. I was being forced to do calculus when other kids were outside playing in the park. I was punished for saying something that did not logically make sense. Intelligence was valued by my father over everything else! No room for "foolish" ideas like god, religion, or faith in things I could not prove to him. I was home schooled in addition to going to public school and as a result I graduated high school when I was 14 and got my 1st college degree (double major) when I was 17, another at 18 (double major), joined the military to fly choppers at 19, decided not to reenlist after going to afghanistan (enough said), started school again got another degree, currently still in school. My idea of having fun is when I fly research teams to remote locations in the summers, or taking a class on something I've never studied before. 

I am NEVER going to have children. As, I think we can all agree any person having a child should place that child above everyhting else in their life. I suppose that an individual analysis of both you and I would prove why a MOTHER should be more than just a woman capable of carrying life and giving birth. You are a "mother" and I am simply capable of carrying life and giving birth. Trust me I am in no way saying that my way of living is better than yours. I fully recognize the limits of living a life based solely on the facts of what can be proven, quantified, or measured in the world around me. Never more so then when my brother and his family died. Even so, I just can't change.   

  

reply from: shiprah

Again you assume we have the same definition of killing. 
If I believed only in "biological personhood" brain dead patients could never be taken off life support.An embryo isn't brain dead.  It's functioning optimally for its age.  Its healthy and growing and maturing.  Its doing exactly what its supposed to do.  Besides, if a brain dead person was going to come out of it at a certain time and begin functioning properly then we wouldn't be considering pulling the plug. I

Now here is where your logic begins to break down.    You are asking someone a SUBJECTIVE question about THEIR PERSONAL morality and at the same time FORGETTING or REFUSING to acknowledge that many people are like the law in the sense that they do not have a one dimensional model of what fetal personhood should be for them both legally and morally.
 Yeah, just like I ask people to submit to my subjective view of the Holocaust?  If its okay to ask people to submit to my morals and not rape or steal, why can I do so in certain situations and not in others?
.  >

reply from: chopperpilot

You are obviously the only one competing here. This post isn't even addressed to you.
Someone asked "me" why "I" cannot look at more than just the facts in "my" life. If you notice I never once said I was smarter or better than anyone else.
All I said is that "I" CANNOT form an opinion about something that "I" CANNOT prove, or that cannot be otherwise proven to me in a way that can be quantified, tested, measured, etc, etc... i.e. factually sound.>>>



How you interpret this as me speaking to you about how much smarter I am than you is a problem that "you've" got. If I wanted to say I was smarter then someone I would simply say it. But, I would never claim to be smarter than a person that I didn’t even no existed prior to their commenting to “my” post about “me” and proceeding to tell me how what I said about “me” somehow relates to me saying I’m “smarter” than they are. Sorry you took my post as a comment about “you” when it should have be so clear to you that it was a comment about “me” and “my” flaws. Certainly don’t remember saying anything about being superior to anyone on this site or anywhere else. >>



I’ve got no idea how you came to feel “my” post about me was a post about “you” I think that’s something you need to work on rather than trying to make it “my” problem by projecting “your” anger and feelings of inadequacy onto me.>>

reply from: shiprah

I'm don't feel angry -- I just didn't see what becoming a pilot at 19, which is really cool, has to do with having an objective opinion.  I don't feel inadequate either, I don't have to kill an innocent baby to feel empowered.

reply from: chopperpilot

Again you assume we have the same definition of killing.  If I believed only in "biological personhood" brain dead patients could never be taken off life support.An embryo isn't brain dead.  It's functioning optimally for its age.  Its healthy and growing and maturing.  Its doing exactly what its supposed to do.  Besides, if a brain dead person was going to come out of it at a certain time and begin functioning properly then we wouldn't be considering pulling the plug. I

Now here is where your logic begins to break down.    You are asking someone a SUBJECTIVE question about THEIR PERSONAL morality and at the same time FORGETTING or REFUSING to acknowledge that many people are like the law in the sense that they do not have a one dimensional model of what fetal personhood should be for them both legally and morally.  Yeah, just like I ask people to submit to my subjective view of the Holocaust?  If its okay to ask people to submit to my morals and not rape or steal, why can I do so in certain situations and not in others? .  >

And, you're logic wouldn't be flawed if only you could spontaneously be cloned!>>

If that were the case I’m willing to bet the other “YOU’s” being forced to share legal personhood with you, and being forced to be held accountable for your actions would quite accurately state that “YOU” are not an individual until they can be separated from you. >>



Before aprox 14 days the “twins” are still potentially inside of the same cell. So your analogy would only be accurate if you and your clone were sharing the same body. And, in that case although YOU would mentally be separate you certainly would not be physically separate.

So, by your analogy.
If you and your clone were the individual "babies" at conception.
1. your clone would have formed spontaneously
2. you and your clone would be contained TOGETHER in the same body
3. you and your clone would not split apart until approx 14 days after conception. So, depending on when your clone spontaneously appeared in YOUR body you could be sharing the same body with your clone for 14 days.

So physically you are not an individual becaue you cannot do anything without your clone. And, given the much more complex state of processes actually taking place at this point it would be much more acurate to say that you and your clone not only shared a body but shared thoughs because you wouldn't have any more control over what was going on within your body than your clone would. >

reply from: chopperpilot

Again you assume we have the same definition of killing.  If I believed only in "biological personhood" brain dead patients could never be taken off life support.An embryo isn't brain dead.  It's functioning optimally for its age.  Its healthy and growing and maturing.  Its doing exactly what its supposed to do.  Besides, if a brain dead person was going to come out of it at a certain time and begin functioning properly then we wouldn't be considering pulling the plug. I

Now here is where your logic begins to break down.    You are asking someone a SUBJECTIVE question about THEIR PERSONAL morality and at the same time FORGETTING or REFUSING to acknowledge that many people are like the law in the sense that they do not have a one dimensional model of what fetal personhood should be for them both legally and morally.  Yeah, just like I ask people to submit to my subjective view of the Holocaust?  If its okay to ask people to submit to my morals and not rape or steal, why can I do so in certain situations and not in others? .  >

Yes, well that argument would be valid if EVERYONE in america felt that abortion was wrong. But this currently is not the case. Obviosuly! Or why are we even talking about the "MULTITUDE" of abortions taking place everyday. Either everyone agrees with you and abortins is RARE or NOT everyone agrees with you and abortions are taking place at an alarming rate.

Which is it?

reply from: yoda

Killing a human being is not "relative", either the victim is dead or not. And if the victim is innocent, then an innocent human being has been killed.

Clouding this discussion up with all sorts of irrelevant circumstances does not change the facts of abortion:

It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

And if that fact doesn't bother you, then I understand your support of abortion.

reply from: yoda

Let's see, killing would be an action that results in the death of a living creature. Are we on the same page there, or do we need a two-page discussion on that?

And personhood has zip, nada, nothing to do with it. Call it a hippopotamus if you like, but if it's alive before the procedure begins, and dead afterwards, then the procedure has KILLED IT!

reply from: chopperpilot

I'm sorry did you witness the abortion I've had that I didn't know about?
Becoming a chopper pilot at 19 has to do with me trying to break away from my need to research things constantly which failed after I decided that I didn't like flying soldiers to their deaths in a war.
So, I went back to school where I could research till my hearts content. This post had to do with why I do not have an opinion on the abortion debate.

If I cannot prove that "legal/philisophical not biological" personhood starts at conception, and I do not believe that it can be solely defined by a one demensional analysis of the individual's state of being I cannot have an opinion on the MORAL right or wrongness of abortion, because I cannot come to a philisophical consensus within myself when a PROVEN not a "desired" or "believed" or "faith based" personhood actually begins.

Someone asked me why I can't trust my feelings about it, and so in that post that you thought was about you I explained.

reply from: chopperpilot

Killing a human being is not "relative", either the victim is dead or not. And if the victim is innocent, then an innocent human being has been killed. Clouding this discussion up with all sorts of irrelevant circumstances does not change the facts of abortion: It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And if that fact doesn't bother you, then I understand your support of abortion.

Really,
and here I was thinking it was both sides of the debate cloduing the argument up with their inability to acurately define the "perosnhood" of the fetus in a way that it could REALISTICALLY be applied to the current laws of our country.

reply from: yoda

Definitions for the purpose of THIS argument:

Didn't you omit an important word there? Didn't you leave out the "my" before "Definitions"? Or do you fancy that YOU can define the terms for us all?

Here's a news flash for you...... you can't.

reply from: yoda

There are NO morals based on "facts". "Facts" have no value system within them, you must assign values yourself. What you have said in essence is that you have no morals at all.

reply from: chopperpilot

 I shouldn't have needed to place the "my" before definitions that were used to describe an argument that had the word SUBJECTIVE in it.

You claim to be so smart, yet you OBVIOUSLY can't tell when I am talking about fetal personhood as it applies to me and fetal personhood as it applies to the masses.

Besides it isn't me who has denied the fetus NATURAL personhood (as defined by law) i.e. legal personhood under the law.
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/61D37D9C-A50D-4E29-86A8E661D7D5E344/alpha/N/

Even if we totally ignore the fact that the comment your quoting was based on "my" SUBJECTIVE answer to someone else's question (And was clearly stated as subjective) you still cannot NEGATE the fact that the LAW currently does not give the fetus LEGAL personhood and therefore according to the law abortion is legal. 

So either you are asking me to legally prove that abortion is "right" i.e. LEGAL, or you are asking me to morally prove that abortion is right i.e. MORALLY justified.

Again, it still comes down to the individual morals of the person you are asking. 
And, obviously the morals of society are not as closely knit as you suggest, i.e. the reason we are even having this debate. 

There is no scientific evidence for fetal personhood, only fetal life. Lots of things are living, but not every living thing has personhood. So, we will be running around in circles with you trying to tell me that a fetus has a soul and me saying prove it. Also, you are assuming that I think "my" subjective view of fetal personhood SHOULD be law. I never said it SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be law.
 
The LAW is what it is. The MORALITY of the "masses" is what it is. My MORALITY is what it is. 
And no matter how much you quote me out of context, twist my words around, or suggest underlying meanings in my arguments that aren't there you will not change the fact that "I" am not the cause of abortion, twisting my arguments does not negate the flaws in yours, morality is now and always will be relative. 

In Islam it is moral for women to be subservient to me. Catholicism does not believe in the use of condoms or elective sterilization procedures, in Asia abortions are forced, in parts of>lace w:st="on">Russialace> women were subjected to mandatory monthly pregnancy tests performed by the government. It would appear that universally we cannot agree on the morality of abortion, or on how it should be legislated.  

reply from: shiprah

Yes, well that argument would be valid if EVERYONE in america felt that abortion was wrong. But this currently is not the case. Obviosuly! Or why are we even talking about the "MULTITUDE" of abortions taking place everyday. Either everyone agrees with you and abortins is RARE or NOT everyone agrees with you and abortions are taking place at an alarming rate. Which is it?
Everyone doesn't agree with me that rape is wrong or there wouldn't be rapists.

reply from: shiprah

The fact that from one body (my size or zygote) can come a second soul is the same whether or not it spontaneously occurs. A baby twinning is just breaking off a piece of itself to form another -- asexual reproduction -- same as any other cloning. To read more about it, see this article by embryologist Dr. Dianne Irving http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_05trauma.html
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/dnirving_--_human_beginning.htm#Myth

reply from: chopperpilot

There are NO morals based on "facts". "Facts" have no value system within them, you must assign values yourself. What you have said in essence is that you have no morals at all.

Morals aren't based on "facts"....
Hmmm
maybe this is true for you, but this certainly is NOT the case for me.

Most people will pick a MORAL side of an argument like say abortion, and then LOOK for facts to JUSTIFY their opinion. I on the other hand come across or am presented with a MORAL argument and after reviewing the FACTS decide if I should have a MORAL opinion about something, hence JUSTIFYING my opinion to myself. If I can’t JUSTIFY something to myself with “facts” then I do not form an opinion on it.

reply from: chopperpilot

Yes, well that argument would be valid if EVERYONE in america felt that abortion was wrong. But this currently is not the case. Obviosuly! Or why are we even talking about the "MULTITUDE" of abortions taking place everyday. Either everyone agrees with you and abortins is RARE or NOT everyone agrees with you and abortions are taking place at an alarming rate. Which is it? Everyone doesn't agree with me that rape is wrong or there wouldn't be rapists.

Ok, this is an example of how you like to try to twist the "facts" to suit your needs.

-Currently about 95% of the population agrees with you that rape is wrong (including the government) and MOST of the countries around the world. So laws against rape can be justified as representing the morality of society or the social norm.

On the other hand:
- Currently about 48% "pro choice" and 45% "pro life" leaving the other 7% "undecided"
http://www.ppslr.org/Media/Articles/03July_02.htm

Statistics for Europe and Canada are even more in favor of the "pro choice" view point on abortion.
Hardly a moral consensus of the "masses"
Hence trying to legislate laws absent "facts" claiming that the majority is in support of a "pro life" argument would not make any moral or legal sense. Obviosly the MAJORITY of the population does not agree with you. Seems to me that America is split damn near down the middle.

reply from: chopperpilot

The fact that from one body (my size or zygote) can come a second soul is the same whether or not it spontaneously occurs. A baby twinning is just breaking off a piece of itself to form another -- asexual reproduction -- same as any other cloning. To read more about it, see this article by embryologist Dr. Dianne Irving http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_05trauma.html http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/dnirving_--_human_beginning.htm#Myth

Don't need to I've studied it plenty myself. Emotional arguments about the personhood doesn't change the fact that "individual human life" has not yet been formed. This is scientific FACT it has nothing to do with the personhood of the fetus.  

However, you can consult the following link
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/intro5.html

When does individual human life begin?

The metabolic view. There is no point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.

The genetic view. A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.

The embryological view. In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as a "pre-embryonic". This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning after pills", and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks).

The neurological view. Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions).

The ecological/technological view. This view sees the human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 wks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted).

The immunological view. This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.

The integrated physiological view. This sees human life as beginning when it has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.

reply from: Tobino

And how is the fetus going to obtain legal personhood?

reply from: chopperpilot

And how is the fetus going to obtain legal personhood?

Do you want the obvoius answer?
It will obtain legal personhood when the legal minds and the experts involved get together and reach a consensus, then the Supreme court will review the "facts" on both sides of the debate and decided for themselves when at what stages a fetus should be given LEGAL personhood, and what if any rights will result from that. Nobody can say for SURE what they'll do.

It isn't my FAULT that a fetus doesn't have legal personhood.

reply from: chopperpilot

Killing a human being is not "relative", either the victim is dead or not. And if the victim is innocent, then an innocent human being has been killed. Clouding this discussion up with all sorts of irrelevant circumstances does not change the facts of abortion: It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And if that fact doesn't bother you, then I understand your support of abortion.

When did I say I supported abortion? I don't have an opinion either way.

reply from: chopperpilot

Let's see, killing would be an action that results in the death of a living creature. Are we on the same page there, or do we need a two-page discussion on that? And personhood has zip, nada, nothing to do with it. Call it a hippopotamus if you like, but if it's alive before the procedure begins, and dead afterwards, then the procedure has KILLED IT!

Unfortunately just being alive is not a prerequisite for legal rights and protection. 
Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. And, given the nature of human behavior I seriously doubt we will ever learn to respect every life "equally". We've had the death penalty since the dawn of our existence. 

The fetal "right to life" is being determined by the women having the abortions. If we legally overturn Roe. V. Wade, or establish full LEGAL personhood for the fetus there is still no guarantee that the 48% representing the "pro choice" side of the debate won’t just run off to>Canada or lace w:st="on">Europelace> for their abortions.  
  
Humans kill other humans. They give and take personhood as they see fit. This is not a concept that "I" made up. Ask the family members of the Iraqi "collateral damage" or the family members of our own soldiers who've lost their lives. Ask the docs who perform executions. The problem is when a society can make "exceptions" for killing in some circumstances, people get less and less surprised when yet another "exception" is made. 

Maybe society will continue to shift towards the "pro life" side of the debate, maybe it wont. Either way at the rate the shift is going it will take years before the "pro choice" percentage gets down to a manageable number and vise versa. This is the reality of this morally and emotionally charged debate.  
 

reply from: Tobino

And how is the fetus going to obtain legal personhood?

Do you want the obvoius answer?

It will obtain legal personhood when the legal minds and the experts involved get together and reach a consensus, then the Supreme court will review the "facts" on both sides of the debate and decided for themselves when at what stages a fetus should be given LEGAL personhood, and what if any rights will result from that. Nobody can say for SURE what they'll do.

It isn't my FAULT that a fetus doesn't have legal personhood.

Never said it was your fault. What will cause the legal minds and the experts bother to reach a consensus, or even consider doing so?

reply from: Tobino

I think it will snowball myself. Like the fall/break up of the USSR and the tear down of the Berlin Wall.... it was a slow build up and fight to change hearts, minds and governments, but things were moving fast near the end. One of the reasons I respectfully disagree with your statement is the fact that people who are pro-life/anti abortion have more children and raise them to believe life/personhood begins at conception and they in turn have more children, and the people who are prochoice/proabortion have fewer or no children and tend to raise them to believe that life begins at birth and the value of adult lives/lifestyle are of more value than children and so they in turn have few or no children. So by attrition rates alone eventually the antiaborts will outnumber the proaborts. I have no facts to back up my theory though, so take that as pure opinion. Shoot, who knows, if we become a Mulsim run country the whole abortion question will be moot because they abhor abortion from what I hear.

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

I don't think basing morals on facts is stupid at all. Its intelligent, and it all derives from understanding, just because there may be something we can't prove, does't mean it isn't true. I'm a strong believer in absolute morality.

reply from: chopperpilot

Yes, but it doesn't mean that it IS true either.

reply from: chopperpilot

And how is the fetus going to obtain legal personhood? Do you want the obvoius answer? It will obtain legal personhood when the legal minds and the experts involved get together and reach a consensus, then the Supreme court will review the "facts" on both sides of the debate and decided for themselves when at what stages a fetus should be given LEGAL personhood, and what if any rights will result from that. Nobody can say for SURE what they'll do. It isn't my FAULT that a fetus doesn't have legal personhood. Never said it was your fault. What will cause the legal minds and the experts bother to reach a consensus, or even consider doing so?

reply from: chopperpilot

And how is the fetus going to obtain legal personhood? Do you want the obvoius answer? It will obtain legal personhood when the legal minds and the experts involved get together and reach a consensus, then the Supreme court will review the "facts" on both sides of the debate and decided for themselves when at what stages a fetus should be given LEGAL personhood, and what if any rights will result from that. Nobody can say for SURE what they'll do. It isn't my FAULT that a fetus doesn't have legal personhood. Never said it was your fault. What will cause the legal minds and the experts bother to reach a consensus, or even consider doing so?

That's a question people have been trying to answer since 1973.
At least in lace u2:st="on">ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">Americalace>lace>.

Many research scientist reject the facts of the pro life argument & most people in the pro life argument reject the morals of the scientist for abortion rights so that they may contiunue stem cell research.

Some countries like lace u2:st="on">lace w:st="on">Irelandlace>lace> have outlawed abortion all together. Other countries like Great Brittan, France, and lace u2:st="on">lace w:st="on">Canadalace>lace> have decided that abortion is and should remain legal. Many of these countries are also in full support of stem cell research, and are pioneering the field of human cloning. As a result it is highly doubtful that abortion will ever be outlawed in "these" countries as their citizens begin to reap the medical and scientific benefits of both stem cell research and human cloning.

On the other hand the question is will American citizens be interested in say cures for diseases like AIDS, cancer, diabetes, MS, the list goes on if they came from stem cell research. Currently the question isn't if these other countries are going to be able to use these technologies to cure diseases and prolong natural human life the question is when. I just don't think the abortion issue will ever be completely resolved as some nations outlaw it and other nations continue to make scientific and medical advancements because of it. Will the American government outlaw in lace w:st="on">Americalace> the use of cures or medical advancements obtained through the stem cell research of other countries? If we outlaw abortion we'd have to prevent American citizens from benefiting from stem cell research or we would all be hypocrites. But, try telling that to mother whose child is dying from a disease that is completely curable somewhere else.

It's just a hard topic to mull over socially, legally, and morally.

reply from: yoda

Your words say it. Whenever you demean and dismiss unborn humans, you support abortion.

reply from: yoda

Why do you always change the subject? The subject was "WHAT IS KILLING?"..... do we now agree on that subject?

And this morally justifies abortion how.............?????

That's not the point. The point here is to discuss how it can be morally acceptable to the individuals posting on this forum to intentionally kill and innocent human being. Would you care to add to that discussion?

reply from: chopperpilot

Your words say it. Whenever you demean and dismiss unborn humans, you support abortion.

 
So, let me get this straight if someone doesn't agree with your "FACTS" then they are for abortion..
I dismiss your facts. I don't have an opinion about abortion one way or the other.
If you are not commited to asserting sound "facts" in support of your argument then you are for abortion, because laws based on questionable facts in this country are eventually overturned. i.e. laws against blacks, the man act, sodomy laws.
For the most part the last 2 could be argued on their morality, but:

alas morality is relative
not everyone agreed
the laws began to affect others that didn't other wise care inadvertently

and then voila. They're overturned.

If you don't think the morality in the abortion argume is relative you are lying to yourself.
If you feel that the Majority of this country or even the WORLD agrees with you about the moral "wrongness" of abortion you are lying to yourself.
and
If you think when trying to pass law you can subjectively view the facts and twist them to suit your subjective morality of the issue you are again lying to yourself, and history has proven this to us time and time again.

I'm neither pro life or pro choice. I'm pro facts.

reply from: yoda

When you go beyond "facts", as you have done, and construct elaborate fictious scenarios to justify the dehumanization of unborn humans, then you are supporting abortion.

So what? All I'm asking for is YOUR MORAL POSITION..... never mind anyone else's! Forget about what is legal and what isn't...... summon up enough courage to tell us why abortion is either RIGHT or WRONG. Can you do that?

reply from: chopperpilot

Why do you always change the subject? The subject was "WHAT IS KILLING?"..... do we now agree on that subject? And this morally justifies abortion how.............????? That's not the point. The point here is to discuss how it can be morally acceptable to the individuals posting on this forum to intentionally kill and innocent human being. Would you care to add to that discussion?

I don't think you understand that we kill life all of the time. Whenever you scratch your arm you are KILLING something.
So, since the above is true the only way we can approach this question is what is moral killing, and that answer will vary depending on the person you ask.

You want to ask me a question about killing while leaving out any mention of personhood.
Well, in that case the morality of abortion is irrelevant.
In the reduced sense of the word killing the following would all be true:
 
-Abortion is killing and so is a woman's period every month.
-Using a spermicidal agent during sex is killing.
-Scratching your arm is killing.
-Just by walking moving and breathing you are "killing" something that is alive.
 
Unless we are going to discuss the "personhood" of whatever we are "killing" the fact that a fetus has been killed is no more or less important than the fact that a sperm cell somewhere was killed, or the fact that a skin cell scratched off some guys arm somewhere was "killed"

reply from: whosays

ChopperPilot you say you are pro-"facts"? And then you say "alas morality is relative"? That's a rediculous statement because of course that would mean, for example, that SLAVERY was moral when the Supreme Court and 'society' accepted it, but now it's immoral.

Fool, morality is not determined by the popularity of an idea or by majority vote. If a country was to elect Nazi's to power by a majority vote and their courts determined that it's legal to persecute Jews, that persecution doesn't magically become MORAL. It is, was and always will be immoral.

The legalized enslaving of blacks ALWAYS was immoral, as was the legalized persecution of the Jews, the legalized genocide of the Kurds and the legalized killing of babies.

reply from: yoda

We're NOT discussing the killing of skin cells here, we're talking about the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Can we stay on THAT SUBJECT?

So you believe you can justify abortion by claiming that what is killed doesn't have "personhood"? And WHY does it not have it? Because YOU choose not to give it personhood! How convenient is that? You want to justify killing an unborn baby, so you say "OH, I DON'T AWARD YOU PERSONHOOD".... so that makes it moral? My, what a convenient way to justify KILLING!

Hey, call them "possums". IS IT MORAL TO DELIBERATELY KILL AN INNOCENT UNBORN POSSUM????

Your comparison of unborn humans to skin cells speaks volumes about your value system.

reply from: chopperpilot

That's not the point. The point here is to discuss how it can be morally acceptable to the individuals posting on this forum to intentionally kill and innocent human being. Would you care to add to that discussion?

Ok, answering this is simple. For starters SOMEONE who morally justifys abortion to themseles is NOT interested in the POTENTIAL "personhood" of the fetus.
Abortion is morally justifiable to THESE people because to them there is NO fetal personhood, the fetus does not have a soul. It is just a mass of biochemical reactions, human genetic material, developing biological systems. It CAN be proven that the fetus has NO sentience (i.e. conciousness) because we all know unless we are subscribing to the argument of the soul the brain is the only other explanation for self awareness and higher thought.
So, then these people consult the neurological definition of "fetal personhood" which states that brain activity cannot be seen until well after the 1st trimester. So, after mulling this over in their heads SOME pro choice people decided that since abortion is currently only legal in the 1st trimester morally there is nothing wrong with it. 

Someone who is jewish will say to you that God implants the "soul" into the baby upon birth and that before that it is not spiritually human (not scientifically) because it has no soul. So to them abortion at any stage is morally justifiable. 

The list could go on the point is people can morally justify abortion because SOME people do not feel that a fetus is a PERSON in THEIR DEFINITION of the word.  And those OTHER people currnetly make up 48% of the united states, and a very signifigant portion of the rest of the world.

reply from: chopperpilot

When you go beyond "facts", as you have done, and construct elaborate fictious scenarios to justify the dehumanization of unborn humans, then you are supporting abortion. So what? All I'm asking for is YOUR MORAL POSITION..... never mind anyone else's! Forget about what is legal and what isn't...... summon up enough courage to tell us why abortion is either RIGHT or WRONG. Can you do that?

Courage? How about facts?
You are asking me to adopt an opinion on something that cannot be proven either way. That's like asking me to tell you if believing in God is right or wrong. That depends on rather or not God exists.
-So if you tell me I'm wrong because I don't believe in god logically I would ask you prove to me that god DOES exists.
 On the other hand..
-If you tell me that I am wrong because I do believe in God I'd have to ask you to prove to me that god DOESN'T exist.

When you ask me SUBJECTIVELY if abortion is right or wrong my answer to that is the same as it is to the question of the existence of God.

I DON'T KNOW, that depends on rather or not the fetus has a soul. No one has shown me any factually sound proof that a fetus has a soul, yet no one has shown me any definite proof that a fetus does not.  

Do you have proof that a fetus is capable of thinking and feeling, or that it has a soul? I don't so I'm not going to form an opinion about it either way. It's not logical to make uninformed decisions. That may be the way that you function, but that is not the way that I do. I am sorry that you do not agree with MY methods of governing MY morality but that is not for YOU to decide.

reply from: yoda

Actually I was hoping for a discussion of why YOU think it is moral. The "SOMEONE" you mention is not here to defend their views, are they? Or are these YOUR justifications?????

Ah, the old self-serving declarations again. Sure, it's easy to justify the killing of innocents if you base your reasoning on how YOU define your victims. The Nazis defined the Jews as "non-humans" before they killed them, and the slave owners defined their slaves as "non-persons".

Until someone can offer me PROOF of the timing of ensoulment, that arguement is nothing more than trash.

And you still cannot see the HYPOCRISY of that? YOU control YOUR definitions, and YOU formulate them to serve YOUR purpose......... and you don't see the hypocrisy of that?

reply from: chopperpilot

 >

Look up the definition of morality and post that again.

mo·ral·i·ty   
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties >>

The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. >>

A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. >>

Virtuous conduct. >>

A rule or lesson in moral conduct.>>

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality>>



stan·dard >>

n. >>

An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion. >>

An object that under specified conditions defines, represents, or records the magnitude of a unit.>>

adj. >>

Serving as or conforming to a standard of measurement or value. >>

Widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence.>>

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=standardhttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=standard





Yes, you are correct slavery “WAS” moral at the time when it was in place because the RELATIVE morality (their standards) of people at that time supported racist views. Currently slavery “IS” not moral because our RELATIVE morality (our standards) at this time do not support racist views.



Morality is always SUBJECTIVE and RELATIVE.

FACTS on the other hand ARE not.

Either something “IS” true and it’s a FACT or it’s false and it is not.



The only reason YOU think YOUR morality is NOT SUBJECTIVE & RELATIVE is because YOU have the “my way is the right way” mentality that can also be blamed for things like slavery, Nazi Germany, the crusades.

 

reply from: chopperpilot

Actually I was hoping for a discussion of why YOU think it is moral. The "SOMEONE" you mention is not here to defend their views, are they? Or are these YOUR justifications????? Ah, the old self-serving declarations again. Sure, it's easy to justify the killing of innocents if you base your reasoning on how YOU define your victims. The Nazis defined the Jews as "non-humans" before they killed them, and the slave owners defined their slaves as "non-persons". Until someone can offer me PROOF of the timing of ensoulment, that arguement is nothing more than trash. And you still cannot see the HYPOCRISY of that? YOU control YOUR definitions, and YOU formulate them to serve YOUR purpose......... and you don't see the hypocrisy of that?

Those aren't "my" definitions. The laws has not defined the fetus as a person. 

A fetus is a person i.e. it is a member of the human race. 
So what. 
A fetus does not have personhood. Not under the law, and not in the eyes of many Americans. This is why the issue is even up for debtate. 

I don't have to justify why the fetus is both a person and denied personhood. It's not my concept. This is how the law views it. This is how 48 % of Amerincas view it. This is how a good majority of the rest of the world views it.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge that fact that simply being a person does not give someone the right to life in this country. This is why we justify going to war, and this is why we justify the death penalty. 

As far as my view goes, I've told you more times than I can count now, I have no opinion on fetal personhood one way or the other because it cannot be proven. (that is a fact) 
If it cannot be proven to me then I do not accept it as fact. That is illogical.

reply from: chopperpilot

We're NOT discussing the killing of skin cells here, we're talking about the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Can we stay on THAT SUBJECT? So you believe you can justify abortion by claiming that what is killed doesn't have "personhood"? And WHY does it not have it? Because YOU choose not to give it personhood! How convenient is that? You want to justify killing an unborn baby, so you say "OH, I DON'T AWARD YOU PERSONHOOD".... so that makes it moral? My, what a convenient way to justify KILLING! Hey, call them "possums". IS IT MORAL TO DELIBERATELY KILL AN INNOCENT UNBORN POSSUM???? Your comparison of unborn humans to skin cells speaks volumes about your value system.

No, you asked me what is killing, you didn't ask me what constitutes killing a human being with "personhood", as could be seen had you quoted me objectively.
Twisting the facts does not negate them.

reply from: chopperpilot

We're NOT discussing the killing of skin cells here, we're talking about the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Can we stay on THAT SUBJECT? So you believe you can justify abortion by claiming that what is killed doesn't have "personhood"? And WHY does it not have it? Because YOU choose not to give it personhood! How convenient is that? You want to justify killing an unborn baby, so you say "OH, I DON'T AWARD YOU PERSONHOOD".... so that makes it moral? My, what a convenient way to justify KILLING! Hey, call them "possums". IS IT MORAL TO DELIBERATELY KILL AN INNOCENT UNBORN POSSUM???? Your comparison of unborn humans to skin cells speaks volumes about your value system.
No, you asked me what is killing, you didn't ask me what constitutes killing a human being with "personhood", as could be seen had you quoted me objectively. Twisting the facts does not negate them.

"Your comparison of unborn humans to skin cells speaks volumes about your value system."

- sure does when taken out of context. You asked me what is killing and I simply explained to you that defining killing without defining the "personhood" of what is being killed makes a fetus no more important than a random skin cell and this is true. (you don't have to like it for that to be the case.)

In order for one thing to have value over something else you have to discuss why that thing should have said value. And, in the case of the fetus everyone is currently debating the issue of "personhood". If you fell they are not them I presume you are going to try to explain to me why it is the pro life argument is trying so hard to get "fetal personhood" amended into the constitution.  

reply from: yoda

KILLING means to TAKE AWAY LIFE! What you call the victim of the killing is IRRELEVANT, because the victim is STILL DEAD!

Do you deny that killing takes away life?

reply from: yoda

NO, you DON'T. You can place relative value on ANYTHING wihout ANY REASON! Value is totally subjective, it is NOTHING BUT OPINION. If you don't value innocent human life, that's just YOUR OPINION.

Not really. In this discussion only you are insisting on the importance of that concept. It means nothing at all to me, because "A ROSE IS A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME", and an innocent human being is STILL an innocent human being by any other name.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no "pro life argument", there are simply individual ProLifers out there, doing their own thing. And I'm not aware of any proposal to ammend the constitution that is before the congress.

The idea that any single word like "person" has any bearing on the morality of the intentional killing of innocent human beings is ludicrous. There are only TWO KINDS of human beings, LIVE ONES and DEAD ONES. You cannot further divide humanity into groups unless you wish to join the ranks of those racists who tried to create "sub-human" categories in order to justify their killing. Humanity is a SINGLE species, a SINGLE RACE.

reply from: chopperpilot

KILLING means to TAKE AWAY LIFE! What you call the victim of the killing is IRRELEVANT, because the victim is STILL DEAD! Do you deny that killing takes away life?

Obviously I never said that. Killing is taking away life. So, logically scratching your arm is killing. So is having a period, materbation, and any other action the results in the "ending of life".

reply from: whosays

Is that a fact?

May I quote from your definition of moral:

Thus your statement would mean that the enslavement of the black race was good or virtuous.

And your foolishenss is revealed again, when you then proceed to contradict yourself - as you then proceed to "blame" the "my way is the right way mentality... for things like slavery" which you just said WAS MORAL.

(Hint for fools: no one is ever "blamed" for good or virtious conduct. Blame ONLY attaches to wrong or IMMORAL conduct. And that IS a fact.)

reply from: jcgspam

Your period is not killing an innocent human being, neither is masturbation. Sperm and egg are incapable or life without each other. Period.

reply from: chopperpilot

NO, you DON'T. You can place relative value on ANYTHING wihout ANY REASON! Value is totally subjective, it is NOTHING BUT OPINION. If you don't value innocent human life, that's just YOUR OPINION. Not really. In this discussion only you are insisting on the importance of that concept. It means nothing at all to me, because "A ROSE IS A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME", and an innocent human being is STILL an innocent human being by any other name. I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no "pro life argument", there are simply individual ProLifers out there, doing their own thing. And I'm not aware of any proposal to ammend the constitution that is before the congress. The idea that any single word like "person" has any bearing on the morality of the intentional killing of innocent human beings is ludicrous. .

"I have no idea what you're talking about. 
I know you have no idea what I'm talking about. That has been obvious from the beginning.

"There is no "pro life argument", there are simply individual ProLifers out there, doing their own thing."

Really?
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/LegUpdates/challenges2005.html
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/tgr/02/6/gr020603.html
http://www.violence.de/prescott/letters/Fetal_Personhood.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/courses/knowbody/f04/web3/jpayson.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n5_v47/ai_16764450/pg_2

"A ROSE IS A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME"
Yet a bud is not a rose, an acorn is not a tree.

"And I'm not aware of any proposal to ammend the constitution that is before the congress"

Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the CORE issue of what is KEEPING abortions LEGAL in this country. Fortunately for the rest of the pro life movement (they do not all think the way that you do.) This is why they are currently trying to pass laws that will give them the framework to request that the "congress" as you put it make an amendment to the constitution for "fetal personhood".

Let me point out to you that LEGALLY the ONLY reason abortion is legal is the fact that the fetus DOES NOT have LEGAL PERSONHOOD in the CONSTITUTION. Without going into a discussion about the legal break down of personhood and why something can SOMETIMES have legl personhood in some situations but not others, I will say that without LEGAL PERSONHOOD in the CONSTITUTION which the fetus currently does not have there is no guranteed access to the "basic rights" extended to all LEGAL PERSON'S (as described by the constitution)

http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/lettertocongress.htm

"There are only TWO KINDS of human beings, LIVE ONES and DEAD ONES. You cannot further divide humanity into groups unless you wish to join the ranks of those racists who tried to create "sub-human" categories in order to justify their killing. Humanity is a SINGLE species, a SINGLE RACE"

You assume that I am trying to. I am simply pointing out that we humans KILL other humans i.e. members of "humanity a SINGLE species, a SINGLE race."
Since we all KNOW this is true and in CANNOT be disputed there has to be some more criteria when defending why a fetus should not be killed.

For example we are having a debate based on the fact that HUMAN life should be PROTECTED at ALL COSTS based SOLELY on the FACT that said life is HUMAN.
Just a fact for you to consider 108 million people died as a result of WAR in the 20TH century. 90% of that number were considered "collateral damage" (i.e. INNOCENT people) a good majoirty of them "infants" & "children" -

Those 108 million people that have died meet your criteria for protection. They are HUMAN & the are INNOCENT. Yet, we still go to war.

People kill people. This is a fact.
People kill people because they dehumanize them in their minds. If you've ever been to war you understand this. It's undesireable no question, yet we continue to do it anyway. 

You say the personhood of the fetus does not matter to you. But, this is not true. You just give human life "personhood" at conception. If personhood didn't matter to you then you would be against killing ANYTHING that was living EVER.  

reply from: chopperpilot

In order for one thing to have value over something else you have to discuss why that thing should have said value. >>

NO, you DON'T. You can place relative value on ANYTHING wihout ANY REASON! Value is totally subjective, it is NOTHING BUT OPINION. If you don't value innocent human life, that's just YOUR OPINION.>>







Nope that’s not OPINION, that’s a fact.>>



Notice I didn’t say MY value I said “value” in general. Now you are started to prove my points for me. >>

This is why the MORALITY of KILLING is SUBJECTIVE. As I have said before. >>



If you didn’t place value on the life of whatever it is you were killing you would be AGAINST killing ANYTHING that is alive. That includes germs, insects, animals, people. >>



All of those things are LIVING and if you do not give more value to one than you give to another then you CANNOT MORALLY JUSTIFY KILLING ANYTHING EVER!>>



THAT IS NOT AN OPINION THAT IS A FACT. Had I said this is the value [insert value here] that you MUST place on one thing over another thing you are killing that would be an OPINION. But, All I said was that if you are going to talk about rather kill IS or IS NOT WRONG you MUST place VALUE (any value) on ONE thing over ANOTHER. OTHERWISE you CANNOT KILL ANYTHING EVER!>>



I cannot simplify this concept any further for you. >>

Perhaps you should consider the following if you still need clarification:  NOTE HOW A FETUS ISN’T MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE QUESTIONS BELOW. >>



Yet, the concept remains the same: You must place value on something (whatever that value is) before you can say KILLING it is right or wrong. If you do NOT, then KILLING is NEVER right. >>



Why is it acceptable to kill a cow for food but not a dog?>>



Why is it acceptable to “bomb”, “trap”, “fume” your home or apartment to protect it from insects, rats, etc, but not ok to set booby traps for STRAY dogs or cats coming into your law?>>



Why don’t we have an animal control or a human society for rats, snakes, lizards, etc.?>>



Why do we prosecute people for torturing their dog or cat, why don’t we prosecute people for torturing their rats or their snakes?>>

reply from: chopperpilot

Is that a fact? May I quote from your definition of moral: Thus your statement would mean that the enslavement of the black race was good or virtuous. And your foolishenss is revealed again, when you then proceed to contradict yourself - as you then proceed to "blame" the "my way is the right way mentality... for things like slavery" which you just said WAS MORAL. (Hint for fools: no one is ever "blamed" for good or virtious conduct. Blame ONLY attaches to wrong or IMMORAL conduct. And that IS a fact.)

No, you can quote from THE DICTIONARY's definition of morality.

Slavery "WAS" moral at the time, yet "IS NOT" moral now because morality has changed.
the question of rather or not slavery is MORAL depends on the MORALS of the "TIME & SOCIETY" you are asking.

You seem to be confusing the definition between what is "MORAL" and what is "JUSTIFIED"
I never said that SLAVERY was "JUST" I said it was "MORAL, as MORALITY related to the STANDARDS, of the TIME"

MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE & RELATIVE! This is a FACT!
So, if we look at the definitions of morality and standad below we can see that MORALITY is ALWAYS RELATIVE

but,

MORALITY is NOT ALWAYS "JUSTIFIED" i.e. MORALS are not ALWAYS virtuouse, factually sound, justified, RIGHT.

mo·ral·i·ty   
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties>>>

The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. >>

A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. >>

Virtuous conduct. >>

A rule or lesson in moral conduct.>>

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality>>



stan·dard >>

n. >>

An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion. >>

An object that under specified conditions defines, represents, or records the magnitude of a unit.>>

adj. >>

Serving as or conforming to a standard of measurement or value. >>

Widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence.>>

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=standardhttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=standard


reply from: chopperpilot

Yes, but the criteria "HUMAN BEING" wasn't stated only the criteria "LIVING"

If you ask the question is killing something that is LIVING wrong. I have to ask you to elaborate because sperm cells, egg cells, germs etc are ALL LIVING!

Now,

If you ask is killing a "human being" wrong, I have to say that depends. Doesn't it? We do after all have the death penalty.

Now,

If you ask is killing an INNOCENT "human being" wrong, I have to say to me personally or to society?

because society currently allows the killing of INNOCENTs i.e. "collateral damage" during war. 108 million INNOCENT human beings to be more accurate.
 
So, obviosuly the morality of killing is not a black or white question.

reply from: shiprah

You know very well that people don't go to war for the express purpose of killing innocent people, as is done in abortion.

reply from: Tobino

chopper, you seem like a person who could be precise in your answers and keep to the point. Care to give a try at providing answers to this?:

In pure logic, here are four possibilities:

a.) The human fetus is a person at conception, and humans know that it is;

b.) The human fetus is a person at conception, but humans don't know that it is;

c.) The human fetus isn't a person at conception, but humans don't know that it isn't;

d.) The human fetus isn't a person at conception, and humans know that it isn't.

given: one abortion per case/possibility.

What is the abortion in each of these four cases?

reply from: whosays

Tobino, Quick point of correction. Your selections B & C are NOT logical answers. 

Since each of these selections postulates an answer that a human cannot know, then obvoiusly no human would be able to choose one of these selections - since they are human and, thus by your own words, they couldn't know B or C.

reply from: yoda

And you consider those actions to be on the same moral level as killing a human being?

reply from: yoda

Really! What are those links supposed to prove? That there are individuals and organization out there working to end abortion according to their ideas of how best to do it? And that proves....?????

Say what? A rosebud is "not a rose"? And an acorn is not of the oak family? What kind of perverted logic is that?

Obviously you don't understand how debate works. I don't respond to criticisms of any actions I'm not a party to, and I don't expect you to. Is that too complicated for you?

And your point would be?????? That murder is OKAY because it happens all the time??????

And your point would be.......?????? Have I endorsed the killing of 108 million innocent people? Do 108 million WRONGS make a RIGHT?????

If all innocent humans are morally equal, then why do you QUIBBLE about labels????

reply from: jcgspam

You assume that I do not agree that "collateral damage" or the death penalty are wrong? This is a forum about abortion, therefore we all try to stay on topic. I personally feel those are wrong as well (see, that's why I am pro-LIFE). So how does the fact that these are permitted make it acceptable to kill an unborn human life? You are running circles around the point. Something being done extensively does not make it moral.

reply from: Tam

chopper, you are bringing up some very good points about war and capital punishment. those are no more just than abortion.

what is the difference between what is moral and what is just? you are saying morality depends upon one's society? well, one definition of morality, anyway, is that something MORAL is something "sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment." now, what is a conscience? webster says "the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good." what is "just"? well, it means either conforming to FACT or REASON, or it can also mean conforming with what is MORALLY UPRIGHT or GOOD. i think we are using "moral" and "just" to mean "conforming to what is sanctioned by one's conscience" and conscience as basically the feeling of obligation to DO THE RIGHT THING. Now, what is "right" may be subjective. But I am curious. You say you are all about facts and incapable of ... well, I forget what you think yourself incapable of. But when you look within yourself, into your consciousness, and when that consciousness encounters the idea of abortion, when you are conscious of the idea of abortion, and presuming that you have somewhere within you a conscience, that is a feeling of obligation to do the right thing, how does your consciousness/conscience react to the idea of abortion? does it seem to you to be a right thing or not? not thinking about all the other external factors that surround it. not thinking about all the legal personhood of the fetus stuff. just looking inside yourself, because that's what's the important reference point, what is it that you think of this thing called abortion? when you look at what is going on in an abortion: the deliberate taking of a human life, by what is often a fairly brutal procedure considering the new scientific evidence of fetal pain awareness--what is it that you think of this act? because, you see, i think what yoda is trying to say is that for him, and i agree with him on this, it doesn't make a whit of difference what some dictionary or law or politician or judge says about any of it, because when we look inside, when we take a good, hard look at what abortion really is and then look inside ourselves to see whether this is something that is ever, ever OK to do, we come up with the answer NO, this is NOT something that is OK. when we look to our consciences, that internal measure of whether something is the right thing or the wrong thing--subjective and individual to each of us--we both come up with the same response to abortion, that response being not even so mild as, "This is wrong," but more like, "This is very, very wrong." Wrong on a level that turns the stomach of many, many people. And I think even pro-choicers feel this when they look at pictures of abortion. Their consciences tell them that it's really sick and wrong. But they feel that this thing is justified in order to prevent worse wrongs. Ok, forgetting about that for one moment, because we can talk about the other evils of the world and whether abortion is necessary to prevent or ameliorate them after, but forgetting about all of that and just looking at abortion for what it is, what does whatever is inside you tell you about it? Right? or Wrong? Not analzying it, for a change, not trying to think so hard about the courts and the laws and the definitions and the pro-life "argument" but just thinking about the actual procedure.

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

Tobino, do you read Peter Kreeft?

reply from: Tobino

Thanks for the correction, but I think you're wrong - in your response and in correcting the validity of the premises my question. If you think about it, these are the actual possibilities that surround the abortion controversy. It doesn't matter whether humans can know in the way you mean to come up with an answer for each possibility. I'll explain further after chopper (or other prochoicers or sitting on the fencers) has had a chance to decide whether or not to tackle an answer.

reply from: Tobino

I didn't think I did, but I just looked at something and realized I have. I've sent you a private message (well, at least I think I did. I can't see how to access/retrieve one, nor how we are even notified that we've received one).

reply from: yoda

NO, I DIDN'T ASK YOU ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

Putting words in my mouth does not change the fact that you are avoiding the issues!

HOW can you justify the intentional killing of innocent human beings by voluntarily choosing which label to apply to them???????

reply from: yoda

Ah, I see now! Because YOU say it, that makes it a FACT and not YOUR OPINION???? Well, thanks for clearing that up for me!

Yes, and your point is? Never mind defining morality, just give me YOUR personal moral opinion! Is that something you can discuss?

>>

You know what, I DON'T WANT YOU TO "SIMPLIFY IT" FOR ME, I want you to quit dodging, changing the subject, and philisophizing...... JUST TELL ME YOUR OPINION.... CAN YOU DO THAT??????

reply from: yoda

Is "Society" posting under your name? Is "society" making your statements?????

When will you quit dodging and answer directly FOR YOURSELF?????

Do you consider it moral for a healthy mother to intentionally kill her healthy fetus?

YES OR NO.......... PLEASE????????

reply from: Tam

Is "Society" posting under your name? Is "society" making your statements?????

When will you quit dodging and answer directly FOR YOURSELF?????

Do you consider it moral for a healthy mother to intentionally kill her healthy fetus?

YES OR NO.......... PLEASE????????

Yeah. What he said. I asked this in my last post, too.

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

Woohoo! Right on 'No Apologies' !!

Just thought i'd join you in replenishing  my inspiration as a woman by keeping myself up to date with the latest fad of escaping responsibility for a newly burst condom...now i understand that as women we must all bond together in a chorus of " it's my choice and i can kill if i want to"....ahhhhh...feels good to know that my opinion as a woman holds more merit than the one whose voice was stifled by the sharp metal needle penetrating his spine....hooray for liberation!!!!!!!!

Oh and as for suicide...I'm all for it!! If we support infanticide we can support anything. ROCK ON... \m/

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

Hmmmm sorry about that, ive posted in he completely wrong place. So if you read it and think 'ey?' its because its in the completely wrong place.

reply from: yoda

That's okay. We appreciate the sentiment anyway. :-)

reply from: anyboy

original post:
[Quote](Blacks are a lower race according to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, who openly states that she was once the speaker at a KKK meeting).[/Quote]

You are aware that Mrs.Sanger was born in 1879?
There were few, and I mean FEW, white people born at that time who did not believe blacks were "a lower race". It was pretty much taken for granted that they were.
Mrs.Sanger believed in eugenics; so did most if not all of her contemporaries.

reply from: chooselife

Anyboy - she was an equal opportunity hater.  Her quotes bash blacks, jews, catholics, people from large families, mentally disabled, low IQ, you name it.  And Planned Parenthood continues her tradition by setting up shop in predominately urban areas with high minority populations.  There are more black babies aborted every year than are born...and you guessed it! Planned Parenthood is the #1 abortion provider in America. 

reply from: shiprah

So what's your point?  It's okay that an institution based on the principle that eugenics is good and blacks are a lower race, supported by Klansmen and Nazis still exists today?

reply from: Navynate

Right on Choose,

I have two books about her, alot of books have been white washed about most of the terrible things she did. There are ways to find out the truth about her. So many women and men look at her as a hero. It's amazing to me how little they know about her and what kind of a lady she really was. She abandoned her 3 kids, one of them died when they were still a small child, and she also left her husband too, for several other men. She was a very sexually liberated women. She really was an equal opertunity hater though. She actually said that the best thing a large family could do to one of their members was to kill it. Sounds like the kind of lady I would want to hang out with alot. I'm being totally sarcastic, I would never want to spend much time with people like her. You can tell prochoicers about all the terrible things she did and they would still defend her as a hero for all women. Only people who refuse to believe how evil she really was are the ones who defend her. If I was a part of the group who had a group leader who agreed with the KKK about what they believed, and spoke to a group of them, then I would quit that group on the spot and never have anything to do with them again. She totally agreed with what they were trying to do. What the KKK wants to do, Planned Parenthood has done a better job of it then the KKK could ever dream of doing. You site hard statistics that 78% of PP are in minority neighborhoods and more black babies are aborted then are born and you will still have prochoicers denying that PP and Maggy Sanger were racist. You want to talk about a group in total denial and refusing to believe the plain truth, PP and prochoicers are it. They are in total denial and total disbelief of truth.  

reply from: shiprah

Exactly.  I've also heard it argued that placing abortion clinics in black neighborhoods isn't genocide because black women aren't forced to have abortions, however, it is genocide because the black babies have no choice about dying.  In fact, In 1972, twenty women, primarily poor, young, and Black, were bused from Chicago to Philadelphia to receive abortions in an outpatient clinic where a new experimental medical device, called the Super Coil, was being used to induce the abortion. A complication of using Super Coil was uncontrollable bleeding that would eventually lead to shock and would require a total abdominal hysterectomy.  For more information of black abortion eugenics that's not related to PP, see http://academic.udayton.edu/health/05bioethics/slavery02.htm#N_74_.  I'm pretty sure this is a prochoice website, with lots of leftist links, so I can't endorse the other articles, but this one is fairly researched and very informative. I think the abortion stuff begins at part C.

reply from: Navynate

Ship,

I was totally shocked when I read about the Negro Project,  then again I wasn't surprised by it since Sanger was so racist and evil. When you know the truth about her and then hear people defend her makes you amazed that anyone like that can have anyone defend them. Then again, someone somewhere probably still defends Hitler and all he did. Even the most evil people have supporters and defenders too. And the most wonderful people have those who hate them too. But to have people who know the truth and still refuse to believe it is amazing. Go to Bush V Choice sometime and see what I'm talking about. Some of the prochoicers on there are so young and don't have very many life experiences yet. To think back to when I graduated from HS to now, in alot of ways I'm a totally different person then I was then. 

But anyway, they still in spite of  having someone show them the truth still refuse to believe it and come back with some stuff that is totally off the mark as far as what's being talked about. Last night I thought that I had been kicked off that group. I thought that I couldn't get on the web site because of something that I had written. But I was wrong, I can get on and post stuff now.    

reply from: jcgspam

That website is too much for me sometimes. The part where they said that didn't care if it was a baby or not made me want to cry. Have we really become that deadened?

reply from: Navynate

Jcgspam,

I think that you answered your own question. I think that the answer to that question is, Yes, they have. How can anyone have the attitude that they have toward abortion and not have turned off alot of your emotions when it comes to feeling empathy and other emotions that are required when you have to have feelings toward others. If you ever read about people who worked in concentration camps, then you will learn that they turned off their feelings to be able to survive and to have seen all the stuff that they saw every single day. I really believe that some prochoice people have turned off their feelings in certain areas of their life. I also think that we all do it from time to time and in certain areas too. It differs from person to person.
 
I'm amazed that they feel or don't feel very much the way they should. I get angry sometimes with what I read sometimes. How can people actually be like that and feel that way?    

reply from: shiprah

That sight gives me the willies.  They're mad because a govenor made a “law that imposed a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before a woman can obtain an abortion, required women to seek counseling before obtaining an abortion that included biased materials, and included ‘unborn child[ren]’ as included under the state’s homicide statute."  What is so horrible about making a woman rethink abortion?  How is referring to a baby as an unborn child biased?  These people are out of their minds.  They're so concerned with being able to massacre their kids they can't even see how slanted they are.  It's like fighting for this horrific thing has completely corrupted them.  Their callous language and vicious energy literally makes me sick if I'm exposed to it for too long.

reply from: mojorisin

is it any wonder why god no longer blesses america?

reply from: Mankato

can you give more details about the beauty products comment.....i have heard rumors re: that but looking for facts have been hard to come by...thanks for your convictions about not joining.

reply from: peacelover

That is interesting but one must always look at both sides. Operation Rescue and Rescue America, two anti-abortion underground groups also had former members of the Ku Klux Klan.

Read Live from the Gates of Hell by Jerry Reiter. It talks about the scary stuff the anti-abortion movement were involved in. It's interesting for both pro-choicers and pro-lifers to read.

reply from: BorisBadanov

Peacelover,

Having been to many, many, Operation Rescue/Operation Save America events I find some sort of participation by the KKK very hard to believe.

Even at these Protestant pro-life groups events, a good half of the people who were attending were Catholic.  Catholics don't tolerate the KKK and the KKK doesn't tolerate Catholics -- a few burnt crosses and lynching in your ancestors frontyards tend to create bad relations.

If anyone at these events was affiliated with the KKK, they kept it very, very, quiet and by necessity.  Pro-life rallys are peaceful by nature, but you can only expect so much restraint, if you know what I mean.

reply from: Tam

I think it's more likely that someone in the KKK would have a total change of heart and become actively pro-life than that some violent racist bigot would give a crap about the lives of the unborn. So it may well be the case that there are former members of the KKK involved in righteous causes now. If they turned their backs on the Klan and embraced the cause of protecting the unborn, good for them. Sure, the Klan might have spies everywhere, in various organizations. But I find it a bit incredible, myself, that anyone would suggest some sort of affinity for the anti-abortion cause on the part of the Klan. Margaret Sanger was a racist and supported abortion because of her desire for a pure white citizenry. She wanted the little brown ones killed and the little pink ones left alone. The very idea that someone who shared her views would be out there standing up for the lives of all unborn children is ludicrous. And if there are anti-abortion activists out there who are only standing up for the unborn WHITE babies, I have not met any of them yet and I hope I never do. Well, I guess I shouldn't say it quite that strongly. I guess I would say if there is anyone reading this who DOES fit that description, start a thread and announce yourself and I'll have a few things I'd like to say to you about that position.

reply from: jcgspam

I saw an interview once with someone who fit that description, Tam. He thought that abortion should be illegal for any reason if you were white, but if you were black you should be required to have an abortion. He said that he considered himself "pro-life". It made me sick... I really don't want to be linked in anyway to somebody like that. But, the vast majority of pro-life people believe in the right of every baby, regardless of skin color, to be born. I don't think the founders of our movement started it as a racist tool in anyway.

reply from: Tam

Don't worry, Julie--you're not linked in any way to someone like that. That's just a sick person who doesn't know his ... donkey ... from a hole in the ground. Anyone who thinks any abortion should be required for any reason is not pro-life ... and anyone who thinks race determines someone's right to life is just sick. That is the disgusting view of Margaret Sanger, and anyone who shares it is affiliated NOT with any true pro-life movement. That man you saw interviewed is pro-abortion and pro-death and you are nothing like him. Those who support Planned Parenthood are affiliated with that racist, pro-death view by virtue of their connection to PP; those who oppose abortion are not.

I say you are absolutely right.

reply from: spinningmom

Wow you are worried about the monies from abortions going to Mexico or Canada?  Do you enjoy blood money?  Your enitire rant seems to totally contradict itself.  Bottom line murder is murder.  Even if you get alot of money for preforming the murder it still is just that MURDER.  Good luck figuring yourself out in the future.

reply from: BlondeHottie

Are you people racist or something?

reply from: yoda

Are you a stereotyper or something? Do you not recognize us as individuals, or do you always lump people into categories as if they were peas in a pod? If you can't address us as individuals, perhaps you ought not to address us at all.

reply from: yoda

Boris, whenever anyone brings up the subject of extremists (and every large group has them), I think of John Brown, the anti-slavery extremist. Certainly most of us would not agree with his bloody killings in Kansas and Harper's Ferry, but did his bloody violence make slavery any less objectionable? Or were his action simply the excesses of his particular personality? I say the latter, and the same goes for those who kill abortion doctors today.

reply from: whosays

No, regardless of his action, slavery was just as immoral. 

But don't forget that there is now a http://www.kckcc.cc.ks.us/ss/q28.htm in recognition of his effort to end the immoral regime of slavery.

The question then is, when the immoral regime of abortion is ended, what story will the future statues tell?

reply from: prolife1234

They are socialists. I have never understood, why, when talking about blacks and abortion, somebody mentions the NAACP and nobody ever found it odd that they don't support it. It's socialism like the reds, the nazis, the reds chinese, etc.

reply from: gopchristian

High ranking members of the NAACP are also writing articles in Communist newspapers. I find them in other newspapers' distribution bins in front of a company with strong union ties here in downtown Jacksonville, Florida. I pick the papers up every couple weeks to make sure they don't get much circulation and then drop them off at Church and the State Attorney's Office. The NAACP, Black Panthers, Maoists, Communists, abortion advocates, pansexuals, drug-addicts, labor forces, the homeless, and the anti-Republicans are very unified around here, because there are so many resident Democrats. I've even seen an Asian guy brazen enough to walk around with a swastika on his shirt. It's kinda dangerous here and being raised in the suburbs makes it hard to believe this is actually America, but we do have an international airport, an international sea-port, and a national bus terminal, so we get all kinds of crazies from all over the world.

reply from: bambam4mony

Honestly, I only joined this because I think that the views of klan Parenthood are way out of proportion and absurd.  There is no reason to focus on the negative.  Yes Planned Parenthood does abortions.  And I am pro-choice.  But the fact that you think that planned parenthood is out to get african americans is ridiculous, I just cannot believe that someone would actually voice such an idiotic thought.

reply from: shiprah

Except that idiotic thought was shared by margaret sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.  But maybe she was confused about why she founded the organization.  Maybe you know better than she about why it is around.

reply from: whosays

Well instead of what you "think" how about considering what the FOUNDER of Planned Parrenthood "thought" (in her OWN words):

Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger - "Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan..."
(Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

How many other organizations founded by KKK speakers do you support?

reply from: yoda

Did you mean "when the immoral regime of abortion is ended"?

reply from: whosays

Of course. Change made. Thank you for the correction.

reply from: yoda

I thought so, but I hate to presume anything about someone else's posts.

It's a good question. Although as you say there are still a few folks around who honor John Brown, for the most part he is remembered as someone who "went too far". Even Lincoln gave more credit to Harriet Beecher Stowe than he did to John Brown regarding the ending of slavery and the beginning of the civil war.

Lincoln will always be remembered as the "great emancipator" for his role in ending slavery, even though he accomplished it by the deaths of many tens of thousands of times more deaths than John Brown was responsible for (in the "War between the States").

So who will be remembered as the "great baby protector"? Hard to answer that question right now, but I'm almost sure it won't be anyone who has killed an abortion doctor. I rather imagine they will be remembered much as John Brown is, as people whose heart was in the right place but just "went too far".

reply from: abortionismurder

First of all I would like to say that yes, we have lost lots of soldiers in Iraq. Soldiers who knew when they joined the military that they were automatically taking a chance on going to war one day therefore it was there choice!! I'm sure that they were proud to die for their country! There is nothing wrong with fighting for your country and there is definitely nothing wrong with trying to give Iraq the same opportunities that we have in America. They may lose many civilians but one day their will be more lives spared than sacrificed, thanks to our military!!!
Now as for the abortion subject. I don't care what anybody says, abortion is murder!! When you kill an innocent baby just because you don't want it then you are a selfish murderer. If it were illegal maybe people would go out of the country to perform this kind of murder (abortion) which would be great for us not to have to admit that it is legal for us to kill babies in our country. I can't believe this act was ever even considered. If you don't want to take a chance on having a baby then DON'T HAVE SEX! DUH! If this were illegal in america it would automatically cut back on the percentages of abortion and there would be more precious lives born into the U.S.but things have just become so easy and so many of us have become so selish that if we don't want to deal with something then we can just kill it!! What has this world come to besides legalizing murder only for babies!! It's a horrible thing to even think about and I don't know how anybody could live with themselves if they performed such a duty! It's sick and you can sit there and say that there is nothing wrong with it but you are way outnumbered!! It seems to me and I'm sure everyone else on this board that you may be the crazy one and you should be ashamed of yourself!! Did you think it was right that Mr. Peterson was convicted of two murders or should it have only been one?? Well, he was convicted for killing his wife (Lacy) and his unborn child but there are women all over the U.S. that kill there babies everyday! Why is it legal for them to do it but it was illegal for him to do it?? Please Reply!!

reply from: Mendozajanelle

Keep your legs closed if you don't want a baby. theres alot of people fighting for their lives while yall people are waisting a life. So keep your legs closed!!

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

Why, does it lessen the chance of getting pregnant if you do it that way?

reply from: shiprah

She's referring to abstinance.

reply from: adele

What an excellent way of revealing the hard truth. People today can't handle the truth. Very wellspoken about the subject to most off you that's against ABORTIONS. KILLING BABIES are wrong in every sense of way. Please give a new life a chance to live. STOP this bizarre masacre. Everyone deserves the right to live whether born or unborn. To all of you thinking that abortions are a way to get rid of a problem, it's not the answer.

reply from: adele

Well said Sheila17. I back you 200% if not more. There is no such thing as blood and cells.

reply from: adele

Extermination of a human or unborn is a big crime

reply from: adele

Perfectness growing inside you, yes but still some people regard it as nothing inside you, just BLOOD ans CELLS. GOD gave us life and the humans take it for granted by erasing it with instruments. Get some morals and compasion and do the humane thing namely raise, love and cherrish what God put in your body.

Adele

reply from: adele

Yes the first it's a person and the second as you said not, because legally they don't have a voice saing don't kill me.A fetus will always be a person in my eyes no matter what

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

Hey everyone,

I've got to do a conclusion for my abortion essay: Is the sanctity of life to be regarded as a moral absolute? Discuss in relation to abortion.

Done the essay, just need a little help with the conclusion, if anyone has any ideas??

Thanks for your time.

reply from: whosays

Not by the pro-choice crowd it's not.

Perhaps you should quote http://klanparenthood.com/DeathCamps/Holocaust6.cfm#TheTop in this regard.

reply from: yoda

It depends on whom you ask. To some people, life is as cheap as a paper plate. To most Pro-Lifers, life is the most valuable thing in the universe.

Without it, no other aspect of life is available. So the real question is: "Does anyone have the moral right to take away all of some innocent person's rights?"

reply from: lovinmotherhood

I agree. Abortion is absolutly wrong! You can clearly see that the fetus IS a human. These are babies. I would like to point out one thing- how can a surgeon go home and feel proud of everything they own? They make their living by killing innocent babies. They have no guilt doing their "job" everyday and making mega bucks! These babies rely on their mothers to help them. Why?

reply from: Diadema

Maternal instinct. The same instinct that drives women into depression after an abortion. And, I found, the same instinct that moved that mother, Angele, to care and cry out for her delivered baby, Rowan (posted in another thread). I found that most interesting.

reply from: NonPerson

Do you know why there are more black babies killed in the womb? because there are more black sluts than white sluts....abortions not wrong, and its not like its racist either....and the clinics sure as hell dont "allow" or "disallow" babies to be born....its the womans choice....you guys are amazingly stupid...

reply from: shiprah

As a black girl, Nonperson, I'm glad you're here. You show the true colors of prochoicers. However, I'm sorry there's so much hate and pain in you. I'll pray for you.
With love,
Shiprah

reply from: yoda

Gotta agree with your analysis, Shiprah.

reply from: bobinsky

Shiprah, you take a comment from a one-post troll and assume she speaks for ALL pro-choicers? Then may I assume that Bernard Kopp and/or Eric Robert Rudolph speak for you and other anti-abortionists? Would this be fair?
Perhaps, though, Shiprah, you could explain why 2/3 of black babies are born out of wedlock? What is the black community doing to change this, or is it acceptable that these babies are born to single mothers who then live on welfare? Maybe you should spend some time praying for these babies born to single mothers who live on the dole. Do you know the ratio of black abortions to white abortions?
Here is the link to a site that shows CDC data (see how easy this is Shiprah?):
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4851a3.htm

This should help to clear up some confusion for you. Well, at least I hope it will. The one variable that's missing from this source that would help is the ratio of black women to white women in the overall population. As this data shows, black women have fewer abortions than white women, but then there are far fewer black women in this country, so the percentage of black women having abortions is not good, looked at in this vein.

Lots of interesting information here, Shiprah. And you see, when one has verifiable, non-biased information from reliable sources such as the CDC, there's no need to not cite the source. Only when one spouts questionable info from biased sources is it necessary, as in your case, to ignore the source cites. But this is something you can work on.

reply from: bobinsky

How many of these perfect persons have you adopted, Adele? I mean the perfect persons that were birthed by mothers who gave them up for adoption? Can I assume you've taken in more than your fair share of these perfect persons, say perhaps three or four of them? How many am I off by? I know that you're probably one of the first in line to lay claim to these precious little persons and would want to spend your life caring for them.

reply from: BorisBadanov

Yeah Shiprah, what are you doing about the "human weed" problem?

reply from: shiprah

How many of these perfect persons have you adopted, Adele? I mean the perfect persons that were birthed by mothers who gave them up for adoption? Can I assume you've taken in more than your fair share of these perfect persons, say perhaps three or four of them? How many am I off by? I know that you're probably one of the first in line to lay claim to these precious little persons and would want to spend your life caring for them.

If I don't adopt a three year old is it okay to kill him?

reply from: yoda

No, you must let bobinsky kill him, you're not a true proabort.

reply from: shiprah

How many of these perfect persons have you adopted, Adele? I mean the perfect persons that were birthed by mothers who gave them up for adoption? Can I assume you've taken in more than your fair share of these perfect persons, say perhaps three or four of them? How many am I off by? I know that you're probably one of the first in line to lay claim to these precious little persons and would want to spend your life caring for them.

If I don't adopt a three year old is it okay to kill him? Besides, Bobinski, if you're so moved by children burnt and stabbed to death, how many abused kids have you protected by adopting them?

reply from: shiprah

2/3 of black babies are born out of wedlock because Democrats have made it more profitable to have babies out of wedlock. 3 out of 5 babies aborted are black. If this continues, by the year 2050 the black vote won't count -- coincidence or genocide? What do I do to make the situation better, I help lead a community service organization that serves the needs of the poor by instillng value in poor minority kids and spending time with them so that their parents can increase their education, I volunteer at community centers and the Salvation Army as well as mentor a black child.

"Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan..." Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger
(Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

Minority women constitute only about 26% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 10 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions.

According to the U.S. center for Disease Control, since 1973 206,695 blacks died of Aids, 306,313 died of violent crime, 370,323 died of accident, 1,638,650 died of cancer,2,666,789 died of heart disease, and 13,000,000 died of abortion.

The black community is doing its best to fight this, there are even black homes for mom's experiencing crisis pregnancy to live in.

reply from: yoda

I'm afraid you're right about the genocide, Shiprah. I know some white folks (online) who I believe support abortion rabidly for that very reason. And I've started another thread using a page from your website. It has the exact same comparison of genocides we used for GAP handouts.

reply from: adele

You know what BOBINSKY, everything acording to GOD is perfect and GOD gave us life so YES a fetus is perfect in every sense of way. God did'nt give us life so that the human can decide whom should kill it or not. You are missing the point I'm trying to make. If you're wife were pregnant don't you think that she's carrying a perfect little bundle of joy? Killing an unborn child is against the Lord. Thou shall not kill!!!!!!!!
Oh and yes I'm doing my fair share regarding the perfect little babies. Together with the welfare we take these little precious persons on weekend trips. If I could adopt I would have. Are you doing your fair share?????????:

reply from: bobinsky

I figured as much. Instead of taking responsibility for the sex and the resulting kids - like you say other women should do - you blame the problem of illegitimate black kids on a political party. It's the democratic party that forces down the underwear and the legs of black women apart so they can have sex with whatever guy is handy. Right, Shiprah. Blame it on somebody else. What you're saying is that black women don't have enough willpower to not engage in sex and not have illegitimate babies. You sure give them a lot of credit.

Well, let's see. You blame the democrats for the fact that 2/3 of black babies are born illegitimately, so you certainly can't blame the democrats for the fact that black women are 3 times more likely to abort their precious little babies. Who you gonna blame for this?

Did Michael Novak remember to factor in the number of elderly or sick black persons who would have died since 1973, making that number of 41 million many less than he estimates. In the paragraph below, you cite that at LEAST 5,188,770 black persons have died from different diseases and crime/accidents. So the number of 41 million is cut down to less than 36,000,000. And the numbers in the paragraph below don't account for the deaths of ALL black persons since 1973, so the number of 36 million will be even lower.

Now, in the paragraph above, you say that since 1973 black women have had 10 million abortions; the CDC says 13 million. Which is it?

reply from: bobinsky

Gee, Adele, if I were a man, you might be right. But since I'm a woman married for 27 years to my sweet hubby, I guess you're wrong.

I'm doing more than my fair share, Adele. However, if I speak about what I do on this forum for women with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies who want to carry their babies to term and adopt them or keep them, I get my hand slapped and am accused of pride. If you've read any of my previous posts in certain t hreads, you know what I do. And if you haven't read them, I don't particularly care.

reply from: adele

Do you have children? If you do, look at them and tell me if you would kill them whether you are married or single. Killing a fetus is killing a child. If two people can lay down and have sex, they can face the responsibility of having a child. People are selfish. Just because a woman is pregnant does'nt mean you have to despose of a child just to enjoy your own life. So you will defenately recommend abortions?

reply from: Alexandra

It's a mystery to me why the majority of blacks, it seems, are Democrats when the majority of Democrats are pro-abortion. And then the Dems support affirmative action, which is actually an insult to everyone--it says that blacks can't do anything on their own and can only obtain a job because of race, and some blacks actually take advantage of that and that only stirs up more tensions.

They're supporting a party and groups that want to kill them off! How insane is that?

You know I'm part Cherokee, and I wonder if movements like the American Indian Movement are pro-abortion. That would REALLY be insane, considering the near-genocide of Native Americans!

reply from: Alexandra

I don't support the war in Iraq because it's illegal and unconstitutional, and I'm all for the impeachment of Bush and his bunch.

And nowhere in the Constitution does it say gays can marry each other. "Sexual orientation" is not protected by the Constitution. Homosexuality is perversion, and it's a BEHAVIOR that can be changed, which is why it's not protected.

And oh, by the way, Bush is hardly a Christian, the way he goes about things. He ignores the Constitution (war in Iraq, Patriot Act, etc.).

reply from: Alexandra

I live in Wooster, OH, and there's a PP right here in town, though to my knowledge they don't do abortions--but I'd be willing to bet that they'd probably refer girls to clinics in Akron.

reply from: shiprah

Hey Alexandra. Welcome to the forum. I'm part Cherokee, too, and I'm not sure if AIM takes a stand on reproductive issues. I think they tend to focus on things like freeing Leonard Peltier. I'd be interested if you find out however.

reply from: Alexandra

I find that extremely laughable. Pregnancy is a NATURAL process--women's bodies were DESIGNED to carry a child for nine months or so! Self-defense!? Wow, talk about ignorance!

"Oh, this little baby just INVADED my body! Must get rid of it! It's a parasite!"

Like I said, a woman's body is designed to nurture a child for the first nine months of its life. So how, pray tell, can a baby INVADE a woman's body when her body was designed for that purpose?

reply from: Tam

I find that extremely laughable. Pregnancy is a NATURAL process--women's bodies were DESIGNED to carry a child for nine months or so! Self-defense!? Wow, talk about ignorance!

"Oh, this little baby just INVADED my body! Must get rid of it! It's a parasite!"

Like I said, a woman's body is designed to nurture a child for the first nine months of its life. So how, pray tell, can a baby INVADE a woman's body when her body was designed for that purpose?

LOL Good point, Alexandra. I always find the "parasite" talk really bizarre. Since when is one's own young a parasite?

reply from: yoda

In scientific terms, no unborn is a parasite because it's of the same species as it's mother. In the vernacular usage of the term, however, even a lazy brother who sponges off you can be a "parasite".

However, another interesting twist is that proaborts often claim a baby is a "part" of it's mother. How can one creature be a host and a parasite at the same time?

reply from: Alexandra

Shiprah--My mom told me all about Leonard Peltier, falsely accused of murdering two FBI agents. I understand Peltier got the Humanist of the Year award or something, which sets off warning bells in my head.

That's the reason I asked about those groups. It would see odd that they'd want to kill off their own offspring when they're just about the victims of genocide.

BTW--Free Peltier!

reply from: whosays

May I suggest the following to prevent any future Bobinsky type 'misunderstandings'...

The good folks over at http://KlanParenthood.com should hire a fast talking announcer to read the following text - which could also be posted on the site in a very small font:

"Neither Klan Parenthood, nor any of its subsidaries is affiliated with the official Klu Klux Klan - also know as the KKK - nor is this site intended to endorse the practice of lynching based on race. The name Klan Parenthood and the symbol of the little-cartoon-abortionist-in-the-pointy-white-hat is not intended to promote membership in the the pointy-headed-white-guys-in-bed-sheets club. Humorless pro-choicers, please do NOT take up cross burning or cut eye-holes in you pillow case. Rather we ask you to read through the site - interpreters will be provided upon request. All visitors to this site are required to wave their rights to sue and must agree to recognize that Klan, KKK and the-cartoon-klan-choicer are intended merely to provoke thought and discussion of the fact that America's number one abortionist - Planned Parenthood - is accomplishing what the Klan has long stated is its goal."

Then make, them click "I agree" to enter.

This would prevent other pro-choicers from injuring their mind on the site's content, as happend to Bob-o.

reply from: Tam

I think it should include something like

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This website is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any mental disease.

reply from: sarah

A great idea Whosays, however I doubt that anyone "h*ll bent on pulling the stunt that Bobinsky has would just view this as so much "trivia" to be tossed aside and ignored. And then go on their merry way distorting the truth in the hopes that something will stick as any lie repeated enough eventually will.

reply from: LochFyne

It doesn't say heterosexuals can marry each other either. Marriage is a states' rights issue.

Don't believe me? Google the phrase "first cousin marriage".

reply from: adele

Wow!!! You don't think before you talk do you? If you are talking about the ABORTION CLINICS, They do allow the babies to be born alive by not doing the correct proceedure. Why will a baby be born alive if the right proceedure were followed? Who's being STUPID now?

reply from: whosays

That's kind of arbitrary, isn't it?

What about women with unplanned/unwanted born children? Just because a woman takes an extra day, week or month to make her decision under what logic (please state any reasoning involved) would you take away a woman's right to have her child put to death merely because she terminated her pregnancy with a living child rather than a dead one? (Note: ALL pregnancies terminate.)

Why not be as pro-choice as the Princeton prof who says that a woman's right to choose should extend at least 28 days after a baby is born (i.e., termination of pregnancy with a living baby)? That way she can have more of a chance to realize what she is in for.

On the other hand, what if a woman unexpantly goes into labor where her pregnancy terminates in the delivery of a premature baby six weeks early? Would you deprive her of her right to choose for the remaining six weeks? What if this same woman had already scheduled an abortion appointment for the next week? Would you force her to live in a world with this unplanned/unwanted child just because an accident of nature brought about the untimely delivery of this unwanted parasite?

reply from: bobinsky

How so?

I'm honestly not sure what you're asking here? As far as women with born children, they've already made their decision, for whatever reasons. Oh wait a sec. You mean if a woman carries a pregnancy to term rather than aborting she should have special/different treatment somehow? As far as putting to death a child -- I'm lost here I guess.

Oh, Dr. Peter Singer. I've met him and he is a fascinating human being. Brilliant, intelligent and, as far as I'm concerned, wrong as far as choosing to allow a parent to kill a baby for up to 28 days after delivery. If a woman decides to carry a fetus to term, which is her decision based on her knowledge of the circumstances, then there are two options: adoption or keep the kid. At this stage, there's no need to kill the baby. Adoption is NOT always the panacea for the issue that p/l think it is. Adoption out a child can be extremely tough on a woman/girl who, as I've seen happen, spend their lives wondering if she did the right things; perhaps she should have kept it; she wonders if the kid is okay; what if the kid tries to find her and she does't want him/her to. There are a whole host of contingencies and variables with adoption. Same with keeping the kid. She has to be prepared for the whole thing. Is she single? Will the father be around to help? Will he pay child support? Will he be involved in the kid's life? Is he a decent role model or a piece of garbage that the mother feels the kid shouldn't be involved with? If, after several weeks the mother is unsure of whether or not to keep the child, there are other alternatives to look at.

So you believe as others do that a fetus is a parasite? Hmmm...
So the scenario is the woman has a late-term abortion scheduled for the next week and she unexpectedly goes into labor. Would I force her to live with blah, blah, blah? Well, first of all, I don't force women to do anything. There are all sorts of contingencies that can change the nature of the situation. But what is her reason for choosing a late-term abortion?

reply from: whosays

From the early 1900s to the 1970s, some 65,000 men and women were sterilized in this country, many without their knowledge, as part of a government eugenics program to keep so-called undesirables from reproducing... http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=708780 -- well how very Planned Parenthood of them!

Gee, you gotta wonder how someone would ever come up with such a crazy idea like that... (http://www.klanparenthood.com/DeathCamps/Holocaust6.cfm#TheTop)

Eugenics - the ultimate in pro-choice!

reply from: sarah

If I lived 10 life times, I would still never be able to understand how anyone could possibly find anything whatsoever positive about PP or worse still it's infamous founder. I can't wrap my brain around that kind of thinking. It's offensive just to see her name in print. It conjures up all the filth she stood for.

reply from: Tam

So you believe as others do that a fetus is a parasite? Hmmm...
So the scenario is the woman has a late-term abortion scheduled for the next week and she unexpectedly goes into labor. Would I force her to live with blah, blah, blah? Well, first of all, I don't force women to do anything. There are all sorts of contingencies that can change the nature of the situation. But what is her reason for choosing a late-term abortion?

I think you realize that the use of "parasite" was tongue-in-cheek there. But maybe you don't. Maybe you are just a credulous person. After all, you honestly believed that the KP site was promoting the KKK, didn't you? Did you honestly believe that?

As for her reason for choosing a late-term abortion--does it matter to you? Do you support all, some, or no late-term abortions? Where do you draw the line? Is it birth? If so, why do you need to know the woman's reasons in order to form an opinion about her choice? Wouldn't you say it's simply her choice?

reply from: Brittkathleen507

This is unhuman. How many of them babies had a chance? none of them. What should we do about the drug dealers, the murders and everyone else who has done something wrong? should these babies really be put to their DEATH because their parents wanted to get laid? NO and that is all there is to it. looking at the pictures on 100abortionpictures.com made me sick there is no reason that, that many babies have to be killed and there has to be something done.

reply from: whosays

Yes, people have to stop killing babies just because they don't want (unwanted) the baby to live.

reply from: whosays

This guy says parents should be able to kill there new born children for up to 28 days after they are born.

I must say you have a warped (read immoral) critera for rating people. That's like praising Hitler as "brilliant" for managing to kill so many people as efficiently he did. Or praising the 911 terrorists for the "intelligent" plan that they used to kill so many Americans.

However the really telling part of your statment follows the praise you heap on this fool.

NOTE: Immediately after Bobinsky pronounces this pro-baby killing monster to be "Brilliant, intelligent" Bob-o then goes on to say that this "Brilliant, intelligent" person is "wrong as far as choosing to allow a parent to kill a baby for up to 28 days after delivery." Now if Singer rates both "brilliant" and"intelligent", what do you think that would make Bob-o for being able to see what this 'intellectual giant' of a man was unable to see?

Was your conclusion here the result of more self-rated "painstaking research" on your part, Bob-o?

Bob-o, me thinks you think just a little to highly of yourself. (Make that way to high!)

Did you think that Carly Simon song was about you?

(No not the catsup one!)

reply from: bobinsky

Dr. Singer, as are any of us, is allowed to form his own beliefs and voice those beliefs. Just as you are allowed to believe that I am immoral and warped, etc. and to voice those beliefs. See how this works?
Now, Dr. Singer, as far as I know, has never acted on those beliefs. Hitler and the Nazi's did. See how this works?
The fact that you do not like what Dr. Singer has to say is of no importance. The fact that you do not agree with Dr. Singer does not lessen the man's brilliant intellect or the fact that he is an interesting, fascinating human being. He is merely doing his job, which, if you knew anything about his work, you would understand. The man is about much more than this one particular belief. The fact that you can't imagine thinking outside of your little itty-bitty box shows narrow-mindedness and, IMHO, a true lack of intellect. Neither philosophy nor theoretical physics are your strong suits, are they?

Let's see. What do I think? I think that you don't have anything interesting or of value to add to any of these discussions and that your main purpose in life is to troll this board and make insipid comments. Which, I might add, you do very well.

reply from: bobinsky

Newflash, WS, people don't have to stop doing ANYTHING just because you don't agree with what they do or you don't like it. See how this works?

reply from: bobinsky

I think I know why this is, Sarah, although please be advised I'm not playing armchair psychiatrist here. Sometimes when we - any of us - have a closely held belief about a particular issue, they cannot see outside of the parameters they've set for themselves and they close their minds, perhaps not intentionally, but it does happen. Anything they hear or read contrary to that closely held belief is anathema to them and they cannot take off the blinders.
I've got this same issue with legalizing recreational drugs. For the life of me, and I've argued and argued this on different forum boards, I cannot see the reason for legalizing drugs, but many sane people, some are very close friends and wonderful people, can't see why I get so hyped up about it. All I can see it that drug use has caused suffering and death, destroyed families, kids have been killed in meth lab explosions here in Georgia. People tell me that if drugs were legalized, the situation with the meth lab explosions wouldn't have happened. But I disagree. I can't see where this would help anything. I feel the same way about alcohol, although drinking is legal, but look at the damage alcohol abuse has caused. My friends tell me that just because some people abuse alcohol doesn't mean that it should be made illegal and punish those that don't abuse it. All I can see is that without alcohol and drunk driving, M.A.D.D. would never have had to exist, that every week we read about innocent people killed due to some drunk idiot (there, I said it) and I want this to stop. Alcoholism and drug abuse cut across all racial, social, and economic lines.
I don't get it.

reply from: sarah



I took the liberity to use your well thought out post to give you a better glimpse into how pro-life people feel about "abortion on demand". To not in anyway use an opportunity to use sarcasim, but to say that people who hold closely held beliefs do see outside the "parameters". They are very well thought out closely held beliefs. Just as yours are with the dangers of leaglizing drugs and the abuse of alcohol. I hope you won't take offense, because no offense is intended.


I've got this same issue "with abortion on demand" For the life of me, and I've argued and argued this on different forum boards, I cannot see the reason for "abortion on demand", but many sane people, some are very close friends and wonderful people, can't see why I get so hyped up about it. All I can see it that "abortion on demand" has caused suffering and death, destroyed families, kids have been killed in "abortion clinics" here in Georgia. People tell me that if "abortion on demand" were ilegalized, the situation with the back alley abortions would take palce". But I disagree. I can't see where this would help anything. I feel the same way about "abortion on demand, although "abortion on demand is legal, but look at the damage "abortion" has caused. My friends tell me that just because some people abuse "abortion" doesn't mean that it should be made illegal and punish those that don't abuse it. All I can see is that without "abortion on demand" Pro-Life organizations would never have had to exist, that every week we read about innocent people killed due to "abortion on demand, both mother and child in some cases" to some abortion doctor (there, I said it) and I want this to stop. "Abortion on demand" and it's ills cut across all racial, social, and economic lines.
I don't get it.

reply from: ChristianLott

Bobinsky wrote that, after a baby is born:

And there was a 'need' before?

Explain.

Remember, public statistics show over 95% of abortion are done for so-called convenience.

reply from: bobinsky

Well, since I don't drink or do drugs, maybe I'm missing something. But I doubt it. My beliefs about abortion and BC didn't just come to me in a dream or I didn't just conjure them up one day because I had nothing to do. I thought long and hard about the issues, doing the research, asking questions - and I came to the conclusions I did. I cannot in good conscience dictate to women I do not know how they should live their lives and what they can do with their bodies.

When I was reading the second paragraph of your post, I could not for the life of me figure out what the deal was. I thought, "She's saying almost exactly what I said about drugs!", and then I went back and re-read your original paragraph. Now I get it. Duh, bob. Sarah, to be honest with you, I can't deal with the acrimony between us on this board. It's not good for either one of us and to be honest with you, I've come to tears because of some of it - that's just the way I am. I know that other members of teh board will get a real kick out of knowing this. There's got to be a better way of dialoguing.

reply from: sarah

Well, since you've brought up tears, may I say I have done the same. However, it wasn't becasue of what you described as "acrimony", as one must develop thick skin to post on MB's. Especially ones surrounding abortion.

But, because of the accusations you made about this site being connected to the KKK. Being from a Jewish heritage I know first hand what it's like to be on the receiving end of bigotry. I have an intense dis-like for such organizations and people who would support them in anyway at anytime for any reason. Which translates into my intense dis-like and complete disrespect for MS.

But, if you can't stand up to scruinity of your posts...then sobeit. That's not to say I won't ever respond. This being a public forum and all.

reply from: ChristianLott

It's not her body, it's her child's body you'd kill.

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

"How many of these perfect persons have you adopted, Adele? I mean the perfect persons that were birthed by mothers who gave them up for adoption? Can I assume you've taken in more than your fair share of these perfect persons, say perhaps three or four of them? How many am I off by? I know that you're probably one of the first in line to lay claim to these precious little persons and would want to spend your life caring for them."

I do not doubt that there are many neglected children in my country, In America and other countries. Despite this sad fact, I do not know what that has to do with the inherent value of each human being.

Neither do i consider it a reason to kill a child.

(And as a side note: you're use of satire puts Jane Austen to shame.)

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

I've posted (yet again) in the completely wrong place (Sorry)

reply from: yoda

I don't know about the placement of your post, but I like the content!
p.s. And I love your sig! :-)

reply from: Tam

I don't know about the placement of your post, but I like the content!
p.s. And I love your sig! :-)

Yeah--I love the sig, too! I may have to use that! It's great!

reply from: bobinsky

No, I don't have a problem with the scrutiny of my posts. It's the manner in which many people respond, saying a lot of things that are unnecessary just to be cruel. You've seen it from these posters; we all have. And this attitude on this forum goes back to almost the very beginning of the forum from the posts I've read. There have been some decent pro-choice people on here, but they've been, basically, run off by the attitudes of the posters here. But, I digress.

As far as the KKK thread, I've apologized and there's not much more that I can do. I meant my apology sincerely, whether you believe so or not. I am of the female persuasion, and although I cannot begin to imagine living with the knowledge of the atrocities committed against the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and othes slaughtered at the hands of Hitler, I know what it's like to be discriminated against because of my sex. I know what it's like to be treated as less than I am because of my sex. I can read history and see how women have been beaten and slaughtered by men, oppressed by men, treated as nothing but objects by men, simply because they were not men. I can see centuries of women dying from unwanted/unplanned pregnancies because they had no rights; their entire lives were held in the hands of the men who ran this country. By being born female, I can see that women have had to work harder, faster, more efficiently just to be given the same opportunities as men. Was it ever right to deny woman an education? No, but it happened. Was it ever right to deny women career oportunities? No, but it happened. Was it ever right that women could be beaten by men? No, but it happened(s). Like blacks, women were kept illiterate, lest they "figure out" what was going on. If it weren't for abolitionists and feminists, god only knows what the lot of women would be right now. Because women have hard to fight so hard for so long for rights and opportunities that men took for granted I will not grant an inch of their rights back - not with BC, abortion, voting, careers- nothing. In talking about the rights of a fetus, I see that the woman involved is forgotten, like she is some faceless, nameless being whose only job is to incubate the fetus until birth.

reply from: bobinsky

Hi, gdx. Yes, in this country there are over 400,000 children in foster care. These children started out as babies, then became young kids whose chances for adoption decrease for every years of age. So these precious children sit, unwanted and unloved. These children have inherent value also. Yet they are turned aside for - who knows? But where are those who claim to value the lives of ALL children when it comes to adopting these children? If the life of every single child is important, why do pro-lifers not adopt these kids who've been waiting for years? No law says they have to, certainly, but where, in all their pro-life rhetoric, does their concern for these homeless children come into play?

reply from: yoda

I've often asked the same question about prodeathers. Where are they all? Why don't they adopt every single child out there, since they claim to care so much about born children??

Oh wait, I know...... they claim that since they advocate killing them in the womb, they don't have any responsibility to them after they're born! Oh yeah, that's what they claim........

reply from: Tam

Hi, gdx. Yes, in this country there are over 400,000 children in foster care. These children started out as babies, then became young kids whose chances for adoption decrease for every years of age. So these precious children sit, unwanted and unloved. These children have inherent value also. Yet they are turned aside for - who knows? But where are those who claim to value the lives of ALL children when it comes to adopting these children? If the life of every single child is important, why do pro-lifers not adopt these kids who've been waiting for years? No law says they have to, certainly, but where, in all their pro-life rhetoric, does their concern for these homeless children come into play?

You make it sound like foster care is worse than death! Is it, Bobinsky? Is foster care a fate worse than death? Having a family to take care of you even if your own family wanted you dead--that's a curse? Not a blessing, but a curse? Is that your point? Or is your point that by advocating for their deaths in the womb, you are absolved from caring for them should they actually be born? (No, I don't expect rational answers to these questions.)

reply from: whosays

Given that we were specifically talking about Dr. Mengele's - opps, I meant Dr. Singer's - pro-infanticide-kill-any-baby-you-don't-like-for-up-to-28-days-after-birth position, I have one question about your statement.

Weren't these pretty much the same words ("merely doing his job") spoken in defense of many of the Nazi's at the Nurenburg trials?

reply from: Tam

Given that we were specifically talking about Dr. Mengele's - opps, I meant Dr. Singer's - pro-infanticide-kill-any-baby-you-don't-like-for-up-to-28-days-after-birth position, I have one question about your statement.

Weren't these pretty much the same words ("merely doing his job") spoken in defense of many of the Nazi's at the Nurenburg trials?

Hey, since Bob isn't too good at answering reasonable questions, I'll take a crack at this one.

YES

reply from: sarah

Well, there's been plenty from the pro-abort side that have responded with much disdain too, I'm sure you'll agree

This seems more of a deflection to the point I made. IMO, there's little if any comparison between what miniorties have experienced and women's rights. There were no women lynched because they were women, nor were there gas chambers set up for their extermination soley because they were women. Now, put "JUDEN" next to a woman's name and it was off to meet her Maker in the not so distant past.
I could tell you of the things that have happened to me because of my Jewish heritage and the things that have happened to me because I'm a woman. Trust me, there's no comparison. But, let's be thankful women and Jews and other minorities are treated with far more equality than ever before in the history of this nation.

I don't see the woman being forgoten at all when she is pregnant. But, I do see many pro-abortion proponents devaluing her role in humanity. Motherhood is a vitally important role and should be held in honor with great respect. The role of a woman is astounding in it's level of importance in all aspects of her life.

That's quite an appeal to emotion, of course her only "job" is not to just incubate a developing child. And I find that rather offensive as I hold that role in the highest honor possible. She carries humanity in her womb, and that's just a fact. Humanity should never be viewed as something disposable, IMO. But, rather something to be highly valued and cherised.



reply from: whosays

Sad, isn't it?

If we could have only convinced all of their mother's to adopt the pro-choice mind set and visit Planned Parenthood, then they'd all be dead and we wouldn't have to waste time discussing their miserable little unwanted, unloved lives.

400,000? That's less than 1% of the number already disposed of by government-sanctioned abortion, so it's likely that no one would notice them missing anyway.

You're right, Bob-o, it would have been better for them (or at least for us who have to look at them) if they had never been born.

Hiel, Sanger!

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

Hey Bobinski,

I don’t really comment much on forums- that’s not to say that I don’t have an opinion- or informed opinion, I just prefer to listen (or read) what other people think. (Don’t get me wrong I believe in absolute truth, I just like to think of myself as open minded, maybe even slightly ‘accepting’ of others opinions – but only if they are logical)

However, It’s a change to see someone on the other side’s perspective. Again, don’t get me wrong – I completely disagree with your stance but I can see the validity of some of your points. Also, glad you stick about to argue, a lot of people get disheartened when people don’t agree with them.

“in this country there are over 400,000 children in foster care. These children started out as babies, then became young kids whose chances for adoption decrease for every years of age.”

Its really sad that 400, 000 children are in foster care- if it makes them feel unloved. It is seriously a shocking figure. Where I live, Wales (which is a little country hanging on to England in the UK- before anyone asks where the hell that is) well in fact in the whole of Britain, the adoption rate is so high BECAUSE of abortion. There is a waiting list, where thousands upon thousands of couples would receive any child into their home. And don’t think these are all for ‘perfect’ children- there are hundreds of couples wanting to adopt children with Downs and spinabifida (sp?)

To be honest I think most adopted kids when they grow older, feel chuffed that they got the opportunity to live. However, despite their hardship, or potential hardship its hardly a reason to tear the limbs off a child. Poverty and adoption and foster care I’m sure make a child’s life difficult, probably even tragic, in most cases. Abortion makes it impossible.

“So these precious children sit, unwanted and unloved.”

I assume you are referring to the wanted/unwanted argument, more commonly known as ‘every child a wanted child’ At first glance, yes! “Every Child a Wanted Child” is a great slogan. Who can argue? That isn’t the disagreement. It is how to achieve such a goal. We agree that every child should be wanted. A world with only wanted children would be an idyllic place in which to live. No one could quarrel with that as an idealistic goal. Wouldn’t it also be a wonderful world if there were no unwanted wives by husbands, no aging parents unwanted by their children, no unwanted Jews, blacks, Catholics, Chicanos, or ever again a person who, at one time or place, finds himself or herself unwanted or persecuted. Let’s all try to achieve this, but also remember that people have clay feet and, sadly, the unwanted will probably always be with us.

A second thought: Women resent that the value of a woman is sometimes determined by whether a man wants her. Yet radical feminists insist that the value of an unborn boy or girl is to be determined by whether a woman wants him or her.

To use being wanted by someone as a measure of whether a human life is allowed to live is a frightening concept. Its converse logically awaits us — that the unwanted can be eliminated. Don’t forget, Hitler’s Germany was ideal for wanted Aryans.

But as a side point - since when does anyone’s right to live depend upon someone else wanting them?

“Every Child a Wanted Child” should be completed with “and if not wanted, kill!” for that is exactly what that Planned Parenthood slogan means. To thus complete the sentence removes the mask from this misleading slogan and reveals it for the monstrous evil that it is. That certainly makes it sound different!

It is of crucial importance that every time we hear that phrase, we should add Planned Parenthood’s solution, “and if not wanted, kill!” Do parents kill teenagers when they are not wanted, or Uncle Mark after his stroke, or Mum, now that she is such a burden? You say no?

Do we give the mother the legal right to kill the two-year- old daughter who is a burden to her? No.

Why and how can we give her the legal right to kill the two-month-old daughter living inside her who is a burden to her?

The U.S. Supreme Court and the governments in many other nations have, for the first time in modern history, granted to one citizen (the mother) the absolute legal right to kill another, if that first person does not want them!

Think of the logic of the inevitable extension of such a freedom to kill. We could solve poverty by killing unwanted poor people, or religious or political groups, or those too old, too burdensome, and on and on . . .

“These children have inherent value also.”

That, we agree on.

“Yet they are turned aside for - who knows? But where are those who claim to value the lives of ALL children when it comes to adopting these children? If the life of every single child is important, why do pro-lifers not adopt these kids who've been waiting for years? No law says they have to, certainly, but where, in all their pro-life rhetoric, does their concern for these homeless children come into play?”

Amen to that. Completely agreed, I think more pro-life people should definitely be taking in adopted kids, and if I was old enough, my house would be full of children. I don’t see why the line should fall at only pro-life people though. Once children are born, don’t they have human worth in both pro-lifers eyes and pro-choicers? And I’m perfectly accepting and pro-choice people (well most) are or should be concerned for the humanity of others, it’s a global ethic- not just down to one ‘sect’ of people.

Tam and Yodavater:

Thankyou- I quite liked it myself, hence me using it

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

Bobinsky,

I’m curious what type of pro-choicer/abortionist you are. Are you one who believes that the zygote/embryo/foetus is merely a blob of cells? (and thus is perfectly justified in killing it?) Or do you believe that the foetus is human but the rights of the mother come before the child? If so, what is your view in killing after birth? Also, what do you think about the pro-life parallels with the holocaust? (Trust me, this is all relevant)

But please, just to be conservative, don’t completely disregard the idea that a foetus is not a human being as being out-of-bounds from the start, as it may help you to understand the view of other people.

If foetuses are, human beings, though, and we're killing... murdering... a million of them every single year, then the Holocaust comparisons are tragically apt, aren’t they?

As one who does believe that we've murdered tens of millions of babies over the past several decades, the people who distress me aren't the extremists, but the moderates (which is why I’m glad to see you are passionate in your belief)

Someone who says, "I don't believe it's a human being," I have no problem with. I think they're horribly, tragically, mistaken, but I don't think they're evil. On the other hand, someone who says, "Yeah, I think they're killing human beings, but I'm not comforatble telling them not to," is completely horrifying to me.

According to every survey that's taken on this issue, tens of millions of Americans believe that abortion is the killing of a human being. My question, then, is why aren't there more people speaking in Holocaust language?

Btw I know you haven’t mentioned the holocaust (or if you haven I haven’t read it, I’m just curious as to what you think)

reply from: Jenny222

gdxcatholicxgrl: I thought your post on the planned parenthood slogan was wonderful!

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

And i didn't post that at 3 am in the morning just i case you think im terribly sad, its 9am

reply from: whosays

Guess that's the Sanger-ized version of Adolph's, "Every Jew a Wanted Jew"...

Klan Parenthood should put out an updated version of this slogan:

"Every Child a Wanted Poster"

Wanted Dead or Alive - it's your CHOICE!

reply from: yoda

Finally, a true definition of "choice".

reply from: gdxcatholicxgrl

Abortion advocates say that abortion is about who gets to make the most intensely personal decisions. They are right.

Many abortion advocates support federal funding of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Population Fund. Both of these organizations support forced abortion in countries like China and Tibet.

This tells us that abortion advocates support the government making the most intense, personal decisions for citizens.

Government funding of abortions here and overseas puts the government in the position of using our tax dollars to encourage, or even require, abortions for certain women. Pro-choice advocates apparently think this is a good thing. I disagree.

It is cruel for abortion advocates to ask every pregnant woman to choose if her child should live or die. It is even crueler to decide for her that the child should die. As someone who is pro-life and pro-woman, I say that instead, we should give women the kinds of options they really want. Women want better housing, better education, better options for adoption or parenting. No woman wants an abortion.

When abortion advocates start making good options available to women, maybe they will start to earn the name "pro-choice."

reply from: KKKmember

Yo copper i love the kkk they are very insperational.... they stood up for what they believed.... just like the muslums

reply from: ForLife

Do you mean they stand up in the same way as the Muslims who cut off the heads of "infidel warriors" and fly planes into buildings with innocent civilians?

reply from: bobinsky

deleted duplicate post

reply from: bobinsky

There are some wonderful foster families out there, people who care about every child, no matter if it's perfect or has a handicap, they look at all children the same. And there are group homes for these foster kids. Yes, I know where Wales is - I have a dear friend who lives there and we are in touch often via email. Hubby and I would love to go visit him. As far as the British adoption rate, I'll take your word for it. But the sad fact is, this is America, and there is an entirely different mindset here. The majority of people want to adopt perfect little newborn babies, which leaves the foster kids sitting there, going nowhere. And they're wondering why nobody wants them. And, frankly, with the pro-lifer's stance, I don't understand why there aren't more foster children adopted.

Not sure what you mean by "chuffed". Glad? Happy? The women who have adopted their babies out over the years that I've worked with are most often edgy about giving up their babies. After several years, depending on the type of adoption done, many want to know how/if they can find out how their kid is doing, if it's healthy and loved, etc. Adoption is not the panacea people think it is for the woman giving up the child. It's heartbreaking to have to tell these women that there's no information we can give them because many adoptive parents still prefer closed adoptions, although, in the last several years, this has started to change. A woman never stops wondering about a child given up for adoption.

No, really I'm referring to the fact that pro-lifers talk about the sanctity of every life, but yet I don't see these foster children being adopted into loving, pro-life homes because of the sanctity of their lives. I see many anti-choicers talk the talk but not walk the walk. I no longer deal with adoptive parents of the Christian/pro-life persuasion because I want to choke them when they start talking about the sanctity of life and children and blah, blah, blah, then won't even bother to consider adopting anything but a brand new baby. Yes, despite the rhetoric, the unwanted will always be with us, but then again, in reality, I like to think - hope - that everyone of those kids in FC is wanted and we just haven't found the match of parents/kid yet.

A fetus does not suffer the emotional issue of whether or not it is wanted; it has no concept of such a thing. A 6 yo child that's been living in a group home/ orphanage has a concept of such a thing and is suffering the emotional toll being unwanted/unloved takes on every one of these children. I guess when the pro-lifers have proved that they believe in the sanctity and preciousness of those children that are already here I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on the issue of feti.

I'm not sure what your first statement has to do with abortion. This thought of being valued by a man is a cultural extension of a patriarchal society: a man "validates" a woman's worth. This is faulty thinking, but is deeply ingrained in our (the U.S.) culture. I'm not going to equate a fetus with a woman and her emotions.

The Holocaust cannot in any way, shape or form be compared to a woman making a decision to terminate a pregnancy that she is carrying.

I'm really not going to argue the PP issue with you because, if you are like other pro-lifers on this site, you look only at negative, biased information concerning PP. I work with PP and CPC's and I see them work together to better the situation of women. You may rearrange PP's slogan all you wish; you can accuse PP of anything you want; it doesn't matter. After the anti-PP crappola slung on this forum, there's no point in continuing this portion of the discussion.

If the daughter is two months old, then it has been birthed.

The early government in this country gave the military and certain citizens the right to kill Native Americans with no punishment ensuing: it granted the right to slaughter certain peoples that the government wanted out of the way so this country could be conquered for the new Americans. This country "solved the problem" of ridding itself of the original inhabitants of this country. So, your claim is incorrect. Trying to compare this to a woman deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is ridiculous. As soon as there is a possibility of a fetus being carried by someone or something other than a woman, this problem will solve itself. Fortunately, the killing of people - old, poor, handicapped, whomever - is prohibited by law. Your logic just isn't quite catching on, although I know you're trying, and it's nothing I haven't heard before: nazi's, slaughter of innocents, selfishness, greed, sanctity of all life . . .

Because pro-life persons are the group that feels they have the right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. They feel they have the "moral edge" in the abortion wars. Their side of the war believes that all pregnancies should end in birth. Fine. But if they believe the women should carry the feti to delivery, even when the mother cannot afford the child or does not want the child, then the pro-lifers are the ones that need to step up and finish what they started, instead of leaving it to the rest of us. "They care 'til it breathes air" is the perfect slogan for anti-choicers.

For those who support a womans reproductive choice, the issues are different. We do not pretend that we are morally superior to others in such a way that we can make their life decisions for them; we respect the right of a woman to make a decision about her life and her body that is best for her in the circumstances she is in. We don't pretend we have all the answers, as the anti-choicers do. If that one "sect" of people feel compelled to take away a woman's reproductive choice, then they need to be prepared to shoulder the responsibilities that come with taking away that choice.

I am pro-choice: I believe the woman should be allowed to choose what is best for her in her certain set of circumstances. If she decides to abort, I will do anything and everything I can to support her; if she decides to carry the child to term and keep it or adopt it out, I will do everything and anything I can to support her, whether it's legally, financially, psychologially, whatever. It is HER choice, not mine, not some pro-lifers. And if the anti-choicers think that women are not intelligent enough to make decisions about their own reproductive lives, then perhaps these unintelligent women shouldn't be allowed to keep their children should they decide to carry them to term.
The fact of the matter is, it doesn't make any difference what I think the fetus is, it matters only to the woman who's carrying it. The rights of the mother are paramount since, basically, the fetus has no rights.
If a child has been birthed, if the mother does not want to keep it, it should be placed for adoption.
As far as pro-life parallels with the holocaust, despite your claim, the comparisons are bogus and irrelevent and are quite indicative of the desperation of the anti-choice movement to demonize the pro-choice movement.

I find this statement interesting. I'm not conservative when it comes to many things, and pro-choice is one of them. You may refer to a fetus however you wish; I will do the same. But you want me to consider the fetus human so it may "help" me understand the view of other people. What other people? The anti-choicers? Believe me, I understand their agenda and their view completely after all these years.
After many years of being a clinic escort, being advised by peace officers to wear bullet proof vests under the escort vest/jacket, carrying a concealed weapon, being spit on, tripped, pushed, called every dirty name in the book, getting threatening calls at my home, or looking out the front window of my house and seeing the same car that followed me home from the clinic attempting to intimidate/frighten me, I know exactly what their views are. They are hateful and vindictive and, IMHO, if they could legally get away with it, they'd be doing a lot more damage than they've already done. I don't need a lecture about the pro-choice camp.
What's sad is that there are truly Christian and non-Christian pro-choice people out there who really, really care about the women involved and WILL do anything they can to help. They'll hold the hands of the girls/women waiting to abort; they'll care for the women after the abortion if they're alone; they don't care for the act of abortion, but their concern for the woman who made the decision is overwhelming. These people are embarassed by the type of anti-choicers they sometimes get lumped in with.

reply from: yoda

Indeed. And we could use that same "solution" to the problem of hunger in Asia and Africa as well. A few well-placed thermonuclear weapons would solve the problem of the starving, unwanted, unloved masses in an instant. We could call it the "bobinsky cure"!

reply from: yoda

Sure it can:

The New Untermenschen: The Pre-Born Children of Amerika

By Joe Pavone May 29, 2005

The Nazi’s had a particularly odious but descriptive word to express their assessment of the Jewish people-“untermenschen”, that is, subhumans. The Jewish children shown above are awaiting a proper burial after their mass grave was discovered by an American soldier after WWII. Not considered to be human beings and people worthy of life, these children were murdered and thrown into pits like so much garbage solely for the crime of being Jewish.

http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blchildren3.htm

But today in Amerika, we are not like the Nazi’s. We are a democratic society and we give women the choice of whether or not to kill their womb children. Should they be unwanted or an inconvenience in the eyes of their mothers, we simply allow the “fetus” to be aborted.

Note the same end result in either case-the murder of a child created in the image of God. What is incredible is the difference in response given by the Christian church in Amerika to these two genocidal situations.

reply from: sarah

The effect of de-humanization=death. Always.

Remove the humanity thru propaganda like the Nazi's did and you find mass graves filled with children.

Remove the humanity thru propaganda like NARAL did/does and you find garbage containers filled with children.

reply from: bobinsky

Remove the humanity of the women thru propaganda like anti-choice organizations did and do and you find morgues and emergency rooms filled with dead or half-dead women who were so desperate that they chose to risk death to terminate an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. But these women aren't really "human", are they, because what kind of "human" would "kill" her fetus? So lump them all together as useless baby killers and poof! away goes their humanity.

reply from: bobinsky

Well, technically you are right, yoda, I'll give you that. The holocaust can be compared to abortion by those whose ideologies are so disjointed and unrealistic that they can remove the reasons for the holocaust and portray women as "hitlers".
For those who deal in reality and are sane, we know that there is no comparison between the holocaust and abortion.

reply from: bobinsky

The fact that you make such an insipid statement is proof that your ignorance knows no bounds. But then again, I know what I have done and am doing to help people here and in other countries, and I have no need to feel guilty about any lack of aid on my part. Your stupidity is meaningless, except that is shines a bright light on the asinine anti-choice "beliefs" of the worthlessness of women.

reply from: bobinsky

YOU don't have any questions of your own, whosays. You merely regurgitate the same garbage that has been spoonfed to you by the anti-choicers. I especially like the way you ignore entire posts and only focus on ONE particular statement. This shows you're unable to debate all the issues, so you bang the nazi/holocaust drum.
As I said, to my knowledge, Dr. Singer HAS NOT KILLED ANYONE - THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISCUSSING ETHICS AS DR. SINGER DOES AND SLAUGHTERING INNOCENT JEWS, HOMOSEXUALS, GYPSIES, ETC. AS THE NAZI'S DID, ALONG WITH REGULAR GERMAN CITIZENS WHO JOINED IN THE SLAUGHTER. If you are to intellectually-challenged that the difference between what Dr. Singer does - you lack the understanding of his job - then there's nothing anyone can do to help you.

reply from: yoda

Hey, that's "choice", right? They chose to risk their death in order to cause the death of their child.

If you don't like illegal abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE!!

reply from: yoda

No, they would be more like Hitler's little SS soldiers, doing the bidding of their furher to rid the world of unwanted "vermin"..........

And you would be like one of Joseph Goerbel's little helpers, spreading the word that it's your patriotic duty to support those who run the gas chambers.......

Seig Heil!!

reply from: yoda

I'll have to agree with you, since my statement was inspired by one of your statements, it must be insipid.

You advocate that we kill unborn children to keep them from their misery, why do you so cruelly insist that born kids remain in their misery?

You hate born kids, don't you?

reply from: yoda

No one ever proved that Adolph Hitler killed anyone, either. Just YOUR kind of fellow!

reply from: bobinsky

I agree with you go a point: wanting and planning to and being able to handle the responsibilities of motherhood make a big difference. For women facing unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, the "role" of motherhood doesn't really matter because these women are intelligent and aware enough to know that they cannot fill the "role" of motherhood. This is why they choose to terminate their pregnancies.

Are you trying to tell me that women have NOT suffered and died during the centuries merely because they were women? Women WERE lynched; not nearly as many as black males, but they were lynched. They were also raped, beaten, and slaughtered in other ways.
And Jews were NOT the only one killed during the holocaust: homosexuals and gypsies were also on the list of "undersirables".

Wrong. Anti-choicers agree that as citizens of this country, we are protected by the Constitution/BOR, which includes our rights to privacy. Somewhere along the line, when a woman becomes pregnant, anti-choicers believe that these women have LOST their right to privacy and believe it is their job to tell these women what they should and should not do. But the Constitution says nothing about losing one's protected rights when a woman becomes pregnant; the anti-choicers do this. So the fetus is the difference; where before a pregnancy, a woman has the same rights as all under the Constitution; after the pregnancy, she doesn't have the same rights - all due to the fetus. So the women's rights fly right out the window. I would say that this is forgetting the woman when she is pregnant.
The fact that pro-choice people believe that women are competent, capable, intelligent human beings and do not attempt to strip them of their rights due to pregnancy can hardly be seen as "devaluing" a woman's role in humanity. Anti-choicers feel that women are incapable of making rational decisions about themselves and their bodies, therefore they seek to take away their rights and impose their beliefs instead. THIS is devaluing the woman
And not all women want to be mothers. Are those that choose to be childfree less valuable because of their choice? Childfree people are becoming numerous through the U.S.

Taking away a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy when she is facing an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy makes the woman little more than an incubator, especially when she desires to terminate the pregnancy. Her wishes are considered insignificant in light of the fetus, which is granted supremacy over the woman. "Motherhood" is a biological condition, then if the pregnancy is continued through birth, it remains biological but becomes psychological/emotional.
One I see that ALL humanity is valued by anti-choicers, I might be more open to certain beliefs. But it's obvious that not ALL life is valued equally by AC, so I'll hold off on giving the benefit of the doubt.

reply from: bobinsky

And I've known all along you're not "pro-life". But keep up the ruse.

Comparing Dr. Singer to nazi's, just as comparing PP and women who terminate pregnancies to nazi's, is stupid. Dr. Singer, as far as I know, has not killed anyone, nor has he caused the death of anyone. But keep trying, yoda. Each time you try, you look dumber than the time before.

Once again, stupid is as stupid does.

I've never advocated any such thing and you cannot prove that I did. Stop making assumptions and claims. You don't even know what you're talking about since your question makes no sense.

Hitler did indeed kill someone: himself. So you're wrong again.

reply from: yoda

Okay, Forrest...... is that your entire argument?

Wow, you only need to spell one word over four letters to make that argument!

reply from: bobinsky

Again, the comparison of abortion to the holocaust is so stupid that is staggers the imagination. There have been many atrocities committed throughout the decade, so why choose the holocaust? What about the slaughter of Native Americans early in this country's history by the government, the military and regular citizens who were never held accountable for their actions? Was this not considered an atrocity? How about the Salem witch trials and the witch trials held throughout Europe where many "supposed" witches were burned and hung? Or is this not an atrocity?
Or the Inquisitions in the Dark and Middle Ages? The deaths of innocent persons caused by the Catholic and non-Catholics because people would not commit to another type of religion? These people were viciously tortured, burned, lynched all in the name of God/ Chrsitianity. Why pick the holocaust? Being used to the nonsensical "thinking" of the anti-choicers, I know why they choose the holocaust, but the fact that Jews are offended by this comparison doesn't matter to the ACers.

Here is a quote I find interesting concerning the comparison between the Holocaust and abortion:
"The president of the Central Council for Jews in Germany, Paul Spiegel, said the cardinal had insulted the millions of victims of the Holocaust and that he was considering taking the matter to court. Spiegel told Friday's edition of the newspaper Saarbrücker Zeitung he "cannot in any way understand" how anyone could compare abortion and euthanasia to the crimes of the Nazis." This reply by Spiegel was in reference to this statement by Cardinal Meisner, "First there was Herod, who ordered the children of Bethlehem to be killed, then there was Hitler and Stalin among others, and today unborn children are being killed in their millions."
Now, if this man, the president of the CCJ in Germany, can find fault with the comparison of the holocaust and abortion, well, it just shows that there is a problem with the comparison.

reply from: yoda

Why NOT, Forrest? It's the most famous case of genocide in the world today, and the attitudes shown by the perpetrators of that genocide were very similar to the attitudes towards unwanted, unborn humans today. This may come as a shock to you, Forrest, but other people don't always follow your advice on how to make their arguments.

Not really. It just shows that some people think that their tragedies are special, and in a category by themselves. Hitler killed many more Russians than he killed Jews in Germany, and Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler killed Jews. More people were killed in Rwanda than Jews in Nazi Germany. We have probably killed more native Americans in this country than Hitler killed Jews also, so why is it an "insult" to compare it to other genocides?

But the more important point is that you are simply clouding the issues by pretending that abortion and the Holocaust are being compared in their totality, as if every point had to be identical. That's a cop-out employed by a debater who is bankrupt of ideas and arguments, as a way of changing the subject. You know perfectly well that we are comparing the attitudes towards the victims ....... not uniforms, not religions, not locations, not personalities...... and yet you persist in trying to cloud the issue and change the subject.

We see right through you, Forrest.

reply from: bobinsky

And you win th eprize. Because the Holocaust is the most well-known case of genocide today, anti-choicers grasp onto it as a comparison for abortion for purely emotional rasons, because any other reasons for comparison lack credibility. There is NO comparison between the two, but as long as you can manipulate people in believing there is, you'll use it. If you case had any merit, you wouldn't have to resort this crappola.

And again, stupidity reigns supreme. Attempting to compare a woman making a choice about her body to a lunatic madman slaughtering Jews, homosexuals and gypsies because he blamed them for the troubles the Germans were having makes perfect sense, lowbrow.

What, like your constant whining about the "tragedy" of abortion and you don't have a decent argument so you must rely on emotional appeal about the "tragedy" of abortion comparing to the holocaust. You anti-choicers think that your tragedy - abortion - is a category by itself.
As far as the other genocides I mentioned, those WERE and ARE real tragedies - innocent persons slaughtered at the hands of the governments/militaries/protected citizens while other people turned away. These are people who really suffered at the hands of others. There is nothing "special" about any of these tragedies.

Oh, nice try, Gomer. "Clouding the issue." Let's see, how many times have you used this is an argument on the pro-choicers on this forum? When you run out of your crap, then you make it somebody else's problem - tried and true anti-choice tactics. YOU are the mindless ones who compare abortion to the holocaust and then cannot back up or support your claim that they are the same because they are not. Then all of a sudden, we get the "backpeddle" special, another anti-choice tactic. When YOU anti-choicers compare one situation to another, be prepared to back it up all the way, ideology and all. If you can't do that, find another lie to throw out. When you use a comparison like the holocause for strictly emotional appeal, you should know that it's gonna fall apart sooner or later, and in your case, sooner.

You couldn't see the truth through the Hubble telescope, gomer. Try again.

reply from: sarah

Well, I guess it's entirely too bad these women weren't "intelligent" enough not to get pregnant in the first place. Truly intelligent people take the proper responsibility for their actions.

No, that's not what I said, and believe you know otherwise. We were talking in the context of the way the blacks of this nation were so horribly treated and the women that were lynched were lynced because they were "black" women, not just because they were women. Thank you for a history lesson I didn't need. I do know that it wasn't only Jews who were killed during the holocaust. But, it is ONLY children who are being killed thru abortion on demand.

Wrong. Anti-choicers agree that as citizens of this country, we are protected by the Constitution/BOR, which includes our rights to privacy. Somewhere along the line, when a woman becomes pregnant, anti-choicers believe that these women have LOST their right to privacy and believe it is their job to tell these women what they should and should not do. But the Constitution says nothing about losing one's protected rights when a woman becomes pregnant; the anti-choicers do this. So the fetus is the difference; where before a pregnancy, a woman has the same rights as all under the Constitution; after the pregnancy, she doesn't have the same rights - all due to the fetus. So the women's rights fly right out the window. I would say that this is forgetting the woman when she is pregnant.
The fact that pro-choice people believe that women are competent, capable, intelligent human beings and do not attempt to strip them of their rights due to pregnancy can hardly be seen as "devaluing" a woman's role in humanity. Anti-choicers feel that women are incapable of making rational decisions about themselves and their bodies, therefore they seek to take away their rights and impose their beliefs instead. THIS is devaluing the woman
And not all women want to be mothers. Are those that choose to be childfree less valuable because of their choice? Childfree people are becoming numerous through the U.S.

The constitution doesn't address abortion in any fashion. Pro-lifers believe in the sanctity of life , born and developing in the womb and somewhere along the line the pro-aborts lost that value, no doubt stemming from the "freedom" gained in not having to face up to taking responsibility for one's actions.
Make a mistake, just kill the child. Simple enough.

It's the pro-aborts who view a woman as an "incubator" to be used and mis-used at will. A woman has the absolutle right not to get pregnant and since the VAST majority of pregnancies occur because the woman agreed to the act that is meant to create a child she should be prepared to face that possibility. That's what a truly capable and intelligent person does, they weigh the consequenses to their actions and act accordingly.
Again, pro-lifers are the ones who see ALL HUMANITY as highly valuable. It's the pro-aborts that have lost the capacity to see that the child in the womb is a human being, dependant on the compassion and mercy of another, namely his or her mother. The ONE person who should be most willing to protect that life so dependant.
There's no "supremecy" here, pro-lifers hold both mother and child of equal value. I thought equal rights was a good thing.

reply from: yoda

I would ask if you were being deliberately dense, but I already know the answer. For everyone else, here's a newsflash: THERE ARE NO TWO SITUATIONS THAT ARE EXACTLY ALIKE! Now, does that mean that we never compare specific details of any two situations? Answer: Only if a ProLifer is doing the comparing, and a prodeather is objecting. Otherwise, it's fine.

Have a nice day, Forrest Gump.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

Okay you can stop insulting me now You don't know the circumstances of each and every woman aborting, so keep the stones to yourself, yes?

I did take responsibility for my actions. I am taking responsibility from my actions even now, two years on. I took the proper responsibility for my life and myself and my own way of thinking.

reply from: ChristianLott

What was 'imposed' on her was his sperm and for all intents - a baby.

That's what nookie's for. Get used to it.

In if what has befallen this maiden - to have a baby she does not want - she shall find a loving home for her own, not discard a child of love, beauty and innocence to the trash. Economics - money itself has a responsibility to a pre/newborn, even if the baby's mother has nothing. The charities will take care of everything.

This is not only Christianity, this is for the benefit of all man and woman kind - from conception to death.

Amen?

reply from: whosays

Neither did Hitler, as far as we know. But he did advocate the killing of others - as does Singer.

Unfortunately for the victims of the Nazi's, Hitler had other's who carried out what he advocated.

At least in America today, followers of Singer can't yet openly carry out what he has advocated.

reply from: sarah

They're making progress though, Who. All we have to is ask Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.

reply from: Amy

LOLOLOL...ok now there's a flippin brilliant little mind if I've ever read one...it's simply stunning.

Too funny!!!

Does anyone else wonder if he/she stuck his/her tongue out as the send button was clicked on?

Goober...LOL

reply from: Amy

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">First I need to point out that a fetus does not feel any pain during abortions in the 1st trimester. The central nervous system has not developed yet, and therefore a fetus in this stage has no brain, no thoughts, and no feelings.

Ok...well let's then figure where you come by this knowledge. That would be THEORY. There is also medical documentation of pain responses in babies as young as 13 to 16 weeks gest. Here let me cut and paste something for you to ponder...
"Dr. Ranalli is a neurologist at the University of Toronto, in Toronto Canada. He is acting president of the de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. He gave a presentation called "Pain, Fetal Development, and Partial-birth abortion" on 1997-JUN-27 to the House Judiciary Committee of the State of Ohio. 2,3 He has concluded that the "spino-thalamic" system is fully developed at about 12 to 14 weeks of gestation. This is the system that conveys pain signals from pain receptors throughout the body to the thalamus. He believes that the thalamus can feel pain, even though a connection between it and the cortex is missing."
When there is this kind of discrepency, don't you think it would best to err on the side of safety and consider the child? Exactly how sick does anyone in the medical community have to be knowing the very possibility that these children feel an ounce of the pain ripping them to shreds must certainly bring? And then support it by denying the possibility because it's not convenient. It's simply unbelievable.
Technology is not on the side of those who either support this horrific practice or who are in denial of it and it's consquences.
Has anyone ever told you your 'facts' are askew and debatable? Do some research.
By the way, the actual beginning of brain growth (cells) is almost, and may well be, immediate...it is fully formed by 10 weeks...and continues on additional fuction until about 5 to 6 months.

"It is fine to disagree with abortion on moral grounds"

ummm...well thanks for your permission. I just happen to think it goes beyond moral issues...although they are a might force to be reckoned with.

"But, there is no OBJECTIVE scientific proof that a fetus has "personhood" - (as defined by the law)
In fact it can be proven without a doubt that a fetus in the early stages (currently legal for abortions) does not possess the necessary requirements to be given "personhood" under the law."

There is no scientific proof about a great many things...that does not negate them. Most scientific proof is anything but objective. Again your proven without a doubt is quite unproven. Why do you think all these studies are showing otherwise? Why is it that when there is any kind of advancement in neonatal technology they come up with more and more proof that brings your 'facts' to a screeching halt? I don't think 'proven without a doubt' should ever be used in any scientific field since it is inevitable that this doubt always rears it's little face down the way. After I had my oldest son, I was told I would NEVER have another child without invitro...they said "your tubes are so extensively scared there is no possible way fertilization will ever take place." Welcome my daughter. After she was born...my second son was born. Of course they continued to say the condition on my tubes worsened. I even had a hysterosalpingogram which they said showed complete blockage...well guess what? And that wasn't even in a complex situation.

"Problems with the argument that a fetus has LEGAL [not moral] "personhood" arise when we consider that:
a fetus in the early stages does not have a central nervous system. Therefore it would not be capable of feeling pain, being aware of its own existence, or thinking.
LEGALLY [not morally] a fetus in the early stages could be compared to a brain dead patient on life support. Neither has a functioning brain (one has no brain at all), and neither can exist without outside sources."

Right, they say that about our elderly and ill too. They said that about Terri Schiavo who clearly showed pain when being moved about. They said that about...oh shoot I forgot her name...she's written a book and did many interviews during the murder of Terri Schiavo...who was also in a coma her doctors said she would never come back from and would be severly mentally disabled for the rest of her life. Did I say that SHE WROTE A BOOK? She describes the excurciating pain she felt at having food withheld and procedures done without benefit of anesthesia. The fact is that there is much the medical community is simply taking a guess at. Hard to base any kind of faith in their directives given that tidbit.

It is [morally sound] to speculate that a "soul" is implanted into a zygote upon conception, but it is not [LEGALLY] or [FACTUALLY] sound to assert this as [SCIENTIFIC] fact.
And, that is exactly what we're trying to do when we assert a pro-life argument on the basis that a fetus has LEGAL [not moral] "personhood"

"Human life is a continuum that is comprised of stages, in all of these stages human life is "living" even (sperm & egg cells are "living"), but sperm & egg cells are not a fetus, a fetus is not a baby, a baby is not a child, and a child is not an adult. "

Come back to us when you can prove the cells of a baby at any stage are ever anything than a baby...like a shoe-horn or a lampshade. Then we'll talk.

"Criminals are placed in jail because they are currently criminal. Lawyers cannot successfully assert arguments based on what the criminal has the POTENTIAL to become with psychiatric help. Though it may reduce his sentencing, it will not render him not guilty for the crime he has committed."

Ok seriously...do you even want to use a criminal in any kind of analogy with an innocent human being? These 'cells' you keep denying mean anything of import will ALWAYS become a child...a criminal may never become a empathetic and responsible member of society. You're really reaching here, you know.

"Though a fetus has the potential to become a "person" [as legally defined not morally]
It is not a "person" [as legally defined not morally] and therefore cannot be treated as such during the stages of development where it is not viable outside of the mother's body or at the very least the stages where it has not yet even developed a brain, and the ability to think, and feel."

Holy smokes...well that's the whole debate. The majority of people believe it is a 'person'...and not simply on a moral stance. Now roe v wade may have taken that standing from the unborn child per the crazed judiciary...but many people...I will include myself here...aren't exactly thinking roe v wade was either a proper ruling supported by the electorate, in fact it was simple legislating from the bench...nor was it Constitutional on how the case was brought nor the opinion derived. I completely disagree that a child is not of value until you seem to think so...or a bunch of lawyers who make scads of money off of their blood...and politicians who keep office the same way.

Ok phew...I can't keep doing this...my brain just can't follow that kind of convoluted thought at 3 in the morning. Suffice it to say...I find all of that a mite silly. It's almost as if you completely forget what the debate is and what the beliefs and findings are on each side. Screw the medical field...so many of them are nothing more than glorified psychics...they keep guessing until they get something right.

reply from: Amy

Really great points Shipra. Thanks.

reply from: Amy

Ok, now wait a minute...either you're a lawyer or you work counseling pregnant girls? Wasn't the ACLU mentioned at some point? And you went to Princeton or you just go around the country meeting crazy professors who want to murder children? Wow, you're terrible interesting.

So you honestly think someone can be so exempt as to call for the right to murder their own child up to a month after the birthing process and be brilliant, intelligent, and fascinating? I'd hate to meet your circle of friends.

Yeah that adoption stuff is for the birds...we can't have that poor girl wondering who is loving and raising her child to become a productive member of society...or teaching her/him to greatness. That's just terrible. Yeah...instead have her let a 'doctor' rip the childs arms and legs off before breaking it's neck...that should keep her from wondering about the child.

Please tell me you don't actually work with these girls in crisis. Can anyone here imagine someone coming at you with those perspectives when you are in a highly charged emotional state? "so you know if you give it up for adoption it might come looking for you...and maybe it's not healthy...and maybe the people won't be so nice...and besides is adoption even a good choice when you can kill your child? Wait a minute...you might want to keep your child? What about the father? That lazy bum! He probably won't even be there for you...what about money from him? Will he even talk to the kid? He's probably not even a decent role mondel so you won't want him involved with the kid! Now you go think about it deary...but not too long...we have a special on ripping your child from your body this week which may leave your uterus perforated...leading you to a life of possible infertility and cancer concerns. "

Egads!

reply from: Amy

Oh sh*t, quit making your sweeping generalizations already. First I question your numbers, second many children in foster care came to the system as older child, not newborns...they almost always are adopted out. Many are also in loving foster care homes with hopes they can keep those children in a permanent manner...if the states would release their hold on the children. Of course they don't...because smarmy state workers are afraid they would find themselves out of jobs.

Why aren't laws changed to allow people to adopt those children without it being a huge money maker for attys? 50K plus to adopt a child? That's insane. We have families going out of the country to adopt because the attys haven't found a way of making money off that quite yet...or near as much. Scavanger bastards that they are.

Here let me try to imploy your tact....Why not talk to your atty buddies, if you know any in fact...and get together to reduce costs, time and procedure? Don't you care about those foster children? You don't do you, you horrid creature, leaving them in a system that charges many familes more then they have saved...you just don't care. Oh wait, now they're not foster children, they are all homeless children. See how little you care about these children...you've made them homeless and won't let people adopt them without lining your pocket.

You know, to make you more comfortable and make the argument easier for you to understand I was going to say "dip your wick" grab my crotch and spit on the floor but I simply couldn't bring myself to do it...sorry. Oh, and trying to sound like you so you get an idea of what you present to others was darn scary...you might want to get that fixed.

You know, in a rather amusing way you're patently ridiculous.

reply from: LilLiz09

you lil b**** if you want a war thats what you'll get f*** whiteswhites

reply from: LilLiz09

quote:
Originally posted by: LilLiz09[

babies r a part of you if you kill it it is like killing a part of you

reply from: lushioustease

I have been looking at this site for sometime now. And I think that it is very detailed in the abortion issues, and I have to say that is a very great site for any information you want to know or are doing a project on.

I have to point my opinnion on the abortion issue. I dont believe in it, I think no matter what happens you should never kill a human life. If it was rape then you can give it up for adoption, or if it was just a case in had sex and opps! didnt want a kid then I guess that the person should have kept thier legs closed from the beginning. I just dont understand why people would have a late term abortion either, for the simple fact that you have carried it that long, why kill it now? And how can someone sit there and see what they have killed....you made that outta love hate or force...its still apart of you. To me if I had gotten rapped(which I have) and had a baby out of it, I would keep it. I would get to attached in the 9 month period and since I dont believe in abortions there is no way that I would kill it.


If you would like to comment on this feel free to or you can email me at lushioustease@yahoo.com

Kendra

reply from: Hereforareason

Welcome Kendra!
I agree with what you said. It's very true.

Amber

reply from: yoda

Good points, Kendra, welcome to the forum. To respond directly to that particular point, that's the reason why abortion clinics go out of their way to be sure that the mothers don't see the remains of their child.

reply from: Christian4life

Just wanted to bring up the fact that there is another STARTLING comparison between abortion and the holecaust.

Which, in my opinion it doesn't matter how you say it because abortion IS a holecaust of the unborn.

Both the holecaust of the Jews and the holecaust of the Unborn have survivor stories. I've read both the accounts from Elie Wiesel about his survival of the Nazi holecaust, and Gianna Jessen's story about her survival (with injuries) after being aborted by her mother. She lives with this fact every day and the physical problems it has caused her. If the doctor who aborted her had seen her, he would have killed her after her birth.

There have been twins who were mutilated and left to die in the womb where their twin was torn out piece by piece through the horror of abortion. They will tell you to this day that nothing can replace their murdered twin. There has been a 5 year old girl who died because her mother aborted her and she survived, only to die later because the saline injection caused her physical problems for years until she finally lost the fight.

There have been babies who's arms have been cut off in the womb who've bled to death in excrutiating agony because the doctor didn't know there were twins. There have been people who cannot walk, who are brain-damaged, healthy children who were born dying and writhing in pain because of the callousness of the abortionist who didn't "do his job right".

And even worse, there are people who will read this and feel NOTHING for those children. There are people who will read this and think that the only injustice was that the children were not killed immediately in the womb.

THAT IS THE TRUE HORROR OF THE HOLECAUST.

reply from: yoda

Yes, and another parallel is the fact that there are actually people who will deny that the Holocaust even happened, just like there are proaborts that deny that any human life is extinguished in an abortion.

reply from: sarah

Well said, C4L!! I can't imagine anyone not having their heart torn at reading those accounts. Yet, I know they exist and are even busy patting themselves on the back for accepting such brutal practices. They're so enlightened and only have the welfare of the women at heart.
Well, Hitler and his minions held "some" to be superior too.

Yoda, great point. No wonder the pro-aborts get their feathers ruffled when the comparison is made. Somehow they are blinded to the parallel's and when it's pointed out...LOOK OUT!!

reply from: Navynate

TextSarah,

You are absolutly correct when you say that prochoice groups hate it when someone compares the Holcaust and abortion, I know I've done that a few times and do they ever get ticked off at me when I do that. They accuse you of saying that they are Nazi's when you do that. No, you aren't saying that they are Nazi's, you are saying that the same idiology behind both of them are pretty much the same (which they are). You point out some facts (like the fact that prochoice groups have been lying about how many women died before Roe, they say 5-10,000 each year) that Dr Nathanson admitted that he lied when he said that 5-10,000 women died each year before Roe was decided. And other lies that prochoice groups and supporters keep saying to this day, Boxer or Nancy Palosy saying that 5-10,000 women would die if Roe is overturned.

reply from: Tam

Nate!!! Welcome back!!!!

reply from: yoda

WB, nate! Long time no see!

reply from: JANIE34

I am not sure if I am contacting only one person or if this will be posted for everyone to see.. I think this is an absolute disgrace,,, first off your information is misleading,,, there are bands of out of date photos, and if you have never experienced and abortion you have no right to state an opinion... Second more white women have abortions (statistics shows) because they can afford them... get your facts straight and stop misleading people with a topic you obviously know nothing about.. Second stop protesting abortion,,,and start protesting something that counts this war... There are hundreds being killed everyday, do you have a site for that?

reply from: mom5

"if you have never experienced abortion you have no right to state an opinion"...what exactly does that mean? If you personally have never had one? Please remember...the unborn was never given a chance to "voice" their "opinion".

"stop protestion abortion"....3,500 unborn children KILLED everyday...alot more than a hundred!

This is an abortion debate website, not war debate.

Welcome.

reply from: yoda

I think you are sadly confused, Janie34. I've never experienced being murdered, either, but I do express my opinion on that, and you probably do too, right? To be accurate, you should have said "If you've never experienced an abortion, you have no way to say how it feels to have one", and I might have agreed with you on that. So don't try to stifle our constitutional right to express our opinions, we aren't impressed.

You had two "seconds", so this probably should have been "third", right?

We happen to think that abortion DOES count, Janie. When 1.3 million innocent babies are killed each year, we think that IS important. That means there are THOUSANDS of babies killed every day, before they have a chance to do anything right OR wrong.

Think before you write this stuff, Janie.

reply from: Navynate

Thanks Tam and Yoda,

I'm sorry it's taken too long to respond to your posts. Sometimes when I try to post something it pops up a message saying that this is a group that you have to have a password or the modorater has to know about you, or something like that. I can't remember exactly what it is that pops up, but it keeps me from posting a message when I want to. Lately I've been hanging out at Bush V. Choice and posting some messages there. Talk about laying out the unwelcome carpet, they really do know how to make someone feel unwanted. If you're prolife that is. But some people who are prolife get as nasty as they do. I don't understand why anybody has to be so nasty at all. I'm done with summer school (except for alot of a class on Access and Excel, do you know anyone who is an expert who can help me offline?) classes. You should read some of the stuff that prochoicers write over there. If I had enough time to do schoolwork and post on all the sites I would like to then I would. But when school starts again (if I can get all of my access and excel stuff in before the Fall semester starts) I probably won't post too much then, schoolwork takes up alot of time. I hadn't thought about the survivor thing with both abortion and the holocaust. If you want to see a prochoicer go crazy, just link abortion and the holocaust, (which is completely true) and show the similarities of the two (which there are many).

reply from: BOUNDGIRL

">http://KlanParenthood.com/Pro-choice_Nazi_Abortion_Facts/">http://KlanParenthood.com/Pro-choice_Nazi_Abortion_Facts/</A></FONT></FONT></FONT>[/q

reply from: Shamgar

Black genocide? Hahahahahahaha . . . . . How about we get some facts from a reliable source on abortion . . . . it appears WHITE women get the most abortions. The fastest growing population in the US are the Mexicans so it appears that the whites are the ones being shoved out of the picture.

Abortion statistics
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/38399-1.asp

In the United States: In 1996, about 20 women for every 1,000 women aged 15-44 years had an abortion, and for every 1,000 live births, about 325 abortions were performed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the past 20 years, considerable progress has been made in the technology used for second-trimester abortion. This and the social issues surrounding abortion have led to more women seeking terminations later in pregnancy.

* Safety: Legal abortion is a safe procedure. Infection rates are less than 1%, and fewer than 1 in 100,000 deaths occurs from first-trimester abortions. Abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term.

* Race: Most women seeking abortion are white (59.1%); 2% were black, and 5.7% were of other races.

* Age: Abortion rates are highest among 20- to 24-year-old women. Rates are lowest among women younger than 20 or older than 40 years, but these women are far more likely to have an abortion if they become pregnant.

In the world: Abortion causes at least 13% of all deaths among pregnant women. New estimates are that 50 million abortions are performed each year in developing countries, with some 20 million of these performed unsafely because of conditions or lack of provider training. Last updated: Jul 28, 2004

http://www.detnews.com/2005/census/0507/18/A04-210970.htm
Friday, June 10, 2005
Census: Immigration creates age, race split
Hispanic and Asian populations are growing 10 times faster than whites, '04 figures show.

reply from: Jill

I really dissapointed of this world now because the people here in earth are now not the child of God it is now the child of satan! why did I said that? because people are now mentally pathetic, spiritually EVIL, and psycologically monsters!!! thy kill babies and others not just killing them but eat them see how erisponsible the people now.

people known sex as for fun not thinking that it should be at the right time. how mentay pathetic! I saw how the people make the sex as for fun they put it at any website and it is very PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply from: Kate

WRONG, Shamgar.

Black people are a smaller PERCENTAGE of the population. The percentage of the black population having abortions is higher than the percentage of white people having abortions.

Go back to 5th grade math. If there are 10 kids in class #1 and 20% of them pass thier 5th grade Math test, and there are 60 kids in class #2 and 15% of them pass thier Math tests, which class had more children that passed? It seems you weren't one of them.

Now that the eugenicists feel they have been pretty successful in eliminating the blacks, and Latino Americans are now the largest minority, they are switching to targeting them.

reply from: Shamgar

Oh that is why you forgot to bring the actual poplutaion number of blacks and whites in the USA to calcuate your little math lesson . . .until you do that you are nothing but somenone spewing unsubstantiated claims . . . .but I suppose facts would tip your little fantasy apple cart over . .too bad . . .

reply from: Kate

Oh that is why you forgot to bring the actual poplutaion number of blacks and whites in the USA to calcuate your little math lesson . . .until you do that you are nothing but somenone spewing unsubstantiated claims . . . .but I suppose facts would tip your little fantasy apple cart over . .too bad . . .

I don't have to. It's all there, black and white for anyone to see, listed on several websites. Look it up yourself. You are wrong, and it's not hard to prove it.

In 2000 in the U.S., hispanic women of childbearing age were only 12.8% of the population, and yet they accounted for 20.1% of abortions.

Also in 2000, African American women of childbearing age were only 13.7% of the population, and yet they had 31.7% of all abortions!!!

Source, Allen Guttmacher (Planned Parenthood) Institute

I could go year by year on down the line and prove you wrong for every year, but I don't have the time.


reply from: Shamgar

Ever have a class in statisitcs? My instructor told us the very first day that the easiest way to LIE was to use statistics. . . .now it appears that we have two sets of statisitics and one doesn't seem to jive with the other one. . . .

reply from: Christian4life

Ever have a class in statisitcs? My instructor told us the very first day that the easiest way to LIE was to use statistics. . . .now it appears that we have two sets of statisitics and one doesn't seem to jive with the other one. . . .

What cause would your precious Planned Parenthood have to lie about race? These are THIER statistics!!!

reply from: Shamgar

What cause would your precious Planned Parenthood have to lie about race? These are THIER statistics!!!

A. They are not my planned parenthood. . . .
B. People lie for money/power all the time . . . . it is called politics . . . . scientists lie about the safety of medicines with statisitic to get them on the market . . . cigarette companies lie about statistics . . . planned parenthood sucks off of the teat of the government for their funding . . .
C. You don't believe any of the teachings of the KKK but you believe this teaching . . .hahahahahahahahaha

reply from: coldxhardxtruth

I know that by posting this I will get swarmed by all the "pro-lifers" however, I am completely disgusted by this entire thread.

First of all, you should all know that I AM AN EMPLOYEE OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD, yes, the evil organization that many of you completely hate. (To clarify, I am a member of the teen awareness group, a non profit portion of planned parenthood designed to educate teens on issues such as sexual health, pregnancy prevention, self esteem, and healthy relationships)

To even compare us to the KKK is completely ludacris. First of all, we employ African Americans (as well as other minorities). If I am up to par on my history I do not believe that there were any minorities that were involved in the KKK.

Secondly, the reason why African American's have a relatively high rate of abortions is not attributed to the fact that Planned Parenthood is "racist", but rather it is a logically explainable phenomenon.

In multiple surveys conducted as to why women seek abortions, the number one reason was almost always consistantly found to be financial issues.

According to census.gov, in 2004 the average American income was $43,318. The average African American income was 30,000$. The average poverty rate for non-hispanic white americans was 8.2% as compared to the 24.4% of African Americans.

Since the highest number of women seek abortions because of financial situations, and as of now the African Americans financial situation is not as well off as that of the non-hispanic white americans, it can be logically reasoned that this is a contributing factor to the fact that African American's account for a great deal of abortions.

That's coming from a real life (and relatively normal) employee of "Klan Parenthood". The information I just presented was not biased in any way, it came from the government census website, not the heavily biased "Klan Parenthood" website. As with any person trying to make an argument, you can't depend upon biases "facts" which are heavily distorted by both liberals (Michael Moore is a prime example) and conservatives (as in this case). I can assure you that as a health educator, I would never ever bias my information from one race to the next, and as someone who is also a patient at Planned Parenthood, I can assure you that the nurses are not racist, nor are they trying to irradicate any race.

Honestly, how would we benefeit? We are a non-profit organization... that's why many people in poor financial situations come to us. The price is figured on a need basis, whereas at a regular gynocologist they don't figure case by case, they simply charge a flat fee...and if you aren't very well off, that probaby isn't the bets option for you, whereas a place that may not charge you anything (some people end up not having to pay for any services!) certainly would appear more convienient, accessable, and attractive.

And, for the record, Planned Parenthood's main advocacy isn't even abortion. I am yet to even mention the option to any of my private contacts and I have successfully helped multiple females (of different races I might add) make healthy choices, including that of ADOPTION or ABSTINENCE.

if there are any cases of racism within the company, that is a shame and my heart goes out to victims...but there is racism in all parts of society (including other businesses and medical establishments). I noticed many people on here stating that they do not wish to be "generalized", well neither do we.

Any questions, feel free to IM me at-- angelhunny1388

reply from: yoda

Care to comment on this?

Planned Parenthood Arnold Schwarzenegger Sued by High Ranking Planned Parenthood ExEmployee for Systematic racism and sexism

January 21, 2005 -- A suit naming the Governor of the State of California, California's State Treasurer, Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles (PPLA), and others, was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Tuesday afternoon (Andrew Jones v. Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, et al., LASC Case No. BC327377). The blockbuster suit was filed by Andrew Jones, the former Project Manager of the Community Services/Education Department of PPLA. Mr. Jones worked for PPLA for several years and is African-American.

The verified complaint seeks recovery for unlawful termination, racial and sexual harassment, and a failure to pay overtime. Jones' suit alleges that PPLA regularly allowed overt racism and sexism to infect its facilities in early 2004. Among other serious allegations, it is alleged that PPLA did nothing when one of its employees was referred to as a "n****r." Additionally, the suit, filed under penalty of perjury, alleges that PPLA consistently portrayed African-American males as being irresponsible and that male employees were regularly referred to as "d**heads" and other offensive terms by the white female management.

reply from: sarah

Yep, just like Margaret Sanger wanted it. Her target group was the poor....the "human weeds."

You might be interested to learn a little about the proud founder of PP:

(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)

How Planned Parenthood Duped America

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.

Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy."

http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

reply from: whosays

Most people wouldn't be willing to openly admit that they work for an organization that profits by taking advantage of underprivlidged people.

While your honesty in admitting that you are perfectly willing to exploit the desperate financial situation of another person for your own employment opportunity is unique, your character is clearly lacking something.

Shame, perhaps?

reply from: Alexandra

Just like Hitler encouraged the Jews to have abortions.

History's repeating itself right there.

I think it's hilarious (in an odd sort of way) that PP accuses pro-lifers of being Klan, yet they set up shop in minority neighborhoods so as to kill off more non-whites. As a former teacher of mine always said, you point the finger and you have three pointing back at you!

reply from: Annadoll123

As a pregnant and adopted woman.. I feel like I have the right to reply to this message. There is a big difference between adoption and abortion. When it comes to abortion the woman decides to have her baby killed and not given the chance of life... sort of like an indian giver.. she gives life and then takes it? I have news for all the women out there that support abortion and have done it... "You are not God.. You do not have the right to make life and take it, that is God's place.. and you will have to answer for it one day. That day may not be tomorrow and it may not be today but it will be one day." And as far as adoptoin goes.. the mother at least gave her baby the chance to live and have a good life... she at least gave a baby that she either could not take care of or just didn't want she at least gave it to people that could give the baby what it deserves, especially to people who probably can't have children in the first place.. there is no reason for abortion.. if you can lay down and have sex... and get pregnant then the least you should do is to at least give birth to it and put it up for adoption instead of killing it.. there is no reason.. women who support this and have done it say "its my body and I can do what I want with it" that is true it is your body.. so if u want to go and kill yourself then thats your business.. but the baby that is being killed is not YOUR body.. it is that baby's body, its just in you... and the only reason for that is because you layed down and had sex when you're not ready to be a mother and are just so immature that you just dont want the responsibility that comes with your own actions.. think about what i just said and it just might make some sense to you because i know it will to millions of people out there.. I thank my birth mother everyday of my good and happy life that she did not abort me.. she may not have raised me but she did at least give me what I and every other baby and person out there deserves in life.. she had the worst situation.. she was homeless and was 18.. I dont see what pushed her away from aborting me except for God and her taking her responsibilities as a woman. I will love her all of my life even though i do not know her. just think about it and you might come out being against abortion.. or just think of someone like me as the baby you aborted.. because i was in that situation.. Good Luck and God Bless each and everyone of you

reply from: Annadoll123

Who honestly cares about statistics and racism.. that has nothing to do with that fact that abortion is completely wrong.. if a white woman has a abortion then she is wrong and if a black woman has an abortion then she is wrong.. and statistics statistics statistics..... i dont care if it was 99% of women having abortion (black,white,yellow,green, purple,red....) or if it was .01% of women having abortions (black,white,yellow,green,purple,red...) it is still wrong.. so stop the statistics and racism saying blacks do this more or whites do this more because they can afford it.. because honestly.. where is it getting you in this national situation??? nowhere.. facts or no facts... debates are about opinions.. and the abortion situation is the only thing Bush has hit on the head because he is against it. And also the war is something we can not stop.. we can protest it we can be against it but it is something we cannot stop.. so why even waste our breath...? what is started is started no going back on it so let be what can be let alone. However abortion is something we can stop as a nation. Whatever happened in WWII let it alone.. it is in the past and it is done and over with so stop with the Hitler and the KKK... yes I can see where it ties together but there is no point in talking and dwelling on the hilter prospection. The only thing we as a nation, as a team and also as opposing teams need to think about the present and future.. but on this site we need to think about abortion.. not the war in iraq and not WWII or Hitler.. Thank You and God Bless

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Annadoll!

reply from: Tam

That quote is from this http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45796.

I just wanted to say--what an AWFUL thing to say. I don't think anyone with a conscience would pray that 6 million unborn children would be aborted, even in the context mentioned. I think anyone with a conscience, if the person were going to pray, would pray that NEITHER of those things happen. This is not a multiple-choice test! We don't have to choose one atrocity over another atrocity! Yes, there is a valid comparison to be made between the abortion atrocity and the Nazi Holocaust atrocity--both are atrocities that resulted in the deaths of millions of persons (YES, PERSONS, not "potential" persons or "almost" persons). But it's not a game where people would pray, "O God, please turn back time and have all those 6 million persons be aborted in the womb instead of suffering the fate they suffered at the hands of the Nazis" or "O God, please turn back time and have 6 million unborn babies aborted rather than 6 million born persons suffer terrible fates at the hands of the Nazis". A person with a conscience, if praying a prayer that began "O God, please turn back time . . ." would end that prayer with " . . . and make the Nazi Holocaust never have existed at all" and would pray the same prayer about abortion " . . . and make all unwanted children wanted and loved, all unhealthy children healthy and well, and all impoverished children well sheltered, nourished, and clothed."

I just found that remark on Prager's part extremely offensive. What happened to "Pray To End Abortion"? No one would pray to have someone aborted. The requests we make, those prayers and intentions and such that we put out into the universe, to God or just to Whomever Is Listening--those are not a joke and not a game. There is no need to include the expression "rather than". The universe is not some big store where we have to trade some lives for some other lives. That might happen at the hands of some sickos (such as those bastards the Nazis) but that is not something anyone would pray FOR. I'm sure he didn't mean to be so offensive, but -- well, like the people he's writing about in his article, HE needs to be more careful with his word choices!

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that's pretty much a proabort statement. "Kill them before birth so they won't have to endure the Holocaust". What a croc!

reply from: CAS

I can't find the article now...but it was hispanics (Mexicans) that were initially the target of the early abortion clinics. I have a great quote from the founding doctor that was just unbeliavable in its hatred for hispanic people...think I can find it now, though?? geeeeesh

CAS

reply from: theflyingpen

Really? Hmm. News to me. I would be interested in the article, should you ever find it. I've only read generalizations about racist movements dealing with abortion, and primarily against black babies.

Maybe they were talking about asian, hispanic, etc. babies as well. *shrug*

reply from: Tam

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46650

Excerpt (emphasis mine):

reply from: sarah

Tam, thanks so much for posting this. It was a very interesting read.

reply from: Tam

You're welcome! Nice to see you!!

reply from: Tam

Jill Stanek discusses Bill Bennett's recent comments about abortion of black children:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46674

Excerpt:

reply from: sarah

You're welcome! Nice to see you!!

Thanks Tam, nice to "see" you too.

reply from: kaisha1

helo all,
i am a 16 year old female still in high school and doing a religion assignment on the issue of abortion after looking at the photos on the website www.100abortionpictures.com my stomach turned to see the ways in which innocent children are treated and killed if a female does not want to have a baby maybe she should get her fallopian tubes tied or keep away from men... BABIES DO NOT HAVE A VOICE AND THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO DIE IN SUCH A HARMFUL WAY ... it disgusts me to see the ways that doctors allow abortion and mothers to let there innocent child die in such a horrid way... for all the babies that ave been aborted my heart goes to them and i love them with all my heart they are all beautiful in my eyes if a mother does not want the baby maybe they should have the baby and put it up for adoption... mothers thinking of aborting or have have a look at the website i had up before and you will realise what you have done or what you are about to do to an innocent child...

yours disgustedly
kaisha colum x x

reply from: bradensmommy

Easier said than done unfortunately! Too many choicers out there "claim" those pictures are phony which you and I both know for a fact they aren't. Pro-lifers know what is right and wrong about abortion and it gets tiring when the choicers come on here acting like fools and in the end they still come out acting like fools. We usually call out thier stupid remarks from the beginning. Welcome to the forum! I'm a newbie as well and a fellow pro-lifer!

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, kaisha. bradensmommy, anytime you hear a proabort talk about "phony photos", just ask them where the "real ones" are. That always shuts their mouths.

reply from: pray4em

i do care about the rights of women but prolife is about the rights of the unborn, it's the baby's body.

reply from: pray4em

it is my understanding that a large majority of Americans are against abortion at demand, so why is it legal?

reply from: yoda

Because the SCOTUS isn't obligated to follow public opinion, and our legislature is impotent.

reply from: mycroft

No doubt that both PP and KKK are organizations based on evil intent, but are you suggesting they are somehow formally (or even informally) linked? That the KKK and PP conspire against blacks, catholics, and others on the KKK's "mud people" list?

reply from: yoda

Similar goals. Sanger, the PP founder, once spoke at a KKK rally.

reply from: naynay4079

thank you i like your thoughts on this i just looked at pictures for a project i am doing and it litterly brought tears to my eyes i think its not the babies fault the mother layed on her back and spread her legs it just makes me al
absolutly sick

reply from: yoda

naynay, could you be a bit more specific as to whose comments you're responding to?

reply from: memphisgurl23

I can agree with you. I think abortion is cruel and it is murder. From the time the sperm fertilizes the egg it is a baby.I am doing a report for school and I cam across this site and I learned that the baby (no matter how old it is)they can feel tbhe pain of the abortion. I am a proud mother of three daughters and I could no imagin my life without them,but I think if you don't want the child give it up for adoption to someone who will love it don't kill it,the baby didnt ask to be made,why punish it?

reply from: ForLife

The blueprint in a person's DNA constructs that unique individual very quickly. Three weeks after conception there is a beating heart. Six weeks after conception brain waves are measurable. In the third month the embryo is called a fetus because the unborn child has all structures, appendages and organs he or she will have after birth.

Pain is our friend and ally. It tells us when we are injuring ourselves so we pull our hand off the hot burner, etc. Lepers lose sensitivity in their nerves. The result? They injure themselves unawares and keep on damaging themselves. They lose limbs because their nerve cells were not warning them.

A child in the womb really doesn't need operating nerve cells. It really is irrelevant if a preborn feels pain or not. The child cannot control his fate at that point.

It's very likely a preborn child may not feel pain until twenty weeks after conception. But whether a preborn human being feels pain or not while being put to death, the tragedy is no different just the same.

The DNA of a unique individual begins constructing that person at conception. Conception is the beginning point for a new human life. We are valuable because we are human; not based on our development, age, intelligence, etc. A teenager is not less human than an adult. A pre-schooler is not less human than a teenager. The more weeks or months one has under their belts does not make them more human.

When or if one feels pain is irrelevant. Lepers can't feel pain. But it would be a crime to injure their unfeeling limbs.

reply from: deehoc

OK...i know im not going to change the minds of many of you in regards to the morality of abortion, but that is not my main concern at the moment. I am hoping however to enlighten a few of you on what exactly we can do to set our differences aside. Before you jump on the bandwagon of Planned Parenthood haters...there are a few things you should realize first:

Planned Parenthood does NOT encourage people to have abortions...that is absolutely a lie. At all times they encourage them NOT to, and provide them with thorough adoption counseling. Planned Parenthood will not do an abortion on someone who appears even the LEAST BIT regretful or upset about their decision. So come on people, lets put that lie to rest once and for all.

Abortion is only 2% of what planned parenthood does, 98% of what they do is STD testing, GYN exams, adoption counseling (you know...to encourage people NOT to have abortions), and contraception and family planning ( also, to prevent the need for an abortion to even happen). And i know what you will say to this already. "2% is still to much!"...ABSOLUTELY! I couldnt agree more, But it doesnt seem logical to want to blame/destroy planned parenthood when they are working harder than anyone else in the country to stop the need for abortions. Unfortunately, our government and pro-life supporters keep making it harder for PP to educate people about their sexual health and provide them with safe contraception so that abortions (right or wrong...i dont know) will become obsolete. The government continues to cut funding for school districts that refuse to teach abstinance only sex ed, a program that has been proven through studies to be innefective (for proof of this just look around you). And the government also refuses to pass a law backed by PP that would require sex ed cirriculum, if even taught, to provide only factual, medically accurate information. (Currently, the law states that schools must teach abstinance only and if they mention condoms/contraception, they must portray it as innefective).

Ok...so to get to my point. "What does this have to do with my beliefs and abortion?" To put all this into perspective let us examine the average young woman entering a world of sexual activity. All she knows is that she shouldnt have sex, but the world around her is telling her that she should(ex: media, guys, peer pressure etc....we all know its there). So when she finally succumbs, and she probably will (studies also show this to be true), she will have no idea how to protect herself and has a high chance of becoming pregnant and WHAM...find herself scared and wanting to end the pregnancy.

This is were things get tricky, morally confusing, and double sided. People have been debating it for hundreds of years and the question about the morality of abortion is still not solved. But as i said, that is not what i am here to debate, i respect all of your views. BUT iS NO ONE ELSE ANGRY ABOUT THE GIRL WHO GOT CHEATED! NO ONE in the country works harder than Planned Parenthood to try and prevent abortions from happening! Their methods of sexual education and planning have been PROVEN to be effective in european and african countries, yet still they are blocked by the US government and pro-life groups. There are no lines to be drawn from the kkk and the facists to PP. Those who think so cannot possibly be thinking clearly about all of the dynamics of our society. But again...i digress from my main point of this post.

Ok so heres the take-home message: If we really want to stop abortion, i encourage you all to take issue with our government and society about the way we educate and nurture our children. You can disagree with planned parent hood 2% of the time, but it would be hypocrytical to want to destroy the other 98%. If we focus on supporting PP in their family planning cause and encourage our government to do the same, then i know some ecstatic women and children who would thank you. And if its really about saving lives...what are we waiting for?

reply from: deehoc

Oh my...i also forgot to add in a few more comments about the ill informed comments being made about racism and planned parenthood. First off Margaret Sanger spoke at a KKK rally because she believes in getting the message out to ALL people. Her message is not one of racism, it is of sexual health and pro-coice. Whether you think her message is right or wrong, doesnt make her racist.

Also, the reason so many Planned Parenthoods are located in minority neigborhoods is because those places are often low-income. A rich white woman can go to her family clinician or take a flight to a legal state and pay the hundreds of dollars it takes to get an abortion or contraception, but since Planned Parenthood believes all people should have the right to choose, they make their clinics availible to those who cannot aford to travel far or miss work to get their birth control or gyn exam or STD testing.

It is not planned parenthood's fault that our society is racist. Who would be crying racist if PP refused to serve minorities?

reply from: yoda

I, for one, am not impressed by your defense of PP. The ARE the largest provider of elective abortions in the country, they do in some cases encourage school children to "explore their sexuality", and they do sell and give away the least effective condoms in this country (as reported by Consumer Reports). They, and not the government, contribute directly to keeping the number of elective abortions high in this country. The only thing I would wish that our government would change is the way they financially support PP.

Nowhere in your post did you address the morality of elective abortions, and that is my reason for posting on this forum.

reply from: sarah

You'll forgive me if I don't just break down and weep tears over the so called, mis-conceptions of what PP is all about.

Whatever kind of spin is put on it, the fact still remains that PP is the largest provider of abortions in America.

PP will and has covered for the, pardon my frankness, SOB's who have made minors pregnant. PP will take a minor and perform the abortion and not give a lick whether her parents are ever informed PRIOR to the abortion.

PP's founder was a known racist and proponent of eugenics, well the list goes on.

There's a better solution, that much I agree with, but PP is not part of the solution. PP is part of the problem, a LARGE part.

reply from: Tam

That is just pathetic.

deehoc, you seem like you want to do good things in the world and stand up for truth and justice, but you will learn (apparently, the hard way) that PP are not the 'good guys' in this issue. So much of what you wrote is misguided that I don't know where to start, so I will just quote Sarah:

You said this perfectly, Sarah! I think it is sad that PP has managed to brainwash anyone into thinking it is part of the solution.

reply from: deehoc

First of all, I see no reason to attack my views as pathetic, I don't think yours are. And I maintain the belief that you are perfectly reasonable in believing that abortion is wrong. Additionally i don't think it's pathetic to see the correlation between added funding for contraception and sexual education and a decrease in the amount of abortions performed. Since planned parenthood is the largest promoter of contraception and sexual education in that regard they should be supported. I take offense that you think I am so succeptable to "brainwashing" but you are not. The masses can easily be similarly brainwashed by the alternative viewpoint. What I am asking, is for people to assess this problem and come up with a more realistic solution. If ending abortion was really what you had in mind (and not just seeking a scapegoat), then I urge you to find fault in my reasoning.

Lastly, I am not misguided. I am a perfectly rational human being just as you are provided you can grant me some reasons to my "misguided-ness."

I apologize...by the title of the forum i assumed the topic of discussion would be about "Planned Parenthood, Hitler & KKK" not the morality of abortion. In which case, you're right, i did purposefully choose not tackle abortion's permissibility. I did this because i believe that even if the question were solved, it would not be a solution to the larger problems that we have in this country.

reply from: pray4em

in reply to Deehoc
I refuse to give to united way because only a small portion of their money goes to PP, and as you say only 2% of that goes to abortion. My problem with that is, how many unborn babies dose 2% come up to

reply from: yoda

2% of their expenditures is irrelevant. They kill more than anyone else of the 1.3 million babies aborted every year in this country.

reply from: Tam

I don't think mine are, either. And my opinion that your assertion that "NO ONE in this country works harder than PP to prevent abortions" is pathetic was not meant as an attack, and I am sorry to see that you took it that way. You must understand, it is hard even to manage to be at all civil in responding to something that is not only untrue but also outrageously offensive. For example, if you are a person of color, and someone suggests to you that no one tries harder to stand up for your equal rights than the KKK, you might find yourself using words like "pathetic" and actually feeling that you had been far more civil than was really merited.

Your authoritative assertion that "NO ONE does more to prevent abortion than PP" is not only absolutely untrue (and I say this not because I don't understand your point about contraception and eduction--I do understand your point, and I will explain to you why it is false) but also egregiously offensive to those who DO work to prevent abortion, especially those who work fairly hard at it, let alone those who dedicate their lives to it. Your statement is that the largest abortion provider in the country does more to PREVENT abortion than someone whose life is dedicated to so doing. Now, you clearly understand that such a statement seems on its face to be complete nonsense--which is why you expain that you believe this because they try so hard to get people to use contraception. Because when you say "educate people about their sexual health" in the context of preventing abortion, you are speaking about contraceptive use. PP does encourage contraceptive use, I don't deny that. What I contest is two-fold--first, the notion that contraceptive use reduces abortion, and second the notion that PP's motivation for encouraging contraceptive use is to reduce abortion.

Yes, I am.

That is only true if 1) contraceptive use decreases abortion totals and 2) PP's motivation to encourage contraceptive use is to decrease abortion totals--neither of which is the case.

LOL Honey, believe me, I know full well how susceptible a young woman is to the lure of the pro-abortion message. I fell for it hook, line, and sinker, as you might have noticed from my signature line. I certainly don't mean to imply that you should have been able to resist what I did not. Nonetheless, I am speaking my truth to you when I say that you are still there whereas I have seen through the lies. But in order to see through them you must first acknowledge that there might actually be a flaw in your viewpoint--and many young people are too arrogant and defensive to have an open mind. Are you?

I presume your idea of a "more realistic solution" is to support PP wholeheartedly? If not, what is your idea? I do have an idea, actually, but it doesn't involve accepting the false idea that PP is the champion of those seeking to eradicate abortion!

Well, I did point out where you are wrong, although I haven't yet provided a detailed explanation as to why (I am pretty busy--anyone else feel like picking up that baton?)

Misguided means having been led astray. It doesn't imply anything about your ability to reason, it means you are looking for guidance to entities that actually guide you in the opposite direction of the one you want to take. That is what misguided is about. I am sure your heart seems to be in the right place, and you seem intelligent and reasonable. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't be bothering to respond to you at such length.

The title of the FORUM is "Prolife America Forum" and it is a forum to debate/discuss precisely that--the morality of abortion--and all related topics (such as the legality of abortion, the morality of abortion providers in general and PP in particular, the history and founder of the largest abortion provider, etc).

That's pretty vague, what do you mean?

reply from: sarah

Thank you, Tam.

It is so very sad what PP has got away with for so many years. "So many years" is the opertaive phrase. They've had these many years and the backing of the MSM and so many political organizations to help cover the truth of what the foundation of PP is and it's true purpose.

It's really heart breaking to read deehoc's posts. She sincere and obvioulsy very intelligent and well intentioned and yet the propoganda of PP was a resounding success in her life.

I'm glad that she has come here and at least given herself an opportunity to hear the other side.

reply from: Tam

I couldn't agree more.

reply from: EricSmith

You people need to get a life of your own. Unless, of course, you want to take care of all these unwanted babies yourself.

Yay for abortion!

reply from: EricSmith

What do you mean racist attitude? It is a plain fact that more black women get pregnant and more often so the complications are bound to happen more often. DUH

reply from: EricSmith

I am in total agreement

reply from: Loni

The fact that the planned parenthood sites have pictures of 100 aborted babies absolutely sickens me. Someone who can just sit around and make sites of this sort is absolutely disgusting. There are too many sick individuals in this world and someone needs to put a stop to them.

aBORTION IS A SICK AND TWISTED WAY TO GET RID OF YOUR CONSEQUENCES AND ITS SAD SOMEONE WOULD POSSIBLY CONSIDER THIS...

reply from: Tam

You have it all wrong about who is showing those photos! Planned Parenthood would NEVER show those photos. Do you think PP wants people to know the truth about abortion? Do you think they would EVER show such a photo to anyone? Heck, no! It is only pro-life activists who have the courage and honesty to display such compelling evidence about the true nature of abortion. Yes, it is absolutely disgusting--that any child should be killed in this manner--but it is also disgusting that PP will not show the truth and so pro-life people have to create sites like that one. Yes, it is a horrible set of pictures. No one should have to see such terrible pictures. But as long as children are being destroyed in this way, it is sometimes the best tool to get people to realize what is happening so they will stand up for the lives of innocent unborn children!

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

reply from: bradensmommy

Its funny that when the trucks from abortionno.com (or is it org?) get people peeved off, ESPECIALLY pro-choicers. Comes to show how pro-choice they really are!hehe I say that if you get offended, then you know that abortion is not right. The trucks will never sugar coat the facts and I don't see why they would. Abortion is not the way to go, women deserve better!

reply from: Loni

i wasnt saying that it was yall who had the pictures i know it is that sick lanparenting site but i was just explaining the fact that i aboslutely horrified me to see such pictures

reply from: yoda

That's what we hope they will do, Loni. Folks like you, with a good conscience, will always be shocked by such things.

reply from: WhiteViper

Congratulations and keep up the good work.

14/88

reply from: ForLife

Based on your "Heil Hilter", I assume your reference to "good work" must be Planned Parenthood's genocide of black children; as Hilter himself also committed genocide of Jews.

Fortunately, Hilter killed himself. He had been killing good and decent people.

Abortionists are also killing good and decent people.

You are a lost and misguided soul if you are saluting/hailing someone such as Hitler. Hilter will never amount to more than ashes underfoot. (Malachi 4:3)

I would forget the idea of saluting, hailing or bowing down to any man. Especially a man with murderous flaws like Hitler.

reply from: Tam

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47630

reply from: galen

correct me if i am wrong, but wasn't the ethnicity of the children only determined by skin colour? I've actually seen some of these photos and to me it looks like regular decomp. maybe this is why so many people didn't comment on the ethnicity of the childre... its pretty hard to determine at such an early stage. DNA back then would not have been much help either.

not to take away from the fact that so many children died.

Mary

reply from: Tam

I don't know that level of forensic detail, but it's an interesting question. How did they determine the races of the children? I don't have much stomach for this sort of story, so I'm not inclined to research it myself, but I'd be interested in the answer if anyone knows it or can find out. But, you're right, ultimately the races of the children are the least important part of the situation--not to say that it's unimportant, but just that no child, of any race, should be killed.

reply from: Aishiteru

I have done a lot of reading on the conection between abortion, Margart Sanger, Hitler and the KKK, this is an excerpt from something I wrote.....because I'm to lazy to write it all out again

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . a dead weight of human waste . . .an ever-increasing spawning class of human beings wo never should have been born at all.”
Margaret.Sanger.Founder of.Planned.Parenthood.

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the “American Baby Code” that states. “No women shall have the legal right to bear a child with out a permit for parenthood” and yet all women have the legal right to “terminate” their child.

In the present time Abortion is justified by saying it is safe and legal. One abortionist said, “I just go by what the courts say. I only do what’s legal”
The poison gas to alleviate suffering and permit “human killing” Many Nazi doctors said they were innocent because they broke no law, According to an expert on Aushwits “Since no law or political order protected those who were condemned.” At the trial held for nurses who injected infants and children with lethal substances, the defense claimed “these people were only carrying out the laws of the land.” As well as. “The accused did not at wrongly because they were covered by law.”
Slogans by Nazis and Abortion advocates are similar. Death camps were called “relocation centers” in Nazi occupied areas. Abortion clinics are called “reproductive heath centers” in modern America. The Jews were described as a “parasite race” by Hitler, and unwanted child is described as “a mere parasite” by Planned Parenthood. The end result then was “termination” of the Jews and the end result now is “termination of pregnancy”

Margaret Sanger and Hitler were both advocates for, eugenics, abortion, birth control etc, they both wanted the exact same thing....."Super Human Race"

a few more Margaret qoutes

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful education approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
M.S. F. P.P

“Our most pressing problem is to increase the birth rate from the superior and decrease that from the inferior.”
M.S.F.P.P

reply from: RePit

If that particular post is censored on the basis of racism, this whole thread should be. Since when is talking about racists racist?

I am hoping it was censored for offensive language.

reply from: HICKman

WOW, not one of you people, know ANYTHING about what you are talking abut i must say...all ANY OF YOU can do is recite facts and stats, that well mean nothing...

The KKK, Origionally was a social club like the YMCA, but a bunch of southeren hicks decided to use it as as front for their racist ideoligies, and thus tainted the image...so the KK was formally disbanded in the late 19th century, THEN in the 20's it was revived only to face the same bad publcity, and so...is again was disbanded and has not formally come back to regognition...it is now call a "Terrorist Organisation" which really is only against the mixing of races, not BLACKS specifically...and that in my eyes is nothing wrong...but no worry we have the NRA, who hooo!

Your consistant ramblings of Nazism and its relivance to "abortion" is lost to me, give me a break, the only reason you people use the NAzis, is because you have no other case or rather, no other way to make your pitiful beleifs seem large and important, in short You use something to inflame you so called "Genocide" or "Holocaust" which is nothing more then ppl exercixing their right as human beings...

The Civil War was waged to presereve the UNion, not free blacks, heck old Abe Lincon HAD A SLAVE SERVANT... and yes he was a ni**er. so there goes your pride in the civil war, face it black ppl, we whites never cared about you then and we still dont, so why even try to kill you off, you ppl do it fine yourselves...

Also back to Nazism, Hitler was the sole founder, and upholder of that "faith" or beleif, when he died, so did Nazism, this is because Hitler molded and redefined Nazism to acheive his own ends, heck remeber how he preached pro God polocies, only to dismantyle the church in the name of himself later on??? Hitler followed no set doctrine or set of beleifs but his own invented ones, ya thats right had he still lived there is no telling WHERE Nazism could have gone...it might have wond up HELPING blacks, BUT i DOUBT AND DO NOT BELEIVE FOR A SECOND IT WOULD HAVE...and with that it pi**es me off that peopel call them selves "NEO-Nazis" and so on, they are uneducated ppl with bad intellects and give true so called "racists" as myself a bad and poor reputation...so just so u all know NAZISM IS NOLONGER IN EXISTANCE, and forget your "Holocaust" greivenecs it was 60yrs ago, get over it, jews and blacks are quite simply...not as good was whites bout time you young and old ppl start taking your God given rights as rulers of this earth...

Finally, you all preach human rights and so on, but how hypocrytical is that, ppl should have a RIGHT TO A CHOICE...if you were raped by Hitler anyone of you pathetic backward morons would abort the kid, dont say you wouldnt, we all know you would...and furthere more, if you all had it your way, then Abortion wopuld be banned, and all the babaies that could have been spared the hardships of poverty and horrible conditions of over crowed orphanages, and lack of partents, not to mention the lack of economic help would be subjucated to it, and thus degrading our race and most of all tainting, flooding and diluting our pure arayian blood withb the scum of the earth, any race that is not white,

in short all of you are just as prejudicial as i am, and just as backward and screwed up as i seemed to be as i typed this nonsense to pi** you all off and make think how stupid all of your gay beleifs are...

reply from: yoda

Let's see, you're a white supremacist, and you're prochoice/proabortion, especially for blacks and minorities, right?

reply from: HICKman

White power? has a nice ring to it dont ya think? and a nice idea to would love to see it but really, were out numbered, even if we whittes baned together its to late...(sighs) o well...and well do i hate blacks and all other races, not really i dont care if they liv or die, but i know what i am and what side i am on if that makes sense to you backward people,

and i hate your misuse of facts and events, Nazism had nothing to do with Abortion and the KKK, the KK does not offically exist and thus why label it as anything? i would rather you target so called racists and pro whites rather then lump them into one catagory (kkk), something you clearly opposed before (You people member?)

and finally Yes i am pro Abortion and Pro Choice, i think people deserve a choice, if you are against it, then fine, be against it and have your little cult of losers, but dont force others to be subjegated to your sinister ways thats just as wrong as what Nazism WAS (member its dead and gone) its a choice like smoking or have hot sex in your car...a CHOICE YOU MAKE...and if you screw up and end up with a KID...then hell make a MORAL choice weather u think it is wrong or right thats all moron...

reply from: yoda

Why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel about it?

reply from: HICKman

Feel about what dude?

u want me say im racuist that i hate blacks that i am all for abortion??? no i wont give u the pleasure...what do u want me to say i spent a nuff time typing out 2 huge commenst and ll u give me is one liners??? give me a break dude...

what do u want me to say hmmm?

NOTE FROM MODERATOR: FOUL LANGUAGE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED

TERRY

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Maybe yodavater's oneliners are more than a random jumble of angry words?

reply from: bradensmommy

Other than the fact that my posts keep getting deleted, you my dear are a total moron. You should just go find Ike and hang out, maybe go to a "Keep abortion legal" rally. Until you are a parent (God help us all) you know nothing of the sort so why don't you go and find a dictionary and look up the words you are believing and maybe you'll realize that abortion is MURDER.

reply from: yoda

Dude, you've already said it all, and then some. That was just my way of highlighting your comments.

reply from: Tam

Dude, you've already said it all, and then some. That was just my way of highlighting your comments.

I caught that. I really enjoyed that. I am definitely going to start doing that. That is great.

reply from: domsmom

I'm having an epiphany here. Seems like only parents (or those very involved with children) are the only ones who value innocent life. I realize there are plenty of pro-abort parents, though that is beyond me. It seems there are very few single persons who feel killing babies is wrong.

reply from: yoda

Maybe personal involvement is the difference. As a single guy, I was never involved in the issue, and remained apathetic on the subject until it came "home" to me. I know that some others get involved because of the photos of aborted fetuses having such an effect on them, but probably they do affect parents more than single folks.

p.s. I just recalled that according to polls, most young people identify themselves as Prolife now. Go figure.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Well, I'm not a parent...

reply from: yoda

Have you somehow been "exposed" to the horrors of abortion? If not, then you are the pleasant exception to the rule.

reply from: Tam

Right, like thinking of murder as an intentional death.

It IS an intentional miscarriage. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. It's good that you notice these obvious things.

Ohohoho! It is a scientific fact, eh? LOL It is horse puckey, and you will learn that sooner or later.

So, let's make it sooner. You say it is scientific fact that the unborn child is NOT human until a certain stage of pregnancy? PROVE IT. Good luck with that.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I suppose the closest I've been to being aborted is that I *might* have had Down's Syndrome, so the doctors suggestted an abortion *just in case*. That probably doesn't count as being exposed...oh well, pleasant exceptions are cool.

reply from: yoda

Indeed that does count. You were almost made extremely familiar with abortion. But you can still be a pleasant exception, if you wish!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

How awful!

Shyah! Obviously I don't have Down's Sydrome, so it just goes to show how doctor's aren't always right when it comes to the condition of unborn babies. Maybe tests are more accurate now that it's fifteen years later. Then maybe women won't abort their babies "just in case".

reply from: HICKman

First of all Tam, is a fetus able to live in the first Trimester? what about the second? If the damn thing cant survive at that stage how is it a damn human???? YES it will BECOME a human...or it is a Human fetus, but not a living breathing communicating human!!!??? its commonsense i think!? is that enough proof?

O and Tam again... "I acught that, i really enjoyed that, I am definatly going to start doing that, THAT is great..." where the hell is your grammer!!!! wow for a self proclaimed intellect you need to learn how to speak!!!!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I'm guessing you're no biology major.

I second that.

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm guessing you're no biology major.

I second that.

I third that.

reply from: donkeybong

well, let's not start attacking him by claiming "he's definately not a biology major". i mean, he has a point. anything that cannot live outside of the body and depends on its host for the necessities to live is defined anywhere else as a parasite.

of course, i'm going to turn around and attack all of you. you realize that very few of us are actually using proper grammar, right?

remember that hickman? in your last post? that's THREE errors in TWO words.
1. misspelling grammar.
2. multiple ending punctuation marks.
3. beginning a sentence with a lowercase letter.

and you did it in a post attacking someone's grammar. i think that's a new low.

- donkey

reply from: RePit

remember that hickman? in your last post? that's THREE errors in TWO words.
1. misspelling grammar.
2. multiple ending punctuation marks.
3. beginning a sentence with a lowercase letter.

and you did it in a post attacking someone's grammar. i think that's a new low.

- donkey

OK - never mind the grammar.
I will try to clarify from a biological stance.

A foetus is not a parasite because it is of the same species of the mother. If we ignore the fact that the foetus is human; on all other accounts, is it a parasite? That depends if you think if there is a negative affect on the mother. Morning sickness is to the disadvantage of the mother - in that case it would be parasitism. If the mother were not affected by the pregnancy - the relationship is commensalism. But it is neither because they are the same species.

Hickman is correct when he says a foetus is not a "living breathing communicating human". It is obviously not breathing. It is living in a biological sense. You could say it is communicating if you think it kicking is communicating, but that would be based on speculation.

I assume Hickman is saying (in his/her own unique way) that the foetus is not viable in the first and second trimester. Is that not true? I just looked it up and it seems the consensus is that it is at the end of second trimester, start of third trimester. So that sounds about right.

So what did Hickman say that was incorrect? He said it is not a "human". That is incorrect. A human foetus is human because it has human DNA - as does human eggs, human sperm, human cancer and any other cell of any human body. He also said later that it is not a "living breathing communicating human". Perhaps that is what he meant when he originally said it is not a "human". You would have to ask him what he meant.

reply from: HICKman

I think i must thank Repit, someone who actually sees what i am saying and not blindly attacking me...also, i must state that a lot of peopel, mainly this entire forum is not looking at this from all the angles, i assume this forum and it's beleivers want to outlaw abortion and make it illegal, to me this is the totally wrong thing to do...

I as i have said I am PRO-CHOICE, this means that women have the right to CHOOSE weather they want an abortion or not, not be told that they MUST have a chid. If you outlaw it you simply creat more problems then you have before...

How might all of you ask??? well how about illegal abortions, people who go to underground clinics with no sanitary constraights, no nothing, you get women who go to get abortions and get killed because the docter is not qualified or the enviroment is contaminated....basicaly you are making your little coveted pieces of meat that are fetuses seem more importent than an ACTUAL human being and an actual living person, yes a fetus is a human because it has human DNA and human biological characteristics i take back that comment i made before, But making abortion illegal simply takes it underground and more suceptable to becoming a bigger problem,

so...The americans tried to stop alcohol problem by banning it...look how that turned out...(boozed barons, capone...etc) then your GOV'T leagised it and taxed and controlled it...drugs will only be a matter of time...but Abortion should be legal as a choice from the get go...otherwise you create more cases of women who cannot support children or arent in the right situation to have a child and those women either end up dead, dying, dieased, sick, or butchered in illegal, unproper clinics...

O and my grammer and spelling is poor due to my lack of care for impressing backward ingrates...and i type fast and do not spell check/proof read...sue me...

reply from: yoda

I can't speak for anyone else, but I resent being told how to debate. Whenever I see a parallel between slavery and abortion (like the way some people claim that mothers "own" their unborn babies) I will indeed make that point, your demands nothwithstanding.

reply from: bradensmommy

I can't speak for anyone else, but I resent being told how to debate. Whenever I see a parallel between slavery and abortion (like the way some people claim that mothers "own" their unborn babies) I will indeed make that point, your demands nothwithstanding.

I really wish that if Hicka@@ has nothing to debate other than being a racist bigot he could STFU already. His posts and "arguements are really ignorant.

reply from: RePit

Look, I agree with most of you here in saying that Hickman sounds like a raving lunatic, and perhaps he/she is. He has shown him/herself to be racist, unpolite, and does not have much in the way of composure and manners.

But if you just step back for a minute and try to understand what he is saying. If you are not willing to do that, then you might as well not read his/her posts at all.

The only reason people compare things to KKK and the holocaust is when they want to make maximum emotional impact. People who do this usually do so because they know they have a weak case logically/scientifically, so they need to argue based on emotion. They know no one likes the holocaust or the KKK, so they try to create an association.

There is no association.

Yes, I know the founder of planned parenthood spoke at KKK meeting/s. Who else has? I bet there are heaps of people who have - do you give them any less credit for having done so? Have you even bothered finding out who these people are? Hell - the minister from your church may have done so and you would be none the wiser. No - you have not found out, you don't know who else spoke to the KKK, because fact is - you found out the founder of Planned Parenthood spoke at KKK because you were digging dirt on her.

I suggest you take a good hard look at yourselves.

reply from: yoda

Nope, not buying it. Slavery is the only institution we know of, other than abortion, in which human beings are treated as if they are owned by other human beings.

reply from: RePit

Well good for you. Feel free to live in your world of ignorance. What has slavery got to do with the KKK and Nazis anyway? Oh yes, it is evil, just like slavery, just like abortion. Evil I tells ya...

reply from: TruthSeeker24

I think this forum is important since it outlines the real connection between Planned Parenthood, the Nazis, and the KKK. The connection is that all groups believe in dehumanization whether it's denying the unborn its humanity or considers different groups of people less equal than any other man. Margaret Sanger not only went to a KKK meeting, but she was into the occult and Rosicurcianism as confirmed by authors Dr. Cathy Burns and Dr. Stan Monolieth. She was in the New Age group called Unity. Also, it's a historical fact that many people in Sanger's early Planned Parenthood group were racists and eugenicists like Rudin, Lothrod Stoddard and Dr. Knopf. Slavery had something to do with the KKK since the KKK wanted black people to people under the same condition as slavery if necessary. They also supported discrimination against black through intimidation, murder, and support of the Black Codes (which had anti-gun laws in them to prevent blacks from defended themselves against real KKK domestic terrorists). Margaret Sanger support the Plan for Peace in the early 1900's that called for segregation of what she deemed the "unfit."

This is what many racists want and that's another connection between Margaret Sanger and the KKK. Another link between Sanger and Hitler were their obsession with the occult and the New Age. Both people practiced the occult and Hitler was a member in the Thule and Vril Society. So as for Sanger, it's bigger than she going into a KKK meeting, but she has racists on her staff, she accepted the dehumanization of the unborn, and she believed in the occult, which is one easily analysis to decipher the connection between the KKK, Planned Parenthood, and the Nazis. Not to mention that she lied and said that black population growth was out of control in the early 1900's when the black population was 12-14% from 1900-today. She used that lie to promote the Negro Project. So, I'm not dropping the black slavery comparisions to Planned Murderhood. From the beginning, Planned Murderhood had a controversial start. I forgot something also. Adolf Hitler supported abortion and I've got his quotes and other scholars' words to back myself up. Hitler only opposed abortion if was done to "Aryan" women as well.

By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)

reply from: yoda

In case you skipped over it, my post didn't mention the KKK or the nazis. I compared abortion to slavery because of the attitude of some who support it, period.

Try reading what I actually say next time.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, TS24!

reply from: Tam

Welcome, TruthSeeker!

reply from: Tam

A human child is not a parasite of his/her mother. A parasite is of a different species. A parasite is a parasite its entire life. Don't even try to say a human child is a parasite temporarily, from implantation until birth; it's a ludicrous perversion of biology to suggest such a thing. You should know better.

remember that hickman? in your last post? that's THREE errors in TWO words.
1. misspelling grammar.
2. multiple ending punctuation marks.
3. beginning a sentence with a lowercase letter.

and you did it in a post attacking someone's grammar. i think that's a new low.

- donkey

LOL

I love how he attacks my grammar. That's rich. For those on this forum who know me IRL, it's probably even funnier than it is for those of you who know me only from this forum.

Hickman says

Tam said:

LOL I am going over those sentences with an eagle-eye and can't find a thing wrong with them--which means they are fine. Perhaps the thing to which Hick is truly objecting is simply his own inability to comprehend the meaning of that post. In other words, he DIDN'T catch that, DIDN'T enjoy that, and DOESN'T know what the heck "that" is in the first place! ROFL

If I had no life, I could spend hours and hours nit-picking about the grammar of other posters on internet forums. Just picturing what it might be like to be the sort of person who had nothing better than that to do is depressing. It's only relevant to point out grammatical mistakes when they change the meaning of what has been said; it is, however, fun to point out the mistakes of those posters who harp on the mistakes of others--particularly when the one doing the harping is 1) wrong and 2) makes worse mistakes during said harping than the ones s/he is accusing someone else of making. In other words, by making his ridiculous grammar comments, Hick opened himself up to what donkey and I did in response, and he deserved it richly. OTHER than that sort of situation, however, I try to avoid correcting the grammar of other posters. It's distracting and usually irrelevant.

reply from: HICKman

THANKYOU REPIT!!!! wow someone who actually sees where i am going, as i have said before there is no connection between Racism and abortion, one involves forced labor, or actions agaibnst the will of another, where as the other involves saving women from possible disasterous situations, and although most of you calll ME a bigot and a A@@ and so on you never look at your selves, but most hypocrites dont so its ok...

And though i may seem racist, as i have said before I am at heart not...i have said before...i couldnt care less what you are or where you come from, if you live or die, but when morons and ignorant self proclaimed experts on the subject who beleive THEIR morals are right try and make rediclious comments to connect SLAVERY with ABORTION i find it absurd, and not to mention illogical, (ONe involves living human, the other involves non-living...)

I must also thank Repit...i seem to find that he is the ONLY one on this forum that looks past the cover and sees what i am trying to say, not just attack my "imperfections" because they know that i am right and that they have no way to effectivly argue my points...

reply from: HICKman

O TAM wow, you seem to be full of yourself lol....First off, i understood fully what you were saying...it doesnt take a genius like yourself to read basic english...and i was pointing out you lack of variaty of words....lol like how about use a THESAURUS....you used THAT far to much and you sounded like the idot and moron of a person that you are....

O AND like i have said, my typing skills are poor, as i have poor dexterity with my fingers...my inability to effectivly target and execute the properly needed letters so that i may complete phrases and sentences to prove and coroberate my points of arguments based on abortio is not entirely my own fault.

That took 30 seconds to type...better spelling, and grammer eh?

reply from: HICKman

PS, o and Yoda, im not telling you how to deabte, im only showing you and everyone else that Slavery is a moot, and false point\

reply from: Tam

LOL I am actually being quite modest. You can figure it out.

ROFL Sure, sure. You understood everything perfectly, and when you complained about bad grammar, what you *really meant* was that I overused the word "that."

Tell me, you who know so well exactly what I meant, to what "that" was even referring? (Hint: I am going to rewrite the post in which I overused "that"--just so that I can flesh things out a bit, to help everyone understand what I was applauding--but not until you explain what you THINK I was saying.)

Be careful with your spelling, or you might sound like an idot. (I think that's a new product from Apple...?)

If you were genuinely thinking, when you wrote your dumbass post, "Gosh, that woman really needs a good thesaurus--she's sure overusing the word 'that'!" then I will eat my hat.

Cry me a river. What you have is quite simply a time management issue. Spend LESS time acting like a fool and MORE time trying to get your points across with some semblance of clarity and intelligence. That ought to solve THAT problem. (Shall I spell out for you what THAT problem is?)

No, not really. But since the content of the post was also no better than that of your other posts, I didn't expect improvements in those respects, either. Keep trying, though! As I said--it's a TIME MANAGEMENT issue.

reply from: HICKman

Again here i go...

Just because someone TALKS at a KKK meeting means about NOTHING...lets not forget, Donald Rumsfeld shook hands and hugged Saddamm Hussein...look at them now...

Plenty of well to do people and figures attended or will attend meetings, and demonstrations or organisations and people we do not agree with or do not like...so what??? if i went to a Nazi rally in 1939 would that make me a Nazi, if so then might as well brand all Germans, if i attended a Buddist or Jewish, or Musilm ceremony, Wedding, funeral, service, does that make me a meber of that religion???? Not a chance...you only become something when you take part in it, or fully support it with all you heart and soul...prove it about the Planned Parent hood CEO and then MABYE we will talk, but until you prove beyond ANY reasonable doubt that Planned Parenthood SPECIFICALLY attacks or targets Jews, Blacks or anyother race (The KKK And Nazi targets) Thn you can go shove you thoughts of Planned Parenthood where the sun dont shine...

What would you do if the Gov't made its own public abortion clinic, thats right GOVERMENT OWNED ABORTION CLINICS...would you say your GOV'T is a bunch of Nazis? or The new KKK? would you blame whoever was presidant? IF you would do what i have just said then you are only attacking yourself, as those named officals/insitutions are ELECTED by your people (The american People) and thus you all would be Nazis...And so just because they attend or speak at something means nothing unless you can prove otherwise...

reply from: yoda

They frown on such nasty personal attacks here, you may not be tollerated much longer if you keep this up.

reply from: yoda

Then I must advise you that your "help" is neither wanted nor needed.

But I'm very glad you're on their side, I can tell you that.

reply from: HICKman

OK well tam u really got worked up eh????

and Yoda what are "They" going to do about it??? send me threatening letter? arrest me??? SUE me???? OR KICK ME OFF (Erie mystical doom!!! OOOO AAAAAA, RUN FROM THAT ITS DA DEVIAL!!!!)

Fat chance on any of that...see unless Americans can try and supress my free speech rights in Canada like they have already in their own country, then well im as they say...Untouchable...hahahaha i like that ring to it...and Tam really i dont see why you are sooooooooo annoyed with me??? after all everything relating to abortion that i have said has been true or at least corroborated and proved and has REVELVANCE...not blind rants about irrelivent things....(and i am not racist i hate everyone and everything equally)

O one more thing...hehehehehehe

explain to me why an Abortion forum...OH SORRY...ANTI-Abortion forum...has links to www.klanparenthood.com, this site is not only degarding propoganda, and WRONG, but it has pictures of aborted children with "AMERICAN COINS in their hands...????

WATCH THE LANGUAGE

reply from: littlejj06

They most likely will kick you out.

No one is denying your right to free speech.

Blind rants? Does anyone else go off about how the pro-life position is stupid and not giving any legitimate reason except for his/her angry opinion?

If you really hate everyone and everything equally, that explains a whole lot.

quote:
O one more thing...hehehehehehe

explain to me why an Abortion forum...OH SORRY...ANTI-Abortion forum...has links to www.klanparenthood.com, this site is not only degarding propoganda, and WRONG, but it has pictures of aborted children with "AMERICAN COINS in their hands...????

What in the world does degarding mean? Forgive me please for not understanding.

The coin is to show the size of the unborn children; showing how small they are.

Hmm...so why do people use pictures of dead bodies of soldiers to show their stance against war?

Such obscenities. Calm down, HICKman. Seriously.

reply from: JohnKWalker

I would also recommend reading last year's book MARGARET SANGER'S EUGENIC LEGACY by Angela Franks. Considering the voluminous and indusputable paper trail Sanger left as to her Dr. Strangelove intentions to use "population control" to make the same sort of nightmare world toward which, to be frank about it, Eichmann and Mengele were also working, I have never understood why her successors in the birth control / abortion establishment have never disavowed her. As strongly as I oppose their pro-abortion stance, they really are not neo-Nazis (just very badly misguided), and there seems no need for them to deliberately associate themselves with such a scabrous historical figure. In fact, Faye Wattleton (an honorable person whose mother is a minister and is black herself, of course) is the only one of them I have ever heard be honest about Sanger.

reply from: RePit

Margaret Sanger was into Eugenics.

Now cast your mind back to the old days when Marge lived. If someone went around touting eugenics, they would perk interest in some. "An interesting idea...." would be a typical response. Most would not bat an eyelid at the concept. Of course now it is a different story. You would be on the front page (and not in a good way) for merely mentioning such a thing.

Simlarly slavery.

Back to the good old days again. The wealthy had negro slaves to do unpopular chores. Most of the slaves were looked after and treated well. Once again - for the time no one would think that out of the ordinary. It was common practice. But alas today, you would be condemmed for keeping a slave - no matter how well you treat your slave. Today we say slavery is wrong. Do you condemn all those in the past who had slaves? What great figures in history had slaves? Does the fact they kept slaves make their efforts less worthy to you?

I can think of many other examples.

It is unfair to judge those in the past in the context of today. They should be judged in the context of the time in which they lived.

reply from: TruthSeeker24

Yes, authors agree to that indeed.

I humbily disagree with you. Just because evils exist, doesn't justify them in the past. Killing people is immoral now and was immoral back then. I follow ethical fundamentalism where some concept dealing with ethics are fixed and ought to be embraced as much as possible in the past and now. Many people back in the early 20th century hated eugenics like Dr. Chesterman. He would say that "this is evil propaganda." Just because many prominent figures supported it back then, doesn't justify it. Evil is evil. Many people centuries ago abhor the dehumanization of the poor, minorities, and other people. This was done by many creeds. For example, many CHristians abhored the excesses of the Inquisition centuries ago. Not to mention that many Christians in the past support the value of man, the opposition any oppression, and equal love given unto all men (i.e. Love thy neighbor as theyself), so there was firm opposition by some people of the evils of the past.

Slavery in America was an abomination and I'm glad that it was abhored. Slavery is similar to the oppression against the unborn indeed. As for the rest of your comments, I strongly disagree with you. I'm black, so I know the history of slavery. In the great Disapora of our people millions died in the ALtantic Ocean in their unjust voyage to America. We lost much of our culture and livelihood. Families were split up. All slaves were paid no money for their labor. People were assaulted and killed. This wasn't just at all. Many slaves were treated less harshly than others, but it is immoral to kidnap another man from their homeland to another land. I don't believe that most slaves were treated well at all. Most slave owners did consider their slaves as inferior or less human than they were though. It is wrong to brutally displace family to deny men their citizenship. It is also wrong to decieve slaves into thinking that they had no advanced history (i.e. Timbuktu, Cush, Songhai, Mali, Ghana, African Kings and Queens, etc.) and that they were inferior to white people. I comdemn all people who done evil. The American form of slavery was evil. I condemn people equally in the past who done the Inquistion, unjustly killed people in the Crusades, done rape, done abortion, etc. as being immoral. Just because great figures owned slaves, doesn't make it right or just. Moral absolutes existed in the past, so they must take precedent above the evil in the past. Accountability must take hold in the evil of people in the past as well. If people in the past have no accountability, then people in the past can almost be justified in doing almost anything that they wanted to do.

They are accountable for their mistakes. Just like people today are equally accountable for our mistakes. I judge people not in the context of the past, but in the context of legitimate ethical principles. Also, you forgotten that back then, people opposed slavery just as vigorious as we are today like John Quincy Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, pastors, laborers, etc. Abolition groups were formed to try to stop it and many states in the late 1700's and early 1800's like Vermont banned it. We can't discount that past as well. I can think of other examples as well. Today, according to LEARN and other pro-life groups, the vast majority of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are in minority neigbhorhoods. The black birthrate is stagnant in America. To this day, Planned Parenthood has had a negative origin. Margaret Sanger not only worked with known racists (plus went into a KKK rally in 1926), but she was into the occult (and was an drug addict according to Grant's book Killer Angel). As long as I have breath in my lungs, I will defend life, family, and truth.

By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)

reply from: dasjuggernaut

genetic fallacy.
so there could never be truth present in anything she says? lies. ad hominem.

reply from: TruthSeeker24

This is silly. First, a person can know about the history from slavery from relatives and books. Of course someone can't experience the event of slavery. My point is that I learned some of the history of slavery. Your other response is just false. It's a fact mentioned in a number of sources that she went into a KKK rally in 1926 (the book Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography on pgs. 366-367 in a 1971 reprint by Dover Publications, Inc. of the 1938 original published by W.W. Norton & Company) mentioned her own words going into the KKK rally. This isn't a lie friend), she worked with many racists (i.e. Dr. Ernst Rudin, Lothrop Stoddard, and Dr. Adolphus Knopf), etc. Dr. Grant, Dr. Stan Monolieth, and Dr. Cathy Burns proved that Sanger was a drug addict. What does ad hominem fit in this picture? Also, I'm a man not a woman.

By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)

reply from: dasjuggernaut

check the thread titled "moaninmike etc..." for the "knowledge" bit... just because you're black doesn't mean you know the history of slavery. i'm a white american male, and i barely know anything about the history of beer or football. or even farming, for that matter.
you are saying that sanger is racist, and a drug addict , and an occultist. does that mean that everything she said was false? no. we have methods for determining truth which are independent of considering the messenger. all messengers should be regarded EQUALLY. that is, if she had been mother teresa, and she had supported abortion... would abortion be ok?

reply from: TruthSeeker24

I agree with you that we must have independent checking of sources to be more accurate in developing our historical analysis. As for race, many blacks and whites know about slavery, so race has nothing to do with the knowledge or non-knowledge of it. Of course, people today can't understand totally the experience of it and every historical detail of it as well.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

then why did you say

?

reply from: TruthSeeker24

Why?

Because some blacks know about it. Many don't of course.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

just so that we're clear... it's factually incorrect: race has nothing to do with historical knowledge. right?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

anything to say about my mother theresa quote?

reply from: littlejj06

Not necessarily...but if you were Native American, wouldn't you like to learn about the Trail of Tears or something?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

the desire to learn and inherent knowledge are both independent of race.

reply from: littlejj06

So? The desire to learn can be influenced by race; not necessarily because of it.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

right... i don't want to discuss this. call it a victory, but i'm bored...
so...
the mother theresa thing? any comments? or are we done with attacking margaret sanger?

reply from: littlejj06

Okay...whatever.

This whole forum is about Margaret Sanger and her ties with the KKK and such. If you want to talk about Mother Teresa, make another topic.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

i was attempting to show that we are needlessly and pointlessly attacking this woman. her personal life is hers. her beliefs are hers. it is up to us to determine the truth of those as objectively as we can. this entails not attacking her spirituality, unrelated beliefs, or her recreational activities. the question, ultimately, is "is abortion moral." this can be determined independently of the racial stance of a single woman.

reply from: littlejj06

So racism is okay, if Margaret Sanger is one?

reply from: yoda

That's probably the silliest thing anyone has said on this board today. Wanting to learn about the history and heritage of your own race is natural.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

i didn't say racism is ok, but what does that have to do with abortion?

reply from: yoda

Ah, good, a proabort who admits that the question of morality is paramount in the discussion of abortion. We have other proaborts here who insist that only legality be discussed.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

law should reflect social morals and mores.

reply from: yoda

Generally, they do, but not always. Your point?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

if they don't, they should be adjusted.... but i really didn't have a point.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

i didn't say racism is ok, but what does that have to do with abortion?

Dearest Margret used abortion to deplete racial minorities. Did you not get that from the first post on this forum...?

reply from: galen

DSJ,
I think you are missing just what MS is responsible for. By publishing her thoughts and opinions and by publicly speaking she was holding herself up for public scrutiny. there were many other women and men in her time that felt as she did about women's rights and birth controll, however very few of them felt that abortion should be one of the options avilable to women. IMHO just because she said a few good things for women, she did a great disservice to them with the rest of her beliefs. If you do not want to get burned you should not step into the fire.

As for your comments on African American's and thier history. It seems that a group of people who have endured oppresion of any kind, and still have the ramifications of it thrown in thier faces all of thier live, will have a better understanding of what it means to be in that particular group better than those who don't.

Mary

reply from: RePit

Certainly. Even if it does not affect you personally, if you have grown up in a family where you have seen your aunts, grandparents, cousins whatever be affected by racism, you in general will have a better feel for what it's like than if you did not grow up in such an environment. It is hard to ignore when it happens to those close to you.

reply from: yoda

I agree with Mary and RePit. I think it's a good thing, too, for kids to learn about their culture, race, and/or ethnic background and take pride in it.

reply from: HICKman

First off, how does Slavery figure into this equation...???? how does something that occured a hundred years ago really matter??? like i have said, Other races have enslaved and been enslaved, but it is only the blacks that seem to hold a grudge, or continue to harp on the "sad" issue...Get over it...what do you people want, recognition? well you got that, how about money? get it yourself, special treatment...earn it, Slavery is an old thing of the past...heck the jews were enslaved and nearly exterminated...but we hear FAr FAR FAR less abut that then we do about Slavery...And the HOlocaust was 60 years ago compared to over 100!?!?!? Honestly...YES you were discriminated against over in the USA, but a white person goes to south Africa and they will probably get killed that week, or atleats robbed, like wise of i go to the Bronx or HArlem...So dont cry crocodile tears about your past greivances in the new millenium, get over it and find something newer, more relevant, and more important to bitch about...(hint economics...politics...etc)

reply from: HICKman

Margret Sanger used abortion to target minorties????????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, wow it all seems o me that you are simply a paranoid wreck... MArgret Sanger MAY have been a racist and Probably WAS a druggie, whats your point? Unless Margret Sanger kidnapped and aborted pregnat minority women, then your case is wrong as:

WOMEN CHOOSE TO HAVE ABORTION AND SO HOW CAN THEY BE TARGETED??? ALL IT SEEMS IS THAT MINORTIES GENERALLY HAVE A POORER FINACIAL SIUATION AND THUS CANNOT SUPPORT NUMEROUS OF EVEN ONE CHILD THUS ABORTION THE CHILD AT THEIR OWN CHOICE AND WITH THEIR OWN MORALS!!!!!!! None of you can impose any of your beliefs on pregent women, thats what we Canadians call "Opresseion" and our Truthseeker would know all about that right???

So the way i see it the problem lies in you economy or way of life or whatever you wackjobs call it...people get abortions because they dont want to have children...whats wrong with that??? Sex for pleasure not creation...try it you all might enjoy it...

reply from: yoda

Slavery is the only other institution (besides abortion) that I know of in which one human being could "own" another. In the "institution of abortion", mothers take the life of their baby as IF they "owned" that baby, and in fact many of your fellow proaborts say just that: They claim that mothers "own" their unborn children.

reply from: galen

I agree w/ Yoda... go read a few more history lessons HICK.

Mary

reply from: Tam

Yes, I agree, too.

And this goes for white kids, too! I have learned to appreciate the backgrounds of my family and I am proud of my heritage. I think there is this sense in America that when white kids are proud of their heritage, that is the same as the "heritage and pride" rhetoric the Klan dispenses. I am not talking about "white pride"! That is ridiculous. I am talking about, for example, part of me is Italian. I suppose to some racists, Italians are lower than the British or whatever, but some people really like to rank people according to heritage--not sure why people want to do that, but it seems wrong to me on a very basic, human rights level. Anyway, I am so proud of my Italian heritage. I love Italian food, I love Italian liquor, I love "That's Amore!" and Leonardo da Vinci and the way my grandfather said, "Capice?" There is nothing wrong with loving my heritage. But when people SAY they are proud of their heritage but MEAN that they think their heritage is inherently better than someone else's--that is unfair. I am also part Scottish. Do I think that the Scottish parts of my DNA are worth more, or less, than the Italian parts? How ridiculous would that be! But there are undoubtedly people in the world who think they're better than other people because of heritage and, more common but less commonly acknowledged, skin color. Of all the inane criteria to assess the worth of a person, skin color has got to be close to the bottom of the barrel, right there with eye color, hair color, and fingernail color. It is awful that we live in a society so damaged by racism that for me to be proud of my heritage, as a white person, I feel I must issue a disclaimer that I'm not saying that I'm better than anyone else. Because of groups like the KKK, who claim their purpose is "heritage, not hate" I have to qualify my perfectly acceptable and appropriate pride and love for my background, explaining that I'm not a racist.

I can understand people wanting to take pride in their heritage. But here is a message to all white people: if you want to take pride in your heritage, do it by celebrating your own ethnic background, NOT by joining the KKK, a group which may claim to focus on heritage, but which has a long history of hatred and racism with which you, if you are not a racist yourself, should not want to be associated. Do not try to "work within the system" and reform the Klan. Just don't, it is a losing battle because people who have knowledge and/or experience with the Klan's tactics in the past will never respect it, no matter how much it tries to clean up its act. Be proud of your heritage! But be aware that the KKK is an organization with a history of much more than pride. The atrocities committed by the KKK are so appalling that to associate yourself with that organization will mean that people of good will around the world will associate YOU with those actions. Unless you support and endorse lynchings and so forth, I highly recommend having nothing to do with the Klan. I feel that it preys upon white people who want to be proud of their heritage but feel that they aren't allowed to be, because of the history of oppressing other peoples or for other reasons. You can be! In every heritage, there are things of which we should be proud, and things of which we should be ashamed. No culture is perfect, and all have committed terrible acts at one time or another. To acknowledge those acts and be able to forgive and move on, for all of us, is crucial. We can't ignore the history of atrocities, but we can acknowledge them, forgive them, and learn from our mistakes. One of the biggest mistakes this US culture has ever made is embodied in the KKK. There is no sense in which the KKK can be reformed. We need to acknowledge that it was a mistake, forgive ourselves for our participation or lack of effort to rectify it, as the case may be, and work on healing the damage it caused--NOT lend any credibility to it by trying to say it has changed its tune and is now a positive, pro-heritage organization.

reply from: galen

Well said!

Mary

reply from: yoda

I second that motion, Mary. I've always found it interesting about the "racial division" thing, because there really very few "races" left in the world. There hasn't been a "white race" for many millenia, nor a black one. There are so many different national and/or ethnic origins for both black and white people that it makes no sense to talk about a "race" of either color, not to mention all the mixed blood individuals who don't "belong to any color or "race".

reply from: Tam

Yes, a great point. There is no "white race" and "black race"--not all white people are even from Europe, and not all black people are even from Africa. People come in so many colors all over the world--and the US is supposed to be the melting pot, right? Not that we all melt into an indistinguishable lump, but that we blend together in harmony. There are "mixed race" children in my wider family--and many families in my city--and many cities in the world. More and more, we are blending together in harmony. But really, "mixed race" is not accurate to describe them. If a child is half Irish, one-quarter Ukranian, and one-quarter Australian, isn't s/he just as "mixed" as a child who is half Vietnamese, one-quarter Finnish, and one-quarter Samoan? What's the difference? The child has the heritages of three cultures to appreciate and explore--in either case. We are a world of many colors, and many backgrounds. But the thing that unites us all is that we are all persons. Even, despite the ridiculous posturings of the Roe decision, unborn children.

reply from: yoda

Exactly! No matter the color, the ethnicity, the geography, or the status of the family.... no matter the size, the age, or the developmental status of the baby..... we are ALL human beings, every one of us!

reply from: kdawg

this is a horrible web site i could never kill a baby o my

reply from: yoda

That's why this "horrible web site" is here, kdawg, because people ARE killing their babies. What are you doing to help us stop the killing?

reply from: ladyred08

i agree just the same as a person killing a mother carring a child get muder on 2 counts but a mother can do it without thinking

reply from: yoda

Good point, ladyred, and welcome to the forum.

reply from: flutterbyfaith

I agree with you how can anyone do such a thing as this

reply from: ctfadmin

Hello all, I am brand new here - just read a few posts on the forum for the first time.

I just started a website to help put the word out regarding the truths of abortion, the pain and grief and ruin it causes in women's lives, not to mention the killing of children. It's good to see you guys doing this and I look forward to getting more good data to link to and include on my site.

Let me tell you why I made my site; recently I was listening to Laura Ingraham's radio talk show and they were interviewing a woman (I forgot to write her name down!!) who was formerly the head of some organization like NOW or planned parenthood (I forgot to write that down too...). Even though I didn't record such important information, the interview disgusted me and gave me the motivation I needed to start fighting back.

This interviewee was so slippery and smooth, she side stepped every tough question proposed by Laura and somehow made every answer refer to her 'defending women from the predators in government' and the laws that would make them slaves basically.

I started www.considerthisfirst.com a few days later and I have been collecting content and link partners ever since. I want to get the word out to pregnant girls and women before its too late, giving them the information you don't hear from these slick, political special - interest people.

I would appreciate any information, links, tips and advice or any help at all. If any of you listen to Laura Ingraham and have an idea who that woman on the show was I would like to know that also!

Take care and good luck.

reply from: ctfadmin

I love that post of yours Tam! This topic is a pet peeve of mine. I get so irritated by check boxes on (choose your form) forms that have White, Black, Native American, or Hispanic choices. Most don't have an 'Other' box. On the forms that do have an 'other' box I check that off and write "American" and just hope it irritates someone on the other end. On forms with no 'other' box I make a box for them, check it off and write "American" beside that one too! I don't know anyone who can say their race is 'white' or that it is even their skin color (if they are still breathing).

My heritage includes American Indian, French, English, Irish, and German peoples. I don't have the information I need to be officially considered for Native American status but I wouldn't put that down anyway, not with the rest of that mix. I don't consider myself primarily a "native" American by race, just an American.

Why isn't 'American' considered a race inside our own country? If you go outside of our country we are all referred to as American right? I never stopped to wonder why we don't refer to ourselves as such...

reply from: Tam

I love that post of yours Tam! This topic is a pet peeve of mine. I get so irritated by check boxes on (choose your form) forms that have White, Black, Native American, or Hispanic choices. Most don't have an 'Other' box. On the forms that do have an 'other' box I check that off and write "American" and just hope it irritates someone on the other end. On forms with no 'other' box I make a box for them, check it off and write "American" beside that one too! I don't know anyone who can say their race is 'white' or that it is even their skin color (if they are still breathing).

My heritage includes American Indian, French, English, Irish, and German peoples. I don't have the information I need to be officially considered for Native American status but I wouldn't put that down anyway, not with the rest of that mix. I don't consider myself primarily a "native" American by race, just an American.

Why isn't 'American' considered a race inside our own country? If you go outside of our country we are all referred to as American right? I never stopped to wonder why we don't refer to ourselves as such...

Hey CTF, welcome to the forum--and your site is awesome, I hope you have great success with it! Your heritage sounds almost exactly like mine--except I have Scottish instead of Irish, plus Italian which you don't have. Maybe we're distantly related! Tam

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Well, technically, we'd all be related if we sticked to Adam and Eve's origin. It's just too coincedental, because I'm Scottish, Irish, British, and French too (with some other stuff). It's a conspiracy, or something.

Lol, CTF! Your idea of creating an "American" box is an excellent idea!

reply from: Tam

Just a comment about the New Bedford, Massachusetts guy, Jacob Robida, who attacked patrons of a gay bar with both a hatchet and a gun, then ran. He picked up a woman, Jennifer Rena Bailey, in Virginia I think, then was caught in Arkansas. During his capture, he allegedly turned to Jennifer, hugged her, then put a gun to her head and executed her. He then shot and killed a police officer, and was soon shot and apprehended himself. He died later in the hospital.

What is interesting to me about this story is that I heard on the TV news--can't remember which channel now and can't find any internet references to it, but this was only an hour or so ago that I saw it--that Robida was allegedly heading for a "KKK safe house." Now, when police had searched his room, they'd found what was described as "Nazi regalia and anti-semitic writings on the walls." But what caught my attention was the phrase "KKK safe house." WTF? Why on earth would a KKK member or affiliate require a safe house? If this organization is really all about "heritage, not hate" then from whom would anyone need to hide? If someone really needed protection, isn't that what law enforcement is for? It sounds to me as though a KKK safe house would hide someone from the law.

My point is simply that I had no idea such a thing as a "KKK safe house" existed, and if such a place does exist, I think that speaks volumes about the KKK. As I've said before, the KKK is NOT an organization to which any decent person would belong. This just makes it all the more apparent that their focus is not as benign as they would like outsiders to think.

Caveat: perhaps there is no such thing as a "KKK safe house." If that is the case, it changes nothing about the KKK's history and well-deserved reputation for hatred and violence.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Ever heard of forced abortions in China, Mexico, Africa, and numerous other countries in poverty? Oh yes... it is here I hear the pathetic excuse "They can't afford their babies!" Well, maybe if we stopped spending our money getting them forced abortions, we could HELP them afford their children. And now, you're going to say "Those countries are overpopulated!" There are millions of couples on waiting lists all over the world for newborns. Enough said.

reply from: shyshane

I agree wholeheartedly, and if anyone can find anything else that explains it please pass it on to me. you can reach me at the Lancaster pd Lt. Shane Wilson, 740.205.7208
740.687.6680 either number will work

reply from: yoda

That cuts right to the chase, laurissa. The probabykilling advocates are big on preserving their "freedom to kill others".

reply from: wagonface

I am crying as I am looking at these abortion pictures...I too once thought of doing that...but I decided against it, now my child is one and those pictures made me glad I did not do such an evil thing. I hope any young or pregnant person who is deciding to abort their baby (AND IT IS HUMAN) takes a look at these pictures and chooses otherwise...Life is hard, sure, but life also goes on and why shouldn't theirs. Even if you hate the babies father, remember, the baby is NOT HIM!!!
He or she is their own person, let them live!

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, wf. We appreciate your input.

reply from: HICKman

Laurisssa....come on plese honey....what do you think yo are doing???? this is North America...Canada and the USA (AND MEXICO so dont worry i didnt forget them) and for that purpose who gives a hoot about what happnes in Idaho???? serioulsy....China, Mexico, whereever its not our problem and does not affect OUR policies on Abortion,

Yes forced abortions do happen, so do forced pregnaces, called rape....oh and Arranged Marrigaes also happen elsewhere....and what are you sudgesting ship these babies allover the world to get these newborns from whereever???? have fun spending the millions if not billions it ouwl take to do that...

(ie, Transporting them, caring for them in the waiting periods, feeding them, insuring its a safe home, health checks and tests) its really a lot easier to not to ALL that, and instead worry about whats goin on over HERE not over THERE

reply from: HICKman

PS: a lot of forced things happen, does not mean it should affect us...ie forced killings, torture, etc....but its not our problem...

reply from: HICKman

Tam about your KKK safehouse....what about it???? on safehouse (If it exists) does not condem the entire movement, you dont now if the house was going to accept him (as you dont know what the safehouse is for) and so you cant even talk so shut it...and so what if the KKK was or IS a violent organistaion, all the largest riots and unrest (ie Watts, Dietroit) were caused by blacks and incited by blacks (yes mabye over inequaility, But didnt Martin King JR, accomplish far more simply by talking????)

and while the KKK lynched blacks ect, this primarily only happened in the south....can you guess why???

But that is all besides the point.....all im saying dont make it sound like the KKK was and IS the only violent organisation around....Look at The Cripps, Bloods etc (all headed and manned by blacks) or the IRA etc...

reply from: yoda

HICKman, please tell me you're a probabykilling advocate.......

reply from: Tam

No, the movement is already condemned, regardless of whether a safehouse exists.

Well, why don't you enlighten me, then? What is the purpose of a KKK safehouse?

Well, thanks for making it clear where you stand. Remind me of where I claimed the KKK is the only violent org. around--good luck, because it didn't happen. In fact, according to www.klanparenthood.com:

I never said whites are the only violent ones. I do think, and I say this as a white person, that white people have caused more trouble and wrong on this planet than people of any other race, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion and the fact that I believe it to be true doesn't mean I dislike myself or my heritage. I'm just saying, because YOU brought up this comparison and tried to make it seem as though I were saying that the KKK is the only violent group in the world--it's not, but if you really want to get into it, I seriously doubt there is a leg to stand on to compare what whites have done for racist reasons with what has been done by other races for racist reasons.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Yeah! It's not our problem if a psychopath is putting Jews in concentration camps or if an African family is starving! Not my country not my problem! Right?I would pay anything-ANYTHING- to feed, shelter, and love a African/Chinese/Mexican baby. I'm not too tangled up in my luxury to just turn my nose up at a chance to save one child. I would do whatever it takes- pay airline/ship tickets, get a bigger house, whatever-to save one needy child. It's called compassion. Try it sometime.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

This compassion thing is foreign to you, isn't it?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

"Compassion" doesn't exist in the Handy Dandy Pro-Choice Dictionary, sister. The entry in big, bold letters is "SELF."

reply from: HICKman

Hmmmmm.....well First Yoda....I am prochoise as i have said....i am a male and can never understand the burdens or attachments of a mother to her baby, or soon to be born child (not fetus/zygot), i leave the ultimate decision to THE WOMEN....who to me are the only ones who can make the choice...which is what i support the right to a CHOICE...

Tam....you are right, u did not blatently say "The KKK is the only violent Organisation out there" but you made it seem that way...and to boot...your right WHITES as a whole did do a lot of miserable things...but thats kinda unfair to judge whites in Canada for what German Whites did to jews...ummmmm thats called prejudice which we all know so much about....The KKK, it wasnt condemed...it was abolished by its own members because they were tired of havwe to put up with all the negitive press and bad public opinion that they were getting due to a bunch of radicals and rednecks...Might i also add This whole KKK thing is irrelivant to teh abortion ordeal so THERE I ENLIGHTENED YOU...

You all seem to be so caught up in bringing up the past so how about this: Tam you seem to say that "Whites" where responsible for the most attrocites of any race for the most "Racist Reasons" l;iek hell, read up on Genghis Khan and Attila The Hun. And how about this little tid bit...how about all the GOOD things we whites did...Penacilin, Planes, Cars, WINNING FREEDOM IN 1918 and 1945 (though it was against whites so...) and a host of other things.

Oh and You Klan Parenthood thing...whats your point??? thats kindas obvious how many blacks wree actually killed or lynched by KKK members??? really i want a number...a few hundred a thousand at best??? WOW big woooopeeeee, come back when there is a REAL deathtoll.

Finally Laura...WWII was not fought for the Jews, we the Allies are reasponsible for a lot of their deaths (there are a huge list of reasons but suffice of to say we played a big role) And no its not our problem....compassion is good when you have a lot of money...Tell your ideas (Big house, plane tickets etc) to the average family who is barly making ends meet and fighting to get ahead...Then ask em to buy a bigger house, and support this other kid they dont know anything about....JUST to "feel good inside"

reply from: Tam

There IS a "REAL deathtoll" going on RIGHT NOW--it's called ABORTION, and it kills more black people every THREE DAYS than the KKK has killed in all of history. That doesn't mean that the killings that were performed by the KKK were any less heinous just because they've been surpassed so much by the number of abortion deaths. ALL those killings, both lynchings and abortions, are immoral and despicable. That you minimize in any way the KKK's race-based murders is disgusting.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Did I say everyone in America should adopt a foreign child? No. I was talking about the people on waiting lists for newborns. They have probably made sure that they have enough money to support a child. I never said that everyone in America should go and adopt someone. I have no idea where you got that... And honestly, I think it's sad that you don't care about anyone but yourself and the people around you. We are the United States. (key word=UNITED)

reply from: Fanny

All this time, I dont know that abortion was very frightening. Killing the babies who still have no sin at all. I can
t do anything about that because a pro-choice person never think about the babies the have killed. If I see the picture of the unborn babies, I want to cry all the time, thinking about them. So, I just can pray for the unborn babies and for the parents all over the world to more care about their babies. Because, babies is are a gift from God that we must protect and love. Because without love and careness from the people around them, they cannot survive. I was and too.

reply from: Tam

Hi Monica, welcome to the forum.

reply from: jgalclassy

Lets not all forget that these women, black or white, are making their wn choice to get these abortions. Why does everything always turn into a race issue. Where is a white organization that protects me as a white woman. I know there are still race issues but I think we as a population are making it worse with all these groups and race stats. what about white lower class or young white girls who are butchered? These girls still made the choice to have an abortion.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Jgal, genocide is genocide because the victims have no choice about dying, not the killer. The fact that 80% of planned parenthood clinics are in black neighborhoods cannot be overlooked -- prolifers haven't made this a race issue, it always has been. You can see it in Margaret Sanger's writings, Kissinger's foreign policy. They speak in terms of race. Sanger explicit states she created PP to get rid of blacks. Yes black women choose abortion -- black babies don't.

reply from: prochoice4life

Ok thats wonderfull YOU think its horrible and YOU think its wrong and YOU think there killers, you are welcomed to your opinion, there are ppl who have different backrounds, religons, morals and stories, ill show you a few ok? girl meets boy boy convinces girl he loves her and will marry her someday, girl gives virginity, girl gets preg. girl knows if her parents find out they will beat her, yell at her and is scared to death, goes to boy for help he could care less and gives her money to have an abortion she is at the moment 2 months pregent. feeling she has no way she has the abortion. story #2 family is a huge christain family big in there church, it soon comes out that the father has been molesting the 11 yr old girl for yrs she is at the moment pregant should she be forced to have a baby? is she a murder if she has an abortion (which she does) these are ones of millions of storys, you and everyone else in this group has NO RIGHT to tell ppl they dont know what to do with THEIR bodies and its NONE of your business!

reply from: yoda

Like I said, you are a probabykilling advocate.
And when you type out the word "choice" in all caps, I suppose we're supposed to understand that to be a euphemism for killing babies, right?
So you "support the right to kill babies".......... okay, I understand now.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Fanny. And yes, you ARE doing something about it, by posting your opinion here. That's a good start.

reply from: yoda

pc4life, I'm glad you brought up that example! It's well known that those who molest and impregnate young girls are the greatest champions of abortion, because abortion covers up their crimes!
Sure, they even take the vulnerable little girls to the clinic themselves, and impersonate a relative, so as to get rid of the evidence before they are exposed. Why, if the child were to survive and be born, someone could do a DNA test and prove his guilt!
Can't allow that, can we?

reply from: faithman

.
Jgal, genocide is genocide because the victims have no choice about dying, not the killer. The fact that 80% of planned parenthood clinics are in black neighborhoods cannot be overlooked -- prolifers haven't made this a race issue, it always has been. You can see it in Margaret Sanger's writings, Kissinger's foreign policy. They speak in terms of race. Sanger explicit states she created PP to get rid of blacks. Yes black women choose abortion -- black babies don't.
You go girl. bout time these pro-aborts and evolutionist admit to their racism. Now if we could just get pagans to admit they hate Christ and His followers............

reply from: faithman

Racist theology is that which has been perverted by evolution. They believe they are the master race, which is not found in the scripture, but is found in darwins book. Like i say, everytime you mix in a little evolution, folk start dieing because they are less evolved.

reply from: MissDipset

This goes out to all ya'll parents who have had an abortion before...... 1st of all why would you kill your own child that you and your partner done planted. It's a total disgrace how you women are buck enough to kill your own damn child. I know I hear alot of these girls saying "Oh I wasn't ready for no baby right now I'm too young, I'm still in school". Child bye thats true too but think about it if you too young to have a baby then you too young to have sex you shouldn't been doing it in the first damn place MISS. GROWN-ASS that don't mean you have to commit MURDER!!! Have ya'll ever heard of ABSTINENCE God lee ya'll girls kills me when it comes to ABORTIONS trust and believe it's not no good idea cuz you are at risk of killing your ownself during the abortion procedure. I have heard and seen alot of women not even make it during the whole procedure thats why you have to GET YOUR MIND RIGHT AND STOP BEING SO TRIFLIN andSTOP killing these innocent babies. WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? If Iw as to have a baby I wouldn't just give up on myself and kill it, in god's eyes babies are a blessing. I don't have any children right now but I'm in college and I plan on having some after school but if I WAS to get pregnant while I was still in school I WON'T give-up I'll still go to school and yes I can do that because I am a well patient person and I got family who care and will baby-sit for me any time I needs it. Well thats all I Have to say today I'll get back @ ya'll some other time. And REMEMBER Don't sacrifice your life over some BULL-S*** it's worth it. THINK ABOUT IT

reply from: yoda

You're in college, eh? Can u spell "t-r-o-l-l"?

reply from: gooseyloosey

I am a criminology student in the united kingdom and am writing an essay on the legal issues surrounding abortion. I am hoping to get the views of both sides of the debate.
I realise this is a very emotive issue and I wish to respect your views. I do however wonder why these connections between hitler, the kkk and planned parenthood are being made.
I am guessing (maybe wrongly) that it would be wanted for more people to become pro life and these very determined views seem like they may put off more moderate people.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hi gooseyloosey Welcome to the forum! I'm glad you came here to get our perspective. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a white supremacist, to rid the world of undesirable people. Planned Parenthood freely admits this (although they deny this is still their reason for being though, in America, 80% of their abortion clinics are in the black community- this is validated by Planned Parenthood themselves.) If you read Margaret Sanger's books you can see that she admitted to speaking with the Klan about the need to rid the world of black people. Many historians also believe that she helped Hitler formulate his "Final Plan." The first page of this thread will have good information, also blackgenocide.com is a useful resource. Please tell me if that helps once you take a look.

reply from: faithman

You might try studying one of her lovers, a Brit named Havlock Ellis [ck sp]. He was a big player in the eugenics movement in the 1920's and 30's. There was also a death camp Nazi doctor that wrote articles for Sangers news letter before the war. If you can get your hands ahold of a book called GRAND ILLUSIONS it is one of the finest exposays on Planned Parenthood.

reply from: yoda

It's pretty simple, really......... it's the issue of denying "personhood" to a group or class of human beings in order to justify their destruction.
That's something that the groups you mention have in common, so it's quite legitimate to compare them on that issue.

reply from: galen

bump... another great one that may help the newbies see thier arguments are not so new...
mary

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

I think the most accurate way to talk about how PP is racist and not anything like what it claims is talking from expierience.
I hope some of you have ever prayed outside a PP?
I get a group once a month and we go to one in balitmore.
Its in a minority area, of course, and not only do we follow every law but we also give more way then the law requires so we don't cause a problem.
We still get the cops called on us. The cops actually told us "Most of the Baltimore cops are on your side, and this clinic hates people who disagree with it, we get calls here all the time."
They claim to be pro-choice, yet offer absoultely no choice. Just abortion. Anyone who does offer more choice, gets the cops called on them.
90% of the people who are going into the clinic are minorities.
And most of them are lied to on the facts.
The building is made to look like an adoption agency or some other pro-life group, so everyone who walks by is shocked to hear its an abortion clinic.
I can throw a lot of websites to you telling you I'm right. But just going to the clinic's itself gives irrefutible (sp?) proof of everything you all have been saying.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

I think the most accurate way to talk about how PP is racist and not anything like what it claims is talking from expierience.
I hope some of you have ever prayed outside a PP?
I get a group once a month and we go to one in balitmore.
Its in a minority area, of course, and not only do we follow every law but we also give more way then the law requires so we don't cause a problem.
We still get the cops called on us. The cops actually told us "Most of the Baltimore cops are on your side, and this clinic hates people who disagree with it, we get calls here all the time."
They claim to be pro-choice, yet offer absoultely no choice. Just abortion. Anyone who does offer more choice, gets the cops called on them.
90% of the people who are going into the clinic are minorities.
And most of them are lied to on the facts.
The building is made to look like an adoption agency or some other pro-life group, so everyone who walks by is shocked to hear its an abortion clinic.
I can throw a lot of websites to you telling you I'm right. But just going to the clinic's itself gives irrefutible (sp?) proof of everything you all have been saying.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

I think the most accurate way to talk about how PP is racist and not anything like what it claims is talking from expierience.
I hope some of you have ever prayed outside a PP?
I get a group once a month and we go to one in balitmore.
Its in a minority area, of course, and not only do we follow every law but we also give more way then the law requires so we don't cause a problem.
We still get the cops called on us. The cops actually told us "Most of the Baltimore cops are on your side, and this clinic hates people who disagree with it, we get calls here all the time."
They claim to be pro-choice, yet offer absoultely no choice. Just abortion. Anyone who does offer more choice, gets the cops called on them.
90% of the people who are going into the clinic are minorities.
And most of them are lied to on the facts.
The building is made to look like an adoption agency or some other pro-life group, so everyone who walks by is shocked to hear its an abortion clinic.
I can throw a lot of websites to you telling you I'm right. But just going to the clinic's itself gives irrefutible (sp?) proof of everything you all have been saying.

reply from: FirstTimeMother

I'm new to this site. I saw the pics. I seen vids of abortions. A catholic school has been shut down in my city due to showing a abortion video to 2nd graders. I am 16 years old and with child. I may be young to be pregnant, but I sure as hell do love my unborn and when she gets here, I'll love her more than anything in this cruel world. I am against abortion with all my soul! I am so glad I did not choose abortion when my high school tried to make me because they kept saying it will ruin my life. This child in my tummy will not ruin a thing except a SURGEONS MONEY SPENCE THEY THRIVE ON MAKING TO KILL BABIES! once concieved, you are human. I don't even see why abortion is even needed when adoption is there but, I am against adoption too. Adoption is worse is my opinion because your giving away a soul that was fed, given oxygen and loved in your womb and yet, giving it to a family that the baby did not get concieved with or put in her womb. God chooses what and God chooses where to put these little lifes and he did not choose for you to give that little life to a human it did not full term grow in. I HATE ABORTION! I HATE THEM!

reply from: RobertFerguson

http://www.armyofgod.com/Racism.html

reply from: bradensmommy

I can't stand when other high schoolers think that its okay to go out and have sex with whomever and then get rid of the "inconvenience" because they can't use protection (or just don't want to). Kudos to you for taking responsibility for your actions and ignorning the ones who think its okay to go out and do whatever they want without thinking. I don't agree with teens having sex but if you think you are old enough to have sex (and take responsibility) more power to you!
I think adoption is wonderful for parents who cannot concieve. A baby is the best gift you can give to a couple who aren't able to have one of their own. Think about that too!

reply from: nickie420

ok what if your raped by your dad..then is it ok??! they need to think about what they r doing?? what would you do?? you obviously have no empathy..i work in a clinic..i am the only person some of these women can turn to for help..that makes me feel good..i do the right thing on a daily basis..i HELP these women. Maybe you should think about what you say..

reply from: AshMarie88

ok what if your raped by your dad..then is it ok??!
Killing babies is never okay.
they need to think about what they r doing?? what would you do??
If I was raped (by whoever) I wouldn't go destroy my child.
you obviously have no empathy..i work in a clinic..i am the only person some of these women can turn to for help..
Is your idea of "help" recommending abortions to these women?
that makes me feel good..i do the right thing on a daily basis..i HELP these women.
Abortions don't help women!
Maybe you should think about what you say..
Maybe you should think about where you work, and think about what you truely support.

reply from: yoda

Let's see, the "Dad" has committed both rape and incest, two crimes in one, and you want to execute the baby instead?
What kind of justice is that? What did the baby do?

reply from: AmelieAmelie

Typical. Black people thinking that the only reason abortion exists is to cull down black numbers. LOL Wake up this isn't the 1950's and beyond.
And no, I'm not white, so don't even.
And yes I'm going for an abortion, tomorrow actually.
Oh no, are you going to strip me of my heritage now? I'm not good enough for you anymore because I've decided that it is my body and my right to abort a child I do not want?
And before you say "why should the baby suffer..blahblahblah", well, why should I suffer when I have a reason and choice not to?
Sometimes it feels the only racists left in the world are people like you......it saddens me, soget over the past already!
Yes, the slave trade was a horrible thing to have happened , the nazi era was horrible beyond comprehension, but its past and things like that don't really happen anymore. In paranoid minds like yours, yes, maybe, but in all seriousness, just pray for strength and move on!
Let women have their choice. I don't even know what planned parenthood is, I'm not American (I'm assuming its US). Perhaps it was started by a "white supremisist" as you say, but do you really think now a days they would be pulling in black people off the street and forcing abortion on them?
No, just like any white woman wanting an abortion, a black woman has made the choice HERSELF.
Hate me if you will for being pro-choice, but I do not care, and will not answer to you. The Lord and my unborn child will deal with me when my time comes.

reply from: yoda

That's a rather rambling introduction, Amelie. Welcome to the forum, anyway.
In the US, black have abortions in much higher numbers than whites by population, that is well known. And yes, it does seem that many abortion clinics are intentionally located in minority communities, for whatever reason. Draw your own conclusions, but remember that these communities do not have a high average income.
Why should you suffer, when you can "reduce your suffering" by killing your baby? Only you can answer that one, Amelie. If you think that your path to a happier life requires you to step over the body of your dead baby, there's really not much we can say to you.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

No actually your unborn child will deal with your right now.
You can fool yourself and think that your abortion only effects you, but it will KILL your child.
Its obvious you have been approached about abortion already, so there is no point in me trying to tell you something you don't know. you have a choice, to kill your innocent child who YOU CHOSE to create, or the choice to let your child live. time to grow up and stop pinning your immiture choices on others.
Sorry if im being "rude" but im being just as blunt as you were in your post.
You have a chance to do something GREAT, to save your child.
it is your choice. to do whats right, or to ruin two lives.
You are in my prayers.

reply from: Teresa18

AmelieAmelie, please reconsider before you go for you abortion. I hope you check in before you have it done. I would just like to say a few things.
First of all, did you know that black people make up 13% of the population in the U.S., but they account for more than 35% of abortions? Look at this from blackgenocide.com:

Look at this:
http://blackgenocide.org/

http://blackgenocide.org/black.html

Also, I advise you to look at quotes from Planned Parenthood's founder. This is what PP was founded on, and they are proud of this and defend her. The source is American Death Camps a site of Life Dynamics:
The child is not part of your body. Your baby has a completely different set of DNA than you. Maybe your baby is of the opposite sex. Just because you don't want your child, why should the child have to die? There are many people in this country alone who would love to have your child. They would raise him/her, and they would love him/her with all their hearts. You have to remember that your child never asked to concieved. You have to remember that when you had sex, it was between two parties, you and your partner. The child never asked to be brought into existence. It happened. It's not the childs fault he/she is here, yet you have chosen to kill the child.
Less than 9 months (at this point) of carrying the child is nothing compared to the possible 90+ year life your child might have.
If we were racists, we would not care that you child died. Yet we do care.
Yet they do. Over 4,000 children die EVERY SINGLE DAY due to abortion. There are over ONE AND A HALF MILLION PER YEAR!

reply from: Teresa18

AmelieAmelie, if you look at nothing else I gave you, look at this. In this thread, starting from the 11th post down, but you can start at post 12, I have all the complications of abortion laid out, emotional and physical. Please know all that so you can make an informed choice. No abortion clinic will give you all this information.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2757&enterthread=y

Also, make sure you look at these two forums. These are all women talking daily about the extreme emotional torment they go through daily due to their choice. They thought they would be fine, but they are not.
Visit the board to read what many of the women are going through after their abortions.
http://afterabortion.com/forums/index.php
This is also a great forum. I actually think it is better than the above because you don't have to register to read the accounts of what women are going through. (scroll down)
http://www.safehavenministries.../members/Ultimate.cgi
I believe there may be a reason why you stumbled across this forum today. Let us know what happened regardless. If you need help if you decide not to go through with the abortion, we will be more than happy to find you a Pregnancy Center in your area that can help you with adoption or keeping the child.

reply from: holopaw

First time mommy,
There is no way that abortion is preferable to adoption. Adoption gives a child a family and a chance at a good life. Abortion gives a child death, nothing more.

reply from: AmelieAmelie

No, I looked at nothing. I had my abortion done on Saturday, and I am relieved. When I got up from the table I don't recall "stepping over my dead baby."
I have a severe liver and heart problem, and one more pregnancy could have resulted in my death and of the baby anyway.
I know your type, all of you. You would have my other children motherless just to give the baby a chance. Who cares that I would be in a hospital for the remainder of my pregnancy, constant monitors, never being home with my other children and always wondering if the pain will ever stop, and if I will wake the next day to see my family.
Why did I not state this about myself before? I wanted to see what you would say, without knowing all the facts. You people are fighting for a good cause, but in the wrong context.
Why are you on the net? Why aren't you in 3rd world countries where they take pregnant mothers who want their children, rape and kill them, murder babies that are lying tin their cribs asleep? Join the army and save some babies?
Or , that would be work, this typing, and bashing and hate propaganda is easier? You won't get hurt this way.....right?
I used be anti-abortion, just like you all. But now, after meeting others and knowing the many reasons why abortion is needed for some, and my own experiences, I regret ever having looked down at women who have made their choice.
I realize what kind of bullies you are , uncaring about anything, you only state these things because your stubborn belief. Your kind *violently protests*, *even killing* some to make your point. But *this is pro-life*?
No , if you were really pro-life you wouldn't be trying to force people to look at dead baby pictures, calling them horrible names, making threats, accusations, and even murder.
Tell someone who has an abortion that they "enjoy killing babies?" What is worng with you? The women who go through this don't enjoy it, no matter what your twisted minds think.
I love the children I have, and so much that I would sacrifice my own soul to do what is best for them. A life was lost, but not mine, and mine is the most important to three other little individuals on this Earth. So cry over my baby if you like. As I said before, The Lord and my child will deal with me when my time comes.
Discuss this among yourselves if you like, but I won't be on this forum ever again.

reply from: Teresa18

AmelieAmelie, I'm sorry to hear that you went through with your abortion. However, did you know that only 4% of abortions in America are actually done on healthy mothers and children? I can't judge your situation. If there was no way you could continue with your pregnancy due to health reasons, I understand. No one wants you to die. I could never say what I would do in your situation. I may have possibly attempted bed rest if possible and got someone to take care of my other children. (I think free child care should be provided for mothers in this situation.) However, if my death were certain, I know I would have made your choice. I hope you know that none of the comments I made were in any way selfish to you. They were facts about black abortion, Margaret Sanger, and abortion complications. These complications are extremely important for the 96% of healthy mothers having abortions, especially the PASS information. I believe that Yoda's comments were directed toward a healthy woman killing her child for selfish purposes, as we did not know of your illness.
Pro-life by dictionary definition means that we are opposed to the practice of abortion. It doesn't mean being pro-life in all aspects, as pro-choice does not mean being for all choices. Now, most all of us are peaceful in that we would hurt no one. There has been documented violence by pro-choicers as well. There are radicals on both sides. Radicals do not the majority of us make.
We want to end the abortions of the 4,000 children per day, 96% of which are perfectly healthy. There is so much to be done in America, but we support pro-life efforts and care in other countries as well for the women and children. Most pro-lifers I know care about both parties, the mother and child. If I didn't care about women, I wouldn't support abortion if there was a risk to the mother's life.

reply from: faithman

Pro-aborts continue to try and pull the heart strings of hard cases that were never at issue. No woman in america was ever forced to die of child birth. Abortion on demand is the issue. No way should we continue to allow healthy children being murdered by healthy moms. That is the issue that pro-death skanks avoid like the plage. So who about it skanks? It's really about you feeling powerful, having the legal "right" to kill. How about the healthy womb child, that represent well over %90 of abortion on demand? Extreme medical cercumstances do not justify the free kill zone of Americas abortion mills. Particularly when those cercumstances were already legal pre roe.

reply from: yoda

I find it very revealing that you thought it necessary to make the majority of your post nasty personal attacks on people you've never met and know nothing about. That says a lot about your state of mind.
Even if we were the children of the Devil himself, that would not make it one bit more moral for you to kill your baby, and I think you know that. You now have some "demons" of your own to deal with, for the rest of your life.

reply from: faithman

I find it very revealing that you thought it necessary to make the majority of your post nasty personal attacks on people you've never met and know nothing about. That says a lot about your state of mind.
Even if we were the children of the Devil himself, that would not make it one bit more moral for you to kill your baby, and I think you know that. You now have some "demons" of your own to deal with, for the rest of your life.
The saddist pro-death skank lies, are the ones they tell themselves. Anything to cover the crime of womb child slaughter. When you are your own god, you will do anything to ignore the evil that you do. The self justified always excuse the murder that they commit.

reply from: AshMarie88

"Our type"?
No pro-lifer wants to see children motherless. Where did you get that? We just don't want to see babies being violently killed against their wills because of something deemed as a "choice". Like it or not, it's always WRONG.
And may I just bring up ONE point... you say you might've left your kids motherless, which I understand. However... what if your life was in danger because of, say, having to rescue one of your BORN children from a situation? Would you sacrifice YOUR life to save your child's? If so, why? You'd leave your other children motherless and of course, you wouldn't get to see the people you loved again. And if you wouldn't sacrifice your life for your child's, why?
What difference does it make if your child is born or unborn? The unborn is STILL one of your children! Why not treat them equally?
Just something to think about!!

reply from: AshMarie88

And I'm not saying just die. However, I would've said think about your unborn child and its siblings as well.

reply from: justhere

Hello everyone.I have been reading some of your entries and info and I have to say most of you are passing judgement and putting these people down.If I were in there position I would be afraid to even ask for any help or info because all everyone keeps saying is MURDER and telling them how wrong they are.I do feel that people are entitled to make there own decisions because in the end they have to answer for those choses.Don't get me wrong I definetly think a child has the right to be born because there are so many options out there.I just think you all should keep in mind that we are all sinners non eof us are perfect.I also think it's wonderful you have a site that gives all of this info for people who don't know all of the facts because I was one of them.I made the mistake of having an abortion.I have to say it was a HUGE mistake.But I have prayed to GOD and asked for forgiveness and I know my regret is genuine.But speaking from someone who was in there shoes,don't judge these people you don't know them and you don't know what's going on in there lives or with there particular situations.Provide them with the info they need.It's there choice from there.

reply from: faithman

SSSSSOOOO. we shouldn't judge car jackers unless we have car jacked? We shouldn't judge armed robers unles we have said sick em up? Just how do you sugjest we treat child molesters? Put at least one on a bench some where so one who has violated children judge those who do the same? Can't you just for a moment see how incredibly stupid your post is? I am glad you have repented from killing your womb child and all, but you are still guilty of murder. And even though God forgives, what about justice for the pre-born child, whose gift of life was stolen from them? You are counting the womb child as something which deserves no consideration at all. I could cares less to get to know a pro-death skank. All I care about is taking their ability to kill womb children away from them. Your brand of compassion is the most cruel, as it takes all the focus off of the inocent, and places it on the guilty who killed them. If that makes you feel bad, it should, for you killed an innocent child who's only crime was that they inconvenianced you. Now go ahead and tell us your boo hoo story that justifies the murder of a child....

reply from: justhere

It's funny how you call yourself "faithman" and yet you don't even know me.Obviously you didn't read my response you only took out of it what you didn't like.AGAIN, I believe that a child has the right to be born. But what positive impact do you think your making trying to degrade these women for the choices they've made? You are not our MAKER!HE judges us!ALONE! Have you ever even read the bible Mr.Faithman?Then you should know better.I think women who make that choice have and will make a huge mistake.BUT,we can't make that decision for them.And by the way I have no sob story.I have no excuses for what i have done.That is between GOD and I.Good for you that you are trying to stop these clinics from even being able to perform these procedures.I also say good job for trying to inform them of what there really doing and what there giving up.But you do not have to bad mouth and degrade someone else.How is that helping the situation.You criticize me for turning my life around and trying to prevent other young girls from making the same mistake.Then you want to talk about child molestors?Come on now!You are making the situation worse.Instead of beating these girls down how about educating them on sex and other abortion facts.I am certainly not saying abortion is okay.Somethings should never be introduced.And abortion is one of them.But you shouldn' talk to people like that.There may be a lot of people on here reaching out for help and alternatives and that is certainly not helping the baby or the mother.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, justhere. I'm somewhat confused by your posts so far, you seem to be saying opposite things at the same time.
For example, if a child has "the right to be born", then why are you focusing on protecting the feelings of those who support baby killing instead of focusing on how to save the lives of the children?

reply from: justhere

I am not trying to protect anyone.I just think you all have a great thing going trying to teach these young girls and women and it's hard for someone to reach out for info if they feel thay are being attack.Like that amerieamerie.Why would she be here if she didn't want help.There may be others here that are looking for someone to lead them to the right choice and all you get is someone calling you a murdering skank or something along those lines.And just for the record I am definetly not siding with Amerieamerie because I think she should have handled herself better regardless but if you are trying to help these unborn babies it's beyond me how you plan on doing that by insulting the people who log on.

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh, I don't know... to brag about her at-the-time-future abortion and call us racist and hateful?

reply from: yoda

You seem a bit confused and rambling, justhere, kind of like amerieamerie, in fact.
Maybe you had blinders on when your read her post, and didn't see all the insults she hurled at us, without knowing anything about us? Maybe you didn't see how she bragged about killing her baby?
Or maybe, you ARE amerieamerie, trying to pull our chain?

reply from: faithman

You seem a bit confused and rambling, justhere, kind of like amerieamerie, in fact.
Maybe you had blinders on when your read her post, and didn't see all the insults she hurled at us, without knowing anything about us? Maybe you didn't see how she bragged about killing her baby?
Or maybe, you ARE amerieamerie, trying to pull our chain?
...or maybe they are pro-death scum bag skanks who would use every lieing trick in the book, to justify killing womb children?

reply from: justhere

Finally I found one thing we agree on.Amerie did sound like she was bragging and she did dish out alot of insults.But does that mean you have to digrade her also?I thought the whole point here was to save lives.How are you saving lives when you're insulting people who come here?And I'm not saying it's YOU.But there are people on this site that aren't trying to help there just bashing.Just like that guy who called me a skank because I did not write something that he agrees with 100%.I am a prolifer just like you.Unfortunatley I had to make a grave mistake in order to realize things.Again I did read that crap amerie wrote.But to be honest I really don't think it would have made a difference how she approached you she still would have been verbally attacked.I came here not attacking anyone not disrespecting anyone and look how you all are reacting to me and I agree with you.I just think you could go about saving these babies in a different way.I don't know this amerie person but why would she come to a prolife site BEFORE she made that mistake?What if she was reaching out?I think the young girl sounded uneducated about this whole thing.But what if there is someone else who visits and they see the way some of these people are responding.Do you really think they are going to try to get help?

reply from: justhere

Ashmarie I know that girl has made a mistake and it seems that only you and youdavater were the only ones giving that girl hard core facts.But there are some other people on here that bashing and nothing else.That is all I'm saying.I'm not taking away the fact that the girl misinformed

reply from: justhere

Faithman,How are you helping the situation?Why do you feel you have to call names to make your point?

reply from: faithman

It is these opra boo hoo moments that keep abortion legal. Until we quit putting the focus on killer mom, and seek justice for the innocent womb child, the babies will die. Are you, or are you not guilty of murdering a pre-born child? If yes, then I am glad you found some conscience salv, but you totally ignore justice for the child you killed. I call names because they fit. If you killed a child, you are a murderer. If forgiven, then a forgiven murderer. If someone were to kill your mom or dad, then turn right around and say I get a free walk because I am forgiven, you would say wait a minute, what about justice for my inocent parents? I could care less about the feelings of the guilty at the expence of the innocent.

reply from: yoda

Let's see...... you joined this forum on Monday, and on Tuesday you think you know how we would have reacted no matter how someone approached us? Hmmm....... that's an awfully short time to be able to read our minds, justhere.
There are millions of prolifers, and many thousands of them post on forums such as this one. Nearly all of them have their own unique style of posting, and reacting to other posters. So it's really impossible to "predict" how any of them will react to a new poster, especially if you have only been here one day.
And even after you've been here months, or even years, other posters may not want your advice. So if you're here to "spread the word", then have at it. But go easy on the advice, people are funny about taking advice they didn't ask for.
Oh, and one other thing.... whenever "two" new posters show up at about the same time, with very similar writing styles, we tend to wonder if they are actually just one. Have a nice day!

reply from: ginette

this margaret sanger's sound's like a jew-ish name....

reply from: yoda

This ginette sounds like a trollish name........

reply from: whydeath

Pewww! I am glad I am not the only one

reply from: Cherry19

I'm 19;Black;and pro-choice. When I found out I was pregnant; I'm not going to lie I was freaking out; crying; and hoping that the test was somehow wrong (two test came in the box and I saw the same results). By the time i 8 wks I decided to get an abortion. You think that women that get abortions are heartless,murdering bitches w/ no conscience. (Not all but a lot). Did you ever consider what it's like contemplating a decision like that. Could you ever? ( last time I checked if you have a penis it's not possible). Most senators and lawmakers can't give birth; show do theyhave the right to tell a woman what she can and can not do w/her own body. Maybe some women get abortions b/c their not ready to start a family. Maybe she were raped. Is that fair to her?!
Ok maybe she MAKES THE CHOICE to keep her baby; some women have little or no support once child has arrived. (oh she can get o wic or welfare to help pay for the kid; mabe she's makes over 21k what then if she can't afford her baby.) there's a lot more to raising a child than finacal issues. It took two to create it ;there should be two to raise it. FYI this isn't a problem in just Black communies I know plenty of White and Hispanic girls whose fathers aren't in their lives. And let's say you have your will passed (Don't say God's will; too many ppl take their hate and judments placing it in His name). God is a merciful God and there is no sin too great that can't be forgiven. And If a woman decides to abort her unborn child;that's between her and God. Not protestors,senators,or the president. Who are we as imperfect humans ourselves to say what's wrong and right(oh God gave us the bible {and common sence} so we would know the difference?) In that case who are we to judge? Some Christians are some of the most judgmental ppl on Earth.
There's 7 billion ppl on Earth. I wonder what the pop. will be in 25yrs. 50. It's not like the planet is getting any bigger. I'm sure there is and will be enough food,clean water,shelter,money,jobs for all. I wonder why China has a one child rule;or why in India it's illegal to have an ultrasound preformed? hMMM makes me wonder.
Oh I found out May16th that I was pregnant. It's July 24th and I'm still prenant.I'm actuallyhappy and looking forward to giving birth.(Besides the fact that my mom's insurance won't pay a penny for anything and average pregnancy fm start to finish is $15,000) I never thought I'd be a mom before I graduated college; but things change. Keeping my child is my CHOICE, AND I'M GLAD I STILL HAVE THAT RIGHT.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes, of course it's not an easy decision to terminate your child's life; killing someone never is an easy decision. Altho in the end some don't regret doing that to someone else, because they're too damn selfish.
Hard to kill, easy to forget, eh?

reply from: AshMarie88

About rape...
I had no idea you could kill an innocent person for another person's crime! Wow!
Let's go kill all people who were victims themselves of a bad crime! PRO-CHOICE!!!!
Boy it feels great to have the ultimate choice to kill!!!

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh, and what you're carrying isn't a child, but a small blob of undeveloped parasitic cells that might just ruin your life for good. Better scrape it out now before it's too late!!

reply from: faithman

How is it a right to heartlessly slaughter on innocent helpless human being? You are a cold blooded murderer, and will face justice in the world to come if not in this one. Just what are you going to tell your born child? I had the right to kill you like your sibling, but i was feeling a little more cheritable in your case. If you weren't laying around like a sleezy skank, you wouldn't be pergnant out of wed-lock. You would be with a man worth having, and he would lay down his life for his family.

reply from: AshMarie88

You know, FM, many poor-choicers who've had abortions and then have born kids, have said they wouldn't tell their born kids because it would be "none of their business".
Either that, or the living siblings would understand the meaning of abortion, that their dead siblings WERE human beings, tiny babies, and were slaughtered by their mom.
Wouldn't wanna give off a bad signal.

reply from: Cherry19

Faithman I've only had sex w/two ppl ever. And both times were commited relationships. And AshMarie this is my Fisrt pregnancy idiot. And yeah when my child is old enough I will explain what an abortion is and I didn't have one.

reply from: AshMarie88

???????????????????????????????????????????????
"By the time i 8 wks I decided to get an abortion."
"You think that women that get abortions are heartless,murdering bitches w/ no conscience. (Not all but a lot). Did you ever consider what it's like contemplating a decision like that. Could you ever?"

reply from: JaysonsMom

Cherry, the way you write is hard to understand. I was confused as well and thought your pregnancy was your 2nd. Hostile much?

reply from: faithman

You are the one who is ignorant as evidenced by your use of profanity. Committed relationship means marrage for a life time. So are you morman and married to two men? Or are you a sleezy skank who lays around with irresponsible men out of wed-lock? And if they were SSSSOOOOO commited, why would you have to bum off of your mom to pay for your slutting around? First off you tell us you killed your first kid, and are pregnant again. Now you say this is your first. Gosh skank, you sound a little confused. of course we know that all scum bag death skank maggots don't have sence enough to recognize truth when you see it. You think you can just pull any ole stinky thing out of your skank behind, and we are supose to believe it. So tell us some more lies. We find it very entertaining when death skank expose how stupid they are.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

You don't have a penis, how dare YOU tell a man he can't rape someone.
You don't have the same level of sexual urges men have, and you certainly don't have the mental defects some rapists have. how DARE YOU inflict your oppinion onto men who deserve the right to rape and relieve all the psychological pressure they are under!
While we are there, how dare you tell someone not to rob a bank. You arent in the EXACT same financial situation they are.
How dare you EVER try to tell ANYONE ANYTHING AT ALL>
How stupid does all that sound?
Grow up, people make rules to keep stupid people from doing things that will hurt themselves or others.
By the way, as a black pro-choicer if you condone Planned Parenthood then you are basically supporting eugenics, and targeted racism towards african americans.
Yeah, look into Margaret sanger.
And then in the 90's a board memeber quit PP because she was Sick and tired of the white supremicists on the board talking about how they would keep the blacks from reproducing.
So, just keep pushing that pro-choice black agenda you claim to hold so strongly.
Eventually the KKK can come into power, and rapists can rape anyone (Even that child you are choosing to have) and we can all thank the "do whatever you want, nobody can tell you otherwise, and it doesn't matter if we support a group backed by racists/hatred" mentality for the degeneration and eventual distruction for our society.

reply from: carolemarie

I really wouldn't choose a Nirvana song for my "fight song" - Kurt had alot of shame in his life. Also, women who have abortions owe apologies to only two people as far as I am concerned... one not being me.   Unfortunately, these apologies come 5, 10, 15 years after the abortion and usually with some shame.  Really unfortunate that women have to sufer like this. "Kurt had a lot of shame in his life." Judge much? Women who have abortions owe no one an apology. And the majority of women who have abortions don't suffer as you and the "pro-life" movement claim.
Abortion hurts women. It hurt me, and thousands of other women who have filed legal affidavits to testify to that fact! I believed all the rhetoric about my rights and my body and availed myself of my rights. And I have paid for that choice with depression, suicide attempts, drug abuse. Abortion is ending the life of an innocent child. There are other choices that would have let me have my future and my child have her life. There is nothing so bad that killing your child makes it better. Abortion is a desperate attempt to escape a bad situtation.

reply from: dkkybarsenas

WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS ARE SICK SADISTIC BITCHES THAT DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED IN THE WORST WAY IMAGINABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply from: NewMom

___________________________________________________________________
What are you saying here? I think you've mixed some things up. Abortion is still legal up here in Canada, and I am disgusted you would even think to mention it would hurt the United States economy! The good craziness is that people still believe in killing an innocent life before it has had a chance to breathe the air of this world is RIGHT. Are you saying unborn babies don't deserve a chance to live? There's no shame in saying someone innocent deserves to live.

reply from: NewMom

Great points. In Canada I can't say there are fewer murders... there will always be murders until the end of time. However, in most societies in the world, there is a legal punishment for murder of a born person. What I hope most of us advocate for is the legal reprimand and punishment of an unborn person. To me it is one and the same. Murder without justification. Murder can never be justified.

reply from: NewMom

Now the other side of the argument: I'm 21 and pregnant right now! It doesn't matter when you become pregnant, its the mindset that if you decide you are ready to become sexually active, you know what comes with it - the possibility of becoming pregnant. That's what you fail to realise and you (and others just the same) come up with every excuse in the book to validate having an abortion. I cried when I found out too, I think most women do. My tears were of happiness though. If you are not ready to have a child, at least use a condom!
I personally feel that a woman shouldn't have a legal moral right to kill, and I am sorry for what you went through, but young mother to young mother, you knew what you were getting into when you had sex in the first place. You can't use being young as an excuse, or being black. Its not an issue that just black communitites face; I'm white from Canada and the same things go on here. If the guy won't pay child support of the goodness of his heart, take him to court! There is assistance available. There is always assistance available! If you choose to play into the mindset of "Woe is me, I hate this stigma I'm stuck in, its not fair!", my advice for you? Grow up, get over it and move forward. You're right, no sin is unforgivable, but you know what worries us as pro-lifers? That you'll make the same mistake twice.

reply from: NewMom

Many of our kids, like yourself, will choose to be sexually active before they are ready to start families. (I mean no offense, but to me, you are still a "kid." I have a daughter close to your age.)
Good point concernedparent. I can honestly say two years ago my mindset was very different and I definitely wouldn't have been ready to raise a child. But I would have become ready fast, as I've always believed in "if you're ready to have sex, you should be ready to have kids." I'm sure however, we can agree that if someone at that age chooses to have sex, they probably know more about it as opposed to a younger child at the onset of puberty. I support your argument with age-appropriate education. It is a necessity. What some people in this forum should hear is that we can't control who has sex, but we can try to help people make the right choice - say no to abortion. Good for you cherry for keeping your baby. As hard as it is and will be, accept the responsibility wisely, and you'll do fine. Now is the time to be strong and make your own decisions and stand up - its not any easier being 21 explaining decisions you are making - just do them wisely without a fight and have faith

reply from: crying

this is in reply to yourethenazis' many delusional comments. First off, I can tell you are a brain-washed liberal who doesn't know how to think for himself, so, to everything you said, I say, "you are obviously not an asset to society". Instead of looking at cold, hard facts that this country has always tried to help those in need, (hense the term, Big Brother)--trying to help the oppressed do whatever they can to help themselves--you choose to blame those with the best interests and ignore the real oppressors. By the way, look at the stats you goof-ball, no one cares about the personal safety of the mother if they think abortion is the answer, and legalizing it is absolutely absurd. I wish I could actually say this and more to you in person.

reply from: yoda

You don't have a penis, how dare YOU tell a man he can't rape someone..
Good question.
But what really strikes me about this post is that it's just another example in a long line of new posters who drop in, spill out their whole life story in their first post or two, and just happen to be proabort.
Oh wait, I forgot, I'm "paranoid" because I think PP may be paying people to do just that........

reply from: Banned Member

you people make me *****ing sick, maybe if you didn't have jesus so far up your *****s you'd take a good look at what you're doing.
you support a website saying that planned parent hood && maragret sangers is a nazi?
take a better look you people are more like the nazi's, you vandalize abortion clinics, you think everyone should be alike, && if people aren't up to your standards then we're bad people?
you make abortions seem so damn bad, we don't get the baby aborted then take pictures of it, make videos, put it next to loose change, && then disect it.
that's all on you guys, you remind me of a cult.
i believe in God, and let me tell you this.
he accepts people && their mistakes but, if you people harass us && try to destroy us you'll have a first class ticket to hell && if i am such a sinner for believing && supporting abortion, well then i'll sit right next to your pethetic soul.

reply from: sheri

way to go Shiprah!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope your excellent responce makes that fellow think.

reply from: Laura87

I believe abortion is illegal in both Mexico and Canada. The only difference is that we are not killing babies and them pro-choicers are!!!!

reply from: ProInformed

Yoda, I don't think you are paranoid for realizing that the abortion industry most likely pays some of their employees to harrass pro-lifers online and to even attempt to debate abortion online.
No doubt they are worried (with very good reason) about the ability of online debate to bypass deceptive abortion industry PR and the biased media.
I hadn't seen this thread before, and see that it is an old thread that has been bumped up. Actually I was specifically looking for more info/discussion of PP and Sanger's racist eugenicist agenda so I'm glad this thread wsas bumped up to the current discussion.
Unfortunately some black citizens who are supporting Obama for the presidency aren't aware of the fact that he favors unrestricted abortion on demand, throughout the whole pregnancy.

reply from: yoda

That's true, you don't do those things. Instead, you "get the baby aborted", then hide the remains, try to pretend it never existed, and try to get everyone to forget about the baby entirely. You want your horrible acts to stay hidden from view, to go completely unnoticed.
Well, that isn't going to happen. We're going to expose your horrible acts by showing their result to anyone who is willing to look.
And you know what is the real "topper"? It's impossible to make something "seem so damn bad" if it really isn't. We just show abortion for what it is, and that's what makes you so angry, isn't it?

reply from: yoda

All one has to do is go to Planned Barrenhood's website and read how much "excess income" they report every year, to get an idea of how much money they have to throw around. And you know that they're not going to leave that much money just lying around for long, they're constantly looking for ways to use it against us. And they're not restrained by any "ethical considerations", their recent actions in Aurora Illinois proves that.

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.obamanation.com/

reply from: ProInformed

let me guess... Hayley's first and last post?
A choicist (choice cult) hit & run chanting?
hmmmm... must not be able to come up with any rational, factual defenses for killing preborn babies...
quite cowardly too IMHO - to just post a bunch of ignorant insults and then run away before he has a chance to learn anything about the topic of this thread...

reply from: JesusLovesYou

I was in the "Celebrities who've had abortions" and I thought that it was interesting one of the ones mentioned (who I've seen on many similiar lists compiled by pro-aborts) was Wallis Simpson.
For those of you who don't know, she was a Nazi spy who seduced men to get information for the cause. One of Hitler's diplomat friends was her lover who would send her seventeen carnations (for the number of times they'd slept together) every day. She would then write "thank you notes" riddled with hidden spy messages.
A picture of her and her husband with her good friend Hitler:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MONedward8c.jpg

I'm sure she and most modern pro-aborts would get along great.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Do you have any sources besides the myspace bulletin you read that off of? Even if she wanted to spy for Hitler, you have to know insider government information to be a spy. She wouldn't have had access to any of that.

reply from: crazylilangel951

I wanted to reply to your sad comments about Heaven. You cant see air but its there. When you are smart enough and open your eyes wide enough, you will see the comlexity of our bodies, our universe, and our lives. People like you, I feel sorry for. You walk around with a closed mind. Eyes wide shut from the world and I dont understand. MANY scientists have proven more than a couple of times of Gods existance. Almost everyone has a religion based around God and his son. All but people like you. I pitty you and hope you someday open your heart and eyes wide enough to see the beauty of existance. Maybe instead of becomming a neorologist, become a scientist and save yourself.

reply from: Kahless

Im sure this has been said already. I am new here so hello everyone!
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King said, "The early church brought an end to such things as INFANTICIDE." What would Martin Luther King say to the church today?
The Rev. Jesse Jackson once said:
"That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us 'n-i-g-g-e-r-s'. It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore abortion can be justified".
Jackson's massive flip-flop on the abortion issue is further proof that his political future is far more important to him than are his principles.
With 1/3 of all abortions performed on Black women, the abortion industry has received over 4,000,000,000 (yes, billion) dollars from the Black community.
Just wait until we have Natl Health Care... PAS will be the new thing

reply from: sander

Welcome, Kahless! The turth is always worth repeating.
I believe his neice, whose name escapes me at the moment, says Rev. King was pro-life. So, I'm sure coupled with the above statement he would be a powerful voice for the unborn.
Well, Rev. Jackson himself has made the argument we've been discussing on this board of late. He's like so many other once pro-life democrats. They sold out the babies for their own thirst for power.
What a staggering amount of money, Margaret Sanger would be so thrilled to know her plans worked.
If we think what we pay now out of our taxes to fund abortion and PP is too much, if the dems get their way we'll be funding all abortions.
Again, welcome to the forums, hope you'll visit often.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Kahless.
You're right on the money about the steps to making killing "acceptable". First you strip them of their humanity, and then you take their lives. That's how it's always been down, from the slaves to the Jews to the unborn.

reply from: opalfruit1982

hi im jain im 25 from the uk
when i was 22 i fell pregnant from a one night stand its not some thing im proud of but i terminated the pregnancy at 8 weeks.. i have reasons for doing it but i regret it every day and will do for the rest of my life.. the day i went i went alone.. and it was the worst pain i could imagine when i t was all over i tried to forget about it but it has lived with me every day since there is not one day i do not regret what i did.. i am as i said 25 and in a stable relationship with my bf and i am also 32 weeks pregnant.. the day i found out this news the thought of abortion never crossed my mind i just wish i had seen the pics and information i have done since that day and that would have made me think twice i see those tiny bodies and hate my self for doing what i did i feel i was under educated about the facts of what happens when you do this horrible thing and i was not given enough support at the time or things might have been diff and this would be my second child. people need to know what they are doing and see what happens to the tiny babies and see the reality of what is going on..i swore after that day i would never ever go through that again and i feel sick at what i done.. at first the pics shocked me and made me feel ill but since looking at them again i see a tiny person and tiny limbs and so on and they hace just as much right to live as any other baby.,. i may sound like a hypocrit but i feel this is totaly wrong and people should be more aware of what they are doing and what they are doing it to!!
any way i just wanted to spill and get that off my chest
thanx
jain

reply from: sander

I hope you won't negate the life of the first child you aborted by believing this is your first child, because this IS your second child. Congratulations on the upcoming birth.
You will always be the mother of two and you honor the life of your first baby by remembering that.
I'm so sorry for the pain you are still experiencing over the choice you made.
I hope we can help in some small way.

reply from: jihad08

Have you heard of Lattie Mcgee? Do you watch Steve Wilkos? this little child should have never been born-or his mother should not have been alowed to give birth. She was a monstrosity-sorry if i didnt spell that right. Im certain she had him for the welfare payments she would recieve. Her sadistic boyfriend beat that child, put him in a closet and urinated on him, and beat him over the head until he died. This "mother" that gave birth to this poor little guy, had no feelings for her child whatsoever. I hope she rots in hell. I hope you simple minded folk understand that the kindest thing you can do for some children is to not bring them into existence. This little boy was filthy, neglected ,wasnt fed, and he was beaten and tortured by his stepfather. Why did he have to be born at all.?? I want an answer.

reply from: jihad08

are you suggesting that every fertilized egg should come into existence? Are you going to help support and care for them? If not, shut up

reply from: sander

Your last name Sanger?

reply from: jihad08

Are you suggesting or comparing mothers that abort to Hitler? what a simple minded ----

reply from: Teresa18

Welcome to the forum. I am sorry to hear of your first abortion. While you can never bring back your child, know your child is in a better place. If you are Christian, seek forgiveness. The Lord will forgive you. Unfortunately, you were mislead like many of the women going into the clinics around the world. Women are told what is in their wombs are not children but merely blobs of tissue. Thinking that they should be able to trust their doctors, women go ahead and have the abortion. Later on, they see the pictures and realize that what was killed that day at the clinic was not merely a blob of tissue but a living, breathing child.
It is our goal to one day have the children in the womb recognized as people from conception to be protected under the law. This way the children will have the right to life all born people have, and it will be illegal to kill them.
In the short term, it helps just showing people fetal images. This allows people to see the abortion industry's lie and that the children in the womb really are people.
Faithman links to this site. It is a good site:
http://www.lifeissues.org/windows.html

reply from: jihad08

your a jerk. I hope you dont plan on becoming a father. You are a man aren't you?

reply from: jihad08

it isnt any of your business what my last name is-cant you answer the question, or is it to tough to think about?

reply from: Teresa18

Where to begin! Let me get this straight, this child should have been killed because the mother did not love the child and the boyfriend was an abuser? Do you consider it fair for a child to be killed for the crime of his parent and her sleaze bag boyfriend? Do you typically wish for people to die to avoid the crimes of others? For example, should women who have been raped and/or murdered not have been born because a rapist and/or murderer would one day harm them?

reply from: Teresa18

What? Once an egg is fertilized, a new person is in existence. Are you saying if we don't personally care for a child someone else created, they should be allowed to kill him/her? Do you have the same standard with born children?

reply from: Teresa18

Your last name Sanger?
Whoosh. That went right over his head. You'll have to "enlighten" him on Maragaret Sanger.

reply from: sander

Your last name Sanger?
Whoosh. That went right over his head. You'll have to "enlighten" him on Maragaret Sanger.
You heard that whoosh sound too!
I think we have a nine year old on the loose...too much info would overwhelm the little pea brain.

reply from: 4given

Teresa, your time is precious. This person is here to troll up the forum with their ghastly justifications to abort.. The story, albeit extremely sad, does not exist because this woman was denied an abortion- It exists because twisted individuals roam this corrupt land. I feel ill when I read of how violently these children die. I can't imagine that someone would be comparing their painful death and torture to an easy mutilation in the womb. We, as a society (I hate that term) have a responsibility to protect others- especially the weak. I am sure there is more to the story. It shouldn't have happened- just as any child abuse should not. But to imply that it would have been better had this child been ripped to bits en utero as a solution is ludicrous. I pray they both never have the blessing of freedom or procreation.

reply from: galen

dear Jihad... you should read the book entitled 'a child called it' by dave pelzer.
His is a story of one of the most horrific child abuse cases in the US. He survived and went on to become a great author... should he have been aborted?
Just because someone may start off with a deplorable life does not mean that life should be extinguished.

reply from: galen

----------------
yes and yes

reply from: galen

--------------
you sound so miserable are you suggestion your mom should have aborted you...be sure to tell her happy mothers day.

reply from: Teresa18

I like to give them the benefit of the doubt at first. TeddyBearHamster came on very angry and pro-abortion. She had been persuaded by the lies of the abortion industry. Once people took the time to chat with her, she changed her mind. Often posters that come in as pro-abort are not receptive of the pro-life message, but there is always a chance. Plus, I like to debunk their arguments for the sake of lurkers reading the forum.
As far as the rest of your post, well said. I agree 100%.

reply from: 4given

Teresa..
Understood. Since I have been here, TBH is the only poster that has taken their frustration and anger out, but been woman enough to accept the truth about abortion- and admit it. I typically am focused on the violence of abortion and tend to view those that come here to promote it as the hands that hold up the slaughtering tools.. Benefit or not.. one needs to know what they support and why, correct? I can only assume most that come here actually know the reality of abortion and come here because they want to take out their personal feelings of guilt and pain on the others that failed to convince or reach them at the time.. and of course there is ignorance.. Either way, I understand.. I am not always patient though. We need to have a balance on the board though, so I am pleased you are here to help with that..

reply from: proudmommi08

hey i just wanted to comment and i had a question....i am a 1st time mother (currently 8 months pregnant) and i considerd abortion in the beginning of my pregnancy because the father left me and i am not financally stable..but when i found ur page i saw the cruelty of it and immediatly changed my mind..i still feel bad that i even thought about killing my baby..i beleive every child is a blessing from the moment its concieved...but the problem is i have a very close friend who just found she was pregnant and i think she is going to get an abortion...she has had one b4 and im trying to convince her not to..any facts u guys could help me with?? to try to change her mind without being too pushy...any help would be greatly appreciated

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Planned Parenthood does not FORCE young black women to abort; it is their choice. They happen to make that choice more often than other demographics; why is that? It's because a larger percentage of blacks are poor compared to other demographics. It also has to do with religion; other minorities have stronger ties with conservative religions and are thus less likely to abort.

reply from: 4given

Does PP give these women the facts? The clinic does not force them into abortion, but they do not offer any other services to them, right? Planned Parenthood exists solely to prevent life- whether through abortion or bc, they want that "choice" in their bank account. Do you think PP would operate in minority neighborhoods or elsewhere if they were donating their death mob services?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Does PP give these women the facts? The clinic does not force them into abortion, but they do not offer any other services to them, right? Planned Parenthood exists solely to prevent life- whether through abortion or bc, they want that "choice" in their bank account. Do you think PP would operate in minority neighborhoods or elsewhere if they were donating their death mob services?
Lying and forcing are two different things.

reply from: 4given

You are quite right. I suppose that coercing a woman by withholding the facts, pressuring a quick sollution to her "problem", inadequate counsel etc.. wouldn't be "forcing" her. Some women are emotionally unstable, fragile and confused. That would make them an easy sale right? I actually have a great number of forced abortion stories saved.Pro-informed has posts here on that as well. Forced abortions are a reality. In fact there is a forced thread here and some of the choicers posted.. defining your term of "pro-abortion". They were seemingly for this teens forced abortion? Where does "choice" enter into that scenario?

reply from: Banned Member

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: yoda

Ah, but you're forgetting that lying and tricking someone into either dying or killing someone is not nearly as bad as "forcing someone" to die or kill someone else...... right? I mean, we've got to give PP the benefit of the doubt here, right? We've got to put them in the best possible light, since they are the nation's largest provider of abortion, right? </sarcasm>

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Personally, no, lying is not as bad as forcing. NEITHER is good, and these clinics shouldn't be lying. But the claim that they are FORCING is incorrect.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You are quite right. I suppose that coercing a woman by withholding the facts, pressuring a quick sollution to her "problem", inadequate counsel etc.. wouldn't be "forcing" her. Some women are emotionally unstable, fragile and confused. That would make them an easy sale right? I actually have a great number of forced abortion stories saved.Pro-informed has posts here on that as well. Forced abortions are a reality. In fact there is a forced thread here and some of the choicers posted.. defining your term of "pro-abortion". They were seemingly for this teens forced abortion? Where does "choice" enter into that scenario?
I definitely never would have been "for" any woman's forced abortion, even when I was pro-choice. There is choice happening in a forced situation. The choice of the (normally) mom of the girl to take her to the clinic. The choice of mom to force the girl to abort. The choice of the clinic staff to turn a blind eye. But none of those choices are the girl's choice, and that's definitely wrong.

reply from: yoda

So, if someone told you that a certain mushroom was safe to eat, and you trusted them enough to take their word for it....... and died of mushroom poisoning shortly thereafter, that wouldn't be as bad as if you forced them to eat it?
Why not?

reply from: nancyu

Listen and talk to her. Make sure she understands that abortion is murder of a human person, and even though society makes it appear so, there is nothing legal about murdering an unborn child. It is no different from murdering a born child.
That child is conceived, the child is here, it is alive, and growing. That child is a person. Don't worry about being too pushy. Would you worry about being too pushy if someone were talking about murdering a born child?

reply from: jujujellybean

yes, but if she is too pushy do you think her friend will listen to her? We want to save a baby here, not get all aggressive. Personally, if I wanted an abortion and my friend was all mean and in my face about it, I wouldn't listen at all. So she is right; don't be to pushy if you want any chance at stopping this unfortunate event.

reply from: steffanie

If your friend isn't ready for a child then she shouldn't be forced to have 1. tell her your opinions on why u think she should keep the child but u have no right to force them on her if she doesnt want to listen. if she still wants the abortion u should be her friend like u say u are and support her.
1 thing u should tell her about is contraception. If this has happened before she should have learnt to take the proper precautions if she didnt want it to happen again.

reply from: yoda

That's not "being her friend", that's "being her executioner".
Friends don't let their friends kill their babies.

reply from: kcmayce

As for your little slogan, wow! What a *****! There's a reason why a woman has a uterus. It's not there on accident! Every baby has a right to be born! If you don't want it then give it to someone who does

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, kcmayce! (I agree 100%, btw!)

reply from: BossMomma

">http://KlanParenthood.com/Pro-...NT></FONT>[/q
Has it occured to you that blacks abort just as freely as whites?

reply from: BossMomma

Does PP give these women the facts? The clinic does not force them into abortion, but they do not offer any other services to them, right? Planned Parenthood exists solely to prevent life- whether through abortion or bc, they want that "choice" in their bank account. Do you think PP would operate in minority neighborhoods or elsewhere if they were donating their death mob services?
Funny, they gave me the referal to my OB/GYN for prenatal care, vitamin supplements, pamphlets on proper nutrition and a wide variety of useful information. And at the age of 19 when my husband gave me an STD he didn't know he'd gotten from his previous wife, PP gave me low cost treatment. Death Mob? I think not.

reply from: Bgraphics

I AM DOING A PROJECT ON ABORTION. i CHOSE TO TELL PEOPLE WHY THEY ARE WRONG FOR DOING THIS. IT IS MURDER AND THAT IS PUTTING IT NICELY. I KNOW GOD SAYS NOT TO HATE BUT I FIND IT HARD NOT TO!!!!!!!! i BELIEVE THAT IF YOU ARE ADULT ENOUGH TO HAVE SEX, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ADULT ENOUGH TO HANDLE YOUR CONSECUNCES.
-------------------------
Sheila
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please take your time to read Proverbs 6:16-19
God wants you not to hate. But if there is reasons to hate it can be accepted...
Because even the Lord hates those who shed innocent blood...

reply from: 4given

Proverbs 6:16-19 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
Right. And handling the consequences does not mean calling up an abortion clinic to help you (one) out of it.

reply from: QTYTCHICK

YOU KNOW ABORTION IS NOT THE ANSWERS. THERE ARE SO MANY WOMEN OUT THERE THAT WANT BABIES AND CAN'T HAVE THEM. WHY NOT PUT YOUR UNWANTED BABY UP FOR ADOPTION AND LET SOMEONE WHO WANTS THE BABY ADOPT IT. AND GIVE IT A HOME. RATHER THEN KILL IT. IF YOU KNOW YOUR NOT READY FOR A CHILD THEN USE PROTECTION OR KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED. DON'T KILL AN INNOCENT BABY.

reply from: sweet

CORRECT. and GOD says it's not OK. *smiles*

reply from: sweet

nice try....but God's Holy Word can't be discounted! is it a sport to you to ignore the Truth and denounce God as much as you like?
*smiles*
Pro 10:10 He that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow: but a prating fool shall fall.
Pro 10:23 It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.

reply from: 4given

">http://KlanParenthood.com/Pro-...NT></FONT>[/q

reply from: sweet

you can attack my beliefs/comprehension/faith as much as you please...
(1Pe 4:16) Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
i thank God for the faith and beliefs that i have! i share it with YOU because i'm not ashamed of God.
you can laugh/mock/deny/ignore God all YOU want..if THATS pleasing/fulfilling to YOU, continue as you wish...it doesnt change God's True Word.

reply from: blessed

personally i just want to say i think abortions should be illegal because its just like killing someone and these are innocent little babys others have there life so why cant they have theres it discuss me to my stomach its not right it looks like murder to me

reply from: blessed

thats so true i think it is murder and that it should be illegal because its just wrong and sick whether its a white or black baby they both deserve life pepole are killing children of god

reply from: 4given

It IS killing someone.. and yes, regardless of size, age, level of dependancy etc. is morally wrong..

reply from: blessed

i feel the same and god also says its a sin to have an abortion i would never have one i couldnt live with my self i wish something could be done and you lay down and get one u take care of them!!!

reply from: 4choice4all

What biblical passages mention abortion?

reply from: yoda

What constitutional passages mention abortion?

reply from: 4choice4all

You answer mine and I'll answer yours!

reply from: yoda

I'm agnostic, and no one else on this page mentioned the Bible except you, so who cares about your question?
Abortion isn't mentioned in the text of the constitution, is it?

reply from: 4choice4all

I believe that at the core of life, liberty, equal protection is the right to control your own biological functions and reproductive functions and make medical decisions for yourself as citizen of this country. I believe the 9th amendment was clear that the list was not comprehensive and additional rights are retained by the people. And I agree that there is a fundamental right to privacy...and nothing is more private than your body.

reply from: yoda

Like I said, abortion is not mentioned in the text of the constitution, is it?

reply from: 4choice4all

Well I guess we need to change that then. At one time there was no ban on slavery nor did it mention allowing women to vote...but we recognized the Constitution was a living breathing document and we changed that. Do you think that women shouldn't have the right to vote since it was explicitly mentioned in the Constitution? Was that a valid argument to shut up the suffrage movement?

reply from: yoda

No, "we" didn't "recognize the Constitution was a living breathing document " at all. Abe Lincoln issued a presidential proclamation, period.
And the vote for women was passed as a constitutional amendment..... "we" didn't recognize the organic properties of the constitution on that one either.
You really live in a fantasy land, don't you?
IS ABORTION MENTIONED IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT?

reply from: ProInformed

What former Nazi SS officer put his wartime skills to use by becoming
an abortionist for Kaiser Permanente in Ohio and Hawaii?

reply from: ProInformed

Which prominent El Paso abortionist and ardent admirer of Adolf Hitler
became a professional wrestler named "The Chinese Bandit" to raise
money on the side?

reply from: ProInformed

What famous Nazi mass murderer, known as the "Angel of Death" for
his thousands of ghastly medical experiments on living patients in the
Auschwitz concentration camp, fled Germany at the end of World War II
and became a prominent abortionist?

reply from: ProInformed

bumping for the newcomers to the forum

reply from: Yuuki

Because dead threads about nonsense are awesome. Conspiracy theories ftw! Let's talk about crop circles now!

reply from: ProInformed

Just because you don't think threads about holocausts, past or present, are important, that doesn't mean that others have such a casual attitude as you do.
Some of us are opposed to the mass slaughter of innocent humans and therefore think it is important to do all we can to stop such slaughters.

reply from: ProInformed

Just because you don't think threads about holocausts, past or present, are important, that doesn't mean that others have such a casual attitude as you do.
Some of us are opposed to the mass slaughter of innocent humans and therefore think it is important to do all we can to stop such slaughters.
But you apparently are not concerned about that are you yuuki...

reply from: JPRice

This is a good thread and that is a good website.
http://www.blackgenocide.com

http://www.blackgenocide.org

It seems one poster is just pushing censorship.

reply from: MC3

I promise you that the issue of abortion and Black genocide is about to explode. Maafa 21 is going to make KlanParenthood.com look like Ned in the First Primer.
The good news is that, after almost three years in production, it is being released to the public as this is being typed!

reply from: 4choice4all

The new silent scream? lol....look where that got you. It's a hit amongst the choir my friend...and no one else. Black people have been disenfranchised in this country since it's founding. The reason they have abortions in greater numbers is because they are more likely to be cut out of the american dream...more likely to lack quality education to secure higher paying jobs, more likely to live without healthcare, more likely to lack affordable housing...more likely to not have support since American locks young black males up in a disproportionate amount. Black people are not dumb. Black women know why they are seeking abortions.

reply from: yoda

Did you ever have a job reviewing books, 4? If so, did you review them before you read them, or knew anything about them?
Or do you just like the sound of your own voice in your head?

reply from: 4choice4all

The prolife movement has been trying to draw a picture of black genocide, Klan parenthood and over racism for a long time. It doesn't stick....but by all means, continue to waste resources and time. It makes you (general) look deranged so it only helps the prochoice movement. Every time I'm at the clinic it's the same thing "you are killing your race. This is a plot to wipe out our race" and every time it's met with the same shocked look...and rolls of laughter. They (rightfully) think you are nuts when you say that. But really.....keep at it.

reply from: MC3

4Choice4All:
First, I never made one comparison to Silent Scream. In fact, I never mentioned it.
Second, if you think the only impact Silent Scream had was on "the choir," you are a bigger idiot than I thought. And the possibility of that boggles the mind. The reality is, many of the people who joined "the choir" did so as a result of things like Silent Scream, Eclipse of Reason, Brutal Truth and similar productions. Remember, not everyone in the world is some godless degenerate who will try to justify their favorite holocaust by ignoring what they see with their own eyes. To people like you this may seem like a foreign concept, but there are actually a lot of people in this world who have both intellectual honesty and a basic sense of morality. Fortunately for us, all you need is one of those traits to be pro-life.
Third, if you and your little buddies think that you can explain away the enormous disparity between the black abortion rate and the white abortion rate with that shop-worn old mantra regurgitated in your post, by all means have at it. But you better hope it's made out of chocolate because Maafa 21 is about to make you eat it.

reply from: 4choice4all

You are right..you didn't mention it...I did. I do own my own opinions.
Sorry...I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that individuals not already on the prolife side take the silent scream seriously. It has to be the biggest piece of sentimental crap I've ever seen. No one I've ever met that is not already prolife and convinced that the unborn are actually children has ever been remotely swayed by that flick.
Um...sure....if you can't get nazi to stick try pedophile lover. If pedophile lover doesn't stick, try racist. If racist doesn't stick...what next? poopy head butt nugget? That seems to be a favorite. You are hopelessly transparent. Unfortunately for you, black people are not as hopelessly stupid as you assume they are.

reply from: yoda

The very fact of your presence, 4c, and that of your proabort buddies here is ample proof that we are having an impact. Proaborts are basically very, very lazy people and they do not expend energy needlessly. You wouldn't bother if you weren't worried. Read any good polls lately?

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: carolemarie

I think that abortions are always higher among the poor....because it is hard to raise lots of children that you can't provide for. if you can't take care of the ones you have, it is hard to have another.....hopelessness fuels abortion
Change is needed in our cities!, we need to overhaul the methods of helping poor families out of the crime infested areas they live in, to help them so they can have safe communities.....to spend time and money on the children of the inner city so they can escape the cycle of poverty and hopelessness. The children grow up in crime infested streets, a large number go hungry a couple time a week, lots never see their fathers except in jail, and most have a relative who is dying of AIDS....

reply from: sander

Is that ALL the excuses you can come up with for killing one's very own child????
Since when is anything above justification for killing your very own son or daughter?
Start putting the blame where it belongs and stop enabling the baby killers!! Please.

reply from: carolemarie

if you would talk to the prochoicers and women who have had abortions, you would know that they don't view it that way. Solve the reasons people seek abortions and you prevent them

reply from: sander

Were you not taught to work for what you have?
Doesn't the Word of God say if you won't work you shouldn't eat?
So, how is it in eutopia....has it worked yet where it's been tried???
To blame society for women killing their children is almost criminal in it's nature.
I KNOW women who had nothing and yet did not kill their babies.
You're only enabling the murder of the innocent, but apparently you have no problem with that.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that's what they say, anyway. But so what?
Child molesters don't see what they do as sickening and disgusting, either. Does that mean we should be more understanding of child molesters, or not?
There's nothing wrong with helping anyone in need, we should all do as much of that as we are able to. But there's also nothing wrong in being blunt and plain about the moral weakness that leads some people to slaughter their own children for any of the reasons you listed.
Killing your own children is a very clear sign of moral degeneration. It is about as low as a human being can get. And the babies deserve to have that truth spoken loud and clear.

reply from: sander

"Truth spoken loud and clear"....yes, Yoda the babies deserve the very least we can do.
Sadly it seems to escape the fantasy land dwellers.

reply from: carolemarie

if there are no jobs how can you work? If you are living on welfare and still running out of food before the end of the month, how can you justify having another baby?
Abortion is sold to the poor as a way out of a trap....
Changning the situtation saves lives!

reply from: sander

Apparently your bottle of white out is full.
There's a difference between a hand up and a hand out....try and figure that one out, maybe you'll do more good than harm.

reply from: yoda

Truth can be a stronger weapon than any other, it's what is meant by "the pen is mightier than the sword". Anyone calling themselves a prolifer who is afraid to speak the blunt, plain truth about baby killing is no friend of the babies. We can speak plainly and truthfully without making it a personal attack, but we cannot shy away from the truth and still be of any help to the babies.

reply from: carolemarie

calling someone a babykiller IS a personal attack Yoda!

reply from: yoda

You think so?
Even if they DO kill babies?
Or even if they DO support the killing of babies by coming here and trying to justify the slaughter?
When truth is called hate, it is because someone hates the truth.
Hey, all you proaborts, jump in here anytime! What do YOU think?

reply from: nancyu

It is a personal attack. People with attitudes like yours need to be attacked. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

reply from: yoda

That one is a complete mystery to me. If someone kills bugs for a living, they are a bug killer. If someone kills weeds for a living, they are a weed killer.
What's so offensive about the plain ordinary truth? Anyone who wants to sugarcoat the truth to protect the feelings of a baby killer is just an accomplice, IMHO.

reply from: nancyu

Oh yeah Yoda, well you're nothing but a big...big....namecaller! You shouldn't call bug killers and weed killers names! It's It's just NOT NICE! You must be one of those misbugandweedkilleronysts!

reply from: faithman

Oh yeah Yoda, well you're nothing but a big...big....namecaller! You shouldn't call bug killers and weed killers names! It's It's just NOT NICE! You must be one of those misbugandweedkilleronysts!
And you must be one of those bignamemakeruperists.

reply from: ProInformed

You think so?
Even if they DO kill babies?
Or even if they DO support the killing of babies by coming here and trying to justify the slaughter?
When truth is called hate, it is because someone hates the truth.
Hey, all you proaborts, jump in here anytime! What do YOU think?
Nazis were Jew killers.
Slaveowners were slave killers (and slave beaters, and slave rapers).
Abortionists and the pro-aborts who defend them ARE baby killers.
Those are facts - not 'personal attacks'.
Is it a 'personal attack' when the evening news calls a rapist a 'rapist'?
a murderer a 'murderer', a child molester a 'child molester', a robber a 'robber'?
BTW, pro-choice author Magda Denes said that when she was interviewing abortionists for the book 'In Necessity and Sorrow' EVERY abortionist she talked to at some point called abortion "murder".
IF the baby killers were even half as upset about being called baby killers as they claim to be then why don't they just stop killing babies, eh?
It IS perfectly normal to not want to be called a 'baby killer' - just one of the many reasons why most people do not kill babies. UM it is however NOT normal to KILL babies, or to defend baby KILLING, and then to act as if THE evil thing is that some people therefore call you a 'baby killer'.
You know calling somebody a 'name caller' would under the same sort of 'logic' be a 'personal attack' and itself an example of 'name calling', wouldn't it? I mean if it's considered wrong to call baby killers 'baby killers', then why isn't it also wrong to call name callers 'name callers', eh?

reply from: faithman

You think so?
Even if they DO kill babies?
Or even if they DO support the killing of babies by coming here and trying to justify the slaughter?
When truth is called hate, it is because someone hates the truth.
Hey, all you proaborts, jump in here anytime! What do YOU think?
Nazis were Jew killers.
Slaveowners were slave killers (and slave beaters, and slave rapers).
Abortionists and the pro-aborts who defend them ARE baby killers.
Those are facts - not 'personal attacks'.
Is it a 'personal attack' when the evening news calls a rapist a 'rapist'?
a murderer a 'murderer', a chld molester a 'child molester', a robber a 'robber'?
BTW, pro-choice author Magda Denes said that when she was interviewing abortionists for the book 'In Necessity and Sorrow' EVERY abortionist she talked to at some point called abortion "murder".
IF the baby killers were even half as upset about being called baby killers as they claim to be then why don't they just stop killing babies, eh?
It IS perfectly normal to not want to be called a 'baby killer' - just one of the many reasons why most people do not kill babies. UM it is however NOT normal to KILL babies, or to defend baby KILLING, and then to act as if THE evil thing is that some people therefore call you a 'baby killer'.
You know calling somebody a 'name caller' would under the same sort of 'logic' be a 'personal attack' and itself an example of 'name calling', wouldn't it? I mean if it's considered wrong to call baby killers 'baby killers', then why isn't it also wrong to call name callers 'name callers', eh?
....snicker.... Another "gotcha" moment by ProInformed. In my humble but accurate opinion, one of the best [if not the best] poster on the forum....

reply from: ProInformed

Bumping because school's out and the 'education' (indoctrination) the kiddies got left out some of the facts.
I bet prochoiceinNY doesn't know about the link between Planned Parenthood and the KKK.

reply from: ProInformed

You think so?
Even if they DO kill babies?
Or even if they DO support the killing of babies by coming here and trying to justify the slaughter?
When truth is called hate, it is because someone hates the truth.
Hey, all you proaborts, jump in here anytime! What do YOU think?
Nazis were Jew killers.
Slaveowners were slave killers (and slave beaters, and slave rapers).
Abortionists and the pro-aborts who defend them ARE baby killers.
Those are facts - not 'personal attacks'.
Is it a 'personal attack' when the evening news calls a rapist a 'rapist'?
a murderer a 'murderer', a chld molester a 'child molester', a robber a 'robber'?
BTW, pro-choice author Magda Denes said that when she was interviewing abortionists for the book 'In Necessity and Sorrow' EVERY abortionist she talked to at some point called abortion "murder".
IF the baby killers were even half as upset about being called baby killers as they claim to be then why don't they just stop killing babies, eh?
It IS perfectly normal to not want to be called a 'baby killer' - just one of the many reasons why most people do not kill babies. UM it is however NOT normal to KILL babies, or to defend baby KILLING, and then to act as if THE evil thing is that some people therefore call you a 'baby killer'.
You know calling somebody a 'name caller' would under the same sort of 'logic' be a 'personal attack' and itself an example of 'name calling', wouldn't it? I mean if it's considered wrong to call baby killers 'baby killers', then why isn't it also wrong to call name callers 'name callers', eh?
....snicker.... Another "gotcha" moment by ProInformed. In my humble but accurate opinion, one of the best [if not the best] poster on the forum....
LOL - don't make me blush - I just think it's totally ridiculous to name-call and then complain about name-calling. IMHO everytime they call us 'name-callers' we should complain that they are calling us names, calling us 'name-callers'.
BTW, if they really think being called 'baby killer' is worse than BEING a baby killer, then why don't they also think calling somebody a 'name-caller' is worse than somebody being a name-caller?
I do think it would be wrong to call somebody who does not kill babies, or does not defend baby killers, 'baby killer', because it's not accurate.
But those who do kill babies and do defend baby killing/killers, have no valid complaint when they are called baby killers - because they are baby killers - it is an accurate description.
I'm an: ice skater, ballroom dancer, Christian, gardener, homeschooler, pro-life feminist, crocheter, mother, sister, aunt...
and it doesn't bother me in the least when people call me those names. Hmmm... why would anyone who claims baby killing is OK complain about being called a 'baby killer', eh?
Maybe because they on some level acknowledge that baby killing is a bad thing?

reply from: sander

What on God's green earth is the matter with you???
Have you seen a professional mental health care provider recently?
Do you think God sugar coats anything????
These people KILL babies for a living....a five year old could put that thought togeather; killing babies makes you a baby killer!
Seek help kid, you're bordering on what God said in Isaiah; woe unto those who call evil good and good evil. There's some serious trouble attatched to that folly.

reply from: faithman

Everyone should get a copy of MAAFA 21. It shows the direct historical connection between the eugenic social elites [of which is the birth place of Planned Parenthood] and Adolf and the boyz of Nazi Germany. We see the same blood thirsty attitude from the borthead scancs and punks on this forum.

reply from: yoda

Yep....... I insist on calling them like I see them....... and that's a no-no in carole's book....

reply from: yoda

Ah, but none but the baby killers are in the class of people whom carole wants to protect..... from feeling bad. She wants them to feel good about killing babies..... and about themselves as baby killers.

reply from: yoda

Give me a talkative five year old anytime when you want to know the truth about some subject that adults are being pretentious about and using euphemisms about...... the five year old will cut through all the bullcrap.
Yep. And that's exactly what our society is coming to.

reply from: ProInformed

Ah, but none but the baby killers are in the class of people whom carole wants to protect..... from feeling bad. She wants them to feel good about killing babies..... and about themselves as baby killers.
IMHO caring more about the feelings of baby killers than about the lives of the babies they kill, doesn't make somebody 'pro-life'.
And they apparently think they can convince US to use the same euphemisms they employ to hide and enable the baby killing so it can continue,
because they think WE will be more concerned about what they call us
('name-callers' LOL)
than we are about protecting babies from baby killers.
Stupid baby killers.
Do they really imagine we will all stop exposing the truth that they are baby killers and/or defenders of baby killing, if they just (hypocritically) call US names?
Or chastise us for being 'name-callers'?

reply from: ProInformed

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control."
Birth Control Review
May 1919
p. 12

reply from: ProInformed

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger

reply from: yoda

No, but it makes you a hero to Farty.
Yep. We're supposed to help them enable the baby killing to continue, by being "nice" to the baby killers.
I'd sure a lot rather be called a "name caller" than an "enabler".
If someone earns a name, they deserve to be called that name.

reply from: sander

No, but it makes you a hero to Farty.
Yep. We're supposed to help them enable the baby killing to continue, by being "nice" to the baby killers.
I'd sure a lot rather be called a "name caller" than an "enabler".
If someone earns a name, they deserve to be called that name.
I wear, "name caller" as a badge of honor!
I will never be "nice" to any of the low life (I like that name) wretched, baby killing creatures that come here to "spred seeds", (another term for LIE). We're dealing with the scum under the scum that post on PLA in support of abortion.
Being nice to them has worked how well in the last 36 years????
They're loving all the enabling that CM, Yucky, and the biggest fart on earth give them.

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09062506.html

reply from: ProInformed

Choicist extremists can't even imagine that other people aren't as brainwashed as they are LOL.
If they're supposedly so sure that nobody will believe Maafa 21, then why are they in such a frenzy trying to deounce it and distract attention away for it then, eh? LOL
One of the people I e-mailed the Maafa 21 link to, e-mailed this back to me:
"Last fall I was part of a group who had to do a report on euthanasia (Human Biology class). Two in the group were originally for euthanasia...a third was on the fence, and I was very much against it. I researched Margaret Sanger and her peers and did a powerpoint on it...then showed it to my group-mates. They changed their minds after seeing the link between euthanasia and eugenics. While we were doing the presentation to the class, a classmate asked what euthanasia had to do with eugenics. The group-mate who was the most for euthanasia in the beginning answered quite well...she described the link better than I could!"
So just because they had some info given to them by one pro-lifer for a brief class project, two pro-deathers and one fence-sitter all changed their mind.
And who knows how many others in that class, after seeing their presentation, also changed their minds?
There is a reason the choicists are not the ones posting links to the Maafa 21 trailers, not encouraging people to check it out for themselves and make up their own minds, and the reason is NOT confidence that nobody will believe it.

reply from: Mn651

I think we have a choice to have abortion its not murdering anyone. If your daughter was raped or was really young and had a kid then what!? Its choice. Anyone who does have it well then they do.

reply from: saucie

Stay in school and pay closer attention in your English classes.
Good grief.

reply from: ProInformed

IMHO it is shameful, and most definitely NOT 'pro-choice' to spew prejudicial hate-speech defending the KILLING of innocent babies just because their biological father is a rapist!
I would certainly be OK with the death penalty for rapists but NOT for their innocent children!
Also, every single time you choice cultists chant those tried old slogans implying that women who've been raped would supposedly want to kill THEIR own baby you are adding to the already immense pressure put on rape victims to 'choose' to abort, implying that 'of course' they would want that 'choice'...
Increasing such pro-abort pressures is not 'pro-choice' - it's pro-abortion.
BTW it is an outdated and shamefully anti-woman notion that a baby's worth is determined SOLELY by who the biological father is! That attitude is most definitely NOT 'feminist'!!!
I strongly encourage you to LEARN more about the abortion industry, pro-life feminism (visit the Feminists For Life website), exactly how the INNOCENT babies are killed by abortionists, and what rape victims REALLY want and deserve.
Oh and one of my sisters was raped and forced by our 'pro-choice' parents to
'choose' to have HER baby, my neice or nephew, killed by abortion.
If you really do care about rape victims (and are not just mouthing abortion industry slogans, pretending to care about rape victims because you want to protect 'free sex'), then PLEASE LEARN more and STOP saying things which effectively put more pressure on rape victims to abort.

reply from: Banned Member

all of yu suck big weewees what the hek is yas problem for agreein with dis crap...
ya suck

reply from: alicelehrke

Whatever happened to "first do no harm". How can these do called doctors even live with themselves. Everything knows how pregnancy occurs. If you don't want a pregnancy, don't have sex. Pure and simple. What about adoption. Millions of couples are trying everyday to get pregnant and can't. What a heartbreak to know that these innocent souls are murdered before they had a chance to live. A heartbeat is detectable at 18 days. They are alive. They have souls. They are living people. Are women so vain or selfish they can't forego 9 months of their time and discomfort to give birth to these children? Shame on all of them. Hell has a special place for doctors, nurses, technicians and expectant mothers who participate in these murders. We put murderers to death in this country for killing children under a certain age for these heinous crimes. What makes these people so different.

reply from: nancyu

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

reply from: BABYLOVER2010

I LOVE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ONT HE SAME PAGE AS ME. IT HELPS ME KNOW THAT EVEN IF I DONT HAVE THE "BABYKILLERS" ON MY SIDE , I ATLEAST HAVE SOMEONE LIKE YOU. AND BY THAT I MEAN THAT YOUR MIND SET IS ON THE SAME LEVEL A MINE AND I THINK THAT IF WE WORK TOGETHER IN SOME KIND OF WAY AND SET UP FLIERS OR SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ATLEAST GET 25% WOMEN TO STOP ABORTING BABIES AND MEN TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO STOP. ALL OF MY BLESSINGS TO YOU. P.S. GOD IS WATCHING YOUR GOOD DEEDS AND EVERYDAY YOULL GET BLESSED._COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS....!!!!!
YOURS TRULY.....
(:BABYLOVER2010

reply from: BABYLOVER2010

THANK YOU SO MUCH.... IT IS PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE SAME MIND SET AS YOU THAT IT WILL TAKE TO GET WOMEN TO REALIZE TO STOP KILLING BABIES.... BUT ITS OK BECAUSE WE MAY BE MAD AT THEM NOW..... BUT THE DEVIL HAS BEEN SAVING THEM A SPOT RIGHT IN HELLLLLLLLLLLL
THANX AGAIN
BABYLOVER2010

reply from: rachelpen

Did anyone not notice in Sangers account of her visit to the Women's KKK, that she said she didn't dare mention the word abortion or anything about it or the women would have got angry and left. The KKK has never supported abortion for any race of people. Abortion is hurting all, but especially whites who are only 11% of the world's population - down from 82% of the world's population in the late 1880's. Thanks to the goodwill and Christian charity of white people, the birth rate of non-white people have skyrocketed. That would be fine if they weren't all trying to dominate the white historic homelands. Pray for our people, the forgotten minority.

reply from: HaileyLynn7039

I tottally 100% AGREE with you. I think abortion is terrible and the worst thing that someone could do. Everytime I think about it I get discusted. I think it should still be considered MURDER!!!!!!

reply from: QueenJ

What's up with these drive-by trolls? They aren't even any fun.

reply from: mguz

wow this is really unbelievable im not for abortion but you have to see the prons and cons to the situation. all that i see with this comments are ppl who dont see the two side of this. Abortion from the illustrated pictures in this websites show it like a mostrosity but do you guys really believe that would happen in clean safe clinics. Women who said "oh im totally against it i dont even know why they r doing it. they are just killing innocent lives" dont even know what they are saying b/c they have never being in a situation were is the only choice you have. Sometimes you just close your mind and blind yourself only by seeing this pictures but what you dont know is this pictures are probably not even taken in the US. Law says abortion cannot be done after 3 months a baby in the womb is less than 3 inches big. those pictures are babies fully form.Most of abortion is done by teenagers or ppl who "made" a mistake so what?. i mean if abortion wasn't a choice honestly this country would of being FULL of babies, now in this century everyone practice sex specially in an early age, one cannot stop this from happening. I m just saying ppl with close minded should considered why this women do it and put themselves in their shoes.

reply from: mguz

wow this is really unbelievable im not for abortion but you have to see the prons and cons to the situation. all that i see with this comments are ppl who dont see the two side of this. Abortion from the illustrated pictures in this websites show it like a mostrosity but do you guys really believe that would happen in clean safe clinics. Women who said "oh im totally against it i dont even know why they r doing it. they are just killing innocent lives" dont even know what they are saying b/c they have never being in a situation were is the only choice you have. Sometimes you just close your mind and blind yourself only by seeing this pictures but what you dont know is this pictures are probably not even taken in the US. Law says abortion cannot be done after 3 months a baby in the womb is less than 3 inches big. those pictures are babies fully form.Most of abortion is done by teenagers or ppl who "made" a mistake so what?. i mean if abortion wasn't a choice honestly this country would of being FULL of babies, now in this century everyone practice sex specially in an early age, one cannot stop this from happening. I m just saying ppl with close minded should considered why this women do it and put themselves in their shoes.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfjwJBfPu6s

reply from: Banned Member

Oh my God. I don't know what to do. My name is Beretta, and I'm 14 years old. I just found out that I'm pregnant. My boyfriend is 15, and there's no way he's going to stay with me through this, and my mom always told me that if I ever got pregnant before I was married, she's kick me out on the street! I don't want to have to leave my family and my friends, and my life! What should I do??

reply from: Banned Member

I had the same situation. I lost my family, my friends, and all my future. Now I have nothing left. Bah. But I do have my child. They took him away from me but giving him life was the best gift I could have ever given anyone. I live in poverty and I'm disowned from my family but that doesn't matter knowing I brought that child into this world.
I still get to see him sometimes, Jason is the best thing in my life. His adopted parents are ... nice enough. I know there could be better. A lot better, but I'm glad I went through with it.
If you get rid of the child, you'll live with the guilt the rest of your life. You'll have KILLED your OWN CHILD. So what if you have money, family, and friends. You don't need those. you need KIDS.

reply from: Banned Member

But I can't have a kid! I'm 14 for Chrissakes! And I could never survive by myself. My mom was serious when she said she'd throw me out! There's nothing I can think of to do...

reply from: Banned Member

Beretta, you were stupid enough to ***** the guy in the first place. Take some responsibility young lady. If you're selfish enough to kill the baby you may as well kill yourself.

reply from: Banned Member

It's not my goddamned fault. I'm on the pill, and he used a condom. Whose *****up is it now? AND I'm not going to kill myself because of this. I know better.

reply from: Banned Member

Berette? Sometimes, a women has got to do, what a woman has to do. Atleast he hasn't seen anything and the guy(or girl) doesn't know what he's missing out on yet. I'm sorry you have to kill it though.

reply from: Banned Member

And I'm totally not going to have a baby at fourteen! I watch Maury. I know what'll happen. I'm not going to ruin my life just because of some *****-ass luck.

reply from: Banned Member

Nd I'll totally like, feel horrible if I end up having to kill it becuz I dont wanna go to hell 4 this. I dont wanna go to hell 4 this, and i cant have a baby at 14!

reply from: Banned Member

Abort the little bastard!!!

reply from: Banned Member

U think thats the best plan?

reply from: Banned Member

God is a forgiving... god. I think he'll understand. and besides, you don't sound fit to go to hell. more likely purgatory.

reply from: Banned Member

No. GO THROUGH WITH IT. The Bible tells us not to kill. The 5th commandment. Would you ever break the fifth commandment?
You already broke the one about disobeying your parents. You don't need REINFORCEMENTS to go to hell. BE RESPONSIBLE have the child.

reply from: Banned Member

id like to think he is, but im still in this situation. im pretty sure its his fault too. = / i think i might have to. how old do u have to be to get one anyway?

reply from: Banned Member

are u gonna take me in after my parents throw me out, jenneh?

reply from: Banned Member

Beretta, that's not how life works. I was living on the streets at 15 years of age. You might have some friends to help you, but you're not my responsibility. You're a whore and you deserve to pay. Karma.

reply from: Banned Member

so taking precautions when i have sex makes me a whore? if im a whore, your worse.

reply from: Banned Member

You have no place in telling me what I am. I take it that you're Christian else you wouldn't be pro-life. All pro-life people are Christian. I am older than you, and the 5th commandment says to respect your elders.
(The 6th commandment is Thou shalt not kill, my bad)
Respect your elders. You're not doing that. You wish to go to hell young lady? Then go ahead and follow Hitler and the KKK and get your stupid abortion you snooty bi*ch.

reply from: Banned Member

if i have no place telling u what u are, then u have no place telling me what i am. u don't kno ***** about me.

reply from: Banned Member

there are more elders telling her to do the opposite. me, her mom, and that other guy.

reply from: Banned Member

Her mom told her not to have sex before marriage. She defied her there.

reply from: Banned Member

your wrong. she told me not to get PREGNANT before i was married. i got the whole sex talk, and she said if i was gonna do it, i should take precautions, and i did. i still ended up in this *****heap situation, so dont presume you kno anything about me.

reply from: Banned Member

your still outnumbered. I think though, that since it is her body, and it won't hurt her, only the baby who doesn't know what it's going to miss out on, it should be her decision.

reply from: Banned Member

We know more than we want to know about you already.
Next time you try to use birth control you might try using it sober. Statistics show that the efficacy of birth control increases to nearly 100% when you're not plastered on your @ss you miserable s!ut.

reply from: Banned Member

We know more than we want to know about you already.
Next time you try to use birth control you might try using it sober. Statistics show that the efficacy of birth control increases to nearly 100%.
Still that chance. it's ONLY NEARLY 100% which puts it somewhere around 95%-99.9% and there's still that chance that both could fail. You shouldn't assume things, ya know.

reply from: B0zo

We know more than we want to know about you already.
Next time you try to use birth control you might try using it sober. Statistics show that the efficacy of birth control increases to nearly 100% when you're not plastered on your @ss you miserable s!ut.
you dont kno ***** about me either, asswipe. i was sober. unlike some people, i don't touch that *****.
Are you playing all three roles, or do you have some friends helping you?
Note that those who take your bait are not representative of prolifers in general, and you're only having fun with the fringe element and those who we too see as kooks or extremists.

reply from: Banned Member

wut are u talking about?

reply from: B0zo

I think you know wut I am talking about.
But kudos for eliciting the "slut" comment, though on this board it's not much of a challenge to get prolifers to appear to be motivated by something less noble than a desire to protect the unborn.

reply from: Banned Member

We know more than we want to know about you already.
Next time you try to use birth control you might try using it sober. Statistics show that the efficacy of birth control increases to nearly 100% when you're not plastered on your @ss you miserable s!ut.
you dont kno ***** about me either, asswipe. i was sober. unlike some people, i don't touch that *****.
Yeah tell me another one. It's very telling that you took offence when I called you a drunk but not when I called you a s!ut. Interesting.

reply from: Banned Member

I think you know wut I am talking about.
But kudos for eliciting the "slut" comment, though on this board it's not much of a challenge to get prolifers to appear to be motivated by something less noble than a desire to protect the unborn.
B0zo.. you slutty, slutful, slut.

reply from: Banned Member

Hey guys. I've got to say, you handled the trolling very well!
You didn't lock or yell at us, you explained your point of view and all-in-all I think you've got a dandy forum here.
We are a group of "noble trolls" (no one believes that but hey we try) and we go against extremists. We're called the Dragon Crusaders.
You've shown that you guys are a real community, and you controlled the flood just fine.
So kudos! And there were about 6 people behind this, for your information.
Hope you know you're the FIRST website that has responsibly con-trolled us. Here's your badge:

Congratz, and so sorry to trouble you!

reply from: nancyu

2nd most viewed thread on prolifeamerica.com

reply from: facelessmillion

Dear Opinionnaires,

Have you ever been in the shoes of the young girl who has had to make the gutrenching choice to keep or abort her pregnancy? This is an issue so personable, sensitive and unique as every woman who has had to make it . Just because there are places that offer this as a choice doesnt mean it makes making the choice any easier. And viewing graphic photos and radicalist opinions i find is very devicive in helping people view things through your eyes... I do beleive abortion is wrong i do beleive God would not have this or ever be acceptable of it . But i do understand that we all one day will stand before him by ourselves and have to answer for what we have done. Vile lanuage biost talk and Radical views only drive those who are in this time of crisis farther away from seeing things through your eyes. Just like the Pastor who wanted to burn korans, how on earth are we supposed to let other people know that God loves them buy taking something thats precious to them at the moment and destroying it . Thus is how many women feel with abortion they are in a situation that seems all bad and there last handle of hope or at least at that moment wht seems hope is a choice .. Hate and one sided ways of thinking makes people feel misunderstood and confused and unheard ... These women need to understand that that someone somewhere can identify with there desperation and solitude ... I am twelve weeks pregnant at the moment and struggling with this choice. I wanted more information on this subject . Today i was there in that room that cold lonely scary sad frightening place, the minute they touched me with there tools i began to panic, histerically crying and hyperventalating . I have never been so frightened in my life .. so scared i remember having the feeling that these people( i mean no ill will towards the nurses and doctors who were there on my request who never made me feel pressured and are always for someone making the choice to keep there baby) are going to evasively enter my body to remove something i have been protecting all this time .. That the little one inside me had no idea what was about to happen that these were his or her final moments ..(AT that exact intense moment these were my thoughts i have shared these thoughts and feelings with no one until now) I felt scared vonerable and most of all i felt the sudden urge to protect what could not protect itself. I decided along with the staff that i needed to take some time to think about this...i wanted to share my views and my opinion on the sensitive subject being able to speak from a platform of someone who has been there........I cried all the way home with a personal feeling of relief and triumph....i was scared but i chose to be there ... My choices to have sex and ultimatley live with the consiquences were and are my own ...no one made me go there i chose.
I have seen all of the cruel and vile photos depicting the horrible outcome of the choice of abortion. ....Those without sin cast the first stone .....as Jesus said..... I have first hand been through the doors of that sorrowful place. No one is screaming in exitment a smiling face is rarley seen ...This is a time of great sarrow of great reflection the consiquences of there actions in full swing .....Girls with sadness in there eyes the lonelyness and personal anguish .. They feel that they are making the right choice for themselves, even though it was hard they felt there was no other way .

I wonder do people really beleive that if that if they did away with abortion clinics that there would be less abortions....Wrong..there would be more instances of women in there desperation doing harmful things to themselves with coat hangers in there own bathroom ....To be completely oblivious to the fact that abortion will be done away with if we simpley do away with clinics it is repugnant. instead women will go to extremes to deal with this issue. They are in an situation where they have been at the hands of an abuser and this ties them to that person for the next eighteen years , or maybe in a they are eighteen year old living on the streets barely able to feed themselves let alone a child ....like i said every situation is unique and we must all live with our choices. And no one will stand with us on the day of judgement .... I believe it is right to fight for what you beleive in but i also beleive there is a line when it comes to your personal beleifs and imposing your beleifs onto someone else..Lead by example talk is talk ..... Lead by example ......No one is perfect ....God made no man perfect....We all have struggles and no one is without sin ....God says to Love one another, hate and vile speech only turns off peoples receptors to hear what you have to say off. I beleive in what you are fighting for, but out of frustration i see anger and hate coming through on so many of these pages ...maybe if you stopped and refocused, you would see that the manner in which you are publicly expressing your views and messages is doing more damage and just becoming a playground of hatefull words and devicive talk. Maybe taking a more understanding but still firm stance in what you beleive would be more helpfull and eccepted by those who are in a great time of crisis and need ....thank you for reading... i have alot to think about and im sleepy ...tomarow comes quik escpecially when u dont want it to....
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
God is love and He has defined Himself and His attitude toward us in the 13th chapter of
1 Corinthians. Agape love is the attitude of God expressed in action to man. The opposite attitude of agape love is pride. Read 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and study the corresponding chart below. Remember that agape love can only come from God.

reply from: lukesmom

Whoa! You are saying alot of things here. First off, I am sorry you have found yourself in this situation. You say you don't believe in abortion yet put yourself on an abortionist's table. Why do you think none of us here have not been in your shoes? Many of us have, we have just stood by our beliefs and our unborn children. That is not an attack but rather just fact. I can't imagine that abortion is easy if you have any kind of human emotions at all. I also know the hardest part of abortion is letting yourself believe the lies you tell yourself to justify your abortion and then after the fact, learning to live with your lies and actions.
There are many different approaches to advocating for the unborn. You may not like some of them or feel they are over the top or hateful but you are not all women. Not everyone is affected by the same approach. Personally, I find killing (and abortion is killing) is more hateful and over the top than any prolife action. I am glad the abortionist and his/her cronies stopped and allowed you time to think, some don't.
The law says you can kill your unborn child legally but doing so you comprimise your own conscience, integrety and humanity and end the life of your child for all time. There is no going back. None of this is said hatefully but is the brutal truth. I don't know your circumstances but I do know, every prolifer on this board would be willing to help you through these circumstances.
You also bring religion into this but if you are religious, you know God created your little one. You have been given a great gift from Him and you are thinking of throwing that gift away. You are taking control away from God and taking it into your own hands. You are trying to take God's place. One of the hardest yet easiest action a believer can take is putting this completely in God's hands. There is a lot of power in "Thy Will be done." This I know personally and because of that statement, He carried me through the hardest and most wonderful time of my life. Because of that statement, I don't live with regret and during the hardest time of my life experenced the most intense, beautiful spiritual connection wrapped in God's love. Pray, give this to Him and you will find your answer.
I am praying for you, Sue, Luke's mom

reply from: Navier

I like the way you think

reply from: Tam

I like the way you think
LOL! yeah, you two trolls should get along just fine.

reply from: againstabortion

abortion is so wrong and should not have a place in this world. how bout the stupid girls who want to have an abortion, how bout they just have the baby and at least give it up for adoption. instead of killing it. that makes me very mad.....

reply from: lycan

You can click on the "Crisis Pregnancy" link in the category section of this board for help with crisis pregnancies.

reply from: xiaolong

Right, I came here after arguing with an anti-choicer. She posted up a link to 100abortionpictures.com, which subsequently led me to this forum. I've flicked through the pages, was all a bit boring tbh. I'm not here to argue abortion politics (unless of course somebody REALLY feels they need to start arguing with me), I was just wondering something.
The site I came to this through (100abortionpictures.com) is called 'Klan Parenthood: We Put the Hood in Parenthood' and there's a little picture on the side of somebody dressed up in KKK garb. Yet, there are links which relate abortion to the holocaust and also blame abortion for black genocide. So, presumably, it's not a racist site? I just can't tell.

reply from: terry

The title of the site and the slogan are intended to draw attention to the fact that the abortion industry in the US is based on racism and is an integral part of a coordinated genocide against black people.
In America today, almost as many African-American children are aborted as are born. A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby. Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent. Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined. Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history. Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
Please watch the film Maafa21 for information.
http://www.maafa21.com/

Welcome to the forum!

reply from: nancyu

http:// https://m.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10152062718015002&ref=bookmark&__user=1105137407

reply from: nancyu

If we want abortion to end with argument alone, we must stop arguing from the standpoint of why abortion SHOULD BE illegal, and start arguing that abortion IS illegal ALREADY.  And educating others as to how and why this is so.  
Did you know that abortion is illegal right now?  If you didn't, let me be the first to tell you!  It's exciting news for a pro lifer, wouldn't you say?!  
Arguments for why abortion should or should not be legal are endless and are based on personal opinion and feelings.  The pro life argument is usually that babies are a heavenly blessing to be cherished and loved instead of killed (sounds right to me).  The pro choice side tends to be more considerate of a woman who may be in difficult circumstances (mmmm..ya, sure.)
There are plenty of good arguments which favor one side or the other (some really bad ones, too)  but they can go around and around and around.  Have you noticed this, too?  And even when we "win", they keep getting away with murder.
The Law is what matters.  Personal opinions and feelings are not compatible with The Law, because The Law is not a respecter of persons.
The Law does not care that babies are cute and cuddly and fun; nor does it care that a woman may be very depended upon by her family and others - or she might have plans.
 It doesn't care that she might "feel" that she has a very good reason to want to kill a person who is, or is soon going to be, very dependent upon her.
"No respecter of persons" means that The Law doesn't take into account that one person might have more money, have more responsibilities than another, or be more productive, attractive, or needed than another.
The Law does not care who you are.  It doesn't care what nationality you are, what color or  gender you are, what religion you are.  
It does not care how much money you have or what circumstances surrounded your conception.  It doesn't care what age you are, what your level of dependency is upon others.
It does not care how many friends you have, how educated you are, or how high up the corporate ladder you have climbed.  It does not care what kind of car you drive, or how physically "fit" you may be.  It doesn't care if everyone loves you, or if no one can tolerate your presence.  It doesn't even care if you smell really bad.
It doesn't consider if you are healthy or sickly, pretty or not so pretty, if you are nice or more of a grouch.  
You don't have to be a citizen of the USA, or of any other nation.
The Law doesn't even care what percentage of the world's population you are.  Whether you are 50% of the population like Adam or Eve; or darn near 0% like you and I.
All that's required in order for you to be entitled to equal protection of the laws is that you be a person.
Are you with me so far?  
Do you know that Section one of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, states specifically and clearly, that NO person shall be deprived of life without due process of law,  and NO person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws?  If you haven't yet, I suggest you read it right away.  Here's an official copy:  
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

I happen to think this is a good thing, overall.  Even though there are moments,  every now and then, when I think I have a really good reason to hurt someone.  My logical side says no, it's not legal to harm an innocent person, and probably not worth the consequences, anyhow.  Plus,  I'm glad this protection is there for me, too.  Would you believe, that not everybody likes me?!  I can hardly believe it myself.
How did Roe vs Wade get to be considered "the law of the land" when it goes directly against our own Constitution? Our Constitution which is, in fact, the supreme law of the land.  Did you miss this part, SCOTUS?  Read it and weep:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Well, it all started when Griswold vs Connecticut recognized a constitutional "right to privacy":
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

But guess what; there is no such right in the Constitution.  Go ahead, read it again if you don't believe me:  
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html 

And do you know WHY there was no such right written into the Constitution?  Because granting a "right to privacy" would have made it possible to kill innocent persons, with no consequences.  
Are there any lights coming on in your head yet?  We certainly have an expectation of privacy in ordinary circumstances, but no such right when it comes to killing someone.  That's when you would have to explain yourself, and you'd better make it good.  Juries aren't always as nice as you would hope.  (^He^ might not be either.)
Then, the Roe vs Wade decision was based on the assumption that a fetus is not a person "in the whole sense"-with a disclaimer:  "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment". 
Shouldn't it be the other way around?  Shouldn't they have had to establish that the fetus was NOT a person, before granting someone the "right" to kill one?
And tell me now, how can two parents who are persons produce offspring that is not a person?  I don't believe it has ever happened.  If you've heard of such a case,  please send me a link.  Unlike the pro "choicers", I'm always open to correction.
It seems obvious that Roe vs Wade may have made some abortions legal, but only those which do not harm any persons.  
If you're speaking of a human Z/E/F then you're speaking of a person.  If you want to "abort" a chicken or an apple, you're perfectly within legal limits. But if you're a person, and you're pregnant, you're pregnant with a person.  Not a chicken and certainly not an apple.  I've heard that some people do strange things with animals and even fruit, and I'm no scientist, but I'm nearly certain it won't produce any offspring.
So, since (human) abortion takes the life of an innocent person, abortion is not, never has been and never will be "legal" in any meaningful sense of the word.  (I don't think it's legal in any non-meaningful sense either)
Aside from our Creator, there is no person or entity with the authority to make the murder of an innocent person legal.  
Some might ask, why does this matter if the law in this case probably can't, or won't be enforced?
Try to think of some laws that you obey, even though you are not forced to obey them.  I'll bet you can think of a few.  How about, don't touch a hot stove, or don't run in front of a big truck. The Law isn't always an enforcer, it is a teacher.  It doesn't take much to see that obeying just laws is in everyone's best interest.  If we want our own rights respected, we have to also respect the rights of others.  
Then, maybe someday soon, when enough people begin to see the value of The Law, tides will turn, and pressure will grow, until law enforcement has no choice but to start doing its job.
My friend,  Dave Leach (see comments) thinks Roe vs Wade has been overturned since 2004 with the enactment of Laci and Conners law.  This is when he believes that the "personhood" of the fetus was "established" within the law.  This is what the Roe v Wade decision stated would create it's own collapse.
< ^ Roe v. Wade's "collapse" clause says: "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."<
I respectfully (and only slightly) disagree with Dave for a few reasons:
1). Roe V Wade was already "collapsed" the very first time a child in the womb was a person.  "Human being" and "person" are synonymous.  Since all human beings are, and always have been persons; those in the womb are, and always have been persons.
 
2).  The Unborn Victims of Violence act did NOT declare the unborn child a PERSON.  It declared the unborn child a "victim". (Victims are not always persons.). My understanding of Dave's argument is (correct me if I'm wrong, Dave - I'm still learning) that since Roe equated the words "human" and "person" that this omission doesn't change the fact that it overturns Roe Vs Wade.  But it seems like people need to be hit over the head a little harder with the truth before they will really be able to feel it.
(Do you really think GW was just a great guy who missed a small detail like this?  He knew!  He knew, that as long as it didn't refer to the unborn child specifically as PERSON, he could work it.  He would win all the (stupid) pro life votes without even the mildest threat to a woman's "right to choose", because most people really are (sad to say) that stupid.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Here is the complete text of the law.  You don't have to read all of it, but look for the word "person".  It's in there....
< "The operative portion of the law, now codified as Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:
Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that -
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution -
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." <
...But ONLY when referring to the perpetrator, the pregnant woman or her representative, or to her abortionist or medical care provider.  (We should have protested this law into the ground.  There is no WAY an abortionist is a person.)
The unborn child is carefully referred to as "child" or as "human being", not even once as "person".
Now, I always thought that the words "child" and "person"; and "human being" and "person" were synonymous, but apparently our "leaders" think differently.  This implies that the makers and signers of this law believed that SOME children and SOME human beings are NOT persons.  
I don't want to frighten you or anything, but this is really frightening!
Try to imagine yourself as a human non-person.  Is it so far-fetched?   Ask the slaves.   Ask the Jews, the homosexuals, and the "unfit" in Hitler's time, if they had ever imagined themselves in such a category.  
Maybe you don't value your own "personhood" to care about anyone else's; but I do.  I'm not a mere "human being".  I am a person.  It's not legal to kill me without just cause and/or due process of law.  I have been a person since the very beginning of my existence in my mother's womb, (remembering that there are some persons who begin their existence outside their mothers womb)  and I will be until I am completely and utterly dead.   (You do NOT have my permission to kill me under any circumstances.  So there.)
3).  A legal dictionary will tell you that a natural person is also a  "legal" person.  This means that "personhood" of a natural person does not need to be established.  "Roe" never existed except in all our wild imaginations, because The Constitution (the supreme law of the land) and The Truth (a person in the womb is a person) made it void.
Dave, don't give the justices who decided Roe, more respect than they deserve.  They should not have used pro life legislation as a basis for their opinion, and they should have struck down any anti-abortion legislation that disregarded the fact that the zygote, embryo, fetus was a person.  (What did they think it was, a tomato?  If that was the the case she wouldn't want an abortion.  She could just make a salad).  The truth is, outlawing abortion just wasn't what the SC wanted to do.  They wanted women to kill their children, and think like it was their own choice.  It's so scary, how well they succeeded.
I am concerned for countries and places which think themselves more "pro life" because they have strict abortion bans or restrictions.  These are what led us to Roe vs Wade in the first place.  Abortion bans don't treat the pre-born as persons entitled to equal justice and protection.  
Keep it simple:  Just enforce laws against murder for everyone - inside the womb or out.
That way,  no doctor need fear prosecution for treating a pregnant woman to save her life, but those who intentionally kill for fun or for profit, will be securely behind bars.
The clump of tissue which is Roe vs Wade may have made abortion possible and even convenient; it (with a little help from their friends on the tv news) made the killing of innocent people seem normal and "socially acceptable".   But what it absolutely did not do was to make abortion legal.
I always wonder, what made us buy this lie that it is (sometimes) legal to kill (some) innocent people, and why is it so frustratingly difficult to convince (even some very smart and very pro life) people that we've been duped.
Is it a matter of pride, and not wanting to admit that we could have been misled?  Have we been brainwashed by soaps and talking heads on the tv? 
Have we gotten used to the option of killing with no consequences?  Hmmmm .. what else might we be able to get used to?
Is it because those in the womb are so much smaller than we are?  That the blood is quickly washed away, the little body whisked away to the research lab, so we don't have to look at it, or think about it too long?
Are we believing what we want to believe?  
This possibility gives me the most trouble.  Why do there seem to be so very many, who apparently have so little love for children, that they not only expect, but demand the right to have them professionally slain for any old reason?  I don't know, I'll keep asking around.  If you figure it out I hope you'll tell me.
We've made it past one hurdle and it was a tall one.   We've made abortion illegal (WaaHooo!!!) with nothing more or less than the simple truth.
What is left, but to make it much less convenient (impossible -even better)  less socially acceptable, less gruesomely "normal".
Maybe that will take more than argument alone.  We are waiting and praying and hoping for someone (some One?) a little higher up to help us with this part, but maybe what we don't realize is that it is our own attitudes that are helping to support and uphold these highly illegal "laws", when what we should work harder to uphold is The Law... and The Truth.
 Wouldn't it be nice if the "pro life" movement would stop being so stuck-up about supporting the use of force to defend these children.   There is such a thing as legitimate defense of innocent persons and there are times when it's called for.  With 50 million or so and counting, this might be the time.  Their side has been using very violent force against our side for 40 years now.  This isn't "LIKE" murder; this is murder.  On a very massive scale.    
I think we'd be better people if we weren't so afraid of getting some not-so-innocent blood on our hands.  I'm sure I would feel better, regardless of what consequences might follow. And, it's always possible for "consequences" to be turned into opportunity.  As we defend ourselves, we are also defending The Law and our babies, too.
Either way, we need to get our arguments straight and consistent.  We need to tell people that abortion is not legal.    Not everyone knows it yet, and they won't know if you don't tell them.  
These are our little brothers and sisters.  They're still being butchered as the clock ticks.  They're persons, they're innocent, and we're failing them. 
"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him;"   
Acts 10: 34, 35
"And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him;"
Eph. 6: 9
 "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons;" 
Col. 3: 25
"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear" 
I Pet. 1: 17
(updated Aug 25, 2012)

reply from: faithman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZVWDvljrLc&feature=youtu.be


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