Woman to Woman

By Vilyamnv

September 16, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

By SusieHomeMaker

September 17, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

Plan B or its twin, has been available in Europe for years; why the big deal here in the US?

By Archie

September 17, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

My answer to the topic question is no the problems of the morning-after-pill are not understood. The lady in Shanti’s example obviously did not understand the pill at all but as Andrea says that lady had a solution available,i.e. read!!!

Andrea wins this debate easily in my opinion especially when she says read the fine print.

By lozen

September 17, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Why does a woman take Plan B? To prevent pregnancy. So why would someone who doesn’t want to end a pregnancy take Plan B? Please can someone explain that to me? Women just aren’t smart enough to figure this out for ourselves. We don’t even know how to read a box or find information about Plan B. Yeah, sure! These zealots will do anything, say anything, set up any ding bat group to keep women from having control of our own bodies. It is so sick.

By Chilao

September 17, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Lozen - the woman wanted to avoid pregnancy from a specific individual but DID want the pregnancy from another individual.

only explanation for that last paragraph of Shaunti’s.

Selective breeding at its finest. LOL

Friends liked your Friday Joke, btw, Lozen.

By DebbieDoRight

September 17, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

To one reader who emailed me, distraught after a miscarriage, these warnings come too late. She took Plan B after a clinic doctor guaranteed it wouldn’t cause abortion (which she’s firmly against) if she was already pregnant

The people who write to Shaunti must be really dumb or can’t read for themselves. A quick “google” would’ve told the lady everything she’d ever wanted to know about Plan B.

PS: Plan A is to use contraception, (rubber, pill, IUD), in the first place.

By Nursing Mom

September 17, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

I’m so glad about Plan B after experiencing a condom accident. I nurse my infant, and I don’t want to take hormone pills every day of my life. I don’t want my baby to be on birth control pills when I nurse her! I don’t want the side effects of hormones or copper IUD’s. Condoms have no health side effects. But you will have an accident once in a blue moon with them. I’d rather suffer hormonal side effects 2 days out of 10 years versus every freaking day of my life, especially after hormones with menopausal women have been linked to all sorts of health problems. I’d rather my baby be on hormones 2 days out of its first year of life rather than every day. Also, do you know how hard it is to make a doctor’s appointment on the weekend? Plan B must be taken within 72 hours, and is most effective if taken within 12 hours of the act. In this day and age, try getting a doctor’s appointment on Sunday morning after a Saturday night accident!

By BBT

September 17, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

The lawsuit Shaunti’s talking about is completely bogus. Most women do not even know the name of Plan B. But they know of an existence of the morning after pill. Most women when having an accident will look up “morning after pill” on the internet and find that it’s called “Plan B”. There, they will find plenty of information that is perfectly easy to comprehend. If you buy Plan B in the store, they have a booklet written for the average Jane Doe on the front of it explaining how you take the pill, when you should take the pill (within 72 hours), the fact that it is not intended as a replacement for birth control, etc. The booklet is in English and Spanish. Then there’s also a more complicated technical insert for more scientific doctor types in the Plan B package that explains what it’s made of, the rat studies, etc. There is full disclosure. And women who don’t know about Plan B won’t figure out its name or how to take it or where to buy it without being barraged by information about its side effects and its intended use with a booklet covering up the pills in the package. I thought Shaunti was for less government/doctor/nanny intervention where people can take responsibility for their own health and well being. And as for causing abortion, well, about 50% of fertilized eggs in women that aren’t taking birth control don’t even implant in the uterus. They just don’t attach to the wall for whatever reason. Plan B simply makes the uterine wall more hostile to a fertilized egg.

By NetBanker

September 17, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Hey kids! I’m just not buying Shaunti’s argument that “women wanting Plan B rush into it without fully understanding the drug…” AS has been mentioned by other posters it’s easy to get the information. Most of Shaunti’s arguments and those stated by the lawsuit are completely negated by looking at the first page of the Plan B website (which is below so the naysayers can see it for themselves)

http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/Index.aspx

This site very clearly states the side effects and states that Plan B is not a substitute for birth control.

Her OB-GYN said it was almost certainly because of Plan B. Almost certainly would be the key words here. We must also consider that Shaunti is supporting her position with heresay. All the research done on the product contradicts the heresay and neither we nor Shaunti knows from her reader is if she has miscarried previously or has any other health conditions that may cause a miscarriage. From what I can find on the CDC site (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_04.pdf) the rate of fetal loss (as opposed to induced abortion) is about 25% the number of live births.

By Scalia

September 17, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

I don’t understand the hoopla behind taking the morning after pill or Plan B. There isn’t any hoopla or Men’s Journals talking about Viagra, Cialis, etc. Those do have side effects i.e., can cause a heart attack. But it is okay for a man to have to suffer a heart attack for at least he did it while getting some.

And the woman who took it while pregnant must not have a brain. Did she think Plan B was a vitamin?

By Jen

September 17, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

You know…I think Shaunti’s little victim was someone who was looking to prevent an unwanted conception. However, this person is stridently against abortion and therefore did not want something that would remove an unwanted conception.

Ugh…it’s called Plan B because you’re trying to get the horse back in the barn. So, if you’re thinking about Plan B then you’re worried that you already conceived. And if you believe removing this conception after the fact is abortion and you are against abortion then you would never ever ever have a use for Plan B!

So, Shaunti’s example is either an example of a moron or just someone who needs some sex education and a box of condoms.

By Been There

September 17, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Yes, like Nursing Mom pointed out, condoms break. Especially if you squeeeeeeze really hard. When it happened to me at mid-cycle, I was waiting on my doctor’s doorstep the next morning. To counter those who will babble on about “being responsible” or using it as an “easy out,” let me say that it’s NO FUN! The body goes slamming through some changes in a matter of hours, and the effects last for several days. There is no danger that it would be used as a primary method of BC!!

By Mike Toreno

September 17, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

Feldhahn’s argument is the same as it always is - some women regret choices that they have made, so women shouldn’t be allowed to make choices.

The fact that Feldhahn is not satisfied with the choices she has made in her life isn’t a basis for restricting the right of others to make choices. I think it’s time to get rid of her and put in someone who doesn’t make srguments that are really based on her own failures. For example, her idiotic article decrying romance novels based on the idea that they would make women dissatisfied with their husbands obviously arose from her own desire to remove influences that would keep her from crowding down the dissatisfaction she obviously feels with her own marriage. The solution for that, of course, was for her to either accept or end her marriage, not to interfere in the lives of others.

In this case, my suspicion is that Feldhahn is dissatisfied with the number of children she has. Maybe she was pressured to have more children than she was comfortable having, and now wants to cast this as a societal norm.

But it isn’t. If Feldhahn’s unattractivness made her unable to get the kind of husband she wanted, she should have made herself more attractive - perhaps by cultivating some personal integrity. If she was being pressured to have too many children, she should have stood up to the pressure.

The failures in Feldhahn’s life are HERS. She shouldn’t try to universalize them.

By Archie

September 17, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

It seems as if Shanti is taking a beating on this topic. I really liked DebbieDoRight’s post at 10:33 am but I almost feel sorry for Shanti.

By Jen

September 17, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Yeah, let’s lay off the personal attacks here. We don’t need unqualified and unsolicited psycho-analysis.

At the end of the day we should have a comprehensive sex education that includes Plan A (birth control, barrier prevention, and, yes, abstinence), Plan B, and Plan C (abortion). This way we have a lot more people using Plan A but who have CORRECT knowledge of Plans B and C.

By NetBanker

September 17, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Now here is a story or topic that I’d love to hear Shaunti’s position:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2007/09/17/reproductive0917.html

If terminating or avoiding pregnancy is ‘playing God,’ aren’t fertility treatments also ‘playing God?’

By Whiley

September 17, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Isn’t VIAGRA playing God???????

That’s right I have returned! ROFL! Mike Toreno don’t be a sexist pig by saying a woman isn’t happy because she’s not pretty enough to get a man who wouldn’t hurt her. That’s an idiotic statement made by a man who clearly abuses Viagra & has nobody to use it on.

Shaunti’s dissatisfaction with life is because she follows religion & it’s teaching of selth lothing, you can never be ok because you’re just a woman & a sinner, etc.

By Lily Toad

September 17, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

UM, Shaunti, I guess you don’t need a prescription to get Plan B, because, UM, I know — it’s for emergencies!!!!! No time to get an appointment with your GYN a month in advance.

By Monica

September 17, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Hi everyone! Long time, no blog! I’d like to make a few comments.

1) You do realize that someone is going to argue the other side, right? If not Shaunti, then another conservative whose arguments will be of the same nature. Don’t slam Shaunti for doing her job.

3)Net, I agree that fertility treatments are playing God. It’s not a topic I discuss with people close to me who have had fertility treatments (I don’t discuss abortion either but am against it as well), but I absolutely agree with you on that one.

3)My qualm with Plan B: I am afraid that it will fall into the hands of a teenage girl who doesn’t fully understand the side effects, and I don’t think it’s been around long enough to see if there are repercussions later in a woman’s reproductive history. Anyone know of research in that area?

4) If it is an OTC drug, then men have access to it as well. Now women not only have to worry about the Rufie in their drink, but a Plan B thrown in to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Hope you all have a great week. I have missed y’all, but have been too busy to pull up the blog! :)

By Archie

September 17, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Whiley I don’t think Mike Toreno is sexist because he is directing his comments only at Shanti. They were a bit harsh and your snipe at him is funny to me.

By Jen

September 17, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

My God Monica…if some guy should throw a Rufie into my drink I sure as hell hope he throws a Plan B in there, too. For goodness sakes…if you’re going to rape me at least protect me…

See how f’d up you sound?

However, Plan B has been used in Europe for a loooooong time. As you may know, European women are the same species as American women so the research on AEs for them is probably a good place to look when wondering about long term health effects…

By Whiley

September 17, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

Archie it’s not funny when a man puts down what a woman looks like. First thing a lot of people do is criticize how pretty or not a woman is, how fat or skinny, short, tall whatever. It irks me more when a man takes cheap shots like that.

I was serious about religion having a negative affect on everybody’s self esteem, especially their followers. I was taking MY cheap shot at Mike to see how he likes it.

By Chilao

September 17, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

Hi Monica, I was wondering where you were, Chuck being back in school and all. Figured you were back as well.

By Been There

September 17, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

*I am afraid that it will fall into the hands of a teenage girl who doesn’t fully understand the side effects…

Know what else sometimes falls into the hands of a teenage girl who doesn’t fully understand the repercussions of it? HAHAHA! Yep. That’s why options are so important!!

By NetBanker

September 17, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

Hey Monica! Nice to ‘see’ you and hope the school year is off to a good start.

My only point about fertility treatments is the seeming hypocracy of when it’s acceptable to play God. If one believes that life starts at conception what is the status of the frozen embryo whose ‘life’ will never progress so long as it’s in liquid nitrogen?

Whiley…you should re-read Mike’s post. He used the word ‘unattractive’ and ‘get the kind of husband she wanted.’ You immediately assume that unattractive is a statement of physical beauty and the desired husband comment is about someone who will hurt her. I’ve met quite a number of physcially gorgeous people who are extremely unattractive as a person, haven’t you?

By wmduncherman

September 17, 2007 8:04 PM | Link to this

http://www.lambrassie.com/webfiles/backup/map.html benedikt [url=http://www.lambrassie.com/webfiles/backup/map.html]jesse james choppers [/url]

By WAR EAGLE

September 18, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this

When will thewse religious nutcases leave a law alone? Unless it has a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, it was NEVER born! Plan B is the best way to avoid an abortion procedure as it is privately taken in a home so that these religious nutcases don’t picket you and curse at you while driving to the clinic. Personally, I’d shoot these nutcases and plead “I was afraid for my life. He was preaching at me and threatedning to hit me with the sign and pointed stick.” “If you don’t believe me Judge, ask the dead guy. He’ll tell you the same thing.” We have too many illegit kids as it is, the adoption centers are expensive, have too much red tape and lawyers fees and most are drug babies. By not bringing an unplanned kid into the world,you bring financial hardship and a portential burden to society. All of these “Christian” people who want abortion illegal are NOT going to adopt every one of these kids as they would need to live in the Ga Dome if they did. So, for all the welfare people who currently have 3,4,5 kids by 3,4,5 different fathers, they need forced sterilization so that we, the tax payers do not have to fork out more to them. As for preventing another statistic, let’s give Plan B a chance. It has been proven to be safe, it is a good alternative to abortion and we don’t have to hear about women being forced to have a kid if she was raped because the nut cases overturned Roe V Wade. Let’s leave that law alone. It is not your body-BUTT out of other people’s lives. You already shove bibles down people’s throats, lets not shove something up people’s private areas. BTW, when these “converters” come by, I tell them I belong to the Church of Smith and Wesson-then show them my membership card-BANG! If only more of these Islamic Fascists would show up.

By Archie

September 18, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

I did reread Mike Toreno’s post and his use of the word unattractive was not about her looks but her “personal integrity”. I thought that comment was unnecessary because you can disagree without distortion or comments like that. Toreno is not sexist because sexist means someone that discriminates based on gender or promotes stereotypes of women. Well, it just sounds like he doesn’t like Shanti,specifically, not women in general. In fact I don’t know how you call someone sexist based on one post over the internet.

By Monica

September 18, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Net, it is amazing to me that so many people who argue against abortion have frozen embryos in a petri dish somewhere. I do believe that life begins at conception, which is why I disagree with in-vitro fertility treatments.

Jen, thanks for pointing out how f’d up I sound. My point is that women need to know that they are taking this drug and need to know the side effects. Also, please notice that I asked if there is any research on long term effects of Plan B. I’ll take American or European! I am aware that European women are the same species as American women, I’m just ignorant on the research.

By Mara

September 18, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

does this mean Isiah Thomas is a racist, or just a misogynistic a-hole?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09182007/news/regionalnews/double_dribble.htm

September 18, 2007 — White men better not call a black woman “b—-h” around Knicks coach Isiah Thomas, but if black men do it - well, that’s fair game.

“A white man calling a black female ‘b—-h,’ that is wrong with me. I am not accepting that. That’s a problem for me,” he said.

But asked if he’d have a problem with a black man calling a black woman “b—-h,” Thomas said, “Not as much.”

wonder how he feels the same about white women being called b—-hes. OK for a black guy but bad form for the white guy?

By uvwzyezx

September 18, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

All men tell of their own ills. http://www.learn.netfast.org/buy-tramadol/index.html >buy buy cheap online tramadol tramadol [url=http://www.learn.netfast.org/buy-tramadol/index.html]buy buy cheap online tramadol tramadol[/url]

By NetBanker

September 18, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

What’s going on? The postings are broken, THE rapture has happened and I didn’t make the cut, aliens scooped people up and I didn’t get selected, or maybe everyone is bored with this discussion.

By lozen

September 18, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

I am so sick of this site. If it isn’t full of spam, it’s off. No wonder so many regular bloggers don’t bother anymore.

By DebbieDoRight

September 18, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

Good Lord!! Shaunti has finally done it!!! She’s bored everyone off this blog with one of her superflous topics!! Great Job Shaunti!!!

By MikeKneele

September 18, 2007 6:48 PM | Link to this

[url=http://www.meds10site.info/tramadol.htm]Student Tasered During John Kerry Speech[/url]

By huwxdcad

September 18, 2007 8:01 PM | Link to this

Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody. http://www.learn.netfast.org/buy-tramadol/site_map.html >buy dream online pharmaceutical tramadol [url=http://www.learn.netfast.org/buy-tramadol/site_map.html]buy dream online pharmaceutical tramadol[/url]

By Lyrazel

September 19, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Question: Why would a woman (especially one who emails Shaunti) be taking Plan B? There is no other use for Plan B—so the misguided woman—was intent for something, got it, now regrets. What was she doing at a clinic ASKING for Plan B? It is NEVER distributed for anything other than an emergency contraception. You get a lecture from the clinic physician about BC and how Plan B is an emergency contraceptive only. They do not distribute Plan B with a wink and a brown paper label. Clearly written on the box and literature accompanying are precisely worded warnings this pill could cause abortion. You do not take Plan B for hemorrhoids, halitosis, eczema, or weight loss, hair re-growth, foot fungus, gas or for headache. The too late and $200 short excuse of the woman’s consultation with her actual OBGYN comes after she takes this pill. Now why did she not ask the OBGYN for a pregnancy test, contraceptives, reproductive advice BEFORE going to a clinic for Plan B? There is a pity party for the stupid going on every day.

By hduj mekx

September 19, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this

vtclrznd bgaowdxqi kmsnp tjoqh fnbmsuk zuvf dvqrf

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

So, for all the welfare people who currently have 3,4,5 kids by 3,4,5 different fathers, they need forced sterilization so that we, the tax payers do not have to fork out more to them.

I was with you until you posted that ^^ gibberish. That is the stupidest, (most stupid), most ridiculous post I’ve seen on this site. I’m sorry but I’m forced to set you straight, (you the tax payer), on exactly how MUCH of your money is NOT going to poor welfare mothers and exactly how much is going to rich welfare corporations:

$150 Billion given to corporations yearly.

$130 Billion — given for farm subsidies

The more corporate welfare received, the more layoffs… This is a list of the 8 corporate welfare recipients that were listed in the first article of the Inquirer series, comparing corporate welfare received to the number of people layed off in that time (1990-1994). First number is Welfare amount received, second number is employment.

GM : $110,600,000 /-104,000; IBM: 58,000,000 /-100,000 AT&T:35,000,000 /-1,077 * # GE: 25,400,000 / -80,000 Amoco: 23,600,000 / -8,300 * DuPont: 15,200,000 / -29,961 Motorola: 15,100,000 / +9,600 * Citicorp: 9,600,000 /-15,700 * exceptions to the trend, # AT&T layed off 40,000 people shortly after this accounting. http://www.corporations.org/welfare/#globe

These numbers have increased expotentially during the past decade.

Please excuse me if I sound irate, but it makes me angry when I read “welfare is taking all my tax money” but in that same sentence I don’t read “I’m tired of the rich living off welfare too”.

“If you cut 26 percent of the welfare now given to the rich you have instantly balanced the budget.”

“If you cut out wealthfare, you could pay off the national debt in 11 years.”

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

does this mean Isiah Thomas is a racist, or just a misogynistic a-hole?

Probably both.

By NetBanker

September 19, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

You already shove bibles down people’s throats, lets not shove something up people’s private areas. ROFLMAO!!

Monica…you have my utmost respect for your position and consistency of belief/thought. I’ve often wondered why those protesting abortion clinics for the loss of life don’t also demonstrate at fertility clinics about the frozen embyos or specifically the ones disposed of as ‘medical waste.’

I know this is getting into minutiae, but I’m going to assume that by conception you mean when the egg is fertilized rather than when it implants in the uterine wall due to your position about the petri dish ‘babies.’ Theologically speaking, I am also assuming that you believe a soul is attached to that early life. So what happens to all those souls/lives that never actually implant in the uterine wall and simply pass out of the woman’s body? What is their fate as related to damnation/salvation with no baptism, acceptance of Jesus, etc.?

Lyrazel…excellent questions and points! If the woman firmly believes that abortion is wrong, why is Plan B acceptable? Isn’t the net effect the same?

By Chilao

September 19, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

What is their fate as related to damnation/salvation with no baptism, acceptance of Jesus, etc.?

they actually never had the possibility to REJECT Jesus Christ, so they would not be damned. How it was explained to me about all the people who will be in heaven that were good wholesome people BEFORE Jesus Christ came along, anyway.

I went to the funeral of a good Christian woman a week or so ago. It was interesting to hear.(sidebar)

By Archie

September 19, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel your 9:15 am post was so on point. Good Job.

Also a few weeks ago someone asked about men doing something against violence against women well, there is a group located down there in Georgia called “men stopping violence”. If you search the AJC you can find out about their website. To those that don’t know it I don’t live in Georgia.

By Gandalf, the Gray

September 19, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Sluts will be Sluts, nuff said!

By lozen

September 19, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Gandalf the Gray, I agree. All those male “sluts” who can’t keep it in their pants should have to take any forced-birth babies and rear them, don’t ya think?

By Fear-N-Loathing

September 19, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

I’m a male. A comment earlier was said about the zealots not allowing the control of womens own bodies. I have a serious complaint about that one. If your pregnant, is it just your body, or is there a 2nd party involved? If there is a 2nd party involved, isn’t it now the primary responsibility of all divested parties to make a decision regarding the 2nd party in the event that transpired which created the 2nd party? Meaning, two lives is no longer about the control over ones own body. The first woman produced several incidents of studies conducted in regards to Plan B. The second woman admonished the first using a tactic reserved for high school children and the mentally challenged. Yes, we all understand that a woman has a God given right to choice, like all humans. However, for the sake of this argument, the second woman and several bloggers admonished the first woman because they claim warning labels are fine and the woman who lost her baby is a moron loser for not reading the box properly. If the warning labels are jacked up and this woman read this and the miscarriage took place, then the company responsible for the warning labels is at fault in the death of a human being. Nothing else needs to be said…..Remember ladies, the life you save is not just your own.

By Monica

September 19, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Net, Chilao posted a great explanation. In protestant faith-based religions, children are not baptized at birth. Rather, they make their own decision to be baptized when they are ready. That age of accountability depends on each child.

By Jen

September 19, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Well Fear-N-Loathing I don’t agree with your assessment. The early stages of pregnancy are just the potential for life, not life. So, yeah, the choice is mine alone.

By Lyrazel

September 19, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

WtW is suggesting topics again! Why not read what the posters debate ladies!!!

Archie: good topic! I often wonder why violence against women is seldom discussed in WtW. What about the increase of violent female offenders? Violence against women by women? Is there a rise of sexual violence by women against children.

What sort of role should women have concerning family finances?

Why are women degraded by society when they do not have children but devalued in the workplace because they do?

Why do women wear dresses when men’s anatomy is clearly the better suited for less binding clothing? Why do women submit to wearing fashion that debilitates the body?

If a Natl. Health Care policy is forthcoming will there be mandatory drug tests needed to qualify for its plans?

Are men the better parent? Is daycare good or bad for a child’s social development?

Does the cult of celebrity perpetuate dangerous role models for children? Should parents boycott Disney because of the behavior of their stable of child celebrities. Why is Disney obsessed with teens? Should parents boycott NBA, NFL MTV etc, for improper and derogatory comments made by players? Should child actors be lined up against the wall and shot after reaching 18?

Should people grow thicker skin to cope in todays world?

Is SpongeBob SquarePants still gay?

By lozen

September 19, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Well I see Fear-N-Loathing fell for the pity party Lyrazel. Remember gentlemen, it’s so easy to tell women what to do in a situation you will never, ever face and have no concept about what’s involved in being a mother. If you don’t believe in abortion nobody is forcing you to have one. It is none of your business if I have one. Nothing else needs to be said!

By Mara

September 19, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Fear-n-Loathing - If your pregnant, is it just your body, or is there a 2nd party involved?…two lives is no longer about the control over ones own body.

No individual, male or female, is compelled to sacrifice their body for the benefit of another. One cannot be forced to give blood, provide bone marrow, or donate a liver to another even if it means the death of that other. Being forced to house that “other” inside ones own body is an egregious assault on a woman’s autonomy. So IMO it is all about an individual having control over their own body.

By lozen

September 19, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, what a concept! That WtW editors should read the blog and see what people want to discuss. So often their topics really suck like last week, “Should cities adopt ordinances to ban saggy pants?” Now that is a very important topic ;- ) but why aren’t the topics chosen more pertinent to women’s real lives? And why are the stereotypes used here? Like “security moms”! What mom isn’t security minded when it comes to her children?

By JokesOn

September 19, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Maybe what we need is to have two types of citizenship in America:

Type A) You sign a waver stating you are an adult and can make your own decisions.

Type B) You sign a document stating that although you are of age, you cannot make your own decisions and want the government and local churches to make them for you.

By Mike Toreno

September 19, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

Archie, I’m glad you noted that I was not saying that Feldhahn’s lack of attractiveness has anything to do with her personal appearance. I stand by my contention that she is without integrity, and she manifests this lack of integrity in her column. Why did she choose the “American Association of Physicians and Surgeons” as an authority, and why did she characterize them as “non-partisan”? She did it to mislead her readers. She didn’t pick them because of their knowledge of the issue, she picked them because they said what she wanted them to say. In calling them “non-partisan,” she deliberately misled her readers. They are basically not a medical organization at all, but a political organization dedicated to pushing a wingnut agenda. They have, in fact, a lot of associations and members similar to those of the John Birch Society. They may not explicitly promote the Republican Party, but they basically have an agenda in line with the Republican agenda.

So you tell me whether Fedlhahn has integrity or not, when she misrepresented a wingnut political group as an association of objective medical experts.

No, Feldhahn’s lack of attractiveness has to do with the evil in her heart. It has nothing at all to do with whether someone might or might not regard her as a slovenly skank.

By NetBanker

September 19, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

*In protestant faith-based religions, children are not baptized at birth. Rather, they make their own decision to be baptized when they are ready. That age of accountability depends on each child. While I understand what you’re saying and it makes sense, I disagree that children making their own decision about baptism is the norm in protestant religion.

I was raised Lutheran (which is most definitely protestant religion …in fact named after the monk credited with the starting the Reformation with the posting of the 95 Theses) and children are baptized as infants. I know that baptism of infants is also the norm for Episcopalians as well as those following the Anabaptist branch of the reformation to name a few. Could self-determination of baptism really be limited to just the Pentecostal denominations?

By Tray

September 19, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

I think a woman’s body is hers to do with what she pleases. I hear anti-abortion people go haywire over this, but when i ask them “hey, if your daughter or you are raped and become pregnant, you want to keep the rapists’ baby?”-most of them quickly change their tunes…What goes on in a woman’s body is her choice, no one elses. It’s not a decision that most women get to lightly anyways. This Plan B stuff, well, i think a woman (and her mate for that night) should learn to cover it up or something. Birth control shouldn’t just be a choice for women. Hell, I’d take a pill if they invented one to cause me to shoot blanks for a short period of time or something. Men need to be just as cautious when it comes to sex. If a woman is going to worry about taking a morning after pill, she should have made him use a condom or not had sex. men need to carry condoms on them if they are sexually active anyways, I do, I don’t want an STD!!! Andrea wins this one, before you make any decision this serious, you need to do the research on it!

By chuck

September 19, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Mara, this statement you made isn’t 100% true:

No individual, male or female, is compelled to sacrifice their body for the benefit of another. One cannot be forced to give blood, provide bone marrow, or donate a liver to another even if it means the death of that other.

While you may not be required to give blood to your child, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEING TO IT THAT YOUR CHILD HAS WHAT IT NEEDS TO MAINTAIN ITS LIFE. See what happens if you fail to give your children nourishment. See what happens if you fail to maintain a suitable abode for your children. See what happens if you neglect your children. There are cases in the AJC just about every day where people are charged with child abuse and neglect.

Here is another one for you. What happens if your loved one is in the hospital without a living will and you go in and “pull the plug?” Like it or not, women are the life support system for a baby that is almost certainly going to “recover”. I didn’t tell God how to make us as males and females, that was definitely His decision. We don’t have a “choice” in that.

Lozen, I couldn’t agree with you more. If a man won’t support his children, he should be sterilized. Would you agree that the same thing should happen to women who have abortions?

By NetBanker

September 19, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

I may have been too quick to focus solely on the Pentecostals as wikipedia informed me that there are protestant denominations that fall outside of mainline protestantism…

“Some denominations with similar names, and historical ties to mainline groups are not considered mainline. For example, while the American Baptist Churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church USA are mainline, the Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and the Presbyterian Church in America are too conservative to be regarded as mainline denominations.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestants

While growing up we attended the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod…which I knew to be more conservative and who didn’t have a theological response to my questions about what happens to infants or people who weren’t baptised or who never had a chance to hear about Jesus such as tribes living deep in the Amazon.

By chuck

September 19, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

NetB, probably the largest 2 denominations outside of Southern Baptists, baptize infants…the Methodists and the Presbyterians.

By Lyrazel

September 19, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

Fear-N-Loathing: I would agree that there could be miscommunication between a patient and a doctor concerning a medication however the fact the lass went to a clinic and got Plan B clearly indicates this was a deliberate act. Why would she not buy a home pregnancy test INSTEAD after a romp of sex? You do not buy Plan B for any other reason than it is intended and at the clinic she would have been told EXACTLY what the pill was for so why would she buy it? Never said she is a moron: she is deceitful and I cant blame a manufacturer or a physician for supplying what a customer wants if a legal adult.

By JokesOn

September 19, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

If (a big “IF”) it was proven that souls begin at conception, would any of the pro-choice crowd change their opinion? (FYI - I would)

And in the reverse situation, that souls begin at birth, would Chuck and others change their pro-life stance?

Any responses?

By Tray

September 19, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

All religion aside, God also gave us free will. He understood that we may not make the correct decisions in our life, because He is the one that made us this way. Therefore, if we make a decision that God doesn’t agree with, God has to live with it. If God wanted us to live by a certain code, he shouldn’t have given us the ability to decide whether we should live by his code or not! Women can do what they want, when they want to their own bodies…

By DebbieDoRight

September 19, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

If the warning labels are jacked up and this woman read this and the miscarriage took place, then the company responsible for the warning labels is at fault in the death of a human being. Nothing else needs to be said…..Remember ladies, the life you save is not just your own.

Everyone knows what Plan B is. Before it even hit the market a couple of years ago, it was debated for months before the FDA gave its approval. The only way anyone over 21 would not know about Plan B is if they were on Mars when it was first introduced.

Chuck: Yes we are required to care for our children; however a fetus is not a child. Also..

Lozen, I couldn’t agree with you more. If a man won’t support his children, he should be sterilized. Would you agree that the same thing should happen to women who have abortions?

The above does not apply if there isn’t any child in the first place. By law, we do not abort children, only fetuses.

By Tray

September 19, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

If souls existed at conception, then it wouldn’t matter to me. Now granted, i am a man, so this is a decision that i will never have to make, however, coming from a man that had a girlfriend that cheated on him, wound up pregnant, didn’t know who the father was, and had an abortion even though i thought we should keep it, I NEVER had a choice!!!! I will NEVER HAVE THIS CHOICE! If i want a baby, and the woman doesn’t, I’m screwed, and if i don’t want a baby, and the woman does, I’m screwed. SO, if women get to be the only ones who can make the choice, I still say it’s theirs.

If the formation of a soul exists at conception, and the carrier has an abortion, and the soul and fetus dies, maybe they go straight to heaven, there’s no way that soul could have sinned yet!!! And, since heaven is proclaimed to be a better place than earth, i guess it was better off for that soul as well…

By JokesOn

September 19, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Tray,

If the formation of a soul exists at conception, and the carrier has an abortion, and the soul and fetus dies, maybe they go straight to heaven…

FYI - current laws are based on when ones rights begin. I would think most people would couple “rights” with unique soul or personhood; hence why I use the word “soul.”

Under you logic, murder should not be a crime.

By Archie

September 19, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

What sort of role should women have concerning family finances? Any role the family decides in my opinion because sometimes men aren’t good money managers then other times the guy is the best person and yet at other times neither the husband nor wife is a good money manager. I have knowledge where neither the man nor woman is really a good money manager mainly because their personal behavior issues.

Why are women degraded by society when they do not have children but devalued in the workplace because they do? I can’t answer that one Lyrazel right—now.

Are men the better parent? No and neither are women. I do like that you asked the question though Lyrazel. Is daycare good or bad for a child’s social development? I say neither.

Should parents boycott NBA, NFL MTV etc, for improper and derogatory comments made by players? Hell,no, because parents make derogatory comments all the time. All of those entertainment venues mentioned are filled with people that came from planet Earth and since there are no perfect people on this planet I don’t where you would find perfect people to perform in those venues. A lady here at work lectures about sexual morality but yet she has passed me a dirty joke and she cusses out loud using the ‘s’ word. I used that to say people often fail to see their moral failures and their prejudices but they can point the finger real good. I don’t believe entertainers and athletes are role models and Lyrazel if I don’t like something I just don’t watch it or pay for it. Lyrazel that 12:34 pm post was really good and I didn’t address every question on purpose but that’s what a discussion blog should be about.

Mike Toreno,dude you are way too hard on Shanti. She has her opinion and you have yours and there’s no need to dog her out personally. Mike you know how Shanti is so there’s no need to call her names.

By lyrazel

September 19, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

I believe we become soul when we die and loose connection to it when we are born.

By Tray

September 19, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Well, JokesOn, I guess murder shouldn’t be a crime…is life defined as when a soul begins? You don’t know that, I don’t know that, no one knows but God. Like i stated previously, if God didn’t want us making tough decisions, he wouldn’t have given us free will. However, God wanted to see what would happen when we could do what we wanted to without having to follow his guide. He has no one to be upset at but himself if he doesn’t lke the outcome of our decisions. If people want something to believe in:

Sometimes there is no right, and there is no wrong.

By lozen

September 19, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

“There are cases in the AJC just about every day where people are charged with child abuse and neglect.” And what do you want to bet C. that most of these were born to people who didn’t want children? If a man won’t support his children, he should be sterilized. Would you agree that the same thing should happen to women who have abortions? I don’t think men should be sterilized when they don’t support their children. So women who have abortions shouldn’t be sterilized. No one should ever be forcibly sterilized. You christians really have some lovely ideas Chuck! I’m sure if you were running the world it would be a compassionate and beautiful place based on the teachers of the Rabbi Jesus. Not!

I would still believe women should be able to control their lives and their bodies in any way they see fit if it were proven a soul exists from the moment of conception. I think if there is an immortal soul then it would simply choose another vehicle and move on.

By Tray

September 19, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

I like that Lyrazel, we are a soul, lose it when we’re born, and regain it when we die. That makes sense. Archie, when you said “Is day care good or bad for a child’s development, Neither was a great response.

Like i stated: Sometimes there is no right and there is no wrong, and smoetimes there is no good, and there is no bad!

By cd

September 19, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

Why would she not buy a home pregnancy test INSTEAD after a romp of sex? —Lyrazel, 1:32 PM

Pregnancy tests can only detect the pregnancy hormone after implantation has occurred (7-10 days after fertilization). Since Plan B must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, the body is not producing HCG (pregnancy hormone) during this window. If she had gone home and taken a pregnancy test, it would have come up negative regardless of whether or not her egg had been fertilized the night before.

By JokesOn

September 19, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

Tray,

You don’t know that, I don’t know that, no one knows but God.

Hence the If (a big “if”)

In any debate you have to have a set of givens/definitions and I was merely trying to remove the varible (when does ones rights begin), which prevents anyone from having a absolute proof to back their opinion.

By chuck

September 19, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Let me be a little clearer for Debbie do little. The way that I should have phrased it is this (also, I apologize, because my post mischaracterized what Lozen said. She did not propose sterilization):

If male sluts can’t keep it in their pants and go around procreating without regard for the care and upbringing of the children, they should be sterilized. Likewise, women sluts who procreate in the same manner, unable to keep their legs closed and/or use birth control, or who see fit to get pregnant and kill the baby without regard to its life should be sterilized so that they no longer have to worry about an “unwanted pregnancy”. Do you think that would be a fair approach?

By Lily Toad

September 19, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, I’m assuming your questions were suggested ones for the WtoW writers. If you look at their questions week after week, they are always “yes” or “no” answers. No room for complexity. I hope you sent some of your suggestions in to their link. If not, see if you can re-phrase it as a yes or no. I’ve submitted questions in the past but they never took any of my suggestions. This was before I figured out the yes/no angle.

By JokesOn

September 19, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

I think if there is an immortal soul then it would simply choose another vehicle and move on.

Then why should it be a crime to kill another human?

Tray,

What we DO have to deal with are the rights of people, and that is the basis of all (legal based) abortion debates.

By lozen

September 19, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

Under you logic, murder should not be a crime. Well it’s just one of those paradoxes, isn’t it? Abortion and murder are two very different things IMO. Murder is a crime. Abortion is not (at least for the moment).

By Lily Toad

September 19, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I can’t think of any instance when forced sterilization would be acceptable. Maybe chemical castration for child molesters and serial rapists.

By lozen

September 19, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

The life of a female who gets pregnant unexpectedly and faces giving up her education, work, freedom, childhood, chance for a good life, well earned retirement is just more important to me than a “possible” soul of a fetus. Women will never be free and independent if we’re slaves to our biology. That’s why the great mother gave us the brains to invent birth control and abortion.

By JokesOn

September 19, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Are you unable or unwilling to answer the question straight?

Murder is a crime. Abortion is not (at least for the moment). Only because of when a persons rights begin, which is not (currently) provable and why I provided a “given:” to get away from the hypothetical.

Lets say the proof of personhood/soul/etc was realized by finding an area of the brain that recorded all the memories starting from conception. Not only that, but those initial months/years created the foundation of personality/likes/dislikes…ie, a person.

By Mara

September 19, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Chuck - Mara, this statement you made isn’t 100% true: No individual, male or female, is compelled to sacrifice their body for the benefit of another. One cannot be forced to give blood, provide bone marrow, or donate a liver to another even if it means the death of that other

yes, yes, it is absolutely 100% true. By law, you cannot be forced to sacrifice your health and wellness to benefit another person.

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEING TO IT THAT YOUR CHILD HAS WHAT IT NEEDS TO MAINTAIN ITS LIFE. See what happens if you fail to give your children nourishment. See what happens if you fail to maintain a suitable abode for your children. See what happens if you neglect your children

Despite your claim that I am required to do these things, you, dear chuck, are the one who is mistaken. Someone must do it, but the law doesn’t require that I do it. I have multiple options. I can offer it up for adoption. I can cede my parental rights to a friend or family member. I can even give the child up to the state. What you are ignoring in that one chooses whether or not to sacrificing oneself on the alter of parenthood.

What happens if your loved one is in the hospital without a living will and you go in and “pull the plug?” Like it or not, women are the life support system for a baby…

What right would I have to “pull the plug”? The brain-dead patient is his own person, resperating air (with mechanical help) through his own lungs, pumping his own blood through his own veins, expressing waste through his own orfices, etc. To take it upon myself to then remove his support system (especially when I am not being effected by it at all) would be criminal.

Implying that abortion is no different than this because, according to you, “women are the life support system” for a fetus is an astounding leap of illogic (not to mention shockingly dismissive of women in general). A “life support system” is mechanical in composition. It cannot be damaged in any way by the one it is supporting. It has no rights, it has no autonomy. It is, in fact, “property”. Women, despite having a womb, have rights, have autonomy, and are definitly NOT anyones property. We are NOT “life support systems”.

By lyrazel

September 19, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad: You mean a question like: Do blog writers have the responsibility of removing spam?

cd: sure she would have tested negative unless she had a prior conception —and she must have already been pregnant because the Plan B caused a miscarriage, right? So if she wants her baby why did she get Plan B in the first place? Its THAT PART I dont understand. Why if she wanted her child did she go to a clinic for an abortion drug and why —>why didn’t she consult her OBGYN before taking Plan B if she had ANY QUESTIONS?

By Scalia

September 19, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

What about the women that get pregnant, contemplated abortion, and then give birth to a stillborn?

And according to some, pregnancy is the punishment for having unprotected sex before marriage. That is what it boils down to.

Maybe it should be like what my friend told me, I won’t name the country, but he said that the men put their equipment in the backdoor of women to avoid pregnancy and to make sure that they are still virgins when they get married.

By Monica

September 19, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

Net, my apologies. It’s just my narrowmindedness setting in.:) I should have said that Baptist churches, Christian churches, and Church of Christ churches, don’t christen babies.

Tray, you said about God, He has no one to be upset at but himself if he doesn’t lke the outcome of our decisions.

I’m just speculating here, based on my study of the scriptures, but I don’t think that God is upset by our decisions, so to speak, but is sad when we choose the “wrong” option.” If my son chooses to disobey me, I am not upset at myself for allowing him freedom to make a decision; rather, I am disappointed that he chose to broke the rules.

By Mara

September 19, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

Tray - All religion aside, God also gave us free will.

LOL! Did you mean this to be funny?

By Lily Toad

September 19, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel — funny! Or, “Can you believe our readers put up with all that spam?” Or, “Is it possible to write about a topic that doesn’t lead eventually to the morality of abortion?”

By DebbieDoRight

September 19, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

Chuck: Short answer no. NO ONE has the right to forcibly sterilize anyone,just because they don’t want to take care of their offspring. Chemical castration and/or physical castration though is effective for a habitual sex offender who can not or will not stop or modify his behavior.

By Jack

September 19, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

Would that be Greece Scalia?

By GOB

September 19, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

In protestant faith-based religions, children are not baptized at birth. Rather, they make their own decision to be baptized when they are ready. That age of accountability depends on each child.

But if a child is raised in a strict religious home, are they really making their own decision? The Amish let their kids experience the outside world before deciding whether to return to the Amish lifestyle, but that isn’t something that happens much in most religious settings.

All religion aside, God also gave us free will.

I have a question about free will and the afterlife, as it is commonly viewed by Christians. Does free will exist in heaven? If so, how then would it be any different from earth? People would still do things that hurt others, and therefore, it isn’t really “heaven.” I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way, I am just curious as to how that is reconciled with those who believe in free will and heaven.

By Lily Toad

September 19, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

Grease helps, Jack.

By lozen

September 19, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

You know Jokeson I have no obligation whatsoever to answer any question - yours or anyone elses - if I don’t want to. Especially when the question is the wrong da-n question. Jeez. Abortion is not about murder. There is no comparison. Children are not aborted, as someone earlier pointed out. Fetuses are aborted. Fetuses are potential life and females who get pregnant are living humans with hopes, dreams, plans, etc. A female isn’t free if she is forced to give birth by anyone at any time. The only time a female should give birth is when she wants to. Murder has nothing to do with this subject!

By lozen

September 19, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack! They don’t have children in Greece?

By Monica

September 19, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

*And according to some, pregnancy is the punishment for having unprotected sex before marriage. That is what it boils down to.

No, it’s not a punishment, but it is a reaction, or a natural consequence. If you have sex, with out without protection, there is a risk of pregnancy. That’s why I don’t understand the pro-choice argument. With the exception of rape, women choose to have sex. I know that I have debated this point before, but the bottom line is if that people abstained from sex, abortion wouldn’t be an issue. A man not being able to have a say-so in wanting an unborn child would not be an issue. Plan B would be unnecessary.

And, I know, if a frog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his butt when he hopped.

Yes, I know that it’s a simple way of thinking, and quite a bit unrealistic, but the choice that women are free to make occurs before the pregnancy ever happens.

Don’t say that anti-abortionists are “anti-choice.” I am all about having freedom to choose. It’s just that some choices lead to consequences that some may find less desirable than others. Punishment? no. Natural reaction? Yes.

I apologize for rambling, but JokesOn, you hit the nail on the head with your hypothetical question: if science/medicine can prove that that life really does begin at conception (or that it doesn’t begin until birth), how many people would change their views?

By Jack

September 19, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Hey Lozen.:) If a woman lets a man in the “back door” is she still a virgin?

By JokesOn

September 19, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way, I am just curious as to how that is reconciled with those who believe in free will and heaven.

How I personally compromise the two areas and free will is that, here on earth, we have the ability of denial. In “heaven,” one does not have that ability, therefore preventing any ill behavior. That goes on my belief that people would not be evil/cruel if they were unable to use denial/tunnel vision tactics.

Lozen,

You know Jokeson I have no obligation whatsoever to answer any question… Then don’t. I sure do not remember posting a reply to my question under your name.

By Chilao

September 19, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

Would that be Greece Scalia

hahahaha,

but it is probably Arabia or Africa. Latin America would be big on that as well. The certified virgin that can offer two alternatives.

I got baptized so I could eat the crackers and drink the red grape juice(non-alchoholic of course), so there is the in-church cultural expectation to, shall we say, join the crowd. You are pressured for baptism, whether you want it or not. And with baptism comes so many more privileges, beyond mere crackers. Ok, the washing of previously cleaned feet was a little weird, but; it was not until I was older I understood why the women went separately, what with all those pantyhose to remove and all…LOL

By Lily Toad

September 19, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

Monica, I can make the choice to have sex, but not want to get pregnant. I insist on the right to have sex without getting pregnant. Birth control practices is not 100% effective, so abortion is an “out.” Abstinence is not birth control any more than sleep is not running a marathon.

By JokesOn

September 19, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

Monica,

I apologize for rambling, but JokesOn, you hit the nail on the head with your hypothetical question: if science/medicine can prove that that life really does begin at conception (or that it doesn’t begin until birth), how many people would change their views?

One thing the question does do is root out the extremist that no longer use rational judgment on a subject. They are so intertwined with their position that they are unable to change their POV even though it no longer fits the situation; hence, for example, the resistance to women working outside the house.

By Chilao

September 19, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

People would still do things that hurt others, and therefore, it isn’t really “heaven.”

no, people would be pre-screened to not hurt others in heaven, that is the only way they would have gotten there. Prior inclinations and all that.

but heaven thought brings up an interesting thought: If we maintain our current bodies, restored to full healthiness of course, in heaven, would we learn not to ask people what they did on earth? can you imagine the reply of I was a petri-dish discard, to use Monica’s example. And what would they or a fetus even look like? and at what AGE would people be seen in heaven. Birth? Teens? Middle-Aged? Elderly?

Another thought, about aliens on other planets. I always argued that God must have done this same what I call control freak experiment on other planets(we flunked by the way), and why would those cultures not be advanced enough to travel here. I was told that the only aliens visiting were the evil ones, since the ones who passed the test would not even consider venturing near our Evil Place.

Speaking of The Evil One, anyone seen the bassist for Tinsley Ellis? Good bassist.

By NetBanker

September 19, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

Is SpongeBob SquarePants still gay? Yes, he is and is in a happy, committed relationship with Tinky Winky.

Why would she not buy a home pregnancy test INSTEAD after a romp of sex? Lozen…your question prompted a few thoughts of my own and it seems a few things aren’t adding up. The woman didn’t want to get pregnant so she used Plan B after having unprotected sex. She must have thought she might be pregnant anyway if she asked if Plan B would terminate a pregnancy when she went to obtain it. Since she apparently was pregnant and lost the baby with her OB-GYN claiming Plan B likely caused her to spontaneously abort she must have had unprotected sex on more than one occassion. Why is this woman having so much unprotected sex and why is she so upset about losing a pregnancy that was unbeknownst to her even as she was trying to avoid getting pregnant? Something isn’t adding up with Shaunti’s email fan.

By Lily Toad

September 19, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

If we are reunited with our relatives who have passed away before us when we get to heaven, will they annoy us like they did on earth? If so, is it really heaven? If not, why did their personalities change?

By lozen

September 19, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

Anyone else see this letter from seven infantrymen in Iraq? It was printed a month ago. Three of them are now dead!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/19/opinion/ediraq.php

By Chilao

September 19, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Net - see my 10:23 on Sept 17 for the only explanation I can come up with; she wanted the pregnancy if it was her MainPartner, whatever label that might have, but did not want it from her Secondary.(ies)

Selective breeding.

By Chilao

September 19, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

When people get to heaven, will they FINALLY agree on the Correct Religious Beliefs?

sounding like John Handy is it? DeepThoughts.

By lozen

September 19, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

OOps. Two are dead and one was shot in the head but is expected to recover. Wonder if he’ll have any mind left? They don’t say.

Net, “Something isn’t adding up with Shaunti’s email fan.” Gee, you really think so?

Jack, the question is, dahling: “Is he still a virgin”? I mean, yes, technically, she is! But I don’t see how he could still be a virgin and who’s gonna want to buy the cow…. you know? Jack, what is foreplay?

Lyrazel and LilyToad, I vote for your questions for the blog.

By Chilao

September 19, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

PBS Nightly News nightly has a silent time were they display pics/name/stats of deceased servicemen/women. A sombering time.

By Archie

September 19, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

Grease helps, Jack. That’s funny Lily!!!

By Chilao

September 19, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

“Where” they display?

By Archie

September 19, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

NetbankerSomething isn’t adding up with Shaunti’s email fan. I know I felt that way from the beginning as Shanti’s last paragraph doesn’t make sense but I think Lyrazel covered it pretty well with her earlier posts.

High fives to you JokesOn. I won’t join your discussion about souls though.

Also I just found out about another school in some part of Texas,i.e. wherever Steve Harvey was this morning teaches business casual dress.

By JokesOn

September 19, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

Archie,

High fives to you JokesOn.

I won’t join your discussion about souls though. Probably the smart thing to do;) Even the simple questions get twisted and complex on here.

Goods to see you too. Cheers.

By Monica

September 19, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

GOB, good question. Heaven will be different from Earth. We try to look at Heaven from the same perspective as we view the world, and it’s different. Free will won’t be necessary in Heaven, because we will all have the same purpose there: to praise God. The focus won’t be on us, so free will is a non-issue. Those who don’t desire that outcome won’t be there. Unfourtunately, they won’t like the alternative that much!

By hmldftyva iujcs

September 19, 2007 9:34 PM | Link to this

upbklz fnwick prkzsn upvkgd tdhzan abgse ofvkn

By chuck

September 20, 2007 7:40 AM | Link to this

Tray, you are sooooo wrong. First, God doesn’t want us making “TOGH DECISIONS”, He wants us making RIGHT DECISIONS.

Second, when we make WRONG DECISIONS, there are CONSEQUENCES. While it is true that God gave us free will, he also gave us the Bible and the Holy Spirit to GUIDE US INTO MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION. Yes we can choose to disobey God and His Word, but it isn’t God who has to live with it but rather US.

Jokeson, in answer to your question, the only “proof” we have of when life begins, is God’s Word, which teaches it begins at conception. There is no way to prove that scientifically.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 8:33 AM | Link to this

Gob, to answer your question, the Bible teaches that when we die our spirit goes to heaven, but when Christ returns we get what is referred to as a “glorified body”. The Bible does not tell us EVERYTHING that will occur in heaven, it does tell us that there will be no tears and no sorrow there and that it will be a perfect place (paraphrased). I don’t know whether those things mean that we will have no NEED for sin OR if they mean we will have no CAPACITY for sin. But I do no that there will be NO SIN in heaven.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

Let me clarify what I meant because some may read something into it. What I mean by having no “need” for sin, is that the glorified body would not have sinful desires. This would be different from “need”.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

oops. ToUgh

By chuck

September 20, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

BTW, I read an interesting article online by a doctor who was talking about when conception occurs. I was wondering what you think about this Monica. According to the article, the doctor said that conception occurred at fertilization, but then went on to say that the body does not KNOW that it is pregnant until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall. The article went on to say that sometimes a second egg is produced the day after the first egg and may be fertilized and never attach as can the first egg. The question then is, “Is it a baby when the egg is fertilized or when the fertilized egg attaches to the Uterus?”

I’m not sure what my answer to that question is right now. That would certainly change the previously mentioned idea about the “petri dish” eggs. I’m going to have to do a little more research on that topic.

By Billy

September 20, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

oops — KnoW.

HA!

By chuck

September 20, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

Yes, thank you billy. You contribute so much to these discussions.

By lozen

September 20, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

The men who wrote the bible didn’t even know the earth was round, what makes you think they knew anything about a heaven or a hell!

By JokesOn

September 20, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

Jokeson, in answer to your question, the only “proof” we have of when life begins, is God’s Word, which teaches it begins at conception. There is no way to prove that scientifically.

Hy-po-thetically…say it slow with me…

Yawn. You and lozen are different sides of the same coin. No ability for abstract thought that does not conform or bolster your current beliefs. All else is ignored.

By JokesOn

September 20, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

The men who wrote the bible didn’t even know the earth was round, what makes you think they knew anything about a heaven or a hell!

Not to mention, like all other religions/myths before it, it is a metaphor for the sun’s procession, but then was hijacked by the bourgeoise to control people.

By lozen

September 20, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

George Bush chooses between heaven and hell

While walking down the street, Dubya was struck by a large wheel of cheese that fell out of SwissAir flight 19. George does not make it and his soul arrives in heaven where he’s met by St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. “Welcome George!”…says St. Peter…”we seldom see Republicans here, so we’re not sure what to do.” “No problem Pete, let me in I’m worthy”…says Dubya. “I’d like to but I have orders from the Man Himself, he says you have to spend one day in hell then one day in heaven so you choose where you’ll live for eternity.” “I’ve made up my mind, I want to be in heaven”…says Dubya. “I’m sorry, but we have rules.” St. Peter escorts him to an elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to hell. The doors open, and he finds himself in the middle of a country club, it’s 72 degrees, no oil shortage here! There’s a Texas-style barbecue with cloned cattle and genetically engineered corn. Standing in the crowd are other Republicans who had helped him out over the years. Expensively dressed, Jerry Falwell, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, greet him, then they reminisce about getting rich at the expense of the poor and the liberals. Soon, the devil approaches Bush, then says…”have a milk shake and relax, Dubya” Dubya drinks the shake, and takes a liking to the devil, but it is now time to go. Dubya got on the elevator and St. Peter says…”now it’s time to visit heaven.” So for 24 hours Bush hung out with a bunch of honest, good-natured animal rights activists, people who enjoy talking of family values instead of money and power. “All these people are poor!”…Dubya thought to himself, “Pat Robertson never prepared me for this!” St. Peter returned, then said…”so, you’ve spent a day in hell and a day in heaven, now you must choose.” The Jeopardy theme plays softly as Dubya reflects for a minute, then says…”I belong in hell with my friends.” So St. Peter put him on the elevator and he went down, down, down all the way to hell. The doors of the elevator open, and he finds himself in the middle of this barren, scorched earth, covered with leaking 55-gallon drums of toxic industrial waste, kinda like Gary, Indiana. Horrified, Dubya sees his friends dressed in rags, and picking up the industrial waste with teaspoons. Lucifer comes over to Dubya then puts an arm around his shoulder and says…”thank you!” “What happened?!”…says Dubya…”yesterday I had a Texas barbecue, we had a wonderful time, now there’s a wasteland and everybody seems miserable!” The devil smiled, and explained…”see, yesterday I was campaigning…today I got your vote!”

By chuck

September 20, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

hy-poth-e-sis: accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

If you want people to think hypothetically, how about putting forth a hypothesis that has SOME basis in reality. In other words, something that one day has the POSSIBILITY of being proven someday.

By lozen

September 20, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Yawn. You and lozen are different sides of the same coin. No ability for abstract thought that does not conform or bolster your current beliefs. All else is ignored.

You mean we ignore your brilliant and abstract ideas. True! Unlike you, I just don’t think they’re so brilliant.

By Archie

September 20, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Yawn. You and lozen are different sides of the same coin. No ability for abstract thought that does not conform or bolster your current beliefs. All else is ignored.

JokesON there are a lot of people like that and I was having that conversation with my friend last night. A nationally known person will bash church folk particularly the black church about what they don’t do but he doesn’t go to church so he does not know about the health screenings,family fun day’s, financial classes, and drug recovery programs offered by some of the church’s. No one is perfect so basically it’s like you say people ignore what does not comform to their current,current beliefs. Sometimes a parent may want to take his/her children out but said parent is short on cash,well, I kinda think the church offering a free,non-church-based movie is a benefit. For example, the Fantastic Four movie,Last Holiday and other movies were shown in a park here for free and refreshments were supplied. That doesn’t save the world but it’s worth something. Sometimes getting to eat out at a restaurant is a new experience for a young person, well, sometimes it’s a church that sponsors that experience. Again no one thing is perfect.

On a different subject Isaiah Thomas has been condemned by a black group led by Najee Ali. Isaiah knows the word b*** was the ultimate insult back when we were growing up so I don’t know why he even said what he said.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

AND, just so you know jokeson, I scored 790 out of 800 on the analytical portion of the GRE. I think that show that I can think abstactly. When you can construct a complex sentence, maybe I’ll listen to your criticism in that regard.

By Question of the day:

September 20, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

Exactly how ARROGANT does a person have to be in order to believe that he or she, a mere mortal, a tiny spec of tens of billions that have existed on this planet, not only knows, comprehends, and understands the nature of something SO GREAT that it created the entire universe, and all the matter and processes therein, but that he or she ALSO knows, without a doubt, beyond question, EXACTLY what this Great Being thinks, feels, and wants you do do with YOUR life today, tomorrow, and the next day?

By Archie

September 20, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

I scored 790 out of 800 on the analytical portion of the GRE.

Good job Chuck!!!

By Mara

September 20, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

• the only “proof” we have of when life begins, is God’s Word, which teaches it begins at conception*

and here I thought it taught that it began when god imbued the body with the “breath of life”.

Genesis 2:7, “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.”

wouldn’t that suggest that without breath there is no life?

By GOB

September 20, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

So Chuck and Monica, it sounds like you believe that once we get to heaven we will all essentially become robots. It seems weird to me that god would give us free will while we are on earth, but when we get the reward of heaven, we are stripped of one of the principle things that makes us who we are.

By Anonymous

September 20, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

To answer the original question: Yes, the “problems” of the morning-after pill are properly understood.

Women understand what it’s for, and right-wing idiots understand that, therefore, it’s a problem.

By LilAbner

September 20, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Free Will is the cause of all…Evil, Free Will is the cause of it all

By chuck

September 20, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

“Question”

It isn’t ARROGANCE at all. We learned how operate through studying the OWNER’S MANUAL. What is arrogance is thinking that God wouldn’t have enough sense to TELL his creation what he wanted from them and then assuming EVERYBODY can just do what they want to.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Oh, for Billy’s benefit: “abstRactly”

By lozen

September 20, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Archie, you’re right about the benefits of church. I go to church; are you surprised? I go for social things: classes, movies, book groups, etc. I even taught church school when my kids were young. But I chose my church carefully. No one stands in front of me on Sunday screaming about going to hell! I didn’t want my children exposed to that after hearing stories from their father about waking up in terror and hearing the devil’s chains rattling and knowing the devil was coming for him. I didn’t want them to be told, as I was, you just have to accept and not ask any questions or you’ll go to hell. No one in my church tells me what I have to believe; it is assumed that we’re all intelligent enough to figure that out for ourselves. Some of us are Jewish, some are Buddhists, some are Christians but no one tries to tell anyone else what their faith or beliefs should be. Check out the Unitarian-Universalist church sometime.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Mara, that’s a little different situation, don’t you think? Adam was the prototype, so to speak…the model from which all other humans came forth. You may notice there is no mention of this “breath of life” when woman was created. Further, the Bible tells us that God KNEW us before we were formed in the womb. Here are some other quotes for you.

Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Job 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Hosea 9:11 As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.

Psalms 139:14-16 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

By lozen

September 20, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

It isn’t ARROGANCE at all. We learned how operate through studying the OWNER’S MANUAL. What is arrogance is thinking that God wouldn’t have enough sense to TELL his creation what he wanted from them and then assuming EVERYBODY can just do what they want to.

Of course, the fanatical Muslim or Hindu says exactly the same thing about his holy book!

You could have been born in the wrong country Chuck! Maybe the Muslim or Hindus are right, they’ll go to heaven and you’ll go to hell for believing the wrong things.

By Archie

September 20, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Archie, you’re right about the benefits of church. I go to church; are you surprised? Thanks, Lozen for responding and yes I am surprised but I do understand what you said.

Lozen, I was referring to a guy named Michael Baisden who bashes church folk on his radio show. He is right about some things but I am so glad you can back up the benefits of church. You are right I am surprised but I am smiling at your statements and I will do some research.

By Jack

September 20, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Where did Cain get his wife Chuck?

By Mara

September 20, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

If you believe that all life comes from god, then without gods help, no life exists. i.e. his bestowing “the breath of life”. And Exodus 21:22-25 makes it clear that causing the death of the unborn is not equivelent to murder (the taking of life), therefore the unborn would not be considered “alive”.

the Bible tells us that God KNEW us before we were formed in the womb

well yeah. If you subscribe to the belief that god knows everything that is, was, and shall ever be…it kinda follows that he’d know “you” before your daddy even met your momma. Even before your grandfather met you grandmother. Heck, you could say he “knew you” even before he created the universe.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

No offense Lozen, but I’m willing to take my chances on that. There is ample proof for me that Christ rose from the dead, not Bhuda, not Vishnu, not Mohammed, JUST CHRIST. That’s good enough for me.

By Who cares

September 20, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Hey Susie-got two words for ya from my friends at the WWE- ‘S**K IT!!!! ther is more going to support the drug addicted 5 kid mother than there is to a TAX PAYING Corporation. And that is the bottom line-Cause stone cold said so!

By Chilao

September 20, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Where did Cain get his wife Chuck

Apparently Cain married something like a great-great niece, perhaps when he was 90 and she was, I don’t know, what was common then, 12 or so? Distant enough to not be a incestous.

That’s their answer and they’re sticking to it. LOL

(there is an underscore between cain and wife, ajc tends to drop the underscore when posting urls)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

By Chilao

September 20, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

IncentUous?

By chuck

September 20, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth.

Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve — “And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.” This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”[11]

The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years — Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, They were commanded to “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

The Wife

If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations!

We are not told when Cain married or any of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history.

If you want to read the rest of the answer go to:

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html

By lozen

September 20, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

There is ample proof for me that Christ rose from the dead????

(1) The Bible is true. (2) The Bible says the Bible is truth. Therefore, the Bible is historical fact. (3) Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead.

By Jack

September 20, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

Thanks Chuck.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I suggest that you read the book Evidence That Demands a Verdict by an attorney named Josh McDowell. He was an athiest who sought to prove LEGALLY that Christ could not have risen from the dead. He puts forth a compelling argument for the resurrection that began as an argument against it.

He uses a combination of historical information and compares it to the Biblical account. I’m not going to present the whole argument here but it is fascinating reading…even if you don’t buy into his conclusions. Visit your local library.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

Anytime Jack

By chuck

September 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Lozen if you have something against books, you can go to this website and read the historical case as well:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html

By Question of the day:

September 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

So… out of all the billions of people who existed on Earth before you, in corners near and far, on mountain tops and sandy hollows, from early cave dwellers all the way through thousands of civilizations, and all those varied languages, religions, livelihoods, traditions, and diets, across numerous millenia, and of all the billions of people living here now who are so certain that their version of theological and world history is the only possible correct one, young, old, middle-aged, infirmed, strong, educated, naive, trusting and cynical… Out of ALL those people, billions and billions, ONLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO ARE RIGHT? And only those who will concede that you’re right will be saved from an eternity in a firey pit called H-E-L-L?” Statistically, that would mean the God YOU defined only loves a minute little portion of all the humans created in his image, wouldn’t it? Infantessimally minute, wouldn’t you say? LUCKY YOU, to be in such a small fortunate club (— one you admittedly joined out of FEAR, not love).

Hmmmm… If that’s not the absolute ultimate form of arrogance, I’ll need a new definition for the word.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

Q

According to your reasoning, wouldn’t EVERYONE including YOU fall into the category of arrogance? You “arrognatly” deny that billions of Christians are WRONG. According to:

http://www.adherents.com/ReligionsByAdherents.html

33% of the people on earth RIGHT NOW claim to be adherents of Christianity. That’s 2.1 Billion people.

How arrognat are you?

By B

September 20, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Question of the Day—I had that same thought as a young person while sitting in church one day. IME, you have to suspend your God-given ability to reason completely if you hope to get along with people like chuck.

By Scalia

September 20, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

I always assumed that God created more people on the Earth. That would be the logical thing. I doubt that God would just stop with two, and put the burden on Eve to bear all of the children.

Plus, if the brothers married sisters, wouldn’t their children come out deformed?

Also, how did the variations happen? Were some of Adam and Eve’s children born with broad noses, others narrow noses, some with blue eyes, others with green eyes, some with red hair, other’s had blond hair, others with brown hair, some tall, some short?

I go back to what I believe. God created other people on the Earth other than Adam and Eve. I just don’t think that God would stop there. If that were the case, then God would have made only a few select trees and animals. I still wonder why God created roaches.

By B

September 20, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Out of curiosity, are many of you ladies familiar with the life of Emma Goldman? While she is most likely remembered as an anarchist, she established the roots of feminism here in the USA in the late 1800s and early 1900s through her writings and political activism. She believed in free love, birth control, abortion, and women’s rights in an era when both birth control and abortion were illegal. Unfortunately, like many latter day feminists like Betty Friedan, her personal life was tumultuous and ultimately unfulfilling.

By Mara

September 20, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

sigh god talk gives me a headache. If any of you are as bored by the discussion as I, here’s an interesting way to spend a few.

Go here first and explore the quizzes ——- http://www.yourmorals.org/

Then go here for some interesting commentary ——- http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2007/09/19/whats-the-frequency-lakoff/

Excerpt:

Working in the emotion-centered tradition of David Hume and Adam Smith’s moral philosophy, Haidt’s research leads him to posit five psychological foundations of human moral sentiment, each with a distinct evolutionary history and function, which he labels harm, reciprocity, ingroup, hierarchy, and purity.

While the five foundations are universal, cultures build upon each to varying degrees. If you’re a sharia devotee ready to stone adulterers and slaughter infidels, you have purity and ingroup pushed up to eleven (elevated). PETA members, who vibrate to the pain of other species, have turned ingroup way down and harm way up.

Denizens of liberal democracies tend to be relatively tuned in to harm and reciprocity — concerned with suffering, violations of autonomy, fairness, and justice — while (being) less sensitive to the tribalism and xenophobia of ingroup, the class-bound inequality of hierarchy, and the sense of the sacred and profane wrapped up in purity. That this pattern of sentiment is broadly shared is largely what it means for a society to be liberal.

…some of us, like presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, the miraculous Mormon Republican former governor of Massachusetts, grew up believing that Zion is just east of Kansas City. Legions of Americans have the sense that Jesus smiles upon the Constitution, that tiny unborn babies breathe the breath of God, and that the body is a temple drugs defile. Few religious Americans hesitate to speak of America as God’s own land, even if they don’t think the New Jerusalem is in Missouri.

——- interesting, educational, and diverting. ———

By B

September 20, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Scalia—The truth of the Bible is that two distinct Creation stories are told in Genesis. In Genesis 1, it is stated that man (plural sense) and woman(plural sense)were created at the same time, the implicatin being that we are equal in status in God’s eyes.

In Genesis 2and beyond, a different Creation “story” is told involving God breating life into clay to first create man, then creating woman at a later time from his rib to be a companion.

Bottom line is that they are two different stories which history shows evolved from two different prior myths.

By GOB

September 20, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

There is ample proof for me that Christ rose from the dead, not Bhuda, not Vishnu, not Mohammed, JUST CHRIST

Oh come on…There is NO proof that doesnt start and end with simply believing it happened.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

I didn’t realize that you were looking for a DEFINITION of arrogance. Here’s one for you:

ar·ro·gance (ār’ə-gəns) Pronunciation Key
n. The state or quality of being arrogant; overbearing pride.

There is NO OVERBEARING PRIDE for the Christian because we know that there is NOTHING within ourselves through which we can gain salvation. It is only through Jesus Christ. HE is our salvation.

By Question of the day:

September 20, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

How arrogant am I? Not so much that I’d walk around telling people that I know what the Creator thinks and wants, or that I know, from reading an old book, exactly what happened thousands of years ago. In fact, I’m so NOT arrogant, that I’ll concede that part, or even much, of what you believe might actually be true! However, I offer the same consideration to peoples of other faiths or of scientific reasoning, as much of what they say rings true as well, to those who listen with hearts and minds open, not closed. Perhaps the God you so narrowly define is much bigger than you think, and the truth does not begin and end where YOU say it does. Perhaps. So call me what you will, but I’m not the one who’s arrogant.

By B

September 20, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

Gotta run, hope everyone is well. Pray for me guys—my former lady friend, the love of my life, called me last week and we’ve been chatting about getting back together. True love seems to be such a rare thing in this lifetime….. But, I have to leave it in God’s hands this time.

By B

September 20, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Question of the day—Beautiful answer to chuck, one again. Thank you for being an inspiration today.

By B

September 20, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

chcuk—You’re only telling half the story if you think faith in Christ alone is the ultimate key to Salvation. Christ spoke of a Judgement Day in which our actions will be accounted for, not our “faith” as professed to other men through loudspeakers and bullhorns as you seem to believe.

Remember, chuck, “Faith without works is dead.” Live it, brother.

By JokesOn

September 20, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

I’ll help you a little:

“Hy-po-thetically”

You skewed yet another fact to fit your warped world.

AND, just so you know jokeson, I scored 790 out of 800 on the analytical portion of the GRE.

Isn’t lying a sin? Even when pertaining to a bs test score?

Lozen,

You are more like chuck each day. Where did I say it was a brilliant idea? Although, someone else did complement me on the question posed.

By chuck

September 20, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

GOB, read my answer to that above. If you don’t have time to read the responses, put me on ignore.

By lozen

September 20, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

I just have to respond to Monica’s post yesterday. That’s why I don’t understand the pro-choice argument. With the exception of rape, women choose to have sex… the bottom line is if that people abstained from sex, abortion wouldn’t be an issue. Yes, we choose to have sex. Why in the world should a mature woman abstain from sex? Some women, quite a few of us, enjoy sex! Do you know how many unmarried women over 25 there are in this country? Mature women who have been married and divorced or who never married. Some of us don’t ever want to marry/marry again. We do want to have sex. Most of us also choose to be responsible and use BC to prevent pregnancy and STDs. However, BC is not 100 percent effective. For the cases when it doesn’t work, we need PlanB and abortion because we also choose not to bring children into this world that we don’t want or can’t provide for financially (most single women don’t have a lot of money) or emotionally (it takes a village). Sex is a natural part of life and is not reserved for only those people who want to procreate.

By Scalia

September 20, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

I think that it is equally wrong for a parent to have a child that they do not want. There is nothing worse for a child to have their parents call them a mistake, or for them to feel that they aren’t wanted. That spirals down into depression, drugs, and alcohol as a means of escape.

By GOB

September 20, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I havent been able to read the book you mentioned since my last post, but since you have read it, what kind of “proof” could there be that someone actually rose from the dead? Just a couple of quick ones would be great. I really am curious here, not just trying to be difficult.

By lozen

September 20, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel on your question list yesterday was this one: I often wonder why violence against women is seldom discussed in WtW. I highly recommend a book The Macho Paradox, Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help by Jackson Katz. I just started the book but one of his theories is that men do not realize how bad it is because women don’t talk to men (even close relatives) about the violence against them. They’re afraid of getting all the old bromides that shift the blame to them instead of the perpetrator. Katz speaks to colleges, high schools, corporations and the military about the epidemic of male violence toward women. His first exercise is to ask men to help him create a list of how many times a day their actions are limited from fear of being assaulted and raped. The men laugh, make jokes about staying our of prison, and make a very short list. Then he asks women the same question, and you know what happens.

By fhmxtb reixzldwk

September 20, 2007 8:27 PM | Link to this

klbop fyrmsj cyxudr smajdrl kxwt dwnlhs igvyzxp

By Billy

September 21, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Oh, for Billy’s benefit: “abstRactly”

For MY benefit? Really? Hey, I can tell that the dropped “r” is a typo. Dropping “k” and “w” from the word “know”, on the other hand, seems less likely to be accidental, especially when the resulting word is a homophone for the intended word.

BTW, people can be greatly analytical AND still be idiots. If your beginning assumptions are erroneous, no amount of analytical skill will lead to correct conclusions.

Lastly, kindly stop quoting scripture as “evidence”. If I am trying to prove that Coke is better than Pepsi, I have to do it with evidence other than Coke promo materials. Because that’s what the Bible is, not an owner’s manual.

“Believe everything in this book. It’s all true. The book says so…”

By Monica

September 21, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

GOB, you’re asking some great questions. I’m trying to formulate an answer that involves more than “I just know.” I’ll get back with you on that one.

BTW, how is your school year going? I have read some of your posts on the Get Schooled blog. I really appreciate your perspective because you came from the business world. There are many on that blog who don’t understand teaching and won’t listen to someone who is “just a teacher.” You, on the other hand, have more credibility because of your experience. Thanks for validating our profession!

By lozen

September 21, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Billy, this is funny: Lastly, kindly stop quoting scripture as “evidence”. If I am trying to prove that Coke is better than Pepsi, I have to do it with evidence other than Coke promo materials. Because that’s what the Bible is, not an owner’s manual. Religion fascinates me for this very reason… it goes against all reason. But I heard the catholic church says something like, “Give me a child for the first eight years and I’ll make sure they believe!” Of course what they believe will be nonsense and will make them gullible to people like Jim Jones, the pope, and David Koresh. It’s 2007. We have traveled to the moon. We have cloned sheep. And still people cling to the belief there’s an invisible old man somewhere who knows the number of hairs on their head, a jewish rabbi (son of a god and a virgin) died and came back to life (and they have proof!), and every word is true in a book of old folklore written by ignorant people thousands of years ago. What a trip.

By Archie

September 21, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

First of all I want to point out again that there are men’s groups against domestic violence and some are located down there in Georgia, and second, another woman died yesterday here in my home state of South Carolina as a result of domestic violence. Domestic violence is nothing to play with and I really hope if there are women victims reading this blog that they get the help they need and I hope that some women don’t use this issue to justify killing their husband.

Lozen I researched your church affiliation and although I would love to visit a service it would be too far to the left for my family. I did read about the Unitarian-universalist church and it does seem interesting.

By lozen

September 21, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Why Archie what do you mean? Too far to the left in what way?

By GOB

September 21, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Monica - Thanks for the kind words. My year is going really well. I cant believe we are already at the end of the first 6 weeks.

By chuck

September 21, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

Gob, here are a few of the evidences put forth by McDowell:

LIVING WITNESSES The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to “prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb’s entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.

BROKEN ROMAN SEAL As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus’ disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.

EMPTY TOMB As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was “too notorious to be denied.” Paul Althaus states that the resurrection “could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned.”

ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors’ wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one wand be punished with death for the guard unit’s failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment “produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches.”

OVER 500 WITNESSES Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ’s post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ’s appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience’s knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned.

THE DISCIPLES’ LIVES But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?

Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts—prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits—we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this “risen Christ .”

As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.

Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.

Sorry for the large copy/paste. I tried to keep it to a minimum. The rest of th article is here:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

By lozen

September 21, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Living witnesses: Ancient, uneducated, simple people who believed in sorcery, wizards, and magic. There were also many who believed others of the same time period (Mithras for one) rose from the dead.

Roman rulers for a long, long time claimed they were fathered by gods. It was a political move. The claim of being fathered by a god was not unique to the jews. The idea probably was adopted in the early days of christianity from the Roman influence.

The Egyptians have the story of Horus; Isis brought him back to life; do you believe that one too? The people of the Yucatan have a story about an old goddess, IxChel dying and being resurrected. Do you believe that one? There just isn’t anything new or unique about a god/goddess who dies and is reborn.

Of course Egypt lost her power early on and Mexicans didn’t have missionaries going around the world proselytizing with guns. They never threatened others with “accept our beliefs and give up your old beliefs or we’ll cut off your feet or burn you at the stake!” All you have to do is look at how quickly africans and native americans in this country adopted christianity and gave up their old religions. When your choices are death or accept someone else’s god….

It’s true because the bible says it’s true. The bible is true because it says it’s true. Please.

By Archie

September 21, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Lozen I mean no offense. I researched over the internet and your church was defined just as you said. When I say too far to the left I mean it’s too liberal for my,my family. I would have no problem visiting but since there’s more to me than just me I have to consider the opinions of the other folk in my family. I could probably better explain it in person but I would have a hard time from my folks. It doesn’t mean anything is wrong with your church because I am always willing to try something new.

By lozen

September 21, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

THE DISCIPLES’ LIVES But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?

What made the Buddha give up wealth and family and sit under a tree for years awaiting enlightenment? What made those people in California commit suicide so they could be on a spaceship behind a comet? What made the people die in the fire in Waco? What made people drink poisoned koolaid with Jim Jones? What makes muslim men blow themselves up for Allah?

By NetBanker

September 21, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

Hey kids…I see I missed a lot yesterday. Sorry for the long post, but below are a few items that sparked my interest.

Women will never be free and independent if we’re slaves to our biology. That is a tough one. Humans seem to be one of those strange species who go to great lengths to thwart survival of the fittest and whose sexual urges are independent of population size or resource availability. I wonder if this is because a larger number of fetuses never implant that people realize.

Does free will exist in heaven? If so, how then would it be any different from earth? People would still do things that hurt others, and therefore, it isn’t really “heaven.” Good one, GOB!! I never thought about that…and just a quick think is making my head hurt on the mechanics of ‘heaven’ being a paradise…especially when everyone has their own definition of paradise.

Grease helps, Jack. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh my, Lily that was good!!

Free will won’t be necessary in Heaven, because we will all have the same purpose there: to praise God. The focus won’t be on us, so free will is a non-issue. Those who don’t desire that outcome won’t be there. Monica…I must say that definition of heaven sounds great for God, but not so much for the inhabitants. It honestly paints God as an egomaniac who needs to be worshipped 24x7x365 and the inhabitants of heaven slaves to the worship schedule. And this is attractive, why?

Lets say the proof of personhood/soul/etc was realized by finding an area of the brain that recorded all the memories starting from conception. Not only that, but those initial months/years created the foundation of personality/likes/dislikes…ie, a person. Even with my basic knowledge of biology this isn’t possible. The structures to capture memories don’t exist in a single cell or even in a clump of several thousand cells so this scenario can’t occur. Although it does touch off the question in my mind of why would a soul be ‘attached’ to a clump of cells that may not even implant in the uterine wall? Given that this is a very common occurrance it seems rather inefficient. If ‘your’ fetus doesn’t implant are you in line for the next one or do you go to the back of the waiting line?

MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION Aren’t there consequences of making the ‘right decision’ too? It may be viewed as right for us, but there could be a negative impact on someone else.

The men who wrote the bible didn’t even know the earth was round, what makes you think they knew anything about a heaven or a hell! Darn good point, Lozen!

8We learned how operate through studying the OWNER’S MANUAL* Is that the same manual that supports selling children into slavery, stoning people to death, getting your father drunk so you can get pregnant by him, stone tablets fall out of the sky, and burning bushes speak? The one that condensed sounds like an acid trip?

By NetBanker

September 21, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

That this pattern of sentiment is broadly shared is largely what it means for a society to be liberal. Well isn’t that a paradox? It takes a liberal society to allow conservatives to live alongside liberals.

By JokesOn

September 21, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

The Egyptians have the story of Horus; Isis brought him back to life; do you believe that one too?

Horus was also one of 20+ stories predating jesus that had “sons of god” that were born on dec 25th attended by 3 kings, died (3 days), and rose.

The “sun” also does this: dies on [in line with] the [southern] cross, the “three kings” and eastern star once each year on the 25th of dec….hmmm.

NetB, A) The point was not to argue the feasibility, for until some great leaps are made in science there is no way to understand how they “might” occur.

B) Even with my basic knowledge of biology this isn’t possible. Not true. Some memory seems to have been found residing in tissue, yet it is not fully understood how.

The point was, if the argument regarding “when” personhood was solved, would everyone adhere to that.

Chuck,

Not even ONE of the great historians during jesus’ supposed time earth documented him. You would think that someone walking around healling, walking on water, and turning water to wine would show up in one of these writers documents, but nope.

By lozen

September 21, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Waving at NetB. Missed you yesterday.

No offense taken Archie. UU is a small group. Not everyone cares enough about religion to ever think much about it. Most ppl tend to ignore it until there’s some big crisis in their lives and then they just fall back on what mommy and daddy or the sunday school teacher told them. I saw that happen to my grandfather; I know that’s one of the things that started my questioning. And I understand the fear that keeps many ppl from questioning fundamentalist religion. I was terrified in the beginning, afraid god would punish me for asking questions, because that’s all the preachers could tell me when they couldn’t answer my questions. I could never see the bible as anything except fantastic stories like fairytales. And that may be because my grandmother gave me all those children’s bible books at the same time I was reading fairytales! ;- )

By chuck

September 21, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

Aren’t there consequences of making the ‘right decision’ too? It may be viewed as right for us, but there could be a negative impact on someone else.

I didn’t say anything about making the right decision FOR US NetB. I said God expects us to make the RIGHT DECISION. PERIOD. It was actually pretty clear in the post what I meant because I followed that statement with:

Yes we can choose to disobey God and His Word, but it isn’t God who has to live with it but rather US.

I posted this yesterday Monica, but I was hoping to get your opinion on this item:

BTW, I read an interesting article online by a doctor who was talking about when conception occurs. I was wondering what you think about this Monica. According to the article, the doctor said that conception occurred at fertilization, but then went on to say that the body does not KNOW that it is pregnant until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall. The article went on to say that sometimes a second egg is produced the day after the first egg and may be fertilized and never attach as can the first egg. The question then is, “Is it a baby when the egg is fertilized or when the fertilized egg attaches to the Uterus?”

I’m not sure what my answer to that question is right now. That would certainly change the previously mentioned idea about the “petri dish” eggs. I’m going to have to do a little more research on that topic.

By Stating the Obvious

September 21, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

When does conception occur? Following dinner, four beers, two tequila shots, right after three oh-yesses, two don’t-stops, six oh-gods, and right before mmmmm, baby, you’re the best!

By NetBanker

September 21, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

You would think that someone walking around healling, walking on water, and turning water to wine would show up in one of these writers documents, but nope. Good point. One would think that curiousity regarding the ‘reported’ miracles would have driven someone to explore Jesus and independently document him or at the very least documented the stir all those miracles were causing.

Some memory seems to have been found residing in tissue Can you point me to some research or something on this? I’m not trying to question here, I’m just intellectually curious that way…like knowing how one identifies a memory either in tissue or in the brain or what it is that identifies the object as a memory vs something else or do certain types of memories take on chemical or physical characterists so that one could tell if something was an emotional memory or simply a fact for example.

The point was, if the argument regarding “when” personhood was solved, would everyone adhere to that Likely not.

By Chilao

September 21, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

On that memory thought, I learned recently that before the French guillotine, people were beheaded by the ax-man. However, they would be told, it was often part of the procedure, that if the ax-man swung and missed, that the accused would be free to go, pardoned. So the ax-man would swing, the head would end up in the bucket, and there were cases where the person who was executed would get up and start to walk away. Before collapsing of course.

I trust those were the PositiveThinkers. LOL

By JokesOn

September 21, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Just a quick search. I was unable (now) to find the actual article I read. I will post monday if I can find it from my home pc:

The reality of tissue memory has some science behind it: immune system response, for example, is enhanced by the memory T-cells holding information about a previous attack by specific foreign antigens; and muscle memory improves the ability of top class sports people and musicians to perform optimally even under extreme pressure.

There is no science that supports the existence of tissue memory in the way I will describe except with one interesting phenomenon that has been noted by scientists. I refer to memories about donors of organ transplants recalled by the recipients! (Lauren Slater 2003, New York Times Magazine, quoted in ‘The Times’, London, on 16 April 2003).

Link: http://www.craniosacraltherapy.org.uk/phdi/p1.nsf/supppages/dellis?opendocument&part=4

And recently: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20364627/

I noticed the second article is now truncated and omits the final questions of how much of the cats memory is being held inthe brain vs limbs/tissue.

By NetBanker

September 21, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

It was actually pretty clear in the post what I meant… My bad…wrong use of words…let’s correct that to it is viewed as right BY US and not only do we view it as right, but we’re darn sure that God will think it is right and yet someone else’s life (and maybe not even someone directly but via a chain of connections) is hurt.

Is it ever acceptable to sin if you know that sin will actually help someone else?

~waving~ Hi Lozen! I know I frustrated many a sunday school teacher, VBS volunteer, church elder during catechism class, my parents, and even a few pastors with questions when I was a child and adolescent due to the number of “It’s a matter of faith and you have to trust God and believe” responses I got.

By Chilao

September 21, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

Yeah, I read that earlier about the cats that would move their hind leg over an object after the object had been removed but their movements were apparently programmed to accomodate the object being there, as it was there when the movement was initiated.

It was interesting.

What I did NOT understand is how they could put the cat BACK in the position after moving the object and get the cat to continue with the movement. Seems the cat would be on to other things at that point, if you know cats. LOL I think they were actually moving the cats, then moving the object, then putting the cat back to continue with the movement. Doesn’t seem like they could freeze-frame the cats.

By Jack

September 21, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

Happy Friday to all.

Especially the Sweet Thing that I haven’t seen on the blog lately. :)

By NetBanker

September 21, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

Thanks, JokesON! I had a serious DUH moment when I read the words ‘muscle memory.’ That prompted me to recall my piano teacher talking about muscle memory and how it worked in conjunction with memorization to allow someone to play a very complex piece without the sheet music. I actually came to believe that the repetitive nature of practicing a particular piece drove it home more into muscle memory than actual memorization of the notes themselves. I could play quite a number of pieces all the way through without the sheet music, but ask me to write out the piece on a score and I’d draw complete blanks on the majority of it and would have to play that section again to get the specific notes. While I haven’t played my piano much the past 5 years or so I can still sit down without the music and play a fair amount of several pieces and I can assure you that I’m not seeing the music in my minds eye.

I refer to memories about donors of organ transplants recalled by the recipients! Waaay cool in a freaky sort of way!

By JokesOn

September 21, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

NetB,

I could play quite a number of pieces all the way through without the sheet music, but ask me to write out the piece on a score and I’d draw complete blanks on the majority of it and would have to play that section again to get the specific notes.

Absolutely. I have had the same issue with a guitar picking etude. I learned it up to a point and then M-Memory began taking over. Now, I can play it quite fast, but to teach it to someone else, much less play it very slowly, is impossible.

Please, check out that movie “zeitgeist” and let me know what you think. Although I am skeptical of the over-all premise, the components are pretty sound and informative.

By Monica

September 21, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

Hey chuck! Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you. That is an interesting question. I would have to say, with all scientific soundness, that I don’t know!