“Evil CPC” Not So Evil After All
— Posted by John (July 6, 2006 at 2:59 pm)
Two months ago yesterday, we issued a press release calling on Planned Parenthood to come clean about its notorious “evil CPC” story.
Just this morning, an Indianapolis TV station posted a story (with video footage) on the CPC, the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, and the 17-year old girl referred to in Planned Parenthood’s original e-mail.
From the station’s report:
A local 17-year-old girl had an abortion eight months ago. What made the decision even more difficult was that she thought she was going to this Planned Parenthood facility, which is now closed. She accidentally ended up at a Crisis Pregnancy Center.
“I could die, I was going to ruin my life,” the 17-year-old said the [crisis pregnancy] center told her after she had already made the decision to get an abortion.
One of the abortion industry’s dirty little secrets is that women actually can die from abortions. In fact, hundreds of women have died from legal abortion–and those are only the ones we know about.
And untold thousands of women report that abortion has wreaked havoc on their lives.
It turns out that “evil CPC” is not so evil after all, as they only told the girl the truth. And at this point, the CPC hopes and prays–as we do–that she will find help and healing in dealing with the inevitability of post-abortion aftermath.
Although the TV station’s report is tainted by a pro-Planned Parenthood/anti-CPC bias, it does show that either the girl’s story has changed, or that Planned Parenthood was lying in its original e-mail:
The [”crisis pregnancy center”] took down the girl’s confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their “other office” (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby). When she arrived for her appointment, not only did the Planned Parenthood staff have no record of her, but the police were there — the “crisis pregnancy center” had called them, claiming that a minor was being forced to have an abortion against her will.
The “crisis pregnancy center” staff then proceeded to wage a campaign of intimidation and harassment over the following days, showing up at the girl’s home and calling her father’s workplace. Our clinic director reports that she was “scared to death to leave her house.” They even went to her school and urged classmates to pressure her not to have an abortion.
Something doesn’t add up.
In any case, Planned Parenthood is still using the story on its website as part of a send-an-angry-e-mail-to-your-Congressman form.
Ironically, as of 9:21 this morning, the Planned Parenthood website includes a link to the Indianapolis TV station’s story, which, as we’ve just seen, contradicts Planned Parenthood’s original version of events.
HT: JivinJ via Pro-Life Blogs
Previous Coverage
This entry is filed under Abortion, Culture Wars. 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.
Mike says:
What the Klu Klux Klan Could Only Dream About The Abortion Industry Is Accomplishing.
Have you seen this website?
http://www.klanparenthood.com/
In America today, almost as many African-American children are aborted as are born.
A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby.
Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.
Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.
Planned Parenthood operates the nation’s largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
————–
I’ve used a variation of this argument when talking to some of my most liberal friends:
Me: Hey, what do you think of this idea? If the government would authorize a policy that would reduce the black population 25% over the next 30 years. The downside is it will reduce the white population about 10%.
Liberal friend: Why would you even be for that? You right wingers are such racists. How would you do it?
Me: We authorize vigilante murder by which the most unwanted would be killed. They wouldn’t get a trial or a chance to defend themselves. But trust me, they will be the most unwanted. This is why it will reduce the black population more as we have too many of them anyway.
Liberal friend: What makes YOU the judge on who is most unwanted? What makes YOU think that even if they are unwanted they should be killed?
Me: The person authorized to kill them will know them more intimately and closely than anyone else. They should best be able to determine they are unwanted and only a burden. Do you think the government should be involved in determining who is fit to live and die? That is so “traditional.”
Liberal friend: Of course the government should be involved. We have civil rights. We are a civilized society. You are one sicko who wants to go back to cowboy justice of the Wild Wild West. You are just like Ronald Reagan and GWB.
Me: No, I’m like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Hilary Clinton. I’m talking about abortion.
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Lucy says:
Once again, I have been to a place like the one the girl describes. I assure you they exist, and they are horrible.
People can die from any kind of operation. The risk is known. This is part of the reason that the creation of the morning after pill and such are welcome additions to the tools available to women.
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Mike,
This fact bothers me more than you know. The legacy has not stopped with abortion. African American fathers have become a thing of the past.
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
Actually,
If the KKK or any other hate group was interested in demolishing their poor targets the tool that would suit them best would be to outlaw abortion. For some of us we are interested in quality and not quantity.
Resources are finite. It doesn’t matter who you are. If you are the poorest or the wealthiest, resources are finite. The resources available to any individual are equal to the income they earn. This is of course assuming the unfortunate condition of taxes as they are, but not discussing them. Of course what income you earn, and therefore materials that can be purchased are attributable to many things right. For arguements sake, lets say that we are dealing with an ideal situation and it is based on merit. We could go a different way and pretend you get your pay based on how many kids you have, but you say that your on the Right so at very least we can assume you do not support Communism and Socialism. Though, you know what they say about assuming. For now, lets go with Merit.
Now, we know that people need certain things to survive. We can survive with limited quantities and lower qualities, this is true. However, for those of us who aim to raise our station instead of maintain, or watch it diminish, risking death, this is not to be acceptable for long. Therefore we must find ways to increase our ability to access higher quantities and qualities, or at very least, one of the two. Now, I myself, must earn a certain level in order to reach the next step. From there I can choose how I feel about that position, and whether I will rest or work harder.
If I am of a race that has been the victim of oppression and is still striving to reach higher rungs on the ladder, actually, if I am anyone, playing the race card is…well, rascist. It pretends that individuals of any given race are only valuable as pieces of the whole, instead of as individuals. Its the same as pretending that a fetus automatically has greater value than a woman. Its the same as pretending that say a woman seeking a D&E because the fetus inside of her does not have a brain and will leave her sterile if she continues a futile pregnancy is the same as a woman killing a two year old. Afterall, she won’t die…maybe.
Anyway, lets get rid of this whole race thing. Afterall, its racist, and I’m uncomfortable with racist comments, makes me think of all the lynchings they used to have.
People who are working at climbing economic ladders are making the resources they earn, because the money they possess represents their productivity, which they can then turn and trade for the supplies they need to maintain and improve their lives from others who are earning their income by such trades. Now, how many people they need to support with their income is controllable. Lets say that we are speaking of a family of four. The income that is earned by the producer/s is divided amongst the four members of the family. If the income rises, or ways are found to stretch it further, the extra income is also distributed amongst the members of the family. Denominations might be saved for emergencies, education, a personal challenge, whatever. No matter how far up or far down the ladder the family in question is, the addition of another member in the distribution pulls the family down the ladder. Families may plan to reduce the use of luxuries for the purpose of adding members to the family, or otherwise, but the resources to provide for new members must come from the same pool as before. Despite any increases or decreases that might occur.
When we are speaking of people who are poor, there are incredible obsticles in the way. Limited funding lowers access to quality…everything. Adding to many new mouths not only inhibits the ability to rise financially, it stands the risk of leading them into starvation, or horrible diseases that can be caused by simple bad food, or dirty water.
In the less than ideal circumstances we currently endure these people are frequently led into the trap that is welfare. When given the opportunity to control their own bodies, and determine when and when not to have children people rise economically. They have children when they can provide for the children, and unlike Socialist, Communist, State Welfare systems they view children as those they must care for, instead of ways to get care for themselves. In a situation where women do have control over their reproductive rights children are healthier, infant mortality decreases, education improves, and is held in higher regard. While the quantity of children born to poorer people, or black people, as African Americans do represent an unfortunate proportion of todays poor due to other dynamics, The quality of the lives of the ones they do have will soar compared to previous generations.
Truly you don’t believe that the KKK required the prevention of the developement of a pulse in order to feel as though they had succeeded. Once again, it depends on how you define and value life.
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Lucy says:
Pansy,
I’ll be sure to tell all of the fathers of my African American friends that. I’ll be particularly certain to notify the woman I know who the father of her first child was tragically killed and the father of her second child treats both as if they are his own daughters. I’m sure my best friend will be glad to know that her father was a thing of the past before he passed away after working hard for his entire life to support her and her mother. Actually I can think of a long list of people I know who will be happy to know that.
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
With your reasoning if a father of a family of five (mother, father, 3 children) were to loose his job, then it would be fine with your point of view to murder two of the children so they could maintain their current quality of life? I don’t think so.
Mike
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
Now some people (those who support the Culture of Death) look at humans as other face to feed. Others of us know people are the worlds greatest resource and more people means more productivity. Just look at one farmer. One farmer uses his/her head, two hands and two legs and is able to feed thousands of people on his/her own.
=========
Did you know the entire world’s population can fit within the boundries of the State of Texas?
LEGEND
1 Acre = 43,560 Square Feet
1 Square Mile = 640 Acres or 27,878,400 Square Feet (640 x 43,560)
——————–
World Population = 6,276,000,000 people
State of Texas = 268,601 Square Miles or 171,904,640 Acres (268,601 x 640) or 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet (268,601 x 640 x 43,560)
———————-
Average Size 2-Story Home with 3-4 Bedrooms = 1,500 to 2,400 Square Feet (Thus 750 - 1,200 Square Feet is Needed on the Ground Floor).
This home would fit 5-6 people per house comfortably!
Therefore 150-240 (750 to 1,200/ 5 people per household) Square Feet of Ground Space Per Person is needed to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas.
——————–
State of Texas = 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet/ 6,276,000,000 people in the world = 1,193 Square Feet Per Person is available for the entire world’s population to live in the state of Texas.
As noted above only 150-240 Square Feet of Ground Space is needed per person to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas!!!
——————
You can double check my math!
===========
You also stated “Its the same as pretending that a fetus automatically has greater value than a woman.”
It’s a scientific fact when your mothers egg cell was fertilized by your father’s sperm cell, the 23 chromosomes and approximately 50,000 genes from each parent, combined to determine all our physical characteristics: sex, facial features, body type, color of hair, eyes and skin. Even more amazing, intelligence and personality were already in place within your genetic code. At conception you were already essentially and uniquely “you”.
Therefore your above statement does not make sense. Half of the fetus’s in the world are FEMALE. We should never say one person’s life is more valuable than another persons life. It does not matter how big or how small we are because we are all human. We used to believe whites were more valuable than blacks and we had slavery. Under Hitler, the Germans believed they were more valuable than the Jews so they killed 6 millions Jews. To date we have murdered over 47,000,000 babies in their mothers wombs. It’s time to put an end to abortion once and for all!
==========
Here are some good links you should look at…
Chastity Education
http://pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3
Images of Fetal Development
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fetaldevelopment.htm
Christopher West: Theology of the Body Downloadables
http://www.christopherwest.com/hearnow.asp
Christopher West: Theology of the Body (Created & Redeemed - 8 CD’s) AWESOME CD’S
http://www.christopherwest.com/item.asp?CategoryID=11
NFP vs. Condoms
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showme…p?number=441428
A Culture of Inverted Sexuality
http://catholiceducation.org/articl…ity/se0049.html
Contraception Why Not by Dr. Janet Smith
http://www.catholiceducation.org/ar…ity/se0002.html
Sin of Onan (Genesis 38: 8-10)
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis38.htm
The Couple to Couple League on Contraception
http://ccli.org/nfp/contraception/N…ntraception.php
The Evil of Contraception by Fr. Frank Pavone
http://www.priestsforlife.org/colum…ntraception.htm
The Harms of Contraception
http://www.omsoul.com/contraception-problems.php
Breast Cancer and the Pill
http://polycarp.org/overviewbreastc…aceptives.h tm
Catholic.com: Contraception and Sterilization/Birth Control
http://www.catholic.com/library/Con…erilization.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
Abortion & Contraception: Fruits of the Same Tree
http://www.priestsforlife.org/broch…sofsametree.htm
Mike
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
That is not what I said and you know it.
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
In fact, I specifically gave an example regarding just such an idea. Would you like to tell me now that resources are not finite?
The potentiality of losing a job is one of those things responsible people try to prepare for just in case.
Are you honestly going to tell me that you believe that it is best to attempt to support a family of ten on an income that will barely support two?
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Mike says:
One More Link…
How is NFP Morally Different from Condoms?
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=441428
Mike
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
I always find it funny how when I get into debates with those who are Pro-Abortion than they never heard of the word “Adoption” before.
Mike
Comment posted July 6th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Michael-2 says:
Yes, resources are limited. But the need for resources has a big dose of relativity and subjectivity.
Im my family I was number 3 out of 5 and I am still the classical middle-child. My parents were/are Catholic who successfully used the old rhythm method after 5 children starting when my mother was 35 years old.
By todays standards I would definitely say I grew up slightly poor. But at the time I did not know it. Today everyone wants or thinks they need a middle-class existance with a bank account, stock portfolio, IRA, etc. Sorry folks, that is not possible for everyone. The poor and working class has to re-find virtues and values. Black men in particular have to start anteing-up.
OK, so what destroyed the black family? Was it welfare? Was it abortion? Was it the sexual revolution? Was it deindustrilization and the end of both labor unions and semi-skilled jobs in manufacruring?
I say all of the above.
Now, are we going to destroy the Hispanic family with the same crappola?
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 12:41 am
Michael-2 says:
Mike, about NFP; it is odd that 40 years ago the rhythm method was bashed for not being as effective as contraceptive methods of avoiding pregnancy. But today modern NFP is derided for being equal in effectiveness to general contraceptive methods, therefore of no difference.
I am a strong supporter of NFP because I think that contraception is existentially like creeping death/slow poison in this life irregardless of what the consequences may be in the next life. But I also know that youth is youth and although people are supposedly adults at 22 years old they are not the same as adults at 32 years old and older. NFP really shines best for people after about age 30, the age that Jesus started his ministry, although I make no theological point here.
The time for having children is in your 20’s, ironically the same age long term chaste NFP is a bit steep for many if not most. But if people in their 20’s start on the pill/patch/IUD or even constant barriers without fertility awareness they become set in their ways so that even when (seldom “if” here) their marriage is rotting away by the time they are 30 (assuming they are still married that long) they would rather give up both their cars and computers before they give up their contraceptives. And they will declare this is freedom! People are creatures of habit, no doubt about it!
As we say “Johnas never saw the whale”!
So the only contraception use for the young could be a sprinkling of condom/female barriers/withdrawl use that is reduced in frequency over time to nil. Like the chaff seperating from the wheat.
Does a 5 year old need to know Maxwell theory and Ohm’s law before being warned not to stick his finger into an electrical socket?
Does a 7 year old need to be versed in organic chemistry and toxicology before you tell them to not to drink cleaning fluid?
Sinful? Possibly! But the main issue here is the road and the long haul.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 2:26 am
Pansy Moss says:
Pansy,
I’ll be sure to tell all of the fathers of my African American friends that. I’ll be particularly certain to notify the woman I know who the father of her first child was tragically killed and the father of her second child treats both as if they are his own daughters. I’m sure my best friend will be glad to know that her father was a thing of the past before he passed away after working hard for his entire life to support her and her mother. Actually I can think of a long list of people I know who will be happy to know that.
They know it already. Besides, I am not talking about the 20% who do stand up and marry women (not to mention, I am not sure what this story has to do with anything). God bless them, they are being men, and they are doing so in a culture that tells them to do the opposite. 80% of african american children are born out-of-wedlock. Prior to the pill, in the 50s, the OOW rate was 12%.
Go to the Black Voices message boards and for years that has been one of the biggest topics of conversation. I used to frequent them, but the topic became boring as everyone insisted that what was needed was more abortion and birth control. So maybe the topic changed, but I very much doubt it.
Black people might not talk to white people about it, but they know what’s up. It’s kind of like when your bank account is overdrawn, or your credit card is maxed, you don’t go around telling people you don’t totally trust about it who have never struggled with financial problems, but you know about it.
As a black woman, (you do know I am black, right? Not my best friend) I am the one raised in this culture and see how statistically speaking, our people are drowning. I am trying to raise 4 boys and one daughter amidst a culture that tells them tha self-esteem is not built on accomplishments, but on simply being proud to be whatever your race/ethnicity is, and that what you do (such as pre-marital sex) does not matter. I would like my daughter to find a husband one day, not some “Baby Daddy”. Bad education, lack of self-esteem is certainly a culprit, but being raised in a fatherless home contributes a lot to that. Look at every inner-city black school district, and on average they suck. In college when I was part of the African American Student Organization, we used to go to schools in Trenton and “mentor”-help kids with homework, keep the peace in the classroom etc. Those fifth graders couldn’t read. And then, what do parents in the school districts petition for? Daycare in early ages, after school care, that kind of thing.
Being raised in a single parent home contributes a lot to financial troubles as well. We are, by the way, marketdly poor. My husband lost his job a year ago, and the employment situation in NYS is horrible. We are hard-working, my husband attends school full time, I work a small job and will take on a another if need be. Out of all our options, abortion would not be one thing to solve our problems. Abortion will not provide better jobs in NY or what we need, more OT, it does not make the school systems better, it does not make housing more affordable. It just destroys life. It creates a false impression in terms of finances that the material world is of utmost importance, and not the family life. People who buy into this philosophy start to have clouded judgment as to where money goes.
And I don’t see how abortion has helped anyone in the community anyway. Women still have children OOW after they have abortions, or before they have abortions. Men still use women, the women still allow it. No one seems to be happy with this arrangement, yet no one says “why isn’t this working?”
And yes, I love my people and my culture, I hate this legacy of Margaret Sanger’s they have embraced. To be truthful, that is wrong. I don’t like anyone of any group, as a group, people annoy me, white, black, Hispanic, asian whatever. I like individuals on their own merit. But I am trying to clarify that my disgust of this situation. My mother grew up in the Sugar Hill section of Harlem at a time when it was filled with working class families with a neighborhood that used to watch over each other. My mother was not even Catholic, but she remembers the Church bells ringing at noon and everyone stopping for the Angelus. That neighborhood has since become drug infested. The concept of an inner-city-black-working-class neighborhood where the neighborhood is filled with households of a husband, a wife and children simply from the same union is not the norm-but it actually was at one time. And again, I am not saying nuclear black families do not exist, the black people we surround ourselves with are just that-but we go through measures to seek each other out.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 5:48 am
Pansy Moss says:
I also wanted to say, I have been on the receiving end of many small (or not so small racial incidents). I have been called the “n” word, I have had swastikas drawn on my front door when we were first married, on a daily basis my husband will get this treatment, he will walk past a white lady in the parking lot and she will noticebly close her jacket and grab her purse, or grab her kids when she sees him, despite the fact that he will have 3+ of our children in tow. These bother me, but not too much as I think these people are provincial simpletons and idiots. They are just more like daily annoyances I crop up to original sin.
What bothers me and has me upset for days is how I am treated at doctor’s offices. When I was 22 and pregnant with my second, my doctor told me I needed to be on birth control after this baby was born because I had “too many kids”. I told her no, and she yelled at me that my next visit, I had better pick a form of birth control. Then she wrote on my chart I was to have a tubal ligation on delivery. When I asked to have the removed, she rewrote it in a number of times. She knew nothing about my finances or circumstances. All she knew was I was married, I had one child and I was black. I am sorry I was 22 and scared because now I would love to give her an earful.
With this pregnancy, for my first check-up I was asked about what method of birth control I want after the baby. That is not so bad, but when my husband was there, they took a look at him and said “oh, is this our boyfriend?” I am not sure the the look I gave the nurse when I said “No, husband.”, but she literally took a step backwards. Then afterwards, after she took my initial info, she asked if I spoke Spanish and needed assitance. WT…are we not in America?
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 6:44 am
Lucy says:
Mike,
What makes you think that people who are pro women’s rights, which is what we are, not to mention pro actual life, haven’t heard of the word adoption before?
First, you are asking to use a womans body for an incubator. You are asking to decide how she use her body and when. You are asking to decide how to use her mind and when. Of course, I’m being generous suggesting that you are making a request. Instead people are insisting that our Government forcibly remove rights from the female population of this country.
For some adoption is not an option. Continuing the pregnancy is not an option. There is footage on the internet that a brave young woman pursuing an abortion took. It is of the horrible things that were said to her walking in. Her grandfather was bringing her to the clinic. They yelled at him, first saying he was the father of the pregnancy. Then telling him he was going to be the Grandfather to a dead baby. They said horrible things to them, telling her they knew it wasn’t the first time she had dragged her ‘ass’ up onto that table and she knew it. Eloquent, they weren’t. The one screaming you need Jeeesssuss was probably the best. She was 21. She has a disease that would make it so that carrying the pregnancy less than to term would have killed her. She is in a loving, committed relationship, with a loving and supportive family.
But what is the difference if she is tormented on her way to making a difficult decision. What is the difference is she is at risk. It’s the fetus that’s the individual right. Not her. She’s just the breeding stock.
People here say I have a terrible view of women, which is obviously why I believe we have the ability to determine what happens to our bodies and minds. The thing is, it is my opinion, and the opinion of others that you are treating women as though they are breeding stock. Then the men have the nerve to stand up and say it’s only nine months, and then you can just give it away.
There are those who believe that adoption is the immoral choice just so you know. It’s that whole quality versus quantity thing. We believe that bringing a person into the world and assuming that someone else will take care of the child is immoral. This applies to welfare as well.
We’ve heard of adoption, but once again, Anti-Abortion defends the right to a pulse…which is just silly no matter how you look at it. Pro-Choice defends the right to life.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 7:33 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
They already know? They already know that they are a statistic, or a percieved statistic? They are okay with this? I don’t think so. Actually, I know this to not be the case. They are okay with a system that prevents them from being acknowledged as individuals, and given credit or blame based on personal behavior, rather than based off the behavior of others? No.
Stating that there is a problem with ‘African American men’ not staying in families is lumping people who happen to share a particular superficial trait together and saying they are….because they are…. This is about on base with all ‘African Americans’ rob convienience stores. Or are in a Gang. Do all African Americans rob convienience stores? Sure. Do all African Americans rob convienience stores? No. In fact you will find that very few African Americans rob convience stores. You will also find that the primary factor in these individuals robbing the convience store is not that they are African American. You will find the same to be true of the Gang situation. Yet, considering the ignorance that exists in the world, let an young black man stop to buy gum and as you indicated someone will make the assumption that because he is a young black man he is armed and dangerous. Kids probably on his way to work where hes earning money that he can save to go to school and study engineering. What he’s armed with is a brain and the courage to use it, demonstrated in his 3.8 GPA. Also, not because he is African American.
As long as the trend persists to address issues as though somehow the primary is the nationality, race, ethnicity, and so far, the problems will persist. Seeing ‘Bob’ instead of a black man, seeing a man instead of a black man, is what I believe to be a key ingredient to diminishing the views held by some regarding race.
Stating that African American men are not sticking around as fathers adds to the problem, it ignores the individuality involved, and does not solve anything.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 7:47 am
Lucy says:
Michael 2.
There is a bare minimum of resources needed for survival.
This isn’t feudalism. You aren’t slated to be poor. You didn’t draw the short straw. Saying it isn’t meant to be for all… that’s accurate. It is meant for those willing to work for it. The poor aren’t born poor and destined to die poor. Not here. Well, not ideally. It might take a lot of hard work and determination, but difficult and imppossible are not the same thing. In fact, Challenging is usually rewarding.
Take a look around, its been done before. It’s being done now. Right now there is poor person who isn’t content to sit around and remain poor. They are seeking an education. They are working as many jobs as they can. Because of their dedication to learning they now know a lot of things, however, they cannot remember what the word sleep means. ‘
Once again, you show me what you think about these things, but when I was speaking of resources, I was still speaking of food and clothing. Shelter of some kind. I hadn’t even thought of stock portfolios, though I don’t see the problem, if the means are present.
The poor only need to readjust their goals if they see fit.
As far as what destroyed the ‘black family.’ Well, if you must look at it that way, slavery is probably a pretty good place to start. I’m sure the masters weren’t to high on abortion either. Though, I think blatant ignorance is the key. I think the kind of ignorance that continues to sort people by skin color or nation of origin, and attempt to utilize such factors to determine who they are and what they can do is a definite contributor. Do you realize that African American women who have abortions do so by choice. No matter how many people she chose to obey, or defy.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
What the doctor did to you is horrible. She should have never done any such thing. Whatever her motivations, they were her problem, not yours.
Being told that you should not have children…that someone else would like to dictate to you when and where you have children…
That’s kind of how it feels to me to be told that I must have children. To be told that they want to now pass legislation removing birth control pills. Restrict the release of things such as the morning after pill. Deny kids sex ed. Being told how to use my body and when.
Why is it her business how many children you have? Why does it matter what your financial decisions are? Perhaps you are poor, but have it figured out to take care of everyone, including a new baby. It’s not her concern. She certainly has no right to try to force you to have a tubal ligation. Her behavior is completely unethical, and she should be reported.
Which, as I said, is how it feels when people tell you you don’t have a choice but to remain pregnant.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 8:14 am
Pansy Moss says:
Lucy,
I did not say all black men simply because they are black are worthless. Don’t give me that line of BS. It’s a cop out to keep from addressing the issues. “Oh anyone who thinks black people need to be accountable for their actions are racists…” Please! Did you even read my post beyond the statistic? I am married to a black man who works his ass off for his family day in and day out working 2-3 jobs, and manages to stay on the dean’s list at school with perfect attendance. My brother’s scored within the top 5 percent of African American students on their SATS. One is a honor roll pre-law student at Cornell, the other just graduated with a degree in aero-space engineering. My youngest brother at 16 started training to join the Marines, joined at 17, and left for basic after HS. Not because he comes from a broken family, but since he was 16, he voluntarily joined at wartime because wanted to fight for his country. My grandfather was at Pearl Harbor, and came home and worked day in and day out for his family. I attended a Historically Black College that had the second highest acceptances of of students into medical schools in the country. These are not just exceptional black men, they are exceptional men. I hope my sons follow in their footsteps.
Don’t hand me that line that all I see are “dangerous black men” nonsense. Like I said I love “people” based on the fact if they are good people. No one wins or loses points in my book because their ancestors came from a place my ancestors came from.
But with that said, my mother’s godmother opened the first black private school in [the US] Harlem. My aunt who was one of the first graduates was the first black women accepted into Bronx Science. We had family members involved in Brown Vs the Board of Education. My cousin was the sociologist Kenneth Clark. These are people who worked hard to repair some of the damages of slavery in their own community so we can all have a piece of the American Dream. But for what? For 80% of black children to be born without fathers? It is OK with you and merely a statistic because you didn’t go through the nonsense of dating black man after black man who only see women for one thing, or to have lots of friends with babies who never know their fathers.
I think Bill Cosby said it better than I can:
Remember what I said about schools I used to mentor at?
Is Mr. Cosby like me and simply seeing a “hoodlum black guy” or is he addressing a concern?
Remember what I said Harlem used to be in my mother’s time?
Kenneth has since passed away. His mother was my aunt Merrie…
What I am talking about.
This is what I meant when I said abortion causes a distorted view of materialism and how “things” are important and not family.
We need families back. Families, marriages, two parents, not Baby Daddies.
White Man-Margaret Sanger, Adolph Hitler…the people who simply gave us the tools to self-destruct and we lapped them up because they made life “easy” and a way out from responsibility.
The speech goes on…
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Michael-2 says:
Lucy says “There are those who believe that adoption is the immoral choice just so you know. It’s that whole quality versus quantity thing. We believe that bringing a person into the world and assuming that someone else will take care of the child is immoral.”
I have heard some self-centered clap-trap but this takes the cake.
First of all, women who rather have abortions than adopt are simply unwilling to give up their children rather than have them killed. Plain and simple. They do not have to think about them later if they are killed. I am told it is usually hard to give up your baby, so do not give me some bull about it being “immoral”.
Comparing welfare to child adoption is one of the most innane things I have ever heard. The public HAS to support welfare Ms Stooge. Individuals choose to adopt a child it is because it is voluntary.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Michael-2 says:
I have a historical perspective about resources and adoption.
In ancient Rome babies, usually girl babies were often left to die on dung heaps or in jars along roadside. They were not killed actively, but passively. The rule about this is the father of the girl baby was supposed to tell about 5 of his neighbors or friends he was going to abandon the baby and if anyone wanted it they could take it.
The ancient Christians did not have the resources to take every abandon baby. They did what they thought they could. Regrettably but that was the truth.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 9:33 am
rosie says:
Michael2,
That reminds me of China. I worked with a girl from China who told me that a lot of the unwanted children were abandoned and left on the street and were not allowed to learn to read etc.. I asked her why she moved here and she just smiled and said she wanted lots of kids.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Pansy Moss says:
They already know? They already know that they are a statistic, or a percieved statistic?
Black Voices has since become a part of AOL and a good portion the boards are down, but I found this site:
Marry Your Baby Daddy.com The name cracked me up because I used the term a couple of times in the above posts. Anyway, the page I linked to links to articles which talk about the problems in the decline of the black family.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Mike says:
Lucy,
Are there any circumstances in which you would be against killing the baby in the womb? If so, what are they?
and what’s your position on partial birth abortion (killing the baby after it is three quarters born)? At what stage of life would you make killing someone illegal and why?
Would you be for making Abortuary’s contact the parents of a minor 48 hours before having an abortion?
Would you be for Illinois having “Choose Life” license plates and sending the proceeds to help adoption agencies? If not, why not?
Are you for chasitity education? Would you object to Jason Evert going into public high schools and giving this talk (listen at http://pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3 )? What did you think of the talk?
Are you against federal funds going to Crisis Pregnancy Centers?
Are you for a woman being able to do anything she wants with her body? If yes, then do you support legalizing protitution and all drugs?
Do you belong to any particular religion? If so, which one?
Are you for China’s one child per family policy? Do you think its OK to kill a baby in the womb based on their sex (male or female)?
I know this will never happen but let me ask you this scenerio anyhow. If it were proven homosexuality comes from a certain gene (which will never happen) — Would you be for killing the baby in the womb based on the baby having this certain gene? and please elaborate with your answer?
What do you think about the group Silent No More (women who had abortion(s) who want abortion made illegal? Why do you think these women who once thought like you did want abortion made illegal?
Do you believe in killing the elderly if their “quality of life” is below your standards?
I would just like to know your opinion of these questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
One more question. I heard a number of people tell me they are “Pro-Choice”. I am not sure what they are “Pro-Choice” about since none of them ever finish their sentence. I am losing sleep over this trying to figure it out.
I therefore decided to place a poll so I can figure out what people mean when they state they are “Pro-Choice” but never finish their sentence.
Are You “Pro-Choice”? (Please choose all that apply)
A. Yes, on letting motorists decide if they want to stop at red lights.
B. Yes, on deciding what condiments people want on their hot dog.
C. Yes, on the legalization of rape in America.
D. Yes, on re-instituting school prayer in our public schools.
E. Yes, on letting people decide if they want to pay their taxes or not.
F. Yes, on returning Christmas to a spiritual rather than materialistic holiday.
G. No/Other (Please Explain).
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=86000
Mike
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Lauren, lauren, lauren says:
“African American fathers have become a thing of the past.”
Statements like these make me laugh my freaking head off.. Literally.. My head is on the floor…. Anyways I know how much all of you love me so much but I’m going to be on the Fox news channel on sunday around 9 so if you want to watch, tune in !!!
Keep your head up Lucy…. Also, I will be in the Southtown as well I think on Sunday supporting Planned Parenthood in Orland Park.. you can read that as well. xoxo Love and peace in the middle east……………………………
Pro-choice for life! I’m in a jolly mood after reading some of the ridiculousness spewed on this post.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Pansy Moss says:
African American fathers have become a thing of the past.”
Statements like these make me laugh my freaking head off.. Literally.. My head is on the floor….
Of course it does because the end result is not your problem.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Pansy Moss says:
I’m in a jolly mood after reading some of the ridiculousness spewed on this post.
Except you read none of it.
Comment posted July 7th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
rosie says:
Mike,
B,D,F
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
This fact bothers me more than you know. The legacy has not stopped with abortion. African American fathers have become a thing of the past.
That is yours. If you would like to retract it or restate it in a fashion that better represents what you would like to have said that is fine. However, there is no merit in pretending that I have put words in your mouth.
I never said that ‘black’ men should not behave responsibly. I said it doesn’t do any good to lump all ‘black’ people together, pretending that a black hard working businessman is somehow the same as a black drug dealer simply because they are black.
Otherwise, I’ll take your speech to indicate that you would like to retract your statement to include less than the entirety of the portion of the population that happens to be African American.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Lucy says:
I have heard some self-centered clap-trap but this takes the cake.
First of all, women who rather have abortions than adopt are simply unwilling to give up their children rather than have them killed. Plain and simple. They do not have to think about them later if they are killed. I am told it is usually hard to give up your baby, so do not give me some bull about it being “immoral”.
Comparing welfare to child adoption is one of the most innane things I have ever heard. The public HAS to support welfare Ms Stooge. Individuals choose to adopt a child it is because it is voluntary.
Michael 2.
First, abortion isn’t murder. I know its best for you guys to have it accepted as, but it simply isn’t. The decision to force women to have children they don’t want is a violation of her rights and a denial of her humanity, but I know that you can’t very well have her be human either.
You can call me anything you’d like. That you decide to communicate with a lack of civility is a reflection upon you, not me.
Under no circumstances should you make declarations regarding what is easy or not when it comes to the topic of pregnancy and the choices involved in it. You aren’t properly equipped unless Michael is a womans name these days.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Lucy says:
Pansy
Black Voices has since become a part of AOL and a good portion the boards are down, but I found this site:
Marry Your Baby Daddy.com The name cracked me up because I used the term a couple of times in the above posts. Anyway, the page I linked to links to articles which talk about the problems in the decline of the black family.
Yes, I’ve heard of this. It’s been going on for awhile. Marriage is becoming less and less essential. Of course, considering that historically Marriage has largely been a business arrangement, or a social arrangement, this isn’t terribly surprising, nor is it horrifying.
I’ve yet to figure out what is so special about that ring and piece of paper. Not if marriage is now supposed to be about love.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Lucy says:
Mike,
There is no murder being committed in an abortion. There is the removal of a fetus which cannot survive on its own, and so therefore, subsequently dies. Of course, as reality is being addressed in the procedure, the concern of well being is directed entirely at the woman.
In fact, I keep meaning to ask this. For those who declare that life begins at fertilization, thus cheapening life to a point where we can be communist and socialist, and slaves because it doesn’t really matter at that point, if the fertilized egg fails to implant itself, is that suicide? As you guys argue that it is a full fledged thinking individual that needs rights to ensure its own life…with no brain, or stomache, or should I continue?
First, D&E’s, account for less than 1% of all abortions. Is it impossible to grasp the fact that a woman, upon finding out she is pregant, should she understand she is a person and has options, begins considering her options immediately. She begins reasoning regarding what is the best option for her. She seeks information. Now unfortunately, there are those who look to get others to think for them. She weighs her choices, based on a variety of information. Then she chooses. With few exceptions the first trimester is ample time for women to decide what they need to do. Exceptions are usually external. The states banning abortions for instance will lead to a higher number of D&E’s due to lack of accessiblity. The further a woman is in pregnancy the more of a risk the abortion is. It is still less of a strain on her body than a pregnancy, but the risk still elevates. Therefore it is in a womans interest to seek an abortion as early as possible if that is the option she will pursue.
Once a woman is at the stage where a D&E would be required there are very few exceptions where this was her first choice. As I said, those exceptions should be anticipated to rise now. A woman who makes it to say her 6th month has generally decided that she wishes to have this child. She is looking forward to it in fact. She’s probably picking fabrics for the nursery, or deciding where her child will sleep. People are planning showers for her. Somewhere amongst the exhaustion and other inclusions on the deal shes’ nervously excited. Everyone is giving her advice, some good, other bad, but all with great intent.
The problem is she goes to the doctor one day and they tell her that the fetus’s organs, (they call it baby for her), are outside of its body. Or they tell her that it isn’t developing a brain, or that there is no spinal cord. Sometimes its at 6 months, 7…it doesn’t matter. So an obviously pregnant and mortified woman has to sift through people calling her horrible things and making terrible accusations, assessing themselves erroneously as helpful, to get to a place she never wanted to go. She is having an abortion of a child she wanted. Of course to the people outside shes’ just a number. They KNOW all about her. NO, they just don’t care.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
No, I would not be in favor of contacting a minors parents. You don’t know her. You don’t know them. You don’t know why she didn’t tell them in the first place. If she is upset and they actually care about her, something you don’t know, they’ll notice and try to help her. If they don’t care you’re just making a situation worse for her anyway, or your making a situation where there is none.
If she wants you to contact them, than that is fine. If you wish to offer that is fine. She must have the right to refuse though. T
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
I have no problem with any privately organized program that raises money or solicites voluntary donations, such as a license plate that I could accept or refuse, to fund almost any organization. I would be very selective personally as to which ones that I would donate to, based on my personal philosophies, however that does not provide me the right to prevent anyone else from donating. I would actually find an organization that sets women seeking to place their babies in loving homes and people seeking to provide homes in contact with each other worthy of my donation. I’m not opposed to adoption as an option personally, it wasn’t an option for me.
I simply believe that the woman should take the same three months to make that decision and to begin seeking a family to take her child. If she is going to choose adoption she should take steps to make certain that there is someone to adopt the child.
I would only support organizations that were looking to provide loving, caring, safe homes, and not concerned with the gender of the parents. A loving caring home is a loving caring home.
I would never purchase the license plate that was distributed by the side that is attempting to demolish womens rights though. I also don’t believe you guys are choosing life. You talk about a culture of death, but if you gave a critical look to what you guys are pushing you’d see you’ve got the wrong side.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
I’m against government funding for just about everything. I chalk it up to the reality that the government is broke. They are spending my money and your money. There are certain things that I think we can agree upon funding. These things including a military, though we might not agree on how or what size, we might also disagree on the appropriate way to utilize a military. That there need be a way to protect the U.S. and its interests is probably a common ground, though, I could be wrong.
Fire Departments. This seems pretty universal. It’s nice not to have our homes burn to the ground or our businesses if possible. It’s good to have people that are trained to safely extinguish fires. It’s best to pay them, and well, to devote their time and energy to providing this service. I think that overall, via the government is probably the best way to go about this. Though, I’m open to suggestion to alternative methods.
Police. I do not like recieving speeding tickets either, however, they, if we consider the best of, do their best to enforce laws that are supposed to maintain our rights. It allows us to pursue other interests that they are available. Thus, we pay them.
Generally, I’m opposed. CPC’s would be on the list of oppositions no matter what. It has been my experience that unbiased would be an unfitting description. Behaving as though women can or should think for themselves is also not in the description. Overall, I don’t want my money going to it.
If they stop funding all of the faith based stuff, I’ll even put it on the table that they shouldn’t provide funding for Planned Parenthood. Why should you have no choice but to fund what you believe to be wrong? It isn’t arbitrary. It frees up money for you to provide to the organization you do believe in. It provides me the same opportunity. I believe that from there the women it effects can decide what is best for them.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Michael-2 says:
Lucy writes “You can call me anything you’d like. That you decide to communicate with a lack of civility is a reflection upon you, not me.”
The problem is you miss the point about fundamental virtue because you are way off base or something. You say it is immoral to give a up child for adoption and abortion is perferred. I say it is immoral to kill the child because that is the easy way out. You do not have to think about the child again, only your own conscious if you have one. Virtues are usually tough, and since you insist on the easy way out and call adoption immoral you and your gene are lacking virtue. I do not worry a flying flip comparing my “incivility” to your lack of virtue. I respect virtue and courage a lot more than civilty. I try to respect everyone, but with people who are blind to virtue and call good evil and evil good I can get so damned uncivil they will never forget it, and you can take that to the bank Sister.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
I am for a person, and yes women, being able to do what they wish with their body. This does mean that I support the legalization of drugs and prostitution. I also believe that we should strive to live the best lives that we can, and that part of that includes respecting our body so that we have it to utilize in the pursuit of happiness.
I do not believe that engaging in Prostitution, on either side of the transaction, is in expedient in the pursuit of rising ones value in their own eyes.
What afterall, does it say about a woman who believes that her only way of incurring wealth is to sell her body. What does this say about her perception of her own self worth? What does this say about her desire to raise her position in life, both financially and spiritually? Can this woman ever know what it is like to be in a mutually caring relationship, and experience sex as an expression of love instead of a buisness arrangement?
What can be said of a man who does not associate sex with love, and with the esteem he holds the person he is with in. What can be said about a man who chooses to engage in a sexual situation with an individual whom he has to both pay to be there, and will likely never see again, and could care less?
Legal? Certainly. I still cannot live their lives. A proper utilization of a life composed of a finite number of hours and minutes? Never. There are books I would never read as well. This does not mean I support banning or burning them.
Drugs, Legal? Yes.
Of course, the choice of engaging in an activity that lowers an individuals ability to make rational judgements regarding the course of their own life is once again certainly not preferable. It should be regarded as and openly addressed as a deterent to a truly quality life. We understand the proven pitfalls of utilizing drugs in ones life, and should certainly not pretend that it is going to improve life generally.
There are of course instances where drugs that are potentially deadly serve uselful purposes. However, generally these purposes are to make it so that death is less painful.
I have long said that I am sure that Heroin seems wonderful. I can think of no other reason why so many otherwise brilliant people would dismiss their life so carelessly for it. This doesn’t mean I want it, or wish to promote anything about other than to say that it kills.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
Well, I’m not agnostic because I’m far to apathetic regarding the topic of God. I’m not truly Athiest because I don’t claim to know enough to say there isn’t a god. I think that to be athiest would be an assualt on the study of evolution. The entire point of the science is to trace back and find out where it all came from. I’m going to look very silly if I say there is no God and they find one. Deist is probably the closest. I’m in good company. The founding fathers were primarily Deists, Thomas Paine, a lot of very respectable people were Deists.
They believe that, as Aquinas states it, that which is called God, is kind of a natural phenomenon. It isn’t the personified version that you probably believe in. It’s just the idea of a beginning. There is not belief that there is this God who cares what we’re doing or anything like that.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
I’m quite opposed to Chastity education. I think that making a strong point of stressing the reality that nothing works better than abstinence if you are interested in making sure you do not get pregnant and do not end up with any disease is definitely important. I hold that to be as much a part of the education system teaching the facts as ensuring that they know that 2+2 is four. I fully support the teaching of birth control options.
I do however support promoting the option of parents removing their children from traditional sex ed classes. I suggest an alternate class, worth equal credit, in which students research and write detailed papers about the benefits of a strictly abstinance approach to sex. I suggest they explore the difficulties of staying with their decisions no matter what.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
My speakers are not working on my computer at the moment. Unfortunately I will not be able to listen. However, generally, I am okay with using the school property for optional special events as such. I think they should be held at times where parents can opt to attend as well.
I also believe that the floor must be open, on seperate occasions of course, for alternative viewpoints to be presented in the same manner.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
I am opposed to mandatory abortions. I am for womens rights. Obviously I do not believe that women have less value then men.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
Recent studies have suggested that there may be different responses in the brain of people who are gay.
I’m not actually opposed to the existance of gay people. I’m opposed to the insertion of discrimination in our Constitution, which I hold in high regard. No, I don’t think I’d kill gay people because they are gay. I’ve never actually heard the question before. I’ll be honest, I think that it is kind of scary. I’m afraid it might be a little more insight on you than I wanted.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
I think that it is terrible that women wish to strip a right away from others that they once excercised themselves.
That they wish to think for others is wrong. If they allowed others to think for them I can’t help that. I’ve had an abortion. I’m still in favor of rights to abortion. I would be in favor of the rights if I regretted it. I might try to tell women that I regretted it, and of my experience, but I would never attempt to outlaw it. I made my decision. The fact is that I don’t regret it.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
Your question regarding the killing of elderly displays for one that you do not understand what I mean when I talk of the quality of life.
Second, it shows that you don’t actually care to. Not that I didnt get that out of the ignorant question regarding your assessment of homosexuality. Not to mention your ignorant question regarding the selection of males over females.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
I must say, that no, I’m not in favor of motorcyclists running red lights. However, I would be willing to look the other way in the case of a mack truck.
I am strictly opposed to people choosing their own condiments for hot dogs. But, I’m a vegetarian, so that might play a role.
Actually, considering what you are up to, I’m trying to prevent the legalization of rape. I know this upsets you, but I’m opposed to your desire to violate my body and mind.
I’m opposed to reinstituting prayer in the Public Schools. Why? Becuase they are tax payer funded. Now, I don’t oppose children choosing to pray in school. I’m opposed to them being forced to pray in school. I would also like to see one nation under god removed from the pledge of allegiance. Then I would like to see Children not be forced to recite it. Then I want the words ‘In God We Trust’ removed from our money. Why because all Gods are welcome here. This isn’t a Christian Country. It never was.
I’m actually in favor of dramatically reducing the taxes. I’m in favor of cutting so much fat that you’ll think you got to choose to not pay your taxes. I also think that if you wish to watch your house burn to the ground, but not pay your taxes, pay the fireman or grab a bucket my friend.
When you say return Christmas to a spirtitual holiday it confuses me. It implies that it ever was. It’s one of those things that got hijacked by the early Christians. I’m still in favor of all good Christians boycotting retail establishments for the month of December because they find material goods offensive. Which is what I think of when ‘Family Bookstores’ have their Christmas in July sale.
Do you support anything that wouldn’t impose Christian ‘values’ on those of us who aren’t Christian. Those of us who don’t want to be Christian, and are exhausted with hearing about only the gay hating Christians are good people.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Lucy says:
Lauren,
I’ll be sure to pick up a copy of the SouthTown. I’ll try to catch the bit on Fox as well, though I don’t know if I’ll be able.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Lucy says:
Michael 2,
I’m going to make a deal with you. You go get pregnant. When you are young, you are scared, you are to broke to feed yourself no matter what. There is no way that you can possibly let anyone know that you are pregnant. Your options are simple, abortion or dead. Then you decide that abortion is the best choice. You tell me about easy after you’ve done that.
Until you’ve been there you don’t get to talk about what the easy choice was. I don’t mean until you’ve gotten some woman pregnant, I mean until you’ve gotten pregnant. Intentionally, accidently.
You think you have virtues? You want control people. You want to tell women what to do with their bodies and when.
I think that you are painfully ignorant and would prefer it if you did not respond to me in the future. Thank you.
When you don’t care what it takes for a woman to make a choice it must be great to sit back and decide that she took the easy way out and has no morals or virtues.
What exactly is so moral about dictating to others how to live their lives? What is so moral about taking orders from the Pope or whoever is in charge this week?
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Lucy says:
Michael 2
I know that you guys are okay with being uncivilized. Only savages shoot at doctors and bomb clinics.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Lucy says:
Once again, do not pretend that you are looking out for women.
You can’t be looking out for us if it is to much for you to even bother speaking to us as though we were human.
If you actually cared what we thought you would listen. You are obviously out to tell us what we think, and I will thank you not for that.
Do not call me sister, Michael2 or any of the rest of you. I am not to be associated with you. You wish to reduce women to your sexual toys.
Once again, anytime that I have been with a man who wanted more from me than I wanted to give, they have been a Christian. I have a strict rule about dating Christians, I don’t do it. One of them was actually trying to force me down while I struggled to say no. Tell me where the morality is, where the virtue is.
My parents were good Christians too. Everytime they beat me, everytime they threw me into a wall, told me I wasn’t worth anything, threatened to drive me into a tree, told me they wished I didnt’ exist, as though that was my doing, Abortion was legal when I was born, and birth control existed, everytime they told me I was ugly. Everytime they told me that I was fat. Everytime they told me that nobody would ever love me. That nobody would ever want me. Everytime they told me that nobody else would put up with me. Everytime they told me that I couldn’t do anything right. They were good upstanding, moral, virtous, Christians. Mother was a Sunday School Teacher, Father was a Deacon.
I was told how great my parents were by anyone and everyone in the world. Because they were as far as they were concerned.
Per usual, the best people to go for if you were looking for a display of hatred are the Christians. Hate the Gays. Hate the Muslims. Hate the Women. Hate the Blacks. Hate the Whites. Is there anyone that you people don’t hate?
I mean, it has to be tough to view people in a positive light when you have this automatic assignment of sin attached to them. Not that anyone ever assigned a definition to the word Sin for me no matter how many times I asked.
Whatever, just tell the truth. Tell the women they are in your way. There is a piece of protoplasm in them that you must save. Tell them that the only reason that you won’t kill them is because you need them alive. You’ve stood in the way of the developement of techology that would allow a human to develop outside of a woman.
However, just so you are aware, once the fetus can be removed safely, Young Christian Woman has expressed her willingness to perform executions on people who have abortions. I’m assuming that the good old Christian thought police will allow for people who thought about it.
Nothing like Facism.
Oh, and for what it’s worth. Your God Guy with Gates money as a problem. That’s just funny really.
The line is they have ‘Reason’ we have ‘God’ Not they have money and we have God.
Of course you don’t know what money is. You couldn’t or you would know that you are not moral. You do not have virtue. You have completely disregarded both of those things.
Whatever
Pro-Choice is Pro-Life.
Anti-Abortion is Anti-LIfe.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Lucy says:
There is no courage in being a dictator. There is no courage in destroying the lives of young women by holding a gun to their head and forcing them to use their body as they see fit. There is no courage or virtue in forcing people to follow your version of virtue. Your version being a far cry from actual virtue by the way. Because it isn’t relative, there is an actual thing as virtue. What you do simply has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with courage. It has nothing to do with strength and it a display of a rather disgusting character. The same kind of Character that past generations have seen in the likes of Hitler and Stalin.
You do not tell someone that you are looking out for their best interests and then tell them that you dont’ care when they tell you that those are not her interests but yours and then tell her to shut up.
While you are busy promoting the starvation of the world. The spread of disease and famine. While you are eradicating freedom to think for oneself, remember that every dicator in history thought they were the good guy.
Remember that the founding fathers of this country were not dictators. Who would you rather have in charge. Thomas Jefferson or Hitler? Please note that your God was not the God of Thomas Jefferson either.
Leave us alone. That is all that is being asked. Leave us alone.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
Thanks for answering my questions. I wanted to ask you a lot of questions so I know who I am debating on the topic of abortion. I think I have summed up your beliefs. Lucy you stated you are ….
-For killing babies in the mothers womb
-For enslaving women (legalizing prostitution)
-For legalizing all drugs (and you claim your views do not represent the Culture of Death? Huh)
-You are against chastity education (which would minimize abortions & sexually transmitted diseases) but your for education on birth control (most forms of birth control kill babies by preventing implantation, bc also promotes promoscuity, spreads std’s, hurts marriages and family’s and so on).
-You are not for notifying parents 48 hours before a minor has an abortion. Right now public schools must notify parents before giving their child an aspirin but you don’t feel anyone needs to notify the minor’s parents if they are about to have major surgery. Huh.
I would say your positions are indicative of less than 5% of the people in the entire world. I just wanted to figure out who I was talking to. By the way the question about the “gay gene” was just a trick question I throw in against Pro-Aborts.
Lucy there are still questions you have not answered. If you have answered them I guess I still do not understand your position on these questions. Here they are…
what’s your position on partial birth abortion (killing the baby after it is three quarters born)? At what stage of life would you make killing someone illegal and why?
What do you think about the group Silent No More - women who had abortion(s) who want abortion made illegal? Why do you think these women who once thought like you did want abortion made illegal?
and I have a few more questions…
Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?
Abortion advocates say they are in the business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are they doing?
Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. If that is so, why does the child possess a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has its own immune system? Why is it male half the time?
Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman’s right to privacy. But is that right absolute? Does somebody’s right to privacy exceed another’s right to live?
We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?
Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?
If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standard as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics?
Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature baby who is in need of some medical help, and the clinic workers are all trying hard to give the baby the medical attention necessary. Why would it be morally wrong to refuse such treatment to the premature born baby, but a “legal right” to kill the baby in woman B if she should choose to have an abortion? How can location (inside vs. outside the womb) make an essential difference? Besides, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is halfways outside the womb (oftentimes crying already).
If it is true that “men cannot talk about abortion” because it’s a “women’s issue,” how come pro-abortionists have no problem accepting the ruling Roe v. Wade, which was exclusively made by men?
How come pro-abortion groups never would stand up and tell President Clinton it was wrong for him to cheat on his wife and mess around with another women (remember Monica Lewinsky)?
Why is it Pro-Lifers are the only group interested in saving the life of both the mother and the baby?
Are you OK with those who want to pray for women and their unborn babies at the Abortuary’s?
Are you OK with those showing pictures of what abortion looks like on college campuses? Why or why not?
Why is it 80+% of mothers intending on getting abortions change their mind and carry the baby to term after seeing the baby on ultrasound?
Do you know the story of Emmett Till and how his story started the civil rights movement?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947446/posts
http://www.panopt.com/photogra/withers/fulewtill05.html
Have you watched the video “Silent Scream” on the internet which is narrated by Dr. Bernard Nathanson (one of the founding members of NARAL)
http://www.silentscream.org/
Have you listened to Yvonne Florzak Seeman tell her story about having 5 abortions. She is now a leader of Project Rachael. You can listen to her at …
http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=01&year=2006 (go to 2-17-06)
Thanks for answering my questions.
Mike
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Pansy Moss says:
That is yours. If you would like to retract it or restate it in a fashion that better represents what you would like to have said that is fine. That is yours.
I explained what I meant in the two long comments after my initial statement. But I am not pretending that you out words in my mouth. My point is your making a straw man argument.
Marriage is becoming less and less essential.
No, the point is marriage isessential, that is why the trend to not marry, and simply be “Baby Daddies” and “Baby Mommies” has been so destructive to the black community.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Gina says:
Lucy, How long has it been since you were directly affected by abortion? You have sooo much anger, I do feel sorrow for you. Please, seek help. Unfortunately you have fallen prey to the lies women fall into. I am a woman, just like you. I am a single mother. I also am an adoptee. I have been affected by abortion b/c I have cousins who I never knew b/c they were not given the chance to take their first breath of oxygen (yes, they breath the amniotic fluid). I hope that you understand that I am not going to make false claims, but I truly believe that you are misguided and have not TRULY thought through and educated yourself about your position pertaining to abortion. I am one who has seen it all and have PERSONALLY experienced all (except an abortion). Guess what, there are more options out there than most people realize, a woman doesn’t have as many struggles when choosing life.
Peace,
Gina
P.S. I make an income at poverty level and do not receive any help from the government b/c I have my mom to live with and feel that the money that should go to me can be used to help women who have 0 support.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Gina says:
Lucy, One other thing…abortion may be a short term solution, but the LONG TERM consiquences on a woman are far more distructive than choosing life and either making an adoption plan for your child or raising your child (my biological mother was so happy that my life was 100x better than the life she could have provided for me - I know this b/c I’ve met her). As for parenting, yes there are some serious lonely times but a hug takes those moments away. A child needs a woman to grow in, but that child still maintains his/her own body within the womb. Therefore, s/he IS a seperate entity.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Pansy Moss says:
I know that you guys are okay with being uncivilized.
Hmmm, and one of the other pro-choicers who comment here is always the picture of civility.
Only savages shoot at doctors and bomb clinics.
Oh give it a rest. Have you seen one post on this blog promoting this type of violence? One comment from a pro-lifer? No, not one, because pro-life means anti-murder. Again, another straw man. There are nut jobs in the world, yes that is unfortunate. But in your world, none of them were pro-choice? Let’s see, well, you compare us to Hitler, yet Hitler forced people he saw unfit such as the mentally handicapped and people of mixed races to have abortions. BTW, the nut jobs you refer to are actually “pro-choice”, not “pro-life”-they felt they had the right to choose who they saw fit to murder.
You wish to reduce women to your sexual toys.
Oddly, my opinion of men who reduce women to sexual toys is a man that has sex with a woman, will not commit or love her, and throw her to butchers to kill a child he conceived with her. Not a man who promises his life to one woman, rejoices in the children that are the fruit of that love, works his behind off day in and day out to provide for his wife and children, and will lay down his life for his family. Not only is that not a man who “uses women as sex toys”, this is a hero.
Leave us alone. That is all that is being asked. Leave us alone.
With all do respect, you are the one coming to a pro-life blog, not visa versa. You are welcome to be here and have a right to your own opinion. But be honest, no one is following you around to pro-choice blogs and arguing your every comment.
With that said, we have a right to our opinions, we have a right to vote for what we believe is right, we have a right to protest, and have a right to open businesses (CPCs) to help women who choose not to have abortions but need assistance.
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Mike says:
Has anyone here heard the story about the aborted fetus singing the national anthem?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=119963
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Mike says:
Lucy said…
My speakers are not working on my computer at the moment. Unfortunately I will not be able to listen.
Lucy,
I hope you get your speakers fixed because I just feel if you heard this program it would change your life dramatically!
Have you listened to Yvonne Florzak Seeman tell her story about having 5 abortions. She is now a leader of Project Rachael. You can listen to her at …
http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=01&year=2006 (go to 2-17-06)
Woman Who Had 5 Abortions Finds “Love From Above”
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=757810#post757810
Yvonne Floczak Seemans Website
http://www.lovefromaboveinc.com/
Women’s Choice Services - Consultation for Post Abortive Women (Project Rachael)
http://www.choicedupage.com/contact.htm
Mike
Comment posted July 8th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Lucy says:
Gina,
I wasn’t angry when I got here. Please look around at the things that have been said to me here. Please do not pretend that it must be having an abortion that is making me angry. I am not actually an angry person, not generally. I am angry that people are trying to dictate to me what to do with my body. I am angry that people are trying to dictate to me what to do with my mind. I am not angry because I had an abortion.
I am very well educated on the topic actually. I am certainly educated on the topic of what it is like to be told that you have no rights. I am certainly educated on what it is like to be told that I am not actually a person. Don’t feel sorrow for me because I have had an abortion. Feel sorrow for the women who are losing the rights to their bodies because you are so unwilling to acknowledge that they are human beings.
I never said anything about an income level. I spoke of people trying to raise themselves up. I don’t know why there is such a desire to glorify existing at a poverty level. It isn’t like it takes anything to stay broke. There is honor in hard work. There is honor in the pursuit of happiness. There is no honor in trying to suffer as much as possible, and trying to remain as impoverished as possible.
I’m guessing you assume that I am angry because of my abortion because you see no problem with anything they have said to me.
If you have never had an abortion then how can you tell me, specifically me, what it is like to be a woman who has had an abortion? Doesn’t that sound a little odd to you? Don’t you think that what you have is an opportunity to find out another perspective on what it is like to be that woman?
While it must be novel to have someone to take care of you it doesn’t happen for all of us. When people beat you every day and wish you dead, and believe that abortion is wrong, pre-marital sex is wrong…yeah, I love it, beating your children is fine, but pre-marital sex is bad, there is really no reason to believe that telling them that you are pregnant won’t give them a reason to kill you. I’m sorry, do you actually know what it is like to spend your entire childhood terrified of everything, wishing you were dead. Wishing you had never been born? Do you know what it is like to simultaneously be afraid that today might be the day they actually kill you, but not know if that would be better or worse? Probably the same way you know what it would be like to be a woman who had an abortion right.
There is nothing like having homophobic racists who wish starvation and disease on the planet telling you that you have no virtue, that you are a murderer. When you are not.
They won’t let it post, but there is a post of a video of a 21 year old girl, in a loving, committed relationship, who found out she is pregnant. She’ll die because of a disease that she has if the pregnancy progresses. Now It has been made blatantly clear to me that if we weren’t the incubators, as you said, they can’t live outside of our bodies, or rather they are growing, by any definition that respects life, they are not living. It must be a horrilbe position to be in, knowing that you guys feel that it is more important to save the ‘life’ of something that can’t live, but must preserve the vessel that contains it.
Perhaps a prison to shackle us too. You can feed us via an I.V. That way, there is nothing we can do. You can get rid of that nasty problem where when abortion is illegal sometimes pregnant women just kill themselves. We must save the fetus at any cost, and the woman isn’t real right.
You guys reduce life into a corpse with a pulse. You claim to have some belief in a soul, but I don’t see any evidence that would lead me to believe that any of you actually believe that people are worth anything at all. Not in any way that the Japanese didn’t value the Koreans anyway.
Do you see the way people talk about having children on here? I’ve only seen one exception and she hasn’t posted in a long time. People talk about having Children as though it is horrible. They talk about it as part of suffering. I’m not talking about the actual birth, just the position of being a mother. They make it sound like the biggest imposition in the world. They speak of sacrifice and the like. It’s horrible. I wouldn’t want to be the child of any of them.
There is no money that should go to you. What are you talking about. There is no money that should be going to anyone. If you would like more evidence please look into the reasons being given to explain why the illegal immigrants are important. They are doing jobs that Americans don’t want to do. That is the cuttoff line on the Welfare system right there. Illegal either means illegal or it doesn’t. Either people may come and go at will or they may not. Either way, if these people are holding jobs that Americans don’t want, there is no more welfare. That means that the people on welfare are not doing jobs because they don’t want to. I’m opposed to welfare anyway, and I’m in favor of immigrants who work willingly for bosses keeping jobs that were willfully given them, at wages that are established by the two interests. I say this goes for everyone. So, I don’t care who you live with. There is no money earmarked for you. I don’t know what you thought this was, it’s not like you’re the only one, but no.
I’m sorry, I would have actually spoken to you as though I thought there was a possibilty that you were trying to be a reasonable human being who thinks that what you said was kind. I really would have, but I don’t have the emotional energy left to find out that I am wrong. I don’t have the energy left when you have already decided to tell me what I am, indicating pretty clearly that you aren’t interested in who I actually am. You need me to be something so that you can live in your bubble that says that you may continue behaving in a manner that harms women.
Besides, you do not get to eliminate choice for women because they might regret it later. They obviously didn’t think it through well enough before they went in. Or they talked to one of you who told her she was a murderer and a whore. Maybe she was told that she was a dirty sinner. No one will tell me what sin is.
Maybe they don’t know.
Maybe they don’t care. It’s a word that gets them control.
I’m so sorry that I don’t wish to bother speaking to you in any higher fashion than I have been spoken too. I have been asked if I would kill a fetus because it was gay. I’m not the one promoting universal hatred for gay people though.
I’m not angry because I had an abortion. I’m angry because people died creating a place where all ideas can exist. Where people get to think, and now people are trying to do away with it, and are pretending they are victims to get it done. I never heard of anything so preposterous as an employee who thinks he can tell the boss what he will and will not do, and expect that the boss will have to go along with it. That they can legislate against it because if they don’t get to call the shots they are the victim.
I’m angry because womens rights are being threatened. My rights. Because the Pro Dictators are trying to tell me that they get to control my body. Because they wish to violate my privacy. Because they wish to do me more harm than you can apparently imagine. Because they want to tell me that they are only looking out for me.
Thanks but no thanks.
Comment posted July 9th, 2006 at 2:54 am
Lucy says:
Pansy, …
Forget it. Go ahead. Keep promoting ignorant stereotypes instead of addressing individual situations. It’s okay, I’m sure that the world can take another two hundred years of racism. I’m sure it’s okay if the all people who happen to be black are lumped into a ‘community’ I’m sure it’s okay if no matter how hard a black man or woman works they will be regarded as no different than the worst of the ‘community’ because they are black, will have only positive effects on humanity as a whole. Afterall, despite the fact that most areas by where I live have houses that require pretty good paying jobs to purchase, people still freak if a ‘black’ family moves in. Lets never mind the fact that they would have to be at least moderately educated, and driven to a degree to afford one of the homes. They aren’t ritzy, but they aren’t slums either.
It isn’t pretending that there aren’t problems to acknowledge the fact that being black isn’t a character trait. It isn’t pretending there aren’t problems to acknowledge the fact that hard working men are hard working men no matter what background. It isn’t evading a problem to acknowledge the fact that fathers abandoning families is not related to race. That fathers caring and providing for their families is also not related to race.
You tell me that you aren’t making these stereotypical statements, but then you keep making them.
Marriage was a business arrangement and a way to secure social status. America was the first country in which merit counted. Before America it was who you know, no what you know. We are in a disturbing backward trend, and heading right back into the dark ages. Networking in more important than doing homework these days. To give sanctity to an institution that was essentially the sale of ones daughter isn’t good. Actually, it simply isn’t good to give sanctity to institutions, particularly human institutions.
Well, Michael 2 doesn’t care if he’s civilized. I’d say that doesn’t leave me with a lot of confidence that he would like to be counted as civilized, and therefore would be okay with savage behavior.
It has happened, it is a concern. I don’t have to give it a rest. Stop harrassing the women and I’ll give it a rest. I’m more than willing to work in trade. Stop telling women that they are murderers and whores.
If you think that Hitler and Stalin were pro-choice than you have a very sick twisted version of what it is to make a personal choice. I mean, the worst I’ve seen yet on here. There have been some doozies, and this is the worst.
You think that a policy, set up by men, that says that you have no choice but to have children demonstrates respect for you?
Comment posted July 9th, 2006 at 3:10 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
As I have said before, you guys are right. You don’t have to have abortions. You don’t have to use the pill. You can protest, as long as you do not harm the business that you are protesting. You can vote, you cannot vote away the rights of others. You can have your harrassment centers. You do not get to force me to pay for it.
If you guys were respectful of individual rights, and the rights of women to control their bodies, then I wouldn’t be here. I’m not talking about here. I’m talking about out there. I’m talking about having enough sense to understand that being able to choose for yourself is hinged directly attached to my right to choose. It is immoral to strip people of their rights. It is a slap in the face to humanity, to life in itself to say that an embryo and I are the same thing.
Comment posted July 9th, 2006 at 3:16 am
Pansy Moss says:
Go ahead. Keep promoting ignorant stereotypes instead of addressing individual situations. It’s okay, I’m sure that the world can take another two hundred years of racism.
Again, you obviously didn’t read my comments at all. You are commenting on what I said without reading what I said.
But hey, if you were black-and I make this assumption that your not-because you would know that day in and day out this is a topic of conversation we discuss on a regular basis. We all know what’s up with our people. I showed you proof Bill Cosby knows it. I showed you web sites with books about it written by black people, with links to articles written by black folk, or to even quote friggin’ Tupac:
I used to have conversations where girlfriends would brag “I remember when my parents were married. We used to have dinner together when I was a little girl. Not like the rest of most black folk, my parents were married and divorced. I was not an OOW baby.”
Pretending there is no problem by saying “oh it’s racist to say 80% of children in the black community are born OOW” does nothing for us. MOst black people don’t think it’s racist to admit that fact. Racism comes in when people look at a black person and assume they are garbage simply on site for being black, but not by trying to solve a problem.
Now the issue where many of us disagree is not acknowledging there is a problem, it is the cause and the solution. I think using women as sex objects, losing a respect for the sex act, and no more parenting. Many think it is a need to flood the communities with more birth control at younger ages. That is the cause to me.
Read what I said before you call me a racist one more time. But in the end, after you called me a racist and say the problems are in my imagination because of my issues or something, I have to raise my children in this.
Comment posted July 9th, 2006 at 5:59 am
Gina says:
Lucy, Based on the information you have stated about your life, have you sought out help from someone who actually cares and doesn’t just want your money (which I believe many “therapists” want)? I get upset by all the injustice I see, just like you, but I do not carry anger and I truly wish for your own sake that you can get help with the anger. It is not a judgement, but you are continuing the cycle that was pushed onto you against your will (the abuse).
For pregnant women in abusive situations there are numerous safe houses, if someone directs her to a priest or pastor or rabbi or whatever religious leader, that leader can counsel her and direct her to a safe house where she will be protected from the abuser. I believe in informed choices, but unfortunately the abortion industry does not. Have you ever wondered why Planned Parenthood and those in the abortion industry fight any laws that pertain to informed consent, parental notification, limited abortions, and on and on? Why don’t abortionists allow the women to see the sonogram of their child when the women seek an abortion? How about creating a law that requires the mother and father of the child to fill out a death certificate for their child? Or consent forms where they allow their child to have a “medical” procedure done to end their life? The child in the womb is still a child. By the time I wnt to my first ob appointment at 6 weeks, I saw my daughter’s heart beting on the sonogram.
As for my personal life…I do work in daycare so that I can be with my daughter daily. I also pay for mine and my daughter’s health and dental insurance out of my own pocket. I pay for all except housing expenses, but I am exteremely frugal and am educated on how to only spend what you can afford.
Their are people who claim to be pro-life but are not. However, all pro-lifers I’ve met care about the mother and father of the baby just as much as they care about the baby. When you see people praying outside an abortion mill, they aren’t just praying for the baby, but are also praying for anyone involved in the abortion process. I also bring my daughter with me when I pray at the abortion mill and EVERYONE there knows that I am a single mother, and not one person has ever called me a slut. I’m not saying that that does not happen, I’m just saying that MOST pro-lifers do not believe that to be true. If I have EVER come across someone who was less than compassionate toward a woman seeking an abortion, I was always quick to correct them that the woman is JUST as important as the baby. Both sides of the issue need to realize that both the mother and the child in her womb are EQUALLY important and deserve EQUAL treatment. Unfortunately one cannot speak for him/herself so others are required to for Justice’s sake.
As for the other tangets you stated about freedoms fought for this country and immigration issues. They are not relavent to this thread. However, just to entertain you a little, you should NOT be telling me about freedoms faught unles you yourself have served this country. I have not served, but my father is still an active duty Navy JAG and has been a career military (started out a Marine in Vietnam) for 40+ years. My family has served in wars and some are still active members of the military. Based on your comments about welware recipients not working, are you aware that most members of the military make an income at or below poverty?
And please don’t get me started on immigration issues….too much insight and firsthand knowledge leaves me laughing at both extremes of the issue.
Comment posted July 9th, 2006 at 8:02 am
Pansy Moss says:
Lucy,
One other thing, yes it is racist to acknowledge someone simply on the basis of race, but there is a difference between that and acknowledging a protocol that is being pushed and embraced on a people on the basis of race. That is the difference between what you assume is my saying “all black men are not good fathers” and what I am saying is that 80% of black children are born OOW and the number grows, that you find more PP in urban black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and predominately black urban public schools are the ones that always targeted for things like giving Norplants in nurses offices.
Comment posted July 9th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Quinn says:
I talked with Elizabeth Kane in Indy who is a neighbor of the girl who got an abortion after receiving counseling from her and the girl’s relatives. The girl was coerced into slaughtering her baby by her parents and boyfriend. She wasn’t given the choice to have her baby, since her mom told her she would be out on the streets if she didn’t slaughter her child.
And Planned Barrenhood has no problem at all with such coersion as long as it is coersion that results in slaughtering babies.
Hear a mother tell how the clinic workers at the Planned Barrenhood in Boulder, CO tried to hold her hostage with threats of locking her up in a mental institution and calling the police after she told them she wanted out http://kgovarchives.com/bel/2005/24k/20051020-BEL209-24k.mp3
Comment posted July 9th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
mary kay says:
Lucy,
Lucy says: ” There is no murder being committed in an abortion. There is the removal of a fetus which cannot survive on its own, and so therefore, subsequently dies.”
How can it die if it wasn’t alive?
MK
(Only back for a bit…still moving in…miss our conversations.”
Comment posted July 10th, 2006 at 7:01 am
Young Christian Woman says:
Lucy said to Michael 2:
First, abortion isn’t murder. I know its best for you guys to have it accepted as, but it simply isn’t. The decision to force women to have children they don’t want is a violation of her rights and a denial of her humanity, but I know that you can’t very well have her be human either.
Abortion is undeniably murder. All surgical abortions kill a child with a beating heart. Most have brain activity. A fetus at six weeks may not look quite as human as you or I, but it is clearly no “blob” of tissue; she looks far more like a human than anything else. I know it’s best for you guys to deny her humanity, but you can’t very well have her be human, can you?
Lucy also said:
There is no murder being committed in an abortion. There is the removal of a fetus which cannot survive on its own, and so therefore, subsequently dies.
Lucy, you cannot be nearly as educated as you pretend if you say this. Let’s say that your landlord decides to remove you from your apartment. That would be fine. But you lock the doors, so you must be removed through a window. Only you don’t fit through the windows; in fact, your head would not even fit. So your landlord rips off your legs and arms and crushes or drains your skull so that you can be removed. But it’s not murder, it’s just removing you. Or they hook up a vacuum to the window, but they stick a blade on it to make sure you won’t come through whole. Or maybe they fill your apartment with poison until you come out, and you don’t survive. Perhaps police are sent in, and you are so forcefully ejected that you are decapitated in the process. And if, despite their efforts, you come through alive but wounded, they leave you somewhere you will die instead of giving you medical care. Or maybe they suffocate or strangle you to make that quicker.
Of course, this could not happen because it takes at least six months for eviction. (I’m all for a similar waiting period before abortion. Nine months, anyone?) Also, the landlord violates your rights the minute he does something to harm you or the minute he touches you. Why? Your rights are more important than his rights to control his property. Your right to bodily integrity is more important than the right of a rapist to do what he wants with his body. The same is true of the bodily integrity of unborn human beings.
Think I’m being mean? No. That’s what abortion is. That’s what happens to more women every day than those who are raped or beaten. That’s the worst form of child abuse. If these things were done to a born infant, or an animal, no one would stand for it. But when the infant is not born yet—or sometimes, when it is handicapped—these things are okay.
How sure are you that an unborn child isn’t human? Have you researched fetal development? Have you ever been an aborted child? If you aren’t sure if a child is alive, is it okay to step on her head? If you can’t be sure whether a child is a thinking, feeling, living being—and there is far more evidence that she is than that she isn’t—is it okay to kill her because you don’t know?
Of course, as reality is being addressed in the procedure, the concern of well being is directed entirely at the woman.
No. The reality is that the child is alive, breathing, human, and loved.
In fact, I keep meaning to ask this. For those who declare that life begins at fertilization, thus cheapening life to a point where we can be communist and socialist, and slaves because it doesn’t really matter at that point, if the fertilized egg fails to implant itself, is that suicide? As you guys argue that it is a full fledged thinking individual that needs rights to ensure its own life…with no brain, or stomache, or should I continue?
Once again, you reveal your ignorance, both of our position and of that which you think it’s okay to kill. First, it is because life is precious that things like communism, slavery, euthanasia, abortion, rape, and abuse are abhorrent. Life is the most important and fundamental right, but not the only right. There are some others. Try looking at the constitution (privacy isn’t one of them). Our argument has never been that only full-fledged thinking individuals need rights. Those who are vulnerable need their rights protected even more. Secondly, surgical abortions are always performed on a fetus that has a brain, stomach, hands, feet, heart, etc.
First, D&E’s, account for less than 1% of all abortions. Is it impossible to grasp the fact that a woman, upon finding out she is pregant, should she understand she is a person and has options, begins considering her options immediately.
Is it impossible to grasp that some women are moral? That, on finding they are pregnant, they rejoice? Why do you assume that everyone has at least some misgivings?
It [a late-term abortion] is still less of a strain on her body than a pregnancy, but the risk still elevates.
False.
Once a woman is at the stage where a D&E would be required there are very few exceptions where this was her first choice…. A woman who makes it to say her 6th month has generally decided that she wishes to have this child….
The problem is she goes to the doctor one day and they tell her that the fetus’s organs, (they call it baby for her), are outside of its body. Or they tell her that it isn’t developing a brain, or that there is no spinal cord.
Why abort? Why not just let the child be born? Certainly there is no cause to crush its skull, even if she decides to be induced or have a C-section at that point. The first case might be operable, and I’ve never heard of the last.
Your focus on defects which are probably fatal is a smokescreen. What about the 80+% of children with Down’s Syndrome who are aborted? What about children who are aborted because of other incurable but nonfatal disorders, like spina bifida? What about those babies aborted because they have cleft palate? These don’t sound like a loving mother who wanted her child. They sound like a woman who wanted some mythical perfect child. Some of these people would probably abort a child with brown eyes if they wanted blue. Occasionally women get an amniocentesis claiming to be worried about genetic diseases, then get an abortion if they are carrying a girl. What do you think of a woman who would carry her son to term, but would kill a daughter at 7 months?
Comment posted July 10th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Young Christian Woman says:
If the fertilized egg fails to implant itself, is that suicide?
Suicide requires intent; the child is too young to have intent. I don’t believe it’s suicide even if a toddler manages to cause his own death. Small children cannot understand the finality of death, and often do not understand the consequences of their actions.
I will say that this is a death. It can be murder (or at least manslaughter), if a woman used birth control to prevent the child from implanting, especially knowing that it could have that effect.
Comment posted July 10th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Young Christian Woman says:
More responses to Lucy:
I’m not opposed to adoption as an option personally, it wasn’t an option for me.
Why not?
If she is going to choose adoption she should take steps to make certain that there is someone to adopt the child.
There always will be. I personally guarantee it.
It has been my experience that unbiased would be an unfitting description [for Crisis Pregnancy Centers]. Behaving as though women can or should think for themselves is also not in the description.
Because “Planned Parenthood” sure isn’t biased, especially when they take money for services they counsel you to seek out…
CPCs do offer options, just not immoral ones. I’ve heard it said that most would be willing to have a PP counselor on site if they can have one at a corresponding PP abortion site. If a person with more experience or knowledge in that area tells another what is or isn’t a good thing to do, does that person demonstrate that the target of this advice cannot think for themselves? No, just the opposite. It shows that the counselee is capable of thought and decision-making, and also capable of listening to and incorporating sound advice. It is PP that does not want women to know all their options and all the facts.
If they stop funding all of the faith based stuff, I’ll even put it on the table that they shouldn’t provide funding for Planned Parenthood. Why should you have no choice but to fund what you believe to be wrong?
Why is the first necessary for the second? I also agree that a lot of fat can be cut from the government, but the reason that isn’t happening is because politicians say to each other, “I’ll cut my pork—but you cut yours first.” Personally, I’d love to stop funding abortion, public schools, homosexual propaganda in those schools, the Big Dig in Boston, etc., etc. I suspect I would give far more money to the causes I believe in than would go to them from me through the government anyway.
I’m not actually opposed to the existance of gay people. I’m opposed to the insertion of discrimination in our Constitution, which I hold in high regard. No, I don’t think I’d kill gay people because they are gay. I’ve never actually heard the question before. I’ll be honest, I think that it is kind of scary. I’m afraid it might be a little more insight on you than I wanted.
That’s interesting. Gay fetuses are people and straight fetuses aren’t? Answer the question about gender-based abortion, too. Maybe females are human but not males?
The only reason that an amendment is needed is to stop unelected (male) judges from imposing their own interpretations of life in general on states and people who disagree.
Actually, considering what you are up to, I’m trying to prevent the legalization of rape. I know this upsets you, but I’m opposed to your desire to violate my body and mind.
By that standard, millions of unborn children are raped every year.
When you don’t care what it takes for a woman to make a choice it must be great to sit back and decide that she took the easy way out and has no morals or virtues.
When you don’t want children, it must be easy to watch other people killing them. It must be easy to know that the number of children aborted is virtually identical to the number of couples wishing to adopt. It must be easy to see the killing of a two-week-old baby as amoral when you have never lost a two-week-old baby yourself. It must be rather neutral to let a “doctor” suck out your baby when your entire being isn’t screaming out to be a mother. It must seem inconsequential that eight-month-old preborn children are stabbed and killed when you don’t have a nephew born at that same age. It must be easy to consider that an unmarried woman in school would probably choose to kill her child when you don’t know a six-month-old child conceived in those circumstances. I can’t think how one could think about all the children who die horrible deaths every single day because young mothers don’t have the money or just aren’t ready—but I guess it must be easy for you.
Comment posted July 10th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
Lucy told us:
I am not to be associated with you. You wish to reduce women to your sexual toys.
No, you’re not my type.
Once again, anytime that I have been with a man who wanted more from me than I wanted to give, they have been a Christian. I have a strict rule about dating Christians, I don’t do it. One of them was actually trying to force me down while I struggled to say no. Tell me where the morality is, where the virtue is.
I certainly don’t think that calling oneself Christian confers virtue (or Christianity, for that matter).
In defense of good Christian men, the Bible teaches that extramarital sex is wrong, and that Christians should only marry Christians. The men you dated were thus already acting outside their beliefs in dating, so I would not be quite as surprised that they were not acting as Christians in other manners. Clearly these men were not acting in a Christian manner towards you. I hope that your experience is not typical.
I do sympathize for your treatment at the hands of your parents. Certainly anyone who knew what was going on had a duty to report it. I do not think that your experience is typical.
Lucy commented:
I mean, it has to be tough to view people in a positive light when you have this automatic assignment of sin attached to them. Not that anyone ever assigned a definition to the word Sin for me no matter how many times I asked.
I do not recall you asking for that before, so I will do so.
There are really two definitions. First, and simpler, a sin is a wrong act. For example, it is a sin to kill. It is a sin to entertain lustful thoughts (although not to have them accidentally). It is a sin to take the Lord’s name in vain.
The more complicated definition, which is also more important and has more religious application, is that sin is a condition of the human heart. Some people put it that human beings have a “sin nature.” Sin separates us from God. Sin encompasses both specific acts and attitude. Every person, no matter who their parents or family, no matter who they are or will be, is in sin. The sin nature is present and each of us, and was present in each person born except Jesus. The evidence of this is that each person does wrong things. I have stolen, cheated, lied, and hated people, for a start. Most everyone has done some things which are against God’s law. Nothing can prevent a person from sinning, and even Christians sin. Because of our sin, we cannot stand in the presence of God, who is holy, and we deserve punishment for our evil nature. However, there is a way to escape that punishment. Before Christ, the punishment (which required the shedding of blood) was taken out on animal sacrifices. Then God sent his own son to earth to be tempted in each of the ways that we are tempted to sin, but Jesus stood strong. He was perfect. For that reason, he was able to serve as a sacrifice for all time. He died once for all the sins of humanity. Christ is so righteous that when we stand before God, He will accept us because of Jesus’ sacrifice, even though we are still sinners. The gift that Jesus offers—eternal life in Heaven—is entirely free: freely given and free to receive. All that one must do to accept Jesus is to believe in her (or his) heart that Jesus died to take away her sins. Even though I still sometimes sin—knowingly or unknowingly—Jesus has made me righteous in the sight of God.
Sin is the reason that we should not hate others, even if they may be committing more or more obvious sins than us. It is only by the mercy of God that anyone is saved, not by any virtue we possess. I am not any better than you in the eyes of God. I am no more righteous or virtuous. If you accept Jesus, your sins will be forgiven, and your sin nature cannot keep you apart from God. In the eyes of God, a child born in a Christian family who accepts Jesus to be Lord of her life at five is no different from a man who accepts Him on his deathbed. God does not value men more than women or the healthy more than the disabled or the free more than the prisoners or slaves. When I see another who is in his sin, that should lead me to say, “That could have been me if not for the mercy of God.”
Lucy also said:
However, just so you are aware, once the fetus can be removed safely, Young Christian Woman has expressed her willingness to perform executions on people who have abortions.
I don’t remember any such thing. I could not personally kill anyone. I think I did recommend execution for abortionists, but not for women who have abortions.
Of course you don’t know what money is. You couldn’t or you would know that you are not moral. You do not have virtue. You have completely disregarded both of those things.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Money’s that green stuff in my wallet. It’s not related to morality.
Comment posted July 10th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
If you think that Hitler and Stalin were pro-choice than you have a very sick twisted version of what it is to make a personal choice. I mean, the worst I’ve seen yet on here. There have been some doozies, and this is the worst.
No one said they were pro-choice. They were, however, clearly pro-abortion in some places. Abortion is still one of the most freely available forms of birth control in Russia, and Hitler ordered abortions for the unfit and forbade them to pure-blooded Germans. Abortion has traditionally been considered a travesty of human rights, not a human right.
You think that a policy, set up by men, that says that you have no choice but to have children demonstrates respect for you?
I think that when women are given no other choices than abortion, it gives far less respect. Offering abortion as an easy choice frees up politicians from having to work out more complicated and expensive solutions. If “every unwanted child is a dead child” (the rest of PP’s slogan), they don’t have to worry about their welfare. I would rather the law protect my children than me. I am old enough to make decisions for myself. Laws are there to protect the weak (like children) from the powerful (like adults). Again, you have not addressed what is so wonderful about sex that it’s a human right; if you don’t want kids, don’t have sex. Since rape is illegal, the laws do protect women from having children if they don’t want them.
If you guys were respectful of individual rights, and the rights of women to control their bodies, then I wouldn’t be here. I’m not talking about here. I’m talking about out there. I’m talking about having enough sense to understand that being able to choose for yourself is hinged directly attached to my right to choose. It is immoral to strip people of their rights. It is a slap in the face to humanity, to life in itself to say that an embryo and I are the same thing.
You and the embryo are both human. Your rights are interconnected. Legal abortion has coincided with an increase in child abuse, teenage sex, and teenage pregnancy. It has led directly to a decrease in the rights of not just preborn children, but born infants, handicapped persons, elderly persons, and depressed persons. The cheapening of one human life is related to the cheapening of all human life.
Oh, I’m curious: what do you call a baby born at thirty weeks? Is he or she a fetus still, or a baby?
Comment posted July 10th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
According to Lucy:
Marriage was a business arrangement and a way to secure social status.
Lucy, you don’t know the first thing about marriage. The purpose of marriage is, and always has been, the rearing of children. Anything else is secondary. It may have been used for social ties, alliances, etc., but that is not its purpose. Throughout history, however marriage was negotiated, it has provided means to see that children are raised by their biological mother and father. In the Church, it has another purpose. According to the Bible, marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and the Church. Just as Jesus loved the people in this world who would be His, the husband is supposed to love his wife, to make sacrifices for her, and even to give his life for her if need be. Just as the Church follows the word and will of Christ, I obey my husband. The husband and wife are committed to each other’s happiness to such an extent that there can be no jealously, because the wife puts her husband’s wants ahead of her own and the husband puts his wife’s wants ahead of his own. It is because of this reflection of Christ that Christians feel marriage is sacred. It has little to do with sex or finances. Marriage plays a prominent role in the Bible and Jesus uses it quite a bit in his teachings. That is why the Church reacts so strongly to assaults on marriage such as polygamy, divorce, and homosexual marriage. There is a good argument to be made that traditional man-woman-exclusive-lifelong marriage is best for kids, but that is not the only reason other models are inappropriate.
Comment posted July 10th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
lauren says:
“The purpose of marriage is, and always has been, the rearing of children. ”
This was the first thing I read, and the last thing I read, because if the first sentence I read is entirely wrong, I can’t read anymore. Lucy is 110% right “ycw”, do your research.
Comment posted July 10th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Pansy Moss says:
This was the first thing I read, and the last thing I read, because if the first sentence I read is entirely wrong, I can’t read anymore. Lucy is 110% right “ycw”, do your research.
Once again, how can you comment, particularly on “doing research” when you do not read the other person’s comment (or do the research) in it’s entirety to see what they are saying?
Comment posted July 10th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
What makes you think that death has to involve murder? Do you believe that it is murder when someone dies because you didn’t feed them? People are starving to death in this world. That isn’t murder. Unless you count the oppressive regimes that prevent them from taking care of themselves.
That a fetus is removed from a woman does not mean she has murdered it. It means that she has declined to give it that which it would need to progress further. As I have said in many instances, if it is possible that it could survive without the woman the woman would hold no rights to prevent it, nor responsibilities to or benefits from. However, that currently nothing exists to allow most fetus to exist outside of the womb, the primary concern on the part of the abortion clinic is to the woman.
That the fetus cannot exist without the woman is not a viable argument against abortion. To argue that it is would be to argue also in favor of socialist and communist policies, based on the facts of how they operate. It would be to argue in favor of slavery. To be pregnant when one does not wish to be is not a joy, it is not a miracle, I still don’t get the whole miracle thing.
Comment posted July 11th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Lucy says:
Gina,
Though you’ve obviously decided to ignore me. I’m not angry because I’ve had an abortion. I’m angry because you would like to tell me what to do with my body.
I’m not actually continuing a cylce of abuse. Thank you though for your concern. I don’t need to seek therapy. I certainly dont’ need to go to a church, once again, not that you are listening.
No, I do not support notification laws for reasons I have given. No, I do not support any of the limitations or impositions that you have listed. I do not support filling out a death certificate for that which did not live. To medically declare an abortion the end of a life is to cheapen life.
No, the woman and the fetus in her womb do not deserve and cannot have equal rights. It is not possible, or neccessary. You answered why in your statement. Take a look.
What do you think this is about if not about Freedoms? I am fighting for my freedom right now. Do you actually think that you need a Gun to fight for Freedom? Try again.
Whether or not welfare recipients work is not my concern. My concern is that they are taking wages from someone else. This, without government intervention would be found under the heading of theft. While that you feel that you can take control of my body makes dipping into someones elses wallet an easy offense is logical, I still don’t approve.
Comment posted July 11th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Lucy says:
Pansy,
Perpetuating the problem is not a solution. The end.
Comment posted July 11th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Lucy says:
Pansy,
The problem is that I am reading what you wrote and then commenting on it.
Comment posted July 11th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Lucy says:
YCW,
There are comments that I wrote that you are responding to that the individual I directed them at knows full well who I was addressing.
There are other comments that I directed to other people and if you had known what I was writing in response to you would know that someone did indeed say what you are saying they didn’t say.
Lauren is correct. You don’t know what marriage is for. Check out the actual history of marriage.
Furthermore, as you have offered to execute me, I really don’t wish to speak with you.
Comment posted July 11th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
Lucy, I still don’t know where I said I would personally execute anyone. I’m not capable of murder. I have not even said you should be executed.
Your comments in 76 still do not make sense because a fetus is not simply removed; it is killed during, before, or after the removal. It is not removed whole. Viable children are killed in the process of abortion because a live baby is not the desired result.
Even if you only think that third-trimester abortions are performed on disabled infants, why would they have to collapse the skull of a child with Down’s Syndrome? Why not remove the infant whole and let someone adopt him or her? I certainly don’t know; perhaps you can enlighten us.
I don’t know which comments you think I didn’t understand, other than the one about money. Trust me, I have read every word on this site.
What makes you think you know what marriage is for and I do not? Why would marriage be so widely accepted–even today–as the most appropriate context for sex and the best situation for children, unless that were its purpose? Furthermore, I sought to show the Biblical view of marriage, not the historical view.
If you don’t want to speak to me, why did you?
Comment posted July 12th, 2006 at 1:36 am
Pansy Moss says:
Pansy,
Perpetuating the problem is not a solution. The end.
I had this long post that did not go through, drat.
Recognising a problem is not perpetuating one. Seeing the 80% of black children are born OOW is not the same as going door to door in black neighborhoods and telling young men “don’t you marry that girl…” “boooyy, I’m tellin’ you, don’t be goin’ off and marrying that girl!”
A few weeks ago, my dryer broke. There was a problem. I assesed I could not fix the dryer, so I had Sears come out and fix it. Recognising there was a problem allowed me to take steps to fix it. If I had simply ignored the fact that it was broken and continued to put wet clothes in it, I would have continued to wonder why I still had wet clothes, and would never have gotten it fixed.
I have diabetes. I was feeling crappy. I went to the doctor, they put me on a diabetic diet, and now I feel better. I didn’t perpetuate the problem by going to the doctor, I fixed it. By your logic, doctors should not exist because acknowledging problems simply perpetuates them.
The fact is it is easy for you to turn your back on this and simply say “oh it’s a racial problem” is in itself racist. I don’t think you intend it to be in all fairness, but I don’t think you are thinking this through. Once a human issue has the term “race” to it, you put it in the realm of either it being the fault of racism or simply “their problem”. The dryer problem was not a racial problem, so there is no taboo in addressing it.
Fact is, my white brothers and sisters who see this issue in truth aren’t sweeping it under the carpet as a “racial” issue, but as a “human issue” and as an “American citizen” issue that for one reason or another seems to be affecting one portion of our population more intensely, they want to know why, and they want to fix it.
When St. Katharine Drexel saw a need for better education for the black population, she didn’t sweep it under the rug because seeing that need perpetuated a stereotype. She opened one of the most successful Historically Black Colleges which has a the highest success of not only turning out black doctors who come from middle class black families, but mostly kids from the ghetto, into doctors.
Personally, I think many white liberals who say “well, it is their problem, I do not want to stereotype”, in their most innocent ignorance just simply do not get or care how devastating this is to blacks.
In all fairness, this sounds incredibly loaded because the word “race” is involved, but let me make an analogy. Everytime I would go to a restaurant, I would see one of those cardboard posters for the Leukemia Foundation where you put a quarter in the paper to make a small donation. Sometimes I would put a quarter in, sometimes I wouldn’t even see the add despite looking right at it. Then my father a year ago came down with Multiple Myeloma cancer (a blood cancer like leukemia that is addressed by the Leukemia Foundation), and then my brother came down with leukemia. This issue became my issue and now I make a point to feel happy about those cardboard donation requests and always put a quarter on them.
Let’s be fair, every issue does not have to be everyone’s issue. People do not even have to have strong opinions or thoughts on every social justice issue out there. We can only do so much. But you cannot tell people who have for whatever reason picked this issue as somethng they would like to see healed that they are racists for simply acknowledging that there is an issue to start with.
But OK, I will play devil’s advocate for a second and say “you are right, you should not acknowledge any fault or problems perpetuated by a group, naming a group as opposed to individuals”. Since this is advocating your stance, then from now on by your own logic, you may no longer call pro-lifers facists, pornographers, Nazis, murderers or against women, women’s rights and against freedom, that Christians or pro-lifers are hypocrits or any other assumptions you make about a whole group. You may only speak for each individual that you have personally asked and know exactly what is in their mind. The only thing you can say about pro-lifers is the obvious statement we all have in unison:
” Pro-lifers believe abortion is murder” You don’t have to agree with it, but by your logic, that is all you know of our psyche.
Samething with Christians:” Christians believe they follow the teachings of Christ” That’s it.
Comment posted July 12th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Pansy Moss says:
Pansy,
The problem is that I am reading what you wrote and then commenting on it.
Nope. You wrote this after I made my comments about my family, where they came from, how proud I am of them, how active my family had been in civil rights:
Afterall, despite the fact that most areas by where I live have houses that require pretty good paying jobs to purchase, people still freak if a ‘black’ family moves in. Lets never mind the fact that they would have to be at least moderately educated, and driven to a degree to afford one of the homes. They aren’t ritzy, but they aren’t slums either.
Therefore making any of your arguments that my problem is I only see blacks as people who gang members a moot and pointless point. Had you read anything of what I wrote, you would not have attempted to regurgitate my own sentiments against me. It is like telling me over and over again that how wrong I am because I hate apple pie, after I said apple pie is my favorite dessert.
La Shawn Barber addresses the same sentiment in her blog entryYou Hate Black People:
(She also has an entry on “Baby Daddy”)
Comment posted July 12th, 2006 at 7:50 am
mary kay says:
Lucy,
Again I ask you…how can something die if it isn’t alive. If it is alive and you are the cause of it’s death, how is that not taking it’s life. If it did nothing to deserve it’s life being taken, how is that not murder? If it is not human what is it?
My girlfriends mother is dying of cancer. She could not survive at all if Kathy weren’t there 24/7. If Kathy left, her mother would die. If we remove Kathy’s mother and put her out in the alley so that Kathy could resume living her life, would that be murder? After all, we have simply removed a cancer patient which cannot survive on it’s own, and so therefore, subsequently dies.
MK
Lucy says: ” There is no murder being committed in an abortion. There is the removal of a fetus which cannot survive on its own, and so therefore, subsequently dies.”
How can it die if it wasn’t alive?
Comment posted July 12th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Mike says:
I was hoping by post #83 we would be beyond 2nd Grade Biology and move on — “Life begins at conception” and thats the bottom line.
Mike
Comment posted July 12th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
This is why it is so important to have sex ed in school.
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
No, if your friend leaves her mother it isn’t murder. I know you were hoping to have me say differently. However, saying yes doesn’t mesh with reality.
I don’t quite know what makes you believe that your friend has any obligation to keep her mother there. I imagine that her mother would prefer to believe she wasn’t just an obligation. Would your friend have her there if she wasn’t dying and she could leave? Is your friends mother enjoying her life? Does she want your friend there? I’m sorry that your friends mother has cancer.
Speaking of illnesses. I posted a list of sites on here, or tried to rather, it would appear they wouldn’t let me post it. All that the truth. Here let me try this.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nkrMdlElo7I
Heres one link, lets see if this works.
Now, this is a 21 year old girl. She has a disease that will make it so that she will die if she carries a pregnancy to term.
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BZ5IbLyXQo8&search=abortion%20protesters
She is in a loving committed relationship and using birth control. Well, i it was probably one of those just this once deals, I don’t know, but anyway.
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=coAvObqFT0M&search=abortion%20protesters
Fortunately she has a loving and supportive family. Her parents died. She is with her grandfather.
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QfFiKpxVewY
You’ll notice that nobody actually took the time to find out that her health was endangered. Not that I quite understand why there are exceptions where you will allow the woman rights to her body.
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AbWkRwI2LfY
The anti abortionists have been trying to get her to remove this apparently. They’ve been trying to sue her for posting it.
Women get this all the time. I’ve run across women who tried to get pregnant for years. Around the sixth or seventh month they find out that the much awaited pregnancy has gone wrong, as they so easily can. All of the babies organs are on the outside. So, she walks up to the clinic getting this and worse. She’s devastated to begin with. Now she has to deal with people saying the most horrible things to her she will here since her Doctor gave her the bad news.
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Transcripts:
January 015
Protestor: “Aren’t you a little old to be making
babies with these girls?”
Daddad: (unintelligible)
Protestor: “Shame on you. Shame on you. Just like the
getaway driver in a robbery.”
Daddad: “Jessi…” (about to tell me to turn off the
camera and go inside)
Protestor: “You shouldn’t have brought her.”
Daddad: “Oh, just blow it off.”
Protestor: “She looks like a freeeak.”
Daddad: (sarcastically) “Thank you.”
Protestor: “That’s wroooong.”
Daddad: (sarcastically) “Oh, yeah. Thank you. Thanks.”
Protestor: “Yeah, now you’re going to be the
grandfather of a dead baby.”
Daddad: (unintelligible, but I remember he told me to
turn off the camera.)
January 016
Protestor: “Is that yours? Is that your baby,
grandpa?”
January 017
Protestor: “She’s just crying out for help. You’re
crying out for help, honey.”
Me: (to the patient standing beside me) “It’s actually
just to distract from the fact that I don’t get a
haircut very often.”
Protestor: “How many piercings do you have? How many
tattoos? Because you need help.”
Me: (to the other patient) “I actually have none of
either.”
Patient: (laughing) “Don’t worry about it. They’re the
freaks, standing out there.”
Me: “Ugh, I know.”
Protestor: “Let’s take her picture. Let’s put it up on
the website. And the car, let’s run that plate, let
their neighbors know what they’re up to.”
January 018
Protestor: “When you see my picture, remember what I
saiiid. Every time you see my picture.”
Daddad: “Jessica, let’s go.”
January 020
Protestor: “Jeeeeesus is the only way. You’re dying
your hair because you lack love–”
Me: “Ha!”
Protestor: “–that’s not going to get you love,
looking for love in all the wrong places, you need
Jeeeeeesus.”
Daddad: (derisively) “Okay.”
Protestor: “Daddy–”
January 021
Protestor: “I know this isn’t the first time that
you’ve crawled up on that table. I know that. Many
women regret their abortions, that’s why they’re out
doing what you do. Looking for attention..”
Daddad: “Jessica. Jessica, come on.”
Can I say again that if she does not have an abortion she will die.
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
That whole right to life thing, which once again, does not mean to a pulse. Which a fertilized egg or embryo do not have.
The British were hardly over here committing mass slaughter of any variety. Unless you count the fact that they were robbing people of the right to determine what to do with their mind and body, and the results of the productive efforts of. Which, they were, and was a large part of Jeffersons complaint.
Have you ever heard the quote about making it to death only to find you never lived?
Its not the retention of a pulse. Patrick Henry, “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
I do not know how to explain life to those who believe it is a physical condition that can be experienced by an embryo or a fetus. I think it is something like trying to explain the color blue to a man born blind. I know that what you call life and believe that the declaration speaks of cannot logically be the subject. It isn’t what these men were about.
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 12:29 am
Pansy Moss says:
Lucy,
Nothing you have said proves that a pre-born child is not a human being. And you cannot prove it. All you have proven is that you do not acknowledge the humanity of a preborn child to ease your conscience in the belief of murder for convenience.
Speaking of illnesses. I posted a list of sites on here, or tried to rather, it would appear they wouldn’t let me post it. All that the truth.
What are you talking about? You posted all this and the transcript on the entry about the filthy abortion clinic.
No, if your friend leaves her mother it isn’t murder. I know you were hoping to have me say differently. However, saying yes doesn’t mesh with reality.
How is that? It doesn’t mesh with morality maybe, but reality? What is unrealistic about taking care of a loved one in need? Not “meshing with reality” is taking her on a space ship to find fairy land where there is a magical pink lake that unicorns drink from that will cure her of her illness.
I don’t understand why love, loyalty and self-sacrifice are always illogical and “unrealistic” to you, but extreme selfishness, anger and murder are virtues in your culture because those are “realistic”.
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 5:13 am
Mike says:
Lucy,
Have you heard Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) speak on abortion. You can listen to her speak here…
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1617854#post1617854
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058892/posts
http://www.priestsforlife.org/clippings/2004/04-03-18cathheraldking.htm
Have you seen the picture of Baby Samual Armas reach out of his mothers womb and squeeze the doctors finger…
http://prolife.com (scroll down about half way)
Smiling from the womb
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12773312,00.html
Partial Birth Abortion Procedure
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit
Abortion = Dismembering babies piece by piece
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm
Did you know the word “fetus” is a latin term which means “young child”.
Mike
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 7:16 am
Young Christian Woman says:
Lucy:
Suppose I had a peanut allergy that could kill me.
Suppose I were to go to the store to pick out a candy bar. I have a choice of:
a) Nutrageous (which contains peanuts)
b) M&Ms (which were processed in a place that processes peanuts, and may contain peanuts, according to the packaging)
c) Hershey bar.
I think we can all agree that choosing (a) would be unwise. Obviously, choosing (c) would be ideal. But what about (b)? It only might contain peanuts. Why should I deprive myself of a candy everyone seems to love just on the off chance it might contain something that kills me? I can look very carefully at the M&Ms to see if there are peanuts there, and if I don’t see any, I’ll probably be fine.
The girl you speak of (Jessica?) is choosing option B.
If getting pregnant could kill her, she could
a) have sex without birth control
b) have sex and use birth control
c) not have sex.
I’m not saying she should be denied an abortion to save her life. But this girl must be an idiot. If getting pregnant can kill her, what on earth is she doing having sex? If the relationship she’s in is loving, why is her beau taking acts that could kill her? This just brings home that what you are arguing for is some sort of mythical right to sex. There is no right to sex. That’s even more specious than a right to privacy.
That said, I question the accuracy of your assertion that a normal pregnancy can be fatal. Point me to some documentation of a disease which makes pregnancy fatal, please, if you wish me to believe that.
It does strike me that the pro-lifers you mention perhaps could have gotten better results by not being as abrasive. But if someone knew getting pregnant would kill them, I wouldn’t think that birth control would be enough insurance to make sex worth it. I also have to wonder–if it weren’t so easy to get an abortion, might she have not been quite so stupid?
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
I posted it everywhere.
Nothing you have said proves it is. Certainly nothing you have said has proven that it has the right to use my body. Certainly nothing that you have said proves that you have the right to determine how my body is used. As a matter of fact, I have entertained your idea that it is in fact a thinking individual in need of rights and still not found any justification for believing I owe it my body. In fact, your declaration that it is an individual in need of rights simply lessens the claim to my body that you think exists. If such a think could have been thought possible.
No, I am not actually trying to ease my conscience. Afterall, I have a moral obligation to take care of my mind and body. I do not have a moral obligation to care for the mind or body of another. Which means that I have no obligation to allow any to feed off of me and reside within me without my permission. That holds true if it is a potential human, as I hold that it is, or an actual person, as you hold that it is. Cheapening actual human beings beyond belief. That would imply I felt that I did something wrong. That, as I’ve stated is not the case. I am extrodinarily certain that it is you who are in the wrong. You have no ability to prove that you have some kind of right to dictate to me the workings of my mind or the utilization of my body.
There is nothing unrealistic about caring for a loved one. There is something unrealistic in arguing that there is an obligation to do so. There is something quite unrealistic in asking a woman, or man to believe that if they go out to the store and their mother dies they are a murderer. I believe that there is something cruel involved in that actually.
To care for someone because you love them is selfish. Did it ever occur to you that someone who is in pain might suffer less if allowed to die? Did it ever occur to you that in as much your insistance to prolong their life, and perhaps their agony, is in your best interest and not always in theirs? Consider the cases of Assisted Suicides where the individual, suffering from a chronic illness is told that despite their wishes they have no choice but to retain a life they do not want. Do you believe that you are acting out of concern for their wishes in this instance? Would you like to insult them further by declaring they are in to much pain to know what they want? Suppose, I mean no Disprespect Mary Kay, that the mother in question will die not due to the cancer, but if left unattended, she will kill herself due to the pain.
What makes you think that I am opposed to love? Loyalty…you mean empty obedience, mindless acceptance of whims? Yes, opposed. Deeply. Bad…the Germans are still hanging their heads. Not just once either, twice. Two times, first they were Loyal to the Austrians and then to an Austrian. I applaud them for not going along with us to Iraq, they seem to have learned a trick. To bad we didn’t follow suit.
Self-Sacrifice is highly illogical and never leads to good.
I’m not actually in favor of the things you think that I’m in favor of. I’m not actually in favor of murder. You’ll note that it is your people that like killing sprees. What makes you think that I value anger? Why because when people say vulgar things to me I am less than happy, and sometimes make a mistake and respond when I should not? I value anger in as much that there are times when it is an honest emotional response. There are things that make an individual angry, that should make an individual angry. I should not be happy that you wish to control me. I should be angry. Anger should be used intelligently however. It should be matched with reason. It is illogical to become angry because a dog urinated on the carpet. It is logical to become angry when people try to control your body. It is illogical to become violent due to anger. Which, many people assume that anger is violence. It is logical to take action if there is a valid reason for anger. Action should begin with speaking or writing. Very often there is merely a misunderstanding.
In my culture? That’s cute.
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Lucy says:
Pansy,
By the way. When you lump all black people together into ‘the black community’ and then declare that 80% blank, it leaves room for the assumption that 80% blank. Now, as it is impossible to know everyone within the population, we have to assume that we don’t know the people that we don’t know. If there are statistics that 80% of the black community do not stay with women when the women have children, for instance, is it any wonder that white men tell black men to stay away from their daughters? I’d be amazed if it wasn’t crossing the minds of black men actually. Afterall, all they know for certain is that they represent part of the 20%. They do not know which part of the spectrum the young man falls in. They do know however that the odds are not good.
If you tell people that 80% of black men rob women can you really be surprised if a woman holds her purse a little closer when she sees a black man she doesn’t know. I’m willing to bet that she does not exhibit the same behavior with a black man she knows. He is part of the 20%. If she doesn’t know him, she doesn’t have anyway to know, and so she goes with the higher odds.
Should black men who work hard, are honest, responsible, loving and caring be offended by these statements, and the actions taken because of the statements. Certainly. They should be irrate. They should be irrate with the people spreading the rumors that Black is a Character trait and not a Physical feature. Afterall, the difference between skin colors in human beings is the same as the difference between eye colors. If you are not designating black a Character trait instead of a Physical feature then please explain how it is you justify persist in continuing Separation, by declaring the Black Community…
‘Black’ does not in itself inhibit intelligence. Mental or Physical ability. It does not in itself inhibit earning potential. It does not in itself decide the disposition of the person. It does not decide the values. No more than blonde actually decides intelligence, or any more than any other physical characteristic decides who a person is in and of itself. If ignorant people behave in a certain way because of it, the behaviors my inspire certain reactions, this is still not a derivitive of the coloration of skin coloring however, or of hair coloring.
Children learn about who they are supposed to be, and what is expected of them from those around them. Children who are expected to be intelligent are more likely to achieve higher grades and learn more. Children who have been designated as less intelligent are less likely to achieve in acedemic pursuits. The belief that has been instilled in them regarding who they should be has a great deal to do with who they become. A child who is black who hears that statistically black men do not take one the responsibilities of fatherhood, hear about what is expected of them. Therefore, perpetuating a cycle. Women, who believe this, do not expect them to stay and are less likely to hold them to their responsibilities. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen the young women who expect that black fathers do not stay, so she treats him as though he is not there, and shortly he isn’t. She mutters for a few minutes, and then apathetically declares that that is just the way life is.
Why not point to success stories, human success stories, because they come in all shades, and say that is what you are to strive for. That is the goal.
That black men work hard. They set goals and then work to achieve them. They seek to nurture their minds and bodies. They seek to behave as responsibly as possible. They note the circumstances around them. They assess them, determining their value to them, and then seek to achieve or ascend them. They judge the ideas they find for themselves, and determine idea by idea what to do with it and why. They hold themselves in high esteem, and seek to live in a manner that will ensure the respect of those who are worthy of seeking the respect of. That he seeks the respect of the woman he loves. That he knows that the a forementioned methods are the ways in which to obtain this respect. That he seeks a woman who he can respect as well. Because she holds herself in high esteem.
Why is this so difficult to see?
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
Why is it Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, millions of post abortive women from Silent No More, Dr. Bernard Nathanson who was one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and many abortionists who were all once Pro-Abortion are now Pro-Life? Why is this?
Mike
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
Do I care? Mob rule cannot eliminate individual rights. If they wish to fight for the immoral removal of rights they once used that is their conscience. I have to live with mine, not theirs, thankfully. I wish to defend the rights that others have left me. I respect personal liberty. I believe in the right of each individual’s right based on ability to examine that which is presented as evidence and interpret it of their own ability.
I do not favor a dictatorship. I certainly don’t favor a Theocracy. We have a Constitution for a reason. There is no secular reason for preventing abortion. You believe in a gods gift. The Constitution says that our laws can’t be based on a belief in god. Because a belief in god cannot be mandated. Therefore laws that require a belief in god cannot exist. Science says that one must have a brain to die, therefore that which does not have a brain can’t live. Philosophy says that one must need to make decisions that determine the course of ones life in order to be alive. It does not say you have to do it, it says you need to do it. A fetus from conception till birth does not have this requirement to live.
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Do I care? Mob rule cannot eliminate individual rights. If they wish to fight for the immoral removal of rights they once used that is their conscience. I have to live with mine, not theirs, thankfully. I wish to defend the rights that others have left me. I respect personal liberty. I believe in the right of each individual’s right based on ability to examine that which is presented as evidence and interpret it of their own ability.
We’re a mob who only makes choices by jumping on the bandwagon? Hmmm, let’s see what Lauren wrote on a another entry dated July 15:
Sure, protest all you want.. You know what happens? You make people loathe you. I’ve had so many people contact me privately that have read this site and read what I said in the Southtown and they THANK me for standing up to you. They think you’re a bunch of fools, a bunch of silly, silly fools that have no grip with the realities an d injustices in life. More stuff about how we should be happy abortion is legal and deal inst of having our own blogs expressing our own opinions, blah, blah, blah…
Seems to me her point was nothing more than “everyone else believes it, so should you”.
Should black men who work hard, are honest, responsible, loving and caring be offended by these statements, and the actions taken because of the statements. Certainly. They should be irrate.
I am going to consider this…considering…considering…Guess what? I already done told you how we feel about this! OK, I am not a man, but the men that fit this bill (hardworking, responsible black men) are plentiful in my family, and we are sad that Harlem was once a neighborhood of families, despite being lower-middle income, now is a ghetto. I showed what Bill Cosby feels, La Shawn Barber, a bunch of articles written by blacks on the subject-we our community deteriorating. I think your opinion about how black people feel over what you say they should feel is wrong, because I am telling you how we feel.
Again, instead of focusing ignoring the obvious, that there is a problem, the focus of the argument should be why there is a problem, how to fix it.
By the way. When you lump all black people together into ‘the black community’ and then declare that 80% blank, it leaves room for the assumption that 80% blank.
I guess we gotta lump ourselves together because people like you don’t give a hoot.
BTW, the statistic wasn’t 80% of black men leave their families, it was 80% of black children are born out of wedlock. That could be one black man making six babies and not taking care of them, and two black men handling their business with one kid with their respective spouses.
Why not point to success stories, human success stories, because they come in all shades, and say that is what you are to strive for. That is the goal.
I agree, but this only one part of attacking a problem (of course admitting a problem is the first). Have you noticed that people do this? You want to make dinner. First you identify you want to eat and to do so you have to cook (you would eliminate this step as it just causes a bigger problem). To cook, ingredients have to be assembled, prepped and prepared. Let’s say you want to make spaghetti sauce. Your step, random white people making positive affirmations is chopping the parsley. I contributes some, but does not get to the root of the problem.
The problem is a child’s perception of how they should act in adulthood is formed within the family. If they have a father who jets, a mother who never finds men and holds them to a certain standard of respect, has cousins and friends who all act the same. He lives in a house with Grandma, Aunt Jean and her son, and his mother whom he refers to as “Jackie”. There is a good chance he will continue on the same pattern as the rest of his family. Yes, there is always a chance he will break the pattern and “Do the Right Thing” so to speak. People who do, usually have a mentor to show them how” a father, a teacher, an adult friend of some sort who pushes them to something better. My husband who grew up with a super dead beat Dad, and a mother who could care less changed because the woman he wanted didn’t want no more Baby Daddies. I told him after dating for 6 weeks “hit the altar or hit the road”. I held him to that higher standard you speak of.
I also agree that that standard needs ot be in place with parenting, but it is more than just “thinking positive”. If I go around cussing up a storm, should I be surprised my two year old starts cussing because I “thought positive”? As a parent, a good base to keep his mouth potty-free would be to not cuss. (But once again, I would have to realize that he is cussing, or might be prone to cussing if I do, and you are against that because that would be to perpetuate a cussing problem).
Comment posted July 16th, 2006 at 5:16 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
Have I given you any idea that I have done what everyone else was doing? Have I given you any idea that anyone else made my decision? Have I given you any reason to believe that I believe that I am doing what is the ‘cool’ thing? If I am the last one standing I will stand for this. If you get everyone else in the world to see it ‘your’ way I will stand for this, (unless you can give me an actual reason not to).
People like me don’t give a hoot? Right. Justify your perpetuation of spreading ignorance by telling me once again what I think and how I feel. That’s fine. Just don’t include me. The next time that a white woman grabs her purse when your husband walks by, please remember that you told her that the odds were that she should.
Comment posted July 16th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Pansy Moss says:
Right. Justify your perpetuation of spreading ignorance by telling me once again what I think and how I feel.
But you have repeatedly told me I am racist for caring about what goes on with my people, and saying in that concern, I am promoting and perpetuating a problem.
But for the second time, I will play devil’s advocate. Practice what you preach! If you truly believe your argument: if you do not like the concept of people being lumped into a group, and have their feelings assumed rather than being asked if they actually believe in such and such, do the same with pro-life people and every other group you come across. You made an argument it should be done with blacks, it should be done with you, do the same for pro-lifers. Just state what you know:
-Pro-lifers believe abortion is the murder of an innocent child. (Not that you agree in being pro-life, but that is all you know is the common thread in the thinking of people who call themselves “pro-life”)
-Christians believe they follow the teachings of Christ.
No more adlibbing nonsensical little asides that we are pornographers, facists, Nazis, anti-women, murderers… You cannot know that we are all for those unless you personally interview everyone of us and ask “are you pro-facism, yes or no?” and the accusations.
Comment posted July 16th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
mary kay says:
Lucy,
You said “Mary Kay,
No, if your friend leaves her mother it isn’t murder. I know you were hoping to have me say differently. However, saying yes doesn’t mesh with reality. ”
I didn’t mean if Kathy just ran to the grocery store. I mean if Kathy left her mother’s home (she is staying at her mom’s house, her mother is not at her house…) and made no provisions for someone to feed her or give her water or change her diapers or any of the other things that would make her last days more comfortable…would that be murder. Kathy would be directly responsible for her death because she abandoned her mother with no other means to support herself. I realize that the cancer is what will utilmately kill her, but if Kathy left her completely helpless then she would be responsible for her death due to starvation. Or what if a mother simply walked out on her two month old without telling anyone. When the baby died would she not be charged with murder?
You said,
” There is nothing unrealistic about caring for a loved one. There is something unrealistic in arguing that there is an obligation to do so”
Is that mother not obligated to care for her infant?
MK
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Pansy Moss says:
I didn’t mean if Kathy just ran to the grocery store. I mean if Kathy left her mother’s home (she is staying at her mom’s house, her mother is not at her house…) and made no provisions for someone to feed her or give her water or change her diapers or any of the other things that would make her last days more comfortable…would that be murder
I don’t think she meant running to the grocery store, I think she meant if she decided to leave and live her own life. She goes on after that talking about letting her die is more merciful than taking care of her.
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Young Christian Woman says:
Lucy: I know that it may be more comfortable to remain ignorant, but it makes little sense for you to be arguing about fetal development when you know nothing about fetal development. Try reading Lennart Nilsson’s book A Child is Born, which is not pro-life although it illustrates many reasons one should be. Every child killed by surgical abortion has a brain. By the time it is possible to surgically abort a child, it has every body part you have, and a beating heart. Brain activity begins very early–in the first trimester, though I do not remember the exact point–and it is rather silly to assume that the brain is not doing what brains are meant to do: thinking. Seeing as you did not know the fetal person had a brain at this point, I hope you’ll understand why I do not want to just take your word for it.
I see you continue to ignore the questions I have asked:
What disease could cause a normal pregnancy to be fatal?
If there is one, then wouldn’t it be stupid for the person infected with it to have sex?
What is the difference between arguing for a universal right to abortion and arguing for a right to sex without consequences? How do you figure that sex is a right?
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
mary kay says:
pansy,
Lucy said ” There is nothing unrealistic about caring for a loved one. There is something unrealistic in arguing that there is an obligation to do so. There is something quite unrealistic in asking a woman, or man to believe that if they go out to the store and their mother dies they are a murderer. I believe that there is something cruel involved in that actually”
MK
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Pansy Moss says:
MK,
Sorry, I stand corrected. I was reacting to this:
No, if your friend leaves her mother it isn’t murder. I know you were hoping to have me say differently. However, saying yes doesn’t mesh with reality.
I don’t quite know what makes you believe that your friend has any obligation to keep her mother there. I imagine that her mother would prefer to believe she wasn’t just an obligation. Would your friend have her there if she wasn’t dying and she could leave? Is your friends mother enjoying her life? Does she want your friend there? I’m sorry that your friends mother has cancer.
When she said this, it really struck me. I am so baffled as to why the notion of taking care of a sick loved one has been elevated to “cruel”, and ignoring them and letting them die is noble somehow. And some how this is “realistic”?
Comment posted July 18th, 2006 at 1:15 am
mary kay says:
Pansy,
I have a theory that I want to approach Lucy with, but I’m nervous. I think it would explain a lot.
I don’t want to offend her, but I have a very personal question that I would like to ask her. Lucy, if you are reading this, I am not trying to talk behind your back, I’m just working up the right way to ask you. You have always been honest with us, even if we disagreed so if you don’t want to answer it’s okay. Just say so.
Give me a little more time. I want to phrase this just right…
MK
Comment posted July 18th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Lauren says:
“Pro-lifers believe abortion is the murder of an innocent child. (Not that you agree in being pro-life, but that is all you know is the common thread in the thinking of people who call themselves “pro-life”)”
I’m not saying that you don’t believe abortion is murder, but what if there are other reasons you are against abortion? Such as you don’t believe a woman has a right to her own body, that certainly is a reason to not believe in a right to an abortion. Don’t say all pro-lifers are in favor of taking away abortion rights because they believe abortion is murder. Everyone has different reasons for coming to a viewpoint.
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Pansy Moss says:
I’m not saying that you don’t believe abortion is murder, but what if there are other reasons you are against abortion? Such as you don’t believe a woman has a right to her own body, that certainly is a reason to not believe in a right to an abortion. Don’t say all pro-lifers are in favor of taking away abortion rights because they believe abortion is murder. Everyone has different reasons for coming to a viewpoint.
Fair enough, you cannot get into everyone’s mind. But I can say that I have never, ever come across a pro-lifer that has any other motive besides stopping the murder of little babies. That is why we all seem to be quite content be labled “pro-life”. All the marches on Washington I have been to, all the Holy Hours for the Unborn, all the newsletters from American Life League, Feminists for Life, Priests for Life that I have read, and even entry on this very blog have one singular goal in mind-to stop the murder of babies.
The people I know personally who have come to this viewpoint are people like my father who is a developmental psychologist who has seen all stages of babies in the womb. Another friend of ours is a pathologist who was pro-choice until the day she had to do lab reports on tiny little babies ripped up into pieces.
I challenge you, seriously, not sarcastically, to google pro-life organizations (you can use the PP list of “terrorist organisations” as a starting point) and read what they are all about. It is a fair argument that you puport abortion is such a women’s right, there must be anti-women’s rights people out there. So I ask you-find one. I doubt you will to be honest. A movement like that would get bored with themselves after two months. The pro-life movement does not run out of steam because it is our duty to do what we can with the tools we have at our disposal (voting, protesting, writing letters to our legislature, prayer, helping women in need) to stop this genocide.
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 6:24 am
Lucy says:
Lauren says:
“Pro-lifers believe abortion is the murder of an innocent child. (Not that you agree in being pro-life, but that is all you know is the common thread in the thinking of people who call themselves “pro-life”)”
I’m not saying that you don’t believe abortion is murder, but what if there are other reasons you are against abortion? Such as you don’t believe a woman has a right to her own body, that certainly is a reason to not believe in a right to an abortion. Don’t say all pro-lifers are in favor of taking away abortion rights because they believe abortion is murder. Everyone has different reasons for coming to a viewpoint.
Lauren,
It might be worth noting that there is a belief that people are who they are before the conception and therefore we are predetermined in the womb. This a fatalist belief, and held by Plato. It means that, (I’m sure you already know, but please allow me), that we are already who we will be upon conception. That we are in fact our bodies. All of the information that we have is born in us. You’ll find that Socrates was pushing this drivel. We don’t actually learn anything, we are simply remembering what was already there. The memories that we have based off of what we know are attributed then to what god has instilled in us. (You might say we know how to perform abortions because of this, if we can understand geometry by these methods). When we need the information it just comes to us.
Of course the catch is…oh who am I kidding, the catch that I choose to address now, or do I remember to address it now, is that this means that all of the rapists, and murderers and burglers and anyone else that can be agreed upon as a criminal was predetermined. Which means that we can narrow it down and determine who the bad guys are before it is to late and abort them in the womb…except, wait, that would involve learning something new, and we can’t learn something new, either we were born knowing it and just haven’t remembered it yet, or it is just not to be. Unless of course it is something that is now approved, and previously wasn’t approved….I know, my head hurts too.
[bbe] It was on the day when the Lord gave up the Amorites into the hands of the children of Israel that Joshua said to the Lord, before the eyes of Israel, Sun, be at rest over Gibeon; and you, O moon, in the valley of Aijalon.
10:13 [kjv] And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
[bbe] And the sun was at rest and the moon kept its place till the nation had given punishment to their attackers. (Is it not recorded in the book of Jashar?) So the sun kept its place in the middle of the heavens, and was waiting, and did not go down, for the space of a day.
10:14 [kjv] And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.
[bbe] And there was no day like that, before it or after it, when the Lord gave ear to the voice of a man; for the Lord was fighting for Israel.
When it comes to the scientific expertise of the Bible and the authority that is to be granted to the church on the issue this should be carefully considered. As Thomas Paine said in the Age of Reason, “The sublime and the ridiculous are often so nearly related that it is difficult to class them separately. One step above the sublim makes the ridiculous, and one step above the ridiculous makes the sublime again; the account however, abstracted from the poetical fancy, shows the ignorance of Joshua, for he should have commanded the earth to have stood still.”
Night Lauren.
Comment posted July 20th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Pansy Moss says:
It might be worth noting that there is a belief that people are who they are before the conception and therefore we are predetermined in the womb.
But since Lauren addressed the question to me, I can tell you I am Catholic and do not believe in predestination. If you are Catholic, it is heretical. Life begins at conception. No where does science prove that life does not begin at conception. The best science can say is “well a fertilised egg doesn’t look like a 36-year-old man”. How can they say it is not a life simply becaue it looks different? Blacks at one time were not considered whole people because they looked different. A 1-year old looks different then a 20-year old. Men look different than women, yet they are all human. The same holds true with a preborn baby.
There is no extra science that you have the inside scoop on that we continue to deny. It is simply your opinion. Science though u/s just has strengthened what we already knew-there’s a baby in there.
Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 3:15 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
I can’t account for the amount of times that you have told me what other people were trying to say.
This isn’t about looking different. The bit from the bible up there might be worth noting. Do you notice the fact that the bit from the bible sites that the Sun moves and not the earth? Joshua ordered the Sun to stop. Which of course is useless and will yeild no results, because it isn’t moving. Sun stop!. I just did it. See, the same thing happened when I did it as had to have happened then.
I have never based any arguments for why a embryo, fetus, blastocyst, fertilized egg, (which come on, please acknowledge that science knows that we have to have a brain), wasn’t the same as the woman based on appearances. In fact, in arguments against people who want to bring up people born with bodies that vary from what we understand to be the norm, I say that there are wonderful painters in the world who do so without hands. I say Michaelangelo said noone paints with a brush. I say that everyone must learn to use the body that they are born with, for us it seems odd because we have a standard issue if you will, however, if you never had standard issue, then what you have is standard issue. I had to learn to use my legs, and to utilize my hands, why in the world wouldn’t anyone else have to learn to use their bodies.
People come up with all kinds of stupid superficial reasons to discriminate. You should read the stuff they say to stop gay marriage…oops. It sounds like the KKK. I mean really, at this point you’ve got people fighting against ‘gay people lovers’ Seriously, they are petitioning against Ford, and telling congregations not to buy Ford products.
You have what DNA that can be found in the grave. You have leveled people to nothing more than a conglomeration of cells. This is sad. Then you guys talk about spirituality. What spirituality. Where do you get around to that. I tell you there is a difference between being Alive and Living.
Your science to prove that human DNA is human DNA is staggering, and would not have happened if you guys had had your way. Did you catch the fact that Arnold is lending 150 million to the cause of Stem Cell Research in California because of G.W. and Blago is setting aside 5 million in Illinois.
Out of curiosity, when the cures aren’t developed because of a limitation on scientific research and people die that didn’t have to, and the embryos just sit and rot, who will be the killer?
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Pansy Moss says:
I can’t account for the amount of times that you have told me what other people were trying to say.
Honestly Lucy, because instead of coming out saying what it is you want to say, you litter it with insults and rhetoric, so there is an attempt to get the meaning through that. (i.e. You should read the stuff they say to stop gay marriage…oops. ) It had nothing to do with Lauren’s question, and was just a chance again to insult an assumed perspective.
Here was a discussion where Lauren (thank-you) asked a simple, straighforward question:
I’m not saying that you don’t believe abortion is murder, but what if there are other reasons you are against abortion? Such as you don’t believe a woman has a right to her own body, that certainly is a reason to not believe in a right to an abortion. Don’t say all pro-lifers are in favor of taking away abortion rights because they believe abortion is murder. Everyone has different reasons for coming to a viewpoint.
It was valid, straightforward question. She did not say to me “Oh whatever, you use that murder thing as cover, but what you really want to do is enslave mine and all women’s bodies!” Do you see the difference?
Frankly, it is hard trying to get the true meaning of your point when your points are buried under this. Honestly, I don’t know why I try except to somehow I feel the need to defend our perspective “no, we are not pornographers, Nazis, murderers, slave masters, facists etc etc-we just believe innocent babies deserve a chance to not be killed…” I don’t believe at all these discussions will change anyone’s mind-God does that. I just for some odd reason keep trying to state we simply believe abortion is murder, period.
And you are right, I have no idea what that Bible passage has to do with all the tea in China, or whether or not we believe abortion is a woman’s right. I get your point, but I have no idea what that has to do with what is being said here. I think you are trying to say that saying a preborn baby is not human, but we claim it is, therefore changing reality to suit our purposes. I thought that was what you were trying to say with the predestination, predetermination thing, but you say I got it wrong, so I don’t know.
have never based any arguments for why a embryo, fetus, blastocyst, fertilized egg, (which come on, please acknowledge that science knows that we have to have a brain), wasn’t the same as the woman based on appearances.
Then I am confused, what is the basis of your argument for saying a blastocyst is not a human being?
You have leveled people to nothing more than a conglomeration of cells. This is sad.
But what is a human being but a conglomeration of cells with a soul? It is the same when there are two cells, it is the same with billions. All are capable of love and respect.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 5:17 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
Actually overall, I have made attempts to explain my point. On a few occasions with individuals such as Quinn, Mike and Michael I have made comments in fashions that I shouldn’t have made. I admit that. Once again, my statement regarding gay marriage was for the purpose of illustrating a point. You’re right, it is not to the best of my recollection that you have spoken out against gay marriage on here, yet if you have not and are not opposed you should note you are in the minority around here.
The part where I said oops, I should not have. Regarding comparing the way people behave regarding people who are gay to the way that other victims of discrimination have been treated in the past is how I view this. The worst of it does not end up on here of course, but there are religious orginazations that speaking in the same terms that lead to things such as segregation and lynchings. I don’t know if that is what they have in mind, but it is the only end that such behavior has ever seen.
I have just glanced at the clock and will have to wait to comment on the rest until later. I have not actually stated that you are using the murder thing as a cover. I actually believe that you, at least most of you actually believe that abortion is murder. I do not happen to share that belief, that is largely based on the fact that I do not belief life to be what you believe it to be. The only logical result of treating it as though it is murder, is to control a womans rights to choose what happens to her body, and therefore limiting the ability for her to act on her own conscience.
That you hold your belief does not inhibit any woman except those who share your belief. That is a chosen limitation and is therefore no more intrusive on womens rights than choosing not to drink or smoke. In fact, it comes as part of the package of womens rights. Speaking out against abortion, giving your understanding of how things works does no damage to womens rights, in fact, one of they key ingredients to excercising rights is carefully examining all evidence and making well thought out decisions. The signs you wish to show people do no damage to womens rights. They don’t harm me and they don’t harm you. If you persuade a woman to see things your way, you do no harm to womens rights, in fact the fact that she able to make that decision is an indication that womens rights are alive and well.
When you try to bring in the government regarding these issues and insist that I think as you though by legislative rule, that changes things. I have to go now.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:57 am
Pansy Moss says:
You’re right, it is not to the best of my recollection that you have spoken out against gay marriage on here, yet if you have not and are not opposed you should note you are in the minority around here.
The part where I said oops, I should not have.
Thank you.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 2:57 pm