• « Previous Post
• Next Post »
• 

28 Comments on “Supporting Patricia Heaton”

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

1. Mike says:

   I am glad Patricia Heaton and the two baseball players from Missouri came out with the Pro-Life ad to offset Michael J Fox’s ad promoting the killing of human beings in order to improve someone else’s life.

   I want Michael J Fox to get better but not at the expense of someone else’s life (Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research).

   I did like the counter ad to Michael J Fox’s ad. However in general I really do not like actors, actresses, athletes, movie stars or other popular people in the culture telling me about their views on something other than their particular expertise. I am tired of seeing the mainstream media glorifying the popular people in the culture. This is why I can never watch Oprah, Larry King or other programs which just glorify the popular culture.

   I would rather see these programs grab the average Joe or Sue off the street and get their positions on moral and political questions. I would find this much more interesting.

   Just to conclude, I like to listen to Peyton Manning talk about football but I could care less what he thinks on other issues. I rather hear from the average person off the street. Just my opinion.

   Mike

   Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 6:37 pm

2. mary kay says:

   Wow,

   That blog is certainly different than ours…and we thought it got intense here back in the summmer….

   I called Jewel. I exclusively shop there and with 8 people in my family that’s a lot of business.

   Is there anyway to reach Patricia Heaton and let HER know that we are behind her. I loved her even when I didn’t know she was pro-life. I remember when I found out that Mary Steenburgen (SP) was Pro-choice. I was devastated. I loved her in (of all movies) Parenthood. I keep waiting to hear that Reese Witherspoon is pro-choice. Then I’ll have to sign off all movies…

   MK

   Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 6:50 pm

3. Sunnyday says:

   MK,

   I’ve been under the impression that Reese is pro-family, from the comments of hers that I read on the news about proper parenting and how she doesn’t allow swear words in her home, etc. So when I read about her filing for divorce today, I was very saddened. I know I shouldn’t pin my hopes on these celebrities, though. I’m just hoping that some of them can be good role models worth emulating.

   By the way, Mike, I’m also for man-on-the-street interviews because ordinary people often have more wisdom than celebrities. And these stars have been put on pedestals for much too long! However, I doubt it if TV shows would make enough money to stay on air for long enough if they featured mostly ordinary people. =)

   Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 7:17 pm

4. Sunnyday says:

   If anyone happens to get Patricia Heaton’s email addy, can you put it here? I’d like to email her my support too. That’s the most I can do from my end. Thanks!

   Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 7:19 pm

5. mary kay says:

   How funny that I chose Reese as an example…I didn’t know until I read your reply that she WAS filing for divorce…That is sooo sad.
   Well, books it is then….
   MK

   Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 7:34 pm

6. Sunnyday says:

   Sad indeed (sigh). She’s one of the few actresses I admire and was hoping that her personal life would be happier and more fulfilling for her than it apparently is.

   Let’s pin our hopes on book characters like Mrs. March — steadfast mom to the “little women”. =)

   I also like Meryl Streep’s character in The River Wild. Very strong and persevering amid hardships — marital hardships included. The movie was shown on HBO recently, that’s why I remembered it. But it’s an old movie already. Did you see it?

   Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 7:42 pm

7. mary kay says:

   Sunnyday,

   No I didn’t see it…but my 25 year old is taking a woman’s social studies class (he is majoring in sociology), and he had to watch a movie about lesbians for a class assignment…I asked him if he was also going to watch a movie that involved stay at home moms raising their children and actually feeling fulfilled? He rolled his eyes. But the last time I checked I was still a woman and I’d like to know I was being represented in a woman’s class. Got any ideas of movies with woman who aren’t lesbian but still qualify as socially acceptable?
   MK

   Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 8:01 pm

8. mary kay says:

   Oh my gosh, Bill O’reilly was just on Fox talking about George Tiller from Wichita ,Kansas. Bill says partial birth abortion is nasty. Good one Bill…Where have you been for the last 10 years. But still, it was amazing to see mainline TV really laying into the horrors of abortion…

   MK

   Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 8:06 pm

9. Sunnyday says:

   Well, it can’t be Little Women or else people will think being a full-time wife and mom is not compatible with 21st century life, LOL!!

   Hmm let me think…you know what? The films I can think of which involve SAHMs are either bored or put up with philandering husbands (or themselves committed infidelity), got divorced, or died early from some disease. There’s Stepmom, One True Thing, Unfaithful (yuck), … oh wait! What about “Shall We Dance?” Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Jennifer Lopez. I think Susan’s character there is a SAHM. And the film teaches pretty sound principles about marriage.

   There’s also “Cheaper by the Dozen” but somehow it seems to ridicule big families in some subtle way. The mother there writes on the side, I think, and in one part she even went on a book tour, to the detriment of the family.

   Can’t think of any other movie but I’m sure there are more. Now you got me thinking! I’ll check back again later ’cause right now I’ve got to get some things from the grocery.

   Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 8:20 pm

10. Rosie says:

    I wonder where the pro-life movement would be if we acted like pro-aborts. Think we would get more attention if we acted like screaming lunatics? Maybe we should start throwing temper tantrums like they do. I think maybe I could come up with some good insults of my own. They tell pro-lifers to shut up and then call us fascists, I find their ignorance amusing!

    Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 8:43 pm

11. mary kay says:

    I just read the reports that John linked on the hearings in the Supreme Court. My head hurts from all the lingo, but…

    This is amazing to me…highly educated, powerful, grown men and women are sitting around discussing whether or not if they change the law so that the child can be delivered to the navel or the head…it would be safer for the mother. What if they dialated her more? How about if they kill the child before they deliver it? They actually discussed the difference between a D&E and a D&X by describing pulling out a leg, twisting it out of the way so they could cut off the other one…

    It was like reading a horror novel.

    If they let five year olds decide, all they’d have to do is show them the diagram of a partial birth abortionand there would be no more discussion and no more abortion. But no, better that adults sit around and discuss it, then break for lunch and still have no answers.

    It boggles the mind.
    And breaks the heart.
    I wish they could see themselves the way I see them.
    They would hang their heads in shame.
    MK

    Comment posted November 9th, 2006 at 10:08 pm

12. lauren says:

    I haven’t been to Jewel since Patricia Heaton was their spokeswoman. Any more than you would go to Dominicks if Gloria Feldt was theres.

    Comment posted November 10th, 2006 at 8:54 am

13. mary kay says:

    Lauren,

    And I’m sure Jewel is financially devastated.
    MK

    Comment posted November 10th, 2006 at 9:38 am

14. mary kay says:

    Why is it that Michael J Foxx can go on television shaking with parkinsons to give a visual on the disease,
    but Patricia Heaton etal couldn’t show the fetuses that would be used in fetal stem cell reasearch?

    Comment posted November 10th, 2006 at 10:22 am

15. lauren says:

    They probably are, I bought enough lean cuisines to fill an entire fridge yesterday.. There was a freezer space emergency last night. Lol.

    Comment posted November 10th, 2006 at 10:23 am

16. lauren says:

    they aren’t fetuses for one.. they’re embryos.. Show them, they’re on tv all the time. It doesn’t bother me.

    I feel so bad for Michael J Fox. Thank god some intelligence is back in government

    Comment posted November 10th, 2006 at 10:24 am

17. mary kay says:

    Lauren,

    Then why do they refer to it as fetal stem cell research?

    I also feel badly for Mr. Fox. Being against killing babies does not mean being for parkinsons disease. My heart breaks for him. Which is why I would like to see the money go toward adult stem cell research which has proven good results as opposed to being wasted on fetal stem cell reasearch which has no good results and often catastrophic ones. What could would it do to cure his parkinsons but give him cancer?

    MK

    Comment posted November 10th, 2006 at 10:39 am

18. Rosie says:

    MK,
    It seems they don’t want to get well enough to listen to the proven facts. You would think they would throw money and time at the most promising thing being offered. Instead they are spending what could be their last days on earth offending God. It is so sad. I usually shop at Cub but it is closing down, I plan on shopping at Jewel. I’ll more than make up for Lauren not shopping there;)

    Comment posted November 10th, 2006 at 11:04 am

19. Lauren says:

    “Then why do they refer to it as fetal stem cell research?”

    WHo refers to it as fetal stem cell reserach? that’s the first time i’ve heard it.

    Comment posted November 11th, 2006 at 11:25 am

20. mary kay says:

    State Embryonic and Fetal Research Laws

    Updated August 14, 2006

    just put fetal stem cell in your search engine. I’d put up the links but it will get moderated…

    The above thing is state laws on fetal and embryonic stem cell research…

    MK

    Comment posted November 11th, 2006 at 2:09 pm

21. Young Christian Woman says:

    RE: #7

    Mary Kay, role models for girls are fewer and farther between than you are thinking. I have yet to read a story published for elementary kids as part of their materials that shows a difference between boys and girls. A story that stars a little boy will show him doing the type of things boys do. A story that stars a little girl will be the same, except it will go out of the way to say that she is just as good (or better) than other boys–older brothers, neighborhood kids, etc. Girls play basketball and hunt rabbits and chop wood… if anyone tries to think that girls should do different chores or can’t play sports as well, then either they are a bad guy or their mind will get changed.

    I can’t help but think that there are little girls out there who like to play with dolls and dress up as princesses for tea parties, and they think there’s something wrong with them. Because there isn’t any of that in kids’ stories anymore.

    Comment posted November 11th, 2006 at 9:42 pm

22. Lauren says:

    “I can’t help but think that there are little girls out there who like to play with dolls and dress up as princesses for tea parties, and they think there’s something wrong with them. Because there isn’t any of that in kids’ stories anymore. ”

    That’s ridiculous. There are just as many boys that like to play with dolls as they do gi-joes. Any parent that tries to make their children play with certain toys in order to reinforce gender stereotypes are screwed up. I’ll let my kids choose their toys. If my boys want to play dress up and play house, I could care less. If my girls want to play cops and robbers, so be it. If the girls want to put on make up and pretend to be Cindy Crawford and the boys want to climb trees I could care less.

    I had girlfriends growing up that their parents wouldn’t let them have waterbaloon fights with the boys in the neighborhood because they were the “fairer” sex. Screw that. I also had male friends that were forbidden to play house with their sisters because god forbid a doll might make the boy like penis instead of vagina in later life. Ridiculous.

    In the morning I watched the Little Mermaid and played airplane with my sister (she the customer and me the pilotess/stewardess) yes you dont want to be on my plane. At night we scraped our knees as we played ghost in the graveyard. I understand your hesitation at becoming too pc by not allowing girls to play with dolls, but really this is a much smaller problem than the opposite. The opposite is a greater danger, if it’s only politically correct for girls to do feminine things. I thankfully grew up with a strong mother who definitely was a feminist and enabled me and my sister to do anything we want.

    Comment posted November 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pm

23. Pansy Moss says:

    I can’t help but think that there are little girls out there who like to play with dolls and dress up as princesses for tea parties, and they think there’s something wrong with them. Because there isn’t any of that in kids’ stories anymore.

    I remember in gym class, the gym teachers would put the girls down who, well, acted like girls. We always had to play things like flag football, baseball and ultimate frisbee, and those of us who weren’t so good at boys-type sports were teased. I think this is why I hated gym class so much. It’s not that I was not physically active either-I was a cheerleader, took dance and later became a personal trainer and aerobics instructor.

    There has been something wrong with treating little boys like boys and little girls like girls in our culture. A family who wants to raise a girl to become a mother is behind the times, likewise a family who raises a boy to be a strong family man is considered barbaric.

    Oddly, there is a fallacy that boys acting like boys and girls acting like girls is “programming”. Most busy families I know have very little time to simply spend on programming gender into kids. The first worries are nutrition, health, shelter, food, education…not programming. My boys favorite pasttime is to go in the yard and find big sticks to carry around and use as “spears”. Not because I ever said to them “now that is many man play”-it’s just what they do.

    Comment posted November 13th, 2006 at 8:54 am

24. Lauren says:

    “I remember in gym class, the gym teachers would put the girls down who, well, acted like girls. We always had to play things like flag football, baseball and ultimate frisbee, and those of us who weren’t so good at boys-type sports were teased.”

    Acted like girls? How exactly do you act like a girl? I personally loved gym class-in grade school-anyways. I got to run, jump, play basketball and volleyball. I’m sorry is that too boyish of me?

    Comment posted November 13th, 2006 at 10:04 am

25. Rosie says:

    Pansy,
    I agree, I remember being more interested in playing hoscotch, 4 square, tag, etc. Some girls don’t like getting dirty, so they get teased.

    Lauren,
    “I personally loved gym class-in grade school-anyways. ”

    Ah! I think I know what you mean…

    Comment posted November 13th, 2006 at 11:08 am

26. John says:

    Pansy said: “Most busy families I know have very little time to simply spend on programming gender into kids.”

    Heh. Quite so.

    “The first worries are nutrition, health, shelter, food, education…not programming. My boys favorite pasttime is to go in the yard and find big sticks to carry around and use as spears’.”

    Pansy,

    Being a Chesterton fan, you may be familiar with his essay, “The Terror of a Toy”, which begins thusly:

    It would be too high and hopeful a compliment to say that the world is becoming absolutely babyish. For its chief weak-mindedness is an inability to appreciate the intelligence of babies. On every side we hear whispers and warnings that would have appeared half-witted to the Wise Men of Gotham. Only this Christmas I was told in a toy-shop that not so many bows and arrows were being made for little goys; because they were considered dangerous. It might in some circumstances be dangerous to have a little bow. It is always dangerous to have a little boy. But no other society, claiming to be sane, would have dreamed of supposing that you could abolish all bows unless you could abolish all boys.

    It also includes this:

    Now you do not keep a little boy from throwing stones by preventing him from ever seeing stones. You do not do it by locking up all the stones in the Geological Museum, and only issuing tickets of admission to adults. You do not do it by trying to pick up all the pebbles on the beach, for fear he should practise throwing them into the sea You do not even adopt so obvious and even pressing a social reform as forbidding roads to be made of anything but asphalt, or directing that all gardens shall be made on clay and none on gravel. You neglect all these great opportunities opening before you; you neglect all these inspiring vistas of social science and enlightenment. When you want to prevent a child from throwing stones, you fall back on the stalest and most sentimental and even most superstitious methods. You do it by trying to preserve some reasonable authority and influence over the child. You trust to your private relation with the boy, and not to your public relation with the stone. And what is true of the natural missile is just as true, of course, of the artificial missile; especially as it is a very much more ineffectual and therefore innocuous missile. A man could be really killed, like St. Stephen, with the stones in the road. I doubt if he could be really killed, like St. Sebastian, with the arrows in the toyshop. But anyhow the very plain principle is the same. If you can teach a child not to throw a stone, you can teach him when to shoot an arrow; if you cannot teach him anything, he will always have something to throw. If he can be persuaded not to smash the Archdeacon’s hat with a heavy flint, it will probably be possible to dissuade him from transfixing that head-dress with a toy arrow. If his training deters him from heaving half a brick at the postman, it will probably also warn him against constantly loosening shafts of death against the policeman. But the notion that the child depends upon particular implements, labelled dangerous, in order to be a danger to himself and other people, is a notion so nonsensical that it is hard to see how any human mind can entertain it for a moment. The truth is that all sorts of faddism, both official and theoretical, have broken down the natural authority of the domestic institution, especially among the poor; and the faddists are now casting about desperately for a substitute for the thing they have themselves destroyed. The normal thing is for the parents to prevent a boy from doing more than a reasonable amount of damage with his bow and arrow; and for the rest, to leave him to a reasonable enjoyment of them. Officialism cannot thus follow the life of the individual boy, as can the individual guardian. You cannot appoint a particular policeman for each boy, to pursue him when he climbs trees or falls into ponds. So the modern spirit has descended to the indescribably mental degradation of trying to abolish the abuse of things by abolishing the things themselves; which is as if it were to abolish ponds or abolish trees. Perhaps it will have a try at that before long. Thus we have all heard of savages who try a tomahawk for murder, or burn a wooden club for the damage it has done to society. To such intellectual levels may the world return.

    God bless your boys, Pansy. And may they never cease running around your yard in search of sticks to use as spears.

    Comment posted November 13th, 2006 at 11:15 am

27. Pansy Moss says:

    I personally loved gym class-in grade school-anyways. I got to run, jump, play basketball and volleyball. I’m sorry is that too boyish of me?

    Lauren,

    Do you maintain all your relationships like this? Like, if you go out shopping with a girlfriend, and she says “Oh, I love the color red; look as this nice, red sweater!” Do you jump down her throat and say “What, I don’t like red. What are you trying to say? I don’t have any taste?” A friend like this would make me very tired.

    Every point someone makes here is not a personal insult to Lauren and is not about Lauren’s therapy.

    The original point I made did not even come close to “girls should not play basketball and volley ball” and it certainly was not “Lauren is so boyish because she liked those things”

    The original point was that the idea of girls doing girly things has become something of an insult in our culture. When I was in gym class, a common insult from the gym teachers would be “De Mauro, you’re running like a girl!” or “You hit that ball like a girl!” Well duh, I am a girl.

    Comment posted November 13th, 2006 at 12:44 pm

28. mary kay says:

    I think the problem comes when we try to make people believe that what they are naturally is wrong somehow.

    When I was teaching pre-school, the other teacher and I would build outrageous “settings” out of cardboard boxes. Once it was castles and thatched huts. Once it was a pirate ship and a mermaid beach. Once it was a fairy forest and a trolls cave (complete with twinkling gems…). Last year we graduated to dry wall and made a row of three houses (one was the kitchen, one the dress up room and one the “babies” room.) On the other side was a gas station and an ice cream parlor.

    These kids came from everywhere. South America, the Philippines, Mexico, India, Pakistan, Poland, Korea, China…

    When they came into school each year, they were told they could play with anything that they wanted. 99% of the time, the boys would head straight for the “boy” side of the room and the “girls” to the girl side. Every once in a while you’d get a girl who preferred blocks and a boy who preferred cooking, but most of the time it was pretty clear that the sexes were different. We never made the boys who liked to play dress up feel bad, nor the girls who preferred trucks. We DID refer to the two sides as the girls side and the boys side for clean up. It was just common sense. It would have been chaos to put the dolls in the middle of the trucks.

    My point is that I, as a true feminist, agree that girls are as good as boys and visa versa. I agree that I deserve all the same rights as men. But I recognize that we are “naturally” different. And I have NO desire to become a man, or even like one. And I would be truly saddened if men became like women. We are equal yes. But we are DIFFERENT! and I LOVE those differences. I love, and have always, loved men. Because they ARE men. I celibrate the fact that we are not the same. And if we truly wanted everyone to be the SAME, then I fear all of the authors of the trashy novels that I read, (yes, typical woman that I am, I love Iris Johannsen and Lina Howard), would be out of work because all of their romantic men are strong and protective and well, He-men. Notice the actors that are most loved. George Clooney, Ed Norton, Robert DeNiro, Sean Connery…It’s because they encompass the idea that men are men. If a man has a more feminine side, so be it. But you’ll notice that they are the ones that woman always tell “I like you, but lets just be friends…). We know the truth when we see it. Men like their “wives” to have intact candy bars, and women like their “husbands” strong. Equal, but DIFFERENT. Thank God.
    MK

    Comment posted November 14th, 2006 at 6:28 am