The “Real” War on Women – Baby Girls…. Live Action Investigates and Planned Parenthood Reacts…

Speechless….  “Gendercide”

(Life News)  The investigative pro-life group Live Action, which has released videos exposing the abuses at the Planned Parenthood abortion business across the country, has released a new video today showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, Texas encouraging a woman to get a sex-selection abortion.

The video shows a Planned Parenthood staffer encouraging the woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is the first in a new series titled “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America,” that Live Action tells LifeNews will be exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

“I see that you’re saying that you want to terminate if it’s a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?” a Planned Parenthood counselor named “Rebecca” offers the woman, who is purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the gender.

“The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks,” explains Rebecca, “and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know, whether or not it’s a boy or a girl.”  (much more here) 

This entry was posted in Decepticons, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to The “Real” War on Women – Baby Girls…. Live Action Investigates and Planned Parenthood Reacts…

  1. ANYONE who wants an abortion -or supports its routine (ie: non-emergency) availability – should have to watch a “arthroscopic” video showing exactly what happens to the baby.

    If you’re reading this and *YOU* don’t know, you owe it to yourself to find out. Google sucks, but Bing should make it just as easy to find the videos that will show you the procedure – but… as always, remember this: That which has been seen, cannot be UN-seen…

    I guarantee it will make you more passionate in your arguments against it!

    Anyone who can watch these vids and still think abortion is ok, lacks both a heart *AND* a soul!


    • Donnie B. says:

      Would you want your child to have a baby that resulted from a violent rape?


      • PAL says:

        Is a baby at fault because of a violent rape?


      • I agree with PAL. How can anybody argue that it’s a not a real child if it resulted from rape? It’s the same as arguing that it’s only human if it’s “wanted.” Crime or no crime, BOTH mother and child need to be protected.


      • Menagerie says:

        I would not want my child to become a murderess because she was the victim of a heinous act. i would not want my child to live with the life long repercussions she would face, mentally and physically, from an abortion. I would not want my child to undergo a violent, health threatening procedure that would exponentially increase her heartache and misery. I would not want to assist in the murder of an innocent child. I could go on but these are the crucial points. Sometimes life hurts us a great deal, and when that happens, there is no procedure which can make it go away. Often the choices left to us in the aftermath are not easy.


        • How often the liberal solutions focus on the quick and dirty irrational answers.
          1. Woman raped? => Kill the baby.
          2. Gun deaths? => Kill the guns.
          3. War sucks? => Kill all freedom. (Create One World Govt)
          4. Poor people? => Kill the rich.
          5. Morals get in the way? => Kill religion.
          6. Environment hurtin? => Kill everybody.


        • marie says:

          Yet it’s true that traits of personality are heritable, that our genes, our body chemistry, is determined by the combination given us by our biological mother and father, and no, we are NOT blank slates upon which loving parents and a loving society can write upon us. No, we are NOT blank slates that can be molded into loving, kind, gentle, compassionate, mentally healthy and stable individuals IF we inherit the alleles from either a mother or father or both which determine our chemistry.

          If you doubt this, study any twin study you wish. Study especially those twin studies of monozygotic twins separated at birth and raised by loving, adoptive , raised thousands of miles apart by parents quite different in their parenting practices, in communities quite different in a multitude of ways. Study how those twins turn out to have remarkably similar traits, personalities, weaknesses, strengths, interests, disinterests, tendencies toward empathy and sociability to narcissism, sociopathy, and criminality. Study how research shows that they turn out like one or both of their parents.

          It’s an uncomfortable thing to have to accept that we aren’t capable of shaping our kids to the extent we dream we are. When we feel as if we’ve been successful in eliciting the good in our children, in shaping them in any number of ways, it’s disquieting to take a look at our own personality/behavior pattern/traits and those of our mate and realize, “Perhaps I did not actually “teach” my child his patience, either overtly or by modeling; perhaps he inherited the proclivity from his father…or from me.”

          Yes, it’s disconcerting to realize that we don’t have the power we think we have, that much is already in us and in our children. The most frightening thing is to realize that the bad, the very bad in a human being is no more apt to be rubbed out by parental and societal effort than the good is to be shaped to begin with.

          A child conceived through rape has inherited one half of the genetic information that his criminal biological father contributed. That’s a high risk crap shoot. The mother deciding to have that child can be seen as one who is forgiving and loving or one who is likely to be foisting upon herself, the rest of her family and the whole society a human being capable as much an animal as the criminal who caused him or her to be created.

          I don’t really want to argue about this. I just didn’t want the other side, the side backed up by adoption and twin studies and now, genomics, to go unvoiced. Let’s just say that for the last five years I’ve read enough that I had to face the truth. The truth is not often easy to face. Women who conceive children with men they have chosen have had the time to measure that man, have had the time to consider what kind of man he is and what kind of children he is likely to create with her.

          I hate abortion. I hate the idea of abortion, yet knowing what I know about heritability, I realize that in the case of rape, it’s not black and white.


          • There is no doubt that nature plays a part.

            There is also no doubt that NURTURE has influence as well…

            Though (this isn’t really directed at you)As usual – with leftard “logic” – what’s left out is THE PART THAT REALLY MATTERS:



          • Marie, speaking as a man who inherited a considerable number of catastrophic genes, I think you are putting too much faith in studies. Genes are powerful influences, yes. Nurture can be powerless sometimes, yes. But reality is broader than both nature and nurture, IMO. God’s love is broader and more powerful than either. Without it, all of us are lost. With it, none of us are without hope. Not one. We are not animals, Marie. Trust me on that.


            • marie says:

              Lots of us have inherited deleterious genes, which, in biological terms, are those which have an effect on fitness. “Fitness” is a term which refers to an organism’s ability to reproduce. Thus, many harmful mutations, or many combinations of genes which may lead to conditions which are not those we’d have chosen for ourselves had we had the chance or which lead to negative conditions AFTER child-bearing years, are not, by definition, fitness-reducing, and are not, therefore “deleterious” in a biological sense. (The measure of a gene’s fitness is whether or not it gets itself into the next generation, whether is survives the selection process).

              However, we are speaking here of genes which lead to a proclivity for violence. These genes may actually be fitness-inhancing (and have been so in ancestral pasts when aggression was a selected trait) IF the person who has them is lead by such genes to be more likely to produce offspring. So, while a genetic signature that is not fitness-reducing may not be biologically deleterious, it often IS socially negative (ie rape).

              I urge you, if you are interested in the questions raised by my comments, to google the studies of several decades.


            • marie says:

              What about the word “animal” disgusts you so? We are not plants, not minerals.


              • I love animals, Marie. Often between the mashed potatoes and the green beans, but one of my favorites is curled up at my feet right now, and he gets special treatment. 😉 To reiterate, we are NOT animals. If we WERE animals, we might be incapable of overcoming the deleterious effects of our genes, in particular the ones that predispose us to things like rape, murder, stubbornness, narcissism, etc. I suspect you know this, even though you are acting like a disinterested scientist while you attempt to use behavioral studies (which are the most often fraudulent, unscientific, unreliable and biased type of study in existence) to claim that genes make us who we are, and should therefore be used to justify killing a baby over. Please don’t pretend to innocently protest that this isn’t exactly the outrageous claim you are making. You should be ashamed of yourself.


                • marie says:

                  I am sorry you make assumptions about me. If I had been raped, I would run to a medical professional as fast as possible and get the morning after pill. I do not think it immoral to do that. I know this to be true about what I would do because I was, as a youngster in college, sexually assaulted at gun point, held for over an hour, and forced with a gun at my temple to perform fellatio on the offender. When he was caught over 5 years later, he was found to have been responsible for over 16 sexual assaults on women, from rape to other sexual acts. I consider myself lucky that because it was that time of the month, he didn’t rape me. (Sorry if this is too much info, but it is what it is).

                  We are the the most intelligent form of life on earth, a primate above all others, but still animals, nonetheless. “Animal” is simply a subcategory of “kingdom,” just as there are subcategories of “genus” and “species,” etc. It is not a moral category.


                • I am sorry for your pain, Marie, and I hate the thuggery you speak of just as you do. It’s not too much info. I’m glad you shared it, and I pray that you may find peace and be free of all fear of such things. Please follow my comment to the bottom of the page where there’s more room…


          • Shalini says:

            I am not sure whether you’ll be reading this as I am late to this discussion, as always! *rolls eyes* I think this is not the first time you are bringing up this argument. IIRC, you brought up this same study in a Trayvon Martin discussion.

            I consider myself a bit of DNA nut. I wanted to be genetic engineer but, long story short, I didn’t. It is only relevant to this discussion to show my specific interest in this particular field of science. Even so, I am not quite going to go into the specifics.
            I am glad you brought the discussion of DNA in this topic as it should be, IMO, the most often used argument against abortion. The Fertilized zygote gets the 46 chromosomes from both parents which contains all the information needed to identify the physical traits of the baby. The colour of his/her eyes, hair, even details about higher intellectual capacity aka prodigies. This enhances the scientific truth that the meaningless blob of cells is indeed a unique human. But behavioral patterns based on DNA strands is an ambivalent science and is by no means considered a given. Science is scratchy at its best on that aspect. FWIW, if your argument is true, it would only strengthen the pro-life argument as it suggests individual character traits as well.

            The idea that a person is ‘born this way’, to put it in colloquial terms, isn’t quite new. Scientists have been oscillating on this point for a very long time. Earlier last century it was fashionable and acceptable scientific study to consider delinquents having born that way. To put it simply, such men were considered weak in character because of birth defects. Then they had gone back to criminalizing behavior anyway. But behavior unlike, colour of a person, is volatile. It responds to external stimuli. You can never accurately assess a person’s behavior based on inherent features as external forces or influences have almost always impact the final outcome. Hundred percent inheritance is not possible. Nurture plays a huge role in adaptability. Mind you, I am not saying you cannot inherit behavior. All I am saying is while physical inheritance is more like a constant, behavioural inheritance is a variable and can molded contrary to what you are suggesting.

            I could go on about a few studies but I am afraid we’ll go back and forth, quoting studies. That exactly is my point. There are numerous studies out there, marie. You forget that we no longer live in the era of selfless science when men injected themselves with their own findings in search of a cure. Science, like everything else, has been commercialized long ago. They give you what you want to read because it’s good business. There is a reason why potatoes are hazardous today and while a week ago it was one of the healthiest foods. (I am not even mocking you. These studies are real and happen exactly in that pattern.) On a more serious level, there’s a reason why in the 1965 Planned Parenthood pamphlet abortion is called murder and now it’s being described as a simple and efficient medical procedure. They give you what you want to read because no matter what scientists say, a lot of them sold their souls and have become people pleasers. It is very difficult to find absolute consensus in science on subjects which do not have absolute scientific clarity, because that’s where the money is. As Grunt said you give way too much credit to studies than is strictly required.

            They tell you abortion isn’t murder, because it would take away guilt from women and it is good business. Recently, a group of scientists in APA (?) suggested Pedophilia is a condition people are born with and suggested decriminalizing the same. People dislike personal responsibility as it makes them feel bad. And so comes science to the rescue making everybody feel good about themselves. Taking away personal responsibility and giving the causes of behavior to something which we don’t have control over might make us feel us good, short term, but is disastrous in the long term. Also, I am not disregarding science as a whole. But hard scientific facts and scientific studies are not the same. You do realize these studies get private funding, don’t you? They’ll go whichever way the wind blows. It tries to imply we don’t have free will and that there’s no such thing as virtue or vice, and we are what we are without apology. In short, to undermine our Christian existence and to redefine morality. No self-awareness, no personal responsibility, no repentance and eventually no salvation. It might make existence easier but it makes life that much difficult.

            I’ve rambled enough for the day, I guess.


            • Wonderfully said, dear Shalini. As a scientist myself, I resent and condemn the axiom used in all social sciences that humans are simply machines subject to materialistic cause and effect and therefore subject to scientific study. We are not. This fact should be obvious to all thinking people, especially professionals trained in critical thinking, because the axiom always results in a non sequitur. In order to rationalize one’s own study of other humans, and to presume that the study is meaningful, one has to exclude the self (the analyst) from the axiom. In other words, Marie has to assume that she, and she alone, has a supernatural ability to observe and draw objective conclusions about the purely mechanistic humans under her study, who (poor things) are incapable of resisting the natural, chemical forces in their little brains that make them the way they are and put every base thought into their heads. That, of course, would be absurd. If she is honest, she must admit that all of the people under her study, just like herself, have the supernatural spark of free will and objective judgment that transcends naturalistic assumptions. They must therefore be, at least partially, unpredictable and therefore not entirely hopeless.


            • marie says:

              You understand that genes and combos of genes are expresssed at birth, and then epigenetically in ways we are just now beginning to question. You understood when you wrote what you did, and you were “safe” in so stating, that we cannot predict which traits will be expressed in an individual child (with some exceptions, of course) even if we have knowledge of maternal and paternal phenotypes.

              However, you also know that very accurate predictions can be made about many traits within a group and only slightly less accurate predictions can be made about traits in an individual: ie, unintelligent parents are very likely to produce unintelligent offspring; physically strong parents are likely to produce physically strong children; aggressive parents are likely to produce aggressive offspring; passive parents are likely to produce passive offspring. When parents are not alike in traits (strength, cognition, dominance, etc.) the prediction is less accurate, of course.

              My comments were unrelated to PP, unrelated to abortions outside of rape. They were reminders that all the love in the world, all the great parenting in the world cannot be counted on to mitigate genetic contributions. If I were a raped woman who could predict that the offspring of my rape would be no more likely than the offspring of a child conceived with my husband to be violent, to be criminal, then I would feel differently.


              • Shalini says:

                My point is Marie is that you are simplifying a very complex structure that is the human genome and it’s effects. What you are doing here is suggesting behavioural patterns are linear systems when in truth they are more non-linear as there is way too many variables involved to predict outcomes you claim or the studies you read claim. There are no constants here. Weak children can become strong by sheer determination. You are entirely disregarding human will which is the most distinct feature of us developed ‘animals’. Animals have known to kill or abandon their own off-springs when they sense they have very low chance of survival. That is not case in human beings.

                I have a lot of use for science but only till they try to manipulate me. I feel these studies manipulated you and you fell for it. I can’t say for sure of course, as I don’t know you. I find you saying that you’ll have a hard time having a child of rapist if you know the child might inherit those qualities. That’s the endgame for so many scientific studies, making you feel justified in taking human life. By extension if most parents know how obnoxious their teenagers are going to be, they’d abort them? Or gay kids? Excuses lady. Just plain excuses.


      • Sharon says:

        My best friend’s 14 year old daughter had a baby girl as a result of a violent kidnapping and rape at knifepoint. She refused (the 14 year old refused) to consider abortion. The baby went to a lovely home. The beautiful 22 year old woman she has become just graduated from college this spring. She is in contact with her birth mother by her choice, loves her adoptive parents. I think she’s glad she’s alive! At least based on the photos I’ve seen of her playing her violin and enjoying the beach with friends–looks happy to me!

        Unfortunately, we learned first hand at the time of her rape that some of our friends in our evangelical Christian circles were quite upset that she would not get an abortion. They apparently thought she should feel ashamed for being raped at knifepoint by someone who kidnapped her from her own back yard on a Sunday afternoon in broad daylight. It was interesting. We found out who was conveniently pro-life, and who was pro-life with understanding and intention.


      • Ash says:

        I know two people who were the product of rapes and they have made the world a better place for being here today. I also know a person who got pregnant via incest. She put the child in a home since she could not care for the child.

        I am so tired of these lame excuses for abortion, it’s just another way to open the door for all abortions. In all three cases above the woman chose to have the child and not kill the child because they happen to have been the victim of a horrible act by someone else. Why make another person ( the baby) suffer too? Compounding the act of rape or incest with murder is not a justification in my mind for tearing a baby apart in the womb.

        I can assure you despite President Obama’s statement that he would not punish his daughters with a child, these children who were not planned for, were quite the opposite of a punishment. They are blessings to those that know them.

        I realize there times when a pregnancy is not viable and must be terminated but even then it can be done so the child who is going to die anyway can die without being ripped violently apart while it’s heart is still beating.

        Abortion is just the first step in devaluing ALL life. First the child is a “parasite” on the mother and can’t survive without her body, so since it is her body she should have the right to kill it according to pro-choice proponents. With that line of thinking elderly people who can no longer care for themselves are dependent on family or society for care. So I guess the next step would be to say since it’s putting a burden on the family or society (becoming a parasite) then either the family or society should be able to euthanize them?

        Then, we have people who are born with birth defects that will never be able to care for themselves. I guess then it would be OK to kill these people too since they are nothing but blobs of cells (bigger perhaps but still blobs) if they can’t contribute to society, for example to pay taxes.

        Then we have people who have accidents through no fault of their own who become paraplegics, or have brain damage. I guess it would be cheaper and easier for society to just kill them, because they too have become a blob of cells that can’t contribute and need care.

        You see, once you OK abortion you start on that slippery slope of deciding who is and isn’t worthy of life. This is why I am Pro-Life because I value life at each stage and know that we as a society have to protect those that can’t protect themselves whether it is a 1 month old fetus, a 1 month old baby born with Down’s Syndrome, a teen involving in a diving accident, an vet who suffers brain damage, or an elderly person with Alzheimer’s. Disease.

        Saddest fact to me is how so many who claim to be pro choice will fight for the right of a death row inmate. Yet, our children who have committed no crime, are seen as less worthy of fighting to protect their lives.

        When this country does not value it’s citizens, all of them, it will eventually fall, as it currently is today, because the first right in the Constitution is Life. Without the basic right to life the other rights do not matter.


      • Now I am eally ticked off!!!!!
        Are you God? Ok, excuse me I should just ask first;
        Do you believe in God or the existance of some higher order that brought us to be? If yes let us continue and if no GTHOOMF!!!!!!
        I will assume that you at least believe in God so I will start there.
        So you jack-of-apes you think you are greater or smarter than God? Or do you chose to end God’s precious gift to our world because you don’t want what God has to offer? Do you believe that God can make something good out of evil? So what you are basically saying is this……Screw your will God (even though I know all life exist in your breath or touch), this is my will and I have the right to chose (over you God) who has the right to live and who doesn’t.
        Thank the good Lord that you are not my God and won’t be the one to judge me!


        • howie says:

          I never cared or thought much about abortion. Then a few years ago I went to see an exhibit called “Bodies.” After that I decided abortion should be illegal.


  2. Tula says:

    “This Nobel Nominee Actually Saves Babies”
    by Valerie Richardson – January 26, 2010

    “When President Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, that meant there were 205 nominees for the award who didn’t. One of them was Jim Garrow of the Bethune Institute.”
    – Valerie Richardson

    “The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China”
    CrosstalkAmerica – March 19, 2012

    Dr. Jim Garrow Interview Begins @ 13:00
    Trunews – April 30, 2012

    “How 1 Man Saved 40,000 Chinese Girls From Death”
    World Net Daily – April 23, 2012

    “The Pink Pagoda”


  3. PAL says:

    I hate to go on a spazzy rant but I feel some things need to be reiterated.
    Firstly, I’m anti-abortion BIG time. My friends would argue me in circles and the couldn’t believe that I would give birth to a baby (that is a PART OF ME) if it happened because of a rape. OY.

    Anyway, here’s my point.

    I find it utterly ironic that the scientific community will search mars for some itty bitty microbes in hopes of claiming ‘LIFE ON MARS’ and yet the life of a fetus is ‘not really life’?


    /rant off

    Sorry. This subject is one of my sore spots.


    • Me too, PAL. It’s especially ironic for me, because it’s my job is to help get spacecraft to Mars where they run those lab tests for evidence of life that doesn’t exist. Big bucks are spent making sure that our vehicles are squeaky clean so they don’t contaminate the sterile surface of the planet and damage any imaginary life. Meanwhile, every second of every day, “medical” doctors are sucking the brains out of actual living babies, often because they are an inconvenient gender. Is there intelligent life on Earth? I’m not so sure.


    • marie says:

      My sore spot, too. One should be careful: I’ve never read a scientific paper in which the researchers argued a “fetus is ‘not really life’.”

      That doesn’t even begin to approximate the language of a research study.


  4. Sandusky says:

    I’m a relatively newcomer to the tree but I assume that Obama’s voting record on what should happen to babies who survive abortions (in hospital) has been previously discussed here?


  5. Bobby Woods says:

    All of you are entitled to your opinions but women have a right to do what they see as appropriate.
    Planned parenthood literally saved my niece from a serious health threat by diagnosing her at a routine screening. Your attack on PP denies many women their only available source of such health services. Your radical attacks on them are more of the love the fetus hate the mom and child blathering stoked by ignorance you have been taught!


    • Wrong.
      And… er… well… Wrong!

      First, you assume if PP weren’t Federally funded it would cease to exist. — BS.

      Next, you assume if PP weren’t providing abortions it wouldn’t provide any other services. — BS.

      Then, you assume that if it weren’t for PP, women wouldn’t have any other health-care options. BS.

      Further, you assume that people who are against abortion in general think the mother should die rather than abort. I can’t speak for everyone, but for everyone *I* know, BS.

      Finally – and most strikingly – after making a hysterical argument (which just happens to parrot all the BS on TV) you accuse *US* of doing **EXACTLY** what you’d just done — “blathering stoked by ignorance you have been taught!”

      It’d be funny if it weren’t so SICK.

      What’s PAINFULLY clear is that the only “ignorance” here is yours.

      Do you have any idea what is done to a child in the name of Mom’s “choice”?

      Oh – and for clarity – Most people I know don’t have a problem with the so-called “morning after pill” – but we have a HUGE problem with someone using forceps to rip the limbs off a tiny person while it’s struggling to get away, or delivering a baby feet-first and sucking its brains out through it’s foramen then calling it a “medical procedure” when if the Doc was to slip and allow its head to exit mom’s vagina it would then be called by its TRUE name: INFANTICIDE.


    • Menagerie says:

      Women have no right to commit a murder. The fact that PP does some good does not at all negate the heinous evil that is their abortion business, which is the great bulk of what they do. Those of us who love the unborn baby, yes you can say it – baby!, do not hate the mother at all, and many of us participate in programs to help those mothers. If you want to save the baby, you must love and care for the mother. To not believe in the murder of the most innocent life is not an agenda, nor ignorance, nor spite or hate. It is a passionate belief based on love of life, all life.


    • Just so you know, Bobby, any time you accuse someone of just parroting ignorance they’ve been taught? That identifies you as one of the most vile and mindless liberals who cannot argue a point, but instead can only accuse them of being too stupid to form their own opinion. Because they can’t really HAVE that opinion, they MUST have been indoctrinated at an early age by religious zealots, right? Thanks for the psychoanalysis, genius.


    • Sandusky says:

      Actually, I was taught that abortion was totally blame-free and that women were justified in doing whatever they chose to their own bodies. As a teenager, I fully believed this. Later, however, I grew up.

      I still believe I can do what I please to my own body, in the sense that I would be entirely within my rights to get a tattoo, for example, or to request or refuse certain forms of medical treatment. Unlike other parts of my body, however, an unborn baby is only a temporary resident there, not an integral part; and therefore I believe that since the baby is only a guest and not “my body” as such, I have no right to kill it, especially since I will have every right to give that baby (once born) to two of the many people who would wholeheartedly welcome it into their lives (“two” because I believe it would be best for the baby to have a parent of each gender).

      Most especially do I believe that I have no right to kill that baby in ways which, if they were known to be applied to puppies or kittens, half the country would be protesting in scathing fury and disgust.


    • cajunkelly says:

      And that’s all I’ve got to say ’bout that.


  6. Donnie B. says:

    I support womens right to choose.


    • PAL says:

      Choose to kill because women CHOOSE to be skanks? Because, let’s face it here, that’s what we are really talking about. We’re not talking about the small percentage of women who get raped or impregnated by incest, we are talking about women wanting to skank it up with absolutely no GUILT or responsibilities when said skanks end up pregnant.

      Oh sure, give me the argument that, “Well, you don’t want to pay for my welfare and medical costs if I had said baby!” blahbetty blah-blah-blah.
      Hey, how about this? Close your damned legs? Learn to use adult toys if you’re horny? Stop F*CKING around without protection?

      Loose women are pathetic and disgusting and VILE.


    • Why? You don’t support my right to shoot my dog for any reason, do you? Why would you be ok with terminating babies? No hostility intended, Donnie. Just asking, honestly.


      • GREAT point.

        These same people who would foam at the mouth if you suggest they don’t have the right to order a Dr. to rip the limbs off a living baby while it struggles to escape, would foam just as much if you were to assert the right to put a bullet in a dog’s head — thus causing painless, instant death…

        We won’t even TALK about their reaction upon learning that someone did to a dog THE EXACT SAME THINGS that they assert the right to do to a tiny HUMAN BEING!!


    • Menagerie says:

      I wholeheartedly agree. I support their right to choose to have sexual intercourse, to use birth control responsibly, and to choose to act responsibly when a baby is conceived through the act that is designed to do exactly that, result in conception.


    • Sharon says:

      You didn’t finish the sentence: “I support womens right to choose to kill a living baby if they want to.”

      My DIL’s mother wanted her to abort one of my grandchildren. I told (former) DIL that if she wanted the baby dead so bad, just wait until he came home from the hospital. Just a tiny mite–shoot–wouldn’t be that hard to kill him at home at 4-5 days old. She was horrified that I should “talk that way.” Why? No different.


    • Then be honest and Call it what it is:

      You support a woman’s right to kill her baby.

      Just curious: since women get ~5 months in which to absolve themselves of the lifelong consequences of an ill-conceived sexual union, do you support a similar right for men?

      In other words, since you support a woman’s “right” to say “I don’t wish to be a mother. Please tear the limbs off my baby with forceps as it struggles to get away and throw the pieces of it in with all the other ‘medical waste’ “…

      Do you agree that men should be granted the LEGAL right to say “I don’t wish to be a Father, therefore should you ‘choose’ not to kill this baby, DO NOT expect me to provide any financial, moral, social or any other form of ‘support’ now or at any future point”?


      • Sharon says:

        Well, shoot, DDad….if that’s the rationale they want to use, I think the men should be allowed to demand that the woman gets an abortion whether she wants to or not, because after all their body is involved: the semen that created the life is “their body” and they should have the right to say whether or that it complicates their future–no different than the logic the women use. Seriously. Once evil is called good, it is literally impossible to have a rationale discussion because all the premises are so screwed up.

        She gets to kill the baby and is protected in doing so, why can’t the father do the same thing on demand?


        • I won’t go there — however…
          The usual argument is the effects that pregnancy, labor & delivery, etc. have on a woman’s body.

          Nobody ever mentions the fact that The Court will not allow a man to change careers or otherwise reduce his income – he’s expected to continue making at least as much as he’s ever made.

          They took so much from me as “Child support” that I couldn’t afford a place to live & was sleeping on my Mom’s sofa. I took a second job so I could get my own place. She found out, back to Court…

          Heck, I’m not working TWO jobs to sleep on a sofa!! — so I quit the second job. Judge said I’d “proven I was capable of earning more, so it was in the best interest of the child that I continue to do so.

          I’ve known men who were iron-workers, one who worked on Alaskan Crab boats (think “Deadliest Catch”)… They weren’t permitted to take easier, less-dangerous jobs but rather forced to continue risking their lives to earn the same $$!!

          So… again… I can’t make her be “mom” for 9 months, but she can make me work 2 jobs, or keep on doing dangerous, debilitating work for 18 years??!!

          BTW, also… My “Choice for Men” argument is actually DEAD SERIOUS!! I TRULY believe that — so long as “Roe v. Wade” is law, equality demands it!!


          • FTR: I’ve had sole legal custody of my kids for over 13 years…


          • Sharon says:

            …I took your argument as totally serious. Hope I didn’t sound as though I wasn’t. My thought was that if this women really want to keep on with their rationale….there absolutely is no reason the men shouldn’t have just as much authority at the table as they do….regardless of how the men want to approach the issue. What you present is more closely tied to the real battle than what I said. 😉 I just get so disgusted with women who see themselves and their “plight” as the be all and end all of public policy.


            • The most common response to my argument is a blank look — literally — people just cannot compute… What’s hysterical is that the more “modern PHeminist” the woman, the more likely I’ve found her to say something like “Oh, HELL NO! He made HIS choice when he laid down with her!!

              Which isn’t really surprising – as these are the same broads who scream “equal pay for equal work” (but REALLY want “equal pay for INequal-work) yet expect the man to pay for dates, or “I can do anything a man can do!” (except lift heavy stuff, or get dirty, or change a tire, or cut the grass, or… or… or…) but then get pissy if a male coworker doesn’t open the door for her or whatever — IOW “doesn’t act like a GENTLEMAN!

              I call them “PHeminists” because they’re PHony! They want all the **RIGHTS** but none of the **RESPONSIBILITIES**!!

              Oh, HELL NO! He made HIS choice when he laid down with her!!

              So… She gets a second chance and he doesn’t?

              Well… sometimes women make mistakes – like… if she was drunk…

              So you’re saying women aren’t always responsible for their actions, but men are?

              It’s along about this point that they start foaming at the mouth, and the chicken-neck starts snapping… “Oh… YOU just *HATE* **WOMEN**, DON’T YOU!!….” and so on…

              And no – for the record – I like women just fine! — but I **LOVE** ****LADIES****!!

              Given that my only two biological offspring are both LADIES, I kind of have a vested interest in their success!!

              Tell them they’re not allowed to do something, or that they’re to be treated as lesser, because they’re female and you’re going to have to fight *ME*!

              However, tell them “You can’t be a firefighter because you lack the upper-body strength to do all the job requires” and… well… That’s just common SENSE!!

              Fred Reed summed it up… “If I judge her as a woman, I see she’s smart, pretty, funny, and sweeter than sorghum on a Moon Pie! If I judge her as a man, she’s an emotionally-unstable dwarf who can’t bench-press a 20-oz Pepsi. How much respect am I supposed to have for ‘HIM’??!!

              I *LOVE* being a man-and I want someone who LOVES being a WOMAN!

              It’s getting to the point you can’t tell ’em apart!


              • Chevymisty says:

                Amen DDad. As a woman I actually appreciate that view and agree with it 100% and have voiced some of the same opinions about fathers and child support.


    • aliashubbatch says:

      There are things I wish to say in response, but the proper words escape me. So I’m just gonna vent on this:
      I hate it when the pro-deathers hurl “you’re against women choosing” as an accusation to silence the pro-lifers. Let’s be honest, the opposite of life is death, and calling it “choice” just makes it sound nicer. What possibly justifies that a child should die when the pregnancy came about as the result of her choices (few rapes result in a child, I don’t have the link to support this, but I know someone has to have the link to it).
      A woman goes to a bar, she has drinks. A man (clearly with ulterior motives) flirts with her. She goes home with him (her place or his, you can choose, lulz) and they screw. Now here is my question: at what point was she NOT the one making a choice for her actions?
      I want to say more but again the words escape me, so I’m just gonna cut it here.


    • Ash says:

      Then you are fortunate Donnie that your mother chose life.


  7. Since it looks like my previous reply is going to get lost in the shuffle, and it was previously directed at only one person, I’d like to ask something of anyone who feels like answering…

    So long as Roe v. Wade is “Law”, does not “equal protection” demand a co-equal “right” to be granted to men? Not to murder a defenseless infant – but… Let’s call it “a LEGAL abortion.”

    I submit that a man should be granted ~4 months after he is informed of paternity to issue a legal document saying “don’t want it, won’t support it, whatever you choose you’re on your own.

    As things stand today, a man may not force a woman – even his wife – to be a “mother” for 9 months — but a woman may force a man to be a FATHER FOR EIGHTEEN TO TWENTY-ONE *YEARS*!

    The average “child-support” order takes ~1/3 of a man’s GROSS pay, and gives it to Mom tax-free.
    Dad is then taxed as a single person ON HIS ENTIRE GROSS PAY, and gets none of the tax-benefits of “parenthood.” Mom OTOH gets “head of household”, “dependent deduction”, “child tax credit”, “earned income credit”, “child-care” deductions, and on and on and on…

    In short, taking 1/3 of a man’s gross earnings for 18 years is the same thing as taking *ALL* of his earnings — THUS RENDERING HIM A SLAVE — FOR SIX FULL YEARS!!

    To repeat: I can’t force her to be a “mother” for 9 months, but she can literally make me a slave for SIX FULL YEARS?! WHERE IS THE “EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW?!”

    For those that think this would lead to even more bastardy, more abortions, etc, I submit that you are mistaken.

    Without the guarantee of 18 years of paydays, women would be much more careful!!

    The net result would be LESS “unplanned” (another lie, another time) “unplanned pregnancies”, and hence LESS abortion, LESS fatherless “families” — and in time — less crime, less of all sorts of bad things!

    Even if you disagree on moral grounds (as, honestly, do I) can’t you agree that our system of “justice” and the 14th Amendment DEMAND IT?!



  8. lovemygirl says:

    My little girl was born at 24 weeks and I cannot fathom that they allow abortions up to 23 weeks.


  9. Here’s another “floater” for the punch-bowl…:

    If SHE kills it – has a Doctor rip it in pieces, or deliver it feet-first then suck out its brains before its head is all the way out – it’s a “choice.”

    If *HE* kills it – slips her something that causes miscarriage, or hit her in the stomach or whatever – it’s a “MURDER”!!

    And the *ONLY* difference (at least from the BABY’S PoV) is WHAT SHE WANTS!!


    Apparently you *CAN* have it both ways~!!


  10. ejarra says:

    A query: I always wondered how many PETA members believe it’s a woman’s right to have an abortion. How many vegans? I sense a moral paradox.

    On a personal note, the births of my children are from mothers who chose life. My daughter’s birth mother had an abortion and then became pregnant again. She told us at the interview that it was the WORST decision she ever made. Rachel, my daughter came in 10 weeks early @ 2# 15 oz. She was in NCIU for 5 weeks before we took her home.

    Aaron, my son, came from a schozofrenic (sp) mother who debated about an abortion, tried to raise him along with her family, and could not raise him. He came home after 30 days.

    There are many stories like mine where the choice of LIFE is the only real choice.


    • lovemygirl says:

      I have asked that on other blogs before and was shocked they did not see the contradictory position they take. They usually then attack Capital Punishment as a retort of some kind. Oh I remember NICU, 4/4 – 7/10 (her original scheduled B-Day). I never got used to the alarms and bells. Mine was 1 lb 10oz, she dropped 5 more ounces then started growing and growing. She is 10 now (but I will wait until 7/10 to consider her really 10).


  11. I find people/sock-puppets like “Donnie/Bobby” fascinating as … not really “character studies” because they’re more like Borg-bots than individuals… Maybe ‘Zombie-studies’?

    Anyhow… First out of the gate is HORROR!! — in this case “VIOLENT RAPE” (!!!!11!!ELEVENTY-ONE!!!111!) The not-at-all-subtle intent of this is to make the person who is AGAINST the violent intra-uterine dismemberment of helpless infants out to be the “uncaring, heartless” one – and not the zombie who FAVORS such horrors…

    When that fails to elicit the desired emotional response, then we break out the “women’s rights” angle –because (once again) it is important for them to paint “us” as would-be enslavers and abusers of women and themselves as righteous protectors of feminine whim. That worldwide, abortion kills many more POTENTIAL women than men is not on their radar – as their intellect simply doesn’t go that deep…

    Next we have an UPLIFTING anecdote – friend, brother, sister, “niece” – whatever – what’s important is that this person either suffered horribly as a result of the position you’re espousing, or was saved from such suffering by the zombie’s position.

    The anecdote is IMMEDIATELY followed by an accusation that you – evil thing that you are – would prefer that his example die horribly — in short, it’s an attempt to use GUILT to get you to change your position, or make the zombie feel righteous for theirs.

    Next, the accusation is writ large — not only would you have preferred that their example die horribly -you’d like that to happen to *ALL* the poor, disadvantaged people in the requisite “protected group.”
    In short, it’s designed to raise the stakes on both your guilt and their righteousness.

    True to form, they then close by accusing **YOU** (who thinks people should behave responsibly) of being “radical” – while their outlandish position (that any female should be able to kill any child she wants, for any reason – INcLUDING gender-selection) is both normal and compassionate.

    They’ll accuse you of “HATE” for good measure, and close with some pablum about how stupid you are and/or how smart they are. An alternative is that you’re delusional and they’re “reality based” or something equally inane…

    You can literally lay this like a stencil over most of the drive-by snipers we get in here, and at similar sites…

    “You people are DISGUSTING! What if it was YOUR child who was murdered by that wannabe-cop!”(Horror)Black people are gaining and moving into areas previously denied to them (uplifting!) but you bigots just can’t stand that, can you! (Radical!) You hate (HATE!) black people so much, you’d probably like to see ALL the young black men shot! Well, this time it went too far! Zimmerman’s going to PAY, despite what you wacko’s think!!” (You’re delusional/I’m sane)
    If you had half a brain you’d know that already! (you’re stupid/I’m not)

    See how that works?

    Let’s try it again…
    I can’t believe you bigots are against equal rights! (HORROR!) “People of conscience SUPPORT “gay marriage” – if two people love each other what difference does it make? *ALL* LOVE IS BEAUTIFUL! (UPLIFTING!) — but you homophobes (RADIcAL!) are just so full of (HATE!) hate – you’d like to see them STONED, wouldn’t you! You’re probably secretly “gay” yourself and just can’t handle it! (you’re delusional!) and so on, and on, and on…

    Zombies, I tell you!!

    Granted – “Horror/Uplifting/Radical/hATE!/etc is a **BIT* more complex than “BRaaaaaiiinnsss!!” — but not MUcH more!!


    • Donnie B. says:

      There is no need to start name calling. I stand by my opinion and its your problem if you dont like it. I could care less.


      • Sharon says:

        I would guess that you mean you couldn’t care less. If you “could care less” that means you still care. If you want to communicate that you absolutely do not care, then you want to communicate that there is no longer any potential for reducing any further the amount of “caring” that you are expressing. Zero caring. Zilch. Therefore, “I could not care less.” Or, in the vernacular it becomes a contraction, “I couldn’t care less.”


      • Oh you could “care less” and that is the problem out of your mouth. You could care less!


  12. Chevymisty says:

    I cannot have kids biologically. I am missing my right tube and my left is scarred beyond repair which is dangerous to my life if I was to try and conceive. I was always against abortion on mere principle but now as an adopting mother to be i find it wrong on the moral of how hard it is to adopt and the utter lack (yes I said lack) of babies out there to adopt. (children are easier to come buy babies not so much). And more than enough parents out there willing to raise the child for you. They would die to have that baby you don’t want. Anyone who says money can’t buy you happiness has never paid an adoption fee. I think anyone having an abortion (for purely non-life threatening reasons) should be charged with Murder in the first degree, because that’s what it is. If you don’t want the kid there are plenty out there who do.


    • Sharon says:

      It’s interesting, isn’t it, how those who accuse conservatives of having no compassion–don’t seem to have a shred of human decency when it comes to loving little babies. Such a horrible disconnect. Thank you for sharing. God bless you and keep on holding you until you have a little one to hold.


    • Aussie says:

      my sincere empathy for your situation. I agree with you on this subject.

      Fortunately, I am a mother of 3 sons. I was blessed to have 3 of them, and I do sympathize that you are unable to have children.


      • Chevymisty says:

        Thank you for your sympathies though I wasn’t asking for them. I wasn’t saying woe is me. lol I just get so pissed off at people and this is a reply to Sharon as well. I can’t believe how many people out there are willing to murder innocent babies because they made a mistake. Satan is out to ruin families because it is what God holds most dear. The best way to do that is kill the babies after making people think its OK to have premarital sex. Really people keep your pants on if you don’t want a baby and if you can’t keep your pants on don’t kill an innocent life. There are thousands of people out there who are waiting and hoping to have a kid.

        Sorry I am passionate about this subject if you couldn’t tell. Any way by this time next year I will be expecting my child soon. Got a friend who’s getting pregnant in September/October for us. So yay.


        • Aussie says:

          please be as passionate as you want on the subject. My sympathy stems from the same kind of reasoning. I have never understood why it is ok to murder unborn babies when so many couples want children.

          I go a lot further in my views because I have become very anti-IVF these days, and it is for similar reasons. The methods used for IVF leave me feeling a bit icky. One of my nieces has had 2 children using IVF techniques even though she did not require such treatment for her first son.

          My objection to IVF stems for the way in which the medical staff seem to subject the mothers to a battery of tests. If it looks like there is something wrong with the baby they will put pressure on the mother to be to abort the baby. This happened to my niece when she was pregnant with her third child. They claimed there was something wrong, so in the end she would not go for her medical appointments in order to avoid the pressure from the staff. When the baby was born there was nothing wrong with him, no fluid on the brain or anything. Their tests gave false data.

          On top of that there is the current trend to reduce multiple births by killing one of the babies. Again I find the whole process to be totally disgusting. If these women feel that they cannot raise more than 1 baby, then give the other one up for adoption.

          I saw a 60 minutes report recently, and I had to get up and leave the room or something would have hit the TV because I was so angry with the women who consented to the reduction procedure… the just “a lump of cells” is the excuse that really gets me riled up.

          One of my other nieces lost her baby at the very last because of the incompetence of the attending doctor. Her waters had broken. She presented to the hospital. The doctor did nothing to instigate the contractions or to even check whether she needed a caesarian operation. He sent her home. She came back to the hospital. When she was checked with the heart monitor, the doctor decreed that the baby’s heart was weak and then he allowed the baby to die in the womb!! Disgusting. That kind of thing should never have happened. Not for any reason. There should have been an emergency caesarian operation and everything should have been done to save the baby.

          So yes, please be as passionate as you want… and I will be with you all of the way.


  13. cajunkelly says:

    Someone else may have already covered this, but my question is this;

    If it’s not murder to abort a baby, why is a person charged with double murder if that person kills a pregnant woman?

    Remember the guy who killed his 8 month pregnant wife in California? Yep, charged with the murder of the baby AND his wife.


    • Sharon says:

      That has always intrigued me as well. They don’t seem to feel compelled to account for the disconnect there either.


    • There’s no disconnect!
      Like all adolescents*+ it’s their desires that count – and nothing else matters!

      Ergo, if her “choice” is to kill it, then “It’s just a bunch of cells…” – but if she wants it to be “a BABY” then it suddenly, magically BECOMES A BABY!!

      Ultimately, the “CRIME” here is defying the wishes of a female!!


  14. lovemygirl says:

    Over the various phases of my life I have looked at the issue of abortion in different ways. Now that I am a grandfather and losing a few loved ones I now understand the importance of human life. There is no debate that human life begins at conception unless you do not understand science. Abortion is a decision to kill a growing human life. How you justify that is not a “personal” decision, it is something far more profound.


  15. zmalfoy says:

    Not surprised a bit. Well, seeing the pro-genocide comments above was a bit surprising. . . my answer to them is found here:

    An Excerpt:

    “I take personally, as a woman, the idea that I cannot control my sexual urges, that choice comes only after one gets pregnant, not before. That apparently, being a woman, I’m such a whore that I cannot say “no” to anything that breathes, and therefore my “choice” is that to either kill a living human or “deal with” a pregnancy.

    I take personally, as a woman, the idea that “Abortion” is liberation for women, when all it does is encourage men to use us a “things”, to use us and drop us without further thought, without commitment or sacrifice, because above all, abortion liberates men from being men, and encourages them to remain oat-sowing boys for their entire lives.

    I take personally, as a woman and a human, the way abortion degrades men and fathers, the way it denies men the chance to be fathers, the way it refuses the contribution of men in creating and nurturing life. The way it denies them the chance to be the Protector of Life they were born to be.”


  16. Marie, continuing the discussion upthread:
    Despite what you said, I made no assumptions about you. I responded to your clear statement, which you have now repeated, that humans should be considered intelligent animals. You also stated very articulately that you consider genetic predispositions to crime to be so well-documented that it should be a consideration in post-rape abortions. You stopped short of clearly advocating it, thank Goodness, but you made it clear that it should be a valid consideration. That’s what I disagreed with, and that’s why I criticized you. Just to be clear, I still disagree, and I’m not sure why you restated the animal kingdom classification of humans, as if zoological taxonomy has anything to say about morality. And that is what we’re arguing about, right? Morality?

    Now, let me make an actual assumption about you. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that you find some comfort in the scientific materialistic view of humans. This is not proven scientifically, BTW, as you must know. It’s philosophy. Specifically, it’s the philosophical assumption that must be made about all things before applying the scientific method. I stated above that I find that axiom, the assumption of naturalism applied to humans, invalid. Apparently you disagree. That’s ok.

    But if my hunch is right, that you find comfort in the notion that we’re only matter, following the path prescribed by our genes with no room for morality, and no right or wrong, and nobody at fault, then I beg you to reconsider. I strongly believe that you will find no comfort there. What happened to you was evil, but that man chose to do it. He was not forced by his genes. And you are not forced by your genes to be victimized by him. There is a Truth greater than evil that makes evil null and void, and whether you believe it or not, that Truth is reality. As such, the Truth is a comfort like nothing else. I am no longer a slave to my genes; why should you be? Seriously.


  17. marie says:

    “Now, let me make an actual assumption about you. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that you find some comfort in the scientific materialistic view of humans. ”

    I don’t find comfort in it at all. I’d much rather believe in the power of love to change what is–the power of loving parents to change a trait that is the result of chemistry, but my own observations of even those in my own family (I have nephew who is socially comtemptible in spite of being raised by a loving mother, a loving non-biological father who adopted him, who turned out just like the biological father he never knew and didn’t even know he had and my nephew’s biological son, my great-nephew, turned out just like him and just got out of prison, btw), the cases studies of adoptees, etc. make me face the truth. My sister made a hasty, stupid decision when she married her first husband when she was 18, without knowledge of his temper, without knowledge of his need for immediate gratification, and without any understanding of her own temper, her own need for immediate gratification. The result- a son that had the worst traits of both her and her husband even though he never knew his biological father.Another result? A grandson who almost killed man (and sundry other things). Another result? A son from a different father, one who is a model citizen, one who has a temper as we all do, but keeps it in check, one who has raised three great kids.

    No, I don’t take comfort at all in the idea that we are not masters of our biology.


    • I believe you. But I’m still confused by your insistence on focusing on people like they are just mindless pawns who are “products” of either their parents or their genes. Is there no room for free will in your view? And even if you had a hundred examples in your family that supported your premise, you know that it only takes a single refuting case to disprove your theory. I know many such refuting cases, myself being one. I know countless others who have addictions and anger problems and mental illness rampant in their families, and who have shown ample signs themselves, yet have overcome these tendencies. It’s not through diet or medication or even parental love usually, mind you. It’s usually spiritual grace, freely available to everyone, and freely accepted, that saves them. I know for a fact that I’d be institutionalized if it weren’t for my faith and willingness to live on grace. In fact, I’m one of those people who cannot live without it. My body and mind fall apart very quickly without complete surrender to God. I’d like to say I resist all the bad stuff on my own, by sheer force of will, but I’d be lying. This is why I have trouble understanding the hatred that so many people have for religion. Most of the folks I know who are successful, some of whom are pillars of the community, are devout believers who have crushing failures in their pasts and few genetic advantages to brag about.

      What about you, Marie? How have you emerged from adversity? Do you credit your genes? On what do you rely for comfort?


  18. marie says:

    Dear Grunt:

    With all due respect, it’s you who have arrived at the conclusion that I am “focusing on people like they are just mindless pawns who are products of either their parents or their genes.”

    I focused on one situation–women who are victims of those so violent they rape.

    I never once suggested that most people are so inclined. Thankfully, they don’t seem to be, do they? The genes of most people may be responsible for making them bright or dull, tall or short, extroverted or introverted, prone to hyperbole or prone to understatement, but thankfully these traits don’t lead to violence and chaos and, through a child, more violence and chaos.

    Of course it’s my genes that have allowed me to face adversity. I am not inclined to impulsivity nor immediate gratification.


    • Well, Marie, I struggle to find a response to that. You have refused several times now to admit that free will exists, and you state that it is your genetic makeup that has made you who you are, and indeed that it is genes, in general, that explain all behavior. You also claim that you take no comfort in this, but regard it as a reality that must be accepted. You won’t say it explicitly, but I must assume that you are a strict materialist in your world view and accept the physical world as the only reality.

      I admire your discipline, but at the same time I see it as completely irrational. Forgive me. How can you simultaneously believe that your mind is an electro-chemical machine, entirely built by genetic blueprint and driven by physical causes and processes, and also be certain of any “truth” whatsoever? If you’re right about the first part, then “truth” as we’re discussing it, cannot really exist, right? Your perceptions are simply the result of countless synapses firing, which are caused by billions of genetic combinations producing a certain wiring and delicately reacting chemical processes in your brain. What significance can there be in that, that is not of your own imagining? Either this “truth” that you “must accept” exists outside of your mind, and indeed, outside of causal nature entirely, or it is not any kind of “truth” at all.

      Please explain where I’m wrong here. And please, if you wish to be consistent, do not separate yourself, and your own thought processes from the argument. When you argue about causes, keep in mind that you are implying that your own thinking is necessarily included in your statements, and this must not cause any contradictions, lest the conclusion be meaningless. And forgive my demands. I’m not trying to prove anything. But you seem to have accepted an uncomfortable “fact” that is making you miserable. I just think you should reconsider. You need not face it if it is not true. If you’re going to be miserable, better make sure it’s really for something really important, right?


    • the only “genes” we need concern ourselves with is the ones we had to put on after the Garden of Eden. Well now we are of Fallen nature that is for sure. But Christ coming into the world and redeeming us will toss those “genes” under satan if we live in His Light.
      I guess it really wasn’t Judas’s fault either, he was predisposed cause of his genes.
      This is what we get from our educated brethern folks. They are the learned of the world without any of the Wisdom that comes from within. You know the “Spirit” that we so lost in the Eden. Study that for awhile and dig deep cause if you seek the Truth it is there for the truthseekers.


  19. marie says:

    You work with what you have, Grunt. You seem not to understand–or perhaps not to acknowledge– that the chemical, neurological (however you’d like to refer to our biological selves)connections that combine to result in what we call the negative are also at work in producing the positive.

    I know that I am much more likely to be chemically disposed to my traits of determination and focus than from what you term free will. However, I know that from an early age as a child, I noticed that those tendencies “paid off” when I applied them. There is your free will.

    Take a look at those kids who are forever in trouble and have been from an early age: don’t mind parents, don’t mind teachers, don’t get along for long with playmates. Ever notice that, even when given second and third chances (and more), ever notice that when even the most gifted of behavior modifiers (by that, I mean those who know how to motivate and teach)work endlessly with such kids, the kids don’t learn from past mistakes? Our prisons are full of such people.

    That they “didn’t learn from their mistakes” when others have is a function of their chemical dispositions just as my ability TO LEARN from my mistakes (and, I presume, yours as well) and to modify my behavior by applying what I have learned is a function of my disposition.

    We are not going to agree on this, I see.

    I’ll end where I began: rape is cause for a woman to terminate.


    • I certainly agree that you have a right to that opinion.

      But I would repeat that my experience contradicts your assertions. If I believed as you do, I would have taken my own life many years ago because of the history of mental illness in my family and my own struggles with it that appeared preordained. My own children showed many of the same weaknesses, but I did not terminate them at the age of 6 or 10 or even in the teenage years when most people want to. 🙂 My children have seen my weaknesses, and they know without any doubt where my strength lies, and it ain’t in my genes. I believe that’s why they all, thankfully, made a similar choice, and are not ruled by impulses, but instead by the Spirit. I recommend it. But if you don’t believe me, I would glance at the work of another scientist, Blaise Pascal, champion of the Scientific Method, who had much to say about the philosophy of science, in particular what is rational, and what is not. Bon route!


    • Marie,
      Do you believe in God? I am serious here, do you? Because if you do not then there is nothing that I/we Christians can say that will ever change your “predisposed” mind.
      If you do believe in God then I have a couple of other questions for you and they are very basic and simple.
      Do you believe that God holds all of creation with in His Eternal power?
      Does God make mistakes?
      Do you believe in the “fall of man” from God’s Grace?
      What do you believe in?
      Where your Faith is your foundation for life!
      The educated people of your caliber would not listen to a Saint or Angel sent by God becasue they would not recognize them in the first place. Not much different than those who put Christ to death in the first place. Here He was performing Miracles in front of all of them and they excused themselves the very way you are doing now.. Well good luck with that on judgement day!
      Very simple questions really and I hope you can honestly answer them.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s