False teachers want to reduce abortions by increasing abortions. Or something like that.

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to spread disinformation about how Contraception Reduces Abortion Rate.

It is a classically disingenuous move on his part.  Pro-aborts like him pretend to want to reduce abortions, but everyone who supports the Democrats is explicitly in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions that will obviously increase the number of abortions (duh).  So if they really wanted to reduce them then why take the money of pro-lifers by force to increase them?

And he ignores that half of abortions occur while women are on birth control.  The rate of failure is highest for teens.

Reducing the number of abortions is a cause most people of faith share but not all people of faith believe women should have access to contraception – some believe such access should be difficult or even illegal.

That is a straw-man argument.  Just because we didn’t buy Sandra Fluke’s nonsense doesn’t mean we want birth control to be illegal.  She’s a 31 yr. old law student managing to finance a $50,000 /yr. education and she can’t get her boyfriends to pool $10/month for birth control?  It was one of the most Prozac-inducing parts of the campaign watching so many people side with her.  Is it so hard to see the difference between access and forcing others to pay?

And isn’t it just possible that all the great pro-life laws (ultrasounds, informed consent, parental notification, etc.) put into place have helped reduce abortions?  Remember that pro-aborts strenuously oppose all of those.

Such thinking increases the need for abortion.  Groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice work to promote contraception.  We need more voices joining with RCRC.

The RCRC is all about abortion.  “Reproductive Choice” is a fallacious term, as all abortions kill humans who have already been reproduced.

At the same time, faith communities need to be fighting hard for quality sex education in our public schools and to be providing such education in our churches.  A great resource for churches is the Our Whole Lives curriculum developed by the United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universialist Association.

I can only imagine what perversities that Chuck and the Unitarians have cooked up for these poor young people.  Remember, Chuck is so eager to show how “progressive” he is that he uses his 6 yr. old daughters as props to take to gay pride parades.  That’s sick, but he is a perfect picture of the “Christian” Left (Read: Wolves in sheep’s clothing).

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like this and the denominations that support them.

51 thoughts on “False teachers want to reduce abortions by increasing abortions. Or something like that.”

    1. Hi Kathy,

      I find it hard to think of abortion as “murder”. To me the embryo is a potential human being, it is not a human being yet, it is not a baby.

      Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq — (and basic common sense) that a new human being is created at fertilization. There is nothing “potential” about it. She is a human being at a particular stage of development.

      It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions. The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.

      Can it exist outside the womb?

      Many could, by your definition. Then again, infants couldn’t live outside the womb with support and hopefully you don’t consider them fair game for destruction as well.

      Would you put a woman who has an abortion or a doctor who performs an abortion in prison for murder?

      Woman, no. Doctor, yes.

      When you are pregnant, your hopes and dreams and anticipation of the birth affect your frame of mind and you think of this possible or potential child as a fully formed human being, but that is not the case.

      Yikes! That is completely anti-science and would justify murder outside the womb. Casey Anthony would love your defense.

      If you want to talk about the sanctity of life, a virus is alive, bacteria is alive, does being a “life” mean we may never interrupt it’s development?

      Again, that is anti-science. Abortion kills innocent but unwanted unique human beings.

      I could never tell a woman who has been raped, or as in Ireland recently, would lose her life if the pregnancy continued, (which is exactly what happened by the way), that she must continue with her pregnancy because of my religious beliefs.

      If you want to milk the Ireland tragedy, go ahead, but perhaps you should read up on all the deaths of mothers resulting from your beloved “safe” abortions — http://realchoice.blogspot.com/

      Like

      1. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” PS 139:13 NIV 1984. “From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Ps. 22:10 NIV 1984. I think you and God have different views on what constitutes a human being. As for a woman being raped, there is a little something called vigilantism. American law punished it and so does God. “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.” Rom 12:19 NIV 1984. “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Just because someone does a person wrong by raping them, doesn’t mean that person has the right to take the life of another innocent human being.
        Think about it. This unborn child has never committed a sin and has never done anything wrong. They are completely innocent. In Christianity there was only one who was born and never committed any sin, and his death was so powerful that it can take away the sins of the whole world.
        Abortion is murder.

        Like

      2. I take offense to “your beloved abortions”. I don’t love anything about abortions. I am just verbally sharing the thoughts that run through my head when thinking of this issue. I don’t see things in such black and white terms as you do. Casey Anthony would love me? I would send that woman to prison for life if I had my way, so I don’t know what you are trying to say. I think you are being a little unfair here. I thought this was a forum for civil discourse, it certainly doesn’t feel civil to me at this moment.

        Like

      3. I left several comments, apparently in the wrong place. I do not want to reiterate all that I said, but please try to understand rather than defend. I am not challenging your belief. I am trying to get to the place where I can honestly agree with you. In my mind, when the brain and spinal cord are fully formed and functioning and the baby is capable with or without assistance to breathe, in my mind that is clearly a human being, I have a hard time believing a small mass of dividing cells is a human being yet. I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent. As I said, I am trying to understand how I can honestly say, yes, I believe the Christian perspective that abortion is murder. I could support a no abortion policy after two months pregnancy except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of mother’s life. I don’t immediately think of abortion as murder, it just doesn’t make sense to me. Again, I was not asking you to defend your position as much as I was asking-how do you come to this position? I am trying to understand from your point of view. It was pretty insulting to bring up Casey Anthony who is obviously the sickest form of human being, a parent who kills their own child. I also am not “milking” the case in Ireland, it is just one example of a tragedy that occurred in the name of Christianity.

        Like

      4. I do not want to reiterate all that I said, but please try to understand rather than defend. I am not challenging your belief.

        Kathy, I’m not offended and you are welcome to challenge my beliefs. I’m willing to change them if you provide the right facts and logic (though the odds are admittedly low – you’ll have to refute every embryology text I’ve ever seen).

        In my mind, when the brain and spinal cord are fully formed and functioning and the baby is capable with or without assistance to breathe, in my mind that is clearly a human being, I have a hard time believing a small mass of dividing cells is a human being yet.

        What being would it be? What type of being would two humans create? What do the embryology textbooks say?

        I could support a no abortion policy after two months pregnancy except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of mother’s life.

        That would be a start! I don’t see why the child of the rapist should die for his father’s crimes, but I’ll take any abortion restrictions I can. And incest is usually rape, by the way, and abortion hides the crime, courtesy of Planned Parenthood et al — overview http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p .

        I don’t immediately think of abortion as murder, it just doesn’t make sense to me. Again, I was not asking you to defend your position as much as I was asking-how do you come to this position?

        Thanks for asking. I do appreciate that. I used to be nominally pro-choice until I learned more about the science and logic of the pro-life position. I also became a Christian and realized that Jesus is the author of life, and we are to protect innocent life.

        I am trying to understand from your point of view. It was pretty insulting to bring up Casey Anthony who is obviously the sickest form of human being, a parent who kills their own child. I also am not “milking” the case in Ireland, it is just one example of a tragedy that occurred in the name of Christianity.

        And I wasn’t trying to be mean by bringing up Anthony. I was merely making a parallel: She no longer wanted that dependent child, so she killed her. If Casey would have had an abortion all the people screaming at her and harassing the jurors would have never said a word. The only difference was that the child was larger, more developed and in a different location, none of which change her value.

        Like

      5. Thank you so much for your feedback. I feel I am being exposed to some very valuable ideas thanks to your willingness to discuss these “touchy” subjects. You have me challenging my own thoughts which is a very good thing indeed! Thanks again.

        Like

      6. Good for you, Kathy. I owe you an apology for being abrupt in my original replies. It is very rare to find someone open minded like you. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt and not assumed you’d be like so many others I’ve come across. My apologies!

        Like

  1. I find it hard to think of abortion as “murder”. To me the embryo is a potential human being, it is not a human being yet, it is not a baby. Can it exist outside the womb? Would you put a woman who has an abortion or a doctor who performs an abortion in prison for murder? When you are pregnant, your hopes and dreams and anticipation of the birth affect your frame of mind and you think of this possible or potential child as a fully formed human being, but that is not the case. If you want to talk about the sanctity of life, a virus is alive, bacteria is alive, does being a “life” mean we may never interrupt it’s development? Because something has the potential to become human must we preserve it? What about a woman or man practicing birth control, are they not taking away possible human life? I could never tell a woman who has been raped, or as in Ireland recently, would lose her life if the pregnancy continued, (which is exactly what happened by the way), that she must continue with her pregnancy because of my religious beliefs.

    Like

      1. I am being intellectually honest and I am not trying to rationalize abortion. I am trying to understand how I can honestly believe it is murder. I was sharing my thoughts, that is being intellectually honest. I would be lying if I said I think abortion is murder, I am not sure what I believe at this point. That was the whole reason for sharing my thoughts. I was hoping through civil discourse to have a clearer understanding of just what I do believe. I obviously came to the wrong place.

        Like

    1. To me the embryo is a potential human being, it is not a human being yet, it is not a baby.

      Back in 1970, the California Supreme Court decided a famous case, Keeler v. California, in which the Court ruled that a man who beat his pregnant ex-wife until she miscarried (all the while screaming that he would ‘beat that baby out of her’) could not be charged with homicide, as the foetus was not a human life.

      Basic common sense, no matter where you fall on the abortion debate: if it’s legal to abort a baby/embryo/zygote for reasons other than to save the mother’s life, then it shouldn’t be murder (although it would still be aggravated assault) for someone else to kill that child against the mother’s will.

      Like

      1. One more thing. Christians love to talk about the fact that Jesus gave us a choice, that God gives us a choice, whether or not to believe in him. It seems to me many Christians would like to take away that right and insist that the entire country embrace their faith and their values. Isn’t that what you do when you try to legislate your own definition of morality? I think we can all agree that murder is wrong, but I think it is a much murkier issue when it comes to abortion. It is not clearly murder to many people in this country. Isn’t making abortion illegal insisting that the country believe as you? I wonder how you would feel if another religion happened to be the majority and wanted to force their religious beliefs on you? We need a separation of church and state and our founding fathers knew that.

        Like

      2. One more thing. Christians love to talk about the fact that Jesus gave us a choice, that God gives us a choice, whether or not to believe in him. It seems to me many Christians would like to take away that right and insist that the entire country embrace their faith and their values. . . . I wonder how you would feel if another religion happened to be the majority and wanted to force their religious beliefs on you? We need a separation of church and state and our founding fathers knew that.

        There are lots of “pro-choice” (really pro-abortion) “Christians.” I just wrote about one — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/false-teachers-want-to-reduce-abortions-by-increasing-abortions-or-something-like-that/ . He follows an entire organization call the RELIGIOUS Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and they are supported by apostate denominations such as the United Methodists. Given all that, please tell me about how you have criticized pro-choice “Christians” for “forcing” their pro-choice religious views on other people. If you have any evidence of that, you’ll be the first pro-choicer I’ve ever met who has.

        You are conflating the choice to trust in Jesus as your Savior with the choice to kill an innocent but unwanted human being. Those seem a little different to me.

        Are you against pedophilia? I am, on religious grounds. Do you oppose my insisting that people not be allowed to treat children that way? I’m also against beating up atheists and taking their stuff, but do I have to vote the opposite because those views align with the Bible?

        Simply put, the “I think abortion is wrong but don’t want to force my beliefs . . .” is sloppy thinking at best and more likely cowardice.

        I think we can all agree that murder is wrong, but I think it is a much murkier issue when it comes to abortion.

        100% of “successful” abortions kill an innocent but unwanted human being. I don’t see the murkiness. Yes, the psychological factors influencing abortion (pressure from boyfriends/parents, economic concerns, etc.) are complex but morally speaking it is very simple. You can’t kill human beings outside the womb for those reasons, so why should you be able to inside?

        It is not clearly murder to many people in this country.

        So as a Christian you look to the 50.1% of the population to decide what is moral? The Holocaust was legal in Germany, slavery used to be legal here, etc.

        Like

      3. Oops — ha — I linked to the very post I was commenting in! But again, shouldn’t you be telling Currie et al not to force his religious beliefs on others? He thinks Jesus is pro-taxpayer-funded abortion, among other things. Same thing for a bunch of false teachers just like him.

        Like

      4. There are actually a number of people in this county who do not think it is murder for a parent to kill a child of any age. (honor killings) So should we change our laws to honor that belief.

        Like

      5. Here are my thoughts, for what it is worth, on that. I think the very minute percentage of those who believe in honor killings are from a completely different cultural and religious upbringing who moved here from another country and of course we should NOT EVER embrace their belief system. The thing about the abortion issue is that no one is insisting someone who doesn’t want an abortion to have one, the whole idea is that some women will choose that route as much as you or I might not like it, and they have a right to a safe procedure. If we make it illegal again, women will once again seek out practitioners in back alleys or try to abort themselves. Personally I would love for every women who wants an abortion to change her mind and choose adoption, but I know for a fact not every woman will do that. I am still processing all this as I said, thanks again for the feedback.

        Like

      6. Hi Kathy — regarding the “right to a safe procedure” — that argument, along with nearly all pro-legalized abortion arguments, ignores the human being destroyed during the abortion. I encourage pro-choicers to always think about that before making any arguments for their side. If your point doesn’t adequately complete this sentence, it probably isn’t a good argument: “Because of ______ [the mother’s safety, etc.], it is OK to pay a third party to crush and dismember an unwanted human being.”

        If we make it illegal again, women will once again seek out practitioners in back alleys or try to abort themselves.

        Some might, though the last CDC stats before Roe v Wade showed that the figure was far less than 100 for the entire country. And as noted above, that argument doesn’t consider how many lives would be saved. And it ignores how many unsafe abortions still occur (http://realchoice.blogspot.com/) — probably more, because before doctors had to be more careful. Finally, the law should first protect the innocent and not make it “safer” to commit crimes.

        Personally I would love for every women who wants an abortion to change her mind and choose adoption, but I know for a fact not every woman will do that. I am still processing all this as I said, thanks again for the feedback.

        That is good. Have you ever visited a Crisis Pregnancy Center / Pregnancy Resource Center? They seek to do just that, at no cost to the mothers. I think you’d appreciate their work. More here — http://tinyurl.com/2bv5k4m

        Like

      7. That’s irrelevant. God tells us not to kill and almost 100% of Americans agree there should be laws against murder (and we have such laws). Likewise, we have laws against rape, robbery, slavery, and a host of other things condemned by the Bible.

        We aren’t “taking away your religious choices” by asking you to not kill your kid; we’re living in a civilised society. Learn the difference.

        Like

      8. Bridget, I detect some hostility in what I would describe as a snarky answer. If you want to influence others and convince them you are right, you don’t do it that way. If you had taken the time to read all of my responses, you would know, I am challenging my own thinking. It is not helpful to be nasty. I have a right to question and determine the right path for me, we live in a free country not a dictatorship. I am not pro-abortion. I am just trying to find exactly where I stand, at this point I couldn’t tell you. This issue is not as black and white for me as it is for you. Surely you know we all have unique perspectives and we are not all automatons. !00 people will experience the same event differently. Just think you might try tempering your responses with some kindness and understanding.

        Like

      9. Um, what’s that supposed to mean?

        Look, Kathy, I’m not part of the government. Nothing that I say to you will impede your right to live in a free society, to think for yourself, or to otherwise live your life. I’m under no obligation to treat somewhat irrational thinking (“Christians are against abortion, therefore, abortion should be legal!”) with kid gloves.

        Abortion ends a human life. Not exactly sure why I’m obligated to be kind to people who endorse it, any more than I would be under an obligation to be kind to those who work through their own thinking on gulags or concentration camps. This isn’t a discussion over marginal tax rates or the merits of incandescent lightbulbs; it’s an issue of life and death.

        Like

      10. First of all, I don’t “endorse” abortion. Secondly, no, you are under no obligation to be kind to anyone. If you are unable to grasp the fact that some people do not see this issue exactly like you do, and do not consider and embryo “human life” as in having consciousness or previously having consciousness, and who think without a functioning brain, no a mass of dividing cells it is not “human” yet, then of course, be snarky. Will you endorse prosecuting women who have abortions with murder and putting them in prison? Will life insurance companies issue policies on embryos? Why not, if it is human life. These are just arguements that do make some sense to me and that I am working through. I am not pro-abortion, I am struggling with what I believe. However, you condescending attitude does not endear me to your point of view. But I am sure that was not your intent. Do you subscribe to the “greatest of these is love” and “love one another as I have loved you”? Just curious, because you could have fooled me.

        Like

      11. Oh, wow, Kathy.

        First of all, a life insurance company doesn’t issue policy on babies or toddlers, because no one has an insurance interest in that life.

        Second, I do understand that people see the issue differently, just as I understand that some misogynists don’t think that I have the right to educate myself, vote, live independently, or own property. Doesn’t mean that I have to take that viewpoint seriously. Sorry, hon, there’s nothing written anywhere saying that I’m ignorant or unkind simply because I treat uniformed, grotesque viewpoints as they deserve to be treated.

        An embryo is a human life. YOU were once an embryo, just bigger than a grain of sand. Not my fault that you prefer to think that you were sprung into this world as Athene leapt from her father’s brow.

        Like

  2. You know, something we Christians commonly hear when arguing certain issues is that this is the 21st century and not the bronze age, implying that our convictions are outdated. The ironic thing is, when it comes to abortion, it is our “enlightened” opposition that remains entrenched in a willful ignorance so deep it would put the most uneducated “Bronze Age” fellow to shame. Even the ancients knew that the unborn were individual human beings. When legal abortion on demand is relegated to the scrap heap of history where it belongs (I hope I’m around to see it happen), I can picture future generations arguing the issues of their day. One side seeking to paint the opposition as outmoded and superstitious will say, “We’re not in the 20th/21st century anymore. We’ve outgrown such nonsensical ideas.”

    Like

    1. Just as we can barely understand how human beings tolerated and endorsed slavery, mass murder, or infanticide, so will people one day ask how a sane society – and one with 4D ultrasounds*, at that – once murdered over a million children every year.

      *I would like to point out that advancing science supports, not undermines, the pro-life movement. The more we see of foetal development, the more the pro-life position is shown to be the only rational one.

      Like

      1. In your mind. That is my point. Do you not understand that we each perceive things slightly differently and there are those who sincerely do not see an embryo as human life or abortion as murder? Calling those who disagree with you ignorant, clueless, or mass murderers just inflames the arguement, it does nothing to promote dialogue and understanding. Advancing science? What, now they have evidence there is a functioning brain and spinal cord at six weeks? Anyway….. thanks for the feedback, but you and I look at this issue differently. I do not support abortion, but unfortunately think that the pro-choice arguement does have some merit. Where I stand personally is that adoption is the answer, but I will not insist that my view become law and the country follow my thinking. Call it any name you like, cowardly, whatever, that is where I am at. As I said, I am working this out in my mind. It is a work in progress, as am I.

        Like

      2. there are those who sincerely do not see an embryo as human life

        Our point is merely that those people are misinformed about scientific facts and basic logic.

        Advancing science? What, now they have evidence there is a functioning brain and spinal cord at six weeks?

        You lose a lot of credibility when you argue that way. We make specific claims about science then you bring in your philosophical — not scientific — bias where you have decreed that a lack of a spinal cord means it is ok to destroy an unwanted human being.

        I do not support abortion, but unfortunately think that the pro-choice arguement does have some merit.

        A simple yes/no question: Did you vote for Obama or any Democrats? Because they explicitly support abortions without restrictions at any stage and want taxpayer-funded abortions, which will obviously increase abortions — and with pro-life dollars.

        Where I stand personally is that adoption is the answer, but I will not insist that my view become law and the country follow my thinking.

        I think you are being careless with your words. If you really believed what you wrote you would rail against Democrats for insisting that their views remain or become law and that the country follow their thinking. But you obviously don’t really believe that it is a moral wrong to press for one’s views to apply to others, because you are only attacking one side for that.

        Like

      3. First, how presumptious of you to tell me what I would do if I really believed what I say. You have no idea what I really believe, no one knows what anyone truly believes, all we can do is surmise from what they communicate. Secondly I don’t believe “railing against” anyone is how you solve problems. I voted for the Democratic candidate because I was less fearfull of what he would do to the middle class, Romney seemed clueless about life in the middle and poor classes. Also it really concerned me that with all his bluster, he would have started another war. By the way I haven’t found a candidate yet that supports all my views. Finally, pressing one’s view to apply to others? What? I would never support anything that insisted someone have an abortion!

        Like

      4. First, how presumptious of you to tell me what I would do if I really believed what I say. You have no idea what I really believe, no one knows what anyone truly believes, all we can do is surmise from what they communicate.

        That seems contradictory. Yes, all I am doing is surmising from what you communicated. What else would I do?

        Secondly I don’t believe “railing against” anyone is how you solve problems. I voted for the Democratic candidate

        Stop. You are pro-abortion. Deny it all you like, but the one time you had a chance to stand up for life you failed.

        because I was less fearfull of what he would do to the middle class, Romney seemed clueless about life in the middle and poor classes.

        Obama has done nothing for the middle class or poor. Look at black poverty and unemployment!

        I would never support anything that insisted someone have an abortion!

        That’s a straw man argument, because no one claimed that that was your position.

        You support the people who want to force pro-lifers to pay for abortions, and the people who desperately want to increase abortions by making taxpayers and businesses pay for abortifacient drugs.

        Like

      5. Just as I noted in the original post, you claim that abortions are kinda-sorta bad and of course you’d never have one, but then you vote for people who will increase them — and with the money of pro-life citizens and businesses. You are merely trying to have it both ways and rationalizing to soothe your conscience. That is your prerogative but please don’t do it here, because I’m not buying it.

        Like

      6. According to Babycenter.com, a totally non-partisan website devoted to explaining to women what is going on with their bodies and their babies, at week six, the baby has a beating heart, internal organs, a pituitary gland, and a brain. By the next week, her eyes already have colour, and she has an appendix and a pancreas.

        That is science, Kathy. Not pretend-science, wherein you decide to accept what makes you feel good and ignore that which does not. Let’s at least start with the facts, and the facts are that by week 6, a baby does in fact have a spine, internal organs, a brain, and a heart. Let’s also get rid of the “blob of cells” nonsense for once and for all; cell biology simply does not allow for undifferentiated cells to form into a massive glob, then spontaneously become differentiated organs once the baby is wanted, loved, or a sufficient amount of time has passed.

        Like

  3. Understood. Thank you for your time and input. This is exactly what I believe is wrong with this country. The my way or the highway mentality. The think as I do or you must be evil or stupid or both. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter in particular are perfect examples on the extreme of this promotion of hatred. Be inflammmatory, condescending and nasty, that will help the country. It is just plain ugly if you ask me, but then, you didn’t.

    Like

    1. Yes, it is ugly when people like you come here and just call others names and play the hate card when they don’t have any sound arguments to offer. Your motto appears to be, “think as I do or you are just a big hater!” Duly noted. That is one of the reasons it is frustrating to dialog with Liberals. Example: They say the unborn aren’t humans, then you show them mainstream embryology textbooks that say otherwise, then you address their other arguments with facts and logic, then they resort to personal attacks. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      You know what is plain ugly and nasty? This: http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv And it goes on over 3,000 times per day in this country with your “Christian” blessing, and it will increase further because of your choice of politicians.

      Like

    2. P.S. I couldn’t help but notice that you only included conservatives in your “hate” category. Presumably you find all Leftists, such as the MSNBC hosts, to be winsome and charming?

      Like

      1. No, MSNBC is a big offender in the promotion of “hateful dialogue” as well, sorry I left them out. But really, think as I do, or you are just a big hater? Let’s see, I am not being:
        “intellectually honest,” references to my beliefs and their apparent connection to the holocaust, slavery and Casey Anthony, not to mention my “beloved abortion”. and apparently the worst of all, a liberal!! I am not challenging or trying to change your opinion, that would be foolish because you feel deeply about this issue and I respect your right to your personal beliefs. What I am trying to do is understand and to throw out there anything that comes to my mind that challenges it. Note I said in MY mind. I obviously am not as brilliant as you or Bridget. Let’s just end this conversation on a civil note. As I said, I respect your opinion and your right to have it. It is one of the things that I love about this country, our ability to freely express differing opinions and thoughts. I understand that this is your site and you have a right to promote whatever you wish and I respect that as well. Thanks for your time.

        Like

      2. One final thing. According to the CDC 90% of abortions occur prior to 13 weeks gestation so the photo of the 24 week fetus is just inflammatory in my opinion.

        Like

      3. I think your righteous indignation is misplaced. Your political party not only supports abortions prior to 13 weeks but those up to full-term, including infanticide (i.e., partial-birth abortion). You and your party also are forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions and you are increasing the number of abortions at any point in time. Those are all indisputable facts.

        And your foundation is still flawed: The age of a human being is irrelevant to her value. Whether or not you don’t mind pictures of human beings destroyed at less than 13 weeks is equally irrelevant. If you hung around an abortion clinic long enough you might get desensitized to dead 24 week old human beings as well.

        Like

  4. Are you aware that at nine weeks the human being you refer to is the size of a grape and weighs a fraction of an ounce, I have a very difficult time thinking of women who abort at this time as murderers. I do not support partial birth abortions in any way, shape or form. Because I voted for a candidate in a party as I said, I do not accept or agree with the particular party’s platform. I vote for whomever I think is the best candidate for the job, regardless of party affiliation. My foundation may be flawed, but so am I. Anyway, we could go on and on, I don’t think I will resolve this issue in my mind anytime soon. Again, thanks for the input.

    Like

    1. Are you aware that at nine weeks the human being you refer to is the size of a grape and weighs a fraction of an ounce,

      I am well aware that the human being at conception is smaller than a human being at later periods of time. I am also aware that babies are smaller than adults. I am also aware that the relatively small size (and level of dependency, environment and degree of development) of babies does not provide adequate justification to kill them just because they are unwanted.

      I have a very difficult time thinking of women who abort at this time as murderers.

      You are welcome to pick any euphemism you like for those who contact with third parties to have innocent but unwanted human beings destroyed.

      I do not support partial birth abortions in any way, shape or form.

      The people you just elected do, plus lots more.

      Because I voted for a candidate in a party as I said, I do not accept or agree with the particular party’s platform.

      Well, that was the number one theme at their convention. It wasn’t like they hid it.

      I sincerely hope you keep researching this important topic. Take some time to visit abort73.com or perhaps read http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Life-Answers-Pro-Choice-Arguments-Expanded/dp/1576737519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354305666&sr=8-1&keywords=randy+alcorn+pro-life+answers . It is really good.

      Like

      1. I will continue to do research. I have greatly appreciated your willingness to have a dialogue. I just can’t deal with people like Bridget. Far too condescending and just not very kind at all. I know most people don’t value kindness much these days, but I really do.

        Like

      2. ROFL. Since when do you value kindness? Is your version of being “kind” to tell a thirty-something professional woman that she can’t have an opinion because you’re old enough to be her mother?

        Or is it that you want everyone else to treat you with kid gloves while you throw little passive-aggressive snarky snark around?

        Like

      3. This is from the “post-menopausal nutter with the sagging tush and crows feet, aging honey” oh what a horror! Please tell me how a suggestion to be kinder is trying to silence you. I do not support abortion, perhaps you should get your facts straight. I could care less how old or young someone is, I am trying to have a civil conversation. You obviously are not capable of such. Please don’t bother to reply, I don’t care to hear anymore of your self-righteous indignation. I most certainly will not read anymore, or reply again, regarding this topic. Good luck with your law career.

        Like

  5. By the way, Neil, I think Kathy is either entirely silly or a troll. “We perceive things differently!” is either concern-trolling in the extreme, or the words of a pitiful woman who has yet to get beyond third-grade circle class time.

    Like

    1. Nice Bridget. I am not a troll nor entirely silly. I graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor of science degree in child and adolescent studies. Yes dear, I got beyond third-grade circle time. You treat others with such love, I can tell you must be a Christian.

      Like

      1. Young lady, I am sure I am old enough to be your mother. Just to let you in on a little wisdom here, opinions different from yours are not necessarily uniformed or grotesue and jumping to that conclusion whenever you disagree with someone seems offputting to say the least.
        I

        Like

      2. I apparently am also so very out of touch because I had no idea what you were referring to when you called me a troll. I looked it up and no Bridget, I am not a troll. I will continue to do research as suggested to try and come to a conclusion I feel comfortable with. Right now, I am done discussing this subject, and seriously Bridget, a little more kindness wouldn’t kill you.

        Like

      3. Except YOU ARE NOT MY MOTHER. My mother is against abortion and didn’t stab my sister nor I in the head with a fork, despite being unmarried and a pregnant teenager. Had you been my mother, I would be rotting in a trash heap.

        (One logical fallacy is “appeal to authority.” Is your “young lady” snark an “appeal to age, crow’s feet, and a sagging tush”? Just asking.)

        I am well-aware that other people have different opinions; what I am unaware of is why I must treat time-wasting people as if their time-wasting is of any import.

        Like

      4. Neil, sorry, except I’m not.

        It cracks me up when these post-menopausal nutters tell me that I can’t have an opinion about abortion because I’m not yet post-menopausal. (Functionally, Kathy is doing that; for all her meowing about how I’m trying to silence her, she’s trying to silence me.)

        It cracks me up when these aging honeys lecture me about manners, civility, and how to think, when it’s pretty darn clear that they are embarrassed by being challenged by someone younger than them.

        Sorry for not putting up with it any longer. Something about being in my thirties and an attorney, I just have no desire to be treated like anything but an adult.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s