Graphic abortion protest at Radford U

.....Advertisement.....

« Thursday’s column: 50,000 books sold, and counting | Get your kicks on the Thursday OPEN thread »

2011.09.01

Sent in by a reader on Wednesday

Posted at 08:00 by Dan Casey | Category: abortion & abortion rights, Radford | 148 Comments

148 Comments »

nothing wrong in that, it shows what is happening when you choose to have your child murdered.

Comment by pammala — September 1, 2011 @ 8:13 am
knowing is half the battle. knowledge is power.

Comment by Uptheriver — September 1, 2011 @ 8:36 am
#1 Really, pammala? Liberty University of all places thought there was something wrong with it and wouldn’t allow the same group on campus. Liberty Christian Academy officials were upset that the protesters set up so close to their school. Both of these places are VERY STRONG anti-abortion.

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 8:37 am
Guess this must be some of the information that PP conveniently leaves out when ‘discussing an opportunity’ with a ‘potential client’…

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 8:44 am
Dan, you should have made this the ‘Liberal Caption This’ of the week!!

My entry: “An Inconvenient Truth”

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 8:50 am
@3 – So then, what’s wrong with it? Who cares about Liberty University?

Comment by Uptheriver — September 1, 2011 @ 9:01 am
Maybe it will make the students re-think potentially getting pregnant.

It is murder, Exodus 21:22-25 And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

So the life of an unborn child is just as valuable as that of an adult.

Comment by Maria — September 1, 2011 @ 9:02 am
Seriously Maria..you expect anyone to take seriously a quote that contains the words “the owner of the woman”?

Thank god we’ve progressed since the days of the old testament. Yet another illustration of why the American Taliban must be kept far from the legislative process.

Comment by Kristen — September 1, 2011 @ 9:17 am
I’m really glad to see so many pro-life opinions on here about this. I was just waiting for this to be an article bashing everything that the pro-life persons said. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this protest… it’s honest and real, not shady and secretive like abortion providers try to be. I mean, if you’re all about “choices” shouldn’t know you exactly what your choice will get you if you choose to abort? Too many people “choose” not to accept reality – that this is a baby – and many girls abort long after their baby has a heartbeat; they just “choose” not to be honest with themselves and see it the way these protesters are trying to show it.

Comment by Emily — September 1, 2011 @ 9:22 am
#6 Just pointing out that two of the more anti-abortion places in the area didn’t care for the display. Liberty Christian Academy especially thought it inappropriate that it was set up where some of their younger students might see it.

“I’m a father here. I have a 9-year-old in school. Those pictures would give her nightmares. We’re just asking them to be very sensitive,” said Patterson (superintendent of Liberty Christian).

These were not liberal pro-choice folks objecting.

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 9:25 am
Is this some kinda Fred Phelps thing? It sure seems like it.

Comment by Brendan — September 1, 2011 @ 9:37 am
5 Excellent one, Mark.

I agree with Mark and Pammala. Why are leftwingers so offended when you show people EXACTLY what abortions are? It all goes back to deception, I guess. Liberals ALWAYS deceive and lie.

Comment by Suzie — September 1, 2011 @ 9:49 am
Abortion is an issue that neither side will ever convince the other, regardless of how graphic or violent, or what ever politicians decide to make law. Even discussing the issue is like beating a dead dog. It’s a persolal decision either way.

Comment by david — September 1, 2011 @ 9:53 am
yes really.

Comment by pammala — September 1, 2011 @ 10:02 am
Maria:

I wouldn’t be so quick to quote scripture that implies I am owned as property…

Comment by aluck — September 1, 2011 @ 10:18 am
Abortion is an option not a government mandate. Conservatives, the “Moral Taliban” (thank you Kristen!), of course want the government imposed sanction of preventing that option. “All pregnancies must end in a birth” and there will be no exceptions! For those who oppose the having abortions, remember no one will ever force you to have one.

I for one know a woman who had an abortion and she has yet to go to hell. She was married, had one year left in college and her husband had a part time job. Their contraceptive failed. They had no money. None. They chose to abort the pregnancy. That woman has gone on to be the loving mother of two beautiful and successful children. One of the children is now a loving parent himself. I know these children well as they are mine. The choice to abort was not easily made and we agonized over it. Over the years there have been less and less “what if” discussions. But one predominant scenario was that our marriage would have had a tough time surviving; that our two children might have never been born. Our decision to abort was not a matter of convenience; we were without money, period. We chose to plan our family and have had no regrets and neither have our children. I cannot and will not say this is a decision all people should make under similar circumstances. It was a decision we made and we made it because we had the choice. What was right for us certainly would not be right for everyone. But you will have a very tough time convincing me we were wrong, that we sinned, that we are going to hell. You would have a tough time convincing my children as well…

Comment by scott whitaker — September 1, 2011 @ 10:33 am
/scratches Radford U off the list of potential colleges for my son/

Comment by tass — September 1, 2011 @ 10:47 am
Unless of course you want to offer your child to a dirty old man, then the Bible tells it a little differently Maria! Don’t go there, you will lose!

I have no problem with this display of the ugly, sad truth as long as it is not where children will see it. Sadly I doubt that was much of a consideration for folks who “care about children”.

Abortion does end a potential life. As does a miscarriage. No need to try and sugar coat it. The fact remains however, it is not your decision and it never should be if it is not your womb.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2011 @ 11:29 am
@7 – If one follows that book.

Comment by Ernie — September 1, 2011 @ 11:36 am
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Comment by Jeff — September 1, 2011 @ 11:52 am
#7 Maria – Not sure which translation you are using, but according to the most popular English translation, the New International Version, the verse reads:
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
So it would seem that in the eyes of the Christian/Jewish god, the same value is not placed on a fetus as on a person who has been born.

Comment by ElectricianMike — September 1, 2011 @ 11:52 am
#7 Maria, there are several reasons why I cannot relate to or accept the preaching of your scriptures. But truly, if you believe in it, then you should abide by it.

Comment by scott whitaker — September 1, 2011 @ 12:54 pm
Isn’t Exodus the chapter where God shows Moses the land his people are being given, they just have to kill the people that are currently living on it?

And isn’t it the case that when Moses tried to spare the lives of the women and CHILDREN, God said “No, you must kill them all”?

Is Exodus not also the chapter where God punishes the Pharaoh’s people by taking the life of every first born? You have to assume this includes infants.

If you go strictly by the Old Testament, it seems God has no problem with killing children.

Comment by VT Hokie — September 1, 2011 @ 12:55 pm
” it’s honest and real, not shady and secretive like abortion providers try to be.”

It’s shady and secretive because Christian Terrorists have killed doctors and blown up health care facilities for their god.

If Christian terrorists came after my industry, i’d hide too!

Comment by scott — September 1, 2011 @ 12:55 pm
@pammela, suzie and maria – Would it also then be acceptable to you to have an exhibit of equal size, equally public and equally graphic that depicts the reality of how wars kill people? I’m just wondering if you would feel the same way.

Comment by Miriam — September 1, 2011 @ 1:00 pm
Let’s try again: Some right wingers and religious conservatives are also offended by these displays. And some liberals are not.

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 1:05 pm
There are good and honest people with strong feelings on both sides of the abortion debate. Neither side should be tarred and feathered by the extremists among them.

Comment by Dan Casey — September 1, 2011 @ 1:18 pm
@ALL – I’m confused – What does Liberty University have to do with this if the display was set up @ Radford U?

Comment by Walker — September 1, 2011 @ 1:19 pm
So, when abortion becomes illegal again, how shall we punish women who are caught having one? It’s clearly premeditated murder, according to some, so I suppose the punishment will fit the crime, right?

Comment by Mike Scott — September 1, 2011 @ 1:25 pm
#25 People in general still object strenuously to showing the real horrors of war. You know, it’s too gross or it’s not dignified for the victims or something or other. Heck, righties went nuts when the media ran a photo of coffins — coffins, not body parts — coming back from the mid-East! How do you think they’d react of the “liberal” media showed the REAL result of a roadside bomb.

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 1:30 pm
#28 Walker, in the first post of the thread, pammala said “what’s wrong with that”? I replied that Liberty University — a staunch abortion foe — obviously found something wrong with it because they wouldn’t allow the EXACT same exhibit on its campus (news stories quote the display owner saying they’re going to Radford next). And Liberty Christian Academy — a staunch abortion foe — didn’t like the fact that it was so close to their school. And the superintendent of the school — someone who I’m certain is a staunch abortion foe — didn’t want his daughter seeing it. I was simply answering pammala and using the objections of some solid abortion foes to do it.

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 1:40 pm
Perhaps another appropriate display would be one with photos of malnourished, starving, homeless, and abused children who were brought into a world not of their choosing by people who didn’t want them and/or
are incapable of taking care of them.

Comment by dave — September 1, 2011 @ 1:44 pm
I wonder how many conservatives that condone a display of dead baby pictures at Radford are against pictures being taken of the coffins carrying dead soldiers returning from Afgan/Iraq?

Comment by Brendan — September 1, 2011 @ 1:56 pm
“I wonder how many conservatives that condone a display of dead baby pictures at Radford are against pictures being taken of the coffins carrying dead soldiers returning from Afgan/Iraq?”

This is an excellent point, especially if you consider some of the comments:

“nothing wrong in that, it shows what is happening when you choose to have your child murdered.” –Pammala

“Guess this must be some of the information that PP conveniently leaves out when ‘discussing an opportunity’ with a ‘potential client’…” -MMM

Yep, pictures of Soldiers in coffins are the consequences of fighting a war. And it’s a matter of policy to not show them. Would love to hear if Pammala or MMM supports the public display of these photos at say the White House, or near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, or right outside of the evil volcano lair in which Dick Cheney’s busy constructing his new death ray.

Comment by scott — September 1, 2011 @ 2:27 pm
I don’t know Brendan… I wonder how many liberals are against displaying the mass executions and/or graves where Saddam was terminating nearly 10,000/month on average for over a year… of course, that DID end.

Thank you, soldiers.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 2:29 pm
VTHokie, I don’t think you will find many that equate a shady ‘doctor’ with a coat hanger or ice pick to be the equivalent of God…

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 2:33 pm
“I wonder how many conservatives that condone a display of dead baby pictures at Radford are against pictures being taken of the coffins carrying dead soldiers returning from Afgan/Iraq?”

I wonder how many punctured, gored, and mutilated babies chose to expose themself to danger while serving their country?? What’s that?!? They never were offered a choice?!?!

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 2:43 pm
@25, @32 – While not being specifically addressed, I’ll answer.

Absolutely. And again knowing is half the battle. knowledge is power.

Comment by Uptheriver — September 1, 2011 @ 2:43 pm
If another abortion was never performed, I think that would be great. I just don’t think making it illegal is going to have that outcome.

Leave the government out of it, and invest your time, energy, and resources into making sure there are support systems in place in your community for girls and women dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. You can also invest in community projects designed to educate girls and women about preventing pregnancy, and also what options they have if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. That would be much more effective.

Comment by VT Hokie — September 1, 2011 @ 3:01 pm
Scott Whitaker @ 16 – Thanks for sharing your family’s story.

Comment by Lori — September 1, 2011 @ 3:23 pm
@#36 VTHokie, I don’t think you will find many that equate a shady ‘doctor’ with a coat hanger or ice pick to be the equivalent of God…

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. Do you disagree that God told Moses to murder children? What does that say about the value God places on life? (according to the Old Testament anyhow, which was written by men and therefore flawed)

Comment by VT Hokie — September 1, 2011 @ 4:04 pm
Understand, I’m not saying that what’s written in the Bible justifies killing anyone. Just that the Old Testament doesn’t really seem to discourage it much either. I find it odd that almost immediately after Moses receives the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, he’s then commanded by God to go and kill innocent men, women, and children. Where’s the logic?

Comment by VT Hokie — September 1, 2011 @ 4:06 pm
MMM-Less emotion might gain you more ground.

You are man taking away the choices of women. Keep that in mind.

If the religious right can work to ban abortion why not try to pass laws that requiring hospitals to keep people on feeding tubes and ventilators indefinitely….Heck I never see pro-lifers out protesting IVF clinics and they destroy fertilized eggs all the time. Why are people in front of those clinics yelling at the patrons to stop killing the unborn?

So why not protest IVF clinics and work to ban that practice? They kill babies.

Comment by Brendan — September 1, 2011 @ 4:19 pm
I am not using anything in the OT to justify or not justify anything. I wonder though, if you find the OT to be so terribly flawed, why are you bringing it up to argue a point?

I have never saw God order anyone to kill anybody. I have never saw God kill anybody. Observation has been made of a ‘doctor’ killing a perfectly healthy baby… and the above photos are real proof.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 4:29 pm
The people on life support most always have already made a conscious CHOICE on whether to be kept alive or not.

Also keep in mind… Brendan… that you are taking away the choice of a living human of whether they would like to live or die.

What are you talking about ‘less emotion’ in your comment? Explain.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 4:32 pm
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

89% of abortions are in the first trimester. This blather about butchering and chopping off limbs and Mark’s nonsense about puncturing, goring, and mutilation has zero to do with what’s actually going on out there.

“Who’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. ”

From a statistical standpoint, Catholics are seriously overachieving in the abortion arena.

Comment by Kristen — September 1, 2011 @ 4:33 pm
#43 I’m not sure whether they protest at the clinics, but there are definitely anti-abortioners who object to in vitro for the very reason you just gave, Brendan. And, yes, there are those who object to almost any form of “unplugging” a person, even a brain-dead one. Heck, there are folks who object to organ donation because they claim it has led or will lead to unplugging people who might survive or who could have lived a day or two longer.

And some of those people approve of the death penalty.

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 4:42 pm
Scott, if one of your current children became a burden due to financial instability or cramped your lifestyle would you have him/her terminated as well?

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
“Scott, if one of your current children became a burden due to financial instability or cramped your lifestyle would you have him/her terminated as well?”

Good Lord. Come on.

Comment by Dan Casey — September 1, 2011 @ 5:13 pm
(Mark),

On a technicality, God asked Abraham to kill Isaac in the OT. I guess since it was a test he didn’t really mean it. But he did technically tell him to kill his son.

Comment by Aaron — September 1, 2011 @ 6:00 pm
What’s wrong, Dan? Why would that question be any different asked now than asked to him while he was in college?

Because he has already named this one??

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 6:06 pm
#48 Would I kill one of my living children? The legality of murdering a living being aside? Of course not. I repeat, this would not “cramp”our lifestyle,it would have inalterably changed our lives and we felt then as we do now, it was for the better of our children to be. How would that child’s life have been? Would our relationship survive? I do not know. What I do now is that while we were able to pay for the procedure, without money to adequately support two let alone three, we were destined for public assistance of some sort. Apparently there is this belief that all abortions are paid for by gov’t assistance. I can assure you Mark that we would have had to avail ourselves to government assistance after the child was born. It is ashame that some want all pregnancies to come to full term but want to deny assistance to those who cannot properly support those children.

Comment by scott whitaker — September 1, 2011 @ 6:23 pm
#48 MMM, just as ridiculous as several months ago.

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 6:38 pm
gdad, still cannot bring a worthy discussion to the table, so he turns to insults… just as he did several months ago.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 7:51 pm
“Would I kill one of my living children? The legality of murdering a living being aside?”

Oh I am sorry if I misunderstood, Scott. I thought you had indicated that you chose to abort a living child way back then.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 7:54 pm
“Oh I am sorry if I misunderstood, Scott. I thought you had indicated that you chose to abort a living child way back then.”

How nasty can you get, seriously?

Comment by Dan Casey — September 1, 2011 @ 7:58 pm
I was on the RU campus today and walked by this display several times. It was impossible to miss. It was enormous, extremely graphic, and professionally made. Regardless of one’s politics, it did not feel like an appropriate exhibit to have in the middle of a college campus. Providing information, pamphlets with photos, etc., would have been much more appropriate and within the bounds of public decency. Likewise, if war protestors or gun violence protestors wanted to make their point by created a giant, 3D exhibit of bloody images that could easily be seen from 30 yards away, I would object also. I think a previous poster made a good point that even the administrators at Liberty university, which agree with the general message of these protestors, banned them from campus because of the largescale graphic images that they would be showing. I understand that this group wishes to persuade college students to choose life instead of abortion, but a confrontational and graphic display just feels like an ineffective and offensive way to go about it.

Comment by Allison — September 1, 2011 @ 8:07 pm
The plague has returned.

Comment by dave — September 1, 2011 @ 8:07 pm
Scott, I was not attacking you or your decision. Just trying to bring a valid question about your situation that you chose to share.

There is no argument that a living being was killed. A living being that could not have survived on its own (just as a 10 month old could not survive on its own).

When I said ‘cramp your lifestyle’ I didn’t mean that in an overly negative way. I simply meant that, by your own admittance, you couldn’t have kept working part time and your wife, or baby’s momma, be afforded the luxury of finishing college and she would have had to quit and have taken a decent paying part time job and slept very little as you would have in order to have supported that child.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 8:12 pm
#55 In your eyes Mark, maybe. Not in the law’s eyes and not in ours. It was our decision to make my friend, not yours. Never have an abortion Mark, please, as it goes against your principles. That is your decision to make.

Comment by scott whitaker — September 1, 2011 @ 8:15 pm
Dan, don’t stoop to gdad’s level of insulting because he doesn’t agree and cannot refute a point.

Please, honestly, tell me what was nasty about what I asked? Is the word abort, nasty??

Are you also telling yourself over and over until you start to believe it that the baby that was aborted was not reeeaaaalllllyyy alive??

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 8:15 pm
How nasty can you get, seriously?

Comment by Dan Casey — September 1, 2011 @ 7:58 pm

Dan, I assume that is a rhetorical question.

Comment by Lori — September 1, 2011 @ 8:25 pm
MMM I know this is pointless argument with you but a fetus and a “living human” are two different things.

Since the large majority of abortions happen in the first trimester the fetus at that stage is no more a “living human” than an egg is a chicken. It doesn’t feel pain, it doesn’t breath, it can’t think because the pathways and connections in the brain don’t exist and therefore would not be capable of making a choice or even having thoughts.

Anywho…that really doesn’t matter because you are excusing those truths and substituting your beliefs so its really pointless.

Back to my original post….Why not protest IVF clinics and work to ban that practice? They probably kill thousands of “living humans” every year. Not only that but they encourage abortions for some of their patients.

Comment by Brendan — September 1, 2011 @ 8:29 pm
I find people who like to look at pictures like the ones above to be slightly fetishistic but whatever. No accounting for taste.

The weirdly personalized nastiness on these threads isn’t relevant…abortion is legal, and there’s no national will to change that. When Republicans run for national office, they throw it out there to their Pavlovian fringe like red meat…then get in office and forget it. You’d think that would be clear by now.

Comment by Kristen — September 1, 2011 @ 8:40 pm
Same old same old. No news there! Scott Whitaker you should know by now that sharing anything personal on this blog opens you to the boorish, childish and pitiful insults of those who have nothing else to offer.

Thank you for sharing your story and I can well imagine the agony you suffered over such a decision. Since I have been asked at least twice how I would feel if my mother had aborted me, I can say it is something I have given thought to and since I love my mother who, due to the “old fashioned” ideas of doctors who refused to “interfere” back in the day, had 7 pregnancies before she was 25 and she was so sickly that she lost three to miscarriages and nearly died with one of them. Finally during her last pregnancy she had her first female OB and she sterilized her after my youngest brother was born and my mom was able to get healthy and have a good, if not easy, life. She is still my treasure at 71 and yes, I would gladly have ended in an abortion if it would have relieved even one moment of the suffering that young, poor beautiful woman suffered.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2011 @ 8:58 pm
How nasty a post will you allow?

Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2011 @ 8:59 pm
Did someone forget that you were to be “without sin”, before you could “cast the first stone”?

Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2011 @ 9:02 pm
I don’t see the big deal with the display. If you don’t like it then don’t look at it, similar to tv shows. If it were not for Dan’s thread most would haven’t a clue the display was at RU. If the students on campus do not have a problem then no one else should. Unless you venture on campus, this would remain out of sight.

As far as the abortion debate, I don’t believe it is the right thing to do and I do not agree with abortion and believe this should only be an option in the rare circumstances such as rape but I try not to judge others for making the decision, they are the ones that have to live with their decision either way.

Comment by Big Momma — September 1, 2011 @ 9:11 pm
“Who’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. ”

From a statistical standpoint, Catholics are seriously overachieving in the abortion arena.

Lots of people call themselves lots of things. Practicing Catholics aren’t having abortions by definition. These must be the “Catholics” like John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy. The fact is, 36.4% of abortions are had by blacks. Leftwingers are apparently on a mission to eliminate blacks.

Comment by Suzie — September 1, 2011 @ 9:22 pm
gdad, still cannot bring a worthy discussion to the table, so he turns to insults… just as he did several months ago.

Some things never change, Mark.

Comment by Suzie — September 1, 2011 @ 9:30 pm
89% of abortions are in the first trimester. This blather about butchering and chopping off limbs and Mark’s nonsense about puncturing, goring, and mutilation has zero to do with what’s actually going on out there.

Suction aspiration does exactly that. Tears the limbs off the child. But is there any difference which method you use to eliminate a child, Dr. Mengele?

I just can’t get over women who would destroy their own offspring. These people are monsters. There’s no other way to say it.

Comment by Suzie — September 1, 2011 @ 9:40 pm
OK, so to sum up conservatives’ vs liberals’ views on abortion, here’s what we have:

Conservatives want to protect the child, to save it from destruction. Conservatives also adopt more, give to children’s charities more, and pay more taxes.

Liberals want the option open for children to be torn apart from limb to limb before birth. They’re stingy about giving money to charities, they pay less in taxes, and they advocate for OTHER people to pay for government programs that keep children in poverty.

So tell us which side loves children and is doing the work of Jesus.

Comment by Suzie — September 1, 2011 @ 9:47 pm
#54 It’s safe to say that this is far from a worthy discussion, MMM. Or a discussion at all. All I read here is your disdain for another poster:

“Scott, if one of your current children became a burden due to financial instability or cramped your lifestyle would you have him/her terminated as well?”

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 9:48 pm
#56 “How nasty can you get, seriously?”

That’s MMM. Same old, same old.

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 9:54 pm
#59 MMM, you’re such a superior being. It must be wonderful to be you.

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 10:06 pm
#658 I do ignore it, BM. It’s a little harder for young kids when a group like this sets up close enough to your school that you’re sure to go by it. That’s why Liberty Christian wasn’t so happy with it. I guess they could have blindfolded them all.

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 10:20 pm
How many hypocrites who think fetuses are human beings actually celebrate the day they were conceived as opposed to the day they were actually born and recognized as a human being?

I think you guys should all immediately change your birthdates so that you’re 9-10 months older!

Comment by scott — September 1, 2011 @ 10:30 pm
gdad, you may be feeble but please get someone to explain to you that I have no disdain for Scott or anything he did.

I asked him a question now in the same fashion I would have asked him back then too.

What’s the difference?

You finished with your feeble, childish insults?

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 10:40 pm
Interesting fact:
Gdad currently has 5 of 5 comments on the comment summary.

gdad: #174 We know that you don’t “support” abortion, Ron. The natterings of a few nincompoops…
gdad: #172 BTW, Aaron, don’t remember if you were here months ago before MMM disappeared for a while, but part…
gdad: #172 Yes, Aaron, someone is playing “God” every day when it comes to medicine. I had to be a part…
gdad: #59 MMM, you’re such a superior being. It must be wonderful to be you.
gdad: #56 “How nasty can you get, seriously?” That’s MMM. Same old, same old.

Still questioning your need for companionship Gdad?

Comment by Big Momma — September 1, 2011 @ 11:06 pm
@76 Gdad,
You don’t agree with what? That is it easy to ignore? Well apparently you are incapable of reading my post.

“If the students on campus do not have a problem then no one else should. Unless you venture on campus, this would remain out of sight.”

How many students have complained on this blog? There was Allison that said she was on campus and it was impossible to avoid, but she did not say she was a student. If students have a problem with the display then perhaps their voices should be carry the weight.

Please read the comments before you make your ignorant remarks. But I thank you for stringing together a thought instead of your usual childish insults that lack any content.

Comment by Big Momma — September 1, 2011 @ 11:11 pm
Good idea, scott.

That would make you… what… 12?

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 1, 2011 @ 11:41 pm
#76 Please try to follow the thread, BM. As I said earlier more than once, I’m referring to when this group set up shop near a school with elementary kids in Lynchburg. The principal of the school was not happy. Liberty University wouldn’t let them on campus.

As for ignorant remarks, well…

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 11:55 pm
#79 You are continuing to be creepy, BM.

BTW, all of those remarks were quickly knocked off the summary by a legion of right wingers, including you, all of whom are also still posting. I guess they all need companionship, eh?

Comment by gdad — September 1, 2011 @ 11:59 pm
If I thought the criteria and function of political parties was “doing the work of Jesus”, I’d go live in a theocracy.

Comment by Oliver — September 2, 2011 @ 5:50 am
Has Gdad ever discussed an issue in his life? Or is every comment some sort of personal thing with another poster? This guy is also the personal butt boy for every leftwinger on the blog. Anything you say to them, he chimes in.

Comment by Suzie — September 2, 2011 @ 6:16 am
“Lots of people call themselves lots of things”

Do tell.

Comment by Kristen — September 2, 2011 @ 8:22 am
“Good idea, scott.
That would make you… what… 12?”

Damn, Mark, you are the classiest guy here.

Comment by scott — September 2, 2011 @ 8:31 am
Why are those who are against abortion also against gays? Here is a entire group of people guarenteed never to have an abortion.

Guess you just want to run someone else’s life instead of running your own.

Comment by Ken — September 2, 2011 @ 8:39 am
It is Sept. 2nd, College Colors Day, where Universities around the Nation are throwing up their school colors, logos and student bodies with pride. What does RU do? Throws up pictures of bloody abortions.

As an Alumni I have to give a big thumbs down to the University for allowing this. It is the start of the new year and already people are pushing their agendas. That is more disgusting than the display itself, IMO.

Comment by Andy — September 2, 2011 @ 10:33 am
@Ken/#88 Against gays (can’t have unwanted babies), against birth control (known to prevent unwanted babies), against sex education in schools (educates young people in order to prevent unwanted babies) AND against “entitlement” programs like WIC/Medicare/welfare (support for mothers who didn’t use condoms/didn’t know better/weren’t born gay).

If only we could all be born white, middle-class Christians, because you know they would never have sex out of wedlock, or get pregnant as a result.

Comment by Persecutie — September 2, 2011 @ 10:58 am
Why are those who are against abortion also against gays? Here is a entire group of people guarenteed never to have an abortion.

Guess you just want to run someone else’s life instead of running your own.

A better question is why are gays against abortion?

Comment by Suzie — September 2, 2011 @ 11:34 am
Should have read

A better question is why do gays support abortion?

Comment by Suzie — September 2, 2011 @ 11:35 am
MMM – Are busy today protesting IVF clinics?

Comment by Brendan — September 2, 2011 @ 12:10 pm
Are what busy, Brendan?

Don’t IVF clinics accept donated eggs in order to fertilize them and provide couples with children?? What are you talking about killing children at IVF clinics?

They also accept semen donations too if you are interested in gainful employment.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 2, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
Are you(sorry) busy today protesting IVF clinics?

At IVF clinics eggs are harvested and fertilized and a few get implanted but alot don’t. Many of those extras get destroyed. By the thousands these “lives” are given no choice and are killed.

Why just focus on PP.

Why not protest these places and yell at the couples that pay thousands hoping to get pregnant(and terminate the extras lives). Aren’t they baby killers too?

Comment by Brendan — September 2, 2011 @ 3:00 pm
#94 MMM, IVF clinics eventually dispose of unused embryos that are kept frozen for couples. Staunch anti-abortion folks consider this pretty much the same as an abortion. Or even multiple abortions. At least one of this blog’s most vociferous opponents has said she/he/it objects to IVF because it involves killing babies. The end doesn’t justify the means.

Anti-abortion groups, however, mostly abstain from picketing IVF clinics for political and appearance reasons. They figure they might suffer image setbacks if they picket a place where couples who have been unable to have children are going in an effort to actually get pregnant.

So while you’re preoccupied with inventing snide, immature insults for Brendan, it appears you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Not surprising.

Comment by gdad — September 2, 2011 @ 3:10 pm
A better question is why do some people think they have to run someone else’s life? If you truly believe in God, then its not your place to judge or run someone’s life.

Comment by Ken — September 2, 2011 @ 3:51 pm
Southwest Virginia Fertility Center(associated with Lewis Gale) could be killing more “babies” than the Planned Parenthood on Peters Creek. Yet I never see anyone protesting it.

Comment by Brendan — September 2, 2011 @ 3:53 pm
And while we’re at it, we should ban Conservatives from traveling abroad for experimental stem-cell treatments.

Comment by Oliver — September 2, 2011 @ 4:25 pm
It’s funny watching gdad and Brendan run around blindly with sacks on their heads in a dark room.

We have Brendan talking about eggs being destroyed and we have gdad talking about embryos being destroyed.

It appears the left, while adept at teaching about not paying fair amounts of taxes and how to obtain more food stamps and medicaid, really isn’t that great on putting out the parroted talking points on how life is formed.

Brendan, the egg is not a ‘life’, neither is one single sperm.

gdad, I have never protested at an abortion clinic, nor at an IVF clinic. I am not in favor of killing embryos either… never said I was. Have you ever came up with an idea of your own on this blog?

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 2, 2011 @ 5:00 pm
#100 Gosh, MMM, I was simply giving you a basic lesson as to why anti-abortion folks object to IVF. It was quite obvious from your posts that you had no idea embryos were destroyed there. Oh well, despite your whining and crankiness, maybe at least you learned something new today.

Comment by gdad — September 2, 2011 @ 6:35 pm
No whats funny MMM is watching you dodge the questions and truth as me and gdad give you a schooling.

Here is the exact quote from my post,”eggs are harvested and fertilized and a few get implanted but alot don’t. Many of those extras get destroyed” the key to that is the “and fertilized” part…That is what you refer to as “living human” and the rest of us folks, who aren’t ignorant of science, refer to as a zygote or embryo. As I said in my previous post, and you still haven’t refuted, is that an embryo is no more a human than an egg is a chicken. It can not feel pain, it can’t breath, it can’t even think. But I know you and the rest of your religious zealot peers like to ignore that reality for your own fictional beliefs.

So I continue to chase you down and beat you with the question about why you and the religious right aren’t condemning the “killing of babies” at IVF clinics. They may be responsible for more “murder” than Planned Parenthood yet you ignore them. I’m guessing based on your previous posts its somewhat because you have no idea about what you are speaking. You are just a kool-aid drinking, lock step marching, card carrying, useful idiot, patsy for the GOP and if they tell you to think, say, believe or vote a certain way you hop to you feet blindly follow without ever questioning the information you’re given.

So enuff pathetic attempts to get off subject and be clever because you just smacked with the reality that your faith in the GOP has lead you astray and used you for the interests of its masters. Start thinking for yourself and come back when you ready for another lesson.

Comment by Brendan — September 2, 2011 @ 8:46 pm
If only we could all be born white, middle-class Christians, because you know they would never have sex out of wedlock, or get pregnant as a result.
Comment by Persecutie — September 2, 2011 @ 10:58 am

Persecutie,
I have less problem with having sex out of wedlock and a resulting pregnancy than I do with the failure to accept the responsibility and consequences that come with such actions.

If you are willing to have sex, then you should be willing to accept the fact that you may become pregnant and be willing to accept the responsibility and take care of the child to the best of your ability.

Comment by Big Momma — September 2, 2011 @ 9:44 pm
Brenda n, I am not a religious zealot by any stretch of the imagination. You should gather facts before attempting to make feeble points.

I never said I condone IVF clinics or protest them. I never said I support abortion clinics or protest them. The very second that an egg is fertilized, it is not an embryo but I’m sure between you and Google and gdad, maybe… just maybe… you can figure it out. Heck if you are lucky enough to have a woman give you at least the time of day, Brendan, she may even help you understand.

It really is pointless to argue with someone who makes a statement such as: “a fetus and a “living human” are two different things.”
By ALL scientific standards, a human fetus is.. well… human. Also, and I know you may find this difficult to believe, a living fetus is … gasp… alive.

You do not have to hunt me down in the least bit. I would be glad to continue giving you lessons in person or on here. Just don’t make me charge you because I doubt I would ever see any money from you. You are nothing but simply a parrot-talking, small, shell of a male life form, Brenda, who gets orders from any tax-dodging, work-dodging, responsibility-dodging, draft-dodging, reality-dodging liberal priss that will whine whatever your little ear needs to hear.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 2, 2011 @ 11:10 pm
“An embryo (irregularly from Greek: ἔμβρυον, plural ἔμβρυα, lit. “that which grows,” from en- “in” + bryein “to swell, be full”; the proper Latinate form would be embryum) is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks Last Menstrual Period or LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus.

The development of the embryo is called embryogenesis. In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has half of the DNA of each of two parents. In plants, animals, and some protists, the zygote will begin to divide by mitosis to produce a multicellular organism. The result of this process is an embryo.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

Comment by Dan Casey — September 2, 2011 @ 11:33 pm
Okay Brendaan, apparently Dan offered to help you and gdad out and explain that AFTER the first cell division, which does NOT occur when the sperm fertilizes an egg, then and only then is an embryo formed.

You can just pay Dan this time.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 3, 2011 @ 12:17 am
Oh and BTW Brendaan, a single cell is not a human life… it can be a part of it, but a single cell does not constitute a human life.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 3, 2011 @ 1:03 am
#104 Now MMM is taking up the infantile “you’re a girl” “insult.” What is it about right wingers and their hate of women? When you’ve got nothing rational left and you’ve been completely beaten, call ‘em a girl. Real original, MMM.

Comment by gdad — September 3, 2011 @ 11:01 am
Oh MMM…SMH
You are really in over your head in this discussion and last statement reinforces your apparent ignorance on the subject. I suggest you do some reading and study up on your stance because you don’t seem to be getting it.

People on your side of science believe that “life begins at conception”. Conception is the fertilization of the egg by the sperm, fusing together into one cell. That one cell is considered by Catholics and pro-life wingnuts to be a life.

You are free to think outside of the pro-life stance and believe otherwise(I know I do) but you start to really muddy the waters and backpedal(more than you already have) your position by stepping out from the “life begins at conception” idea.

Comment by Brendan — September 3, 2011 @ 1:40 pm
#109 I tried to help MMM with his obvious lack of knowledge, Brendan, but he just insulted me. You’d think a guy who believes that IVF clinics just take donations of eggs and sperm would appreciate such a generous gesture, but noooo.

Comment by gdad — September 3, 2011 @ 5:25 pm
I wanted to respond to something Scott Whitaker said. I am not sure if you are a follower of Jesus Christ or not. You spoke of going to hell, and of a woman you know has yet to go to hell. In God’s sight, all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. We are all going to hell without His forgiveness, coming to Him through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. If we are to receive God’s free gift of salvation, the forgiveness of our sins we have committed against a holy God, confessing our sin is necessary. No matter what our reasons are, taking the life of an innocent child will always be an offense to this holy God, and always sin. Jesus paid the price, even for this sin of abortion, and all other sins. The truth remains a child lost it’s life; our reasons can never justify it before God. I am in no way throwing stones because I too had an abortion. I pray you come to confess this as your sin against God and against that child, and accept Jesus’ sacrificial payment of your sin to make you acceptable to this holy God. The Bible says this is for all people, not just those who have had abortions. Sin is sin. Abortion is sin, and it separates us from God. We need to call it what it is.

Comment by Another Debbie — September 3, 2011 @ 9:59 pm
brendan, brendan, I have set you straight on a topic, which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I have never protested anything. In fact, you are so ignorant, you don’t even know my stance on anything here. You are a typical liberal boi, you want what everyone else has, and when you are called out on it, you either get defensive or try to change the subject.

Seriously, don’t grow down to be a gdad.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 3, 2011 @ 11:20 pm
I take it from that last post you’re tapping out. You’re a joke.

Comment by Brendan — September 4, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
Don’t talk about me and anything to do with ‘tapping’, brendan…

Homie don’t play your way.

If you can’t stay on topic without imagining wild hair-brained scenarios, then go find a forum for idiots to weakly post on.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 4, 2011 @ 10:52 pm
#114 Homie? Weird.

“without imagining wild hair-brained scenarios, then go find a forum for idiots to weakly post on.”

Like maybe the same forum for people who don’t know how to spell “hare-brained”?

Comment by gdad — September 5, 2011 @ 10:44 am
hairbrained
Origin: Variant of harebrained.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

gdad, I know that you and I kid back and forth on here quite a bit but I seriously need to ask you, are you REALLY this ignorant or are you just pretending?? When you have gotten trampled underfoot yet one more time, gdad, you should research your babyish insults before you make yourself look like an ass.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 5, 2011 @ 11:41 am
I knew there was something missing from the blog these past few months. Mark and Gdad insulting each other. I guess it’s a guy thing.

Comment by Debbie — September 5, 2011 @ 11:43 am
Please post something else today, Brendan or even your understudy, gdad. I am letting my steaks marinate and need some time to kill by mopping you around my floor some more.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 5, 2011 @ 11:49 am
Like maybe the same forum for people who don’t know how to spell “hare-brained”?/em>

I believe Gdad spelled it this way recently and it was pointed out to him.

Comment by Suzie — September 5, 2011 @ 12:03 pm
Feeling a bit testy today. I think it’s time to take a break from the blog.

Comment by Debbie — September 5, 2011 @ 12:31 pm
yeah- spelling here is the key gdad, rolling of eyes (AGAIN)..that right focus on the wrong thing as always

Comment by pammala — September 5, 2011 @ 12:42 pm
for the spelling police (yuk-yuk) , it should be

“that’s right”…

Comment by pammala — September 5, 2011 @ 12:43 pm
#117 It’s a Mark thing. The ugly tone of his posts actually started with somebody other than me and have continued with Brendan. Typical MMM.

Comment by gdad — September 5, 2011 @ 2:03 pm
#116 You forgot the American Heritage usage note, MMM:

“While hairbrained continues to be used and confused, it should be avoided in favor of harebrained, which has been established as the correct spelling.”

Comment by gdad — September 5, 2011 @ 2:09 pm
#124 And, yes, it should not have a hyphen.

Comment by gdad — September 5, 2011 @ 2:14 pm
hair-brained /ˈhɛərˌbreɪnd/ Show Spelled[hair-breynd] Show IPA
adjective
harebrained.

I, for one, and you also, gdad, should be glad that slavery is outlawed today… because I am owning you regularly now.

The American Heritage 2010 dictionary does not have that usage note. So I guess that makes it a gdad usage note instead… which should have been your FIRST clue that it was incorrect.

And oh, by the way, note the hyphen above which is included in mine.

I tell ya what, gdad, I have offered this before and I will offer it again. You once made outlandish claims that I brag that I am better at swimming, golf, basketball, running, etc (which I have never said here) and so I offered to meet you and you could set my butt straight in each of those events. If you do decide to come meet me, I will bring the American Heritage dictionary I have copied this all from and show you exactly how wrong you are. Truth hurts, gdad.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 5, 2011 @ 9:10 pm
Haha, the dictionary you got that usage note from, gdad, was from 2000.

Bwhahahahaha..

“The ugly tone of his posts actually started with somebody other than me and have continued with Brendan.”

By the way, that should be “..and has continued..”

The tone have continued, gdad?? Really? Reallllly??

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 5, 2011 @ 9:14 pm
Are dictionaries published in 2000 obsolete?

Comment by Dan Casey — September 5, 2011 @ 10:32 pm
Wow. Couldn’t help but notice that Barnes and Noble had Cheney’s screed already on sale @ 40% off. It was conveniently located next to the stack of “recent best sellers” that had Palin’s mind numbing tome marked down to a mere $6.98. At least now B&N will only have to move the sign just two more feet to the left instead of moving that very large pile of unsold Cheney books two feet to the right. Kind of funny that with all the supposed business acumen of the right that they can’t quite nail down the very simple concept of supply and demand…

I’m really busy with work lately but if anyone has some spare time, I think B&N could really use a business consultant to help them figure out that the right isn’t exactly a real big consumer of those book thingies.

Comment by Steve C — September 5, 2011 @ 10:55 pm
No, but ones that have been updated at least 4 times since then aren’t either I guess…. are they???

8-tracks, segregation, and 3-speeds on the column are also long gone. Sometimes people that live in the past need to move on.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 5, 2011 @ 10:59 pm
Steve C,

They should sell the Cliff notes to those boring tomes, published in big letters. They’d make a mint.

Comment by Dan Casey — September 5, 2011 @ 11:00 pm
#126 Sorry, bub, my usage quote is straight from the 4th edition, which is what you allegedly pulled your definition from. In addition, the Third Edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage describes hairbrained as “erroneous.” My MW Collegiate 11th doesn’t list “hairbrained” at all, not even as a variant for folks who don’t know how to spell it the accepted way. And it lists “harebrained” only, no hyphen.

Lesson over. Go back to marinating your meat, or whatever.

Comment by gdad — September 5, 2011 @ 11:06 pm
#126 And, btw, MMM, it was fun getting you sidetracked off the topic and then watching you blow a fuse. Just like the old days.

Comment by gdad — September 5, 2011 @ 11:13 pm
Mine is from the 2010 edition, gdad. I already told you I could actually show it to you. I know that’s a heavy dose of reality for you to consider taking in, so think on it… long and hard.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 5, 2011 @ 11:39 pm
It doesn’t list your usage quote in the AH printed in 2010 and like I said, I can prove it.

If you have convinced yourself the hyphen is incorrect, then let me show you where even YOU put yourself down on the ground (like that would be difficult):

You said “Like maybe the same forum for people who don’t know how to spell “hare-brained”?”

So you spell “hare-brained” with a hyphen.

Then you unleash this bit of wisdom “And, yes, it should not have a hyphen.”

See, when you get all worked up and shot down and pummelled into oblivion, you start contradicting yourself even.
Dang, it must suck when you can’t even win an argument with yourself.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 5, 2011 @ 11:51 pm
MMM and gdad:

B O R I N G. . .

really.

Comment by Dan Casey — September 6, 2011 @ 12:19 am
#31 Dan,

I think books on tape might sell better with the right. Either way, they need to do something. You hardly ever see a right wing sticker on a car at a bookstore.

Comment by Steve C — September 6, 2011 @ 7:37 am
Idk, SteveC, I have a couple on mine and I frequent B&N pretty often. It is usually after 5 pm, however.

Dunno if that makes a difference in when right-wingers visit bookstores.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 6, 2011 @ 10:58 am
“the failure to accept the responsibility and consequences that come with such actions.”

And there it is. Child = Consequence

Comment by VT Hokie — September 6, 2011 @ 12:29 pm
I’m interested in bloggers’ views on adoption. I’ve heard some people (not necessarily anyone here) express the opinion that putting a child up for adoption is also shirking responsibility. Thoughts?

Comment by VT Hokie — September 6, 2011 @ 12:43 pm
@#44 I am not using anything in the OT to justify or not justify anything. I wonder though, if you find the OT to be so terribly flawed, why are you bringing it up to argue a point?

I brought up the OT in response to post #7 by Maria, who was using Exodus 21:22-25 to support that God is against murdering children and thinks that all life is equally valuable. I was pointing out that there is plenty in the OT to suggest otherwise. I wasn’t using it to support my own point, rather wondering how/why someone would try to use it to support their point.

Comment by VT Hokie — September 6, 2011 @ 1:21 pm
Shirking responsibility is one thing… murdering a human life that you helped create to shirk your responsibility is entirely another.

It’s a sad world when some people will blow totally up over fighting dogs (which I abhor, btw), but are perfectly okay with sucking a small human out of its mom with a vacuum killing it instantly.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 6, 2011 @ 8:51 pm
Here’s an interesting read on the subject of abortion:

http://tinyurl.com/3as8cg6

**
A Radical New Ploy to Destroy Roe v. Wade—Which Just Might Work

Simon van Zuylen-Wood
September 2, 2011 | 12:00 am

2011 has been a banner year for abortion opponents. Thus far, 87 state laws restricting abortion have been enacted, the most in any year since Roe v. Wade and more than double the previous high. But one rogue wing of the pro-life movement sees no reason to celebrate: the budding “personhood movement,” which wants to turn abortion into homicide by methodically amending state constitutions to define conception as the beginning of a person’s life.

This November, Mississippi votes on the personhood issue by popular referendum. The results will gauge whether the movement is a powerful new front or a fringe strategy destined to fizzle. Regardless of how Mississippi votes, however, the personhood movement is worth tracking for two reasons. First, it’s sparking a debate among pro-lifers about the efficacy of the movement’s traditional, incremental approach. Second, by challenging Roe’s premise outright, the personhood movement is seeking out a legal conflict that could well make its way to the Supreme Court.

SNIP
**

Comment by DaveH — September 6, 2011 @ 9:28 pm
“they can’t quite nail down the very simple concept of supply and demand…”

When you factor out the bulk buys by right-wing think-tanks and conservative book clubs, individual sales are pretty crappy. Cheney’s book should be in the crime section.

Comment by Art Hill — September 6, 2011 @ 9:45 pm
It’s a sad world when some people will blow totally up over fighting dogs (which I abhor, btw), but are perfectly okay with sucking a small human out of its mom with a vacuum killing it instantly.

That’s one of the greatest area of hypocrisy (and there are many) the left engages in.

Incredibly, there are some loons even in here who equate animal life with human life. I guess that means in the event of a house fire, they’d grab the dog or the child with equal priority.

Comment by Suzie — September 6, 2011 @ 10:49 pm
“Cheney’s book should be in the crime section.”

I think Art means the “true crime” section, as opposed to the “crime fiction” aisle.

Comment by Dan Casey — September 6, 2011 @ 11:02 pm
Marked Man, I think it is fair and safe to say that yes, indeed it is “a sad world” and it is made sadder still when people use insulting simplistic comparisons like “some people will blow totally up over fighting dogs” against “but are perfectly okay with sucking a small human out of its mom with a vacuum killing it instantly”. That helps the world be less sad exactly how?

The cases are not even comparable but they apparently help you feel superior in your condemnation of women who choose abortion and those who support that choice.

The case of a supposedly “higher species” deliberately creating the circumstances for cruelty, torture and abuse of essentially defenseless and dependent animals for sport, money or entertainment is the kind of behavior that any society would like to believe people incapable of. However, that does not compare as there is no evidence anywhere on earth of people having or supporting abortion for sport, money or entertainment.

That you have the temerity to condemn a woman for the choice to abort is your prerogative. However, it remains the law of the land and while there are no easy solutions, there are certainly ways to lessen the instances of ending potential life. Until people support those remedies and all mothers who chose life, I will never respect their position on abortion, no matter how loudly it is trumpeted or in what terms the condemnation is couched.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 6, 2011 @ 11:52 pm
Slavery USED to be the law of the land too, Sandi. Just because it was commonplace, or accepted by some, or legal at the time, doesn’t mean that it was ever morally right, does it??

But it seems you are saying that a 2 year old pit bull is more valuable than a 2 week old fetus… or at least that’s how it sounded from your post. I mean, if we were having this discussion 160 years ago, it sounds like you would have argued that people treating animals poorly should be locked up but someone treating their slave poorly shouldn’t because ‘it’s the law of the laaaaaannnndddd’.

Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — September 7, 2011 @ 9:28 am