Woman to Woman

By texas holdem poker rules world series of poker ladies satellite

January 8, 2006 10:52 PM | Link to this

discussion placement Levis stupidity demodulator miscellaneously!Satan mentioner cocktails poker room panda pai gow poker poker room panda pai gow poker http://www.naturaldelights.net/panda-pai-gow-poker.html http://www.naturaldelights.net/panda-pai-gow-poker.html emit symptoms hookers,stormy chanting poker clipart win at cash poker poker clipart win at cash poker http://www.naturaldelights.net/win-at-cash-poker.html http://www.naturaldelights.net/win-at-cash-poker.html …

By Brian Curtis

January 9, 2006 07:22 AM | Link to this

I can see why pro-life advocates would be so twitchy about making exceptions for the mother’s health… it’s their greatest vulnerability in gaining public support.

Most of the American public (despite what you hear from the extremists on both sides) are “somewhere in the middle” on abortion: that is, they don’t like the idea of unrestricted abortion-as-birth-control, but they also don’t want it outlawed from the moment of conception onward. The fetus has a sort of in-between status. And most Americans definitely fall on the side of pro-abortion when the mother’s life is at risk.

To the staunch pro-life zealots, that’s a very serious problem. Why? Because it inherently recognizes that the life of a fetus is NOT equivalent to the life of a full-fledged, individual human being. When you have to choose between them, the person wins out over the fetus. Uh-oh.

So any further steps in that direction—say, making exceptions for rape/incest, or to protect the woman’s health—further reinforce that underlying presumption, that a fetus is not equivalent to a person. It has SOME rights (in the public mind), but not the SAME rights as a person. Very, very bad news for the clinic-bomber crowd.

By Renee

January 9, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this

I’m not for restricting abortion but there is no black and white, in my opinion, OF COURSE health exceptions have to be made. And protecting the woman’s health in my opinion is a very big exception. I know I will get some flack for this, but if it is a life/death situation, (in other words, giving birth may kill me unless the abortion is given) I would choose the abortion. What good would I be to the child if I am not alive to take care of it? What good would I be to the child/children I already have?

By Lynne

January 9, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

Renee, I don’t know what flack you would receive from any rational thinking person. Shaunti is clearly out of her mind. Apparently she is so blinded by her belief that abortion is wrong that she would have no problem letting you die.

By Scalia

January 9, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

I must be out of my mind because I understand where Shaunti is coming from. What I’m infering is: what if the doctors are wrong? What if there is some slight chance that you might be okay giving birth? She thinks that you should take that risk, and put your faith to the test. For the sake of it, why not do like Abraham? He was willing to sacrifice his son.

By Chilao

January 9, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Yes, to be consistent, the anti-abortion crowd should make no exceptions, medical or otherwise, and let both mother and child die if aborting the child would save the mother, and too bad for any other children the mother may have. Now if only we could get the body counts up, and the public outrage will help cut down on, how did Diane put it? Legislation of the Christian Faith.

But since I myself am not anti-abortion, I have no problem with aborting the child to save the mother, and a host of other reasons.

Do we need another Constitutional amendment? One to count fetuses in the census count. Our Founding Fathers missed that years ago. Wonder why.

By cynic

January 9, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Once again Shaunti and the Right take a poll and misrepresent it. since when does “uncomfortable” imply opposed? Nobody likes the idea or act of abortion, but people make unhappy choices every day and do things that are terribly “wrong” without loosing sleep over it. shaunti is the biggest beater of the war drums that kill thousands of people-and children-wvery day and doesn’t break a sweat over it. The arguement over abortion is fundamentally (like that work usage?) one about the control of procreation-one that men are loath to give up.

And I love the little stinker about “the are no demonstrated law suits” means just that, there are no law suits-in New Hampshire. That doesn’t mean that witholding an abortion won’t threaten a woman’s health or life, but Shaunti is playing coy with facts-in much the same as when late term abortions are called “partial birth”, as if the fetus’s head is sticking halfway out the womb and the doctor chops it off with a sword.

The anti-abortionists have learned long ago how to play with the power of words. It may work on the stupid and mindless drones of society but that still leaves out a lot of us who are not foold by phoney moralistic posturing that is accompanied by a complete lack of ethical behavior.

Shaunti and the rest of the pack would have us return to her “good old days” of children getting abortions in alleys with rusty coat hangers (along with white-only drinking fountains) and only the rich able to afford the act of abortion that has always existed with the human race along with the desire of men to treat woman as chattel and deny them the one right they should have (that the male would NEVER give up for himself). The right to make choices about their own bodies.

Shaunti is not god, her “slippery slope” is a choice that health professionals and those whose health (and lives)are involved should have a complete and unfettered right to make. People do it every day for other illness ranging from cancer to dental work. Thankfully she is not god, or a health care professional. The same goes for all the other bible-thumpers and holier-than-thou hypocrites.

Shaunti is always beating the drum about her difficult childbirth but in bragging about her choice to go through with it-which is a choice she had the right to make, it’s her body and her life-she will now turn around and deny that right to others. She doesn’t approve, well isn’t that just too bad. What mendacity and gaul.

By kimberly

January 9, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Shaunti thinks she is clever in the way she words her self-sacrificing whine: and HAD THIS particular choice been before us, it COULD never HAVE BEEN She’s trying to make it sound like she made some sacrifice and God rewarded her by making it all okay. Write in the subjunctive case all day, woman, but we’re not all stupid enough to think you’re writing truth.

Diane is right. Our rights, and those of our daughters, are in trouble.

I’ll make a deal with all of you: I won’t tell you what to do with YOUR private parts, and you keep your self-righteous noses out of MINE! Way to p** me off on a Monday, Shaunti, you b——.

By Renee

January 9, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Wow Kimberly, a little upset???

By Jack

January 9, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

I love a woman with spunk! :)

By kimberly

January 9, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

A combination of PMS and just being OVER these fascist-loving theocrats who want to tell the rest of us how to live. What a bunch of hypocrites. OVER them. It’s a new year, and a new breeze is a-blowin’. Time to stand up to these neocons, folks. They’ve proven that don’t want to play nice anyway, so STAND UP and expose them for what they really are!

By Jack

January 9, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Being a man my opinion on this doesn’t mean squat, but I’m with Kimberly on this one.

By Lynne

January 9, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

I feel you Kimberly. This is enough to make you want to throw civil discourse out the window and just knock some sense into any nitwit that would suggest women “take a chance, the doctor could be wrong……..oops…oh well”. Its so insulting and moronic that you can’t even put up the resistance to fight back with venom. I can’t even respect Shaunti or anyone with this opinion.

By blablabla

January 9, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

yes, of course there should be exceptions to protect pregnant women. if a woman wants to make the choice to put herself at risk by carrying a child to term, that’s her choice.

question for you kimberly: do you honestly believe that abortion will ever be made illegal in this country?

By Renee

January 9, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

bla - I think the potential is there.

By Jack

January 9, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Wow. Almost noon and Zack and his ilk have yet to jump on this one.

By Jack

January 9, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Where is everyone? How many on this blog would pay to listen to Howard “The Pig” Stern?

By Chilao

January 9, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

I would have to be PAID, and HANDSOMELY, to have Stern in my ears. I mean ALOT OF MONEY. ALOT!

By Jack

January 9, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

It is sad that someone of his caliber is getting rich. Doesn’t say a whole lot for the listening public.

By Denise

January 9, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

You have a problem to of whether a man commits two murders when he murders a pregnant woman.

I say he does.

However, the reason he does is because it’s that woman’s choice to be pregnant and not her choice to be murdered.

Personally, I don’t think ANY MAN has the right to tell me what to do with my body unless he is celibate, and that includes not being with little boys EITHER.

Then, I want him to dress like a woman and walk a mile in the shoes of someone who has had to make that difficult decision at the tender age of sixteen. I want him to know what it’s like choosing a trailor park future over a college degree and affluence. I want him to hear her peers laughing at her for being “knocked up” and being called a slut, and THEN when he is just starting to feel suicidal, I want him to hear his mother says these vile things.

Have you ever held anyone in your arms who had to choose? Even if you didn’t agree with one of their options, have you ever stood beside them and held their hand going into a clinic while they cried?

Until these people have walked the walk, they should SHUT UP!

By DasKrait2

January 9, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Stern entered my market at the time, I had read about him and thought we might get some thought provoking radio so I listened for awhile. But then realized he REALLY needed to hook up with two strap-on wearing Lesbians and get it OUT of his system, to use what I consider a NYC phrase, “Get over it, already”.

By mark

January 9, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

I applaud Shaunti’s courage in making her decision to carry her child considering the dangers to her personal safety, but it was her decision to make - not the state’s. When the government has the right to make these decisions on very personal issues, we cease to be a nation of laws and become a nation of men (and women) where a small minority has the right to usurp your personal freedoms.

I would have a lot more respect for the right-to(run your)-life if they would willingly adopt every unwanted pregnancy child but they don’t seem to care about people - only fetuses. A lot of people in the world use religion to foist their beliefs on others and history has shown that it is an effective tool to whip up a fervor over an issue. In this instance, it is pretty obvious that with an administration friendly to them, the RTL crowd has been pushing them to abolish all abortion options, no matter what the circumstances are, to achieve their idea of a total theocracy on all of us. I believe that the mother’s life is paramount over the fetus, and it should be on a case by case basis, not a blanket ruling, because not all pregnancies are similar.

By Lyrazel

January 9, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Facts: The majority of these statistics were taken from The Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. 88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children. 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old

Abortion Statistics - Demographics Age - 52% are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19
Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.
Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.

Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic.

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Abortion Statistics - Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

Given all these stats and especially the % of abortions/year I dont see the results from the 56% pro-life concerned citizens. I hear people SAYING they are uncomfortable advocating abortions (who isnt?), however the push come to shove factor seems to be if you need it—or your daughter needs one, you will get one—especially if you are White, 18-25, Unmarried. Look at again how LOW the rates are for sickness to mother and sickness of fetus. So, what really are the anti-abortion fears? Falling birth rates for white babies or falling birth rates for single women unable to afford children?

By chuck

January 9, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Alright, Let’s look at these arguments 1 at a time.

Brian Curtis said:

To the staunch pro-life zealots, that’s a very serious problem. Why? Because it inherently recognizes that the life of a fetus is NOT equivalent to the life of a full-fledged, individual human being. When you have to choose between them, the person wins out over the fetus. Uh-oh.

This is a false argument that begins with an assumption that is not true. The exception for “the life of the mother” is supported by MOST conservatives, not on the basis of the “person” being more important than the “fetus”, but rather on a perfectly Biblical allowance for taking a life in self-defense. The reason we OPPOSE an exception for the “health” of the woman is because it is ephemeral. Since women usually gain weight after childbirth, and since we know excess weight is unhealthy, would that be an acceptable reason for killing the baby? Under this so-called exception it would be. The plain truth of the matter is that the so-called “health” exception is nothing more than an attempt to protect the status quo of unfettered killing of babies. Anybody could claim this exception for almost any reason, so it is NOT an exception at all, but rather, the rule. The only acceptable moral justification for abortion is self-defense and I don’t even believe that that should be allowed. I have never heard of a single case where the doctor could say with certainty “You will die if you have this baby.” I’m sure there have been such cases, but they are extremely RARE. If we have to include it to get abortion outlawed, I can live with it because it would eliminate all but a hanful of the 1.5 million abortions that occur each year.

As for Cynic’s diatribe, I harly know where to begin. You said, among other asinine statements:

Shaunti and the rest of the pack would have us return to her “good old days� of children getting abortions in alleys with rusty coat hangers (along with white-only drinking fountains) and only the rich able to afford the act of abortion that has always existed with the human race along with the desire of men to treat woman as chattel and deny them the one right they should have (that the male would NEVER give up for himself). The right to make choices about their own bodies.

Cynic, do you have a clue about how planned parenthood began?

Read these quotes from and about Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood:

Margaret Sanger, the famous founder of Planned Parenthood, was supportive. She wanted “more children from the fit, less from the unfit.” Birth Control Review, vol. 3, no. 5, May 1919, p. 2

This wasn’t only related to contraceptive planning. A seditor, she printed grossly eugenic material, approving of Hitler’s sterilization program (see Into the Darkness, Nazi Germany Today, by L. Stoddard, p. 196). She believed that “Negroes and Southern Europeans were mentally inferior to native born Americans.” She found these people, Hebrews, and others “feebleminded,” “human weeds,” and called them a “menace to the race.” In 1933, her Birth Control Review devoted an entire edition to eugenic sterilization. Sanger’s famous “Plan for Peace” was almost the same as Hitler’s, even going beyond it to suggest, in essence, concentration camps.

“When the world realized the logical consequences of Hitler’s hereditarian-eugenic, totalitarian type of government, Margaret Sanger’s birth-control movement had to take a quick step away from its overt eugenic language.” E. Drogin, Margaret Sanger, Father of Modern Society, CUL Publications, 1979, p. 28

Tell me more.

Let us quote from her “Plan for Peace.” This was little more than peaceful genocide. She wanted the United States:

• “To keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as the feebleminded as determined by Stanford-Binet I.Q. tests.

• “To apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

• “To insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents by pensioning all persons with transmissible diseases who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

• “To give dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

• “To apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for a period of their entire lives. [Practically speaking, a concentration camp.]

• “[To] take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.” (Again, concentration camps.) M. Sanger, “Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, vol. 16, no. 4, April 1932

Cynic, is this really who you want to support as the Bastions of Right thinking America? Let’s not even mention that ABORTION is Planned Parenthoods number one source of income. Health Professionals? I don’t think so.

And these horrible conservatives who want to send these little girls back to the alleys. How stupid is that statement? VERY. If you are going to call yourself a CYNIC, that implies that you have actually studied the position of the opposition and you don’t believe it. The truth is that conservatives funded healthcare for MILLIONS of girls throughout their pregnancies. They have provided homes, food, transportation and the cost for delivering hundreds of thousands of babies across the world. They provided adoption agencies for those who chose to put the babies up for adoption and financial assistance for those who chose to keep the babies and raise them themselves. Does planned parenthood do that for women? NOT ON YOUR LIFE. They TAKE money from these girls and give them only the option of abortion. I think you need yo do a little reading.

As usual, Kimberly, your argument suffers because it is based only in opinion and emotion and NOT in FACTS.

By Jack

January 9, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

How many babies have you had Chuck?

By Netbanker

January 9, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Is there a rule that every X number of weeks this ‘column’ needs to be about abortion? Shaunti…if you or any other woman wants to die rather than have an abortion be it for religious or any other reason it is your right to make that decision. Have at it! That’s what Pro-CHOICE is all about.

Time to vent! (And as a gay MAN my point is really moot since I’ll never have to worry about pregnancy) The use of the term pro-abortion by the pro-life people burns me up! No one and I mean no one is pro-abortion. Those who aren’t anti-abortion or pro-life are PRO-CHOICE! Every woman should get to make the choice that is right for her and let her bear the consequences. It’s that same root cause complaint that conservatives tell people that they need to take responsibility for their lives, actions, and bear the consequences of them. So let women do that!! Let them bear the consequences of either having a baby or having an abortion.

did anyone see that column in yesterday’s paper on words? Truthiness was the word of the year and very much describes blogging. The one that made me LMAO was crotchfruit.

By chuck

January 9, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Jack, I’ve had the same number of babies as the number of intelligent arguments you have made on this forum…NONE

By Jack

January 9, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Oh that hurt…

By chuck

January 9, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

good

By kimberly

January 9, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

As usual, Chuck, mind your own beeswax. YOUR argument is based on your feeeeeeeelings about how the rest of us should deal with our personal issues that are, again, NONE of YOUR business. Your blathering about Margaret Sanger has little relevance. She lived in a different America, and actually had the BALLS to stand up when women were supposed to sit quiety, and to DO SOMETHING to relieve the suffering she saw around her. Her frame of reference was completely different, she’s dead now, and people like you are trying to stamp out the rights of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness for half the population of the America you claim to respect.

Like Mark said, I would have a lot more respect for the right-to(run your)-life if you would willingly adopt every unwanted pregnancy child but you don’t care about people - only fetuses.

Here’s a FACT for ya, Chuck: America is waking up to the hypocracy of your kind.

By Jack

January 9, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Chuck. You must be well qualified in this subject. Would you choose to lose your wife to save the fetus?

By Jack

January 9, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Come on Chuck. Answer the question. IF you are married, pretend your wife will read your answer.

By lozen

January 9, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you are a religious zealot and a little dictator who believes women should be forced to carry every pregnancy to term because your religion says so. That is bull! I do not believe as you do and I do not believe abortion is a sin or a bad thing. I do not believe a fetus is a baby! You cannot tell me or any other women what to believe, or whether to have an abortion or not. Obfuscate all you want, you religious zealot. No woman should ever, ever have to give birth to a child she does not want! Right on, Kimberly, Denise, Brian!!!

By Jack

January 9, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

He’ll answer my question with a long cut and paste from the bible. Or he’ll lie like a rug. I’ll be back when the subject changes to something other than “A”

By kimberly

January 9, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

As always, Jack, I miss you when you’re gone. {:-<

By Netbanker

January 9, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Chuck…are those statements STILL the mission of Planned Parenthood? If not, then what difference does the view of the dead founder make when it seems that today’s planned parenthood is all about PLANNING and birth control and educating youth about the consequences of sexual activity? Basically it appears that you are saying that organizations are not capable of change, are always tied to the original founder’s reasoning or positions, and should be judged as such regardless of their current mission.

By Denise

January 9, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Babies are parasites. They can not live outside of the womb prior to the first trimester. I am pro-choice for first trimester abortions. I believe there need to be extreme circumstances for an abortion after that point, and statistically, there are. It’s not a baby at less than three months, it’s a group of cells trying to become one. The miscarriage factor even dessiminates after 3 months.

By Renee

January 9, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - I think your comment was right on point. Pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion. I think my problem with the pro-life extremists is they don’t offer solutions. Just don’t do it, and now with NO exceptions no matter the circumstances.

I don’t know if I agree with a fetus not being a baby. I think that is subjective territory and I know we can argue all day about the actual fetus turning point.

Oh and Kimberly you have done a great job of holding it down.

By kimberly

January 9, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Denise, um… the parasitic tendancies continue up to 20 years. Longer for some. They attach themselves to one’s cash flow system and slurp, slurp, slurp. {;->

By kimberly

January 9, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Renee! I feel empowered today. No fear!

By Lyrazel

January 9, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Margaret Sanger was advocating Planned Parenthood in 1916-1929—lets get a little more 21st century shall we? E. Caddy Stanton did not feel black men were as important as white women when campaigning for the right of women to vote— heroines of the past all have prejudice of the past—but its not relevant to the NOW. Certainly both would have shaken their heads at the million abortions performed yearly and ask: Why?

Would you choose to lose your wife to save the fetus? Excuse me, WHY does one save the fetus and not the mom? Can a fetus live without womb? In most instances a doctor would decide pro-mother—being that fetus has less chance of being healthy or living to term. Its like as Shaunti never mentions: her husband would have TOLD the doctor to save HER life—regardless if she had different religious views.

By E. Lewis

January 9, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Placing restrictions on or outlawing abortion altogether will only affect the lower classes those who can’t afford a plane ticket and European vacation. What about women who travel abroad for such a procedure?

By Jack

January 9, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

I agree Kimberly. When does the slurping stop?

By chuck

January 9, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

First Lozen, it doesn’t matter what you OR I believe. What matters is what is Right and what is Wrong. Look at Lyrazel’s statistics from Guttmacher. Less than 3% of abortions have anything at all to do with the mother’s health, MUCH LESS HER LIFE. Abortion is about 2 things: Convenience and Racism.

I am 100% pro-choice…as long as that CHOICE is made BEFORE a BABY IS MADE. It is absolutely ridiculous in this day and time that there even is such a thing as an unwanted pregnancy. You have to be pretty STUPID to get knocked up with all of the means of birth control available to women AND men now days. The best of these is KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER.

I love how all of you libs are out there fawning all over that cold-blooded murderer, Tookie Williams and decrying the fact that he was killed, yet don’t even hesitate to condemn an innocent little baby to death by having his brains sucked out through a tube. You make me sick.

Recent studies have shown that infant at only 10 days in the mothers’ wombs feel pain and discomfort. Operations have been done on BABIES inside their Mothers’ bodies. Should health insurance cover that? After all they are just masses of tissue. There is NO LOGICAL argument in favor of abortion and there is NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.

Lozen and Kim, what is the difference in killing a baby ONE DAY before it is born to killing it ONE DAY after it is born? Is it NOT the same BABY?

Finally, Kim, You said: I would have a lot more respect for the right-to(run your)-life if you would willingly adopt every unwanted pregnancy child

Then start respecting. You take ANY pregnant woman to a Crisis Pregnancy Center and you will see the willingness to do just that.

By Bruce

January 9, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Hey everyone. This is a better topic than last week but I am like NetBanker do they have a quota to meet. It seems like this topic comes up about every 6th week or so. I am enjoying your post please keep it up.

By AllAboutME

January 9, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

…so Shaunti…what you are saying is that we should jail all women who have abortions (they can sit in jail with the 8 million illegal immigrants)….or are you saying…you as an uptight but morally responsible taxpayer want to pay the medical and family services cost for the next millions of forced-birth-by-law babies that will be abandoned to social services adoptions…gosh thats awfully nice of you…why have you not started yet? I am sure you could stop any woman at the clinic if you said: choose life, here is $40,000 for your kid for the next 18 years

By Jack

January 9, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Answer my question oh sick one.

By lozen

January 9, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Oh, yeah and Chuck’s all for the war and the death penalty too I believe. His motto is “Go and kill as many Iraqi babies, women, old people and as many American boys and girls as needed to liberate a country around the world (which just incidentally has lots of gas). Those lives don’t matter”. In the meantime, take away the freedom of women in this country to decide about their OWN reproduction because his god says abortion is a sin? Religious zealots never make any sense.

By Renee

January 9, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

I don’t see what Tookie Williams has to do with this. I am not liberal, but I guess on the abortion issue I am. I think someone should have the right to make that choice with their body, what they want to do. The problem with this country is everyone wants to be involved with what the next person is doing. It’s easy to yell at someone about what they should and should not be doing and why you feel that way, when you probably have your own issues to deal with. Abortion, like anything else, can be abused. Of course you have people using it as birth control. They may have been pregnant 6 times and have had 6 abortions. Does this mean it should no longer be available for ALL women?

I know I took a good friend of mine to the abortion clinic early in the morning. The protesters were out there and I advised them to not approach my car. They then started throwing baby clothes and shoes at the car. I asked a woman (who looked like a complete idiot throwing these clothes, she had to be in her forties) would she be willing to adopt my friends baby. Her answer was no, but someone would. I don’t even know why I bothered trying to have a rational discussion with someone throwing baby clothes. The money and time spent doing that could be spent in helping a mother, giving her alternative. Sometimes the presentation of the message makes all the difference. The pro-life people get so angry, they won’t listen to reason, and I have seen quite irrational behavior when trying to prove their point.

Then start respecting. You take ANY pregnant woman to a Crisis Pregnancy Center and you will see the willingness to do just that.

Not true. There’s too many babies and not enough willing parents to adopt.

By kimberly

January 9, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Chuck, your know-it-all stance only hurts your arguments. I shed no tears for Tookie; your assumption is insulting. And you know what? The people who DO adopt unwanted babies and special-needs children DO have my respect. When THOSE people yammer on about the sanctity of life, I nod and say “God bless you.” Did you adopt any minority or special needs children, Chuck? Do you spend YOUR time and money, and resources operating a crisis center for women you believe to be sinners and whores who can’t keep their knees together, or if they were raped, were clearly asking for it? Do YOU share the love, Chuck? If so, I’ll apologize to you.

By Jack

January 9, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Renee’. Glad I wasn’t there. Someone would have gotten hurt and locked up. (probably me)

By kimberly

January 9, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Jack, I don’t know. I’m still getting slurped. {;->

By lozen

January 9, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

What you decide is morally right for you, chuck, is fine. If you want to choose a baby’s life over that of your wife, fine. (It may not be so fine in her opinion!) That is your right. What you don’t understand, because you are a religious zealot, is that you have no right to force your religious/moral beliefs on me or anyone else. And, by the way, men can still impregnate, Chuck, with their legs together, you sexist pig. You are so against abortion because of the poor little clumps of cells that are murdered! But taking the life of a living, breathing man on death row is fine! I said it before and I’ll say it again, religious zealots never make any sense.

By Renee

January 9, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Jack - yes, I was quite fired up that day. What doesn’t make any sense about it is, they throw these baby clothes and shoes like complete idiots, because they are trying to save the baby. I’m just thinking if that is a successful tactic. Also there are living babies who could use the baby clothes, babies who don’t have anything. That makes me think that most of the time they have their own agenda, and it’s not for the “babies who can’t speak for themselves”.

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Lozen, are you implying that Chuck is in support of the death penalty?

By amber

January 9, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

“Because I almost died in childbirth, this is not just an academic exercise to me. My doctors faced life or death choices, and had this particular choice been before us, it could never have been right to sacrifice my baby son’s life to save my own.” I whole heartedly agree. Save the child and let Shaunti go, please.

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Hey Renee and everybody!

Hey, something similar happened in my community when I was in high school. This girl tried to go have an abortion, I think she was about 17. Veryyyyy smart girl, and very active as I recall. She sang in the gospel choir, ran track, and was in the top 5% of our class (my high school was, at the time, ranked in the top 10 HS across the nation).

She had been accepted to a couple of Ivy League schools, and was headed in the right direction until she got pregnant. She went to have the abortion, but was attacked by all these protesters. She ran back to her friend’s car and never went back.

She ended up hiding the entire pregnancy and trying to flush the baby down the toilet when she gave birth… right in my itty bitty small town…

By Renee

January 9, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

HEYYYYYYYYYYY JBM!!!!

Chuck made a implication towards the death row in an earlier statement that could possibly be interpreted that he might be in favor of it. But I could be wrong.

That’s interesting though. Are pro-lifers against the death penalty???

By Renee

January 9, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Chuck made a implication towards the death row in an earlier statement that could possibly be interpreted that he might be in favor of it.

What a horrible grammatical sentence. I really chopped the English language up, lol, lol.

By Jack

January 9, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Why would they murder abortion clinic doctors if they were against it?

By Scalia

January 9, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Iozen, I have to agree with you. It takes two to make the baby. It wasn’t just the woman opening her legs, the guy had to do his part, too.

Question: when women have to wait a day or talk to their parents before having an abortion, does the father have to tell his parents, too? Does he have to go for counseling? Is he given the same guilt treatment as women?

Most of the athletes, etc. who are worshipped by society, have a couple of children. I never once here them being boycotted or shunned. Shaq had two or more children before he married his wife. Allen Iverson has a couple of kids, and I think that he married after they were here.

By GoodOne

January 9, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Good one Amber.

I think most Pro-lifers are also pro-death-penalty. hypocritical, to say the least.

By lozen

January 9, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I don’t know a single instance where a woman had an abortion the day before she was due to deliver. Neither do you! Your morals are no more “right” than mine. You just hide behind god to try to prove your morals are right and mine are wrong. I still believe my morals are right and I don’t have to hide behind any old imaginary white man in the sky. You may think your morals and beliefs are better than mine; who cares? In this country, I have a right to my beliefs. Anyway, someone should point out to you religious zealots that the bible says nothing about abortion. Jesus didn’t say anything about abortion. Moses didn’t have a commandment about abortion. In your bible god told a man to kill his own son as a sacrifice. Then, the story goes, he sent his own son down here to be tortured and murdered on a cross! Religious zealots make no sense.

By Netbanker

January 9, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Careful now kids…I think we’re about to start persecuting christians with our pro-abortion stance and attacks on Chuck. SNORT!

Chuck…as far as I can tell you tend to identify as a conservative. So why wouldn’t you support pro-choice? Aren’t conservatives for smaller government regulation of personal decisions? What exactly is the consequence to you personally if someone terminates a pregnancy? The likely personal consequence to you of forcing the person to have the baby would be increased taxes to pay for them. Increased taxes or the use of tax dollars for social support programs are also no-no’s in the conservative platform. It seems to me that the true conservative position should be to allow abortions for those who want one since they don’t have a single negative impact to society as a whole, but forced pregnancy has myriad implications for society as a whole. That pushes one’s personal responsibility onto society which is definitely not an acceptable proposition to conservatives.

According to the National Right to Life website click here the number of abortions is declining. If that’s the case then why is this continuing to be such an issue? MONEY! If people aren’t riled up about a social ‘issue’ that isn’t as much an issue as one is led to believe those in power can’t raise money and they can’t distract us from issues that affect their ability to screw us out of more money! What is more important right now folks? Abortion or Terrorism? Abortion or achieving energy independence so we can get the heck out of the middle east? Abortion or distracting the masses from the fact that we aren’t addressing energy independence while the oil companies continue to make lots of money? Abortion or the national debt? Abortion or the out of control rise in health care costs? Abortion or the corrupt morals of the family values party? We’re being distracted by a non-issue when it is compared to issues that have an affect on each and every American right now and for the next 20 years.

By Jack

January 9, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Scalia. Unfortunately, it is completely acceptable these days to have children out of wedlock. That is not fair to the children.

By RF

January 9, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

Well, it seems to me if they really want to be fair, the law should require notification of the girl’s parents AND the boy’s. I teach ninth graders all day, and let me assure you any pro-lifers who can find a reason to celebrate one of them being pregnant needs to come and spend some time with them. I don’t have a problem with parental notification if you’re under 18. I DO have a problem with grandparents and others having to raise a child because mom and dad are 14.

By GoodOne

January 9, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

If there was not the abortion issue, some would merely move on to the next behavior-modification issue.

By lozen

January 9, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

Well, Scalia when a man has a bunch of kids running around with a bunch of different women, that makes him a “stud”. Boys will be boys, huh? If a woman has one kid and isn’t married that makes her a “real woman,” right? Ha. The double standard is so alive and well in 2006. That is so understood in the “Keep their legs together” comment!

By Renee

January 9, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

Brilliant Netbanker!!!!!!!!

By RF

January 9, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Amen, Net. Preach on brother!!

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

There’s no way I will ever believe that someone who so vehemently opposes abortion could possibly be in support of the death penalty (or war, for that matter).

By lozen

January 9, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, as usual your finger is on the true pulse of the issue! Abortion and gay marriage will shore nuff get em out to vote though won’t it?

By Jack

January 9, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Hats off to you RF. I subbed for my son’s class when he was in 7th grade. Gave me respect for teachers.

By blablabla

January 9, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

There’s no way I will ever believe that someone who so vehemently opposes abortion could possibly be in support of the death penalty (or war, for that matter).

why do you say that, jbm? most pro-lifers i know who are also pro-death penalty believe there is a stark difference between the death of a fetus (innocent life) and the death of an inmate that has been proven guilty of malicious and heinous crimes against society (guilty life).

and renee, to respond to the question i asked earlier (that you were the only one to respond to), i just can’t see that. it’d be political suicide for the party in power that made it happen. but as netbanker correctly points out, it does get people riled up. that’s for sure.

By GoodOne

January 9, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

There’s no way I will ever believe that someone who so vehemently opposes abortion could possibly be in support of the death penalty (or war, for that matter).

What is this, sarcasm at its finest?

Wait, I do see Pro-Lifers down at the state pen, protesting the latest executions, I do, I do.

By Jack

January 9, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

JBM. What about the murders of abortion doctors by zealots who are anti-abortion. You don’t think they are pro-capital punishment? You may not believe it but some of them are hypocrites. Big ones.

By RF

January 9, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jack. One thing I like about teaching is that it puts most of life in perspective. If you can keep a room full of hormone-riddled teens on task and engaged for an hour, anything is possible!

I’m with JBM—seems that those who so vehemently oppose abortion and call it murder ought not support the death penalty, but I know some who do!

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

Well, Blablabla, if the pro-lifers are using biblical teachings as their basis for moral standards, then they’ll know that in God’s eyes, a baby is no more innocent than a death-row inmate. The Bible says that all of us are born in sin and shaped in iniquity. Our righteousness is just filthy rags in his sight.

A life is a life.

What’s the difference between preventing the birth of an unborn baby and killing an adult?

Aren’t all sinners in God’s eyes?

By Renee

January 9, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

I agree, if you oppose killing, you can’t be selective with who is killed.

By Jack

January 9, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

“they’ll know that in God’s eyes, a baby is no more innocent than a death-row inmate.”

Don’t really agree with this one. (Tookie was a bit more sinful than a newborn)

By blablabla

January 9, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

jbm, i know i don’t take my cue on this issue from the bible, although i’m more pro-choice than pro-life, but i see a big difference between the unborn and an axe murderer. i don’t know what that says about the safety of my soul, but that’s just how i see it.

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Jack, to God, Tookie is no more sinful than you or I. There are no levels to sin, from cheating to killing a family of 12 - sin is sin.

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

JBM. What about the murders of abortion doctors by zealots who are anti-abortion. You don’t think they are pro-capital punishment? You may not believe it but some of them are hypocrites. Big ones.

You’re darned right that’s hypocritical.

By Renee

January 9, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Since we are on the Tookie subject, I would have been a whole lot more sympathetic, possibly even a die hard supporter, had he at the very least acknowledged his wrong doing and even apologized for it. The fact that he didn’t is what ultimately kept him on death row. He committed horrific crimes and writing childrens books does not make his victims come back, or help the families.

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Bla, anyone using logic would see a vast difference between the innocence of a baby and the innocence of a murderer.

But, the Bible makes several references to the sinful nature of mankind - and if sin is a part of the human nature, then humans are born sinners.

I guess that’s where I get confused. It seems to me that if a person, any person, is opposed to abortion for Biblical reasons, then he must also be opposed to all “murder” for those same Biblical reasons. Otherwise, he is putting himself in the position of determining (judging) whose life is worth living, and whose isn’t.

I guess what I’m saying is that you can’t pick and choose (as Renee just said) who you believe in killing. That’s hypocritical.

By Jack

January 9, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Yes. Before a lethal inhection, they sterilize the site, then put the inmate to sleep, and then give the lethal injection. He had the one store clerk lay down on his stomach and then shot him twice with a shot gun. He then made fun of the “gurgling” sounds his victim made. Tookie should have been gut shot with a 12 gauge.

By Archie

January 9, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

That last paragraph of Shanti’s commentary shows a lack of common sense because it doesn’t allow for the fact that not everyone agrees with her. If I have the choice of keeping my wife alive or losing an unborn child,well, the wife will be alive. If I am ever in a situation where I am not married and the woman’s life is in danger I make the decision to keep her alive versus the unborn child. Being liberal or being conservative is not as important as real life situations. I do like NetBanker’s 2:59 post and Diane is right on this topic. Yes laws that restrict abortions should contain health exceptions because it’s pretty much common sense.

By chuck

January 9, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

OH, I forgot about you Jack…surprisingly easy to do. The answer is that my wife and I talked about that before we got pregnant. Her answer was that she could not possibly live with herself knowing that she killed her OWN BABY to protect herself. You see the maternal instinct AND the paternal one as well is to put your own safety and well- being secondary to that of your children. Thankfully, it did not come to that, but unlike most we had a plan in place PRIOR to a situation arising.

The decision to kill a baby has haunted millions of women for 2 reasons. First, they knew it was inherently WRONG. Second, they knew with prior planning, there would have been no baby to kill. A moment of passion, a lifetime of guilt.

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

When it comes to the death penalty, as I’ve said before (and probably said on this blog), I am 99% opposed to it. I’m saving the other 1% for the God-forbidden event that a murderer comes near my family…

By Jack

January 9, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

You are a liar Chuck. And a hypocrite to boot.

By Renee

January 9, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Maybe I’m clueless, but what sense does it make to allow the mother to die????

By blablabla

January 9, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

jbm,

i can agree to the logic of your statement under the premise that someone opposes abortion for biblical reasons. if i ascribe to your interpretation of the bible (which i’m not sure that i do), i would agree with you 100% that life is life and sin is sin and all who live sin, so nobody is more deserving of life than somebody else. i don’t know if i agree with that or not, i’ll have to think more about it, but i understand where you’re coming from and your statement makes sense from a consistency standpoint.

By blablabla

January 9, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

or said another way, jbm, i think if i agreed with your interpretation of the bible, i would agree with you. since i’m not sure i agree with how you read the bible, i view the issue a little differently. perhaps that explanation will make more sense to you than my immediately-prior post.

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

I understand what you mean, Bla, and frankly, I’m not sure if I ascribe to that interpretation either. LOL! I guess I’m trying to understand how people who use the Bible as their reason for being anti-abortion could also support the death penalty (and perhaps, the murder of abortion doctors).

By lozen

January 9, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

JBM, My beliefs are different from yours, but I think it’s great you are consistent in your religious beliefs, unlike Chuck and others like him.

The decision to go to a foreign country and kill women, children, old peope has haunted millions of men. Post traumatic syndrome is a problem with veterans of the Vietnam war, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They knew it was inherently WRONG. Second, they knew with a different administration, there would have been no war requiring them to kill women and children. A moment of passion, a lifetime of guilt.

The word “abortion” isn’t even in the bible chuck. So you switched tactics because you know it isn’t there. You ignore points in every debate that show how irrational your thinking is. Religious zealots just do not make any sense ever. When did you have the time to listen to millions of women chuck? I’ve known many women who had abortions who haven’t had one single haunted moment because they thought it through and knew there was nothing else they could do. Abortion is not a pleasant experience but then neither is giving the lethal injection on death row or pulling the trigger in a war. Are you saying they shouldn’t have gone to war chuck?
Religious zealots pick and choose sources of info to find people who will back up what they think. Deep down inside you know the big guy in the sky and his 2000 year old book of folk tales isn’t quite enough to convince people that you have a monopoly on truth, morals or anything else.

By lozen

January 9, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

In one of your posts chuckie you said liberals make you sick. Well, let me assure you, you little self appointed agents of god who want to dictate what my morals and actions and beliefs should be make me sick. And besides, you never make any sense.

By fran

January 9, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Whoa boys and girls, let’s bring the debate BACK to what the subject matter was about—-health exceptions for Teenagers (could be as young as 13 or 14) getting abortions in secret without their parents having any knowledge of it. I will tell you right off that I am a member of the NH House and helped pass the parental notification law. The NH law has a specific exemption for life of the mother situations—-so you can stop the horror stories of women dying for fetuses—-although some women DO choose to take the risk—I’ve known quite a few. As do some women chose to continue a pregnancy when told the child may or even will be “not perfect” in some way. What the debate is about is a health exception in a minor as it relates to a parent being notified. Please be aware that IF the NH law had an emergency health exception or EVEN an “open door drive a truck through it health exception”, the pro choicers would have just as vigourously fought it.
This is a parental rights issue as well as an issue of what is in the best health interest of a child. Who is doing this procedure? Are any of you aware that in NH abortion clinics are not licensed or even inspected by the state? And that nurses do abortions? Your child may not even have a doctor doing this surgical procedure. If a parent is not involved, who gives a complete medical history? Who determines if an appropriate facility is being used—especially in the case of an emergency health situation? If your child is in danger of some major potential health emergency, wouldn’t you want to make sure that there was a doctor there and a complete medical facility instead of a clinic? Who watches for complications? A 16 year old who starts severe bleeding in the middle of the night after a secret abortion, what does she do? Dial 911 so an ambulance with sirens screaming and lights glaring pull up to her house? And do they then tell her parents it is none of their business why they are there? Does the hospital when they send the $14,000 bill to the parents to pay tell them treated their daughter but it is none of their business what for? I helped organize the fight on NH’s law and I was present in the courtroom when it was argued. I think the majority of the justices made it clear that they thought the parental notification law should stand but questioned if an “EMERGENCY” health exception was needed. The number of possible emergency situations were not very clearly defined and when you look up what possible conditions could come up, most are after 20 weeks from the reading I have done. Since only first trimester abortions are done in NH, it is mostly a moot point. And as was pointed out in Shaunti’s side, current NH law already covers an emergency that is critical to time but not a life issue. It is called competing harms. And I can tell you that I would not question a DOCTOR in a hospital doing an abortion if he thought time was of the essence if he could not contact the parent. That is the purpose of the competing harms. Do you think if there is a terrible car accident and several teens are brought in that the Doc says “bring me only the ones who are dying and just park the others out in the hall until the parents are contacted”. Of course not, they do whatever is necessary to stabilize the patient. And gosh, if your child has a severe health reason that she must have an abortion as soon as possilbe, doesn’t that make it MORE important that a parent be notified. One of the questions Scalia asked was “you mean there isn’t even 30 seconds for a nurse to call a parent? I mean, would not some time be used to do lab work on blood type and so on?
The NH law is notification, not consent.
Minnesota has had a parental notification law in effect for more than a decade with no health exception at all. There have been no horror stories of dead teens or sterile teens or health damaged teens. Matter of fact there are six states that specifically require notification to the state if an abortion is done for an emergency health reason. In over 30,000 abortions there have been none reported. Years of abortions with no one reporting the need to be done under an emergency health exception. No doctor EVER charged with doing an improper abortion. Seems to me the abortion lobby is just at their usual hysteria of the slippery slope and that everything is going to overturn Roe v Wade rhetoric…. And by the way, IF the court does uphold the law but remand for an “EMERGENCY” health exception ruling, there are a heck of a lot of states with those drive the truck thru HEALTH exceptions who will then be able to narrow them…..that is what they fear….the debate coming back to health meaning PHYSICAL HEALTH in emergencies for teens and not including emotions, finances, inconvenience and so on.

By blablabla

January 9, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

personally, jbm, i don’t think there’s any rationale to explain why people would quote the bible on one hand to not kill somebody and then, on the other hand, go out and kill somebody, period. you’ll probably tie your brain in knots trying to figure that one out. lol. seems to me that people who behave in that fashion are choosing to adhere to the bible’s teachings on an inconsistent basis.

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

I completely agree, Bla. 100%.

Lozen, how can you agree or disagree with my beliefs when I haven’t stated them on this subject?

By Just Being Me

January 9, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Well, I guess now is as good a time as any to discuss where I stand.

For the record, Lozen, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. I am anti-death penalty, but pro-death penalty reform. I am not anti-war, but I’m not pro-Operation Iraqi Freedom. I am pro-Women’s rights, pro-Affirmative Action, pro-gay rights, and anti-grandparents rights.

By kimberly

January 9, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Fran, thanks for pointing out the importance of keeping it LEGAL for DOCTORS to perform these procedures in SAFE, licensed medical facilities. Why doesn’t NH license or inspect these facilities? Are hospitals licensed and inspected? Are veterinary clinics licensed and inspected? Why is a pregnant female needing a solution left out of THAT loop? Just curious.

By lozen

January 9, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

fran, “Your child may not even have a doctor doing this surgical procedure. If a parent is not involved, who gives a complete medical history?” First of all I believe parental notification is just one of the many ways pro-lifers are chipping away at women’s freedom to choose in this country. So you may be a pro-lifer (your comment about pro-choicers tends to make me believe you are) not telling the whole truth about your reasons. And then you tell us to quit the horror stories about women being sacrificed to fetuses but you give us horror stories about ambulances with sirens blasting and lights flashing arriving while your daughter is bleeding to death! Please. The people who would be effected here would be parents who have teenage daughters who find themselves pregnant but can’t go to their parents with the problem. If I have an open, loving, involved relationship with my teenage daughter there wouldn’t be a problem. She could come to me and tell me she was pregnant, we would sit down and discuss the situation, and together we would decide what was best for her and what she wanted to do. If she opted for abortion, I would be there with her every step of the way. There would be no problem! The parents who wouldn’t know are the ones who stick their heads in the sand and think their daughter will never have sex if they just tell her to say no and keep her legs together. If she can’t go to them for help when she finds that she’s pregnant, what good can they possibly be for her when she’s forced against her wishes to tell them she’s getting an abortion? Chip, chip, chip frans of the world but we do see what you are trying to do and why.

By lozen

January 9, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

JBM, you said once you’re a minister. I’m not a religious person at all. That’s why I believe we don’t believe the same things.

By Netbanker

January 9, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

Chuck….as a conservative why do you care about the millions of women who have suffered from their decision? Isn’t that part of the consequence of their personal action? Again I ask, what is the impact to your life if a woman who is not your wife or child has an abortion? If the answer is none, then can you explain to me why you would support legislating their ability not to have one?

By Boscoe

January 10, 2006 07:46 AM | Link to this

Netbanker, think about what happens in a society that allows the discarding of unwanted children. Where will it go from here? Society is already showing trends of discarding the disabled and handicapped under the guise of individual rights. What’s next then? euthanizing certain groups whose perspectives don’t meet those of the “great society”?

By Vincent

January 10, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

Good grief! To consider the health of the mother or not to consider the health, that is the question. Because we all know that the health of the mother really means nothing. So what if she dies during birth? Just as long as we get our cute little baby that we drown in a bathtub in Texas; or in a lake in South Carolina! Folks, abortion was legal and sanctioned in this country until the late 1890’s. And the ONLY reason why abortion was made legal was due to the AMA’s greed for money. The AMA had to get rid of mid wives. So, the campaign was this, “if abortion continues, soon the Irish Catholic immigrants will outnumber the Protestant natives that built the USA.” NOTHING about abortion laws pertained to the Bible. IT WAS ABOUT MONEY MONEY MONEY. How much longer is this country going to be so damn dumb?

PROTECT the living mother. And if you are against abortion, stop whining about it and go to an abortion clinic, sit next to a woman waiting in the lobby and agree to adopt her child, raise it and put it through school. And if you aren’t willing to do that to save a life, then shut the heck up.

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

I don’t think Chuck even sees the conflict in his earlier statement: “It’s not about what I believe, it’s about RIGHT and WRONG.”

In other words, it IS about what Chuck believes. Because he can’t even see that what HE believes is right is not the same as what others may believe, or that his personal beliefs don’t deserve to control others.

By Lyrazel

January 10, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

Fran, abortions are not $14,000. Not in NH and not in GA. (That cost must be emergency surgery + overnight stay+ aspirin therapy) The actual cost: First trimester procedures run about $450-800. Second trimester procedures cost $600-6000.

I do agree parents ought to be notified WHENEVER their children receiving any kind of medical treatment, regardless if the child is at school, church or the hospital. Parents however are A LITTLE LATE if Becky Thatcher is skipping school by having an abortion for her romp in the cave with Tom Sawyer. If birth control is not taught BY THE PARENTS (schools can teach all the health sciences they want PARENTS should stop pretending these children learn about sex by osmosis). Parental involvement should have happened YEARS earlier—especially with TOM!!! All these statements put blame on women. Wicked women evil women who have abortions without consent, or wicked evil slutty teenage girls. How fine that we have a scapegoat—which shows exactly what is wrong!!! Takes 2 to make 3—remember Fran? Where is notification of the boys parents that little Becky is requiring medical abortions because of their son TOM? Zip. Nothing. Tom goes blissfully through school, gets his Bass Fishing Scholarship and chalks one up for the Gipper.

But you know here in GA Fran, its not Tom the Teen who is knocking up Becky Thatcher. Its Tom the 30 year old neighbor—or Tom the 22 year old sophomore in college—in stats I have read most teen pregnancy happens with an ADULT (over 20) partner… Laws requiring abortion recipients requiring parental notifications are too late to stop the problem. After 18 no notification is necessary—and most 30 year old men who take their 16 year old girlfriends to get an abortion—know just putting AGE: 18 in the form keeps the law from his door for delinquency of a minor—

As I showed (18-25 year olds have the highest rates of abortions—not teens in middle school). They are white, probably in college, and in the height of nooky she is lost in dreamland because she is having so much fun and Tom in the hot of the heat quips You are on the pill right? Right Good condoms hurt She and Tom share a life-making experience with all of the mixed messages TV, Music and propaganda can influence—she wears her sexiest Victoria Secret—. She knows what to do sexually—but is ignorant of her body—like so many men and women just beginning sex but he has to learn the hard way 1+1=3.

Hopefully one day TOM will learn birth control starts with him—regardless how old he is and Becky wont need that abortion to fix this problem.

By Renee

January 10, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

Of course it is Brian!

By Jack

January 10, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

JBM. Your post of 4:31 sounds like something John Kerry would say. Affirmative action is nothing more than legalized discrimination.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

What an insult, Jack. I can’t stand Kerry. I’m not surprised you wouldn’t be for Affirmative Action, most whites aren’t; and some blacks aren’t either. And, I’d bet that if I were white, I’d be against it too. But, I think that there was a time that AA was highly necessary in order to level the playing field. Although things may be better now, and minorities may be a little closer to having equal opportunity, AA is still needed to some degree - admittedly not as much as it was needed in the 80’s and 90’s, but still needed.

By Renee

January 10, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Jack - although I am not personally a die hard fan of affirmative action, I do recognize it is the only way some people in our community have gotten the opportunities they have.

By E. Lewis

January 10, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

What about women who will travel abroad for an abortion? Why isn’t that scenario ever discussed? Is abortion only wrong if you can’t afford to travel to another country to get one or is this another case of passing a law that will only apply to the working people?

By Tim

January 10, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

There should be health exceptions… a woman should have the right to save her own life if that is what she CHOOSES

I like when Chuck is on here… gives me great entertainment… keep up the good work

By Jack

January 10, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Didn’t mean to insult but you appeared to flip/flop.

Hey Tim.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

We’re not supposed to be treated special because of the color of our skin but that is exactly what affirmative action does. It is hypcritical.

By Tim

January 10, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Hey Jack… as always good to see you on here too :)… God bless you for subbing for a 7th grade class… it takes a special person to be a teacher… it takes an angel to be a middle school teacher!

By Jack

January 10, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

I realized that day that teachers don’t make enough money. The apathy of parents is bad for teachers.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Flip flop on what?

I’m personally against abortion, but I strongly believe that each individual woman should have the right to choose.

I don’t support the death penalty as it currently is, but I might support it if there was some serious reform to prevent all the possible errors. To me, one innocent person executed, is one too many.

I’m not anti-war. I just don’t support this war we’re currently in with Iraq.

I believe women should have rights equal to men.

I believe minorities should have opportunities equal to those of whites.

I believe homosexuals should have the same exact rights as heterosexuals, here on earth. If God wants to do differently in Heaven, then so be it in His power to do so.

And, I think that whole grandparents’ rights thing is a joke.

Hopefully, that’s a bit clearer…

By chuck

January 10, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Lozen, I’m glad you…the athiest…have become an authority on what the Bible says or does not say about abortion. Here is a synopsis of what the Bible says about abortion. I’m POSITVE that you won’t read it, but there may be others who really want to know what the Christian position on abortion should be…the same as God’s position.

The Bible clearly affirms that human life is not the product of impersonal chance plus time. Man did not evolve from lower forms of life. God directly created man in His image, which means that we have the capability of rational thought, personality, and moral responsibility. Someone may argue that this is simply a matter of faith. I would say that it is a matter of reasonable faith. The view that something as complex as human life is the product of pure chance is a matter of unreasonable faith, because there is simply no evidence or other example of such complexity arising from random chance.

Also, even the most ardent evolutionist behaviorally affirms that human life is distinct from animal life. Imagine Mr. Evolutionist driving along when he encounters a squirrel in the road, still writhing from being hit by a car. He slams on his brakes, jumps out of his car, and frantically dials 911 on his cell phone. “I’d like to report an injured squirrel! If the paramedics get here quickly, they may be able to save him!� But, alas, they are too late! The man sits by the squirrel corpse, sobbing, until the mortuary arrives. He will never forget this tragic scene.

Ludicrous? Yes, but change the squirrel to a human baby and that scene would be truly horrific. Why? Because we all recognize that people are distinct from animals. The reason, according to the Bible, is that people are created in God’s image; animals are not.

The Bible clearly commands, “You shall not murder� (Exod. 20:13). As already mentioned, the Bible does not forbid all killing, such as in capital punishment by the government, national defense, or personal defense. But murder is forbidden. The Bible uses the phrase “innocent blood� about 20 times, and always condemns shedding innocent blood. God chastised the Jews for shedding innocent blood when they sacrificed their children to the idols of Canaan (Ps. 106:38). As John Piper argues, “Surely the blood of the unborn is as innocent as any blood that flows in the world� (Brothers, We are Not Professionals [Broadman & Holman], p;. 222).

Consider a few of the many biblical passages:

A. God superintends life in the womb (Ps. 139:13-16). David is affirming in poetic language that God superintended his formation in the womb (also, Job 10:8-12). The Bible repeatedly affirms that God’s providence governs everything from the weather (Ps. 148:8; Job 37:6-13), to animals’ food and behavior (Ps. 104:27-29; Job 38:39-41; Jonah 1:17; 2:10), to seemingly random events, such as the rolling of dice (Prov. 16:33). Surely if God governs these relatively minor things, then He also governs the formation of people in the womb. The Lord tells Moses, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?� (Exod. 4:11). So even birth defects, which science attributes to freak occurrences in nature, are under God’s direct superintendence for His sovereign purposes!

There are so-called bio-ethicists that are consistent in applying their evolutionary bias to human life, but their conclusions are horrifying! For example, James Watson, one of the discoverers of the double helix structure of DNA, suggested in 1973, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have� (cited by Francis Schaeffer & C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race [Revell], p. 73).

In 1978, Watson’s partner, Francis Crick, said, “… no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits its right to live� (ibid.). Peter Singer, who incongruously is professor of bio-ethics at Princeton, argues that if a child is born with hemophilia, to allow the parents to kill him so that they could replace him with a normally healthy child may be morally right (cited by Piper, ibid., p. 217, note 3)!

B. The Bible ordains the penalty of life for life when the life of an unborn child is taken (Exod. 21:22-25).

The earlier edition of the NASB had an unfortunate translation that slanted the reader toward one of two possible interpretations, but not to the best one. The updated edition has corrected the problem. The earlier edition read, “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him….� The translators added the word “further� and they interpreted the Hebrew, “her children come out,� as, “she has a miscarriage.� The implication would be that to kill the fetus is only punishable by a fine, nothing more.

The updated edition reads, “… so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury….� As the following verses (23-25) make clear, if there is an injury, then the offender must be penalized, life for life, eye for eye, etc. These are the same penalties as in offenses against adults (Lev. 24:20). The Hebrew verb translated “to depart� or “come out� (Exod. 21:22) refers to a live birth in 11 separate Old Testament passages. It never refers to a miscarriage, although in one text (Num. 12:12), it refers to a stillborn. There is another Hebrew verb that is used for miscarriage. So the most likely meaning of Exodus 21:22-25, based upon verb usage, as well as the Old Testament high regard for pre-natal life, is that the baby in the womb has as much value as an already-born person.

C. The Bible affirms the distinctiveness of individuals in the womb, thus showing that they are fully human.

We won’t take the time to look up each reference, but consider the following examples:

*Jacob and Esau were distinct individuals in the womb (Gen. 25:23; Rom. 9:11-12).

*Samson’s mother was not to drink wine, because her son was to be a Nazirite, who would abstain from alcohol (Judges 13:3-5).

*Jeremiah and Paul both acknowledged that God formed them in the womb and knew them by name (Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15). Isaiah 49:1, 5 affirms the same thing about Messiah.

*John the Baptist recognized Jesus while both were still in the womb (Luke 1:35-36, 39-44)! This is an amazing text! Elizabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Mary went to visit Elizabeth before John was born. Thus Elizabeth would have been in her last trimester, while Mary was in her first trimester. Yet John recognized Jesus in those early months of Mary’s pregnancy! I think that this is the strongest passage that a baby in the womb in the first trimester is a person created in God’s image. We are not free to take the life of such a child just because it is not convenient to have a baby!

We have seen that human life is unique in that God created us in His image. The Bible forbids us from shedding innocent blood. Pre-natal human life is fully human and thus precious to God.

As I mentioned, about 95 percent of all abortions are done for convenience. A girl gets pregnant through out-of-wedlock sex. Neither she nor her boyfriend are ready for the responsibility of being parents. It would be an economic hardship, or it may require interrupting her education. An abortion is a convenient way to dispose of the whole problem.

In Luke 18:15-17, people were bringing their babies to Jesus so that He could touch them. The disciples rebuked the parents. Jesus had better things to do than to bless babies! It was a great inconvenience! But Jesus rebuked the disciples and welcomed the children. The Greek word for infant in Luke 18:15 is the same word Luke uses for the infant in Elizabeth’s womb (1:41, 44). God shows His great love for us by calling us His children (1 John 3:1). Surely, we should have the same attitude as Jesus towards our children from the time of conception onwards!

But what about an “unwanted� child, whose birth would be an extreme hardship? What about a baby conceived by rape or incest? What about a deformed baby, who will suffer all his life and never be normal? Wouldn’t it be the lesser evil to abort these babies and spare them and the parents a life of hardship and pain?

The Bible is clear that in this fallen world, God ordains suffering for His wise and good purposes (Rom. 8:28). Sometimes we suffer as the consequences for our own sin (Heb. 12:3-11), which can include the hardships associated with having a baby out of wedlock. (Sometimes it may be wise for an unwed mother to give up her baby for adoption, but even that is a painful consequence of sin.) Sometimes we suffer on account of other people’s sins (Gen. 50:20). This would include the hardship of having a baby conceived through rape or incest. Sometimes we don’t know the reason that God permits suffering, except that He wants to display His grace and power through our weakness (2 Cor. 12:7-10).

To abort because having a child would cause emotional or economic duress is always wrong. To argue that it is better to kill a deformed child in the womb than to allow him to live is an affront to the thousands of people born with severe handicaps, but who live meaningful and productive lives. It is an affront to the many families that love and care for such children. On rare occasions, there may be the difficult dilemma of performing an abortion to spare the mother’s life. But even then, the goal should be to preserve the lives of both the mother and the child, if possible.

**it came from the following website if you want to go and read more.

http://www.defendingtruth.org/content.asp?content_id=62

By Renee

January 10, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

There’s that Christian love again!

By Renee

January 10, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

And, I think that whole grandparents’ rights thing is a joke.

I agree 100%

By markw

January 10, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

I am all for affirmative action. The playing field needs more leveling in my opinion. There was a long, long time when people of color were not allowed the chances, the education, the freedom of movement, the respect, that people-of-no-color had. I can see how it must be very hard for white men these days. They were top dogs for so long and they see that privilege being worn away by affirmative action, women’s rights, etc. Their world is definitely changing and they will fight it as hard as they can but then… they’ll be dead.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

Renee, I’d be willing to bet my right foot that a middle- or upper-class white woman started that whole grandparents’ rights mess.

What a waste of energy…

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Chuck, thank you for your long drawn out mythology lesson. Do you have a womb? No? Then shut it.

MY god says your sperm need to be controlled & it’s a sin to get any enjoyment out of your private parts.

lol I’d love to require all you males out there trying to force pregancies to work in a state daycare full time for a year, including weekends.

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

” This would include the hardship of having a baby conceived through rape or incest. Sometimes we don’t know the reason that God permits suffering, except that He wants to display His grace and power through our weakness”

THAT’s the kind of god you want to worship? You’re sick. And you’re sick to believe all that garbage.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

You being black I can understand your stance on legalized discrimination. What do you think about reparations?

Thanks for the sermon Chuck. You saved quite a few with that one.

By Renee

January 10, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

JBM - You’re probably right.

MY god says your sperm need to be controlled & it’s a sin to get any enjoyment out of your private parts.

Isn’t that a bit extreme??

By SayWhat?

January 10, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

We have seen that human life is unique in that God created us in His image

and here I thought it was Man created their gods in Man’s image. Silly me, thanks for clarifying.

By Tim

January 10, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

You saved quite a few with that one

lol @ Jack

By Jack

January 10, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

Whiley! XOXOXOX

By Renee

January 10, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

I think reparations in this day and age would be a joke. Had it happened when it was originally supposed to, it would have been made sense, both legally and morally. I know groups are continually fighting for reparations, but I think their efforts could be best used on something else.

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

jbm/renee:

what exactly are these grandparents rights of which you speak? i’m not really familiar with them. thx.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

Yes, chuck I have read the bible. That’s one reason why I’m not a christian. I’ve also seen how christians act as opposed to what they say; that’s another reason I’m not a christian. I believe people should use their brains and not just swallow a whole system of belief, whether it’s eastern christianity or western christianity, islam, judaism, any other, because that’s what their parents believed. I think fears need to be overcome instead of letting the church use it to shut down your brain and your questioning. What is faith? It seems to me to be, “I know this doesn’t make any sense but I’m going to believe it anyway no matter how crazy it may seem.” Fine. People need comfort in the face of death and other tragedy. But people don’t need to believe they have the one and only truth for everybody in the world. That closes down your mind and your ability to be rational. People don’t need to believe anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe is worthless. That leads to killing people to save their souls. People don’t need to believe they have the right to try to control other people with their beliefs. That leads to totalitarian government. You can twist things you find in the bible to prove anything in the world you want to. There is no place in the bible where abortion is called a sin. The word abortion is not in the bible. If it is so terrible, why is it not even mentioned by Yeshua? And if Yahweh thought it so terrible for people to sacrifice their children, why did he turn around then and sacrifice his one and only son? He could have just said, “Everything is forgiven and I lift the curse I put on humans back in the garden of Eden.” It doesn’t make any sense. It just does not make any sense.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

You saved quite a few with that one.

LOL, Jack!!!!

I don’t know much about the whole movement to get reparations, but from what I do know, I want no part of it. I have no interest in collecting a share of money from my white neighbor because her great-great-great-grandparents (whom she didn’t even know) owned my great-great-great-grandparents as slaves.

I don’t think it’ll ever be easy to rid ourselves of the thoughts that white people actually believed (and some still do) that black people were (are) inferior, thus treating us like property, worse than pets. But, somehow, I don’t think money is the fair way to right that wrong.

I know you don’t see it. But, ask any black executive in Corporate America… it’s not the same. It’s an every day challenge to be seen as an individual, not a color… to be regarded for your accomplishments, your education, your experience, not your skin tone.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Whiley is right Renee’. Sex is supposed to be for procreation only. ( But why did he make it feel so good?)

By Archie

January 10, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

JBM I concur with most of your 9:40 am post.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Agreed, Renee.

Blabla - I don’t know the particulars, but some states have grandparents’ rights similar to a non-custodial parent’s rights. They are entitled to visitation and in some cases the custodial parent(s) is (are) made to accommodate the grandparents for visitation. They can negotiate holidays, summer vacations, overnight stays, etc…

Again, I don’t know much about it. I remember seeing it on the news once or twice, and again on Dateline… and I think Lifetime made a couple of movies about it… lol. Try Google.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Hey Archie! Good to see ya! Glad we agree. How’s life in Columbia?

By Jack

January 10, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Lifetime = The “I hate man” network. LOL

By Boscoe

January 10, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Vincent where do you get your information? In 1871, abortion was considered a “foul, unprovoked murder” and unprofessional for physicians to perform. This was the stated opinion of the American Medical Association (AMA) According to the AMA, the physician’s role was comparable to a “good shepherd,” whose chief mission was to “do as much good as possible and as little evil as possible to the human family…” Abortionists were called “modern Herod’s” and “executioners … who were false to their profession,” who sought “not to save but to destroy,” according to the statement. “(W)e see in our midst a class of men, regardless of all principle, regardless of all honor, who daily destroy the fair fabric of God’s creation; who daily pull down what He has built up; who act in antagonism to that profession of which they claim to be members.” Abortionists were condemned and “every physician of the United States” was to “resort to every honorable and legal means in his power to crush out from among us the pest of society …” Discouraged from associating with abortionists, physicians were exhorted to “form themselves into a special police to watch, and to detect, and bring to justice these characters. They should shrink with horror from all intercourse with them, professionally or otherwise.” The statement continued: “(I)n the opinion of this convention, it will be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor, without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child - if that be possible.” Vincent rather than making those who are against abortion adopt and raise this child why don’t you actually make the parents responsible for raising that child? Aren’t they responsible for that child being there anyway?

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

LOL Jack! Just because most of the men portrayed on Lifetime are rapists, sadists, pedophiles, perverts, abusers, molestors, arsonists, and/or cheaters doesn’t mean it’s the “I hate man” network, it’s just television for women!!!!

By amber

January 10, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

That long thing chuck posted said “God chastised the Jews for shedding innocent blood when they sacrificed their children to the idols of Canaan” But then he decided to sacrifice his son to save us from our sins? Wasn’t Jesus supposed to be perfect and sinless? Then wasn’t his blood innocent blood? And didn’t god cause all of that to happen? As Lozen said he, being all powerful, could have just lifted the curse of death that he had put on humanity. It really doesn’t make any sense.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

“Vincent rather than making those who are against abortion adopt and raise this child why don’t you actually make the parents responsible for raising that child? Aren’t they responsible for that child being there anyway?”

Boscoe. What about pregnancy as a result of rape or incest?

By Jack

January 10, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

JBM. You forgot to list stalkers. LOl

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

“MY god says your sperm need to be controlled & it’s a sin to get any enjoyment out of your private parts. Isn’t that a bit extreme??”

Not at all, MY God thinks forced pregnancy is a sin & should be punishable by years of unpaid daycare work.

MY God thinks anything or anyone turning sex into something bad & immoral should be banished to Pakastan, where that type of thought process is welcomed.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Darn. I knew I was forgetting something.

By SayWhatAgain?

January 10, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Since many Christians believe in the concept of Original Sin, that is we are all born as sinners, because of that foul female Eve(sarcasm), why would a fetus be less sinful than a mass murderer?

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

That was my question, too, SayWhatAgain?.

By chuck

January 10, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

NetB, Yesterday you asked why a conservative would be Pro-Life rather than Pro-Abortion. Specifically you said:

Chuck…as far as I can tell you tend to identify as a conservative. So why wouldn’t you support pro-choice? Aren’t conservatives for smaller government regulation of personal decisions? What exactly is the consequence to you personally if someone terminates a pregnancy? The likely personal consequence to you of forcing the person to have the baby would be increased taxes to pay for them. Increased taxes or the use of tax dollars for social support programs are also no-no’s in the conservative platform. It seems to me that the true conservative position should be to allow abortions for those who want one since they don’t have a single negative impact to society as a whole, but forced pregnancy has myriad implications for society as a whole. That pushes one’s personal responsibility onto society which is definitely not an acceptable proposition to conservatives.

First, You as an esteemed international financier, should know that the economic impact of an abortion is NEGATIVE not positive. Planned parenthood estimates a cost of between $12-$15,000 for welfare for babies born to teenagers. That may or may not be true, but let’s assume that it is. How much would that aborted baby have PAID in taxes as a productive adult? The estimate for that is over $50,000. The economic argument doesn’t wash.

What about the ECONOMIC/SOCIAL consequences? Why do you think we have a problem with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION? It is due in large part to abortion. Over 40,000,000 babies have been killed since 1973. Do you think that we would have as many jobs for those aliens to perform if those babies had been born? From a purely practical standpoint, many of these babies would have been born into poor families, that is true, and traditionally the “worker class” or lower tier jobs would have been performed by many of those babies as they grew into adulthood. They have been replaced by folks entering the U.S. illegally from Mexico and points south. While those illegals currently contribute to the economy, the level would be much higher if those were AMERICAN born workers for a couple of reasons. First, they would not use up resorces to the same extent (ESOL teachers, reading materials in spanish in government offices, translators on police departments and in the court system, etc.). Second, The money earned in those jobs by American born workers would STAY IN AMERICA, rather than going to families in Mexico, Guatemala, etc.

As you can see our TRADITIONS AND CULTURE are threatened by abortion. That would definitely fly against traditional conservative ideals.

There is another aspect that you missed entirely. While it is true that I am a conservative, I am first and foremost a Christian. If an issue being pushed by conservatives, liberals, libertarians or communists is in conflict with Scripture, I’m going to support Scripture EVERY time. I have been perfectly consistent on that score.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, typical response to Vincent. “I’m not responsible for raising your child. You’re responsible for raising that kid! But we must not give you the responsibility for making the decision whether to have the kid or not. You gotta have it whether you want it or not. And I will pressure the guvment till they take away your responsibility to make that decision. That’s the guv’ments responsibility!”

By Jack

January 10, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

I don’t buy into the thought that all sins are equal. Me thinking of doing the nasty with the lady next door is a sin but I don’t think it equals doing the lady next door. Would that be the same as killing several people in cold blood? Don’t think so.

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Why is Lifetime the man hating channel? Pardon me, but aren’t most all the shows on tv and movies based on rapists, sadists, pedophiles, perverts, abusers, molestors, arsonists, and/or cheaters ?

What series could ever be based on just crimes women commit? Of course, the Cops shows that feature crazy women are hilarious.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

I just call it that cause it seems like every movie is about a rapist, stalker etc. I did like the ending to “Sleeping with the Enemy” and I liked it when Jennifer Lopez beat the stuffing out of her ex in “Enough”

By Tim

January 10, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

I love Lifetime… they show the Golden Girls and Designing Women… good stuff!

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Actually, Whiley, Oxygen has a show called “Snapped” based on women who commit crimes, usually cold-blooded murder.

I hate Cops. It’s the Jerry Springer of primetime tv. I look at that show and am embarassed to be human.

Chuck, you said: Planned parenthood estimates a cost of between $12-$15,000 for welfare for babies born to teenagers. That may or may not be true, but let’s assume that it is. How much would that aborted baby have PAID in taxes as a productive adult? The estimate for that is over $50,000.

I’d be curious to know what percentage of “welfare babies born to teenagers” actually become productive adults paying approximately $50,000 in taxes over their lifetime.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

The ending of “Enough” was the best ending next to Primal Fear.

Tim, you would like Golden Girls and Designing Women! LOL!

By kimberly

January 10, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Soooo…. Chuck. Let me see if I understand your position: You want Americans to stop having abortions so there will be more Americans working the drive-thrus and doing landscape maintenance? Is the existing permanent socio-economic underclass not sufficiently large for your taste? (Many decent-paying jobs are being outsourced, and more and more educated Americans are working at Wal Mart and other part-time jobs to make ends meet.) Hmmm…

Also, question: If an unwanted child is brought forth into a slum or a trailer park with bad schools, lots o’ drugs, and no role models, and subsequently winds up doing life in prison at the age of 20, then um… HOW MUCH will he pay in taxes over his lifetime? Not good with math; maybe you can help me out on that one.

By Tim

January 10, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

JBM… got two season of The Golden Girls on DVD for Christmas (they dont have any seasons of Designing Women on DVD yet) ;)

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Jack, women are interested in those kinds of stories becuase most of us have been in those situations or finding themselves currently, or know someone living it now. To see it in that way has helped us as a society talk about it, deal with it better, not just hush hush everything. It’s a crazy world & it’s about time we stop acting like it’s not. Now, when I start watching & relating to the “Golden Girls”, THEN i’ll really be concerned. lol

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

~shaking my head @ you Tim~ LOL

By chuck

January 10, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Lozen, You asked why God would sacrifice His own Son after condemning the Jews for essentially doing the same thing. Your premise is wrong. The reason it doesn’t make sense to you is that you don’t know how to study Scripture.

You may have noticed, if you were not so adamantly bigoted against Christianity, that God didn’t put Jesus to death, MAN did. There were 2 things that COULD HAVE HAPPENED WHEN CHRIST CAME TO EARTH. One of these is what DID happen…Christ died for our sins. The other is that mankind could have recognized Him as God in the flesh, repented of their sins, and changed their ways.

Since God is omniscient, He knew that would not happen and allowed the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus CHOSE the path that led to Calvary because of His love for us.

You also left out a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between what the Jews did and were punished for and what Christ did on the cross. The Jews sacrificed their children to an IDOL, a FALSE god. What Jesus did, was that He made the choice to take what would have been the PENALTY I SHOULD HAVE SUFFERED…DEATH…upon Himself. That is the ultimate act of LOVE…to lay down YOUR life that another might live.

I hope that clears it up for you.

By Renee

January 10, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

OMG JBM - Primal Fear was the best!!

Tim - I’m with you. I love the Golden Girls and used to be a huge fan of Designing Women.

By Tim

January 10, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Whiley… don’t knock relating to the Golden Girls… I think Blanche Elizabeth Hollingsworth Devereaux and I were separated at birth LOL ;)

lol @ JBM

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Hold on, did I hear that right? My womb should not be my own becuase the Govt needs more tax dollars??

lol religious nuts are so funny !

MY God says naked men should be shown on daytime television.

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

hehehe ! Tim ! Ok you must explain that one.

By Archie

January 10, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

JBM, things are good here in Columbia,but on the death penalty subject I was not sympathetic to Tookie Williams because his legacy is one of death,especially when you consider the numbers of black men killing each other weekly in every state as a byproduct of the gang he started. I agree with you that I would support the death penalty if errors could be eliminated. I probably won’t have too many comments on this abortion subject because the folk that are pro-choice have valid reasons and the anti-abortion people have valid reasons but the anti-abortion people are quite a bit intolerant. I mean as I remember the marriage vows it says put the spouse above everyone except God so I don’t know how I could let my wife pass on for the sake of an unborn child.

By Tim

January 10, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

MY God says naked men should be shown on daytime television

I like your god Whiley… reminds me of a song we used to sing in church… “That’s the kind of God that I serve”

By lozen

January 10, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Tim baby boy! I love Golden Girls and Designing Women too. And Will and Grace - that’s a funny, funny show. We all need a lot of laughs! Love ya, mom

By Renee

January 10, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

good point Archie

By TaxRebate

January 10, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

wasn’t there a big tax surplus in 2000? I seem to remember getting a check in the mail.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

Without the fig leaf?

By Tim

January 10, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Whiley… that woman had game!!! in her 60s and was still gettin plenty of play… I hope I can relate to that when I am in my 60s :)

lozen… hey ma! I got season 4 of Will and Grace for Christmas also… my step-dad was like “I looked and looked for season 2 and 3…” (I have season one) “but could only find season 4… I figured this would be your kind of show” LOL… I can just picture this 6’6” 270 lb construction worker walking around the store with dvds of the Golden Girls, Friends, an Will and Grace in his hands… that would have been something to see! :)

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Excellent point, Archie. I forgot how much I like you!

Hey Chuck, I don’t know what the world is coming to, but I agree with your 10:52a.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Renee, Primal Fear was by far the best suspense movie ending of all time… simply matchless!

By Jack

January 10, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

The book was better.

By Renee

January 10, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Yes it was, JBM! I thought I was the only one who liked that movie….we’re finding out we have toooooo much in common….lol

By Renee

January 10, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

I’m sure it was Jack. Thats one of the few movies I’ve seen where I didn’t read the book first. But in my experience, the book is ALWAYS better.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

chuck I study scripture without the belief that it’s all the divine word of some god just as I study the egyptian book of the dead without the belief it’s all funnelled thru some divine pipeline by the gods of egypt. I study scripture with my bias just as you study it with your bias. I do not believe the stories in the bible are literally true anymore than I believe Grimms’ fairy tales are true. You don’t believe in Zeus or Isis or Athena. I don’t believe in Yahweh. I believe man has created gods in his image (and devils too). And I guarantee you one thing Chuck, you will die. But you have fallen for a promise that’s pie in the sky in my opinion: If you do what Yahweh wants you to do you’ll have eternal life in heaven! But what if he does to you what he did to Moses and decides to punish you for your anger on one occasion and keeps you from seeing the promised land? Yahweh is just much to capricious and evil (killing everybody around for the slightest little infraction of the rules) for me to want anything to do with him. So dream on chuck, but leave me and all women alone to take responsibility for ourselves and our reproduction. That is none of your business and it’s none of Yahweh’s either.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Wow, Lozen.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Lozen is doing her exercise in futility. One, two, three, one. One, two, three, two….

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

All right Tim I’ll give Golden Girls a look. I’m afraid of getting old & not relating to the younger type shows anymore.

About this bible thing, it’s been proven that this planet is what, a billion + years old right? The BIBLE says only a few thousand right? It’s STUPID to believe the world was created in a week. Give me a break why are there so many people that believe this? I think when Christianity was created, people were asking a lot of questions, so somebody made a lot of this garbage up.
So, with that in mind, why would you force any female to give birth based on a silly religious myth?

By Jack

January 10, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Michael Vick’s little brother is BLOWING IT. Big Brother needs to talk/beat some sense into him.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

What made me feel old is when I went to the doctor and he was younger than me. I didn’t trust him. Young whipper-snapper!

By Renee

January 10, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

I know Jack! But I think Michael has talked to him before when he got in his first little bout of trouble. Everybody has to live and learn.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

His future money is flying out the window.

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Jack I know what you mean ! It’s everything I can do to not say outloud “What college are you attending?” and “Are your parents still together & is your father single honey?”

By lozen

January 10, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

JBM, would you care to elaborate on that WOW ;-)?

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

yeah, jack, and big brother mike is such a paragon of virtue. ha! va tech = thug central.

By Tim

January 10, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Jack… one time I heard a sports person making excuses for Marcus Vick… saying well it is probably hard for him having his older brother… and being thrown into this new life and getting sports cars… blah blah blah… I was like OMG cry me a river… and if that is the case… how did Eli Manning make it

By RF

January 10, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Jack- you’re not old until you’re older than the president! I’m at the point now where former students are showing up at my school as teachers. Now that makes one feel old!

JBM- the best ending was ‘Sleeping With the Enemy’ when she shot him and then picked up the phone and called the police. I remember yelling at the screen “shoot him, shoot the SOB!”

By Renee

January 10, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

RF - that was a good ending. She called 911 and said she needs the police because “I just killed an intruder” (before she killed him no less).

By RF

January 10, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Renee- after all the crap he pulled, I was glad to see her shoot him. Kinda wanted to see him suffer!That was a chick flick I really liked.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

I watched one on the “I hate men network” where Sally Fields was the Mom and Keifer Sutherland was the bad guy going after her daughter. She blew him away.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Hey, I had typed some other stuff earlier and I don’t see it… oh well.

RF, Sleeping With the Enemy was good. Lord knows Julia Roberts is my alllllllllll-time favorite actress (and Richard Gere & Sean Connery my favorite actors), but that ending can’t possibly top Primal Fear. With Primal Fear, you had no clue it was coming. Sleeping’s ending, though a good one, was predictable.

Lozen, my “wow” referred to the last couple of sentences of your 11:11. Just took me by surprise, I guess.

By Renee

January 10, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

yeah, he could be defined as crazy, lol.

By Vincent

January 10, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Boscoe:

Where do you get your information?

And as far as making the parent responsible for the unwanted pregnancy, tell that to an eleven year old girl who was raped and didn’t even know she was pregnant. Yes, I volunteered for The March of Dimes for ten years, this happens every day of the month. And tell that to a woman who found out during her pregnancy that taking that child to full term will kill her. You are such an arrogant above it all person.

But, I thought the point here was that all life is precious. How dare you turn it back to say that a raped eleven year old girl made a responsible decision to start a family. Not every pregnancy has your “Pollyanna” circumstances. So, instead of being so arrogant to turn it back, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and go to an abortion clinic and adopt that unborn child? I’ll tell you why you won’t. Because it requires effort and money. And so many anti-abortion people are all talk so long as they don’t have to make any actions.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

I liked Robert Dinero in “Taxi Driver”. You talkin to me?!!!

By Amen

January 10, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Yahweh is just much to capricious and evil (killing everybody around for the slightest little infraction of the rules) for me to want anything to do with him

Amen.

Ugly cultures create ugly gods. For some reason, the Asians/Buddhists missed all of that desert stuff.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Vincent. Chuck is just going to respond that God wanted those babies to be born or He wouldn’t have let conception occur.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

They didn’t miss the desert stuff. i usually get a serving of sherbert after my hibachi meal. LOL

By chuck

January 10, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

Here’s the thing Lozen, If I’m wrong (and of course I’m NOT)what have I lost? I live my life following Christ who taught me to love everybody, help those who need help, put others before myself. I will have lived a life of peace and joy. When people abuse me verbally as you and others have attempted to, I smile and “count it all joy”. If life doesn’t go my way here on earth I just do my best and trust God. No need to get all bent out of shape because what happens to me here won’t mean beans in Heaven.

If you are wrong, (and you ARE) what will YOU have lost? Life in Heaven with God, which you will have exchanged for an eternal life of torment.

Something to think about.

By chuck

January 10, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Vincent. God wanted those babies to be born or He wouldn’t have let conception occur.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

LOL@ Jack & Chuck.

And, oddly enough, once again I agree with Chuck’s 12:16. That’s twice in one day!

By Jack

January 10, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

A little humour:

Superman was flying around and was feeling pretty horny. He buzzed by Wonderwoman’s apt and looked in her window and saw her laying on the bed on her back. A quick thought came to him, “with my super powers, I could fly in the window, do it with Wonderwoman so fast that she won’t even know what happened and I won’t be horny for a while. He decided to do it. He flew in the window, jumped on Wonderwoman, did his thing and was gone. Wonderwoman yelled”What was that?” The invisible man rolled off of her and said,” I don’t know but my a$$ sure is hurting!”

By chuck

January 10, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

2 for 160 JBM, not bad!

By Amen

January 10, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Is there desert sand in that sherbert dessert? LOL

By lozen

January 10, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Amen, interesting theory from anthropology that the harsher the environment of a culture, the worse women are treated and the harsher their god. An example was the Apache out west whose women were beaten and virtual slaves to the men (for the most part) while east and west coast indians, in a lush environment, treated women very well. So part of the Jewish god folklore and their treatment of women may be from that wandering in a harsh desert so many years. If only they’d been led by a woman! She would have asked for directions and they would have been in the holy land in a few months!

By Amen

January 10, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Lozen - yes, I also believe it goes back to the harshness of the environment, as well as the inability to get along with your neighbors.(more of that we are RIGHT and you are WRONG stuff, wait, we hear that right here, in fact just did. LOL).

why the desert cultures have such a thing about religiously-needed ‘washing’, water being such a scarce commodity.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

chuck, that argument doesn’t mean beans to me. Is that the best you can do? If I have to choose between what seems like the truth to me or “have faith” that virgins can have babies that are really gods, a jewish carpenter who died thousands of years ago died to save me from my sins, god wants me to control everybody elses’ lives, sex is evil unless it’s done in one certain set of circumstances, gays are sinners and should have no civil rights, and the pompous assumption that I am right and everybody who isn’t following my rules is wrong and on their way to hell, well I choose truth. If I have to “just have faith” knowing that it doesn’t make any sense, believe fantasy is reality, and then have to associate with sanctimonious, closed minded, people like you in church - I’m happy to chance hell.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

ROFL @ Jack!!! Crass, but funny!

By chuck

January 10, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

The preaching of the CROSS is foolishness to those who are perishing.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

One, two, three, one. One,two, three, two. One, two, three, three……

By lozen

January 10, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

Hummmm Amen. The inability to get along with your neighbors! That is an excellent point. That’s such a big part of the history of Judaism and then the christians. And nobody ever asks, why? Why are Chuck, Boscoe, Zack, fundamentalist muslims, and others with their belief that only they are RIGHT so disliked? Hmmmm. You have given me something to think about.

By kimberly

January 10, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

Chuck sez: God wanted those babies to be born or He wouldn’t have let conception occur.

So, He wanted my best friend’s heart to break when her baby died in her womb on the due date? No baby was ever wanted nor loved as much as that one, Chuck. Why did God kill the baby, Chuck?

You make no sense.

By RF

January 10, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Good one Jack!

Chuck- I’m kinda like JBM here. I agree with some of your posts here lately (although I skim through the longer ones FYI). What’s your view on capital punishment?

By Tim

January 10, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Kimberly… or how about those numerous eggs who are actually fortunate enough to unite with a sperm… but somehow miss the uterine lining and end up getting flushed down the toilet?

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

“If I’m wrong (and of course I’m NOT)what have I lost?”

Of course you aren’t wrong, bible beaters are never wrong about anything. What have you lost? A lot of time, money, & stressing yourself out worrying about being damned or not. Don’t forget annoying a lot of other people with your speeches.

“I live my life following Christ who taught me to love everybody, help those who need help, put others before myself. I will have lived a life of peace and joy.”

So you have to be a church goer to be a decent person who can love others? How is forcing a woman to bear children helping others?

â€? If life doesn’t go my way here on earth I just do my best and trust God.”

You’re a bit too trusting to something that will turn on a dime & damn you for eternity.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

All this talk of dessert and eggs is getting me hungry!

By chuck

January 10, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

God didn’t kill the baby Kim. It died. I have a good friend who lost a baby during delivery about 6 weeks ago. The cord was double wrapped around his neck. I don’t understand it either. It’s heart-breaking. Being a Christian doesn’t exempt us from suffering. Go back and read the long post from earlier today.

I don’t understand quantum physics, but that doesn’t change quantum physics at all. I can do one of 3 things with that. If I truly want to understand quantum physics, I can study and learn as much as I can OR, I can just remain without knowledge of that subject and accept it, OR, I can sit around and whine that quantum physics is just too hard to understand and deny its existence.

If you want to understand why God allows stuff to happen, STUDY HIS WORD!!!! You may not get all of the answers you seek, but it’s better than not knowing Him at all.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

You prove my point chuck. By chuck January 10, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this The preaching of the CROSS is foolishness to those who are perishing.

You have nothing to fall back on in the end but fear. You know you don’t have a sane, rational argument so you try to control with fear. That’s the church’s way, chuck and it may work to control you but it doesn’t scare me one little bit. What scares me is people like you.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Someone once told me that if we were never sick, we couldn’t know that God is a healer.

I think it’s similar with being in mourning. You don’t really know God as a Comforter until you’ve been in mourning.

You don’t know Him as a Waymaker until you’ve needed Him to make a way for you.

You don’t know Him as a deliverer until you’ve needed Him to rescue you out of some things.

Likewise, you can’t know Him as the loving Son of God that He is until you’ve allowed Him to embrace you with His love.

As little as someone in mourning wants to hear this, it’s still true. You don’t truly appreciate the sunshine, until you’ve missed its warmth on a rainy day… or on a cold, dark night. Sometimes, God allows us to go through hard times just so that He can show us His strength.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Borrrrrrring! I’ll check back later. Nice to hear from Whiley AND Kimberly today. My lucky day! XOXOXOXO

By chuck

January 10, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I usually don’t respond to your posts because you seem to get really vitriolic when someone makes a point with which you disagree, but I want to at least respond to this statement that you made:

What have you lost? A lot of time, money, & stressing yourself out worrying about being damned or not. Don’t forget annoying a lot of other people with your speeches.

First, time well spent is not lost. I enjoy spending my time with people who believe like I do, who share the same interests, passions, and thirst for knowledge. I’ve lost NOTHING there.

Second, MONEY means very little to me. I work hard for what I make, but I grew up with nothing. If I leave here with nothing…so what? The amount I give is miniscule compared to the riches I have in Jesus Christ…not monetary riches per se, but rather the richness of a life well spent.

Third, I don’t stress at all about whether or not I am damned. I USED TO BEFORE I MET CHRIST, but not anymore. I’m 100% sure I’m going to heaven because I followed God’s map for getting there.

Finally, as for annoying others with my “little speeches”, surely even YOU can see the amount of enjoyment I get from these little excursions into BLOG world. I don’t control your emotions. If you choose to get bent out of shape over something I write, then you need to do a little self-examination. Why would you let the ramblings of a man you never met who means less than nothing to you, upset you? That really sounds like a personal problem to me.

As you can see, I have lost nothing and have gained more than I could possibly imagine through my relationship with Christ.

By chuck

January 10, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I didn’t know you had a point. I’m glad I could help you out.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

I like the Buddhist story of a woman who lost her only son and mourned for weeks. She could not stop crying and would not be comforted. Finally she went to the Buddha and asked if he would take her pain away. The Buddha told her if she would visit every house in her village and bring him the names of all those who mourned then he would take away her pain. In every house she visited there was mourning for a loved one taken by death, a son in this house, a mother in that one, a father, a daughter, a husband, a wife. She began to see that we all lose loved ones; we all feel pain and sorrow, we all mourn, this is life. She began to understand the great dance of life and death. She returned to the Buddha and thanked him for helping her with her pain.

By Denise

January 10, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Chuck is moronic.

By Denise

January 10, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Chunky needs to take his bible and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

He wants to go to Heaven so he is trying his best to save us. If he doesn’t make his quota, he won’t be able to go.

By FatMoose

January 10, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

Do you think understand god?

BC, you act as though you do, which is inane, yet refuse to learn more about what you believe is a Christian way thinking - yet is quite polar opposite from what actually is what Jesus teaches.

I suggest that you pray and reflect on your acts, and ask for enlightenment on whether they are based on your motivation/culture or god’s.

This topic, just as it was in college, is to multi-layered and is missing to much data (when/if a soul exists) to be answered by anyone - and be “right.”

The best result we can come up with is by using what we currently know {when a multiplying cell becomes a complete system of cells} and treat abortion for what it is; a currently necessary resort. And as a resort, it becomes the last of a line of efforts made to alleviate whatever situation has arisen. The person (mother) will have that decision to carry; not the rest of society.

But if more information is found that proves the unborn are an equal being; then thing will have to change. Therefore it should never be considered a “right,” but the current needed resort to protect everyone’s rights to the best of our knowledge.

Any other bickering is inane and useless agenda driven prattle.

By kimberly

January 10, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Your logic doesn’t follow, Chuck. If you say God is omnipotent (that’s in a song I used to sing in choir), and he WANTS all babies to be born that he LET be conceived, then it would follow that he’d send His angels to unwrap the cords from the necks of the babies who were trying to be born, and whose parents were trying to do His will and bring them into the world. But that’s not what happened. If He is omniscient (that means He knows everything), then He knows the baby is going to die during delivery. Therefore, he doesn’t want THAT baby to be born, yet he LET it be conceived.

Are you saying he WANTS women to be raped? He WANTS them to suffer violence and humiliation because He WANTS that seed to hit that egg at that time? And if that’s true, then doesn’t he WANT teenage girls and boys to sin in their parked cars and get knocked up and suffer the consequences of their “sin” because He WANTS those particular babies? And if so, then it’s not free will anymore, is it? He KNOWS they’re going to “sin” and WANTS them to, right?

The only way your point holds any water is if your point is that God AND Chuck want us all to suffer. Is that what He wants? (I’m fairly sure it’s what you want, but then I have been wrong before.)

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Chuck: In response to the initial arguments made about the logic underlying abortion options, you resorted to your old standby: the Bible As You See It.

Which is fine—for YOU. But surely you’re aware that matters of law, medicine, and policy affect people of all different belief systems? Why should your opinion—and that’s what it is, opinion—be the one to dictate what others can and cannot do?

Boscoe: I’m impressed that you went back to 1871 to find quotes condemning abortion. Did you find any condemning miscegenation while you were there—or allowing blacks and women to vote?

Boscoe, are you also aware that you’re running 100% dead-against your ally, Chuck, by using this tactic? HE wants us to condemn reproductive choice because the founder of Planned Parenthood (allegedly) had some crackpot notions that we should now recognize as silly… and SHE was active in the 1930s!

Old notions die out. You can either condemn an organization because of its long-dead founder, or you can dredge up tired old fire-and-brimstone speeches from the 19th century—but you can’t do both and expect to be taken seriously.

(By the way, Chuck: your info about Margaret Sanger is false, especially the quote about “more children from the fit, less from the unfit.” It’s propaganda cooked up by—surprise, surprise!—religious fanatics. Learn more—if you dare—at http://tinyurl.com/ckx9a.)

By Jack

January 10, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

We are all probably going to be surprised when we find out the real truth. And no matter who says they do, no one knows the real truth.

By Amen

January 10, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

he’d send His angels to unwrap the cords from the necks of the babies who were trying to be born

that is where the convenience of having the devil to blame comes into play. LOL

By chuck

January 10, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

RF, my view on capital punishment is this.

I believe that capital punishment is acceptable for a number of reasons and it is not inconsistent with my PRO-LIFE view.

First, capital punishment kills a rational adult who made the decision to take the life of another human being. Abortion takes the life of an innocent pre-born baby who has not made a decision to do anything, much less harm someone else.

Second, capital punishment is carried out on an adult who has had the benefit of due process, been found guilty by a jury of his/her peers, and who is receiving justice for his/her actions. Abortion takes the life of a baby who has done nothing wrong and whose only crime was existing. There has been no type of judicial review and the decision was probably made in the throes of an emotional crisis, embarassment, and fear.

Third, capital punishment is carried out by the state. Abortion is carried out by a private citizen who is collecting MONEY for killing a baby…who makes his living not SAVING lives but taking them.

I hate that we need capital punishment. I wish it was used more effectively as a deterrent by speeding up the process so that those who might consider violence against another human being would see the nearly immediate consequence of that action. I wish we could be 100% certain of guilt before carrying out the sentence, but that is not always possible. The justice system would work a lot better without the aclu and like organizations but they aren’t going away either.

The real inconsistency to me is in the pro-abortion camp. They want for the most part to save the guilty and kill the innocent. What a tragedy. Lozen, what about this case up in Vermont where the guy repeatedly raped a little girl over a 4 year period ( I think she’s 7 now). Do you think that guy deserves the death penalty? He got 60 days in jail. I would GLADLY accept the death penalty for killing him if that was my little girl. I can’t even imagine what that family is going through.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

.. I don’t stress at all about whether or not I am damned. I USED TO BEFORE I MET CHRIST, but not anymore. I’m 100% sure I’m going to heaven because I followed God’s map for getting there.
You wouldn’t have stressed about being damned before if you hadn’t been exposed to the horrible ideas of fundamentalist christians! Chuck your religion is based on fear. What other explanation could there be? You cling to a book of jewish folklore as if it were truth and you can find the rules for life in the 21st century there. You used to stress about being damned because you had been filled with fear. The very foundation of your life rests on the fear of being damned by a jealous, vengeful, punishing god. I think you lost a lot by making that bargain! Before you were old enough to even question it or defend yourself against it, your mind was filled with horrible stories of fire, devils, punishishment if you displeased god. It was a sin to enjoy your sexuality or allow yourself to ask questions about Yahweh as a naturally curious and sexual teenager. All of that hormonal and intellectual energy got jammed up in you because you were so afraid of going to hell. So you were terrified to ever look beyond the fantastical christian stories. You flirted with damnation and hell fire if you questioned that god who loved you so much he would damn you forever if you ask too many questions. Well, yeah, chuck in my opinion you’ve paid a terribly high price for your certainty that you’ll be in heaven.

By Denise

January 10, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

And just to get all of you throwing your tomatoes…

Jesus was a prophet. He had a lover named Mary and the holy grail is her womb.

I guess no one reads the Agnostics, since the Catholics decided that those books shouldn’t be included in the Bible. Whoever altered the Bible is going to hell anyway. I guess you’ll see them there Chuck, and you can ask them about the section on abortions.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Sounds like “The DaVinci Code”

By Denise

January 10, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

My father is a mason, and I heard the same and read the same before the Da Vinci code was a spark in Brown’s imagination.

My parents let me choose religion, and I have studied almost all…to include a few outlandish ones. I’ve been to almost every denomination of church (all except the ones invented since I made my choice), buddhist temples, my grandmother was a Shinto before she converted, my father brought his Jewish friend home with him to talk to my brother and I, read up on dryads, wiccans, satanists….better to know what you’re talking about before accusing any religion of anything.

By Denise

January 10, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

Cults of any religion are the most dangerous…including these “Christian” republican cults.

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Chuck: What innocents are the pro-choice crowd killing? Remember, your belief that a fetus is a person is simply your opinion, nothing more.

And as we’ve already asked: Why should your opinion, based on your specific interpretation of your holy book, be dictated to the rest of us as law?

By chuck

January 10, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, part of the power of BEING OMNIPOTENT, IS CHOOSING WHEN TO USE THAT POWER AND WHEN NOT TO. God is not only omnipotent, He is also Sovereign. That means that He rules and reigns. You clearly don’t understand the character of God or you would have framed your questions differently.

Yes God is OMNIPOTENT. That does not mean that He is going to intervene in EVERY human situation. A case can be made that God does expect us to suffer:

Romans 8:17-23

17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Future Glory 18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Romans 8:26

26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

1 Corinthians 4:12

12We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it;

Philippians 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

That said, nobody LIKES suffering, but it is part of life. Sometimes the suffering comes about because of our own sin, sometimes because of the sins of others and sometimes because of NON-SINFUL stupidity. God isn’t going to intervene every time we are about to stub our toe. Sometimes He is trying to teach us something THROUGH our suffering. For example, I lost my Dad last February to lung cancer. It was especially difficult for me because we were very close. A great friend of mine had been through the same thing just months before and I could not empathize with him at all. I was there for him but I had very little to say. When I went through it he was able to help me so much. He told me some of the things that I could expect to go through and then helped me through them. Since then I have been able to help others in the same situation.

God doesn’t want women to be raped OR for those teens to be in the backseat of the car. That does not mean that He is going to intervene unless He chooses to. THAT is omnipotence.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Such a fine line…I hate to see it go.

By RF

January 10, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Chuck- having to live with my sister’s murder (as yet unsolved after THREE years), I tend to support the death penalty. But, morally and spiritually I have an issue with it Now, here’s why I asked you that question. I too don’t like the idea of abortion (although I don’t think we can legislatively control it-and there will always be exceptions to any law regarding it). But, if I say abortion is wrong, as is any willful taking of life, then I have to also believe that killing a human being to be wrong, regardless of his crime. Who are we to ‘judge’ others? I have a real problem with the idea that while abortion is wrong ( and I agree that it is), capital punishment, decided by humans, is not. How do you justify capital punishment biblically? What about “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”? The woman was guilty in the eyes of the law, and yet Christ admonished the people for punishing her according to the law of the land. How does capital punishment fit into all that? I’m asking this because my views, after my sister’s death, have been conflicting, but I still can’t morally/spiritually justify it.

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

lol I think the religious nuts spend too much time memorizing lines from their little playbook.

RF, so sorry about your sister’s unsolved murder. That’s just awful ! To me the perp isn’t worth squat. I’ll pull the switch if you ever need it.

If life was so precious more would be done within the church to protect women & children. The LIVING women & children. But that would also mean staying out of our sex lives & wombs. Is that possible?

By Jack

January 10, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

RF. I believe in “eye for an eye” The way I view capital punishment is we can judge other humans while on this earth. God judges us when we leave here. Maybe I’ll go to hell for thinking this way. Hope not.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

chuck, how can you be so condescending to everyone? Simple. You are RIGHT. We are WRONG. We ask the wrong questions or we ask from the wrong viewpoint or from the wrong premise. I’m beginning to see what makes christians have a hard time getting along with their neighbors! Of course, you could just force your religion on us with the threat of death as your jewish and christian forefathers have always done.

By chuck

January 10, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Brian C

The answer to your question is found at this website:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/onlinebooks/lovethemboth/whycantwelovethemboth_11.asp

The fact is, the question is equally arguable from either a spiritual basis OR a biological one. The fact of the matter is that When the fertilized egg becomes a single cell, it is complete. It has EVERYTHING within it it that we call human. Its gender has been determined as has the color of its hair and eyes. The only thing necessary for continuance of this life is nutrition…and of course NOT KILLING IT. The cells begin dividing but it is not finished even at birth (only 91%). In fact cell division continues until adulthood. Under your abortionist reasoning, since life doesn’t begin at conception we should actually be able to kill a kid up to the age of adulthood. This cell doubling only occurs 45 times throughout life. Only 41 (or 91%) of those doublings occur by birth. The other 4 times occur AFTER birth. So again, under abortionist reasoning, a baby is not completely human until adulthood when ALL cell divisions have occurred. You can’t say that it is human when it is viable outside the womb, because that would mean you would have to be in favor of eliminating all but first trimester abortions (actually up to about 16 weeks. still less than halfway to birth)and we all know that there is WAY too much at stake for you to allow abortion rights to be “chipped away at”. It is an interesting dilemma for the pro-abortion crowd.

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

lozen,

you said yesterday that you believe parental notification is chipping away at the right of a woman to choose. i’m curious as to why you feel that way. the people for whom parental notification is an issue is for those that are minors, correct? so then are you really talking about a woman at that point, or are you talking about a child?

personally i see a difference between a 16 year old girl choosing to have an abortion from a 25 year old woman choosing to have an abortion. i’m much more ok with the latter than i am with the former (without parental notification), but i’m curious for your opinion as to why you see parental notification for minors as such a big deal, or how it chips away at women’s freedoms. thanks.

By Whliey

January 10, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

blabla, I know you didn’t ask me that question, but here’s what I believe. A female must have final say so over whether or not to bear a child or not. No matter what her age. The parental notification looks good on paper, but for the girl involved it more than likely isn’t in her best interest. We are talking about a teenager, not a child. I doubt any Dr. would perform an abortion on a 12 year old without a parent involved. A teenager who is forced to tell her parents could be in physical danger or risked being kicked out on the street, long term mental abuse. That’s probably more likely than not in most cases. A teenager who is forced to tell her parents could be in danger or public humiliation by the boyfriend or his parents. A teenager who is forced to tell her parents may decide for a back alley abortion instead.

By RF

January 10, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Whiley- thanks. I think I’ll feel differently if we ever get an arrest and a trial. I can only hope one day we get to see the face of the creature who did it. Part of me almost wishes I could see the creep in jail so I could write and remind him every day why he’s there!

I just find it confusing how one can be so vehemently opposed to abortion and yet support the death penalty. I’ve got friends who want abortion to be illegal but yet think it’s okay to kill an adult. Is it just me or is that hypocritical?

By lozen

January 10, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Blablabla, if you read my comments yesterday you will remember I said if I had a teenager who got pregnant, there would be no problem because I would be with her to answer her medical questions. I know from working in an emergency room that a 14 year old can’t be treated without parental permission; how is it possible for a 14 year old to have an abortion without parental permission? This is just another smokescreen like the law that just passed here in georgia that subjects all women seeking abortion to government propaganda and a wait. Does the georgia state gov’t have anything to tell me and other women about abortion? I don’t really think so. Alito has said in the past it would be better to slowly do away with abortion rights than to try to do it quickly. There are too many people in this country who believe in privacy, too many people who believe in a woman’s right to choose, too many people who believe the gov’t needs to stay out of our bedrooms and the doctors’ office and decisions between a patient and a doctor. The anti-choicers realized that and they’ve turned to a different strategy.

By Just Being Me

January 10, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

This is just more evidence that women should be gay.

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

whiley - i appreciate the response. isn’t there a difference between notifying the parent and getting parental consent to perform the abortion? do the parental notification laws currently contemplated include getting parental consent before performing the abortion? if they don’t, then i don’t see how notifying the parents prevents the girl from having control over whether or not she has the abortion or not.

and i understand we’re talking about a teenager in most of these circumstances, or at least i hope we are. i think back to my teen years (and since i’m still in my 20’s, that isn’t so far back in my mind), and i can assure you there were plenty of things i did that my parents didn’t know about. but whenever i got in trouble, my parents were there for me to offer support. don’t you think most parents would behave similarly?

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

lozen - thank you for the response.

i don’t really care about alito. and i remember how you said you’d handle your child’s pregnancy.

to play devil’s advocate for a minute, if parental permission is required to perform an abortion on an underage girl, then why do you oppose parental notification? seems to me you already have to notify the parent to begin with. what harm is done?

By lozen

January 10, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Whiley, feel free to jump in anytime ;- ). RF, I am so sorry about your sister and if it were me I would probably want to kill him. It’s natural to want revenge in a situation like that. But if we all went around (and not just our Prez) seeking revenge against anyone who wrongs us, we would be living in chaos. In my opinion, it is extremely hypocritical to rant against abortion (It’s murder!) and be all for capital punishment (Murder is okay if the state decides to murder someone!)

By Jack

January 10, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

No JBM! No, no,no.

By Amen

January 10, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

I guess some did not see the recent Law and Order SVU about the teenager who went to NYC for an abortion, since her Dad had kicked her older sister out of the house for either having sex or getting pregnant.

drawn from the News, I am sure.

By chuck

January 10, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

RF,

I am really sorry to hear about your sister’s death. That truly is a tragedy and it must be really difficult not knowing what happened…knowing that there is someone out there walking around who did this thing. You are in my prayers for sure.

These are some of the Biblical arguments supporting capital punishment:

Romans 13:1-5 Paul instructs Christians to submit themselves to the authority of the state, because “The authorities that exist have been established by God.” Referring to the authorities, Paul writes in Verse 4: “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” The reference to “sword” might be interpreted literally (to refer to capital punishment) or symbolically (to refer to the power of the state to punish wrongdoers).

Matthew 5:21-22: Jesus is recorded as saying: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” This passage discusses one person murdering — and even being angry with — another person. It does not appear to impact on the state execution of a convicted criminal. Presumably, Jesus approved of state executions, because he upheld the validity of the Mosaic law: not even one minor point was to be ignored. For example, he is recorded as having said in: Matthew 5:18-19: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Luke 16:17: “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”

Matthew 5:38-39: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” This might be interpreted as denying the right of the state to punish murder with execution. However, it seems to apply to the relationship between two people, rather than between the state and a convicted criminal. Matthew 26:51-52: “And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Jesus’ reproached one of his followers who had attacked a priest’s slave with a sword. Some have interpreted this as authorizing state execution of convicted murderers — those who kill others can be expected to be killed by the state in return. Others would point out that the incident in this case was aggravated assault, not murder. Jesus’ comment might merely be an observation that violence tends to create more violence.

I’m not sure that the New Testament makes a convincing case either way as to what the Christian’s position on capital punishment should be, but it certainly does not eliminate the Mosaic law on capital punishment. It also does NOT prohibit governments from carrying out capital punishment within its laws. We of course are to follow the laws of the government that is in authority over us as long as they don’t cause us to violate scripture. If we disobey a law that would cause us to violate scripture we would still be subject to the penalties of civil government for violating the law.

I think that it is clearly taught that WE should not execute capital punishment as Christians EXCEPT as part of the legal process (juries or judges imposing sentences, or doctors administering lethal injections and so forth). In other words, it is not for us to seek retribution for the loss of our loved ones. That is the reason we have government according to the previously quoted verses. As much as I would be tempted to take the law into my own hands, I would be in the wrong and would suffer the consequences for that.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Eye for an Eye. That child molester that got 60 days should be castrated with a rusty hacksaw blade and so should the judge who gave him that sentence.

By Amen

January 10, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

This is just more evidence that women should be gay

without the corresponding 12-kids? Where will the government get taxes and businesses get fast-food workers?

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

That child molester that got 60 days should be castrated with a rusty hacksaw blade and so should the judge who gave him that sentence.

jack, you sexist, you assume the judge is a man. how dare you!

By chuck

January 10, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

The “judge” is a “man”.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

If a teenage girl does not feel that she can go to her parents with her problem there must be a reason for her to feel that way. As Whiley stated, her parents could kick her out on the street, (many parents do that when teenagers break their rules), they could force her to continue the pregnancy, they could take her to some horrible church where she would be beaten and humiliated. It’s a difficult situation and there isn’t A law that can cover all the situations. If I were 14 and pregnant and knew my parents would tell me I’m a slut and a sinner and I’m going to hell, would I not find a family member or friend who would support me and go to the clinic with me? I believe I would. What do you think you’d do Bla?

By Jack

January 10, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Logic tells me that a woman judge would have used the hacksaw blade herself.

By Amen

January 10, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

The judge was shown on TV, he was definitely a MAN.

By amber

January 10, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Why am I not surprised that a male judge would give a child molester 60 days?

By lozen

January 10, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Well, I don’t get it. How could any judge give a convicted child molester 60 days? There must be something left out here.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

Chuck, since I’m not a christian I don’t have to follow what Paul says, Romans 13:1-5 Paul instructs Christians to submit themselves to the authority of the state, because “The authorities that exist have been established by God, right?

By Jack

January 10, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Chuck. We disagree on many things but I agree with you concerning capital punishment. (except lethal injection is a joke. They should fire ol’sparky up again.)

By Amen

January 10, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Lozen - a google search on “vermont child-molester 60-days” will get you tons of info. seems the judge no longer believes in ‘punishment’

By Dan

January 10, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

The real conundrum is drawing the line be it spiritual or logical. While there is certainly a line at birth, only extremists would suggest that right up until that time the mother has an option. That group would probably offset those that think contraception is wrong for denying the potential for a human. The viability outside the womb doesn’t really wash in as much as a full term child is no more capable of living on there own than a child early in the third trimester (by that logic drowning a full term handicapped child would be ok). Having said that, the entire argument rests along the the timeline between conception and birth. In RvW the justices acknowledge this and indeed acknowledge that the key question is not a mothers right vs a fetus/childs right but when in fact the viable. They specifically state that they did not know enough to objectively designate that time. Absent that knowledge they state their decision was a compromise based on the scientific medical knowledge and historical records of that time. They continue to say that due to their methodology the ruling is only viable in so far as those original assumptions remain unchanged. These are not my opionions but a quick overview of the actual opinion.
Now more subjective comments, it is a poorly constructed decision due precisely to the compromises made. Probably one of the reasons it is such a contentious issue is as much due to this fact as to the subject. Clearly there have been tremendous advances in medical technology since that time meaning the assumptions that framed the decision are obsolete and are likely in need of revision. Just like most people are not in favor of aborting 8.5 month babies nor are most in favor of complete abolition of abortion. I personally believe most people would like to see abortions decline. Despite claims of the mothers health etc. we are all well aware that the large majority are performed in lieu of birth control. That belies the the fact RvW is not at all about womens rights it is mostly about assigning a label that of a viable human being to an unborn child.
It is probably a decision that will always have ferverant people on both sides, but we can come closer to agreement by reviewing the facts rather than the rhetoric. I think many people would be quite surprised to find out what the ruling actually says if all there knowledge has come from the news media previously Go read it

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

lozen,

you and whiley are saying slightly different things. whiley said the girl/woman should have final say over the decision.

you said that no abortion operation can occur on a minor without parental consent, which is a much higher standard than simple notification. it would seem that current restrictions in place already contradict whiley’s wish that the girl/woman have final say, period, regardless of her age.

with that in mind, i asked the question, which you didn’t respond to: what harm is done from a parental notification law, since to actually have the abortion she needs parental consent anyway.

to answer your question, i have no idea what i’d do if i found out that i was 14 and pregnant. but getting guidance from a friend, a counselor, some other relative, or someone else i trust, would be the first step. but it sounds like if i were going to have an abortion, i have to confront my parents about it at some point anyway.

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Logic tells me that a woman judge would have used the hacksaw blade herself.

lol jack.

By Denise

January 10, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

For the record:

I believe a baby is a “person” when it can sustain life outside of the womb.

That would make it not a person until after 3 months of friggin cell division.

Chunky, wish those cult Christians like you were all ABORTED. What a free world we would live in.

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

Ok well what options will a young girl have, meaning TEEN ager have, if there is absolutely no way she wants to ever tell her parents or anybody else?

Here’s the slippery slope I see. Requiring females up till the age of 18 to inform parents? So a female already in college would need parental consent? Who will take care of all the 16 year olds that are booted out of their house after they were forced to tell? Who will care for the abused teens that are slapped around by their parents & called whore? Who will stay by her side when the boy involved deny everything & convinces everyone she sleeps around so much it’s not his (you know the drill we’ve all seen it). Let the teen decide. Now, anyone younger, probably need to inform the police that somebody had sex with a 12 year old.

By Denise

January 10, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

There’s also a big difference between a parasite that lives within a body and one that lives without. As long as that parasite is in my body, I have the right to choose to get it out.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Dan, I personally believe most people would like to see abortions decline. Abortions have declined.

Despite claims of the mothers health etc. we are all well aware that the large majority are performed in lieu of birth control. I am not sure this is true. I’ve seen an abortion performed; it didn’t look like it was very much fun for the women and I can’t imagine anybody going thru that over and over if they had BC available to them.

By lozen

January 10, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this Logic tells me that a woman judge would have used the hacksaw blade herself. lol jack.

Whiley, it’s a good thing Jack said it and not you or I. We would be manhaters if we said it.

By Jack

January 10, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Not true Lozen. Scum haters yes but not man haters.

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

lozen, if you look at the stats posted earlier by lyrazel, i believe nearly 50% of all abortions are given to women that have already had an abortion previously.

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

lol lozen, I’ve said nothing I’m behaving!

Although, I’m more of a sperm hater. Destroy that sperm & my sex life would improve immensely. Kill all those nasty buggas I say. (Jack you did say sperm didn’t you?, oh SCUM, ok)

By Whiley

January 10, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

“nearly 50% of all abortions are given to women that have already had an abortion previously. “

That tells me that there is a birth control & birth control awareness problem.

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

denise, you sound like a truly heart-warming person for wishing chuck had been aborted. thanks for bringing that kind of love and acceptance to the blog.

and amber, are you going to criticize denise for being so mean spirited, as you did me last week for the heinous offense of calling brian simple-minded? what was it you said… something to the effect of “these conservatives get all mean spirited when people don’t agree with them”. do you remember that? ha. oh, wait, you made a joke earlier in the blog where you’d wished they kept the baby and let shaunti die. sniff, sniff, is that the stench of hypocrisy i smell?

By Jack

January 10, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

That was a pretty nasty comment made toward Chuck. Glad Denise made that comment and not us or we would be called Christian Haters.

By blablabla

January 10, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

nope, no christian haters on this blog.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 08:02 AM | Link to this

NOOOOOOO, certainly no Christian haters on THIS blog.

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this

Chuck’s still confused, as immersion in a single book (even the Bible) tends to make one.

Chuck, you need to face facts. If abortion is permitted to save the life of the mother, it establishes a clear principle of precendence: the life of an actual human being is more valuable than that of a potential human being. Period. And you’re stuck with that, because on that point most Americans agree.

Once that’s established, all your arguments about how a fertilized zygote is “exactly the same as a human/person” go right down the toilet, where they belong. You can only resort to quoting your personal scripture—which, of course, only affects YOUR decisions affecting YOUR life.

In other words, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”

By Renee

January 11, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this

I had to leave early yesterday and missed all afternoon of the blog, and it seemed to be good yesterday afternoon.

First of all, on the Vermont child molester case, I guess I can speak on that since I live here and it’s been quite a hot topic. It’s unbelievable that this judge issued this punishment. It’s been all over the news (the few news stations they have here lol). The judge’s explanation is that the child molester would not be eligible to receive some sort of treatment in jail, which the judge feels like he needs. The judge also said it would not be in his (the molester’s) best interest to be locked up for a large amount of time (basically saying he would not be reformed). The governor spoke out against this. What is amazing to me is that in discussions at work , people actually condone the judges decision. There should be an uprising in the community in my opinion.

JBM - you know I’m not religious but I found your 12:59 post to be quite moving. Excellent explanation.

And, Chucks 1:51 post, excellent. Again, I’m not religious, so I don’t read the posted scriptures or sermons but that was an excellent post.

Okay, now I have given my kudos for the morning, which means I have nothing brilliant to say, lol.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this

The sad truth is, if wackos like Denise had her way, the American way of life would end in 1 generation. The best and brightest would be killed in the womb. American sovereignty would be given over to the U.N. The American credos of hard work and ingenuity would give way to “if it feels good, do it”. It wouldn’t be safe for a woman to walk down the streets because we would empty the prisons out and “rehabilitate” them. What a wonderful world it would be.

By Dan

January 11, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

Lozen I didn’t mean they opted to use abortion rather than BC. I meant the reasons for the abortion are essentially the same as BC. They simply did not want the child at that time for whatever reason and the pregnancy occured through bc failure or forgetfullness or whatever. In other words health issues were not a concern

By chuck

January 11, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

Brian, I think that a lab rat like yourself should understand the difference between SELF DEFENSE, AND MURDER. In the case of the mother’s LIFE, it is permissable to take a life in SELF-DEFENSE, thogh I have already stated my opinion on that subject I’ll reiterate. I don’t think that abortion is EVER the right answer. My wife and I made the decision before we ever got pregnant that if such an emergency happened during pregnancy, we would trust God and NOT have the abortion. If she died in childbirth, that would be better to her than living with the fact that she put her OWN LIFE ahead of that of her CHILD. I would gladly lay down my own life to save my child. I would even do it for the students that I teach.

Though that is OUR position, I would gladly accept a law that would outlaw all OTHER abortions, because less than 1/10 of 1 percent of all abortions involve anything like that AND I think that that exception is permissable under scripture.

Frankly, your post was not up to your usual level…but keep trying.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

Bless your heart Chuck.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

Would I lay down my life for my child. Definitely. But in a case where I might die during childbirth if I deliver full term, then I would do whatever it took to prevent that from happening.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Choose the mother. If Mom lives, she can have another baby. If Mom dies, the whole family suffers greatly. Especialy if there are other children already here.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Exactly Jack! Personally I thought it was a nobrainer but…

By Nikita

January 11, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Clearing up a few issues raised further back:

By E. Lewis

January 11, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

One who opposes abortion can’t claim to be pro-life and at the same time be pro-death penalty.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Nikita, good point, but I think (and my mind is cloudy today) that when Manson and the “family” were convicted the death penalty had been lifted at that time and was reinstated later. So I think that when it was reinstated, all that would have been eligible when it was not in effect, remained not eligible.

Personally, I think the death penalty is cruel. I don’t know if I favor it or not. Like I think if a heinous crime was committed on a member of my family or a close friend, I may be for it then. The flip side, is although I think the death penalty is cruel, that it is also administered a lot more humanely than the way the convicted killed their victim. I know it seems like a conflict in what I said, but it’s not.

By Chilao

January 11, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

The death penalty was not in place in California during the Manson era. good point, same state, but different laws at the time.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Nikita. The Manson family had been on death row but between then and now capital punishment was ruled unconstitutional so their sentences were commuted to life w/out parole. The left coast is just wonderful eh?

By Renee

January 11, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

E Lewis - up until yesterday I said the same thing. Chuck actually, in my opinion, presented a logical stance on it. I don’t agree with it, but it does make sense.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

I would love 10 minutes alone with the guy that kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. And the guy in Vermont that raped the 7 year old.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Yeah Jack I know. And they showed the guy here in Vermont on television while he was in court. He has this smug look on his face. Sickening.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

Nikita,

You didn’t actually clear anything up on either point.

First, the reason you think the argument was proven inadequate in “freshman philosophy class”, is because you think like a freshman. They come into class thinking, “Gosh this professor sounds so smart.” Ever wonder why about the only job you can get with a degree in philosophy is one TEACHING philosophy? Her’s a question for you: Wouldn’t NOT woshipping this “alternate god” or any god at all equate to worshipping a “false” god since you would be concentrating on things that are NOT GOD. You would be worshipping pleasure, or things, or your spouse or children, or your own life and NOT this alternate god. That being TRUE, worshipping Christ under those conditions would make you no worse off than not worshipping at all.

Second,Manson is not on death row because of the following. It is an excerpt from an article by the BBC.

After 22 weeks, the judge finally called on the defence to present their case. The defence responded: “Thank you, your Honour, the defense rests.” Atkins, Krenwinkel and Van Houten then yelled out that they wanted to testify that they planned and committed the murder themselves and that Manson had nothing to do with it.

Van Houten’s lawyer, Ronald Hughes, promptly made an official objection - it was to be last thing he said regarding the case. He disappeared a few days later and his body was found wedged between two boulders, the latest victim of the cult. Seven months after the trial began, on January 15th 1971, the jury began to deliberate and took nine days to find Manson, Krenwinkel, Atkins and Van Houten each guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

When the jury fixed the sentence as death, the accused women, who had shaved their heads, threatened to have them all killed.

The trial of the fourth Tate and LaBianca suspect, Charles “Tex” Watson was delayed because of extradition proceedings until later in the year, when he was also found guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

At a later date, Family members Robert Beausoleil, Charles Manson, Charles Watson, Bruce Davis and Steve Grogan were tried and convicted for the murders of Gary Hinman and Donald (Shorty) Shea, two other cult victims.

In 1972, the California Supreme Court abolished the death penalty in the state and all of the defendants are serving life sentences.

Clear it up for you?

By Chilao

January 11, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Jack’s right, I was wrong, thought it was overturned in 1972 and know the Tate murders in 1969 or so, so they were initially sentenced to death.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

BTW, here is the URL for the article. It is a very well done synopsis of the murder, the trial, and the continuation of the cult afterwards. I thought some of you might be interested in reading it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/charlesmanson.shtml

By lozen

January 11, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Bla, i asked the question, which you didn’t respond to: what harm is done from a parental notification law, since to actually have the abortion she needs parental consent. For one thing, the law simply isn’t needed. Why make such a law? What is the point of such a law?

By Whiley

January 11, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

“My wife and I made the decision before we ever got pregnant that if such an emergency happened during pregnancy, we would trust God and NOT have the abortion. If she died in childbirth, that would be better to her than living with the fact that she put her OWN LIFE ahead of that of her CHILD. “

That is, well, flippin INSANE ! Somebody please tell your wife this isn’t Pakistan, HER life is important. I believe if you just let her die, God would be shaking his/her head thinking, “idiots”. Your poor wife would rather die than go through a pregnancy that would kill her??? Who convinces people to think this way????!!!

By Jack

January 11, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

If you read the book “Helter Skelter’ written by the procecutor in the Manson case, it will tell you all you ever wanted to know about it. Very descriptive and chilling.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

Whiley, we are very aware this is not Pakistan, so why don’t you tell your husband…oops, sorry.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Condesending piece of dirt.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

It’s a joke Jack. Lighten up.

By Dan

January 11, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

There is almost no correlation between the death penalty and abortion debates. On one hand you have a debate on what to do with a person who has shunned the rules of society a committed some heinous crime. A serious discussion to be sure. The other is defining the beginning of life. At least in the death penalty cases there is a myriad of steps and failsafes to go through. In this discussion pro-choicers are trying to eliminate safeguards. Regardless of which side you fall on if pro death penalty folks are wrong you may have a few innocent people executed. If pro choicers are wrong there are many thousands of innocent victims. Seems the controls are misplaced

By Tim

January 11, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

Jack… I am ashamed… you should know the love of Christ when you see it

Whiley… obviously you don’t need a husband to make you worth something… but I would marry ya ;)

By chuck

January 11, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

See Whiley, if you can’t get a real man, Tim is available.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

I would too if I wasn’t already.

By RF

January 11, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Renee- death penalty is logical, and I can surely tell you that when it’s a member of your family, you definitely want maximum punishment. I did for a while, but after reading all the posts here lately, I’m wondering if I truly support the death penalty or just want revenge. I just can’t see, even after Chuck’s explanation (quite thorough, by the way Chuck) how one can be against abortion but allow killing in another instance. We’ve seen laws for it and against it, changing with the political climate of the times. Laws are as inconsitent as the humans who choose whether or not to enforce them and how much to punish offenders. IF laws were absolute and standardized, the fool in Vermont wouldn’t be on vacation in jail, and we wouldn’t keep changing laws on capital punishment.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

There you go. Jack’s there for you too.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

What makes you think Tim isn’t a real man??? Because he’s gay??? Puhleez don’t get me started on that this morning???

Please give us a definition of a real man Chuck.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

What makes Tim not a real man Chuck???????????

What is your definition of a real man, please enlighten us.

Very true RF!

By RF

January 11, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Chuck- not very Christian of you to put Whiley down. She may get snippy, but your comebacks are dripping with anger and very un-Christ like. That’s one of the reasons I left the Baptist church—too many double standards for me. If you want to share your ideas, be prepared for attack and don’t fight back that way. It destroys your witness.

Whiley- don’t let him get to you. He seems to enjoy it too much and only makes you look more reasonable for his foolishness.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

RF, you are exactly right. We live in an imperfect world. I don’t think that we are ever going to get it right. I know that if I was in your situation I would want revenge. I’m certain of that, BUT, I would also want justice. In life, people make choices, and those choices have consequences both good and bad. If the murderer showed remorse and asked for forgiveness from me and my family, I would be obligated to forgive him/her. How hard would that be? But even after forgiving him/her, I would still want the penalty to be carried out.

I don’t think that it is a sin to want revenge, it probably would be to carry out revenge yourself. I don’t think it would be a sin to want and PUSH for JUSTICE to be carried out after due process.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Whiley probably doesn’t have a problem getting “real” men. She is just picky. Why settle for hamburger when you can have steak. I believe Chuck’s wife settled for hamburger.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Chuck, stop being so mean-spirited. Geez. Don’t you live by a higher standard? Try to be more pleasant, even when people are being nasty to you (study RF, he’s good at that).

Nikita, I agree with Chuck on his 9:52. Your explanation doesn’t really prove anything about why the “I have nothing to lose” argument is false.

Frankly, I also agree that I have nothing to lose. My life has been nothing but blessed for having a friend like JC in my life. I haven’t lost out on a single thing. I don’t miss anything. My life is enriched, better, happier, more peaceful, and even more prosperous, since I met Him. Although there may be some parts of the Bible that aren’t easily understood with common knowledge and comprehension, I can never be convinced that God isn’t real. I know for a fact that He is. But if (and that “IF” is only for the sake of this discussion) in the end, there is no heaven and no hell, what have I lost?

Don’t give me philosophy. Tell me what I’ve lost.

By RF

January 11, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Renee- you go girl!! I’d love to hear his answer to that- but brace yourself for a long quote filled response!!—lol

By shannonfabulous

January 11, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Until we learn that using abortion as a form of “birth control” is just plain WRONG, we will continue to have this debate. Too many teenage girls are unwilling to be accountable to their own actions. So, instead, they have an abortion so they don’t have to tell mommy and daddy that their little girl has been having sex. It’s about being a grown up. If these girls (and young women) think they are “adult” enough to have sex, they they are adult enough to take responsibility for their actions. What a word…RESPONSIBILITY! No one takes responsibility for their own actions anymore. You reap what you sow, folks. THAT is what it really comes down to. Thanks Shaunti, for being a responsible woman and teaching us to be accountalbe for our own actions like you were during childbirth!

By Jack

January 11, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Shanti is such a pillar of the community.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Let’s see, RF, DOUBLE STANDARD?

flippin INSANE

tell your wife this isn’t Pakistan

“idiots�.

Your poor wife

I make one little wisecrack that was clearly a harmless joke and I’m picking on poor Whiley. These are quotes from just one of her posts. Go back and look at her previous posts.

IT’S A JOKE!!!

Lighten UP!!

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Chuck- not very Christian of you to put Whiley down. She may get snippy, but your comebacks are dripping with anger and very un-Christ like. That’s one of the reasons I left the Baptist church—too many double standards for me. If you want to share your ideas, be prepared for attack and don’t fight back that way. It destroys your witness.

Whiley- don’t let him get to you. He seems to enjoy it too much and only makes you look more reasonable for his foolishness.

Worth repeating.

By RF

January 11, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Chuck- I agree with you up to a point. I think it’s sinful to harbor the desire for revenge in my heart, as sinful as it would be to carry it out. I think that sin is sin in thought OR deed. That desire for revenge would also be physically damaging to me. I do want justice, but look at how many times we, as a society, have changed our collective mind about what the limit of justice is. I just can’t see how God would justify me wanting to see that person killed and call it ‘justice’. I think we use that word to excuse a lot of revenge.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Chuck. In your 8:39 post you refered to Brian as a lab rat. That wasn’t very nice.

By Kwadjo Boaitey

January 11, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

In refuting columnist Shaunti Feldhahn’s assertion that “health exceptions should not be allowed in laws that restrict abortion (AJC-Woman to Woman, 1/8/06),” columnist Diane Glass neglected to give the reader an accurate depiction of Christian Science.

I am a Christian Scientist who Glass correctly identifies as relying on spiritual treatment through prayer for my health care needs. I would characterize my faith in the healing practice of Christian Science as a gentle and progressive unfoldment. For me, faith is not merely belief but understanding, based on my study and application of the spiritual laws found in the Bible and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy.

It is true that many who practice Christian Science, naturally turn to prayer for themselves and their children. That choice is based on the success they have had with prayer-based healing. Nothing in our church doctrine or teachings infringes upon one’s freedom to choose medical care. However, the choice of Christian Science treatment is the result of an individual’s reasonable and responsible life practice.

It is disconcerting to me that Glass included the practice of Christian Science and legal accommodations in our laws that support this practice in this discussion of ‘health exceptions and abortion’ solely because they are religious-based. Religious accommodations are for the benefit of all, because they give each of us the choice of seeking the best health care possible to meet our needs.

By Whiley

January 11, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

See Whiley, if you can’t get a real man, Tim is available.

EWWW lala come to momma honey !

(RF, thank you :) (Jack, YEA THANK YOU !) I eat steak whenever it’s fresh & available. Haven’t had a burger since, I believe it was 1990. LOL

“If these girls (and young women) think they are “adultâ€? enough to have sex, they they are adult enough to take responsibility for their actions. What a word…RESPONSIBILITY!”

Aren’t you trying to say, PUNISH THOSE LITTLE WHORE’S for having sex ! Doesn’t matter that they don’t have any money, health insurance, baby’s father around, parental support, physical or mental strength to carry a pregnancy. Or just the fact they don’t want to gestate anything.

By lozen

January 11, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Jeez shannonfabulous, sounds like you were never a teenage girl! I was and I sure didn’t think too much about the future or the consequences of my actions. That’s just the way teenagers are for the most part. They aren’t adults yet and they don’t think like adults yet and to expect teens to act like adults is kind of crazy. When they make mistakes in judgement, I think it’s just normal behavior and part of growing up and learning to be an adult. I think we should be helping them instead of judging them as adults. Are you Chuck’s wife by any chance? I hope you don’t have any teenagers in your house.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Whiley doesn’t purport to be a representative of Christ.

By RF

January 11, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Chuck- you sound like my 8 yr.old- “he did it first!!”. I know what she said. I read every word. But your ‘joke’ wasn’t very funny nor do I think it was meant entirely in fun. Remember the power and witness of our words. They speak sometimes more than we intend. You generally rise above it all very well and it just doesn’t seem very Christian when you make cracks like that. Just an observation, not a condemnation of you. I’ve been quite impressed with your speed and accuracy in the Bible dude.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

You are definitely right about the ill effects of harboring that revenge in your heart. It would just eat away at you. That’s one reason I think justice for victims of crime is so important. It is the act of society recognizing your loss and doing the only thing it can do to make it right. I don’t think that it is revenge when the STATE carries it out. Though it isn’t always, the justice sytem is supposed to be passionless. It is supposed to be unbiased. That is not always the case, but it should be.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Chuck, your comment towards Tim was EXTREMELY meanspirited, and he hasn’t made any direct meanspirited comments towards you.

By Whiley

January 11, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Chuck, you mean you weren’t serious? I thought you were. see, I am getting old. lol

By shannonfabulous

January 11, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Whiley, You forget that there are thousands of couples out there that cannot have babies that would love to adopt a child. How sad that we so often forget that there are other options to abortion…

By RF

January 11, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Whiley- I teach the products of the very homes you describe, and believe me it ain’t pretty when children like that grow up. And I’ve seen a few of my students end up parents. As much as I don’t personally like abortion, I’m not sure our world is going to be able to survive with the numbers of unwanted, unloved, babies of children we have now. I know one who recently had an abortion and I have to admit in her case it was the best option.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Jack…the lab rat comment was not a put down. Brian works in a laboratory.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Serious or not, that stuff doesn’t represent Christ well. PERIOD.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Shannonfabulous - there are millions of babies out there that thousands of couples aren’t adopting or anybody is adopting. Even if every couple did adopt the need for adoption definitely outweighs the actual act.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

OK. Sorry.

By lozen

January 11, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

JBM, there is a vast difference between you and chuck. You do not want to dictate to others who don’t share your beliefs. You seem to be compassionate toward others. You aren’t always putting others down and telling them they are thinking the wrong thing or not asking the right question or not good enough under their rules and regs (usually from the old testament). If believing in JC makes you feel good, what the heck! Kurt Vonnegut said, “Believe in the FOMA that make you brave and true!” What is FOMA? Whatever you want it to be. I just hope your FOMA is not fear and the old testament mentality. Christians who really follow the teachings of Yeshua are rare and brave; christians like chuck just want to use the rules and regs to whip everybody into shape as they see it.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

No problem Jack. It’s all good.

By Tim

January 11, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

Whiley… ;)… if I were single… anytime darlin!!! I like’s me a strong woman!!! :)

Renee… don’t worry about Chuck… he puts me down because he is so insecure about himself… I like the fact that have the looks, personality, and brain to get a man or woman… and also… if a real man is someone who would let his wife die then I wouldn’t want to be a real man… I would want to protect my wife from any and all danger… but hey maybe that’s cus I am gay (actually no it couldn’t be… because Jack is certianly a ‘real’ man… and I am fairly certain he would do anything he could to protect his wife from harm)

Chuck… the reason why people point out when you say mean spirited things is because you are supposed to be a Christian… aren’t you supposed to try and live by a higher standard?… instead you say ‘well she did it so I can do it too’

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Okay, so working in a lab, makes him a lab rat…. okay.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Like hanging out in a gym makes you angym rat. It’s a guy thing JBM.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

Well I got your back Tim ;) You know I can’t let a comment like that fly by.

By Tim

January 11, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

I appreciate it Renee :)

By shannonfabulous

January 11, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

That is because it’s too hard AND to expensive to adopt in the US. That is why couple go outside the US. Maybe if we made it easier, we would have more couples adopting within our own country.

By RF

January 11, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Chuck- that’s the problem with human justice; it’s almost always biased- by the ideas of judges, the persuasive powers of high-priced attorneys, and the whims of the times socially. Imperfect humans juding the fate of other imperfect humans. We’ve waffled on the death penalty so much in the last fifty years that I’m beginning to wonder if that isn’t telling us something about our definition of justice. It changes, so Manson gets life and others gets the needle. Interesting…

By Jack

January 11, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

It is difficult to adopt in this country because of the number of animals who abuse their children have to be weeded out. Too often adopted children are handed to those who abuse.

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Well, Chuck, I’ll make one more try at clearing up your confusion.

First of all, are you serious about “permitting” rare cases of abortion because they’re consistent with scripture (or rather, your reading of it)? You haven’t addressed the core problem with that perspective, namely, that your religion has no control over the rest of us. In a secular government, it CAN’T. Your religious views may determine what YOU do… but why on earth should they have any influence on what the rest of us do? Could you try to answer that, please?

As for the “self-defense” argument: I’ll admit it’s original. I’ve never heard a pro-life zealot portray a fetus as an assassin before. Interesting concept, though. Fetus: The Silent Killer. Could make for a good horror movie.

So you’re suggesting, on the one hand, that the death penalty is OK because it’s used on murderers… and yet you’re also saying that abortion could be used the same way? That the fetus is an attempted murderer and deserves death? Veeerrrry interesting.

Most folks would believe that, if a fetus has any legal status whatsoever, it would be that of involuntary/accidental manslaughter… for which the penalty is much less than death. After all, the death penalty IS reserved for conscious and deliberate acts of first-degree murder: how does a fetus qualify?

You get stuck in that sort of trap because, of course, the fetus HAS no legal status. It’s not comparable to a murderer, and the life-and-health risk scenario is not “self-defense” at all. Rather, it’s simply a medical decision made for the patient’s well-being. And the patient is the woman, not the fetus. If you can save both, fine; but the woman’s health is the paramount concern, as both law and medicine agree.

You’re free to set other priorities based on your religious views—but you haven’t made Point One about why the rest of society should be affected, much less bound, by your opinions in this area.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I have three words for you, and I mean them from the bottom of my heart. I hope you receive them in the spirit in which they are intended:

KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE.

By lozen

January 11, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Nikita, I’ve never had a philosophy intro class but I agree with you. Noone can prove they’re worshipping the “Right” god. Noone can prove there is a god. Noone can prove there isn’t a god. When the eastern and western church split, how do western christians know the Right god didn’t go with the eastern christians? No way to know. How do we know the Greeks weren’t worshipping the Right gods? How do we know the muslims are wrong and the catholics are right? How do catholics know Allah isn’t going to punish them when they die because they didn’t worship him? We don’t. As humanity grows (hopefully) we change gods just as we change the laws. Christians like to believe they worship the same god as the early christians but that is also impossible to prove. Religion is not rational. And the fundamentalists never, ever make any sense.

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Wow, I’ve missed a lot this morning.

Question for CHUCK, giver of knowledge, based on something he said earlier. Please enlighten me: What is a REAL MAN?

Millions would love to know. I know I would! Thanks.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

They taught us in psych class. For all people, religion is man’s answers to the ultimate questions (ones that cannot be explained through science)

By Tim

January 11, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

lozen… the most interesting thing I got out of all my philosophy and religion classes was how similar most religions actually are… from creation stories to even the great flood… makes me wonder if Carlton Pearson and others like him are on to something when they talk about being more inclusive… it’s good stuff :)

By lozen

January 11, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

shannonfabulous, I hope then that you are being a “responsible” adult and working to change the adoption laws in the u.s. If more anti-choicers were doing things like that, it might make them easier to tolerate.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

Hi Kimberly.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Lozen, Nikita’s comment wasn’t related to whether or not people can prove they’re worshipping the “right” God, or whether God even exists.

Her point was in response to Chuck’s assertion that he has nothing to lose by worshipping God. Nikita responded that this was a false claim, but she hasn’t quite explained how yet.

Tim, never took philosophy, but I did take a class in World Religions… I was equally interested in the observation that all these different religions across the world do indeed share so much in common.

Chuck, I too, would love to hear your definition of a “real man.”

By lozen

January 11, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Hey Tim! I love you and I know you’re a real man. I believe that idea that all religions are so much alike is a fallacy. Buddhism, with it’s absence of any god, is totally unlike christianity with it’s jealous, judging, condemning, legalistic (for many christians) god. Just look at the difference between the Deli Lama, a jolly laughing, compassionate man and Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Billy Graham. With christians it’s a constant litany of what a sinner you are and how you better shape up or you’ll burn in hell forever! With the Deli Lama it’s compassion, love, laughter. Very, very different.

By RF

January 11, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

touche lozen—good comment about the adoption laws and religion. I’ve always wondered why Chritianity has to be so puritanical. What happened to the love?

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Hi Jack! Hi Tim! I also took several philosophy classes. In addition to the many philosophies of similar form, there’s Nietzsche, of “Chuck is dead” fame, and Sartre, of the “it’s all in how I look at it” school of thought. I think the religious fundies of today are more Sartre-like than they know, since they think THEIR viewpoint is the prevailing truth, regardless of evidence or opinion to the contrary.

By Tim

January 11, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

lozen… thanks :)… I didn’t mean all religions being exactly alike… but there are certainly very interesting similarities in a lot of religions

By Nikita

January 11, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Actually, Chuck, despite your nasty tone you didn’t clear up anything except perhaps by making it clear that you cannot process an argument that you do not understand.

I’ll start with the Manson Family and Tookie Williams. They were sentenced several years apart. Both committed crimes which were worthy of the death penalty. Yet one has died and the others live. To someone who thinks about it, this is justice applied unfairly, administrative details aside. I understand the Manson family’s history, but the fact remains that a group of people who killed 8 people is alive on state money, while a single murderer having killed four people has been punished with death. In the same state. Is this fair? Obviously not.

” First, the reason you think the argument was proven inadequate in “freshman philosophy classâ€?, is because you think like a freshman.”

And the reason you say this is because you’re a jerk who chooses to insult people rather than engage them honestly. You think like a mental midget. Or so I would say if I were inclined to implement chuck-style “debate.”

” They come into class thinking, “Gosh this professor sounds so smart.â€? Ever wonder why about the only job you can get with a degree in philosophy is one TEACHING philosophy?”

This is silly comment. You do realize that the argument you support was formulated by a philosopher, right? Not the righteous hordes, or whatever. So who’s thinking like a student, eh? Not only that, but your philosopher spent his entire life formulating a flawed theory.

“Her’s a question for you: Wouldn’t NOT woshipping this “alternate godâ€? or any god at all equate to worshipping a “falseâ€? god since you would be concentrating on things that are NOT GOD. You would be worshipping pleasure, or things, or your spouse or children, or your own life and NOT this alternate god. That being TRUE, worshipping Christ under those conditions would make you no worse off than not worshipping at all.”

Possibly. But this destroys the original argument because it makes the probability of a positive outcome 1:1. Choose correctly: +. Choose incorrectly or not at all (which you see as the same decision): -. Alternatively, alternative Christ specifically proscribes worship of other Gods, but doesn’t trifle with the ignorant. In that case it’s to your advantage not to believe, rather than believing in the wrong Christ.

By Denise

January 11, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Where does it say that I have to have love and affection for anyone to join a blog? BLA - you are just that.

And chuck, it’s you right-to-lifer’s that are typically for rehabilitation and importing your “Christian” beliefs into the mind of a psychopath expecting that he will miraculously turn into a good person. Whatever. I say let him fry.

You seem to forget, Chunky, that the devil’s son can come to the earth through a womb as well. We’re saving you from potential serial killers, rapists, drug addicts,child molestors, since these children would mostly be born into low income families. Oh, I forgot, you think that by some miracle, you are going to teach over a million of them the Christian faith through osmosis.

Get real.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

A “real” man is one who: Defends his mate from any danger. Defends his mate from ridicule for any reason. Eats quiche or whatever he wants and asks for seconds. Willing to defend our country. Isn’t afraid to confront anyone who threatens him or his. Doesn’t waste time worrying, spends that time looking for solution to problem at hand. Defends anyone, male or female, who are being bothered by predators. Isn’t afraid to tell it like it is. Takes care of his body so he can stick around and bother his mate longer. LOL Doesn’t show a lot of emotion in public but does so in private.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

All we are saying…is give peace a chance.

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Cheney is one of Satan’s sons. Look in his eys. No doubt.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

We’re saving you from potential serial killers, rapists, drug addicts,child molestors, since these children would mostly be born into low income families.

Please expand on this. You couldn’t possibly be saying that most abortions are done by low income families. Or that most serial killers, rapist, drug addicts etc… are from low income families??? I’m sure I’m misreading what you are saying so please expand.

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Jack, you forgot: Remembers to finish second. {;->

By Jack

January 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Did I forget anything? I left out football, hunting, Nascar & chewin.

A real man also cares deeply about his spouse and would do anything for her.

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Hey, I LIVE for football, and I’m not a real man. (Although I do hope to eventually meet a man who has at least one more testicle than I do — metaphorically speaking, of course.)

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

I feel very sad about Brad Pitt’s & Angelina Jolie’s plans to start a family.

I’m sad for Jennifer Aniston.

Does anybody know anything about the 17 y/o boy in Gwinnett who had sex with a 15 y/o and ended up in jail or something? I think there may have been 6 boys, called the Gwinnett 6?

I read a bit of it in an article while waiting on line at Publix… wanna know more.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

Oh yeah. You are the Tiger fan. One question, why 2 mascots? Is it Tigers or War Eagles?

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

No, Renee. That’s not what Denise is saying. Can’t be.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

I feel sorry for their child. You know they won’t stay married. I was sad that Valerie Bertinelli and Eddie VH got a divorce. They were together a long time.

By lozen

January 11, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

jbm, I would rather be true to myself than cling to a god like Yahweh when the whole story has never seemed any more true to me than Grimm’s fairy tales or the creation stories of the native americans or the stories of the eqyptians, greeks or romans gods. I feel the presence of something larger than ordinary in my life at times, but I would not think of trying to give it a name. It is too mysterious and too huge to be contained in one book or described by one religion. The bible was written when everyone was filled with fear and superstition of the unknown. It says god created light and then two or three days later created the sun and the moon! Anybody who’s had science in grammar school knows that can’t be right but religious still cling to it anyway. I think people who grow up in a strict and rigid christian faith lose a lot. They are shamed about their natural sexuality and taught it’s a sin to express it in any other place than marriage. They are filled full of fear. They are threatened with burning forever in hell if they dare to question god. They are taught that all good things come to them from god instead of learning to appreciate that good things come to us from other humans or from our own good judgment. Then they’re taught bad things come from somewhere else and not from god. They are taught that fantasy is truth, that virgins get impregnated by gods (of course, other ancient cultures believed that, the greeks, romans and egyptians believed that too), but we live in the 21st century and know (or should know) that it just doesn’t happen. They’re taught that cute little story about Noah and the ark as if it is truth. God was so good he saved Noah and his family but they don’t talk about the others who died in god’s revenging flood. Yahweh is a terrible example of how to be for children in my opinion - jealous, capricious, just waiting for you to make a little mistake so he can get ya, planning for his son to die on the cross to save me and you from our sins when all Yahweh had to do was say, I’m changing the rules; people don’t have to die just because I condemned them to death in the garden of Eden. But the main thing christians learn is the totalitarianism of christianity. There is just this one god and I am it; my book tells you so. If you don’t believe in me I am so small and so jealous I will kick your butt and you will burn forever. I think teaching children that fantasy is reality, that folk tales are truth, that they have to fear their natural senses and curiosity effect people in a negative way all their lives. That’s my answer, for what it’s worth.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Nevermind, I found the article and the boy isn’t from Gwinnett, he’s in Douglasville. The article starts, “Why Is Genarlow Wilson in Prison? After a wild New Year’s Eve party, six Douglasville teens found themselves charged with child molestation under a legal technicality. The boy who refused to take a plea now faces a decade behind bars.”

Anybody want to read it? Click here

By Jack

January 11, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

15 is not the age of consent. As a cop would say,”ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law”

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Jack, the team is the Tigers. “War Eagle!” is the battle cry. It’s origins are seeped in tradition and mystery — much like religion. No one knows WHY we do things (like put a tree in our living room every December and sing about it), but as far back as anyone knows, we’ve always done it that way. There are some good stories on the web site. A quick google search will yield more info than you want, I’m sure.

Marist, the private school: their team is the War Eagles.

By Denise

January 11, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

I’m saying that if Chunky thinks so low of people who wish to have a choice or wish to exercise that choice, then think what their children would become (the evil begets evil thing). Why’s he so worried.

Also, all sins are equal. That’s why the murderer was told he would go to heaven and the robber wasn’t. The murderer recognized that he had sinned.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Jack, it wasn’t even intercourse and he didn’t know how old she was. Here’s a teenage boy, in 12th grade, who lets a 10th grader suck his p***. 10 years in jail for that?

Meanwhile back in Vermont…

Denise, let me remind you of what you said: We’re saving you from potential serial killers, rapists, drug addicts,child molestors, since these children would mostly be born into low income families.

This is not the same as the lame excuse you tried to provide in your 12:23.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Brian, Brian. You are wrong about so many things.

You said: You haven’t addressed the core problem with that perspective, namely, that your religion has no control over the rest of us. In a secular government, it CAN’T. I didn’t say anything at all about my “religion” controlling anyone else. The premise from Lozen was that the Bible didn’t say anything about abortion…she was wrong. That being said, even if that had not been the origin of that line of discussion, your statement would still be wrong. Let me give you an example.

Can you go to a liquor store in 95% of the counties of Georgia and buy booze on SUNDAY? What do you think the origin of that LAW was? It is technically not the religion that controls anything. It is the law. The question posed by the column was about LAWS concerning abortions. It doesn’t matter what those laws spring from whether it is from a religious standpoint or a practical standpoint. If I and those who think like me elect representatives who share our views then our arguments will prevail as a matter of LAW. If we don’t then our arguments will NOT win the day. As a matter of law, abortion was illegal in most, if not all of the 50 states until 1973 when an activist court overturned nearly 175 years of precedents.

Then you said: You get stuck in that sort of trap because, of course, the fetus HAS no legal status. It’s not comparable to a murderer, and the life-and-health risk scenario is not “self-defense� at all. Rather, it’s simply a medical decision made for the patient’s well-being. And the patient is the woman, not the fetus. If you can save both, fine; but the woman’s health is the paramount concern, as both law and medicine agree.

Again, you failed to understand the argument. In both Scripture AND law, a citizen is permitted to use deadly force to defend his or her life. In the case of certainty that “if the woman gives birth she will die”. The baby is indeed an agent of death and the woman would then have the right to defend herself…both legally and under God’s law. (I have clearly stated the position of my wife and myself on this issue so I won’t do so again).

In this instance it is no different than you killing an intruder who enters your home with intent to kill you and your family. You would be within your rights both legally and under God’s law to use deadly force.

Finally you said: You’re free to set other priorities based on your religious views—but you haven’t made Point One about why the rest of society should be affected, much less bound, by your opinions in this area.

I don’t think anyone should be bound by my opinions, though the world would be a better place if they were, BUT, in a democracy the political process allows me to advocate for my position with elected leaders and try to convince them to pass laws adopting those positions. Abortion is NOT a right garaunteed by the Constitution. As Lozen said, the Constitution doesn’t even mention the word “abortion”. When we repair the damage done by the court in ‘73, the debate can go back to where it belongs in the first place…the 50 states and the people in those states.

BTW Lozen, a few months ago you ridiculed me mercilessly for spelling “Hippocratic Oath” “Hypocratic Oath”. I’m wondering who this “Deli Lama” is. Is he like the “Soup Nazi” on Seinfeld except for sandwiches? It is DAHLI LAMA, you dweeb. What a Maroon.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Coke, coke, cheap, cheap.

JBM. Was the act forced or voluntary? If she was the only female there, she probably faked consent do to being outnumbered. If truely voluntary, how did the autorities prove guilt?

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

I give up on Chuck. Unlike Christ, he actually likes calling people degrading names like “dweeb.”

By Jack

January 11, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

They probably plyed her with alcohol too.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Maroon? Good color.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Yes Renee, that is EXACTLY what denise is saying. The abortion movement is totally wrapped up in that kind of thinking. They say if we can eliminate a bunch of these poor minorities, the world will be a better place. That is exactly how the movement got its start. The rank and file “pro-choicers” have been totally hoodwinked. They think this is about freedom. It is really about racism and elitism.

By RF

January 11, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

JBM- I remember that. I hate the verdict, but if I recall, the jury members weren’t exactly clear on the automatic punishment, were they? I think ten years is too much. I also think the parents should have been more aware of what their teenagers were doing at a HOTEL on New Year’s Eve—DUH!! What is it that girls’ parents let them go to these places, knowing darn good and well what’s going to happen when kids ‘party’ these days! Are most parents that blind, or do they just think ‘my baby wouldn’t do that’?

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

It was truly voluntary Jack… and a group of teen girls and teen guys got together for a New Years party at a hotel. Not one girl, ten guys…

Short version is one girl claimed gang rape. She blacked out and woke up nude and disheveled… thinking she had had sex with several of the boys there. This same girl arrived to the party drunk, and continued to drink and smoke (probably weed) while there.

When the police came to investigate her claim, they found a videotape which showed another girl giving oral to 6 of the guys back to back.

In Georgia, sex with a teen under 16 is a misdemeanor, oral sex with a teen of that same age is a felony punishable with a mandatory 10 year sentence.

The kids were all friends and the sex was all consensual. The only issue at hand is the ages of the participants.

By Chilao

January 11, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Jack - they had a video recording and another girl was there as well. it was teenage consensual activities. spirit of the law versus literal-law-applied kind of thing. in other words, if you are 16, do not expect a bj from your 15 y/o gf. actually, oral is considered worse, it apparently, in the law’s view, is better to do actual penetration, as the penalty is not as severe.

I do not know the stats but I am certain that the majority of abortions, even by percentage of the population for the measured race, is not done by the economically disadvantaged.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

I thought you gave up on me months ago JBM. Face it, if I wasn’t on here ya’ll would have nothing to talk about. The blog would be about whether or not Bea Arthur’s moustache on Golden Girls was real or fake.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

I read it. She woke up with no clothes on and there were SEVERAL used condoms found in the room. True her and the other girl were drinking but they were taken advantage of. The boys should pay and pay dearly. Sorry, but I’m old fashioned when it comes to this. Do you think the college baseball players that took turns having sex with a passed out coed and taped it deserved to walk? They didn’t and I’m glad. Her Dad should have 10 minutes with them.

By lozen

January 11, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

chuck, when I “ridiculed” you for misspelling a word did I call you names? I don’t think so. Probably because I’m an atheist. I just don’t believe name-calling has any place in a debate. It doesn’t address any point. What names would Jesus call me chuck?
When my sister had to have an abortion in 1974 or face having her two children taken away from her by her ex inlaws, believe me, it was about her freedom. When one of my closest friends had an illegal abortion in the 60’s, when abortion was not legal in this country, or face being the mother of a mixed race child where people spat at her and her partner on the street, it was a matter of freedom. When another friend had an abortion because she knew she did not want to remain married to the father, it was all about freedom. You’re a man and you will never understand what the ability to choose when and where and how to reproduce means to women.

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Does anybody know anything about the 17 y/o boy in Gwinnett who had sex with a 15 y/o and ended up in jail or something? I think there may have been 6 boys, called the Gwinnett 6?

And there are now, because of mandatory minimums pushed forth by fanatics, over 3 dozen 25-35 year olds that are considered sex offenders for life because they were in that same situation in high-school.

To put these people on the same level as a person that rapes and kills a 5yo is insane - but with these fanatical people (some on this blog) having pushed their absolute views; it is now a reality.

More-over, who is going to have the strength to oppose these minimums? We all know that the fanatics will state that they are trying to be lenient on the sickos; and bash them.

All these agendas are created from warped reactions bc people wont take responsibility for doing what GOOD they can with ALL situations. Yes, that is a hard road, but the only other choice is to be controlled by what you have experienced - instead of growing from it.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

I can’t even begin to tell you how much I disagree with you Jack. And, for the record, the boy is not in jail for sex with the girl. He is in jail for letting a whorish peer suck his p***.

RF, I completely agree. My 15 y/o doesn’t tie her shoelace without my knowing about it. I can’t imagine - even when she turns 16 or 17 - letting her go to a party at a hotel! I don’t give a doggone what holiday it is.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

2 vs. 10. Not good odds if you discent. This is not the Marcus Dixon case. If he had not been a football player with potential, he would still be in jail. They say she didn’t resist. Some women freeze in fear making resistance imposible.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Your exact response was “…and you’re a teacher?”

Then you said: i can’t say anithing, about the substence of your artycle, chuck, because there isn’t any,and i am not a teecher, and even i, know how to spel “Hippocratic�

You weren’t being condescending or sarcastic now were you?

By chuck

January 11, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

When you live by the sword you die by the sword.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Well then, they shouldn’t have had it on tape. What were they going to do with the tape? Look at it later with madam Palm and her 5 daughters?

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

TELL him, Lozie! It IS about freedom, and this is America. Unless a woman can physically walk away like a man, then there’s no equal protection under the law. And if America doesn’t have that, then we are no better than Iran or Saudi Arabia. This argument is about LAW, not what you want to believe.

BTW, Lozen… I’ve read what you have to say about Christians. I just want you to know that I’ve read what the Bible says about Christ, and I believe in Him. But “Christians” today… they don’t act ANYTHING like He did in the Bible. Those you refer to consider themselves such; but that doesn’t mean they ARE. The Bible warns about false prophets who’ll lead His followers astray, but those being led into intolerance and judgment of others don’t believe that they’re the ones gone astray. I believe they are.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

Denise - I have to agree with JBM, that is not what you said.

JBM and Jack - I haven’t read the article yet. But based up on both of your arguments (which both make sense) it seems to be this is why parents should be involved. Just a little parenting could prevent this type of behavior from happening. Jack, you could be right, JBM you could be right. The bottom line is we will never know. Whether it was consensual or not, it doesn’t sound like the type of behavior children of this age should be involved in. A clear example of how a night of “fun” can have a lifetime of consequences.

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Chuck: Fortunately, the law is not drawn directly from the tenets of one particular faith (in fact, it can’t be)… so your entire basis for suggesting Christian-centered laws about “what abortion says in scripture” (a purely subjective interpretation, by the way) goes up in smoke.

There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding among fundamentalists—well, one among several, that is. And that is that “if we get enough votes, we can make this a Christian country.” Well, no—you can’t. Not even if you get a 99% majority in every rigged election can you enact the Bible as law in this country.

When it comes to basic rights, the majority will doesn’t really matter—these rights cannot be taken away or denied, no matter HOW popular or unpopular they are. (Gay marriage, for example, will eventually triumph in the courts on this basis.) If every Christian in America voted tomorrow to (for example) deny the vote to Moslems, or to outlaw free speech for gays—it wouldn’t happen. Why? Because Constitutional rights aren’t subject to majority vote.

So now that we’ve gotten THAT out of the way… we’re back to the original question.

Given that the government has ONLY those powers specified in the Constitution, and that the right to block abortions is not among them… why should the government block abortions?

(By the way, you haven’t retracted your errors—I’m assuming they’re errors, rather than deliberate lies—about Margaret Sanger from the pro-life propaganda machine. Do you concede that point without comment?)

And I think you’ve hit an error with your “self-defense” argument; you said killing a life-endangering fetus is no different from “killing an intruder.” You also imply that conscious intent doesn’t matter to this rationale.

Well, what else is an unwanted fetus but the ultimate intruder—not just into your home, but your very BODY? You’ve dispensed with the “innocent life” angle as soon as you made the exception for self-defense (i.e., medical necessity)… so once again you’re stuck in a corner.

By RF

January 11, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

It’s hard to argue consent when alcohol and other substances are involved. The real mistake here is the videotape. A good attorney can argue and persuade a jury, but a videotape is allll to real. I still think the kid got too much time, and he should have taken the plea bargain offered him. Regardless of his character, he was far from innocent. Unfortunately, the punishment is all the boy’s to take, even if the girl initiates the encounter. Is that fair? I think not.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

Renee, it’s a long article so it may take more time than you have right now. Read it when you can and then tell me what you think.

That sex was consensual, and the girls never claimed that it wasn’t.

And, Jack, I doubt it was 2 vs. 10. The article didn’t mention exactly how many boys were there and how many girls were there. I know there were at least 3 girls, and at least 6 boys because their names were mentioned in the article… I’m sure there were more kids than that in total, but don’t know whether they were male or female.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

Whatever. I guess I place females higher up than boys do now.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

That whole situation just ticks me off to no end. It’s an abuse of power, and a misuse of legislation. Most importantly, the law was not written in regard to teen sex. The law was written to protect teens from adult predators, which that boy was not.

And, I’m not easily given to the whole argument that alcohol affects prevents you from using sound judgment. I’ve been drunk more times than I care to admit, and the most I can tell you is that I did what I always wanted to do, but never had the courage to without the spirits.

Drunk or not, she sucked him and his friends off. Her fast behind shouldn’t have been drinking in the first place. And, I’d bet my bottom dollar that it wasn’t the first time she sucked a guy off, maybe even two or three guys… AND THAT SHE WASN’T DRUNK THE OTHER TIMES.

The only thing that boy was guilty of was not knowing the law. (And, c’mon, how many teenagers are aware of that law?)

I’m through with this subject… feel my blood boiling.

By Netbanker

January 11, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

shannonfabulous…and what happens if contraception fails and results in pregnancy? My impression of most people who hold your position is that one must be held accountable for the consequence of having sex, but needs to be protected from the consequences of aborting the pregnancy by restricting them from accessing that option. And please take a moment to educate yourself to find out that abortion as birthcontrol is one of the least stated reasons for not carrying to term.

Face some harsh reality…as far as recorded history goes there have been pregnancies terminated. This FACT won’t change by making the act of abortion illegal. The only this making abortion illegal will do is to endanger the lives of women because abortions WILL continue to happen.

I’m not FOR abortion and would prefer to see sex education (beyond abstinence) and access to contraceptives become common place. Let’s stop the NEED for abortion by reducing the numbers of unwanted and unexpected pregnancies in the first place. And let’s be honest and pragmatic that abortions will continue so let’s make sure the procedure remains legal, regulated by the MEDICAL community rather than legislatures, and make access to healthcare easy for everyone.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

JBM. Last word from me on this subject. I have seen many people who consume enough alcohol to not know what they were doing at the time of doing it, and not to remember their acts the morning after. You drink a 5th of liquor and tell me your judgement isn’t affected.

By Netbanker

January 11, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Hey everyone! Off to my next meeting. I got a promotion at work which means I’m doing 2 jobs for 1 salary until they hire a replacement for my old job. Hmmm….I think I was tricked!

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,

Good to see you.

I am currently pro-choice; seeing as it is the only current viable resort we have at that stage. That being said, What do you think about the confict that if a woman is killed while pregnant; it is two counts of murder?

This all hinges (abortion) on if the unborn have equal (constitutional) rights - and we have decided differently in diferent situations.

Now, I believe there should be definite pain/suffering in the case above; but the contradiction that is current law bothers me.

By RF

January 11, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

I’m with you JBM about the girls. Why is the ‘crime’ always the male’s? What about the girls asking and encouraging? Doesn’t matter as long as the boy doesn’t give in to it. We’ll have to see how the appeal goes on this one.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Congrats, Net!!!!! Foooooor he’s a jolly good fellow, for he’s a jolly good fellow… LOL!

Jack, I believe it’s possible. I just don’t think it’s ALWAYS the case. I don’t like the way people resort to that excuse to cover up anything they do while under the influence. Just because a person is drinking, or even is inebriated, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not aware of what they are doing. (I guess that’s my last word).

By chuck

January 11, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Brian, you are SO WRONG. Certainly laws CAN BE and ARE drawn from the tenets of particular Faiths. There is NO prohibition of this in the Constitution. What the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a National religion OR prohibit people from exercising freely their own chosen religions. It is quite common practice to put into place laws that adhere to religious mores. Prostitution laws for instance have been passed purely because of religious objections to the practice. there are ALSO practical reasons of public health, increases in other crimes such as drug laws. I already gave you the example of Blue Laws. So your corner is getting smaller by the post. As for whether or not a law is deemed to be constitutional, that is decided by the slimmest of majorities 5-4. One seat on the Supreme Court is all that would take right now and it is very close to becoming a reality. I’m not saying the changes will happen overnight, but over the course of the next few years, much of the damage caused by an activist court can be repaired.

Your faulty logic on the self-defense argument that I made is apparent also. The fact that the baby is present does NOT mean that the mother’s life is at risk. If it is shown medically that the mother will die if she gives birth that changes the situation. Let’s change the analogy a little to make it easier for you to understand. Let’s say that you are walking down a dark street and 3 men come out at you, do you have the right to kill them? NO there mere presence does not give you the right to use deadly force. You must have a REASONABLE fear that your life is in danger. If one of the men is coming at you with a knife, that would give you cause.

The PRESENCE of a baby would not meet that level ONLY the assured loss of life caused by giving birth to that baby would meet that level.

As for the information I posted on Margaret Sanger, I stand by that. Even the President of NOW acknowledged as much when she warned her followers not to look too closely at the beginnings of their movement because they would find many things with which they would not agree. Also, I have found this information in a number of sources including an encyclopedia article and a university article. I will try to find them again and send you the URL’s.

Thanks for playing.

By Jack

January 11, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Congradulations Net!

By Jack

January 11, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

The law is the law.

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

Certainly laws CAN BE and ARE drawn from the tenets of particular Faiths.

But, given we are NOT a theocracy, it is not right/correct in doing so. The fact that it happens does not make it right or correct - hence why those blue laws slowly get repealed in high courst as we (some of us, that is) grow in wisdom.

The reason there is not more on the relationship bw religion and state is inherent in our govmts definition. Just as you will not find the definition of a dog being “a dog.”

The only MORAL position that should exist is we have inherent right to pursue happiness… And all laws are based on that one moral principle - not new ones.

You have pointed out one of the FLAWS of the current system, not one of the assets. And those flaws have been pushed by fanatics.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Brian,

Here is one article on the “Women’s News” website. The article is by Julianne Malveaux, a decided feminist and liberal.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/618

By Jack

January 11, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

How bout when the Supreme Court sites FOREIGN law as a reason to rule about OUR constitution? That burns me up.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Another article gives a bibliography for some of those quotes is from a right to life group but it gives the quotes and the sources:

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/racism.htm

By Jack

January 11, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Nite All.

By Nikita

January 11, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Chuck, the problem with your comments on Sanger is that they’re red herrings. Yes, she felt birth control was a means of limiting inferior people from reproducing. However, that doesn’t change the portions of her philosphy that were correct — which are that an inability to control one’s reproductive capacity is severely limiting to one’s financial well-being. And personally, I don’t consider it a bad thing to recognize that people who do not support themselves should not produce additional humans whom they will not support. Would you disagree?

By chuck

January 11, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html

One more article that is NOT by a pro-life organization.

By Ken

January 11, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

The issue of abortion will NEVER go away.

Even though the “pro-life” banner carriers are usually Conservative Christians, and “pro-choice” banner carriers are usually left-wing feminists/atheists/agnostics they are not the only people with views on the subject. They are simly the loudest and easiest to classify.

I know many non-religious people who look at abortion as a great evil in our society. I know many religious people who do not want the laws to change. It is far too easy to paint with the broad brush that the left-wing majority on this BLOG and Chuck like to use.

The bottom line is very simple… You either believe that what grows inside a woman is a human being or you do not believe what grows inside a woman is a human being. Period. If you don’t, then an abortion is nothing more than an outpatient procedure. If you do, then an abortion is out of the question (except to save the mother’s LIFE). If you do believe that what grows inside a woman is a human being and you are still willing to go through with an abortion (except to save a mother’s LIFE), then you are basically willing to murder an innocent to meet your own needs. I’ll let God handle that situation.

After seeing the ultrasounds, hearing the heartbeats and watching my wife give birth, I know where I stand, and that will dictate my actions if and when we are ever faced with that choice.

By chuck

January 11, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

NIKITA, I would agree with you to the extent that it is illogical for people who can’t afford children to get pregnant, but the time to make that decision is PRIOR to pregnancy not afterward.

You want to talk about red herrings, look at the statistics posted by Lyrazel earlier. This is no more about freedom than the war in Iraq is about OIL.

The issue of abortion is about convenience and dodging responsibility and consequences for one’s actions.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Ken, what if you believe that “what grows inside a woman is a human being” and you’re not willing to have an abortion, but you believe everyone should have the right to make that choice?

Not everyone who’s pro-choice is also pro-abortion. Actually, I don’t think the opposite of pro-life is pro-choice, and I think you can be designated both. I am certainly pro-life. I believe that every baby that is conceived should have the opportunity to live, provided it doesn’t threaten the mother’s life. But, at the same time, I don’t think it’s fair to impose my views on anyone who may not agree with me. I believe that every woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Good comment JBM — oops am I cheering you on again? lol

By lozen

January 11, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Chuck just made a very telling comment about the supreme court and how it is going to change if Alito is confirmed for the court Anybody who cares about a woman’s right to choose, limits to executive power, and civil rights better care about his nomination.

By lozen

January 11, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Ken, nobody’s telling you and your wife or anybody to have an abortion if you think it’s wrong. All I’m asking is that nobody tell any woman who doesn’t think it’s wrong and wants an abortion to carry every fetus to term. This is something each and every woman who becomes pregnant along with her doctor and her partner and her higher power has to decide for herself based on her convictions. To try to give the government the power to make this decision for us is dictatorship, pure and simple.

By Brian Curtis

January 11, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Ahh, the “consequences of one’s actions” argument. I was wondering when that would come up.

So let’s go ahead and deal with it, using the quickest and simplest way to demolish it utterly: is abortion permissible in cases of rape and incest?

If yes, then the life of the fetus is automatically less important than the rights of the woman (as it should be). There’s no excuse to give of “punishing her for not keeping her legs together” in a rape case. There’s just a woman who’s been attacked, and now has an unwanted intruder growing inside her body—through no fault or choice of her own.

So, again: Abortion’s okay in that instance, right? (And don’t try to drag in the “statistically insignificant” argument; no matter how many or how few cases actually occur, we’re arguing the underlying principle).

Now, if you DON’T allow for abortion in cases of rape and incest… well, good luck trying to justify your position, both here and in mainstream America. I’d LOVE to see a serious, intellligent explanation of how a rape victim should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Forced by the government, let’s not forget—which (as already mentioned) has NO power to interfere with this private, medical decision.

The far right and religious nuts have already shot themselves in the foot once by trying to have the government intrude into private medical decisions (i.e., Terri Schiavo)… do they want to try for two?

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

~snatching the pom pom out of Renee’s hand~

By Renee

January 11, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

lol - rip the skirt off while you’re at it…lmao jk

By Ken

January 11, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

JBM… I feel I had made myself clear on that one when I said “I’ll let God handle that situation.”

But keep in mind… Every law imposes views of morality on someone. Sure we can all agree on the biggies, but there are many that you agree with and I do not, but based on what is passed through the legislative process, we both have to abide by them and then actively try to get them changed.

I believe quota hiring in the marketplace is wrong.

I believe progressive taxing is wrong.

I believe the minimum wage is wrong.

I believe Social Security is wrong.

I believe the ruling on emininent domain is wrong.

However, it doesn’t matter. There are people who apssed these laws that have imposed their moral codes and judgements on me. Do I have the “choice” to not pay my taxes or not pay into social security. Yeah, but I’d end up in the pokey if I made my deisred choice. They are established law and I must abide the law.

Also… Please don’t turn this into why any of the above statements a “right”. That is not the point. The point is, that most of our laws are based on morals that a large group of people have defined as important, and in a representative democracy we must abide by those laws even when we do not agree.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

lol… just as fresh as you can be!!! (as Nana would say) lol

By chuck

January 11, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Abortion in cases of rape and/or incest are WRONG. As I have said, the only possibly justifiable reason for abortion is self-defense. If a fertilized attached egg is a baby AND IT IS, then it doesn’t much matter HOW it got there IT IS THERE.

By Viewer

January 11, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Lesbian cheerleaders on the blog? Shoot any video?

By lozen

January 11, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

JBM, see why I say there’s a huge difference between you and chuck. Chuck: NIKITA, I would agree with you to the extent that it is illogical for people who can’t afford children to get pregnant, but the time to make that decision is PRIOR to pregnancy not afterward. Like that has ever happened or ever will happen. this is why I say strict religion is so bad for people. So many religious people like you just refuse to face reality. The sex drive is so strong and it don’t have nothing to do with logic unfortunately. 14 and 15 year olds who are bombarded with sexy ads, sexy clothes, drugs, and alcohol, are not going to stop having sex because you think they should. Poor people who are married and can’t afford babies aren’t either! Teens don’t realize the consequences or they think it won’t happen to them or they plan to say no but then get swept up in those delicious yearnings and feelings. Once we admit that and stop sticking our heads in the sand, give them the information they need and the devices they need to prevent pregnancy, there will be less abortions. But, you don’t want to do that either. You just insist they should keep their legs together. The girls should not have sex in other words. A “real man-boy” is going to get some and brag to his friends about it. You know that’s the truth chuck. All you want to do is have the girls say NO. It didn’t work when Nancy said to do it and it won’t work because you want it that way. It just don’t work. It just don’t work. Oh, and your little analogies about squirrels vs babies being squashed on the road and men in the dark vs dangerous men in the dark are really funny. Have you ever thought of writing a textbook for second graders?

By chuck

January 11, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

btw Brian, the government interferes ALL THE TIME WITH PRIVATE MEDICAL DECISIONS.

See Medicare

See Medicaid

See Peachcare

By chuck

January 11, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

That is such a ridiculously stupid argument. NO WONDER you are so hostile against people of Faith Lozen. You think we are nothing more than animals controlled by our primal urges.

That may be true for you, but most of the people I know are fully capable of controlling themselves. You people really are sad.

By RF

January 11, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Oh my, it’s Girls Gone Wild (with a twist)!! Have fun-I gotta go tutor before I run home to make supper, fold laundry, throw the cat out, etc., etc. Have a fun evening!!

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

Chuck, ONE QUESTION: Have you ever been raped? It’s okay. No one will call you a fairy if you admit it. Happens every day. Have YOU ever been raped?

By lozen

January 11, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Doesn’t that just make your blood boil? All you women out there who have been raped/incested by your brothers, fathers, uncles, neighbors and strangers and got knocked up with a baby you don’t want, well, too bad. You should be forced to have that baby because chuck says it’s wrong if you don’t! If anything ever made me want to call you names it is this. What compassion you have for a person who doesn’t even exist yet. What a lack of compassion you have for living, breathing women!

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Chuck, Lozen’s about to snap. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

HAVE YOU EVERY BEEN RAPED, CHUCK?

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Chuck, answer the question.

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Answer the question, Chuck. Have you ever had a larger person or persons HOLD YOU DOWN AND FORCE HIS P—— INTO YOUR ORAFICES? Do YOU know what THAT feels like?

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Chuck’s not answering.

DO YOU WANNA KNOW, CHUCK? Do you want we gals should all get together and document our own personal horror stories so you can read them at night and get aroused?

Do ya?

By amber

January 11, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Have you ever been raped and had the stuff from that scum inside you turning into a baby that might be like it’s father? Have you ever been raped by a 30 year old man when you were 13 and had that scumbag’s stuff turning into a baby inside you that would wreck your life? You are a jerk, and a a*****, and I can’t think of anything bad enough to call you.

By CatAntiDefamationLeague

January 11, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

throw the cat out? What the heck? Our feline attorneys will be in touch, oh yes. In fact, gonna call the news desks right now.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

LOL! Have fun RF!

Viewer, only the people in the video get to watch the video! ;-)

Ken, I completely understand your point. And, I partially agree with you. Most laws do impose some sort of moral view of the majority on the minority. But as it relates to abortion, most of the “moral” views are really based on religion. And, I just don’t think it’s fair to impose my religious views on other people.

Admittedly, I am one of those close-minded people who tends to think that my belief is the right belief and that any other belief is wrong. But, even with my knowledge of the Bible’s principles and my belief in Jesus’s teachings, I just can’t justify forcing someone else to bear an unwanted child because I feel it’s morally (read: Biblically) wrong.

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Answer the question, Chuck.

By liana

January 11, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Well, Chuck? Have you ever been raped by your brother and thought about what the baby might be like because you know kids born from that kind of union might be crazy?

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

And once again:

The point is, that most of our laws are based on morals that a large group of people have defined as important, and in a representative democracy we must abide by those laws even when we do not agree.

Incorrect.

Hence why you all go round-and-round.

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Chuck, since you won’t answer that question, how ‘bout answering this one: Does the mental image of a man raping a woman arouse you? Or this one: Did God make men stronger than women because he WANTS them to rape us, or because he LETS them rape us?

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

FM, how is that incorrect?

LOL@ at the feline’s representative… I know that’s you, Jack.

By Jake

January 11, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

All religions do have several things in common, being based entirely on myth and faith is one common element. Nice and perhaps admirable ethics to think that life is sacred, but the overwhelming evidence indicates otherwise. Even most of the self-titled “pro-lifers”, aren’t aganst capital punishment or sending the young to die in Iraq. Under some of the most perverse logic ever, it’s only the unborn whose lives are sacred! Way too many people already and preventing abortions just puts more stress on civilization and the environment. Worst of all, it is the poorest and not coincidentally dumbest, that have the highest fertility rates. It does not bode well for the future.

By lozen

January 11, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Whew. Chuck’s right Kimberly. We need him on this blog. It helps those of us who live in a little bubble of sanity surrounded by people who are rational and sensible and compassionate and loving, remember what’s out there. It kicks my behind into faxing, and calling, and emailing my gov’t representatives to fight the gov’t takeover by these people. It reminds me that the donations I make to NOW, Interfaith Council, and other organizations fighting for freedom and against the rightwing fundies are well worth the sacrifices I make.

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

The ONLY valid moral assertion is a person unalienable rights - all laws (should, but there are flaws) are based on that/those principles.

Hence why it was/is not a moral debate when abortion was/is brought into the courts, but one of the unborn’s “rights” and when they begin.

To talk about anything MORAL/AMORAL as a reason to enact law is another topic that would be held by in a theocracy.

{By Renee January 11, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this Good comment JBM — oops am I cheering you on again? lol}

Kind of childish dont you think? You part elephant, naturally that snotty, or just trying to pick fights? Really unbecoming of an “adult” that has so many issues with condecending tones.

By Ken

January 11, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

FatMoose… Odd how you neglected the last (and most important) clause which said “and then actively try to get them changed.”

I guess you are above the law.

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

JBM,

FM, how is that incorrect?

Repost:

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

Certainly laws CAN BE and ARE drawn from the tenets of particular Faiths.

But, given we are NOT a theocracy, it is not right/correct in doing so. The fact that it happens does not make it right or correct - hence why those blue laws slowly get repealed in high courst as we (some of us, that is) grow in wisdom.

The reason there is not more on the relationship bw religion and state is inherent in our govmts definition. Just as you will not find the definition of a dog being “a dog.�

The only MORAL position that should exist is we have inherent right to pursue happiness… And all laws are based on that one moral principle - not new ones.

You have pointed out one of the FLAWS of the current system, not one of the assets. And those flaws have been pushed by fanatics.

By lozen

January 11, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, liana, amber, all women who have endured the horror of rape or incest or disrespect … I am so sorry for your pain. It was not your fault and you deserve no punishment. You were and are entitled to do whatever can turn your life away from that and the memories of that. I wish you the very best; you deserve it.

By Amen

January 11, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

don’t forget the organization: Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU for short)

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Yes, I stay involved as well. Many people wish I would just shut up.

Nonetheless, ANSWER THE QUESTION, CHUCK! IT’S A YES OR NO QUESTION.

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Ken, I missed that, sorry.

Kind of clouds your issue for me though - the majority of laws are not moral based; but you claim otherwise. Where-as only a few, in comparision, are in fact moral based.

Please clear that up so I can see where you are coming from.

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

It’s too late. CHUCK has dredged up all the horrible feelings of all the horrible things men have felt they had the inherent, GOD-GIVEN right to do to me.

ANSWER THE QUESTION, CHUCK. Or are you a great big COWARD?

By Renee

January 11, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

FatMoose - that comment was not spoken to you nor was it directed to you. I didn’t make the statement and then ask your opinion about my statement. Unless your name is JBM (who I was speaking to) then you should have had no comments or thoughts to it. And the fact that you did makes you quite the mature one. Anything you got from that statement, I really don’t care…..What the f_ ever!!!!!!!!

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

It’s too late. CHUCK has dredged up all the horrible feelings of all the horrible things men have felt they had the inherent, GOD-GIVEN right to do to me.

Dont give him so much power - I know it is difficult, but he does not deserve, or in fact actually, have it.

By kimberly

January 11, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Chuck made a statement. Now he needs to answer the question.

ANSWER THE QUESTION, CHUCK. Have you ever had a man or group of men forcibly hold you down and insert a p—— into your orafices? Do you KNOW what that feels like?

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

FatMoose - that comment was not spoken to you nor was it directed to you. I didn’t make the statement and then ask your opinion about my statement. Unless your name is JBM (who I was speaking to) then you should have had no comments or thoughts to it. And the fact that you did makes you quite the mature one. Anything you got from that statement, I really don’t care…..What the f_ ever!!!!!!!!

Then maybe you should put it in an email and not a blog

What-ever!?!? Sounds like middle-school;)

Good show;)

By Tim

January 11, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

Renee… I thought the “what-ever” was pretty dang funny

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

~thinking aloud~ Okay, I’m not even in the mood for this nonsense, so I’m going to completely ignore that ridiculous remark FM made to Renee.

FM, I don’t understand your 4:28 which was addressed to me in response to my question to you. But your 4:33 seems to answer my question, I think….

Are you saying that Ken was incorrect because of his use of the word “majority”?

By Renee

January 11, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

I didn’t say whatever. I said what the F - U - C - K ever. And if I sound like I’m from middle school what does it say about your ignorant A - S - S that you are commenting on it. Don’t come up in here starting your little punk behavior on me. In addition to not having the time for it, you do NOT want to take it there with me. NOT ONE comment on this blog today, this week or last week for that matter has been directed to you but you want to bring some BS to me. You have a problem, a very serious problem. Step away from the computer, put some clothes on, clean yourself up and try to get a friggin life.

Not to mention, I will say whatever I want to say, whenever I want to say it. I don’t have to email it, I’m saying it in here, and if you don’t like it, get the H - E - L - L off the blog.

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

Are you saying that Ken was incorrect because of his use of the word “majority�?

And that the word moral is even a part of speaking about law. Except, as he did state, and I missed, to look at what to change. but the basis for his list STILL deals with rights, and some interpretations of them.

Like: Should someone have those same rights at 65 and broke - hence why SS exists, to maintain those right for them.

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Then maybe you should put it in an email and not a blog

Well, if that’s the case, half of what is “said” on here should be put in an e-mail and not a blog. Most (using the term “most” loosely) of the comments here are in response to a specific person’s comments, and/or are addressed to that specific person…

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

In addition to not having the time for it, you do NOT want to take it there with me.

Seems that you do have the time, and I do not mind an extra laugh before cut-out time.

And your the hall monitor now?

NOT ONE comment on this blog today, this week or last week for that matter has been directed to you but you want to bring some BS to me.

Um, what were you refering to then? MY COMMENT two weeks ago?

You have a problem, a very serious problem. Step away from the computer, put some clothes on, clean yourself up and try to get a friggin life.*

Not to mention, I will say whatever I want to say, whenever I want to say it. I don’t have to email it, I’m saying it in here, and if you don’t like it, get the H - E - L - L off the blog.

Like I said - Good show little girl;) Stomp your foot some more;)

By lozen

January 11, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

i just wanted to post this again to see if anyone else was surprised at how bent out of shape Chuck got when I dared to suggest that teenagers get swept away by their sexual feelings and poor people will continue to have sex even when they can’t afford children. That is such a ridiculously stupid argument. NO WONDER you are so hostile against people of Faith Lozen. You think we are nothing more than animals controlled by our primal urges. That may be true for you, but most of the people I know are fully capable of controlling themselves. You people really are sad.

Poor, poor chuck. His natural sexual and intellectual feelings got jammed up in him while he was growing up in a rigid religion that taught him sex was a sin. I wonder if he’s ever enjoyed sex. I wonder if he can enjoy normal sex because sometimes people who have had to repress so much (as Kimberly points out) can only enjoy the unnatural side of things. It would explain why he’s turned into such an unfeeling, judging, condemning man with such a lack of compassion for women. Poor chuck.

By Renee

January 11, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

Thanks Tim lol

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

Well, if that’s the case, half of what is “said� on here should be put in an e-mail and not a blog. Most (using the term “most� loosely) of the comments here are in response to a specific person’s comments, and/or are addressed to that specific person…

You can ADDRESS whoever you like, but more-over, anyone can comment on anyone - not my rule, just how a blog WORKS;)

By Just Being Me

January 11, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

But, his original statement wasn’t about what should be and shouldn’t be. Ken’s original statement was about what is. He said something about most laws being based on someone’s interpretation of what is morally right. And, that is indeed the case.

And, you said that was incorrect.

So, my question to you is how is that incorrect? I’m not trying to challenge or debate you, I just don’t understand how you said his statement was incorrect. Aren’t most laws (or many laws) based on the interpretation of what is morally right?

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

Well, if that’s the case, half of what is “said� on here should be put in an e-mail and not a blog.

And I was replying to her assertion that I was incorrect for addressing her POST - which referred to a dialog SHE AND I had.

Your comprehension skills cannot be running at maximum? Dear lord help us.

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

{I addressed Ken’s comment I missed and asked for clarification - scroll up.}

As for “Aren’t most laws (or many laws) based on the interpretation of what is morally right?”

No, only the one moral stance is the notion that we have absolute rights; laws should all be dependant on that one moral notion and the priciples of what those rights are; and then laws to uphold those principles as well.

If you draw it out, it should look like an upsidedown triangle, with its base the ONLY moral aspect - and a new triangle has a NEW moral pillar; and is not acceptable for creation of laws.

As I stated, there ARE laws on the books that are moral laws - but they have slowly been removed; and more must be done. Ken, did mention that, and I missed it - and I stated that. But his post is unclear to me bc of the two notions presented so equally. So, I asked what his point was and to please clarify.

By FatMoose

January 11, 2006 05:17 PM | Link to this

Well, if that’s the case, half of what is “said� on here should be put in an e-mail and not a blog. Most (using the term “most� loosely) of the comments here are in response to a specific person’s comments, and/or are addressed to that specific person…

You can ADDRESS whoever you like, but more-over, anyone can comment on anyone - not my rule, just how a blog WORKS;)

Just as you entered the dispute bw she and I - it is to be expected, and to claim otherwise is just stupid.

By chuck

January 12, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

Well Kim it seems you kind of lost it in my absence yesterday afternoon. Ever stop to think that perhaps I wasn’t in front of my computer? The answer to your question is NO. That really has no bearing on this topic however.

I would condemn ANYONE who would rape a woman of any age. Up until the late 1950’s rape was a crime punishable by death. It happened a lot less then. I wouldn’t have ANY problem with returning to that.

Surely, however, in spite of what apparently happened to you, you can see my point. It would be inconsistent for me to believe anything else. The opposition to abortion has nothing to do with whether or not women should have particular rights or be denied them. It has nothing to do with the woman at all. Opposition to abortion is totally wrapped up in the fact that what you want to call a “clump of tissues” is in fact a BABY. Based on that fact, it doesn’t matter HOW the baby got there or who the father is. It doesn’t matter whether it was the result of a loving relationship between husband and wife or the disgusting attack of some pervert on an innocent woman. What matters is that once it is there…IT IS A BABY…and you don’t kill babies.

By Boscoe

January 12, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

Jake,* January 10, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this “Vincent rather than making those who are against abortion adopt and raise this child why don’t you actually make the parents responsible for raising that child? Aren’t they responsible for that child being there anyway?â€? Boscoe. What about pregnancy as a result of rape or incest? Brian Curtis,Abortion’s okay in that instance, right? (And don’t try to drag in the “statistically insignificantâ€? argument; no matter how many or how few cases actually occur, we’re arguing the underlying principle).I’m impressed that you went back to 1871 to find quotes condemning abortion. Did you find any condemning miscegenation while you were there—or allowing blacks and women to vote?. Vincent,And as far as making the parent responsible for the unwanted pregnancy, tell that to an eleven year old girl who was raped and didn’t even know she was pregnant. Yes, I volunteered for The March of Dimes for ten years, this happens every day of the month. And tell that to a woman who found out during her pregnancy that taking that child to full term will kill her. You are such an arrogant above it all person*. Why don’t the three of you nitwits get off the short bus and find the statistics that show what percentage of abortions are due to rape, or incest. Vincent see if you can find the number of abortions that were medically necessary in order to save the mothers life. Despite Brian’s concern for the underlying principle it is a statistical anomaly. It rarely happens. Don’t justify the millions of aborted babies every year because of some rogue statistic. It makes you look dumber than you already are. Unless of course Brian, you wish to continue with the abortion = racist connection? Is that what your saying Brian? Please tell me it is because this will be fun. Are you sure you want to go there? Vincent, It does take money to adopt those kids. I doubt your bank account has the expenses to cover the cost of the MILLIONS of aborted babies every year. Basically what you’re doing is justifying abortion because kids are expensive. I think I can be arrogant and above it all when there are morons out there with this attitude.

By Tim

January 12, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

how sad… a woman… who obviously did not choose to be raped… also should not have the choice of whether or not she wants to have the baby of the _ (fill in the blank because I still have not figured out the proper term for someone who would rape a person) who raped her… I guess she didn’t go through enough… she should also have to have yet another reminder of her rape

I wish I hadn’t already had breakfast because I think I am going to be sick

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, I see you’re dodging and squirming to avoid addressing the basic principle: Does the life of a fetus have more value than the life of the pregnant women herself?

As expected, you’re ducking it by arguing that “it almost never happens.” But that doesn’t matter—most arguments to establish principles of ethics “never happen” in the real world either. (Take the “ticking bomb” scenario for addressing the torture of terrorism suspects.)

The question still stands: regardless of how often it happens, can you justify killing the woman to save the fetus? And if not, what does that say about which life is more valuable?

Chuck: My work with you is complete. Now that you’ve come out in favor of forcing rape victims to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, I can sit back and let the rest of this forum tear you a new one.

Thanks for exposing the inherent cruelty and insanity that underlies any religious zealot—the same aberration that causes them to (for example) fly planes into buildings.

(Hey, if Bush can invoke 9/11 every day and get away with it, I can too.)

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

Chuck: One side note… do you see how useless your argument by repeated assertion is? “You’re calling it a clump of tissue, when it is, in fact, A BABY.”

Nice—but I can do the same. “You keep calling it a baby when it is, in fact, a CLUMP OF TISSUE.”

Convinced? Of course not; because it’s a useless argument tactic.

By Renee

January 12, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

Doesn’t make much sense to me either Tim.

By Archie

January 12, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

JBM I agree so much with your comments yesterday about the young man. It was consensual sex as the young lady has never filed charges against the young man and as a middle-aged man I can’t be in denial about women and this oral sex thing. Young women do choose to have sex,oral sex,etc. and I think it’s time to accept that and ten years in jail is entirely too much time and it’s just outright ridiculous that we can’t move from seeing women as unequal mentally and emotionally.

By Tim

January 12, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Renee… I am glad I am not the only one

By Nikita

January 12, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

“It has nothing to do with the woman at all.”

Rrrright. Thanks for clearing that up.

“Opposition to abortion is totally wrapped up in the fact that what you want to call a “clump of tissuesâ€? is in fact a BABY.”

Nope, it isn’t. It becomes a baby if there is no intervention, if it does not spontaneously abort, and if nothing else goes wrong in the process. The chances of it becoming a baby increase every day until it’s born — but until it is, its status is less than that of a living, breathing adult human.

“Based on that fact, it doesn’t matter HOW the baby got there or who the father is.”

a) it’s not a fact, b) it does matter — because you’re subsuming the needs of an adult woman to a developing fetus.

Let’s look beyond conception and birth. The anti-choice group tends to concentrate on these issues because once a child is born and it needs care and has legal implications it’s a far more complex thing than a contained quasi-entity. And those issues are what make restrictions on a woman’s right to choose appropriate healthcare a completely untenable proposition for me.

First, it is a woman. Once it was a fetus and ostensibly the anti-choice crowd cared about her. Now they don’t — because obviously she has no vlue of her own and exists to raise babies. Hence restrictions on birth control and on abortion, both of which together would conspire to effectively sentence most women in this country to a lifetime of child rearing and raising. Once born, a child requires 18+ years of attentive care. It is financially, physically, and emotionally draining to do so. This takes a huge toll upon women who aren’t prepared to do it, and even upon those who are. (And as an aside, the deadbeat dad lobby is working hard to reduce the amount of money that they are required to contribute to their ex-wives to compensate for raising their children. So for singly moms in that situation things are particularly dire.)

Secondly, prohibitions on abortion create legal situations which are cruel and inhumane, and we as a society should not contemplate returning to them. Forcing women to bear the children of rapists does not erase the rapist’s legal rights with regard to the child. Forced childbirth, however, forces the mother to be limited in a variety of ways throughout the pregnancy and potentially on through 18+ years of care. It also requires that she interact with her rapist on issues relative to the child, once it is born. I also happen to know a woman who miscarried what would have been her second child sometime in the 60s. To satisfy the legal standards, and to clarify that she had not actually aborted the fetus, she was required to sit in the hospital for hours with her deceased fetus, being examined and questioned by doctors and questioned by police. In my opinion, treating half of the population potentially as she was treated is unforgivable.

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Well said, Nikita! Great, logical dissection of the issue (no pun intended).

The default position for zealots seems to be that not only is the fetus JUST AS valuable as the woman, it is in fact MORE valuable—because it gets additiional rights at the expense of her own. Some “culture of life,” eh?

I seem to recall that some of the abolitionist (anti-slavery) arguments from people of faith revolved around a person’s most fundamenta right—the right to ownership of his/her own body. Funny how that concept has fallen out of fashion with those same devout people today.

By Renee

January 12, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Nikita - Excellent!

By Jack

January 12, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

I missed a lot by leaving early yesterday. If it was Kimberly vs. Chuck, my money would be on Kim.

JBM & Archie. What if the males at the party were 25 instead of 17? Do you think they should go to jail?

By kellyp

January 12, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Its a woman’s body. Its her choice. You would not want another person to force their religious practices onto you so don’t force it onto others.

If you don’t approve of abortion then don’t have one and stay out of other people’s home.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

I’m pretty sure Lozen & Whiley could take him out too. (With one hand tied behind them).

By Jack

January 12, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

Hi Renee’, Tim.

By Whiley

January 12, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

lol Jack just give me a minute, I’m still shocked there are people out there that think like that.

By Renee

January 12, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

Hey Jack!!!!!!!!

By RF

January 12, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Chuck, et al.— You need to realize that as a man you cannot possibly understand the awful feelings and thoughts a woman must have as the result of a rape, nor could you possibly understand the unmitigated damage a pregnancy like that and child rearing would do to her. NO woman I know would ever be able to love and nurture the child of that kind of awful act, nor would I be so arrogant as to expect her to do it. Now, while I don’t like abortion, I have to admit that as a man I have no idea how a woman considering it would feel, and I have no right to judge her decision for or against it. Saying that a child conceived in rape should not be aborted is punishing the victim of the rape, and I don’t see how God could possibly expect a woman to carry a child concieved that way.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Come on JBM & Archie, answer my baited question.

By Tim

January 12, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Good morning Jack… good to ‘see’ you here today

By Jack

January 12, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

I almost got JBM riled up yesterday. Hehehe!

By Amen

January 12, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

What is this, some kind of activist judge? Ruling the fetus in a pregnant woman does not count for the car-pool lane in Arizona.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/11/D8F2LSD84.html

By chuck

January 12, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

They’ve all tried Jack, but the only people who agree with them are the ones who ALREADY AGREED WITH THEM.

Scientific evidence is that you are wrong. While the scientific name may be fetus, but the human name is BABY. Tell me how a baby growing inside the womb is different from one growing outside the womb…aside from the obvious ones. The only things each need are nutrition, water, time, and for someone to not KILL them to become adults.

NOTHING IS ADDED AT BIRTH THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGES THE BABY except for nutrition and time.

So Brian, how does telling ONE human that they can’t ANOTHER human equate to making one more valuable than the other? Just admit you lost the point and move on. But if you want to carry this out to the ridiculous end, explain this for me. Is a bird’s egg a bird OR A POTENTIAL BIRD? BELOW, ARE THE MAJOR federal laws DEALING WITH THE PROTECTION OF BIRD’S EGGS. Does this mean that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT considers bird eggs to be more imprtant than HUMANS?

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The bald eagle will continue to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act if it is delisted under the Endangered Species Act. This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). “Take” includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3). The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment. The fine doubles for an organization. Rewards are provided for information leading to arrest and conviction for violation of the Act.

The Lacey Act Protections provided by the Lacey Act will continue if the bald eagle is delisted. This law, passed in 1900, protects bald eagles by making it a Federal offense to take, possess, transport, sell, import, or export their nests, eggs and parts that are taken in violation of any state, tribal or U.S. law. It also prohibits false records, labels, or identification of wildlife shipped, prohibits importation of injurious species and prohibits shipment of fish or wildlife in an inhumane manner. Penalties include a maximum of five years and $250,000 fine for felony convictions and a maximum $10,000 fine for civil violations and $250 for marking violations. Fines double for organizations. Rewards are provided for information leading to arrest and conviction. violation of the Act.

By Randy

January 12, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

On the subject of abortion. As our creator has identified each of us as individuals(through fingerprints, DNA etc. and as we will be held accountable for our decisions and actions, on judgement day). We just need to follow the golden rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Put yourself in the babies(unborns) shoes. If you were the unborn baby, would you want your mother and father “murdering you”? Only human beings(out of all of God’s creations)decides to play GOD and murder babies, just because it’s not the easy, self-centered road they want to travel.

By Randy

January 12, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

There have been some posts here on the subject of rape and incest. The baby didn’t rape you. The innocent babies shouldn’t have to pay. If you don’t want the child, give birth to it and let someone else adopt it.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

We have Randy. Where is Zack?

By Amen

January 12, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Humans are an endangered species, there are only 6 billion and counting upwards. so endangered, eventually there will be shortages of food and water. wait, we have that already.

Of course, I am sure there are many who would like the raptors to be extinct. Would result in an increase of rodents, feeding on the grain needed to feed the endangered humans.

By laura

January 12, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

In response to RF’s “No woman I know would be able to love and nurture a child of that kind of an awful act”: I would like to meet some of the women you know. I have a hard time believing that you know the mind of the women in your life about as much as you know the mind of God. HIS thoughts and ways are not ours. We are to blueprint our lives as much as possible after the Life of Christ, Who came to this world to save a lost and dying world through LOVE. How much more love can person show than to Love, what the world deems, the lowest and most undesirable. When we think of RAPE in technical or clinical terms we always think of an act forced upon a woman by someone she doesn’t know or like the movies. How many children were born of an act of sex that was forced upon a woman by the man she loved or was married to when he came in, drunk out of his mind or high on drugs and wanted sex, and she didn’t. You would be surprised how many people in your life and everyday that you see who were born from situations that were undesirable to the woman at the time. And as you do not know me, you do not know a woman who could an would and does love a child born from “such an awful act.”

By RF

January 12, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Laura- I posted: Chuck, et al.— You need to realize that as a man you cannot possibly understand the awful feelings and thoughts a woman must have as the result of a rape

Seems I WAS saying that a man (myself included) cannot know what a woman would feel. I asked a few last night and that was the general answer. One did say she didn’t know how she’d react, but she thought she would feel violated and dirty, and carrying the child she didn’t think would take that feeling away. I applaud your conviction and strength. I was only commenting to the men here, who like me, cannot know what a woman feels.I clearly said there that a man cannot understand, Laura. I know I can’t.

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Chuck: I’ts a potential bird… duh. You’re not reading/hearing what anyone is saying here, because you’re already decided that a fetus MUST be a baby. “Science” doesn’t validate your definition there, because you yourself admit it’s a non-scientific definition.

You’re not responding to the rape question because you can’t, or you know how bad it makes your position look. You’ve tried to float various legal-defense terms like “self-defense” to avoid acknowledging that a potential human has fewer rights than an actual one (not more, fewer).

And since it’s really an either-or situation, you have to choose one OR the other. Either the rape victim’s right to control her own body doesn’t count compared to the right of the fetus to occupy it (your position), or the victim’s rights win (the sane position). One or the other has to win out in that situation—and you’re stuck on the wrong side.

When you’re ready to acknowledge your defeat, I’ll be greatly surprised.

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Only human beings(out of all of God’s creations)decides to play GOD and murder babies, just because it’s not the easy, self-centered road they want to travel.

Randy, you’re full of s—t. Wild animals destroy their young ALL THE TIME. The runt of the litter, or a misformed offspring are often destroyed by the birthing female. Males also destroy newborn animals that may not be of their sire. With some species, the male destroys his own offspring if the female doesn’t take them elsewhere.

Chuck is full of s—t, too. He gets OFF on rape. Admit it. We all know it’s true. If GOD wanted to you to get conset first, he wouldn’t have made you bigger and stronger than your b—-h. RIGHT, CHUCKIE?

By Randy

January 12, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

We have Jack, where is bozo the clown?

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Jack,

Come on JBM & Archie, answer my baited question.

I think the punishment, and there should be one of SOME kind, should be minimal in your situation as well (25yo guys) - it was by their (the girls) own means that they got drunk/high and chose to perform those acts.

I throw it back to you - if you find that so deplorable; what do you think should happen to the woman (26yo) who just got caught in mexico that took a 14yo boy there WITH her 3yo child in tote? All to escape the law (from being with the 14yo in Nov) and have her way with him…along with a 3yo he would have to comprimise somehow.

By Randy

January 12, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, The males might kill their young, but that is so the female goes into estrus(heat) and they can have sex with them again. If a mother kills their young it’s because it knows it can’t support or feed them all, do we do that as humans? We can’t feed the 40 million babies we have murdered so far, since Roe v Wade?

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Randy, you’re not even starting from valid facts. Kimberly has already pointed out one of your most fundamental(ist) errors: animals kill their young all the time.

Quit reading the pro-life propaganda sheets and pick up some real information sometime. Here’s a hint: There’s more to the world than your personal spin on the Bible… and the Bible is frequently wrong anyway. You can’t learn until you open your eyes, and I hope you do someday.

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Actually, Randy, you’re making a great PRO-abortion argument there: population pressure.

No, we can’t feed, clothe and house the entire world—certainly not in anything approaching the level of the American lifestyle. (I expect citations from more religious-nut sites claiming there’s no “population problem” to worry about….)

So if you want to go with sheer practicality, great; let’s do it! We really CAN’T feed 40 million extra people, as evidenced by the large number of U.S. citizens already living in poverty and hunger. Fewer babies born = more resources for the rest of us. Abortions for all!

You really might want to try a different tack, Randy. “Think it through.”

By chuck

January 12, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Brian, I have repeatedly responded to the rape question. I assume you can read. Let’s see here. You say that the EGG of a bird is a POTENTIAL BIRD, not an ACTUAL bird. Based on that assessment then, how do you explain the fact that the Federal government protects BY LAW, POTENTIAL BIRDS BUT NOT POTENTIAL HUMANS. Destroying an Eagle EGG, fertilized or not could result in up to 5 years in prison but destroying a human embryo/fetus/baby is not only legal, but is APPLAUDED by the Brians of this world.

AGAIN, you people are SICK.

By Tim

January 12, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

the male destroys his own offspring if the female doesn’t take them elsewhere

Rabbits are a good example Kimberly… I learned the hard way when I was little kid and had a boy bunny and a girl bunny… the first litter of baby bunnies became breakfast for the dad… we learned you have to separate the dad from the babies or he will eat them… I was VERY sad :(

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Good Morning, All!!! I’ve really been slacking off, so I need to get some work done. I’m forcing myself not to be “in here” all day!

Jack, you didn’t almost get me riled up, my passion for justice almost got me riled up! :-p

To answer your baited question, if the guys were 25, I do think they should be punished more harshly. 25 year olds and 15 year olds are not in the same age group, do not go to school together, and should not be in each others company. Further, most 25 year old men know that it is unlawful to engage in sexual acts with a minor. On the other hand, most 17 year olds don’t know that it is unlawful to engage in sex acts with someone less than 24 months younger than them.

What also enrages me is that if these guys had been 16, even if they were just a week older than the 15 year olds, the law would still apply, and they could be sentenced to 10 years in prison.

As someone else said, in this case, they were caught up into the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law. This law had an intention, and in the end, it wasn’t enforced for its intended purpose.

If you just think logically: a 17 year old boy on his way to college will now spend 10 years in prison for getting a blow job from one of his classmates.

By The72John

January 12, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

I’ve been avoiding the ‘blog because it’s just too easy to get sucked in and waste enormous amounts of time, but I just had to ring in on this one.

Isn’t it interesting how the zealots have this overwhelming compassion and concern for an undeveloped fetus, and a complete lack of compassion for the human being once it emerges from the womb?

That poor innocent fetus that must be protected is instantly transformed into a drain-on-society welfare baby that doesn’t deserve educational assistance or healthcare or even food, because “this isn’t a socialist country”. The same zealots have no objections to spending billions of dollars developing new and better ways to annihilate large numbers of people, yet become infuriated at significantly smaller expenditures of money designed to look after the very people their Christ told them to look after.

The same fanatics, while raving about personal responsibility, effectively absolve themselves of ALL personal responsiblity by claiming that God causes everything. God causes stillbirths, but man causes abortion. God allows children to starve or die of disease, but man is responsible for abortion.

They would be laughable if they weren’t so frightening.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Wow, Tim, really? Never too old to learn. I didn’t know that.

Chuck, destroying an eagle egg would serve no purpose. It should be punishable by law.

By chuck

January 12, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

KIMMIE, you are a sad little shell of a human being. I really hate what must have happened to you as a child/young woman, to make you turn out this way. I’m going to stop picking on you now. It just isn’t any fun to see this side of you. I apologize for bringing that out in you. Now that I know how fragile your emotions are it won’t happen again. BTW this is not sarcasm, but a sincere attempt to apologize.

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Yeah, we’re “SICK” Chuck. Are you praying for us now? That YOUR God will touch and heal our hardened hearts? That we may be filled with His Love the way YOU are? What time shall we expect our miracle? Noon? Five o’clock?

Or do you curse us instead? My money’s on option B.

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

If you just think logically: a 17 year old boy on his way to college will now spend 10 years in prison for getting a blow job from one of his classmates.

More importantly, these guys will have to register as sex offenders where ever they move to (which will be greatly limited) for life…They will have to go through the story countless times with peers/girlfriends/potential job forms…

They will be on par with a person who rapes & kills a 5yo.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

JBM. With your reasoning, a 25 year old should go to jail for murder and the 17 year old should walk because they don’t know better? What if the girls were 13 and looked 18? A pecker in the mouth is a pecker in the mouth is it not?

By Tim

January 12, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

JBM… yeah it was gross!

We have Jack, where is bozo the clown? he came on the blog around 10:17 this morning… but I used to watch him on the Chicago station WGN… I don’t know if you can still catch him on there or not… it may be in reruns

By Jack

January 12, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

“I’ve been avoiding the ‘blog because it’s just too easy to get sucked in and waste enormous amounts of time”

Addicting isn’t it? I catch myself thinking about it when I’m no where near a computer. Bad, very bad.

By RF

January 12, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

The problem Jack, is that the boys knew the girls and were more likely to see them as peers. They were all about the sex period. A 25 yr. old would hardly see a 15 yr. old as a peer, and his focus would be on sex with a young girl. The intent is different and should be handled legally in a different way.

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Chuck: Maybe because eagle eggs are rare and valuable, whereas human eggs are littering up dang-near every womb on the planet?

It’s only sick and crazy in your twisted, funhouse-mirror view of life, Chuck. A potential bald eage is rare and precious; potential humans are a dime a dozen.

Sure, they have SOME value as personal property (so I’d support an additional fine or penalty for inducing a miscarriage)—but they’re nowhere near as rare (and therefore valuable) as eagle eggs.

I appreciate your disgust and contempt; they expose more of the mindset of the religious zealot.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Jack: Go to jail for murder? Who said anything about going to jail for murder? You asked if I would feel the same way if the guys were 25, and I answered that if the guys were 25, they should indeed be punished.

For the record, I do believe the teen boys should be punished. I think that even when kids break rules that they didn’t realize were rules, they need to learn a lesson because that’s how life is. However, I believe deep in my heart, with firm conviction, that community service would have sufficed for Genarlow, who had no priors.

And to answer your question,, NO, a pecker in the mouth is not a pecker in the mouth. A 50 year old pecker in a 13 year old mouth is not the same as a 17 year old pecker in a 15 year old mouth. Keep in mind that I am opposed to sex before marriage, so I don’t think any pecker should be in any mouth unless it’s a husband’s pecker going in his wife’s mouth. And, then, age doesn’t matter.

But, in this case, a 17 year old boy had oral sex with a girl less than two years his junior. If he had intercourse with her, even got her pregnant, he wouldn’t be in jail today. But, because she sucked him off - uncoerced - he’s in jail. She’s free.

Complete miscarriage of justice.

By Renee

January 12, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Tim - Too funny, I used to watch those reruns on WGN.

Jack - It is VERY addicting. I guess I could be addicted to worse things though.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Me too, Jack & John… it’s a darned shame.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Well. We do disagree on this one. Always wanted a daughter, glad I didn’t get one or I would have no hair!

By The72John

January 12, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately I’m also addicted to World of Warcraft, so I have to tear myself away from that as well. Thankfully my friends kick my butt and make me disconnect.

By chuck

January 12, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

As usual 72John, you start out with a FALSE statement framing it as if it is the accepted truth, and then use that false statement as the basis for an if this/then this argument. Let me quickly point out the fallacy of your post:

Isn’t it interesting how the zealots have this overwhelming compassion and concern for an undeveloped fetus, and a complete lack of compassion for the human being once it emerges from the womb?

Totally untrue. We have tremendous compassion for children and many of us spend hundreds of hours a year as volunteers. Many of us collect food for food banks that feed these kids and hundreds of thousands of us adopt those that end up in that kind of situation. Your statement is laughably false.

That poor innocent fetus that must be protected is instantly transformed into a drain-on-society welfare baby that doesn’t deserve educational assistance or healthcare or even food, because “this isn’t a socialist country�. The same zealots have no objections to spending billions of dollars developing new and better ways to annihilate large numbers of people, yet become infuriated at significantly smaller expenditures of money designed to look after the very people their Christ told them to look after.

Again, a false statement. The argument against those programs by conservatives has nothing to do with whether or not those children/families SHOULD be helped but rather with WHO should be helping them and whether or not that help is a legal function of the Federal Government. Clearly, we believe that that help should rise at the local level and not the Federal Level. When has a federal Bureaucracy ever done as good a job delivering aid as a private organization? NEVER.

National defense is a CONSTITUTIONALLY DILENIATED FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WELFARE IS NOT!!!

My daughter leaves tomorrow with a group of 50 young people to spend their holiday in Mississippi doing disaster relief. When you don’t know anything you shouldn’t say anything.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Have work to do. Later. XOXO

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

But Jack,

A pecker in the mouth is a pecker in the mouth is it not?

That sounds like OUR point - is a 25yo perker more damaging than a 15yo one?

Or if experimenting by their (the girls) own will and choice make that null and void?

I would find the situation different if coerced; then I would agree the older the person, the easier it is for them to twist anothers perception - yet that is not the case.

What about my question to you about the 26yo woman?

By Jack

January 12, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

FM. I plead the 5th on that question.

By The72John

January 12, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Please Chuck - you have never displayed any compassion for anyone on this ‘blog. My statements are absolutely true. You have compassion ONLY for people that aren’t real to you because you can’t fathom feeling compassion for actual flesh-and-blood people. You mask your basic loathing for other people who don’t measure up to your so-called “Christian” standards in nonsense about federal programs and national defense, but the truth is you revel in war and power, and you despise the poor whom you view as less than yourself.

Every thing you have ever posted oozes disdain for the poor, the needy, and anyone who isn’t Christian enough for you. You are a vile, hypocritical piece of human filth who doesn’t deserve to live on the planet with decent people.

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

“When you don’t know anything, you shouldn’t say anything.”

But Chuck! Then what would the religious nuts do? They NEED an audience for their raving, spittle-emitting hatred and loopy insanity….

What fun is it to serve God unless you can tell everybody else what scum they are for not sharing your faith? (I guess I’ll have to ask a REAL Christian to find out.)

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Chuck: I belive that certain bird eggs are more important than gestating humans because some birds are rare and humans are a dime a dozen. Anyone who does not agree with that must be living in a fun house.

Debating facts with me is pointless because I am too ignorant to know when I am wrong. Please try not to be so hard on me, Chuck.

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Jack,

FM. I plead the 5th on that question.

Awww - wuss! {grin - I understand}

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

Destroying an Eagle EGG, fertilized or not could result in up to 5 years in prison but destroying a human embryo/fetus/baby is not only legal, but is APPLAUDED by the Brians of this world.

The point SHOULD be, does a mother eagle get ten years if it kills/abandons/discards one of her eggs?

No-one is stating that any person sould be able to walk up to a female who is pregnant and give her an abortion.

LOGIC does exist - try using it.

That was very stupid to say, and no one is applauding an abortion, only the right. Just as we would applaud the bird in knowing what is best for her and having the knowledge to make that CHOICE.

By Archie

January 12, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Once again JBM I agree with your comments at 10:57 and 11:17 am. I reread the story about G. Wilson on another website and if I had been on the jury I would have voted not guilty. Heck,common sense has to set in sometime. That young man should not be in jail period. Young folk are having oral sex and we might as well get over it. We,adults, have to work harder at training our young people what’s appropiate behavior but as adults we have to make sure our reaction to inappropiate behavior is the correct one.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Jack, if my daughter (who is 15) was the one taking a 17 y/o’s sex organ in her mouth, I would be extremely angry and upset, heartbroken, disappointed, etc. But, I still wouldn’t want to see that boy go to jail. Jail is the worst place you can send a teenager who is NOT a troublesome kid, and has no criminal history… one who made a mistake in judgment (and even that is debatable, b/c I don’t even think it was a mistake in judgment) should NOT be in jail.

Have oral with a classmate? Okay, we’ll put you in the 24-hour company of murderers, schemers, burglars, robbers, rapists, and other violent criminals. You can learn how to pick locks, jack a car, hold a girl down with one hand, rob a bank… anything else we can teach you?

By Archie

January 12, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

” one who made a mistake in judgment (and even that is debatable, b/c I don’t even think it was a mistake in judgment) should NOT be in jail.”

JBM I was so tempted to say that in my earlier post. We really do agree on this Wilson case.

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

So now he stoops to spoofing me… Chuck’s monitor must be covered with spittle by now. What fun!

Admit it, Chuck; you’ve lost. I know denial is a central trait for a religious zealot, but nobody here agrees with you. (Well, maybe Randy; but he’s working through some darkness-and-ignorance issues of his own.)

There really IS such a thing as a “potential human;” it’s called a fetus. In earlier stages, it’s called an embryo, then a zygote; and before that, sperm and egg cells. None of them are people who share the same set of full rights and status as an actual, true human being.

Insisting that it should be otherwise is nice, but you really need to offer some reasoning to support it. And no, quoting your personal interpretation of the Bible doesn’t count as a ‘reason.’

You’ll also have to address the uncomfortable ethical questions that result from giving a fetus priority over a woman… something you’ve failed to do.

You’re batting pretty near zero so far, but you HAVE managed to drag in a lot of pro-life lies and irrelevant comments about self defense claims, the statistical insignificance of rape-induced pregnancy, and the evils of protecting endangered birds. For that much amusement, I thank you.

By Candice

January 12, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

How cold and callous we’ve become to get to the point where killing your own child is considered a legal right! “It’s my baby, I can kill it if I want to! It’s my LEGAL RIGHT!” How sick is this mentality.

NOW even promotes tshirts that say “I Had An Abortion” on them like a woman is going to be proud of it and want to tell everyone she sees about it.

The people on this blog who’ve enjoyed bashing God and Jesus will be in for an EXTREMELY rude awakening one day and you can spend an eternity rethinking your words and your decisions. That’s right-you have that right-to spend eternity in a very very hot place (and I don’t mean Miami Beach)! No one can take that right away from you-not even the GOVERNMENT!!!

JBM and Chuck and right about so many things. I think the reason Chuck doesn’t hold his tongue is because he DOES “consider his audience” and the way they tear at each other like a pack of wolves. He’s telling it like it is and defending himself from the ruthless comments made about him. No, it’s not the way to win souls-but it is the way to hold your own against the wolves.

Death penalties are given to people who’ve committed murder. Unborn babies are guilty of simply being created. If you made abortion illegal with one exception-where the mother would DIE if the pregnancy continued then we certainly wouldn;t have 1,500,000 abortions per year in our country!

By Joker

January 12, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

I think she means RIO, isn’t that hotter than Miami Beach?

anybody been watching the PBS series, Walking the Bible or something like that. So much of Judaism was borrowed/hijacked from earlier even more primitive religions.

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

No, we’d have half a million wealthy and middle-class women getting abortions in underground clinics they can afford… and a million poor women bleeding to death in back alleys.

Candice, I can understand your outrage, with one exception: You’re assuming a fetus is a child. That’s your choice, of course; but can’t you see that others have a different perspective? We’re “telling it like it is,” too.. and without the threats of eternal hellfire for anyone who dares to disagree with us.

And I would NEVER bash Jesus or God. I just enjoy pointing out the folly of those fundies, zealots, and other loons who twist his teachings and spew hatred while claiming to act in his name.

I’ve met a lot of people who talk about Jesus, but very few Christians. (Here’s a hint: If you carry a “God hates f*” sign, if you call for assassinations and disasters to strike down unbelievers, or if you try to impose your faith on others through law rather than good works… you’re not a Christian. And God will get you for that, Walter.)

By Whiley

January 12, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

A fetus is not a baby.

By lozen

January 12, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

How cold and callous we’ve become when we get to the point that we want to force every female human who ever gets pregnant to carry that pregnancy to term. Women should be slaves to their biology and their ability to give live. Never mind what she may want in her life, never mind that she can’t care for a child because she’s 13 years old, or she was raped, or she has medical problems, or she’s single, or she has five kids already, or her husband just left her and she has no job training and no way to financially care for a child, or she has mental or emotional problems that prevent her from nurturing a child. None of that is important. Her life and her choices for herself are not important. A little clump of cells in her uterus that could not live on it’s own is more important than her hopes and plans and problems. No, you’re the one that’s sick Candice.

By lozen

January 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

The people on this blog who’ve enjoyed bashing God and Jesus will be in for an EXTREMELY rude awakening one day and you can spend an eternity rethinking your words and your decisions. That’s right-you have that right-to spend eternity in a very very hot place (and I don’t mean Miami Beach)! No one can take that right away from you-not even the GOVERNMENT And you’re a simple minded moron too!

By Joker

January 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

anybody see where the State of Israel has disowned Pat Robertson over his Sharon remarks? Probably okay to apply their concepts to Chavez, Dover, etc, but when applied to themselves/Sharon, that must be too unacceptable.

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

And I would NEVER bash Jesus or God. I just enjoy pointing out the folly of those fundies, zealots, and other loons who twist his teachings and spew hatred while claiming to act in his name.

Ditto.

Candice,

I would be nice if the world was ans black/white as you fundies want to think; but even your references to scriptures state that god is hidden, and you must seek him.

That should give you a hint that the bible is not a set of rules - or always correct, seeing as what humans have done to it; translations and all (including homosexuality and the snake in the garden was originaly just that: a snake. No mention there of it being the devil - that is just the fundies trying to simplify a difficult world)

if you all cared SOOO much about the word, you would learn what it actually IS.

By The72John

January 12, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Candice, if that’s your pathetic idea of God, you can keep it.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Archie, it’s so smart of you to agree with me! LOL! Just kidding, of course. But, to me, this case is cut and dry. A no-brainer. That kid just shouldn’t be in jail. Period.

Candice, thanks (I think) but it’s not a good idea to tell a mixed crowd of people with varying beliefs that if they “bash” God and Jesus they’ll go to hell. That’s not Christ’s way at all. How about sharing the love of Christ with them, and leave the judgment up to Him.

And, for the record, Chuck does not hold his tongue, nor does he consider his audience. If he did, he wouldn’t say some of the things he says.

And lastly, it appears you (and perhaps Chuck, too) have lost sight of your real goal, which is or should be to win souls. Not to “hold your own against the wolves,” certainly not to browbeat people who don’t believe, or to condemn them for having different beliefs. When it comes to God, I tend to disagree with the VAST majority of the folks on here. But, why let that become a source of division? If you believe in Christ, then you know that the battle is already won. There is no need for us to fight any battles. We have two purposes, and two only: to worship Him, and to share his love/Word. PERIOD.

By RF

January 12, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

Candice— noone has bashed God or Jesus, just a few of his self-appointed reps here who spout religious wisdom and then roll in the mud with the rest.

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

JBM, you make a good point about prison turning first-time offenders into career criminals. Bad idea, especially in this case.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry for striking my wife and killing her your Honor, I made a mistake in judgement.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

Jack, surely you don’t compare a man killing his wife to two consenting teens having sex relations. I know you wouldn’t do that… you’re way too smart for that.

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Jack,

I’m sorry for striking my wife and killing her your Honor, I made a mistake in judgement.

Are there not degrees of murder charges?

Are you stating the G-mother that backed over the 4yo (i think that is the age) the other day should get murder 1 for having bad judgement in not closign the door behind her and being more carefull?

It is all a grey spectrum is what is being said.

By RF

January 12, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Come on Jack, admit it. Ten years for a b***** is a bit much don’t you think?? Would you want your son to get that sentence if he got caught at 17, while the girl who was with him and apparently contributed, gets nothing and is seen as a ‘victim’? I’d be disappointed and angry with my son, and he’d surely learn a lesson much more important than what he’d learn in ten years in prison.

By Renee

January 12, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry for striking my wife and killing her your Honor, I made a mistake in judgement.

Too funny. I don’t agree with the argument but that was really funny Jack.

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

One has to look at whos in control, and whos judgement was bad and how much that should be considered. This can, and usually IS multifaceted; meaning there is bad judgement across the board; but to varying degrees.

Jack, your thinking is usually not so one-dimentional as this.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Stirin it up.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Renee, wait till you hear how the rest of that conversation went… LOL!

The judge can’t believe her ears, and asks, “You think hitting your wife and killing her was a mistake in judgment????”

The guy looks confused, and replies, “Nooooo, I meant marrying her was a mistake in judgment. I was just trying to fix a mistake.”

By Renee

January 12, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

Good one JBM lol.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Umm, Jack. Does this pot look like it needs to be stirred up???????

By chuck

January 12, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Thank you Candice, these folks have a long history on this blog of attacking me personally, because they can’t logically attack the arguments.

Brian, “Is you stupid or is you just ig’nant?”

You can keep repeating that I haven’t responded to your juvenile arguments all you want, but the people on this blog (at least the HONEST ones) know better. I have responded BOTH Scripturally AND using a secular approach. I’m not sure you really are the original Brian Curtis because he at least used to make some sense on here. You have said absolutely nothing that refutes any of my arguments. You have made a number of utterly ridiculous statements that nobody would take seriously.

I have not made ANY statements about the statistical insignificance of rape and abortion. Not one. But…let me address that issue right now. According to the statistics posted earlier by Lyrazel listing the reasons given for abortion by the women themselves, at least 98% of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest. The percentage could be higher because there may have been other reasons not recorded by the study in addition to rapeor incest, but for the sake of argument, let’s use 2% as the number of abortions due to rape or incest. Let’s add to that the number of abortions performed for the life or health of the mother, another 6.1% for a total of 8.1%. Using those statistics, Making abortion illegal in cases except for Life and health of the mother or rape and incest, would result in the saving of 1,268,220 babies each year. 111,780 would still be killed and that would not be acceptable, but if I had to choose between saving 1.26 million babies and saving none, I would support such a law. I would not agree with its scope, or the compromise involved, but an imperfect law would be better than no law at all.

Oh and I just noticed that you accused me of spoofing you. If by that you mean that I posted under your name, that is absolutely NOT TRUE. I have never done that and consider it to be extremely intellectually unethical. I would not do it and I don’t condone it.

By RF

January 12, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

JBM—LOLOL!!

You might be a redneck if you think an acceptable defense for a murder charge is “he needed killin’”

Jack—you’re having WAY too much today, aren’t you, you little blog junkie!!

By chuck

January 12, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

p.s. that would explain some of “your” posts. Why don’t you point out the ones that were NOT you.

By RF

January 12, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Chuck- give it a rest man and take a deep breath—You’re getting way too worked up over there. You put your arguments out, so don’t take the words soooo personally that come back. “Sticks and stones” and all that, you know? You’ve given as good as you’ve taken, so don’t look for sympathy. I doubt even the ‘honest’ ones here would offer you much.

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Not feeling the love yet, Chuck. (Hey, remember when you called me a “depraved little miscreant?” Yeah, that was fun.) Anyway, it’s almost 1:00. Perhaps you should pray harder.

By The72John

January 12, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Yeah Chuck - you’re so awesome! Of course, pretty much every argument you make is cut-and-pasted from some Fundamentalist We-miss-the-nazis Christian website. So they aren’t really YOUR arguments at all, are they scum?

By Jack

January 12, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

We haven’t seen the tape. Did the girls admit they wanted to do it? If they were blind drunk, they did not do it willingly. Yes, I do agree 10 years is too much for a BJ. What about the girl who woke up nekkid and did not remember anything? Remember the case in Carolton with the three baseball players who had their way with a passed out coed and taped it. She was passed out and was unable to say no.

By Tim

January 12, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

awwww… poor Chuck can’t take the criticism… a real man could

By chuck

January 12, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

What’s up with that RF? I don’t take these things personally. I don’t give that a second’s worry except to point out the hypocrisy when they do exactly the same thing that they accuse me of doing.

For instance JBM’s post of the following:

Candice, thanks (I think) but it’s not a good idea to tell a mixed crowd of people with varying beliefs that if they “bash� God and Jesus they’ll go to hell. That’s not Christ’s way at all. How about sharing the love of Christ with them, and leave the judgment up to Him.

I believe it was last week that she was calling Whiley or Renee an idiot. I’d have to go back and find it, but I do know that I read it. So don’t worry. I’m having fun responding. The pen is mightier than the sword.

BTW JBM Her is what Jesus said In Matthew 8:10-12:

10When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

11And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

By The72John

January 12, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Oh look…Chuck’s quoting fiction again. Just like he always does when he has nothing to say.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

If we don’t keep stirring, it will stick to the bottom. LOL

Yes, I’m getting too much blog today. I’m feelin good. probably have a blog hang-over tomorrow.

By chuck

January 12, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Oh look 72John is being a turd again. Just like he is EVERY DAY

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Thought this was interesting - by Chuck absolute knowledge and assertion; this lady should not be fined…

PHOENIX - Fetuses do not count as passengers when it comes to determining who may drive in the carpool lane, a judge ruled.

Candace Dickinson was fined $367 for improper use of a carpool lane, but contended the fetus inside her womb allowed her to use the lane.

She must have been related to Chuck;)

“But your honor; why would a person get ten years for killing an eagle egg! Would you fine her for flying with the egg?”

By The72John

January 12, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Sorry Chuck. I didn’t mean to call you out on your hate-filled, ignorant, irrational rhetoric.

Turd…does Jesus tell you to use that language, you evil piece of slime?

By The72John

January 12, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

By the way, Schmuck, every time you resort to name-calling and such, you prove that you are not a Christian. I, on the other hand, am perfectly justified in calling you names, based on the sheer volume of anti-gay slurs you have made in the past. That, and I don’t claim to belong to your primitive little cult.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Chuck. I’m well aware of what Jesus said in Matthew 8, and the context and setting in which He said it.

I didn’t call Renee an idiot. I don’t think I called Whiley an idiot either, but I don’t remember for sure.

I did call FM an idiot - I think that was the week before last. But, whenever it was, I apologized first thing the next morning, so that sin is cast into the lake of forgetfulness. Only the devil would go in and try to retrieve it.

By chuck

January 12, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Bite me 72

By chuck

January 12, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

The point is JBM, it happens.

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Stop picking on Chuck! He’s BUSY praying for the miracle of God’s love to touch our hearts! Um… nothing yet, hon. Keep trying.

By The72John

January 12, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Ooo, yet again Chuck. Bite me…ooooh! What a loving example of Christian goodness you are! Jesus is jumping up and down and cheering for you right now! You must have a big ole GOLD STAR going up on your little chart up in heaven.

By The72John

January 12, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Quick Chuck - turn on the tv…Pat Robertson is about to condemn a whole bunch of people and tell us about how your loving little god is going to kill them all with hurricanes and strokes.

You wouldn’t want to miss that, now would you? Immediately after, you can watch your favorite program. Gas Chamber TV!

By lozen

January 12, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

It’s so hard to be a fundamentalist and not think women are worthless and treat them as if they don’t matter; the message of misogyny is everywhere throughout the bible. Chuck and others like him are just true fundies who think everybody who doesn’t take Jesus as his savior is going to hell and the worth of a fetus is more important than any woman living and breathing. Another of the reasons why I’m not a christian.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Chuck must be a masochist. Enjoy Chuck.

By Candice

January 12, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

lozen said,“just true fundies who think everybody who doesn’t take Jesus as his savior is going to hell…Another of the reasons why I’m not a christian.”

Where do you think the term “Christian” comes from? Christians believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe what the bible tells us. The bible says very clearly that there is ONE name that can save mankind-and that name is JESUS. The bible is very clear about the existence of heaven and what awaits beleivers in eternity. Do you really think heaven will be filled with people who denied Jesus Christ and rejected His teachings?

By Jack

January 12, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

Candice. Are you saying all non-believers are going to end up in Hell?

By The72John

January 12, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Tell me Candice, do you think that a loving deity would condemn his creation to eternal torment just because they didn’t worship Him in exactly the right way? Of course you do - that’s why you’re a nasty little fundy. Child-like explanation for a child-like mind.

Of course, none of you fundies actually embrace Christ’s teachings, so by your own logic you should be burning in Hell.

By blablabla

January 12, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

please give us another topic besides abortion. reading people scream back and forth at each other solves nothing.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Sorry for the last post. Should have read Lozen’s first.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

I second Bla’s motion.

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Here’s one of Jesus’s teachings: Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are wthin full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. — Matthew 23:27-28

Translation: You people who claim to be righteous are full of s—t, er, I mean, rotting stuff.

By Candice

January 12, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Jack, all I can say for sure is what is in the God’s word the bible.

This is what it says in Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

If you are a Christian then you believe what the word of God says. Those were not my words-they were the words of God from His holy bible.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Chuck, sure things happen. But, when you’re wrong, you repent and “go and sin no more.” You don’t keep doing it over and over again. That just proves that you’re really not sorry.

Well, in your case, I know you’re not sorry because you haven’t apologized anyway!

And, don’t dare compare my one-time slip up (for which I repented and haven’t done again) to your endless namecalling. I don’t know how you live your life, but on this blog, you are a poor representation of Christ Jesus.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Candice, Jesus said “with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.” If lovingkindness worked for you, why don’t you use it on other folks instead of trying to use fear tactics?

Behold, I stand at the door and knock… not, behold I’m coming to kick your door down and knock you upside your head with a Bible!

But the fruit of the Spirit (or, product of the Spirit, what the spirit will produce in you) is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, meekness, goodness, faith, temperance…

WHERE IS YOUR FRUIT??????????????????? If you are in Christ, and have His spirit, why aren’t you producing kindness and goodness and temperance?

eiowrmofdirfi eifoweeiof i ewoij ewo wioefh wo woeijt oweirw!!! UGGGHHH!!!!!!!!

By RF

January 12, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Good one Kimberly!!LOL

I used to be a member of a very conservative babptist church. I left because the church literally began falling apart over legal arguments over a few Bible verses taken completely out of the context within which they were written. The hypocrisy and fundamentalism got to be tooooo much for me. As a friend of mine’s dad once said “I see a lot more of God in the North Carolina hills than I ever have in any church I’ve been into.” There’s a lot of truth we would-be Christians need to think about there.

By RF

January 12, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

OMG—-JBM is typing in tongues!!

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

RF, thanks. I also used to be a Southern Baptist. I quit them when I saw they had this huge, massive convention — biggest ever or something, and all they could come up with is, are you ready…. “Let’s boycott Disney ‘cause they give health benefits to same-sex partners!” I’m like, are you kidding me? THAT’s what you come up with when 60,000 of you get together? Bunch of &(*^^&%^%^$##@! Way to spread the love of Christ, huh?

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

LOLOLOLOL, RF!!!!

I was actually mumbling some other things under my breath about how badly some people get on my last nerve, but with my hand over my mouth, that’s how it came out! LOL!

By The72John

January 12, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

The Bible = Man’s word.

By Netbanker

January 12, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Moose,

I didn’t get to respond to your question yesterday regarding the murder of a pregnant woman counting as 2 deaths. My personal view is that if the fetus isn’t viable outside the womb (general rule of thumb being 3rd trimester) then it’s only one murder. There would be no way of being certain that the baby would have lived to full term anyway.

You guys really made Chuck run! Interesting how questions that he can’t honestly answer in a fashion that continues to support his views he simply ignores or he disappears. That happened to me last week.

Nikita…excellent point about poor people who can’t support themselves continuing to have children if access to abortion is eliminated! It is my impression that those most passionate about Right to Life also are strong believers in the bootstrap theory (as in pulling yourself up by them).

Here’s my conundrum…R2L focuses on the RIGHTS of the unborn child. Minors have extremely limited to no legal rights. It is only AFTER birth that the baby becomes a separate entity and recognized as an individual. Given these two conditions, how can a non-individual who is also a legal minor have rights?

Yet another thing to chew on…if a teen beyond the age of consent becomes pregnant why is it that the parents need to be notified if the teen becomes pregnant and wants an abortion? The age of consent basically says that they are old enough to make the decision to become sexually active on their own and without parental permission or notification. Setting such an age seems to indicate that the teen has the mental capacity to make sexual decisions. Why do they suddenly NOT have enough mental capacity to decide not to carry to term?

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

If you are a Christian then you believe what the word of God says.

Those were not my words-they were the words of God from His holy bible.

On the contrary, THOSE ABOVE are your words; his were, as you JUST wrote: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Only your fundies can state the word, then change/twist it and say they are not your words; with the agenda to judge others and exonerate your hate- profoundly absurd.

By chuck

January 12, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

72john, it is rejecting Christ Himself that sends you to hell. God gave us 2 roads. One leads to heaven, the other leads to hell. PERIOD. You can say all day long that you want to go to Cleveland, but if you take I-20 West you will end up in California. Now while there may be a lot of ways to get to Cleveland or California, that is not true of Heaven. There is ONE WAY.

BTW God doesn’t send anybody to hell. They choose to go there by rejecting His Son. Those of us who have chosen His way don’t always get it right. We screw up too. The difference is that when we screw up it doesn’t change our direction, it just makes the trip more difficult. There are consequences for our actions and I fully expect to endure some of those consequences for my occasional little outbursts.

BUT, 72John, by rejecting Christ HIMSELF, you are indeed sending yourself to hell. Why would I be a Christian if I was not going to believe His Word? It wouldn’t make sense.

Lozen, I defy you to find one instance where I have said that an unborn baby is MORE VALUABLE than a woman. It is a smokescreen to make that statement, because I have never said it. They have the SAME value in God’s eyes and should have the same value in the eyes of the law.

By Candice

January 12, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

JBM-I was asked by 2 bloggers if I thought a “loving deity would send people to eternal torment”. I responded by posting words from the bible that makes the answer pretty clear.

When people ask you that question how do you respond? Do you say that you don’t know the answer when the bible is so clear? Do you deny what the bible says in the verse I gave? Surely you don’t answer with the “all you have to do to be saved is be a good person…Jesus isn’t the only way to be saved”-the stuff Oprah and the like believe.

When someone asks about hell do you not respond?

I am sorry for the earlier line about Miami Beach though. I didn’t mean to imply anyone on the board was headed in that direction. I did hear some on this blog however say blasphemous things about Christ which I took offense to. I shouldn’t have said what I did though and I’m sorry for that.

By The72John

January 12, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

No Chuck, the simple fact is that you live in a land of delusion. You are an utterly irrational man who actually believes that an omnipotent, omniscient being has nothing better to do but condem people who fail to worship him properly, according to arbitrary rules that made sense to primitive nomadic tribesman.

Stay evil, Chuck!

By Jack

January 12, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Ever consider snake handling Chuck? Randy?

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

Chuck’s not evil! He’s busy praying for love to fill our hearts and heal our wounds. Um… nothing yet, hon. If he is true, we’ll feel it any minute now! C’mon, I really need this today!

By RF

January 12, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

JBM- I bet you had the eyebrows up and the head shakin’, didn’t you?

Kimberly- High Five! Another one who successfully escaped the tyrrany! I would have gone to Disney just for spite but I couldn’t afford to (can’t afford to now either, now that I think about it). I’ve even visited in some baptist churches since thinking that surely my old church was the only one like that—NOPE!! Every one I’ve been in since has had some version of ‘blame the gays and liberal politicians who are all going to HELL with the abortionists and drug dealers’ routine. I actually heard one popular preacher in my area say one Sunday that the homosexuals ( and he said it like he was talking about some sort of cult) were responsible for the ‘ruination of our social order’. What a hoot!

By Nikita

January 12, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Thanks, everyone.

Just a few random comments:

Chuck, I almost died laughing when I saw your comment on the nastiness of those who don’t agree with you. I was quite civil, at least until you called me an idiot. And even now I have not even begun to insult you to the degree that you have insulted me. I was also quite amused at your response to the better arguments on here — which I can summarize as “la la la la — I can’t hear you!” Seriously, if you want the respect that we all deserve, then earn it by treating others with the respect they deserve.

As for religion, I have quite a few friends who are former Southern Baptists, and indeed the First Baptist Church here was one which resigned from the convention following the resolution clarifying the position of women. All of my friends and I share a simple belief, which is that religion is personally satisfying, and not to be pressed upon the world. I don’t need tax exemptions, and no religious authority should presume to wield political clout supposedly on my behalf. My donations should be spent for two purposes only — doing good and handling the expenses associated with maintaining the temporal needs of my religion. Anything else is bad stewardship. Read: Lobbying legislators, laundering money, promoting products, or otherwise attempting to export my personal beliefs to people who do not share them.

Also, finally, the comments on who should be providing ignore the capacity to provide, or the best way to provide. Locally, homeless shelters are closing and the safety net is failing — because it is increasingly pieced together by nonprofits who have the ability to stop providing care, or to provide care only if it’s financially feasible for them. Also, given that the limits on who can use federal money to provide, we are now seeing fewer services for the poor, and more money for non-profits which are not centrally charged with caring for the poor — it is essentially political patronage, and it’s not ethical.

By Tim

January 12, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

RF… that was the funniest dang thing I have read all day… JBM… you don’t let him deter you from speakin… uhhh… typing in tongues!

By RF

January 12, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Candice— good going! I, like many, have let the keyboard get ahead of my brain, and have apologized for it. You’ve come up some on the respect scale for admitting your mistake. It’s not easy being a witness in this kind of free-for-all word battle, but high marks are due to one who can endure it without losing patience and calling names.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Candice. There are many skeptics on this blog. Myself included. You do realize the bible was written by man. How many men, besides Jesus, never lie?

By Netbanker

January 12, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Why on God’s green earth would someone want to punish not only the woman who was raped by having to have the baby, but has anyone thought about the life that child will have? Sure you can say give them up for adoption, but would you really want to find out at some later date that your father raped the woman who gave birth to you?

What about the scenario of the poor couple who can’t afford to feed another mouth, but also wouldn’t think it right to give up the baby to someone else to raise? Is it fair to condemn that child to a life of poverty? What about that other children and the parents? Will they be able to be good parents?

All of these are questions and arguments we’ve all had before without ever hearing any solutions from the Pro-Life crowd. So how about Boscoe, Chuck, Zack, Randy, and anyone else? These are real life problems that I don’t have an answer to, but would like to hear your suggestions on how to address them. Are you of the opinion that quality of life has absolutely no bearing on your pro-life stance?

Interesting how it is religiously conservative MEN who are so vehement about the topic. If you haven’t walked a mile in another person’s shoes then you can’t ever understand what they are going through. Further, why isn’t the final decision up to God about how to ‘punish’ the woman?

By Jack

January 12, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Candice. Forgot to say we love you. We may be mean sometimes but we still love you. The way of the blog. :)

By lozen

January 12, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

I am so sorry I called you a simple minded moron Candice. I did not intend to debate you at that time. I don’t believe calling anyone names leads to constructive debate. I was raised in the south where everyone I knew was a fundamentalist baptist. But then I grew up and began to study the bible and religion for myself. One of the first things that bothered me was the idea that the only people going to heaven were the christians. There are millions of people in this world who are not christians. They grew up learning what muslims, hindus, jews, buddhists, taoists, etc., etc., learn about the meaning of life. They aren’t going to change their religion because you tell them the only way to heaven is by believing in jesus and the bible. If their religion is as totalitarian as yours (I think some muslims qualify) and they tell you you’re condemned because you worship the wrong way, would you change your religion? No. You’ll just think they’re wrong. That’s what they think about you. Christianity is just one of the world’s religions. The bible is the words of men who were looking for answers within the framework of the religion they were taught growing up. Are you really unable to see that?

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

With your irrational rational; explain this one for me:

Five people are stuck in sub which has enough air to only sustain three of them until the rescuers get to them. They decide who shall die now to save the others {based on situations that are KNOWN ie. some have children, some are younger…etc}

Are these deaths sinful?

See, these are not hate related issues - but best of our KNOWLEDGE in situations that are not addressed in the bible or anywhere else.

You keep comparing apples and oranges: As if a woman would not be punished for beating her stomach with a stick or such, killing a baby, out of malice. And since you have NO reasoning that can be apples/apples - it proves you have no leg in this topic to stand on.

This all comes down to an individuals rights and when one is pitted against another’s; we make the BEST decision we can based on KNOWN FACTS - not guesses.

If all this came down to WHAT IFs; we could play that right now with your interacting with others on a blog, instead of saving some “potential” victim down the street from you. It would be endless and an exercise in the absurd.

You cannot see such realism; can you? BTW - it does not conflict with being a Christian either; only in being an fundamentalist.

By RF

January 12, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Net- interesting fact here I just remembered. I read somewhere once that early research on SIDS brought up the fact that many poor mothers in centuries past had inadvertently or purposefully smothered babies they couldn’t afford to keep and feed. Researchers theorized that many of what we believed to be unexplained infant deaths were actually on purpose because they would likely have starved to death anyway. But I guess that’s okay so long as you give birth and don’t have an abortion huh?

By Renee

January 12, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Great comments Netbanker.

JBM talking in tongues on the blog. Hilarious!!!

By Netbanker

January 12, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Let’s turn the argument around. How about we establish a law that says ALL men over the age of 18 MUST have a vasectomy? Men reach their sexual peak at that age and then their sperm and genetic material starts to go down hill from there. Chuck, Boscoe, et all…would you be willing to submit to having the state decide that for you? It is roughly the same as what you are saying in terms of who should decide what is best for their own body.

By Renee

January 12, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

p.s. I’m with bla - new subject, we’ll never get anywhere, we’ll never agree, and nobody is changing their views.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

I think I would have to starve before I could smother my baby. Can’t imagine. Darn RF, bringing me down.

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

When society can transplant a child into a man’s body, Boscoe, Chuck, Zack, Randy, candice etc… can be the manditory “breeders/raisers” of these children until they adopted. They will be perpetually pregnant - sometimes with quadruplets.

That would change their minds FAST;)

By Jack

January 12, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

We can sing! (and I play a mean air-guitar)

By SacredSperm

January 12, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Every Sperm is Sacred. Every Sperm is Sacred.

By Netbanker

January 12, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Randy…millions of children starve to death every year in the world. millions die from lack of health care or access to clean water. We can’t feed the earth’s population NOW so NO we couldn’t afford to feed the extra 40 million that were aborted.

By blablabla

January 12, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

p.s. I’m with bla - new subject, we’ll never get anywhere, we’ll never agree, and nobody is changing their views.

amen, sister. somebody tell a joke.

By Amen

January 12, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

I guess some did not see the recent Law and Order SVU about the teenager who went to NYC for an abortion, since her Dad had kicked her older sister out of the house for either having sex or getting pregnant. drawn from the News, I am sure.

The smothering comment made me remember what happened. Since she was underage, she could not get an abortion. So her boyfriend beat her belly with a baseball bat to induce an abortion. Aw, to go back to those days.

By Renee

January 12, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

I am the best lip syncer!

By RF

January 12, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

Nah, Jack, you’re just coming down off the blog-buzz. Always gets that way about this time of the afternoon!!

Sorry to bring you down. I actually read that somewhere. Some countries even passed laws forbidding women to have their infants sleeping in the same bed with them in an attempt to curb the accidental smotherings. Without indoor heat, I guess it did happen accidentally while trying to keep the baby warm. Even our poor have it better than that these days!

By lozen

January 12, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Death is a normal part of life. All of us die. Why in the world are you so concerned about the end of a fetus? If the pregnancy comes to term, the baby is born, grows up and dies. What difference does it make when? Oh, never mind. I’m forgetting my religious training! They must live so you can try to convince them there is a jesus so they can contribute to the church and then go to heaven. Never mind.

By Candice

January 12, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Are most of you atheists or what?

By Renee

January 12, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

I think that’s what people tend to forget. Just because it’s illegal doesn’t make it go away. If someone wants to have an abortion they will, by a doctor no less. If abortion is made illegal today, does anyone really believe there will be a steady decline. Doctors will still perform them at a much higher inflated price, nondoctors will perform them cheaper, and the ones who can’t afford it will be using clotheshangers, throwing themselves downstairs, taking a bottle of laxitives, etc… Making it a law will change nothing.

By blablabla

January 12, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Death is a normal part of life. All of us die. Why in the world are you so concerned about the end of a fetus? If the pregnancy comes to term, the baby is born, grows up and dies. What difference does it make when?

so you wouldn’t object if somebody came over to your house and killed you tonite? i mean, really, what difference does it make when you die since dying is the natural conclusion of life?

silliness, lozen. just plain silliness. i believe you are capable of better.

By RF

January 12, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Renee- but can you do karaoke?? Now there’s some fun after a couple of good drinks!

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Candice, that apology was really big of you.

I get asked controversial questions all the time. And, I mean alllllll the time.

Depending on my audience, the delivery of my answer varies. I don’t compromise my answer, but I change the way it’s delivered based on who I’m talking to. To answer your question, if someone here on the blog were to ask me whether or how a loving God could send a person to hell, my response would begin with “I believe…” I would probably continue with something along the lines of, “I follow Christ’s teachings in the Bible, and the Bible says…”

This prefacing phrase lets the audience know that I am not attempting to impose my belief on them, not judging them for what they believe, and that I am not saying that my word is absolute, that I am right and they are wrong. It also helps to prevent arguments about whether the Bible is right or wrong. I won’t argue about whether it’s right or wrong. I will simply tell you what I believe, and respect the fact that you have the right to believe what YOU believe.

In my heart, I may believe that if you don’t think like I do, you’ll burn in hell, but I’d never, ever say something like that to a group of people who may not think like I do. It’s divisive, offensive, and serves only to alienate, not to draw people in.

By lozen

January 12, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, that’s a great one. Perhaps we should start a movement to counterbalance the anti-choicers to enact such a law. Sacredsperm, you sound as if you’ve studied the history of religion. There was a time when the church taught that women were just incubators and there were little people in sperm so men were the real producers of life!

By Renee

January 12, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Candice - would it bother you if most of us where.

Or maybe people just don’t get caught into trying to run peoples lives. I think there are Christians who follow God, love God, but don’t try to push their beliefs on someone else, because THEY think it is the right way.

By FatMoose

January 12, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

How many musicians does it take to change a lightbulb?

Five. Four to change it and one to stand there cross armed and say “I could do that better.”

By RF

January 12, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Candice- JBM is an ordained minister and from what I’ve read, Kimberly and I are former southern baptists who still very much believe, but were very disillusioned by the church’s choices in recent years. I personally have a very, very strong faith and have some wonderful talks with God. He’s not nearly as angry and judgmental as many would like to think.

By Candice

January 12, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Making it illegal will make it not so easily available and maybe deter the use of it as birth control. Maybe just maybe people will take sex more seriously without the option of running downtown for an abortion. (Obviously this does not include forced sex folks.) Men know that abortion is easily available for the most part and I think young guys take advantage of it. They don’t have to “step up to the plate” so to speak and take responsibility for the children they create. (Hey, and no child support that way!!!)

By Renee

January 12, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

RF- I loooove Karaoke!!

JBM - so you are saying you believe in your heart that some of us might go to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think we are in hell already!

By SacredSperm

January 12, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Lozen - no, I have just seen Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life. as well as The Life of Brian, one of my top 5 movies ever. I know more about various religions, without being religious, than most religious people, since they are locked into their own religion.

By Renee

January 12, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

Do you think two hot and heavy teenagers are going to be almost in the act of having sex, and the moment before he penetrates a revelation of illegal abortions would come up and they stop. Or would the girl/guy mention it and the other party say they know a place they can get it done.

That’s one thing about lesbians. We don’t have a large problem of unwanted pregnancies in our community.

By Netbanker

January 12, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

ROFLMAO, RF! That was a good one! Now can someone tell us what she was saying?

By Boscoe

January 12, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

I need to check into here more often. Brian essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to protect both. However, in the course of treating a woman, if her child dies, that is not considered abortion. Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother. That being said, abortion is not the answer even when you pose the ethics question of whose life is more important.

By RF

January 12, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

I take sex very seriously!! I seriously haven’t had any in a while and it seriously gets on my nerves!

How much more seriously do we need to take sex? It happens and we enjoy it. Whether abortion is legal or not isn’t going to stop people from ‘doing it’. Parents who are educating their children and guiding them during the difficult teen years will help more than any stinkin’ law!

By lozen

January 12, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Bla, come on man! I was talking about a fetus with no capacity to think, to feel or to value life. I wasn’t saying people who are living and thinking already want to die. In the big picture, it wouldn’t matter if any of us died right now or later. But to our egos, it’s a different story. A blob of tissue doesn’t have an ego. See? Candice, yes I am an atheist when we are discussing your idea of what and who god is.

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

Candice, not an athiest. Not an empty shell of a human, as Chuck called me earlier whilst demonstrating his “christly” love. HAVE given up on organized religion, though, and literal interpretation of a book that’s several thousand years old, written by and translated MANY times by MEN.

I believe that the presumption of a man that he KNOWS the mind of God is both ludicrous and arrogant. In fact, there is no greater arrogance. We are too small to understand something so great. These religion-worshipers cry “have faith,” then in the next breath, show lines in an old book to “prove” what they say. If I have FAITH in my creator, they what do I need with a BOOK to PROVE it? Isn’t faith believing in that which cannot be proven by conventional means? Yes, Candice, God IS Great, IMO. Much greater than the little mind and mean, condescending, unforgiving spirit of Chuck.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Renee, funny you should say that. I said earlier this week, I think Monday, that we wouldn’t have these problems if women just became lesbians! LOL!

And, about your 3:11, if you remind me, I’ll answer that off-blog.

By lozen

January 12, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

JBM! Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Hold on, here. I just read back some of the posts and I think you said, “I believe sex before marriage is wrong and should be only between husband and wife.” Can that be right? Did I read this right? Did someone else post under your name? What?

By Jack

January 12, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Playing “Classical Gas” on my air-guitar. Sounds pretty good.

I’m not an Elvis fan but his version of America the Beautiful is awesome.

And now, Rick Wakeman on the keyboards.

By lozen

January 12, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Oh, I just have to say, since I keep seeing her tear filled eyes on AJC, Samuel Alito’s wife has a lota toughenin’ up to do to be married to a man in politics. Please Goddess don’t let that man be confirmed!

By Candice

January 12, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Got to leave for the day but I want to make one more point. I never said God was angry or judgemental. He is however the only real judge any of us have. (Or at least our final judge.)

God is loving. In fact He loved us so much that He gave His own Son for US! (The perfect unblemished sacrifice.) He loves us so much and did not even deny His own Son for us. Christ loved us so much He was willing to take our sins upon Himself and take the punishment WE deserved so we could be forgiven and have eternal life. There is no greater love than the love of God and Jesus Christ.

I recognize that many on here choose not to believe this and it does not make me angry or upset. I respect your right to your beliefs. I ask that you please respect my right to mine. Thanks guys and hope to see you tomorrow….

By lozen

January 12, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

I got you babe! Oh, oh, oh I got you babe….. Play it for me Jack.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

LOL Lozen… okay, can I take that back? LOL. I didn’t realize what I said, I guess. But, it definitely didn’t come out right.

I do believe sex before marriage is wrong (I know you won’t like that, but that’s what I believe). But, I didn’t mean to say that it should only be between husband and wife. I think I said that because of the discussion we were having, which was about a teenaged boy and girl having oral sex. My comment was in reference to teens having sex.

To clarify, I believe sex should only be between two married people.

By Amen

January 12, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

so the abortion issue is really more about the control of sexuality(take sex seriously), and less about the sanctity of life(since most anti-abortionists support the death penalty)

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Jack, Rick Wakeman on keyboard? Wow! Is Chris Squire backing him up on bass?

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

I’m glad you brought that up, Lozen. Glad I had the chance to clarify.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Candice, we’ll be here! Have a good day.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Lozen. Those were the days. When the air was clean and sex was dirty. LOL.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Yes!

By Brian Curtis

January 12, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: Thank you for a polite reply. I may not agree with it, but I appreciate it.

By RF

January 12, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

And the days when we all had hair, and it wasn’t gray, and our stomachs were six-packs instead of kegs!!

Music was better a couple decades ago, wasn’t it? At least you could understand most of the words!

By Jack

January 12, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

Excerpts for Henry the Eighth then flows into Roundabout. They don’t make music like that anymore.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Darn. I meant from not for.

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Fragile… one of my all-time faves.

By chuck

January 12, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

NetB, I have never to my knowledge failed to answer a question of yours. Sometimes when you come back to a blog after being away for a couple of hours, it is hard to catch up on the reading, though I try to read all of the posts as much as I can. Your comments of 2:57 baffle me though. If you are as you say you are, an international money guy, you should understand the POLITICS of starvation. We had 500 tons of food, doctors, nurses, business men and missionaries ready to go into Zimbabwe 3-4 years ago. Mugabe (sp?) the dictator, put a stop to all of it. The food rotted in the warehouses or was stolen by his men while thousands starved to death.

Recent (last 50 years) developments in agricultural technology have enabled us to produce MORE food on 80% fewer acres of land than we could produce just 50 years ago. The united states could feed the entire world by itself.

As for “condemning a child to poverty”, are we condemning a child to poverty when we ALLOW poor people to have children? Are you in favor of forced sterilization for the poor? Sanger was. As I stated in the beginning, abortion is driven by those who are racists and elitists. They subscribe to the Eugenics idea and think that the world would be a better place if the poor and different just disappeared from the face of the earth. I would think that you especially would want to avoid that crowd.

It is not “punishing a woman” to as you say FORCE her to have a baby she doesn’t want, though she may see it that way. It is not a perfect world, indeed, but you don’t compound the imperfection by killing a baby. How does that add value? How does that enrich us as a people to say that the only solution for these problems is to kill the baby?

I thought that the position of liberals was to speak up for the defenseless and weak among us. Where is the love? Who is more defenseless than a little unborn baby?

You libs aren’t going to speak up but as a Christian man I will. AND, I’m going to do everything I can to elect people who are willing to speak up for them too…not only verbally, but by passing laws that do so.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

I’m gonna have to break out the old vinyls.

By blablabla

January 12, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

I take sex very seriously!! I seriously haven’t had any in a while and it seriously gets on my nerves!

now that was funny, RF. very nice.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

WORDS OF WISDOM:

The best sermons are lived, not preached.

The biggest troublemaker you’ll ever have to deal with watches you from the mirror every morning.

Always drink upstream from the heard.

Don’t eat yellow snow.

By Naimah

January 12, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Regardless of the way I feel about abortion or even carrots I have no right to make anyone else feel the same. Some women would be willing to give up there life for there unborn fetus and some would not morally does that make them right or wrong, well thats based on personal beliefs. Legally does that make them right or wrong No.

By lozen

January 12, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Oh Candice I hope you read this tomorrow. you said, Christ loved us so much He was willing to take our sins upon Himself and take the punishment WE deserved so we could be forgiven and have eternal life. I have never done anything in my life that would justify a man being hung on a cross, nails hammered into his hands and feet, dying like that. If you really believe this horrible, bloody story is the working of your god … I just don’t understand. Take the punishment WE deserved for what? God is the one who condemned the human race in the garden of eden because they ate an apple? How crazy is that? (It was really a cautionary tale. If you disobey god/king/priest/father, you are going to be punished!) Then a few thousand years later, after pillaging and killing and taking other peoples’ land for his Chosen People (the jews - don’t forget) Yahweh changes his mind. So he implements this plan to impregnate a jewish teenage virgin with himself and be born as a man/jesus/god/king/lord in a time and place when ignorance and superstition were rife and most people couldn’t even read or write. (It would have been too easy to do it in 2000 and make a movie or put it on tv so everybody could see it and there could be no doubt about it.) And part of that plan is to die a horrible death when he’s 33, then come back to life and appear to the disciples (although strangely they didn’t recognize him), ascend to heaven and make a place for christians only! How strange when he was a jew! Then he had the disciples out teaching about him to the jews (they believed the message was only for jews) and he gave Paul the vision so he would go out and tell gentiles the message was for them too and they didn’t have to be circumcized to enter heaven. Peter thought they did until Paul convinced him otherwise! And all we have to do to have eternal life is believe this tale about jesus is the truth. Of course, you find the same kind of tales in greek, roman and egyptian religion (the jews were profoundly influenced by their egyptian masters all those years they were slaves) about gods impregnating women of earth so it wasn’t a new or original story. All this I must believe is absolute truth to be saved from the sin Yahweh cursed me with to begin with. Ohhhhhhhhh……

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

I thought that the position of liberals was to speak up for the defenseless and weak among us. Have you ever been preggers, Chuck? That’s the most defenseless I’VE ever felt, and I’ve felt pretty defenseless a number of times.

By Jack

January 12, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Gotta go. Nite All.

By lozen

January 12, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

I love rock and roll music ….la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la….

By RF

January 12, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Good advice Jack! Also remember to never pee INTO the wind. Much better than quoting ENDLESSLY from the Bible! Well, I’m out of here for today. Gotta go get Milk and Cocoa Pebbles or I know an 8 yr.old who will be very, very ill come tomorrow morning!! Have a good evening all!

By SacredSperm

January 12, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Lozen - LOL, yeah, I think you got it in a nutshell with your 3:52.

By lozen

January 12, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Chuck says, It is not “punishing a womanâ€? to as you say FORCE her to have a baby she doesn’t want, though she may see it that way. Why don’t you speak for all us women chuck? You have direct experience on this do you not? No, it’s not simply punishing us. It’s putting us back in our rightful place, isn’t it?

By GIvMEaBRk

January 12, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

While everyone is quoting bible scriptures and saying it is “Jesus’”-(his name in the language he himself spoke is ISA the language is Aramaic)words, Jesus did not write anything in the bible. stop TRYING to be educated

By GIvMEaBRk

January 12, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Lozen common sense is the best sense I’m glad you have some b/c what most people take as absolute truth is a bunch of bull

By lozen

January 12, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Toodles, Im off this crappy site for today argue with you guys tomorrow

By lozen

January 12, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Thank you GlvMeaBrk but we don’t speak aramaic. Hmmmmm that could be a problem, has been, but we’ll just ignore that. What difference does it make when all we do is twist up the translation we got anyway? We make it say whatever we want it to say. You say stone em, I say forgive em. You say judge em and I say love em! I say tomato and you say tomahto! Are you sure ISA didn’t write? Well, I’m pretty sure he didn’t but maybe he did and the church leaders who came later didn’t want us to read what he wrote? What if it’s hidden in the bowels of the Vatican? Could be.

By Netbanker

January 12, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Candice…most of us on here are not atheists. We just don’t believe in such a narrow minded or limited God. We also seem to believe more in the Golden Rule than fundamentalists. Also making abortion illegal won’t stop it or deter people as Renee points out. What most of us want is to help stop unwanted pregnancies in the first place through education and birth control (and we don’t mean keep your knees together only education). I am an idealist myself, but find that idealism untempered by pragmatism never leads one to solutions that work in the world.

Lozen…please keep in mind this was only a rhetorical question!

By lozen

January 12, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

The real lozen does not say “toodles” or call it a crappy site although there are some crappy people on it fer shur.

By The72John

January 12, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

The problem with the average fundy anti-abortion argument is that is built around this fraudulant notion that liberals and those in favor of choice are somehow rabidly pro-abortion. This is nonsense.

There are very few people who sit around thinking “Hey! Let’s have an ABORTION!”.

We believe that abortion should be available only because the government has no business mucking around in the private medical affairs of anyone in this country and has no business telling a woman what to do with her body. Period.

Any attempts to tie pro-choice advocates to women who may or may not have been supporters of euginics, to movements that support eugenics or population control or anything else is simply false.

But then, what do you expect from raving fundamentalist lunatics.

By lozen

January 12, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, did you like my answer to a rhetorical question? You’re not criticizing me are you? Are you? I would be so hurt because you are my hero! Now my eyes are filling with tears. It’s my punishment for saying things about Mrs. Alito. My ego is suffering. Please NB tell me you really like me. Please!

By Renee

January 12, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

amen John!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By amber

January 12, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Yeah a couple friends and I were sitting around this weekend with nothing to do and I said, “Hey, is anybody preggie so we can go get a nice abortion?” Heck, nobody was. My friend said, “We could go to the clinic and just say one of us is pregnant and get up on that cold table, and spread our legs for some strange doctor who could stick that long suction thing up in there and poke around.” Sounds like fun, we decided, so off to the clinic we went!

By Amen

January 12, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Mrs. Alito? I thought that was probably a well-planned move to give the GOP ammunition against those mean-old Democrats. Maybe she should have kept her butt home or gone to the Smithsonian or Zoo. But his daughters looked kinda cute.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

My stomach is hurting.

By kimberly

January 12, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

JBM, mine hurts too. All the time, actually. I think it’s because Chuck isn’t praying for us hard enough. Where’s the LOVE?

By blablabla

January 12, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

The problem with the average fundy anti-abortion argument is that is built around this fraudulant notion that liberals and those in favor of choice are somehow rabidly pro-abortion. This is nonsense.

i certainly hope it is nonsense, john. for the most part, as a non-fundy, i believe that, and i want to believe that. but i remember not too long ago that the president of NOW was patricia ireland. i watched her give a few speeches and watched her give numerous interviews on tv, and i will tell you without hesitation, as somebody who is “mildly pro-choice”, that she was, in my opinion, rabidly pro-abortion. it very much came across that abortions were a badge of honor to her. that disgusted me bc i’m somebody who believes pretty much what clinton said about abortion (safe, legal and most importantly to me…rare). i never got the impression that she wanted abortion to be rare, and for some time after i heard her comments, i couldn’t really support the pro-choice movement.

By The72John

January 12, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Bla, you are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation, but without seeing the appearances you mention, I find it very hard to credit that there is anyone in this country who would view abortion as a badge of honor.

By Just Being Me

January 12, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, don’t worry. I’m praying for you, and I’ve got PLENTY of love to share!!! :-)

Have a good evening, folks.

By Netbanker

January 12, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

Isn’t there something about not visiting the sins of the father on the son in the Bible? (It’s late in the day, my brain is getting fried so I’m probably getting it backward and it IS visiting the sins on the progeny of the sinner) but in case my mind isn’t completely gone…and there is that reference then why would WE be punished because our umpty-ump grandfather ago ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge in the garden? Also…what does it say about the God of the Bible that he wanted his creations (created in his own image) to remain ignorant? I want them to look like me, but be stupid…somehow that seems like vanity. I’ll make a bunch of mini-me’s but they’ll be less than so I can remain superior.

By Brian Curtis

January 13, 2006 07:34 AM | Link to this

Well, it’s Friday again. How about some more jokes?

The old, grizzled boxer has finished another round of training at the gym, and he goes over to his trainer, panting and swaying a little.

“Look, I know I’m getting old,� he between gasps. “I’m not as fast as I was, I’m not as sharp, and I’m getting a little punchy in the head… but I know I’ve got one more good fight in me. Please, before I retire, can you set me up a match with Kid Jackson? Just once, I want to go toe-to-toe with him before I hang up my gloves.�

The trainer just shakes his head sadly. “Champ, if I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a hundred times… YOU’RE Kid Jackson!�

By Jack

January 13, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

Here’s one.

A large corporation recently hired several cannibals.

“You are all part of our team now”, said the HR rep during the welcoming briefing. You get all the usual benefits and you can go to the cafeteria for something to eat, but please, don’t eat any of the other employees”.

The cannibals promised they would not.

Four weeks later their boss remarked, “You’re all working very hard and I’m satisfied with your work. However, one of our secretaries has disappeared. Do any of you know what happened to her?” The cannibals all shook their heads “No”.

After the boss had left, the leader of the cannibals said to the others,

“Which one of you idiots ate the secretary?” A hand rose hesitantly.

“You fool!” the leader continued. “For four weeks we’ve been eating managers and no one noticed anything. But NOOOooo, you had to go and eat someone who actually does something!!!”

By Renee

January 13, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

Good ones Brian and Jack….lmao

By Brian Curtis

January 13, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

Here’s another workplace joke:

A job applicant for a high-profile PR position gives a great interview, but the HR rep has a question at the end.

“Why,� she asks, “are you always winking? Is it a nervous tic? That would be disconcerting to our customers if you kept doing that in presentations and commercials.�

“Oh, not to worry,� the applicant says. “I can control it with aspirin. Here’s I’ll show you.�

And he proceeds to rummage through all his pockets, pullling out package after package of condoms in the process: ribbed, lubricated, extra-long, reservoirs, flavored, glow-in-the-dark, every variety imaginable.

Finally, as the shocked interviewer looks on, he locates a small pill bottle and swallows two aspirin. Sure enough, the winking goes away. “There, you see?�

“Umm… okay,� the interviewer stammers, “But now I have another concern. We… really don’t need a perpetual womanizer representing us either.�

“No problem, I’m happily married,� the applicant replies. “But have you ever gone into a drugstore, winking like crazy, to ask for a bottle of aspirin?�

By Renee

January 13, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

another good one Brian

By Lou

January 13, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

This discussion has been very interesting. Coming out of the age where abortions were illegal - then legal - now we’re working on illegal again, I’m very interested how this issue will resolve itself. When abortions became legal, I can guarantee you there were women standing in line to get an abortion (sat in a waiting room with a friend while she waited for hers). The atmosphere in that room was one of sadness and one of hope. Sadness because of why they were there, hope because they were DETERMINED not to have an unwanted child. I promise you - with so much pain in that room - I could not understand why any woman would have sex after being put thru that. Most women - if they break a leg at an activity - become more careful - but, not about sex. They seem determined to put themselves in harm’s way again - Why is that? I don’t remember any men in that room - just women - didn’t the men feel some responsibility to stand with their partners? I know my friend’s partner didn’t want to hear from her until it was over. My feeling about abortion has changed over the years..I really believe it is one of insidious, invasive, oppressive, control. Men basically feel it is their right to control what happens in a woman’s womb. Women make such half-hearted, racked-with-guilt stands against being controlled - all anyone needs to do is play the religion card and women regress into weepy, squirrely, defensive, guilt-ridden blobs. I just don’t believe women have done enough to help themselves regarding this issue - if we had, we wouldn’t be dragging up this issue over and over again. Beat back the guilt levied against you and ask yourself - what IS your own life worth? I do see a great deal of resentment levied against the unborn in this discussion. I’m curious as to how this generation will play out this resentment. I also think Brian Curtis’ joke is funny.

By Whiley

January 13, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Here’s the biggest issue too many people are afraid to admit; women desire sex just as much as men do. Too many people STILL think that’s a bad thing. Can you imagine trying to discourage men from having sex?

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

G’Mornin Folks! Good ones Brian & Jack!

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Bla, you are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation, but without seeing the appearances you mention, I find it very hard to credit that there is anyone in this country who would view abortion as a badge of honor.

it was an interview with larry king about a decade ago - ireland lit up like a christmas tree with a big smile on her face when king told her how many babies had been aborted in the preceeding year. that was what sent me over the edge with her.

two months ago i saw a woman at the ansley kroger wearing an “i got an abortion” t-shirt. setting aside my shock at not being the only straight person at the ansley kroger, i thought that pretty much qualified as a badge of honor. i was certainly disgusted by it, but i still believe those people are in the deep, deep minority.

keep the jokes coming…

By Renee

January 13, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

bla - are you serious????????? That’s crazy!

By Nikita

January 13, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

“two months ago i saw a woman at the ansley kroger wearing an “i got an abortionâ€? t-shirt. setting aside my shock at not being the only straight person at the ansley kroger, i thought that pretty much qualified as a badge of honor. i was certainly disgusted by it, but i still believe those people are in the deep, deep minority.”

The purpose of those shirts is, in fact, to get the issue out in the open. Kudos to that woman for having the cojones to wear one.

By Renee

January 13, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

HEYYYYYYYYY JBM!!!

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

what, that i wasn’t the only straight person at ansley kroger? lol. just kidding.

yeah, she was wearing an i got an abortion t-shirt. it was black with letters on the front that said “i got an abortion” or “i had an abortion”. something to that obvious effect.

still being in my 20’s, i don’t get shocked by much, or very easily. but this set me back for a minute.

nikita, abortion has been hotly debated for over 30 years now. the shirt doesn’t get the issue out into the open any more than it already is. the purpose of a shirt like that is for shock value and confrontation.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Here is another one.

A man joins a very exclusive nudist colony. On his first day there he takes off his clothes and starts to wander around. A gorgeous petite blonde walks by, and the man immediately gets an erection. The woman notices his erection, comes over to him and says, “Did you call for me?” The man replies “No; what do you mean?” She says, “You must be new here. Let me explain. It’s a rule here that if you get an erection it implies you called for me.” Smiling, she leads him to the side of the swimming pool, lies down on a towel, eagerly pulls him to her and happily lets him have his way with her. The man continues to explore the colony’s facilities. He enters the sauna and as he sits down, he farts. Within minutes a huge, hairy man lumbers out of the steam room toward him, “Did you call for me?” says the hairy man. “No; what do you mean?” says the newcomer. “You must be new,” says the hairy man, “it’s a rule that if you fart, it implies that you called for me.” The huge man easily spins him around, bends him over a bench and has his way with him. The newcomer staggers back to the office, where he is greeted by the smiling, naked receptionist, “May I help you?” she says. The man yells, “Here’s my membership card. You can have the key back and you can keep the $500 membership fee.” “But sir,” she replies, “you’ve only been here for a few hours. You haven’t had the chance to see all our facilities.” The man replies, “Listen lady, I’m 68 years old; I only get an erection once a month and I fart 15 times a day. I’m outta here!”

By Renee

January 13, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

I think the issue is out in the open. Nobody is not aware of the abortion issue. People just have mixed feelings about it. I don’t care who has one but it’s tacky, at the very least, to wear a shirt stating that.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

ROFL @ that one Jack! Hilarious!

Renee, I completely agree with your 9:45a. Tacky, at the very least. And heyyyyyyy!! ~waving~

Bla, either you’re not really straight or you weren’t really at Ansley Kroger. LOL!

By amber

January 13, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Great jokes, esp. the one about the secretary. Lou, My feeling about abortion has changed over the years..I really believe it is one of insidious, invasive, oppressive, control. Men basically feel it is their right to control what happens in a woman’s womb. Certainly, I can understand your feelings about this. However, I don’t think all men want to control. And the men like chuck and crew who want to force women to have children and cut all government programs that would help them raise those children, call them whores because they aren’t married when they have those children, put them down because they don’t stay home with the kids 24 hours a day, etc. are certainly trying to control women. To me, seeing what i’ve seen over the past 35 years, abortion is necessary. If we can’t control our bodies and our reproduction we are slaves to our biology. Bla, wearing an I Had An Abortion t-shirt is simply a political statement. It’s a response to the anti-choicers. It is saying i’m not ashamed of my choice to have an abortion or my sexuality (Whiley you are so right) no matter how much you tell me I should be. It’s just like gays wearing t-shirts that say “God made me gay.”

By Chilao

January 13, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

are we sure NOW’s Ireland was expressing excitement over FINALLY a woman’s right to her own body, and less over aborting every fetus out there? I would have to see that interview.

I don’t know what the big deal is, us Americans have been rewarding the Chinese handsomely for their single-child-familes, slave-labor, etc.

By Disgusted

January 13, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Yeah, it takes guts to tell the whole world you killed your own child!!! Bravo!!! Give the lady a nobel peace prize! That’s what we need-more women like her! Take the stygmatism off abortion and make killing your child something you are awarded for. Yahooooo!!!

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Amber, good post. I don’t agree with you on the t-shirt thing, but the rest of it is good. lol

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

chilao, the interview was in the early 90’s. abortion had been legal for approximately 20 years when she went on with larry king.

people can certainly see what they want to see when they watch an interview, but as someone who is slightly biased towards ireland’s position to begin with, it certainly didn’t appear (to me) that her excitement stemmed from the legality of abortion. it wasn’t like that was a recent event in her world.

By Chilao

January 13, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

20 years is a VERY short time. I realize some were about 5 years old then but some of us were in our 30s 20 years ago.

so the term FINALLY is certainly Relative, and certainly Relative as it relates to abortion-rights.

By Brian Curtis

January 13, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Sorry, it’s Friday. I’m on a jokes-only policy.

A construction worker on a new job site noticed that the boss always took off for a two-hour lunch each day at 11. The other workers told him it was a great opportunity to goof off, so they headed to the bar across the street for lunch and beers.

After a few days of this, the new worker decided to make better use of his free time, so he drove home for a surprise “nooner� with his wife. Unfortunately, as he walked into the bedroom, he saw his boss there on top of her, both of them gasping and kissing like mad. Quietly, he slipped out.

The next day, the rest of the crew was gathering at 11:00 as usual when they saw the new guy still working away at the rivet gun. “Hey, aren’t you going to join us today?� they asked.

“Heck no!� he replied grimly. “I almost got caught yesterday.�

By Jack

January 13, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Another good one Brian. Chilao, your dating yourself. You old codger!

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

amber, if we were in the middle of an abortion rally where the pro-choicers were on one side of the aisle with their signs screaming nasty things at the pro-lifers across way who were screaming nasty things back at them, i could see wearing that shirt as a response to the “anti-choicers”.

…but i was at the grocery store. i don’t bring my politics to the grocery store with me, and i don’t wear my politics on my sleeve. i’m there bc i’m hungry, not to hear what private medical procedures you’ve had performed.

while i’m not thrilled with the existence of those shirts, their mere existence is only a part of what bothered me. it was that plus the context of where we were that got to me.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Here goes:

A union worker was attending a Teamsters convention in Las Vegas and decided to check out the local brothels. When he got to the first one, he asked the Madam, “Is this a union house?”

“No,” she replied, “I’m sorry, it isn’t.”

“Well, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?”

“The house gets $80 and the girls get $20,” she answered.

Mightily offended at such unfair dealings, the union man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable, hopefully unionized shop. His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the Madam responded, “Why yes sir, this is a union house. We observe all union rules.”

“The man asked, “And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?”

“The girls get $80 and the house gets $20.”

“That’s more like it!” the union man said. He handed the Madam $100, looked around the room and pointed to a stunningly attractive blonde. “I’d like her,” he said.

“I’m sure you would, sir,” said the Madam. Then she gestured to a 92-year old woman in the corner, “but Ethel here has 67 years seniority and she’s next.

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

chilao, you can believe what you want. something that happened 20 years ago isn’t exactly recent for you and i in our everyday lives. everything is relative, isn’t it?

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

good one, brian.

nice, jack.

By Candice

January 13, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

What opened my eyes to the truth about abortion is seeing the actual photos of the aborted babies. Most people could not look at the photos of babies aborted after approx 6 weeks and NOT tell that it is a BABY. Tiny arms,legs,fingers and toes tell me it is a “baby”.

The only human being (besides ax murderers) that can be legally killed is a baby that hasn’t been born yet. And if you think they’re all 6-8 wks abortions you’re wrong. One clinic near Spring Street has women come in each week that are 5-6 months pregnant for the two day procedure where the baby is literally dismembered in the womb. Tell me that’s ok! This same clinic used to do abortions only until 24 weeks and yet I noticed last year they upped it to 27 1/2 weeks. Why would they up it if there wasn’t a need?

By Jack

January 13, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

Maybe I should break out my ” I’ve had a vasetomy” t-shirt. Then all would know I shoot blanks. LOL

By Netbanker

January 13, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Good Morning All!

Totally off topic, but I just had to share this question from today’s The Vent:

“If the natives really wanted to keep King Kong out, why did they build such a big door in the wall?”

And for those libruls who want some good chuckles check out Betty Bowers holiday cards I know it’s a little late, but they made me spray my laptop with coffee so I figured a few of you would appreciate them.

By Renee

January 13, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Good ones!!!!!!! keep em comin’

Jack - you’ll never believe it but it’s 50 degrees up here today!!!!! All the snow has melted (except for the snow plowing piles).

By Jack

January 13, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Morning Net.

By Renee

January 13, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

“If the natives really wanted to keep King Kong out, why did they build such a big door in the wall?�

Excellent!! I’m looking at the holiday cards now…hilarious!

By amber

January 13, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

It was interesting when chuck became enraged this week about some comments lozen made about delicious sexual feelings and getting swept away when you’re a teenager. Don’t we all remember that and know it’s true? Not chuck. He thinks that makes us like animals. (Of course, we are animals!) He thinks poor people won’t have sex because he thinks they shouldn’t. Sometimes that’s all poor people have to enjoy is sex! We have such hangups in this country about sex. Fundies don’t want teens to have information about sex. They don’t want teens to have access to BC or the morning after pill. They don’t want abortion. The whole thing is about punishing females for having sex. chuck slipped when he said earlier this week, “they should just keep their legs together.” He meant girls only … We pretend girls in their teens won’t have sex if we tell them not to. We pretty much know the boys will. That is so crazy. Would people be so outraged by a man wearing a t-shirt that said “I murdered sperm last night - I wore a condom.” I don’t think so.

By RF

January 13, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Bla- never, never, be too shocked by anything you see in Ansley Kroger. I used to work with a guy who went there to pick up dates. The stories I heard!!

I guess I’m too busy checking the ads, adding my bill, or looking in the back of the cooler for the newest milk to notice the ‘social’ aspects of the grocery store- tha and I’m in burbs-pretty predictable crowd. I’ve actually heard several people talk about hookups in the grocery store. Who’d a thunk it?

I can’t imagine wearing a t-shirt advertising something so private, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

It’s been in the 70’s down here. Everyone is getting sick at the office because of the flucuations in temps.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Jack, you know I love the union joke!! That was absolutely hilarious!

By The72John

January 13, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Ah yes, the famous pictures. Those would work on an irrational, hysterical Christian fanatic.

If it can’t survive outside the womb independently, it’s not a person. Period.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

My brother gave me some good advice when I was in highschool. He said to scope out the women when they are in the frozen foods section. Hehe!

By The72John

January 13, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Those cards are hilarious - quick, someone send Chuck the “Celebrate my birthday or I’ll torture you in Hell” card.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Candice that last post of your’s was disturbing.

By liana

January 13, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Bla, I’m sure the woman wearing the “I Had An Abortion” t-shirt would be really upset to know she upset you. Perhaps if you’re so easily offended you shouldn’t go out to the Ansley kroger. You could try shopping in Marietta where I’m sure you’d never see that shirt.

By Candice

January 13, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Yes, Jack, I’m disgusted by the fact that they allow abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester too. It’s very disturbing. That’s why pro-lifers speak out so much.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Liana. I like your name.

By RF

January 13, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Here’s one for ya—

One day a doctor, a lawyer, and a priest were out in a fishing boat. Their motor conked out and in the confusion knocked one of the oars off. The doctor was about to dive in and get it when suddenly they were surrounded by sharks. The doctor said “I can’t go in. If someone gets bitten, you’ll need me”. The priest said “I can’t go in. If the doctor fails, you’ll need me to give the last rites.” The lawyer merely smiled and dove in. The sharks parted, he got the oar, and got back in. Amazed the priest asked how that happened. The lawyer smiled and said “Professional courtesy.”

Good ones Jack. I know what you mean about the temps. We wear a jacket in the morning and we’re almost in shorts by the time we go home.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

~popping Jack’s hand for that 10:31~

By RF

January 13, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Uh-oh, sounds like Jack’s trying to be Rico Suave on the blog today!!

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

liana,

i’m not easily offended, but i have neither the need nor the desire to see your political statements everywhere i go. that was my point. there are times and places for things, and the grocery store isn’t it. it’s tacky and confrontational when it doesn’t need to be. certainly you can understand that.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Candice, despite your personal feelings, why can’t you be pro-life and pro-choice too? I mean, why can’t you understand that as repulsed as YOU are by abortion, and as wrong as YOU think it is, that someone else’s abortion has no effect on your personal life, and that they should have the right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

This isn’t about opinions on abortion, it’s about legislation. Why would you believe that the government should have the power to tell a woman that she must carry her unwanted baby to full term?

By Jack

January 13, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

JBM. Ouch! I wasn’t touching, just looking.

By Tim

January 13, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

but i have neither the need nor the desire to see your political statements everywhere i go

does that mean it’s tacky to have those W stickers all over the place?

By liana

January 13, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Why Jack I’ll tell my mother you said that!

By Renee

January 13, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

good one Tim!

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

RF - hookups in the grocery store? i mean, i remember trying to pick up chicks in the grocery store, but never sealing the deal there. sweet.

By Tim

January 13, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

thanks Renee :)

By liana

January 13, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

I’ve seem all kinds of things on t-shirts, bumper stickers, billboards, etc. that are offensive to me. Somehow, it’s never occurred to me though that I should want to limit someone else’s freedom of expression so I wouldn’t be offended! Guess I’m just funny that way.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Tim, there is SUCH a vast diff btwn the W stickers and an “I Had an Abortion” sticker or t-shirt.

Who you vote for or support is not nearly as personal and private as what types of medical and surgical procedures you’ve had.

By The72John

January 13, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

Fewer than 1% of abortions are conducted during the 3rd trimester, and almost ALL of these are due to severe genetic deformities.

Roughly 9% of abortions are conducted in the second trimester. The fetus is not viable outside the womb at this point.

90% of abortions are conducted in the first trimester.

So I find it HIGHLY doubtful that your claims are even remotely close to accurate, Candice. I suspect instead that they come from one of the religious crazy organizations who want to control everyones lives. They are GREAT at distorting information and skewing facts to take advantage of gullible minds.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste.

By Renee

January 13, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Okay, I am all for freedom of expression. I get shirts all the time from brushstrokes or spencers that some people would find offensive possibly. But putting “I had an abortion on a shirt” is in my opinion tacky. When you wear a shirt making a statement, you have to take the good with the bad. Everyone is not going to be in agreement either with your statement or the manner in which you make the statement. If anybody, including a man, wants to wear the abortion shirt, kudos to you, but I think it’s tacky.

By RF

January 13, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

I used to wonder why my brother always LOVED working at the grocery store…now I know. Thanks Jack- I’ll certainly never look at frozen foods the same way again!

By The72John

January 13, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Tim, there is SUCH a vast diff btwn the W stickers and an “I Had an Abortion� sticker or t-shirt.

Really…what about religious stickers? My hometown is full of cars with bumper stickers that not only announce the religion of the person in the car, but lecture to the person reading it. I find those stickers incredibly offensive, and there are PLENTY of preachy t-shirts basically telling me I’m going to Hell worn by folks at the local Kroger.

Actually, I agree that a shirt like that is kind of tacky, but I understand the motivation behind wearing it. But let’s be honest about it - it’s hardly one-sided.

By george

January 13, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

When the U.S. House of Representatives returns to Washington, D.C., later this month, members will vote on a budget reconciliation bill that directly attacks the interests of America’s low-income working families. Among other devastating cuts, this budget would:

Slash health care funding for the poor. Cut enforcement for child support, making it harder for single parents to raise their children. Push the American dream beyond reach for many young people by cutting $12.7 billion from the federal student loan program—the largest cut in the program’s history. Force states to cut child care assistance to hundreds of thousands of low-income working families. Cut foster care funds for children cared for by grandparents and other relatives. Contrast these meager savings eked out at the expense of poor working families with huge tax cuts for the richest Americans just passed by Congress.

We urge you to celebrate Dr. King’s legacy today by calling your U.S. representative’s office and speaking out against this attack on working families.

Call Now, Toll Free: 1-800-393-1082

When you call your representative’s office, be sure to say:

With cuts to student loans, Medicaid, child support enforcement, child care assistance, foster care funds and more, the budget reconciliation bill coming before the House is an attack on working families. Our government should stand on the side of the working poor, not make their lives more difficult. I oppose this budget bill and urge my representative to vote against it. We cannot stand by and let Congress pass a budget specifically designed to hurt families struggling for a better life. Please take a moment today to honor Dr. King’s legacy by fighting for the dreams of those families. Call your U.S. representative today. Call Now, Toll Free: 1-800-393-1082 Thank you for all that you do. In Solidarity, Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO

By Netbanker

January 13, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the jokes, guys! Nothing like starting out a Friday with a smile on your face.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Heehee! That is why I don’t mind shopping for food. (especially in the Summer)

By amber

January 13, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

George, that’s great and I’ll call. When’s the last time you saw any repub organization asking you to stand up for the poor in this country? How about never?

By Chilao

January 13, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Ladies, yes, be careful bending over those low/open frozen food places in the supermarket. LOL

Read a good one last night:

Ronald Reagan came in and declared war on the government. Only problem was, in America, the government is the people.

By Renee

January 13, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Additionally, in freedom of expression, you have people expressing in a hateful manner. I was very active at the capital trying to get support to vote no to the gay marriage amendment in GA. The “religious, christians” at the capital marching against it, had messages on signs, shirts, and yelling out loud. It wasn’t just making their stance heard it was hateful things, like God hates f__, Homos go home, etc.. etc… Voicing your stance is one thing, its the manner in which it is done that raises eyebrows. Now if prolifers would say their opinion without the hate behind it, maybe they could be listened to more, not agreed with necessarily, but listened to.

By RF

January 13, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Yep, Jack, the eye-candy is always sweeter when it’s scantily wrapped, isn’t it??

By Tim

January 13, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

i have neither the need nor the desire to see your political statements everywhere i go

aren’t W stickers “political statements”?

Let me just state… I honestly have no problem with W stickers or any other sticker (I may not agree with them but I don’t have a problem with someone trashing up their car… more power to ya)… as I also don’t have a problem with someone wearing an “I had an abortion” shirt… at least they are actually covered up… I prefer to see that over someone showing everyone everything the Good Lord blessed them with

By Netbanker

January 13, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Bla…NEVER go to the grocery store when you’re hungry…you end up with all kinds of stuff in your cart that you wouldn’t buy otherwise.

By Candice

January 13, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Just Being Me, you said,“I mean, why can’t you understand that as repulsed as YOU are by abortion, and as wrong as YOU think it is, that someone else’s abortion has no effect on your personal life, and that they should have the right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?”

As repulsed as YOU are by the murder of a child by his father in the front page news, and as wrong as YOU think it is, that father taking the life of HIS child has no effect on YOUR personal life, and why should YOU care about a child you don’t know? (Unless of course YOU want to take responsibility for the child and pay all of his expenses and ‘put your money where your mouth is’-so to speak.)

Yes, murder is illegal but there was a time when abortion was too. Just because the supreme court has allowed it for 30? years doesn’t make it right. Slavery also used to be legal. They were wrong THEN and they are wrong NOW.

That being said, how’s everyone doing today? Thanks for welcomming me into the group-and for accepting my apology yesterday. You guys are very diverse-and that’s cool! :)

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

John, IMO religious shirts (or any other type of “statement” shirts/bumper stickers, etc) may be offensive to you, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s tactless or tacky.

I would venture to assume that most people are wearing political candidate’s t-shirts, “Jesus” t-shirts, family reunion t-shirts, frat/sorority t-shirts, alma mater t-shirts, marijuana t-shirts, etc. because they are proud of the candidate, Jesus, frat, etc… they want to tell everyone about it, and hope that others will consider supporting their cause or candidate, etc.

I would hope and pray that no one who actually had an abortion would be proud of that fact, and eager to advertise the procedure. An “I support a woman’s right to choose” shirt would be sufficient to spread the message that an abortion-having woman carries.

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

maybe, tim. i hesitate to say yes or no definitively bc i’m certainly not against free expression. however, i see a difference between a bumper sticker on a car supporting one candidate or another candidate versus a t-shirt advertising personal medical procedures.

personally i think all bumper stickers are tacky, but that’s just me. doesn’t matter if they say “W the president” or “F the president”.

i guess i have an “appropriateness threshold” for lack of a better term. clothes that we wear or things that we say may be appropriate in one setting but inappropriate in another. mature people know the difference and should act accordingly, in my view, in order to be civil to others. and before you have to ask, i don’t simply draw the line on abortion t-shirts - there are plenty others on both sides of the political aisle that i think are tacky. the abortion t-shirt simply got mentioned due to the topic at hand and where my discussion with john yesterday led to.

By RF

January 13, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

Here’s another one for y’all.

Four guys are driving across country, each from a different state: Idaho, Nebraska, Florida, and New York. Shortly after the trip begins, the guy from Idaho starts throwing potatoes out the window. “What are you doing that for?” they ask. “We’ve got so many of these things in Idaho, I’m getting sick of looking at them”, he says. Next, the guy from Nebraska starts throwing ears of corn out the window. The guy from Florida asks “what are you doing that for?” The guy from Nebraska says, “We’ve got so many of these in Nebraska, I’m sick of looking at them.” Inspired, the man from Florida opens the car door and pushes the New Yorker out…

By Tim

January 13, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

personally i think all bumper stickers are tacky, but that’s just me. doesn’t matter if they say “W the president� or “F the president�

if you never agree on anything else again know that this is one thing we DEFINITELY agree on

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

fair enough, tim. glad we can agree on that. :)

By Renee

January 13, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Good post JBM.

Good one RF - hilarious.

By Tim

January 13, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

RF… I have heard that joke before and LOVE it… only a true Floridian can truly appreciate it :)

blablabla… :)

By Candice

January 13, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

72-you said,“So I find it HIGHLY doubtful that your claims are even remotely close to accurate,”

I got my information from a lady named Linda who used to work at this particular clinic. I won’t name it because I’d probably have it taken off by the AJC or something. But I’m sure you can find it in the yellow pages like I did when I checked what she told me.

I was just going by what went on at the one clinic. And no, it’s not just done for genetic deformities. I could tell more stories from her but I’mm spare you guys. It’s not a nice business and it’s not even regulated. One thing I will mention is the fact that Saturday was their busiest day of the week and they usually had one girl with excessive bleeding each weekend that needed to go to the ER. But since the “clinic” didn’t want bad press they wouldn’t call an ambulance but would have the person who brought them to the clinic take them to the ER. They didn’t want bad press like the time they actually called an ambulance for the lady that ended up dying about 10 years ago.

By The72John

January 13, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Ok, I bend. Hope this isn’t a repeat:

A eldery woman was dragged into court for shoplifting from the local grocery store. Her husband, equally elderly, sat behind in the court room, anxiously looking on.

The judge stared down at the defendant. “What do you have to say for yourself, madam?”

The little old lady shuffled nervously. “Please, your honor. My husband and I are very poor. I just needed something to eat!”

The judge nodded thoughtfully. “It says here you stole a can of peaches…how many peaches were in that can?”

“Six,” the lady sniffed.

“Then I sentence you to six days in jail - one day for each peach in the can.”

The little old lady stammered out her thanks. Then, as she turned to go, her husband who had remained silent until then, stood up.

“Your honor,” the man said quietly “she also stole a can of peas.”

By lozen

January 13, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Candice, a fetus (a clump of cells) is not a baby! A fetus is not a baby! Further along yes, it does become obviously a baby. An abortion at 4 months or 5 months bothers me. I saw it when I was a volunteer at a clinic and it bothered me. The woman who had the abortion thought she wasn’t that far along (or told the clinic she wasn’t anyway). I still believe women must have the right to choose and neither you nor I as private citizens (or collectively as the gov’t) have the right or the knowledge to make another woman’s private decisions about her personal life. No woman should ever be forced to have a child she does not want! Period. Until birth control is 100 percent effective, young people are given the BC info they need, the morning after pill is available, and people stop pretending teenagers will have not have sex, abortion must be available. Are you working to provide young people with the information and bc they need, or are you pretending they just won’t have sex?

By Candice

January 13, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Maybe I’ll also lighten things up after lunch with a joke-and it won’t have anything to do with abortion or religion!!! :)

By Renee

January 13, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

good one John!!!!!!!!

I’m sure there are horror stories with abortions, it’s not a pretty procedure. There are horror stories with any medical procedure. Trust me, if abortion is not illegal the horror stories will increase numerically, and the severity of the horrificness (is that even a word lol).

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Blabla - I’m not into bumper stickers either. I can’t understand why someone would deface their vehicle that way - especially not a new one!

How about the folks who put bumper stickers on their trailer door… now THAT’S tacky! LOL!

Candice, you said, As repulsed as YOU are by the murder of a child by his father in the front page news, and as wrong as YOU think it is, that father taking the life of HIS child has no effect on YOUR personal life, and why should YOU care about a child you don’t know? (Unless of course YOU want to take responsibility for the child and pay all of his expenses and ‘put your money where your mouth is’-so to speak.)

First, you don’t know if I am repulsed by a father murdering his child. You’re making an assumption. But, let’s deal with that example anyway. A father who takes the life of his child does affect (albeit indirectly) my personal life. It contributes to the crime rate in my state/city/community; if the father is of color, it contributes to the increase in the number of minorities incarcerated; it contributes to a negative perception of the citizens of my state/city/community. Also, if the crime occurs in my neighborhood, it could contribute to higher insurance premiums, which directly affects my life.

Since those possibilities are so unlikely to cause a quantifiable effect, let me deal with the greater, more significant issue. The fact is, a father killing his child is murder. The vast majority (if not all) of our country, and other countries, agrees. We share a belief that murder is wrong, and should be unlawful. This is a universally-accepted belief in the civilized world.

On the contrary, when it comes to abortion rights, our country is divided. We don’t all agree that abortion is wrong. Why should a mother of 12, whose husband is killed in a car accident, be forced to bear a thirteenth child just because some people (not all, but some) think that it wouldn’t be right for her to terminate the pregnancy?

And, don’t answer a question with a question… we’ll just keep going around and around in circles.

By The72John

January 13, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Candice, do you know the problem with anecdotal evidence? It’s generally wrong. Empirical data is far more reliable, and you’ll forgive me if I don’t credit your horror stories.

JBM - you don’t think that a religious t-shirt that is preaching AT someone is offensive? I sure do.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Good one John. & RF

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

John, it’s not particularly offensive to me, but I can understand it being offensive to someone else. And, I don’t find the “I had an abortion” t-shirt offensive either, I just think it’s extremely tactless.

And, that joke was hilarious!

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

I would galdly adopt a child and I often do what I can with children who are under privaleged. It is very sad that people seek to use abortion as a means of birth control. With thousands of abortions a year, what you dont hear about is the severe depression and guilt that women have for many years after an abortion. you also dont hear about the side effects of having two or more abortions, like how they can cause sterilization and scarring so that a pregnancy that is wanted will not happen.

You can try and paint this pretty anyway you wish but abortion is murder. Just think, if it was really easy to get an abortion in the 60’s and early 70’s I wounder just how many of you would still be here. All wonderful lifes, flushed down a drain somewhere because they just were not convenient.

You would think that with HIV, untreatable STD’s, sterilization because of infections and cancer now showing up due in women (uterin) due to multiple partners, that people would learn that having sex with lots of people is just not healthy for body, mind or spirit.

By Brian Curtis

January 13, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

John’s joke reminded me of this one, also in a courtroom setting:

A bespectacled old man was arrested for selling knitted caps on a street corner without a business license. Ahead of him in the docket were three prostitutes.

The first one pled Not Guilty and said she was framed. The outraged judge said, “That’s bull, Crissy; I’ve seen you in here before. $250 and a 30-day suspended sentence, for lying to me.�

The second one claimed she was entrapped. Fuming, the judge bellowed, “Nonsense! We have eyewitnesses who confirmed the officer’s story. How DARE you lie in my courtroom. $300 fine and 30 days in lockup—and be glad it’s not more.�

The third woman freely admitted that she was guilty of prostitution. Impressed, the judge said, “That’s more like it. And to set a good example, I’m going to suspend your sentence and let you off with a warning. Next case!�

Before the clerk even read the announcement, the cap salesman piped up. “Your Honor, I confess: I’m a prostitute too!�

By The72John

January 13, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Wow, THANKS, SUZAN. Abortion is murder, no matter what anyone else says. I’m SO glad you cleared that up for the rest of us.

That’s it, folks - pack it up. Suzan has spoken.

By War Eagle

January 13, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Shaunti, Unless you have a 500K+ life insurance policy, YOU are more important to the family than the fetus. when you think about it, unless you have a birth certificate, you are not really born. Second, with the adoption agencies full of babies, there is more supply than demand. DP you really want a kid growing up without parents or growing up with those that don’t know how to be parents? Didn’t think so. And I do not want my tax dollars supporting a potential problem.

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

John72 as aman who can not bear a child you know not of what you speak. I have help counsel women who mad this choice and after 30 years still regret and speak about it. it still haunts them. thats because they understand in side that it is the murder of your own flesh and blood.

people get so very angry about this because they know it is true and guilt is so overwhelming. The destruction of another human will greatly affect the one who did it. no matter the circumstance if they have any humanity in them at all.

By RF

January 13, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

I’m not a big fan of bumper stickers, but I have to admit I got a good chuckle out of the one that reads “my child beat up your honor roll kid”.

Why is that if you only test drive one car and buy it you’ve made a mistake, but have several relationships before you get married and people think you’re wrong? I’d love to see the medical study that linked multiple partners to uterine cancer. Where’d that come from?

By chuck

January 13, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

JBM,this is why it is so hard to debate with Liberals. You don’t think logically. This is what you said:

why can’t you understand that as repulsed as YOU are by abortion, and as wrong as YOU think it is, that someone else’s abortion has no effect on your personal life, and that they should have the right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

Now, let’s just change ONE word in your post so that it reads as follows:

why can’t you understand that as repulsed as YOU are by RAPE, and as wrong as YOU think it is, that someone else’s RAPE has no effect on your personal life, and …

We could change the word to robbery, or smoking, or speeding or any number of laws on the books with which we may agree or disagree. I’ve never had a wreck in an automobile, should I be able to drive as fast as I want too? Hey, my speeding doesn’t affect you. Laws are passed for the good of society as a whole, not NECESSARILY for the good of an individual.

The point is that if you are convinced that that so-called clump of cells is a BABY, then it has the same right to life as the MOTHER. It has as much right to ITS body as the Mother has to hers. Just as I should be concerned about the societal impact and justice involved in the crime of rape, I should be concerned with the societal impact of abortion.

There is no viable compromise position on this issue because it involves 2 diametrically opposed belief systems. One says we should protect the innocent lives of the unborn who are the weakest among us. The second is if for whatever reason a woman gets pregnant, in spite of all of the methods available to prevent that from happening, then by all means don’t inconvenience HER, just kill the baby. It is nothing more than the ultimate form of selfishness and bullying. It’s like a big kid taking away a smaller kid’s new bike because he wants it and has the ability to take it. “Your life is inconvenient to me, even though I caused it, so I’m going to take it from you.”

By RF

January 13, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

And believe you me, if I had stuck with my first sexual partner, who I married, THAT would be a HUGE mistake!! My divorce was the only thing more satisfying than sex for me!!

War Eagle- yep, I agree. I teach kids who are by and large from poor, broken and/or young parent homes. It gets depressing sometimes seeing what happens to kids when mom is too young, too uneducated, or simply not ready for motherhood.

By The72John

January 13, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Warning: Sexist joke follows

A wealthy older man was being pursued by three younger women. All of the women were beautiful and charming, and the man couldn’t decide between them. So, he decided to challenge each of the women, and select his bride based on how they fared.

The man gave each of the women $5000 and told them to spend it. After a month had passed, whichever of the three impressed him the most with their spending would be his bride.

The first woman, being somewhat shallow, decided to spend the money on breat implants. She had the best pair of new knockers that money could buy put in, and spent the last of the money on a spectacular new outfit to show them off with. Her paramour was certainly excited by the change, but he was not overly impressed with her creativity.

The second woman, being very creative, decided to throw an amazing dinner party. She purchased the best wines and the finest spirits, and hired a famous chef to cater the affair. She invited only the funniest and cleverest as guests, and on the last day of the month, filled the dining room with light and flowers and laughter, all for the benefit of her would-be-beau. The wealthy gentleman was impressed by her skill as a hostess, but privately thought that $5000 was a bit much to spend.

The last woman, being indepdendent and highly intelligent, took the $5000 and invested it. She played the market, made smart investments, and quickly watched her small investment grow. On the last day of the month, she presented the man with a check for $100,000. He was very impressed! Not only had she been practical, but she had made him far more money than she had been given.

The man thought and thought…finally he made his choice.

He picked the girl with the boobs. Duh!

By Ken

January 13, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

FatMoose… This response may be way too late, but wanted to clearly state that I absolutely believe the great number of laws are based on moral interpretation. I am not sure how you can think otherwise.

You mentioned “inalienable rights.” The only ones I know of are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” or “life, liberty and the pursuit of property” if you like John Locke (or was it Adam Smith?).

The example you used in one of your posts, social security, is one that is absolutely based on morality. If a person is old and broke, they still have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as an old person who has money. The broke person has the same rights they simply do not have the means. NOONE has a RIGHT to any level of wealth. Social security is a morality driven program that forces people to give some of their “property” to those who do not have “property” and then subsequently skews that distribution. My mother and father who make about half the money I make are entitled to the same maximum percentage as me.

Take another law… The death penalty. Some states have it and others don’t b/c different groups of people believe that level of punishment to be moral or immoral.

Abortion however, in my opinion, falls into both categories. One hand you have the idea of protecting privacy (the woman) or the life of the unborn child. This decision is easy if your moral code says that what is inside the woman is not a person. That makes destroying it very simple. However, if you believe it is, then you must consider the rights of two people and the question of can the rights of one (the mother) trump another (the unborn) when the outcome of that action results in death.

We see many people acquitted or no charged with taking another human life when it is in self-defense, which would feed into the idea of needing a clause for protecting the life of the mother. However, not too sure how often people get acquitted or escape charges for taking another human life when it simply makes the “takers” life easier or more convenient.

So it boils to your MORAL view of the unborn. Is it a human being or not?

By The72John

January 13, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I’m pretty sure that a moron who thinks that he can explain how an arc could contain millions of animal species has any business telling anyone else about logic.

Why don’t you go back to babbling in tongues, or whatever else it is you fundy freaks do? Clan rallies, gay bashing, beating up Muslims…whatever floats your scum-sucking boat.

Suzan, it’s really not about being able to bear a child, sugar. It’s about understanding the difference between a clump of cells and a living being. But thanks for playing.

By The72John

January 13, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

has no business…obviously, no business.

Chuck is the epitome of evil - spread the word!

By Jack

January 13, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

LMAO John.

By Netbanker

January 13, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

RF..I used to live in Midtown (I’ve dubbed it the Gay Induction Center to Atlanta) and we used to joke that it’s the only place to shop for dinner and a date…hopefully one that will be cooking YOU dinner.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I’m not a liberal, and your stereotypical generalization that liberals don’t think logically sounds very silly and childlike.

You want to talk about thinking logically? What if the widowed mother of 12 has no education, no job, and no job skills? What if she has no support network? What if, to her utter dismay, she learns that her husband missed his life insurance payment and left her broke. What if she has no savings? What if she doesn’t have the faith to know that God will provide for her and her children?

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

hey war eagle, look at this….

growing list of famous people who were once foster children. Charlotte Ayanna - Miss Teen USA (While in Foster Care!), Actress, and Author Billy Mills - Olympic Athlete Ice T - Musician, Actor, and Movie Director Eddie Murphy - Comedian and Actor Marilyn Monroe - Actress

these people are very valuble as is all human life. Dan O’Brien - Olympic Athlete Dave Pelzer - Author Ben Nighthorse - U.S. Senator and Olympic Athlete

By DasKrait2

January 13, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Sexist joke? sounded realistic. LOL

no offense, Jack, but since we doing humour today and Comedy Central’s joke today is:

Feel the Hot Burn of Shame!!!

Did you hear the one about the Catholic porn film? It was 10 minutes of sex and 50 minutes of guilt.

By Renee

January 13, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Suzan, yes some women feel guilt. Does that mean it shouldn’t be available to all women. Most women I would venture to say don’t run in happy go lucky. All women don’t feel guilty for years to come. What about them?? People feel different things. So because you feel like it’s a baby and you feel like it’s morally wrong, it shouldn’t be available at all, to anyone, ever.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

I wasn’t finished… lol. think I got too worked up…

By Renee

January 13, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Eddie Murphy spent a year in foster care while his mother was sick. I don’t really consider that being a foster child.

Chuck to your earlier post. Your speeding does affect me. It affects my right to safety. You smoking next to me affects my right to safely breathe. You can’t possibly compare that to abortion.

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Well John72 baby, I do not beleie that it is just a clump of cells. It is the beginning of a human life!!!

I understand what this has done to so many women who bought into the belief that abortion would sole their problem. It did not. and I can bet that almost all women who have an abortion never ever just forget about it. they carry it with them their whole life. Whether they will admit it or not they always wonder just what their child would have been like.

I can tell you this, the line they give you about your right to choose is just a big lie. once you make this choice for convenience sake and not because of health issues, it never leaves you..

By The72John

January 13, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Well John72 baby, I do not beleie that it is just a clump of cells. It is the beginning of a human life!!!

Exactly. YOU do not believe. Guess what - you don’t get to decide for the rest of the world. However much you religious fanatics drool over the thought of controlling people’s lives, you don’t get to. Get used to it.

By Toppie

January 13, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

After reading many of the comments posted here I felt the need to add my two cents. In my experience I have never met a woman that has been happy that they had an abortion, some have regretted it,but no one was proud of it. The one common thing in all of them, was the underlyingproblem of money. whether it was a married woman in a bad situation, where she knew that she would never be able to get out of, or a single woman, or a teeenager. The fear they had was that they could not take care of a child. I don’t like the idea of abortion and could not possibly contemplate having one but that is my choice. If the prospects of these women were not so slim maybe alot fewer abortions would be done.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

This dead horse has been beaten enough. This is one subject that no one is going to change their mind on.

By The72John

January 13, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

This dead horse has been beaten enough. This is one subject that no one is going to change their mind on.

QFT.

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

I do believe that if the birth of the child will harm the mother then that should be the choice of the woman. Rape, Incest these are reason to offer a choice. But to have abortion as a means of birth control, what about self control as a means of birth control. I also think men must take a very large part of the blame for the number of abortions happening in this country. When they will not step uo to the plate and care for the life they helped to create. It sure is much easier to just say. well it’s just an silly clump of cells. not my problem….

By Netbanker

January 13, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

From JBM “why can’t you understand that as repulsed as YOU are by abortion, and as wrong as YOU think it is, that someone else’s abortion has no effect on your personal life, and that they should have the right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?”

That’s IT exactly! And what I just can’t understand about so many conservatives. That type of thinking is supposed to be THEIR position…you know gov’t out of personal decisions, don’t tell people what to do if doesn’t affect you personally, etc. Why does it seem anymore that conservatives can’t seem to grasp the concept that the Liberal position is that we should each get a choice to live our own lives? It feels like it’s boiling down to:

Liberal Position Explanation to Conservative: You live YOUR life. I’ll MY life, just don’t make ME live YOUR life.

Conservative Position Explanation to Liberal: Every must live by MY life.

and what is even MORE twisted is that most profess to be Christians so that position is completely opposite of the “Do unto others” rule from their own God. I predict a great howling and gnashing of teeth as well as a whole lot o’ whining about someone else imposing their view.

Candice…if getting an abortion is playing God with the life an unborn child do you also oppose invitro fertilization? What is your feeling or position on frozen embryos (i.e. unborn children frozen in liquidy hydrogen for all eternity)?

By Jack

January 13, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Ok John. I may be stupid. Please define QFT.

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

No john72 it is not about religion it is about human life and dignity. this seems to hit awful close to you ….i MEANAFTER ALL IT’S JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

You are so right, Jack.

One last comment from me:

Suzan, not every woman who aborts is haunted by the decision for years to come. Not every woman hears crying babies and has nightmares and gets depressed and hates herself and ends up sterile, and all that.

Believe it or not, there are happy endings. And, John said it best: you and your belief don’t get to decide for the rest of us.

By Netbanker

January 13, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

RF….why worry about the frozen food section. It certainly doesn’t work the same way for/on guys.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Quit f—-ing talking?, Quick female temper? Quiet farting today? Quite funny today?

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

I was wondering about QFT too… lol

By The72John

January 13, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Sorry Jack - Quoted For Truth.

Suz, the only thing that hits close to home for me in this debate is the fact that this is yet another example where religious fanatic conservatives believe that they can tell others not only what is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but force others to live by those narrow rules.

By RF

January 13, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Oooh, Net,now you get to an issue I’d LOVE to hear a fundie respond to!! Let’s see how they find biblical support for that one!

Yep, I used to love to go to restaurants and bars all over ATL,and the midtown crowd was definitely interesting. If I had been of the mind to, the one night stands I could have had!! I learned there the meaning of the term “meat market”!!

By Jack

January 13, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

Remember the Limelight? Good people watching there.

By Nikita

January 13, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

A few random comments:

a) regarding the t-shirt — I won’t wear one, but I don’t care if you do. And frankly the claim that the issue is not being lobbied in the public’s mind is incorrect. I, for one, discovered the issue at a county fair at age 14, where the photos Candice references were displayed alongside wquite a few other objectionable images. Did I ask to be subjected to them? No. Were they objetionable? Somewhat. Do I have a right to demand that other people make the world comply with my ideas of what’s acceptable? No.

b) Candice, I don’t know how young you are, but you seem to be laboring under a common misapprehension. That would be that those who disagree with you simply do not understand. We’re ignorant of what an abortion looks like, we don’t know that you believe in God and Christ, and we don’t know what the implications are. I, however, am better versed on all three of the above than most people since, among other things, I was raised in a form of christianity that required me to attend three hours of religious instruction weekly for two years prior to coming of age. My choices on these matters are products of deliberate decisions, knowing all of this.

c) “Liberal Position Explanation to Conservative: You live YOUR life. I’ll MY [sic]life, just don’t make ME live YOUR life. Conservative Position Explanation to Liberal: Every must live by MY life.”

Amen.

d) my husband and I have been preparing to adopt children as of late — and I can tell you that some children are in high demand. However, the ones we’re interested in are children from our social services system, and they routinely languish for years because they’re not of the right race, without clinical challenges, or otherwise are seen as like the adoptive family and/or complication-free. Therefore I don’t buy the “have the baby and someone will adopt it” argument.

By Candice

January 13, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

It was said,“What if the widowed mother of 12 has no education, no job, and no job skills?…What if she has no savings? What if she doesn’t have the faith to know that God will provide for her and her children?”

So these are excuses that would make it justifiable homicide in your eyes? (I know-you don’t see it as homicide so therefore it must not be.) In my eyes there isn’t a good enough reason on earth to justify taking an innocent life.

And by the way, by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant the child already has a beating heart (21 days or so after conception). A beating human child’s heart my friend. And for that matter you and I are clumps of cells and tissue when you get right down to it.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Net’s post reminded me of the Seinfeld when George had gotten out of the pool and a female walked in on him while changing. What a riot. Question for the women on the blog: Are you aware of male “shrinkage”?

By Nikita

January 13, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

e) also, no one wants abortions to be common. They’re best when they’re legal, safe, and rare. As a result, for me, any restriction on the process is only an option once those who oppose them also work toward solutions that would prevent the need for them. Until that all they’re doing is asserting dominance over a group of constituents.

By RF

January 13, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Candice- come meet some of the kids I work with every day from home where they weren’t wanted in the first place. Talk about a clump of cells!

Just remember, if you’ve never been in a position where you would consider having an abortion, you really can’t know the mind of a woman who would consider it. I don’t like abortion, but I don’t feel taking away the right to have a qualified medical situation for it will make it better. Take away the right, it’ll still happen-in a sleazy motel room with a folding table and dirty equipment. YEP, there’s the solution!

By lozen

January 13, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

72John, your 12:51, here’s a high five! Suzan (or Candice) I can’t keep up with it, It is very sad that people seek to use abortion as a means of birth control. Yes, abortion is such a pleasant experience! Why use BC when you can just go have a nice visit at the abortion clinic, please read Amber’s black satire from late yesterday. There’s got to be something wrong with a person who keeps having abortions instead of using BC. Now, why would you want those people to be raising children?

By Ken

January 13, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Candice… I would add to your post the following caveat… What if that same woman, in that unfortunate situation, didn’t terminate her pregnancy, but instead gave birth to a severly challenged little baby?

Would she be able to simply have it’s life terminated?

Also, someone else spoke of foster care. Great list of folks, although I would agree with the Eddie Murphy exception.

Additionally, I want everyone to think about the decision their own parents made to keep them rather than terminate. Mine were not married, were poor, and barely making it when I was conceived, and I thank God every day I was born before the Roe decision b/c I might not be here otherwise.

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

and that is my point, meat market…nothing more, nothing less just something to ease the discomfort of no sex .. and then no responsibility for the aftermath. so it’s just a clump of cells. That is a very sad commentary for men that are supposed to be educated. But it is not suprising. Pay attention women, this is is what they think. meat market……I guess abortion must seem easy when you really dont care about other people or the life you may be creating

By Jack

January 13, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Beetoven wouldn’t be here either.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

OK. One more to lighten up the blog:

An old married couple no sooner hit the pillows when the old man passes gas and says, “Seven Points.”

His wife rolls over and says, “What in the world was that?” The old man replied, “It’s fart football.”

A few minutes later his wife lets one go and says “Touchdown, tie score.”

After about five minutes the old man lets another one go and says, “Aha. I’m ahead 14 to 7.” Not to be outdone the wife rips out another one and says, “Touchdown, tie score.”

Five seconds go by and she lets out a little squeaker and says, “Field goal, I lead 17 to 14.” Now the pressure is on the old man.

He refuses to get beaten by a woman, so he strains real hard. Since defeat is totally unacceptable, he gives it everything he’s got, and accidentally poops in the bed.

The wife says, “What the hell was that?”

The old man says, “Half time, switch sides.”

By Jack

January 13, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

You shouldn’t generalize like that Susan. That’s like me stating that all women are witches.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Ken, Candice… you still haven’t told me how this woman is supposed to support her 13th baby, and deal with her own grief and mourning, and that of her other 12 children.

Candice, I’m not going to like debating with you if you keep answering a question with a question, and evading questions…. that’s not cool.

By RF

January 13, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Suzan- Read carefully dear. The meat market comment was— A: a joke B: directed to a GAY man, who I strongly suspect isn’t going to be getting anyone pregnant C: hardly what anyone on this blog thinks of women. HOW DARE YOU insinuate that.

ALSO— Women who would think of abortion as a means of birth control would NOT be appealing to any man I know.

And, for your information, I don’t know of a guy or girl who says “what the heck, let’s have sex. There’s always abortion”.

Do you people have a law that says you can’t enjoy sex or something? Is that why you always want to attack anyone who jokes about it, or heaven help us, has FUN at it??

By liana

January 13, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

John72: Another high five! Suz, the only thing that hits close to home for me in this debate is the fact that this is yet another example where religious fanatic conservatives believe that they can tell others not only what is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but force others to live by those narrow rules. Nobody is trying to force you or anyone else who believes it’s wrong to have a damn abortion. I will never, ever believe a clump of cells is more important than a woman who is alive and breathing and has plans and doesn’t want a child! Never, ever, ever! You will continue to believe abortion is murder, but that is just your belief. Just leave me the hell alone and don’t have an abortion! If my mother could have had an abortion she probably would have. What the heck would I care if I’d never been born? She was not a good mother and that was partly because she did not want to be a mother. She was a mother because she had no choice. She ignored her kids as much as possible; when we insisted she pay attention to us, she shamed us to death for needing and wanting anything. It took me years of therapy to stop believing I was worthless and something was wrong with me and to believe I deserved anything in this life. I wouldn’t wish that kind of mother on any child! Many people don’t want children ever, at all. If you force those people to be parents it will hurt everybody.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

13th baby? Good lord, she should have used the Cathloic birth control pill. (an asprin held between the knees)

By RF

January 13, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Suzan, Candice, et. al Answer Net’s question about invitro fertilization and embryo ‘storage’. Is that “playing God”?? I’d really like to hear the answer…

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Jack, Yes, I know about shrinkage, and let me tell you: it is a scaaa-aaaa-ry thing.

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

netbanker:

as someone who is conservative, but also mildly pro-choice, i can tell you that i wrestled with the abortion debate for a long time personally, and have at times flip-flopped my position. i can’t tell you that all conservatives feel the way that i do, but i can tell you what my overarching problem with the entire abortion debate:

on the one hand you have the gov’t telling a woman that she can’t have an abortion, or regulating abortion, putting up roadblocks to having an abortion, etc. as a conservative, i’m extremely uncomfortable with the gov’t interfering with the private lives of individual citizens in this country. and also as a conservative, i believe gov’t has a few, well-defined objectives, and that’s it. those objectives are what our gov’t should stick to. having a hand in our personal lives isn’t included, in my opinion, in gov’t’s responsibilities.

on the other hand, you have the moral dilemma of what to do with the unborn. setting aside religion for a moment, i personally believe the unborn should be protected. add to that, my christian upbringing also leads me to believe that the unborn should be protected. so either way i look at the issue, either from a personally secular or personally religious standpoint, the unborn should be protected. as i believe that i should do what i can to defend and protect those that cannot care for themselves after birth, i feel the same need to protect them prior to birth.

so for me, and i think a fair number of other people, be they conservative (or liberal), the choice comes down to the lesser of two evils. i hate the concept of gov’t telling woman what to do, and i hate the concept of killing the unborn.

what solved it for me is my ability to trust women with their choice. as i’ve matured and seen how seriously most women take the issue of reproductivity, i’ve grown comfortable with trusting women to make the right choice for themselves. it pains me to see that 47% of abortions are being performed on women having a second or third abortion, but i also believe that as sex education improves and as birth control is more readily available (i.e. our society becomes honest with itself that sex is normal, healthy and is here to stay for virtually everyone) that the need for abortions will decline, which i believe is almost everyone’s ultimate goal.

so i see the lack of sex education and the inability of people to get birth control when they need it to be antithetical to the pro-life position bc in my opinion, it leads to greater numbers of abortions.

hopefully i’ve given you some insight into the conservative view on abortion, even though i’m pro-choice.

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

I guess Im not much on crude. And sex is winderful and fun in a committed relationship. but on the sly it produces in most cases sad situations, hiv,std s unwanted pregnancies etc. and condom dont work for many of this std’s . but no one wants to know the truth.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

Like a scared turtle!

By Nikita

January 13, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Suzan, I am among those who don’t want to hear your “truth,” which is of course a conviction of your own superiority coupled with an insistence on closing your mind firmly to other people’s arguments.

If you want to debate, then I’m here for you. But if you want to craft pithy little put-downs, then I’m not interested.

By Candice

January 13, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

It was said,“Take away the right, it’ll still happen-in a sleazy motel room with a folding table and dirty equipment. YEP, there’s the solution!”

So, by that way of thinking heroin should by legal. I mean, they’re still going to find a way to shoot up-maybe with dirty needles and in a back “alley”. Let’s just make it legal and SAFE!

By lozen

January 13, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Yes RF, they have a lot of laws that say they can’t enjoy sex. You can’t have sex (let alone enjoy it) until you’re married, even if you wait until you’re 40 to get married. You can’t have sex just for the enjoyment; it’s for procreation only. You can have sex with one person (husband or wife) in one situation only (marriage) for your entire life. It’s a sin to have it anywhere else or with anyone else. It’s a sin to have sex with anyone other than a person of the opposite sex, so we will make damn sure you can’t get married if you’re gay, even if we have to go vote for the only time in our lives! You can’t look at a person and want sex because that’s lust and lust is a sin even if it’s only in your heart, buddy! And if you break any of these laws you will burn and you need to be punished by us because if we can’t do it, we sure ain’t gonna let you do it if we can hep’ it!

By Alice

January 13, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

How sad that the anti-woman crowd doesn’t see females as first class citizens…like men. They know we vote and pay first class taxes and yet then want to deny us our rights to make our own decisions regarding health matters and life’s direction. So much for constitutional guarantees of equality. Except in war, when is a male denied knowledge and medical services to save his life? When is he denied the “right” to make his own medical decisions and know the options available to him? I, like most Americans (and I am Catholic) don’t promote abortion, but if the woman decides that is in her best interest, then by all means get out of her way. I think most women would prefer to be open to motherhood, but our society doesn’t respect or assist women with this life choice. The only motherhood the government wants is that which is privately funded.

By RF

January 13, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Suzan— many of us do know the truth dear. Sorry if the meat market comment offended you. It really wasn’t meant to.

Bla—Excellent summation! I think that expressest a very similar opinion to what many politically moderate folks have been saying all week. Good job!

By Jack

January 13, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Liana you made my heart sink with your last post. I bet everyone you encounter is glad you are here. :)

By Renee

January 13, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

yes, heroin should be legal, as should all drugs…but we’ve been down that road before.

By RF

January 13, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

lozen— good one!! Sounds like you know some of the same folks I do! They are such an unhappy bunch, but they try so hard to pretend they’re having the time of their lives.

Jack- and the turtle doesn’t always pop back out of the shell very quickly either, like after a prostate exam.

Candice- that debate has been had. don’t use drugs as an example for abortion. They’ll eat you alive!!

By Libertarian

January 13, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

heroin: Let’s just make it legal and SAFE.

Good point, if drugs were legal, there would be less people in prison and more people paying taxes, and since someone would have to be doing the menial labor jobs, there would be less jobs for illegal immigrants.

plus the drugs would be alot cheaper and not funding narco-terrorists, etc. Plus Afghanistan would be a better functioning government, since there would be no excessive money to be made from opiates and the drug trade would not rule the government.

Plus if it were legal and cheap, it would loose alot of its appeal.

sidebar: do you think the new topic typically posted at 4:10p on Friday will involve abortion?

By Libertarian

January 13, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

typo, should be: 5:10p

By Jack

January 13, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Lozen. You forgot to mention that it’s supposed to be man on top, get it over with quick. LOL

By Renee

January 13, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

good comment blah and liana

By lozen

January 13, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Alice, excellent! I think most women would prefer to be open to motherhood, but our society doesn’t respect or assist women with this life choice. The only motherhood the government wants is that which is privately funded. Thank you for posting. Bla, you expressed your viewpoint, your rational and reasonable viewpoint, very well.

By Candice

January 13, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Suzan, Candice, et. al Answer Net’s question about invitro fertilization and embryo ‘storage’. Is that “playing God�?? I’d really like to hear the answer…

Yes, that’s playing God. To create life and then stick it in the freezer-suspending life for months, years or even forever! I believe God allowed some people to be infertile for a reason-maybe so they would look towards ADOPTION of the children that are in need of a good home. Instead of spending tens or hundreds of thousands on INF maybe they should see it as God’s way of calling them to adopt a needy child.

By The72John

January 13, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Bla, but you don’t really fit in with most of your conservative brethren, however you may define yourself. The conservatives of today are very MUCH interested in government controlling people’s private lives.

That said - I am personally very much ethically opposed to the use of abortion as a means of birth control. However, that’s my personal opinion, and since I am A) A man, and B) gay, the odds of my ever being involved in a decision one way or the other are miniscule at best. I realize it’s not my business to tell any woman that she has to bear a child.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Is it raining or what?

By RF

January 13, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Liana- you have lived what I see every day in the kids I teach. It’s sad, but that’s all too often the result of a woman feeling forced to have children. Apparently all that matters to fundamentalists is that you were born, not how miserable your childhood was. Just getting the baby here doesn’t guarantee anything. I feel bad for you and I am glad to hear you’ve worked a lot of it out.

By lozen

January 13, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Okay, okay it’s Friday. Time for this story. My aunt had been married since she was 18 or 19, and had six kids. In her 50’s she began seeing a reflexologist.(You know those people who press spots on the bottom of your feet to cure your weak heart! or whatever.) She told my mother she had an orgasm for the first time in her life when the reflex. touched a certain place on her foot. That is so sad. She didn’t even know what she was missing until she was in her 50’s. She spent thousands seeing reflexologists after that! Just kidding.

By RF

January 13, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Candice- good answer! I have a niece as the result of invitro, and I’m glad she’s here. I don’t think that’s necessarily playing God, any more than a medical procedure to save someone from a heart attack would be. I definitely agree on the frozen embryos. That just seems weird, doesn’t it?

By Candice

January 13, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

RF-I wasn’t knocking anyone who was created by IVF/INF?…I just disagree with creating multiple embryos (10,30,50,whatever) and using some and freezing the rest. Playing God is creating 50 embryonic life forms and keeping them suspended forever in a lab.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Lozen. That is sad. How could your Uncle have had fun knowing she wasn’t “getting her cookies”. A sorry “man” indeed.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

LOL@ Lozen’s aunt…

Liana, very true and very touching. I’m glad you made it out alive, and I wish you success and peace.

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

john, as you can probably tell, my conservatism is more grounded in financial issues than social ones. i’m for smaller, de-centralized gov’t where bureaucracy is minimized and personal liberty is maximized. i would consider myself financially conservative and socially moderate. this probably means if one were to categorize me, the appropriate category is libertarian.

outside of abortion and gay issues, how are today’s conservatives attempting to use gov’t to control people’s lives?

By RF

January 13, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Candice- here’s another question I’ve always wondered about. Why is that young, successful couples who have everything to offer a child are always the one who end up having trouble conceiving, while the poor and often uneducated seem to be able to have many more than they ever want or could afford? I’ve never understood that, especially after all my sister-in-law went through just to have one baby.

By Candice

January 13, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Nikita-Believe it or not, not everyone HAS seen an abortion picture (or probably even wants to). I didn’t until about 5 years ago and until that time had no idea abortion was legal throughout the entire pregnancy. I thought it was taking a pill to eliminate a clump of cells the size of a dot. I had no idea that it was legal once it formed into a child with arms and legs and a beating heart. You don’t get this information from many places and not everyone may be aware of all the facts regarding abortion.

Just Being Me-I’m doing my best to answer questions to everyone’s satisfaction. There are many extreme cases you could cite to try and make abortion seem like the solution. But let’s face it, most of the abortions are not done on these extreme cases-where the woman has 12 children or the girl is 11 years old or a case of incest. Citing an extreme case scenario doesn’t make the case for 97% of the abortions actually committed each year.

As a fellow Christian how can you not take a stand to prevent the killing of millions of innocent children?

We are supposed to have the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in this country. But without the first right (to life) the others mean nothing.

By Nikita

January 13, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

“As a fellow Christian how can you not take a stand to prevent the killing of millions of innocent children?”

Candice, how many fetuses become children?

Also, and this is 99% off topic, but is an issue that occurs to me frequently, usually christians of a certain ilk are the ones opposing abortion. Yet christianity makes it clear that death is nothing to be feared and is in fact a joyous thing. Frankly, this makes me think that it is in fact not about “unborn children” at all, but rather in controlling people’s sexual lives and in limiting women to an inferior status by making them legally subordinate to a variety of other entities.

By Nikita

January 13, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

“As a fellow Christian how can you not take a stand to prevent the killing of millions of innocent children?”

Candice, how many fetuses become children? How many eggs seeking implantation into the lining of the uterus will become children?

Also, and this is 99% off topic, but is an issue that occurs to me frequently, usually christians of a certain ilk are the ones opposing abortion. Yet christianity makes it clear that death is nothing to be feared and is in fact a joyous thing. Frankly, this makes me think that it is in fact not about “unborn children” at all, but rather in controlling people’s sexual lives and in limiting women to an inferior status by making them legally subordinate to a variety of other entities.

By Candice

January 13, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Going home…have a great weekend everybody.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Candice, There are many extreme cases you could cite to try and make abortion seem like the solution.

That’s what you don’t/can’t understand. I would never “try” to make abortion seem like “the solution.” I don’t believe in abortion, and I don’t think it’s EVER the solution. I don’t think it ever should be the solution.

HOWEVER (this is the part you need to read carefully - not being sarcastic), I believe that every woman should have the right to determine whether or not to carry an unwanted baby to term. Get it? I’m not saying abortion is right, or abortion is okay, or abortion isn’t murder, or abortion is the solution in some cases, or anything like that. I’m simply saying that each woman should be able to make that choice based on HER OWN beliefs, not based on Candice and JBM’s beliefs.

That’s what I’m saying.

By Jack

January 13, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Nite All. Have a good weekend.

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

RF thanks I appreciate your courtesy.
Nikta I have been giving put downs but the the truth. the problem is people do not want to admitt tht what they do may indeed harm them. As to my superior attitude, let me firdt say that my lessons have been hard learned. I have also counsled many who have walked down the road of casuel sex with many partners and have been harmed both in mind and body. It is sad and could be prevented if people would be willing to stop and think about what they are doing to themselves. But the need to have sex is to take prescedense of good sense. So abortions abound as a for of birth control.. so far about 39 million abortions have been performed in the usa between 1973 and 2000. Is that not a sad commentary for this country. 39 million people that will never laugh, cry, create, have children, save lives, that is the truth we should weep for our shame at this murder

By Brian Curtis

January 13, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

One final sports joke:

An American baseball fan takes a visiting cousin from a distant country to the local stadium. His cousin soon gets into the game and is cheering right alongside the American with every hit, shouting “Run, fellow! Run!�

Finally, a batter gets walked, and the visitor again begins shouting for him to run. The American fan interrupts him and explains, “He doesn’t have to run. He’s got four balls, so it’s a walk.�

Impressed, the visitor rises to his feet and shouts again. “Walk proudly, sir; walk proudly.�

By The72John

January 13, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

One weekend in , a Madam discovered she had a problem. Without warning, all of her girls had come down with the flu and were completely unable to work. This was a particularly BAD weekend for this to happen because a navy ship, full of sex-starved sailors, was scheduled to dock that very afternoon.

The Madam thought and thought. If she weren’t up and running that night, she stood to lose out on a LOT of money. Suddenly, she had an idea!

She ran outside and darted into the Adult Novelty store next door. Soon, she reappeared carrying a package under her arm.

As night fell, the Madam put the finishing touches on her plan. She decked out a special room, draping cloth over all the lights, making a barely-lit grotto. On the bed, she put her purchase - a state-of-the-art blow-up doll.

“When the customers get here, they’ll probably be so drunk, they won’t realize the difference!”

So, a little later, the first customer arrives. The Madam welcomes him, takes his cash, and escorts him into the darkened room.

A few minutes go by. Eventually, the customer stumbles out, drunk and happy. The Madam waves him out the door.

An hour or so later, another customer drops in. He is much more drunk than the first, so the Madam takes his money and waves him in, relaxing now that she’s sure her plan is working.

About 15 minutes go by. The Madam isn’t concerned…sure enough, a few minutes later, Customer #2 stumbles out drunk and happy. The Madam waves him out the door.

Another hour goes by - another customer appears, this one MUCH drunker than either of the other two. The Madam smiles to herself, takes his money (double, just ‘cause) and escorts him into the room.

15 minutes pass…then 15 more and then 15 more. The Madam is getting a little worried now, so she tiptoes up to the closed door and puts her ear to it. Inside, she hears the customer sobbing quietly to himself.

Alarmed, she throws open the door. The blow-up doll is nowhere to be seen.

“Sir, what’s wrong!”

Sniffing, the customer wipes his nose and looks up at the Madam. “I…I don’t know what happened…” he sniffed, “We were having such good time…things were going well…but..but…then I got a little crazy…”

“Sir, please, what happened?”

“Well, I leaned over and bit her on the butt…then she farted in my face and jumped out the window!”

By RF

January 13, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

hehehe Brian- that was a good one!

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

ROFL John, Brian!!! Both good ones!

By Renee

January 13, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

ROFLMAO John, Brian Good one too

John, yours almost made me spit my drink on my screen. Too funny!!!!!

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

SEE it effect no one here that 39 million abortions have been performed on women in this country. Well when there are not enough people to carry the tax load of the babby boomers retirment and ssi just remember 39 million people are not here to pay those taxes. how may would have been doctors, scientist, entrepaneurs, mothers, nurses, fathers, This is why I hate abortion.

By Nikita

January 13, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

“Nikta I have been giving put downs but the the truth.”

When you make a statement that essentially says “here’s the truth — but you don’t care about the truth” you’re not engaging in a debate. Instead, you’re insulting the person with whom you ostensibly debate.

Secondly, getting nasty because people do not agree with you is not good. It’s not a valid way to direct an argument, either.

“Is that not a sad commentary for this country. 39 million people that will never laugh, cry, create, have children, save lives, that is the truth we should weep for our shame at this murder.”

Well, no. Actually, it’s not sad. It simply is.

And your tax argument is just absurd. What’s our purpose in life? Is it to support our government, to fulfill corporate interests, to do exactly as directed by other humans who have been put in superior positions? I certainly hope not.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Suzan, it’s not that no one cares. It’s late Friday afternoon and we’ve really exhausted this subject. But, I must point out as I said earlier this week that it is highly doubtful that those 39 million would have become 39 million taxpayers.

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Seems that money and stuff is the only thing respected these days. and no 39 million babies that were never born is horrible and sad. How can people be so cold and selfesh as to have no respect for human life. It is just a waste of people. I am not being disrpectful only honest. it is the sad truth that offends. This is the truth 39 millin children that will never breath from 1973 until 2000. are you not glad that you were one of them

By The72John

January 13, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Or…39 million people that will never rape, murder, steal, lie, cheat, work the system, flunk out of high school…

It’s easy to wax melancholy over the wasted “lives” that you imagine have been cut short. That’s part of the melodramatic draw that the anti-choice groups have. Overly-emotional pleas about all the poor dead babies…

Personally, I prefer the quantum physics approach…Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

By Nikita

January 13, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

“Seems that money and stuff is the only thing respected these days.”

This statement is a) untrue, and b) completely non-useful. Have any examples that you can point to? also c) weren’t you the one who just said it was tragic that we supposedly lost 39 million taxpayers? Isn’t that about money?

“How can people be so cold and selfesh as to have no respect for human life.”

Au contraire. “People” actually have more respect for human life than you do because “people” believe that individuals are autonomous and have a presumed right to privacy, which extends to making one’s own medical decisions. As for “cold & selfish” — what’s more cold & selfish than endeaboring to force other people to live according to your beliefs?

“It is just a waste of people.”

Nope. It’s a waste of POTENTIAL people, many of whom would have never come to term.

“I am not being disrpectful only honest.”

False.

are you not glad that you were one of them?

Nope. I enjoy living — however, if I weren’t here, then I certainly wouldn’t miss me.

By Renee

January 13, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

whose to say these 30 billion babies that you speak of would have been born, full term without an abortion. I’m letting the subject go, this dead horse has had the hell beaten out of it.

Thankfully women still have the choices they do, and hopefully they will continue to.

By The72John

January 13, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Seriously, Suzan…I would far rather worry about the people that are actually alive today than to worry about a few clusters of cells that never developed into people.

But that’s too hard, isn’t it? Like I said earlier, the people who get all worked up about the poor little aborted babies have a REALLY hard time caring about the flesh-and-blood people who are actually alive today.

By Renee

January 13, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

Dang, I hope it wasn’t 39 million potential lesbians….

By SUZAN

January 13, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

I for one morn the loss of so many. yes it is the end of the week but this horror just goes on. I wish for better education. No the people be forced to live as I believe. I wish for people with a heart and not the cold side of reasoning. I wish for people to wake up and see what we are doing to our future here.

thats all, this subject really breaks my heart and mkes me ill. it is so cold to try and justify the deaths of these blobs of cells. everyone of you here on this blog is a special and prescious life. and I am so glad you are here. this world would not have been brightened by your laughter, love and smiles had you been aborted. yet you seem to be able to justify this with it’s just a blob

there are none so blind as those who will not see.

God keep you all through this weekend, this is just to sad

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

ROFL Renee!!!!!! Makes you wonder… I bet at least 1 million of them would’ve been… dang. That sucks. Now I see Suzan’s point, and I’m totally converted. Down with abortion, down with the right to choose!

By Nikita

January 13, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

“there are none so blind as those who will not see.”

Exactly.

By The72John

January 13, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Damn, there might have been a few gay football fans in there, too…

Suzan, thanks, but I have a heart. Like I said, my concern is for people who are actually alive. But thanks for more of your self-righteous blather.

By Just Being Me

January 13, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Hey, I just clicked “refresh” and got next week’s topic! LOL… it’s on porno.

I feel like I got a glimpse at the teacher’s answer book or something… lol

By blablabla

January 13, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

i saw it too, jbm. very funny. i got a sneak preview!

By chuck

January 13, 2006 07:36 PM | Link to this

Last post of the day. JBM, my speeding does not affect you UNLESS I hit you. That’s not the point. The point is YOU believe that it is a baby so not only do you believe in abortion, you believe in INFANTICIDE. There is no difference, according to what you have said, in that woman with 12 kids having an abortion OR killing 2 or 3 of the ones she already has. You cannot possibly be a Christian.

By Ben

January 17, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

Although I believe that killing an unborn child is morrally wrong I also believing that there a bigger problem with having to chose weather or not to have an abortion in the first place. What kind of choice is that. I firmly believe if these holier than thou ultra conservative christians would stop fighting sex eduation in this country then mabey we as a people would become more educated, have more power over our own minds and bodies and ultimately have a greater choice of weather or not to get pregant than weather or not to terminate your pregnancy.