Woman Draws Guffaws, Live Blogs Abortion on Twitter, YouTube

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juliee

Guest
Washington, DC – A woman who calls herself Angie the Atheist is drawing guffaws from pro-life advocates for live-blogging her drug-induced abortion and putting update on Twitter as she goes through the process. Angie recounts the process in graphic terms and displays a hatred for pro-life detractors.

LifeNews.com/state4841.html
 
It’s so sad that this woman may never fully understand the damage she’s caused.
 
This person, IMOHO, needs some serious psychiatric help. That’s not even normal… and nothing can convince me that she’s not doing it for the sole purpose of shock value and attention seeking.
 
I read about this on a blog I happened upon called “A Friendly Atheist”. I fully understand this woman’s decision to do what she did. She wants to continue living both for herself and the child she already has. I never will understand why it is wrong of her for choosing to put the born (sentient, separate, feeling, thinking, etc) ahead of a fetus. Should she suffer and die, her child become an orphan? And of course, this would mean the death of the fetus as well. I know no one here will agree with me or Angie on this, but we don’t understand why the unborn take precedence over the born - we just don’t. To us, the born take precedence - it is logical to us, a no-brainer. And this was very early in her pregnancy. She did it as soon as she knew, so there is no question of the fetus being aware or feeling anything - yet this isn’t the case for her, her son, or her loved ones. Yet their suffering and potential suffering just doesn’t seem to matter here. Instead, a fetus incapable of feelings is seen as more important.

I work with at risk youth in south central LA. I was thinking the other day about how limited resources are and how terrible it is that these kids are so often overlooked and ignored while so many people loudly cry out about how the unborn are treated. Just seems weird to me. Again, I know this is a hateful position to folks here, but I just wanted to give an idea of where the other side is coming from.
 
Swan said:
I read about this on a blog I happened upon called “A Friendly Atheist”. I fully understand this woman’s decision to do what she did. She wants to continue living both for herself and the child she already has. I never will understand why it is wrong of her for choosing to put the born (sentient, separate, feeling, thinking, etc) ahead of a fetus. Should she suffer and die, her child become an orphan? And of course, this would mean the death of the fetus as well. I know no one here will agree with me or Angie on this, but we don’t understand why the unborn take precedence over the born - we just don’t. To us, the born take precedence - it is logical to us, a no-brainer. And this was very early in her pregnancy. She did it as soon as she knew, so there is no question of the fetus being aware or feeling anything - yet this isn’t the case for her, her son, or her loved ones. Yet their suffering and potential suffering just doesn’t seem to matter here. Instead, a fetus incapable of feelings is seen as more important.

I work with at risk youth in south central LA. I was thinking the other day about how limited resources are and how terrible it is that these kids are so often overlooked and ignored while so many people loudly cry out about how the unborn are treated. Just seems weird to me. Again, I know this is a hateful position to folks here, but I just wanted to give an idea of where the other side is coming from.
Click to expand...
Hiyas:)

I’m a kid help me understand.
Soooo you think

Abort now, for convenience
Euthanize now, for convenience
Eugenics now, for convenience
Intercourse now, for convenience

Is acceptable?
IMHO this woman had a pro-choice solution. She knew full well her situation and obligations - BEFORE having sex. Her pro-choice was to abstain

As always, just my thoughts
 
Swan said:
I read about this on a blog I happened upon called “A Friendly Atheist”. I fully understand this woman’s decision to do what she did. She wants to continue living both for herself and the child she already has. I never will understand why it is wrong of her for choosing to put the born (sentient, separate, feeling, thinking, etc) ahead of a fetus. Should she suffer and die, her child become an orphan? And of course, this would mean the death of the fetus as well. I know no one here will agree with me or Angie on this, but we don’t understand why the unborn take precedence over the born - we just don’t. To us, the born take precedence - it is logical to us, a no-brainer. And this was very early in her pregnancy. She did it as soon as she knew, so there is no question of the fetus being aware or feeling anything - yet this isn’t the case for her, her son, or her loved ones. Yet their suffering and potential suffering just doesn’t seem to matter here. Instead, a fetus incapable of feelings is seen as more important.

I work with at risk youth in south central LA. I was thinking the other day about how limited resources are and how terrible it is that these kids are so often overlooked and ignored while so many people loudly cry out about how the unborn are treated. Just seems weird to me. Again, I know this is a hateful position to folks here, but I just wanted to give an idea of where the other side is coming from.
Click to expand...
God Bless you for your work with the at risk children!

You wrote;

" but we don’t understand why the unborn take precedence over the born - we just don’t. To us, the born take precedence"

That makes no sense, why can’t we do both? Let the baby live, no one takes ‘precedence’ over the other?

Your signature says “COEXIST”, but you do not support “COEXISTENCE” if it is inconvenient or difficult!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
Well at least she is logically coherent in her atheism. She regards herself and her children as randomly congealed collections of carbon atoms being used by genes to clothes themselves. This animate carbon ha no innate worth or value.

In this the lady is at least coherent unlike the likes of Dawkins arging the same but trying to pretend that some morality survives the so called reality he pushes. She is monstrous but honestly so.
 
Swan said:
I read about this on a blog I happened upon called “A Friendly Atheist”. I fully understand this woman’s decision to do what she did. She wants to continue living both for herself and the child she already has. I never will understand why it is wrong of her for choosing to put the born (sentient, separate, feeling, thinking, etc) ahead of a fetus. Should she suffer and die, her child become an orphan? And of course, this would mean the death of the fetus as well. I know no one here will agree with me or Angie on this, but we don’t understand why the unborn take precedence over the born - we just don’t. To us, the born take precedence - it is logical to us, a no-brainer. And this was very early in her pregnancy. She did it as soon as she knew, so there is no question of the fetus being aware or feeling anything - yet this isn’t the case for her, her son, or her loved ones. Yet their suffering and potential suffering just doesn’t seem to matter here. Instead, a fetus incapable of feelings is seen as more important.

I work with at risk youth in south central LA. I was thinking the other day about how limited resources are and how terrible it is that these kids are so often overlooked and ignored while so many people loudly cry out about how the unborn are treated. Just seems weird to me. Again, I know this is a hateful position to folks here, but I just wanted to give an idea of where the other side is coming from.
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying even though I don’t agree with Angie’s choice,and I also understand that Angie is an athiest and therefore has no care for rules of the Church, but IMOHO, advertising what she is doing so brazenly is just very tacky. She appears to me to be more of an attention-seeker. She seems more focused on sticking it to the pro-lifers than taking care of her own.
 
A related article from Newsweek below.

"Twitter Gets Way Personal
It’s good that we are no longer talking about women’s experiences in the abstract. But tweeting an abortion may backfire.

The fact that someone could live-tweet an abortion blows my mind. Or at least it did during my first glances this week at the blog, YouTube videos, and Twitter feed of the feisty Florida mother of one, Angie Jackson. I was peering between my fingers at the intimate details about cramps, bleeding, and dissolving pills, as well as the careless comments (“I said mommy was very sick with something called a fetus”), to the predictable hostility engendered by her raw language, her openness, and her defiant, bird-flipping response."…

Entire article here: newsweek.com/id/234583?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+newsweek%2FTopNews+%28UPDATED±+Newsweek+Top+Stories%29
 
I read that article…how very, very sad. I pray that those who recognize the miracle of life continue to do their best to spotlight God’s gift of life as preciious.

When we do not trust the Lord then everything becomes chaotic. The Lord loves equally those who are already born, and the unborn as well. All things are possible with Him, when we trust Him.

We also need to pray for those who do not have hope to find it.
 
rwoehmke said:
Why are people laughing? (guffaws)? Am I missing something?:confused::confused:
Click to expand...
Why are they laughing? Because they are possessed by demons laughing at The Lord. Because they are the tools of Satan, That is why they are laughing.
 
Aboveallbereal said:
Why are they laughing? Because they are possessed by demons laughing at The Lord. Because they are the tools of Satan, That is why they are laughing.
Click to expand...
No, they’re laughing because their likely sociopathic narcissists.

In any event…read between the lines people…this woman is obviously mentally ill.

If you dig deeper, you’ll see that she claims that she’s a fairly recent former Christian and was in some kind of a Christian cult.
 
nowhere in the article says that she’s drawing jeers (guffaws) from pro-lifers.
 
Zatzat said:
No, they’re laughing because their likely sociopathic narcissists.

In any event…read between the lines people…this woman is obviously mentally ill.

If you dig deeper, you’ll see that she claims that she’s a fairly recent former Christian and was in some kind of a Christian cult.
Click to expand...
The probablility that you are right does not preclude the fact that I am also right. Narcissism, sociopathy and cultist ecclesial and quasi ecclesial groupings are all capable of being used and have been used by Satan for his purposes.

That the woman is posibly - and probably - mentally disturbed simply deepens the distaste caused by their evil cackling and egging on.
 
At least anyone who was paying attention now knows that an RU-486 abortion is much worse than the “4 hour bleed out” Angie Jackson was expecting.

Unfortunately, she has a copycat anyway, another woman who decided to “tweet her abortion”. In addition to killing one child with the poison she took, this second woman also risked sickening the baby she was still breast-feeding.

This is really horrifying, and the only laughing I’ve noticed in the whole sickening business is from the pro-aborts, e.g. from Angie herself mocking opponents of partial birth abortion: “Not a uterus among 'em. (Took my BF a few seconds longer to spot than me, lol.)”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top