home
RSS
March for Life
January 21st, 2014
02:24 PM ET

Six surprising changes to the anti-abortion March for Life

By Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor

(CNN) - For decades, the March for Life has followed a familiar formula: Bus in thousands of abortion opponents. Protest in front of the Supreme Court. Go home.

But this year, in addition to braving snow and bone-chilling wind, the March will move in a different direction, says Jeanne Monahan, president of the anti-abortion group.

Long-winded political speeches? See ya.

An exclusive focus on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that lifted restrictions on abortion? Gone.

A hipster Catholic musician, evangelical leaders and March for Life app? Welcome to the protest.

And those changes just skim the surface.

The March for Life, billed as the world’s largest anti-abortion event, is remaking itself in deeper ways as well, says Monahan.

For its first 40 years, the march was marshaled by Nellie Gray, an occasionally irascible Catholic who had little use for modern technology, political compromise or the mainstream media.

Gray died in her home office in 2012 at age 88. A short time later, Monahan was named her successor at the March for Life.

While abortion opponents praise Gray’s legacy, there’s a popular saying around the March for Life’s Washington headquarters: “We’re a brand-new, 41-year-old organization.”

The goal: to turn their annual, one-day demonstration into a potent political machine.

Abortion rights advocates say they’re skeptical that March for Life leaders can convince more Americans to join their cause. Since 1989, the percentage who want to overturn Roe has barely budged above 30%.

“It’s an impressive show,” Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, says of the March for Life. “But at the end of the day, they have failed dramatically at their goal.”

Still, even O’Brien expressed respect for his foes’ new plans. “It’s pretty clever, actually.”

With that in mind, here are six big ways the March for Life is changing this year:

1) 9 to 5

Since 1974, the March for Life has made a really loud noise every January 22, the anniversary of Roe. V. Wade.

Estimates of the crowd’s size vary, but it seems safe to say tens of thousands have attended the protest each year.

Organizers estimate that at least 50% of the marchers are under 18, as busloads of Catholic school kids descend on the capital from across the country.

But some abortion opponents complain the March for Life had morphed in recent years from a political demonstration to a photo op.

Ryan Bomberger, an anti-abortion activist who is speaking at march events, says the protest needs to find ways to harness its youthful energy throughout the year.

“You’ve got all these young people with energy and passion and the desire to do something about the injustice of abortion. But what do they do when they leave the march and go home?”

March for Life leaders want to turn its young protesters into citizen lobbyists, much like Tea Party partisans and the Obama campaign did with their troops.

The key to that, says March for Life's Chairman of the Board Patrick Kelly, is to keep them engaged throughout the year, including through social media. (More on that later.)

In addition to Monahan, an experienced Washington politico, the March for Life has beefed up its Washington office by hiring a full-time lobbyist and social media manager who will also lead outreach to evangelicals, a big and politically active constituency.

The focus this year will be combating the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, which requires most companies to provide free contraceptive coverage to employees. Abortion opponents say that some covered services are tantamount to abortion.

2) If You’ve Got the Money, We've Got the Time

For decades, the March for Life subsisted on a meager budget: Just $150,000 a year, according to tax filings from 2009-2011.

But new Washington offices, lobbyists and social media managers don’t come cheap. Fortunately for the March for Life, a donor who was a friend of Gray’s bequeathed $550,000 to the organization last year.

That, along with a more robust fund-raising campaign, has allowed the March to increase its budget from $252,000 when Monahan took over in 2012,  to $780,000 this year.

“We are professionalizing the March for Life,” said Kelly.

3) With Arms Wide Open 

Though various religious groups oppose abortion (many support abortion rights as well) the March for Life has come to be considered mainly a Catholic event.

Catholic clergy offer prayers, Catholic politicians make speeches and Catholic school kids fill out the rank-and-file.

Monahan says this year will different.

The March for Life has hired a full-time staffer devoted to bringing more Protestant evangelicals to the protest, and they hope to see that effort bear fruit this Wednesday.

They’ve tapped James Dobson, founder of the evangelical powerhouse ministry Focus on the Family, as a keynote speaker. Dobson and his adopted son, Ryan, will talk about adoption, an issue close to the heart of many evangelicals.

4) The Hardest Part

For the first time in its 41 years, the March for Life will focus on an issue besides abortion on Wednesday.

Through Dobson and other speakers, the march is also promoting the idea of “noble adoption” as an alternative to abortion.

“Adoption is a heroic decision for pregnant mothers who find themselves in a difficult situation,” says Monahan. “We want to eliminate the stigma of adoption and encourage women to pursue this noble option.”

The spotlight on adoption dovetails with new focus within the anti-abortion movement on crisis pregnancy centers, which urge women to carry their pregnancy to term.

Critics charge that the centers divulge false medical information about abortion and deceive unwitting patients into thinking they provide abortions, only to advise them otherwise. Supporters say they help women through financial assistance, counseling and adoption referrals.

5) Wish You Were Here

Despite the youth of many March for Life participants, the group’s website had been decidedly Web 1.0.

Under Monahan, that has changed dramatically.

The group posts Instagram pics of chilly protesters trudging through snow at past marches on Throwback Thursdays. They upload posts about prenatal development to Pinterest and tweet throughout the year, including this one about the difficult choices pregnant women sometimes face.

For the more technically advanced, the March has developed an app that connects to a 360-degree camera so folks can follow the protest from home. The app also has anti-abortion information, links to articles about adoption and tips for lobbying Congress.

“We have to find a way to take those boots on the ground and talk to them throughout the year,” says Kelly. “And with Facebook and Twitter and other social media we have the tools to do so.”

The March is also hoping for a high-profile social media endorsement on Wednesday: Monahan says she’s asked the Vatican to send a tweet from the Pope in support of the March for Life.

UPDATE: On Wednesday morning, Monahan got her papal tweet.

6) Yakety Yak

Imagine listening to politicians drone on for hours about their voting records in the chilly January air.

Fun, right?

Monahan didn’t think so either, so she’s trying to accomplish a minor miracle: limiting the speaking time of politicians at the pre-march rally.

Only a handful of politicians, including House Majority Leader Eric Canton, R-Virginia, and Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Illinois, have been invited to speak. They’ve all been asked to keep their speeches to a just a few minutes.

“In past years our rally has gone on for two or three hours and people lost interest,” Monahan says.

So, instead of boring speeches, the rally this year will feature a live concert by Matt Maher, a Catholic singer-songwriter with a huge following among young Christians.

So, will all this make any difference?

Clearly, changes are afoot this year at the March for Life. But what effect, if any, will they have on the larger anti-abortion movement?

Not much, says Ziad Munson, a sociologist at Lehigh University and author of the book “The Making of Pro-life Activists.”

The March for Life hasn’t really been politically influential since the early 1990s, says Munson. Meanwhile, other abortion opponents, like Catholic bishops and National Right to Life Committee, have led the charge.

“In effect, what we’re seeing is a new organization within a movement, not a new approach,” he says. “I don’t think the March for Life is likely to make inroads that haven’t already been made.”

Monahan is more optimistic.

If the March can recruit even a slice of its youthful protesters into citizen activists, she says, it might be enough to tip the balance in a country deeply divided on the morality of abortion.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Abortion • Bioethics • Catholic Church • Christianity • Church and state • Culture wars • Ethics • evangelicals • Politics • Women

soundoff (1,983 Responses)
  1. A female moderate

    My point of view

    If you take away Theism I loose the social control I may have otherwise had on a possible attacker. Who may not attack me if he has it in his head that his eternity will be horrible if he does.

    If you take away my gun I will have no way to shoot said intruder.

    If you let me have an abortion, it's already too late, I've already been attacked.

    February 5, 2014 at 4:42 am |
    • Ken Margo

      Let me get this straight. You are given a choice THAT YOU DON"T HAVE TO CHOOSE. You see that as problem?
      You belong in the middle east. Women there are treated like sh1t. You'd fit right in.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
    • Dandintac

      "Moderate",

      Do you really believe Christianity gives you any social control over your rap-ist? God explicitly licenses the Hebrews to do it in their wars, and women were forced to marry their rap-ists, and prohibition against ra-pe is not among the Ten Commandments. You would think it should come before coveting, not working on the Sabbath, and most of the other commandments except maybe the one against killing.

      Are you aware that our prisons are full of rap-ists who consider themselves Christians? With all the women being ra-ped, and atheists such a tiny minority, Theism is doing a pretty lousy job of giving you social control over your rap-ist. Maybe that's because Christianity teaches that all is forgiven, if you repent and believe in Jesus. So rapi-sts who "find Christ and repent" know they'll go to Heaven anyway, in spite of the little piece of Hell they afflicted upon their victims. Jesus will redeem them and they'll see Heaven. That's probably why they are not deterred one bit from their ra-pe crimes.

      February 6, 2014 at 1:38 am |
  2. u c?

    it is immoral for abortionists to say that football is immoral

    February 2, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
  3. Louvre

    The greatest empowerment for a women does not come from a choice to abort but comes from the choice to not get pregnant!

    February 1, 2014 at 7:11 am |
    • Dandintac

      So keeping her legs crossed! That's empowerment!

      February 1, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
      • A female moderate

        Protecting us from attackers and human trafficking is empowerment.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:48 am |
        • Ken Margo

          You're not moderate. I'm beginning to think you're not female. You sound like someone who feels women have a place and should stay there.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
    • nick

      don't say that to killers

      February 1, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
    • Observer

      It's good to see that the greatest empowerment for women comes from a CHOICE.

      February 1, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @lou,

      Man you really live in a fantasy to make things simpler than they really are.

      February 3, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
      • A female moderate

        Still ending assault on all levels would be a milestone.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:50 am |
        • Ken Margo

          Are you willing to push for common sense gun control laws to end assault on those AFTER they are born?

          February 5, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
  4. Mr Everyman

    a very nice thing would be to not have a "March" at all !!!

    January 31, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      If they didn't have a march, they would have time to adopt orphaned children waiting for loving parents.
      If they didn't have a march, they could call a congressman and demand reasonable gun control laws.
      If they didn't have a march, they could call a congressman and demand unemployment benefits be extended.
      If they didn't have a march, they could demand congress pass immigration laws.
      If they didn't have a march, they could demand congress pass a job bill.

      So you see marching really is much more important than the things listed above.

      January 31, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
      • Pitbull friend

        I do all of that and still believe life is sacred, and abortion destroys the mother's spirit (most still count how old their child would be had they chosen to let them live).

        February 3, 2014 at 1:29 am |
        • Ken Margo

          Pitbull friend

          "I do all of that and still believe life is sacred, and abortion destroys the mother's spirit (most still count how old their child would be had they chosen to let them live)."

          Keep that thought in mind when someone shoots up movie theatre, mall, church etc. Trust me, the parents of those that die from gun violence spirits die also.

          February 3, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • Dandintac

          Pit,

          Do you have a reliable unbiased source for this information? I know a number of women who have had abortions, and not one of them fits this description.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
      • Kat

        You are ridiculous for thinking that immigration is a problem... What's the issue with somebody NOT from the United States living here? What is the difference of them having a job or another American taking the job? I was born and raised in the United States. Only a racist person would think that immigration is a problem... People make lives here. And it is hard enough as it is, we don't need it any worse.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:44 pm |
        • Dandintac

          Kat,

          I partly agree. There's no doubt in my mind that much of the opposition to immigration–especially on the right–is based on racism or some other form of bigotry. One can pick this up just from reading many of the comments. I'm struck by how immigration IMMEDIATELY became a huge problem, out of the blue, the day after Obama was elected. Then suddenly, it was a big crisis on the right, when we didn't hear a peep about it when Bush was president.

          On the other hand, concern over illegal immigration undercutting the employment of American citizens through lower wages not subject to the labor law is a legitimate concern. Many on the left also worry about immigrants taking the jobs of Americans already here–through a willingness to accept lower pay. People often don't understand that immigrants create as many jobs through consumer demand as they take. Another potential problem is the aculturation rate. We should not accept immigrants faster than they can assimilate and aculturate. Taking in too many too quickly creates a lot of problems.

          So I advocate a sensible policy of moderation, taking in a broad range of cultures at a pace whereby they can assimilate, place priority on skills we need, expecting them to learn English to a reasonable degree, make it easier to immigrate legally and harder to immigrate illegally, and actively punish employers for hiring illegals.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Kat,

          I'm not against immigrants. I want immigration reform to allow immigrants to stay.

          February 5, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
  5. Lana

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ&w=640&h=390]

    January 30, 2014 at 11:38 am |
  6. ladadeeda

    that's y nazis, aka pharisees, hate christ. he is superior to them

    January 30, 2014 at 10:00 am |
  7. Cherilyn B

    To Any Woman Thinking About Having An Abortion: I have been there and done that – twice. Please, remember you have the RIGHT to decide. No one else. You need to decide what is best for your life. You have to live with the consequences. For me, it has been almost 7 years since my first abortion. I am fine – no adverse effects physically or emotionally. I have no regrets.

    No one has the right to judge your decision. You do not owe anyone any explanations. You do owe it to yourself to make an educated decision. Planned Parenthood gives out unbiased info that you can trust. Do not believe everything that you read on the internet. Some organizations will try to scare you into deciding their way. Make your own decision.

    Having an abortion is better than having a baby that you do not want, cannot afford and, despite good intentions, end up neglecting. And, yes, there is adoption to consider. I rejected it for a number of reasons. You will need to decide for yourself.

    As for the first trimester abortion itself, it is no big deal. It is a gynecological exam that results in an instant period. You will feel fine the next day. I hope this helps.

    January 28, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
    • Cherilyn B

      Correction: instead of exam, I should call it a procedure.

      January 28, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
    • Chris h

      Cherily B said about her abortion, " I am fine – no adverse effects physically or emotionally." I would ask, "Cherilyn, how's your baby?" If you have no emotional effects, I presume you cannot allow yourself to think about your child? Human sacrifice to promote selfish-ends is alive in secularism.

      January 29, 2014 at 11:23 am |
      • Ken Margo

        "Human sacrifice to promote selfish-ends is alive in secularism"

        We sacrifice humans all the time. It's called not having reasonable gun control laws!

        January 29, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
      • Dandintac

        Chris, if it helps any, just think of it as one more blood sacrifice to your god. God aborts babies all the time. There are tens of thousands of spontaneous abortions every year, and much of the time, we don't even know why they occur. The polite term is a "miscarriage". I don't know of anyone who holds funeral services for them though. I understand they usually go down the toilet–not what you would expect if our society truly believed that little penny size mass of tissue was the full moral equivalent of a birthed person. I suppose someone could hold a funeral–it would be a really tiny casket though–what, a couple of inches long I think?

        What's even more tragic is God's sick experiments with malformed babies. Some are truly horrible–organs on the outside, missing parts of their bodies, no brains, eyes, etc., two heads, on and on. Most of the time we don't even know why they happen. God does it I suppose, if you want to believe that fairy tale.

        Bottom line–we are not talking about an actual baby here. This is just your religious dogma speaking out.

        January 30, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
      • Cherilyn B

        To Chris h – For breakfast, would you prefer a scrambled or fried egg?

        GASP!!! You CHICKEN Murderer, you!! How dare you!

        What? You say that an egg is NOT the same as a lil' chickie? But, of course, an egg IS a chicken. If you leave that egg alone for the Mama chicken to sit on to keep it warm & toasty for 30 days AND she turns it over each day just right AND a fox doesn't eat the egg while Mama C's off the nest for lunch AND Mama doesn't drop dead of Marek's Disease or get hit by a car AND the chick is strong enough to peck his way out of the shell on his birthday AND he doesn't suffer from any fatal birth defects then, yes, the EGG BECOMES A CHICKEN. But it is not true to say that the egg IS a chicken just as a zygote (or embryo or fetus) BECOMES a baby if everything goes just right, yet it is NOT a baby until viability meaning s/he can live independant of a biological support system.

        Even though you are wrong in all your as.sumptions, thank you for being concerned about my well-being.

        February 3, 2014 at 4:52 am |
    • Saraswati

      I know lots of women who've had abortions and not one was traumatized. The only person I know who was traumatized was a married woman in the middle of applying to med school while raising her first kid who was put on a three week waiting list because of limited access. Really, 1/3 of all women get abortions, and 1/3 of the population isn't walking around traumatized. For people without religious hang ups it isn't a major deal.

      January 30, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        I had no idea that 1/3 of women get abortions. I'm as pro choice as anybody but that is way too many abortions. We need to empower women to take better care of themselves. I've told my own daughter she is ultimately responsible if she gets pregnant. Why? Because she's the one that goes through the process, not him. Prior to pregnancy it's not 50/50. It's all on her. I want her to decide, not him. I've also told her children are not easy or cheap. I paint a real picture, not one of fairy tales and dreams.

        January 30, 2014 at 10:21 pm |
        • Cherilyn B

          Hi, Ken! – We need more reliable birth control. I would like to see "the pill" for men that would render sperm immobile or dead.

          If more Dad's (and Mom's) talked to their kids about the facts of life as you do, that could also lower the abortion rate.

          Education + Birth Control = Fewer Unplanned Pregnancies = Less Abortion

          February 3, 2014 at 5:19 am |
        • Ken Margo

          Hello Cher,

          The religious whack jobs would be against male birth control because it interferes with the "natural flow" of things.

          February 3, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
        • Dandintac

          Cherilyn,

          I'm an older married man, married to a woman who can no longer have children. But for the sake of the all young men out there, I would dearly love to see birth control come on the market for men, other than condoms. Condoms should be used for people who don't know each other well, but after couples have been in a relationship for a while and are monogamous, those often go by the wayside. Men should ask about a woman's BC, but he generally has to take her word for it, and if the woman is careless or sloppy with her BC–or stops taking it deliberately, he could wind up a father against his will. I know–you can say a guy should always wear a condom or risk being a father, but the point here is that the man doesn't get to make any choices after that point, and a woman doesn't have her choices so limited.

          A woman can choose to have the baby or not. I wouldn't want to change that. But I feel sorry for the young men who navigate these waters in this day and age–I'm glad I no longer have to. If the woman wants to have a baby, she can just skip her BC and lie to her guy if he's against it. At that point, he has no choice.

          In my day, we could deny it. That's the other extreme–which isn't good for the mother. But now the woman can say "I don't want to be a mother" and abort the baby. I guy doesn't get to say "I don't want to be a father". There's DNA testing now, and states are far more aggressive in pursuing men for child support. Again, that's the way it has to be, but at least if he had BC pills that HE could take, it would be an extra guard–it would give potential fathers something THEY could do other than a condom to prevent becoming a father against their will. Furthermore, if both young men and young women had BC, it would cut down unwanted pregnancies even more. What do you want to bet most of the Christian Churches will be against it? Why? Because it's not really unwanted pregnancies that they want to cut down–it's "SE-X WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES!!!" That is what they really cannot stand.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:34 am |
        • Ken Margo

          @Dan,

          What you just desribed is the reason why we need s3x ed in school. In addition parents need to have "the conversation" with their child so those "old wives tales" you hear to keep from getting pregnant stops spreading. Children need to be told that ANY S3X can result in pregnancy and to protect yourself. (That's what I've told my oldest.)

          February 4, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
  8. Dennis

    Human beings are visual creatures, when they see a picture of an innocent dove being mercilessly attacked by a bigger bird their heart melts for that innocent bird, that is exactly why "ultrasound" pictures cannot be shown to such "kind" human beings that are about to have an abortion.
    If only these human beings cared for their unborn as much as they cared for an innocent dove! Not all human beings are capable of compassion and kindness , some are just downright UGLY both on the inside and on the outside.

    January 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
    • Grandma

      When a man can get pregnant, you can talk.

      January 28, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
      • Keith

        Stupid grandma, one doesn't need to get pregnant to stand up for the unborn. By that stupid logic, you can defend any kind of atrocity against mankind.

        January 28, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @keith,

          You've shown yourself to be a gutter clown with that response to someone named grandma. C'mon man. She just so happens to be right! Just like dennis your post seems to be lackin' dollar bills needed to support these kids.
          I'm sure you know kids aren't free.
          The kid goes to public school, guess who subsidizes them. YOU DO.
          Kid on welfare, guess who subsidizes them. YOU DO
          Kid without health insurance, guess who subsidizes them. YOU DO
          Kid end up in prison, guess who subsidizes them. YOU DO

          I bet you're one of those people who cry about taxes going up! You know why taxes are going up? People.
          Because people are expensive.

          January 28, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • Dale

          Grandma can't get pregnant and here she is defending murder.

          Justifying murder by whatever reasoning is just wrong!

          January 28, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • Dale

          There were 55 million babies aborted since R Vs. Wade ruling. Come back with a better line of argument if you want to make sense as you make absolutely no sense if you are claiming that the poor should have an abortion because they are poor.

          Avoid getting pregnant if you don't want a child.

          January 28, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @Dale.......How do you know grandma can't get pregnant. I didn't see her age and she didn't say she couldn't have kids!
          I would also like to think HER experience means something. She went through the pain. All you could do Dale is hold a hand and yell PUSH. It's safe to say you're not an expert on giving birth.

          Poverty isn't the only reason for abortions. Health of the mother and viability of the baby are two other reasons. But I'll concentrate on poverty since YOU brought it up. If you've read my other posts I'm sure you realize KIDS AREN'T FREE. I'll ask you like I asked Dennis and keith. WHERE'S THE MONEY. You don't offer any funds either.

          In addition the repubs want to cut/gut:

          SNAP (Used to feed kids)
          Unemployment benefits (Also used to feed kids)
          Pell Grants (used to send kids to school)
          Eliminate Planned Parenthood (Helps mothers have healthy children)

          Why do repubs want to cut/gut these programs? They say "The gov't can't afford them" SO
          If the gov't cant afford them and the parents can't afford them. Why are we having them?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • Dale

          You are encouraging abortion as means of reducing funding for welfare?

          Never heard this line of justification before, which studies are you citing for the *claim* you make???

          January 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @Dale,

          I'm not pushing anyone to have an abortion. I'm pro choice. What ever the parents choose, I'll respect. I'm not the daddy, so I mind my business. You ignored the money part, if you want them to be born, then YOU pay for them. We'll see how much YOU really care then. I'll admit I'm being selfish. The more money (taxes) I have to pay because others have kids they can't take care of, the less money I have for MY KIDS.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • Dale

          Your justification is that poor should have an abortion because it helps reducing funding for welfare. What a sorry excuse you got for yourself.

          *Your* tax dollars are used for funding welfare?Get over yourself, *YOU* are not the only one paying taxes. Quit feeling so special about the taxes *YOU* pay.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @Dale..Yeah I know I'm not the only one. I DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR OTHERS CHILDREN. I NEED MY MONEY TO PAY FOR MINE. SINCE YOU WANT THEM, THEN YOU PAY FOR THEM. Since MY MONEY is involved MY OPINION has a monetary value. Your opinion has a moral value, As we all know morals don't mean much!

          January 28, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • sam stone

          dale: i think you ought to run, not walk, to the nearest police station and report these "murders"

          see how far that gets you and then report back to us

          remember, jeebus is counting on you

          February 3, 2014 at 5:20 am |
      • Cherilyn B

        You tell 'em, Grandma!!!

        January 29, 2014 at 2:04 am |
      • Keith

        If you don't want a child, wise up and don't get pregnant!
        Better yet, tie your tubes as there is no guarantee that your spawn is going to look or act better, knowing where it's coming from.

        January 29, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • Ken Margo

          Good 'ol keith keeping women in their place! I guess the guys that don't man up when confronted with the words "I'm pregnant" and take off running, have no blame in this. The men obviously have no responsibility in this. All us men are just pe.nises with a body attached to them!

          January 29, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Dennis,

      When your sorry azz pays for these kids, then we'll see how much you REALLY care. Couldn't help but notice you weren't offering any funds for these babies you "care" about so much. Are you willing to offer:

      Healthcare?
      Food?
      Shelter?
      Clothing?

      It wasn't in your blog, so it's not in your heart!

      January 28, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
    • Dale

      some are just downright UGLY both on the inside and on the outside

      Truer words were never spoken.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        Think about that statement when repubs cut/gut programs for the poor!

        January 28, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
    • Cherilyn B

      Dennis – I have compas sion for the woman who finds herself pregnant between a "rock and a hard place". If I could, I would go to the clinic with her and hold her hand.

      And, yes, I have compas sion for the baby (embryo or fetus). That was one reason I choose to have an abortion. Sometimes there is no "good" decision; just the best decision under the circ umstances. A version of "Sophie's Choice".

      January 28, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
    • sam stone

      your heart melted seeing the dove get attacked?

      February 3, 2014 at 5:17 am |
  9. rocko carribean

    the most dreadful events are yet to come. weeping. wailing. gnashing teeth. unspeakable horror

    he was god
    let it rest

    have a taste
    he doesn't bite
    dine with him
    enjoy a meal

    be his guest
    talk and drink, laugh
    stay a while

    inside out
    if you care
    to beauty beyond
    compare

    and i really only want to c u there

    January 28, 2014 at 1:15 am |
  10. Ken Margo

    Why s3x? Why the concern over something you have zero control over. The church says you can't:
    Mas.turbate. People mas.turbate all the time
    S3x. People have s3x all the time.
    Abortion. Over a million a year and counting.
    Be gay or a lesbian. Probably the largest minority once everyone comes out.

    If god doesn't show his displeasure by now...............................

    January 27, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
    • Reality #2

      Some elaboration:

      The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

      – (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)- RCC approved
      – (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate) – RCC approved if in the form of a wet dream.

      Followed by:

      One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
      Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
      The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
      Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
      IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
      Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent) – RCC approved
      Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) – RCC approved

      and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)- R
      Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)- RCC approved

      Unfortunately, the RCC approved birth control methods are not easy to do since it requires self-control during the woman's "hot" stages. And of course, men unlike women are always "hot".

      How in the world do we get this situation under better control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the s-ex drive would be a good start. (Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes, 4/18/2010 described them as anti-desire pills). And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of se-xual activity and that oral s-ex, birth control pills, co-ndoms in the pocket and chast-ity belts are no protection against S-TDs. Might a list of those having a S-TD posted on the Internet help?-Said names would remain until the S-TD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of s-exual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a ST-D having s-exual relations while infected???

      January 27, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        "How in the world do we get this situation under better control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the s-ex drive would be a good start. (Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes, 4/18/2010 described them as anti-desire pills)."

        Great more drugs to get hooked on!

        "And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of se-xual activity and that oral s-ex, birth control pills, co-ndoms in the pocket and chast-ity belts are no protection against S-TDs."

        Unless you live under a rock. I think people know this already.

        "Might a list of those having a S-TD posted on the Internet help?-Said names would remain until the S-TD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor."

        So much for privacy.

        Lists of s-exual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a ST-D having s-exual relations while infected???

        Comparing a rapist to someone having consentual s3x? There are people that tell their partner about any st-d's they may have and then have s3x.

        January 27, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • Mmmmmmm

          We can't even get people on board for oral contraceptives, and we're supposed to believe that people will be hunky dory for some weird anti-desire pill?

          Keep up the good work, Ken. You're a breath of fresh air.

          January 27, 2014 at 8:13 pm |
      • Mmmmmmm

        Reality #2, start by posting your name and address. Not to imply that you have an ST D, but perhaps you can see why this would make it easier for even more unsavory characters to steal your I D.

        There can and will be no se.x police, ever. Trying to infringe on one's personal liberty will never go over well in these United States.

        January 27, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        Reality#2 you are an educated individual. You posted your accomplishments earlier. Why do you think it's ok to try to eliminate someone's s3x drive by using drugs? Why do you consider s3x that unatural, that you need drugs to control it? Why can't humans enjoy s3x? Every other species on the planet has s3x. Why not humans?

        January 27, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
      • Dandintac

        Reality, you're not facing reality.

        There is no way in hell you're going to get significant numbers of horn-y young kids to take se-x suppression drugs. People freak out now at the slightest hint that their nuts or other plumbing could be endangered.

        Every effort to try to impose a long-term suppression of the se-xual impulse in humans has always been an abject failure. Those organisms who weren't interested in it went extinct long ago. The survivors of this evolutionary process are species with strong se-x drives. This sort of program goes directly against billions of years of natural selection. Young healthy human beings will continue f-ing like rabbits, just as they always have, and always will. Our very existence is the hard proof of that.

        The best program for minimal abortion is plenty of education, especially se-x education, expanding access to birth control, empowering women to make their own choices and decide when and with whom they will have children, and continue to keep abortion legal and safe. Trying to outlaw it will just drive it underground.

        The "pro-life" position is really a political position, not really a moral one. It's about religious control of human se-xuality and reproduction.

        January 27, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      We need to protest the church. Stop giving them money. We'll protest a rock if we don't like the way it looks. If you keep money out of the church, you'll keep church out of politics.

      January 27, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        I know it sounds rough to protest the catholic church, But I feel the church isn't serving the public. When you read some of the whacky posts, people get these ideas FROM GOING TO CHURCH AND READING THE BIBLE. The greatest threat to the bible isn't atheists, It's believers.

        January 27, 2014 at 8:43 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.