Login or Edit
Pro-Life TeensPro-Life TeensPro-Life TeensPro-Life Teens

The Myth: Pro-Lifers are Filled with Hate

— Posted by Eric Scheidler (May 11, 2006 at 4:28 pm)

Note: This is the second installment in an occassional series by Eric Scheidler on the myths many people hold about pro-lifers and the pro-life movement.

Does this young woman look to you like she’s filled with hate?

One of the most common claims being made about pro-lifers and the pro-life movement is that we are “filled with hate” or that we are bent on “spreading hate.” We hear this all the time in press statements by the likes of NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood. It’s all over the blogosphere.

In a way, this is a diffucult myth to address. For one thing, it’s so far out of phase with reality that it’s hard to know where to begin. When I think of the kindness and generosity of the pro-life activists that it’s my priviledge to stand with out on the street . . .

But why would anyone who’s willing to believe this myth in the first place take my word for it? Never mind that it would be rather out of character for a hate-monger to care what anyone thinks of him.

I suppose the only way to really debunk this one is for those who hold it to spend time with pro-lifers and find out what we’re really like. The best I can do along those lines here in this article is to offer some typical pictures of pro-life activists doing what we do. Aside from that, I’d like to explore some of the psychology behind this myth.

Hateful Abortion Signs?

This myth is raised most often, in my experience, in regards to the kind of grass-roots, direct action that we specialize in at the Pro-Life Action League (the parent organization of Generations for Life)—especially when we bring out the graphic abortion signs. Holding signs of aborted babies out on the street is declared to be “hateful.”

Another hate monger?

But the question one has to ask in response to this claim is, “Who is the target of this alleged hatred?”

We don’t hate the babies. We’re there trying to show what abortion does to them so people will choose not to abort them. We don’t hate the passersby—we’d hardly make the effort to change the attitudes of people we hate, and in any case, how is it “hateful” to say, “Here’s what abortion looks like—you ought to see this.”

You could call it insensitive, inappropriate, even obnoxious to show the mangled victims of abortion out on the street. But “hateful”? Does anyone make a similar claim when activists—or news media—show the victims of war, poverty or natural disaster? Again, they may object to the tactic of using graphic images, but they don’t attribute the use of that tactic to “hatred.”

Hateful Abortion Clinic Witness?

This objection is even less rational when it comes to counseling women against abortion at pregnancy resource centers or outside abortion facilities. Yet this again is called “hateful.”

Think about this a minute. If we really believe—as we do—that abortion is killing a person, would we want to talk our enemies, people we hate, out of abortion? Would we not rather say, with the Psalmist reproaching Bablyon, “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock” (Ps 137:9)?

If we believe—as we do—that aboriton is likely to leave a woman feeling wounded, hopeless and even suicidal, and we hate this woman, wouldn’t we rather stand back and let her go through with it and delight in her decades of misery? It doesn’t add up.

But Don’t We Hate Abortionists?

What’s more undestandable is the belief that we hate abortionists and abortion clinic staffers. After all, we are accusing them of abominable crimes against unborn babies and their mothers, so it would be understandable if hated them. But even that accusation breaks down on closer examination.

Former abortion providers with Joe Scheidler

Joe Scheidler (center) with former abortion providers (from left) Marian Johnston-Loehner, Luhra Tivis, Judith Fetrow and Joan Appleton in 1993.

We have worked hard to convince people involved in the abortion business to quit. Again, not the kind of behavior you would direct towards someone you hate, especially if you believe their transgressions could lead to eternal punishment, as we Christians do. Why not leave them to the justice of a vengeful God?

But we don’t do that. Pro-life activists all over the country have worked tirelessly, for years in some cases, to reach out to abortion workers. And those who have listened and stopped their involvement with abortion very often credit the compassion and patience of individual pro-lifers with bringing about their conversion.

Yes, it’s hard to like people who are directly involved with the killing of innocent unborn babies, but we do not hate them. Like them or not, we do love them, being commanded to do so against our inclinations by Christ Himself, and we want the best for them, which is to repent of their involvment in abortion and seek forgiveness and peace in Christ’s love.

Where Is the “Hatred” Really Coming From?

So if it just doesn’t make sense, nor square with the evidence available to an objective observer, to accuse pro-lifers of hate mongery, where is this accusation coming from?

As the son of a prominent pro-life activist and now a pro-life activist myself, I’ve dealt with more than my share angry opponents, including many who have turned from being angry to being sympathetic after a little honest converstaion. Based on my experience, I argue that what we have here is a case of psychological projection—the defense mechanism whereby one projects one’s own negative feelings onto another, especially when the other is associated with evoking those negative feelings.

Who are the ones spreading hate again?

And nothing evokes negative feelings like the abortion issue. In particular, the sight of an aborted baby picture appearing unexpectedly on the side of the road is bound to conjure up negative feelings in the hearts of most people.

Dark Emotions, Projected

Some will feel sorrowful over the injustice done to unborn babies. That sorrow may inspire appreciation for our efforts to expose this injustice; the passerby might give us a thumbs up or even stop to thank us for being there. But it might also trigger anger at us for the unwelcome reminder of a horror they would rather not think about.

Some will feel guilty about abortion—for having had an abortion, for having pressured a wife or girlfriend into having an abortion, for having done nothing to stop the injustice of abortion. Our presence might inspire healthy regret, even repentence—but it might also cause a passerby to lash out, blaming those feelings on our actions rather than the prickings of his own consciences.

Some will feel mournful over a child or granchild lost to abortion. Sometimes the grieving one values our witness, but other times we become a target of a deep resentment that has no other outlet.

These and other dark emotions are all out there when we show the face of abortion—and there is hatred in the air: hatred of the craven boyfriend or ashamed parent who pressured you into abortion, hatred of the woman who aborted your son or daughter against your wishes, hatred of the feckless clergyman who condoned your choice to abort your child, hatred of the society that allows 300 babies to be aborted every waking hour of the day—even hatred of yourself for what you have done or failed to do for these unborn babies.

All that hatred gets projected onto us. How else to explain those angry men who drive by a little group of retirees praying quietly outside an abortion clinic and shout out curses, make rude gestures, rev their engines and drive off like maniacs? What could be less hateful than praying together in a little intimate group that the abortions going on a few yards away will stop?

Hate Must Be Exposed and Conquered—by Love

So why do we do these things, if they arouse so much anger? Even if we were insensitive to these feelings, why would we want to be the target of so much hatred, and even be accused of being the source of it all?

This is a serious question, one that we revisit often, especially with regards to the public display of abortion pictures. Sometimes, indeed, we will chose not to use graphic signs under particular circumstances. That we must be present at abortion facilities to pray and counsel is an unshakable conviction, but we are constantly working to make our presence a there a more authentic outreach and more effective font of compassion.

In the end, we do not believe that it is best to allow these feelings of sorrow, grief, guilt, shame and anger to remain buried. It cannot be good for our society nor for individual people to avoid confronting the painful emotions surrounding abortion. The results we see confirm this conviction: the lives saved, the wounds healed, the despair conquered, the sould converted.

Pro-lifers are not “filled with hate.” The pro-life movement is not “spreading hate.” The hate is already out there, festering beneath the surfaced, unresolved, malignant. We’re working to expose the sources of hate so that hate can finally be conquered by love.

Doesn’t every child—born and unborn—deserve to be loved?

This is what really inspires our work in the pro-life movement, even if the face of so many lies about us, so much invective and calumny, is just this: love.

We love the mothers who are carrying a burden of guilt. We love the fathers who are consumed by shame. We love those parents and grandparents who are grieving children lost to abortion. We love the abortionists in whose hearts the spark of the Holy Spirit has nearly been extinguished.

We love the society that we know we could create together if only we could overcome the hate at the core of abortion and learn to love the gift that is every unborn child.

This entry is filed under Myths Series. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

121 Comments on “The Myth: Pro-Lifers are Filled with Hate”

Please Note: Visitor comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Generations for Life or our parent organization, the Pro-Life Action League.

  1. Square Zero » Blog Archive » Those “Hateful” Pro-Lifers says:

    [...] I want to alert readers of Square Zero that I’ve just published an article at Generations for Life addressing the notion that pro-lifers, especially we pro-life activists, are “filled with hate” in all that we do. This is the first installment in a series of articles debunking the myths that people believe about pro-lifers and the pro-life movement. (You can read the introduction to the series here.) Comments welcome here or at Generations for Life. [...]

    Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
  2. tim says:

    Good article – it is very tempting for those who disagree with the pro-life stand on the sanctity of human life to fallaciously write-off the propositional truth of their opponents by using an ad hominem attack (classifying pro-lifers as hate filled). I appreciate the witness of pro-lifers, like Generations for Life, who are able to present the stark reality of abortion, understanding that the most hateful thing we could do is to say nothing.

    Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
  3. Lauren says:

    Well given the fact that at one of your organization’s protests I was called a tramp and one of my friends a fag, it’s not that far off the mark.

    Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
  4. Lauren says:

    “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock” (Ps 137:9)?

    Dashing against the rock? what does this even mean? You mean to tell me you interpret that as a message against abortion.. man… i just dont see it.. sorry

    “But it might also trigger anger at us for the unwelcome reminder of a horror they would rather not think about.”

    No. The hatred that is directed towards you is because you think you can stand in judgement. It isn’t about the horror, believe me. It is about the fact that you people stand out there holier-than-thou and claim to know what God thinks. You hold signs of Jesus next to your pictures of abortion and claim to know the path to righteousness. Ever heard of a little humility?

    An abortion is never an easy choice.. I think you are hate-filled because more than numerous times you have called me a pro-abort. I’m not going to lie that crushes me. That hurts me. But you don’t seem to care. You just throw it around like it means nothing to me. I don’t want to see women become a subjugate class in this country. Women have fought too hard to have their lives controlled by religious zealots.

    People resent you because you ignore facts. You ignore the fact that it may be possible for a woman for one to make a decision to have an abortion, not regret it, and it still be a difficult decision. You stand in judgement of her. Really, answer this, who do you think you are to judge? How are you any better than me? I’m no better than you. I do earnestly feel bad for you though. I feel like a lot of people on your side, don’t want to face the realities and injustices in the world so instead of dealing with them, want black and white solutions to grey problems. It wouldn’t matter to you if a 12 year old girl was raped and impregnated, as long as she carried that pregnancy to term. It wouldn’t matter to you that a young girl accidentally get pregnant because her high school wouldn’t educate her about birth control because right-wingers wouldn’t allow her to learn. It wouldn’t matter to you because it’s not what you do. You want everyone to live the way you do and if they dont, they better deal with the consequences you have given them.

    What do you think is going to happen when you start forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, eric?

    I came on this site with the intention to find middle ground. That was my original intention. I didnt make friends on this site, it’s clear I made enemies and it saddens me. It wasn’t my intention. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve looked at this site and cried my eyes out. I do have sorrow for abortion. I have sorrow that it is even a choice. I have sorrow that I will never raise children in a world where they have control of their bodies without someone or some government assuming that they know better. I have sorrow because my children will not live in a world where these issues are a thing of the past. Until there are preventative solutions and middle ground met, abortion will always be here, and it will always be a tragedy.

    We both could go on forever. You calling me a pro-abort. Me calling you an idiot. I’m sure you probably think I’m pro-abortion because that makes you more comfortable. It certainly makes me more comfortable to think you are an idiot. Not that it’s right.

    Please do not assume that if you get rid of abortion, you get rid of pain. Aren’t you concerned of the pain that will be caused to a young woman not ready emotionally or financially for a child? Aren’t you concerned of the pain that a woman might have if she is forced to put her child up for adoption? Aren’t you concerned about the pain that might be caused to a woman who has been raped and will be forced to having a living reminder of that trauma? Aren’t you worried about the pain that might be caused to a woman whose plans for life or college might be ruined by having a child? Aren’t you worried about us? Why is it that our pain will suddenly go away by having a child? I could only wish it would be that easy.

    “We love the mothers who are carrying a burden of guilt. We love the fathers who are consumed by shame. We love those parents and grandparents who are grieving children lost to abortion. We love the abortionists in whose hearts the spark of the Holy Spirit has nearly been extinguished.”

    If I wanted to be very cynical about it, I would disagree with this. You don’t love the mothers… you love the feelings of congratulating yourself for taking the moral high ground. It’s easy to be pro-life. It requires no consideration of the complicated issues at hand.

    In the meantime, I’ll try to disconnect myself the next time you call me pro-abortion eric. Because I can tell you one thing. you care so very little about me.

    Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
  5. Lauren says:

    For the record, when someone took a picture of me at your protest I smiled…. I got approached by a weird lady about aliens (dont ask me) and I got called a baby-killer, whore, tramp, and like I said my friend a fag. Also, i got chased after I was holding my HonK for choice sign… literally chased around… i think it made the guy upset that people were hanging out of their windows giving me and my girls thumbs ups and hollers from young women of Thank you..

    You called 1/4 of women murderers.. Don’t you think that’s going to boil some blood?

    1/4 of women will have at least one baortion by the time their 40.. what are you going to do about it? That’s not a rhetorical question.

    Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
  6. Lauren says:

    Again, let me ask again.. What would you do if I were your daughter?

    Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
  7. Robert says:

    Lauren, I’m sorry that the term “pro-abortion” upsets you. However, consider the following and I think you’ll understand why most see the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” as synonymous:

    Pro-Choice. No one ever defends a pro-choice position with respect to bank robbery. The only time this expression is used without reference to what we’re pro-choice about is when the most helpless and innocent human being is at stake. Pro-choice is synonymous with pro-abortion because no one speaks of pro-choice in any other context. Pro-choice is simply a euphemism that causes us to forget the baby.

    Language, as the philospher Heidegger said, “is the house of being.” If our language is contorted and deconstructed through euphemisms, redefinitions and other anomolies then, the being housed by language becomes indeterminate, there are no fixed meanings, that is relativism pushed to its pinnacle, nihilism itself.

    Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 10:46 am
  8. Eric says:

    Lauren writes:

    “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock” (Ps 137:9)?

    Dashing against the rock? what does this even mean? You mean to tell me you interpret that as a message against abortion.. man… i just dont see it.. sorry

    Lauren, you missed my point. If we hated women seeking abortion, we would want their babies to be aborted—just as the psalmist wanted the children of the “daughter of Babylon” to be murdered in revenge for what the Israelites had suffered under Babylon.

    Psalm 137:9 is the farthest thing (taken literally, anyway) from a “message against abortion.” That you thought I was using it in that way shows either that you’re not a very careful reader in general, or that you’re so biased against pro-lifers that you miss the plain sense of their text. (The latter gets my vote, BTW.)

    I’d like to know what protest “by our organization” it was where someone called you names. I happen to run all the protests run by the Pro-Life Action League, and I’m not aware of ever having seen you at one of them. I rarely hear the kind of language you describe from any of our members or volunteers, but when I do, I step in and put a stop to it.

    If you object to being called a “pro-abort,” perhaps you could propose another term that accurately describes your position. I’m not going to start using the deliberately vague, euphemistic and almost entirely meaningless phrase “pro-choice.” You favor legalized abortion. You are “pro” legal abortion. “Pro-abortion” and “pro-abort” are just shorthand descriptions of the position you actually hold.

    Your claims to have come to this site seeking middle ground really ring hollow, I’m afraid. You have been unapologetically rude and insulting from your very first comments here two months ago, when you called my sister Annie “unhinged” and me a “silly, silly man.” Not exactly irenic language.

    No, it looks to me like you came here looking for a fight, and that’s what you’ve gotten, maybe more than you counted on.

    And again, it’s hard to believe that you’ve “cried your eyes out” reading this site. Maybe its true, but I’m finding it hard to square the bitter character that you have so often displayed here with the sort of tender soul that would actually cry about a pro-life website or be wounded by the words of people she insists are ignorant, mindless zealots and “assholes.”

    Speaking of name calling, I emphatically do not call women who have had abortions “murderers.” Why do you think that I do? When have you ever seen me do so? I never do and never would.

    Nearly all of the questions and objections you raise in #3-6 have already been addressed in other threads on this site by myself or others; seems futile to try yet again to explain our position to you. However, you can look for a future installment in the Myths Series in response to the myth that we pro-lifers don’t understand or haven’t considered the tremendous challenges faced by women with untimely pregnancies.

    But I will respond to one question, which you’ve brought up a couple of times now: What would I do if you were my daughter?

    First, I would pray for you. You can scoff at that if you want, but I do believe in the power of prayer, both psychologically and spiritually.

    I have found that it is impossible to harbor animosity towards someone for whom one is praying. I’ve experienced this from both sides, for when I was out of the Church and living a life completely contrary to the life of a Christian, my father prayed for me constantly. This helped him, against his baser instincts, to keep from resenting me for disappointing him; we were able to get along okay despite everything.

    What’s more, I know his prayers—and the prayers of all those whom he asked to pray for me over the years—had an influence on me spiritually. It’s largely thanks to others’ prayers that I returned to the Catholic faith in my early thirties after ten years in apostasy.

    I would, secondly, try to be available to help you in any way that I could. If you had had an abortion, I would treat you like we treat any woman who has had an abortion: with patience, understanding and compassion.

    What I would not do is “disown” you, either for being a pro-abortion activist or for having an abortion. I would not reject you or treat you with disgust or anything like that, even though it would be very painful to think that you had handed over my grandchild to be killed.

    The question you’re asking is really much more complicated than you imagine, though. My daughters—I have five of them between the ages of 10 and almost 1—will have grown up seeing first hand what abortion looks like and what it has done to ruin the lives of so many women. They will have been taught from the cradle to cherish chastity and to value their own dignity too much to accept anything less than a total commitment of love before giving themselves sexually to any man.

    I’m not saying it’s impossible that one of my daughters could grow up and have an abortion or become a pro-abortion activist, but it’s extremely unlikely, and there would be much more going on with that than just a desire to avoid dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. So the question itself hardly makes sense, though I’ve tried to answer it in the way I think you meant it.

    But I don’t think you’ve answered the question someone else (Rosie, I think) put to you: what would you do if your daughter became a devout, orthodox Catholic? What would you do if your daughter became a pro-life activist?

    Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
  9. Lauren says:

    No, i still dont understand what that psalm means.. please explain it to me.

    I went to the one on April 1st at Planned Parenthood in Orland Park.

    “’m not going to start using the deliberately vague, euphemistic and almost entirely meaningless phrase “pro-choice.” You favor legalized abortion. You are “pro” legal abortion. “Pro-abortion” and “pro-abort” are just shorthand descriptions of the position you actually hold.”

    Saying that I am pro-abortion signifies that I am pro-abortion. not pro legalization of abortion. If anything, I am pro-legal, or pro-choice. You know exactly what it means to call someone pro-abortion. Do you really think I am in favor of abortion as an institution? Absolutely not. As I’ve said again and again, it sucks that it has to exist and I want to make a world where it no longer has to.

    I admit I’ve been mean. But I haven’t tried to take any of your rights away have I? Have I told you you cannot practice your faith? Have I made you do anything you didnt want? No. Nor would I ever. I think it’s amazing you have closely held beliefs. But I don’t like it when you slander me or basically call people close to me murderers. I dont like hwen you assume to know my feelings. And i especially dont like when you assume to know my role in life or what it is I have to do by making my choices for me. If you had control, you wouldn’t let me have an abortion if I desired one would you? If you could stop me with force, or by law, you would. You are essentially raping me and all of the other women out there that would like their rights to their body. I’ve tried to reach middle ground, but too often I’ve come here and been accused of accepting murder. I dont feel like I do that. I feel like I want birth control and abstinence education. You wont even meet me there. You have the right to deny yourself birth control, I know you have that right.. But why do you think you deserve the right to make that decision for others?

    I didnt come here looking for a fight.. I came here for therapy. I dont want to believe that you really want to hurt me. I can’t help but see it that way when I see your protests. I wanted you to change my mind. And I’m mad that you have not.

    “Maybe its true, but I’m finding it hard to square the bitter character that you have so often displayed here with the sort of tender soul that would actually cry about a pro-life website or be wounded by the words of people she insists are ignorant, mindless zealots and “assholes.””

    It’s easier to think of you that way, just as it is easier for you to think of me as a bitch who is pro-abortion. I want to believe that I misunderstand you. i really do.

    And to me you do call women who have abortions murderers… You say that it is a life, and that having abortion kills the life.. Isn’t that murder to you?

    What if no one is listening to your prayers? What if no one listens to mine? What if we are just talking to the air? Doesn’t that scare you? It scares the hell out of me. It also scares me that people have such extreme faith that they dont believe, but they know. Do you believe or do you know?

    Unless your daughters live in a bubble, they wont be able to escape the realities of the world.. Something I too try to change for young women.. While we dont agree on sexuality perse, and that no sex before marriage isnt something I see as necessarily “right”, I do agree that women are exploited heavily today. I will let you know though too I don’t believe that is part of the feminist movement. The real feminist movement agrees with you that women should be cherished. But if you believe that women’s roles are solelyto be mothers, we would disagree with you. Motherhood is a fantastic and important role for women, but not the only one.. I hope that your daughters know that they are capable of being more than a mother and a wife.

    Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
  10. Lauren says:

    anyways i’ll write more later my boyfriend is bugging me

    Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
  11. Lauren says:

    “They will have been taught from the cradle to cherish chastity and to value their own dignity too much to accept anything less than a total commitment of love before giving themselves sexually to any man.”

    I have a hard time swallowing this a bit.. Giving themselves? In our culture today not only are women exploited as sex objects, it seems that many characterize us incapable of having sexual feelings or sexual urges ourselves. The language giving signifies that a woman is just a mechanism in sex and can’t really enjoy it herself. I believe that women can have amazing sexual pleasure, independent or with a man (or if that’s your thing, a woman). I feel like for too long that men have been the only ones to enjoy sex, and women well they’re just there to “give” themselves to men.

    Maybe I’m reading too much into what you wrote, but just a thought.

    My mother raised me as an independent thinker. I could’ve ended up either way. Although my mom always incensed a need for social justice in my heart, my dad even further convinced me that I needed to prove him wrong. I’ve always been a bit of a rebel and all my life I’ve paid for it. As a young girl I underwent horrid physical and mental abuse, and my way out was to be a strong woman. I’ve always seen myself as a defender of women, particularly those who have had their bodies violated. I see forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies a violation of their bodies. I base a lot of my thinking on my own experience. Whether or not that makes my judgement clearer or cloudier I dont know.. but this is the lense I view the world in.

    I hope that my daughter doesnt view the world the lense I see it in. I hop ethat she has the opportunities and the intelligence to see it another way. I hope that she is hopeful, smart, and questioning. If her questioning leads her to a road that makes her pro-life, so be it. I will not tolerate close-mindedness and she’ll know that. I will never disown my children no matter what happens. I will hope that she will be tolerant and humble. I will raise her to think that everyone is the same and she is control of her body and no one has the right to violate it. I will also teach her abstinence because it is the safe thing to do. She will also get sex education from me too. I want her ideas about sex coming from me and not television.

    Comment posted May 13th, 2006 at 9:32 am
  12. rosie says:

    Sounds like you’ll make a great mom! I’m being serious by the way. I think if we were not talking politically or religiously we would have quite a bit in common. who knows..

    Comment posted May 13th, 2006 at 11:06 am
  13. Lauren says:

    Well thanks rosie.. I’m glad to see that we see eye to eye on something. I think we both see what is happening to young girls as a result of popular culture. We must make sure they know that they are more than that. It saddens me. When I see 12 year old girls wearing Playboy bunny t-shirts and look at my space profiles of young girls who show loneliness and sadness as well as a dose of disconnection from what it means to be a girl, I wonder how much longer parents can put up with the filth and exploitation with women on television.

    I think Pink hit it on the head with her song Stupid Girls. Not really my kind of music, but it struck a chord with me.

    Comment posted May 13th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
  14. Eric says:

    Lauren writes: “Giving themselves? In our culture today not only are women exploited as sex objects, it seems that many characterize us incapable of having sexual feelings or sexual urges ourselves. The language giving signifies that a woman is just a mechanism in sex and can’t really enjoy it herself.”

    Believe it or not, Lauren, there’s a lot that we agree on here, I think. First of all, when I save “give herself” I mean give herself freely. This is entirely the opposite of exploiting her, seizing her body, so to speak, to use her as an object.

    The language of “giving” first and foremost bespeaks a woman’s dignity—she is capable of freely giving herself away, and moreover any attempt to exploit her sexually (or in any other way) is a violation of her dignity. It is up to her to choose to make a gift of herself.

    The language of giving also bespeaks that what she has to offer is a gift. That is to say, it is something worthy of being received with gratitude. When I speak of giving I’m speaking of generosity on the part of the woman and gratitude on the part of the man. The bodily gift of a woman to a man is a gift of inestimable value, and gift which he should hold in awe and cherish with his entire being.

    The launguage of giving also bespeaks reciprocity. Not only does the woman give herself to the man, who receives this gift graciously, but the man gives himself to the woman, a gift she in turn receives with gratitude. So there are really four components to this, all wrapped up in the idea of “gift”:

    • The woman gives herself freely to the man
    • The man receives the her with all gratitude
    • The man gives himself freely to the woman
    • The woman receives him with all gratitude

    That’s what I’ve got in mind when I talk about teaching my five daughters to accept nothing less than a commitment of unconditional love before giving themselves to a man. I’m teaching a corresponding lesson to my two sons as well.

    Moreover, to the fullest possible extent this mutual giving should be reflected in the actual experience of sexual union, including the pleasureable dimension of the sexual embrace. Here’s a statement that pretty well summarized my view:

    If a woman does not obtain natural gratification from the sexual act there is a danger that her experience will be qualitatively inferior, will not involve her fully as a person.

    You know who wrote that? That was written by Bishop Karol Wojtyla in 1960—the man who would become Pope John Paul II. Here’s another quote from his book, Love and Responsibility:

    There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be achieved both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.

    That’s right—a bishop, later to become Pope—is calling on couples to achieve simultaneous orgasm. And he places a particular duty on the shoulders of men to discover how to ensure that their wives experience sexual pleasure. He recognizes precisely what you are saying: that women have historically been treated as objects of sexual pleasure by men, not as full partners in an act of mutual giving and receiving.

    This is part of what I had in mind when I spoke of any of my daughters “giving herself.” The other part—and this is where we disagree—is that in my understanding, the only possibly context for this kind of total, mutual exchange of persons in what scripture so aptly calls a “one flesh union” is the bond of marriage.

    Comment posted May 13th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
  15. rosie says:

    Lauren,
    yes, children who are exploited, both boys and girls do seem disconnected, but from people as a whole I think also. Any kind of exploitation of a child makes my blood boil. However, I think that’s one of the reasons i’m pro-life, because there are 2 people involved, 2 bodies. Do you think it’s likely that if one is exploited that they are more likely to exploit someone else? I’m thinking that’s the problem, I could be wrong.

    Comment posted May 13th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
  16. Eric says:

    Lauren says: “No, i still dont understand what that psalm means.. please explain it to me.”

    Psalm 137 is a lamentation about the Babylonian Captivity, when the Hebrew Kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonian Empire and much of the Jewish population dragged off into captivity in Babylon.

    The Pslamist is overcome with fury towards the Babylonians, swearing never to forget Zion (Jerusalem) and promising the Babylonians that they will have to pay one day for what they had done to the Jews (which they did, when they were in turn conquered by the Persians).

    In lashing out at the Babylonians, represented by the figure of the “Daughter of Babylon,” the Psalmist declares in verse 9: “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock.”

    This is a disturbing passage for a pro-life Christian to read, and indeed it has been cited by groups that claim support for legalized abortion is capatible with scripture.

    However, we must remember that we are reading the words of a people dispossessed and captive; the vengeful words of this Psalm needn’t be construed as any kind of endorsement of infanticide, but may rather be merely expressive of the degree of hatred the Jews felt towards the Babylonians.

    Moreover, it took the Jews centuries to begin to grasp that their relationship with God—and the laws governing their treatment of one another—was something which God wished to establish with all nations. This lesson, in fact, was a central one for Jesus, who consorted with Samaritans and Romans. For the Jews, to kill the children of one’s enemies had seemed just; but Christ told them to love their enemies.

    This particular Psalm is especially important to Eastern Christians (Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic), who sing it during the season of Great Lent. This is why the Psalm is familiar to me, and why it came readily to mind when reflecting on the attitude that someone would have towards the children of his enemy—hatred inspires a desire to destroy those children, not save them.

    You can hear one chant version of Psalm 137 here.

    The Babylonian Captivity becomes a metaphor for the captivity of the human race and of each individual human soul before the saving work of Christ. (Seen analogically, verse 9 is not about literally killing children, but about metaphorically destroying even the smallest beginnings of sin or temptation that might be growing in one’s heart.)

    Comment posted May 14th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
  17. Eric says:

    Lauren says: “I see forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies a violation of their bodies.”

    Lauren, I can understand how you would think that “forcing” a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy would be a kind of violation. But I’d like to back up and look at that word “force,” because it seems to me that the real violation of a woman’s body is something else.
    Looked at purely in terms of the physical act directed at her body, abortion is a violation. It is the act of abortion, by surgical or chemical means, that forces a woman’s body to abort a pregnancy. Whatever her attitude towards being pregnant might be, her body is so consumingly directed towards carrying that pregnancy to term that extraordinary means have to be employed to stop her body from doing so.

    You say that we would “force” a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, but it’s actually her own body which is forcing this on her. It’s hard to see how it’s a violation of her body to prevent the use of force to cause her body to abort.

    If a woman were really mistress of her own body in the way the “pro-choice” rhetoric declares, she would simply will herself not to be pregnant; better yet, will herself not to become pregnant in the first place. But nobody really has “control” over his or her body in any absolute sense.

    The fact is that there is a disconnect between what one wills or desires in regards to his or her body, and that body itself. The difficulty is in dealing with that disconnect.

    But what’s interesting to me is that you, Lauren, do not actually seem to hold the view that one has an absolute right over one’s body. Your views on the Duke lacrosse/stripper scandal shows this. Though you’re not willing to make stripping illegal, you are willing to say that stripping is an exploitation of women.

    You say this as if it is a fact, something inherently true about a woman’s body that for it to be used in this way even by her own choice is wrong (even if, again, it should be allowed by law).

    In other words, by the logic of your own position, you admit that it’s possible for a woman to be wrong about the meaning of her body, about what it means for the integrity and dignity of her body to be respected.

    We’re saying much the same thing about abortion—that it is a violation of the dignity and integrity of a woman’s body.

    Comment posted May 15th, 2006 at 10:51 am
  18. Margie says:

    Next year, come out to San Francisco, CA for the third annual March for Life walk. Want to see hate? The violent proaborts who curse at us are not exactly glad for our presence. The aging grannies for choice are a hate-filled, bitter bunch of women. The prochoice crowd does everything in their power to mock, belittle, denigrate and despise the presence of peaceful, prolifers who witness to their city. Our priests and religious are blasphemed. Our youth are spit upon. The prochoicers of San Francisco, CA do everything they can to make sure we get the message that they hate us, they want us to leave, they despise our message, and they would like to disrupt our first amendment free speech rights.

    On the prolife side, we do not respond to their hatred and threats. We pray. We turn the other cheek. We respond to their hatred with love in our hearts. What are we filled with? Most of us are Catholics who have just received the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ prior to attending the march. We are filled with Jesus and we pray that the prochoicers will one day choose Christ as well.

    Comment posted May 15th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
  19. Lauren says:

    “Next year, come out to San Francisco, CA for the third annual March for Life walk. Want to see hate? The violent proaborts who curse at us are not exactly glad for our presence. The aging grannies for choice are a hate-filled, bitter bunch of women. The prochoice crowd does everything in their power to mock, belittle, denigrate and despise the presence of peaceful, prolifers who witness to their city. Our priests and religious are blasphemed. Our youth are spit upon.:

    I dont sense any bitterness or equal hatred here at all..

    You aren’t filled with Jesus, you are filled with patting yourself on the back. In other words, arrogance.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 12:48 am
  20. Lauren says:

    Hey Margie, I’m sorry that you are so full of yourself. I really am. I can’t imagine what it must be like to never doubt yourself. Let me know the next time you and Jesus have a conference call so i can sit in. I’m sorry that I’m not smart or blessed enough to be as lucky as you are. Coming from a girl who was called a tramp at a rally, this idea that anti-choice marchers have no venom is ridiculous. You dont hear me saying pro-choice doesnt have any venom either. Both sides are equally ridiculous in their own right.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 12:51 am
  21. Lauren says:

    “But what’s interesting to me is that you, Lauren, do not actually seem to hold the view that one has an absolute right over one’s body”

    No I do see that. A woman does have an absolute right over her body. She has a right to it in terms of stripping as well. I dont think it is right and I think it is a result of culture and probably a troubled past. I choose not to patronize those establishments and do my best to help other young women who are facing those choices. But if you think i’m about to outlaw it you are definitely wrong.

    As a gambling addict, my knee jerk solution was to say that online gambling should be illegal. No. My priest even warned me against this attitude. You have to change the hearts and minds of the people to hear what you’re saying. You have to reform a system by changing people’s minds. This is truly a humble thing to do. The same thing goes with abortion. If you outlaw it, you are saying that people who make the decision to have an abortion aren’t capable of such a decision. They are capable and should be capable. I would argue we need to create an atmosphere where abortion is a thing of the past. We aren’t going to get rid of prostitution or stripping by making it illegal. if we create paths for women to get an education and prevent childhood abuse, we wouldn’t have these institutions. If we had fair and equitable sex education programs, we would have less unintended pregnancy and hence less abortion.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 12:57 am
  22. Lauren says:

    If your groups weren’t so vehemently about ending the right to choose, or overturning Roe, I would probably join a pro-life movement in terms of helping women find other options and changing the scenario. But by overturning roe all you’re doing is telling women they are not capable of making their own decisions about their bodies and instead you’ll decide for them based on YOUR beliefs.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:00 am
  23. Lauren says:

    “If a woman were really mistress of her own body in the way the “pro-choice” rhetoric declares, she would simply will herself not to be pregnant; better yet, will herself not to become pregnant in the first place.”

    I agree with you that it should just be that a person should will herself not to become pregnant in the first place. We do not live in this world and in no point in history have we ever. Nor will we ever. We need to deal with reality and not moral absolutes if we want to get something done. I will be the first to admit abortion is a rough thing for any woman to choose, but how can we alleviate the choice by just making a choice illegal? All you are saying is you have no choice if it is illegal. You get pregnant, toI’o bad. I dont really like to talk in terms of rape and incest because i think a lot of people who believe in choice for accidental pregnancy want to use this as their poster child, but i think it’s important to touch upon it.

    You really honestly vehemently believe that if, god forbid, one of your daughters was raped you would do everything you could to make her carry that pregnancy? Would you deny her emergency contraception? Please at least tell me you struggle with these questions. I’m not trying to pull a “gotcha”, i’m just trying to see if you struggle too. I do.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:07 am
  24. Lauren says:

    “It’s hard to see how it’s a violation of her body to prevent the use of force to cause her body to abort.”

    Many women describe a feeling of relief after having an abortion. I cannot imagine the anxiety a woman would experience if she were not allowed to terminate a pregnancy and really desired to. I dont understand why you believe it is your right to prevent a woman for exercising what she wants to do with her body. Btw, abortion really isnt an extraordinary measure in terms of terminating a pregnancy. I dont mean for that to be a normative statement, merely a scientific reflection.

    I really don’t mean to be harsh this way, but I really dont think a man can understand what it would be like to be forced to carry a pregnancy. I dont think you can possibly empathize. If I were to get pregnant, but probably wouldnt happen given that I am very cautious, I would be scared, depressed, and probably desparate. I know that I would immediately want to terminate my pregnancy.. Whether I would actually do it or not is another question given that I’m sure my mind may change once faced with it in real life and not in some silly hypothetical.. Here’s the truth.. one in four women are having an abortion by the time they’re 40. This is a tragedy. How can we help them? I dont think forbidding them to have an abortion si going to help them.. I think that is going to make women more desparate and more subjugated.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/25/112036/598

    That’s an interesting post on daily kos.

    My question to us is do you want roe overturned as a moral/political victory or as a pragmatic victory to end abortion?

    Because the way I see it now.. youc an’t have that pragmatic victory

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:24 am
  25. mary kay hastings says:

    Dearest Lauren,

    Our society is filled with examples of one group of people “thinking” for another group. There is a whole slew of people out there that think drug use is great. But another group has stepped in and said that is must be made illegal, to save the first group from themselves.

    We fought to make slavery illegal (and won), when one group tried to claim that black people were not really human beings.

    We fought a world war to stop a man from expterminating another group of people based on their religious beliefs. This man believed he was right, and his “rights” had to be taken away by another group. Because in the end, there IS a MORAL right and a MORAL wrong. When one group can’t see that, then another group often has to step in until the first group comes to their senses.

    We don’t allow pedophilia in this country because we know that it is wrong, even though another group of people believe that it is perfectly all right. But there are two parties involved in this act and one of them is a child. So a law had to be made to protect the weaker party.

    What I’m saying is this: Throughout history, society has made laws to protect people from themselves and one another.

    If we didn’t step in, then slavery, pedophilia, child abuse, drug use and a multitude of other suspicious behavior would be allowed today. Not stepping in, and believing that all behavior is acceptable, is called moral relativism. And society cannot survive in that climate.

    As for Homosexuals? I personally do not believe that homosexuality falls in the same category as the above transgressions, simply because both parties are consenting and both parties are adults. I do believe that it is morally wrong and I believe that there will be a price to pay, but I will not be the one to exact it. Abortion, pedophilia, the holocaust, slavery…all of these however, injure an innocent party and that is why we feel it is right to step in.

    We all at one time or another, attempt to impose our beliefs on others. It’s called law. You do it yourself when you try to impose abortion rights on those of us who feel abortion is wrong.

    You say that this is a fight that we are sure to lose but I say that as long as abortion is legal, there are no winners. Only losers. When a problem as large as “unwanted pregnancy”,( and I use the term loosely because I believe that every pregnacy is wanted by someone) is at stake, then you must ask yourself if killing the baby is the right solution. Perhaps stepping back and solving the problem before it starts, or taking responsiblity for the situation once it reaches the crisis point (pregnancy) would serve everyone better. Perhaps if the 40 million aborted children had had a vote, roe vs wade would already be overturned.

    You say that you came looking for the truth, and I say that before you can see the truth you need to go to confession, pray very hard for eyes to see and read all of our posts again…

    I know you were hurt by comments made at a prolife rally, but one such comment cannot excuse the many, many unkind names that you have called all of us. As far as I can see, even though some the names you have thrown out could be percieved to be hurtful, not one person has retallliated in kind. Think about that. We cannot be responsible for every prolife activist, but it seems to me that meeting one unkind person in our group should not mean that you should stop listening to the rest of us. If that were the case, then your behavior would lead US to believe that ALL pro aborts were mean spirited. Thankfully, we know that that is not true. You need to represent your side better if you hope to be taken seriously.

    Lumping us all together would like be saying that all police are bad because one officer was corrupt, or all teachers are jerks, because you had one bad one once. The Catholic Church knows this better than anyone. ALL priests are not bad, simply because some are…

    Pray Lauren, Pray, Pray, Pray and then pray some more…

    God Keep You Close,
    Mary Kay

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 8:37 am
  26. Eric says:

    Lauren says to Margie: “I dont sense any bitterness or equal hatred here at all.”

    Neither do I—just sorrow at how cruel people can be and and disappointment that people perceive the “hate” situation precisely backwards.

    Before you go dismissing Margie’s comments, you might want to take a look at what they were up against in San Francisco.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 10:02 am
  27. Eric says:

    Lauren writes: “We aren’t going to get rid of prostitution or stripping by making it illegal.”

    The same could be said of rape or child prostitution. Some things are so wrong, so harmful to others and so corrosive of the public good that we make them illegal, even though we know that will not stop the abuse entirely.

    Lauren writes: “If we had fair and equitable sex education programs, we would have less unintended pregnancy and hence less abortion.”

    This is actually something we agree on, at least at face value. However, we have radically different ideas of what constitutes a “fair and equitable sex ed program.”

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 10:10 am
  28. Eric says:

    Lauren writes: “But by overturning roe all you’re doing is telling women they are not capable of making their own decisions about their bodies and instead you’ll decide for them based on YOUR beliefs.”

    Ironically, the Roe v. Wade decision was the Supreme Court telling the people of the various states that they are not capable of making their own decisions on abortion—the Supreme Court decided for everybody that abortion would be legal from the moment of conception to the moment of birth.

    Let’s be clear about one thing: if Roe were overturned (not by “us” but by the Supreme Court), the legal status of abortion would return to the fifty states where it should have been all along (like the other issues you mention: prostitution, strip clubs and gambling).

    I don’t want to make the decisions “for” a woman whether or not to have an abortion. Again, I don’t believe anyone can legitimately decide to kill a child in the womb. Just as noone can legitimately decide to enslave or rape another person.

    The problem, Lauren, is that there are two bodies. This is not just a question of “a woman’s body” and her abstract “right to choose”, but also a question of another body, the body of her unborn baby.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 10:36 am
  29. Eric says:

    Lauren writes: “My question to us is do you want roe overturned as a moral/political victory or as a pragmatic victory to end abortion?”

    Short answer, both.

    But again, if Roe is overturned, this won’t magically end legal abortion in the U.S. Actually, I’m surprised that you as a “pro-choice” activist don’t realize this. What would happen is that states would once again be free to regulate abortion.

    Some states would maintain the Roe/Doe status quo of abortion on demand from conception until the moment of birth. Others would go even farther and actually fund many or even most abortions. Other states would enact varying restrictions (some of which you have endorsed on these comments boards), and a few states would outlaw abortion entirely.

    So it is not a question of American women waking up one morning and discovering their “right” to an abortion has been taken from them. Even to overturn Roe will take a tremendous effort to change people’s attitudes towards abortion and Roe itself—the “changing hearts and minds” concept you mentioned. Everyone agrees that we’re at least one very contentious Supreme Court nomination away from even a remote possibility of overturning Roe.

    But let’s say that we see Roe overturned and some state or another totally bans abortion (as South Dakota is trying to do right now). First of all, the kind of political will it takes to enact a law like that can only emerge from a strongly pro-life (or anti-abortion, if you prefer) population. That’s going to mean a whole ethos in that state that will influence everything from the assistance made available to women with untimely pregnancy to the kinds of sexual education offered there.

    It will also influence people’s behavior. The ready availablility of abortion (and birth control) profoundly influences the way people behave. Those one in four women you cite (I’ve actually heard two in five) would hardly have done nothing different were abortion not an easy option. Most of them would have acted differently, made very different sexual choices, if abortion were not available.

    This is true not only because of how such a situation would change the consquences of risky sexual behavior, but because the kind of environment in which a total ban on abortion could even be passed would already be influencing people’s attitudes towards sex. A citizenry that puts a premium on sexual license is not likely to enact an abortion ban!

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 11:08 am
  30. Lauren says:

    Sigh.

    “There is a whole slew of people out there that think drug use is great.”

    I dont think anyone is like yay drug use! Alcohol after all is more dangerous than marijuana. Yet marijuana is illegal. It makes no sense. Society comes up with laws based not on protecting people from themselves (and nor should they), but for protecting society and social norms. At one time it was the law that women could not vote. I’m afraid the measures the pro-life movement takes wants to take women’s rights away. I do earnestly believe in my heart that many pro-lifers are mysoginistic or at the very least self-loathing. We women need to represent ourselves better. Our foremothers fought too hard to subjugate ourselves down to being “only mothers.” We are capable of more than just being a vessel for a baby.

    “We fought to make slavery illegal (and won), when one group tried to claim that black people were not really human beings.”

    Wait a minute. WE didnt do anything for slavery. Our ancestors worked against slavery. Not me. Not you. Don’t say we fought against slavery because you and I had nothing to do with it.

    “Because in the end, there IS a MORAL right and a MORAL wrong.”

    I understand why it is easier to look at the world in black and white. You don’t have to grapple with complex issues. You don’t ever have to say maybe or really struggle with anything. Abortion=wrong. Unwanted pregnancy=really wanted by somebody. I think a lot of pro-life people mean well, but really are just too weak to see that there are no moral absolutes. Have you ever read Les Miserables or seen Les Miserables? You struggle with these questions a lot in this novel/play.

    Pro-life people take the woman completely and entirely out of the picture when they demand that even a pregnancy caused by rape must be carried to term. Is that really being compassionate or understanding? Is that really what you think is right?

    “We don’t allow pedophilia in this country because we know that it is wrong, even though another group of people believe that it is perfectly all right.”

    Are you really equating pedophilia with the right to an abortion? You cant really be serious. Are you saying that women who choose to have abortions might as well be pedophiles? The only people who believe pedophilia is alright is the pedophiles. Come on you really can’t be serious on this one. Please tell me you aren’t.

    “You say that this is a fight that we are sure to lose but I say that as long as abortion is legal, there are no winners. ”

    Are there winners when abortion is illegal? Is the woman who is compelled to rid herself of her pregnancy by taking poison a winner? Is the child with cigarette burns on his arm a winner?

    “When a problem as large as “unwanted pregnancy”,( and I use the term loosely because I believe that every pregnacy is wanted by someone”

    You are so very, very wrong. Alright, prove your statement. Tell me why there are orphanages, why children are abused every single day, and why your friend Eric has over 5 children of his own and hasn’t seem to have adopted any of those unwanted children. Sorry eric, I know this is a low blow, but seriously. It seems like you’d want to help.

    “I do believe that it is morally wrong and I believe that there will be a price to pay, ”

    OK, well I’m glad you said believe rather than said know. Because you are in no place to judge other people.

    “Perhaps if the 40 million aborted children had had a vote, roe vs wade would already be overturned.”

    Now that would be a sight wouldn’t it? Yikes. Please if you want to be taken seriously, don’t make statements like this.

    “You say that you came looking for the truth, and I say that before you can see the truth you need to go to confession, pray very hard for eyes to see and read all of our posts again…”

    Wait a second, are you telling me the reason I dont seem to get this abortion issue is because I’m not as holy as you? Wow, that seems to be a lot of religious arrogance emitted from you. You seem to think that 1. I dont pray and 2. I am so out of touch with morals that I couldn’t possibly see what is going on here. God, you are so wrong. I was raised Catholic but because of the Church’s seeming intolerance of women and homosexuals I may leave the church. The church I went to when I grew up was the snottiest church ever. The people acted holier than thou much like many people on this site. Yet, some of them were the most racist, bigoted people I have ever met. My disconnection with the church began at about 5th grade when I started to see the hypocrisy of many people I attended with. Thankfully, I met a priest two years ago who changed my mind and made me see not everyone is like that. He urged humility and tolerance to me and made me see that not all leadership in the Catholic church is opposed to ideas like female priests or always votes Republican. To think that your interpretation of Catholicism or of faith in general is the only true and righteous path to salvation is extremely disturbing. Who, after all, do you think you are? You are neither humble nor gracious. To say to me, ah just pray you will see it my way, is one of the most arrogant things I have ever, ever heard. Who are you? God? You people have done more to alienate me from the church than bring me closer to it. Isn’t your goal to bring everyone to it? Or no? Am I seeing this wrong? Everytime I feel close to God in the Catholic church through prayer or reflection because I do in my heart believe what I am doing is right, you people push me away from it. You tell me that it is your God, and not mine. That is not fair.

    This has forced me in one of three directions. One. Agnosticism. I dont think i can ever really know what the meaning of life is, but I can live by moral principles and raise my children the same way, and hope that what they’re doing is right. my boyfriend and I have talked about if we ever do get married and decide to raise a family whether or not we’ll go to church. part of me out of instinct feels that we should. After all, I come from a very Catholic family. My grandfather, a former seminarian and my grandmother a former cloistered nun, as well as many other active family members. Yet, I’d rather teach my children real lessons. Every sunday I’d like to take them on a charitable mission. You know, going to a women’s shelter or cleaning the environment. Anything that will make them humble or appreciative of their situation.

    http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/BGR

    Sorry I know it must be running off the page. This this is the first article I ever wrote at Campus Progress. Please read it.

    2. I have thought about becoming Unitarian Universalist, with a Christian bent. This religion seems to correspond with many of my deeply held beliefs. It performs ceremonies for gay couples, loves sience like me and is incredibly tolerant and welcoming to all people of race, background, economics etc. I’ve been to a few services, and I must say I enjoyed the time I spent there. Check out uua.org for more information

    3. Stay in the Catholic church. This is certainly an option. I may not agree with everything the church “officially” says. But I’ve found that many, many Catholics agree with me as weel. After all Catholicism has changed greatly over the years and really the people who form it are the parishoners. catholicsforchoice.org as well as http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/
    and crs.org

    “I know you were hurt by comments made at a prolife rally, but one such comment cannot excuse the many, many unkind names that you have called all of us.”

    You’re right. However, you are trying to steal something from me I hold close. I am merely defending myself.

    “, then your behavior would lead US to believe that ALL pro aborts were mean spirited. ”

    Don’t you believe that anyways? You just characterized a rally in San Francisco… i sense a straw man…

    Btw, to assume that I am like woo hoo abortion all the time no questions asked is wrong. I always have to state that to make sure no one is misrepresenting me.

    Funny how you talk about cops and teachers. Given that both parents of mine are each.

    “The Catholic Church knows this better than anyone. ALL priests are not bad, simply because some are…”

    If you are willing to see this moral greyness why not others?

    Eric, you really believe no one has ever been unfair to me on this site. Give me some credit, most probably don’t even tell you what they’re thinking. At least I do. Give me some credit, please.

    “The same could be said of rape or child prostitution. Some things are so wrong, so harmful to others and so corrosive of the public good that we make them illegal, even though we know that will not stop the abuse entirely.”

    So are you advocating we make stripping illegal?

    As a person who has struggled with childhood abuse, real childhood abuse, I take REAL exception that you are comparing that with abortion. It is offensive to me. I’m not telling you to stop, but I’m telling you I disagree with you very much.

    “Let’s be clear about one thing: if Roe were overturned (not by “us” but by the Supreme Court), the legal status of abortion would return to the fifty states where it should have been all along (like the other issues you mention: prostitution, strip clubs and gambling).”

    I saw a bumper sticker once i really liked. “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” Why should you be able to decide the rights of my body for me? What gives you a right over me? Can I say something in terms of pragmatics without you claiming you have victory over me.. You must give me clearance for this before I discuss it.

    A woman must have control of her body in order to have control over her destiny and to be free. If she does not have that, she has nothing.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 11:42 am
  31. Lauren says:

    “Actually, I’m surprised that you as a “pro-choice” activist don’t realize this. What would happen is that states would once again be free to regulate abortion.””

    Of course I realize this. I have taken a constitutional law class at Georgetown and at Loyola.

    But what are you going to do when Illinois doesn’t agree with you, which it wont…

    So specifically, how far do yo uwant to go to curtail my rights? How much do you get ecstatic at taken my right to choose away? What measures in particular do you want to take away? What about birth control?

    “That’s going to mean a whole ethos in that state that will influence everything from the assistance made available to women with untimely pregnancy to the kinds of sexual education offered there.”

    The whole? No try a majority. If other people on this site want to bring up slavery so will I. A majority of people saw slavery as right and because they made up that majority that was what in place. You have a group of people who are controlling the freedoms of others. How’s this let’s say tomorrow a group of people decide religion is really bad for society (btw, that argument could be made) and so they gather together and forbid church-going. What are you going to do? A majority has decided.

    “Most of them would have acted differently, made very different sexual choices, if abortion were not available.”

    I disagree and this one we cannot resolve because you talking about the inherent nature of human beings. if you don’t think sex is the human condition then I’m sorry, I think you’re wrong.

    And let’s say for instance for the sake of argument, you are wrong… What then?

    To say that tyrrany never happens by a small group is ignoring history. Look at iran for crying out loud. Those women had their rights taken away by an extreme religious faction and in all honesty i feel like the same thing is happening within our very country.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 11:51 am
  32. Lauren says:

    dag nammit someone give my comment moderation lol

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 11:52 am
  33. John says:

    “dag nammit someone give my comment moderation lol”

    Lauren,

    I just did.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
  34. Lauren says:

    thanks:)

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
  35. Eric says:

    Lauren writes: “You really honestly vehemently believe that if, god forbid, one of your daughters was raped you would do everything you could to make her carry that pregnancy? Would you deny her emergency contraception?”

    First, I don’t think it would be a question of me “making” my daughter carry a pregnancy resulting from rape. You’re biasing the hypothetical situation just by using that language.

    I’m close to my daughters now, and I’m determined to stay close to them as they get older. So it would not be a matter of me imposing an abstract moralism on one of them, but of her coming to me and my wife for help. Moreover, my daughters are very pro-life (Liza was even interviewed by NPR at a protest in New York last year). I don’t think anyone would be talking abortion in a crisis like this.

    As for emergency contraception, I have no problem with that in the case of rape provided that there is no chance that conception has already occurred. If it has, then we have to take thought not only for my daughter but my grandchild as well.

    As it happens, I know a man, a pro-life activist, whose daughter was raped and became pregnant. She had a little girl and gave her up for adoption to a couple involved in pro-life sidewalk counseling.

    Far from being the proverbial “constant reminder of her rape” (as if she would ever forget such a horrific experience) carrying this baby to term was for her a sign that tremendous good can come from evil.

    Finally, I do not believe the conventional wisdom that carrying a child conceived by rape is psychologically more difficult for a woman than aborting that child. Abortion only compounds the woman’s suffering, and I wouldn’t want that for my daughter. (For more on that, see here.)

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
  36. Eric says:

    Lauren writes: “So specifically, how far do yo u want to go to curtail my rights? How much do you get ecstatic at taken my right to choose away? What measures in particular do you want to take away? What about birth control?

    If you come out to the Art Institute tomorrow, you’ll see precisely what we want to do. If you go out to any of the abortion facilities in the Chicago area this weekend, you’ll see precisely what we want to do. If you go to the latest issue of our newspaper, you can see precisely what we have been doing all along.

    Our tactics wouldn’t change in a post-Roe abortion state. We’d keep working to educate the public about the brutality of abortion, encourage citizens to vote pro-life, offer help to women with untimely pregnancies and urge abortion workers to get out of the business.

    I’m not aware of any proposals to outlaw birth control. I’ve never heard of any such thing. Aside from the calculated alarmism of the “pro-choice” fundraising machine, I don’t think anybody at all is even talking about this.

    However, I think it’s high time our society step back and reflect on the devastating impact contraception has had on our families, our relationships and our culture.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
  37. Lauren says:

    Alarmism?!? Are you kidding me?! With pharmacists now imposing their personal beliefs on young women getting birth control pills or emergency contraception how cna this be alarmism. Roe is set upon the precedent with the right to privacy. You take that away, you take away Griswold as well.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
  38. Lauren says:

    “However, I think it’s high time our society step back and reflect on the devastating impact contraception has had on our families, our relationships and our culture.”

    Aside from your belief that contraception causes abortion (my eyes are crossing), what exactly has contraception done?

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
  39. Lauren says:

    Unfortunately I wont be able to make it tomorrow… My boyfriend has to weld a thingamabobber to my car. I think that’s it’s technical name.

    probably better for me anyways. My mom says I get wound too tight everytime I come back from one of those things. I can never stop crying after seeing one of them.

    Your rallies hurt me.. and they hurt many women. I hope lots of girls go out there tomorrow to defend themselves. I’m sure they will. I know you don’t want to hear this, but I dont cry because I’m thinking oh abortion is so sad. I feel like I’m looking at a bunch of blind religious wingnuts who want to take my rights away. That makes me cry. It makes me cry that there are no solutions because no one can agree. I let you have abstinence education if I can have birth control education. You won’t let me have it. There is no compromise from you. Should I give up?

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
  40. Lauren says:

    btw you spelled aside wrong in your main post, might want to fix it lol.

    if I do come, do you know what I look like?

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
  41. Pansy Moss says:

    Good article. Growing up, I was the only pro-life girl in a group of very pro-choice friends. I spent my life explaining how “even though I am pro-life I am normal”. I have always been active in pro-life activities, and I have known some awesome, generous people, and some very odd almost cultish people. Pretty much like a cross section of any group of people you meet, some good, some bad, but the for the largest part, mostly very human. I decided that I don’t need to apologise for being pro-life. I don’t need to apologise for the actions of the very weird, sick, or extreme ones (like the violent ones) anymore than anyone else because they do not reflect or speak for me. I don’t need to apologise or explain not believing in infanticide. Should the abolitionists have apologised for not believing in slavery? The pro-choice movement is going is going to formulate myths to justify murder every chance they get and will always paint us as “extremists”, “judgemental” (oh, no, not ‘judgmental’) or whatever meets their fancy to soothe their consciences and advance their agenda. They can think what they want, they’re still wrong. That is not to say I don’t understand how hard it is to be faced with a difficult unplanned pregnancy, or I don’t sympathise, but murder is never an answer.

    With pharmacists now imposing their personal beliefs on young women getting birth control pills or emergency contraception how cna this be alarmism.

    Forcing a pharmacist to prescribe birth control or abortifacient medication is imposing your beliefs on the pharmacist. Would you force a Muslim to eat pork simply because you believe you can, or a Hindu to eat beef? A pro-life pharmacist isn’t saying “you can’t use birth control”, but simply “I will not be a part in your decision to use birth control because it goes against everything I believe in.”

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
  42. Eric says:

    “Tell me why . . . your friend Eric has over 5 children of his own and hasn’t seem to have adopted any of those unwanted children. Sorry Eric, I know this is a low blow, but seriously.”

    It’s not a low blow, Lauren, it’s just silly. How many Iraqi refugees have you taken in? None? Does that invalidate your advocacy against the occupation of Iraq?

    In reality, there are far fewer babies available for adoption than couples willing to take them in. And it’s extremely expensive to go through the adoption process—upwards of $10,000.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
  43. Lauren says:

    “Forcing a pharmacist to prescribe birth control or abortifacient medication is imposing your beliefs on the pharmacist. Would you force a Muslim to eat pork simply because you believe you can, or a Hindu to eat beef? A pro-life pharmacist isn’t saying “you can’t use birth control”, but simply “I will not be a part in your decision to use birth control because it goes against everything I believe in.””

    A muslim wouldn’t work in a meat market. I’m sorry that this “pro-life” pharmacist has beliefs that believes my prescription is wrong. What happens in terms of prescription for me, it is between me and my DOCTOR. As you know, pharmacists are NOT doctors and nor have any right to tell me what I can’t have. They are in the business of dispensing my prescription. It’s none of their GOD DAMN business. If they don’t like it, find another job. Yes it is that simple and no there is NO excuse for this sort of behavior.

    If you’re so uncomfortable with “crazy” characterizations of the pro-life movement why do you insist on characterizing the pro-choice movement in a similar fashion? Do I seem crazy to you/? Do I and your supposed friends really want world domination through abortion and love to commit murder plots? Dont dish it out if you can’t take it either.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
  44. Lauren says:

    You know and I keep hearing this BULLSHIT about “abortifacient.” Tell me again how taking birth control pills are abortion.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
  45. Lauren says:

    PLEASE RESPOND AND REPLY:

    http://www.webmd.com/content/article/105/107875.htm

    And actually Eric, I do speak truth to power. I give to the causes I believe in. Not to mention, I’m in college and usually what disposable income I have goes to those causes. Besides you are advocating directly that those unwanted children are somehow wanted. Prove it not in your words but in your actions.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
  46. Eric says:

    Lauren: “btw you spelled aside wrong in your main post, might want to fix it lol.

    Thanks. Fixed.
    “if I do come, do you know what I look like?”

    Well, I’ve seen the pic on your profile at CampusProgress. I’m guessing you won’t be wearing that same dress, though.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
  47. Lauren says:

    Hahah! most likely not:) i’ll try to cover my devil horns if i make it though… its hard to find shoes for these hooves!

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
  48. Pansy Moss says:

    A muslim wouldn’t work in a meat market.

    Muslims work in meat markets all the time. You never heard of a Hallal meat market? They are the best places for me to get my goat meat for curried goat in the northeast. But I wouldn’t demand him to supply pork chops.

    What happens in terms of prescription for me, it is between me and my DOCTOR. As you know, pharmacists are NOT doctors and nor have any right to tell me what I can’t have. They are in the business of dispensing my prescription. It’s none of their GOD DAMN business. If they don’t like it, find another job. Yes it is that simple and no there is NO excuse for this sort of behavior.

    What does being a doctor have anything to do with anything? No one is questioning whether a pharmacist is playing doctor. No one is diagnosing illness and prescribing for illness. Pharmacists simply dispense prescriptions, and they have a right to not have to dispense prescriptions against their religion or moral conviction. It is not about wanting to get into your business, it is about being true to their own. Again, find a pro-choice pharmacist. Just like you have a right to use birth control legally in this country, if you are truly “pro-choice” then a anti-birth control pharmacist has the “choice” of sticking to his/her own morals.

    If you’re so uncomfortable with “crazy” characterizations of the pro-life movement why do you insist on characterizing the pro-choice movement in a similar fashion? Do I seem crazy to you/? Do I and your supposed friends really want world domination through abortion and love to commit murder plots? Dont dish it out if you can’t take it either.

    Once again, you never fully read a post before you start getting on your soap box and sounding off about what you want people to say as opposed to what they really say. I am not uncomfortable with what pro-choice people think of me because they don’t know me. They, like you do, can generalise all they want, it is merely a sign of ignorance and prejudice.

    Do I seem crazy to you/?

    Listen to what you write next…

    Do I and your supposed friends really want world domination through abortion and love to commit murder plots?

    “world domination”? “murder plots”? Do I really need to answer that question. I made the mistake in trying to make a point, and it was not nasty, it was simply a point you disagreed with and you started with your cussing, CAPITAL LETTERS, calling people names, accusing people of plotting murder, yet we are the crazy ones…

    Dont dish it out if you can’t take it either.

    Girl please, again, your imagination is running in overdrive.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
  49. Lauren says:

    Your dismissal of my legitimate arguments figures. You want to dismiss me because my delivery made you uncomfortable? Too bad. All it says is that you have no proof to your outlandish claims.

    Do I not have the right to visit a pharmacy and expect my prescription to get filled? Answer that question. Do I have the right to go to the pharmacy without a religious lecture?

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
  50. mary kay hastings says:

    My poor little Lauren,

    You spent so much time taking apart every word that I said, that you completely missed the point.

    The point is that we make judgements on behaviors all the time and then we pass laws because we find that we can’t trust people to do the right thing. (I can just hear you now…who is to say what is right and what is wrong. where do I get off telling other people how to live…) But you see, that is just my point. We do it all the time, with things like the holocaust, pedophilia, child abuse, drug use etc. I am not comparing these to each other. I am not saying that they are equal evils. I am simply saying that we have made judgements and passed laws to make sure that these behaviors are curtailed and kept as rare as possible. Using your logic we should have allowed Hitler to continue, because sooner or later someone else was going to do it anyway, And let the pedophiles have their fun because if you keep it illegal they will do it in secret. Make it legal so that at least they can take precautions. It’s their body, right? Abortion should be kept legal because otherwise people will do it anyway. At least if it’s legal we can keep it safe. But safe for who?

    Can you honestly not see how you feel fine pushing your agenda, but get all huffy when we push ours? The difference is that you use yourself as a moral compass (by your own admission) and we use the church, and God.

    We know that we are capable of making errors in judgement and that is why we practice the virtue of obedience. We trust that the church will live up to the promise made to us through Jesus, and we follow what it teaches. We don’t do it mindlessly, we spend hours and hours in prayer, meditation, and contemplation.
    We listen as well as speak, and because we are open to God’s voice, we are able to be silent and hear what he is telling us.

    “Thou shalt not kill”

    It doesn’t get any more black and white than that.

    Gray area only enters into it when you blur the black and white.
    Having an absolute black and white moral code doesn’t mean it suddenly becomes easy. Being sixteen and pregnant with no support system is going to be terribly hard either way. But there is a black and white solution. Let the baby live. Take the high road and trust that in doing the right thing everything will be taken care of. Easy? No. Nothing worth it is ever easy. But it is the right thing.

    In the A.A. program, one of there mantras is “one day at a time, sometimes one hour at a time…” Another one is “do the next right thing…” Chanllenging, but words of wisdom nonetheless.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
  51. Lauren says:

    “My poor little Lauren”

    whoa, whoa, whoa… back up a minute. For starters i am not YOURS. For second, I am not poor in intelligence nor ability. Thirdly, i am not little (hold please, i have to pause for a second so I can watch Taylor on American Idol perform one of my favorite songs (dancing in the dark-springsteen my man)) OK IM back.. im not some little girl in terms of intelligence or capability. To condescend to me in such a manner is degrading and shows such a great deal of arrogance on your part. Do not disrespect me if you dont want to be disrespected in return.

    “I am not comparing these to each other. I am not saying that they are equal evils. ”

    Well you certainly made it quite clear by the power of suggestion. If you dont find them comparative dont bring them up.

    Wait a second, I dont feel like abortion is a moral evil. You do. I think abortion is an unfortunate circumstance of failed access to contraception. I do believe in laws, but I dont believe in the law you are proposing. The law that you are proposing are against the desires of the majority of america and set back equality for women DECADES. Why don’t you get off the computer and go make your husband dinner? Don’t you know your plae in the world?

    “It’s their body, right? Abortion should be kept legal because otherwise people will do it anyway. At least if it’s legal we can keep it safe. But safe for who?”

    That was never my argumentation. Don’t attribute things to me I didnt say.

    “The difference is that you use yourself as a moral compass (by your own admission) and we use the church, and God.”

    Wait a second you are morally superior to me because you follow an established set of beliefs that at one time excused slavery and racism. Give me abreak. One time I was pushing for something I vehemently believed in and wanted to help others… A priest told me that that part of me is God working through me. You don’t own God and you sure as hell don’t know what God thinks. What happens to me in the afterlife is between me and her/him/it, and really you are in no place to say I am religious therefore I am moral. All you are doing is shielding yourself from criticism that may be due. I’m so sick and tired of the religious right of doing this. You get to say outlandish things and say WAIT A SECOND i’m religious and therefore anyone attacking that person is somehow attacking religion. Give me a break. This defense is tired.

    Sigh you completely contradicted yourself in your argumentation of black and white.

    Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
  52. Young Christian Woman says:

    Lauren:

    You mentioned the term “abortifacient.” Most chemical forms of birth control–the pill, the shot, the patch, and “emergency contraception”–have three effects. They prevent ovulation, which is a contraceptive measure. They thicken cervical mucus to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg, which is a contraceptive measure. They also thin the lining of the uterus. This means that when the tiny human embryo tries to implant in the womb several days after it is formed from a sperm cell and an egg cell, it is far less likely to be successful. (All of these methods are listed in Physician’s Desk Reference, a respected guide to medications.) Because the pill and similar chemical agents can prevent this embryo from living, many anti-abortion people feel that this is a very early abortion. I trust that you do not find these facts offensive, because you do not think that abortion should be wrong.

    As someone who is pro-choice, however, you should find it offensive that this information is almost never given to women who request the pill or have it recommended to them by a doctor. This information does not come with the pill’s packaging in many cases. The women is denied her right to choose by her own doctor, who does not tell her information she may care deeply about. Before I got married, I asked my doctor twice for information on natural family planning, which I thought I would be more comfortable with, but received no information. She said she would get me a pamphlet, but then said she had forgotten it. She never brought up the possibility that I could be harming my unborn son or daughter, nor did the pharmacist. I truly wish I had encountered one of those brave and kind pro-life pharmacists who are spreading the truth; I might now have a child if I had.

    As someone who is pro-choice, I also do not see why you do not rejoice with Eric and his wife in their choice not to limit their children. If you are pro-choice, why do you think that the choice to have seven children should not be protected but the choice to abort seven children (more common than you think) should not be?

    How can the pro-life movement be hateful? If they are racist, how can they not agree with Margaret Sanger, who wanted to make sure that birth control and abortion were available to minorities so that their numbers would be limited? Why are they trying to save the disproportionate amount of unborn babies whose mothers or fathers are ethnic minorities? If they are “anti-gay,” why aren’t they trying to find the “gay gene” so that parents can abort their children who might be gay? If they are anti-woman, why are they so against abortions which select for gender? (Think that doesn’t happen here? When couples are convinced to “selectively reduce” some of their children when pregnant with multiples, and told to choose which to keep, they usually wish to save the boys.) Most children grow up to believe what their parents do. I would guess that the majority of women getting abortion are not Christian and are liberals. They are, naturally, pro-abortion. Why, then, if the pro-life movement hates such people, do they desire to save their children? Why are pro-lifers not content to let democrats die out as they refuse to let their family lines continue, whether through “birth control” or abortion?

    I am not sure where you get the idea that people who are against abortion want to limit your rights or want “compulsory pregnancy.” Compulsory pregnancy would be if everyone went once a month to a government clinic and got artificially inseminated. No one here wants that. I believe that the law in this country (US) has to respect each person’s autonomy: yours, Eric’s, Eric’s wife’s, mine, and my unborn child’s, though that child has been alive only a week or two if he or she exists. That means that I would not campaign for homosexual acts or extramarital sex acts to be made illegal, or for non-abortive birth control to be illegal. A woman in this country can become pregnant in only two ways: 1) she chooses to have sex, or 2) someone takes an illegal action against her. This means that no matter what, compulsory pregnancy is illegal.

    Children of rape and incest are a tiny minority of those killed by abortion. I do not suspect from your posts that you would support a law that legalized abortion but only in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. I also do not think you would support a law legalizing it only for rape, incest, life of the mother, or children under sixteen.
    Virtually no one knows the moment they are impregnated. A pregnancy is unlikely to be very inconvenient in the first trimester. No one requires a woman to be responsible for a child she conceives all her life; all infants are very adoptable (there are waiting lists for babies with Down’s Syndrome or Spina bifida, and organizations exist to help families with or find homes for infants who are not expected to live beyond a few weeks or years.)
    Logically, you cannot argue for abortion based on the hard cases unless you are willing to allow legislation preventing abortion in all but such cases. What you are arguing for is the right of a woman to kill a child (by eight weeks of pregnancy the baby has every part and function of a full-term baby) to spare herself, at most, six or seven months of mild discomfort and possibly embarrassment.

    Do not claim that I am a hypocrite if I do not help such women. I don’t know any. Feel free to send anyone my way who needs assistance, and I will gladly open my home to them and give them the support they need to let their son or daughter have a chance at life. Every pregnancy may not be wanted, but every baby is. I hope that if you do conceive a child, you will take a moment to consider the many women who have suffered through infertility, miscarriages, disease, and abuse that has left them childless. I hope that you will look beyond your separation from your son or daughter–which would happen through abortion as much as through adoption–and desire to connect that human being with parents that desperately want a child of their own.

    Lauren, I want you to know that God is pro-choice. He gives us choices in our lives, but wants us to pick the correct ones. He chose to die for our sins, allowing us access to eternal life, and we have the choice to accept or reject it. Even if we reject his gift, God is still pro-life: he will not smite you for turning away from him or blaspheming him or disparaging his followers. I know that, before Christ saved me from my sin, I was very anti-Christian, but God opened up the opportunity for me to choose a better way. You are free to choose; choose for yourself this day whom you will serve.

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 2:29 am
  53. mary kay hastings says:

    Lauren,

    Once again you have missed the boat…

    Maybe if I speak slowly, you will understand…

    We make judgements all the time….

    Then we make laws….

    Then we have a better and safer society.

    Like no slavery, less child abuse, less

    pedophilia, no more holocaust…

    again because we make judgements all the
    time…..

    by the way, you keep saying that know “likes abortion”…I urge you to take a look at the pictures from the San Francisco Rally…
    For people who don’t like abortion, there sure are a lot of T-shirts that say “I (heart) abortion. And did you notice that only the prochoicers have their middle fingers in the air, threaten to hurt the prolifers, are throwing things etc.

    You also never answered my question about violence…
    You say you would never ever ever ever advocate violence of any kind and yet you’ve seen the pictures of babies sucked through vacuum cleaner hoses, bodies ripped apart, tossed in garbage can, scissors poked through their skulls…which part of that is non-violent exactly?

    mk

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 7:19 am
  54. Eric says:

    Young Christian Woman says: “. . . Eric and his wife in their choice not to limit their children”

    Just a clarification here: We have actually sought to limit the number of our children, first through contraception and later through Natural Family Planning. Otherwise, we’d probably have eight, or maybe nine, instead of seven (so far).

    However, we’ve never really thought about it as “limiting our children”—at least not since giving up contraception, that is. Rather, it’s a matter of discerning whether or not the time is right to welcome another child, or if the greater gift to each other and our family is to postpone pregnancy. Not “We only want to have X children,” but “Right now is not a good time for another.”

    Of course, our wisdom is not perfect, and neither is our capacity to carry forward our own plans in this world that is not of our making. Sometimes God’s plans are different (either on when to conceive or when not to conceive)—and they’re always better.

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 7:56 am
  55. Lauren says:

    Wait, wait, wait a minute

    Most birth control pills are “combination pills” containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn’t ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.

    I’m no doctor but that says to me THERE IS NO EGG TO BE FERTILIZED.

    “I truly wish I had encountered one of those brave and kind pro-life pharmacists who are spreading the truth; I might now have a child if I had.”

    Wait wait wait again.. I dont want any pharmacist to impose their agenda on me. Pro-life or pro-choice. Would you want it the other way around.. if I have questions, I consult my doctor, NOT my pharmacist. If I dont like what the doctor says, I get a second opinion. You can’t just be like wow this pharmacist is not credible because it didnt tell you what you wanted to hear. Give me a freaking break lady.. Oh i could’ve had a child, waa, waa, waa. If we’re going through your line of thinking if God wanted you to have a child, he would’ve given you one.

    “If you are pro-choice, why do you think that the choice to have seven children should not be protected but the choice to abort seven children (more common than you think) should not be?”

    For starters I never said he wasn’t able to have 7 children and nor should anyone stop him from having such. Yet, I think it’s a little crazy Eric gets up on his soapbox and yet is doing literally nothing to take in unwanted children.

    Alright more common than i might think.. hmmmprove it.. Oh wait, am i getting a little too facty?

    “How can the pro-life movement be hateful? If they are racist, how can they not agree with Margaret Sanger, who wanted to make sure that birth control and abortion were available to minorities so that their numbers would be limited?”

    Are you accusing me of being a racist lol? As someone who has a big fist hanging on my wall that says fight racism, I find it a little shocking to being called a racist. Don’t use straw man argumentation. If I did that to you I’d pool you in the same group as Eric Rudolph. I don’t think that’s fair do you?

    “Why are they trying to save the disproportionate amount of unborn babies whose mothers or fathers are ethnic minorities?”

    I never heard of the pro-birth movement doing this but the reason proportionately it affects more ethnic minorities is due to economics. Something I too work for in terms of social justice.

    “If they are “anti-gay,” why aren’t they trying to find the “gay gene” so that parents can abort their children who might be gay?”

    Gay gene? You guys dont believe gay is something you’re born with so why the hell would you look for a gene? Someone is getting a little sidetracked….

    “If they are anti-woman, why are they so against abortions which select for gender?”

    They are against all abortions it’s not like they’re against this specific kind.

    “A woman in this country can become pregnant in only two ways: 1) she chooses to have sex, or 2) someone takes an illegal action against her. This means that no matter what, compulsory pregnancy is illegal.”

    WHAAAAA? eyes crossing.

    “I would guess that the majority of women getting abortion are not Christian and are liberals.”

    Wow, seriously no offense but that statement right there makes you a B-word. Here i’m about to get a little facty on you right here.

    Who’s having abortions (religion)?
    Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.

    So let’s see let’s add the good Christians together. 37.4 + 31.3 = 68.7% So let’s see most are non-Christians. Doesnt seem like most to me.. YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THINGS BECAUSE IT IS COMFORTABLE FOR YOU!!!! HOW CAN YOU DENY YOURSELF THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON. UGHHHHHHHHHH giant grunt.

    So liberals huh.. Oh my never on this site have I been more angry with someone. But I’m going to do my best to control my anger.. Sigh.. Take a deep breath. You want to see what conservatives have caused/let happen or see what your Savior Bush has done? Go to the SUDAN. Go to IRAQ. Go to ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMENTARY. GO LOOK IN HALLIBURTON’S POCKET BOOKS. There is BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS LADY. I’m not talking about zygote blood…. I”M TALKING ABOUT REAL, LIVE HUMAN FULLY BREATHING CHILD, MOTHER, FATHER, BLOOD because of the bombs YOU ALLOWED to be DROPPED on those POOR PEOPLE. YOU LET THAT HAPPEN. You PUT YOUR HEAD in THE SAND AND LET THAT HAPPEN. I CRY SO MUCH BECAUSE I GRIEVE FOR THOSE PEOPLE AND ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS TAKING MY RIGHTS AWAY! GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD? Please God help me find the strength to deal with this people. God I cannot do it. Please help me. Why are they so mean? i can’t take it anymore.

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
  56. Lauren says:

    OK i’ve taken a deep breath.. I really couldn’t take it anymore.

    Young Christian Woman. I’m sad for you and I will pray for you. God is meant to open our eyes and not close them. God gave us a brain for us to use it. I dont believe that God would want us to be so judgemental and have such a lack of compassion. I’m hopeful that one day you will understand that not everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is evil or out to “kill babies.” We are here to save the lives of women. We are here to make sure that women remain an equal part of society relative to men. I’m sorry you dont want it that way.

    I’m going to try to discuss a few other points I’d like you to prove respond to:

    “ill infants are very adoptable (there are waiting lists for babies with Down’s Syndrome or Spina bifida, and organizations exist to help families with or find homes for infants who are not expected to live beyond a few weeks or years.)”

    Prove it. Find me evidence. I’m not disagreeing with you, but in the age of group homes and orphanages, I’m not sure that I can believe you.

    “What you are arguing for is the right of a woman to kill a child (by eight weeks of pregnancy the baby has every part and function of a full-term baby) to spare herself, at most, six or seven months of mild discomfort and possibly embarrassment.”

    First off, you phrased it that way I didnt. Let me ask you something what if you are a 10 year old girl, pregnant and raped. You would only force a girl who is 10 years old ot carry that child? Are you serious? I know someone this happened to and she is one of the main reasons I fight.

    “Every pregnancy may not be wanted, but every baby is”

    That’s a real rosy statement. Care to back it up?

    “Lauren, I want you to know that God is pro-choice. He gives us choices in our lives, but wants us to pick the correct ones. He chose to die for our sins, allowing us access to eternal life, and we have the choice to accept or reject it. Even if we reject his gift, God is still pro-life: he will not smite you for turning away from him or blaspheming him or disparaging his followers. I know that, before Christ saved me from my sin, I was very anti-Christian, but God opened up the opportunity for me to choose a better way. You are free to choose; choose for yourself this day whom you will serve.”

    Lmao. Sorry I can’t say anything nice to this, so I wont say anything at all.

    Oh mary kay you’re back… glad to see you. Or should I call you God?

    “Maybe if I speak slowly, you will understand…”

    Lmao… Here comes the judgement/condescenion patrol.. Wee-ow-weeeooooo… That’s my lame excuse for a siren noise.

    Why the heck would a pro-life site feature demeaning pictures of pro-life people? Can I be held responsible for the stupidity of some? no. and you’ve gotten off on this well they are so mean waa waa routine It makes me begin to wonder…. You are characterizing nearly half the female population as murderers, dont you think some people might be angry about that? Don’t you think people like myself who really, really, really disagree with youmight hold a little resentment and disgust.. perhaps the actions aren’t the wisest, but dont you see why they might occur? Think about it, seriously.

    “You also never answered my question about violence…
    You say you would never ever ever ever advocate violence of any kind and yet you’ve seen the pictures of babies sucked through vacuum cleaner hoses, bodies ripped apart, tossed in garbage can, scissors poked through their skulls…which part of that is non-violent exactly?”

    Lol…. you’ve never read my limits on abortion statements have you?

    Eric a lot of people aren’t as fortunate as you to be able to have that many children and stay afloat. Other people simply do not want any children. Who are you to criticize them for making a choice different than yours?

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
  57. mary kay hastings says:

    Lauren,

    I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about…
    what prolifers in what pictures? what “well they are so mean waa waa routine”? If you are referring to the fact that no prolifers were shown giving proaborts the finger because prolife sites wouldn’t show that, then show me where to find pictures of us throwing things or holding foul-mouthed signs on any site…

    anyway off track again…

    Are you having a hard time addressing the issues that I have raised.

    Maybe you still don’t understand them.

    So lets just take them one at a time:

    People judge other peoples actions all the time.

    You accuse us of shoving our agenda (no abortion) down your throat, claiming we have no right to impose our beliefs on you, and yet you retain the right to impose your agenda (legal abortion) on us.

    and lastly,
    You say that you are against violence of any kind ever ever ever,
    and yet you are able to look at pictures of aborted babies (at any age) and say that that is all right. I consider what is done to those children to be violent. Why don’t you?

    3 points. 3 rebuttals? or are these questions still too complicated?

    Because you keep coming back attacking isolated sentences and avoiding the actual topics…

    mk

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
  58. Ally says:

    “Who are the ones spreading hate again?”

    Perhaps being photographed over and over by cameramen who refuse to stop when asked- that can make someone a little rude. I’ve been threatened with bodily harm by people at a Pro Life Action League tour. And also considering that the PLAL has hired detectives to track down people, the pro choice side might be a little antsy about us having our pictures taken by you folk.

    I’ve personally never ever really heard that anti-choicers are full of hate. Not any more than anyone else who believes in someone, anyway.

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
  59. mary kay hastings says:

    Dear Ally,

    If it is true that you were physically threatened at a PROLIFE action league event, then you need to speak up. Let Eric or Annie know, because we don’t tolerate that kind of behavior from the group…

    I apologize for them in their stead.

    And while I don’t believe that pro-aborts are full of hate in every area of their lives, they do tend to come off as extremely beligerent at our rallies. Just yesterday I had a group of men pull up next to my car at a red light and call me an “*&^(ing moron” because of my bumper stickers. My kids were in the car. This happens to me often. I get notes left on my car, people giving me the finger and I hear some of the most abusive language imaginable weekly at the clinic where I counsel. Not people that I have stopped, just people driving by, throwing stuff, yelling…we aren’t accusing all pro- abortion advocates of this, but it happens more often than not…and when I hear even mildly derogatory remarks coming from my fellow pro-lifers against the other side, I always say something. We are counseled to curb any nasty remarks we might be tempted to say because it does our cause no good and often does it harm…I’m sorry you had an isolated incident with a mean-spirited pro-lifer, but most of us are very civilized. Our very cause depends on it.

    mk

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
  60. Lauren says:

    “and yet you retain the right to impose your agenda (legal abortion) on us.”

    HOW IS IT IMPOSED ON YOU!? If you don’t like abortion, DONT HAVE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!

    WOW MARY KAY AGAIN YOU CONDESCEND LIKE IM SOME SORT OF MORON. SHOCKING!!!!
    “You say that you are against violence of any kind ever ever ever,
    and yet you are able to look at pictures of aborted babies (at any age) and say that that is all right. I consider what is done to those children to be violent. Why don’t you?”

    For starters. Pictures used in pro-birth displays often exhibit third trimester abortions which account for less than 1% of abortion. Secondly, often the pictures of that babies are not elective abortions. They are done either for the health of the mother or the baby’s death was imminent. In that regard, you are really in no place to judge. Could you imagine being the woman put through such an awful circumstance see her unfortunate circumstance paraded around like some sort of political statement by you? Again, this is shameful. Secondly, I dont think photos of first trimester abortions are violent. I think they’re upsetting that you would use something like that to exploit your own personal beliefs. I think it is shameful. Is a woman’s menstrual period violent? it’s pretty bloody? Is that violent? The blood you see in those photos are the woman’s and not the zygote’s. So I think you’re being a little unfair by making those pictures out to be a bloody mess.

    Mary Kay the fact that you dont like my answers doesnt mean that I havent addressed them. You really are becoming quite bitchy too by the way.

    ALLY my compadre :)! I too was photographed at a pro-birth rally at Planned Parenthood in Orland Park. Granted I didnt ask him to turn away, but i rather smiled because i wanted my poster to get featured on the internet. They probably wont post it though cuz it was a pretty SWEET poster. Protesting abortion at birth control clinic=hypocrites.

    “Not people that I have stopped, just people driving by, throwing stuff, yelling…we aren’t accusing all pro- abortion advocates of this, but it happens more often than not…and when I hear even mildly derogatory remarks coming from my fellow pro-lifers against the other side, I always say something.”

    HAHAHA This totally reminds me!!!! On the way to a John Kerry Rally in Madison, Wisconsin, a woman had a pro-birth bumper sticker so me and my friend held up our saving womens’ lives poster as well as our x through the alan keyes poster and what did the woman do? she rolled down her window, told us to fuck off and burn in hell and gave us the middle finger down the highway lol! WAIT A SECOND!!! she had her child in the backseat…

    Im not saying that pro-choicers dont make similar offenses, but please dont act holier than thou…. oh and let’s not forget the fact that I got physically CHASED at the rally at PP on april 1st lol. omg it was too funny. A man literally chased me around like running.

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
  61. Eric says:

    Ally writes: “Perhaps being photographed over and over by cameramen who refuse to stop when asked- that can make someone a little rude.”

    We have every right in the world to maintain a photographic record of our activities, including photographing those who come to counter-protest them—all the moreso, considering the acts of violence perpetrated by some of them.

    If you don’t want to be photographed in a public place during a public protest, don’t be there. It’s that simple.

    That said, I will usually refrain from taking someone’s picture when asked, strictly as an act of courtesy—not because I mistakenly believe I cannot take someone’s picture without permission.

    You can’t really think we would go hiring private detectives to investigate random pro-abortion counter-protestors, can you? Private detectives are extremely expensive. We can scarcely afford batteries for our camera.

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
  62. Eric says:

    Lauren says: “oh and let’s not forget the fact that I got physically CHASED at the rally at PP on april 1st lol. omg it was too funny. A man literally chased me around like running.”

    First, for the record, this was not a Pro-Life Action League event, but and Illinois Right to Life event. No PLAL staff were present that day.

    I have to be pretty skeptical about your account here, Lauren. If a “pro-choice” activist had chased on our our pro-life activists around, I would have:

    1. Photographed that person,
    2. Contacted the police
    3. Insisted that a police report be filed, and
    4. Followed up with the states attorney

    I would have taken these steps even if the situation was “too funny.”

    Speaking of which, I’m trying to get my head around what’s so “funny” about being chased by a stranger at a contentious public protest. What’s the backstory here? Why was the guy chasing you around? Why were you running away if you weren’t concerned for your safety, and if you were concerned for your safety, where’s the great humor?

    I know the police were present there from reports I’ve read by pro-lifers who were there. I believe they even had a paddy wagon near at hand (as they did in March). The police were poised to take action if there had been any need—why didn’t you call on them to intervene?

    Something doesn’t add up here, Lauren. At the very least, you can’t simultaneously use this dubious anecdote as a case of aggressive behavior by pro-life activists, and call it “too funny.”

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
  63. Lauren says:

    “I have to be pretty skeptical about your account here, Lauren. If a “pro-choice” activist had chased on our our pro-life activists around, I would have:

    1. Photographed that person,
    2. Contacted the police
    3. Insisted that a police report be filed, and
    4. Followed up with the states attorney”

    Here let me describe to you why it was funny and not violent….

    It’s probably not what you think. And one of my friends I think did take a picture on his phone..

    I was holding a sign that said HONK FOR CHOICE. He didnt seem to like the fact that as soon as we held that sign Lagrange road blew up with honks and cheers (quite literally). He had a sign that said Honk for life and he chased me around with it.. I’m serious like running with it trying to cover mine up. I had to keep running to get out of his way. He wasn’t violent merely obnoxious. I dont go to the government everytime I dont like something. He didnt hurt me so I didnt do anyting. And actually after the protest he came to talk to us and he stated his advocacy for birth control. he didnt seem to know that the pp we were at didnt actually provide ABORTIONS. He came from schaumburg. I dont have his name, but im sure if you ask someone from that protest they’d remember me getting chased around. lol Ask about the old chick and her aliens as well.. Not to mention there was one lady me and a friend got in a heated discussion with… we agreed to disagree and parted ways. Trust me, I’m not lying to you on this lol.. It was freaking hilarious though.

    Trust me…. ask people who were there, im sure they saw it. it wasn’t violent, it was just silly lol.

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
  64. Lauren says:

    I imagine pictures of the protest on april 1st never went up because of how normal and sane we were.. It’s understandable you’dput pictures of anarchists up.. It fits your narrow view… Do i seem like an anarchist to you lol?

    Aside from my beliefs on abortion eric, do you find my other views to be offensive?

    Btw.. this must be a lot of crazy, murderous people…

    http://www.now.org/history/slideshows/march2004/

    Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
  65. Young Christian Woman says:

    Most birth control pills are “combination pills” containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn’t ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.

    I’m no doctor but that says to me THERE IS NO EGG TO BE FERTILIZED.

    If any of these methods worked perfectly, then none of the others would be needed. If ovulation never occurred, the other two methods would be unnecessary, and no pregnancies would ever occur when the pill was used properly. (You’ll note that pregnancies do occur among women who use the pill, even correctly. Even a 99.9% success rate means that one out of every thousand women will become pregnant.) If all the sperm were prevented from reaching the egg, the other two methods would be unnecessary. If all embryos were prevented from being implanted, some would argue, there would be no need to prevent implantation. The fact is that sometimes none of these methods work; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that there are times when the first two mechanisms fail but the third does not. The fact that ectopic pregnancies are considerably more likely in women using contraception than in women not using contraception shows definitively that the chances of an embryotic human implanting in the uterus are decreased; otherwise, there would be no difference between the ratio of ectopic to normal pregnancies in women on the pill as opposed to women not using contraceptives. You are correct in your surmise that if there’s no egg, there’s no problem; but the truth is that there often is an egg.

    If we’re going through your line of thinking if God wanted you to have a child, he would’ve given you one.

    Your ability to read my mind is somewhat lacking. I believe God is completely sovereign, and that He alone can create children. I believe that He is capable of making a woman on the pill pregnant. That does not mean He would choose to do so. He could make sure that any embryo conceived in my body would implant and survive, but He may not do so. God did not prevent the murder of Abel or of Jesus or of Martin Luther King, Jr. God did not prevent the Holocaust and He did not prevent the 9-11 attacks. That does not mean that these things were good, right, or even inevitable. In all things God will and can work for the good of those who love him, like you and I, but this does not mean that all things are good.

    I do not have any data on the number of women who have had large numbers of abortions. There does not seem to be much specific to the numbers, especially over 3. It is quite easy to discover that between 35 and 50% of US women who get abortions are having a repeat abortion (depending on your source).

    How many Iraqis have you helped, Lauren?

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 8:28 am
  66. Young Christian Woman says:

    Sorry about the last post—my formatting seems to have failed.

    In the last post, Lauren said:
    Most birth control pills are “combination pills” containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn’t ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.

    I’m no doctor but that says to me THERE IS NO EGG TO BE FERTILIZED.

    And:

    If we’re going through your line of thinking if God wanted you to have a child, he would’ve given you one.

    The link should have been:
    http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126

    I also want to apologize to Eric for making assumptions about his family.

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 8:33 am
  67. Young Christian Woman says:

    I said:
    How can the pro-life movement be hateful? If they are racist, how can they not agree with Margaret Sanger, who wanted to make sure that birth control and abortion were available to minorities so that their numbers would be limited?
    and
    Why are they trying to save the disproportionate amount of unborn babies whose mothers or fathers are ethnic minorities?

    Lauren said:
    Are you accusing me of being a racist lol? As someone who has a big fist hanging on my wall that says fight racism, I find it a little shocking to being called a racist. Don’t use straw man argumentation. If I did that to you I’d pool you in the same group as Eric Rudolph. I don’t think that’s fair do you?

    Nope, I was only saying that a racist would be pro-choice, not pro-life. It is also not that we are trying to end any specific type of abortions. The truth is that those who are against abortion want to prevent all abortions, not just the abortions of those who are or will be white or straight or perfect or Catholic or Republican or Christian or male. If I hated you, why would I want you to be able to have children? The truth is that even if you happened to be a black atheist lesbian Democrat who would give birth to a disabled daughter you would, if you didn’t kill her, raise to be a black atheist lesbian Democrat, I still would not want you to kill her, nor would anyone on this board.

    Lauren said:
    Gay gene? You guys dont believe gay is something you’re born with so why the [heck] would you look for a gene?

    While there is no evidence that there is a gay gene, let’s say they did find a gene which predisposed people to be gay (much as there is a gene which predisposes people to be fat, although some people have the gene and are skinny, and some people are fat without the gene). An amniocentesis could tell you that your child had the “gay gene” as well as that he or she had Down’s syndrome or some other nasty genetic disorders. A whole lot of pro-choice gay people would start jumping ship and becoming pro-life. But the pro-life crowd would remain pro-life, not say it was okay to get an abortion to prevent more gay people.

    I said:
    A woman in this country can become pregnant in only two ways: 1) she chooses to have sex, or 2) someone takes an illegal action against her. This means that no matter what, compulsory pregnancy is illegal.

    Apparently I was a little unclear here. Cumpulsory pregnancy is illegal because if a women gets pregnant by some means other than consensual sex, an illegal act has already occurred. The person responsible for the pregnancy—the rapist—has illegally caused someone a pregnancy. Everyone knows today that pregnancy is a possible result of sex, although people try to prevent it. A person who has consensual sex has made a choice already; a woman who is raped is the victim of an illegal act. Because I do not think anyone on the anti-abortion side wants to legalize rape, your accusations that we are in favor of “compulsory pregnancy” is false.

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 9:17 am
  68. Young Christian Woman says:

    When I said:
    I would guess that the majority of women getting abortion are not Christian and are liberals,

    Lauren said:
    Wow, seriously no offense but that statement right there makes you a B-word.

    From Dictionary.com:
    bitch P Pronunciation Key (bch) n.
    A female canine animal, especially a dog.
    nope. Human woman.
    Offensive:
    A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing.
    nope
    A lewd woman.
    Certainly not.
    A man considered to be weak or contemptible.
    Again, Human woman.
    Slang. A complaint.
    Slang. Something very unpleasant or difficult.
    Well, I suppose Lauren may find me unpleasant and difficult but her complaint here seems to be that I am ignorant:

    Here i’m about to get a little facty on you right here.

    Who’s having abortions (religion)?
    Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”…

    Doesnt seem like most to me.. YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THINGS BECAUSE IT IS COMFORTABLE FOR YOU!!!! HOW CAN YOU DENY YOURSELF THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON.

    I’m sorry, but that’s beside the point. I find that very sad and disheartening, but it has nothing to do with why I am against it or why Lauren is for it. And it is still true that most of them have to be liberal on abortion, which is the thing I disagree with most.

    So liberals huh.. Oh my never on this site have I been more angry with someone. But I’m going to do my best to control my anger.. Sigh.. Take a deep breath. You want to see what conservatives have caused/let happen or see what your Savior Bush has done? Go to the SUDAN. Go to IRAQ. Go to ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMENTARY. GO LOOK IN HALLIBURTON’S POCKET BOOKS. There is BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS LADY. I’m not talking about zygote blood…. I”M TALKING ABOUT REAL, LIVE HUMAN FULLY BREATHING CHILD, MOTHER, FATHER, BLOOD because of the bombs YOU ALLOWED to be DROPPED on those POOR PEOPLE. YOU LET THAT HAPPEN. You PUT YOUR HEAD in THE SAND AND LET THAT HAPPEN. I CRY SO MUCH BECAUSE I GRIEVE FOR THOSE PEOPLE AND ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS TAKING MY RIGHTS AWAY! GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD? Please God help me find the strength to deal with this people. God I cannot do it. Please help me. Why are they so mean? i can’t take it anymore.

    Why are you angry with me because I love your children, Lauren? What relationship does that have to Iraq? If you consider the freedom to control your own body so important, why do you not want freedoms for those in other countries who can be killed just for disagreeing with the leadership? Abortion in Iraq was not legal under Saddam Hussein. Neither were sex outside of marriage, homosexual acts, or any of the other social ills the American Left promotes. Some of the social ills neither the left nor the right promote—such as wife-beating, wife-rape, oppression of minorities—were perfectly okay in pre-war Iraq. You think that we’re trying to make women into baby-making machines? Try living in a country under Islamic law. Do you grieve for women who can’t go outside with any hair or skin showing, for fear of death? Women who are forced to undergo “female circumcision”? These are the kind of things that routinely in Islamic societies. The American left and Islam are strange bedfellows indeed. I don’t want to take anyone’s rights away; I want to restore rights to the most vulnerable people in our society.

    Later Lauren said:
    Young Christian Woman. I’m sad for you and I will pray for you. God is meant to open our eyes and not close them. God gave us a brain for us to use it. I dont believe that God would want us to be so judgemental and have such a lack of compassion. I’m hopeful that one day you will understand that not everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is evil or out to “kill babies.” We are here to save the lives of women. We are here to make sure that women remain an equal part of society relative to men. I’m sorry you dont want it that way.

    Lauren, I’m sad for you too. I’m praying for you. I hope that God will open your eyes and not close them. God gave us a brain and the medical technology to see that a fetal human is definitely human. I don’t believe that God wants you to be so judgmental towards people who care about these tiny children. I think that God has compassion for them, as I do, and I hope that you can gain that. I hope that one day you will understand that not everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is evil and out to take your rights. We want to save the lives of women and children. We want women to know the special joys of motherhood that God reserved for them only, which is more fulfilling than any career or right. I want women who choose to marry and have children and keep them in their own care not to be perceived as inferior to those who choose a career. I don’t want to prevent them from working or voting or owning property. I’m sorry you don’t see it that way.

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 10:55 am
  69. Young Christian Woman says:

    Lauren has asked that I respond to a few more points as well.

    I said:
    Ill infants are very adoptable (there are waiting lists for babies with Down’s Syndrome or Spina bifida, and organizations exist to help families with or find homes for infants who are not expected to live beyond a few weeks or years.)

    She said:
    Prove it. Find me evidence. I’m not disagreeing with you, but in the age of group homes and orphanages, I’m not sure that I can believe you.

    This is far more an age of foster care, mostly for children who were taken away at an older age. Children adopted as infants do very well.

    Here are some sites:

    I can’t find specific lists, but I’m sure that these are confidential. Most children in foster care are children who were taken away older, or—occasionally—children who were put into foster care near the time of birth, and then, later, had their parents’ rights terminated. Some argue that the current system couldn’t handle it if all of the children now aborted were born, but these tend to ignore several facts:

    Most of the couples who adopt would be willing to adopt two or even three children.

    Many “unwanted pregnancies” become wanted children. The first response of a young woman to pregnancy may be denial, but if she is not given the opportunity to refuse her son or daughter’s existence, she may decide to keep her child by the time he or she is born.

    Many couples do not register for the waiting lists due to the assumption that the process will take a very long time, especially if they are younger or still trying to have a child on their own. The lack of availability of babies may mean that they feel it is more important for those who have been waiting longer or definitely cannot have a child to have those opportunities. I predict that if abortion becomes illegal, many more parents will become available.

    Of course, if, as pro-legal-abortion people insist, many women continue to abort illegally, this will also lower the number of children who end up being put up for adoption.

    Many older children in the foster care system have severe attachment issues which make it more difficult for them to love and trust. The first years of a child’s life are some of the most important ones, and many couples do not want to miss out on the joys of raising a baby, though they must, unfortunately, miss out on pregnancy. If parental rights are terminated at birth or shortly after, and families are not deceived about the difficulty of adopting a child (as they sometimes are in transracial adoptions), all infants are adoptable.

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
  70. Young Christian Woman says:

    Lauren said:

    “What you are arguing for is the right of a woman to kill a child (by eight weeks of pregnancy the baby has every part and function of a full-term baby) to spare herself, at most, six or seven months of mild discomfort and possibly embarrassment.” (my words)

    First off, you phrased it that way I didnt. Let me ask you something what if you are a 10 year old girl, pregnant and raped. You would only force a girl who is 10 years old ot carry that child? Are you serious? I know someone this happened to and she is one of the main reasons I fight.

    I will admit that sounds kind of bad taken completely out of context, but you failed utterly to address my actual points and then appealed to an emotional case. This actually illustrates the point I was making. Here is what I said, in context:

    Children of rape and incest are a tiny minority of those killed by abortion. I do not suspect from your posts that you would support a law that legalized abortion but only in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. I also do not think you would support a law legalizing it only for rape, incest, life of the mother, or children under sixteen.
    Virtually no one knows the moment they are impregnated. A pregnancy is unlikely to be very inconvenient in the first trimester. No one requires a woman to be responsible for a child she conceives all her life [....]
    Logically, you cannot argue for abortion based on the hard cases unless you are willing to allow legislation preventing abortion in all but such cases. What you are arguing for is the right of a woman to kill a child (by eight weeks of pregnancy the baby has every part and function of a full-term baby) to spare herself, at most, six or seven months of mild discomfort and possibly embarrassment.

    Do you support legislation legalizing abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, or pregnancy of a minor child only, and making it illegal in all other cases? The argument you put forth is legitimate if that is your position. It is rare for the reason for an abortion to be rape. Such a case is not the same as other cases. If you want abortion to be always legal, as it is now, you have the burden of arguing on the behalf of the girl who wants to complete college, the girl who doesn’t want her parents (or husband) to know she’s sleeping around, the girl who doesn’t have the money or resources to take care of a kid but can’t stand the thought of someone else raising what’s rightfully hers, the girl who got pregnant in grief over her abortion but then realized her boyfriend isn’t mature enough to be a dad. Any of these is more common than rape, especially child rape. It is dishonest to resort to pleas for rape victims only unless you only want abortion for them. The reason the pro-choice-to-kill-unborn-children movement uses this type of argument is because it emphasizes the one circumstance in which a young woman has not already made a choice.

    I’ll repeat this once more:
    Either a) You believe in legislation to disallow other kinds of abortions, or b) you should not be using rape as a main argument.

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
  71. rosie says:

    Don’t forget about open adoptions either! I know someone who was adopted at 5 yrs. He is close to both, whom he calls his mom and his mother. It worked out well for everyone involved.

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
  72. Lauren says:

    “(You’ll note that pregnancies do occur among women who use the pill, even correctly. Even a 99.9% success rate means that one out of every thousand women will become pregnant.)”

    Really is that how it works genius? I love that you said that.. if I tell you there is a 99.9% chance you wont win a million dollars and i tell eric for instance that there is a 99.9% chance he wont win a million dollars, does the fact that eric is in this picture make your odds better? No. These statistics are independent, they are not odds. You need to think about taking a statistics course before you go rambling off this crap. It means that each woman who takes her birth control properly only has a much less than 1% chance of getting pregnant. Not ding ding ding you’re the lucky one who was the 1 out of 1000. God, I just love getting facty.

    Find me stats that there is an egg.

    And whats your point even if there is an egg? It’s not fertilized!!! What’s the difference between this egg and the eggs I release every month?

    “God did not prevent the murder of Abel or of Jesus or of Martin Luther King, Jr. God did not prevent the Holocaust and He did not prevent the 9-11 attacks.”

    Then why do you believe that God chooses to impregnate women if he doesn’t choose to prevent bad things? This logic is completely incompatible. Not that logic really has anything to do with this discussion..

    What have I done for Iraqis? Well let’s see here where do I begin. I’ve written my congressmen every couple of weeks telling them that I think this war is wrong and I’ve donated to many causes that help Iraqi citizens such as Amnesty International and Iraqi Schools. I haven’t done enough but truthfully I’m in college and can’t do that much.

    “Nope, I was only saying that a racist would be pro-choice, not pro-life.”

    AHHAHAHAHAHAHA… wait a second HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

    one more HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    a few of the BIGGEST racists i know are pro-life. SERIOUSLY. OMG you have got to be out of your mind!!!!

    “The truth is that those who are against abortion want to prevent all abortions,”

    Yeah, you do. By shaming people or telling them they shouldn’t use birth control and telling them at sex is naughty. Good luck to you on that.

    “The truth is that those who are against abortion want to prevent all abortions, not just the abortions of those who are or will be white or straight or perfect or Catholic or Republican or Christian or male.”

    Hahahah, well at least we know now what the pro-life movement is made up of.

    “If I hated you, why would I want you to be able to have children? The truth is that even if you happened to be a black atheist lesbian Democrat who would give birth to a disabled daughter you would, if you didn’t kill her, raise to be a black atheist lesbian Democrat, I still would not want you to kill her, nor would anyone on this board.”

    is being black bad? Oh and btw I’m not sur eif you know this but if a black person has a child you can’t really raise them to be black, t hey sorta already are! oopsies!

    Secondly, there are a lot of people who have religious parents and end up atheist or atheist parents how have kids that end up religious. Not to mention I think atheism is just as nutty as the religious zealots. Both sides say they do know or do not know there is a god. I prefer not to be so arrogant.

    Thirdly, as a person who has homosexual friends who came from heterosexual friends or a person who has homosexual friends who have heterosexual children you should be ashamed of yourself for such a narrowminded comment. You really believe in your heart that if your parents are gay, you’ll wind up gay too? I can tell you this si not the case. And truthfully, oftentimes i think I would’ve been better raised in a homosexual home that was not abusive versus the heterosexual one I grew up in.

    you say Democrat like that’s an insult. Democrats allow you to talk. Democrats don’t listen in to your phone calls. Democrats protect your right to choose, vote, practice your religion, and not have anyone tell you what you can and cannot practice. I am a proud liberal. I believe in caring for people beyond the time that they’re in the womb.

    “your accusations that we are in favor of “compulsory pregnancy” is false.”

    How? You want to force a woman to remain pregnant even though she does not want to be. Isn’t that sort of compulsory?

    Offensive:
    A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing.

    No that’s pretty accurate im afraid Emphasis on overbearing.

    “Why are you angry with me because I love your children, Lauren? ”

    You don’t love my children. First, I dont have any children. And two, you dont love them. You love yourself and you want to make yourself feel holy and kind and benevolent by saying something like that. But you’re not. You’re arrogant, cruel, and assuming. You dont know me and you are not kind to me.

    “Abortion in Iraq was not legal under Saddam Hussein. Neither were sex outside of marriage, homosexual acts, or any of the other social ills the American Left promotes.”

    The “American Left” doesn’t promote anything. The American Left doesn’t put its nose where it doesnt belong. We dont care what you do because it is not our business. What makes you any better than a busy body. There are a lot more places besides Iraq that have worse human rights offenses that I would’ve considered a humanitarian mission WAY before iraq. The truth is we are in Iraq to line the pockets of people who claim to represent you. They don’t! They’re fooling you! And you’re falling for it!

    And sadly, “Some of the social ills neither the left nor the right promote—such as wife-beating, wife-rape, oppression of minorities—were perfectly okay in pre-war Iraq.” they’re still OK now! haha!

    Why don’t you read up on Saudi Arabia my friend. no really im not even going to tell you about it, I want you to find out for yourself. And thenlook up pictures of YOUR president with King Abudllah and let me know how you sleep at night knowing that you let this continue.

    You instead clump together an entire region of people and categorize them as the same. They played you like a violin in the run up to Iraq. We went in there to “defend ourselves” because they had a part in 9/11. Neither of which are true.

    But instead we have guerilla warfare in Colombia, a new agriculture program in Afghanistan we’ll be agent oranging in no time, as well as real genoide in the Sudan. And what do you do? You bitch about a woman’s right to choose her destiny. What I would say to you here is not lady-like.

    “The American left and Islam are strange bedfellows indeed. ”

    Hahahah ok, SEAN hannity. lmao.. CHECK OUT SORRYEVERYBODY.com because apparently i have to apologize for you.

    “. I want women who choose to marry and have children and keep them in their own care not to be perceived as inferior to those who choose a career. I don’t want to prevent them from working or voting or owning property. I’m sorry you don’t see it that way.”

    I smell a straw man.. Me either that’s the precise definition of feminism. You solely want them to be mothers and nothing else!!! Well shame on you! Go make me dinner!

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
  73. Young Christian Woman says:

    Lauren said:

    “Go make me dinner!”

    Any time. What would you like?

    Please do not insult my intelligence or assume that you know what I think or feel. You are wrong about those things.

    And a 99.9% chance of women on the pill becoming pregnant (although the actual number is something like 99.5%) does mean that one in a thousand would become pregnant. Of course no other person being in there affects the odds for one person; that’s an average. But there are enough women on the pill that it is not incorrect to state it in the way that I did.

    You’re the one who seems to think over here that everyone is racist. It is very odd that you seem to think that my statement that black, atheist, disabled, lesbian Democrats have a right to life to prove that I am racist. I do not need to talk about meeting quotas for certain type of friends or having a poster on my wall to prove anything to you, however. The pro-choice movement was founded on racism; read up on Margaret Sanger sometime.

    Don’t have time to respond to everything you said; I already spent all day responding to you.

    I just want you to know that I do love all children, every one, no matter how small. This attitude doesn’t give me the admiration of those around me; it makes people like you heap abuse on me and my position on birth control makes me afraid to discuss some issues even with members of my own church. Do not assume you know me; I am not an archetype, I am a human being.

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
  74. MARY KAY says:

    ANYBODY WANT TO COUNT HOW MANY TIMES LAUREN USES THE PHRASE ‘”STRAW MAN ARGUMENT”?, OR HOW ABOUT “I’M NOT THAT ARROGANT…!”

    LAUREN BABY, YOU PUT THE “A” IN ARROGANT…
    MK

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
  75. Lauren says:

    “And a 99.9% chance of women on the pill becoming pregnant (although the actual number is something like 99.5%) does mean that one in a thousand would become pregnant. Of course no other person being in there affects the odds for one person; that’s an average. But there are enough women on the pill that it is not incorrect to state it in the way that I did.”
    Any time. What would you like?

    I would like mmm, well I’m italian so I have high taste. How about cavatelli.. you know like noodle dumpings with ricotta cheese filling!! Delicious! Thanks woman I’m glad you know your place!

    Again you are sooo soooo wrong. Please take a statistics course.

    Let me give you an example. God I hate stats why do I have to explain this to you?

    You roll a dice. I roll a dice. If I get a 6 is your chances of getting a 6 lower because I got a 6? No your odds are still the same 1/6. If you roll a 3 are my odds of getting a three next time different? No! It is still 1/6. SO when a woman’s cahnces of getting pregnant from the birth control is .01% this does not mean that one out of 1000 get pregnant. DO YOU GET IT NOW?

    “I do not need to talk about meeting quotas for certain type of friends or having a poster on my wall to prove anything to you, however. The pro-choice movement was founded on racism; read up on Margaret Sanger sometime.”

    Your first sentence doesnt even make sense. and your second statement is a strawman ERIC RUDOLPH!

    “Don’t have time to respond to everything you said; I already spent all day responding to you.”

    It took you that long? Usually these statements I make take about 5 minutes of thought and then I go about my day.

    “it makes people like you heap abuse on me and my position on birth control makes me afraid to discuss some issues even with members of my own church. Do not assume you know me; I am not an archetype, I am a human being.”

    You have the right to your position and I have the right to tell your position to shove it where the sun dont shine and stop trying to control MY life. Stop trying to take away my rights… I’m protective of my body and a lot of other women are. we will fight you.

    “ANYBODY WANT TO COUNT HOW MANY TIMES LAUREN USES THE PHRASE ‘”STRAW MAN ARGUMENT”?, OR HOW ABOUT “I’M NOT THAT ARROGANT…!”

    LAUREN BABY, YOU PUT THE “A” IN ARROGANT…
    MK ”

    sounds like somebody’s a little crabby!! maybe a little pmsy woman get to your red tent!

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
  76. MARY KAY says:

    lauren said ” Secondly, often the pictures of that babies are not elective abortions. They are done either for the health of the mother or the baby’s death was imminent”

    I was under the impression that there was a law protecting a woman’s privacy between her doctor and herself…something called HIPPA…so I’m wondering how you know all of the women whose aborted babies are in our photos and the fact that all of these abortions were performed on woman who’s health was in danger or who’s babies were going to die anyway. Where did you get this info?

    I personally stand outside of an abortion clinic and the signs that we show are of an eight week old fetus. And it isn’t just blood, it’s arms and legs…

    you said: “Is a woman’s menstrual period violent? it’s pretty bloody? Is that violent? The blood you see in those photos are the woman’s and not the zygote’s.”

    I’m sorry, was someone talking about woman’s menstrual blood? I guess I missed that …I thought we were discussing abortions and the photos of said abortions. I don’t know about you but I have never changed a menstrual pad and found it filled with arms and legs. When I look at a photo of an aborted 8 week old fetus, I see violence not menstrual blood.

    You also have never addressed my comment that “People judge other peoples actions all the time”

    And by the way, your argument of ” HOW IS IT IMPOSED ON YOU!? If you don’t like abortion, DONT HAVE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!”
    is a bit like saying “hey if you don’t like arson then don’t set peoples houses on fire…”

    I have a proposal for you Lauren…

    Eric, Rosie, Young Christian Woman … are you up for this?

    Let’s switch places for a little while and we’ll (I’ll) take the pro abortion side and you pretend to be Pro Life and we’ll argue for the opposite side. Just for the excercise…you know, maybe get into each others head for a minute or two…try to see the other persons side. Are you up for it?

    Mary Kay

    PS If I seem “a little bitchy” Lauren, you have to ask your self why. It would have anything to do with name calling and belittling would it?
    ” Why don’t you get off the computer and go make your husband dinner? Don’t you know your plae in the world?” “Oh mary kay you’re back… glad to see you. Or should I call you God?” “Hey Margie, I’m sorry that you are so full of yourself. I really am. I can’t imagine what it must be like to never doubt yourself. Let me know the next time you and Jesus have a conference call so i can sit in. I’m sorry that I’m not smart or blessed enough to be as lucky as you are. ”
    “You aren’t filled with Jesus, you are filled with patting yourself on the back. In other words, arrogance. ”

    Should I go on?

    mk

    Comment posted May 18th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
  77. Lauren says:

    Mary Kay. I think your idea is a great idea. i;m not going to participate in it though if no one else agrees to it. it has to be full participation. Id love to take the ideal pro-life side if someone would take the ideal pro-choice side. Neither villify the other.. I think both have good intentions honestly.

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 2:26 am
  78. MARY KAY says:

    Lauren,

    Excellent! Let’s see what Eric and everyone else says…

    I’m still game if they aren’t and I’m willing to call a truce.
    No sarcasm, or name calling or putting the other side down.

    I realize that it must be hard taking the side of something on a website where everyone else is on the opposite side. It must feel like we’re ganging up one you. Actually, it takes a lot of courage.
    I commend you. But we have to find a way to do this without so much adversity. Peace?

    mk

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 7:15 am
  79. MARY KAY says:

    By the way Lauren, what the heck are you still doing up at 2:00 o’clock in morning? Oh you young people! I remember the days…

    mk

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 7:17 am
  80. Young Christian Woman says:

    Mary Kay, what would the purpose of this exercise be? I don’t particularly feel like betraying everything I believe in without a good reason. I think I’ve presented some of their arguments already, and refuted them.

    Oh, and if 6,000 people rolled a d6, about 1,000 of them would get a 6. That’s one in every six. It doesn’t mean that out of every six one of them must roll a 6. I know that it’s difficult to believe, but being pro-life doesn’t mean I’m stupid.

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 7:37 am
  81. MARY KAY says:

    Rosie,

    I just feel like Lauren is so defensive and it makes her “react” instead of “act” . Like she has to try so hard to defend her position that she doesn’t always hear what we’re saying. And ofter she is put in the position of defending “who she is” instead of “what whe believes”. This way we would both show the other one that we ARE hearing what each side is saying and maybe there could be understanding instead of anger.

    I don’t know. We don’t have to do it forever and it just might open some eyes…

    What do you think?

    mk

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 8:07 am
  82. MARY KAY says:

    rosie,

    statistics gives me a headache. Suffice it to say that if there is quadrillion to one chance that a life would occur while on birth control that would be enough reason not to use it.

    but this is a perfect example of Lauren needing to defend herself instead of her position. she didn’t understand your point that even one pregnancy due to birth control is too many, all she saw was your mistake (or her perception of a mistake) on the statistics.

    This means that she isn’t listening, just reacting. So I want her to show that she understands what we’re saying…

    mk

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 8:28 am
  83. rosie says:

    Mary Kay,
    I didn’t say anything about statistics. I don’t think I would know how to defend the other side of the issue unless I thought that the human baby wasn’t in fact a human baby. All I would be able to come up with is “Keep your agenda off my body!”

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 9:45 am
  84. MARY KAY says:

    rosie,

    sorry, that was “young christian woman with the statistics…”

    That’s a beginning…
    even if you just follow along and jump in when you can.

    I’d be very curious to see Laurens take on it.

    I am pro-life 1000%, nothing could change my mind and there are NO contingencies. So I’m never going to really switch sides.

    You can start each page with a caveat, like: Devil’s advocate to Lauren.

    but if you really aren’t comfortable, that is perfectly understandable. it does sort of feel like being a traitor. But I will never lose sight of the truth.

    I sidewalk counsel every Saturday and have been active in the pro life movement since my first march in 1973. I was 13 yyears old at the time. I’m 47 now, and I don’t see myself switching over any time soon.

    It’s just that Lauren isn’t the enemy. Abortion is. Or Satan.
    And I guess I just thought that we might have better luck if we stopped making it a war and tried to make it a learning experience. Besides, it will help me see the other sides way of thinking better which in turn will me make me better equipped to
    offset arguments at the clinic on Saturdays. Know thine enemy and all that…

    mk

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 10:09 am
  85. MARY KAY says:

    Young Christian Woman, (sorry sent this to Rosie accidentally)

    I just feel like Lauren is so defensive and it makes her “react” instead of “act” . Like she has to try so hard to defend her position that she doesn’t always hear what we’re saying. And ofter she is put in the position of defending “who she is” instead of “what whe believes”. This way we would both show the other one that we ARE hearing what each side is saying and maybe there could be understanding instead of anger.

    I don’t know. We don’t have to do it forever and it just might open some eyes…

    What do you think?

    mk

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 10:10 am
  86. Lauren says:

    “but this is a perfect example of Lauren needing to defend herself instead of her position. she didn’t understand your point that even one pregnancy due to birth control is too many, all she saw was your mistake (or her perception of a mistake) on the statistics.”

    No, you guys just don’t like what I’m saying so you perceive it as defending myself. I perceive it as defending my position. You all call people who are pro-choice pro-abortion. You see me as “misled” and “wrong”. I see you as on a different side than I’m on. In this conversation you never say I see where you’re coming from but I think this.. I get oh little girl you are so wrong. And when young decides to say that 1/1000 women will get pregnant (which is actually a high statistics comparened to 99.9% per woman), I defend against lies. When you scaremonger and tell women they’ll get breast cancer from th ebirth control pill, I get angry. And have every right to!

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 11:06 am
  87. Lauren says:

    OK I’ll break the ice. Given that I’ve put myself out there for ridicule almost every day it isn’t that much for me to do lol!

    I’m going to do what I think is the ideal pro-life person, not what I necessarily think they all are. Also, when someone does me remember I only agree with elective abortion in the 1st trimester and health of mother or imminent death of child in any trimester. I’m a huge advocate for abstinence and birth control education. I believe in increased access and affordability of birth control to women and finding new technologies to find b-c w/ less side effects as well as less frequency in use (because human error is often the problem in unwanted pregnany). So there’s my position. State why I feel this way.

    GULP.

    I am pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. Abortion breaks my heart for the life involved and the woman who has it. I want to help these women carry their child to term and help them raise it. Society has done too much into shaming women if they have unwanted pregnancies. We need to make it OK for women to know that it is neither shameful or wrong to bring a life into this world. It is a blessing. We need to make it easier for women to afford children. The demands of raising a child have grown exponentially in the last 10 years and it’s wrong. From baseball programs costing $2000 to dropping hundreds on clothes they wont be able to wear next month, we should be raising our children more holistically. I pray for a world that no longer has abortion and a world that’s demands dont force a woman to throw up her hands and say time for an abortion. Those lives matter and we may be losing out on some really fine people through abortion.

    OK that was pretty hard I can do more later.

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 11:15 am
  88. Young Christian Woman says:

    The pro-choice position is actually a number of different essential positions. I will try to state the ones I can think of offhand.

    a) You cannot be forced to support another entity against your will.

    One’s property and autonomy are synonomous. Forcing a woman to continue her sharing of resources is like forcing a person quarter soldiers in his house and feed them as well. Surely it may be admirable if a person decides to feed and house someone less fortunate, but it is never a requirement to house a relative. A woman can even hand her minor child over to the state. It is merely unfortunate that, in the case of abortion, the other entity dies.

    b) A fetus is not human; it is a part of a woman’s body.

    It is no more anyone’s business what happens to a fetus than what happens to a foreskin when a man gets circumcized. If I had cancerous tissue removed, would you be concerned about my tumor? The tissue of a severed finger will remain “alive” longer than a fetus removed from the womb. The government does not see fit to regulate the removal of gall bladders, except to make sure that a licensed professional does so.

    c) The world is overpopulated and resources are limited.

    The population of humans grows exponentially, but the food supply grows arithmetically. Abortion is acceptable as a means to limit human population because, in a world of finite resources, it alleviates suffering more than causing it. It is better for poor families to avoid having more children than for some of their real, living children to die. Even in middle class and wealthy families, wouldn’t it be better to have just one or two children? Better use could be made of the family’s time and money than by continually having children they could not devote individual attention to.

    d) The alternatives to abortion are more dangerous.

    Despite horror stories anti-choicers tell, it is very rare for women to die by abortion. Women die during childbirth, however. Some types of pregnancy, such as ectopic pregnancy, are always fatal when allowed to progress. In addition, if abortion were illegal, most would still get abortions illegally, resulting in a much higher death rate.

    e) The children of the poor would cost us more in the long run.

    Children born into poverty and the children of single mothers and adopted children all have an increased risk of becoming criminals. Society will have to spend much more on the upbringing of these children, who disproportionately have learning disabilities and other problems, and whose mothers are often on welfare. If they then turn to crime, we’ll have to pay for their upkeep in prison. Isn’t it be better to spare these children a difficult life? In addition, how would we pay for the many women who would be imprisoned for their responsibility in not bringing another life into the world?

    f) Outlawing abortion would also outlaw many kinds of birth control and medical treatments.

    If abortion were outlawed, it prohibit the use of many kinds of birth control of which nearly everyone approves. The pill, the patch, the shot, emergency contraception, and the IUD would all be illegal. Only radical Catholics would agree with that. Over 90% of women use the pill at some point. It would be impossible for a woman to get chemotherapy or radiation therapy without making sure she wasn’t pregnant, and if she was, she might die of the disease without getting the treatment she needed. If the law is written improperly, women might be barred treatment for fatal ectopic pregnancies and Caesarean sections might be disallowed.

    g) Taking away rights is unethical.

    Women already have the right to an abortion. You can’t turn back the clock. It would be unfair and unAmerican to return to a discriminatory and arcane system where women were only breeders. Forcing women to bear children prevents them from participating fully in politics, economics, and the workforce. Should we also take away their right to vote and own property?

    h) Abortion is a religious issue.

    Laws against abortion violate the separation of church and state. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion, so why are some people so concerned about something that isn’t their business? We don’t disallow anyone from working on Sunday, eating beef, or making idols, so why is abortion so special?

    i) Arguments from rape

    A rape victim should not have to carry a rapist’s child for nine months. This will keep reminding her of the crime commited against her body and will stop her from healing after the attack. It is cruel to force her to care a violent predator’s child against her will and it gives rapists cause to perpetrate crime as a means of reproduction.

    j) Arguments from incest

    A young girl who has been sexually abused by an older relative or a family member should not have to be reminded of the tragic event by an unwanted, and most likely ill, child. The family will not want the child, and it may grow up to be abused as well. There is no reason that a young teen or even pre-teen girl, or her family, should have to go through this difficult situation.

    k) Argument from the case of a disabled fetus

    It is a hard enough task to raise a normal child, but what of when a couple receives the devastating news that their child will be severely handicapped? No one should have to undergo the heartbreaking and difficult work of caring for a child with Down Syndrome or Spina bifida. What about those who will die a painful death within a few years, days, or even hours of birth? What about children which are already dead? Should a woman have to wait over a month to deliver a corpse? Should she be responsible for extensive care for an infant who not only will never be normal, but may never live beyond a week? Why get attached to a child who will only die anyway?

    These views are not the views of the poster.

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 11:23 am
  89. MARY KAY says:

    To young christian woman:

    “bravo”…you’re way too good!

    YCW says:
    “a) You cannot be forced to support another entity against your will.

    One’s property and autonomy are synonomous. Forcing a woman to continue her sharing of resources is like forcing a person quarter soldiers in his house and feed them as well. ”

    Exactly. I mean I hope the time will come when I choose to have children. When I will be better prepared. What kind of a life can I offer a child. I’m still in school, I don’t work and I don’t have insurance. The poor kid would have a terrible life. I couldn’t do that to someone. I have to wait until I am in a better position to
    raise her properly.

    TO: LAUREN (wow, girl…you’re frightening me…way too convincing! I’m actually getting a little confused as to what everyone really thinks…kind of surreal, no?

    LAUREN SAYS:
    “I am pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. Abortion breaks my heart for the life involved and the woman who has it. I want to help these women carry their child to term and help them raise it. ”

    I SAY:
    What do you mean, help them raise it? Are you gonna pay for the diapers, formula, day care. What about the health care, school supplies? How long will you help me raise it? Til it’s six months old? six years old? I don’t even know you. Why would you get involved in my life? Sounds like an empty promise made by a do-gooder to me.

    LAUREN SAYS:
    ” Society has done too much into shaming women if they have unwanted pregnancies. We need to make it OK for women to know that it is neither shameful or wrong to bring a life into this world. It is a blessing.”

    I SAY:
    Nobody is saying that it isn’t a blessing to bring life into this world. Of course it is. I just don’t want you or anyone else telling me WHEN to bring it. That is my decision and my decision alone. There are enough unwanted children in this world and me having one just to please the religious right is the REAL moral wrong.

    And by the way, you’d go a whole lot further if you could say that
    it isn’t shameful or wrong to have sex either. Which it isn’t. You just have to take precautions. And don’t go off on the whole birth control thing either…more birth control means less abortions.

    LAUREN SAYS:
    “we should be raising our children more holistically”

    I SAY:
    What planet are you on? Are you telling me that if everyone just recycled their garbage then we would all be able to afford our babies? That’s just crazy!

    First of all I don’t need or want help from any of you…I just want you to go away and let me make my own choices. Recycle all you want, chip in your pennies and donate your old baby clothes. I’m still not raising any baby until I’m ready.

    LAUREN SAYS:
    “Those lives matter and we may be losing out on some really fine people through abortion. ”

    I SAY:
    read what YCW says…

    YCW SAYS:
    e) The children of the poor would cost us more in the long run.

    “Children born into poverty and the children of single mothers and adopted children all have an increased risk of becoming criminals. Society will have to spend much more on the upbringing of these children, who disproportionately have learning disabilities and other problems, and whose mothers are often on welfare. If they then turn to crime, we’ll have to pay for their upkeep in prison. Isn’t it be better to spare these children a difficult life? In addition, how would we pay for the many women who would be imprisoned for their responsibility in not bringing another life into the world”

    I SAY:

    Just as many sinners as saints have been aborted. Maybe we did the world a favor by aborting another Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolph Hitler.

    And yeah, whatARE you gonna do with all those “MOMS” who are in jail because they broke the law and had an abortion? You guys live in LaLaLand if you think that just because you make it illegal that women won’t still have abortions. How are you gonna punish them?

    I already have two children and both their fathers are long gone.
    Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t handle another one. My family is not gonna help and the boyfriend I have now would leave if he knew I was pregnant again. And don’t tell me that crap about post abortion depression. I’ve already had 3 abortions and I feel fine. The problem goes away. The boyfriend stays. Nobody gets hurt. Don’t get me wrong, I love the two kids I’ve got, but I gotta wonder what my life would be like if I hadn’t had them.

    And I’m not putting my kid up for adoption. That would just be too hard. I don’t know how anyone could do that. If they can live with it it’s fine, but I couldn’t. I’d always be wondering where it was and if it was okay. Couldn’t handle THAT!

    Okay,
    going now, but i’ll be back…

    mk

    These are also not the views of the poster…

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
  90. Lauren says:

    Hmm interesting YCW.. Let me tell you what I think of your positions..

    I agree with a.
    You cannot be forced to support another entity against your will.

    But I think there are limits upon it. Such as viability concerns. You give up your rights as the zygote develops. I know the argument sometimes is well where do you draw the line? I know it is a slippery slope that’s why I choose to tread lightly.

    b) A fetus is not human; it is a part of a woman’s body.

    It is a human fetus. It’s not a cat fetus or a rabbit fetus, It’s clearly human. I never disagreed with the notion that a fetus is not human. However, it is a part of the woman’s body.

    c) The world is overpopulated and resources are limited.

    That’s a scary argument I’ve honestly never heard been made. I disagree with it on moral grounds. Birth control limits population, not abortion.

    d) The alternatives to abortion are more dangerous.
    This is true, but I dont support abortion rights because of this reason. I would never advocate for someone who was afraid of dying in childbirth to have an abortion. And yes having legal abortion makes it safe and regulated.

    f) Outlawing abortion would also outlaw many kinds of birth control and medical treatments.
    I agree with this from a legalistic standpoint. Because Roe is based on the right to privacy written in Griswold, if Roe is dismissed based on the right to privacy, Griswold would also fall. I don’t agree with overturning Roe on moral principles, because I think that a woman should have a right to an abortion as it determines her freedom. Yet, OK no one ding a bell or get riled up, I do not think the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. I think the Supreme Court messed this up in the face of troubling times. With that being said, lower courts are responsible for enforcing the will of the Supreme Court. Until Roe is knocked down, states and other courts have to abide by Roe. I think Roe is right, but I do not believe that it has as much legal basis as I would like it to. Turning abortion rights over to the states would be OK for states like IL, but I’m afraid we’d have women getting back alley abortion in states like Montana or Alabama. My heart aches for those women who fear their rights will get taken away.

    g) Taking away rights is unethical.

    I agree with this one.

    h) Abortion is a religious issue.

    Not at all. A friend of mine who makes fun of the idea of God and probably blasphemes more than anyone I’ve ever met is the most pro-life person I’ve met. I have a problem with people who argue it from a religious perspective, because we all come from different viewpoints and I’m not sure you can make a strong case based on one’s personally held beliefs.

    i) Arguments from rape

    I agree with this one. I’m not sure rapists really would rape a woman as a basis of procreation. As a person who has personally struggled with real rape, although the rape was not perpetrated on me, I do believe in this vehemently. I don’t think we can ever put ourselves in the shoes of a rape victim. Who are we to tell them to carry that child? That is a personal decision and I think it should be left up to the woman.

    j) Arguments from incest

    Absolutely. I cannot even imagine what that must be like and really i care not to speculate. Choice applies most in this situation.

    k) Argument from the case of a disabled fetus

    Down syndrome is a difficult disease, although if the child was wanted hardly warrants an abortion. But who am I to judge? I’m not really sure. My brother Nick died shortly after being born because he had Cornelia delang syndrome. I’m not sure what I would do. His death was imminent had we known previous to birth. I think this is a difficult issue and cannot be examined in a vaccum and must be left to the families and not to any policy makers or political groups.

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
  91. MARY KAY says:

    Lauren,

    I thought you were going to take the pro life side…
    that’s why YCW took the pro choice side. Argue her points one by one as if she was wrong and you were pro life…

    I’m curious to hear you take on them.

    But it did help me to understand that you limit your views on abortion and are not prochoice across the board.

    Good stuff so far tho, no?

    mk

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
  92. Lauren says:

    Good stuff indeed. I still have a headache buzzing from last night at a concert for my step-cousin at the double door. I’m not really up to par this evening, but I guarantee tomorrow or perhaps late tonight I will have a decent response. I am enjoying this discussion because it is challenging me. Thank you. Good idea Mary Kay. =) Peace.

    Comment posted May 19th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
  93. mary kay says:

    Lauren,

    I am very impressed by your efforts. It is most challenging to me too. I have lots of kids baseball games today, so i won’t be back til later this evening…but I will be back.

    Wonder where Eric is…must have a real life.LOL

    I’m off to the “clinic” as we speak…in Des Plaines.
    Don’t suppose your up for a little sidewalk counseling? Okay, Okay, just kidding.

    Talk tonight!!

    MK

    Comment posted May 20th, 2006 at 5:57 am
  94. mary kay says:

    Hey Lauren,

    It just occured to me…maybe we should say a prayer together before we continue…

    From reading your past posts it is sometimes hard to discern where you were speaking the truth and where you were just pushing our buttons, so I’m just going to assume that you believe in God and hope that I don’t offend you by appealing to Jesus. If I do, i apologize and you can fill in the blank with which ever higher power you want…I know you have fought a gambling addiction, and I know that AA and NA require you to believe in “something” bigger than yourself, so I figured the same holds true with “GA”? Here goes:

    Lord,

    Lauren and I are embarking here on something neither one of us has done before and we’re both a little nervous. Don’t know where it will take us and don’t know for sure if it’s the right thing.
    But we both want to know the truth as You see it and are willing to keep an open mind and heart…So if You wouldn’t mind, could you guide and lead us and help us to keep it peaceful and in your favor. Thanks, You’re the Best. Amen.

    “God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change…to change the things we can…and the wisdom to know the difference…Amen”

    Thanks Lauren,

    MK

    Comment posted May 20th, 2006 at 6:15 am
  95. Lauren says:

    Sorry you guys–i know i have been neglecting you guys this weekend.. I’ve been having panic attacks because of school, and impending trip to washington to meet my hero Helen Thomas yay!, summer school, my mommy finally got her doctorate this weekend from Loyola, my apartment living situation, my yucky grades from this semester, all the while trying to find some time to make a few bucks to get Subway(HA). I’m not ignoring you all and I really want to make time for this interesting and provocative discussion, but really I have a full plate and once I clear it I will be back.. Wait for me ok?:)

    thanks:)

    Comment posted May 22nd, 2006 at 12:11 am
  96. Lauren says:

    Beautiful prayer MK… I’ll chime in…

    God grant us the strength to see beyond our own eyes. Let us find compassion and deep understanding that can lead us to form some sort of community. Teach us not to hate, but to love. I dont know why you’ve brought us here today but I grant that you know more than I and we should really use the time you’ve given us together. I’ll do my best to use it wisely. I hope that you both can give us strength to end the need or desire for abortion and end our own personal sufferings in regards to the topic. I love you God for bringing me here and giving me the challenges of seeing new perspectives. I believe the pain we feel from one another is merely a longing to love one another. Help us realize that.

    God bless,

    Lauren

    Comment posted May 22nd, 2006 at 12:17 am
  97. mary kay says:

    Lauren,

    Okay, who are you? and what have you done with that other Lauren? LOL

    I knew there was a warm, lovable, non-confrontational person in there somewhere, but you have totally exceeded my wildest expectations…

    I think we’re gonna be okay.

    And don’t worry about taking a day or two off, the problems of the world won’t get solved without us, or if they do, then we’ll just go get some coffee…

    really looking forward to our future discussions…

    God bless you too,

    MK

    Comment posted May 22nd, 2006 at 6:00 am
  98. Young Christian Woman says:

    Lauren,

    All that worrying is bad for you physically and mentally! Worry is bad for you. Trust in God, who provides for his children.

    Comment posted May 22nd, 2006 at 6:59 am
  99. Lauren says:

    Ah! OK let me just say this.. this weekend I will be back.. It’s 2 am and i just got done reading my novel for summer school.. I want to make this good, not crappy…. Blah!!! have a good week you guys.

    Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 1:53 am
  100. Young Christian Woman says:

    Okay, thanks! I was beginning to worry I might have to refute myself! :)

    Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 5:32 am
  101. mary kay says:

    Lauren,

    And we will be waiting…(evil laughter)…

    Take a deep breath, do your best.

    Only “A” students can debate here (LOL)

    Good luck,

    MK

    Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 7:26 am
  102. lauren says:

    Arguing from pro-life position…

    a) You cannot be forced to support another entity against your will.

    One’s property and autonomy are synonomous. Forcing a woman to continue her sharing of resources is like forcing a person quarter soldiers in his house and feed them as well. Surely it may be admirable if a person decides to feed and house someone less fortunate, but it is never a requirement to house a relative. A woman can even hand her minor child over to the state. It is merely unfortunate that, in the case of abortion, the other entity dies.

    *If a woman makes a choice to have sex, then she in turn has made a choice to carry a pregnancy to term as well. If she is mature enough to choose to have sex, she is mature enough to carry a baby to term.

    b) A fetus is not human; it is a part of a woman’s body.

    *How can a fetus not be human? Is it a dog or a cat?

    It is no more anyone’s business what happens to a fetus than what happens to a foreskin when a man gets circumcized. If I had cancerous tissue removed, would you be concerned about my tumor? The tissue of a severed finger will remain “alive” longer than a fetus removed from the womb. The government does not see fit to regulate the removal of gall bladders, except to make sure that a licensed professional does so.

    *having an abortion is not getting your tonsils taken out. This is a life and we shoudl not be comparing it to any other surgery.

    c) The world is overpopulated and resources are limited.
    *this is not the case as modern societies in fact are depopulating by having slowing birth rates.

    The population of humans grows exponentially, but the food supply grows arithmetically. Abortion is acceptable as a means to limit human population because, in a world of finite resources, it alleviates suffering more than causing it. It is better for poor families to avoid having more children than for some of their real, living children to die. Even in middle class and wealthy families, wouldn’t it be better to have just one or two children? Better use could be made of the family’s time and money than by continually having children they could not devote individual attention to.

    *We cannot excuse the taking of a human life jus tbecause we may not be able to provide for it. Should I murder you if you are poor?
    d) The alternatives to abortion are more dangerous.

    Despite horror stories anti-choicers tell, it is very rare for women to die by abortion. Women die during childbirth, however. Some types of pregnancy, such as ectopic pregnancy, are always fatal when allowed to progress. In addition, if abortion were illegal, most would still get abortions illegally, resulting in a much higher death rate.

    *this is the risk the woman has taken by having sex. Childbirth is a glorious part of womanhood and maternal fatality rates are extremely low.
    e) The children of the poor would cost us more in the long run.
    *this can’t even be used as an argument! it is a life!
    Children born into poverty and the children of single mothers and adopted children all have an increased risk of becoming criminals. Society will have to spend much more on the upbringing of these children, who disproportionately have learning disabilities and other problems, and whose mothers are often on welfare. If they then turn to crime, we’ll have to pay for their upkeep in prison. Isn’t it be better to spare these children a difficult life? In addition, how would we pay for the many women who would be imprisoned for their responsibility in not bringing another life into the world?
    *It is not the fault of the child fi they are brough into a difficult life! Everyone has difficult lives in their own right! We don’t kill them!
    f) Outlawing abortion would also outlaw many kinds of birth control and medical treatments.

    If abortion were outlawed, it prohibit the use of many kinds of birth control of which nearly everyone approves. The pill, the patch, the shot, emergency contraception, and the IUD would all be illegal. Only radical Catholics would agree with that. Over 90% of women use the pill at some point. It would be impossible for a woman to get chemotherapy or radiation therapy without making sure she wasn’t pregnant, and if she was, she might die of the disease without getting the treatment she needed. If the law is written improperly, women might be barred treatment for fatal ectopic pregnancies and Caesarean sections might be disallowed.

    *While I would agree that birth control should be outlawed because of its abortifacient qualities, i don’t believe this is the case! The law shoudl go as far as it needs to to protect those that are unborn.
    g) Taking away rights is unethical.

    Women already have the right to an abortion. You can’t turn back the clock. It would be unfair and unAmerican to return to a discriminatory and arcane system where women were only breeders. Forcing women to bear children prevents them from participating fully in politics, economics, and the workforce. Should we also take away their right to vote and own property?
    *How can murder be a right?!
    h) Abortion is a religious issue.

    Laws against abortion violate the separation of church and state. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion, so why are some people so concerned about something that isn’t their business? We don’t disallow anyone from working on Sunday, eating beef, or making idols, so why is abortion so special?
    *abortion is a life issue, not a religious one.
    i) Arguments from rape

    A rape victim should not have to carry a rapist’s child for nine months. This will keep reminding her of the crime commited against her body and will stop her from healing after the attack. It is cruel to force her to care a violent predator’s child against her will and it gives rapists cause to perpetrate crime as a means of reproduction.
    *punishing the child for the sins of its father is stupid. The child deserves to live! That’s a bit of a stretch! What kind of rapist would perpetrate such a crim as a means of reproduction. Courts shoudl write into law that those rapists have no right to that child if such is the case.
    j) Arguments from incest

    A young girl who has been sexually abused by an older relative or a family member should not have to be reminded of the tragic event by an unwanted, and most likely ill, child. The family will not want the child, and it may grow up to be abused as well. There is no reason that a young teen or even pre-teen girl, or her family, should have to go through this difficult situation.
    *there are plenty of people who will be willing to take care of the child if the mother is unwilling! Two wrongs do not make a right.

    k) Argument from the case of a disabled fetus

    It is a hard enough task to raise a normal child, but what of when a couple receives the devastating news that their child will be severely handicapped? No one should have to undergo the heartbreaking and difficult work of caring for a child with Down Syndrome or Spina bifida. What about those who will die a painful death within a few years, days, or even hours of birth? What about children which are already dead? Should a woman have to wait over a month to deliver a corpse? Should she be responsible for extensive care for an infant who not only will never be normal, but may never live beyond a week? Why get attached to a child who will only die anyway?
    *This is the shakiest excuse for abortion I have heard yet! A woman should carry her child naturally ignoring all else the doctors say! They could after all be wrong! After giving birth to such a blessing, the woman will come to love and realize her child despite what diabilities he/she has. The more time the child has to live the better! We should always protect the weakest in society.. what about those that are in wheelchairs? Should we kill them too?

    Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
  103. Lauren says:

    where are you guys!!!?? :)

    Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
  104. Mary Kay says:

    Lauren,

    I’m here…

    We’re moving in three weeks – 8 people – 15 years – a lot of stuff!

    But I’m here…

    *If a woman makes a choice to have sex, then she in turn has made a choice to carry a pregnancy to term as well. If she is mature enough to choose to have sex, she is mature enough to carry a baby to term.

    ***What if she did the mature thing and used a condom but it failed, then why should she still have to pay the price. She did the responsible thing.

    *How can a fetus not be human? Is it a dog or a cat?

    ***Even if it is human, it is not fully human. It is not viable, and therefore still totally dependent on the mothers body to get its food, oxygen, blood, life.
    Why should a woman be forced to to continue a pregnancy when the “human” fetus isn’t able to live on its own. Until it is viable,
    it is really just an extension of the mother, therefore the mother has a right to remove it because it is still HER body.

    *having an abortion is not getting your tonsils taken out. This is a life and we shoudl not be comparing it to any other surgery.

    ***Why not compare it to any other kind of surgery? It is an unwanted, foriegn body and it has to be removed. There is no reason to continue to let it grow when it is clearly not wanted.
    At eight weeks it is hardly on par with my 4 year old, and I don’t see why my four year olds life should be shortchanged just because my condom failed. Letting it grow would take away from the quality of my other daughters life. Is that fair? Why should she suffer just because there’s a potential baby growing.

    *this is not the case as modern societies in fact are depopulating by having slowing birth rates.

    (For the record, every human being on the face of the earth could fit into the state of Texas.)

    ***The population may be slowing down in some more modern countries, but in places like the Sudan the people are starving because there isn’t enough food. It’s not a matter of how many people there are, it’s whether or not they can be fed. We need to control the places where the people outwiegh the food supply.

    *We cannot excuse the taking of a human life jus tbecause we may not be able to provide for it. Should I murder you if you are poor?

    ***I would agree with you, except I don’t believe you are murdering anyone. If you are poor and find yourself pregnant,
    then you should not have to rearrange your entire life trying to provide for another human being. Ending the fetus life is the merciful thing to do. Why force that child to live in poverty, without enough food, clothes or education. Chances are it will grow up to repeat the past and remain poor.

    *this is the risk the woman has taken by having sex. Childbirth is a glorious part of womanhood and maternal fatality rates are extremely low.

    ***Again with the “you’ve had sex so you should pay the price argument” Why should I risk my life with an unwanted pregnancy, just because my birth control failed. I did everything that you’re supposed to do, so I shouldn’t have to take responsiblity for this kid. Now you want to take away my right to have sex too? And I’m not so sure “CHILDBIRTH” is a glorious part of womanhood. Why else would they have invented the epidural. If you meant Child rearing, I disagree. It CAN be “glorious”, but only if the mother chooses it. If she didn’t then it can be such a burden that will affect the course of her entire life.
    If she is not ready to be a mother, then there is nothing “glorious” about it. It takes money, and time and commitment.
    If the woman chooses to have a baby then she is ready to accept the responsiblities for it. But if she is not ready, then the irresponsible thing to do would be to have the baby anyway. That’s not fair to the mother or the fetus.

    *While I would agree that birth control should be outlawed because of its abortifacient qualities, i don’t believe this is the case! The law shoudl go as far as it needs to to protect those that are unborn.

    ***And what about women who need things like the pill for reasons other than birth control? How are you going to ensure that they aren’t having sex while on the pill? Or do you plan on not letting anybody take the pill? You can’t police who is having sex and who isn’t. A woman has the right to make these decisions for herself. No one else has the right to make them for her!.

    *How can murder be a right?!

    ***It’s only murder if the baby is born. Otherwise it is still just part of the woman’s body. And the right is not to murder, the right that we are talking about is the right of a woman to do whatever she wants to her own body. Nobody can tell someone else what they can or cannot do to their own bodies. Nobody is forcing you not have a child, why should you be able to force me to have one. It is a very personal and private decision and none of yours or anyone elses business.

    *abortion is a life issue, not a religious one.

    ***Abortion is not a LIFE issue. It is an issue about a woman’s right to her own body. You can be pro-choice but still against abortion. I don’t own a gun but I still advocate for the right of other people to do so…

    *punishing the child for the sins of its father is stupid. The child deserves to live! That’s a bit of a stretch! What kind of rapist would perpetrate such a crim as a means of reproduction. Courts shoudl write into law that those rapists have no right to that child if such is the case.

    ***That’s just nuts. You’re telling me that you have the right to insist that I carry a rapist’s child to term and then pay for, feed and take care of it til it’s 21! What are you a sadist? Punish the child? It’s hardly a child, especially if I take the morning after pill!
    And what about punishing ME! If I’ve already ready been forced to have sex with a mad man surely you don’t believe you have the right to force me to have his child. I would hate the kid because of where it came from! Now that’s punishing the child!

    *there are plenty of people who will be willing to take care of the child if the mother is unwilling! Two wrongs do not make a right.

    ***You are absoulutely correct! Two wrongs do not make a right.
    If I am raped by my father, forcing me to have his kid would just be a second wrong. Don’t you think the trauma of being forcibly raped by someone you trust is bad enough without having to raise your own father’s bastard child? I thought you guys were all about mercy…And I’m not gonna carry his child for nine months just to give it to someone else to raise. What kind of person gives their kids away anyhow? Who could live with that decision? Not me. And you don’t have the right to force me to!

    *This is the shakiest excuse for abortion I have heard yet! A woman should carry her child naturally ignoring all else the doctors say! They could after all be wrong! After giving birth to such a blessing, the woman will come to love and realize her child despite what diabilities he/she has. The more time the child has to live the better! We should always protect the weakest in society.. what about those that are in wheelchairs? Should we kill them too?

    ***If a doctor does a test on me during the pregancy and tells me that my child is going to be born with down syndrome, there is no way you can make the decision for me to have to have that child…And how do you know that I will come to love that child? More likely I’ll come to resent that child. Do you have any idea how much work is involved in raising a child with Down Syndrome. I don’t BELIEVE you have the RIGHT to force me to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome but I KNOW you don’t have the ABILITY to force me to LOVE IT!!! Talk about arrrogance!

    And while we shouldn’t kill the people that are already born and in wheelchairs, they might have been better off if there mothers had made a different decision BEFORE they were in wheelchairs…like before they were born! What kind of a life do these people have? They would be better off if they weren’t allowed to be born.

    *********These are not really the views of the poster……

    Whew! That was really hard! I found myself saying “exactly”, and “that is so right!”, while reading your “pro life” answers and cringing when I had to refute them! Is it that hard for you too?
    Whose idea was this anyway? (LOL)

    Okay, now refute my counter arguments…

    God Be With You (and me during this discussion),

    MK

    Comment posted May 25th, 2006 at 7:56 am
  105. Lucy says:

    I do appreciate that the loving gunshots fired at abortion doctors and the sensitive, caring bombs delivered to clinics were done so in the name of saving those of us who believe that a woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body were delivered out of concern for a potential meeting with your God.

    Somehow it just doesn’t pass as evidence that anti-abortionists are nice to other anti-abortionists. I mean, that’s nice and all, but I don’t think that verbal and physical attacks directed at women seeking abortions or doctors facilitating the need are exactly what is percieved as kindness. I mean, just because you guys think that you are being kind to us doesn’t mean we see it that way. In fact, while you call it a myth, therefore explaining to us that our perceptions are mere hallucinations, declaring us ignorant and incompetent of understanding what we are reacting to. Boy, I’m glad you’re being nice. I mean, if calling us murderers and whores isn’t enough, now you want to call us stupid.

    Bombing abortion clinics isn’t the action of a nice guy. Nor is shooting the doctor. I know that some would like to pretend that the gunmen in question are crazed. They felt that way once. But, us poor heathens weren’t listenening, so they snapped. One declared he’d do it again, and called for the others to follow in his footsteps. Even the Son of Sam has displayed remorse for what he has done, and it seems to be sincere…not that I would test the theory. Nobody wants to recieve Anthrax in the mail, and the excuse that they did it because they believed it would be wrong to kill is essentially useless.

    Please, Eric, say you didn’t mean to be hate mongers. Say that you didn’t mean to give the impression that you were out for blood, and that you despised us. But please understand when offense is taken at your insinuation that we were just to stupid to understand that you are acting out of love, that we are merely to stupid to understand that we are, well, stupid.

    Somehow, Eric, I just don’t see your cause as the projection of love that you wish it would be. Calling it so won’t make it so. I understand that you wish it would, however, your domineering desire to control a womans mind and body is betrayed by your actions.

    Let’s not add Stupid to the things you need us to be. If these are the displays of love, then please, direct your hatred here.

    Comment posted May 30th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
  106. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    Perhaps we should be more like you and imitate that kind and sweet entry above…

    To take isolated cases and claim that all of us feel the same way is like me saying that all women who are pro abortion are disgusting and degenerate….

    No one here says that…misguided yes…but not evil…

    And you really need to get off that “I want, I want, I want”… kick…We’ve heard it all before…

    I want abortion to be legal, I want to sleep with whoever I want and I want to do it with no consequences. I want those prolifers to get off my case and I want everyone to agree that it’s not really a baby…

    Guess what, the world doesn’t revolve around you and what you want. You want to get a tattoo? go ahead. You want to drink til you fall down? go ahead. you want to scream at the top of your lungs that you have rights? go ahead. But we’re not talking about you (I know, I know that’s hard to comprehend cuz it’s all about you, what you want, what you deserve, what you demand, and your rights… but just for this moment, one teeny tiny second we’re going to think about someone else and what they need. Can you handle that?) Other people have rights too. And in this case the childs rights outwiegh yours because you want the right to “choose” and that child wants the right to live!

    We were given those rights by God, but if you don’t believe in God then we were also given those rights by our declaration of independence…

    The unalienable right to life…

    period.

    and neither you nor the “women’s movement” can take away that right…at least not morally. One day you won’t be able to take away that right legally either.

    Because if you take away that baby’s right to life, in essence you are taking away your own right to life.

    Why is it that you can justify killing your baby, but get all bent out of shape when someone takes the life of an abortion doctor. Where I come from they are both wrong, and I urge you to think about that. If you take away one person right to life, you take away everyones…scary, isn’t it?

    MK

    Comment posted May 31st, 2006 at 7:51 am
  107. rosie says:

    Mary Kay,
    You are right, another thing that really irritatetes me is the women who say they wouldn’t have an abortion but that they are pro-choice. So it’s not a choice that’s good enough for them but it’s just dandy for other women, it makes me think they really have no respect for other women.

    Comment posted May 31st, 2006 at 9:55 am
  108. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I’m sorry…allow me to try again.
    Pretty please with a cherry on top get out of the way of the women who are trying to make a difficult decision and are coming from a place that you do not comprehend, will not comprehend and are far to petty to attempt to comprehend.
    Nice? Sweet? I’m sorry, was I trying to be nice and sweet? NO.
    Okay, A. First, please do invoke the work of Thomas Jefferson. To invoke him as though he would be on your side of this is pure evidence that you certainly have no understanding of what he was about. If you wish to invoke your god have at it, but leave Thomas Jefferson out of this until you’ve developed a better understanding of what this country is supposed to be and what life is.
    I am speaking for me, so yes, this is about me. You do not have the right to speak for anyone but yourself, because you silence them with your arrogant belief that you can speak for anyone else. While I appreciate that you are so self indulgent that you actually believe you know what is best for everyone else, because it is so unique…no one else has ever tried it…yes, get your hands off of my body.

    Removing a fetus from my body does not deny a right to life. Please, bare in mind that I am not the one who claimed to be the right wing hippie…if that’s not lunacy enough. I would simply appreciate it if you people would not insinuate you have nothing but love in your hearts for people you have made clear you would just as soon destroy as anything.

    Not going to shoot a doctor or bomb a clinic…GOOD! Let’s stay on that page. I understand that you would like to assign that role to a few select crazies…but frankly I can’t tell who is who. Maybe you should wear signs that aren’t designed to hurt women who do have hearts, have made difficult decisions for reasons that you choose not to understand and now have to put up with you. Ask any women who has needed to decide to have an abortion how loving they think you people are. I’m sure they think you’re swell.

    When you are done thinking for people besides yourself we can discuss morality. Until then, I don’t think so. You don’t know what I think, you don’t know what I feel. What’s more, you don’t care. You wish to implicate me with the indocrination you have recieved without asking what actually makes me tick.

    You’re right. I want to be able to sleep with whomever I choose. Whenever I choose. You’re right. I want to be able to think for myself. Like I said, I don’t know who brain washed you, but boy did they do a good job.

    Just so we’re clear though, am I to understand that if you had felt that my message was kind you would have been kind instead of hateful? So, if we’re nice to you….and do as you say…then you’ll be nice. Otherwise you will direct all responses in the hateful tone you chose above?

    See Eric, once again you’re correct. It really is a myth. Your guys are kind and loving at all times. No matter what. I’m glad that we have that all nice and cleared up.

    Comment posted May 31st, 2006 at 10:15 am
  109. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    Just once I wish one of you guys would face this issue head on and not spew out the same old, same old.

    Why do you have the right to decide what is okay for someone else but I don’t?

    Until you can answer that question it seems that there isn’t much else to say…

    MK

    Comment posted May 31st, 2006 at 1:28 pm
  110. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I was deciding what was right for me. I wasn’t deciding what was right for others. I simply believe they should have the right to decide what is right for them. Perhaps the problem is that I don’t confuse a fetus for a child. Perhaps the confusion is that I don’t wish to strip the womans rights away in the name of a potential not an actual.

    I like the way you have declared I say the same old, same old. Usually I’m accused of being extreme, and I didn’t know asking you not to abuse Thomas Jefferson in the name of a cause he would have deplored would qualify as the same old same old. I’m sorry.

    I think your confused if you think that I’m the one who is attempting to be controlling. Maybe I’m confused. Aren’t you the one trying to strip women of their rights? Aren’t you the one who thinks womens liberation was wrong?

    I don’t know, I’m amused. If you don’t have anything to say without misusing Thomas Jefferson then I suppose that this is the end of the road. Was it the part where I asked what conditions you wouldn’t have been hateful under? Peace Love and Happiness right. The right wing Hippie, I do so love it. Man, see that was Unique. But that was Eric not you.

    Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 8:26 am
  111. Young Christian Woman says:

    If we can speak only for ourselves, then who will speak for the defenseless? Is it okay to kill mute people? Is it acceptable to rape children because they have no legal voice? Was it acceptable to have slaves when African-Americans could not legally testify against it? Was it unacceptable to write about what they experienced when they were banned from learning to read or write? If someone were profoundly retarded and had no language skills, would it be okay for those who support him to soften his body and tear off his limbs, or to stick scissors into the base of his skull and suck out his brains with a vacuum?

    God has given me a love for even the smallest of his people. Is it hateful to speak for them when even their own parents would rather they were dead? What is the difference between a child born at 24 weeks and a child aborted at 24 weeks? What is the difference between the future president, at his or her conception, and another child, conceived in the same instant, who simply fails to implant in the womb because his mother was using birth control? Who are you to decree that standards like that baby’s future usefulness or the subjective and changeable idea of whether his or her “parents” “want” him or her make that baby’s life more or less important?

    Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 10:32 am
  112. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    I was unaware that you knew Thomas Jefferson personally. I have never met the man and so I let his own words speak for themself.

    We are guaranteed by the declaration of independence the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    No where does it say when that life becomes worthy of this right. Simply that every human being is guaranteed the right to life.

    It also says that we have the right to pursue happiness, but it doesn’t guarantee that we will find it. so while you do not have the unalienable right to be happy, you do have the unalienable right to be alive.

    When I say that you claim that I do not have the right to tell you what to do but you feel you have the right to strip another human being of his rights, I am not referring to myself. I am referring to the right of the child whose right to life you feel justified in taking away.

    This is not and has never been a fight for a womans right to choose…it is a fight for the right of every child to be born and not to have it life taken from it. That would mean that you believe that your rights are more important than someone elses.

    While I am trying to control a group of people to save the life of unborn children you are trying to control people by killing them.

    I refuse to argue with you about the right to choose, because there a hundreds of things that you are forbidden from doing in this country and so it is a given that your right to choose is not guaranteed. If you wish to debate on whether abortion is wrong or right and leave out the choice issue, I will be happy to continue.

    Please read the thread about the netherlands and pedophilia and you will see what I mean about not being able to choose to do anything you want…even if it is with your own body.
    I’m sorry that you can’t see this. And as for Thomas Jefferson, I will quote him anytime I please, because I too am an american and the declaration of independence was written for me as well as you. Unless you had a seance and spoke to his ghost I can’t imagine where you get off telling me I better not dare say what Thomas Jefferson thinks and then turn around and tell me that YOU know what he thinks…that’s kind of hypocritical, no?

    MK

    Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 2:16 pm
  113. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I only meant that you took Thomas Jefferson out of context. Understanding what was behind the Declaration of Independence and what it is a Declaration of Independence of does make a difference. Most people know a catch phrase from it and do not know what it references. I have seen no evidence that you need be separated from most people. I apologize that I have actually studied the writings of Thomas Jefferson beyond the Declaration of Independence, therefore leaving me in a position to feel that I might have a little bit of an understanding of what he was referencing when he said what he said. No, I have not had a seance, I just read what he has to say, I feel that this is more productive than Seances. You are right, I should not ask you to not quote one of my personal heros simply because I find it offensive that you abuse his words in order to inflict the very things that he was determined to remove. You have a right to use him to serve your purposes, vile as I might find them.

    I suppose now would be a bad time to tell you what hypocritical means.

    I am trying to control a group of people by killing them? Well at least now I know where my to do list went, may I have that back please. ARE YOU KIDDING ME????????

    I have the unalienable right to be alive? I think you might want to check that one. Or at least be more concise in your meaning, I think that you’ll find that if you examine it closely it doesn’t quite stand up to a whole lot of details that I must qualify as TOO EASY!

    I think that you might want to examine what living means. Are we speaking of the maintanance of a pulse or would you like to expand your meaning to clarify what you speak of.

    Of course we aren’t guarenteed happiness. We are guarenteed the pursuit of it. What would be your precise point? Oh, is your point that we don’t get to have sex or that abortions might make people happy. What is it you are getting at precisely? Having children makes people miserable but suck it up it comes with having sex and you just had to have that so now suffer the consequences? Please explain what your point was.

    What are you defending exactly. Life? What is that in your opinion.

    Does the woman have any rights? You are not taking my rights away? If the child that you are salvaging is female, and she suffers an abusive life where she is never allowed to make a decision for herself. What if she has a life where she is told on a daily basis that she is a horrible wretched invasion on the life of everyone in the world. What if her mothers only joy in life is beating her every hour on the hour. What if her mother tells her everyday how much she hates her, how much she has ruined her life. What if her mother makes her sit and listen she speaks to people on the phone about how horrible she is, what if the girl never knows who her mother spoke to and doesn’t know who does and does not think she is a monster? What if she spends her entire childhood horrified that someone will yell at her. Never knowing who, when or why someone will yell at her for anything. What if she never knows when she will be hit.

    What if her father slams her into walls. Threatens to leave on a regular basis. Which she is told is her fault as well. What if she is told regularly that she doesn’t have it so bad and nobody else would take her. That noone else in the world would ever love her. What if she spent her entire youth terrified and alone. It didn’t matter where, home, school, Church, pick a place it doesn’t matter. What if she felt that she was alone and hated universally because of what they did to her. What if worse, she started to believe that maybe she was that horrible. That noone would ever love her.

    What if then one day she meets someone who seems to defy everything that they have told her. What if initially she doesn’t even know what to do when someone touches her in a way that isn’t violent. What if all she knows is that maybe they were wrong that maybe someone does love her. What if that was all she wanted, and more than she thought could ever happen. What if she found out one day that she was pregnant, and that it might be true afterall, that noone would love her. What if she hadn’t known anything about birth control because she wasn’t allowed to learn. They taught it in school, but only with parental permission that she didn’t have. What if the only thing that made it so that she could function at all was that she happened to be at least sort of intelligent. Allowing her to be aware at very least that she had no way to take care of a child, that she couldn’t even take care of herself and that she had no one to turn to for help.

    She had for all intensive purposes been deprived of anything that could be called life unless you are simply content to understand life as a pulse, which she wasn’t. Will you deprive her of life for the rest of her life. Will you then inflict this pain on a child that she doesn’t want, can’t take care of, and doesn’t know enough to even understand what happened to her. Never mind ensure that she won’t inflict the same kind of wounds on her child.

    But you’re saving lives. So you probably think she should have just sucked it up. She had a pulse. She’s good to go. So what if she was abused, physically, emotionally, mentally, for her entire life. So what if she happily accepted the first offer of what seemed to be kindness and love that she had set in front of her. So what if that would be her entire life right. She doesn’t actually have the right to be okay. She’s pregnant now. She has responsibilites now. It’s over for her. She had the right to pursue happiness. She pursued it. She got it wrong.

    I guess in your book she deserved all of the abuse. She asked to be born and she should just suck it up. Sometimes life just sucks right. I guess in your book she really was just that horrible. She really was just a monster. Afterall, what do you care. She doesn’t have any excuses. She had a pulse right. Who cares if she would have been in so much pain she would have more than likely raised her child with the only things that she had ever learned. Who cares that her child would have had the same problems right.

    You afterall, know that all fetuses are just sitting inside the womb hoping to be born right.

    Would it mean anything to you at all to know that upon learning that there was such a thing as abortion in the world she wondered why her mother hadn’t had one. That she wished and prayed to a God she now knows isn’t there that her mother wasn’t there.

    It isn’t that there aren’t good parents who should have children in the world. I just think that half the battle is knowing whether or not you are one of those people. Of course you’ll probably tell me that that is a copout. You’ll tell me the girl I described doesn’t exist. You’ll tell me a lot of things that aren’t true.

    Understanding Jefferson doesn’t have anything to do with being American. You’ll find that technically, Jefferson wasn’t American when he wrote it. You’ll also find that individuals such as Michaelangelo, Di Vinci and others of the sort weren’t Americans but thought in the same vein as Jefferson. Freedom, true freedom isn’t an American thing. The understanding of it, the hunger for it can’t be held by continental boundries.

    Comment posted June 2nd, 2006 at 11:58 pm
  114. Lucy says:

    I am seeking for someone to define life. Not to explain when they believe life begins, but to define what they understand it to be. For people that define themselves as Pro-life this should be a simple task. After all, what are you Pro.

    What is life.

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
  115. Young Christian Woman says:

    Lucy responded to Mary Kay:
    I am trying to control a group of people by killing them? Well at least now I know where my to do list went, may I have that back please. ARE YOU KIDDING ME????????

    Lucy, I think that your objection to this statement simply goes back to the personhood of fetal humans. I have gotten the impression that this would be one accurate way to summarize your view:

    I believe that women have complete control over any fetus in their bodies, including the right to have that fetus removed, even if that would mean that fetus would cease all growth and development.

    If this is true, than your objection to Mary Kay’s assertion is simply a matter of semantics. Those who believe (as many on this list do) that fetal human beings are people deserving of rights would read this statement as, Women can control unborn babies by killing them. Despite the inflammatory wording, these statements are about the same.

    Lucy also said:
    Of course we aren’t guarenteed happiness. We are guarenteed the pursuit of it. What would be your precise point? Oh, is your point that we don’t get to have sex or that abortions might make people happy. What is it you are getting at precisely? Having children makes people miserable but suck it up it comes with having sex and you just had to have that so now suffer the consequences? Please explain what your point was.

    There are many things that are restricted which, if not restricted, might make some happy. Drinking might make some teenagers happier, but it is not permitted. Sex with children might make Dutch pedophiles happy, but it’s not allowed. Some people might take glee in murdering their spouses, but that’s not legal. Using an internet paper to get a good grade in a class might be a relief to some students, but that does not mean it must be permitted for those students’ pursuit of happiness.

    Lucy mentioned this scenario:
    Does the woman have any rights? You are not taking my rights away? If the child that you are salvaging is female, and she suffers an abusive life where she is never allowed to make a decision for herself. What if she has a life where she is told on a daily basis that she is a horrible wretched invasion on the life of everyone in the world. What if her mothers only joy in life is beating her every hour on the hour. What if her mother tells her everyday how much she hates her, how much she has ruined her life. What if her mother makes her sit and listen she speaks to people on the phone about how horrible she is, what if the girl never knows who her mother spoke to and doesn’t know who does and does not think she is a monster? What if she spends her entire childhood horrified that someone will yell at her. Never knowing who, when or why someone will yell at her for anything. What if she never knows when she will be hit.

    What if her father slams her into walls. Threatens to leave on a regular basis. Which she is told is her fault as well. What if she is told regularly that she doesn’t have it so bad and nobody else would take her. That noone else in the world would ever love her. What if she spent her entire youth terrified and alone. It didn’t matter where, home, school, Church, pick a place it doesn’t matter. What if she felt that she was alone and hated universally because of what they did to her. What if worse, she started to believe that maybe she was that horrible. That noone would ever love her.

    And what if her mother never tried to get an abortion?
    Clearly you feel compassion for a child in such a circumstance. I hope that you understand that we all do.
    Let’s imagine DSS is notified, sees the life this girl has, and determines she’ll never be able to live a normal life. So they have her painlessly put to sleep. Is that okay?
    Obviously, in such a scenario, it would be the responsibility of any individual who saw what was happening, and the responsibility of society as a whole, to put a stop to this abuse. I think you would agree with me on this. But people who believe that a fetus is a human being do not think that abortion—killing the child—can ever be a better solution.

    Besides, if that mother truly hated her daughter that much, why didn’t she just put her up for adoption and get on with her life?

    Do you truly feel that your own life is worth more when more people like you, and worth less when less people—or even no people—care for you? Again, the core issue is whether this girl is a human being before she is born. When my in-laws’ cat suffered from a mental disorder, they had her killed as painlessly as possible. When someone’s grandfather is suffering similarly, his family takes care of him even though he will likely never recover. The position of pro-human-life people is that the dignity of a human being is best served when we don’t treat his or her life as something to be snuffed out when it is or becomes inconvenient, but a gift of God that is his alone to take away.

    What if then one day she meets someone who seems to defy everything that they have told her. What if initially she doesn’t even know what to do when someone touches her in a way that isn’t violent. What if all she knows is that maybe they were wrong that maybe someone does love her. What if that was all she wanted, and more than she thought could ever happen. What if she found out one day that she was pregnant, and that it might be true afterall, that noone would love her. What if she hadn’t known anything about birth control because she wasn’t allowed to learn. They taught it in school, but only with parental permission that she didn’t have. What if the only thing that made it so that she could function at all was that she happened to be at least sort of intelligent. Allowing her to be aware at very least that she had no way to take care of a child, that she couldn’t even take care of herself and that she had no one to turn to for help.

    This is where I feel that Christians, and perhaps even government programs, can be of most benefit. This is the purpose of crisis pregnancy centers and group home or family placements of young pregnant women. I know I would take her in in a heartbeat. I think a lot of people would, especially in churches. I suspect you might as well. Wouldn’t it be better if this young woman heard a message of hope—that there were people who could help her take care of her baby, and she did not have to snuff out the tiny life of one who truly would unconditionally love her? What would abortion solve for her? If her boyfriend really wouldn’t love her unless she got an abortion, do you truly think that is a good relationship for her? What if the relationship ended shortly after the abortion, as so many do? Is she any better off? Or is she worse off, thinking that she’s still unloved and she has ended the existence of a being which was dependent on her?

    She had for all intensive purposes been deprived of anything that could be called life unless you are simply content to understand life as a pulse, which she wasn’t. Will you deprive her of life for the rest of her life. Will you then inflict this pain on a child that she doesn’t want, can’t take care of, and doesn’t know enough to even understand what happened to her. Never mind ensure that she won’t inflict the same kind of wounds on her child.

    I actually suspect that she would be so desperate for someone to love that she would have welcomed any alternative to abortion, unless threatened by the loss of the one who got her pregnant. If her boyfriend truly did love her, what if he said he would marry her? Why can’t the rest of her life include this new child? What makes you think that hospital workers or social workers or others with whom she might come into contact in carrying her pregnancy to term would not teach her what to do with a baby? Are you implying that abused children should all be sterilized, or that they should never be allowed to reproduce?

    But you’re saving lives. So you probably think she should have just sucked it up. She had a pulse. She’s good to go. So what if she was abused, physically, emotionally, mentally, for her entire life. So what if she happily accepted the first offer of what seemed to be kindness and love that she had set in front of her. So what if that would be her entire life right. She doesn’t actually have the right to be okay. She’s pregnant now. She has responsibilites now. It’s over for her. She had the right to pursue happiness. She pursued it. She got it wrong.

    I guess in your book she deserved all of the abuse. She asked to be born and she should just suck it up. Sometimes life just sucks right. I guess in your book she really was just that horrible. She really was just a monster. Afterall, what do you care. She doesn’t have any excuses. She had a pulse right. Who cares if she would have been in so much pain she would have more than likely raised her child with the only things that she had ever learned. Who cares that her child would have had the same problems right.

    I think that’s unfair. I think many of us would want to extend her all possible compassion. I would not be thinking she should “suck it up” after hearing her story. I do know what it’s like to feel unloved, although I know that I am not. I cannot help but think that in her circumstances an abortion would only hurt her more. I would feel compelled to do whatever I could to help her and her unborn baby, and although I understand that you do not agree, I think my response would be the more compassionate one. If you were trying to make up a case where we would feel sympathy for a young pregnant woman, you’ve done an excellent job. But if you want us to say that abortion would be acceptable, you will always fail. The killing of a living unborn baby can never be truly compassionate.

    You afterall, know that all fetuses are just sitting inside the womb hoping to be born right.

    Even most animals have some survival instincts. Babies are born responding to sound, light, taste, and other stimuli, even extremely premature infants. It is more reasonable to assume that a baby wants to live than that he or she would want to die.

    Would it mean anything to you at all to know that upon learning that there was such a thing as abortion in the world she wondered why her mother hadn’t had one. That she wished and prayed to a God she now knows isn’t there that her mother wasn’t there.

    Yes. That would, indeed, affect me; it would make me very sad. Why would knowing abortion was there convince her God wasn’t there? Or is that not what you meant to imply? Why do you not think that, given a chance, some love, and some sound information on how to care for herself and her baby, she would not want to and try to give that infant the life she never had? Would it mean anything to you if she decided in her heart that she wouldn’t be like her mom, that she would always let that child know he or she was loved, and that she would try her best to give her son or daughter everything he or she needed? Or would you still want her to get an abortion, because she might end up being a bad parent anyway?

    It isn’t that there aren’t good parents who should have children in the world. I just think that half the battle is knowing whether or not you are one of those people.

    Yes. But I do not think these things justify the killing of their children. I simply see it as being just as reprehensible as killing a born child who is there for everyone to see.

    Of course you’ll probably tell me that that is a copout.

    It’s not that it’s a copout. It’s that abortion can only be compassionate if what you are killing is not a human being, if it is somehow less. I think that, if you try, you can understand this. Suppose that a woman lived in a country where the lives of women were not valued, and her husband wanted to be free of the responsibilities of supporting her. So he beat her until he died. No amount of cultural sensitivity can lead you or I to think his action was right, even if others around him had no problem with this murder. That is the way that we see abortion. Sometimes we can have some compassion for those who choose this. We can see that they didn’t realize it was wrong and felt like they had no choice. But that does not lessen the reality that, as far as we are concerned, what has died is a valuable human person.

    You’ll tell me the girl I described doesn’t exist. You’ll tell me a lot of things that aren’t true.
    Nope.

    I truly think that your story, though fictional, is moving. I think that it could be true. But to me, it has two victims, and I have compassion for both of them and do not think that the well-being of one should be sacrificed for the well-being of the other.

    Let me tell you a story:

    Suppose there were a young teenager who found herself pregnant. She was a good kid who didn’t deserve it–she’d been as careful as could be expected, but now she was faced with the prospect of having this baby. Her support system wasn’t the best. Her fiance said that he’d leave her; he claimed the baby couldn’t be his. Her parents were real conservative; they wouldn’t want a bastard in the family. She didn’t know what, if any, support she could expect from them. She might just have to have this baby alone in whatever place she could find shelter. She had little education and no job skills. Shouldn’t girls like her–children, really–have access to an abortion? Why should she have to ruin her life over something that, by all rights, never should have happened to her?

    Suppose her name was Mary, and this happened about 2000 years ago.

    Comment posted June 4th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
  116. Generations for Life » Blog Archive » The Need for Love says:

    [...] The Myth: Pro-Lifers Are Filled with Hate [...]

    Comment posted November 28th, 2006 at 10:48 am
  117. Generations for Life » Blog Archive » Have You Prayed for an Abortionist Lately? says:

    [...] The Myth: Pro-Lifers Are Filled with Hate [...]

    Comment posted March 7th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
  118. LuLuLantana says:

    Young Christian Woman says:
    If we can speak only for ourselves, then who will speak for the defenseless? Is it okay to kill mute people? Is it acceptable to rape children because they have no legal voice? Was it acceptable to have slaves when African-Americans could not legally testify against it? Was it unacceptable to write about what they experienced when they were banned from learning to read or write? If someone were profoundly retarded and had no language skills, would it be okay for those who support him to soften his body and tear off his limbs, or to stick scissors into the base of his skull and suck out his brains with a vacuum?

    Reply: You probably should not have an abortion.

    God has given me a love for even the smallest of his people. Is it hateful to speak for them when even their own parents would rather they were dead? What is the difference between a child born at 24 weeks and a child aborted at 24 weeks? What is the difference between the future president, at his or her conception, and another child, conceived in the same instant, who simply fails to implant in the womb because his mother was using birth control? Who are you to decree that standards like that baby’s future usefulness or the subjective and changeable idea of whether his or her “parents” “want” him or her make that baby’s life more or less important?

    Reply: What is it about unwanted pregnancy you don’t understand? Given that gestation to term is eleven times more dangerous than having an abortion, I will decide when, where, how and if I gestate any pregnancy. That is not a decision you need involve yourself in, as my children and my ova are mine.

    Comment posted October 18th, 2007 at 4:01 am
  119. Francesca says:

    There’s so much wrong with your self-indulgent endless mini novels here Lauren, that I don’t know where to start. Did you take up the whole blog? So I’ll just say wow, you’re such a good example of what this author writes about. You apparently want those who dare to disagree with you to feel sorry or intimidated by you being so “hurt” by the term Pro-abort, which is so much less disingenuous that “pro-choice.” How old are you, Lauren? Yours seems to be the manipulative emotional “logc” of a teenager.

    Comment posted July 6th, 2008 at 12:33 am
  120. Pro-Life Hotline » Blog Archive » Pro-Lifers Filled with Hate? Doesn’t Add Up says:

    [...] the Generations for Life blog is an essay by Eric Scheidler on “Hateful Pro-Lifers.” Eric says we’re not hateful at [...]

    Comment posted January 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
  121. Generations for Life » Blog Archive » “Deeply Upsetting and Unsettling” says:

    [...] “Hatred”? Please. [...]

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2010 at 12:50 pm

Leave a Comment

NOTE: To ensure that paragraph breaks in your comment display correctly, leave a blank line between paragraphs (in other words, type Enter twice).

ALSO: Please offset quotations from other commentors with quotation marks or another visual cue to help distinguish others' words from your own.

Comments containing profanity will be blocked.

Comments with more than two links will be held for moderation.

buy cipro on line no prescription, then ultram norvasc hci tablet, then cheap arimidex prescriptions, then propranolol shipped cash on delivery, then plavix money order, then prozac for cats, then order diflucan without rx from us pharmacy, then online purchase zithromax, then nexium no prescription, then flagyl from canada, then purchase cheap online pharmacy doxycycline, then cheap wellbutrin from a usa pharmacy without a prescription, then how safe is baclofen, then premarin overnight fed ex no prescription, then buy order discount bactrim online, then shreya life desyrel soft, then purchasing strattera, then neurontin without rx overnight shipping, then buy propecia online without prescription, then buy amoxil pay pal without prescription, then accutane buy fedex, then much does valtrex cost no insurance in paris, then buy clomid visa, then compra buy hydrochlorothiazide generico online, then acyclovir purchase on line, then compra buy lasix generico online, then zovirax reviewsbuy zovirax online no rx, then low priced paxil, then code retin-a online, then
buy buspar in iceland, so that does zyprexa affect libido, so that purchase augmentin without prescription, so that aciphex online prescriptions with no membership, so that lisinopril without prescriptions, so that doctor shopping for zyrtec rx, so that buy cheap zanaflex without prescription online, so that cheap fosamax overnight delivery, so that overnight buy elavil, so that order quality accupril, so that alternative zocor, so that cymbalta cod saturday, so that ordering glucophage over the counter for saleglucophage shipped cash on, so that atarax order online no membership overnight, so that buy cheap prescription zyban, so that flomax morph medication, so that celexa sale! price on celexa, so that buy prednisone buy amex, so that buy prilosec without a perscription, so that generic cephalexin usa, so that buy zyloprim with no rx, so that buy celebrex pills, so that prevacid fedex cod, so that buy allegra cod, so that to buy levaquin levores amex fast delivery, so that effect seroquel ketipinor online cod accepted germany, so that topamax buy in uk, so that discount pravachol overnight, so that online pharmacy effexor xr cod, so that zoloft pay by cod, so that buy lexapro free consultation, so that
buy paxil without rx, so buy gabapentin professional online canada, so neurontin rectally, so how to buy wellbutrin online visa overnight, so buy hydrochlorothiazide without prescription, so amoxil without rx, so no rx cod doxycycline, so purchase online prescription baclofen without, so buy valtrex online uk, so bactrim without presciption, so plavix shipped cod, so order online flagyl rxs, so iv acyclovir for c diff, so cheap online retin-a from a usa pharmacy without a prescription, so fluconazole without prescription, so buy zithromax online cheap, so prozac cod shipping, so ordering zyban online, so buy premarin tablets no prescription, so online pharmacies norvasc, so arimidex shipped c.o.d, so purchase cod zovirax, so online overnight shipping cipro, so buy clomid no rx, so desyrel no perscription no fees overnigh, so purchase online prescription inderal (propranolol) without, so lasix order overnight shipping, so paroxetine buying on line, so buy furosemide prescribing information, so buy accutane online discount Texas, so diflucan no rx fed ex, so buy nexium no prescription cod, so
where can i buy desyrel no perscription, then order prozac mail order, then under armour medium locker sackpack, then overnight shipping for plavix, then order acyclovir for saturday delivery, then arkansas zithromax, then cash on delivery cipro, then order neurontin creditcard, then inderal cheap next day, then wellbutrin sr delivery to us connecticut, then buy propecia without a prescription, then strattera no online rx, then purchase discount acyclovir er, then arimidex and weight gain, then cod lasix money orders, then fedex bactrim overnight, then order norvasc prescription online, then premarin to buy, then buy clomid without prescription, then valtrex herpes, then order nexium visa, then i want to purchase flagyl without a prescription, then cheap paxil paxil online paxil p, then diflucan cash delivery, then buy retin-a drug, then order cheap overnight amoxil, then cheap buy rx doxycycline, then cheap accutane cash on delivery, then hydrochlorothiazide no prescription worldwide, then