How Reproductive Rights are being destroyed in our country - a Frontline video expose

That's about right. It's kind of silly for people to be so militant about Roe v Wade when the right wing demolished abortion rights LONG AGO by eliminating clinics from vast expanses of this country.

Luckily, doctors and clinics are overrated and superfluous. People have been performing abortions for tens of thousands of years, using methods that make suction curettage look like medieval barbarism, WHICH IT IS.

Here's how it's done:

Begin the following regimen as soon after conception as possible. The longer you wait the harder your body will struggle against this method. if you miss a period, use a pregnancy test. If it's positive and you want to abort, BEGIN THIS REGIMEN IMMEDIATELY. Used within the first month it is remarkably effective and trouble-free. It's not a bad idea to obtain supplies in advance, including the pregnancy test, to have on hand just in case. Store them in your refrigerator.

Use a compound therapy of herbal and nutritive abortifacients (abortion-inducing agents), taken orally. Herbal abortifacients include Motherwort, Black Cohosh, Blue Cohosh, Pennyroyal. I recommend obtaining fresh herb, either from the wild or cultivated. Commercial OTC herbal products seem to have serious potency issues, probably because of liability problems. Motherwort, Black Cohosh, and Pennyroyal HERB (prepared as tea) or TINCTURES are a good combination. Avoid essential oils, as these can be dangerously potent. Begin dosing yourself cautiously, ramping up over several days. The idea is to ramp up to the effective dose without poisoning yourself. Get dosage info from books, not from labels. Learn the possible complications and be vigilant about them so you can end the regimen at the first sign of trouble.

http://www.sisterzeus.com/risks.htm

This does not include heavy cramps, which are to be expected. Drastic abdominal pain is a different matter.

Combine these herbs with mega-mega-mega-doses of Vitamin C. I'm talking 3,000 to 5,000 milligrams daily. Again, ramp up.

I have helped women use this regimen repeatedly and it works beautifully -- no more trauma than with a heavy period. Also, it's dirt-cheap and totally private. You could drink your tea right in front of a whole bible-freak congregation and they wouldn't know.

Fuck doctors, doctors SUCK. It's time people resurrected ancient wisdoms and gave these class vampires notice.

Here's an excellent website on the subject

http://www.sisterzeus.com/Abortif.htm

Don't be afraid to progress to quite high doses, e.g. 2 to 3 droppers-full of tincture. Dosage information for these herbs tends to be over-cautious, especially for this application. You're deliberately aiming for a result -- induced miscarriage -- that is normally considered catastrophic. They key word is PROGRESS to the high dose. Don't get impatient, just keep increasing the daily dosage by steady moderate increments. Also, some herbs should be used more cautiously than others. Cotton root and Mistletoe, for example, should be used with extreme caution if at all

But we also need to ramp up the information and start producing information about dosage that is a little more quantifiable...it's still an imprecise method..
the other thing is..do you see what's happenig here? How we are all sort of telling ourselves, well, we'll just go back in the closet and "make do" with illegality? Don't get me wrong, I think this isa good method to know about and disseminate but it aint no subsitute for Roe v Wade. I don't want to have to make do.

I don't want to either

So start preparing for armed warfare against the U.S. oligarchy, cuz that's what you're looking at now, that's what it ALWAYS ends up being -- you kill them, or they thwart you and corrupt you and finally they

SUCK.

YOU.

DRY.

The U.S. "left" has been kidding itself that symptoms and deckchairs are the real issues when **THIS** is the one, the unitary REAL real issue.

Why do you think they're so terrified of communism, anyway?

And they ARE terrified of it, in case you didn't know.

Cuz they want to save the world? Fight back tyranny? Spread freedom? Please. They're terrified of it because of the way communists purged Russia of its ruling class. Because of how Mao wiped out corrupt wealthy collaborators with Western imperialism. If you let greedy hyperprivileged people live after you've pulled them down from power, they'll scrabble to a place where they can turn around and kill YOU. They understand the math perfectly. It's their Big Secret.

The people of the Chinese and Russian mass movements had this REAL real issue totally figured out. They couldn't be fooled anymore. Quit fucking kidding yourself that the REAL fight before you is anything less. Then maybe you'll stop retreating before them.

are primarily to abort females. If they want abortions fine- but let's not use the procdedure to gender select. We're not going to change what happens in China, but let's stay on the issue as it relates to women and reproductive rights for women of color in our rightist state. Women in Mississippi don't use abortion to select for gender, they're just effing poor!

you may not be "gender picking" but instead, you're "life picking" "hmmmmm is this kid convenient for me ? is comparable to asking...is this female convenient or ok for me.

so rm:
we're talking about females, mothers, probably of color, probably in poverty.

So let's get this straight:
You want to breed babies, take them away from their rightful mothers, raise them in YOUR beliefs, and still have the priveledge of denying contraception to women in Africa in poverty?

What's your problem? You're ALREADY doing that, both in Africa and in Mississippi. They die in Africa, AND YO! they still trust our government in Mississippi (rather like New Orleans).

What's wrong with this picture? Please specify whether you are male or female in your response. It's getting to be an issue, ya know?

0
+

Stop thinking with your ovaries or your male progenitor syndrome and you might realize that 1) choosing to terminate a pregnancy has its tragic aspect for any woman and I don't think any do it frivolously. They do it when having a kid is definitely going to screw their life up, in which case 2) child-bearing isn't "convenient" for the kid, either. It's simply senseless. You're unthinkingly referencing the neurotic overblown death fixation loaded into Christianity, a thing that should bear hard examination -- give it a whirl sometime.

How old are you, anyway? 20? So I guess you have five kids now, huh? 30? Wow, up to 15 already! 40?....

Even hypocrites like you find strategies to avoid burying themselves under a mountain of kids. Whatever way you're using, it's not the diametric moral opposite of abortion you think it is. You're just a sanctimonious asshole. Quit wasting all those eggs and sperm! That's hemi-murder every time!

how come the pro-abortion-rights community isn't demanding the same kind of dragnet against clinic bombers, that the govt. is currently waging against, say, environmentalists?

is this because american feminist leadership is in fact in bed (so to speak) with the federal government, happy to leave most of the rest of our rights in hock to government whim, in exchange for a place at the democrats' dubious dinner table?

and if so, where is our hamas option, if you will, to clean out our corrupt pro-choice authority?

especially when alito makes abortion illegal (or, more likely, allows states to), president hilary clinton tolerates it in the name of pragmatic centrism, and we have to go back to a semi-underground-railroad-culture to secure abortion rights in this country?

it's enough to make ya wanna run around waving your right index finger in the air, meaning "another one pissed off at this stupid shit disguised as rights activism!"

get active yourself!

The Conclusion of the Matter:
1. Life is Brief
2. Death is Real
3. Judgement is Certain
4. Opportunity is Now
Make a choice. One has already been made on your behalf.

make them on your own behalf, not mine.

Hmmmm... Welp, okay, sounds like you've got everything all handled and squared away?

It will all come out in the wash mr. nurse sir. we will definitely handle it. it's just a question of relearning. and as a mr. nurse, you could volunteer to help.

which side would you be helping though? not clear from your post.

1. Life is brief
2. Death is real
3. Judgement is certain
4. Opportunity is now

I see from the above posts that you argue amoungst yourselves. Much has been written on this subject. Entire philisophical books, courses, PhD's have probably been awarded on the subject of abortion. But it all boils down to these 4 simple truths.

Ignore him, just another religious wacko, waiting for "the Rapture".

What did you google? certainly not me. I just did, and found nothing.
I promise you, I am NOT a "religeous wacko" And I am especially not waiting for the rapture !

1. Life is brief:
How quickly we grow old. Myself as a child with 2 sisters and a brother, visiting my grandparents was amusing. Watching there hands shake uncontrollably when they ate. That HUGE magnifying glass they used to read with, my grandfathers cane, the dentures. And my grandfather getting scared when dad drove faster than 55 mph. Everything that we associate with getting older they had........and now it's beginning to happen to me! My vision is deteriorating, my muscles ache, and I drive the speed limit. There was a time in my life when I could play drums for 4 hours straight. Not any more. I'm getting "OLD" This comes as no surprise. It has happened generation after generation. Nothing new. And it is nothing against you. It is merely the truth. (Life is brief)

there is a tinge of religion here, yes indeedy.
perhaps you were paraphrasing, but who cares.

you have something to say about abortion and your opinion of it? we're all ears i'm sure.

2. Death is real

This irrefutable truth happens every day. Sometimes it is the tragic loss of a loved one. All of my grandparents are dead now. Someday, (hopefully much later), it will happen to me and you both. In some cases it happens prematurely. Spontaneous abortions, elective abortions, car accidents, or just plain "old age". In anycase, this basic truth that with "life" eventually comes "death" requires your thought and understanding. When we are young and active we don't give much thought to death. But then a relative died, and it hit me. I remember the casket being lowered into the ground. It was then I felt the "finality" of this loved one's death.

I don't "judge" the elective abortion folks. You won't get an argument from me (to answer your question). You are totally free to choose. But always remember these words:
1. Life is brief
2. Death is real
3. Judgement is certain
4. Opportunity is now

ya know, I looked into the eyes of a dying relative myself this last year. Later that evening I saw him wheeled away in a body bag. Sad and inevitable as it is, it has nothing to do with women's right to choose, which is the topic at hand.

Why don't you watch the video mentioned at the start of this thread. Did you even bother to look at it? instead of harping on #3 on your list (which we know is where you're going next).

1st I actually saw this video a while back when it was first airred on PBS. It is informative about the issues surrounding abortion clinics in the south (esp the legal side)

2nd I checked out the website you gave a link to. I promise you, I am not that guy ! I'm much better looking :) "The conclusion of the matter" (items 1-4) is a topic often preached in churches. It's founded on Ecclesiastes 12. ("Titled the conclusion of the matter")But I can understand why you thought I was that guy.

3rd I am obviously a pro-lifer. I am pro-choice in cases of maternal medically endangered. (that, in my mind is pro-life because if one of the two will live) Rape and incest comprise <1% of the total so you can have that (1%) if you like.

4th I have a theory about the future of elective abortions.
1. Ultimately the states will decide
2. Language regarding incidents of rape, incest, chromosomal abnormalities(only the biggys 5p, 13, 18, 21), and endangering to the mother will be included in the law.
3. Greater funding will be provided to adoption agencies.
4. The heaviest factor in all this is economic. It will not be moral arguments of prolifers (like myself) nor the civil rights arguments of pro-choicers. This change will be driven by money. I couldn't begin to give you the details on how abortion effects taxation (revenues) and spending. But I'd bet this is what will ultimately force a change in the current system.
So those are my thoughts. what do you think?

at least you came clean.
And I'm pro-life too: pro-life for women.

"1. Ultimately the states will decide"
Ultimately the woman who finds herself pregnant will decide. She will be decide whether to seek alternative means to abortion, or to have an unwanted child, because she's been denied access- whether access to abortion, contraceptives or education. Re: "#3 greater funding to adoption agencies",

"2. Language regarding incidents of rape, incest, chromosomal abnormalities(only the biggys 5p, 13, 18, 21), and endangering to the mother will be included in the law."
Do you think the people at this link will agree with you? They think rape victims should consider bearing the child of their attacker:
http://www.texlife.org/docs/faq.html#10
"It will not help the mother to burden her with the guilt of a murder on top of the indignity of rape."
And this is not a unique viewpoint among anti-choicers.

"3. Greater funding will be provided to adoption agencies."
how do you see that as a solution? There are plenty of adoptable children right now. Many of them are being adopted across the border in Canada. The problem is they are the wrong color, or the wrong age, or the wrong something else to be adopted here. And when we're running trillions into a deficit, and spending more and more on a war machine (which is itself already underfunding armor for soldiers), providing tax cuts to the wealthy, I wonder where oh where that funding will come from?

"4. I couldn't begin to give you the details on how abortion effects taxation (revenues) and spending."
Can you give me some details about estimated health costs of women with septic abortions, families and children with no healthcare, living in poverty and/or on drugs, or the underfunding of education? And as a nurse, would you disagree that it can be more dangerous to the health of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term than to have a legal abortion? I agree that our country in general is driven by money (that is the overriding concern of our politicians to be sure). We're more a corporate-ocracy than a democracy these days. As to the morality of so-called pro-life, it is not moral to place the life of a fetus over the life of a woman. A woman whose circumstances you can't know and which are none of your business anyway.

Yes I am pro-life. But my thoughts on the future of elective abortions is not necessarily my wishes. These are just my predictions. So please keep it in that context. I think the future laws established, the funding, ect. will all be a political "middle of the road strategy" to keep both sides happy. And as we know populations grow exponentially. So just imagine the econometric models worked out with 1.2 million more taxpayers starting at year #1 and passing through 25 years at year #25 with 80+ million more taxpayers.(that is a conservative number because we assume some won't be working and we'll be spending on some as well)This would be a nice offset to the expenditures you've suggested. Again, it's only a prediction. I would much rather have the issue resolved in "moral" vs "rights" terms, but I don't think that'll ever happen. I think this is where we're headed. I'd be okay with this.
Oh yea, the laws I am suggesting WOULD give the option of elective abortions to cases of rape, incest, maternal endangerment, chromosomal abnormalities. NOT deny them. I think this would be a middle of the road political move. I'd also go so far as predict some states would require a police report to be filed in the incident of rape or incest prior to performing the elective procedure. Just a prediction.

"And as we know populations grow exponentially. So just imagine the econometric models worked out with 1.2 million more taxpayers starting at year #1 and passing through 25 years at year #25 with 80+ million more taxpayers.(that is a conservative number because we assume some won't be working and we'll be spending on some as well)This would be a nice offset to the expenditures you've suggested. Again, it's only a prediction."

where you going to put all this millions? Do you think, realistically that our environment can afford still more infrastructure, more sprawl, more population than our planet can already bear? You think things are healthy now? You can pay all the taxes for all the real estate you like, bottom line is there is no more real estate, no more planet for these millions to exist on.

None of which says anything about why it is wrong for a woman who (for reasons you don't know about) has determined the need to terminate her pregnancy (for reasons you are not, nor should you be, privy to).

Would you like to tell us all about your immediate family health situation and please go into detail? I think if that's what you're asking of women who are pregnant and wish to end their pregnancies, you should have the decency to share your families health issues in detail with the rest of us. I mean, hey, why not? What's the problem? Don't you think we know what's good for you too?

ONCE AGAIN ! I am NOT saying this is what I want ! I am making a prediction ! !
Who are you trying to argue with?
Maybe I'm the 1 pro-life person you've encountered in your life that didn't want to argue with you about these opinions you have or that I have.
I stated I was pro-life.
I have suggested a predicted outcome.
I stated I would be okay with it IF it came to pass.
This argument of morality vs rights can never know its victor on earth. It is all faith based. (that is: a faith in God) I am not the one to judge. "Life is brief - Death is real - Judgement is certain" - Are warnings to us all. Not end of the earth apocalipse / rapture stuff.(gimme a break!) When I die, I want to go to heaven. Some believe, when you're dead, you're dead ! And that there is no heaven to go to. I can't prove this to you either way. I happen to believe there is a heaven, and you might be questioning IF there is.
The last verse says that all acts good or evil will come into judgement.
If you beleive in your heart that elective abortions are "good" and are in line with God's commandments, then you've got nothing to worry about. But if you question what you're doing,
4.Opportunity is now.
And there is "The Conclusion of the Matter" Ecclesiastes 12

keep your religion out of it.

Okay, Okay But you have to understand the position I'm in. I know this is a pro-choice forum, and I'm up against everyone. It's like being the only white guy in an all black neighborhood. (or vice-versa) I'm an easy target. Believe me I know ! But in the spirit of continued "sharing of information" Why don't we select and discuss ONE topic relating to abortion.
As I've said the moral argument is founded on faith. We will never agree on this if you don't believe in God. So pick something realistic and factually based to both of us.
My suggestion is: Definition of when life begins.
How about you?

...is open to interpretation by people differently, whether of your religion, my religion or no religion whatsoever. Why not let each person decide, according to their beliefs, their medical needs, and what they believe they need to do in their own lives as a free individual. Ok, relatively free individual. Because this is an academic question.

Because people of low income are not free to decide or interpret. The decision is already made for them.

Why do they have less right to decide than someone who is educated, has access to healthcare, has money, transportation? Are they acting then, of their own free will?

No, it's already been decided for them. As you already said.

Question for you- is that appropriate?

People with money, education and access will do as they please. While people (read: women) in poverty are denied birth control, healthcare, prenatal care, education, and equal wages.

Frankly I know there's not really much point in our having this dialogue. I've already had it many times. Your side isn't likely to change your opinions. My side can't for the same reason- that we feel to allow women to go back in time to the period of 1860-1973 would have equal costs for women who will die. They will die, and they already are dying. We value them and their existing children and families more than potential babies.

I've seen pictures of aborted fetuses. I've also seen one picture of a woman who died of a botched abortion. Those pictures are rarer. You know why? Because it is much more horrible to see the picture of a blood spattered woman knowing she is leaving children that will never grow up with her than it is to abort a fetus at however many weeks you or I decide when life begins FOR US.

The solution to abortion is contraception and education, but there are times when both of those fail. I would want to decide what to do when that happens as I'm sure many other women would. And I will, because I'm not living in poverty. And I don't need a Supreme Court or anyone else to tell me what is best for me and my family. I will do what has to be done.

You went with an angle I was trying to avoid. I agree the "faith" part of all these questions we will never agree on. You have your beliefs, I have mine. I guess I was aiming for more factual / scientific / statistical type topics. Your last post was " leave your religeon out of this" I was trying to do that.
The differences of beliefs (what they need to do with their own lives) ignores the question of the "other LIFE"
That's where I was suggesting we go with this.
Order in society requires laws that are based on fundamental moral principles. Obviously you can't take (any) religeon out of the picture here. Without it, it's a free-for-all. Anything goes, if it feels good do it, if I benefit - do it. ect. Total chaos. You probably know through history that religeons have served this purpose. But make no mistake about it...some religeons (beliefs) are destructive to societies as well.
So what of the unfortunate young lady who got pregnant...I haven't seen in America a place where everyone doesn't have a fighting chance. (except for the aborted fetus) We have created this pervasive attitude to just give-up! When we're faced with the slightest misfortune we look for the easy way out. No, NO ! Stand and fight ! Get out there and kick some ass! (figuratively) If you don't have the education then get one. Do the best you can, in whatever way you can, give life, and tell the kid when he graduates from college. "Son, I did the best I could do for you." And his reply will be: "I'm proud of you mom." The sense of accomplishment you'd get in that one moment, would far outway any short-term eases consequent to the abortion. Because even if you elected the abortion, you'd still have to eventually get a job, and still do the best you can do for yourself with whatever way you can. In fact, the new child would serve as even greater motivation in this regard.
The stuff you mentioned about the botched abortion, If I understand it correctly, it is a statistical annomaly. Those are generally not useful in making rational decisions ( the "what if's...")
In fact the mortalty rate for induced abortions prior to Roe v Wade was [1972] (41 deaths for illegal abortions) (24 deaths for legal abortions) Those numbers stayed about the same in 1973 and 1974 when now the "reported" # of abortions was ~700,000. Again, probably not statistically significant enough to consider here.
I agree with you that we will probably never agree on the "faith" side of this issue. Our lessons throughout life will educate us.
I will be moving today, so I'll be off-line for a while, so I'm not trying to be rude or anything.

responding on your statement of "when life begins"
...is open to interpretation by people differently, whether of your religion, my religion or no religion whatsoever. Why not let each person decide, according to their beliefs, their medical needs, and what they believe they need to do in their own lives as a free individual. Ok, relatively free individual. Because this is an academic question.

I don't think there is this much subjective interpretation to a biological process. (ATP are being consumed in anabolic and catabolic processes. )
That, my friend = life. All the other stuff sounds more like you're trying to create a gray area when it's actually black and white. (speaking of the definition of life)

Don't misunderstand me in all this. I don't enjoy seeing people in misery or misfortune or whatever. I don't ignore the reality of these problems. They certainly need to be addressed. I think of all the great minds we have in this great country of ours, the intellectuals, the well educated, all the great ability we have to problem solve...and the best we can come up with is....."ahhh just let 'em kill it and be done with it." Those are the IQ - busters we've got in this country. They're right off the chart !
I believe there is a place for truely helping these women. Abortions are not the answer.

I am pro-life. Why? I believe that human life begins at conception. That is my belief as a Catholic and that is my belief as one who understands the basis for a thing being alive, as well as having a knowledge of human reproduction. Conception as I see it is when an egg meets sperm and and a unique human DNA is formed in a cellular level human. The cell is alive, it is dividing, it is respirating using nutrients and oxygen as well as producing waste by-products, just like any other from of life. Once that life has begun, we as humans are morally bound to protect that life. But perhaps these facts are not what so clouds the discussion.

I do not believe that woman, or man has a right to choose to end a life whether born or unborn. The majority of abortions are the lifesyle abortion, meaning they are elective.

The most underdiscussed aspect of abortion is that which is directly linked to sexual behavior and more particularly, irresponsible sexual behavior. People want to have sex but do not want to deal with the consequences of their actions. Abortion is a way to unmake that decision about having sex after the fact. That is the right which people that are pro-choice are most concerned about losing, is the right of behavioral hindsight and the ability to cover their own indiscretions. It is a way to cover ones own actions up by righting one wrong with another. And it works too. No one speaks about having an abortion. No one is ever proud about having an abortion. No one ever speaks about having an abortion after they have one. Abortion is an act that is kept in the dark, even 33 years after its effective legalization. There is a moral stigma that even the most hardened pro-choice advocate cannot escape.

The number of medically needed abortions is very small in comparison to the number that occur every year.

There is virtually no middle ground in the discussion either. You are either pro-abortion or pro-life. Not many sit on the fence although many take the "I would never have one but I am not going to tell anyone that they cant." Call that indifference and the worst form of indifference. If people become aware of the truth abortion abortion, its regular occurence every day and why they happen, I think that most people would not be so indifferent.

Abortion is regulated and it should be and more so than it is.
I would hope to see it effectively eliminated one day.

These are my opinions and I am sure that some will agree and others will not. I look forward to seeing what people have to say about them.

you completely miss the boat

it does not matter if it is some blob of tissue or "life" as you call it ,or the second coming of jesus even

the overriding point is that life or not, it shares one body with the mother, and the adult female must have legal precedence

to start to value fetuses over women leads to all sorts of nasty things

do you propose a pregnancy police to monitor all of the sacred fetuses? doctors in jail? women in jail? victims of rape forced under penalty of law, and maybe in jail even, to birth the result of said rape? 12 year old mothers? women forced to bear the children of marital affairs?

then, once the fetus is born, to hell with it -- cut taxes that might pay for its schooling or health care, send it off to a war based on lies?

quite simply, you have no right to enforce your christian theology on others. you don't want an abortion, don't have one, force your daughters to carry to term rape babies, but keep your nose out of people's wombs and stop pretending it has anything to do with science. that's just a ruse to trick others into thinking you are a reason-based person when you are truely faith-based.

your snickering about "irresponsible sexual behavior" gets at where you really are

you want the pope, a man who has never had sex (or at least would never admit to it, even though in all likelihood is gay), to dictate to all of humanity what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies

fuck that!

there's all sorts of rules in the catholic church that have nothing to do with the word of god. for example, priests can't marry because pope jerkoff the 18th a few hundred years ago became worried about wives inhereting church property. not the word of god, the word of one man, as if jesus is worried about property. but good catholics everywhere just accept that, as they do so many other things, as the one right way of god merely because they are told to. you "believe" too much and should start thinking more.

a big fat "no" to your american theocracy. keep your judgement of other's behaviors to yourself. we won't let you make them law. what, do you want us to be the catholic taliban here? yeah, that'll be really good for children. a wonderful "culture of life" with sex police running around in everyone's bedrooms and tossing people in jail for the non-sanctioned sexual activity.

take a giant step back from your bible and read "Cantebury Tales" and "A Handmaiden's Tale" for a broader perspective on what christian theocracies look like

"your snickering about "irresponsible sexual behavior" gets at where you really are"

-This part of your response means nothin to me. Perhaps its an inside joke.

"you want the pope, a man who has never had sex (or at least would never admit to it, even though in all likelihood is gay), to dictate to all of humanity what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies"

-The Pope does not tell us what to do with our bodies. God does. And your stereotypes about the Catholic clergy are old as well. It does not give credibility to your position.

"fuck that!" Profanity proves something?

"there's all sorts of rules in the catholic church that have nothing to do with the word of god. for example, priests can't marry because pope jerkoff the 18th a few hundred years ago became worried about wives inhereting church property. not the word of god, the word of one man, as if jesus is worried about property. but good catholics everywhere just accept that, as they do so many other things, as the one right way of god merely because they are told to. you "believe" too much and should start thinking more."

-Read anything about the Catholic church and learn about why priests are not married. It is not doctrinally impossible, but it is accepted that priests do not marry.

a big fat "no" to your american theocracy. keep your judgement of other's behaviors to yourself. we won't let you make them law. what, do you want us to be the catholic taliban here? yeah, that'll be really good for children. a wonderful "culture of life" with sex police running around in everyone's bedrooms and tossing people in jail for the non-sanctioned sexual activity.

-Freedom from sin is real freedom.

"take a giant step back from your bible and read "Cantebury Tales" and "A Handmaiden's Tale" for a broader perspective on what christian theocracies look like"

-Try reading the Bible.

Once again, I return back to the fundamental question that must be answered by the pro-choice folks. Do they regard the fetus as "life" or not? It seems there is frequent diversion from answering this question. All of these "what if's..." blah, blah, blah... "pregnancy police..." blah, blah, blah... "pope the 18th..." blah, blah, .... MAKE A DECISION !
Maybe you recognize the impossiblity of ever making a strong argument on the basis of "the definition of life", so you're side-stepping the question with all this other stuff. Please stay on target and keep yourself logical. Emotions won't bring rationale decisions. (that's also why you should try to avoid swearing)
What would it take to get you to change your mind? I'll tell you for me. If you could prove to me that there is no life in the fetus, That when sperm meets ovum a "rock" is formed, (or some inanimant object), I'd totally be pro-choice ! I don't think a woman should forced to give birth to granite when she's not ready or was hoping for sandstone.
It would be totally acceptable to make gravel in this case.
So what of you? What is the determining factor? Rights? Choice? I choose to be rich, but I'm not. I'm hungry, but I'm not allowed to steal. So what is it for you? I want something solid, not wishy-washy. You said yourself to take religeon out of this discussion. That should include your own beliefs on "rights" and "sympathy for the unfortunate mother to be"
Lay it on me, What do you got?

The Conclusion of the Matter
1 Life is brief
2 Death is real
3 Judgement is Certain
4 Opportunity is Now
Ecclesiastes 12

I wasnt raped- neither myself nor my sex partner used birth control, and I had an abortion, and i am very happy i did so. It was a better moral decison that having it. I lke sex, and I 'm not about to stop having it...becfause the act of reproduction ends in my body that gives my right to life the automatic overide. I don't think we need to defend abortion on narrow grounds- I'm not "taking" anything from anything, I am merely editing myself.

1st what's up with this forum and nobody using the author name. what is that? the cool rebellion thing?
2nd Sorry to hear you had an abortion
3rd I don't understand this:
"becfause the act of reproduction ends in my body that gives my right to life the automatic overide. I don't think we need to defend abortion on narrow grounds- I'm not "taking" anything from anything, I am merely editing myself. "
can you explain what all this means please?

I'm not sorry. It was a blessing, and I'm truely grateful to the skill and care of the clinic staff.
As for you last question...read it again and think abou tit. It's all there.
Ta ever so...

"the act of reproduction ends in my body" does this mean "intercourse ends in your body?"

"...my right to life gets the automatic overide" does this mean your life and the life of the fetus are mutually exclusive?" ie the 2 lives can't co-exist? Or is this an outspoken emphasis on your right to choose?

"Defending abortion on narrow grounds" What "broad" interpretation are you aiming for or is there some narrow grounds that I eluded to?

"I'm not taking anything from anything" I suspect you're avoiding the use of the term "Life" here.

"blessing? " from who? God?

You can see there's quite a bit of ambiguity in your post. I can't tell your tone...but I think you might be angry. Are you?
Anyways does this look like I've interpreted you correctly?
Again, it would be helpful if an author would use a nickname or initials or something...throw me a friggn' bone ! Anything !

What she said made perfect sense to me.

No, Not the case at all that I'd like her to be angry. But since you stated it made sense, then maybe you could explain the meaning of her statement.

Lay it on me, Did I get it correct or didn't I?

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/

If anyone that is prochoice can explain why the images at the above website are not those of a human being please do so.

The story goes like this:
Satan was hiring some new apprentices
They would each propose a plan to satan
The first one said "I will go to earth and tell the people there is no HEAVEN." Satan responded and said "don't tell them that everyone knows there IS a heaven."
The second one approached satan with his plan "I will go to earth and tell the people that there is no HELL." Satan again responded "Don't tell them that, they all know that there IS a hell.
The third one came to satan and said "I will tell the people of earth that there is NO HURRY."
Satan smiled, and said " You Go, and you will ruin countless millions of souls!"

NOW is the time in your life when you have a choice to make. Oportunity is now.

These are enlightening photos
Adds a little more reality to abortion than just merely "a blob of cells"
I wonder if they're brave enough to see for themselves?

Or maybe they're "choosing" not to look

They are aborted human fetuses. They don't contain or convey the full the narritive of the abortion.
Check this out. It's a dead, formerly fully living mother of two.
We will NEVER go back to this. http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/about_gerri.html

Unfortunate and sad, But if you read the article I gather that this did not have to occur. Nevertheless, Here are the actual numbers you're looking for:
Abortion related deaths:

YEAR LEGAL ABORTIONS TOT. LEGAL ILLEGAL
1972 ? 24 41
1973 616,000 25 21
1974 763,000 26 7

As you can see from the actual numbers you hardly make a strong argument on the basis of number of lives saved from legalized abortion vs. total lives lost (aborted babies)
But nice try. It seems clear, as the logic follows, To save lives; don't get an abortion, legal or illegal.

Didn't come out correctly

1972 Total abortions(?) deaths from legal(24) illegal(41)

1973 Tot aborts(616,000) deaths from legal (25) illegal (21)

1974 Tot aborts (763,000) deaths from legal (26) illegal (7)

Fetal lives are far more important to him. So what is 41 women died? What are they anyway, compared to an "innocent" fetus? Nothing. This wolf would have them all devoured. Accept the fact that he, and others like him simply find your lives, your complex, beautiful, fully conscious lives not as interesting or as important as the tabula rasa of the fetus....
41 women died. 41 women who were alive in every way and knew it.
(Headshake)

My ending statement applies to ALL lives being saved. To include Mother and Fetus.

Funny you should use a quote from John Locke who was aside from being Christian, believed all men had a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. AND believed in the Natural state of life. He's rolling over in his grave right now...ya hear him?

You basically just compared the deaths of 41 women to 600,000 fetuses and shrugged. Fuck off. You arent advocating for the lives of mothers and children, you are talking about controlling birth. That's it.

You'd never win in the debate club honey.
Your use of profanity indicates weakness in your argument.
which I will now illustrate for you:
By your logic then, you sited the death of 600,000 Babies And in your words "just shrugged" Now to me, EVERY life is valuable. You make these these foolish assertions totally not founded in any form of reason. Anyone reading these posts knows where I'm coming from. This is why I keep trying to go back to the question of when does life begin. The point I countered against was your siting of the great value legalized abortions provide against deaths caused by "back-alley" abortions. And my point is that is simply not true as shown statistically. By the way in medicine decisions are based on 1%-3% being an acceptable risk. We are well within those constraits here

They are aborted human fetuses. They don't contain or convey the full the narritive of the abortion.
Check this out. It's a dead, formerly fully living mother of two.
We will NEVER go back to this. http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/about_gerri.html

"Gerri was estranged from her abusive husband when she met Clyde Dixon and became pregnant by him. Terrified that once her abusive husband returned to town and learned it was Dixon's baby she was carrying, he would kill her. She was determined and desperate to end her unintended pregnancy. "

"Gerri was 6 1/2 months pregnant in June 1964. Gerri's boyfriend obtained a medical book and borrowed some surgical equipment. They went to a motel where Dixon tried to perform the abortion. When the attempt failed, when it all went terribly wrong, Dixon fled the scene, leaving her there to die, alone"

This story has nothing to do with the so-called morality of abortion, but the immorality of three people. The woman, the boyfriend and the estranged husband. Each made a conscious choice to choose death or violence or both. This is a very poor excuse for the pro-choice movement and every reason that life, all life, must be cherished. Would they have mourned the death of the child the way that we are expected to mourn her death? These individuals chose death and reckless disregard for life. The fact that she died as a result of the abortion only makes the disregard for life even more concrete.

Thank You that was very well stated !

http://www.silentscream.org/

Sexist AND paternalistic. Nice.

I can't believe you shitheads are trying to blame Gerri Santoro for her own death. She is immoral according to who? You? Who are you to judge her, you bible thumpers.

If you want to see the true cost of illegal abortion look here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_5-03.html

It is quite evident from the research here how racist the denial of reproductive rights is. I'm white. I can get an abortion whenever I need one. But the bible thumpers don't have even the decency to support access to contraception in the first place. Who does that affect? Women in poverty and women of color, as it always has. Then they talk to us about morality.

I stand by what I said. The choice to end life is an immoral one. If that choice to end life ends the mothers life as well, than it is an tragic yet inevitable outcome. The numbers of those deaths do not exceed the numbers of legal abortions. I would not trade the moral choice that protects life for the immoral choice that cheapens and destroys life, ever. Legalized abortion kills millions.

If a mother dies like the above mentioned woman did, it is even more of an insult to life.

Life is a moral choice. It is available for all. Abstinance is a moral choice and is available to all.

Abstinance is not fatal. Abortion is.

Do you get it? In countries like our own abstinence is a moral choice for YOU.
For the rest of us sex is a fact of life, it's not something to moralize about or be ashamed of. Yeah, it's different for Catholics. I can't tell you how many Catholics I've talked to that said the church is messed up about normal human relationships. Why? Because the church has a historical stake in controlling sex, whether between monarchs or poor people. I think your church has messed up enough so that we can honestly say clean up your own house and keep your so-called morality to yourselves.

Abortion is not related to religion anyway. It's related to control over women, and racism.

I don't understand how this has become a racial issue for you. Abortion draws no racial lines. And the last I checked condoms weren't more than 25 cents in the mens bathroom which last time I checked wasn't for "whites only". I'd say the argument that contraception is only affordable to the rich is pretty weak.
My reference to your performance in debate club is an editorial about name calling and use of profanity. Although I recognize this an inherently emotionally charged issue, a meaningful discourse and discussion can't be undertaken when the opposing view is shut down by mud-slinging. This seems to violate Indybays mission statement, which I agree with.
So fear not. We're listening. Just calm down and collect your thoughts. Tell me If you believe life begins at conception or not and why. Thanks

just read the facts and try to digest them without making emotional appeals as to when YOU think life begins.

"WHO HAS ABORTIONS

52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 19%.[5]

Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely.[6]

43% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% identify themselves as Catholic.[7]

2/3 of all abortions are among never-married women.8]

Over 60% of abortions are among women who have had 1 or more children.[9]

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[10]"

"Do you get it? In countries like our own abstinence is a moral choice for YOU."

- Abstinance is a practical matter, not only a moral one. The fact of the matter is abstinance cures abortion, sexually transmitted diseases as well as unwanted pregnancies.

"For the rest of us sex is a fact of life, it's not something to moralize about or be ashamed of."

-Sex is an expression of love, not an act of self indulgence. It is this sexually self indulgence attitude that says that one can have sex even if an abortion has to occur as a result. It is pure selfishness.

"Yeah, it's different for Catholics. I can't tell you how many Catholics I've talked to that said the church is messed up about normal human relationships. Why?"

-Why? Because they are not practicing Catholics, thats why. And excactly how many millions of the practicing Catholics in America have you spoken to?

"Because the church has a historical stake in controlling sex, whether between monarchs or poor people."

-Wrong. The church does not have an interest in controlling people sexual habits beyond its concern for the welfare of the faithful. Sexual indiscretion, abortion and the disregard for sex as an expression in love are ways to invite pain and hardship. There are not millions of broken homes and children without fathers because sex is a natural part of life that can be engaged in at will and at a whim. It is precisely because people do not respect sex or each other. The human being has become an object to be enjoyed for physical pleasure and little more. This is what church teaching protects against.

"I think your church has messed up enough so that we can honestly say clean up your own house and keep your so-called morality to yourselves."

1.5 million abortions every year is the responsibility of every human being. Universal perfection among members of the church is not a precondition for speaking out against abortion. The blood of the unborn is on the hands of all that persist in indifference to the deaths of millions.

"Abortion is not related to religion anyway. It's related to control over women, and racism."

Abortion has everything to do with morality. Life is a gift for all human beings. And if any suggest that abortion is a good and fair alternative to life precisely because a person is poor or of another race, that not only is that abortion advocate immoral, but their choice of abortion exists as form of genocide and the most heinous form of racism imaginable.

ALL RACES AND PEOPLE OF ALL ECONOMIC STANDING DESERVE LIFE, INCLUDING THE UNBORN.!

You provide statistics that support a rationale FOR abortion. But that doesn't make it "right" and "just" in accordance with God's plan.
Example: Can't afford another child, too young, interfere with work, school, ect.
These are all things that can be overcome with hard work and perseverance. Here, we just give up before the battle has begun. What's wrong with fighting for something that's truely worth fighting for? The life of a child. I'm glad my parents didn't just give up, and I'm sure you feel the same way. Fight the good fight ! Just do it ! The reward will be great. This isn't an idealistic pattern either. Look around you, there's people everywhere who could tell you about the misfortunes of their parent/s early on, but then fought to overcome that. Something about the most simple truth.

if one doesn't share your faith. God is relevant for you, probably on most issues. For the rest of us, the fact that you keep bringing religion into all issues is an example yet again of how you like to shove your viewpoint down others throats. Not very nice really.

The facts are the facts, denial of abortion to lower income women is racist. Deal.

Yes God is relevant for me and it is unfortunate He's not relevant for you. Again, Have you any thoughts on heaven or hell? Whatever the case, you can see I took religeon out of the second part of my post. ( talking about fighting the good fight - the story of perseverance, ect )
I'm not suggesting that abortion access be denied to only low income women. I'm suggesting that it should be denied to ALL women. (As I've said in earlier posts you can have the 1% of rape, incest, fetal and maternal anamolies)
No easy race card there that I can see.
Just a suggestion to be tough, not weak. I'm saying put all you've got into doing the right thing. Not with any regard to a specific race or socioeconomic group.

Allowing us the 1%. Even though the stats show that abortion made illegal will make your generosity irrelevant. Abortions will continue, they will just be less safe.

But really- why even give us the 1%? What would you personally advise a woman who'd been raped to do?

Why would they become irrelevant? Would there suddenly become an increase in the number of pregnancy produced by rape, incest? How does the 1% number change?
What I would suggest in these cases is always to save lives. Rape: #1 file a police report. #2 have the baby #3 if mom doesn't want the baby, put it up for adoption. The baby is totally innocent of any crime the father committed.(unless of course you are suggesting we bring morality into the discussion at this point ) If it were my wife I'd say the same thing.
Now I've answered your question. It's your turn to answer mine.
When does life begin?
Do YOU (not everyone else) do YOU personally have any thought of heaven or hell?
Obviously if mom's life is in danger then saving her life is just as important as the fetuses. And that goes for any minority or socioeconomic group ie no racial lines there either.

“-Sex is an expression of love, not an act of self indulgence. It is this sexually self indulgence attitude that says that one can have sex even if an abortion has to occur as a result. It is pure selfishness.”
***I would suggest that you keep your judgements about sex to yourself in your bedroom. You assume that your view of sex should be the view. You’re living in a state of denial if you think that everyone is going to cross their legs just because of your puritanical point of view. Sex is not just about love. It can also be about power. You’re trying to characterize women’s power over their own sexuality as “self indulgent” is weak. Just say it: “I don’t trust women to be responsible for their own lives.”

“-Why? Because they are not practicing Catholics, thats why. And excactly how many millions of the practicing Catholics in America have you spoken to? “
***Many many throughout the years. And you know that they’re not practicing Catholics HOW?


“-Wrong. The church does not have an interest in controlling people sexual habits beyond…”
***Sure they do. They’ve done it for centuries, from Henry VIII and earlier. But that’s irrelevant. This is not about YOUR Church.

“1.5 million abortions every year is the responsibility of every human being.”
***Just tell your priests to keep their hands off of our kids. Let that be your responsibility.


“Abortion has everything to do with morality.”
***YOUR MORALITY, I think you meant to say…

“their choice of abortion exists as form of genocide and the most heinous form of racism imaginable.”
***Similar to the genocide practiced by the Catholic Church in Africa, which preaches absitinance and denies contraceptives to women dying of AIDs? Hypocrite.

"What I would suggest in these cases is always to save lives. Rape: #1 file a police report. #2 have the baby #3 if mom doesn't want the baby, put it up for adoption. The baby is totally innocent of any crime the father committed."

So it would then be your preference that a rape victim do carry the fetus to term in such a case. I thought as much. Not an uncommon point of view from the anti-choice perspective.

"Now I've answered your question. It's your turn to answer mine. When does life begin?"

Be more specific: When does life begin for a child, when does life begin for an embryo or when does life begin for a sperm or an egg? Tissue is alive, that doesn't mean it is a baby or it will be a baby. When does life begin for a frozen embryo? Considering how many there are, probably never. Let's also determine when life ends for a child that has been born and is neglected by society. Does it end when they first turn to drugs? Does it end when nobody will adopt them? Does it end when they are molested by someone they trust?

"Do YOU (not everyone else) do YOU personally have any thought of heaven or hell?"
To me hell is here on earth. One kind of Hell would be being forced to bear the child of a rapist.
Hell would be living in a country where rape is a way of life and is used as a tool of genocide.
Heaven is H.E.L.L. Happiness, Equality, Liberation and Love.

"Obviously if mom's life is in danger then saving her life is just as important as the fetuses. And that goes for any minority or socioeconomic group ie no racial lines there either."
Only if her life is in danger? She is more in danger from carrying to term than from having an abortion. Just read the statistics.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from 1 death for every one million abortions at 8 or fewer weeks to 1 per 29,000 at 16-20 weeks and 1 per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.[25]

The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion.[26]

Almost half of the women having abortions beyond 15 weeks of gestation say they were delayed because of problems in affording, finding or getting to abortion services.[27]

Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely.[6]

The U.S. Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman's life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest.[31]

"So it would then be your preference that a rape victim do carry the fetus to term in such a case. I thought as much. Not an uncommon point of view from the anti-choice perspective. "

I'd asked if you wanted to bring morality into this. If you choose to then you're not consistant with your logic. If you don't, then I am correct.
Okay, for you:
Being more specific: "When does life begin for the [child]?"
If I follow your logic correctly then regarding danger of carrying to term then NO children should be born because it would be too dangerous to the pregnant mothers life. Again, your not making any sense. I hear of 1,000,000 abortion per year (=lives lost) to how many deaths relate to childbirth? That was the original thought we were on. Now I guess we've switched topics. Ya know, this twisting tactic doesn't work when your in a logical discussion. How did we bring rape into this idea of hell ? Yea, I guess if everyone was being raped that would be hell. No big revelation there (so to speak) Are you being real with me or are you just goofing around?
How does people getting raped turn into genocide?
And how did we get on the topic of genocide?
I saw Hotel Rwanda, THAT was genocide!

But you really aren't much a one for facts are you?

I suggest you check out the womyn section of indybay to learn more about how rape is being used as a weapon of genocide. You can even find it in the NY Times. Use some initiative.

As to whether it is moral or immoral to force a woman to have a child by a rapist, I made no judgement. You think it is moral- fine, I just wanted to identify that. Some people may think your stand is immoral, some may totally identify with it. Whatever.

1Mil abortions per year is not equal to lives lost. The emotional issue of when life begins for you has entered into the stats.

As to changing topics, you have certainly changed the topic from where it started out, and you've trotted out all of your favorite little religious syllogisms, in spite of their irrelevance to the discussion.

Again, I ask ..." when does life begin for the child"

This was the initial question that I suggested that we discuss. Look back up the page to the post dated Feb 2nd "Okay Okay" All of these posts, numerous times I have eluded back to this original question, and still nothing. All of this side tracking, twisting, side-bars, has brought us to this point. To be honest with you. Most of the time I don't even know who I'm responding to. I've suggested numerous times that a post have an appropriate author name/initials/ something/ like most other civilized forums have. And there's this weird nameless thing going on. (oh God-forbid you should be a conformist and use your initials-oh my- the nerves of steel ! Oh you guys showed ME a thing or 2 , in short, it's pretty cowardly not to be accountable for what you write aside from lacking in organization.

And so far as rape goes, there's not a soul reading these posts who would conclude my position is to force a raped woman to have the baby. Not at all. In fact that is why I surrendured the 1%. It's such a small number, relative to total abortions, it is insignificant to my cause. The woman can choose in these cases. I even stated so in my "4 predictions list" The fact that for ME the baby is innocent, might not be the same view held by a victim of rape. You asked me what I / ME would suggest. I wouldn't force on a woman though.
I promise I will check out this womyn section you refer to.

Here I've made the connection simpler for you:
http://tinyurl.com/9cugk

Question: Should all of those rape victims should be encouraged to bear their rapist's child? What if a few of them had their limbs chopped off in addition to being raped? It has happened, the question isn't academic.

"When does life begin" or "when does life begin for the child"?

I already answered your question, I would say you're not speaking to my question.

"Obviously if mom's life is in danger then saving her life is just as important as the fetuses. And that goes for any minority or socioeconomic group ie no racial lines there either."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_5-03.html
Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.

These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.

A clear racial disparity is evident in the data of mortality because of illegal abortion: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.

Even in the early 1970s, when abortion was legal in some states, a legal abortion was simply out of reach for many. Minority women suffered the most: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died. Furthermore, from 1972 to 1974, the mortality rate due to illegal abortion for nonwhite women was 12 times that for white women.

1. The choice of a woman to not be used as an object of pleasure by men is real freedom and power over ones sexuality.

2. A practicing Catholic is a Catholic that embraces the teaching that all life is sacred. Abortion and birth control are contradictory to these teachings. There is no plurality of thought on morality withimn the Catholic church.

3. The reasoning that says that is okay to kill is immoral in any school of thought. Only in a morally relativistic world of thought is premeditated killing of innocent life justified.

4. If millions of deaths by sexually transmitted diseases is not enough of a teacher than what could the catholic church teach them other than abstinance. Rampant casual sex in a disease filled community such as in places like Africa, is little more than suicide. There is no hypocracy at work here at all. We are each accountable for our own choices. The wages of sin are death.

5. Morality is not subjective. There are certain universal truths that society must hold on to or it will degenerate into chaos and a disregard for life.

6. Why should such a heinous and violent act be then followed by another violent and destructive act? You beleive that abortion is a suitable remedy for rape, would you also call for mandatory execution of all rapists? If their offspring is unfit to live, why should they?

7. Life begins at conception. The use of embryos for experimentation is immoral as well as cloning since such acts degrade the sanctity and unique distinctive quality of each human life. The voluntary ending of that conceived life at any point after conception is killing and is the moral equivalent of murder.

8. An abortion IS one and the same as the loss of one human life.

Reproductive rights are not being eroded in this country. It is the parents desire to kill their unborn offspring that is slowly and rightly being eroded. It is not the right to reproduce that is in jeoprody, it is the right to kill unborn life that is. The only choice we have to make is to reproduce or not reproduce. There is no right to kill under the guise of being pro-choice. A woman does not have the right to choose to kill her unborn child. No man has the right to compel or command her to do so either. The abortion mills need to be shut down and life embraced and cherished once again.

1 through 8, all your opinion, not even worth debating. If you insist on subjective arguments, and on your religion uber alles, you're living in the right country I guess.

I have more respect for the religion at this site, than I do for yours. At least if they ram religion down my throat, I'll have a good meal!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/60minutes/main1300667.shtml
Like most couples who go through fertility treatments, the Madsens ended up with excess embryos. They have four that have been frozen ever since the birth of their second son, 13 years ago.

Did they think they would have to decide about what to do with those excess embryos?

"No. When you go through this process, your expectations are not really very high," says Kai.

Pam adds that most people going through the process are skeptical they will have a baby and that a surplus of embryos is not something you think about at the time.

There are thousands upon thousands of couples like the Madsens. In fact, there are 400,000 frozen embryos in storage in fertility clinics across the country.

LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.
AT CONCEPTION GOD GRANTS A SOUL

did you talk to MY God about that?

It just so happens that God is a personal friend of mine. I asked God about you. God said you were full of crap.

“Such language!” I said, “and from Your mouth, too. Why, I’m shocked, simply shocked.”

“Oh get off it,” said God, “ I’m God. I can say anything I damn please. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with crap. I invented crap. Crap is good. But you’re supposed to put it on your garden, not between your ears.

The meaning of life is not going to be packaged in box labeled "scientific reasoning" and the road of intellectual avenue is a dead-end street. You ignore what you know to be true in your heart, and when it starts to get to you, you run. Where are you headed? This foolish folley, this intellectual discourse,like it or not, will still be brought with you to the end of your life. And at the moment of death you will be forced to decide. Hold on to all your theories, your scientific reasoning, all your wisdom OR surrender to your heart. At the moment of death, there is no tomorrow, there is no 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th chance to answer the question. You must decide. You can't ask the writer to re-word the question, and then respond sharply when the answer is brought before your eyes.
20th century writers have said the more we "know", the more we don't know. Read more books, get more education, perhaps make some fancy theories, get published, and find out in 20 years, that which was once true, is no longer the case. You're chasing the wind. Your opportunity is now.

This was written by King Solomon, This is a historical document and took place in space and time:
I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.
Think with your heart

The opportunity is now for you to quite spoutin' your beliefs at us.

Can you define what reproductive rights are exactly?

What's the point of having a debate with your closed minds? You don't actually think you're winning hearts and minds here with your claptrap, do you?

Maybe not with you.
Not now
But your day will come
By the way, that's what debates are for. If everyone agreed then there would be no debate.
So how about it, What are reproductive rights?

Why does a sperm implanted by a rapist deserve the right to life.

What implications does that have for reproductive rights, and you KNOW what they are, don't be coy.

And do you beleive that rape is immoral? By what standard? Why would you believe that anything is immoral? After gathering all the facts, educating yourself, being so wise in your ways, how do you measure what is moral or immoral?

What have you in your pockets, a compass?
Go this way or that,
my ways the right way to devils own hat.
Who wears the hat but the fool with a map,
to heaven or hell or is it a trap.

So by what do you use to measure right or wrong. I certainly know that rape as well as abortion is wrong. Certainly what is right and wrong are matters of opinion, but moral and immoral are measured by a standard. So what standard are you using today? your own personal pocket standard. If it fits and suits the needs of your conscious, then you'll use it. Nothing absolute, and it might change tomorrow, but for today, I'm fine, this is it, this will get me through today, maybe tomorrow, or the next day, and the next. And when the next issue that comes up for measure, well that one doesn't fit. I'll have to modify the standard. And so you go on

He's a real nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Doesn't kave a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like me and you?
Nowhere Man, please listen,
You don't know what you're missing,
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command.

Straight answers are hard to come by when the questions are hard. Nice song and dance, but not very original is it.

You can download or stream all of these videos:

http://www.thepowerofchoice.net/watch.html
MOTHERHOOD by CHOICE, NOT CHANCE (27 min.)
The stories in this film are drawn from the most engaging moments of the trilogy. The film brings alive the history of the struggle for women’s reproductive rights in the US. Intimate interviews reveal the passion of people who moved abortion from the danger of the back alleys to a safe, legal choice. Spanish introduction by Dolores Huerta.

FROM the BACK-ALLEYS to the SUPREME COURT & BEYOND*
Part I. When Abortion Was Illegal: Untold Stories (28 min.)
This Academy Award-nominated film features compelling first person accounts which reveal the physical, legal, and emotional consequences during the era when abortion was a criminal act.

Part II. From Danger to Dignity: The Fight for Safe Abortion (57 min.)
This film combines rare archival footage with present-day interviews to weave together two parallel stories: the evolution of underground networks to help women find safe abortions outside the law and the intensive efforts of activists and legislators who broke the silence and changed the laws.

Part III. The Fragile Promise of Choice: Abortion in the U.S. Today (57 min.)
As a result of restrictive legislation, cutbacks in funding, and sieges of harassment and violence, access to legal abortion is declining. This film examines how these conditions have affected the lives of providers and the women who seek their services.

Look again.The answer to your question is in my title line.
I thought you might relate to the Beatles a bit you like that didn't you.
So what do you use as your moral compass?

Sexual morality is not an opinion. At the very best humans use sex as an expression of love in the union of marriage. At the very least, most people are not inclined to go about having sex at will with people to whom thay have no commitment, getting pregnant and having abortions. No one in our culture is looked highly upon for having casual sex, engaging in marital infidelity or having abortions. To think that morality is subjective is relativistic thinking.

Let any man that cheats on his wife tell her that is wasn't wrong when he did it.

How many people tell a new prospective romantic partner how many sexual partners thay have had?

What would you think of a person that has had an abortion? How about 3 or 4 abortions? Does that tell you something about that person?

Sexual morality is a range of behavior that falls within an accepted norm.

There are other forms of sexual behavior that are not accepted as not moral; incest. rape, sex with a child. All agree that these are immoral acts.

Now, can you please tell me why sexual morals are opinions and not objective truth?

Pro-choice people do in fact argue facts, not opinions.
Life begins at conception, does it not?

What other measure would you use to determine the beginning of a human life? Human thought? Intelligence? Reasoning powers?

The pro-choice prefer abstractions about personhood. When does a human become a person? At birth? When the person achieves identity? You could argue that these things occur long after a child is born could you not?

Human life begins at conception. At the joining of egg and sperm there is created a completely unique human genetic DNA code, distingishable from every other human DNA code. This developing human being is completely unique and unrepeatable. These facts are scientific and not theological in nature. If you accept these as the facts that they are, than every other justification or rationalization for abortion becomes irrelevant and meaningless. Thus the pro-choice standpoint falls like the house of cards that it is.

what if humans are cloned? When does life begin then?

Why do Catholics have all the answers for all of the rest of us?

the question isn't "when" it's "why" and "what".

Who does google return for the search "creator of the universe"?

Do you abide by a philosophy of moral relativism?

I'm a Pastafarian.

You have made an absolutely definitively accurate statement

Are you really a male nurse or do you just play one on tv?

Do you nurse males?

My Inaugural Address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions!

At: http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman

Your jaw will drop!

Just thought you should have this information seeing how this is the forum for "Womyn"
Every 38 seconds a woman lays her body down for an abortion, sacrificing her child because she lacks practical resources and emotional support. About two-thirds of women who have abortions feel pressured to do so. They rarely have the critical information that abortion can dramatically increase their risk of breast cancer.

Even 1 abortion can increase a woman's chance of breast cancer by 90%. Teens who have an abortion in their second trimester, have a history of breast cancer in their family, and do not have children later have an 800% higher risk of breast cancer.
National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet Analysis
The Abortion – Breast Cancer Connection

And you call yourself a nurse. What kind of hospital would let you in the door. Oh yeah, A CATHOLIC Hospital.

"Coerced" according to the lying, bullshitting phony "Pregnancy Crisis Centers".

Trotting out the breast cancer connection again huh? Provide sources. And no, not antichoice sources. Neutral research.

How about this
http://www.physicianscenter.org/positions_abortion.asp

not anti-choice. Neutral. You call this unbiased?

http://www.physicianscenter.org/positions_ru486.asp
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) opposes the destruction of an unborn human being at any stage of development. Therefore, we oppose pharmaceutical abortion with the same vigor that we oppose surgical abortion. However, pharmaceutical abortion has now become a reality of American medical practice, sanctioned by the FDA and ACOG. A stipulation of the FDA's approval of Mifeprex is that its distribution be restricted to physicians able to meet certain qualifications. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists believes these qualifications are insufficiently circumscribed to adequately safeguard the health of American women. We therefore offer the following statements regarding these qualifications: bla bla bla

Be for Real ! The source I list is "The National Physician Center" - A NEUTRAL source.
You pulled an unrelated article from "American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists" that was published on that site. This article is in fact Pro-life. But the actual link I provided IS NOT.
Ya know this whole thing is starting to remind me of smoking and lung cancer.

they're antichoice. you be real, m'kay?

"(AAPLOG) opposes... Therefore, *we* oppose pharmaceutical abortion with the same vigor that we oppose surgical abortion." <-this is THEIR position statement.

>At the joining of egg and sperm there is created a completely unique human genetic DNA code, distingishable from every other human DNA code. This developing human being is completely unique and unrepeatable. These facts are scientific and not theological in nature. If you accept these as the facts that they are, than every other justification or rationalization for abortion becomes irrelevant and meaningless. Thus the pro-choice standpoint falls like the house of cards that it is.



This is like saying that an acorn is an oak, a blueprint is a house and an egg is a chicken.

[q]"(AAPLOG) opposes... Therefore, *we* oppose pharmaceutical abortion with the same vigor that we oppose surgical abortion." <-this is THEIR position statement.[/q]
Yes Yes PLEASE NOTICE The American Academy of Pro Life OB/GYN 's is NOT the Natianal Physician Center. The NPC posted this article. They are NOT a biased organization.I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find some pro-babykilling articles in that link. RU486 is a whole 'nother issue. But my point is the source I provided for the abortion breast cancer link (NPC) is NOT a pro-life (biased) organization.

As far as acorns and oak trees, eggs and chickens, - go, All I can tell you is they aren't "human life". The immorality in the act of abortion still goes unchallenged. But I gather from your responses to theamericancatholic that you don't recognize morality.(even when it's slapping you in the face)

Read after "therefore"

Correct, that is "we" (of American Academy of Pro Life OB/GYN ) Not NPC.
Look, you don't have to believe me. I just thought the womyn would want to have all the information so as to make an informed decision.

Has our male nurse ever read one, I wonder? hmmm...

THE LAST WORD ON ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER?
"The totality of the worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer": This is the conclusion of an analysis of data from 53 studies of women with invasive breast cancer that included information on abortion history.1

The studies took place in 16 countries with liberal abortion laws and included a total of about 83,000 women. In analyses pooling data from the 12 studies in which information about spontaneous abortion was recorded before women's breast cancer was diagnosed (and which presumably suffer from less underreporting of abortion than those in which this information was collected retrospectively), the risk of breast cancer was statistically indistinguishable between women who had ever had a spontaneous abortion and those who had not. Thirteen studies reporting prospective data on induced abortion showed a small but statistically significant reduction in risk for women who had terminated a pregnancy. Results were similar regardless of women's age, whether they had given birth, the number of abortions they had had or the timing of their abortions.

1. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries, Lancet, 2004, 363(9414):1007-1016.

Oh and the guttmacher is the "neutral" "unbiased" source you were speaking of earlier? "Pot meet Kettle"
The Lancet Article also sites the connection but dismisses it as a failure of women with previous abortions to disclose that information while it assumes: women with breast cancer were more likely to report a previous infantacide.
So the article acknowledges the statistical evidence but completely dismisses it.
And PLEASE the UK is about as liberal a country as San Fransisco is. These aren't neutral authors obviously.

Here's some more specific comments on the Lacet article not from me but from other doctors.
Unfortunately, misinformation has circulated in the media by virtue of an article published last year in the Lancet medical journal. That article did not deny that increased abortions result in greater incidence of breast cancer. Rather, the article merely claimed that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer compared to someone who delayed pregnancy altogether. The Lancet article and its published data are consistent with the prevailing medical view that the more abortions in a society, the greater the number of breast cancer cases.

Incidentally, 3 states now(Texas, Minnisota, Mississippii) require disclosure of breast cancer risk prior to the abortive procedure. More will soon follow.
Tell the womyn, this is important stuff.

"Other doctors" who are antichoice I suppose.
We notice you still haven't come up with an unbiased source. Try harder, dear.

Sneaky antichoicers have introduced a lot of bad science into antichoice legislation all over the country. Kind of like that "Intelligent Design" fiasco.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute is universally respected. Even government papers have quoted them as a source. Of course, Mr. Kettle, you would call anything a Pot that you disagree with, regardless of statistics, regardless of science. I mean by golly, you actually know when LIFE begins, or so you say. I find it strange that a so-called nurse doesn't seem to know the statistics on the danger of carry a fetus to term as opposed to having an abortion. But then, maybe you're in animal husbandry.

Some speak as if calling us anti-choice is going to offend a pro-lifer. Not at all. No woman has a right to choose the death of an unborn child! Its not her body she is killing, it is someone elses!

I became pro-life the moment I learned what one is. An abortion is and has been primarily the surgical removal of an unborn child from the womb of a mother. Most are early term, both others are not. In traditional abortion a suction device is used to pull the limbs from the unborn childs body; the head is then crushed and the fragments removed.

Then in recent years I learned of the partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortion sounds very sanitized does it not? In a partial birth abortion the child is killed when all but the head has been removed from the mother. The child with its head still in the mother has an instrument inserted into the base of its skull, to facilitate the removal of the cranial contents; the child's brain. The head of the dead baby's body is then completely pulled from the mother. Its a loophole to justify the argument that the child was not killed, since the child was not "born". The baby is literally several inches and moments from being a legally born human being when it is executed.

Now the chemical abortion is available and euphemistically known as the morning after pill. Its billed as contraception when really it is a chemically induced miscarriage. many will argue that a miscarriage is natures abortion. Quite true that may be, but even in naturalist or evolutionary thinking, this is natures way of selecting what will survive and what will not. Humankind is not wise or intelligent enough to make the determination of who will live or who will die.

Abortion makes no sense whatsoever to me; not by science and not by faith in God that teaches me the wanton killing of innocent life is a cruel and immoral act. Kill the baby with a pill, a suction device, or however you choose, it is killing and what you have after the fact is a dead child. There is no justification for it in my mind that makes any sense at all. It wasn't until the last few years that I had even seen a picture of an aborted child. It angered me even more.

But some tissue is more equal than others...

From Christianity Today:

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1999/june14/9t723b.html

Bishop Faces Genocide Accusation
By Odhiambo Okite.
June 14, 1999

The April 14 arrest of Augustin Misago, the Roman Catholic bishop of Gikongoro, Rwanda, aggravated the already tense relations between the Vatican and the government of Africa's most Catholic nation.

Misago is accused of complicity in the 1994 genocide in which an estimated 600,000 Tutsis and 400,000 moderate Hutus died in the first 100 days following the double assassination of Rwandan and Burundian heads of state in Kigali (CT, May 16, 1994, p. 54).

Some Rwandan church leaders—both Catholic and Protestant—participated in the massacres (CT, Oct. 3, 1994, p. 71, AOL only). Much of the carnage occurred in churches, where dead bodies were piled knee-high (CT, Feb. 6, 1995, p. 52, AOL only).

check out the Ustashi:

http://www.sfbg.com/nessie/26.html

(snip)

. . . recent apologies for the Holocaust era Vatican holds little weight with the heirs and few elderly survivors of one of the bloodiest chapters in the history of the Roman Catholic Church - the 1941-1945 atrocities by the fanatically Catholic Ustashi.

(snip)

* * * * *

See also:

Ustaše with the head of a Serb Orthodox priest
Drakulići, Feb 7, 1942

In the closing days of the war, thousands of displaced persons were scattered throughout a war torn Europe. These people were uprooted, torn from their homes, and many had no families to go to because they were either dead, missing, or somewhere across the continent. Most were victims of Nazi aggression while others were attempting to escape the advancing Soviet armies of Joseph Stalin. Intermingled within the crowds of displaced persons were some of Europe’s most notorious war criminals, individuals who had the blood of millions on their hands. Just before the end of the war, the Holy See’s Secretariat of State conducted a lobbying campaign to provide spiritual and material assistance to the impoverished. The Vatican has "consistently claimed that they were unaware of the identity of those who were undeserving of their humanitarian assistance." [1] Unfortunately, a number of high ranking priests not only knew who these wanted war criminals were, they actively sought these men out, gave them extra assistance and afforded them benefits that very few people received throughout the war years.

Years later it became public knowledge that war criminals like Klaus Barbie, Adolf Eichmann, Heinrich Mueller, Franz Stangl and a whole list of other war criminals escaped war torn Europe via the Catholic Church. Most of these men escaped through the work of one man, a Roman Catholic Bishop named Alois Hudal, Rector of the Pontificio Santa Maria dell’ Anima. "During the war Hudal served as Commissioner or the Episcopate for German speaking Catholics in Italy, as well as Father Confessor to Rome’s German community." [2] Hudal harbored anti-Semitic feelings and his pro Nazi stance was well known throughout the Catholic community. During Hitler’s rule, Bishop Hudal often spoke about the unity between the Catholic Church and the Nazi government.

In Gitta Sereny’s book Into That Darkness, Stangl described how Bishop Hudal was expecting Stangl (it seemed he expected over a hundred war criminals), and that he was arranging papers, passports, an exit visa and work permits for South America. [3]Hudal arranged Stangl’s sleeping quarters, transportation, via a car, plane, ship, and seemed to have plenty of money for extra pay offs, bribes and emergency’s that may arise. [4] Hudal had contacts with the German Red Cross, the American Office of Strategic Services, British Intelligence, and even seemed well connected to two well known Nazi escape organizations, ODESSA and DIE SPINNE. Both of these organizations were well financed, connected, and secretly assisted ex Nazi officers to find new homes in the Middle East, South America and even the United States. Simon Wiesenthal has argued on numerous occasions, that Nazis, who were seeking an escape, knew they had to go to the Vatican and find Bishop Hudal. Wiesenthal believed that Stangl had the same help that his two good friends, Gustav Wagner, former Deputy Commandant of Sobibor, and Alois Brunner, a former commander of a mobile killing squad in Russia, received when they escaped Allied justice. According to several credible witnesses, Bishop Hudal was a very close friend with Walter Rauff, an ambitious SS officer who oversaw the development program for the mobile gas vans. Their friendship began around 1943 and many believed their friendship remained until Rauff’s death.


After the sudden death of Cardinal Magione in August of 1944, Pope Pius XII decided not to appoint a new Secretary of State and assumed personal responsibility over foreign affairs. One of the Pope’s closest advisors became Monsignors Domenico Tardini and Giovani Montini, the latter being a very close personal friend of Bishop Hudal. Once the war ended Bishop instantly transformed himself from a pro Fascist into an ardent anti Communist who sought potential allies in his holy crusade against Communism. Hudal convinced Montini that a lenient policy was needed with those individuals who were Catholic, anti Communist, and deemed valuable to the upcoming struggle against Communism. Martini and Tardini convinced his Holiness the Pope and ex Nazi war criminals flooded out of Europe to find new homes around the world. Eventually the Pope appointed Bishop Hudal the Vatican’s official Spiritual Director of the German People and was ordered to visit all of the German POW camps in order to find those worthy anti Communists and give them special assistance with the eternal blessing of the Vatican’s Holy Office. [5] U.S Intelligence agencies knew Bishop Hudal’s mission and even helped provide transportation, living quarters and even identity papers for some of Hudal’s chosen few. Over 30,000 Nazi war criminals made their way to freedom and a new life. ODESSA was an amateur escape organization when compared to the Vatican RATLINE. A large number of these escaped criminals were not even German, thousands were eastern European collaborators who willingly killed for the Nazis. [6]

The entire era, 1932-1945 was quite a sad legacy for the Catholic Church. Although many have argued that the Catholic Church lived in fear and under the thumb of a dictator, therefore the Church was powerless to help the enemies of the Third Reich. Perhaps we can give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt in February 1942, but what about in December 1944 or March 1945. Was the Catholic Church living in fear of a Nazi invasion in April 1945? Was the Church fearful of reprisals in May of 1945 by wondering SS divisions? No, the Catholic Church, not only intentionally helped Nazi war criminals escape justice, but helped them establish new lives in foreign countries. The Vatican used every means at their disposal to assist war criminals, including dressing SS officers in priests clothing and laundering hundreds of millions of gold bullion through Vatican banking channels. Granted that humanitarianism is one of the Church’s missions to fulfill on this earth, but does this mission of brotherly love include harboring escaped murderers and war criminals? Granted that love of ones neighbor is one of the bedrock principles of the Church, but does that include covering up the sins of former members of the SS who willing sinned against their fellow human beings? These questions I will leave to readers to decide for themselves.

Notes:

1. Mark Arrons and John Loftus. Unholy Trinity. p 25.

2. Unoly Trinity. p 29.

3. Gitta Sereny. Into That Darkness. p 305.

4. Unholy Trinity. p 27.

5. Unholy Trinity. p 37.

6. Unholy Trinity. p 88.



Works Cited

Aarons, Mark. Loftus, John. Unholy Trinity. St. Martin’s Press: New York 1991.

Sereny, Gitta. Into That Darkness: From Mercy Killing to Mass Murder McGraw Hill Book Company. New York. 1974

and the Crusades.

Pro-life? Gimme a break. Ask a Cathar how pro-life the Church is. Oops, I forgot. You can't. There aren't anymore Cathars. The Church exterminated them.

The Church isn't "pro-life," it's anti-abortion. Why? The Church is a business. Aborted fetuses can't grow up to fill the collection plates.

"IN ITS JANUARY 21, 2002, ISSUE, the New Republic devoted twenty-four pages to Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's "What Would Jesus Have Done?"--one of the most virulent attacks against the Roman Catholic Church ever printed in a major American publication. Last fall, Goldhagen expanded that essay into a book, a curious and furious production entitled "A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair," about the Vatican's role during the Holocaust."

"Goldhagen is no stranger to controversy. His 1996 Hitler's Willing Executioners argued that blame for the Holocaust should be placed on all Germans--for "eliminationist" anti-Semitism was widely spread among prewar Germans and intrinsic to the German character. The Nazi exterminations could occur because the vast majority of Germans were already predisposed to kill Jews. Though Goldhagen gained international celebrity, his book's simplistic argument was widely criticized by serious scholars and historians."

"No accusation is too preposterous for Goldhagen to accept. Commenting on the Vatican's alleged link to Nazi war criminals, he claims that Alois Hudal, an Austrian prelate and Nazi sympathizer, was "an important Catholic bishop at the Vatican," as well as a "close friend" and "confidant" of Pius XII. Indeed, he adds, both Pius XII and the future Paul VI actively supported Hudal in his criminal assistance to fleeing Nazi war criminals."

As it happens, Alois Hudal was never a bishop "at the Vatican," much less an "important" one, but rather an obscure rector of the Collegio dell' Anima in Rome, where he was placed to confine him to a post of little significance. Hudal also was never a "close friend" of Pius XII or Montini. In fact, Hudal's memoirs bitterly attack the Vatican for steadfastly refusing an alliance with Nazi Germany to combat "godless Bolshevism." Far from assisting Nazi war criminals in their escape, Pius XII authorized the American Jesuit Edmund Walsh to submit to the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg a dossier documenting Nazi war crimes and atrocities. The recent book by David Alvarez, "Spies in the Vatican: Espionage & Intrigue from Napoleon to the Holocaust," shows how much Hitler distrusted and despised Pius XII."

For the whole story go to this link and debunk the lies for yourself!

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:mQNbNW52UggJ:http://www.catholicleague.org/research/history_as_bigotry.htm+Alois+Hudal,&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/holocaust/index.htm

"This website was created by students of Professor Jonathan Petropoulos for his class: The Culture of Fascism in 20th Century Europe. All pictures that are seen here are for educational purposes only and may not be used for proft.
Student authors: Akhil, Andrew, Brandon, Kiri and MariAnn."

Where I got my information,
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/history_as_bigotry.htm

Other links about Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the author of "history buffs" material...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-klinghoffer031402.shtml

http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Michael_Zank/gold.html

http://wais.stanford.edu/Religion/religion_cathchurchanddanielgoldhagen11303.html

http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2003/feature1.htm

>lies

That's one version. In the trade, this sort of relationship is called "plausable deniability."

However, *reputable* historians have long recognized the deep relationship between the Vatican and the Third Reich. It continued long after the War.

Arguably, it began in Munch in 1919, when Papal Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, first financed the budding Nazi Party:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F5C8251BC

(snip)

In 1917, rampaging Communist stormed the Munich nunciature confronting the Monsignor with the nun by his side with death. Greeted by Sister Pascalina, Adolph Hitler was a frequent caller seeking funds and support from the nuncio. He promised to stop godless communism, the mortal enemy of the church, when in power. Under her direction, he pledged support while giving Hitler a large amount of Church money.
(snip)

* * * * *

See also:

La Popessa : The Controversial Biography of Sister Pascalina, the Most Powerful Woman in Vatican History by Paul I. Murphy, R. Rene Arlington

Hitler's Pope : The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell

Unholy Trinity : The Vatican, The Nazis, & The Swiss Banks by Mark Aarons, John Loftus

Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War by Christopher Simpson

Ratlines: How the Vatican's Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets by Mark Aarons

Aftermath by Ladislas Farago

YA know, I don't know if you are aware or not, or even if you might be interested; but there is an organization of pro-Life Feminists. They were ousted by NOW but still continue their work in promoting feminist rights but with a Pro-Life take on the issue of abortion.

They were ousted by NOW because they aren't feminists.

from wikipedia:

Feminist political activists commonly campaign on issues such as ***reproductive rights (including but not limited to the right to choose an abortion, the elimination of legal restrictions on abortion, and access to contraception)***, violence within a domestic partnership, maternity leave, equal pay, sexual harassment, street harassment, discrimination, and sexual violence. Themes explored in feminism include patriarchy, stereotyping, objectification, sexual objectification, and oppression.

We both know how Wikepedia works. It isn't the "hear all - say all - body of knowledge".And we both know how they querry for information.
It seems to me that the ultimate form of being a woman would be in reproduction and efforts to support that seem more feminine to me. Moving away from that (bearing children) is more anti-feminine. Men are the gender that don't bear the children.(I'm asking and truely don't know) Or am I to understand that to be a "feminist" that a woman seeks to approach being a "man" or "manly" rather than being feminine "womanly". Or is it by being more manly - you voice a desire for equal rights ect. that you feel women as a whole don't get.

And by the way: You bashed theamericancatholic's religeon. That seems Anti-choice of you. Although I am not Catholic, he is my brother in Christ. His choice of religeon may not be yours and you don't agree with him, nor he of you. But this religeon bashing has nothing to do with the abortion issue or Womyn. So what's up? Are you a gay-basher also? (that was sarcasm making a point on being consistant when you talk about being pro-choice)

And one last point: Good will always triumph over evil (another one for you to remember)

Question to Male Nurse: "What would you personally advise a woman who'd been raped to do?"
Answer from Male Nurse: "...#1 file a police report. #2 have the baby #3 if mom doesn't want the baby, put it up for adoption. The baby is totally innocent of any crime the father committed."

by Male Nurse Thursday, Feb. 09, 2006 at 2:45 PM:
"You'd never win in the debate club honey."

by Male Nurse Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2006 at 12:44 PM:
"Look again sweetie"

(1.) Shoot the rapist, while taking all necessary precautions to avoid arrest, i.e., make sure there are no witnesses, leave no forensic evidence at the scene, clean the gun of prints, run a rat tail file up and down the barrel a couple of times, throw it deep water, and never tell *anyone* what you have done.

(2.) Have an abortion.

(3.) Get on with your life.

Attacking the RC Church? Not at all, just laying out some interesting facts. An interesting dichotomy though, don't you think?


DESPITE A LOT OF TALK about apologies, the Catholic Church stands ready to anoint a patron saint of genocide. On October 4, 1998 Pope John Paul II traveled to the Republic of Croatia to beatify [1.] that country's national hero, Alojzije Stepinac, the Archbishop of Zagreb during the Second World War. In so doing he underlined the real commitment of the Catholic Church to stand by its history, no matter how barbaric. Officially, Stepinac was honored as a martyr of the Church's most recent crusade, its crusade against communism. But in making this fanatic a saint, the pope is absolving Stepinac of complicity in crimes of genocide against Serbs, Jews and Roma (Gypsies) that took place in the Nazi puppet state of Croatia during the Second World War. This act belies the sincerity of the church's recent and well-publicized campaign to cleanse its past by admitting in a very general way that mistakes were made. [2.] In beatifying Stepinac, the pope makes common cause with those who deny that this holocaust ever took place.

By making Stepinac a saint, the Catholic church is trying to bury one of the darkest chapters of its own recent history with honor. In Croatia, the church did not merely turn a blind eye to genocide, it was an active and enthusiastic participant. Priests and monks took part in atrocities, bishops promoted anti-Semitism and vilified Serbs at the very moment the Jews and Serbs were being exterminated, and forced conversions took place all across Croatia. All the while, the Vatican stood by, waiting to see whether or not this social experiment would advance its interests. The church has yet to apologize for, or even acknowledge the existence of, this genocide. Now Saint Stepinac stands in the way of memory and responsibility.

Regarding those frozen embryos...

I'd suggest, that in the future, the clinics can collect as many eggs as they want and as many sperm as they want, but should only FERTILIZE however many eggs they are going to attempt to implant into the woman.

That way there's more eggs available if you need to do a "second try", but you don't have the whole "extra embryos" issue.

You make no sense.
#1 The patriarchy stuff is all nonsense. Would you penalize me for opening the door for a lady also? Because I do that also !
#2 You still are attacking the Catholic church in the "womyn" forum. I know great many genuinely GOOD Catholic people. Don't you know any?
#3 I am ASKING about the feminist movement. Inform me - please. In other words, I'm not making a point nor arguing one, I am admitting that I don't know.
#4 Why are you constantly on the defense in this forum? Not everything one says is an argued/arguable point. The main objective of Indybay is supposed to be exchange of information. Sometimes/manytimes we exchange information by arguing points, but it doesn't have to be ALL THE TIME.
#5 You and I disagree on the issue of abortion. But I think if you ever met me on the street one day, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. (except I don't live anywhere near SF) SO don't be so angry all the time.
#6 More advise. The articles that you cut and paste are WAY TOO long - difficult to read and not that interesting to me. If you want to support your claim, the address link is fine. Most of us are interested in what YOU have to say, not what an article says.

That patriarchy in any form (yours or the RCC's) just doesn't cut it?

Male nurse: "It seems to me that the ultimate form of being a woman would be in reproduction and efforts to support that seem more feminine to me. Moving away from that (bearing children) is more anti-feminine. "

Non-breeding women are "anti-feminine". Hmmm. Can you spell "barefoot and pregnant"? While we're at it can you spell "population explosion"?

Sorry you don't like to read facts that run counter to your beliefs, they can be pretty irritating, eh?

>You still are attacking the Catholic church in the "womyn" forum. I know great many genuinely GOOD Catholic people. Don't you know any?

Indeed, I do. However, I possess sufficient education to be capable of distinguishing them from the Church, and both they and the Church from the Catholic faith. Catholic people and the Catholic church are two different things. The faith is a third. One is a collection of individuals. One is an organization run by a minuscule subset of the first. The third is a belief system.

Catholic people are a mixed bunch, just like any other people. Some are good, some are bad, most are in between. This is true of all peoples. The Church, however, is a business. It's not it's members. It's a financial organization whose primary economic function is to collect money from people, mostly poor people, and concentrate it under Vatican control. It used to do this through the Vatican Bank, a major, major player on the world economic stage, but the 25 years ago the Vatican Bank got caught laundering counterfeit bonds and drug money for the Mafia. Scandal ensued. The last honest pope was murdered. The Vatican Bank was broken up and the money concealed in a brace of Panamanian shell companies. Law enforcement is still sorting the details. As we speak, the murderers of a key witness are on trial.

Get up to speed on this. Read:

In God's Name: An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I by David Yallop

God's banker: An account of the life and death of Roberto Calvi by Rupert Cornwell

The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia by Paul L. Williams

"Regarding those frozen embryos... I'd suggest, that in the future, the clinics can collect as many eggs as they want and as many sperm as they want, but should only FERTILIZE however many eggs they are going to attempt to implant into the woman."

The fertility clinic said it was cost-prohibitive to do it that way. In-vitro fertilization is very expensive anyway. To be affordable to the couple, they had to get the best possibility of success at one go. That meant the insurance of extra fertilized embryos.

Of course these unused embryos belong to childless families who chose not to adopt existing babies- their call of course. But again, a reminder that even the children that are born are often unwanted by childless couples.

Knowing what I've said in this thread, if you met me on the street would you consider me to be a good person?

and about 43 sex partners and my partner(who is a man) knows this and loves me! Why? because every experience i've everhad made me me! To love someone, ya gotta know who they are. I wouldnt trade my past for anything.

I can't believe this message is directed to "women of color" and "poor people" these two categories are in no way similar or synonymous. This applies to women of all races and color.Is it so hard to make a comment in America without insulting a group of people?