Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who was that guy, who said, "He who is without sin, should cast the first stone"...oh, yeah, that was Jesus. Have you ever heard of him?
Sure they've heard of him--he's that blue-eyed blonde guy (there's your miracle folks--I'm sure he stuck out like a sore thumb 2000 years ago in the Middle East) that American Christians have a picture of on their walls. What's he got to do with anything?
Last edited by HeyJude514; 09-08-2012 at 09:48 AM..
Personwhoisaperson, I'm sure you knew that your very serious post would attract an avalanche of lies, hatred, and mockery from all the usual suspects. You're handling it like a pro. I suggest cultivating a habit of not responding to abusive, fallacious, or content-free posts. I'm working on that myself.
Actually, one of the things I like about the OP is that she holds her own. For someone her age she does a very good job of that.
Not responding to posts while continuing to use the thread to lecture everyone on your own opinions is akin to sending anonymous letters to the editor. It makes it easy to be opinionated without owning what you claim to believe.
I'm much more respect for the poster who stands her ground than the poster who doesn't respond because, obviously, he doesn't like that other people actually have the nerve to answer and challenge him.
No what I'm saying is; it pisses me off when people come and say peaceful prayers and then are treated like &%$#. It's wrong. I'm not saying they can't do it, I'm saying they shouldn't.
You're not saying a peaceful prayer. You are publicly praying on a street corner (something Jesus specifically told you not to do) in order to manipulate and coerce women from getting a medical procedure. And then you have the audacity to ridicule other people for not viewing your actions as a good thing.
You're not saying a peaceful prayer. You are publicly praying on a street corner (something Jesus specifically told you not to do) in order to manipulate and coerce women from getting a medical procedure. And then you have the audacity to ridicule other people for not viewing your actions as a good thing.
and harass other women that might not be there for an abortion
The answer I seem to have been given above in the scenarios for those without resources is "put the child up for adoption."
Well, seeing as not all children will be adopted, and they will likely suffer through the system for quite awhile, not to mention those same people making such a claim are the ones who oppose gays adopting, makes that an empty sentiment.
So you want a 'white, healthy, non drug exposed baby' to adopt? Why not a non-white baby with health problems? There are plenty of them. Aren't they more in need? Why wait years? Or is it more about the perfect litte baby that you want and not so much about what is needed by those 'unwanted' babies?
No.I was saying that people will wait years to adopt a child like I described. I would adopt a child of any color. Race makes no differernce to me and my family. The drug exposed part, I would be fairly open to, but i do have to be realistic about what kind of special needs I can handle, since I have my other younger children to care for as well, and there's only so much of "me" to go around!
And yes, babies of color are more in need of being adopted. I agree about not waiting for a blond, blue eyed child when there might be another child of color in need of a home sooner. Most adoption agencies are really trying to change this prejudice.
Last edited by CAHomeschoolMom; 09-08-2012 at 09:44 AM..
Planned Parenthood probably prevents more abortions than these protesters ever will because they give women birth control.
This is exactly right.
I support Planned Parenthood financially-a great organization. The Anti-Choice people have really attacked it over the years since the abortion issue was settled in 1973 (and of course have killed pro-choice people). But it was great to see the director at the convention, she gave a great speech.
Sigh. No.I was saying that people will wait years to adopt one like I described. I would take one of any color. The drug exposed part, I would be fairly open to, but have to be realistic about what kind of special needs I can handle, since I have my other younger children to care for as well.
And there is the flaw with your solution of adoption. Yes, drug addicted children are very difficult and require a lifetime of excess care and patience and time and money. And here you are, a good Christian woman who wants to save every fetus, and even you admit it would probably be too much of a challenge for you. This is equally true among the general population who might be open to adoption. As a result, these babies are not adopted. But still, you want all these fetuses "saved." Where should they go and who should care for them once they're born? Or is that not your concern so long as you "saved" them?
Augustine: (354–430 AD) "Why was woman created at all?" "Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God."
"I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?" (he sounds like a closet case to me)
Not to stray off topic but in light of Augustine practically creating the Church's anti-sex views, and based on that quote, I agree, sounds like Augustine was probably gay.
[quote=HeyJude514;26001994]And there is the flaw with your solution of adoption. Yes, drug addicted children are very difficult and require a lifetime of excess care and patience and time and money. And here you are, a good Christian woman who wants to save every fetus, and even you admit it would probably be too much of a challenge for you. This is equally true among the general population who might be open to adoption. As a result, these babies are not adopted. But still, you want all these fetuses "saved." Where should they go and who should care for them once they're born? Or is that not your concern so long as you "saved" them?[/QUO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
