StephanieZ Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Looks to me like they are negatively correlated. Makes sense to me that more people who believe strongly in a human being controlling their *own* body would be both pro-choice (even if morally opposed to the choice to abort) and anti-circ. That's the foundation of my own political beliefs on those issues: a human being's right to control their own body trumps most other rights, even if I personally, morally, would make another choice, and even if I think their choice is morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmschooling Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) Man I so did not want to bite on this one, but I can't help myself:crying:. Abortion is killing. Why not just make all killing safe and legal since people will find a way to do it anyways.:ack2: I'm sure plenty of people have very legitamate reasons to take someone elses life. And soon enough, it's going to be legal and regulated to kill our elders who become a burden on us (or we just aren't ready to care for, are unable, or just plain don't want to... even though they totally depend on us now, don't have a clue who we are, who they are, can't feed themselves or live life outside our care). I didn't plan my first, but I had her at the age of 20 (I wasn't yet a Christian and didn't have strong pro-life convictions-- I felt if you chose to risk it, you should have the baby, but not if you were forced.) And I was r aped and became pregnant with my 2nd...and refused to abort. He is a handsome, loved, bright, loving little boy that I"m so happy to have. I wasn't ready for him, I didn't want another baby as a newly single mom, I had no money, and no support. But that baby was meant to be! As they all are. First moments or last moments...no one deserves to be killed. FWIW, two of my three sons are circumcised. The third we were going to, but he wasn't well enough for it the first 8 weeks and after that it's done under general anesthesia so we opted out ; Oh, and I met my husband when I was 7months pregnant with my 2nd....and we married when he was 13months old, had a couple miscarriages, a baby boy, more miscarriages, and another baby boy. We're a happy little family now....even though I wasn't ready for the first couple kiddos! Just thought that perspective goes unmentioned too often...r ape doesn't equate abortion, and shouldn't. It's not ideal, but it's still a life! Edited June 12, 2011 by hmschooling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Except for religious reasons, I don't understand why one would circ a boy. (or girl...eeek) And, while I wouldn't outlaw it, I've told people my opinion..... If I were going to circ, it'd be a very small amount :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annandatje Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-11324533-cartoon-haggis-in-tartan-kilt-playing-bagpipes.php How do you post photos?? The cartoon is of a haggis wearing kilt and playing bagpipes. Edited June 12, 2011 by annandatje Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellesmere Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) Have some of that Scot-blood myself. Here's to kilts and whisky :tongue_smilie: Bill And shortbread. Lots of butter! Is it? Good then. I officially give up on polenta. Noooooo! ETA: And what took so long to get a kilt picture into this thread? Edited June 12, 2011 by Clairelise ETA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 And soon enough, it's going to be legal and regulated to kill our elders who become a burden on us (or we just aren't ready to care for, are unable, or just plain don't want to... even though they totally depend on us now, don't have a clue who we are, who they are, can't feed themselves or live life outside our care). Any evidence for this? I know of no cases, anywhere, where it is legal to kill an adult against his or her will simply because the caregiver wants to; the only cases where it is legal is when a person is either brain dead or has expressed his or her desire to not be kept alive under certain conditions. What we aren't required to do, though, is donate any part of our body to keep an elderly relative alive, even if not doing so will certainly mean their death. There are no instances, other than laws against abortion, where one human being is required to give any part of their body to sustain the life of another person against their will, with no choice in the matter. Do I think people should choose abortion? No. But, I do not think there are valid legal grounds (or practical reason) for banning it, and I think there are many valid arguments as to why it should be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 My husband is a butcher. I render my own beef lard. It would work fine with shortening though I imagine. My chiro, from Canada, says the only good butchers must be from Canada. He wanted to bring someone over that knows how to cut up a cow. :) Now, lard, ugh... just can't do it. :) Spectrum is what I use... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIS0320 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Looks to me like they are negatively correlated. Makes sense to me that more people who believe strongly in a human being controlling their *own* body would be both pro-choice (even if morally opposed to the choice to abort) and anti-circ. That's the foundation of my own political beliefs on those issues: a human being's right to control their own body trumps most other rights, even if I personally, morally, would make another choice, and even if I think their choice is morally wrong. I disagree. I do not think anyone has the right to end human life, so I am pro-life at its extreme, from conception to natural death. A fertilized egg is either a life or it isn't - the opinion or circumstance of the mother does not change that fact. I think human beings have a right to life and a right to have their bodies protected physically and circ'ing falls into that camp. It is logical to me to see that protecting someone's body from death and protecting someone's body from physical alteration without their consent are similar when it comes down to protecting physical bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephanieZ Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 This still happens despite legal, regulated abortions: DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE! http://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-victim-calls-philadelphia-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell/story?id=12731387 Seriously this is one of the most shocking things I have ever read. Note that these women who went to this monster, for years and years, thousands of women. . . were mostly poor (and so choosing the cheapest provider) and/or seeking illegal late term abortions. The closer we become to a state with little access to legal abortion, the closer we become to a state where wealthy women of means can fly out of country for a safe, legal, sanitary abortion as needed. . . and poor women (or women in abusive relationships) are going to monstrous places like this. People are going to control their own destinies. . . We can choose to make the problem worse, or make it better. If we want to reduce abortion, we need to make family planning a universally accessible service and we need to support families financially. If we keep fighting about controlling a particular woman's body, we are wasting energy that could be more effective in other ways. To me, there is a huge difference between the moral question of: Is abortion right? And the political question of: Should abortion be legal? Two entirely different conversations IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerine Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Looks to me like they are negatively correlated. Makes sense to me that more people who believe strongly in a human being controlling their *own* body would be both pro-choice (even if morally opposed to the choice to abort) and anti-circ. That's the foundation of my own political beliefs on those issues: a human being's right to control their own body trumps most other rights, even if I personally, morally, would make another choice, and even if I think their choice is morally wrong. This is a good assessment of how I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephanieZ Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I disagree. I do not think anyone has the right to end human life, so I am pro-life at its extreme, from conception to natural death. A fertilized egg is either a life or it isn't - the opinion or circumstance of the mother does not change that fact. I think human beings have a right to life and a right to have their bodies protected physically and circ'ing falls into that camp. It is logical to me to see that protecting someone's body from death and protecting someone's body from physical alteration without their consent are similar when it comes down to protecting physical bodies. I entirely respect your opinion on that. FWIW, I love the Catholic approach to pro-life, anti-death penalty (though it seems to me it should be also pacifist). . . Lots of integrity in that position. I see it totally. Great moral perspective. Honestly, morally, I agree with it, which is probably why I could never have an abortion myself (never even bothered with the prenatal testing as dh & I always knew we'd never abort, despite us both being strongly pro-choice and liberal politically). In my heart, I agree with you. Every abortion breaks my heart. The politics of it are different for me, however, for the other reasons I've referenced. . . I just can't see that it is acceptable to control some other woman's body as a baby factory for 9 months if that's not what she wants. (And, really if you'd make an exception for rape or incest, as nearly everyone would, then I really think it destroys the integrity of the pro-life stance.) So, I'd rather go about the reduction of abortion via other means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmschooling Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Any evidence for this? I know of no cases, anywhere, where it is legal to kill an adult against his or her will simply because the caregiver wants to; the only cases where it is legal is when a person is either brain dead or has expressed his or her desire to not be kept alive under certain conditions. What we aren't required to do, though, is donate any part of our body to keep an elderly relative alive, even if not doing so will certainly mean their death. There are no instances, other than laws against abortion, where one human being is required to give any part of their body to sustain the life of another person against their will, with no choice in the matter. Do I think people should choose abortion? No. But, I do not think there are valid legal grounds (or practical reason) for banning it, and I think there are many valid arguments as to why it should be legal. I guess the difference is that I value life both from beginning and from the end. If we as a society don't respect life from the beginning, it won't be long before we dont' respect it at the end either. No additional evidence needed. Valid arguments for legality of killing (no matter what point of life) doesn't mean it's right. And I find it odd that a person that murders a pregnant woman gets charged with two murders, but the mom can kill the baby if she chooses without consequence. My kids are out side my belly and drain me to no end, more than when they were in, so do I get to choose now? I don't want to put them up for adoption b/c I fear they could be abused, but I can't care for nor do I want them (not really meaning this, just that I don't see a difference in killing them in utero and killing them out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 The more genital surgery, the merrier, I always say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I entirely respect your opinion on that. FWIW, I love the Catholic approach to pro-life, anti-death penalty (though it seems to me it should be also pacifist). . . Lots of integrity in that position. I see it totally. Great moral perspective. Honestly, morally, I agree with it, which is probably why I could never have an abortion myself (never even bothered with the prenatal testing as dh & I always knew we'd never abort, despite us both being strongly pro-choice and liberal politically). In my heart, I agree with you. Every abortion breaks my heart. The politics of it are different for me, however, for the other reasons I've referenced. . . I just can't see that it is acceptable to control some other woman's body as a baby factory for 9 months if that's not what she wants. (And, really if you'd make an exception for rape or incest, as nearly everyone would, then I really think it destroys the integrity of the pro-life stance.) So, I'd rather go about the reduction of abortion via other means. :iagree: -- with everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorganClassicalPrep Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Haven't read other responses but, I answered other. I am pro-life, and being that I have only a girl (and knew that she was a girl just 2 weeks after I found out I was pregnant!!) I haven't looking into the issues surrounding circumcision. I don't have enough knowledge to say one way or the other at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiopianFood Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 What we aren't required to do, though, is donate any part of our body to keep an elderly relative alive, even if not doing so will certainly mean their death. There are no instances, other than laws against abortion, where one human being is required to give any part of their body to sustain the life of another person against their will, with no choice in the matter. This is a very interesting argument that I haven't heard before. I would only say that in one situation, a person is allowed to do nothing, not being forced to act. As a result of doing nothing, someone dies. In the other, a person is forcefully acting upon another to end their life. Doing nothing would allow the the other to live. That difference seems potentially legally significant to me. Also, an elder doesn't exist because of the adult child's actions, while it was the adult's explicit actions, which they knew could result in another life, that caused the dependent life in the first place. To what extent is a person "liable" for whatever results from a freewill act? That is a separate thought process though. Anyway. JMTC :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiopianFood Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 The more genital surgery, the merrier, I always say! :lol::lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 The more genital surgery, the merrier, I always say! :lol::lol::lol:Uh huh. I had to wipe wine from my monitor. I tip my virtual hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I like polenta. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIS0320 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I entirely respect your opinion on that. FWIW, I love the Catholic approach to pro-life, anti-death penalty (though it seems to me it should be also pacifist). . . Lots of integrity in that position. I see it totally. Great moral perspective. Honestly, morally, I agree with it, which is probably why I could never have an abortion myself (never even bothered with the prenatal testing as dh & I always knew we'd never abort, despite us both being strongly pro-choice and liberal politically). In my heart, I agree with you. Every abortion breaks my heart. The politics of it are different for me, however, for the other reasons I've referenced. . . I just can't see that it is acceptable to control some other woman's body as a baby factory for 9 months if that's not what she wants. (And, really if you'd make an exception for rape or incest, as nearly everyone would, then I really think it destroys the integrity of the pro-life stance.) So, I'd rather go about the reduction of abortion via other means. Yes, I'm Catholic and no, I do not make exceptions for rape or incest. It is a hardline stance, I'll admit, but the bottom line is that if I believe a human life is valuable and worth protecting then no matter the circumstance of conception and no matter how heinous a crime committed (death penalty), that human life is not one that another human can choose to end. Of course, I have the utmost empathy and love for those who are pregnant by violent means, the entire situation being nothing short of horrific. Obviously I disagree with you about a woman being a "baby factory" for 9 months. Unfortunately, most women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy divorced their body's fertility from the pleasure of the sexual act and are outraged at being thrust into the position of dealing with an "unwanted" pregnancy. I understand that there are vast reasons for women to not want to be pregnant and a myriad of sad stories to go along with not wanting the baby conceived, but a human life is valuable - no matter what! I used to be militantly pro-choice and very liberal, I do understand that position and can empathize with it to some extent. But it does not alter my staunch, core of my soul instinct that abortion is wrong and humans in the womb should have someone on the outside sticking up for them and fighting for their right to be born alive. I didn't circ my son, I didn't see a reason to do it and figured he could choose to have it done later on if he really felt that strongly about it. But in no way do I see circ'ing on the same playing field as abortion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in WI Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Polenta is disgusting! You should have warned me that this thread contained polenta!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 What we aren't required to do, though, is donate any part of our body to keep an elderly relative alive, even if not doing so will certainly mean their death. There are no instances, other than laws against abortion, where one human being is required to give any part of their body to sustain the life of another person against their will, with no choice in the matter. Do I think people should choose abortion? No. But, I do not think there are valid legal grounds (or practical reason) for banning it, and I think there are many valid arguments as to why it should be legal. Once one admits that there is a "life of another person" at stake, then taking action to end that life is not legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeautifulLife Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I haven't read the last 20 pages of replies, but I am pro-life and not opposed to circumcision. Russell Crowe really started something!:tongue_smilie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Yes, I'm Catholic and no, I do not make exceptions for rape or incest. It is a hardline stance, I'll admit, but the bottom line is that if I believe a human life is valuable and worth protecting then no matter the circumstance of conception and no matter how heinous a crime committed (death penalty), that human life is not one that another human can choose to end. Of course, I have the utmost empathy and love for those who are pregnant by violent means, the entire situation being nothing short of horrific. Obviously I disagree with you about a woman being a "baby factory" for 9 months. Unfortunately, most women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy divorced their body's fertility from the pleasure of the sexual act and are outraged at being thrust into the position of dealing with an "unwanted" pregnancy. I understand that there are vast reasons for women to not want to be pregnant and a myriad of sad stories to go along with not wanting the baby conceived, but a human life is valuable - no matter what! I used to be militantly pro-choice and very liberal, I do understand that position and can empathize with it to some extent. But it does not alter my staunch, core of my soul instinct that abortion is wrong and humans in the womb should have someone on the outside sticking up for them and fighting for their right to be born alive. I didn't circ my son, I didn't see a reason to do it and figured he could choose to have it done later on if he really felt that strongly about it. But in no way do I see circ'ing on the same playing field as abortion! Great post. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoxcell Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Notice the OP is no where to be found on this thread.:svengo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Polenta is disgusting! You should have warned me that this thread contained polenta!!! I make these delicious black bean and cheese "pies" in ramekins that have slices of polenta as the crust. Give polenta a chance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I make these delicious black bean and cheese "pies" in ramekins that have slices of polenta as the crust. Give polenta a chance! This sounds yummy! The all-lard cookies are being mixed at the moment, so I'll let everyone know if it works in 20 after they're cooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 And I find it odd that a person that murders a pregnant woman gets charged with two murders, but the mom can kill the baby if she chooses without consequence. Not the case in Canada. One murder charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embassy Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I saw a "lovely" old man in a kilt today in downtown Toronto. He was smokin' - a cigarette that is. I had my camera handy, but didn't take a picture. Didn't think he would come close to what you all wanted to see:tongue_smilie: But then again it might have turned a lot of you off men in kilts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Old guy in a kilt? Sean Connery is in T.O.?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Once one admits that there is a "life of another person" at stake, then taking action to end that life is not legal. Certainly, though, there would be profound legal ramifications to defining embryos and fetuses as legal persons. Legal persons are accounted for by the government; should every pregnancy have to be registered with the state? Certificates issued at conception, not birth? If a woman then has a miscarriage, should that miscarriage be investigated the way that the death of a born person would be, to ensure that she did nothing to cause or contribute to it? It's just not as simple as saying that a fetus is a legal person. Again, I don't like abortion. I think it's morally wrong. I would like to see a cultural shift in attitudes so that far fewer people chose them, and more support in place to help women successfully continue pregnancies they think they can't continue. But, I think laws outlawing abortion are counterproductive to the end of preserving life (because they do not reduce the abortion rate but do put the lives of women in danger), and are also a violation of our most basic right to bodily integrity. Plus, they're basically unenforceable, and cannot and have never been fairly or evenly enforced, and I don't like laws that are unenforced or enforced only on the most vulnerable in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiopianFood Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I make these delicious black bean and cheese "pies" in ramekins that have slices of polenta as the crust. Give polenta a chance! :drool: Recipe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 :drool: Recipe? She does it in one big dish, but I use the ramekins. http://smalltimecooks.blogspot.com/2007/12/red-and-black-bean-pie.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmschooling Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Certainly, though, there would be profound legal ramifications to defining embryos and fetuses as legal persons. Legal persons are accounted for by the government; should every pregnancy have to be registered with the state? Certificates issued at conception, not birth? If a woman then has a miscarriage, should that miscarriage be investigated the way that the death of a born person would be, to ensure that she did nothing to cause or contribute to it? It's just not as simple as saying that a fetus is a legal person. Again, I don't like abortion. I think it's morally wrong. I would like to see a cultural shift in attitudes so that far fewer people chose them, and more support in place to help women successfully continue pregnancies they think they can't continue. But, I think laws outlawing abortion are counterproductive to the end of preserving life (because they do not reduce the abortion rate but do put the lives of women in danger), and are also a violation of our most basic right to bodily integrity. Plus, they're basically unenforceable, and cannot and have never been fairly or evenly enforced, and I don't like laws that are unenforced or enforced only on the most vulnerable in society. So life is only life if it's easily defined by (and accounted for) the government? Since when is that their right or responsibility? Life just IS. Murder is taking a life and punishable by law. Moms just get to do it without consequence so long as those lives are still not out where people have seen their sweet, innocent faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 Notice the OP is no where to be found on this thread.:svengo: What is that supposed to mean?? I have posted in this thread. I am not engaged in the argument, because I believe I specifically asked for none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiopianFood Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 She does it in one big dish, but I use the ramekins.http://smalltimecooks.blogspot.com/2007/12/red-and-black-bean-pie.html Thanks! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) So life is only life if it's easily defined by (and accounted for) the government? Since when is that their right or responsibility? No, life isn't defined by the government, but legal personhood--and what such personhood entails in terms of rights and responsibilities--is. Moms just get to do it without consequence so long as those lives are still not out where people have seen their sweet, innocent faces. So in your ideal world, women who have abortions would be charged with murder? Do you think that women who have had abortions (about 30% of all women, and my understanding is that the number wasn't much different before Roe) are the same as child murderers? In the end, though, you can legislate whatever you want, but when it comes to abortion, it is not going to change behavior. What will change is how many women will die from having abortions. So if the goal is to preserve life, I just don't think that outlawing abortion is the right solution. There are many other ways to effectively reduce the abortion rate and encourage women to continue pregnancies that do not lead to maternal death. For me, that's what it comes down to, not ideology, but the actual lives of actual women and children. I think those actual lives are best protected by making the alternatives to abortion better and more realistic, rather than by making abortion illegal. Edited June 12, 2011 by twoforjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peela Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 So. . . another hot topic introduced with "don't argue". Trying to live up to the TNT part of your name? :lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 So in your ideal world, women who have abortions would be charged with murder? Do you think that women who have had abortions (about 30% of all women, and my understanding is that the number wasn't much different before Roe) are the same as child murderers? According to this site, http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html , I'm not sure I understand how they get that statistic. Are they tallying abortions or women? If X has 2 abortions in a year, she's counted as 2 women? That would sure skew that statistic, as I know one woman who had 4 abortions. :( There are many other ways to effectively reduce the abortion rate and encourage women to continue pregnancies that do not lead to maternal death. I think one way to reduce the abortion rate would be for pro-choice women to verbalize how awful abortion is. Abortion/choice is not marketed by PP as something that has life-long effects. Does PP send any clients to a pregnancy center for help or counseling? I'd love to see a rally where women, instead of screaming, "It's my body!" would talk straight to young women and advise them to take a different route. It's almost as though they want more women to have abortions. Some of them come across as pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Of course, there's money to be made, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 It works, but they spread less and are a little less tasty (lacking that buttery taste) They're good though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I'd love to see a rally where women, instead of screaming, "It's my body!" would talk straight to young women and advise them to take a different route. It's almost as though they want more women to have abortions. You honestly think that? I don't know anybody who wants to see more women have abortions. What I have seen is 70-year-old men weeping as they talk about loved ones they lost to illegal abortion. And once you see that, you understand how this is about saving lives for people who are pro-choice, not about celebrating or promoting death in any way. Maybe if people didn't feel as if the lives of women were being valued less than an ideology (because most pro-choice people know that the legality of abortion has little or no impact on incidence), then they wouldn't feel as if they had to so vehemently defend it. But as long as they feel like people are out there trying to pass laws that, in their view, will have the effect of killing women, then of course they are going to fight that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 It works, but they spread less and are a little less tasty (lacking that buttery taste) They're good though. It's a losing battle. Maybe we could try an all-out Johnny Depp assault. With or without lard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 It's a losing battle. Maybe we could try an all-out Johnny Depp assault. With or without lard. I prefer Johnny Depp with butter. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 What about this? PP sets up an adoption program and encourages women to carry their baby to term and let another woman or couple adopt the baby. We all know there are many people willing to adopt. Instead of the young woman paying to have an abortion, the adoptive parents pay adoption fees. That fits both the *planned* parenthood AND pro-*choice* terms.:001_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I prefer Johnny Depp with butter. :) Pats or melted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carpe Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 As for the original point of this poll, it serves no purpose but to divide people. No relationships will be enhanced by knowing if people are pro or anti anything. Let's say there are 3 women on here Jane, Sally, Betty (if they in anyway resemble real people it's not intentional) who have very similar homeschooling strategies, with similar aged kids, and they all read each other's posts and find them helpful. But Sally replies to this post saying she's pro-life and anti-circumcision. Jane reads it and she has had an abortion and suddenly she feels judged by Sally. But Jane posts here as well saying she is pro-choice and anti-circumcision. Betty reads it. Betty had her sons circumcised. She feels judged by both Sally and Jane. But she posts here too. She is pro-life, pro-circ. Sally reads it and feels like Betty is attacking her anti-circ argument. She's insulted. And just like that they are no longer friends. There is no benefit to these types of things. No one will change any minds. People have made their choices and will live with them. So for the sake of Sally, Jane, and Betty can we just get on with the Johnny/Kilt/Enrique pictures and/or recipes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Pats or melted? You could start with pats and melt them ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I prefer Johnny Depp with butter. :) With caul-fat. Hard to source, but nothing else compares :D Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 :drool: My breath caught, dh asked what was wrong, I turned the laptop toward him, he laughed knowingly! I love my dh!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts