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 Belief Blog Co-Editor

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

soundoff (1,983 Responses)
  1. 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 |
  2. 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 |
  3. 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 |
  4. 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 |
  5. Mr Everyman

    Should the "March for Life" somehow succeed the U.S. would return to 1973 levels of crime, maternal deaths and, numbers of abortions relative to population. Organized crime income would increase 33%; maternal deaths relative to live births would increase 40-50% or more; abortion numbers as a percent of the population would climb 73%. Keep it legal. Keep it safe and clean. Keep the U.S. healthier. ABORT TEA BAGS – 2014 !!!!!

    January 26, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
    • Reality #2

      But the true solution is to practice safe se-x. Again, scroll down to the comments on the Brutal Effects of Stupidity.

      January 27, 2014 at 12:07 am |
      • Observer

        Practicing safe s-ex is a goal, but reality is that it will never solve all the problems because it will never completely happen. We need to deal with the REALITY of millions of women not wanting to deliver unwanted and unloved babies. Forcing them into having babies and then warehousing millions more unadopted kids is not a good solution.

        January 27, 2014 at 12:20 am |
        • DUMBANDDUMBERANDdodo

          "Forcing them into having babies ..."
          "Forcing Hitler to kill jews..."
          "Forcing people to do drugs..."
          "Forcing people to make money..."
          "Forcing people to let others worship..."

          When I'm forced to have secks because I want to, I should be able to destroy the life growing...

          January 27, 2014 at 2:23 am |
        • Reality #2

          http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/health/bill-gates-condom-challenge

          "On its Grand Challenges website, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is offering a $100,000 startup grant to the person who designs "the next generation condom that significantly preserves or enhances pleasure" and promotes "regular use."

          It may sound like the setup for a joke, but the goal is deadly serious. While researchers call condoms one of the best ways to stop the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, getting people to use them is another story.” (Ditto for stopping the spread and carnage of abortions.)

          January 27, 2014 at 7:59 am |
        • Observer

          Reality #2,

          We need more people who are attempting solutions like Bill Gates and fewer right-wingers who are fighting against se-x education.

          January 27, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • Reality #2

          How much education does one need to read and follow the instructions on the Pill and condom packages?

          January 27, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • Observer

          Reality #2,

          Tell that to all the teenagers who think it won't happen to them.
          Tell that to all the women who get taken advantage by all the guys who don't worry about fathering kids.
          Tell that to all the women on birth control that failed. Any DELUSIONS that they are 100% effective?

          When abortions were illegal, they didn't end. We just had desperate mothers using coat-hangers for abortions.

          NO ONE likes abortions, but sometimes they are the lesser of two evils.

          January 27, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • Reality #2

          The Gut-tmacher Inst-itute notes that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
          (35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).

          Unfortunately, they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

          And then there is this:

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

          - (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
          - (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

          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)
          Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
          Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

          Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

          Conclusion: Bring on the "hand jiving" for a quick end to significant heath issues. And significantly cheaper than the Pill or condoms thanks to free Net p-orn???

          January 27, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • Observer

          No one likes abortion, but we need to deal with REALITY. It happens. People can be careless. Birth control fails. Birth control pills aren't available to girls for a variety of reasons. Guys can pressure girls into doing things that common sense should stop. Girls can be r@ped. etc.

          The mental and physical condition of the mother needs to have priority over that of an inch and a half long non-breathing embryo with a head as large as the rest of the body.

          January 27, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
  6. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    I wondered if celibacy might address the problem with income inequality and the distribution of wealth. I can't think of a way that what people do with their genitals might have anything to do with the the fact that 1% of United States citizens control 8$ of the world's wealth – that's a bit over 5 trillion dollars. Perhaps if that 1% remained celibate over their lifetimes God would see fit to allow that money to benefit the rest of the world.

    January 26, 2014 at 8:40 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      sorry, that's 8%

      January 26, 2014 at 8:41 am |
    • Saraswati

      While celibacy is anunlikely and impractical solution, it is true that those without children ultimately donate more to charity because they are far more likely to leave estates to non-profits. You don't see it on the tax returns of the living childless, but ultimately the benefit to both charitable orginizations and the environment is enormous.

      January 26, 2014 at 9:05 am |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        You're right. I'll leave celibacy as a solution to all our problems to Douglas.

        January 26, 2014 at 9:11 am |
      • Reality #2

        Longwood Gardens, a gift from the childless DuPonts, is a good example. http://longwoodgardens.org/

        January 26, 2014 at 11:08 am |
    • Reality #2

      "The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul¬dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per¬cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."

      http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

      Obviously, we need more rich people to reduce my tax burden !!! :)

      January 26, 2014 at 11:05 am |
      • Observer

        85 people control the same amount of wealth as half the world’s population. The world’s poorest 3.55 billion people must live on what the richest 85 people possess. Each of those 85 people has access to the same resources as do about 42 million of the world’s poor.
        – Oxfam, a British-based anti-poverty charity, 01/20/14

        Many right-wingers feel sorry for the Americans in this group or close to it and want the rest of us to pay more taxes so those unfortunate billionaires will do better. Let the crying for them begin.

        January 26, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
        • Saraswati

          I was at school with a nice girl who slacked off a bit and did a mediocre job...and then 'inherited' part of a business worth billions which she now runs. Cool woman, but she has what she has because we chose this system. If we tax her more (or the country her business is now based in does) that is just another social decision...a tweak on the system. We could just as easily have created nations with no inheritance or high minimum wage or shared ownership of the means of production. All private ownership is socially defined and we can't expect to get it right with just some simplistic economic philosophy.

          January 26, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
      • franticred

        "The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul¬dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per¬cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."

        http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

        Obviously, we need more rich people to reduce my tax burden !!!

        You realize the average household income of the bottom 90% is only a little over $30k a year (as of 2011), while the average income of the top 10% is over $250,000 a year. The average income of the top 1% in the US is about $717,000 a year. That means that the bottom 90% of the top 10% average $178,300 a year. The average tax burden of the top 10% works out to about 85K a year. The actual tax burden for an individual who makes $178,300 a year, accounting for deductions (according to the IRS) is $37,171. Pretty big chunk of money – except that they still have over $140K to live on (covering any state and other taxes as well, of course). That bottom 90% makes less than 30K after account for their portion of the tax burden, assuming the 2007 numbers you are using. Less than $30,000 to cover living expenses and other taxes vice more than $140,000 for the same. Forgive me for not feeling sorry for even the poorest of the top 10%.

        January 27, 2014 at 3:06 am |
    • Dandintac

      Any effort to try to address a significant social problem through a program of celibacy is absolutely doomed to failure. By trying to push such a program, we are flying against literally billions of years evolution in se-xual reproduction. Those organisms which were not interested in se-x went extinct long ago, and Natural Selection has favored a strong se-x drive ever since. Those species with strong se-x drives are more likely to reproduce more often. Young healthy human beings are hor-ny. They can't help it–and any program that does not recognize this basic fact of life is in vain.

      All one has to do is look at the abject failure of abstinence pledges, and no one does this better than Bill Maher–funny as always, and he drives the point home effectively–um–if you'll pardon the choice of words!

      January 26, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
      • Cherilyn B

        I agree with Dan. Biologically, humans are driven to reproduce. Period. Can that drive be overcome with willpower? Well, we have only to look at the track record of celebate Catholic priests to answer that question.

        S€x is fun. S€x is pleasurable. S€x relieves stress. S€x can be an expression of affection.

        Good luck taking s€x, which feels soooo good, away from people for any socially driven reason. All you will end up with is a frustrated and repressed populace with many warped individuals finding an outlet, such as pedophilia, that is more damaging.

        January 26, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
        • Cherilyn B

          Clarification: Substi.tute "driven to have s€x" for "driven to reproduce". The species does instinctually seek to reproduce via intercourse. Fortunately, the purpose of birth control is to allow us to enjoy s€x without having offspring so we can separate the two.

          January 26, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
        • Cherilyn B

          Typo: make that "celibate".

          Maybe I need to give up wine; but s€x? Never.

          January 27, 2014 at 12:10 am |
        • Wally Wally Bing Bang

          s€x? What are you, freaking Euro-trash? This is America and we have $ex!

          And those poor British, no choice but to be ce£ibate.

          January 27, 2014 at 12:49 am |
        • Dandintac

          Wally, thanks for making me laugh :)

          January 27, 2014 at 1:33 am |
  7. Douglas

    Congratulations to the Walk for Life marchers!

    Thank you for defending life!

    With the power of celibacy released, there is no need for abortion.

    Follow Jesus' guidance to straight and LGBTQ alike in Matthew 19.

    There you will find the rules to be obeyed on marriage, divorce and celibacy
    and the roles and responsibilities for straight and LGBTQ Christians.

    Thanks to our teen volunteers for rallying to the cause!

    January 25, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
    • Free post-holiday mixed nuts

      January 25, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
    • sam stone

      Doogie is not getting any.

      HAAA-ha!

      January 26, 2014 at 3:56 am |
      • Voluntary human extinction movement

        That's a good thing, less abortions, fewer people, less pollution.

        January 26, 2014 at 4:44 am |
        • Bingo Crosbiano

          And some inferior genes removed from the gene pool.

          January 26, 2014 at 4:55 am |
      • truthprevails1

        This is a good thing. We wouldn't want this inbred hick-a-billy to breed.

        January 26, 2014 at 6:06 am |
        • sam stone

          i suspect that doogie is more interested in XY than XX

          Although KY is probably high up on his list

          January 26, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • Saraswati

          He's just a troll – I wouldn't waste my time with this guy.

          January 26, 2014 at 10:05 am |
      • ham bone the great

        you'll be getting something real soon, bucko

        weeping and gnashing of teeth and a life not lived

        January 26, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • doobzz

          Will the red horned thingy be there too?

          January 26, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
        • Dandintac

          Doobz,

          Didn't you know? The devil is actually Elizabeth Hurley. I'm looking forward to partying with her with the rest of the fun, interesting and intelligent people, while the boring Christians can spend eternity playing harps in the clouds while endlessly praising and worshiping God. LOL

          January 26, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
        • doobzz

          Well, if she brings Hugh Grant, I'm in. LOL!

          January 27, 2014 at 12:02 am |
    • Science Works

      Douglas -is the internet a gift from god – NO -but they want to control life ? The pope just proved there is NO god with that stat-ement.

      In comments that will likely rile the more conservative wing of the church, Francis suggested that in engaging in that dialogue, Catholics shouldn't be arrogant in insisting that they alone possess the truth.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-internet-is-a-gift-from-god/

      January 26, 2014 at 7:59 am |
    • doobzz

      @Douglas

      "Thanks to our teen volunteers for rallying to the cause!"

      Do you really think they are practicing abstinence, Douglas?

      January 27, 2014 at 12:05 am |
  8. Reality #2

    Saraswati questioned my education and knowledge in the fields of religion and contraception. I logically showed him or her that I had sufficient education and knowledge in both areas. So where are the non-sequiturs?

    January 25, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
    • Trivia

      The word "Saraswati" is name for a Hindu goddess of wisdom.

      January 25, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Even the most educated person can be a repet-itive, condescending bore.

      January 25, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
    • Bingo Crosbiano

      Engineering and chemistry are indeed the usual credentials for expertise in religion and contraception.

      And you are a pompous bore.

      January 26, 2014 at 4:58 am |
    • Saraswati

      What you did is respond to a post about people being educated enough to make decisions about abortion with a listing of your degrees in engineering and chemistry. The fact that you still don't see why this is funny pretty much says it all. Maybe a turn at culinary arts, French literature, astronomy or auto mechanics will give you more insight.

      January 26, 2014 at 6:45 am |
      • Reality #2

        What education in the realm of birth control, etc. will result in (as previously noted and only for the new members of this blog)

        The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an atheist guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

        Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

        The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

        : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

        Added information before making your next move:

        "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
        See also: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/opinion/bolan-s-exual-health/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

        And from:

        "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about (even though is becoming a major cause of throat cancer)," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (Maybe it should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)

        Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

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

        - (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
        - (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

        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)
        Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
        Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

        Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

        January 26, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • Mmmmmmm

          And what you did was answer with yet another Copypasta instead of answering Saraswati.
          If that's not a non-sequitur, what is?
          So, don't get an abortion.

          January 27, 2014 at 11:04 am |
  9. Daniel

    These comments are disgusting from people who are pro-infanticide.

    What you want done to others, you should have done to you. Why not just 'abort' all of these pro-abortion people? These pathetic individuals are going to hell, and the fact that they prey on innocent babies just goes to show how sick they are, like Kermit Gosnell. By the way 'pro-choice' didn't apply to slavery, and it doesn't apply here either.
    Thankfully we're moving in the right direction. A record number of 'clinics' were shut down in 2011 and 2013, and the younger people are, the more pro-life they are. One day, abortionists will be executed for murder, and i hope its supporters get the same treatment for the Holocaust they have perpetrated on this nation. Tiller was dealt with the correct way. Those who murder the innocent deserve a bullet to the head.

    January 25, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
    • ???

      And nobody is going to hell, asshat, because it doesn't exist. And you can't codify your ridiculous religious beliefs into law. So once again, go fk yourself and myob when it comes to women you don't know and will never know.

      January 25, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
      • cnoonecan

        FOOL

        January 25, 2014 at 11:06 pm |
        • sam stone

          cretin

          January 26, 2014 at 4:01 am |
    • Observer

      Daniel,

      "Those who murder the innocent deserve a bullet to the head."

      Why do that to God? What will trying to shoot him accomplish?

      January 25, 2014 at 10:37 pm |
      • sam stone

        that's the funny thing about these christian trolls. they post blather, but do not have the courage to stick around and defend their spiritual flatulence

        January 26, 2014 at 4:04 am |
    • Dandintac

      A "bullet to the head"? Spoken like a true Christian.

      So are you eager to kill me too, since I support a woman's right to choose prior to the brain developing?

      I've copied and pasted your comments. I look forward to bringing them up every time a "pro-life" person tries to claim they are reasonable and moderate, that they are compassionate and care so much about life.

      In reality Christianity and other monotheistic religions are engines of intolerance, whose adherents wish to control the most profound aspects of our personal lives, and are all too ready to back that desire up with violence. You are now my poster child for that.

      January 26, 2014 at 12:23 am |
    • redzoa

      "These comments are disgusting from people who are pro-infanticide"

      I know of no one who is pro-infanticide. I do, however, know many who are anti-government control over whether an individual must donate their bodies to sustain the lives of others. Why don't such strong pro-lifers argue for government-mandated organ/tissue donation to save the lives of innocents who will invariably die absent a transplant?

      January 26, 2014 at 12:37 am |
    • tallulah13

      Every time I hear a report of a child abused or murdered by a parent or by a partner of a parent, I think of people like you, Daniel, who care more about fetuses than about living children.

      January 26, 2014 at 12:51 am |
    • sam stone

      Daniel: Despite your hissyfit, abortion will continue in the United States.

      There is no hell

      Pull the cruciifix out of your backside

      January 26, 2014 at 3:54 am |
    • sam stone

      Funny thing, Danny, I seem to recall pious blog christians posting scripture that says no one is innocent, that all have sinned.

      January 26, 2014 at 3:59 am |
    • truthprevails1

      Why be such a bitter hateful christian Daniel? Do you enjoy helping the burial of your belief system?
      Can you get pregnant? Have you ever had to bury a child after medicine failed to save said child's life, when a simple abortion could have prevented the pain all around? Are you going to support the numerous unwanted children you wish forced upon people or do you get a cheap thrill watching them suffer?
      Do you even comprehend that up until around the 24th week of gestation a fetus has no chance of survival outside of the mother?
      People who speak like you and use your belief to justify stepping in to the personal lives of others need to wake up and focus on your own bedroom activities (if they exist). As previously said/implied, comments like the one you made help bury your belief system...so feel free to keep it up, you're on the wrong side of history and a danger to society.

      January 26, 2014 at 6:49 am |
    • Saraswati

      In human development an infant is defined as a human between that ages of birth and one year.The OED likewise defines infanticide as killing a human between birth and one year. If you want to make a point, please try to use standard. language or you just come off as ignorant and hysterical.

      January 26, 2014 at 6:49 am |
    • doobzz

      "These comments are disgusting from people who are pro-infanticide."

      You are either a liar or too stupid to know what the word infanticide means. A fetus is not an infant, no matter how much you misuse the word to emotionally manipulate the issue. It's not a baby or a child either.

      By the way, your Christian values are showing. Bullet to the head and all.

      January 27, 2014 at 12:22 am |
  10. poneit

    the devil took him up to the highest mtn.

    January 25, 2014 at 9:14 am |
    • Reality #2

      No the devil did not since there are no devils or satans or jinn or any other inventions of the human mind.

      January 25, 2014 at 11:21 am |
      • FANTASY1

        u have no evidenve

        January 25, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • Reality #2

          AND THE INFAMOUS ANGELIC/SATANIC CONS CONTINUE TO WREAK STUPIDITY UPON THE WORLD

          Joe Smith had his Moroni and Satan/Perdition/Lucifer. (As does M. Romney)

          "Latter-day Saints like M. Romney also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

          Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God and of course Satan and his demons.

          Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around) and of course the jinn.

          Jesus and his family had/has Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented. (As do BO and his family)(As do Biden and Ryan)

          The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

          Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie/ugly/horn-blowing thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

          January 25, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
    • doobzz

      And showed him a flat earth.

      January 25, 2014 at 11:50 am |
  11. hatti carroll

    pharisees murdered jesus christ. for what? what did he do? nothing. not a damn thing. but they hung him up, spat in his face, punched his face. whipped him with cat of 9 tails, drove a spear into him, jammed thorns into his head, drove spikes through him

    HAIL KING OF THE JEWS

    January 25, 2014 at 4:05 am |
    • Sure

      Mel Gibson is going to sue you for plagiarizing his masochism-porn film.

      Jesus wanted it to happen and always knew it would happen. It was a set-up, and those "Pharisees" were just patsies in his guilt trip scheme.

      January 25, 2014 at 4:36 am |
    • VM

      hatti,

      It wouldn't be near as thrilling for you if he would have merely suffered and died from dysentery or leprosy or something, would it?!

      January 25, 2014 at 4:44 am |
      • Sure

        He probably died during a drunk-driving a stolen chariot through several temples after being plagued by demon squish-kitty visions, and they invented the whole S&M schtick to keep the donation plate full.

        January 25, 2014 at 4:48 am |
        • VM

          {{{{chortle}}}}

          January 25, 2014 at 4:56 am |
        • doobzz

          LMAO!

          January 25, 2014 at 11:51 am |
      • Saraswati

        Life expectancy was around thirty years at the time, so he did pretty well.

        January 26, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
    • hatti carroll

      pharisees murdered jesus christ. for what? what did he do? nothing. not a damn thing. but they hung him up, spat in his face, punched his face. whipped him with cat of 9 tails, drove a spear into him, jammed thorns into his head, drove spikes through him HAIL KING OF THE JEWS

      pharisees murder jesus christ today. they hate him and mock him and laugh at him exactly as they did when he healed the woman suffering with an issue of blood for 18 years, and have been doing century after century, around the world.

      January 25, 2014 at 6:27 am |
      • POPLOK

        it is heartbreaking. soon, we will be in heaven and the pharisees will be screaming and howling

        January 26, 2014 at 3:09 am |
    • Reality #2

      Now returning once again to the 21st century:

      The Apostles' / Agnostics’ Creed 2014 (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

      Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
      and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
      human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????

      I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
      preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
      named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
      girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

      Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
      the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

      He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
      a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
      Jerusalem.

      Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
      many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
      ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
      Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
      grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
      and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
      called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

      Amen
      (References used are available upon request.)

      January 25, 2014 at 8:18 am |
  12. Reality # 2

    In the meantime, stop the carnage by practicing safe-se-x.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    January 24, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
    • jarhead333

      If a single cell organism was found on Mars, we would say that there is life on Mars, yet a fetus is not considered life? I still do not understand the logic behind those who consider an unborn fetus not living.

      January 24, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
      • Saraswati

        No one says there is no life in a fetus, just that it isn't a "person". At the earliest stages a fetus is less conscious than a worm, ath the latest less than most lower primates. You probably eat or wear anamals more aware than most fetuses.

        January 24, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
        • jarhead333

          I don't think that everyone shares your point of view. Many people do not consider a fetus "life" until it is born. If any parent has heard the heart beat of their child, they would consider it a person.

          January 24, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
        • Dandintac

          Jarhead,

          Quick–there's a fire, and there's two people left in the building besides yourself.

          One is a child without a functioning heart. He has to carry around a portable machine to keep his blood pumping through his body, but he lacks a beating heart.

          The other person is a newborn baby boy that was born without a heart. All he has is a brain stem that keeps his heart beating and his lungs moving, but that's it. Where his cerebrum should be–there's only water. He will never have any thoughts, memories, experiences, or know pleasure or pain, or even consciousness or self-awareness.

          You have time to save only one of them–there's no time to save both. Please give me your honest answer–which one do you save?

          Then–do you still say it's a beating heart that makes us a living person?

          January 25, 2014 at 4:46 am |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          It's true that people try to make themselves more comfortable by dehumanizing early stages of human development. Abortion is ending human life. We've just decided that it is acceptable to end human life when it is fairly undeveloped.

          January 24, 2014 at 11:44 pm |
        • Saraswati

          I would have to see an example of these people you are talking about since I'm not familiar with people who don't consider both animal and vegetable cells alive. Whether a flatworm or fish or potted plant or 16 or 5000 cell early organism or mosquito is something a person should toss away life and health over is a very different matter.

          January 24, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Of course its early stage human development. You'd have to have missed middle school bio not to know that. The question is why we should care about something that's closer to being a sperm than a conscious person? The goal is to create a world of happy, kind and conscious humans. Stopping one from growing just before or after conception is no different. We don't go around saving sperm.

          And the soul argument makes no sense. According to every Christian I've asked these supposed souls get a free ride to heaven out of this deal. What on earth is the problem? If reincarnation is your thing, you just get another go? Or your god transplants you. The whole objection is absurd even from within their own world view.

          January 24, 2014 at 11:55 pm |
        • jarhead333

          @Tom Tom
          That is one of the most honest posts I have seen in a long time. I respect your honesty.

          January 24, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
        • jarhead333

          @Saraswati
          I am not sure where you saw me write about souls. Look up some of the argument for abortion. While you are at it, look up some statistics.

          January 25, 2014 at 12:02 am |
        • Saraswati

          I never said you wrote about souls, I was merely commenting on how that argument makes no sense.

          I will take it that you have neither examples nor statistics to support yourself.

          January 25, 2014 at 12:06 am |
        • jarhead333

          What I meant about looking up statistics is that abortions are a matter of convenience today.

          January 25, 2014 at 12:16 am |
        • Saraswati

          There is no way a statistic could measure whether something is a matter of "convenience" unless you are defining "convenience" as anything that isn't done to avoid immediate immanent death.

          January 25, 2014 at 12:19 am |
        • jarhead333

          Call it what you want to, but the fact is that most abortions are made by those who claim they made a "mistake". Meaning that they do not want to take responsibility for their own actions and poor decisions.

          January 25, 2014 at 12:34 am |
        • Liberstachi

          i couldn't agree more sargastachuie. every time i go in for an a-bort, i feel much healthier when i leave, like a good workout. and i always take a steam and eat some fresh fruit.

          January 25, 2014 at 3:36 am |
      • The Disastrous Skydiving Attempt of Cluckles the Boneless Chicken

        So you don't eat because it destroys life?

        January 24, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Maybe he eats rocks. Or is a strict Jain and eats only milk and the non-reproductive parts of plants.

          January 25, 2014 at 12:10 am |
        • jarhead333

          Cute, but dodge the facts. Most people who do support abortion do not believe that a fetus is human life. I am not specifically speaking to you, but those are the facts.

          January 25, 2014 at 12:57 am |
        • Well,

          Pro-choice people don't "support" abortion; they support choice. But the average suppressor of women's rights never want to admit that.

          January 25, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • doobzz

          @Well

          And the anti choice people aren't really pro life, they are pro fetus. Once the infant is born, it's up to the woman who, according to Mike Huckabee, "cannot control her libido", and don't bother asking for help, you slut, thank you very much.

          January 25, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • Well,

          @ doobzz:
          The Huck is hilarious. As Governor, he signed into law a BC mandate that is basically the same thing as the ACA's, with almost no exceptions for religious groups.

          Funny how that goes, isn't it?
          The mindset of the GOP waffles from day to day. I thought "personal liberty" was a warcry for them.

          January 25, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Jarhead,

          "Most people who do support abortion do not believe that a fetus is human life."

          You still haven't provided any evidence of this claim, but I do note that you are slightly altering your wording when you make these statements. I suspect what you may not realize it that the word "life" has many uses/definitions in English and that even you are using more than one. I was addressing the more technical biological definition as used by the OED in saying that a fetus or embryo contains life, or is composed of living matter:

          See OED definition:

          "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death"

          No one denies this...nor that a carrot has "life".

          There are other definitions here, however, including:

          "the period between the birth and death of a living thing, especially a human being"

          So there is nothing technically wrong with that use either, though unlike you I do not see any pro-choice organizations going about discussing this.

          The situation is not some great mysterry. We have living cells, just as we do in a tree, bacteria, worm, dog, or monkey. Initially following fertilization there is no nervous system, making this a ball of cells of less complexity than the above mentioned worm. The pro-life position is that this is now sacred and needs to be protected. The pro-choice position is that it does not.. Almost everyone, however, actually has a middle position that draws the line somewhere after conception and before birth. So the conversation isn't about "life" and pretending it is is a waste of time. The conversation is about consciousness, the religious concept of souls, and human welfare.

          January 26, 2014 at 6:37 am |
      • Dandintac

        The issue is not so much whether it is "living" or not. Do we hesitate to kill single cell organisms? Do we extend legal protections to single cell organisms? Do we restrict people from harming them?

        The issue is when is a person a person. The logical and scientifically grounded answer is when there is a functioning human brain. This takes place between 27-30 weeks into pregnancy, where measurable brain waves akin to those we see in conscious people begin. This is the logical place to draw the line legally, allowing people reproductive freedom up to that point, and protection for a person's life after, with certain exceptions that rational people can debate.

        One can be both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" if religious dogma is removed from consideration. If you personally want to draw the line earlier for yourself, you are free to do so and not have an abortion.

        Thanks

        January 25, 2014 at 3:40 am |
        • Saraswati

          Yes, the discussion around the word "life" is just an attempt to dumb down the conversation. If this were about "life" proponents would starve to death and if it were about "beating hearts" as many of their bumper stickers claim, they would at least be vegetarians and would be keeping the brain dead "alive" for decades.

          January 26, 2014 at 9:09 am |
        • Dandintac

          Bingo Sara. I can think of a whole long list of things people who are "pro-life" should be doing.

          How many will adopt black crack babies or babies with serious medical problems are major deformities? How often do they hold funerals for miscarriages? When will a pro-life organization pay for embryonic transplants from women who do not want babies into pro-life women volunteers? What about help for the already-born who need medical care and are too poor? Pre-natal care? What about literacy and education for the already-born? Why are those who are soooo "pro-life" often also against expanding access to birth control and se-x education?

          At the risk of painting with too broad of a brush, all too often, those who are "pro-life" are also pro-war, pro-death penalty, and pro-torture. They freak out at the slightest hint that they may be paying for birth control, but have no problem paying trillions for endless wars that kill hundreds of thousands of lives.

          I don't think they're all that concerned with "life" at all–most of them. In the end what it boils down to is CONTROL. "Se-x without consequences!" is what the prudes shriek–the shocking horror of it. Churches seek control of human se-xuality and reproduction to grow and control their congregations, and politicians see this as useful.

          Thanks

          January 26, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
  13. Rundvelt

    Bus loads of Catholic School Children. People who are forced to go and/or don't have sufficient education to have a reasonable informed viewpoint. Excellent move.

    January 24, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      I have been on many Respect for Life marches. No one forced me. I have a Bachelor, Masters, and PhD in Engineering and Chemistry. And one added bit of information, I am an atheist.

      January 24, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
      • Angus McBeef

        And a total bore.

        January 24, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
      • Saraswati

        The fact that you are educated in two narrow fields (which have little to do with the medicine, biology, ethics or sociology related to abortion) says nothing at all about whether you are broadly educated and knowledgeable. You may well be, but citing irrelevant qualifications says to me that you don't get what being educated on the subject would mean.

        January 24, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • Reality #2

          Only for the those interested in a religious update:
          1. origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

          “New Torah For Modern Minds

          Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

          Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

          The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment. “
          prob•a•bly
          Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.

          2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

          The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

          earlychristianwritings.com/

          For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

          Current RCC problems:

          Pedophiliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

          2 b., Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

          Current problems:
          Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,

          3. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

          This agenda continues as shown by the ma-ssacre in Mumbai, the as-sas-sinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Ft. Hood follower of the koran, the Filipino “koranics”and the Boston Marthon bombers.

          And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

          Current crises:

          The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

          4. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) – "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

          The caste/laborer system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

          Current problems:

          The caste system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence.

          5. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

          "However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

          Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circu-mstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

          Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

          Then, apply the Five F rule: "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations". And finally there will be religious peace and religious awareness in the world!!!!!

          January 25, 2014 at 12:50 am |
        • Reality #2

          For those interested in learning more about the historical Jesus:

          o 1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.

          2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
          – a list of early Christian doc-uments to include the year of publication–

          30-60 CE Passion Narrative
          40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
          50-60 1 Thessalonians
          50-60 Philippians
          50-60 Galatians
          50-60 1 Corinthians
          50-60 2 Corinthians
          50-60 Romans
          50-60 Philemon
          50-80 Colossians
          50-90 Signs Gospel
          50-95 Book of Hebrews
          50-120 Didache
          50-140 Gospel of Thomas
          50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
          50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
          65-80 Gospel of Mark
          70-100 Epistle of James
          70-120 Egerton Gospel
          70-160 Gospel of Peter
          70-160 Secret Mark
          70-200 Fayyum Fragment
          70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
          73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
          80-100 2 Thessalonians
          80-100 Ephesians
          80-100 Gospel of Matthew
          80-110 1 Peter
          80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
          80-130 Gospel of Luke
          80-130 Acts of the Apostles
          80-140 1 Clement
          80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
          80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
          80-250 Christian Sibyllines
          90-95 Apocalypse of John
          90-120 Gospel of John
          90-120 1 John
          90-120 2 John
          90-120 3 John
          90-120 Epistle of Jude
          93 Flavius Josephus
          100-150 1 Timothy
          100-150 2 Timothy
          100-150 T-itus
          100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
          100-150 Secret Book of James
          100-150 Preaching of Peter
          100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
          100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
          100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
          100-160 2 Peter

           4. Jesus Database, http://www.faithfutures.o-rg/JDB/intro.html –"The JESUS DATABASE is an online a-nnotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."
          5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bis-sar24.htm
          6. The Jesus Seminar, http://en.wikipedia.o-rg/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
          7. http://www.biblicalartifacts.com/items/785509/item785509biblicalartifacts.html – books on the health and illness during the time of the NT
          8. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.
          9.The Gn-ostic Jesus
          (Part One in a Two-Part Series on A-ncient and Modern G-nosticism)
          by Douglas Gro-othuis: http://www.equip.o-rg/articles/g-nosticism-and-the-g-nostic-jesus/
          10. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
          Presented on March 18, 1994
          ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2
          11. The Jesus Database- newer site:
          wiki.faithfutures.o-rg/index.php?t-itle=Jesus_Database
          12. Jesus Database with the example of S-u-pper and Eucharist:
          faithfutures.o-rg/JDB/jdb016.html
          13. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
          mtio.com/articles/bis-sar24.htm
          13. http://www.textweek.com/mtlk/jesus.htmm- Historical Jesus Studies
          14. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/
          15. D-iseases in the Bible:
          http://books.google.com/books/about/The_d-iseases_of_the_Bible.html?id=C1YZAAAAYAAJ

          16. Religion on- Line (6000 a-rt-ic-les on the hi-story of religion, churches, theologies,
          theologians, eth-ics, etc. religion-online.o–rg/
          17. The New Testament Gateway – Internet NT n-tgate-way.com/
          18 Writing the New Testament- e-xi-sting copies, o–r–al tradition etc.
          n-tgat-eway.com/
          19. JD Crossan's c-onclusions about the a-uthencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the c-onclusions of other NT e-xege-tes in the last 200 years:
          http://wiki.faithfutures.o-rg/index.p-hp?t-itle=Crossan_Inventory
          20. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by t-itle with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html
          21. Luke and Josephus- was there a c-onnection?
          in-fidels.o-rg/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html
          22. NT and beyond time line:
          pbs.o-rg/empires/pe-terandpaul/history/timeline/
          23. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
          harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm
          24. See http://www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.
          25. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.
          27. The books of the following : Professors Gerd Ludemann, Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.
          28. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.
          29. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus

          Summarizing the above:

          The Apostles' Creed 2014: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

          Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
          and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
          human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??

          I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
          preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
          named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
          girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

          Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
          the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

          He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
          a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
          Jerusalem.

          Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
          many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
          and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
          Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
          grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
          and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
          called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

          Amen
          (references used are available upon request)

          January 25, 2014 at 12:54 am |
        • Reality #2

          The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an atheist guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

          Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

          The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

          : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

          Added information before making your next move:

          "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
          See also: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/opinion/bolan-se-xual-health/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

          And from:

          "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about (even though is becoming a major cause of throat cancer)," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (Maybe it should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)

          Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

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

          - (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
          - (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

          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)
          Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
          Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

          Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

          January 25, 2014 at 12:59 am |
        • Angus McBeef

          As I said, a total bore, and a tedious prolix bore at that.

          January 25, 2014 at 4:51 am |
        • Reality #2

          Said summaries just saved anyone wanting to know about the mentioned topics one month of eight hour/day reviews and at no cost to them. For those not wanting added knowledge, there is always the scroll bar.

          January 25, 2014 at 8:11 am |
        • Well,

          So you answer with non-sequiturs? Angus McBeef is right. You are a total bite that cannot formulate you own words to support your argument. I may as well post the ingredients off the side of a cereal box to answer your posts, Reality. It would make as much sense as your answer to Saraswati.

          Freaking coward.

          January 25, 2014 at 11:47 am |
        • Reality #2

          Once again in my own words:

          The Apostles' / Agnostics’ Creed 2014 (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

          Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
          and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
          human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????

          I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
          preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
          named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
          girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

          Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
          the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

          He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
          a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
          Jerusalem.

          Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
          many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
          ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
          Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
          grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
          and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
          called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

          Amen

          January 25, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • Well,

          All you did was riff on a prayer because you hate religion. So what?

          It STILL is a non-sequitur and didn't answer Saraswati. I remain unimpressed with you and your "informational" posts that do not answer direct questions.

          You are as bad as the people who post biblical verses in answer to questions about the Bible.

          January 25, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • Reality #2

          Answering Saraswati's question in just a few words. I am broadly educated and knowledgeable. After you review my comments and the references used to generate them, get back to me.

          January 25, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • Yelp reviews

          In other words, non sequiturs are your pat form of answering direct questions.

          I see.

          Okay.

          My kingdom for an ignore button so I don't have to repeatedly scroll past walls of self-aggradizing text.

          Bore.

          January 25, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
      • tallulah13

        So Reality: Are you a child attending a catholic school? From your answer, I would have to conclude that you are, since that is the situation the original poster was presenting.

        Personally, I find it offensive when any adult uses a child as a prop to forward their own political agenda. A child lacks the experience and education to made an informed decision. They can be told what to believe, but as they mature their opinion may change. It's inherently dishonest to use a child in this way.

        January 25, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • Reality #2

          Using a child? Give me a break !! The March for Life has participants from the very old to the very young. Personally, I am a happy ARRPie. I recommend everyone attend a March for Life once in their precious human life.

          January 25, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • Well,

          Jesus Christ, are you that dim, Reality? They bus schoolchildren in to march.. If this isn't using a child, I don't know what is.
          Many of these kids don't even know what abortion IS! Give US a break!
          I recommend you become a woman facing this awful choice once on your precious life.

          January 25, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • Reality #2

          Obviously, "Well" has never been to a March for Life in D.C.

          January 25, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • Reality #2

          And what caused that "awful choice"? See the Brutal Effects of Stupidity for some answers.

          January 25, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • Well,

          Obviously, you've never been to one anywhere else.
          I have no interest in reading your self-congratulatory posts.

          You don't get to decide, son. Period. Your bus loads of children used to cheaply make your point don't get to, either.

          January 25, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
        • Reality #2

          Again, you assume that there are bus loads of children which Is not the case. Parents with children yes indeed. The ten march buses I was on were always age represented from 10-80 years in age.

          January 25, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
        • tallulah13

          For someone who calls themselves "Reality" you sure seem to have a tenuous grasp. Until a child has the experience and knowledge to make their own decisions, importing them to protests is most definitely using them. I would feel the same way if they were bussed in to support Planned Parenthood. Adults should never use children as a political prop. It shows an utter contempt for that child.

          January 27, 2014 at 12:48 am |
        • tallulah13

          This is directly from the article, Reality:

          "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."

          So, no. This isn't parents bringing their children.

          January 27, 2014 at 12:52 am |
        • Dandintac

          You got it Tallulah. Religion won't hesitate to use innocents as props to advance a political agenda that is not necessarily in the best interests of their innocent dupes.

          Notice also, how this new "pro-life" push is coming right after this new pope has been chosen, and established himself as a "nice guy" whom "even atheists like" after a fabulously successful PR blitz. I tell you now, as nice as this guy seems, and he says a lot of nice things–but NOTHING has changed with regards to the RCC, except the tone and style. Notice also how the RCC still is not coming clean with the names of the defrocked priests so that they can be investigated and prosecuted!

          The RCC's number one concern is the RCC. They don't want to be sued by the victims of the defrocked priests, so they are keeping those names secret, favoring the church's welfare over justice. They are still anti-birth control and anti-family planning of any sort–because they want to increase the size of their congregations and the resulting ti-thes.

          If the church were still burning people for heresy, this pope probably would not change that unless he had no choice–he would just do with a smile and a good PR campaign.

          January 27, 2014 at 1:50 am |
  14. pladdir

    every1 should have several. they are intended to support our health.

    January 24, 2014 at 1:04 pm |

    • Nothing hyperbolic about this statement at all.

      January 24, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
  15. Louise

    I won't give you an argument based on religion but I think it is dangerous to encourage the mindset that it is okay to kill someone when they become inconvenient.

    January 24, 2014 at 4:56 am |
    • Saraswati

      It rather depends who you think of as "someone". I see people every day knock down trees filled with animals far more conscious than an early stage fetus based on their inconvenience in the face of homes or roads. I see people taking drugs for whom the consciousness of the testing animals is a mere inconvenience. Were destroy the habitats of animals to own private homes we consider more convenient. Unless you live naked in the woods on roots (and really even then) you kill for your convenience. Really it still gets back to when you consider a blob of cells a person worthy of our special human attention.

      January 24, 2014 at 7:46 am |
      • WASP

        @SARA: i try to only kill the tasty animals. XD
        oh and spiders; if they are in my home. it's not the legs or eyes that make me kill spiders, it's that fact some can bite me once and i'm dead, then i wouldn't be able to eat anymore tasty animals. XD

        January 24, 2014 at 7:51 am |
        • Dandintac

          I won't hesitate to kill spiders, and sorry Sara, but I don't care if they ARE conscious creatures. I hate them–especially when they crawl across my pillow as I'm laying down for the night. :(

          Good night on that thought...

          January 27, 2014 at 1:53 am |
        • Cherilyn B

          No, I respectfully disagree. You should catch the spiders to release outdoors. Spiders are our friends! As are bats and toads; they all eat tons of harmful insects. One American Toad (Bufo america nus) can consume 200 mosquitos in one night. And they have beautiful gold eyes. As for spiders, well, we would be inundated with flys without them. Do not get me started on flys..... If you want proof that god does not exist; just study the life cycle of the Sheep Bot Fly. Who would deliberately design anything so fiendish?

          January 27, 2014 at 2:51 am |
        • Dandintac

          Cherilyn,

          On a cognitive level, I know you're right, but if you've ever gotten up at night and walked into the bathroom, flipped on the light switch, and saw in the mirror, a great big spider sitting on your cheek, you will never see spiders the same way again. We had a really bad year with spiders once–we're talking arachnaphobia, and I'm sorry, but if one of them dares to make itself visible in my home, that's a death sentence.

          January 27, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
      • Tactics

        You are dehumanizing people by referring to them as a blob of cells. Your comparison with non human life I might accept if you were using it to justify the point that we shouldn't kill animals, then again it makes more sense that we should have some loyalty to our own species.

        January 24, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          You want to show loyalty to our species? Help the hungry and homeless, push for gun control, tell repubs to leave the ACA alone and extend unemployment benefits.

          January 24, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • Tactics

          Did you know gun control will make those homeless and hungry unable to hunt for wild boar?

          January 24, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
        • Giggling Merlin

          So there are lots of armed homeless people wandering the woods hunting for wild boar?

          January 24, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
        • Saraswati

          I'm not dehumanizing "people". I'm talking about early stage embryonic development which is, quite literally, a blob of cells.

          January 24, 2014 at 11:35 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          It's interesting: that blob of cells has a soul, various believers have said. I can take that blob of cells, dissociate it into individual cells and raise up a bunch more blastocysts. Do they share the same soul?

          January 24, 2014 at 11:38 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Happens all the times with monozygotic twins. There's one soul in the initial blob and ...hey...two souls! God does cool soul math.

          January 24, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
  16. Dandintac

    I would like to recommend an interesting article on the abortion issue, written by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan for "Parade" magazine back in 1990. It's decades old now–true–but the subject has not gone away, and the points of discussion are as relevant and to the point now as they were then. You should be able to find it by Googling.

    Sagan and Druyan argue that a person is a person when they have an active, functioning brain. They note that there is broad recognition in our society that when a person is brain-dead, they are indeed dead, and no longer "persons", and that most people have no qualms about pulling the plug. They argue convincingly that this is applicable to the beginning of life as well.

    This is my position as well. It is a position informed by scientific understanding, not religion. It preserves freedom of choice for women–an important cornerstone of liberty in our modern society–yet at the same time protects the lives of actual persons potentially capable of thought and consciousness.

    So I am "pro-choice" up to the point where brain waves similar to conscious people fire up, and pro-life after that point. Sagan puts this at 24-30 weeks, which is where the legal line is drawn now, but for different reasons. Viability can shift with technology, so Sagan's standard makes more sense to me.

    There are many who put the boundary for person-hood at conception–but this is not based on science, but on religion. They try to claim DNA support, but understand that DNA is found in people who are brain-dead, and even on dead fingernails. It takes more than DNA to make us a person. It takes a functioning brain.

    I believe the real target behind the zeal with which religions and its adherents pursue is control of human se-xuality. Some people just can't stand the idea that young women are out there having "SE-X WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES" (oh the Horror!), and religion wants to control people, and dictate when we have se-x, how, when, with who, and when we have children. They have always wanted this control–it's one of the main ways they grow their congregations.

    January 23, 2014 at 10:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      They have imagined that something is evil and have altered their God to make it so. You're right. We are never anything more than a sort of program running on our brains. How is it evil to shut down a human before it is able to run it?

      January 23, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Dan.....Suppose when the brain "fires up" the brain has severe development issues which means the baby will not survive. Do you think the mother should be forced to carry full term?

      Suppose after the brain "fires up" the mothers health is in danger, should she be forced to carry full term?

      January 23, 2014 at 11:06 pm |
      • Dandintac

        Ken,

        Great points. Exceptions for these and possibly other issues certainly makes sense.

        Thanks

        January 23, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
        • v

          i teach a class on DIY abortion

          no need to use hangars
          i haven't used many hangars for at least 2 years!

          my partner patented a high tech, super powered, 94 percent efficiency, CONSUMER FRIENDLY, 9 speed, rechargeable battery and solar operated vacuum, "GENTLE GOODBYE and FAST!"
          aka"see ya kid"

          January 24, 2014 at 12:17 am |
      • Cherilyn B

        Hi, Ken – It is easy to answer both these scenarios with a resounding "NO" but there are murkier depths. What about spina bifida or down's syndrome? Or any number of debilitating conditions with varying rates of survival. How about babies born prematurely? According to the National Insti tute of Health in 2001, a fetus is viable at 25 weeks gestation with a high survival rate without significant disability. At 24 weeks, there is a 50% chance of a "normal survivor" (their terminology). I have not checked to see if this still holds for today. It fits well with Sagan's proposal.

        January 24, 2014 at 5:22 am |
        • Ken Margo

          @Cher.........You've been honest with your posts, I'll be honest with mine. My wife and I met late in our lives (at 31) We have two children. When my wife was pregnant with our 2nd child she was 36. She took the test to see if the baby would be born with any birth defects. If the fetus had birth defects, we would have aborted the pregnancy. (Thankfully she was perfectly healthy) Even if the doctor had told us she would survive, there was no way my wife would carry full term. At our ages we did not want the responsibility of raising a special needs child. People can call us anything they want, we would've had to deal with the responsibility not others.

          January 24, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • Cherilyn B

          Ken – I completely understand your decision in this situation. And I realize that some people would not agree with us. I support a woman's (and couple's) right to direct their life as they see fit. That should be the bottom line. The pursuit of happiness and all that.

          January 24, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        When my youngest was born with a severe heart defect, I was asked if I would have aborted had I of known in advance (to detect this meant a very specific ultrasound would have been required). Given that she spent all but 6 weeks of her short 4.5 months in NeoNatal care the answer was not an easy one. When I think about it now, almost 18 years later the answer comes easy and as much as some may not agree, it makes perfect sense for me. What she went through was not something I would wish upon any infant or parent for that matter. Had I of known her life would have been so full of pain and the last effects on myself and our family, yes I would have aborted. Now that may sound crude but I lived those 4.5 months and suffered the emotional drain that comes with it. I watched my innocent child endure pain that an average adult could not handle.

        January 24, 2014 at 6:25 am |
        • WASP

          @truth: i can understand where you are coming from. my son was born at 5 months, spent 3 months in INCU- neonatal ward; one month in regular neonatal.
          those four months and even today i turn myself grey worrying if something wasn't caught,or missed and at anytime he may be gone. he is heading toward his 4th birthday soon. me and his mother were given the option to abort due to the risk to her and the "likelyhood" that the child's lungs may not allow him to survive.
          i made the hard choice for us both, i told the doctor we will wait and see once he's born. if he was deformed, or not capable of surviving then we would hold him until he passed away.
          i couldn't see myself forcing my child to live a life of pain strikely because i wanted to ease my concious. with all things once a human has offspring our job is to ensure the safety of that child even if it costs us our lives in the process. this vow to protect our children includes protecting them before birth if they happen to have a dibilating genetic illness.

          there is hope out there, genetic screening for illness is improving; plus genetic therpy would fix a lot those genetic illnesses. hopefully science in the future will make it so no child has to suffer from illness. *hold's up glass* here's to hope.

          January 24, 2014 at 7:38 am |
        • truthprevails1

          Nice to hear a positive outcome.
          I do have a 19.5 year old daughter who is doing well but has decided to have genetic testing done before she considers having children, I'm thankful she has the chance to do this and be able to make the right decisions for her.
          Medical technology keeps getting better as time goes, so I'm sure we'll see no child suffer in the future.
          Congrats on his 4 years, it just gets better. :-)

          January 24, 2014 at 9:41 am |
        • Cherilyn B

          Truthprevails1 – My heart goes out to you. Thank you for sharing such a heart wrenching decision.

          January 24, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • Cherilyn B

          WASP- I cannot even imagine how difficult it must have been to make that decision. I wish you and your family the best.

          January 24, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
    • my take

      i hear the little fellas enjoy em

      January 24, 2014 at 7:55 am |
    • The ultrasound heart beat is enough for me to see life

      You forget that there is a difference between a fetus and a brain dead person. A fetus is alive and without external action will continue to develop to a person. A body that has become brain dead will not eventually become brain dead. I am sure that my little post will not change your belief, but maybe you will considered that others beliefs are not without logic. Its hard not to take personally the definition of "life".

      January 24, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        If the ultrasound is enough for you, good. It should only be for YOU.

        Any decision someone else makes is their own and none of our business.

        January 24, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
      • Dandintac

        Ultrasound–so a beating heart is everything eh?

        Please imagine the following. You are in a building on fire. There are two other people besides yourself. One is a child who literally has no heart. His blood is being pumped by a portable pump that has to go with the child everywhere he goes.

        The second "person" is a newborn baby born without a brain. He has only water where the cerebrum usually is. He will never have the capacity to think or feel, memory, or any sort of consciousness. He has absolutely no higher thought function whatsoever. An ordinary fish has more intelligence. The baby has only a brain stem that keeps his heart and lungs going.

        You have time to save only one, not both. Which do you save?

        A fetus may eventually develop a brain–sure, but so will a zygote and many sperm and egg cells, but not yet. They are not yet a living person.

        Contrary to the pro-life stereotypes, abortions are usually a highly personal, complex, difficult decision. You cannot know all the personal circu-mstances of those who make this decision, so that makes it easy to stand from afar and make major personal judgments.

        For just a few of them, read the accounts above, like TruthPrevails1, Cherilyn, WASP and Ken. Read their accounts , then tell me: just who the Hell are you to make the decision for them anyway?

        If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. Stop trying to interfere in the personal lives of other people.

        January 25, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Reading WASP, Cherilyn and Truthprevails1 posts make the point that abortion is a private matter between the doctor and the patient. Neither the govt or religious individuals have a right to tell others what to do.

      January 24, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
      • Cherilyn B

        That has been the only point that I have tried to make. It should be up to the woman (or couple) to decide because she (or they) have to live with the consequences. Just as I have a right to abortion, you have the right to pregnancy.

        January 24, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
    • Dandintac

      Thanks a bunch to Ken, Cherilyn, TruthPrevails and WASP for sharing your stories and contributing to the discussion

      One thing that strikes me is how deeply personal, difficult and often painful it is to evaluate your own situation along with your significant other and reach a decision on whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

      I hope that everyone participating in this debate on this blog reads these, and take stock. Read accounts like those above, and then tell me–who the Hell are you to insert yourselves into the private lives of people like Cherilyn, Ken, WASP or TruthPrevails–and make there choices for them??

      If you are one who is "pro-life"–on what basis? Most of the time, it's due to a religious dogma. Most reasonable people realize that abortion is an area with shades of grey, and that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Drawing that line at conception is based purely on religion. DNA is not what makes us a person–a working mind capable of consciousness and thought–this is the sensible area to draw the line with certain exceptions that reasonable people can debate.

      If your religious convictions lead you to believe human life begins at conception–then by all means, don't have an abortion. But you have no right to impose that belief on people like Cherilyn or Ken.

      January 25, 2014 at 3:22 am |
  17. Ken Margo

    Just wondering, how many of you pro lifers are registered organ donors?

    January 23, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      And me to the count and is noted so on my driver's license.

      January 23, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
      • Reality # 2

        Oops, make that "Add me to the count.....". Obviously, my eyes might not be accepted. :)

        January 23, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Trust me, your eyes are probably better than mine. I have more respect for your pro life position. (I still don't agree) but I have more respect because you are personally trying to enhance someone else's life.

          January 23, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
    • Just wondering

      Are you asking the pro choice people the same question? Also why do you ask, do you feel only organ donors are allowed to form a political opinion? Or do you feel that your respect is of interest enough to someone to donate their organs?

      January 23, 2014 at 7:57 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        Just wondering,

        Are you asking the pro choice people the same question? No

        Also why do you ask, do you feel only organ donors are allowed to form a political opinion? No not at all. I feel if you're pro life you would help those that are here already. If you aren't willing to help those that are already here, It proves my point that you really don't care about those that haven't been born yet. In other words you just want them to be born to watch them suffer.

        Or do you feel that your respect is of interest enough to someone to donate their organs? My respect doesn't matter. No one knows who I am. I'm just a computer guy blogging. I'm trying to understand the pro life position as it pertains to those AFTER birth.

        January 23, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
      • Dandintac

        JW,

        I'll let Ken speak for himself, but I would say that those of us on the "Pro-Choice" side of this debate are not usually in the habit of going around proclaiming how sacred life is, and also Ken's question illustrate what many of us on this side of the debate have observed–namely, that those who are "pro-life" are all too often more concerned and more energized in protecting life before its actually born than afterwards.

        Thanks

        January 25, 2014 at 3:47 am |
  18. A tomb inside a cold womb

    A tomb inside a cold womb

    I was carefully and wonderfully made
    Or so they say,
    I had no name,
    Inside the cold womb I lay.
    I was happy for the life I had
    until the day they decided
    that I had no purpose
    for anyone in this world,
    But how would they know that
    without giving me a chance to survive?
    I could have been an Einstein, Bach
    Or the next Vincent van Gogh
    In a swift second my life was gone.
    From that cold womb,
    I was quickly flushed away.
    But, now I am so glad
    To be safe in the arms of Jesus.

    January 23, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      You posted this garbage before and I replied with two questions your phony A** never answered.

      If life is so precious, why would a womb be cold?
      Why complain about abortions if the fetus end up with jesus?

      The fetus could end up being Bin Laden, John Wayne Gacy or George W. Bush so it works both ways!

      January 23, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
      • Mary

        Oh so murdering a good person is ok because they'll end up with Jesus? No faults in that logic...

        January 23, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • Observer

          Mary,

          Apparently abortion is a short-cut to heaven, which is the dream and objective of EVERY Christian.

          January 23, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @mary.....How do you know they will be a "good" person? If the baby was going to be gay, would you go out of your way to protect it's rights to marry?

          January 23, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Exactly, observer. In the Christian world view having an abortion is the kindest thing you can do for a child.

          January 24, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
    • Mmmmmmm

      A cold womb would tend to indicate the person it belongs to is deceased; making the contents of said womb also deceased.

      Also, you could have been the next Hitler, Manson, Gein, Gacy, Dahmer, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, etc. etc. ad nauseum, as Ken Margo indicated.

      January 23, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
    • Cherilyn B

      Hey, Mr. Poet - You need to rewrite this opus to make it more realistic. First of all, a tomb is a place of burial similar to a grave. No living organ (womb) makes an appropriate final resting place. Also, no living woman's womb is cold. The human body's temperature is 98.6 approximately. And to claim an embryo/fetus experiences emotions is wishful thinking. Most abortions take place in the 1st trimester. At 12 weeks a fetus weighs about one-half ounze, is about 2.5 " long and lacks the central nervous system needed to form, process and interpret emotions. Additionally, you put an abortion at only taking a second. The procedure actually takes up most of an afternoon depending upon travel time. Lastly, the fetus is not flushed. By law it is disposed of as bio-medical waste. The only times I have heard of a fetus being flushed down the toilet was after a miscarriage at home by a friend. I hope this info helps you with your rewrite. Poems can be far-fetched if you like but abortion deals pragmatically with the facts of life. Call me the voice of experience.

      January 23, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        @Cher........Have you noticed how the pro lifers in an over zealous effort to make their point, say some of the dumbest things like comparing a womb to a tomb?

        January 23, 2014 at 10:52 pm |
      • Cherilyn B

        Correct typo: that should be "ounce".

        Hi, Ken - How are you tonight? Bitter cold here. That probably applies to most of the US right now except the west coast.

        I really do not understand abortion foes. I suppose that is why I am here. I think they are comparing today to some utopia they think would exist if abortion was illegal. I wish we could all agree to work toward a better tomorrow where abortion is not ever needed because every child is sterilized prior to puberty. Then when they grow up and want to have offspring, they would need to apply for a license and prove financial responsibility, parenting ability and emotional stability as well as having exceptional genes. I am not kidding. Think about the possibilities.

        January 24, 2014 at 3:13 am |
        • Cherilyn B

          I should point out to those who do not know: Sterilization procedures, both tubal ligation and vasectomy, can be reversed. Sterilization = no pregnancy hence no abortion. Then apply for procreation license per previously stated. Have sterilization reversed (or use in vitro) and resultant child(ren) would be born into optimal conditions. Can you even imagine how many societal ills this could solve? Eugenics coupled with ideal parental units is the next brave new world!

          January 24, 2014 at 3:40 am |
        • Ken Margo

          How are you doing? Since we circu.mcise babies at birth why not take it a step further? It's easier to do boys instead of girls. That won't happen because it's GUYS.

          January 24, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
    • Mr. Rogers

      Can you say hyperbole? I thought you could.

      January 24, 2014 at 12:05 am |
  19. One of the Sheep

    I traveled from Sacramento, CA to Washington D.C. in 2001 for the March for Life. It had a powerful impact upon me. One only has to look at the very limited if nonexistent coverage of the March by the major media to realize the censorship of the anti-life forces in this country. Fortunately, we now have EWTN providing world wide coverage by television, radio, satellite, and internet. No longer can this huge display of respect for human life be ignored in our country or around the world. Like the Berlin Wall that fell almost without effort, the wall of bloodshed we call "reproductive health" will collapse under the weight of the abortion clinic closings, physical and psychological damage of the women receiving abortions, broken families, greediness of the abortion providers, and the rising up of our youth armed with the truth about abortion and its painful effects upon society. We are not anti-abortion. You are anti-life. We are the future and abortion advocates are the past.

    January 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • Observer

      One of the Sheep,

      "You are anti-life"

      WAKE UP!! EVERYONE is PRO-LIFE. It just depends if you are CARE MORE about the MOTHER or the embryo.

      The "sides" are pro-choice or anti-choice and you apparently are ANTI-CHOICE.

      January 23, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
    • Mmmmmmm

      You had me until your gratuitous slam at women's choices.
      You are absolutely anti-abortion and pro death for the living. You care nothing except achieving your own suppression of woman's rights.

      You will not succeed at your blatant attempt to foist your hypocritical ideals on the US. March away.

      January 23, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Yes you are one of the sheep. Take a number and get in line. If you love these "babies" so much:
      Are you willing to guarantee they will eat?
      What about food and shelter?
      What about doctor visits, heathcare?
      Make sure they'll get a good education?
      Protect them from gun violence?

      Didn't read that in your post. Why? Because you really don't care.

      January 23, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
      • Mary

        Let me tell you a little story. There was a couple with 11 children, but the father died. Several of the children weren't old enough to go to school and they needed their mommy at home. So, their church stepped in. My family provided them with a home, others donated furniture, plumbers and electricians donated time, the church had a school that gave scholarships to older children. The older children helped at the church, and did yarn work for families who helped them. Everyone in the parish is pro life. So yes, we can take care of children who are born to single moms or to poor families.

        January 23, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
        • Observer

          Mary,

          EVERYONE is PRO-LIFE. It just depends if that life is the MOTHER or the embryo.

          January 23, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @Mary..........Let me tell you a little reality. There isn't enough churches, mosques, temples or any other place of worship you can name that can take care of all the poor in this country. More people eat at pantries now than ever and even those that once supported the pantries are now customers themselves. Homelessness is at an all time high in NYC where I'm at now. You have republicans against HEALTHCARE REFORM, SNAP, GUN CONTROL, PELL GRANTS and other programs that help the poor. School budgets are being cut (Pre K, after school programs).

          You want to prevent abortions? Offer pregnant women hope. NOT PRAYER. Hope. Be honest, when you look at how the deck is stacked AGAINST the mother, how can you honestly give her hope to have the child when she sees so many children/adults suffering and Republicans cutting programs so they can suffer more?

          January 23, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • doobzz

          "So yes, we can take care of children who are born to single moms or to poor families."

          Let me ask you a question. If your church was made aware of an atheistic family in the same situation, would they have flooded them with the Christian love, acceptance and financial support that you describe? Would you have welcomed them into your home? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

          January 25, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Get over yourself. You are not pro life. You are pro fetus. The situation that makes a woman decide to have an abortion does not go away if you take that option away from her. The poverty, the poor health, the drug addictions, the lack of family support, the thousand other reasons still remain, but now a child is added to the mix. Now the situation is worse, and now a baby gets to suffer, too. People like you don't care about children. Once that fetus is delivered, your work is done right?

      Every time I read about a child abused or murdered by a parent, I think of people like you. Almost anyone can produce a child, but not everyone is cut out to be a parent.

      January 24, 2014 at 10:06 am |
    • doobzz

      Oh, can it, you pompous, arrogant coccydynia. Everyone is pro life. You are anti choice.

      January 25, 2014 at 11:59 am |
  20. The point of dead humans and loudmouth artificial bodies is WHAT?

    ++++++ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ :) :) :) ...... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ++++++

    January 23, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
    • doobzz

      I suppose it's so you can make up dozens of screen names and post gibberish.

      January 25, 2014 at 11:55 am |
      • doobzz, your boobzzies keep changing. Wretched stretched?

        :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) ############ BUY MY ANTIstretch compound. 29 cents/day

        January 27, 2014 at 10:24 am |
        • doobzz

          Like I said....

          January 27, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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 and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.