Newest Planned Parenthood mega-center opens in Denver
Posted by Matt Yonke on Wednesday, July 9th, 2008
Planned Parenthood's newest mega-center has opened, three months ahead of schedule, in Denver Colorado. This new facility officially displaces the Abortion Fortress of Aurora as the nation's largest abortion facility.
Fortunately, there is a dedicated group of pro-lifers in Denver, Colorado Families Against Planned Parenthood, who will be there to pray, counsel, and protest this new center. Not one to miss a chance to sling some mud, a PP spokesperson has referred to the group as "economic terrorists" for their attempts to convince the contracting company that oversaw construction of the Denver facility to back out of the project.
Please keep the new facility, the abortion-bound women there, and the pro-lifers fighting for the rights of the unborn there in your prayers.
I believe the term "economic terrorist" was first coined by Bill Hornaday, president of the Rocky Mountain division of the Weitz Co. (the builder).
"What we do is build buildings," Hornaday said. "We should not, nor should anyone, have to be subject to the kind of economic terrorism we were. That is just not right."
Apparently the company website was overloaded, neighborhoods were disrupted, etc. See this link for details.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Student,
I was quoting a PP spokesperson quoted in this story from a Denver tv station with the "economic terrorist" line.
I was so baffled by the term that I did a google search on it. Wikipedia enlightens us. The bit I found most enlightening was the following:
In other words, you want to make someone who's not a terrorist look like one? Cite the fact that they hurt your business and call them "economic terrorists". Very clever.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Matt,
Thanks for cleaning up the above post (it was, admittedly, a bit of a mess). I checked Wikipedia which also stated:
I'd say that pretty much fits this situation, doesn't it?
July 9th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Matt, you would not falsely accuse someone, would you?
July 10th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Student,
I dunno. I think we want to economically destabilize PP by making sure no one wants their services any more, but that's just attempting to effect market forces, not some crazy action that could justly be labeled "terrorist".
Missy,
Certainly not knowingly! Do you think I have?
July 10th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Matt,
It appears there was an attempt to economically destabilize Weitz (the builder) as well. I do think this behavior fits the definition of "economic terrorism" by the Wikipedia source you yourself cited.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:21 am
It is ridiculous to try to stop someone from constructing a building regardless of its purpose just because you or your mob feel that it should not be there.Construction workers have a family to feed and if not then they still need to take care of themselves.Construction is their job not what the building is being built for.Pro-life will try to stop PP from existing regardless of how anyone feels because they feel their way is the only way.Guess what……
It's NOT.We live in a world that has a variety of beliefs.Some people believe in GOD,some don't.Some believe in HELL,some don't.Some believe in CHOICE,some don't.
Some people think they have a RIGHT to control the way people think,act,feel and believe.
No one has that right.Pro-lifers preach GOD and then resort to intimidation to get their way.They have also been known to resort to violence (shooting a doctor).How can you preach GOD and then commit SIN?I get aggravated with people.When they act like I should cater to them at my job when I don't even know them.When someone is so grouchy and takes it out on those around them.When someone thinks they are better than me just because I'm not as financially well off as they are.But you know what?I don't go picket their house because I THINK they are wrong.If someone is doing drugs and giving them to children I call the police and let them take care of it.I don't take it personally and shoot the guy no matter how much I would like to.Even if PP closed it's doors you would find someone else to try to control.It's very hard to take you seriously when it seems you will target anyone that is doing something that you don't like.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Kathy,
Under your "logic", "hey, the abortionist has a to make a living too - has to feed his family too".
And "hey, some people believe they have the right to kill an unborn child and some don't".
I hope you can see that this logic is flawed.
Why don't you feel the unborn are also entitled to not be controlled as you suggest others try to do?
God Bless,
Roger
July 10th, 2008 at 11:00 am
What is the difference between a "boycott" and "economic terrorism"? Isn't a boycott a form of it?
God Bless,
Roger
July 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
How do you figure a construction worker is an abortionist?Where did I suggest in any way that unborn should be excluded?I also never said anyone had a right to kill anyone!It must be easy for you to take someones words and change them to make that person look bad.How else can you possibly make yourself look good.
I guess you think it's okay to kill someone because you don't like something he does.Of course now you'll think I said it's okay to kill unborn.I didn't of course but you seem to be good at passing the buck.How bout this one, a moman has a CHOICE of whether or not to protect herself from pregnancy and disease.Now I'm sure you'll say I think it's okay to kill babies,like it's something I do in my spare time.You need to read the entire content before you comment on it.If you don't understand it then you need to keep your comments to yourself.Just for the record I don't think anyone should abort a pregnancy,I've seen the video of it done with ultrasound,but unless I am prepared to help someone for the next eighteen years I will keep my opinion out of it.I wish I could afford to take all the babies and just love them and raise them myself.But unfortunately I can't.Can you?if not then don't you think you should not tell other people to have babies that they either don't want or feel they're not ready for?You should support contraception if you are so against abortion.With birth control there will be no need for abortion.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Kathy,
re: post 7 above:
No one has that right.Pro-lifers preach GOD and then resort to intimidation to get their way.They have also been known to resort to violence (shooting a doctor).How can you preach GOD and then commit SIN?
I spent 3 hours today outside PP Aurora. I smiled and offered information to ladies and young girls going in. I didn't shout, threaten, intimidate in any way. I simply offered a smile and information. For that I was yelled at, cussed out, given the finger by several, laughed at, ridiculed…. But I continued gently offering smiles and information. One man gave a very nasty gesture as he pushed the young woman inside and then… Anyway, I didn't hold the bad responses against anyone. I simply prayed for the people.
Also, while out there, several cars drove very fast and close to intimidate us pro-lifers standing at the edge of the road on the grass - there is no curb.
Also, PP has installed huge, ugly cameras on their building aimed at the pro-lifers - to intimidate us after we have stood peacefully, prayerfully in the same spot for 11 months without incident on our part. Today they were even hooking up sound to the cameras. What do they expect to hear? I'll tell you, from me they will hear love, peace, hope offered to ladies who might possibly be in a crisis and need someone to talk to who will listen and not judge, but offer to stand with them in their trial and help in any way they need.
I know that we are portrayed as being violent and angry, but I'm here to tell you that no one I know is like that. I have however seen plenty of it directed our way.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Kathy,
I mearly have taken your words to logical conclusions …
I don't equate them, but any person who enables an evil is not totally without guilt. I can't just say, well I'm not directly killing the unborn.
You suggested it when you said:
In this case, "CHOICE" equates to killing an unborn child.
God Bless,
Roger
July 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Isn't that a bit like saying you're "not totally without guilt" as to pedophilia if you've given money to the catholic church?
July 10th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Student,
No, actually these are quite different. The Catholic Church (big "C" when your talking about the church headed by the Pope, as "catholic" means "universal") does tremendous good in the world. The fact that a small minority of priest went astray does not do away with this good. Even when bishops did not handle things very well in this regard. And you can't disregard the fact the the leaders of the church have seen their errors and "repented" (changed their ways).
Abortion clinics primarily hurt people. Half of all patients undergoing an abortion die. And sometimes the mother can die from this too.
But this thread is not about the church, but about the nations' largest abortion provider.
God Bless,
Roger
July 10th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
You think you can draw conclusions based on how YOU interperate them.Kinda full of yourself arent you?It's only guilt if it has something to do with what YOU view as evil or wrong.So it's okay for priests to molest children as long as it's not all of them?What about those that don't make the news?You know,the ones that are swept under the pew and kept quiet so the church won't look bad.You are awfully selfrightous to think that your opinion is the only one that could possibly be right.You need to take a good look at the world that you live in cause it isn't all roses and honey!!It's a little of everything rolled into one.Where would you be if there was no evil or sin in the world.Then where would you go to try to control people,or make their choices for them?
July 10th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Arent you enabeling a child abuser by talking a woman into carrying a child that she doesn't want?You can't say "Well I'm not directly beating the child."
July 10th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Matt I think you can see by the comments of Student, he is not interested in having a real dialogue about why prolifers give of their time and energy to save the lives of babies. However, I really appreciate you trying to have an intelligent, discourse with him, as he goes around in circles giving ridulous charges against prolifers. I feel your energies could be better spent talking about other things.
I am so proud of the non-violent way FVFAPP prolifers have conducted themselves at the abortion fortress. I am so proud of the way FVFAPP have dealt with the hardships of standing against the culture of death in Aurora, given the many threats and forms of intimidation by the city administration, PP, and others. Student knows that counselors have changed women's minds from "choosing" to destroy their babies, so it angers him that the God in the counselors is bigger than the deadly evil of PP. "Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world." If only there had been someone to speak out against "The Holocaust" in Germany, like those who are speaking out here in Aurora, I believe millions of lives would have been saved.
I would like to say to Kathy. If you knew that there was a death camp being built or already built in your neighborhood where innocent babies were being sentenced to death, what do you think those who know about it should do? Should they stand idly by and act like they do not know? There is a scripture Proverbs 24:11 that says "Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don't stand back and let them die. Don't try to disclaim responsiblilty by saying you don't know about it". I am praying for your eyes and heart to be opened to the Holocaust in Aurora. Why have you tried to take an organization like FVFAPP and tried to connect them with those whose who have committed murder years ago? How sad that someone has misled you to make such horrible accusations against people who have done nothing but try to save human lives and have suffered threats on their lives for doing so. Be sure to read the post by Sandy a sidewalk counselor to see who is being threatened at the Aurora abortuary. Two books "Why Pro-Life?" and "ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments" by Randy Alcorn could help answer your quetions about why we are so passionate about protecting the life of mother and child. God help you.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
NOTHING justifies the killing of an innocent growing baby in the womb! Help the mothers choose life for their babies! Lord teach us how to LOVE. Love does not kill. Love finds a way for life.
Do not be afraid. You are not alone. Love the life within you. She is a separate human being, but she may have "your mothers eyes," or your color hair, or your fathers sense of humor etc… And if you can not keep your child, then love it by giving it up for adoption. Killing it is not love! You will never regret choosing life! Love the little ones, they are all deserving of the life they were given!
July 10th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
And I see PP as doing a tremendous amount of good. We just happen to disagree as to what is helpful and what is not.
First of all, as you know, PP does much, much more than just abortions. Second, 1/2 of the patients undergoing an abortion do not die. That is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. I realize that you are going to say the embryo/fetus is a "patient," but that isn't the case and we both know it.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Which ridiculous charges would that be? Can you be specific?
I don't believe in your God (NOTE: I'm not the one constantly bringing up religion here). Furthermore, it is about CHOICE….I am happy to support whatever CHOICE a woman makes because she is the one who ultimately decides what is best for her.
If that were the case, I would be the first one there to attempt to stop it. But, that IS NOT the case.
Perhaps because of Joe Scheidler's associates/actions in the past? I truly hope I'm wrong, but I think it's only a matter of time until somebody gets violent. I don't necessarily believe it will be you, Educator, but it only one to slip over the line. There is no denying that it's happened in the past.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Student,
And what exactly are "Joe Scheidler's associates/actions in the past"?
July 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
March 26, 1986
Members of PLAN invade a clinic in Pensacola, Fla., throwing the clinic administrator down the stairs, injuring a NOW chapter president and wrecking medical equipment, forcing the clinic out of business for several days. Joe Scheidler stands outside during the invasion, praising those who went in and taking credit for the mayhem.
Need more?
July 11th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
good job student!!:)
July 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
But it's OK for them to be "violent" as long as it's not ALL of them.otherwise how would they justify it?
July 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Isn't your whole "cause" based around religion?After all your supposedly "cristians".The whole reason you do what you do is because you believe "GOD" wants you to save "babies" from being killed.It's one of the commandments "THOU SHALT NOT KILL".It also says in the bible "Judge not lest ye be judged".According to your bible isn't God supposed to judge those who sin?You are trying to do the job of a "being" that is supposed to be done after death.According to you we will all burn in hell.Well at least I'll have company cause I think what you do is wrong.You have a holier than thou attitude that is very annoying considering you are no better than anyone else.Also like student,If I had a death camp in my community I too would try to stop it however I don't, so that makes that statement rediculous.Then again alot of what you all say is reiculous.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Oh, come on, Student, cite your source. It's from NOW–the National Organization for Women–one of the most radical pro-abortion groups out there. That's hardly a credible source. Try again.
From the time I first heard Joe Scheidler speak at a conference for college students in the early 90s, he's always been an advocate for peaceful protest. And he was also very clever. I recall especially a story (but don't quote me on the details because it was over 15 yrs ago) about how he was blocked by the courts from picketing near an abortionist's home. So he put signs on a van and circled the block. He followed the letter of the law, and achieved his goal. Pro-abortionists hate him because he's effective, not violent.
As far as I know, he's never been convicted of violence, and even the lawsuits against him by NOW (there's your conflict of interest) have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
But then, Eric knows more about this. Maybe he can enlighten us.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Sylvia,
It will take some digging on my part but I can certainly come up with a citation from the case itself. Give me a few days.
Why not, you ask them of me but, don't worry, I won't ask you for them.
As you know, the only aspect overturned by SCOTUS was the RICO charge. Furthermore, the tactics of Joe Scheidler are what caused Congress in enact the FACE legislation that we have today. Or am I incorrect on that?
July 11th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Student,
Joe Scheidler encouraged the pro-lifers who participated in the action you cited not to do it. He did not participate in it. If you can cite him taking credit for it or praising them, be my guest.
Joe Scheidler has never been convicted of a violent crime of any sort nor has he ever advocated the use of violence in fighting abortion. Ever. Steve Trombley is being sued for libel right now for saying otherwise.
If you don't have allegations of actual violent crime don't posture like something has gone on that absolutely has not.
I think we've made some really good steps in cultivating an atmosphere of mutual respect between our differing opinions. False accusations do not help that effort.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Kathy says: "Well at least I'll have company" with referring to Hell.
Jesus said avoid Hell at all cost. You are fooling yourself if you think you will be happy in Hell and you won't be alone. Even when you befriend Satan he then becomes your accuser, he is not loyal to anyone, he hates you with a passion. Just thought I would let you know.
PS Even if I were not a Christian I would think it terrible that woman kill their babies in their womb. It's just wrong.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
re: post 20 above
I truly hope I'm wrong, but I think it's only a matter of time until somebody gets violent.
You are very right. This morning as I stood praying across the road from Planned Parenthood, all of a sudden, on her way to "help" women, the regular "volunteer escort" from PP accelerated her car, laid on the horn and swerved toward the sidewalk counselor. I was afraid she would be run over. Then the "volunteer escort" pulled into the lot and angrily told the clients not to listen and just go in. It was a deliberate act to harass and intimidate prolifers. I was so thankful that no one was hurt - this time. This has been a fairly regular occurrence by a few. You are so right, it only takes one to slip over the line. The prolifers I know have not threatened or intimidated others, but it certainly has happened to us.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Matt: Give me a couple of days, I'll cite exactly what I'm talking about. On another note, will you be starting a KarenK The Evils of Hell forum also? You've stated you don't want this to be a forum on religion, however, it really seems to be a problem if someone responds with an opposing opinion.
Sandy: I do hope you called the police, filed a report and plan to prosecute. That type of behavior is unacceptable. I stand by what I said earlier, it only takes one. I do hope you did your part by contacting the authorities.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Student,
Thank you. Yes, we did our part. We don't ever want anyone hurt!
July 11th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Student, I don't think it is off topic when talking about Hell, and the newest Planned Parenthood Center.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
"I don't think it is off topic when talking about Hell, and the newest Planned Parenthood Center."
–very good!
July 11th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Glad to hear it. As I volunteer there as well, I would love to know who behaved in this fashion. I will gladly voice my disapproval.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
It is very hard to stay focused on PP without the "good vs. evil" theme creeping in, leading to religious discussion–since that is at the heart of the matter.
But getting back to the topic: Maybe it took these "big box" PPs to get the public to wake up and take notice. Last night on the floor of Congress, Representatives attacked taxpayer funding of PP. They even quoted our very own Steve Trombley. Places like Aurora and Denver are calling attention to the obscene profits PP is raking in, that they can build these massive "up-scale" abortuaries–and all with our tax dollars. What PP planned as gain may end up being their downfall, for we know "God makes ALL THINGS work together unto good for those who love Him"–Rm 8:28.
And one more "off-topic":
Kathy,
The "Judge not, lest you be judged" is too often misquoted. We are not to judge a person "good" or "bad" based on appearance. Only God knows what's in one's heart. But we are to exercise judgement in determining sinful and righteous behavior according to God's Word, particularly the 10 Commandments. In fact, Jesus says we must judge: "Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."–John 7:24
And the Church further tells us that it is a Spiritual Work of Mercy to "admonish the sinner" as well as to "instruct the ignorant", for these will help lead a person to salvation. Is it a kindness, for example, to allow a child to believe it is right to steal, when that behavior may eventually lead him to a life in prison?
So we must judge behavior. But we must show compassion to the person. And Jesus warns that we must start by examining our own behavior to remove the "planks" from our own eyes before we remove the "splinters" from others'. But a splinter is a splinter, causing pain to the eye. And if we can help, in kindness, to remove that splinter, the sufferer will be better off.
To take the analogy one step further, have you ever removed a splinter from a child's finger? The child will cry because the removal hurts. But once the splinter is out, it feels better. So too with us adults. It hurts to change sinful behavior sometimes, but in the end it is for the best.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Sylvia,
While you're doing all of this "judging" of behavior, may I ask how you KNOW your religion is the correct one? Not why THINK it is, but how you KNOW it is. Are you aware that christianity makes up only 33% of the world's population. Islam is 21% and athiests are 16%. This doesn't even factor in Buddists, Hindus and others. Why are you so sure ALL of these other folks are wrong and you are absolutely 100% correct? Just something to consider while you're "judging" the behavior of others that you know nothing about.
Source
Now, if you want to argue via the bible about abortion, I'm happy to do that. However, I'm sure there will be an admonishment coming my way for doing so.
In the full context of Ecclesiastes, King Solomon makes the point that much of life is futile. Over and over he writes that if life is good then we should be thankful. But when life is not good, Solomon makes some interesting statements:
If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5
Clearly there is a quality of life issue being put forth in the Scriptures. And in this case, Solomon makes the point that it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life. This is made even more clear in these following verses:
"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
Here we have an argument for both euthanasia and abortion. When quality of life is at stake, Solomon seems to make the argument that ending a painful life or ending what will be a painful existence is preferable. Remember, we're reading the words of the man to whom God gave the world's greatest wisdom.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Student,
Look forward to your citations.
As for the religion debate, I don't mind a comment here or there that touches on religion. That other thread had gone on to well over 100 comments and had gone completely off the rails.
For now, I'm out of the office for the next week, so everybody play nice and if you want to debate religion, go to the forum.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Good point Student!Sylia,Do you show "compassion" to the employees and volunteers of Planned Parenthood?
July 12th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Kathy,
Yes. I show compassion to the employees and volunteers at PP. I pray for them regularly.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I love these pro-lifers in Denver and may God grant them the grace to succeed in their mission to educate the public regarding the truth about the personhood of every child in the womb.
If I can paraphrase from a friend Patricia on another site. We will have a totalitarian regime in the US if we can not save ourselves. Our great Catholic Pope, JP II warned us of this in his encyclical "The Gospel of Life".
"This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of public interest….The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained…" p36 The Gospel of Life
July 13th, 2008 at 3:07 am
"…is it surprising that today we have become so morally blind (for wickedness blinds) that we save the baby whales at great cost, and murder millions of unborn children?"
~ Alice von Hildebrand, The Privilege of Being a Woman, p.24 ~
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you… Jeremiah 1:5
July 14th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
"A person's a person, no matter how small."
~ Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who ~
July 14th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has shown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts ~ a child ~ as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.”
~ Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta , “Notable and Quotable”, Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94 , p. A14 ~
July 14th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Student says:
But I blog with a LOT of young girls who do
And WHY are you blogging with "a LOT of young girls" on the internet?
July 18th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
To save them from the likes of you and the professor
July 18th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
sounds more like they need saving from him!!!They don't claim to blog with "alot of YOUNG girls"!!!!
July 18th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Kathy,
What conversations have you been reading.
1) I am happily married in a monogamous relationship, professor has multiple partners and has revealed his interest in making sure his daughter gets sexual experience…. Big red flag!!!
2) I am against girls having sex outside of marriage, professor encourages girls to have multiple partners outside of marriage.
3) the professor believes a man should have a right to opt out of responsibility if he gets a woman pregnant, I would certainly never leave a girl alone to raise one of my children, and I would help a single mother in any way I could to care for her child.
Hmmmmmmm….
July 19th, 2008 at 1:02 am
You really should change your name to CompleteLiar as opposed to Truthseeker.
(1) Professor DID NOT "reveal his interest in making sure his daughter gets sexual experience." He said he expects she will be sexually active before marriage (if she chooses marriage at all). Leave it to you to turn it into something perverse — then again, that is how you see sexuality in general.
Blogging "with a lot of young girls" — BIG RED FLAG!!!!
(2) At least this one you got right.
(3) You painted a scenario in which two people contractually entered a contract before engaging in the sex act that outlined their responsibilities should a pregnancy occur. In that scenario, he stated that he would be in favor of a man being able to walk away if he didn't want a child AND such a contract had been entered into.
As to helping people, how many children have you adopted? Do you do any work with/for unwanted children right now?
July 19th, 2008 at 7:13 am
And boys too.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Kathy, I'm sure LieSeeker will be out and about today shoving his gore porn in the face of any "young girl" he encounters.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:16 am
I currently have one partner, thank you. At this point, I there have been 18 women that I have had intercourse with. And your problem is?
As for my daughter. As I recall, I said that I *expect* that she will have sex before she is 18. That is HER choice. I certainly won't be choosing partners for her, if that's what you are thinking. Why would I? She's an intelligent, charming, and beautiful person who can make her own decisions. I won't be particularly disappointed if she doesn't have sex until she is 20, but I WILL be concerned if she waits as long as, say, 24. I would be VERY concerned if she doesn't have at least a few partners before getting married (if she ever does).
July 19th, 2008 at 7:19 am
completeliar(truthseeker),
1) I am happily married in a monogamous relationship, professor has multiple partners and has revealed his interest in making sure his daughter gets sexual experience…. Big red flag!!!
HUH?Where did you read that.Oh wait I forgor your a big fat LIAR!!!!He gives his daughter the freedom to choose how she wants to live her life and accepts her UNCONDITIONALLY!!
2) I am against girls having sex outside of marriage, professor encourages girls to have multiple partners outside of marriage.
They don't need encouragement when they have people like you who blog with young girls about their choice of birthcontrol.
3) the professor believes a man should have a right to opt out of responsibility if he gets a woman pregnant, I would certainly never leave a girl alone to raise one of my children, and I would help a single mother in any way I could to care for her child.
So what your saying is you not only go after young girls that use birthcontrol but also those who don't?
You are also saying you have sex outside of marriage?OOOOOOOH Shame on you!!!!!Now your gonna burn in hell with the rest of us!!!!!
July 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Student,
The way he sounds I think he uses those picture to get girls to stop and talk to him so he can make himself sound like he cares so he can lure her into a false sense of security and then he'll have his way with her after they discuss the best form of contraceptive to use.He is nothing but a hypocrit that thinks he can spin peoples words to fit his twisted morals and make that person sound bad.He's probably some creepy old guy who has nothing better to do than blog with YOUNG GIRLS and then try to act like he's this moral type that cares about women.Professor I think you are a wonderful and careing man and father to love your daughter unconditionally.I hate to think of all the girls that have had to deal with parents like the ones in this website that have become pregnant because after all what happens to that pregnancy?You can't say it hasn't happened because pressure NOT to have sex is worse than pressure to have sex.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Honestly, why don't you take your little spat somewhere else. Go back and read what you wrote and see if you're proud. I don't understand why you spend this much time on a website so fundamentally opposed to your beliefs (and you to its). You used to have the argument that it was for constructive dialogue. That pretty much went out the window over the last few days.
Take a break. Maybe quit accusing people of molesting girls. Maybe recognize that mourning a miscarriage isn't psychosis. Maybe quit boasting about your number of sexual partners (no one cares one way or the other).
July 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am
why don't you mind your own business?nosy
July 19th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Pro-Abort Panic: Feds to Recognize Birth Control Pill as Abortion
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=254715
Mike
July 19th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I passed by your protest today in Aurora and felt compelled to learn more about your "beliefs". It truly sickens me that anyone would display such horrific pictures in places where young children would see. I myself am pro-life, but the scare tactics(which any intelligent individual would recognize as just that….late term abortions are not even legal in this country without medical reason…) are sickening. I have spoken to several families in the area and at my church and all are appalled. You truly are making "normal" pro-lifers look bad. Hold your signs, say your prayers, but the graphic pictures are in extreme poor taste and are doing the exact opposite of what you have set out to do. They are just turning people off and giving prolifers a fanatic, freak, reputation. Nothing you do is being looked at as credible. The childen holding the signs is sickening and the parents allowing this should be arrested. You are perpetuating violence and really just look like weirdos. Good luck. Nothing you do will change the laws in this country….ever….and Planned Parenthood will not fail due to your effort…it will never happen. You all look too unintelligent to be respected or listened to. Take those poor children inside and give them a normal life. Get a hobby. Oh, and the old men really crack me up….Yeah, like you have any ground to stand on! Get a boat, get a hobby, play bingo…just go away. Or stay, it doesn't matter. You will never change anything.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
michelle b,
I think all your questions are addressed in these video's…
JillStanek.com - Face the Truth
Mike
July 19th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
michelle b,
Also I would like to add my opinion…
Personally I have seen graphic video games that look vitual real to the human eye and many parents are letting their kids play those video games.
Second, do you really think there were no children around watching when Christ was crucified on the cross?
Third, as a witness the only time I have seen kids get upset is when the parents get upset first. Usually kids just point and ask the parents “What happened to the baby?” which ends up to be a learning experience for both the parents and kids.
Fourth, these pictures save lives. I would rather save a life then worry about seeing one graphic picture.
Fifth, warning signs are always posted before entering into the graphic pictures zone. So the parents can make a “choice” whether to use another east/west or north/south street to go around the pictures.
Last, do you know the story of Emmitt Till and the use of graphic pictures?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947446/posts
Mike
July 19th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Yes, Michelle, do check out Jill Stanek. Her blog on the Chinese eating Sweet & Sour Fetus is a real eye opener! She's a very "credible" source.
By the way, even though I'm pro-choice I agree with your post entirely. I've used many of the same arguments but, trust me, you won't get anywhere here with them.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
And many DO NOT.
What does this have to do with anything? I'm sure kids were around when xtians were fed to the lions…..is it something you'd want your children to see????
Many, including the above poster, are upset by them and DO NOT want their children exposed to them. How nice that you make that choice for them.
And isn't it grand that you've decided YOU should make that choice for everyone else.
So if I wanted to do my shopping at Jewel this morning, what route could I have taken to have completely avoided you?
I sure do. His casket was open at his funeral. People had a choice to look and/or even attend. Other pictures were posted in a magazine that people could choose to buy/read or not. Till has nothing to do with your cause.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Student,
Your buddy Keith was the only person I had seen adversely affected by the pictures.
http://prolifecorner.com/files/video/Warningkeith.swf
Mike
July 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Mike,
I went to high school with a guy by the name of Keith….that was more years ago than I care to say. Other than him, I don't know anyone by that name. You must have me confused with someone else.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I do not want someone deciding for me what my children should see. My little girl is only 4. She would definitely NOT just innocently say, "what happened to that baby?" She is much smarter than that. She would not be playing a violent video game, either.
I did not see any signs today warning me. It was shoved in my face. I can deal with it, my child could not.
What if I stood outside with pictures of men and women having sex and advocated for sex education? Would you like your child to see that? Is it my right to decide when and how you educate your child on something, or worse, take it into my own hands?
Now really, what is worse for a community? Planned parenthood or bloody pictures of babies shown to a child? YOU all seem like the sick ones. Very, very, sad.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
michelle b,
What do you suggest doing instead? Abortion has killed 50 million children in America since Roe v. Wade. And you want people to go play bingo instead?
I can understand that you are upset with seeing the pictures. They are upsetting. They show babies killed from abortion. No one wants to see that.
But, it's not Ok to just give up. Those same graphic signs changed the minds of at least two women this week who were scheduled for an abortion.
Two lives saved, plus two women spared from the horror of having aborted their own child.
I don't like the pictures either, but the reality of abortion is so much worse.
We can make a difference. But playing bingo won't do it. Perhaps you'll join us in praying out at the PP site sometime. Prayer can make a difference too.
God Bless,
Roger
July 19th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
michelle b,
Are you asking which is worse, the abortion facility or images of abortion?
As a pro-lifer, I'm hoping that you'll say that the abortion facility is worse. I know that the "pro-choice/abortion" blog-enthusiasts will say that the latter is worse.
God Bless,
Roger
July 19th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Anonymous,
I think that this is good advice, for both sides of the argument.
God Bless,
Roger
July 19th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Roger,
I am just very confused. You all are trying to say that you are concerned with the children, right? Isn't that why pro-lifers want to stop abortion? Yet you don't mind upsetting the children that are already here. It's very hyprocritical.
I think the praying and offering help to those that are pregnant is great. The pictures and scare tactics are just polarizing this issue and turning so many people off(because they feel the need to protect their children and therefore won't even listen to your argument!)
I just think that your point has been lost. You aren't acting like you care about the children, you are doing the opposite. I get what you are saying, the pictures are graphic, you hate them too and that is why abortion needs to be stopped-an adult can fully understand that. A child can not. Therefore, you are saying that you care more about scaring people than the community and the children in it.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Michelle B,
No, what people are saying is that it's more important to stop abortion, the actual killing of babies, than to worry about the possible negative effects on the couple children who may see the pictures. (Not that that is not a good concern. Which is why the Truth Tour normally put up warning signs, which I'm sorry that you did not see.)
People may disagree on the tactics of stopping abortion, and that's ok. I don't always like everything people do or say, but we need to agree that we need to stop abortion.
The right to life must be paramount.
Also, the word "hypocritical" certainly gets tossed around a lot - it's a bit over the top and overused.
God Bless,
Roger
July 20th, 2008 at 9:23 am
***Comments From Our Visitors Regarding the Graphic Photos of Abortion on our Website***
The Priests for Life website contains thousands of pages of text and hundreds of hours of audio files. Yet nothing we have ever posted has brought us more testimonies of conversion than the images of aborted babies. Emails continue to pour into our office from people who have been profoundly moved by these pictures. We want to share these reactions with you, and you can read them by clicking the links below.
You will see that the reactions are of many types. Many say they were "pro-choice," but that the pictures changed their minds. You will also read about many who were pro-life, and even actively fighting abortion, but who were energized to a whole new level of activity by seeing the pictures. There are also those who were actually pregnant and considering abortion, and the pictures changed their minds and saved the life of their babies.
Many of these people express the desire to have others see these images also. We hope you will join them, and us, in spreading these pictures to as many people as possible.
– Fr. Frank Pavone
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm
July 20th, 2008 at 9:53 am
A good place to start might be by honestly EDUCATING people on birth control, thus, reducing the need for abortion.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Mike,
Here's a "comment" from someone in the Chicago area. Her feelings are a bit different than the ones you describe.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Yes, we should be concerned for the children who are alive and viewing the pictures, but what about the children who are being killed?!!We must think about the ones that are in most danger, and that is the babies in the womb!
Question- How is it that the pro-life families who participate in the Face the Truth Tour, their kids see the pictures and are not destroyed by them?
Could it be they have a grounded faith in what is right and wrong, instilled by their parents, and realize that this thing, abortion, that bigger people do to their children is so very wrong and they then draw the conclusion in their little innocent minds that the good, and loving adults are showing these hurt children to stop the killing of them.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Stop being such a drama queen. Who said anyone was "destroyed" by them? Most normal people just find them incredibly offensive, inaccurate, and inappropriate for young children.
So are you saying Michelle's child had a problem with the photos because she didn't instill her son/daughter with a sense of what is right and wrong? How very judgmental of you — AGAIN!!!
July 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
A good place to start might be by honestly EDUCATING people on birth control, thus, reducing the need for abortion.
***Does Contraception Really Prevent Abortion?***
Hello, I am Fr. Tom Euteneuer, President of Human Life International, the world’s largest pro-life organization. Welcome to this series on contraception. I hope you can spare just a few minutes to view this important message.
This video series is a mini-catechesis about contraception from the Church’s point of view. I won’t try to cover every angle of the matter or say everything that could be said about the subject. My purpose is to deal concisely with some of the misconceptions about contraception in the general culture and offer a common sense response. I also hope that this email may be a tool that you will forward to others to evangelize our culture of death.
Now, our first topic is the question of whether contraception really prevents abortion.
It’s a common notion that if we have more contraception we would have less abortion. On the surface, it appears logical—just provide the means to more effectively prevent so-called unwanted pregnancies and that will reduce the number of unwanted babies and therefore abortions. But is this true? Has this theory proven itself, in any setting, in any society or country? My extensive travels and research in 49 countries of the world say no… but for a case study, let’s look at the United States.
We can count at least 15 types of contraception readily available to almost anyone at any time, day or night—and yet we’re faced with a staggering rate of abortion. One out of every three pregnancies in this country ends in abortion. According to the above logic, as the availability of contraception has increased we should have seen a dramatic decrease in the numbers of abortions, but 1.3 million abortions a year prove that this logic is fatally flawed. We are only fooling ourselves if we think that widely-available contraception reduces abortion.
In reality, rather than reducing abortions, contraception actually promotes and increases the numbers of abortions. Here’s how.
Let’s first consider one basic fact: Abortion is a multi-billion dollar business, and no business wants to reduce its bottom line. While you and I work towards eliminating abortion, the abortion industry has a vested interest in increasing those numbers. More abortions simply mean more profit. Granted, some embrace abortion for other reasons, but profit is the bottom line of the abortion business. In 2004 Planned Parenthood made about $90 million in revenues just selling abortion to American women.
And, their clients: women with unexpected and unwanted pregnancies
July 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
continued (Part 2)…
Given this client base, there are three main reasons why the abortion industry needs contraception:
The first is that the increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture. Contraception severs the link between sexual union and childbearing. No longer is sexual activity the exclusive domain of marriage but can be treated as a recreational activity supposedly without the responsibility of children. The so-called unwanted pregnancies that result from a promiscuous contraceptive culture are what drive the demand for abortion. Remember—the more promiscuity, the more unwanted pregnancies there are, and the more unwanted pregnancies, the more abortions there will be.
Secondly, all methods of contraception fail to prevent pregnancy a certain percentage of the time either through flaws in the method or through misuse. People have been so indoctrinated with the “safe sex” message that the potential for contraceptive failure is never even considered—until it happens of course—and then, faced with a crisis, people turn to quick fix solutions to escape the problem that was created by contraception in the first place. According to the Guttmacher Association, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, close to 60% of all women going into abortion mills do so because their contraception has failed. In other words, they are using abortion as a back-up to failed contraception.
Finally, contraception does not prevent abortion because contraception is, in many cases, a form of abortion. Medical science informs us that all hormonal methods of contraception may actually cause abortions at the earliest stages of pregnancy due to their chemical assault on the lining of the uterus which forbids the implantation of a newly-conceived baby a certain percentage of the time. That’s chemical abortion, and in the end we have the same result as surgical abortion: the death of an innocent human being.
The moral of the story is that contraception kills not only life but also love. It teaches people to be selfish and sexually irresponsible; it robs people of the only gifts they can really give: the gift of self to another in marriage and the gift of life. This is why the notion that contraception reduces the need for abortion is an idea that has to be challenged if we are really committed to reducing the number of abortions. The way to do that is to teach people to be self-controlled, to remind them that sex belongs in marriage and that contraception is just another way of buying into the culture of death, whether married or not.
Well I'll end here and ask you to pick up the torch; please send this email to as many people as you can which you can do by clicking the forward button just below this screen, and then check out further resources on contraception on our website at http://www.hli.org.
Church Militant, keep up the good fight for the soul of our nation. God bless you!
–Fr. Thomas Euteneuer
President of Human Life International
July 20th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Yep. Taking away contraception will certainly decrease abortions. Mike, you are not interested in stopping abortion — you are simply interested in stopping people from having sex unless it's ok'd in advance by the Catholic Church. Most of the world is not Catholic and doesn't care what the RCC has to say.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
a Contraception Why Not? by Dr. Janet Smith.
Mike
July 20th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Michelle b.,
Honest questions for you…Do you take your 4-year old trick-or-treating for Halloween? If so, how does she deal with the blood and gore on that day?
If not, do you keep your 4-year old shielded from the aisles in WalMart, Walgreens and the likes for fear she may NOT be able to deal with the blood and gore?
Do you write to the local Police stations to let them know that the mangled cars displayed in their front parking lots to help show what cars look like after drunk-driving accidents upset your 4-year old as well? How can your 4-year old after seeing a mangled car ever possibly get in yours again?
When you go to church, do you ask the pastor/priest to take down the bloodied and mangled body of Jesus off of the cross so it doesn't upset your 4-year old?
I'm not trying to be snarky at all, Michelle. These are honest questions. I really would appreciate your side of them.
Thank you.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Student, (July 20th, 2008 at 4:00 pm)
I agree. Only because from what I was told, the RCC also condemns condoms.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Marie,
I know we are probably on the same side being pro-life on the abortion issue but I have one question for you.
Why would you be for condoms over NFP? Studies show NFP has so many advantages over condoms.
The divorce rate for those using condoms is around 50%. For those using NFP its 0-4%. NFP is natural. Condoms are unnatural. Using NFP is more effective than condoms. With condoms you are playing the role of God. With NFP you are still leaving the decision up to God. There is just so many more advantages with NFP.
Please visit ccli.org for The Couple to Couple League.
Check out the NFP topics at the following website & especially read about "Why do NFP Couples Have Such Low Divorce Rates?"
http://www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&cat=Birth%20Control
Mike
July 20th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Right now http://www.omsoul.com/ is offering giving out FREE CD copies of Dr. Janet Smith's "Contraception Why Not?". This is an excellent talk!
Once you are at the omsoul.com website look in the upper left hand corner to get your free CD.
Pete
July 20th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Mike,
Agreed. We are on the same side. (anti-abortion) YAY!
I'm not against NFP, but it is a predominantly Catholic practice if I'm not mistaken. So, does any of the side effects, breakage, etc. that occurs with other birth control methods even matter to a person following the laws of the RCC? Or is it just because it is the ONLY approved method that the RCC allows, and regardless of any other BC method out there, you would also be against them for that reason? Seriously, if there was a proven method of never, ever ever getting pregant by simply drinking a glass of water at 10:00 pm sharp, and the RCC didn't approve of this method, no matter how safe it was, you wouldn't support the 10:00 drink. I believe that's the point Student was trying to make and the one that I agreed with. On another note, I don't believe that a man using a condom is playing the role of God. If God really wanted to give the couple a gift of a child, the condom would break. He is God, after all…He can make ANYTHING happen!
And, in regards to your other statement regarding the divorce rates, doesn't the RCC NOT recognize divorce, but rather annulments? I'd be interested to see poll results that show the # of annulments in regard to couples using NFP. Just a thought.
Mike, again: I am not against NFP. I wouldn't use it, though. All of my Catholic friends that use NFP and have children have 5 plus. To me, at least, WAAAAY too many kids for me! But God bless those who can handle that many!
July 20th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Great info. Mike!! I have been distributing Janet Smith's Contraception Why Not tapes. She is very good. God Bless you! Karen K.
For all LONG time now contraception has been widely used and encouraged and abortions have skyrocketed as well as venereal diseases, not to mention the divorce rate is pathetic. I thought contraception was going to be the solve all, and make "free love" free from all of that.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Marie,
We will have to agree to disagree on condoms for now. I have to work tomorrow and have to get to bed.
Mike
July 20th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
OK, here is my last post for the night.
***NFP vs. Contraception***
Natural Family Planning is the knowledge of a couple’s fertility. It is a knowledge base about a couple’s ability to conceive a child.
The application of this knowledge in a particular marriage is called responsible parenthood. The couple either decides to try to achieve a pregnancy or to avoid by timing their use of the privileges of marriage according to the knowledge of their mutual fertility. (The man, if healthy, is fertile all the time. The woman, if healthy, is fertile about three or four days a month.)
Responsible parenthood differs from contraception in two ways:
1. There is no alteration of the bodies of either the husband or wife and this is a huge difference.
2. When the couple uses the privileges of marriage, they are not holding back at all or refusing to give everything they are, physically and spiritually.
If they are infertile at the time, this is the result of the way God created them. They are giving themselves totally to one another AS THEY ARE AT THAT MOMENT. No one could require more.
Further, God never asked couples to use the privileges of marriage at any particular time. That decision is completely theirs. So, in the marital act during an infertile period, husband and wife who are applying the knowledge of their fertility (NFP) responsibly (responsible parenthood) are giving everything they are at that moment to one another.
The intention is also different. The NFP couple realizes that in every marital union there is a chance (perhaps remote) of conceiving a child and they accept this possibility. The contracepting couple (even if only with condoms) has a positive intention against conception.
An example might help: I want some money from a bank. It makes a huge difference whether I go to the bank and draw the money out from a checking account or whether I approach a teller with a gun and "withdraw" $100. Either way, I get the $100, but one act is radically differnt from the other.
Mike
July 20th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
marie,
your questions to michelle are so utterly ridiculous.You people think you can compare those pictures to things that don't even come close to the absolute horror that you force on INNOCENT people ,children included.You are so one sided and full of yourself that you refuse to listen to anyone that may disagree.but then again that goes for anyone that is pro-life.I am not pro-abortion however I am pro-choice simpy because I am anti-child abuse,anti child neglect,anti-fostercare etc….. You however don't care about any of that as long as everyone does things the way you want.I think you should reexamine yourself before you question anyone about anything
July 20th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Marie says: "I'm not against NFP, but it is a predominantly Catholic practice if I'm not mistaken."
"Most people don't know that every Christian church up until 1930 taught that contraception was wrong. There was a universal teaching against contraception within Christian churches. It was only in 1930 that the Anglican church first broke with that unbroken tradition and approved contraception within marriage for serious reasons." Janet Smith
Dear Marie,
The site Mike posted ( post 77)Contraception Why Not? By Dr. Janet Smith, may answer many questions you might have. It is a bit long, but very interesting, so you may want to print it out for reading convenence.God Bless, Karen K.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
unanonymous says: "absolute horror"
with referring to the aborted baby pictures.
Yes, abortion is horrific! And it is happening all the time. It is a SILENT HOLOCAUST, why? Because it has been kept silent on purpose!
IT CAN NO LONGER STAY SILENT!
ONE BABY DIES BY ABORTION APROX. EVERY 25 SECONDS IN AMERICA!
When abortion is hidden abortion is tolerated
When abortion is seen everything changes
Don’t hate the messenger hate the injustice (AbortionNO.org)
The Jews in Nazi Germany, as they were being tortured and killed in the Concentration camps wished someone was making the world see pictures of their mangled bodies and starved bodies IN TIME (can you even imagine the desperation!) so others could have been saved from such a terrible fate that was perpetrated by people who didn't want them in this world.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
ABORTION STATISTICS
Do You Know The Hard Facts About Abortion In America?
Do You Know? That due to the radical scope of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, a right to abortion was effectively established for the entire term of pregnancy for virtually any reason, whether for sake of personal finances, social convenience, or individual lifestyle…Therefore, no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy.
Do You Know? At 22 days after conception, a baby's heart is already beating.
Do You Know? At 6 weeks, brain waves can be measured. At 8 weeks, the stomach, liver, and kidneys are functioning, and fingerprints have formed. At 9 weeks, the unborn child can feel pain.
Do You Know? That 700,000 abortions are performed each year in America after 9 weeks into the pregnancy.
Do You Know? The overwhelming majority of all abortions, 93%, are done as a means of birth control. Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest; 3% because of fetal abnormalities; 3% due to the mother's health problems.(Heritage House)
July 21st, 2008 at 1:06 am
Nonsense! Try actually reading the law. LTA's are illegal (and should remain so) unless there is a medically necessary reason for perform one (i.e., the life of the mother is at stake or there is severe fetal deformity). See Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:28 am
WRONG!
Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.
Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence
Susan J. Lee, JD; Henry J. Peter Ralston, MD; Eleanor A. Drey, MD, EdM; John Colin Partridge, MD, MPH; Mark A. Rosen, MD
Journal of the American Medical Association 2005;294:947-954.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:33 am
Actually, Student, if you read Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, you would know that it is legal to have an abortion from conception to birth if it is necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Health is determined in light of all factors relevant to the woman's well being (including psychological). Abortionists can say that in their medical judgment continued pregnancy will cause mental distress to the pregnant woman and that would be sufficient.
Indeed, if you go to Dr. George Tiller's website, he advertises for elective second trimester abortions. And tells clients that for third trimester abortions, it must be medically necessary but that it will be determined on a case by case basis (by him). So if Dr. Tiller decides it's medically necessary, it's legal.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:43 am
Yes, that is exactly the point. Some couples *don't want to have children*. Is that really such a difficult concept? And these couples *still want to have sex*. Is THAT such a difficult concept? So, to be able to have sex AND to not have children, we use contraception. In my case, I've had a vasectomy. That is a minor alteration that makes it possible to 'fully give myself' with my partner without having to *worry* that conception will happen. Others want to delay having children, so they use less permanent forms of birth control. That is called 'being responsible'.
Truthfully, to teach NFP seems to me to be completely irresponsible. It has a HUGE failure rate in practice. It ignores that sperm can live in the woman for a week, so that '4 days' is simply a lie. Even in the context of a marriage, having conception as a possibility for every sex act seems insane and irresponsible. Outside of marriage it is simply stupid.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:52 am
John,
I'm familiar with the case, but thanks for mentioning it. You are correct, for a LTA to occur, it must be MEDICALLY necessary. While I, personally, am not in favor of the procedure, I do believe it should be up to a physician to determine the necessity of the procedure on an individual basis. I certainly do not have the medical background or knowledge to make that decision.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:03 am
And you agree that the doctor making the determination is generally the abortionist, correct? And you agree that familial concerns (i.e. it would be mentally difficult for me to have another child) would be sufficient under Doe?
You're examples of "life of the mother is at stake or there is severe fetal deformity" was completely too narrow.
Also, I don't know how you define "LTA." If you mean post-viability, it is true that states can (although, they are not legally required to) make abortions illegal after viability if they have a health exception. But that health exception swallows the rule.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:10 am
John,
I agree that the person who performs the abortion, in most cases, is a physician. Some states do allow the procedure to be performed by nurse practitioners.
Would you prefer to have no health exception?
I think you're using the "extreme" example of "I don't feel like being pregnant" as an example of a "life of the mother" issue. I simply don't think this is the case. Now, if you have evidence to show that I'm incorrect, I'd happily look at it.
As I believe I've stated before, I think the extremes — on BOTH sides of this issue — are simply nuts (that would include, in my opinion, most of the people associated with FAPP and most of the people associated with NOW).
July 21st, 2008 at 8:30 am
Sorry, the above post was from Student. I used a general computer at work that, apparently, AuroraRes used last.
Sorry BN — I didn't mean to attribute my words to you.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:31 am
My point was when they talk about a doctor making a determination that it is medically necessary, it is generally the same doctor who has a financial interest in the abortion going forward.
"I think you're using the "extreme" example of "I don't feel like being pregnant" as an example of a "life of the mother" issue. I simply don't think this is the case. Now, if you have evidence to show that I'm incorrect, I'd happily look at it."
Again, it's not life of the mother issue, it's the health of the mother. Read Doe–health is the key and that includes all factors relevant to the mother's well being–including "familial" and "psychological."
Further, abortionists have stated, quite correctly, that continued pregnancy poses a risk to every pregnant woman because pregnancy itself involves some risk of danger to the health of the mother. Therefore, if a woman wants an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, the abortionist can say that he/she is doing it in the interest of the woman's health.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:43 am
Honest questions for you…Do you take your 4-year old trick-or-treating for Halloween? If so, how does she deal with the blood and gore on that day?
She deals just fine. It's fake and she knows it. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, most little children dress up as princesses and animals. We don't take her trick or treating at 10pm. I have NEVER seen a small child dressed up with blood and gore. Not sure where you live, but not where I am.
If not, do you keep your 4-year old shielded from the aisles in WalMart, Walgreens and the likes for fear she may NOT be able to deal with the blood and gore?
I have never seen blood and gore in wal-mart, walgreens, etc. What are you talking about??!
Do you write to the local Police stations to let them know that the mangled cars displayed in their front parking lots to help show what cars look like after drunk-driving accidents upset your 4-year old as well? How can your 4-year old after seeing a mangled car ever possibly get in yours again?
A mangled car is not a bloody baby. Period. A mangled car is sitting silently on the curb in ONE location. Not all over the place in many locations with commotion surrounding. Another silly question….
When you go to church, do you ask the pastor/priest to take down the bloodied and mangled body of Jesus off of the cross so it doesn't upset your 4-year old?
Nope. Again, it's not a bloody baby. You are comparing apples and oranges and discrediting yourself even more.
I'm not trying to be snarky at all, Michelle. These are honest questions. I really would appreciate your side of them.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any comparison to what you are asking. On the flip side, do you allow your children to watch horror movies and pornographic films? Probably not because YOU have deemed it inappropriate. Unfortunetly, you people have taken that choice away from my family and I and not for one second do I believe that any of you care about children and the community. Quite the contrary…you care only about "winning" and scarring people, at any price. It's all propoganda and very polarizing. The disgusting pictures you pride yourself on showing represent something that is not even occuring at PP. They don't do late term abortions, and you know that. Therefore, you are misleading people in a sick, disgusting, manner.
Keep going! You are turning more and more people off to your cause-myself included. I have actually been in touch with Planned Parenthood and plan on volunteering there. I want people to know the TRUTH, not what you are leading them to believe. Although I would never have one myself, what you are doing is wrong and you have actually changed my stance. I am believing now more than ever in the woman's right to choose and learn the REAL facts.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Michelle B,
I'm sorry that you are resorting to this. But perhaps when you are there you can ask to view an abortion, or maybe the remains of one, to "know the TRUTH" and see "the REAL facts". Perhaps then you will change your mind.
God Bless,
Roger
July 21st, 2008 at 11:15 am
No, Roger, you can't sit in and "watch" an abortion — or any other medical procedure (including getting a case history). Patients have something called privacy rights. If you think seeing the byproduct of a first term abortion would change minds, why aren't you putting that up on your gorn porn posters?
NOTE TO MICHELLE: This group apparently has caused more people to become actively involved in this issue than almost anything else I know of. I certainly wasn't active (or willing to take a stand) until this group came along. If you do volunteer at PP, you'll get to experience first-hand just how much they care about the women going into the clinic. For me, it was a real eye opener.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Dear Michelle, If you say you were pro-life but because of us putting the truth of what abortion is,abortion not just here in Aurora, Il. but abortions all over this world, you will then volunteer at Planned Parenthood? Wow, sounds to me like your moral convictions are on very shaky ground. I do not me to be judgenmental as people are suggesting, I am just making an observation based on what you have said. Also, it sounds like a spite thing. What you are then telling your child, whom you are very worried about in regard to viewing those pictures, that you are fine with that reality, and support what abortion does to other humans. Again I say:
Yes, we should be concerned for the children who are alive and viewing the pictures, but what about the children who are being killed?!!We must think about the ones that are in MOST DANGER, and that is the babies in the womb!
Yes, abortion is horrific! And it is happening all the time. It is a SILENT HOLOCAUST, why? Because it has been kept silent ON PURPOSE!!
IT CAN NO LONGER STAY SILENT!
ONE BABY DIES BY ABORTION APROX. EVERY 25 SECONDS IN AMERICA!
When abortion is hidden abortion is tolerated
When abortion is seen everything changes
Don’t hate the messenger hate the injustice (AbortionNO.org)
The Jews in Nazi Germany, as they were being tortured and killed in the Concentration camps wished someone was making the world see pictures of their mangled bodies and starved bodies IN TIME (can you even imagine the desperation!) so others could have been saved from such a terrible fate that was perpetrated by people who didn't want them in this world.
IF you, Michelle and your daughter were one of those being killed in those camps, I believe you wouldn't care who saw the pictures of what was going on at that camp, just so help would arrive in time, especially before your little one was killed.
If you say to me you would not want the pictures shown, I believe you could say such a thing only because it isn't really happening to you or your daughter.
The killing of the innocent must stop!
July 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Student,
Obviously, Student! But you miss the point, although the point was not directed to you, but "michelle b".
God Bless,
Roger
July 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Roger,
I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that I was only to reply to posts directed to me. I missed that in the rule book. However, my post IS directed to you. If you think seeing the byproduct of a first term abortion would change minds, why aren't you putting that up on your gorn porn posters?
July 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Student,
I did not make up the so-called "gore porn" as you like to call it.
The reason to not use first term abortions is that would be harder to see the human-likeness, obviously. It doesn't make the first term baby any less human though.
Sometimes it's hard to see the "human-ness" of people on the web, but it doesn't make them any less human.
God Bless,
Roger
July 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I didn't mean to insinuate that "you" actually prepared the posters. However, you (FAPP) certainly support their use. As to the phrase "gore porn," I wish I could take credit for it. In truth, someone else used it in relation to being assaulted by your group (or one similar to it) downtown last week. Regardless, it is quite fitting.
It sure wouldn't look anything like your posters, would it? So you (FAPP) attempt to further your cause by spreading lies and misinformation about Aurora PP. It certainly backfired in my case — and it appears to have backfired in Michelle's case as well. I wonder how many more of us are out there?
July 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Professor (93): Perhaps it seems counter-intuitive, but when NFP is followed according to the rules it is actually more successful in spacing pregnancies/preventing unwanted pregnancies than the pill. As for the condecension and sarcasm it does not help make your point, in fact it does just the opposite.
Student (94): I am glad you do not favor late term abortions. One presumes there must be a reason not to like them–perhaps because they kill an almost completely formed unborn baby?
July 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
It is always interesting that those who claim others as being judgemental–a charge frequently made in this blog–are themselves judging the motives and actions of others. What is it we heard when we were children–that when pointing a finger three others are pointed back at oneself? The same with the charges of bigotry that are leveled against us. The contempt for Christians, in particular the Catholic Church that surfaces in these entries is not bigotry?
Alexis de Tocqueville had it right when he said: "Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot." It is people of faith who will always be the backbone of our republic. It is the responsibility of free people to govern themselves with restraint and respect for God's law. When we lose that we lose all.
Another interesting juxtaposition is that of those who see nothing wrong with abortion but yet are offended by the pictures of unborn babies who were aborted. Why is that? If abortion does not kill an unborn child then what is there to be upset about? Their solution to the evil of abortion is to attack the motives of those who oppose abortion even as they seek to censor those who dare to show the truth.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I think Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said, "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Why is that???? Perhaps if you read the posts you might have a clue. People are offended because you expose THEIR young children to your gore porn. If you want to do a mass mailing to Congress, the Senate or even the entire State — fine. But don't expose innocent young children to this. Why is it you have such difficulty grasping this concept?
As to being judgmental, just read the posts. They really do speak for themselves. By the way, if you happen to save a fetus that grows up to be gay and wants the same civil rights that you enjoy, will you support that? Or, will you instead attempt to tell him/her that this sin will result in eternal damnation? Hey, that wouldn't be "judging," would it?
July 21st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
michelle b said: "I myself am pro-life, but the scare tactics(which any intelligent individual would recognize as just that….late term abortions are not even legal in this country without medical reason…) are sickening. I have spoken to several families in the area and at my church and all are appalled. You truly are making "normal" pro-lifers look bad."
and then, said THIS!
"Keep going! You are turning more and more people off to your cause-myself included. I have actually been in touch with Planned Parenthood and plan on volunteering there. I want people to know the TRUTH, not what you are leading them to believe. Although I would never have one myself, what you are doing is wrong and you have actually changed my stance. I am believing now more than ever in the woman's right to choose and learn the REAL facts."
OH NO! Michelle, I am so sorry that we have offended you with pictures of what abortion is (whether it's early or late term). The questions I asked you were honest questions that I have heard before, and I just wanted to see your point of view on them. Thank you for your response.
I must say, though, that I was SHOCKED that you went from pro-life to pro-choice and now want to become a PP volunteer! How sad. I mean, how sad that these signs made you suddenly feel that killing babies is ok. That's the total opposite effect people are supposed to have after seeing them. I can't believe it. I'm stunned. My jaw is still in the "dropped" position. I had no idea.
Michelle, I have another honest questions for you. If this group can promise YOU that they will never, ever, ever show another gory sign again, will you please, please change your heart and mind once again to believe that the murder of these innocent human lives is wrong? Could I possibly do anything…anything at all to convince your manipulitive mind to be pro-life again?
Please. You're not the first to pull this one, and probably won't be the last.
To all of the loving mothers here with sons: Please, tell them to beware of manipulative women. It's great advice that will pay itself back again and again over their lifetimes.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
PICTURES: Not so smart, Planned Parenthood holds Truth Truck Hostage
—–
Planned Parenthood could be summed up in the words of Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does".
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/not_so_smart_pl.html#comments
Mike
July 21st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Student says: "I think Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said, "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
I have to ask, what brought this on? You've made it clear that you don't believe in God and dislike Christianity. Fair enough. But this is a gratuitous jab at the majority of readers here that was in response to nothing but your evident frustration or dislike of the people here. Why bother? What does it get you other than a further demonstration that you're a rude, bitter little person who is wasting her time on a website, spewing bile?
July 21st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
More from the Sweet & Sour Fetus lady. Great!
July 21st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
See post #108, 2nd paragraph.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Student,
They would looks similar, like these pictures here (warning, graphic images of first trimester abortion):
First Trimester Abortion Photos - Index Page
First Trimester Abortion Photos - 8 Weeks
First Trimester Abortion Photos - 10 Weeks
First Trimester Abortion Photos - 11 Weeks
I'm sorry, but what is the lie and misinformation? Holding a sign of an aborted second trimester baby does not mean "This is exactly what they do there". Who said this? The sign says "they do abortions here, abortions kill babies". To pro-life people, it matters not the age of the child as it does to you.
I doubt it's backfired in your case - you are pro-choice/abortion. You don't believe in the right to life of unborn children. You think it's OK to kill these "fetuses". Personal preferences trump all.
And I'm sure that Michelle B will come around if she is truly pro-life.
Besides, Student, think of all the people who are praying for Michelle B and for you. You probably think it's a waste, but then again I think that a lot of the time people spend here on the blog is a waste too.
God Bless,
Roger
July 21st, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Personally I don't believe this whole fiasco about "I used to be pro-life now that I have seen the pictures of aborted, innocent babies, now I am pro-choice, and will help PP". I am glad to know you guys aren't really buying this hogwash. Could most of these so-called pro-choicers be the same person pulling your chain again like student and others? I am asking you fellow pro-lifers to consider that you are wasting time with these people who are laughing as you give your pearls of wisdom for preserving life but you are "casting your pearls before swine" Matthew 7:6. PP must be really angry that Steve Trombley lied when he said you would all get tired in a few months and go away.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Thank God there are people like FAPP and the Pro-Life Action League! They are the most thoroughly decent, down to earth, humble and charitable people I have ever known. Giving of their very lives to help save God's children and the mother's lives from a life of regret, heartache and sometimes early death. They are the brave soldiers for the most innocent of humans! I am filled with such joy, and I am humbled to be a part of the fighting brigade against abortion. Fighting this war against the Evil One and all of His lies and deceptions. And we all know who wins in the end. In the meantime, let’s pray many more join us as we continue to forge ahead to the bright light of our Lord Jesus Christ!
P.S. Did you all hear about St.Padre Pio! They exhumed his body and he looks like he has been just sleeping for the last 40 years! For those who do not believe, there are many other saints that are also incorrupt, and have been investigated thoroughly by scientists many of whom were trying to disprove the truth of such a thing to be possible. The truth WILL set us free, and the TRUTH of those aborted baby pictures will set many babies free from the grips of abortionist!!
July 21st, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Re: post 91
Student,
Your assertion that preborn babies cannot feel pain is hogwash (lots of that here lately). Stay out of the biological sphere. You don't belong there. You don't have a background in it and you won't take the time to learn what makes for good research.
Some doctors claim that babies can't feel pain until their brains are more developed, especially the prefrontal cortex: "Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness…" WRONG!
Those doctors are approaching the issue from the wrong angle. They are confusing awareness with pain.
Now, doctors really know nothing about pain in the preborn, as it is unethical to experiment on them. So let's turn to a field of study that has more leeway in its research and is used to dealing with beings that can't communicate: veterinary medicine. Please see this study, Distress in Animals: Is it Fear, Pain or Physical Stress?. It is extremely informative and fascinating.
The quick summary: The authors were looking into the question of animal pain, suffering, fear, and stress. They noted differences between species in size of the prefrontal cortex of the brain. If that part of the brain is relatively smaller in cats than dogs, does that mean cats suffer less than dogs? No. Their findings relevant to this discussion: While the prefrontal cortex is responsible for emotions and feelings (or "conscious recognition" and "awareness", if you'd prefer), and is the source of the internalization of pain ( = "suffering"), pain can still be felt acutely without the prefrontal cortex. In other words, a person can still feel pain after a lobotomy that disconnects the PFC, but will be smiling as soon as the pain stops, as there is no emotionalization of the pain. Hence, "suffering", in a clinical sense, does not exist, but pain still does. In fact, the lobotomy studies they cite were carried out in humans in the 1940s and 50s, when that was the way to treat certain medical conditions.
So, while a preborn baby may not technically be able to experience "suffering" as his arms are being torn off, he may very well be experiencing excruciating pain. But the internalization of pain in the form of suffering is moot when the baby does not live past the experience of pain.
But after all this, the question remains, why have you selected the arbitrary criteria of pain perception for determining the value and existence of a human life?
July 21st, 2008 at 11:56 pm
#93
Professor,
Regarding NFP, "It ignores that sperm can live in the woman for a week, so that '4 days' is simply a lie."
Citations, please.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Sylvia, it isn't MY assertion — it came from the Journal of the American Medical Association. Given that they are the experts, I'm sure they know more than either one of us. Sorry, but I'll take the word of their physicians in a peer-reviewed study than I will yours. Your degree is in what again?
Is this a study on animals in utero or animals that have been born?
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 am
Given the most ideal conditions (ideal vaginal/uterine environments, fertile CM, strong sperm health, etc) sperm may be able to survive between six and seven days.
Source
Once sperm travels through the cervix, however, its lifespan increases even more dramatically. Sperm may survive in the Fallopian tubes for as long as 7 days, but generally survives for around 3 to 5 days. This means that fertilization can occur even if the sperm are deposited as much as a full week prior to ovulation.
Source
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 am
The preminition someone has to "feel pain" to be considered a human being is a ridiculous assertion by Pro-Aborts anyhow. Pro-Aborts are constantly trying to redefine when life begins to suite their needs.
Let's say for example a 30 year old man is paralyzed all over his body due to a automobile accident. Because he can no longer feel pain does not give us license to kill him.
Mike
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:51 am
That's to say nothing about the kids in this documentary. It's a film called A Life Without Pain about some little kids who have a disorder that does not allow their nerves to sense pain. As such they have all manner of difficulties with things like hurting themselves and not knowing it.
A person like that can't feel pain, is it ok to hurt them?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
I don't think the "pain" issue is relevant to the discussion. However, KarenK made a factually inaccurate statement re when a fetus feels pain. I simply corrected her with the appropriate information from the Journal of the American Medical Association.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
The fetal pain question is not at all central to the abortion debate. Whether the unborn child suffers pain during an abortion or not is secondary to the much bigger reality; the child is being killed. Quietly shooting someone in their sleep makes you no less guilty of murder than if you had stabbed them to death. Providing an unborn child with anesthesia so you can kill them "humanely" makes abortion no less heinous.
The real significance of the fetal pain question is in it's implications about the unborn. People feel pain. Inanimate clumps of cells do not. This is what is at stake. This is why most abortion supporters work so hard to oppose legislation like The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, introduced on January 26, 2005. This is why they call all such enactments "inflammatory anti-abortion propaganda". What would The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act require? It requires that abortion providers notify any woman seeking an abortion more than 20 weeks after fertilization that there is growing medical evidence that the preborn child in her womb can feel "severe and extreme pain" during an abortion. If she decides to go through with the abortion, she would be offered anesthesia for the baby in order to lessen its suffering.
The fact that fetuses can feel pain is really quite obvious. Since newborn babies can feel pain, fetuses can feel pain. There is no pain switch which suddenly switches to "on" during the journey through the birth canal. The only question is when do fetuses feel pain? The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act places a fetus' ability to feel pain at 20 weeks from fertilization, about half way through pregnancy. Twenty weeks is a conservative enough estimate that even some prominent abortion supporters have conceded it's reliability.
In the end, the question of fetal pain, like almost all abortion controversy comes down to who you believe. Many pro-life doctors maintain that fetuses can feel pain by 8 weeks after fertilization (about the time most surgical abortions take place). Pro-abortion doctors tend to argue that fetuses don't experience pain until the very end of pregnancy. Whose testimony is more reliable, those who have a financial interest in the availability of abortion or those who don't? Ethically speaking, who is going to be less likely to lie, those who believe dismembering living human beings is a legitimate medical practice or those who don't?
ABORT73.com
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I agree, but you seem to want to continue to debate the topic.
Citations?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Educator,(117). I agree that we must not get carried away with this blog as there are many things that deserve priority attention. As long as we keep on focus and do not get distracted from our primary mission we can still keep up on this blog as it reveals a lot about the pro-abortion mentality. Matthew 7:6 is also most appropriate.
Student,(110). Actually "gore porn" is not really porn at all if a person does not believe that abortion kills an unborn child. The pro-choicers who get exercised over the display of that which they promote want to have it both ways. They want to believe that abortion does not kill a child, in fact many are PROUD of abortion, but when we show the truth about what happens in an abortion they say THAT is unconscionable.
Also, the choice of Jefferson's anti-christian screed illustrates the point made about bigotry. This is just another example of the contempt (see again post 109, first paragraph) shown for things Christian by the pro-choice bloggers.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I thought name calling was going to stop but I guess those bible totin busy body know it all's like Mike don't know how to be civil.If you can't be civil in blog then you are probably one of those violent Anti-choicers.We are NOT PRO_ABORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are pro-choice.Thank you very much jerk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Mike,
Life is like a box of chocolates.You never know what your going to get.People have a choice to eat them or not.Or should we all just eat them to satisfy everyone else?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Student,
Try citing sources that cite THEIR sources. The most common sperm survival claim I found was up to 5 days. The actual medical research said 80 - 85 hours, in some cases 112-120hrs (5 days), but the concentration at that point was too low to test fertility.
And in "rare cases", 7 days.
The only reason I even bothered to post this is that you are trying to discredit NFP, which is an effective
, moral means of spacing births. Though you will probably refuse to accept this, others who read this blog should know the truth.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
"bible totin busy body"
Kathy, I remember you saying you have faith in God.
If one is pro-life then the opposite of that is pro-abortion- but I think the true antonym of
pro-life is pro-death. Life-death do you see?
Why do you get so offended by the term pro-abort?
ok then Pro-choice-
Choice of the mother killing her child.
I have been praying for you, please do not get offended by that. Peace, Karen
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Student,
Nothing you have cited shows that a preborn baby CANNOT feel pain earlier. One more time: The research you cited says that in the preborn baby, "Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness…" Now, please go back and READ the research I cited for you. It shows that a being can experience pain without the prefrontal cortex that is required for "conscious recognition or awareness". The pain is simply not internalized and emotionalized, which the researchers refer to as "suffering", denoting longer-term stress. But, as was shown in lobotomized human patients, they CAN experience acute pain in the moment; only, when the painful event is over, they act as if nothing had happened. Long-term stress is not relevant to the preborn child whose life ends after his limbs are torn off.
Words ARE important. I'm not refuting that perhaps older preborn babies can "suffer" at a different level than younger ones. But nothing in your citation addresses the pain experience at a more primitive level. Read your research. Read my research. See the difference?
And Student, to answer your question, my degree is in biology. I was headed toward a career in medicine at one point. God's given me the abilities and aptitude to pick any career I would have liked. For now, I have the most challenging job in the world–that of a mother.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Hello,
Abortions are only a small percentage of the services that PP provides the community. Many PP centers offer prenatal care, and many do not perform abortions. Instead, they offer free or low-cost birth control, sti screening, and sex education. So while you are protesting and handing out your false and exaggerated literature, you are intimidating and annoying women and girls who are just trying to PREVENT a pregnacy– i.e. getting on a method of birth control. Shouldn't you be praising them for being responsible?
And PP doesn't blindly hand out birth control– it's accompanied by instructions, a review of health concerns, and a session with a nurse to discuss any concerns and other options.
And one more note about abortion. It is my impression that PP doesn't want a woman to have to experience an abortion if she doesn't want to. They offer information about adoption and parenting along with abortion information. They encourage patients to consider all of their options, and then it comes down to the patient's CHOICE.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
truthseeker says:
Kathy,
What conversations have you been reading.
1) I am happily married in a monogamous relationship, professor has multiple partners and has revealed his interest in making sure his daughter gets sexual experience…. Big red flag!!!
Student says:
(1) Professor DID NOT "reveal his interest in making sure his daughter gets sexual experience." He said he expects she will be sexually active before marriage (if she chooses marriage at all). Leave it to you to turn it into something perverse — then again, that is how you see sexuality in general.
Student,
Like yourself, Professor is all about teaching and encouraging sexuality among yound adults. Why do you deny it and take offensive to it. You are all about promotig sexuality and teenwire. In the past the professor has stated how he would help his daughter get materials to explore her sexuality; and see for yourself in his own words since my post:
the professor says:
I would be VERY concerned if she doesn't have at least a few partners before getting married (if she ever does). July 19th, 2008 at 7:19 am
truthseeker says:
What does the phrase VERY concerned mean to you Student.
Notice how he captalized the word VERY for emphasis. What about you Student? Would you be VERY concerned if your daughter had not chosen to have sex by the age of 24? What if she decided not to have sex at all, would that cause you great concern? Do you have a problem with people who choose NOT to have sex except for procreative reasons? Tell us why those kinds of people cause you such great concern?
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:13 am
BTW Student- those pictures of aborted babies are offensive because of what they represent. I don't know where you sick minded people like Student get off calling them porn. They actually the result of your insatiable desire for sex with procreative intent and your irresponsibility as adults. You people who think abortion is OK are the creators of those horrid photographs. We just show your handiwork for the rest to see. And you have the nerve to say it is hurting the minds of the children to see what you do. It is your self-righteousness and arrogance in devaluing the lives of these children in the womb that is so appalling to my childrens sensibilities. They understand that the pictures are just pictures. What they don't understand is how could anybody do that to a baby.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 am
Above should have read:
They are actually the result of people like you with your insatiable desire for sex WITHOUT procreative intent and your irresponsibility to care as adults for the children you conceive.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:22 am
does planned parenthood help teens & women now?
Some women who have been clients of Planned Parenthood have suffered
injury or death. In 2002, Diana Lopez, 25, bled to death after her cervix was
punctured during an abortion.1
Holly Patterson, 18, died in 2003, one week after she underwent an early
abortion using mifepristone (RU-486).2 Although she was impregnated at age
17 by a 24 year-old man, Planned Parenthood did not explore the possibility of
statutory rape. Holly’s parents didn’t know until it was too late.3
Additional cases of Planned Parenthood malpractice, unsanitary conditions
and more are documented in The Scarlet Survey by Kevin Sherlock
(Brennyman Books, 1997).
From 1977 through 2005, Sanger’s Planned
Parenthood performed 4,068,749 abortions. Planned
Parenthood’s 2005-2006 annual report states that
the organization committed 264,943 abortions in
the United States in 2005. This excludes abortions
caused by hormonal “contraceptives” such as the
birth control pill, the Patch, Depo-Provera, RU-
486, or the “morning after pill,” which can prevent
implantation after a new life is conceived. Of the
hundreds of thousands of women it served, Planned
Parenthood referred only 1,774 women for adoption
in 2004 – a ratio of more than 140 abortions
committed for each adoption referral.
how much money does planned
parenthood receive?
In 2006, Planned Parenthood Federation of
America reported a record income of $902 million,
with a profit of $56 million. That year, PPFA
received $305.3 million in government grants and
contracts. More than one-third of Planned Par-
enthood’s budget comes from taxpayers. In spite
of an average of $20 million in “excess revenue
over expenses” annually, Planned Parenthood lobbyists are continually in
Congress and state legislatures fighting for more government funding.
1 The Sacramento Bee, June 19, 2003.
2 San Francisco Chronicle, September 19, 2003.
3 An Open Letter from the Parents of Holly Patterson, November 6, 2003.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:42 am
Yes, I am for young adults learning about their sexuality. I have no attachment to teenwire specifically, but I do see it as important for good quality information about sex to be available to teens. That includes information about diseases, birth control, communication in relationships, and the variety of ways to get sexual pleasure (masturbation, oral, anal, toys, etc). Why are you against this? At what point would you think this information should be available?
I see those people who choose only to have sex for procreation to be resigning themselves to a less fulfilling life. Yes, I would be VERY concerned if my daughter (or, if I had a son, my son) chose to live their lives celibate or to only have sex for creating children. I see the whole attitude as narrow-minded. It tends to go along with such other attitudes as intolerance for homosexuals, promotion of shame in the human body, and a faith-head viewpoint which is at the base of so many of the world's problems. I would be as concerned about this as I would be if my daughter became addicted to a narcotic or got involved in an abusive relationship.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:06 am
No, they are offensive because they are gore. Just like it would be offensive to show an open heart surgery on the streets of town. Or to show a human liver on the sidewalk. THAT is why they are offensive. But then, some in this society get bent out of shape about two people having sex on film, but then see no problem with high levels of violence.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:10 am
First, sex is good. It decreases stress, it increases happiness, and it makes the world a much better place to live in. You are right, Student and I do NOT want to procreate. Why is this so bad? Yes, we still want to have sex. Why is this so bad? Yes, I have had a vasectomy so that procreation is incredibly unlikely. Why is this bad?
Second, why do you seem to think that those in favor of abortion rights don't take care of their children? When we *choose* to become parents, we are probably more responsible and less judgmental than the PLers. Why? Because we think about what it means to have children. We understand what a HUGE undertaking it is to raise and nurture another human being. And we take this responsibility seriously enough that we don't want to enter into it until we are ready.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:22 am
No, we are upset that you show pictures of very late term abortions by a facility that only does first trimester abortions. So what you show is NOT what goes on there. We are upset that you show your gore out on the streets where children can see it. We are upset at your attitude that sex is dirty and shameful. We are upset at your attempts to force your religion down everybody else's throats. We are upset that you ignore the overwhelming consensus that early stage abortions are an important aspect of control over reproduction while you push your non-consensus views on fetal rights. We are upset that doctors have been harassed and killed for providing needed services to women in desperate situations.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
Karen,Pro-abort means believing a woman has a right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
pro-choice means believing a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy.This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights,which includes access to sexual education,access to safe and legal abortion,contraception,
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
and fertility treatments.And legal protection from forced abortion.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:54 am
There is a difference,Karen.If you weren't so narrow minded,you would know that.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 am
Professor,
I've enhanced your post #141 here. It speaks more to me, and maybe to others here:
No, we are upset that you show pictures of very late term abortions by a facility that only does kills babies in the first trimester abortions. So what you show is NOT the actual killing that goes on there. We are upset that you show your gore out on the streets where children can see it and realize that we allow the killing of children in the womb. We are upset that we think your attitude is that sex is dirty and shameful, although in reality, it you view it as wonderful and a gift of God to be responsibly, lovingly and safely used. We are upset at your attempts to force your religion down everybody else's throats, but we love to force our opinions and "religion" onto everyone else, and do so frequently. We are upset that you ignore the overwhelming consensus that early stage abortions are an important aspect of control over reproduction when birth control fails (which it eventually will) while you push your non-consensus views on fetal rights, since we need a consensus to protect the lives of the unborn. We are upset that doctors have been harassed for killing babies and that a few have been killed by some disturbed so-called pro-life people for providing "needed services", (a.k.a. terminating the life of their unborn child), to women in desperate situations instead of providing real solutions to these women.
Does that sum it up better?
God Bless,
Roger
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 am
blockquote>They want to believe that abortion does not kill a child, in fact many are PROUD of abortion, but when we show the truth about what happens in an abortion they say THAT is unconscionable.Yes, Jerry, abortion kills a fetus. I don’t think there is any disagreement on this. I don’t know anyone who is “PROUD” of abortion. I’ve yet to meet anyone who just can’t wait to go get an abortion. Just where are these women?
And, of course, you’ve noticed no contempt or bigotry toward non-believers here, right?
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Sorry for messing up the quote….let's try again:
Yes, Jerry, abortion kills a fetus. I don’t think there is any disagreement on this. I don’t know anyone who is “PROUD” of abortion. I’ve yet to meet anyone who just can’t wait to go get an abortion. Just where are these women?
And, of course, you’ve noticed no contempt or bigotry toward non-believers here, right?
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
People get upset because it is an inaccurate statement. Pro-choice means in favor of CHOICE – and, believe it or not, there are choices other than abortion.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Yes, Sylvia, and nothing you’ve cited supports KarenK’s ridiculous assertion that a fetus CAN feel pain at 4 weeks. Also, your research is NOT in fetal animals (or did I misread it?).
I agree with you – they are important.
If you’re happy with your career choice, that’s really all that matters. However, I will still accept the word of a professional in the field (ex., the breast cancer researcher from U of C) and physicians who publish their research in reputable, peer-reviewed journals before that of the most competent mom with a BS in Biology.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
No, Annie, they DO NOT consider using birth control to be responsible. It seems to most people to be the responsible choice, but not to many of these folks. In case you missed it in the thread, those who have vasectomies or tubal ligations only do so in order to keep being irresponsible and to keep “using” their partners.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
I’m not at all offended at the thought of giving information about sexuality to young adults. I AM offended at the way you try to pervert it.
And SPECIFICALLY where in that statement did he say “he would help his daughter get materials to explore her sexuality” AND what exactly do you think that means?
”Very concerned” means (in my opinion) that he would question why she chose not to have a relationship with another person prior to 24.
I don’t have a daughter but, yes, I would be concerned if my sons weren’t involved in an intimate relationship by that age. Young adulthood is when most people explore their sexuality – it is normal and natural. And, yes, if they decided not to have sex at all it would cause me great concern. I would wonder why they didn’t want to have a deep, meaningful connection with another person.
I only have a problem when those people want to force their beliefs onto others. If you want to live a life of celibacy, go for it. You’ll get no complaint from me.
No, they are offensive because you place them around young children and don’t really give a rat’s behind what anyone else thinks. I recently had a colonoscopy and some polyps removed – is it ok for me to put that on a giant billboard for all to see? Might you find it a bit gory? Most medical procedures are gory. Sorry, but that’s a fact.
Because “sick minded people” like you use them to excite and incite others – much like porn.
Yes, I do enjoy sex without procreative intent. However, I am very responsible about the sex I have. I don’t want any more children and have taken measures to ensure that I don’t. Why is that such a problem for you?
How do you know how I care for the children I’ve conceived? What are you basing this on? I think my children would strongly disagree with you.
No, what I find appalling is the self-rightousness and callousness that you, and others like you, display to real people with problems. You have this delusional idea that people are pushing abortions on others and just can’t wait to get one themselves. I’ve yet to meet anyone with that attitude. Unfortunately, there are times when abortion is the best choice a woman can make – but it is still an extremely difficult decision to make. You can disagree with that and I support your right to do so. However, until you’re in that woman’s shoes, you have no right to judge her. You don’t know everything that’s going on her life and your lack of concern for her welfare, and those of her family, completely disgust me.
I have a friend who is happily married and the mother of a beautiful young son. She and her husband tried for almost 2 years to get pregnant with no luck. After they’d given up trying, she became pregnant and was absolutely thrilled. Unfortunately, 5 months into the pregnancy, her physician discovered that the fetus’ spine had not closed and that there was an extreme case of hydroencephalitis(sp?) which had almost completely destroyed the brain. She was told the fetus would be stillborn or die shortly after birth and that continuing the pregnancy would be detrimental to her health as she was suffering from extremely high blood pressure. She was devastated by the turn of events. Of course, to add insult to injury, she had to deal with judgmental people like you who really don’t give a **** about the woman involved. My friend was not irresponsible and she was not PROUD of needing an abortion. So yes, if you sense outrage and anger on my part toward people who have nothing better to do than stick their narrow-minded views into a woman’s very personal decision without having all of the facts – trying to shame her and make her feel guilty (all the while pretending they care about HER), then I guess you are correct!
So then you have no problem with your children being exposed to pornography, right? After all, your kids would understand that pictures are just pictures.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
Just as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that PP stated that they do second trimester abortions at the Aurora facility and that they said as much before the City council.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Roger, I really appreciate your patience with student, professor, etc. but to let them take over the blog with their long discourses promoting their unabated, willful, destruction of innocent life is unfortunate. I find it interesting that they can spend so much of their time defending PP, sexual immorality, etc. and wonder if the PPites, their execs at PP are giving these folks assignments to disrupt the pro-life sites. Even if that is not the case, maybe you are giving them too much license here. You would NEVER be allowed to rant and disrupt PP's website in this way. Do you understand how letting them freely attack pro-lifers from their diabolical, idealogy on a pro-life website fits their agenda? Just think about this and perhaps there would be a better way to work this out. God bless and I am praying for you and all your life giving efforts.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Well, it helps me to understand your ability to comprehend the written word. Other than that, no.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Just for the record, I have had no assignment from *anyone* to make posts here. I do so of my own free will and for my own reasons. That I find the attitudes of FAPP to be abhorrent in many different ways is sufficient reason for me to try to argue against them. I do volunteer at PP as an escort, but I am not paid in any way and I have some disagreements with their 'hands-off' approach to the PL protesters. Since your whole goal is to 'disrupt' the functioning of PP, I really don't see your complaints as anything more than drama.
I do NOT promote sexual immorality. In fact, I promote people talking freely and openly about their wants and needs in relationships so that nobody feels deceived. But, I do not see sex outside of marriage to be immoral, only sex that is not fully consensual.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Professor,
Well, hopefully it will help others see the bigger picture behind your rhetoric.
Like a 14 year old freely consenting to have sex with a 21 year old? That would be "moral" in by your words.
God Bless,
Roger
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Part of 'fully consensual' is that it is between people *able* to consent. You guys just don't get it, do you?
When actually it simply shows how willing to distort the views of others you really are. Isn't there something in your religion about 'false witness'?
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Educator,
Yes, it is interesting. But perhaps, like some people, they get a kick out of it. Or maybe they are just "true believers" in PP. Some people are, even though they may not know it. (Kind of how they think of the Christian's faith in God.)
True. I wonder if they realize this? But, we, as pro-lifers, are not afraid of honest communication. We are not into censorship, as some claim regarding the Batavia library link.
Yes, I think it can perhaps work towards the pro-choice/abortion agenda. But then, perhaps people can also see the vile hatred and contempt that they often write. Plus, their arguments are typically subjective vs. being objective. (Life begins at?)
We'll think about it. I know, personally, and I don't know if this holds true with all in FAPP, but I don't want to provide a platform for people to mock God or a belief in God. Although plenty of these have been posted, some have been removed due to their content. FVFAPP is not the place for such things.
God Bless,
Roger
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Professor,
Why isn't a 14 year old able to consent to a 21 year old, but can consent with a 15 year old? That's a moral judgment. Your views here are awfully subjective - according to your moral view.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
God Bless,
Roger
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
No, that's a "legal" judgment — not a moral judgment. Are your arguments so weak that you have to twist the words of those that don't agree with you?
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
AuroraResident,
It's a "legal" judgment based on a "moral" judgment.
And, no, it's not "twist"ing words, it's bringing words to logical conclusions and seeing the "logic" of those words.
God Bless,
Roger
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
The simple answer to your question is YES. The same happens in other fundy literature: creationists are well known to misquote scientists who disagree with them.
Yes, the age of consent is a legal argument, not a moral one. So let's ask this, Roger: would you support a law making it illegal to have sex outside of marriage? How about a law making birth control illegal for those that are not married? For those that are married?
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
The age of consent is a legal fact but it is based on a societal value and belief that people below a certain age should be protected. I think there's a moral component to it. And I think the "Romeo and Juliette" component is also based on a moral judgment that 15 year olds aren't exploiting a 14 in the same way that a 21 year old is.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Professor,
Wow, how very judgmental of you. "fundy"? That's pretty funny!
The answers are: No, No and No
Answer me this, would you make it a law for doctors,
nurses and other health care professionals to have to offer abortions or refer for abortions? Or for pharmacists to have to birth control / morning after pill prescriptions?
God Bless,
Roger
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
John,
I agree! The must be a moral component to it. It's a value judgment based on something - society, religion, etc. It's not just a "legal" thing without basis in this.
God Bless,
Roger
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I can see several difficulties here. First, should a doctor be 'forced' to give treatment that is generally considered by the medical profession to be 'necessary'? Yes.
Should the doctor be 'forced' to give treatment that is elective or give a referral for such? I would generally say that they should be required to give information that the patient requests, yes. They shoudl not be required to deliver elective treatments.
Should a pharmacist be required to dispense medications of all sorts? I am not certain of the law or the history in this area. Does a pharmacist have the right to not fill a prescription for narcotics? In case of such a right, is there a requirement to give a referral to one that does? What if there are no other pharmacies in the area?
I am very nervous about the development of 'specialty pharmacies' where patients cannot determine whether their medications are available or where their prescriptions can be filled. A pharmacist is not a doctor and does not have the right to prescribe medicines. I'm guessing that there is *not* a right to refuse to give a medicine that is duly prescribed to a patient by a qualified physician and in a medically acceptable way. If the pharmacist is out of said medication, I'm guessing that a referral is a professional responsibility. I may be wrong, though.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Yes, it's so much less judgmental than
diabolical, evil, wicked, sinner, etc.
You're right. You didn't twist them — you have completely rewritten them. Not only do you want to control reproductive rights, you want to control even the words people use as well.
What content would that be….the quoting word-for-word of the bible verses you don't like (with citations)? No, there's no censorship intended. *wink* *wink* *nod* *nod*
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
There's generally a right of any person in any profession not to do business with someone he or she so chooses for whatever reason he or she so chooses. Why shouldn't that attach to pharmacists and doctors?
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I disagree. If I own a restaurant, I can't refuse to serve African Americans or the elderly, etc.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
That's true only to the extent that legislation limits the right. Same thing with employment–I don't have to hire you if I don't like the color of your shirt. It's employment at will. As a society, we decided not to discriminate in public accomodations or employment on the basis of race and age. Why should that limitation on the freedom of contract be extended in the cases in question?
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Student says: " KarenK’s ridiculous assertion that a fetus CAN feel pain at 4 weeks.
Words ARE important."
Karen Said:
Do You Know? At 6 weeks, brain waves can be measured. At 8 weeks, the stomach, liver, and kidneys are functioning, and fingerprints have formed. At 9 weeks, the unborn child can feel pain.
"Whose testimony is more reliable, those who have a financial interest in the availability of abortion or those who don't? Ethically speaking, who is going to be less likely to lie, those who believe dismembering living human beings is a legitimate medical practice or those who don't?
ABORT73.com"
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
You are correct. And I don't believe it is extended to physicians in private practice (obviously, those in emergency rooms are different but that's somewhat off topic), but I'm not sure exactly what the law is on the subject. My personal opinion on the matter is mixed. I can probably make an argument for both sides. But what happens if we take it to an extreme.
If I'm the only doctor in town and I don't believe in blood transfusions due to my religion but you need one to live, am I legally obligated to give it to you? Again, I think it can be argued both ways. I'm not sure what the answer should be.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
The person who doesn't have a stake in it one way or the other. The person who is capable of having thier work published in a forum that is reviewed and critiqued by their peers.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Should be "their"
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
"You are correct. And I don't believe it is extended to physicians in private practice (obviously, those in emergency rooms are different but that's somewhat off topic), but I'm not sure exactly what the law is on the subject."
The current Illinois law requires pharmacists to dispense birth control. There's a posted notice at the private pharmacy down the street. Don't get me wrong. Most pharmacists will do so because there's money in it and most don't see it as objectionable. The point is that Planned Parenthood is trying to mandate a point of view. In fact, this matter is heating up because the Bush administration is setting out guidance on this matter, and they are also saying that birth control pills are abortofacients.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Thanks, John. I did hear about the current Administration's thought on birth control. I strongly disagree with it, however, it does pose some interesting questions. Can insurers opt out of particular types (ex., the pill) of birth control if this passes? I work in the insurance industry and will check into it tomorrow.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Professor,
First off, most abortions are not "necessary". Pregnancy is a natural state for a woman, not a medical condition to treat. We're not talking about treating cancer or an open wound.
In addition, forcing doctors to do this removes their "choice" in the matter. Doctors used to take the oath to do no harm, and some doctors still abide by that. A doctor can see an abortion as doing harm, and therefore cannot in good conscience recommend or refer someone for one.
God Bless,
Roger
July 24th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Professor,
This is an area with a lot of contention over the last few years. Pharmacists have a "legal, ethical, clinical liability for their dispensing decisions. They share the liability with the doctor" according to Karen Brauer, the president of Pharmacists for Life International, in the CBS News article: Are Pharmacists Right To Choose?
In Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich issued an executive order (I think in 2005) forcing pharmacists to dispense morning after pills.
From: Pharmacist Resists Illinois Rule on Contraceptives
Pharmacists who, in good conscience, feel that they would be dispensing harmful drugs are not given free choice here.
I agree that this can be taken to an extreme, with any medication, but we are not taking about that here, but about things like the morning after pill which can be an abortifacient.
God Bless,
Roger
July 24th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Student,
FVFAPP has provided a place for you and anyone to discuss religion and your opinions on God, the bible, why God does what God does, etc. This is in the forum.
The purpose of the BLOG is to discuss issues regarding LIFE, PP, and the posted articles. These very often go off the main topic of the post, but often are at least on target with the goals of constructively debating these issues.
At times, though, posts can go very far astray, and people are directed to the FORUMs.
Also at time, a post is so offensive or inappropriate, to that it is moderated out .. it is "censored".
This site is not your site. You are our guest, and we would hope that you would respect that.
God Bless,
Roger
July 24th, 2008 at 3:12 am
Roger,
While I agree that many times things do go off topic, it appears ok for the long, rambling Bible quotes as long as they support your view. When using Bible quotes that do not support your view (and are in direct contradiction to the ones being posted by others) they are censored — even if they are in direct relation to a previous post.
As the owner of the board you can, obviously, censor anything you wish. But let's please call it for what it is.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Roger,
Thank you for the link on Blagojevich's exec. order. Do you know whether or not litigation has been instituted on this yet? If so, would you please post the case name/case no. (if you know it)? Thanks!
July 24th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Yes, I *do* get your position. In fact, I was raised by people (my grandparents) with your attitudes. So, yes, I get it. I simply disagree with it. I have found that the narrow-minded attitudes shown by religious fundamentalists are not healthy, either physically or emotionally. I have found that there are much more rewarding and enriching ways to view the universe. And I try to show that the values of love, caring, intelligence, open sexuality, and devotion to truth are not inconsistent, even though they do seem to be inconsistent with many religions.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:12 am
***Comment removed by moderator for personal attacks.***
July 24th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I will not have personal attacks of any kind. End of story.
Good discussion though. Student, and I ask this with no agenda, I'm not sure where I stand 1000%, does medical training put a moral obligation on a person to provide medical treatment? Under what circumstances? If it is a moral obligation where do they get off charging money for it?
Likewise, does owning a pharmacy put a moral obligation on a person to dispense any medicine in the world? What if someone has a legitimate prescription from a doctor for pain killers, but the pharmacist can tell the person is obviously addicted to them? Doesn't he have a moral obligation not to give them to him? What if someone believes with all their heart that giving the pill to a girl will harm her? Should he be forced to dispense medication he believes will harm a person?
Lots of interesting questions. I might just start another thread on this.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I'm not sure where I stand 1000% on this either. I do believe, regardless of whether or not there is a moral obligation, providers should get some compensation for their services. After all, they need to support themselves (and, perhaps, a family as well).
Interesting that you bring this up….I was just discussing this very issue this morning. A former friend of mine was clearly addicted to Vicoden (taking sometimes over 15 pills per day) and her psychiatrist kept giving her scripts. In addition, she would actually injure herself (slamming hand in car door, etc.) so she could go to the emergency room and get add'l scripts. She had no problem getting the pills, but it did catch up with her physically.
Great idea. Thank you!
July 24th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I am not sure where I stand on this either. I would hate for someone to be having a heart attack and have a qualified physician stand by and not administer assistance. Are doctors required to do pro bono work like lawyers are? If not, why not? Certainly, they have a right to be compensated to some degree so they can pay off their education and pay their bills. Then there is the HUGE issue of medical malpractice insurance.
For example, I would not expect a dermatologist to provide treatment of a heart condition past immediate care needs. But could I reasonably expect a dermatologist to offer a diagnosis of skin cancer outside the office if they notice it? How does *that* get compensated? I would hate for them to allow a galloping melanoma (which can kill within a day) go untreated.
If a doctor has a religious objection to blood transfusions, can they reasonably expect to be an open heart surgeon? If a doctor refuses treatment with a blood transfusion where it is seen as 'medically necessary' based on such an objection, is that a basis for malpractice? My offhand bias is yes.
It's not clear to me where the breakdown of responsibility is between the doctor prescribing and the pharmacist delivering. If the pharmacist suspects a problem, I could easily see having a professional responsibility to discuss it with the doctor before filling the prescription. If the doctor insists after being informed, is the pharmacist relieved of responsibility? What if the patient is getting medications from several different doctors?
Clearly, a pharmacist can't be required to have *every* medication on the planet. But if they *can* get one required by a patient, do they have a responsibility to do so, or at least to provide a referral? I would tend to say yes. That is part of their job. Again, what do you expect when you become a pharmacist?
Sounds like a good idea. Lots and lots of good questions with no clear answers.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Student,
Your posts where not removed for the bible verses, but for you comments about those verses. If you are really interested in answers to the questions you posed, please use the forum.
God Bless,
Roger
July 24th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Thanks Roger, for your concern about pro-choicers trying to take over this blog, using it to promote their own agenda. We have enough promotion of PP in the MSM, Beacon News, they have PP's own website or professor, student, whoever they are, can create their own website where they can attack pro-lifers, Christians, churches, sexual morality, the dignity and sacredness of life and sex all they want. I think most of the time there post go beyond discussion only to disrupt this blog. Beware about them leading you into a false sense of them wanting to be fair to our cause. IMO they will try to start up again with the rants if you let them. There accusations about Pro-lifers being violent, dangerous, linking pro-lifers with Catholic priests who have molested children, etc. should not be tolerated. God bless you and thank you for all you do.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
re: post #150
Student,
Again, you beg the question. Perhaps because you cannot defend your position.
First, Karen K said a baby can feel pain at 8 weeks, not 4 weeks as you misstated.
Next, you still do not understand the significance of the research I presented. So, one more time: It does not matter whether or not the research was done in fetal animals. The point is, that the sophisticated brain structure that you insist is necessary for pain perception is not truly necessary for a being to feel pain. My research says that you cannot conclude that animals with smaller PFCs feel less pain. You cannot also conclude that PFCs are necessary to feel pain, as the lobotomized patients demonstrate. Therefore, you cannot conclude, as your research suggests to you (though the wording is tricky), that preborn babies cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
I did not give a timetable for pain. Noone knows for sure. Therefore, we must err on the side of caution. It is not unreasonable to hypothesize that when the nervous system is capable of directing coordinated movement (e.g., swimming, kicking, thumb sucking in utero–much of which occurs before 8 weeks), it may also be capable of sensing pain.
And, unfortunately, you appear to have the "Doctor-as-god" syndrome. You believe that because someone has letters after his name, he is somehow better and smarter than the rest of us, with an omniscience suddenly conferred by those letters. I'll let you in on a secret: doctors are not gods. Those letters don't give them complete knowledge of the universe, or even the human body. Some doctors even have trouble with common sense. I know. I've seen it. I've seen college students headed for med school who could spit back passages from textbooks verbatim, yet could not think their way out of a paper bag. That's one of the reasons I decided not to go into medicine. I thought I could be of better service going into education to teach people how to THINK.
A U of C researcher who can think rationally would not so readily dismiss the research that points to a possible abortion/breast cancer link. I've got news for you: There is research to back both sides of the issue. None is flawless. All have critics. Therefore, a rational scientist will say there is doubt. The latest study that predicts breast cancer rates based on abortion rates has not yet garnered any substantial criticism. Some complain that the journal it was published in is biased to the pro-life position. But I have yet to find a criticism of his methodology. And I've looked, because the study comes from a statistician, and I have not had any courses in statistics. So I was looking for criticism from statisticians, but have found none–yet. But it is new research, and any scientist should know that time will be the test–time, and additional research.
The purported mechanism of an ABC link is certainly plausible.
Don't underestimate the knowledge, intelligence, and acumen of a competent mom.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:43 am
P.S. Pain or no pain still doesn't make a difference in the value of a human life.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Roger,
Question: Why would you not want a law prohibiting abortifacient birth control (all hormonal contraceptives and IUDs)? Shouldn't murder always be illegal?
July 25th, 2008 at 12:55 am
KarenK,
I went back and re-read the post. My apologies. You did say 8 weeks. It was not my intention to misrepresent what you had said. However, I do stand by my post in response.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:22 am
No, Sylvia, I do not believe doctors are gods. However, I am more comfortable taking the word of an EXPERT in the field than I am a "competent mom." You are certainly entitled to your opinions, I just happen to disagree.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Student,
Apology accepted:) Just as it has been stated before, of course we do not want anyone to have pain, but it is really a false concern when the people killing the child are worried whether or not the victim is experiencing any pain. The act in itself is so evil, and it can only be made somewhat worse if they feel the pain of that act of ending the beginning of their earthly life.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Sylvia,
Yes, all abortifacient should be illegal, I would support laws to enforce that. The question poised was different:
To which I responded:
Not all birth control acts as an abortifacient.
While I would never use birth control, considering it a sin, I would not want to enforce laws to outlaw all "sin". God gave us free will to love him or not.
And for those who have a hard time with me calling it a "sin", a "sin" is just when you do not follow God's way.
On prior blog post some of the reasoning for this mindset (contraception being against God's ways) has been presented, but it's probably too much for this blog post, and although I know some, I don't know if I'm fully capable of explaining well.
God Bless,
Roger
July 25th, 2008 at 9:32 am