Well this gives me a lot of sympathy for the cause. It's all about love,
right? And of course, they don't want to be judged, although they fail to
lead by example. I guess the same goes for tolerance...


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=80743

FAITH UNDER FIRE
*******s, condoms go wild in attack on Christian church
Making out at pulpit, shouting blasphemies in front of children


Posted: November 11, 2008
9:07 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned
Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash
Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the
sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two *******s
making out at the pulpit.
According to a blog posting by Nick De Leeuw on Right Michigan, the Bash
Back organization orchestrated a protest in front of Mount Hope Church to
draw the church's security staff away from the sanctuary.
Then Bash Backers who had dressed up and mixed in with church worshippers
took action.
According to De Leeuw, "Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up
in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony.

"'Jesus was ***,' they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as
they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids
to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing
fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to
kiss," he wrote.
He cited the Bash Back organization's own announcement of other items
members brought into the church, including "a megaphone, noise makers,
condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric. ..."
According to the alternative Lansing City Pulse - which reported it was
notified of the protest ahead of time and sent a reporter along instead of
warning the church - the protesters also screamed at parishioners and pulled
the church facility's fire alarm. Printed material protesters distributed
said, "We specialize in confronting homophobia, transphobia and every and
all other forms of oppression."

The report said Bash Back issued a statement today confirming it targeted
Mount Hope, which has about 5,000 church participants, because it
participates in "the repression of queers."
On the newspaper's forum page, a contributor commented, "Homosexuals and
anarchists. A perfect combination of human beings with no hope, no morals,
no future."
Many demonstrators fled and the rest were quiet after sheriff's officers
were summoned.
"Mount Hope churchgoers were unclear as to what the purpose of the
demonstration was," said a statement from David Williams, a spokesman for
the church.
"The leadership of Mount Hope Church does not attempt to identify the church
as anti-homosexual, anti-choice, or right wing. The church does take the
Bible at face value and believes what the Bible says to be the truth,"
Williams' statement continued.
"According to the Bible, Mount Hope Church believes homosexuality to be a
sin, just as fornication, stealing, drunkenness, and lying are sins. No sin
greater than the next. Mount Hope Church strives to follow Jesus' example of
loving the sinner but not the sin while helping people change their lives
for God's glory and their improved quality of life. Mount Hope Church also
recognizes that to each person God grants freewill."
The church then offered help for people "caught up in unwanted sexual sin,
drug abuse, and many other areas."
De Leeuw reported "the 'open minded' and 'tolerant' liberals ran down the
aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a 'right winger' on
tape daring to push back (none did).
"This is what we're up against," De Leeuw wrote. "Amidst worshiping
congregants and following unifying prayers that our president-elect be
granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global,
social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on
peaceful churchgoers.
"Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, Bible believing church whose
members provide free 24-hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for
families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and
children dealing with a wide variety of life's troubles, crisis
intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and
around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a
construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages
and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that
reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears
the most. They also teach respect for all human life and the Biblical
sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman," De
Leeuw wrote.
"The church's response? After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the
lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and
women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the
congregation in one more prayer ... not for retribution, or divine justice
or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead
that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full
of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace
that exceeds human understanding," De Leeuw wrote.
His blog attracted dozens of comments, including one that said it was just
as well the protesters hadn't picked his church.
"It was well within the church members' rights to respond with non-lethal
force to put an immediate end to this assault. It this happened in my house,
I'd have every right to throw someone out a window or two."
In a statement posted on the Internet, Bash Back confirmed its "operatives"
were in the service, "stood up, declared themselves fags, and began
screaming loudly. . Another group threw over a thousand fliers to the
entire . congregation. The fire alarm was pulled. Queers began making out in
front of the pastor. And within a matter of minutes, everyone had evaded the
guards and made their escapes."
The statement continued, "Let is be known: So long as bigots kill us in the
streets, this pack of wolves will continue to BASH BACK!"
The report comes just a day after video documentation of pro-homosexual
protesters in California challenging a 69-year-old woman to a fight because
she was affirming the biblical perspective of homosexuality.
"This screaming and shouting, name-calling and pushing by homosexual
activists is not unlike a small child throwing a fit because he doesn't get
his way," said Randy Thomasson, chief of the Campaign for Children and
Families, a leading California-based pro-family group. "The public is
getting a clue that homosexual activists don't like democracy and are
willing to trample anyone and anything that gets in their way."
California voters by nearly 53 percent to 47 percent last week adopted a
state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
Thomasson also has issued an analysis and a challenge called "How Shall We
Live Under President-Elect Obama?" in which he describes the "moral free
fall" encompassing the United States.
"America's greatness has been in people's self responsiblity, strong work
ethic, moral character and knowledge of the proper role of government. But
now a majority of Americans don't have these virtues and don't vote
according to moral standards," he said.
Learn about the intimidating tactics and brilliant marketing techniques
being used by "*** rights" activists - read David Kupelian's controversial
blockbuster, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and
Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom."

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and
co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters
in 2004, condemned the homosexual activist group's intimidation tactics.
"We will alert churches statewide of this now close-to-home threat of
disruption of their members' freedom to worship in peace and safety," Glenn
said, "but this is not the first time in history Christians have faced
persecution or threats of reprisal for standing for their faith and values."
He predicted Americans, "particularly people of strong religious faith, are
not cowards" and would not "be bullied by emotional adolescents who
disrespect private property, the rule of law, and anyone who dares hold
opinions diverse from their own."
"We will pray for and offer help to those who have gender identity and
same-sex attraction disorders, but Americans will continue to reject their
attempts to overturn the will of the people and impose their disorders on
our children and society at large," he said.
Glenn said AFA-Michigan will join the Catholic League in urging Michigan
Attorney General Mike Cox to investigate the organized violation of the
church's private property rights and the group's threat of future
disruptions of worship services.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue today issued a statement condemning
the group's actions and accusing the news media of failing to report it with
the same intensity they routinely do complaints by homosexual activist
groups.

tar~bal wrote:
> Well this gives me a lot of sympathy for the cause. It's all about love,
> right? And of course, they don't want to be judged, although they fail to
> lead by example. I guess the same goes for tolerance...
>
Pot - kettle - black.

When was the last time 'gays' advocated the death penalty for being
'christian'.?

On Nov 15, 1:40*am, evadnikufesin
> wrote:
> In article >,
> *Joseph Littleshoes > wrote:
>
> > tar~bal wrote:
> > > Well this gives me a lot of sympathy for the cause. *It's all about love,
> > > right? *And of course, they don't want to be judged, although they fail to
> > > lead by example. *I guess the same goes for tolerance...
>
> > Pot - kettle - black.
>
> > When was the last time 'gays' advocated the death penalty for being
> > 'christian'.?
>
> Oh please.. Christians don't toss bibles into their *** bars and
> bathhouses. *They can stay out of the churches if they don't want to go
> to them. *And they should be charged with a hate crime for what they did.
>
> Of course they won't be because it's "fashionable" to bash and mistreat
> Christians.
> --
> "We are living in a gelded age..." *-Savage

After some 2,000 years of destroying pagan lifestyle, burning witches,
heretics and more. Sanctioning wars and oppression on anything and
anyone not absolutely toe their line, does it surprise you when now a
backlash comes?

Tiny Eden: - http://tinyeden.org - Nudism, bi-sexuality, religion,
politics & more.

evadnikufesin wrote:

> In article >,
> Joseph Littleshoes > wrote:
>
>
>>tar~bal wrote:
>>
>>>Well this gives me a lot of sympathy for the cause. It's all about love,
>>>right? And of course, they don't want to be judged, although they fail to
>>>lead by example. I guess the same goes for tolerance...
>>>
>>
>>Pot - kettle - black.
>>
>>When was the last time 'gays' advocated the death penalty for being
>>'christian'.?
>
>
> Oh please.. Christians don't toss bibles into their *** bars and
> bathhouses.

They just make laws criminalizing the the behaviour.

>They can stay out of the churches if they don't want to go
> to them.

Now if we could just get the churches out of the law makeing process.

>And they should be charged with a hate crime for what they did.
>
> Of course they won't be because it's "fashionable" to bash and mistreat
> Christians.

evadnikufesin wrote:
> In article >,
> Joseph Littleshoes > wrote:
>
>> tar~bal wrote:
>>> Well this gives me a lot of sympathy for the cause. It's all about love,
>>> right? And of course, they don't want to be judged, although they fail to
>>> lead by example. I guess the same goes for tolerance...
>>>
>> Pot - kettle - black.
>>
>> When was the last time 'gays' advocated the death penalty for being
>> 'christian'.?
>
> Oh please.. Christians don't toss bibles into their *** bars and
> bathhouses.

No, they shoot doctors, plant bombs at parties and clubs, hold
demonstrations at funerals, and generally just stick their noses in
where it isn't wanted.

> They can stay out of the churches if they don't want to go
> to them.

How about staying away from *** parties and parades as well just to
moralize about the antics of a few people who get carried away partying.
Strange they don't do the same for the mardi-gras.

> And they should be charged with a hate crime for what they did.

You'd have more credibility if you advocated the same for the christians
who stick their noses into other peoples business.
>
> Of course they won't be because it's "fashionable" to bash and mistreat
> Christians.

evadnikufesin wrote:

> In article >,
> martin > wrote:
>
>
>>You'd have more credibility if you advocated the same for the christians
>>who stick their noses into other peoples business.
>
>
> You're talking about the "GodHatesFags.com" crowd, btw. And they should
> be prosecuted too on the same grounds.
>
> Perhaps I should have said REAL christians don't do that crap.

Then your allowing self identification to define who is (and explicitly)
who is not a christian. A catholic priest just announced no communion
for any one who voted for Obama, as he, Obama, is pro choice and a
'viable' option existed a good catholic who voted for Obama "constitutes
material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/nov...news-breaking/

The same type of reasoning placed an 18 year old in prison in morocco
because he liked his soccer team more than the King of Morocco, and thus
'dishonored' the King, a legally punishable offense.


>
> GodHatesFags are hatemongers and domestic terrorists who commit
> atrocities and say they're doing "God's work".
>
> I'd have no problem tossing them into prison for their crap - or at
> least removing their tax-exempt status.
>
> You seem to misunderstand that I'm against extremist behavior of *any*
> kind.

So your some sort of militant pacifist, go to war to keep the peace?
--
JL

evadnikufesin wrote:
> In article >,
> martin > wrote:
>
>> You'd have more credibility if you advocated the same for the christians
>> who stick their noses into other peoples business.
>
> You're talking about the "GodHatesFags.com" crowd, btw. And they should
> be prosecuted too on the same grounds.

You ignored my comments about "good christians"[tm] shooting doctors,
planting bombs at parties, and planting bombs to kill homosexuals.

> Perhaps I should have said REAL christians don't do that crap.

I'll bet they don't eat porridge as well.

In article >,
Joseph Littleshoes > wrote:

> evadnikufesin wrote:
>
> The same type of reasoning placed an 18 year old in prison in morocco
> because he liked his soccer team more than the King of Morocco, and thus
> 'dishonored' the King, a legally punishable offense.

That's interesting. REfusal to give someone a cracker and sip of wine
is equivalent to placing someone in a Moroccan prison.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:00:02 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> The difference is in degree, not in kind. It's interesting how you
> trivialize one of the most important things in the Catholic religion.

To people who don't believe the silly hocus-pocus, it's far worse than
just 'trivial' to pretend to be eating flesh and blood, or, worse, to
believe it.

evadnikufesin wrote:
> In article >,
> martin > wrote:
>
>>> You're talking about the "GodHatesFags.com" crowd, btw. And they should
>>> be prosecuted too on the same grounds.
>> You ignored my comments about "good christians"[tm] shooting doctors,
>> planting bombs at parties, and planting bombs to kill homosexuals.
>
> You lack reading comprehension skills. I answered you. Note the 'and
> they should be prosecuted' part...

Oh I see, I thought you were referring to the Phelps lot with that
comment. I wasn't talking about the godhatesfags lot when I was
referring to shooting doctors etc.

It's not my reading comprehension, it's your ability to write clearly
that caused the confusion. As far as I know the GodHatesFags lot haven't
committed any crime, so on what grounds do you suggest they be
prosecuted? Or wasn't that sentence talking about them? Hard to tell really.

Here's some messages from "Good Christians"[tm], they seem very typical
of the christians I've met

http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillMessageBoard.html

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article >,
> martin > wrote:
>
>> Here's some messages from "Good Christians"[tm], they seem very
>> typical of the christians I've met
>>
>> http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillMessageBoard.html
>
> They are extremists, and not representative of Christians in general.

Rather than people like Ted Haggard and Kent Hovind? Both world-class
leading "Good Christians"
>

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article >,
> martin > wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillMessageBoard.html
>>> They are extremists, and not representative of Christians in
>>> general.
>> Rather than people like Ted Haggard and Kent Hovind? Both world-class
>> leading "Good Christians"
>
> Who said that they're "Good Christians"?

Themselves
>

These people are who they are trying to save. I challenge anyone to
look at them all and wonder about abortion. Make sure you look at the
faces. Then you realize these are real people that wanted to live just
like you or I or anyone around us. Do unto others as we would have them
do unto you. Timeless counsel.
http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby10.html
http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby4.html
http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby5.html
http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby6.html
http://www.armyofgod.com/BabySelect.html
http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby14.html
http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby13.html

In article >,
Batman > wrote:

> These people are who they are trying to save. I challenge anyone to
> look at them all and wonder about abortion. Make sure you look at the
> faces. Then you realize these are real people that wanted to live just
> like you or I or anyone around us. Do unto others as we would have them
> do unto you. Timeless counsel.

Why do homophobia and misogyny so often come as a set?

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

In article >,
Michelle Steiner > wrote:

> D.F. Manno > wrote:
>
> > Why do homophobia and misogyny so often come as a set?
>
> I trust that was a rhetorical question.

Of course.

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.system.]
On 2008-11-18, Batman > wrote:

> These people are who they are trying to save. I challenge anyone to
> look at them all and wonder about abortion. Make sure you look at the
> faces. Then you realize these are real people that wanted to live just
> like you or I or anyone around us.

I have watched these threads grow without reading them, but it seemed
like it might be interesting so I just jumped in and may as well add my
2c worth - sorry to pick on you to respond to - nothing personal:-)

If foetuses want to live it is certainly not in exactly the same sense
that you or I want to live. Their pregnant mothers do (generally) want
to live, and if it is in the same sense that I want to live then that
means being in control of their own bodies. Personally I don't think you
can have any reasonable system of human rights that applies equally to
foetuses without resulting in a dilemma in the case of a woman who
chooses an abortion - though there is scope for rational debate.

If you believe in a creator who is displeased by abortions then that is
one thing, no sane woman would want to find herself contemplating an
abortion either. But if you believe in a creator that would be pleased
to see us forcibly deny women the exercise of their free will should
such a situation occur, then that is quite another. Although I am an
atheist I don't have anything against Christians per se, I know some
very nice ones, all of them "pro-choice"! <http://www.rcrc.org/>

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

Ian Gregory wrote:

> On 2008-11-18, Batman wrote:
>
>
>>These people are who they are trying to save. I challenge anyone to
>>look at them all and wonder about abortion. Make sure you look at the
>>faces. Then you realize these are real people that wanted to live just
>>like you or I or anyone around us.
>
>
> I have watched these threads grow without reading them,

Pity i don't subscribe to the other 3 groups this is X posted to.

But then im not a Stern (or Weak depending on POV) fan, and though i
use a Mac, im a computer illiterate, and know nothing about the law, u.k
or otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Gvl...eature=related
--
JL



>
> Ian
>

> > These people are who they are trying to save. I challenge anyone to
> > look at them all and wonder about abortion. Make sure you look at
> > the faces. Then you realize these are real people that wanted to
> > live just like you or I or anyone around us. Do unto others as we
> > would have them do unto you. Timeless counsel.
>
> Ah, the joys of Photoshop. I'm not surprised that you support an
> organization that advocates murder, arson, bombings, and vandalism. I'm
> not surprised at all. Paul Hill is one of your heroes, right?

Not at all. Killing abortionists is not a solution. You can't just
kill everyone you don't agree with. Also its not going to win people
over to your side. But the fact is that unless you pretty much hold a
fetus in your hands the realization that this is a functioning person is
usually just not apparent. Its just a shame that people don't often
talk about the awful guilt and depression that often sets in with women
that have abortions, especially on the anniversary date. Apparently
most suicides of women occur on the anniversary of an abortion. Its
obvious they know they have taken a life. At least deep down they know.

In article >,
Michelle Steiner > wrote:

> In article >,
> JZ > wrote:
>
> > Its just a shame that people don't often talk about the awful guilt
> > and depression that often sets in with women that have abortions,
> > especially on the anniversary date.
>
> I have talked with a lot of women who have had abortions, and hardly any
> of them felt guilt about it. Those that did feel guilt had been
> conditioned to do so because of religious indoctrination, or because
> they were pressured into it.
>
> Most women who seek abortions don't do it on a whim; they make a
> conscious decision after a lot of thought.
>
> The "guilt and depression" you speak of is a fallacy propagated by the
> anti-choice movement in their efforts to stigmatize and demean abortion.
>
> > Apparently most suicides of women occur on the anniversary of an
> > abortion.
>
> Got any evidence of that, or are you merely parroting dogma?

I would say that because of your beliefs, they are trying to appease you
or look courageous. I've seen the eyes of women when they talk about
it. Its deep, its powerful and it cuts to the heart. To feel guilty
might make them appear weak in their minds perhaps. So I suppose I'm
saying the opposite - the politically correct "everything is OK" culture
is conditioning them to not look it at a life that was terminated,
rather just an unfortunate error that was corrected. When you get a
pregnant woman to realize the size of the feet, the hands, the mouth,
the face of the growing life within her at an early stage of pregnancy,
it takes a callous disregard for life to stop that growth. And that
life is growing, from the very moment of conception. For a real
eye-opener (not pro-life related obviously) check out "In The Womb" from
National Geogrphic which chronicles quadruplets and how they compete for
space in the womb. For the first time they have filmed it using 4D
scans.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...228#tab-Videos
/01586_05
Is anyone going to argue that this is not a human life?
http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...228#tab-Photos
/0

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:32:50 -0600, JZ wrote:

>> > Apparently most suicides of women occur on the anniversary of an
>> > abortion.
>>
>> Got any evidence of that, or are you merely parroting dogma?

(drivel snipped)

the answer is no, there is no evidence of that.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:32:50 -0600, JZ wrote:

> Is anyone going to argue that this is not a human life?
> http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...womb-2228#tab-
Photos
> /0

I don't have to. The caption reads "*computer generated image*".

You could ramp it up, I guess, and photoshop some puppies in there, too.
That would make it even more cute.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:10:09 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article >,
> KK > wrote:
>
>> >> > Apparently most suicides of women occur on the anniversary of an
>> >> > abortion.
>> >>
>> >> Got any evidence of that, or are you merely parroting dogma?
>>
>> (drivel snipped)
>>
>> the answer is no, there is no evidence of that.
>
> Of course, but I want to see that from him, himself.

Right. My comment was about his response.

In article >,
Michelle Steiner > wrote:

> In article >,
> JZ > wrote:
>
> > I would say that because of your beliefs, they are trying to appease
> > you or look courageous.
>
> How do you know whether they know my beliefs? Regardless, you certainly
> have a low opinion of women.
>
> But that's the entire basis for the pro-life agenda, a low opinion of
> and disregard for women. Because of Paul, Christianity is quite
> misogynistic.

If a woman holds a gun to the head of a baby that life is threatened and
people are aghast. What's the difference in a late term abortion?
What about at 6 months?
What about at 3 months?
What about at 3 weeks?
What about at 3 days?
Just when does a life have value?
Now just imagine if YOU were in the womb. That clarifies the abortion
issue in a heartbeat. (Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.)

The woman is already living. The baby is about to die. I guess it all
boils down to this: Is the convenience of a woman more important than
an entire lifetime of the baby?

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:10:13 -0600, JZ wrote:

> The woman is already living. The baby is about to die. I guess it all
> boils down to this: Is the convenience of a woman more important than
> an entire lifetime of the baby?

It's foolish to call it "convenience" ... but: yes.

> > >> > Apparently most suicides of women occur on the anniversary of an
> > >> > abortion.
> > >>
> > >> Got any evidence of that, or are you merely parroting dogma?

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library.../aa070700a.htm
Among women who have had an abortion the suicide rate is 34.7 per
100,000. Women in that age group who have given birth have a suicide
rate of 5.9 per 100,000.

The study found that girls who had abortions were four times as likely
to attempt suicide as girls who had not aborted.

Dr. Carl L. Tishler found that post-abortion teenagers are more likely
to commit suicide on or near the anniversary of their abortions than at
any other time.

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html
the risk of death from suicide within the year of an abortion was more
than seven times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of
childbirth.

In many of these studies, the women interviewed have explicitly
described the abortion as the cause of their suicidal impulses.

http://www.word-of-hope.org/grieving.html

http://www.prochoice.com/abortion_safe08.html
a teenage girl is 10 times more likely to attempt suicide if she had an
abortion in the last six months than is a comparable teenage girl who
has not had an abortion.

In a study of 71 women at the Medical College of Ohio in a post abortion
support who had poorly assimilated the abortion experience, among women
with multiple abortions 50% made post abortion suicide attempts compared
with 16% post abortion suicide attempts among women with a history of a
single abortion

Other times, the suicidal impulses result from years of repression,
depression, and lost self-esteem.
A 1987 study of women who suffered from post-abortion trauma found that
60 percent had experienced suicidal ideation, 28 percent had attempted
suicide, and 18 percent had attempted suicide more than once. Often
several years after the event

Sixty-five percent of the subjects [in author's own study] reported
having suicidal thoughts as a reaction to the abortion experience, and
31 percent of the subjects made suicide attempts.

Post-abortion suicide is slowly growing into a rather frightening
phenomenon. Suiciders Anonymous (M. Uchtman, Ohio Director of Suiciders
Anonymous, Report to the Cincinnati City Council, 1 September 1981,
quoted in Willke, Abortion: Questions & Answers, 126.) is a national
fellowship patterned after Alcoholics Anonymous. It tries to help those
who have attempted suicide.
Suiciders Anonymous, in a 35-month period in the Cincinnati, Ohio area,
reported counseling 5,620 members. These people were described as,
'those suffering in-depth, deep depression, anxiety, stress, and fears
they cannot overcome, those who have attempted suicide, often several
times, and failed, and those who are considering taking that final
desperate step.' Of these 5,260 people: 4,000 were women, 1,800 had
abortions, of whom 1,400 were between 15-24 years old.

AFTER YEARS OF LISTENING TO THEIR STORIES, WE KNOW THERE ARE THOUSANDS
MORE OUT THERE BEING BRAVE. BY HOLDING A TIGHT REIGN ON THEIR EMOTIONS,
THEY TUCK ALL THAT UNEXPRESSED EMOTION AND UNSHARED EXPERIENCE DEEP DOWN
INSIDE THEMSELVES, WHERE IT KEEPS GROWING, LIKE A PRESSURED TUMOR
OF PAIN.'

Of all the emotions they experienced during the abortion crisis, none
brings more pain and distress than the one they now know and identify
five to ten times more than any other feelings. These women always tell
us the same thing. 'Oh,... I am evil. I have to be evil to have done
this thing. I feel so alone, so forsaken.

Panic and distress grips them after an abortion, because the feelings
are allowed to remain shadowy, ominous, ghost-like. They are shapes
dancing around the edges of their consciousness. They commonly postpone
the moment of truth as long as possible. But when the subconscious
throws it forward, they go through mental hell! Even at age 87, the
critical moment comes when the chilling reality overwhelms them and cold
reality numbs their spirit and casts them into those dark 'pits' of
despair and pain!

Here are the two questions they always ask us:
WILL THIS PAIN NEVER DIE? HOW MANY YEARS DOES IT TAKE TO GET OVER THIS
PAIN?

The mean annual suicide rate was 11.3 per 100,000. The suicide rate
associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9) and the rates
associated with miscarriage (18.1) and induced abortion (34.7) were
significantly higher than in the population." In several paragraphs, the
study points out: 1) Those that give birth have one-half the suicide
risk of all the women combined, and 2) Those who have induced abortion
are have 5.9 times the risk of those who give birth.

those who aborted had nearly 6 times the suicide rate

Unlike bias industry claims, (that abortion is safer than child birth,)
according to a (non politically motivated) study in finland, a woman is
4 times more likely to die within 1 year of an abortion than childbirth.
----------
I realize these links are not relevant to the anniversary date but I
just got fatigued by all the data. With these alarming statistics its
clear that abortion is the worst choice for the prospective mother. If
you cannot possibly take care of the child be comforted in knowing that
there are many more prospective parents who wish for a child but never
get one through adoption agencies. IOW the supply is now where near the
demand. So its easy to find good parents for your child: 2 parent,
stable families. You can choose the parents - an option not possible in
natural childbirth situations.

And I didn't even get into the increases of cancers and other health
ailments from woman who have had abortions.

> > The woman is already living. The baby is about to die. I guess it all
> > boils down to this: Is the convenience of a woman more important than
> > an entire lifetime of the baby?
>
> It's foolish to call it "convenience" ... but: yes.

How about if you were that baby?

> > Is the convenience of a woman more important than an entire lifetime
> > of the baby?
>
> Again, you trivialize women by reducing life-changing experiences to
> "convenience"?

OK - could the disruption of a woman's life for a few months be worth
ending a life for? However you're calling it, its trading a life for
what a woman wants for a few months. And it is a few months, not a
lifetime because of the possibility of adoption.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:28:25 -0600, JZ wrote:

>> > The woman is already living. The baby is about to die. I guess it
>> > all boils down to this: Is the convenience of a woman more important
>> > than an entire lifetime of the baby?
>>
>> It's foolish to call it "convenience" ... but: yes.
>
> How about if you were that baby?

How about it? My rights - inasmuch as a non-person can have rights -
don't supercede those of the mother.

> > >> > Apparently most suicides of women occur on the anniversary of an
> > >> > abortion.
> > >>
> > >> Got any evidence of that, or are you merely parroting dogma?





On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:27:44 -0600, JZ wrote:


(a hundred lines of irrelevance)

> I realize these links are not relevant to the anniversary date

Then why the sweet **** did you post them?

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:38:07 -0600, JZ wrote:

> OK - could the disruption of a woman's life for a few months be worth
> ending a life for?
> However you're calling it, its trading a life for
> what a woman wants for a few months.

And requiring her to go through a dangerous, painful medical procedure.

The answer is still "yes".

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article >,
> JZ > wrote:
>
>> Is the convenience of a woman more important than an entire lifetime
>> of the baby?
>
> Again, you trivialize women by reducing life-changing experiences to
> "convenience"?
>
> If men could get pregnant, abortion would be safe, cheap, legal, and
> readily available.

It'd be a sacrement
>

Michelle Steiner > wrote:

> Most importantly, it's about a woman being able to control her own body
> and her own life. And that is what it is really all about.

Just for the sake of argument mind you -- then women should control
their bodies and not get pregnant if they don't want to be. There are
other means, aren't there? And if you ask what about rape, that is a
very small percentage of the total number of abortions done and
could be said to being used as an excuse for all other abortions.

If the argument is the guy didn't use anything, that isn't the woman
controlling _her_ body, is it.

Mind you, this may or may not be my opinion. I'm putting this forth
because I want to hear - read - your answer.

--
Edo ergo sum

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:44:08 -0800, Jim wrote:

>> Most importantly, it's about a woman being able to control her own body
>> and her own life. And that is what it is really all about.
>
> Just for the sake of argument mind you -- then women should control
> their bodies and not get pregnant if they don't want to be

so ... they have just as much control over their bodies as you'll allow?


Nice. And save the "may or may not be your opinion". Only someone who
feels that way would tell women what they "should" do with their bodies.

Jim wrote:
> Michelle Steiner > wrote:
>
>> Most importantly, it's about a woman being able to control her own body
>> and her own life. And that is what it is really all about.
>
> Just for the sake of argument mind you -- then women should control
> their bodies and not get pregnant if they don't want to be. There are
> other means, aren't there?

Men. Condoms.

Oh, and good sex education, preaching "chastity is the only way until
you get married" just makes for teens having babies.

Kids WILL have sex - it's the hormones, the best you can do is to make
sure they are educated enough to actually stop pregnancy. The US has
special problems where the Bush regime doesn't allow contraception to be
taught through voluntary organizations (if they want state funding) only
abstinence.

The Silver Ring Thing (UK headquarters in my town) just makes girls good
at oral sex and anal sex (it's not a loss of virginity, don't ya know)
and when they do have sex more likely to get pregnant.

martin wrote:


>
> The Silver Ring Thing (UK headquarters in my town) just makes girls good
> at oral sex and anal sex (it's not a loss of virginity, don't ya know)
> and when they do have sex more likely to get pregnant.


There's something similar here in the US. They have these balls where
the girls wear long white dresses and promise not to give up without
Daddy's permission. I find it creepy beyond words.

> >> > The woman is already living. The baby is about to die. I guess it
> >> > all boils down to this: Is the convenience of a woman more important
> >> > than an entire lifetime of the baby?
> >>
> >> It's foolish to call it "convenience" ... but: yes.
> >
> > How about if you were that baby?
>
> How about it? My rights - inasmuch as a non-person can have rights -
> don't supercede those of the mother.

Non-person? At what age do we become a person? (Its somewhere between
the moment of conception and birth I would surmise?)

> > OK - could the disruption of a woman's life for a few months be worth
> > ending a life for?
> > However you're calling it, its trading a life for
> > what a woman wants for a few months.
>
> And requiring her to go through a dangerous, painful medical procedure.

The dangerous medical procedure is the abortion itself. Far more
dangerous than having the baby and giving it up for adoption. And the
best adoptions are open with visits from the birth parents every few
months. I've seen it happen - it works very well.

> > > Again, you trivialize women by reducing life-changing experiences
> > > to "convenience"?
> >
> > OK - could the disruption of a woman's life for a few months
>
> You mean the possible disruption of the rest of her life.

If the baby is put up for adoption?
So if someone could save your life but it would disrupt theirs for a few
months, should they do it or let you die?

> > And it is a few months, not a lifetime because of the possibility of
> > adoption.
>
> It's more than just raising a kid; it's missed opportunities.
> Most importantly, it's about a woman being able to control her own body
> and her own life. And that is what it is really all about.

Not if you're the baby. Then the reality is that your life will end so
the woman con control her body and her life better. But she's really
setting the stage for a vastly more dangerous life for her mental state
as well as her physical state. Really its the same as how most murders
occur. Those not done in anger that is. The murderer sees that by
killing someone a problem or problems will be solved. They are
selfishly putting their wished ahead of somebody else's. That is
abortion - cut and dried.

In article >,
Jim > wrote:

> Michelle Steiner > wrote:
>
> > Most importantly, it's about a woman being able to control her own body
> > and her own life. And that is what it is really all about.
>
> Just for the sake of argument mind you -- then women should control
> their bodies and not get pregnant if they don't want to be. There are
> other means, aren't there? And if you ask what about rape, that is a
> very small percentage of the total number of abortions done and
> could be said to being used as an excuse for all other abortions.
>
> If the argument is the guy didn't use anything, that isn't the woman
> controlling _her_ body, is it.
>
> Mind you, this may or may not be my opinion. I'm putting this forth
> because I want to hear - read - your answer.

A superb question Jim.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:42:01 -0600, JZ wrote
(in article >):

> Non-person? At what age do we become a person? (Its somewhere between
> the moment of conception and birth I would surmise?)

To me life begins at the moment of conception, the moment the sperm and egg
unite, the moment the combination of the two produces something unique and
likely never to be duplicated.

That aside, although I have a very strong distaste of abortion, I accept that
it is the bearer's (the mother's) privilege to make such a decision.

Furthermore, I hope the day comes when contraception is easily applied and
effective, both for the male and for the female, that children will be
brought to this earth only when wanted.

--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas .....