How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?

[allhers]

Was trying to respond to a post that disappeared?!!

Oh, I see, its the way limerick responds, nevermind.

If you click on what she said in the above post it just leaves the page blank as though she said nothing. Try it, click on quote and you’ll see what I mean.

Interesting.

 

[allhers]

I understand that. Anti-abortion folks understand it. Pro-abortion folks understand it.

Anti-abortion folks assume the fertilized egg with a full complement of DNA has an absolute right to life.

Pro-abortion folks assume the fertilized egg with a full compliment of DNA does not have an absolute right to life.

Both sides understand very well how conception works, and what the result is.

That fertilized egg with a full complement of DNA does already have life.
So obviously some still don’t understand that.

 

[limerick]

This all sounds very perverse to me. Talk about a fable.

This is what your line of thinking leads to:

IPPF’s (as you probably know, that stands for International Planned Parenthood Federation’s) declaration on “sexual rights,” Part 1
all.org/article.php?id=12002

Lost in Lust: Part 2
all.org/article.php?id=12013

In part, it says this:
“Principle 2 – The rights and protections guaranteed to people under age eighteen differ from those of adults, and must take into account the evolving capacities of the individual child to exercise rights on his or her own behalf.” ,

It goes on and on…and the people at STOPP (to STOP Planned Parenthood) explain it:

…**What this means is that your child will not be safe **from this ideology. For example, **if Planned Parenthood can convince a judge that your child is mature and that the child is being stifled because of the Christian morality you are attempting to “impose” on him or her, then the judge can declare your child to be emancipated for purposes of attaining sexual pleasure. **It means that once the attainment of sexual pleasure is declared a right, you will be helpless to enforce any rules restricting your minor child’s sexual activity.

Are you talking about Judicial Bypass?

People need to start paying attention and not listen to the like’s of you. I propose that instead they go and read the links I provided if they really want to re-educate people.

If they read the links that only you provided they will wind up allhers clones. That doesn’t sound promising.

This culture of death is already more than too much and its only going to get worse if people don’t start waking up!

But people are awake. They just aren’t making the choices that you make for yourself.

Look at this part under Principle 4

Attempting to divorce society from the natural law, to divorce civilization from its most
basic and beneficial institution – sacramental marriage between one man and one woman, and
the children who spring forth from and thrive within this marital bond – this document
paints a bleak picture of a heathen world entitled to self-destruction through self-centered
sexual pleasure with no regard for the consequences of that behavior.

Children become something that interferes with pleasure and thus something to be avoided.
When avoidance fails, they are easily destroyed by abortion. They become, on the other hand,
property to which adults are entitled, without the need of reproductive sex (i.e., through
cloning; in vitro fertilization; adoption by anyone regardless of sexual orientation or
sexual behavior, etc.).

This is so poorly written that the point, if there is one, is utterly indecipherable.

Pulling out all the stops, IPPF then claims, “All persons are entitled to the conditions
that enable the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality.” It continues, “Given that pleasure is
an intrinsic aspect of sexuality, the right to seek, express and determine when to
experience it must not be denied to anyone.”

Having opened the door to all sorts of deviant sexual activity, this document seeks to
place a permanent wedge in the door, allowing evil to run at full force.
With an entitlement to seek, express and determine when, where and how to express one’s
sexuality, what’s to stop someone from fornicating in the middle of the public square?
According to Principle 4, such an activity should not be denied. When a society begins to
accept and embrace evil, total chaos will follow.

(my bold above)
**
Men and women, boys and girls, boys and boys - whatever the combination- have been engaging in sexual activities forbidden by Rome since long before Rome became the center of the Truth Universe. And when have you witnessed this “evil” running full force with people fornicating in the middle of the public square?

You view abortion as evil, I understand that. To satisfy some of our other posters out there who have had a gripe with my “downplaying” the societal effects of abortion, I will say that billions and billions of souls have been lost to abortion. We can sit around and lament the evil that pervades our society. We can play “ain’t it awful” till the cows come home. We can point the finger at those who have had abortions or participated in abortions and scream, “You’re nothing but a non-repentant, selfish, self-centered baby-killer and you will rot in hell for all of eternity and then some!”, and I have been notified recently. But all of this does nothing to change the situation. This is not action. This is talk. Talk just don’t get the job done.

With this forum available I’m surprised so few ideas have risen to the top that suggest a way out of the abortion maelstrom.

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

Your fables have no meaning to me either. Perhaps you ought to make the effort to go get your Bible.

**It’s under 300 boxes of stuff and numerous large pieces of furniture. I suppose, like quicksand, the storage unit will spit it out eventually.

L**

 

[limerick]

This all sounds very perverse to me. Talk about a fable.

This is what your line of thinking leads to:

IPPF’s (as you probably know, that stands for International Planned Parenthood Federation’s) declaration on “sexual rights,” Part 1
all.org/article.php?id=12002

Lost in Lust: Part 2
all.org/article.php?id=12013

In part, it says this:
“Principle 2 – The rights and protections guaranteed to people under age eighteen differ from those of adults, and must take into account the evolving capacities of the individual child to exercise rights on his or her own behalf.” ,

It goes on and on…and the people at STOPP (to STOP Planned Parenthood) explain it:

…**What this means is that your child will not be safe **from this ideology. For example, **if Planned Parenthood can convince a judge that your child is mature and that the child is being stifled because of the Christian morality you are attempting to “impose” on him or her, then the judge can declare your child to be emancipated for purposes of attaining sexual pleasure. **It means that once the attainment of sexual pleasure is declared a right, you will be helpless to enforce any rules restricting your minor child’s sexual activity.

People need to start paying attention and not listen to the like’s of you. I propose that instead they go and read the links I provided if they really want to re-educate people.

This culture of death is already more than too much and its only going to get worse if people don’t start waking up!

Look at this part under Principle 4

Attempting to divorce society from the natural law, to divorce civilization from its most
basic and beneficial institution – sacramental marriage between one man and one woman, and
the children who spring forth from and thrive within this marital bond – this document
paints a bleak picture of a heathen world entitled to self-destruction through self-centered
sexual pleasure with no regard for the consequences of that behavior.

Children become something that interferes with pleasure and thus something to be avoided.
When avoidance fails, they are easily destroyed by abortion. They become, on the other hand,
property to which adults are entitled, without the need of reproductive sex (i.e., through
cloning; in vitro fertilization; adoption by anyone regardless of sexual orientation or
sexual behavior, etc.).

Pulling out all the stops, IPPF then claims, “All persons are entitled to the conditions
that enable the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality.” It continues, “Given that pleasure is
an intrinsic aspect of sexuality, the right to seek, express and determine when to
experience it must not be denied to anyone.”

Having opened the door to all sorts of deviant sexual activity, this document seeks to
place a permanent wedge in the door, allowing evil to run at full force.
With an entitlement to seek, express and determine when, where and how to express one’s
sexuality, what’s to stop someone from fornicating in the middle of the public square?
According to Principle 4, such an activity should not be denied. When a society begins to
accept and embrace evil, total chaos will follow.

(my bold above)

**
At least I’m making an attempt to suggest something other than “baby killers go to hell and stay there.”

L**

 

[limerick]

This one may help you Drawman, since you are concerned about it. It could help you educate others on it.

Men & Abortion
Men suffer in the aftermath of abortion as well as women: Though not nearly as much research has been done on abortion’s effects on men as on women, considerable evidence shows that abortion often negatively affects men’s mental health and that a large proportion of men regret their partner’s abortion later on. PLTP_Men_Abortion.pdf
(click on the link below and you can download the file.)
hli.org/index.php/component/content/248?task=view

Oh, this is rich! Men regret their partner’s abortion! NOT their contribution to the conception?!

Sherman, get over there and set that Way Back Machine!

Limerick

 

[limerick]

They aren’t assumptions however, just read limrick’s post 454, she doesn’t even know, by her own admission that abortion is a crime against God. It could just be that in her ignorance that she will not be held accountable, or it could be because of her own ignorance and total lack of care to find out the truth, that she will be held accountable, we aren’t God and only He knows each one’s heart (life, story, soul)

It is however, my job, as a Catholic to inform people about the truth to the best of my ability and when I find out about the truth, to share it and not act like we aren’t all one another’s “brothers keepers”. (as in, oh well, at least I know and follow the truth, who cares about the rest of you poor slobs, you’re on your own…or well, I am ignorant of the truth because I wasn’t taught well and even though I know where I can find the truth, I’m just too uninterested in this point in my life to do that…or well hey, that truth is great and all for you guys, but I found another way in life to handle what comes my way and if it offends your God and you guys, thats your personal problem.) See a problem here?

It isn’t because the truth isn’t out there, its because some don’t seek HIM—
some don’t know how to and some just don’t care. Isn’t that the purpose of this thread-to educate?

**I think from now on I will refer to you as Sister allhers.

Limerick**

 

[allhers]

Your fables have no meaning to me either. Perhaps you ought to make the effort to go get your Bible.

In the meantime, here is an online version.

usccb.org/nab/bible/

Limerick, Above, when you tried to quote me, you left the online version out. Thought I’d repost it for you, and anyone else that could use it.

 

[allhers]

**I think from now on I will refer to you as Sister allhers.

Limerick**

Thanks for the compliment

Nicest thing anyone thats pro death has ever said to me.

 

[Drawmack]

If the mother knows who the father is, it is up to her to decide whether or not to notify him. If he is criminal in any way, or threatening or vicious or invasive, then I would think she would prefer not to notify him. If she does not know who the father is, it’s a moot point.

Why is it up to the mother whether or not to contact the father?

You are asserting that the father has no rights, unless the mother bequeaths them to him. Therefore you are asserting that the mother’s parental rights begin before the father’s and that the father has no rights unless the mother sees fit to give them to him. It just doesn’t make sense to me. A woman can abort a child and the father can, legally, do nothing to stop it. A woman can decide to have the child and force parental obligations on him and he can, legally, do nothing to stop it. You are asserting that the woman’s parental rights start at conception but the mans begin when and if the woman decides they do. How do you justify this?

Let’s ignore the women who honestly have no clue who the father of the child is, even when conception is pin pointed to one week. If a man sleeps with a woman that has been with so many men in one week that she doesn’t know who the father is these men probably do not care about parental rights anyway.

 

[limerick]

Why is it up to the mother whether or not to contact the father?

You are asserting that the father has no rights, unless the mother bequeaths them to him. Therefore you are asserting that the mother’s parental rights begin before the father’s and that the father has no rights unless the mother sees fit to give them to him. It just doesn’t make sense to me. A woman can abort a child and the father can, legally, do nothing to stop it. A woman can decide to have the child and force parental obligations on him and he can, legally, do nothing to stop it. You are asserting that the woman’s parental rights start at conception but the mans begin when and if the woman decides they do. How do you justify this?

Let’s ignore the women who honestly have no clue who the father of the child is, even when conception is pin pointed to one week. If a man sleeps with a woman that has been with so many men in one week that she doesn’t know who the father is these men probably do not care about parental rights anyway.

**You can’t seriously be suggesting that the father has no idea who he had intercourse with, can you? If he suspects he may have contributed to a conception, what’s to keep him from actively and aggressively pursuing the joys and responsibilities of supporting the mother and parenting the child when it is born? Why does the mother have to do all the footwork? Or does your overlooked father wannabe also have a sexual history that defies computation? Or maybe he was drunk enough or high enough that he just can’t put it all together.

Limerick
**

 

[allhers]

**
At least I’m making an attempt to suggest something other than “baby killers go to hell and stay there.”

L**

Um, well, you obviously didn’t read what I provided because no where in what I posted said that and neither did I. Perhaps you meant this for someone else?.

 

[limerick]

Um, well, you obviously didn’t read what I provided because no where in what I posted said that and neither did I. Perhaps you meant this for someone else?.

**Many someone elses.

Limerick**

 

[Drawmack]

**You can’t seriously be suggesting that the father has no idea who he had intercourse with, can you? If he suspects he may have contributed to a conception, what’s to keep him from actively and aggressively pursuing the joys and responsibilities of supporting the mother and parenting the child when it is born? Why does the mother have to do all the footwork? Or does your overlooked father wannabe also have a sexual history that defies computation? Or maybe he was drunk enough or high enough that he just can’t put it all together.

Limerick
**

I think you’re reading something into my post that isn’t there. What I am saying is this. It is possible for the mother not to tell the father she is pregnant. Unless you think a man should have the legal right to compel a pregnancy test on his sexual partners once a reasonable amount of time has passed that the test may be accurate. Therefore, why shouldn’t a woman diagnosed with pregnancy have the legal obligation to inform the father?

You’ll say what if the father is a criminal of any kind? You’ll have to be more specific than this. A speeding ticket is a crime after all. However, a registered sex offender shouldn’t be notified. A registered child abuser shouldn’t be notified. If the father is a proven threat to the mother or child they should the woman should not be legally compelled to notify him.

You’ll say what if the mother has no idea who the father is? I think that the cases where a woman has had so many sexual partners in the course of a week that she has no idea who the father is are very limited. There is another case where the mother does not know who the father is because she did not get the information from him required to identify a person, this is a special case. I think that in the general case the woman either knows who the father is or can make a reasonable guess between two or three people. So let’s stick with, what is most likely the norm, of the mother knowing who the father is.

So, in the case where the father is not identified as a threat to the child or mother and the father is known, or can be reasonably assumed to be one of a couple of people, why should the mother be able to conceal the pregnancy from the father?

 

[WillieWonka]

Oh yeah, you’re the one who thought that the Sacred Congregation was saying something that it wasn’t saying to begin with until I explained all of that to you, which you never responded to, so, I guess you don’t respond to much, you just make comments once in awhile or ask questions, right?

I have no response. The Sacred Congregation has published its opinion. I think they can speak for themselves.

You are correct that I make comments and ask questions. I respond when I choose.

 

[WillieWonka]

That fertilized egg with a full complement of DNA does already have life.
So obviously some still don’t understand that.

Everybody acknowledges the fertilized egg is alive. There is no disagreement there.

 

[limerick]

I think you’re reading something into my post that isn’t there. What I am saying is this. It is possible for the mother not to tell the father she is pregnant. Unless you think a man should have the legal right to compel a pregnancy test on his sexual partners once a reasonable amount of time has passed that the test may be accurate. Therefore, why shouldn’t a woman diagnosed with pregnancy have the legal obligation to inform the father?

Yes. It’s possible. Legal obligation? Can you spell HIPPA?

You’ll say what if the father is a criminal of any kind? You’ll have to be more specific than this. A speeding ticket is a crime after all. However, a registered sex offender shouldn’t be notified. A registered child abuser shouldn’t be notified. If the father is a proven threat to the mother or child they should the woman should not be legally compelled to notify him.

Obviously, anyone with a record or a trial pending in the battery/spousal abuse/child abuse/pedophilia area. Substance abusers. Dope dealers. Gun runners. Anyone who is physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, legally, financially unable to raise a child. That’s a lot of people. And who knows better than the women who had intimate relations with him? If a man decides he wants to fight for his embryo, his fetus, or his child, and he cannot do so through discussion with the pregnant woman or through mediation, he will have to go through the courts to do so. That’s the way it’s set up. Don’t ask me to defend the entire legal system.

You’ll say what if the mother has no idea who the father is? I think that the cases where a woman has had so many sexual partners in the course of a week that she has no idea who the father is are very limited.

Pregnancy cannot be determined within a week of conception. The time frame would be greater than that, which gives the man and the woman plenty more time to have sex with numerous other partners.

There is another case where the mother does not know who the father is because she did not get the information from him required to identify a person, this is a special case.

I don’t understand this. What is this about?

I think that in the general case the woman either knows who the father is or can make a reasonable guess between two or three people. So let’s stick with, what is most likely the norm, of the mother knowing who the father is.

So, in the case where the father is not identified as a threat to the child or mother and the father is known, or can be reasonably assumed to be one of a couple of people, why should the mother be able to conceal the pregnancy from the father?

The law does not compel her to reveal her medical condition to anyone. It also protects her from other sources revealing her medical condition to a third party. If she wants to share the news with the father, that is her right, but not a legal obligation. So it appears that you are arguing for a moral obligation for the mother to reveal her pregnancy to the father. I’m in the same place I have always been on this one. If she is moved to do so, wonderful. If she is not moved to do so, that’s okay, too. If he wants to pursue active fatherhood, fine. If he chooses not to, that makes it more difficult in some ways for the mother and child, but there again she can apply for child support. And that is the price the man pays for indiscriminate sexual activity. And her price: motherhood.

 

[allhers]

I have no response. The Sacred Congregation has published its opinion. I think they can speak for themselves.

You are correct that I make comments and ask questions. I respond when I choose.

I understood what the Sacred Congregation said, I’m not asking you to speak for them. Would it be so bad to acknowledge that you misunderstood what they were saying?

 

[allhers]

Everybody acknowledges the fertilized egg is alive. There is no disagreement there.

So is this an acknowledgement that you agee that they are taking an innocent life when someone aborts that life?

 

[limerick]

I understood what the Sacred Congregation said, I’m not asking you to speak for them. Would it be so bad to acknowledge that you misunderstood what they were saying?

**Misunderstood or interpreted differently?

L**