Woman to Woman

By Terry

January 3, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

If Diane is admittedly “woefully naive” about environmental issues - how does she know that Sweden is one of the “most progressive countries in this regard”…?

She is “woefully naive” but apparently certain of environmental disaster unless we do something.

Is Diane praising a woman for fighting for something that she doesn’t know what it is, but is certain that it must be done, because if not, something bad will happen? So we must all join Maathai in what she is doing because humanity depends on it, whatever it is…?

By Van

January 3, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

Both Diane and Shaunti have got it wrong. One a policically correct Nobel Prize winner and another that lived and believed in her wedding vows. Both women showed great strength and courage.

Both Diane and Shaunti picked women in the world spot light, high profile people. People famous and admired.

My pick for the most admired women of 2004 is the enlisted mans wife. She has to keep everything going while her husband is half way around the world doing his duty. She is the one left behind with all the responsibilities that were shared before deployment. She is the one who has to make the meager military pay cover all the expenses and in some cases work outside the home also.

She was,is and always will be the silent hero.

By Sheila

January 3, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

I have to say that Dana Reeve had a very hard time, but should not be a pick for “Most Admired Woman of 2004”. If we choose her - we should also choose the thousands of other women that are going through the same situation, or worse. The are so many women that do this everyday - without recognition and the reason we have heard so much about Dana Reeve is because her husband was famous. Instead, lets focus on the women that do it with little money and no help!

By Kenneth

January 3, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

There is no one woman who could be the most Admirable. Why did I make that statement? Because there are so many women doing great and unbelievable things in the world today making sacrifices for family and causes that receive less publicity then Wangari Maathai and Dana Reeve. I have always viewed women as God’s assistants to making the world a livable place. I guess if I had to pick the most admirable woman it would be “woman� not individually but as a collective whole.

By Dave

January 3, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

I agree with Van. The most outstanding women are the wives of the Armed Forces enlisted men. No one, I mean NO ONE shows more courage than the moral wife of an enlisted man that is left behind while her husband is overseas fighting for our way of life. Fighting for your own agenda and taking care of an injured husband are noteworthy, but not earth shattering. Surviving on meager earnings and acting as both father and mother is far more admirable. Follow in the footsteps of an enlisted mans wife and your will see the daily grind in almos overpowering.

By Lyrazel

January 3, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Van, you have it right. All the nameless women who support family members sent to Iraq ought be Women of 2004…including grandmothers, aunts, neices and daughters who support enlisted women. Shaunti, its not hard to be continue being supportive of a man who still has a multi-million dollar fortune…even Anna Nicole Smith did it. Remember Mr. Reeves broke his neck playing polo on his estate. Mr. Reeves showed personal bravery in suffering but there are millions of supportive women who do not have this golden income/insurance who remain brave and steady caregivers for their disabled mates for love alone. Perhaps they too should share Women of 2004.

Sorry, but, I would elect Paris Hilton and Lynndie England as Women of 2004. Both keep that glorious false retrospective in true definition of how mangled American values were in real life last year.

By Tamara

January 3, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

While I think both columnists raise good points, I would most likely agree with Diane Glass. Wangari Maathai did something that was above and beyond the common human response. She risked her career, and her life to fight for a cause that she believed in. Dana Reeve, while brave, was performing a duty that should have been expected of her. She made vows specifically stating that she would stick by her husband through sickness and health. Wangari Maathai has taken a path that few would have dared traveled. Her journey has required courage that few have demonstrated. She is my woman of the year.

By Tim

January 3, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

In MY opinion… the most admirable woman/women in 2004 (as well as any other year) are the women in my family… my mother, sisters, grandmothers, aunts, friends… I have been truly blessed to have strong, independent, free-thinking, loving, caring women in my life… to me these are the most admirable women of 2004… I hope that everyone has women close to them that they can admire as much as I admire those in my own life :)

The women that both Diane and Shaunti mentioned, as well as all of those mentioned in this post are worthy to be viewed as admirable … I couldn’t begin to argue who is the most admirable woman of 2004… any woman who has contributed to the world in a positive way is worthy of this distinction!

By Zack

January 3, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

The ideal woman of 2004 would have to have the following qualities:

1) She must put God first in her life, followed by her country, followed by her family.

2) She must recognize that all human life is to be treated with respect. This, of course, means no violation of innocent life through abortion, stem-cell research, etc..

3) She must not try to take advantage of men the way many women do nowadays. Men are made fun of, taken advantage of, and are treated with a social standard that they’re supposed to keep quiet about it. (Ironically, this is very similar to how slaves were treated.)

I could go on and on. There are plenty of admirable women out there. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the average woman does not favor abortion, egalitarianism, etc..

By the way, I was infuriated years ago when a well-known national magazine had its list of candidates for man/woman of the year. Anita Hill was on the list for women. I wondered if Clarence Thomas would be on it as well—wondering if this magazine were objective. He was not. I was VERY upset. My, what a sick double standard. I guess we were supposed to vote for the lying-through-her-teeth Anita who was so offended by what Thomas allegedly did to her that she said nothing about it for eight years.

No more feminist double standard! Thank you.

By Mara

January 3, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Zack’s so funny, hee hee hee. Women. Taking advantage of men. Hee Hee Hee. Upset because Clatence Thomas wasn’t nominated for person of the year. choke. Feminist double standard…stop…ya killin’ me here…. First of all, I’d like to have “taking advantage of” defined please. Is that in any way like the way men have taken advantage of women since the dawn of civilization. Is it kind of like knowing that if you’re murdered there’s better than 80% chance it was a close male? Or knowing that some males truely believe that they know what’s better for me than I do? Should your female relatives be grateful that they’re not in burquas? Cuz man, you sound like one of those whack-jobs that think women are there only to fulfill the needs of a man. And buddy, not too many American women are hip to that. And I’m glad that you as a man know exactly what an average woman believes. I’m an average woman and I definintly believe that my reproductive choices belong to me, my husband, and my doctor. I most adamantly uphold the legal right to have any damn medical procedure that I see fit, even abortion. And yes I also believe in all people being equal, or as you so elegantly put it, egalitarianism. Yes, Zack. I am a woman. And yes, I am your equal. Maybe even your better.

By RS

January 3, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Nancy Reagan gets my vote. The horrible ordeal she experienced made her see the light & realize that a viable human life is more important than some stupid fetus (i.e. a clump of cells) & yes, I’m referring to stem cell research. Now here’s a first; Zack actually said something I agree with! He mentioned the shameful way how some women treat men & that is absolutely correct; you can ask any of my straight male friends & my brothers. Women who are (considered) “hot” feel their looks (a lucky accident of birth) entitle them to preferential treatment & that they “deserve” to be taken care of, shouldn’t have to soil their hands like the rest of us & that men are only good to be used as a meal ticket. Then again, any man who puts up with that for the dubious “honour” of having a “prime piece of &!@%” on his arm deserves what he gets…

By Texas

January 3, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Sorry all, I know this is off forum, but I had to start off with New Years Wishes

May you get a clean bill of health from your dentist, your cardiologist, your gastro-endocrinologist, your urologist, your proctologist, your podiatrist, your psychiatrist, your gynecologist, your plumber and the IRS.

May your hair, your teeth, your face-lift, your abs and your stocks not fall; and may your blood pressure, your triglycerides, your cholesterol, your white blood count and your mortgage interest not rise.

May you find a way to travel from anywhere to anywhere in the rush hour in less than an hour, and when you get there may you find a parking space.

May you be awe struck by God’s sense of humor as you wrestle with the possibility that a professional wrestler had a chance to become President of the United States.

May what you see in the mirror delight you, and what others see in you delight them.

May someone love you enough to forgive your faults, be blind to your blemishes, and tell the world about your virtues.

May the telemarketers wait to make their sales calls until you finish dinner, and may your check book and your budget balance and may they include generous amounts for charity.

May you remember to say “I love you” at least once a day to your spouse, your child, your parents, your friends; but not to your secretary, your nurse, your masseuse, your hairdresser or your tennis instructor.

May we live as God intended, in a world at peace and the awareness of His love in every sunset, every flower’s unfolding petals, every baby’s smile, every lover’s kiss, and every wonderful, astonishing, miraculous beat of our heart. A Very Happy New Year to All!

By RS

January 3, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Texas, how sweet! Back at ya many times over!

By Texas

January 4, 2005 07:19 AM | Link to this

This is for all the mothers who NEVER won “Mother of the Year,” and all those to busy being a mother to care.

This is for all the mothers who freeze their you know what on metal bleachers instead of watching from cars, so that when their kids ask, “Did you see my goal?” they can say, “Of course, I wouldn’t have missed it for the world.”

This is for every mother who ever sat up all night with a sick toddler in her arms, wiping the child at both ends, while saying, “It’s okay honey, Mommy’s here.”

This is for all the mothers of the victims of our nation’s school shootings, and the mothers of the murderers. For the mothers of the survivors, and the mothers who sat in front of their TVs in horror, hugging their child who just came home from school, safely.

It’s for all the mothers who run carpools and bake cookies and sew Halloween costumes. AND, it’s for all the mothers who DON’T.

What makes a good mother anyway? Is it patience? Compassion? Broad hips? The ability to nurse, cook dinner and sew on a button all at the same time? Or is it heart? Is it the ache you feel when you watch your child disappear down the street, walking to school alone for the first time? Is it the need to flee from wherever you are and hug your child when you hear news of a school-shooting, a fire, a car accident, a baby dying? I think so.

This is for all the mothers who sat down with their children and explained all about making babies. And for all the mothers who wanted to but just couldn’t.

This is for reading “Goodnight, Moon” twice a night for a year. And then reading it again. “Just one more time.”

This is for all the mothers who mess up. Those who yell at their kids in the grocery store and swat them in despair and stomp their feet like tired three-year-olds who want ice cream before dinner.

This is for all the mothers who taught their children to tie shoelaces before they started school. And for all the mothers who opted for Velcro instead.

It’s for all the mothers who bite their lips until they bleed— when their 14 year-olds dye their hair green, pierce body parts and ask for contraceptives.

This is for all the mothers who lock themselves in the bathroom when babies keep crying and won’t stop.

This is for all the mothers who show up at work with spit-up in their hair and milk stains on their blouses and diapers in their purses.

This is for all the mothers who teach their sons to cook and their daughters to sink a jump-shot.

This is for all mothers whose heads turn automatically when a little voice calls “Mom?” in a crowd, even though they know their own offspring are not with them.

This is for mothers who put pinwheels and teddy bears on their children’s graves.

This is for mothers whose children have gone astray, and who can’t find the words to reach them.

This is for mothers stumbling through diaper changes and sleep deprivation. And mothers learning to let go. For working mothers and stay-at-home mothers. Single mothers and married mothers. Mothers with money, mothers without.

This is for the mothers who gave birth to babies they’ll never see. And the mothers who took those babies and gave them homes.

THANK YOU MOTHERS, wherever you may be. This is for y’all.

By norman

January 4, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

The most admirable woman could be Mary of Nazareth. She gave birth to a son who was killed for his ideas. It is not clear entirely why he was killed but she has had to endure not only the death of her son but his transformation into a God and the whole fraudulent Christian operation over the last two thousand years. She has not been left in peace, nor has her son.
If there is a final Day of Judgment, who knows for sure, the many followers of this made-up God will have many surprises in store for them.

By Texas

January 4, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

If you live a Christian life and there is no heaven or hell, what have you lost? Nothing! If you live a sinners life and there is a heaven and a hell you’ve lost eternity.

I’d rather be a fool in the eyes of men, than a fool in the eyes of God.

An atheist is a person who has no ‘invisible’ means of support.

By Zack

January 4, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

Mara—Your comments were somewhat hard to interpret at times. Anyway, as for your reproductive rights being your business, they’re your business until you become pregnant. Once you’re pregnant, they become the business of a lot of other people. To say that murdering your baby is basically your business is like saying a drive-by shooting is the shooter’s business. (Drive-by shooting is a far-less-brutal practice, by the way.)

Any woman who does not realize the above is in no way qualifiable for “woman of the year” honors.

Norman—There you go again with your overt bigotry against Christians. Jesus IS the Son of God. The Bible IS the Word of God. I encourage you to seek the truth because then this will be made very clear to you (although I think you already know it and are trying desperately to remain in denial).

A woman-of-the-year candidate would never refer to a fetus as a glob of tissue, which is a very flippant remark concerning a truly-serious issue. (Are you listening, RS? You act like abortion is okay because YOU don’t consider a fetus a human being, although such a statement is no different than saying the moon is made of cheese. Did it occur to you that Hitler claimed not to consider Jewish people on the level of humans, so he used this “reasoning” as an attempt to justify the Holocaust? Well, you’re no different in this regard. You’re basing your attempt at justification of mass-killing on a whim also.)

Yes, men are treated with an unfair double standard nowadays. Look around. Sure, women might have some unfair double standards here and there, but men have a lot more, a LOT more. The attack on the “right” to kill one’s own baby is NOT an infringement of one’s personal rights. No, quite the opposite. It’s an attack on the infringement of the baby’s personal rights.

Why don’t we ask next week who the man of 2004 was? Having a website with a woman/woman blog and not a man/man blog is rather sexist. I can live with it, though. However, I only can imagine the reaction if a major newspaper’s website had a man/man blog and not a woman/woman blog. My, that would be downright insensitive.

By the way, with all due respect to the wives of the men in Iraq, to say that they have it harder than their husbands is unfair. I’m just so sick and tired of how men are mistreated in today’s society.

In conclusion, my idea of the woman of 2004 is very similar to Shaunti Feldhahn. I admire her for standing up for the truth. As we can see, the truth is not always very popular, so a lot of comments posted are against hers, but she does not discontinue her line of posts. Keep it up, Shaunti. Heck, if someone were in favor of…let’s say, a shirt proclaiming that the individual had an abortion (as one of the earlier blogs referred to), you would be doing something very wrong if that person sided with you.

By RS

January 4, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Once again, Norman brought up a valid point. Zack, you are missing the point (as usual). See, this blog is about WOMAN of the year, so that is why the womenfolk of servicepersons serving in Iraq were nominated. I for one, have NO problem with a blog devoted to MAN of the year, or, even better, PERSON of the year. If, as you claim, you’d like to see the genders more equally represented, you wouldn’t have a problem with that either but you seem to hate women. REAL women, that is, as opposed to some mythical virgin/saint that meets your rigid specifications. Unfortunately for you, very very few women like that actually exist. And, yes, I am listening. Uh, no, the people Hitler wanted exterminated (Jews & homosexuals) were living, viable humans. A fetus, be it Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu etc is not viable in the sense that it’s part of the mother’s body, like an earlobe or pinky. Sorry, but as a live human being who pays her dues every day, I deserve preference over a blob of tissue. And I never claimed to aspire for candidacy for Woman of The Year so you can breathe a huge sigh of relief.

By Texas

January 5, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this

Diane, did you know?

Wangari Maathai believes that the AIDS virus was deliberately created. She had this to say: “Some say that AIDS came from the monkeys, and I doubt that because we have been living with monkeys (since) time immemorial, others say it was a curse from God, but I say it cannot be that. “Us black people are dying more than any other people in this planet.”

She went on to say that AIDS was created by a scientist for biological warfare. Of course, she had no facts to back any of this up.

Now planting trees is a worthy cause, but women of the year? Are you trying to bate us? Whats up?

By Randy

January 5, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Texas, You are not a fool in mens eyes and certainly not a fool in God’s eyes. A creator exists absolutely, there is no doubt. The universe didn’t create itself in the beginning! However, some men don’t want to “believe”. Why, because they think they would be giving up something. I have experience in this area both ways. Let me explain, when I was almost 11 years old I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior. But when I was about 17 years old, I rejected Jesus, as he called on me to be a pastor. I remember it like it was yesterday. The people who are not Christians, just beat my decision by one, they rejected Jesus when he asked them to be a Christian. They fought the decision, they felt they would be giving up something. Looking back on the situation, I’m very glad I didn’t reject him the first time, or I would be very scared now. My life has been great because of the Creator and I thank him for saving my eternal soul.

By Zack

January 5, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

RS—Evidently, you’ve again failed to pay attention to what I actually typed. I sure wish you’d work on that, and although I owe you no explanation, I KNOW this is a woman of the year question. I said it was sexist not to have a man/man blog. I also said it was unfair to say that the wives of male soldiers had it harder than their husbands. Please pay attention.

No, Norman didn’t have a valid point. All he did was show his continued bigotry, which he essentially has shown the entire time he’s been on this forum. It even exceeds the bigotry you show or at least is neck-and-neck.

As for stem-cell research being okay, you’re wrong. You think the fact that the baby is dependent on your body gives you the right to kill it? (Anyone with this barbaric belief obviously has no clue to man or woman of the year.) Once sex has occurred, the “choice” has been made, and it’s not up to human discretion as to whether or not the baby should be born. To violate this right is murder, despite what the sugar-coating left-wingers like yourself would have us believe.

By the way, once a baby is born, does a husband have the right to kill him since the baby is dependent on the father for support? According to your “logic”, if you’re consistent, you’d say yes. A newborn baby can’t take care of himself. His dependency on his parents in or out of the womb changes nothing. Please think about this next time before you make another imbecilic statement.

By Robert

January 5, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

I wrote this short story to demonstrate how I commune with the Spirit. It’s called: “Will the Spirit Come?”

The flesh is so weak, but the Spirit is so strong. In my carnal moments, I usually wonder if the Spirit will come. Even though the Spirit of the Lord has been coming into my presence on a consistent basis for the last nine years, I always find myself asking this question in my weakest moment while in the flesh. And this usually happens first thing in the morning when I awake from sleep. The first thought that drifts into my mind … Will the Spirit Come? It was 9:45 a.m. I was feeling a tad gloomy. Since my back was killing me and I couldn’t make any money in my taxi during this Christmas holiday season, I decided to sleep in late. Bills were piling up creating even more anxiety, and I had those same old guilty feelings that stems from my hesitancy to do the will of God: to boldly confess my calling as His servant Elijah. I took a hot shower which helped my back, but had a tinge of doubt that the Spirit would come and soothe my injured feelings. “Nine years of communing with the Spirit and I still doubt,â€? I thought to myself. Between 10:05 and 10:10 a.m., I could feel the Spirit coming into my presence. It comes so suddenly and without warning, and usually leaves the same way. The Spirit began to speak to my soul: “I come to start your day - to teach you. The reason you are reluctant to talk about your calling is because many cannot understand your testimony. Why? Because I don’t come to them the way I come to you. I am the holiest of the holy spirits, and I come as directed by My Father, the Lord God Almighty or the Lord Jesus Christ. I come that you might have life for your soul and have it more abundantly. I am a Spirit, just as your Daddy the King (living God) is a Spirit. I come because you make time for Me to come. As long as you have faith, I will not fail to come,â€? revealed the Spirit. That was all well and good, but I still shy away from confessing my calling. Ignoring my trepidations, the Spirit continued revealing godly wisdom. “While We are Angelic beings, only Our heavenly Father knows what He is; how He came into being; how He created angelic and human beings; and why He calls the ones He calls. Even the Lord Himself prophesying through the body of Christ: “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.â€? (John 6:38), confessed that He was called and sent by His Father. Both the Lord and Jesus were faithful to their calling. I expect no more from you.â€? The Spirit was trying to open my eyes to see what it means to be faithful. And if I was going to help a lost soul, I had a duty to confess my calling. A few days later, the Spirit revealed: “I enjoy coming to you, Robert. You make me laugh. You understand full well the nature of your calling. What God expects from you. In all the years I have been coming to you, have I ever confused you with any of the godly wisdom I’ve delivered unto your soul? Wisdom that became knowledge, and your understanding of this knowledge that became wisdom! Did I ever send a message to confuse you?â€? asked your Lord. “So don’t worry about your life or about your calling. I will give you a voice to speak when it is time. You make Me laugh because you know I am a real Spirit. And you delight for Me to come. What you have is perhaps the greatest calling this generation will ever see, and you’re afraid to confess this? You make Me laugh.â€? The Spirit comes to help me with my calling; to help others learn how to seek the face of God. To seek His face does not mean you will see a physical face, but understanding that the Lord exists in heaven, and He also is a Spirit. John seemed to have understood this: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son (Jesus), which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.â€? (John 1:18). He understood that God is a Spirit that cannot be seen, even by Jesus who is now at His right hand. Jesus can only declare Him, just as I can only declare the holy Spirit when She comes into my presence. She comes with words of wisdom for my soul, to help me with my calling. When the Spirit of the Lord comes to me, my body becomes a holy temple for the living God; a Church for my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Whether I’m spanked or enlightened, I am always excited to discover what message the Spirit will bring. She brings no more than what is needed for my soul. And if the Lord wants to spank me with words to shame me, then so be it. When the Spirit comes into my presence, I no longer dwell in the flesh, my soul dwells in the Spirit. We communicate as if we were the best of friends. At times, we both use my worthless body of flesh to speak. I had to learn to listen to the words that come forth from my mouth when the Spirit uses it to speak. I cannot teach my soul anything. But the Spirit has taught my soul everything. Nine years of the Spirit coming at least twice a day to teach my soul. This process has made me a spiritual being. A new creature in Christ. When the Spirit comes, I am no longer weak because of the flesh, I am strong because of the Spirit that suddenly comes into my presence. You would think that a man that has been born again of the Spirit would not doubt that the Spirit would come. And She came on this day as usual to soothe my soul. But I guess as long as I have this baggage called flesh, I will continue to have tinges of doubt. Even though Jesus’ flesh and blood body had been made a holy Temple by the Spirit of the Lord; and the Lord God Almighty Himself suddenly came to this holy Temple when Jesus went to the Jordan River to be baptized by John, judging by His being in agony in the place called Gethsemane, and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground, it appears as if even Jesus Himself may have had some doubtfulness. Still, after the Spirit comes upon me, I wonder how I could have ever doubted. But when I awake each morning to find only my flesh there to comfort my soul, I cannot help but wonder … Will the Spirit Come?

By Texas

January 5, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Randy, thanks for your support my friend.

Zack, RS is incorrect.

The unborn baby has his/her own space capsule, the amniotic sac. He/She has his/her own lifeline, the umbilical cord, and he/she has his/her own root system, the placenta. These all belong to the baby himself/herself, not to his/her mother. They are all developed from his/her original cell. Day & Liley, The Secret World of a Baby, Radom House, p 13

By Zack

January 5, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Texas—Believe me, I KNOW she’s incorrect.

She’s also always running around calling those who refute her anti-Semitic. That’s not uncommon for those who can’t support their arguments. Ironically, I don’t know which is harder: finding a reasonable post from her or finding a Jewish person who doesn’t hate Black people.

By RS

January 5, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Zack, why do you “think”(?!?) all Jews hate all black people? Do you KNOW every single Jew? I, for one, do NOT hate black people & I jnow many other Jewish people, both here & out of state, who feel as I do. I’ve mentioned all this in previous posts so it’s you who’s not paying attention. Making an uninformed blanket statement/accusation like that proves who’s being imbecilic. I have NO problem with a man/man blog. If we have one for women, we should subsequently have one for men. Or, how about my suggestion for a person/person blog?? I don’t consider Norman a bigot. I do, however, consider him an intelligent, informed individual who can & does think for himself. A good example of bigotry are the legions of “sheeple” rednecks who used their twisted hate to vote down gay marriage. You’re right! I DO feel the husband should have a voice in whether or not to abort. Why should a man be tied down to a lifetime of supporting something he doesn’t want? We’ve all heard the stories about unscrupulous women deliberately getting pregnant & trapping some poor man into fatherhood/child support they didn’t ask for. Want to talk about men being treated unfairly? How much more unfair can you get??

By Zack

January 5, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Texas—Like a lot of people, I’m so sick of hearing the attempts at rationalizing abortion and stem-cell research. If there’s one thing the world isn’t short of, it’s people who try very hard to rationalize their actions. If only they’d try EQUALLY hard at the solution.

Other qualifications a woman of the year candidate would have: She would not approve of the way men are portrayed in the media, in commercials, etc.. Men are almost always portrayed as bumbling and indecisive. This is extremely sexist and just plain wrong. As I said before, I can only imagine what would happen if Hillary Clinton were to run for president. A skit attacking her would be downright insensitive.

Such a candidate also couldn’t be egalitarian. Gender roles are not interchangeable. I wish the feminists of the world would quit trying to convince themselves of the opposite.

By Texas

January 5, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Jesus, Rednecks, and Me

Jesus was a redneck like me I know. So many places in the Bible tell me so. He was born in a barn and slept on a hay trough bed. So, I know that Jesus’ neck must be a little red.

His step-daddy was a carpenter with calluses on his hand. Jesus traveled by foot or mule in His Southern homeland. He never received a degree from any ivy-league schools, Yet he made the high flautin’ city doctors look just like fools.

He hung around with fishermen in their Judean bass boats And he knew the difference between the sheep and the goats. He spent most of his time with the social outcasts and the poor. Just like a Southern gentleman all were welcome at His door.

He went from one to another little Israeli rural town Teachin’ underneath the blue sky a sittin’ on the ground. He took His lessons from the land and the lowly beast. He’s even workin’ up a Church Homecoming Feast!

I don’t have to do no fancy talkin’ when I kneel in prayer And just like my best friend Pete, He is always there. We spend time at each other’s houses though He is mostly at mine. By listenin’ to His holy words I can walk that narrow line.

One day those city folks nailed Him to an old rugged Cross. What would be my everlasting gain was their eternal loss. Like that mighty Mississippi that river of blood flooded my soul And saved me from torment in the Devil’s flaming water hole!

You can be a city slicker, a country boy or from some little town, But unless Jesus saves your soul one-day to Hell you will go down. Call upon Him while you can from sin to set you free. He can do it for you, cuz He saved an old redneck like me.

• Dr. Ronald E. Shultz -

By Texas

January 5, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

RS I posted the Redneck Poem for you and others who have referred to Christians as Rednecks. I believe your a good person with an extremely good heart. Your views differ from mine, but I think we can find common ground.

First of all this is one of your posts:

By RS December 15, 2004 03:51 PM | Link to this Akeya, a bunch of us are in the same boat. Zack & his ilk have managed to make insensitive, hateful comments to many of us, with nary an apology.

I believe calling Christians “Rednecks” is hateful and insensitive. You and others continue to make references to Christians as Rednecks and with the next type talk about inclusion, tolerance and acceptance.

Let’s all work hard to express our views with leaving out the unwarranted titles.

By Randy

January 5, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

With almost 2 billion “Christians” worldwide, I sure some are rednecks, however, I’m sure most are not. Also, what designates a Redneck, I might be interested in becoming one.

By Randy

January 5, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

RS Norman has never brought up a valid point. Hate and being a bigot are his points of discussion.

By Texas

January 5, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Randy You Might Be A Redneck If … … you were acquitted for murdering your first wife after she threw out your Elvis 45’s.

… you think watching professional wrestling is foreplay.

… your front porch collapses and four dogs get killed.

… you no longer drink wine ever since the screw cap got caught up your nose.

… you think that Dom Perignon is a Mafia leader.

… that billboard that says, “Say No To Crackâ€? reminds you to pull up your jeans.

… your wife’s hairdo was ever ruined by a ceiling fan.

… you go to your family reunions looking for a date.

… you think a Volvo is part of a woman’s anatomy.

… your Junior/Senior Prom had a Daycare.

Theres millions more…….

By Zack

January 5, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

RS—If you don’t consider Norman a bigot, you either don’t know the definition of “bigot”, or you conveniently attack/support those who oppose/support you. I’d say it’s the latter.

By RS

January 5, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Actually, Texas, I HAVE found we’ve got common ground on various occasions. I’ve enjoyed many of your posts, still do. No, I don’t equate Christianity with being a redneck. I equate ignorant, backwoods bigotry as redneck (so, no, Randy, I’d doubt you’d want to be one!) Rednecks come in ALL faiths & non-faiths. To me, Norman has brought up many valid points because those are ideas & opinions much like my own. Speaking of hatred & bigotry, did you notice Zack’s post a little while ago where he accused all Jews of hating black people? I’ve never in my life read anything so disgusting, biased & untrue! Texas, I laughed myself sick over your “..You might Be A Redneck” post but you forgot: “You might be a redneck if…you ever had to take the transmission out of the bathtub so your wife could take a bath..you’ve been married 3 times & still have the same in-laws (your parents!)..your mom keeps the cigarette hanging out of her mouth when she tells the traffic cop to kiss her —ss”..Your favourite pick-up line is ‘nice tooth, darlin!’…A fly swatter & a 6-pack are your idea of quality entertainment…you can belch out ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ in its entirety…You have fishing lures that double as earrings for your wife”. You must watch ‘Blue Collar TV”; it’s one of my favourites!

By RS

January 5, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Actually, Zack, I DO know what a bigot is; it’s a person who accuses a whole race of people of hating another whole race of people w/out possessing the facts.

By norman

January 5, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

The Christers on this site do not know what the word bigot means. They themselves are bigots, the descendants of bigots over the centuries. They have decided that they are now the victims of bigotry because they cannot marshal any rational arguments for their supestitious beliefs. A bigot is one who hates people who believe differently and is willing to use force to suppress them and their beliefs. I simply question Christian belief and find it irrational, unhistorical, without merit and without foundation, based entirely on wishful thinking. To say this is not to be a bigot; it is to speak the truth. Today all sorts of people on tv and the radio are talking about where God was during the tsunami and why he allowed this. Religious believers find various reasons, God is warning, God is punishing, God is testing. But the real answer came 250 years ago from Voltaire as he thought about the 1755 earthquake in Lisbon. He wrote in CANDIDE, “when the Sultan sends a ship from Constantinople to Egypt does he worry about the rats on board.” I am willing to explain this to the Christians who will doubtless either not want to understand it or will call it bigotry.

By Texas

January 5, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Norman Faith Versus Reason How well do you know your high school chemistry? Do you recall Pascal’s Law? It describes the effect of applying pressure on a liquid in a closed container. Changes in pressure in a confined liquid will be distributed equally throughout the fluid. For example, a thin bottle will break when a cork is pushed down far enough. This principle is used today in hydraulics for presses, elevators, jacks, vacuum pumps and air compressors.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), an amazing French philosopher, is known today for his work in math, chemistry and religion. His father tried to educate him in ancient languages. However, at age 12, Blaise had discovered geometry and at 16 wrote “The Geometry of Conics,” which is now lost. He also invented the calculating machine and the theory of probability, used in card games.

In his mid-thirties, Pascal became interested in religion. He wrote:: “Within each one of us there is a God-shaped vacuum that only God can fill.” Later, he wrote another book, “An Apology for the Christian Religion.” In it he maintained that perfect knowledge arrived through Christian revelation. Pascal believed that faith is a sounder guide than reason; he wrote: “Reason can go only so far, but faith in God has no limits.” Thus, reason hits a wall but faith opens a window, allowing fresh air and sunshine to infiltrate.

Pascal understood that man has a dilemma. His conscious mind tells him he is impure against a perfect Creator and he tries to reason it out. Man has supine indifference, lust, pride, selfishness, an alcoholic problem, or not feeling self-fulfilled, self-actualized. He plays mindless games to understand and rationalize his dilemma but he finally realizes that his impurity cheats him out of being in harmony with God, creating a vacuum. Pascal admitted that this God-shaped vacuum was created within each of us that only He can fill. No wide amount of reasoning could eradicate it - only faith in God can supplant it.

Blaise Pascal’s scientific mind has affected the world even to this day. Yet he pointed to Jesus Christ, who can fill our vacuum, our being, in order that we may have the final assurance that our lives may have order - not chaos, full and not empty, pressurized, not a vacuum. Yes, God understands our make-up, our chemistry and yearns to have a relationship with you.

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this

Good GRIEF will you people stay on the subject.

Some of you ruin this message board because you won’t stop talking about religion & abortion. (you are BORING the readers to DEATH !)

By Lyrazel

January 6, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this

Whiley, because few here ever stay on the subject, because the subject always becomes a series of discussions of faith based dogma, the AJC hides W to W off its opinion page after Tuesday. They know the massive pastes are dull for most readers…and in this way they keep the post-heads away from plaguing other opinion blogs…

By norman

January 6, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

Texas: thanks for the lessons about Pascal. I have taught university courses on him. Pascal was a brilliant scientist and a very old-fashioned Catholic Christian. He was petrified by the thought that there might be either nothing out there or that if there were a God he was in Augustine’s words a Deus Absconditus, an absent God who had abandoned his creation. He found some comfort in the “reasons of the heart” and in the bible. He actually knew little about how the bible came to be and he was in this area an ignorant fundamentalist. I admire and respect him but he is no guide to modern man.

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Yawn.

Now….woman of the year……..

By norman

January 6, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Whiley: you just don’t know what an interesting topic is and what a dull one is.

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

STAY ON THE ORIGINAL TOPIC !

Whoever feels the need to only discuss religion & abortion really needs to find a message board that is actually ABOUT RELIGION & abortion.

By dmones

January 6, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

It’s funny how people of religion can post something so FACTUAL as Pascal’s law and then go on say how he relates to God as passing that along as that is a FACT also. Let me explain something to religious people. God is not a FACT. It is faith. So too many times on this post and also in normal day to day life people try and pass religion and their beliefs along as FACT. It would be different if people brought up religion in a way of this is what I believe, but it’s always brought up as FACT. Then, religious people tend to look down on people who don’t believe as if they are lost souls. I don’t treat people who believe in God as if they are crazy so it should be the same way the other way around. Before all the assumptions are made I’m not an atheist, I’m an agnostic. Which simply means that I understand as a man that I DON’T KNOW HOW WE GOT HERE and I’m okay with that. I’m not going to go and atribute it to the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or God for that matter just because I DON”T KNOW AS A FACT how we got here. I’m not going to believe in a book written by a man thousands of years ago who were so ignorant they were not even aware that the world was round or other FACTS that we know now. A book that people so often quote that is flawed with treating woman as second class citizens. That goes for the Quaran and the Bible. It shocks me that woman stand behind these books so with so much vigor. People who quote certain verses out of this text but choose to leave out others that are not so “Godlike”. Such as the bible reading that it is “okay to sell your daughter into slavery” or “if any one works on Sunday they should be put to death”. I don’t find too many people quoting those verses. To sum it up, it’s great that you guys have your faith and your better off then I am. If you die and there is not a God it’s not like you’ll be sulking in your grave. You’ll be dead. But if there is one you will enjoy the eternal life that your book promises you. While me, a law abiding person who never drank, smoke, or harmed another person in the world will be sent to hell.

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Women of the year, in no particular order:

To all the women that discovered the men they love are actually married.

Amber Fry & her attorney, for being extremely strong in the face of harsh criticism, loss of privacy & potential danger.

Oprah, for her entertaining & thoughtful shows, & all that she gives to others.

Jessica Simpson, so quirky & ridiculous sometimes, but a good clean roll model for young adults.

Barbara Walters, for being you.

All the women this past year we saw on the news, murdered by a spouse or boyfriend.

All women that were in dangerous abusive situations & found the strength to get out & survive.

All the women who are afraid to stand up for themselves for fear of being labeled a feminist (which has sadly, become a dirty word now).

To all women making obviously less than the men they work with.

To all the single mom’s out there working & raising a family alone.

And yes, all military wives !

(Feel free to add to this list)

By norman

January 6, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

dmones, you are wise!

By RS

January 6, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Nice to have you aboard, dmones! (If you’ve been reading any of my posts, you’ll see why I’ve been enjoying your submissions.) Zack, if you’re still in doubt as to what constitutes a bigot, read Norman’s post from yesterday (1/05, 4:38pm). Yes, I am defending him again & for good reason

By Lozen

January 6, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

dmones, you put it very well. Unfortunately, it will go right past the dense minds of some on this board. I remember when I was afraid I would go to hell simply because I couldn’t accept the christian myths as truth. I don’t have that fear now after thirty years of studying religions and learning the history of Judaism and Christianity. Jesus questioned the religious leaders of his time. That’s why he was murdered. Luther and Calvin questioned the religious rules and regulations of their time. There would be no protestants if they hadn’t; we’d all be catholics with our priests telling us we couldn’t read the bible for ourselves. (On the other hand when I read these posts and see the interpretations of some protestants I think maybe they had a point!) Christianity is religious totalitarianism!

By Zack

January 6, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Whiley—Just stressing how a “woman of the year” candidate would not be one if she favored abortion. You need to remember that I and others here have freedom of speech, and if you don’t like what we’re typing, perhaps you should find a new blog.

RS—Your posts yesterday sickened me (yet again). No, my friend, it is not the man’s place or the woman’s place to, after pregnancy, to decide whether or not they want to “have the child.” They already HAVE the child. The life of the child has begun already, and life is life, whether it is occurring in or out of the womb. Your lack of concern for the unborn is sickening. Your thesis statements have no support. Whether you admit to it or not, you’re wrong.

By the way, you also need to quit putting words in my mouth. For once, pay attention and/or quit choosing to say things I’m not saying. You always defend Norman. I guess I understand your wanting to, since his worldview is altered like yours, but you say nothing against him when he openly shows his bigotry against Christians. You are such a hypocrite.

Who’s the woman of 2004? Not “RS.”

By Zack

January 6, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

RS—A bigot is someone who will not change his way of thinking no matter how much evidence contradicts his way of thinking. For you to continue your statements that a fetus is simply a glob of tissue, you are exemplifying this definition completely.

By AllaboutME

January 6, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

so, the silent steady women get Woman of the Year. well, Mrs. Saddam Hussain has stayed by her man—is she a candidate or not?

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Zack, I DON’T like what you are saying. This is the USA. YOU would fit in much better in Afghanistan where they openly discriminate & abuse women. A true modern American women hero IS PRO CHOICE !

And this BLOG is W to W. Not “force my weird religious opinions on everyone” blog, or “I want to control women’s lives, sexuality & right to their own bodies ” blog. or the “we’ll take over this board by constantly changing the subject” blog.

OK, more women of the year, WHAT THIS MESSAGE BOARD IS ABOUT PEOPLE !

By norman

January 6, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Lozen: good point about the negative side of people reading the bible for themselves. Before the Reformation people had to take the official viewpoint of the Catholic Church. As bad as that might have been, when each person is free to make whatever mishmash he/she wants out of the already murky prose of the bible, you end up with unbelievable nonsense. The best Reformation would have been the abolition of the bible and all its works. But this will be interpreted by our bibliolators as bigotry, so I will sign off.

By RS

January 6, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Zack, what you see as my “lack of concern for the unborn” is actually concern for the viable & living. We all make mistakes; I’m not defending the stupidity of some irresponsible 19-year old boy who hops into bed without a condom, that clearly has serious consequences; I am simply explaining that one moment of said stupidity should not have to carry with it a life sentence. I don’t consider Norman to be bigoted against Christians. Tim is a Christian & I’ve never seen Norman utter a word against him. Norman’s issue, like mine, is with those who try to push their agendas on him & in the W to W forum, it IS, categorically, religious zealots. (i.e. they’re right, he & I are wrong. Can we all say “bigot”?) Gee I am so heartbroken that I don’t get your vote for Woman Of The Year. I guess the fact that I exercize my right to free thought & speech precludes that. Sorry but Whiley is right. Still don’t believe it? Then take a poll of American women from all walks of life; yup, most of us are pro-choice. Your way of “thinking”(??) went out with the Dark Ages although it is still alive & well in backward places like Afghanistan. Why do you hate REAL women so much? Did your mommy spank you a lot and/or make you dress like a girl or something? Get over it; you’re an adult now-aren’t you?

By Tim

January 6, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Zack… if your definition of a bigot is true then anyone who says that homosexuality is a choice is a bigot… because there is plenty of information out there that contradicts their way of thinking

(sorry Whiley I know that is off subject… but I did already state who I thought should be woman of the year… actually similar to your ideas)

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

More women to admire:

Condoleezza Rice.

Martha Stewart, we still love you, stay as tough as you were before !

And I have to say, Hillary Clinton. That woman has taken more abuse than ANYONE in public office. Really mean cruel comments made about her. Yet, she can still hold her head high & keep working. You have GOT to give her credit for at least THAT !

By Tim

January 6, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Whiley… I agree… Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton are extremely admirable women… both are very intelligent, strong, successful individuals

By RS

January 6, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Tim, there are some things we can always count on. One is that Zack will find a way to rationalize all the proof that homosexuality isn’t a choice, just the way he picks & chooses what parts of the Bible do & don’t apply to him. You know, I wonder if he has a wife or girlfriend? NO, I’m not interested in applying for the dubious honour, Heavens no, I’m just curious as to what kind of woman would fit his rigid requirements in this day & age???

By Tim

January 6, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

well RS… as my first post states my idea of the most admirable woman is one who is strong, independent, free-thinking, loving, caring, and contributes to society in a positive manner (specifically in my personal setting… the women in my family and circle of friends)… those are the most admirable women to me… and I think that you fit those characteristics too… so you would get my vote :)

(p.s. If there were a most admirable man of 2004… I don’t think that I would want to run for that either)

By Zack

January 6, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

RS—You say Norman is innocent although he has spewed sheer hatred against Christians time and time again. Not once have you said anything to him about it, which is ironic for someone who claims to be just the opposite.

You say Norman can think for himself. We all can. If you believe the moon’s made out of cheese, that’s thinking for yourself. Of course, there’s a right way to think for yourself, which is to seek the truth and not buy into bias and propaganda along the way, to seek truth which is supported by reason and wisdom. Your statements are not like this. All you do is look around for a strong supporting paragraph (or even a sentence) and then type with an obvious deer-in-the-headlights expression. So, now you’re saying my way of thinking fits in with the Afghanis. There you go again. Just throw a blind dart when you have nothing worthwhile to say.

No, my friend, most women do not support abortion “rights.” Look who won the election, my friend. The man who stood for the non-killing, not the killing, off innocent babies won. You can go on and on with your rhetoric about a fetus not being human and how the decision to follow through with conceiving a child should be made during pregnancy, not before, but the truth is that quantity of words does not translate into quality of words. My, how your thoughts are such an example.

We have six billion people in the world, RS, and if we all think for ourselves the way you do and do whatever we’d like or what seems right, that’s not going to do us any good. If all six billion people seek the truth, then we’re getting somewhere. (Notice “…seek THE truth”, not “…seek A truth.” In other words, there is one truth that applies to all six billion people, not six billion truths, one for each individual.)

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Yea whatever Zack. (wonder how abusive HIS HOUSE IS?) scary thought.

OK, here is another but I can’t remember her name. The lady who lives in Vegas that takes in Aids kids? The one that had her home redone by that TV show?

By Dmones

January 6, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Martha Stewart? Is that a joke Whiley? If it’s your opinion that is one thing but to say “we” still love you please speak for yourself. She is in JAIL you know. It’s suprising that these are the woman you choose to admire.

Amber Fry- someone who was in a relationship with a married man?

Now I’m not putting the things that Martha Stewart did on the level of Enron execs but it still was a criminal offense. For me……I can’t admire that. Mrs Rice I’ve admired for a long time even when she was at Stanford. Very bright woman, that’s kind of an understatement, who I think has flourished under rough conditions.

By RS

January 6, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Tim, WHAT A COMPLIMENT, classing me in with the type of women you admire; thank you! Unfortunately, given the backwards-“thinking”, reactionary climate so prevalent here, I’d say neither of us has a shot at “Person Of The Year”. Oh well, THEIR loss. Zack, the reason I haven’t lambasted Norman is because I agree with him. Now, you wonder why I feel you’d have made a great Afghan man? Take a look at how they treat/view women. ‘Nuff said..Yeah, yeah, Bush won the election but who’s to say it’s because of the abortion issue? Even if most people feel abortion is wrong, does that make it so? It’s like the example you used about whether the moon is made out of cheese. If most people believe the moon is made out of cheese, does that necessarily make it so? I’m glad you feel YOUR way of thinking (?!?) is THE only truth..how, pray tell, did you come to that conclusion? Did God tap you on the shoulder & tell you so? Well, He didn’t to me either. Maybe a world filled with unwanted, abused crack/AIDS babies draining our resources is right to you, but not to me.

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Martha Steward made a mistake. Does not erase all the good she’s done & the wonderful company she built.
Are all the Enron guys in Jail?

Amber Fry was LIED to. Could happen to ANYONE. I admire both those women’s courage.

By Tim

January 6, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Whiley… the woman’s name is Patricia Broadbent… if more people had the heart that she has this world would be a much better place! :) she is definitely a woman I admire

Dmones… Amber Fry did not know she was invovled with a married man (not saying she is my woman of the year… just clearing things up)

By Tim

January 6, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

RS… I meant it… you are very welcome :)

Whiley… sorry if I need to clarify… Patricia Broadbent was the woman in Las Vegas that you were referring to

By Texas

January 6, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I’m sorry that at times I got off forum, but one thing lead to another and well….Each and every time except the first time I posted, I remained on Forum. The times I got off forum, well I was merely rebutting what someone else had posted. While I have your attention, tell me what you think about Amber’s forth coming Book. Oh by the way, she still cares for Scott. Go figure.

demones The title to my post was FAITH versus Reason. I was merely pointing out to Norman how Pascal BELIEVED that his FAITH was a sounder guide than reason. Never once that I refer to any fact when it came to FAITH.

Bigot 'big-et\: one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices (Maybe we all fit this definition a little) Webster Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

RS Lets see if we can find some common ground on abortion. (Sorry Whiley, please bare with me for a moment) Would you agree that a person is considered dead when he/she no longer has brain function. (Except Norman, Naw just kidding hee hee hee). (It use to be breathing, but artificial ventilators fixed that. Then it was when the heart stopped, but today doctors can stop and restart the heart.) So do you agree that the criteria for death is brain function.

If the aforementioned is agreeable, than would it not be logical to at least agree that life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument. If so, Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram. (EEC) Why then is it acceptable practice. By the way 40 Million Abortions. 40 Million and no end in sight!

By RS

January 6, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Texas, we’ve found common ground re various topics but I think we have to acknowledge that abortion is not one of them. OK, a fetus is dependant on its mother to stay alive just like the brain-dead person dependant on a ventilator. Tim: Patricia Braodbent, yes, is an exemplary woman, I know I could never do what she does. Martha Stewart is no worse than anyone who’s done the same, just more highly publicized! Sorry, I get such “trailer trash” vibes from Amber Frey, I never saw anything admirable about her. Maybe she didn’t know at the time that her lover was married but she sure knows now & believe me, she’ll be making out like a bandit & she knows it. She may be a lot of things, but stupid isn’t one of em.

By Zack

January 6, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

RS—Oh my goodness, you are so wrong. You seem to like being wrong.

As for your defense of Norman, he has called Christians a word that sounds very similar to the “n” word, and you sit back and say you agree with him. I know that Jews in general do not like Christians and Blacks, but why not show a little fairness?

Please for once, just once, type out something truthful, not something that you would like to think is truthful.

By Tim

January 6, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Zack… please you really have to stop… you are making me laugh too hard… your comments about most Jews hating Christians and ‘blacks’… funny stuff! :)

By RS

January 6, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Tim, I’m laughing right along with you! Zack is so funny (actually, ludicrous) & doesn’t even know it. Sad…Well I never noticed Norman referring to Christians by a word similar to the “N” word; I must have missed that. Zack, if you really believe most Jews hate Christians & blacks, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you take a poll of all Jews? I don’t think so; I never had anyone approach me in public with such a survey.

By lozen

January 6, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

RS, Norman, Lyzarel, dmones, and others, Thank you for confronting the self righteous and narrow minded fundamentalists on this board. For example, Zack’s statement that there is ONE truth for all six billion… because he says so. Who does he think he is? He ignores the fact that a great many of those billions are muslim, buddhist and hindu. But of course they all should convert to christianity because that’s what he believes is the ONE truth! Those billions are wrong and he is right. Talk about totalitarian egomaniacs! Yes, RS you are exactly right. Just like the Aghans who want to force their ONE truth on everybody. Comparing these christian fanatics to Aghan fanatics is exactly right. Abortion is the law of the land and has been for thirty years whether anyone likes it or not. Before “legal” abortion poor women had back street abortions and many of them died from infection or were scarred so that they could never have children. Rich women of course knew about this doctor in New York city who did safe abortions for thousands of dollars! Abortion is not an easy thing and I’ve never known a woman who had an abortion without agonizing over what she felt she had to do. No man will ever know what that’s like. No man on this board will ever have to face the choices women have to face when they become pregnant. So again I ask, who do they think they are? They are not god. They are just men who can be mistaken in their thinking just as anyone else. Instead of admitting that, they hide behind the bible to try to validate every word they utter as gospel truth. It is not. It’s amazing to me that we can manufacture Viagra so men are able to have more sex; we can send men to the moon, but there is no method of birth control that is 100 percent effective. A lot of people delude themselves into believing teenagers won’t have sex if they are told not to - we should teach them celibacy! It’s so unrealistic. To expect a young person to wait until they’re 21 and have finished college (or even 25 if they go to grad school) and get married before they have sex, is self delusion to the nth degree. I will finish by saying you are right RS. I have seen the remains of an abortion done at 2 months; it was an unrecognizable blob of tissue.

By Zack

January 6, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Tim—You’re right. Jews do love blacks, so much so that a Jewish country club wouldn’t allow Michael Jordan to play there because of his being black.

RS—Don’t continue with your pathetic rhetoric to me about how I’m wanting to impose my will on the minority. You sound so futile and desperate in your attempt to make a credible post. You sound like John Kerry saying he won’t impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us (wording it to imply that having Christianity as a foundation is NOT a good idea). He, like you, is under the misguided notion that killing a baby should be perfectly legal but that making a law to protect such a baby is unconstitutional, overlooking the fact that this country was indeed founded upon the Bible. Unfortunately, our laws have changed over the years and have eroded to the level of a worldview like yours, and it’s simply because those who think like you speak up more, for whatever reason. Well, it’s obviously time for Christians to stand up and fight the tide and not allow those like you to impose your tyrannical, nonsensical worldviews on the rest of us.

By Tim

January 6, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Zack… so since one Jewish country club wouldn’t allow Michael Jordan to play there means that ALL Jewish people dislike or hate black people? does that also mean that since Augusta International does not allow women that all men hate women?

I also don’t think that anyone is imposing their ‘tyrannical, nonsensical worldviews’ on you… if you don’t agree with abortion then don’t have one

By Zack

January 6, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Tim—Would you tell someone who didn’t approve of drive-by shootings simply not to do one? Do you not think the government should intervene? If RS had it her way, the government would intervene only when, say, a school dared to teach the 100%-effective method of sexual abstinence.

By RS

January 6, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Zack, a few misguided cranks at this country club barred a black (potential) member. Despicable, certainly, but that is not a fair representation of all Jews. You just like to think so but you are only deluding yourself, my friend. Once again, you’ve contradicted yourself. You’re always nattering on about the majority this & the majority that & the majority should rule. Then you tell me the rules/laws have changed & the general worldview mirrors mine. OK, so if I’M now the majority, doesn’t that make me right & you wrong according to your conviluted way of “thinking”?? Lozen, thank you for defending me, you definately have a lot of smarts. Don’t you just bet Zack rubbed his hands with glee upon reading of the deaths & scarring of all those women harmed by backstreet abortions? He probably thinks (??) they deserved their fate. Oh & yes, I’ve seen the same thing. I have a friend who used to work in an abortion clinic & when I’d visit her there, I’d see jars of 2-or-so month old fetuses (feti?) & yes, they were just amorphous red pulpy globs (my apologies to those of you who are squeamish). I’m sure Zack is not at all surprised I associate with people who work(ed) at abortion clinics.

By RS

January 6, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Zack…Teaching abstinence only works in a perfect world. We do not live in a perfect world. I’m not saying EVERY teen, but a lot don’t have the emotional maturity to keep their libidos in check so if they’re going to have sex no matter what, & they will, they might as well be taught how to protect themselves & each other from disease & pregnancy. I don’t think teenagers running around & sleeping with everything that moves is a particularly desirable scenario, but come on, let’s be practical. It IS happening & it WILL happen…what to do about it???

By Tim

January 6, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Zack… I am going to answer your question… but I rarely see you ever answer mine… funny huh

a drive by shooting harms another person… abortion is another subject… it depends on who you ask… you would obviously say that it is harming another person… RS I am assuming would say that it is not harming another person because a fetus is not a person yet

therefore a drive-by-shooting and abortion are two totally different topics… no one can dispute that in a drive-by-shooting a PERSON is shot… BUT someone could argue that having an abortion is not murder because there is no clear answer when an embryo or later a fetus becomes an actual person

so no I would not tell someone to simply not go out and participate in a drive by shooting… I would tell someone not to do it because they would be harming another person and it is against the law

(fyi… I would also ADVIZE someone to not have an abortion either)

now could you please answer my question referring to your statement about Jews and Michael Jordan?

By Texas

January 6, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

With tears flowing down her cheeks, my youngest daughter said, “Mom, I’m pregnant.” My first reaction was silence. My second was immobility. My third was crying and my last reaction was screaming, “I can’t believe you did this!” I was raised in a Christian family and had morals and values that despised the words spoken from my daughter’s lips. She was 15 years old. How was she ever going to take care of a baby? What about school? Her whole future was headed downhill as far as I was concerned. Quickly my mind flooded with thoughts of ways to rid her and our family of the situation she brought upon us. A single mom of two daughters, I struggled for 10 long years after my divorce. “How could you?” I asked her.

For the first several days, I was in shock. I then contacted my church and one of the pastors had a meeting with my daughter and I. He suggested strongly that we give the baby up for adoption. Again my daughter cried and cried. She said, “I can’t give my baby up, I can feel it moving inside. I don’t want to go around wondering if this child or that child is mine.” I could understand her feelings having had two children of my own, but she didn’t understand how drastically her life was about to change. She couldn’t comprehend how she was also changing my life and her sister’s life. I felt she got pregnant on purpose. I told the pastor to give us time to think about all that he had said and told him I would get back with him.

We went to the first doctor appointment to see how far along she was in her pregnancy. We thought she was about 8 weeks or so. She never gained weight, no signs of pregnancy at all. Once again, I felt as if someone hit me with a stun gun of 10,000 volts. The doctor told us she was 7 months pregnant and we had little time to prepare. The sonogram showed she was going to give birth to a baby girl. Somehow all the anger, all the hurt, all the emotions involved seemed to disappear. Adoption was now the farthest thing from our mind and I felt as if God had a purpose for this baby. I believed it was meant for us to raise this child, not another family, and that God would provide and He did.

There was a huge baby shower thrown at work for me as the Grandmother. Baby clothes, high chair, bed, stroller, bottles, everything you could possibly need to get started and more were received. We decided to come up with a name for this baby girl and struggled with several names. I’ve always loved the name Gabrielle. It is a derivative of Gabriel which means “messenger of God”. My daughter wanted the name, Destini. She said, “Because she is destined to be.” I thought about the full meaning, “Destined to be a messenger of God” and loved it. And so, Destini Gabrielle was born in January 2000.

Two years have passed and Destini was two years old this month. In the short time she has been with us some “strange” things have happened. When she first began to walk, she would go over to the angel figurines I have and just stare, almost as if in a trance. Then one day I was sitting at my desk and she was talking mostly baby talk. I turned to look at her, when her eyes were focused in the air as if she were talking to someone in the room. The chills swept over me as I watched in awe, then she shook her little head and said, “Yea!” and smiled. She stood staring for a few more seconds and then went about her way. There were several of these occurrences and I felt deep within my heart that she was really seeing something or someone. Time went on and she was learning more words, mostly puppy and mama, nothing out of the ordinary.

Then came the day when I was cleaning my living room. I have a picture of Jesus that hung on the wall in the back of the living room that hardly anyone noticed because it was in the corner. I had taken it down to wipe the walls down and Destini walked over to the picture and stared that trance-like stare and out of the blue said, “Jesus.” I said, “What?” Again she said firmly, “Jesus.” I said, “Yes, that’s right, that’s Jesus!” This child never spoke that name, no one has ever taught her that name, she could barely speak her own little words, yet she knew. How I don’t know, but she knew. When I pondered all these things in my heart, the verse of Scripture came to me, “Suffer not the these little ones to come to me, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

I cannot explain how she knew what she knew, nor can I explain the conversations she had with someone I sincerely feel she saw. But I do know that these two years have brought so much laughter, peace and joy to our home, when there was nothing but arguing, lies, and deceit before she was born. I have to believe with all my heart that it was for this very purpose that we were suppose to keep her instead of giving her up. Through this child, God has restored my own child to me and He has restored our family. I thank God everyday for the wonderful gift He has given us and I pray He continues to use Destini Gabrielle to complete His purpose for the rest of her life for she is His little messenger.

By lozen

January 6, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Dear Zack, Why don’t you use your time more wisely and take a logic course at your local college? You would learn you can’t compare apples and oranges (abortion and drive by shootings). Texas, just hypothetically imagine 40 million more people on the highways, 40 million more people creating trash, 40 million more trying to get into the college your kids want to attend, applying for the job you want. Can you please explain to me how it would be of benefit to this country to have 40 million more people?

By Texas

January 6, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

TIM* I asked RS but she failed to acknowledge what I was saying. So, I will ask you based on your statement (“abortion is not murder because there is no clear answer when an embryo or later a fetus becomes an actual person”)

If a person is declared dead based on no brain waves (EEC) Shouldn’t a life be considered a life by that same criteria? (EEC)

OK, I’m going to help Zack out here. Zack instead of Drive by, lets us this argument instead and see what they say…

A woman’s control over her own body. Certainly this right is very important but is it enough to override the fundamental right to life? When one thinks about it, this right to control ones body is not absolute. No one would agree that a woman has the right to beat someone to death simply because she uses her fists which are a part of her body. In this case a persons right to life outweighs a woman’s right in regard to her own body. The important question really is -should a woman’s control over her body extend to “this”? In this case we are talking about abortion. As science has shown this is a unique human individual’s life. This situation is the same as our example and the right to life is still the more fundamental and important right and must therefore prevail.*

By lozen

January 6, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Okay Texas, I learned something from your last post. I’m glad you have a granddaughter you love. I also have children in my family that I love, although at the time, I thought abortion was the appropriate choice for the parent. And there’s another girl in the family who was born when her mother was 14 and her father was 18. She is a good kid and brings much joy to those around her. I didn’t finish my last post; I was thinking about 40 million unwanted, unloved, neglected children who become a drain on the world. How is your daughter doing? Has she been able to continue her education? Is she making a good life for herself and her child? I hope so. Many women don’t have family like you to help them raise a child.

By Tim

January 6, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Texas… I honestly do not know when an embryo or fetus should be considered a human being… I have an EXTREMELY hard time with this topic… it is something that I have thought about a lot and I simply have to say ‘I don’t know’… I can see both sides of the spectrum

I was simply stating earlier that no one is imposing anything on Zack

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Can the state force a parent to give blood or an organ to save the life of a child?

OK now, more women to admire..

By Texas

January 6, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

lozen, My earlier post was a true storey, however, it is not mine. I just posted it. I’m sorry if I caused any confusion. I was merely making a point.

What if one of the 40 million found the cure to cancer, or made driving safe and easy, or found a way to recycle trash, etc. etc.

Tim, Today in hospital’s around these united states doctors are declaring people dead based on no EEC. Simple question, if the criteria for death is no EEC, shouldn’t that same criteria be used to establish life?

By Tim

January 6, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Texas… I don’t know enough about that topic to give an educated answer… so the most intelligent thing I can say (as I stated in my previous post) is ‘I don’t know’

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Can the state force a parent to give up their bone marrow to save their child?

Absolutely one of the most admired woman in my book, Margaret Sanger

By Texas

January 6, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Whiley, No the state can not force anyone to give blood, organs or bone marrow.

Should Amber profit from the death of Lacy? She is and you admire her?

While I’ll agree that Martha should not be in jail, she was greedy and found guilty of lying and inside trading. Not admirable traits. I agree she was one heck of a business women, but admirable?

I think Mother Teresa and the millions like her who unselfishly work the will of God should be women of the year!

By Lozen

January 6, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Whiley, Here are some of the many, many women I admire or whose accomplishments I admire: my friend who is travelling in Guatamala setting up health clinics in small villages at the age of 76, two gay neighbors who have adopted children in the past year, my supervisor who truly lives “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” Apache warrior/medicine woman Lozen, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, all the sufferagists who suffered and fought so women could vote, Margaret Sanger, Anne Hutchinson, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, Harriet Tubman, Georgia O’Keeffe, Frida Kahlo, Mary Cassatt, Judy Chicago, Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Roberta Bondar, Eileen Collins, Sally Ride, Christa Corrigan McAuliffe, Margaret Meade, Jane Goodall, Charlotte Gilman Perkins, Elizabeth Blackwell, Madeleine Albright, Geraldine Ferraro, Karen Armstrong, Lillian Hellman, Sue Grafton, Janet Evanovich, Connie Willis… I better stop in the interest of time.

By Whiley

January 6, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

If you read or listen to Amber’s real story, how it all happened, you will change your mind about her. As she put it, she is an ordinary woman that found herself in an extremely unordinary circumstance. Most every woman alive has discovered the man she was dating was either married or dating someone else. It’s so common it’s not a shock to hear about anymore.

She is admired because she reported her relationship with Scott, knowing full well she will be made the bad person. Her personal life dissected. Every moment judged past & present. She kept her mouth shut & saved it for the jury. Amber agreed to cooperate with police & have all her conversations taped with Scott. I can’t imagine what that was like for her. Don’t forget she had a job & a child. Think she could work because of photographers following her, police meetings, etc. Guess what?, no work equals no money to pay bills. Also, while she was having these taped conversations, apparently when Scott was caught he was on his way to Amber’s work with a trunk full of rope, bags, & knives, etc. Did any of you know she had NO police protection at this time? When Scott was still a free man?

If it weren’t for Amber exposing the liar Scott was, it’s possible he would have gotten away with everything. I hate that some people say she was in it for the book deal from day one. That’s rediculous. She is a normal everyday woman.

I hope she can make some money off her book. She is doing nothing wrong by writing & selling her story. So yes she is to be admired for her courage.

By norman

January 7, 2005 07:40 AM | Link to this

I never liked Senator Barbara Boxer but I think she should be considered for a prize as a woman of courage. She stook up yesterday to challenge the election of Bush in Ohio and deserves respect for that. Had she done the same in 2000, well, who knows what might have happened. Bush may in the long run be the greatest disaster this nation has inflicted upon itself since 1860.

By RS

January 7, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Texas, I’m sorry, I thought I did answer your question. OK, to me, a fetus & a brain-dead person are one & the same. One is being kept alive via a respirator & the other through the mother’s umbilical cord. So I consider neither to be a viable human being. And by the way, I quite agree with you about Amber Frey. I know it SEEMS brave of her to go public with her story, but believe me, that cheap tramp will be laughing all the way to the bank & yes, she IS profitting from someone else’s murder. True, a lot of women discover after the fact that the man they’re involved with is already attached but any decent woman will extricate herself from the situation the moment she realizes this. Norman, you are 100% right about Barbara Boxer

By Zack

January 7, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

RS—That’s where you miss it: The two key words in your statement about a fetus are “…to me.” With this in mind, you want legislation to remain as it is when it comes to abortion, and you’re willing to risk the fact that—if you’re wrong—abortion is murder, which, obviously, is a much-stronger downside than any upside you might think there would be.

For pete’s sake, if you plant seeds in a garden, you won’t get, say, corn immediately, but the process of life has begun. The “glob of tissue” you refer to is part of the life process and is not up to our discretion to interfere with.

Woman of the year? I’d go with Nancy Reagan. I admire how she truly loved her husband and how she took care of him throughout his illness, especially in the most recent years. This sort of sacrifice is the very fabric of a true, loving marriage. Their marriage seemed very pure and wholesome, atypical for the typical marriage in the spotlight.

I’d also like to give my man of the year honors to Ken Jennings. That was quite an impressive performance on Jeopardy, and I think, while the school system might not improve overnight, he has inspired enough students to pursue learning on their own. It’s nice to see someone achieve celebrity status via his intelligence.

By Tim

January 7, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

I would just like to point out that even though I answered Zack’s question he has yet to answer mine :)

‘so since one Jewish country club wouldn’t allow Michael Jordan to play there means that JEWS IN GENERAL dislike or hate black people? does that also mean that since Augusta International does not allow women that MEN IN GENERAL hate women?’

I changed ‘ALL’ to ‘JEWS/MEN IN GENERAL’… in my earlier post I used ‘all’ and should not have because Zack said ‘JEWS IN GENERAL’ not ‘all’… sorry about that

By Zack

January 7, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Tim—I never said anything about “…all Jews.” Please do not put words in my mouth, as RS tries to do. Please also confront Norman the next time he attacks Christians. (Actually, I didn’t attack Jews, per se. I pointed out that many of them don’t like Black people, and this is true.) Do not confront me and ignore Norman’s clear and outright outbursts.

By RS

January 7, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Zack: Murder is murder, i.e. killing a person. Abortion is suctioning out a THING, a blob that, at the time, is not a life. If you’re that concerned about unwanted crack/AIDS trash that will only grow up to gun us down for our cars and/or whatever is in our wallets, why not volunteer to adopt all of them?? No? Didn’t think so…And, are my eyes deceiving me??? Did you & I nominate the SAME person for Woman Of The Year??!? Yes, we did! Are you aware that she’s now an advocate for stem cell research? That’s the main reason she got MY vote

By Lozen

January 7, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

A foetus is not a baby. Abortion is not murder. Can anyone show me where, even in the bible, it says abortion is murder? No, because it ain’t there. In the old testament Yahweh instructed his chosen people to murder and enslave other people over and over. How can you reconcile that with “Thou shalt not kill”? I have to assume that Zack and Randy and all the anti-abortion people believe our soldiers in Iraq are wrong because they are killing people. I assume they are against the death penalty also since all murder is a sin. As far as your analogy Zack to planting seeds, as a gardner I thin my plants every year after they come up. It is necessary to thin out the weak and give the strong ones room to grow. Every gardner does this. Abortion may very well serve the same purpose.

By norman

January 7, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Almost never does Zack make a comment without some plea that someone take me on. He is obsessed with me no matter what the particular topic of his rant. I guess I really got to him with my academic demolition of Christianity, something he cannot counter but can only call bigotry.

It is instructive to see how lame are the arguments and rants of these fundamentalistic Christians. Deep down one imagines they realize the flimsy foundation for their much vaunted faith and they require, desperately, others to join them: strength in numbers, people to drown out the little voice deep down in themselves that says “I really don’t believe all that religious stuff.” That is called Christian fellowship!

The only answer is psychiatric intervention.

By RS

January 7, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you are right. The Bible does not mention abortion. You mentioned the Old Testament. Know what? It wouldn’t surprise me if Zack doesn’t take the Old Testament seriously as that is, the Jewish part of the Bible & is prior to the dawn of Christianity. You made a compelling point about the war in Iraq. Zack & his cronies voted for a man who sent thousands of innocent young men & women off to kill & be killed. Can we say “hypocrite”? True, abortion SHOULD thin out the weak/infirm & strengthen the strong & viable. If I were planning to have a child, I’d get regular sonograms & if there was evidence of the child being defective, of course I’d terminate the pregnancy. Any sensible, compassionate person would. What would be the point of bringing something like that into the world? It’s useless & would live a life of pain, disability, & loneliness. It would be heartbreaking & very expensive & time-consuming for the family. The poor mother would wear herself to a frazzle while her husband & other children were neglected. The other children would have to sacrifice time otherwise spent in normal childhood activities to help care for it. And you KNOW what happens when husbands feel neglected; I’m not saying that’s right, but it’s reality. I can’t think of any pluses to bringing anything like that into the world.

By Tim

January 7, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Zack… actually you may want to read my post again… I stated that in my earlier post I used the word ‘all’… and in my last post I changed that to ‘jews in general’ because those were the EXACT words you used in an earlier post! so actually you put the words in your mouth not me… and I also apologized for saying ‘all’ in my earlier post… and then corrected my statement

now you STILL have NOT answered my question… you used interesting logic to come to your conclusion about Jews in general… but once I challenged it you avoided that debate :)

also… by saying ‘Jews in general’… that IS attacking Jews ‘per se’

as for Norman… what is there to say… yes a lot of his comments about Christians make me sick… but they are so outlandish I just laugh… as for confronting him… you, Randy, or Texas are doing just fine on your own

By RS

January 7, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Norman, Zack “thinks”(?!?) he can get us to make you, uh, “see the light”. Does he not get it that the reason I won’t challenge you is because I AGREE with you?? DUH! And I’m one of the people he is constantly on to challenge you. Further proof that the arguments of the fundies are lamer than lame. View my post (to Lozen) right below yours & tell me what kind of sensible rebuttal exists to the question of why deliberately bring a defective child into the world. None! “It’s God’s will” doesn’t cut it..

By norman

January 7, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Tim: fingering Jews is rather deeply embedded in Christians. Zack cannot help it.

By Randy

January 7, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Saw a good bumper sticker, TRY JESUS, IF YOU DON’T LIKE HIM, SATAN WILL TAKE YOU BACK Why will Satan take you back? Because misery loves company!

By Randy

January 7, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

I like Zack, however he moans to much about the treatment of Christians. I’m a Christian and I don’t see anything out of line(except Norman). If anyone wants to give me a hard time because I am a Christian, bring it on!

By Texas

January 7, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

All, has any one seen a ultrasound of a baby at seven weeks. You can clearly see the arms and legs and the head. Seven weeks is the time that you can visualize movement.

Ten weeks unborn babies can be seen sucking their thumbs. This is the time they are so active!

Go to www.google.com put abortion in the search feild, go to abortionfacts.com scan to ultrasound and see for yourself.

By Randy

January 7, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Abortion is murder! There is no difference in Abortion and taking a gun and blowing somebodys brains out!

By RS

January 7, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Right-To-Life advocates: I’d like your opinion(s) on something. may I ask you to go back to the submission I posted at 1:04PM today & tell me why bringing a severely defective baby into the world is so wonderful & what are the benefits? I greatly look forward to hearing THIS! I’m sure you do too, Lozen!

By norman

January 7, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Right to life advocates like Senator Santorum think that a deformed baby is a blessing because it will elicit in the parents and others an increase of charity. I think this is baloney. I have had disabled and retarded people around and know that it simply embitters people, taxes their wherewithall, and is a permanent psychic damage to all concerned.

There is no baloney like theological baloney.

By Tim

January 7, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Norman… I would like to say to you to please don’t speak for those of us who have disabled people in our family… since she was 3 my aunt has had cerebral palsy which has caused her entire right side to be crippled and is also mildly retarded… I couldn’t imagine my life without her! This after all is the woman who taught me how to read, write, count money, say the alphabet using sign language, and count to 40 in spanish (all by the time I started school at the age of 5)

yes there are definitely stresses placed on my grandparents… but I am certain that if you asked them if they would have had a choice in having her or not they would say the would never have chose not to have her… and I for one am grateful… because it is because of her I started school on the right foot

By norman

January 7, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Tim: I am speaking from experience. I have been told by seriously retarded people that they have no life and would rather not have been kept alive.

You seem to feel entitled to claim only your Christian feelings are valid. You may be more polite than Zack but you are just as irrational and hopeless.

By Tim

January 7, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Norman… that is fine that you speak from experience… as I am sure most on here do… all I was asking was that you not speak for EVERYONE… I have also known retarded and disabled people… the ones I know never said those things to me… actually they LOVE life

another thing when did I ever state or imply the ‘only my Christian feelings are valid’?

also… how have I been irrational and hopeless? I for one think that someone (in this case you) who makes generalizations about an entire population (retarded and disabled people) is being irrational

By Tim

January 7, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

one more thing… I have not been polite… I have been respectful… you might like to try it sometime