QUICK LINKS
Abortion no. 1 killer in black community
Since 1973, more than 13 million black babies have been killed by abortion, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
I was shocked and disturbed when I read those numbers. That is more than twice the number of black deaths attributed to Aids, violent crimes, accidents, cancer and heart disease during that same period.
Pastor Joseph Parker, pastor of Campbell Chapel AME church in Pulaski, Tennessee, the birthplace of the Ku Klux Klan, put it all in perspective when he said, “Planned Parenthood kills more black people in three days than the Klan has in its entire history of existence.”
Sadly, he said, “Many in the African American community don’t even see Planned Parenthood as an enemy; [they] would see them as a friend. Right now, the biggest killer of the African American community is abortion.”
Once again, this points out the inconsistencies of the so-called secular progressives. While they claim to be for the minorities and disadvantaged, they refuse to take an honest look at the abortion business.
And where is their outrage over these atrocities?
In fact, last month, Rep. Mike Pence introduced an amendment, which would prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving federal tax dollars. Every year, Planned Parenthood receives over $300 million in federal tax dollars and even more from state and city taxpayers.
These funds are used to promote an agenda that is hostile to the traditional family.
Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment was unsuccessful this time, but he is a man of both courage and conviction. I am certain he will try again.
As we face major challenges against marriage, the family, and life itself, I trust that the good people of faith and principle in this country will display the same courage that has been shown by Rep. Pence in his actions and Pastor Parker in his public declaration.
____________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
42 Comments:
Gary,
Unwanted pregnancies happen.
It's good public policy to keep the option of abortion federally funded, safe and legal for all... races and ethnicities... not just the privelidged white folk who can afford them with the privacy of their own highly paid doctors.
You know what's interesting Gary? Homos are pro-life! It's true! Think about it... homos really have to work hard to have a baby. Gay folk... of all shapes, colors and sizes are planning for and giving birth to more and more "WANTED" children.
Keep abortion federally funded, legal and safe for all.
So you'd rather go the unnatural route of buying the sperm or egg of an opposite sex person who will not be raising nor contributing to the welfare of the offspring, rather than save the life of that preborn ("unwanted?")child. Hmmm.
Gary,
Maybe just once you could get past the first layer and realize that in many cases abortion is a bandaid to solve deeper problems (in all races).
The more pragmatic, humane, and effective approach would be to focus energies on eliminating the root cause of the unwanted pregnancies.
Again, I'm talking at a deeper level than abstinence only education.
Planned Parenthood actually does a pretty job of that once they're give a chance.
According to government statistics, there are approximately 120,000 children in foster care nationwide waiting to be adopted. And that number only includes children whose parents have lost parental rights.
See statistics here
Women choose to abort their pregnancies because, simply put, they do not want the child, or they cannot afford to care for the child.
Had those 13 million pregnancies been carried through til birth, imagine how many unwanted black children would be in our already-crowded foster care system today. Think how much pain and sadness these parent-less, unwanted children would feel being bounced around from overcrowded government agency to overcrowded government agency. Imagine the crises we would be in today. How would that make you a friend to the black community or to these black children?
Insisting that every pregancy be followed through til birth is unrealistic and, to be blunt, cruel to those children who are unwanted and who will not find homes.
I've heard you say many times that children are better off with a mom and a dad. Where do you suppose we would have placed those 13 million children whose parents did not want them?
I think we can all agree that abortions should be as rare as possible. In an ideal world, they would not be necessary at all because every pregnancy would occur to a person or couple who want and can afford to care for the child. But that is unrealistic, don't you agree?
So, which is better -- allowing women to choose to terminate their pregnancies in cases where they cannot or will not care for these children, or forcing women to carry every pregnancy to its conclusion, thereby resulting in millions of unwanted and homeless children.
After reading these comments I can't believe how simuliar the argument sounds to the spade and nueter your pets campaign. So it is better to not have these "unwanted" children around? Hmmm so this limits us to only wanted and accepted children??? How about the homeless... they are not wanted they experience the pain of rejection daily. Shall we kill them as well? Gas chamber? What about children who have disabilities, or who are "different" from others do they deserve to live? The only difference I can see between these babies and unwanted adolecents and adults is there age! What about the elderly would they be better off dead as well. If all this is true then we are left with only healthy, financially secure, perfect adults in their prime age. I know of another man who wanted the "perfect" society. His name was HITLER. Think about it! Don't buy this politically correct point of view! "It is better that they don't have to have pain, suffering, rejection"......well, friends last time I checked those are all human emotions that we all experience - to take those emotions away would be to take away joy, love, happiness. All of this is called life - a very wonderful thing ......please, please don't buy in to this - think about it...it is never better to take away a person (the little child's)hope for life. My great grandfather ended up in a orphanage and experienced rejection and pain but then he also experience a deep love (for my great grandma and there 3 children), excitement when his career took off, and joy when he was old and looked back at his life.
Michelle
Just read an article on this situation . Seven out of 10 babies born in the black community right now are from single Mom's .
The Abortion mentality does not seem to be helping children from being born into poverty .
That is a staggering statistic , the author claimed the old welfare program that required the male out of the home in order for the child and Mother to receive welfare as a major contributor to that problem . I tend to agree .
Many of the pro choice views actually made some good points , but organizations that help the poor , clothe them , feed them , and provide avenues out of poverty have much more to solving these problems then Planned Parenthood . They make money off the problem .
Providing opportunity and avenues out of poverty sounds like a cliche , it is hard to do . Very hard . I use school choice as a government policy but is always shot down by the left , hopefully they will be willing to go against their indoctrination as they claim we are and open their minds and possibilities to it .
Abortion seems such a sad way to be part of a solution . The notion to help life you need to destroy life is counter productive , I woulkd think even non religious minds would grasp that ?
Michelle,
Your comparisons to Hitler and murder are so far-fetched, they undermine the point you want to make.
I understand that in order to support your anti-abortion stance, you have to make no distinction between a stem cell, an embryo, and a living, walking, breathing, human being. But, like it or not, there is a difference.
No one is talking about murdering people because of their characteristics, aka Hitler. Just like I know you are not talking about wanting children to be born into loveless parentless situations. You are not a child abuser, and I am not a murderer, so why bring it up?
Let's not be alarmist, and start having a real conversation about the topic.
Uncle Screwtape must be very pleased ... (except eith you, Michelle) ...
1:07
Simple. When a women becomes pregnant, she made the choice to take the risk of being as such. Thus, she then takes the responsibilty from her 'choices' and makes the best life for her and her 'flesh and blood' baby for the rest of her life. If she did not want to become pregnant, she would choose to not have sex--period! Or, wait until legally married, to choose to become pregnant and to have sex for the first time then. Hmm, this sounds like God's basic principles, and for those women who choose to follow them, don't end up as problems for our society!
Hi Gary, thank you for highlighting this subject and I really appreciate the CDC link. My eyes cross whenever I try to find something there. :)
Life is precious. We are in an age of hopelessness. Planned Parenthood needs to be obliterated. Instead, Planned Parenthood is obliterating African Americans. www.blackgenocide.org
If you are gay, visit Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. www.plagal.org Select "Media" for recent news. On PLAGAL is an article which discusses the "gay gene/abortion" paradox. http://www.plagal.org/media/5-31-97a.html
In other words, if a gay gene were discovered, would it be a "hate crime" to abort the baby? Think about it. O-o-h, now abortion "choice" is suddenly in focus for you, eh?
Visit Precious Children of Portland's website - click my name.
Other informative sites:
Truth about Planned Parenthood including Margaret Sanger's racist ties - the founder of Planned Parenthood
http://www.abortionfacts.com/planned_parenthood/planned_parenthood.asp
about Black Genocide
http://learninc.org/page/articles.php
www.blackgenocide.org
Women deserve better choices
www.afterabortion.org
www.silentnomoreawareness.org
Debbie - subscriber in Portland
Gay gene? No such thing!
There was a time in your life when you were an embryo. That embryo was not anyone else it was only you! If that embryo had been aborted You would not exist.
If we need change let it start before it comes to killing babies.
b
9:14 PM, August 08, 2007
So, pregnancy is the little slut's punishment for enjoying sex. That certianly is revealing of the Christianist mindset.
Sex is for marriage--period! To be used to 'replenish' the earth. If it did not 'feel' good, we would not do 'it'! Studies have been made that Christian married women were 'more satisfied' sexually. Could this be because they choose to stay within God's basic principles concerning families!? There is nothing more rewarding then expressing ones self 'sexually' to a loving life partner in ones life! To choose to do differently, is sad and unrewarding! One of the greatest rewards in life, is creating a living human being via a loving, married relationship!
"Sex is for marriage--period!"
Gee, and here I thought it was primarily for pro-creation, silly me! I guess that means that marriage is just a lisence from the state to engage in sexual intercourse.
"Studies have been made that Christian married women were 'more satisfied' sexually. Could this be because they choose to stay within God's basic principles concerning families!?"
Could be. Or it could be that Christian women have lower expectations when it comes to sexual satisfaction. You see, being subjective, satisfaction is a poor measure to use when comparing groups.
After all, a man living in a primative hut in the jungle may be perfectly satisfied, until he realizes that there are people with insulated, air conditioned homes, full of neat appliances that run on electricity, and they even have indoor plumbing. Seeing this he may become less satisfied with his hut. Of course, studies may show that the residents of a neighboring village, who believe that technology is evil, are more satisfied with thier living conditions than he or most of the people living in the developed world.
"There is nothing more rewarding then expressing ones self 'sexually' to a loving life partner in ones life! To choose to do differently, is sad and unrewarding! "
Sounds like an argument in favor of marriage equality to me! After all, homosexual couples are just expressing themselves 'sexually' with their life partners, those partners just happen to be of the same sex!
What any of this has to do with your draconian view that pregnancy is a woman's punishment for sexual activity isn't at all clear. It isn't just single, unmarried women, who seek abortions.
9:14...
Great idea! Now, how do you propose to change the world so that every woman who becomes pregnant does so only by consciously making the choice and accepting the responsibility? I'd love to hear your plan.
We're not talking about how we want things to be; we are talking about how things actually are.
Our foster care system is already overcrowded. There are more babies out there than there are homes for them.
We should do EVERYTHING we possibly can to show people the value in becoming pregnant ONLY when they can accept the responsibility, thereby keeping abortions to an absolute minimum. The fewer abortions, the better. The ultimate goal is ZERO abortions, although we know realistically that cannot be reached.
So we should also keep abortion legal for those cases when attaining the ideal is not possible.
I have yet to see a single realistic argument that convinces me otherwise.
Yes,and those who ARE married and chooses an abortion should be ashamed of themselves! How dare they choosing to killing their own babies!
Homosexuals who are 'expressing themselves' via 'sex' are exercising diviant behaviours!
There are many couples within our land wanting babies, but who for some reason or other, cannot get pregnant. Thus, since we legalized abortions in this country, and there are no 'available babies' to be adopted, they have to go outside our country to adopt forign babies. I know of several couples who went through this expensive way to become parents! Also, I remember the days when a single gal got PG---she dissappeared for awhile, visiting relatives 'far away', until the baby was born, and she could safely come back within our town! ALSO--I remember society in general did NOT accept pre-marital sex, out of wedlock pregnancies and, God forbid, the animalistic/deviant behaviours of homosexual acts!
Abortion is killing--pure and simple--thus, the need to stop killing, no matter WHAT the circumstances, we must get these standards back into our society, as it once was! Otherwise, we are doomed as a nation--and the continued break down of life and family will continue--prayerfully this will not continue, and family life and the observance of God principles will be re-established!
"There are many couples within our land wanting babies, but who for some reason or other, cannot get pregnant. Thus, since we legalized abortions in this country, and there are no 'available babies' to be adopted, they have to go outside our country to adopt forign babies."
Completely false! There are thousands of children currently in foster care in this nation waiting for willing adoptive parents! I guess since many of these children are older than infants, and/or have developmental or medical problems they don't count in your book. Best to lock them away, pretend they don't exist and go abroad seeking 'perfect' babies like your friends.
"ALSO--I remember society in general did NOT accept pre-marital sex, out of wedlock pregnancies and, God forbid, the animalistic/deviant behaviours of homosexual acts!"
Nice to see how much society has progressed from the draconian backwards nivanna of your idealized past! We now understand that "homosexual acts" are just sex, regardless of the smears and attacks of bigots like you.
"Otherwise, we are doomed as a nation--and the continued break down of life and family will continue--prayerfully this will not continue, and family life and the observance of God principles will be re-established!"
In otherwords, you believe others should only have the 'freedom' to believe as you do! Bring on the Brownshirts, right?
Brown shirts? what's that?
One thing about todays world, is the help couples have in getting pregnant via their OWN eggs/sperms. PTL!
However, shame on the 'dad donors' who have created multitude of children via their 'donated' sperms--gross!
The children on welfare are NOT neccesarily from unwanted PG'! I know of a family of 8 who are great, loving parents, falling on hard times, and their children are in the foster system--however, the other family members are helping etc. The children on welfare are from circumstances within the family --NOT because they were NOT aborted! shiver!
So, you are calling our God a bigot? interesting--since that is what you called us who are following HIS teachings on these matters!
WoW! You are weapons-grade crazy! When a couple goes to a fertility doctor what business is of yours if the sperm/egg used are from the couple or from donors? What is so gross about being an anonymous donor? Do you think the families, where the children were concieved using an anonymous donor are gross?
Who said boo about welfare? Foster care isn't welfare, you really need to get a clue. Certainly no one has suggested that children are on welfare or in foster care because they weren't aborted. You falsely claimed that there were no 'available babies', and pointed out that there are many available children in foster case waiting adoption.
I called you a bigot, and while you are clearly delusional, you aren't god. You are following YOUR interpretation of what are allegedly god's 'teachings'. Since the Constitution guarantees us all freedom of religion, I will oppose any and all efforts by you to write those interpretations into law. Laws should have a rational basis, your 'beliefs' do not.
There was a special on TV showing that men who donate their sperms--for whatever reason--attempting to be moacho or something--has children all over the country. They brought these children of his together for him to meet--they ALL looked like him--and were all ages! The children enjoyed the company of their siblings, and at last broadcast, was going to attempt relationship with their biological dad. How will this be, with everyone miles apart--is a mystery. It's sick, actually! Takes away the fundamental, and only authentic family--wife/husband/offsprings!
Correction--with todays science of helping authentic marriages to conceieve, is awesome!
This post has been removed by the author.
Laws should have a rational basis, your 'beliefs' do not.
Explain the rational between killing a baby 10 minutes before birth and 10 minutes after in regards to our laws and abortion on demand ?
Explain the difference between allowing same sex marriage and not allowing polygamous marriage or bi sexual threesomes to be married ?
I suggest it takes a world view to understand your answer more then a rational mind . But give it a try .
"Explain the rational between killing a baby 10 minutes before birth and 10 minutes after in regards to our laws and abortion on demand ?"
The question is absurd. There are no abortions occuring 10 minutes before birth, your question is based on the Christianist misrepresentation of the Dialation and Extraction proceedure. While the fetus in these exceedingly rare proceedures are in the vagina when the preganacy is terminated, this is not at all related to 'birth'. There simply are no women getting abortions "10 minutes before giving birth". Were a doctor to purposefully take the life of a fetus during an actual birth, it would be a crime with or without the so-called "partial birth abortion act". PS, I believe the term you are looking for is rationale.
"Explain the difference between allowing same sex marriage and not allowing polygamous marriage or bi sexual threesomes to be married ?"
Simple one involves two people while the others involve more. While our laws in this area could be re-written to accomodate polyamorous arrangements, it would be a far more complex undertaking than simply removing the completely arbitrary condition that both parties to the contract cannot be of the same sex. Since there is no political movement for legal recoginition of plural marraige this is currently not an issue, if and when there is it can be dealt with then. For the record, I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of legal framework for recognition of plural marraiges as long as it is equitable with dual marraiges (e.g. if the a polygamous husband were to die, the surviving wives would have to split the same amount of SS survivor's benefits that a sole wife would have recieved, not receive the same amount each). This issues are admittedly complex, but that doesn't mean they cannot be debated and resolved on a rational, rather than a religious basis. Given that our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to ALL it's citizens, not just conservative Chrsitians should preclude the latter being the primary basis for laws, since it inherently limits the free exercise of those of other religions or none at all.
You have promoted a political debate , I am asking for basic rational .
Thanks for your honesty in marriage . I however find it irrational .
One thing Civil Rights are not given on the basis of need , they are given on the basis of equality . Waiting laterto promote equality for polygamous marriage sounds irrational to me , either they have civil rights or they don' under your definition .
My view Marriage is equal as it is now , we all have the same conditions in regards to access .
To change it to meet different sexual or lifestyle needs instead of equal access should now mean that it should be open for all different kinds . Thats how I view it , it has always been seen as a straw man arguement to cause gay marriage problems bringing up polygamous marriage . It may be at times , but its just a logical extension of gay marriage . I suggest to you , people in polygamous marriage or bi sexual relationships are just as kind as you , obviously not me . But you , fair , go to work , pay taxes , do no people NO harm . Live in secret because society has made it a boo boo for their life style . In many polygamous families assets and after a death the division of property is divided better then any probate court could have . They have a system and it works . I disagree with the fact of marriage for polygamous under my defintion and understanding of equality , they have equal access to a proven equal system in our culture of marriage between one man and women . Under your defintion , I don't see how it can be argued basically any kind of marriage should NOT be allowed ?
Polygamous ,bi sexual , which by the way may seem confusing to us , works quite well in their belief system . I share your concerns however .
You seemed to honor that possibility of expanded marriage definitions reluctantly , thank you for your honesty .
Also you changed the question to fit your political position , not the intellectual thought behind it in regards to abortion.
I will try again , 7 months pregnant , choose to have an abortion , whatever reason .
7 months pregnant , baby is the saqme physical description , baby is born out of the womb .
What is the difference in killing the unborn baby and the born one .
One is murder , one is abortion . Both babies for this debate are equal in everything but address.
"You have promoted a political debate , I am asking for basic rational ."
These are politcal questions, what other sort of debate did you expect? I have provided the basic rationale that informs my politcal positions.
"My view Marriage is equal as it is now , we all have the same conditions in regards to access . "
The same could have been said, and was, by those opposed to interracial marriage, they found themselves on the wrong side of history, just as you are.
Your position that opening marriage up to two people of the same sex requires opening it up to groups of more than two people is completly arbitrary. One could just as easily argue that opening marriage to two people of different races, necessitated opening it up to same-sex couples, ployamourous couples etc.. In either case it would be a red herring, with no logical bearing on the question at hand.
"One is murder , one is abortion . Both babies for this debate are equal in everything but address. "
You hit the nail on the head! The "address" you refer to above is the body of a human being with the right to control her body. THAT is the defining difference, for a fetus to continue development, the mother must grant continued occupancy of her body with all the attendent health risks that come with it. For a baby to continue development, it's needs can be met by either parent, or even a third party! In my opinion the rights and wishes of the "address" must be taken into account and weighed against those of the fetus when said "address" is a human being.
I find it odd that you insist on focusing on late-term abortions in your scenarios when these are exceedingly rare, the vast majority of aboritions occur far before 7 months. In fact it is legal for a state to restrict abortion in the last trimester! So this is really a different issue than your previous D&X related question.
Anom said
The same could have been said, and was, by those opposed to interracial marriage, they found themselves on the wrong side of history, just as you are.
Me
Totally different , they were denied access based on race . You have the same access as I or the black person now has already . Nice try , your rational is tainted and based on support for your issue , not support for the law as written.
I have access to a mens room , you depending on your gender has access to a ladies room or mens room . We are restricted to the rooms we are allowed to use , that is not the same as not allowing ablack man to use a toilet a white could .
Anom said
Your position that opening marriage up to two people of the same sex requires opening it up to groups of more than two people is completly arbitrary.
Me
Arbitray to who , you ? How self centered is that , not only illogical ,but quite revealing of your real concern of Human Rights ,
So Bi sexuals and other relationships have less importance they yours ? Sounds like when others say that about gay marriage I hear the word bigot used . LOL Of course they deserve the same respect as you or me . They are not less of a person . listen to yourself .
Anom said
One could just as easily argue that opening marriage to two people of different races, necessitated opening it up to same-sex couples, ployamourous couples etc..
Me
Wow , thats a leap . Marriage laws are written for a man and women . Not only disingenious , but a factual misrepresntation on your part . You can get married , no one is stopping you . Just like no one is stopping the bi sexual or polygamous view point . But they have to be married to just one man or women , and they have to be of the opposite sex . Equal access , to change for one you have to be able to explain why only you, the homosexual gets the benefit . You can't logically , because secularly there is no difference . Culturally there is , and of course you want to change the culture for you to be included , but not others.
Anom said
In either case it would be a red herring, with no logical bearing on the question at hand.
Me
Your logic has already been proven to be faulty .
Anom said
You hit the nail on the head! The "address"
In my opinion the rights and wishes of the "address" must be taken into account and weighed against those of the fetus when said "address" is a human being.
Me
Wow , you answered it . Have to hand it to you . The fact the baby is outside the Mom , it has a right to life and medical care . Inside the Mom . same develpoment , but no rights , can feel pain and has no rights according to you . But noticed you said in your opinion , I respect that , actually I really do .
Anom said
I find it odd that you insist on focusing on late-term abortions in your scenarios when these are exceedingly rare, the vast majority of aboritions occur far before 7 months.
Me
You find it odd? Why , are you afraid to picture a 7 month fetus in your mind and realize your view allows for its destruction , painful or non painful it has no merit to you , the baby has no rights .
I suppose you don't find it odd pro choice supporters never address it , use words like fetus , and choice ? Talk about Back alley abortions when talking about abortions rights . Promote the view of poor young women being raped and left to coat hangers . You find my questions odd , or just difficult to answer rationally ?
I do that for the obvious reason , because some people will draw the line when in their own mind when the baby is a baby .
I don't see how a person can say 2 seconds after a birth there is a human being and 2 seconds before it is not . Its not logical !
You defended your view , but its not logical anom .
Does some fairy tip toe out and sprinke the baby with star dust and it becomes alive . This is rational ? I believe an honest person would say that is not rational , regardless if you are religious or not .
Anom said
In fact it is legal for a state to restrict abortion in the last trimester! So this is really a different issue than your previous D&X related question.
Me
Well it stated because of someones comments regarding rational views . Were they yours ? I think secularly your views could be considered quite irrational .
In any case , I am glad someone gave you a choice , even it was to one day grow up and debate the reason why your just lucky to be here .
I happen to think God had something to do with it . The Marriage issue means less to me actually . But its all they debate about on this blog .
"Totally different , they were denied access based on race ."
No they weren't denied access based on race. Blacks were free to marry anyone of the same race, just as whites were. Sound familiar? Sorta like gays are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals. Just becuase it doesn't suit your agenda doesn't make it totally different.
I'm not saying a thing about bi-sexuals or multiple partner arrangements, I'm just pointing out that allowing same-sex civil marriage doesn't necessitate providing a civil marrriage framework for these couples any more than allowing inter racial marriage did. Your attempt to project your bigotry onto me is cute though.
"Why , are you afraid to picture a 7 month fetus in your mind and realize your view allows for its destruction , painful or non painful it has no merit to you , the baby has no rights ."
No I'm not afraid. I just think your play to emotion shows the weakness of your argument. I obviously don't have a problem with addressing your questions rationally. My response does seem to upset you though.
"Does some fairy tip toe out and sprinke the baby with star dust and it becomes alive ."
So sayeth the man, who thinks God create life. You are really a characature of your own beliefs, Mick.
This post has been removed by the author.
Oh , you have no problem JC with a baby being killed inside the womb with the same physical characteristics and life span of one outside .
I think from that rational point of view , you have proven discussion worthless.
Must be nice being god .
Liberals are always frightened by diversity of opinion. They think a fair way to decide passionately contested issues is for the federal government to issue uncompromising edicts giving liberals everything they want, and then to suppress all criticism of the edicts. The fascistic order, completely supplanting all democratic processes, is then known as a victory for "choice." As the Grand Inquisitor said in "The Brothers Karamazov": "They have vanquished freedom and have done so to make men happy."
Being a Christianist, you'd know all about fascism, Ann.
Seems the only place this suppression of all criticism exists is on Christianist sites, much like Mick's pathetic lies based on his time spent on the NAMBLA website. Why does Mick Sheldon visit the NAMBLA website? Is he looking for tips on molesting boys?
Well JC we all know your not a child molester , at least if the name you once gave was accurate . We ran it throught the detector , your clean .
You sure are a great debater . ;0)
Sorry, Mick, you're the one with visits to NAMBLA's website in thier browser cache not me. I wonder how much kiddie porn can be found on your PC. I wonder how many unsolved child molestations there are in the Kitsap. Seems the authorities should be looking into the activities of a known NAMBLA sympathizer like Mick Sheldon. At the very least, he should be prohibited from any activity that may give him access to children.
Great use of doublespeak Ann. Framing the idea that everyone should have a choice as 'anti-freedom' is so perfect an example you must be a student of orwell.
Of course what you really meant is that 'Liberals are always frightened Ann deciding what they can or can't do'. A legitimate concern in my opinion.
Anon 1:02 - you will be brought low. And your knee WILL bend.
Your threat's don't scare me, Mimi, you fascist bitch.
You simply LOVE accusations of child molestation sympathies when they are leveled at me, commenting on Mick's anonymous and pseudonymous antics thusly:
"So Mick drives you around the twist, does he? Yay!"
Seems my responding in kind really has your granny panties in a bunch, don't it? All I can say is YAY! :)
Anon 1:02 - you will be brought low. And your knee WILL bend.
Ah your God will beat him up. Fortunately this should make it clear why Christianists, Islamofascists, and other religious zealots scare people so much.
Hi JC! I LOVE it when you're angry!! And stop with the compliments - they're going to my head. Truth is, I'm quite fond of you (and Oshtur, and Human), and enjoy your comments. You really know how to stir the pot. Gets the old blood boiling, what? BTW, I don't think it's on God's to-do list to beat people up - we do just fine on our own. And why on earth would I threaten you? Those aren't MY words - I just borrowed them from a really neat Book!! I'd rather have you to tea than spar. My joints are too creaky.
Air smooches, with love and unceasing prayers, from the Fascist Granny Bitch (gee, what a fabulous moniker)
Mimi, buttercup, unless someone else was pushing the keys on your keyboard those are your words, and they are a threat, not that I'm scared, this whole blog is amusement to break up the work day for me. I've attempted rational conversation every now and then, but it simply isn't possible with people, who base their lives on fairy tales.
Glad you're on line -
I gotta be honest, if my auntie and her wife knew you'd used the c-word they would clean your bones with their teeth. As would my nephew who is gradually becoming my niece. So beware tossing out that particular insult when women are present, or cover yourself where it counts. Stupid Little Tart is adequate, thank you very much.
What do you bet you and I can have a rational interchange? I'm not your run-of-the-mill broad. AND we have both been admonished by Oshtur, and I agree with him that it's getting silly (however amusing for you and I).
So, we on for tea then?
Blessings from above, FGB
"Shots Assist In Aborting Fetuses"
Lethal injections offer legal shield
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/10/shots_assist_in_aborting_fetuses/
In response to the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, many abortion providers in Boston and around the country have adopted a defensive tactic. To avoid any chance of partially delivering a live fetus, they are injecting fetuses with lethal drugs before procedures.
The banned method involves partially delivering a live fetus, then intentionally causing its death. Even before it was banned, the procedure was exceedingly rare, accounting for a fraction of 1 percent of all abortions.
Instead, doctors typically cause the fetus's death surgically while it is still inside the womb and then remove it.
Post a Comment
<< Home