California Governor Signs Bill Legalizing Assisted Suicide

Gov Brown pdSACRAMENTO, Calif. — The governor of California signed a bill into law on Monday that allows terminally ill patients to end their lives through a doctor-prescribed lethal dose of medication.

Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown released a statement after signing the legislation, outlining that he had spoken to those on both sides of the issue before making his decision.

“I have carefully read the thoughtful opposition materials presented by a number of doctors, religious leaders and those who champion disability rights,” he wrote. “I have considered the theological and religious perspectives that any deliberate shortening of one’s life is sinful.”

Brown said that he also considered the story of former California resident Brittany Maynard, who moved to Oregon to take her life after being diagnosed with an aggressive brain cancer.

“In addition, I have discussed this matter with a Catholic bishop, two of my own doctors and former classmates and friends who take varied, contradictory and nuanced positions,” he explained.

Brown stated that consideration of his own wishes was his ultimate deciding factor.

“In the end, I was left to reflect on what I would want in the face of my own death,” he outlined. “I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others.”

  • Connect with Christian News

However, a number of pro-life groups expressed disappointment in the signing, including the group Californians Against Assisted Suicide.

“This is a dark day for California and for the Brown legacy,” spokesman Tim Rosales said in a statement. “As someone of wealth and access to the world’s best medical care and doctors, the governor’s background is very different than that of millions of Californians living in healthcare poverty without that same access—these are the people and families potentially hurt by giving doctors the power to prescribe lethal overdoses to patients.”

Marilyn Gold, a senior policy analyst with the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, noted to reporters that numerous other states have proposed similar laws, but were rejected.

“In state after state after state, there have been multiple attempts, and these measures have failed,” she told the Associated Press.

A report released earlier this year by First Things noted the recent rise in suicide in European countries that have legalized physician-assisted suicide.

“In those countries that have legalized euthanasia (Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg) the numbers seeking the procedure are spiraling ever upward,” it explained. “In 2013 there were 1,087 cases of euthanasia in Belgium, up 27 percent on the figures for 2012, while 2012 saw a 25 percent increase on the numbers for 2011. In Holland, it has been estimated that 12.3 percent of all deaths are now via euthanasia.”

“[R]ecent incidents included one woman with an eating disorder, and another claiming to be suffering from tinnitus left behind two teenage children,” it continued. “Many living in countries where it is outlawed are now taking part in the macabre phenomenon known as ‘suicide tourism.’ So in Switzerland—where assisted suicide is permitted—the number of cases rose 700 percent within roughly a decade, having been boosted by foreigners making the journey to end their lives.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Rebecca

    Stupid choice. Only God decides when and how we die.

    • Jim H

      God doesn’t write civil laws. If you don’t wish to be euthanized no one should legally be able to force you to be and I am all for protective measures that would prevent that from happening. However, if you wish to be euthanized no one should legally be able to stop you.
      It is not that complicated. It is about a purely personal choice and, as such, it is really none of your business.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      Amen!

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      When is a big question, but how a decide myself when I’m terminal ill.

      • flackmaster00

        you dont decide, whatever happens is according to His will. whether His will be that you heal miraculously, die from your disease, or end your life yourself, it is His will.
        umm… wait a sec…

        • MamaBear

          Miraculous healings, cures through medical treatments, and natural deaths are all through God’s will. Suicide is from our own free will taking into our hands what should belong to God alone.

          • flackmaster00

            its fairly presumptuous of you to pick and choose what god’s will is, you have no idea. perhaps a person’s suicide will inspire many others to not do the same themselves, and it’s god’s will that it be that way. regardless, the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent god precludes the idea of anything that is not in accordance with it’s plan from happening.

          • MamaBear

            I don’t pick God’s will. He has given us multiple examples of how we should handle suffering. Check out the book of Job. He has also given us the freedom to disobey His will in our lives. Our sins are our choices, not God’s will. God wants obedient children, not programmed robots.

          • flackmaster00

            except that you did choose what was god’s will in arbitrarily stating that suicide is not included in it. if god knows it will happen and does nothing to stop it, then it is indeed a part of his plan that it occur.

            and i am aware of the story of god watching Job get tortured. perhaps had Job ended his life then his family would have been spared their needless early deaths

          • MamaBear

            You have a very poor understanding of Christianity (or Judaism either) as you see things only from the perspective of this temporal world. Life and death are God’s to decide. He is both giver and taker of life. And life is more than what we see and experience in this world.

            We are to be prepared to die, yet we are not to deliberately seek death. There are indeed things worse than death, and living this life apart from God is one. Job committing suicide might indeed have saved their earthly lives, but as it would have played into Satan’s hands (read the first chapter), they might have lost their souls instead.

            We value exercise, but we want life itself to be easy. We want to be spiritual couch potatoes and avoid hardships rather than face them.

            “Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope” Romans 5:3-4

            “Trials teach us what we are; they dig up the soil, and let us see what we are made of.”
            Charles Spurgeon

          • flackmaster00

            Job was the victim of a bet between god and satan, and you say that Job’s family getting killed was better option than embarrassing god because they *may* have lost their souls over the course of their natural life?? people laugh at muslims saying those who were crushed to death at the Hajj last month were lucky because the situation guaranteed them to be in heaven, this is the exact same lunacy. its an irrational idea trying to rationalize death. omnipotence and omniscience preclude free will, and implying that we are in control of suicide leads to us having the ability to surprise an omniscient being. god knew what would happen to Job and he let it. either we are responsible for our actions or god’s knowledge of eternity has it all mapped out, there is no in-between.

            i now see things only from the perspective of the temporal world because there is nothing aside from books from numerous religions indicating that there is anything else. living apart from god in this life is a lot happier than when i was with it because i enjoy this short life more in the knowledge that it’s likely all i get. i know, i know “just wait” or something.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Good thing I don’t believe in “Him”.

  • FoJC_Forever

    In a country where babies are being murdered daily, it’s no surprise that people will eventually be allowed to end their own life under “extenuating circumstances”. People can make an excuse for anything.

    Judgement is coming.

  • Truthhurts24

    The culture of death

    • Jim H

      Do you include the fact that there are, by various estimates, anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States — close to one firearm for every man, woman and child in your judgment of our culture?

  • Peter Leh

    Tough Call.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Tough? Do you suffer from tinnitus too?

      • Peter Leh

        Will martin be my gatekeeper? If so, “I’m your Huckleberry.” 🙂

  • Bradley Williams

    Please consider these specifics:
    By Oregon and Washington law all family members are not required to be
    contacted. A single heir is allowed to steer the sign up and then execute
    the lethal process without a witness, thus eviscerating intended safe guards.
    Everyone involved in the lethal process gets immediate immunity. A
    witness is not required to confirm the dose was self-administered so if they
    struggled and changed their mind who would ever know?
    In
    addition these laws prohibit investigations or public inquiries leaving no
    recourse for surviving family members who were not contacted. Does that sound like good public policy to
    you? This is a very dangerous public policy that allows for the exploitation of
    elders and people with disabilities of all ages. However, it serves the
    health insurance corporations very well.

    Unfortunately all of these loopholes andmore are embodied in California’s ABX2-15.

    Oregon and
    Washington should amend their initiative-sound-bite driven dangerous laws.

    Also note
    how the promoters of assisted suicide cling to their verbally engineered polls
    that claim a majority is in favor. I
    polled thousands of Montanans one-on-one as I served 60 days at fair booths
    across the state. Once folks knew about
    the loopholes in all of the Oregon model bills, 95% were not for them. So much for their verbally engineered polls

    • MamaBear

      That is scary! Even with better safeguards, it would be far too easy to manipulate a sick dying family member into “consenting.”

    • Basset_Hound

      Excellent post, Bradley. If possible, could you provide some links to support this.

      Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not being contentious or disputing what you’re saying. I collect links to use as resource material so that I can have it long after your post disappears.

  • Emmanuel

    Why not? we already kill children, approve of all kinds of sin. Let’s keep adding to the immorality of our state. Soon, we will have no morals out in the left coast.

    • Rebecca

      Isn’t that the truth!!! It’s sad.

      • Emmanuel

        Very sad

  • Jolanda Tiellemans

    I have seen how my aunt, my uncle and my mom sufferd from terminal cancer. So, I agree with euthanasia. When my grandma was in the hospital and there was no euthanasia law, she had a very painfull death.

    • MamaBear

      Many doctors are unfortunately not knowledgeable about or are unnecessarily fearful of using pain-relieving meds. If an oncologist (or specialist dealing with other terminal illnesses) is weak in that area, he should call in a pain specialist.
      I have been a caregiver for several family members (2 cancer, 1 heart disease) and I’m familiar with how much difference good palliative care can make. Even my grandmother, in the late 1960s, was treated for pain while dying and we are far more advanced now.
      Many doctors are unnecessarily fearful of developing addictions. As one lady in my support group said, “I’m terminal. What difference does it make if I get addicted?”
      My oncologist has assured me when the time comes, he is quite good at controlling and relieving pain. We lose about one lady per year in my support group and all of them have had doctors who were good at end of life palliative care.
      Most people are actually more comfortable either at home or in a hospice. Perhaps partly because in such settings they get their pain meds in a more timely manner. I know after my cancer surgeries, nurses were often busy and overworked and time between pain meds tended to get stretched out more than once I was home and family members had just me to care for.
      Palliative care still needs more work, but it has come a long way. Killing, which is what euthanasia and suicide basically are, is not the answer.

      • Jim H

        As usual I agree with almost everything you said. The very last part bothers me. Hospice care is wonderful. I have seen it in action, so I speak from experience. Hopefully, with things like that available, people can find a way to leave this world without resorting to suicide or euthanasia. However, I think it should be their choice, not yours, mine, the government, or anyone or anything else.

        • MamaBear

          But in a greed driven society like ours, legally sanctioned assisted suicide never involves just individual choices for very long.
          What happens when a tired (or greedy) caregiver privately suggests it is time to just die already, until the patient feels he has no choice but suicide?
          What happens when a busy hospital is repeatedly late with pain meds and the patient becomes mistakenly convinced his pain cannot be controlled?
          Or a doctor does not prescribe sufficient pain meds, and again, the patient believes his pain cannot be controlled?
          What happens to my choice to try to live a little longer when assisted suicide is widespread enough that, like Oregon Medicaid, private insurances offer me the “choice” of suicide or pain meds instead of more costly life-extending treatments, since I am dying anyway? (And I’ve already been through a couple of insurance fights to get meds as it is now.)
          What happens, when like Europe, assisted suicide spreads to the disabled and they find themselves having a harder and harder time getting the therapies and assistance they need?
          What happens when treatment of depression that many terminal, chronic, and disabled people very often go through until they adjust to their current situation, is neglected (which is already common) and the desire for suicide is really from depression?
          What happens when people stop valuing research as they start to see euthanasia as an easier and cheaper solution?
          What happens when right to die becomes duty to die?

          • Jim H

            Those are all good points and every caution should be taken to assure those things never happen. As with all rights, there are downsides when people abuse those rights.

            I was recently discussing gun control with an avid opponent of it. I tend to not be on the extreme ends of such issues, because I see most of those issues as very complex, so my opinions are rather nuanced. Of course that just means I usually upset people that are more extreme and see black and white where I see more gray.

            The kind of “what happens if” scenarios you propose here could be applied to gun ownership too. You could easily come up with “what happens if” scenarios that have consequences as fatal as the ones you mention. Does that mean that, because there can be bad consequences, we should ban gun ownership?

            But, there is no reason that safeguards cannot be implemented that help prevent some of the problems in the scenarios you mention, but they would require more government involvement and oversight. But, the very people who worry most about the slippery slope also complain the most government is too big and oppose any controls on out-of-control capitalistic greed and call it socialist.

            We have so many people who say they care about life, but they try to reduce funding for programs like Medicare on the federal level and Medicaid on the state level, or eliminate them altogether. Then people get upset with those programs trying to cut costs.

            The congress in the state that I live in refuses to even discuss expanding Medicaid and provide access to healthcare for hundreds of thousands of people (essentially using federal taxes we’ve already paid) for purely spiteful political reasons. Yet last year they found time to discuss and vote to prevent towns/cities (tourist areas who thought armed openly locals hurt tourism) from prohibiting open carry of firearms.
            I’ve probably said more than enough on the subject. Please don’t take what I said personally, I had no intention to offend you. I think you speak from the heart and are quite sincere. For me, it is still just about supporting personal freedom in such matters.

          • MamaBear

            I understand you are seeking individual freedom. I just think that assisted suicide is far too easy to abuse over time. The more accepted it is, the more people will turn a blind eye to abuses. I don’t see how it can have enough safeguards and I do think if it becomes widespread that it will have a negative effect on the medical ethics and compassion of society for the sick (both chronic and terminal) and disabled.
            Although I do not like Obamacare, for reasons too numerous to go into here, I do think we need adequate medical care for all citizens, especially the poor, who are often in jobs without adequate insurance, and the elderly and disabled who cannot work. Sometimes I really wonder about the sanity of some politicians when I see their “priorities.” My daughter’s low income school district had to lay off some classified staff and is struggling with basic supplies like crayons and pencils, while politicians shift money to charter schools. Last year, I was buying her teaching supplies (her request) for Christmas.
            I appreciate you wishing me well. Thank you. I have recently passed the median survival time and my latest scan showed remission, so I am doing very well indeed. With my cancer, remission is almost always temporary and I have to stay in treatment, but I am still grateful and feel very blessed.

      • John N

        Euthanasia is not about killing people.

        Euthanasia is basically giving dying people the right to decide how and when to die.

        Denying people this right for religious reasons is religuous bigotry, basically

  • Dave_L

    So now they will be suing Christian doctors who do not comply?

    • Jim H

      If you are in enough suffering and to just want to end it, would you change doctors, or go through the lengthy process of suing your doctor?

      • Dave_L

        I assume it would be the survivors suing…..

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          The survivors would have changed the doctor, who will comply to the wishes of the patient, so no reason to sue.

          • Dave_L

            Think about it. The SSM partners wanting a wedding cake no doubt went elsewhere and bought a cake. But they returned to the Christian owned Bakery with a law suit. Why would it be any different in the case of the Christian Doctor? All he or she must do to become liable is to say – no – to their request. Doctors = $$$ = ripe for the picking.

          • John N

            Why would it be different? Doctors are allowed to not be involved in euthanasia based on their religion. The bakers were discrimating people based on their sexual orientation. How more different can it be?

          • Dave_L

            Double standard? If both the Doctors and the Bakers refuse to become involved in the sins of others? If the one is punished and the other not?

          • MamaBear

            Eventually, it won’t be any different.

  • Nidalap

    This is bad enough as is, but it won’t stop at this. They’ll have their Death Panels eventually, will we or nil we…

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      The “right” to die always morphs into the “obligation” to die.

      • John N

        I guess you have some actual evidence for that? Like, places or countries that adopted the law and today oblige people to die?

        If not, this is just a slippery slope-fallacy.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Someone has never heard of the Netherlands, Belgium, or Oregon! I am surprised you are so uninformed – this is NOT new. I can also provide you with the statistics for the Netherlands government on the number of confirmed involuntary euthanasias (admitted by doctors and nurses) that they have tracked, but you need to do some studying up first.

          Just for one example amongst many:

          http://www .current-oncology .com/index.php/oncology/article/view/883/645

          Excerpt:

          “In 30 years, the Netherlands has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness, to euthanasia for mental illness; from euthanasia for mental illness, to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering—and now to euthanasia simply if a person is over the age of 70 and “tired of living.” Dutch euthanasia protocols have also moved from conscious patients providing explicit consent, to unconscious patients unable to provide consent. Denying euthanasia or pas in the Netherlands is now considered a form of discrimination against people with chronic illness, whether the illness be physical or psychological, because those people will be forced to “suffer” longer than those who are terminally ill. Non-voluntary euthanasia is now being justified by appealing to the social duty of citizens and the ethical pillar of beneficence. In the Netherlands, euthanasia has moved from being a measure of last resort to being one of early intervention. Belgium has followed suit, and troubling evidence is emerging from Oregon specifically with respect to the protection of people with depression and the objectivity of the process.”

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Uhm, sorry you’re wrong, if you read dutch, I can proof it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Are you suggesting that the Netherlands government, no friend to conservative Christians like myself, is lying about the number of confirmed (we can assume that there are a LOT more unreported) involuntary euthanasias that they themselves report to the public?!?

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Uhm it’s the Dutch government and not the Netherlands government. Oh surprise the one who wrote the article is against euthanasia. You should really google the euthanasia law for the Netherlands as you call it, folks you can also say Holland we won’t be offended, you will find that un-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia is against the law. Well you don’t live there, so no reason to be friends with the ‘Netherlands government’. And those who did it anyway despite the law, it’s their private business why they did it. My parents, sister and I gave our consent a long time ago.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Oh surprise the one who wrote the article is against euthanasia.”

            Classical ad hominem fallacy. Based on that “logic,” I do not have to consider anything you say to be credible because you are not a conservative Christian. 🙂

            Are you claiming that the Dutch government is lying when it reports involuntary euthanasias that occur there?

            “And those who did it anyway despite the law, it’s their private business why they did it.”

            Do you apply the same twisted “logic” to murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, burglary, etc? That just might explain your morality problem.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            The crimes you listed in your last sentence are just that, crimes. Euthanasia for me is not a crime. When I am told that someone I love is in a coma and will not recover, or will wake up but will be nothing more then a vegable as they call it, personaly hate that word, I will tell the doctor to pull the plug. With or without consent from that person.

            And being a conservative christian means being like you, closed minded and thinking the only people with morals are christians, I’m glad I’m not.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The crimes you listed in your last sentence are just that, crimes. Euthanasia for me is not a crime. ”

            Involuntary euthanasia sure is.

            “I will tell the doctor to pull the plug. With or without consent from that person.”

            These were doctors and nurses, NOT family members, making those calls. Nice to see you at least tacitly admit that Holland has sunk into the moral cesspool.

            “And being a conservative christian means being like you, closed minded”

            Yep, I am close-minded to knocking off babies in the womb and knocking off the elderly because they cost too much and produce too little. You are not. You are “open-minded.” 🙂 Be careful that you do not become too open-minded, because your brains might fall out. (But, don’t worry: if THAT happens, then Planned Murder in Da Hood will be there to snatch up your brain. :-))

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            “I will tell the doctor to pull the plug” as in I’m a family member. So not a doctors call, but mine.

            My turn to say, what are you babbling about? As me being open minded means to you what you just rambled about, sorry you don’t know anything about me.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “”I will tell the doctor to pull the plug” as in I’m a family member. So not a doctors call, but mine.”

            Tell that to the beastly doctor and nurses in Holland.

            “sorry you don’t know anything about me.”

            I KNOW you are arguing for euthanasia on this site and abortion on Live Action News, Jolanda. So, I clearly know “something” about you. 🙂

          • Valri

            “Tell that to the beastly doctor and nurses in Holland.”

            Oh, I might have guessed you are also a fan of keeping the dying in agony as long as humanly possible. As Jesus would do.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It is not at all surprising to me to see you in favor of knocking off people without their consent. You are a pro-abort after all: might makes right!

          • Valri

            Allowing people who are dying to do so with dignity and a minimum of pain rather than a long, drawn out agonizing death is “knocking off people” eh? You must be a blast to live with.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Sounds like you support what even the Dutch government refers to as murder. And why not? You also support abortion.

          • Valri

            I don’t support abortion, please stop putting words in my mouth. I support a woman’s right to choose, which you don’t. You would allow a woman to die bringing an unsafe fetus to term and I wouldn’t. That’s the difference between you and me. I support compassion, care, common sense, and stopping barbaric religious practices that cause pain to others.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I don’t support abortion, please stop putting words in my mouth. I support a woman’s right to choose”

            To choose what, Valri?!? To choose chocolate or to choose knocking off their babies?

            Actually, I am pro-choice and you are anti-choice: I believe that a woman has a right to choose what kind of chocolate she eats, the cars she drives, the schools she sends her kids to, etc. You are anti-choice when it comes to rape, murder, pedophilia, and burglary, right?!? 🙂

          • Valri

            “To choose what, Valri?!? To choose chocolate or to choose knocking off their babies?”

            Again with the dramatic language. You cannot treat all abortions the same. If a woman who very much wants to have a baby but is told she will die if she brings it to term has to abort, that is by no means “knocking off babies” – you know this as well as I do. You think she should die, crazy? Really? The life of the unborn, which might not survive anyway, is more important than the sure thing of saving the mother’s life? What kind of morality is this?

            “You are anti-choice when it comes to rape, murder, pedophilia, and burglary, right?!? :-)”

            Yes, very appropriate use of a smiley there, because what you said is SO hilarious right?

            Rape – abuse of another party
            Murder – abuse of another party
            Pedophilia – abuse of another party
            Burglary – abuse of another party

            You still don’t get this, do you?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You cannot treat all abortions the same.”

            Except for the human in the womb: the outcome IS the same for those. Why is killing the weak and vulnerable such a “cause” for you, Valri?!?

            “Rape – abuse of another party
            Murder – abuse of another party
            Pedophilia – abuse of another party
            Burglary – abuse of another party”

            Abortion = murder of another party.

          • Valri

            “Why is killing the weak and vulnerable such a “cause” for you, Valri?|
            OK. I’ll play your game.
            Why is killing pregnant women such a cause for YOU, Crazy? A woman’s told she will die if she brings that baby to term. KILL HER, you scream. Save the life of the unborn first! (Even though the baby may not survive the process either)…
            Well, all abortions are the same, right? Isn’t that your position?
            “Abortion = murder of another party”
            Too bad not everyone sees it that way, eh? Consensus? What consensus?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Why is killing pregnant women such a cause for YOU, Crazy?”

            I am not advocating killing a pregnant woman – actually abortion is MUCH more dangerous for her than normal childbirth.

            You, on the other hand, are advocating for the direct intentional killing of a weak and vulnerable human being.

            “A woman’s told she will die if she brings that baby to term.”

            You surely cannot be this dumb, Valri. Inducing labor to save the lives of the mother AND child has always been legal. What was made legal with Roe and Doe was the intentional killing of a weak and vulnerable human being, NOT induced labor. Do you actually know ANYTHING about abortion?!?

            “Too bad not everyone sees it that way, eh?”

            Yes, and not everybody saw slavery or Jew gassing as immoral either. But, that does NOT mean it was not. Did you have an abortion – is that why you are living in make-believe land?

          • Valri

            “I am not advocating killing a pregnant woman”

            Well CERTAINLY you are! No exceptions, right? Abortion always completely unacceptable 100% of the time. That’s the song you have been singing.

            “You, on the other hand, are advocating for the direct intentional killing of a weak and vulnerable human being.”

            I have done no such thing. All I have done, in fact, is have the audacity to suggest to you that not all circumstances regarding abortion are the same. You, being the dutiful little fundamentalist that you are, DO see them as all the same.

            “You surely cannot be this dumb, Valri. Inducing labor to save the lives of the mother AND child has always been legal.”

            You surely cannot be this dumb, Crazy. Who said anything about inducing labor? There are different circumstances. But as usual you continue to see the same one over and over. Abortion as a form of birth control by irresponsible people. That’s all you know.

            “Yes, and not everybody saw slavery or Jew gassing as immoral either.”

            Back to willfully abusing innocent parties. Apples and oranges. Fail. Bad fail.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “No exceptions, right? Abortion always completely unacceptable 100% of the time.”

            Inducing labor or performing a C-section to save the mother and child are NOT abortions. Do you have a learning disability? I see where Basset_Hound schooled you elsewhere on this.

            No replies to the others – got it. You think that God is going to let you into His House when you support the murder of 58 million of His little ones?!? Oh, that’s right: you don’t believe in God, you believe in yourself. What a shock you will be in for!

          • Valri

            “Inducing labor or performing a C-section to save the mother and child are NOT abortions. Do you have a learning disability?”

            Do you? That was Basset_Hound’s example, and it’s not always feasible. Sometimes it’s either the mother dies or the fetus is terminated, or BOTH die. You keep avoiding this example and dancing around it and it’s not working. Why don’t you just be honest? YOU WOULD KILL THE MOTHER.

            You know who you sound like? The Jehovah’s Witnesses who, when confronted with the fact that they would have someone die rather than accept a blood transfusion which would save their life, respond with “there are many bloodless options.” No there aren’t. Not always.

            ” I see where Basset_Hound schooled you elsewhere on this.”

            Translation: “I see where Basset_Hound had the same opinion as I did therefore I’m going to make you look like you’re wrong merely because I have a supporter here any you don’t.”

            “You think that God is going to let you into His House when you support the murder of 58 million of His little ones?!?”

            I never said any such thing, that’s just example #3000 of you putting words in my mouth, your favorite pastime.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Sometimes it’s either the mother dies or the fetus is terminated, or BOTH die.”

            With abortion, the baby (almost) always dies. Sick.

            “You know who you sound like? The Jehovah’s Witnesses

            God used me to convert one of those once.

            I wonder what it would take – with all of the information out there – videos and pictures and descriptions by abortionists, testimony, etc – for a pro-abort to convert to pro-life at this point? Basic science and logic did it for me, long before the internet became public and while I was still an atheist. But, with all of the visuals, with the womb with a view (ultrasound), a person has to be really beyond a moral monster to remain on the side of abortion “rights.” Either that, or he must be unbelievably selfish to place his sex without consequences ahead of the life of an innocent human being with intrinsic moral value.

          • Basset_Hound

            Looks like my finger puppets are going to be working overtime tonight.

            Case #1: If a woman has a ectopic pregnancy, trying to save the baby isn’t an option. The doctors remove the tube. Unfortunately, the unborn baby is inside, and he dies. Saving the life of the mother is the purpose of the surgery. Saving the life of the mother was JUSTIFIED. The death of the child is an unintended consequence.

            Case #2: If a woman discovers she has a rapidly spreading uterine cancer at the beginning of the pregnancy, the doctors perform a hysterectomy (that’s where they remove the uterus, and depending on the circumstances the ovaries too). The baby inside the uterus dies. The purpose of the surgery was to save the life of the mother. The baby’s death is the unintended consequence.

            The INTENDED purpose of an abortion is to bring about the death of the baby…ALWAYS.

            Notice that in BOTH these cases, the mother’s life is saved. BOTH these cases were offered up by a prominent pro life activist and in both cases the activist said that the steps taken to save the mother were JUSTIFIED, and that he supported them. In fact Case #2 happened to some friends of his, and he had no words of criticism or condemnation for the couple for wanting to save the mother’s life.

            We butt-scratchin’, coon’ chompin hillbillies get this. You, in all your self appointed wisdom miss the point. So your attemp at a “gotcha” has gone down in flames.

            “Translation: “I see where Basset_Hound had the same opinion as I did therefore I’m going to make you look like you’re wrong merely because I have a supporter here any you don’t.”

            We don’t have to make you LOOK like you’re wrong. YOU ARE WRONG! derp!

            WE can look a history, and unfolding current events and see how a society degenerates when SOME lives matter, and others are defined out of any right to protection. Others suffer, and end up being killed for convenience…..like infants…young children….the disabled….the chronically ill…..the elderly…..

          • Valri

            “Case #1: If a woman has a ectopic pregnancy, trying to save the baby isn’t an option.”

            Yes, excellent example of what I have been trying to put across to WorldGoneCrazy and he can’t stop calling me a murderer.

            “Case #2: If a woman discovers she has a rapidly spreading uterine cancer…”

            You’re preaching to the choir still. Is there a point here?

            “We butt-scratchin’, coon’ chompin hillbillies get this. You, in all your self appointed wisdom miss the point. So your attemp at a “gotcha” has gone down in flames.”

            Yes, Cletus, I guess I am missing the point, because you’ve just given two examples of the need to terminate a fetus to save the mother’s life, neither of which WorldGoneCrazy would back you up on. Who is this “gotcha” aimed at – me, or Mr. Crazy?

            “We don’t have to make you LOOK like you’re wrong. YOU ARE WRONG! derp!”

            I am NOT wrong because I am NOT the one pigeonholing all abortions as cruel murders. You’ve got the wrong guy.

          • MamaBear

            Amazing, you are so set on justifying murdering by abortion over a million healthy unborn babies with healthy mothers for the sake of a few thousand extreme cases where we would allow and then pretend we are “preaching to the choir.”
            Don’t you understand that it is the million+ healthy babies in healthy mothers who are aborted for convenience, often with coercion from others than the mother herself, such as her partner, that we object to?

          • Valri

            I just find you utterly disgusting that you take NO ONE’s backstory into account whatsoever, in your eyes all are disgusting evil murderers. What an agonizing decision to have to make under ANY circumstance, but to you it doesn’t matter, they’re all the same.

            I have never had an abortion, I would never CONSIDER an abortion, but I refuse to sit like you in your ivory tower and cast judgement on people I don’t know because I don’t know their circumstances.

          • MamaBear

            I repeat – abortion kills over on million healthy unborn babies per year with healthy mothers having healthy pregnancies. That is what is truly disgusting and yes it is evil.

          • Valri

            And I repeat – not all abortion circumstances are the same, they’re not all irresponsible people having a good time thoughtlessly killing their babies, and it’s high time you stopped with that charade.

          • MamaBear

            Charade? At a million plus!
            Face it – we are a country of baby murderers. We have a much higher MMR than the westernized countries don’t have elective abortions because maternal abortion deaths are part of the MMR. Abortion is overall bad for women’s health, it raises risks of sterility, premature births, miscarriages, and certain cancers.
            Only 1% of abortions have anything to do with the mother’s or fetus’ health, even less with the mother’s life. Only 1% of abortions have to do with incest or rape. These are Guttmacher’s statistics, which is as pro-abortion as you get. That leaves 98% of abortions because a healthy mother with a healthy fetus just finds being pregnant right now inconvenient. 98% because they just don’t want a baby right now – forgot or incorrectly used birth control, cost, school, job, broke up with boyfriend, embarrassment, bad timing, won’t fit into prom or wedding dress……all good reasons to murder their offspring*, right?
            *Fetus = Latin for offspring

          • PJ4

            I just find you utterly disgusting that you take NO ONE’s backstory into account whatsoever, in your eyes all are disgusting evil murderers.

            Well what a co-ink-we-dink!
            I find you utterly disgusting because you feel the need to pigeonhole all pro lifers in such a way.
            please quote even one of us saying that a woman whose life was in danger was a “disgusting evil murder”
            I’ll wait here, while you try to find that.
            And, in between that time, do look up the word triage because when a mother’s life is in danger, it’s not an abortion.

            What an agonizing decision to have to make under ANY circumstance, but to you it doesn’t matter, they’re all the same.

            Why is it agonizing?
            Do you think there’s something….wrong with abortion?
            You do realize that the “Shout Your Abortion” PR stunt was an attempt to make it seem as though killing one’s baby is not an agonizing decision, right?
            You don’t seem to be all that aware of what’s going on in your very own movement.
            Here, let me spoon feed you since you’re apparently one of the only pro aborts who didn’t get the memo:
            https://www(dot)washingtonpost(dot)com/opinions/stop-calling-abortion-a-difficult-decision/2014/08/15/e61fa09a-17fd-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html

            I have never had an abortion, I would never CONSIDER an abortion, but I refuse to sit like you in your ivory tower and cast judgement on people I don’t know because I don’t know their circumstances.

            Yet you sit in your own ivory tower judging all pro lifers that you don’t even know.
            Interesting.

            The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing —Edmund Burke

            Think about where we’d be if no one say in judgment and took a stance against slave holders

          • Concerned American

            So you wouldn’t kill your own baby, but no other baby is worthy of protecting?

            Over 1 million babies aborted every year is not be a use of extreme circumstances. It’s purely for birth control. It’s purely because people have no respect for the value of human life.

          • Concerned American

            In both of those cases, an abortion procedure never occurred. A baby wasn’t aborted to save the life of a mother.
            The mother had a life saving procedure, and as a consequence, a baby died. The purpose was not to kill a baby.
            You seem to not understand that abortion is the specific act of killing another human being – not just as an unintentional consequence of another procedure… but the purpose of the procedure itself.
            An abortion kills a human. There is no other desired outcome other than a dead baby.

          • PJ4

            She seems to not understand quite a bit CA–which would of course be the reason why she’s a pro abort (who hides behind the euphamism of “choice”)

          • Concerned American

            I’m sure, if she comes back, she’ll say that abortions aren’t meant to kill babies, either.
            Anything to maintain the facade…

            I’d totally post a pic of the curtain being pulled back in the Wizard of Oz…. because that’s what it’s like and that’s how flimsy their pro-abort curtain actually is….

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It is weird how pro-aborts cannot understand the unintentional death of the child in the womb when an attempt is made to save the mother and child and intentionally carving up the child or performing ghastly chemical warfare on same.

          • Valri

            There ARE no pro-aborts, Crazy. Your language speaks volumes. The expression is “pro choice” and for a very good reason.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “There ARE no pro-aborts”

            Haha – how many times do you step into this trap?!? Not only are there pro-aborts but there are folks who are proud of their abortions:

            “We proudly provide safe and legal abortion.” — Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US. (Not exactly a fringe group.)

            ““I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion. And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, ‘Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!” has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights.’ ” … “Terminating a pregnancy is not an unethical act, yet suggesting that abortion should be rare implies that there is something undesirable about having one.” — Jessica DelBalzo

            Filmed her abortion and proud of it: http://thestir .cafemom .com/bizarre_news/172111/woman_films_her_own_abortion

            Super proud of her abortion: http://chicksontheright
            .com/blog/item/28339-girls-star-is-super-proud-of-her-abortion-and-wants-you-to-know-it

            Facebook page celebrating abortion: https://www .facebook .com/pages/I-Had-An-Abortion/138570696250541

            And why not? After all, if abortion really IS a legitimate right, then women should be proud of it. I am proud of my right to free speech, to assemble peacefully (including on the sidewalks in front of the death mills), to exercise my religion. Why shouldn’t women be proud of their abortions?!? Is there something WRONG with abortion? Abortion doesn’t kill an innocent defenseless human being or anything, does it?!?

            “The expression is “pro choice””

            Actually, I am pro-choice and you are anti-choice, Sweetie: I am pro-choice about chocolate, the cars I drive, and the schools I send my kids to. You are anti-choice about murder, burglary, rape, and pedophilia, aren’t you?!? That is, if the murder doesn’t happen in the womb anyway.

          • Valri

            “Not only are there pro-aborts but there are folks who are proud of their abortions:“We proudly provide safe and legal abortion.” — Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood,”

            Nice try Crazy but they are NOT claiming to be proud of abortion. Read it again. They are proud to provide a SAFE abortion SHOULD THE NEED ARISE. They aren’t driving around in a car labelled “Abortions-R-Us”.

            Oh I see now I shouldn’t have bothered even responding to that one, because here you are playing your FAVORITE game where you grab a handful of internet quotes that provide you with enough ammo to drive your point home and completely ignore the 99.9% others which contradict everything you say.

            “Actually, I am pro-choice and you are anti-choice, Sweetie: I am ro-choice about chocolate, the cars I drive, and the schools I send my kids to. You are anti-choice about murder, burglary, rape, and pedophilia, aren’t you?!? That is, if the murder doesn’t happen in the
            womb anyway.”

            A typical WorldGoneCrazy hyperbole. The woman has a choice what happens to her and the fetus growing inside her, and you don’t, and you don’t like it. And the REASON you don’t like it is you feel that your decision matters more than the woman in that position. And it’s based on one thing, that which you have been indoctricated with.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No reply to all of the quotes by women who are proud of their abortions, including the fb page. Got it.

          • Valri

            Because of course they represent every woman who’s ever had an abortion.

            As if I’m going to sit here and respond to every stupid quote you find out there, half of which were probably made up to begin with.

            You “got it” all right. Too bad you’re not working very hard to get rid of it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Because of course they represent every woman who’s ever had an abortion.”

            You don’t do logic, do you? You said that NOBODY was proud of their abortion, and I proved you wrong by providing lots of somebodies. Just suck it up, and admit defeat. Locomotive PJ4, Basset_Hound, and MamaBear have run all over you, yet you still don’t get it.

            “As if I’m going to sit here and respond to every stupid quote you find out there, half of which were probably made up to begin with.”

            Laziness is NOT a virtue, but it is something you have a PhD in. 🙂

          • Valri

            “You said that NOBODY was proud of their abortion, and I proved you wrong by providing lots of somebodies.”

            Despite what these people say, and there are radicals in every movement – and these people are clearly trying to ruffle the feathers of hardcore Christian fundamentalists like yourself, which appears to be working – I stand by my statement. A person might feel a sense of relief for having HAD an abortion, they may be proud of supporting the right to choose, but I think it’s an extremely rare human being DESPITE WHAT QUOTES YOU WANT TO THROW AT ME WHICH ARE PROBABLY BS, who’d claim to be proud to have gone through something so difficult and painful. I mean, use your head. As IF anyone’s going to go “Look at me, aren’t I wonderful, I’m so proud of myself for aborting this fetus!”

            “Laziness is NOT a virtue, but it is something you have a PhD in. :-)”

            It isn’t laziness to refute a bunch of malarkey which is likely baseless and impossible to verify, nor is it laziness to meticulously pick apart 300 slanted and ridiculous stories from Matt Barber’s website. It’s just making better use of your time, even if you’re just sitting around picking lint out of your navel. Hey, how about if I give you a site with 500 reasons why fundamentalism is destructive to the world? Going to go over all 500 with a fine tooth comb? No? Then doesn’t that make you, oh, I don’t know, a HYPOCRITE?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha – you are unhinged tonight – I love it! You are close to breaking now, Valri! You get proved wrong, but you still double down on it – I love it! Keep saying it over and over, valri: “knocking off babies good, Christians bad, knocking off babies good, Christians bad,…” If you keep chanting it, sooner or later you will believe it. Grape Kool-Aid?!? 🙂

          • Basset_Hound

            You notice that she’s not very clever when she THINKS she’s being clever (and that she’s followed all of us over to LAN)?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha – well, I think she is having a meltdown now. But, I must give her credit for coming over to LAN – most pro-aborts do not. And for even attempting to take on you, PJ4, and MamaBear. I’m just not sure if she should get credit for courage or stupidity in doing so. I’m thinking the latter, given how abysmal her knowledge is of that”‘science-y” stuff! She just quoted George Carlin to me to “prove” that conservatives are “evil, evil, evil!” 🙂

          • Basset_Hound

            Just launched my long promised salvo about whose “choices” are important, and whose aren’t.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes! Only made it through a couple of bites of my popcorn before it all ended up on the rug, however. Perhaps it needs a longer buildup to the train wreck that is Valri. 🙂

          • Valri

            Unhinged? Says the man who can only quote from Matt Barber sites. And to suggest they are in any way authoritative.

            “You get proved wrong”

            Nope. Try again.

            “knocking off babies good, Christians bad, knocking off babies good, Christians bad,…”

            Once again, you see things only in black and white like the dutiful fundamentalist Christian. In the real world, the gray area you keep ignoring goes more like, “aborting in emergencies necessary, fundamentalist Christians morons, aborting in emergencies necessary, fundamentalist Christians morons.”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Who is Matt Barber, why are you so cruel toward babies, and how can you even be typing right now, after Basset_Hound’s spanking of you?!? 🙂

          • Valri

            Oh now THAT’s interesting, Crazy. You can’t draw breath without quoting from that ridiculous BarbWire site, and you didn’t know it was Matt Barber’s? FASCINATING man. Read all about him on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

            Not interested (or even aware) of redneck spankings.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Quoting SPLC is worse than quoting Star Trek and Wiki. SPLC is a confirmed terrorist organization. Pretty sure you are a terrorist too, at least for babies in the womb.

          • Valri

            Oh they are a TERRORIST organization! And CONFIRMED, yet. Really, WGC? By who? Who confirmed this well known human rights organization to be a terrorist group? Was it Matt Barber? Or Winteryknight? You know, some well-respected and decidedly non-crazy website like that?

            And wiki. If you’re talking about Conservapedia or even RationalWiki, I might see your point. But Wikipedia itself is fair, balanced and accurate – and in areas where there are debate or disagreement, you can always read the discussion tabs to view them. I see nothing wrong with that.

            I have never watched Star Trek in my life nor have I (knowingly) quoted from it, and if I had, it wouldn’t be because I was quoting a fact.

            Never had an abortion either! How about that! And here you are, loftily calling me a terrorist and a pro-abort. Guess facts don’t really matter so much when you can use your appeals-to-emotion language, factoids and hyperbole to maximum effect.

            As you do, WGC, as you do. Not hard to see why you are becoming such a fun person for people to Google.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “RationalWiki”

            You quoted them! Are you OK?!? You are having a such a bad meltdown, you are forgetting your own arguments – I am praying for you.

          • Valri

            Of course. *I* have no problem quoting RationalWiki as I believe them to be correct, but I know there’s no way you’d say the same, which is why I discounted them. Along with Conservapedia which I’m sure you think is really great but turns my stomach. So that was our tradeoff. That leaves us with Wikipedia which I think is a fairly respectable middle ground.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            How about quoting from peer-reviewed scholarly sources instead of these nutjob sites?!?

            I have never even BEEN to Conservapedia. Wikipedia is a known atheist site, and hardly scholarly. Start seeking out the truth and leave the silly sites behind.

          • Valri

            Oh yes, “peer reviewed scholarly sources.” I’ve played that game with you many times. Suffice it to say that I don’t think “peer reviewed” means what you think it does. You, or rather your winteryknight friend, are master manipulators of data.

            “Wikipedia is a known atheist site”

            Just like the SPL Center is a terrorist organization and gay men need to wear diapers. The world hasn’t gone crazy, Crazy. You have.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Suffice it to say that I don’t think “peer reviewed” means what you think it does.”

            Uh, peer-reviewed means just what it says. Are you now going to assert that scholars do not know what peer-reviewed means?!? Is your meltdown that complete?

            “gay men need to wear diaper”

            That’s not nice making fun of my friend, Valri. I guess you only care about gay people if they fit your preconceived notions.

          • Valri

            Peer-reviewed means not finding random quotes online that fit your hate agenda, Crazy. It means that winterknight and Matt Barber are not authoritative, they are crazed maniacs.

            You have no gay friend who wears a diaper from having anal sex, Crazy. It’s biologically impossible. How many degrees did you say you had? Were any of them biology degrees? I’m guessing not.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Peer-reviewed means”

            Says the woman who quoted the “I hate conservatives” website. You poor baby – you just cannot STAND it that I gave you medical textbooks, and you quote Leftist-pedia.

            “It’s biologically impossible.”

            It’s biologically impossible for a gay man to wear diapers?!? What? Is this a side effect from your PJ4-induced PTSD? Does this go hand-in-hand with “that baby in the womb isn’t really a baby because she is too inconvenient for me to let live?”

          • Valri

            Which is the “I hate conservatives” website, Crazy? Your paranoid schizophrenia has me a little confused so you could be talking about anything. Is it WIkipedia? May I ask why it’s an “I hate conservatives” website when anyone at all may contribute to it regardless of political stripe? As I mentioned before and you conveniently ignored, if there is any disagreement on Wikipedia you can click on the “discussion” tab of any page to see where the discrepancies are. So at least you can see where people might not be seeing eye to eye.

            “It’s biologically impossible for a gay man to wear diapers?!?”

            It’s biologically impossible for a gay man to REQUIRE diapers based on a sexual practice.

            “Is this a side effect from your PJ4-induced PTSD?”

            How did PJ4 “induce” anything in me when I ignore almost everything she says? I don’t waste my time with name-callers. I much prefer to focus my attention on people who try to say with a straight face that gay men need diapers and that the SPL Center, known for its human rights issues, is a terrorist organization and that there is a gaystapo who is trying to destroy Christianity. You know, the kind of stuff that even conspiracy theorists find too bizarre to get behind.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “It’s biologically impossible for a gay man to REQUIRE diapers based on a sexual practice.”

            Prove it. (With peer-reviewed secular citations, not wikipedia and Star Trek quotes.) Plus, nice shift of the goalposts from “it’s biologically impossible for gay men to wear diapers” to your new revised thesis. 🙂

            And develop some compassion for gay people, for Heaven’s sake. Weird though how you have given up on your abortion “logic,” huh? 🙂 Are you pro-life now or still a slime of humanity pro-abort?

          • Valri

            “Prove it.”

            Not necessary. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you, and your only source is a an anti-gay bigot named Patrick Wooden.

            What’s with the Star Trek obsession, Crazy? I have never watched an episode of Star Trek in my life. Second time I’m telling you this. Therefore I haven’t quoted from it. Again, burden of proof is on you. Prove yourself.

            “And develop some compassion for gay people, for Heaven’s sake.”

            Whatever you say, Mr. “Gaystapo”. Who’s stopping them from marrying, you or me? Is Jesus your great big aspirin tablet that’s going to cure them of “the gay”?

            “Slime of humanity”

            Hyperbole and ad hominems are all you’ve got as usual.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You made the claim”

            Actually YOU made the following claim, Valium:

            “It’s biologically impossible for a gay man to REQUIRE diapers based on a sexual practice.”

            The burden is yours, Sweetie.

            I repeat:

            “And develop some compassion for gay people, for Heaven’s sake.”

            Still waiting on your arguments for abortion on a LAN story. 🙂

          • Valri

            “Actually YOU made the following claim”

            Nice try, Sparky. Back it up a notch. You made the claim that homosexual men (and said nothing about heterosexual women) require diapers as a result of the “gay lifestyle”.

            So this one’s on you, Sunshine. Take it away. Without references from Patrick Wooden, winteryknight or Jack Chick, please.

            “And develop some compassion for gay people, for Heaven’s sake.”

            If you can think of a single more insulting thing to say to a gay person than that they require diapers, and that straight women engaging in EXACTLY the same practice do not, you’re a friend of homosexuals in the same way Eichmann was a friend of Israel.

          • Elie Challita

            Just a couple points to keep in mind when you claim that gay men need to wear diapers, bub:
            1- Anal sex is far from the only sexual activity that gay men engage in. There’s even a sizable minority who doesn’t enjoy it.
            2- Straight people have anal too, and give the relative population sizes I’d expect many more women to be walking around in diapers if your claims were true.
            3- The average penis is nowhere large enough to permanently dilate the sphincter. While it’s true that some people make a fetish out of dilation, I doubt it’s any more common than golden showers.

          • Basset_Hound

            Wikipedia is so “fair, balanced and accurate” that even when she was in middle school my daughter’s teachers wouldn’t let the students use it as a report source.

          • Valri

            Guess the teacher never accounted for that huge list of references at the bottom of Wikipedia pages, huh? Or the “talk” tab where arguments are laid out?

            But of course Conservapedia is much better, right?

          • Basset_Hound

            Guess it never crossed the nether regions of your mind that the teachers might want the students to look up the periodicals, read them themselves and draw their own conclusions rather than read someone’s second hand interpretations. Much like an English teacher might want the students to actually READ the literature being presented in class rather than taking the easy way out and reading only the Spark Notes (or the Wikipedia plot summary)

            But of course, your stock and trade is putting words in the mouths of others, right?

          • Valri

            And there the articles are, all neatly organized at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. Imagine that. Is there some reason you think the teachers should tell their students to AVOID this very simple way of achieving the exact same task?

            But of course, your stock and trade is tarring everyone with the same brush, right? Demonize Wikipedia because it doesn’t put a conservative slant on truth?

          • MamaBear

            Basset, she just proved her lack of advanced level education by her comments pushing Wikipedia as a valid source.

          • Basset_Hound

            Yup. Indeed.

          • MamaBear

            Thank you for confirming your lack of advanced education.
            Every single graduate class I have taken, every single graduate class fellow teachers have taken at other schools, have all banned use of Wikipedia in research papers. My children each went to a different university. Each one banned use of Wikipedia.
            If you had ever taken any college or university level coursework, you would know that.

          • PJ4

            Goodness, for someone whose trying every emotional appeal to get people to not judge women who kill thier babies, you certainly are extraordinarily judge mental yourself.
            How do you know this about WGC?
            And
            How do you know you’re the the one who has been indoctrinated?

          • PJ4

            Oh oh
            The poor widdle pro abort doesn’t even know what she is!
            (Surprise surprise)
            Sorry to break it to you, but it’s even in the dictionary
            Shall I spoon feed you again, or can you just google “pro abortion”?

            *smh*

            Stop hiding behind your euphamisms
            Why are you so ashamed of your abortion stance?

            Your expression is outdated btw.
            I guess your just not important enough to get all the memos.
            I’m sorry you have to keep hearing it from a pro lifer
            Ok, no I’m not.
            I’m going to enjoy humiliating you.
            http://m(dot)washingtontimes(dot)com/news/2014/jul/31/planned-parenthood-strikes-pro-choice-label-in-fav/

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I guess you’re just not important enough to get all the memos.”

            (more stifling giggles – drink carefully placed away until after reading PJ4’s threads :-))

          • PJ4

            Hahah
            WGC, you’re awesome

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Christian News REALLY needed to see you over here, PJ4: all of the atheists are running around saying “She doesn’t believe in God AND she doesn’t believe in baby sacrifice – how can that be?!?” 🙂

            (For the confused reader, PJ4 is a pro-life agnostic – an intellectually honest agnostic, not an atheist in retreat. :-))

          • PJ4

            ??❤️

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Yes, because you pro-aborts don’t like a more accurate label.

          • Valri

            I’m not a pro-abort. And never said I was. Are you a pro-BSer? Isn’t bearing false witness a sin in your Bible? Aren’t you a hypocrite?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            You most certainly are. If you support someone choosing abortion, then you are pro-abortion. Lying to yourself won’t change the facts.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Lying to yourself won’t change the facts.”

            But, THAT won’t stop her from trying! 🙂

          • LadyGreenEyes

            No kidding! Now, she’s trying to claim she’s “sometimes” pro-life.

          • Valri

            No, because it depends entirely on the circumstance. Sometimes I would be pro-life. Do you not understand that the liar is yourself?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            So, instead of simply stating your actual position, you want to pretend it can change from moment to moment?? It doesn’t work that way. You are either for life or for abortion. You cannot be both.

          • Valri

            You want to know my actual position? Give me all the details of the PARTICULAR situation you are talking about. I’m not going to be like you and judge them all equally without knowing the circumstances. That would be irresponsible and ignorant.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            In any situation involving abortion, a human being will die, in a very horrible fashion. If you support abortion at all, then you support murder under the same conditions. If someone is terminally ill, they don’t have a right to have someone else cut into pieces in order for their own life to be saved. Most abortions are for convenience, and maybe financial reasons. These are not reasons to justify chopping up other people, or poisoning them. With any other victim, this would be considered murder, and heinous, yet because the victims of abortion who die cannot speak, and are not seen, people act as though something else is happening. Irresponsible and ignorant? Oh, yeah, and worse.

          • Valri

            Well, not everyone believes it to be a human being at that stage, first point. Second point, it’s not murder – if it were, it wouldn’t be called abortion and everyone would say it, not just pro-lifers. “Chopping up” and “poisoning” is very colorful language to make something unpleasant even more unpleasant, but appealing to emotions rather than facts is dishonest. I am glad I do not know you in real life. Good day.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Everyone that has studied the actual science knows you have a human being from conception. All the textbooks teach this.

            “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
            “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” – Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

            “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which,
            incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” – Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

            “Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.” – William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.

            “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” – Clark Edward Corliss, Patten’s Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

            “The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops.”
            “The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” –
            J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.

            “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” – E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.

            “Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother’s egg… It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father’s sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin.” – Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.

            “Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.” – The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006.

            “The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.” – In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005.

            In testimony to the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981, these statements were made:

            “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is
            scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at
            conception.” – Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

            “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.” – Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni,
            Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

            “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain
            experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” – Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

            “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” – Professor Hymie Gordon,
            Mayo Clinic

            “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.” – Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School

            The conclusion in the official Senate report is thus – “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks
            the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.11”

            The AMA declared, in 1857, and this was references in the Roe Vs. Wade opinion, “the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being”.

            So, anyone who claims otherwise is not being honest, or isn’t educated enough.

            Yes, it’s murder. There is no justification for killing a defenseless baby. Chopping up and poisoning is what they do. It is “unpleasant”. Killing people isn’t a pleasant thing.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Valri, doesn’t do that “science-y” thing, LGE – we have all tried already. Like Hitler, she NEEDS to FEEL that the child in the womb is sub-human in order to, you know, knock those babies off at the rate of 3000 a day. (Hitler’s kill rate was the same, but over a much shorter time span.)

          • LadyGreenEyes

            She doesn’t do a lot of things, from what I can see! She reminds me of those movie characters that are always claiming, after selling their souls, “But, I didn’t know it was the devil…..”

          • Basset_Hound

            Abortion – abuse of another party. Pulling someone apart is abuse.

            We the “simpleminded”, the unhip, the uncool, the Hobby Lobby Stitchin’ Bitches get this concept. You, in all your self proclaimed sagacity do not.

            As for the woman who is told she will die if she brings her baby to term. Not ONE legitimate pro-lifer would fail to support saving the life that can be saved. But here’s the difference. WE would perform an emergency cesarean section on the mother to deliver the baby as quickly as possible. THEN we would care for the child as well as the mother, even if it meant holding him while he expires if he is to premature to survive in the NICU. This situation is extremely rare, and in the vast majority of cases enough time can be bought so that the child can have a chance of surviving in the NICU.

            There’s also a big difference between a policy or law which ALLOWS for an exception, and justifying the deaths of one million a year BASED on a rare exception.

            Let me get out my finger puppets, and try to make it easier.

            I would be allowed by law to break a window and enter World’s car if it were burning and he were trapped inside. This exception does NOT justifying me breaking his car window because I think he’s a jerk who deserves it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You may break my car window any time you want, BH, especially after using your Hobby Lobby quote! I love it!

          • Basset_Hound

            Just fer you, World, just fer you….:-)

          • MamaBear

            “Careful. I don’t think you’re speaking on WorldGoneCrazy’s behalf anymore, and he’d flat out murder the mother.”
            Valri clearly does not know you at all. If it weren’t for out and out slander and lies, the pro-death crowd would have no arguments at all.

          • Basset_Hound

            It’s curious that she slobbers, bawls and accused US of “putting words in her mouth” because we point out that we see through her semantic tap dance around “choice”. Yet she’s more than willing to pull that crap on World when it’s clear from his comment that he never said anything like that.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I am not now, nor have I ever been, a mother murderer. 🙂 Valri thinks that if she calls me a mother murderer, that means I am one.

          • Valri

            “Pro-death crowd”.

            I don’t know how you can use expressions like that and look yourself in the mirror.

          • MamaBear

            A lot easier than it would be to look in the mirror if I were defending the killing of over a million healthy unborn babies with healthy mothers per year.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You would think that abortion would creep Valri out just a teeny tiny amount. Even when I was a pro-“choice” atheist, it just did not feel right. It seemed to violate basic logic: if the “it” is not human at conception, what magically happens to make “it” human? What causes that to happen later in the pregnancy? Is there some sort of supernatural pro-abort Star Wars “force” that steps in to wave its wand and “Kazam! You are now a human being where you were not before!”?!?

          • Valri

            “Pulling someone apart is abuse.”

            Yeah, if that someone IS a someone, and I think that is the debate you’re involved in, don’t you?

            “You, in all your self proclaimed sagacity do not.”

            So it’s a sin to have a different opinion than a fundamentalist does? How interesting.

            “But here’s the difference. WE would perform an emergency cesarean section on the mother to deliver the baby as quickly as possible.”

            Careful. I don’t think you’re speaking on WorldGoneCrazy’s behalf anymore, and he’d flat out murder the mother.

            “Let me get out my finger puppets, and try to make it easier.”

            You don’t have to work overtime at being patronizing, you were doing just fine up until now.

            “I would be allowed by law to break a window and enter World’s car if it were burning and he were trapped inside.”

            Law? Interesting concept for someone who doesn’t seem to respect that abortion IS legal.

          • Basset_Hound

            “So it’s a sin to have a different opinion than a fundamentalist does? How interesting.”

            That’s not what I said. So looks like I’ll have to get the puppets out again and break it down into steps since nuance doesn’t seem to be a strong point of yours.

            1. Having a “different opinion than a fundamentalist does” isn’t a sin. In fact we disagree among ourselves all the time.

            2. Establishing arbitrary, capricious and subjective developmental criteria as to which INNOCENT human lives are worth protecting and which are not IS a sin. It’s a concept called “might makes right”. That means that those who are larger and stronger can wreak havoc on those who can’t protect themselves (like unborn babies).

            3. You see, it doesn’t fare so well for those who don’t make the “personhood” cut. They are the ones who lose their lives, often for no other reason than because their existences are inconvenient. It’s not like they just vaporize the instant the tool touches them. They suffer terribly. But there I go again, using big words, because that concept is probably going to sail in one eye and out the other just like the rest of the material people like World, PJ and MamaBear have posted.

            “Careful. I don’t think you’re speaking on WorldGoneCrazy’s behalf anymore, and he’d flat out murder the mother.”

            Except that he’s pointed out on numerous occasions that saving the life of the mother was legal before Roe. Here is the quote that appeared on this thread yesterday….

            “You surely cannot be this dumb, Valri. Inducing labor to save the lives of the mother AND child has always been legal.”

            Apparently your reading comprehension is even weaker than your ability to recognize nuance. You must have been a Womyn’s Studies major.

            “You don’t have to work overtime at being patronizing, you were doing just fine up until now.”

            OHHHHH! So YOU get to be patronizing towards US, but we don’t get to respond. Got it! Thanks for ‘splainin’ it to me. I feel better now.

            “Law? Interesting concept for someone who doesn’t seem to respect that abortion IS legal.”

            So I guess if the two of us would have been alive in the 1840’s you’d be wagging your finger at me for not respecting that slavery was legal.

          • Valri

            “Establishing arbitrary, capricious and subjective developmental criteria as to which INNOCENT human lives are worth protecting and which are not IS a sin. It’s a concept called “might makes right”. That means that those who are larger and stronger can wreak havoc on those who can’t protect themselves (like unborn babies).”

            Sin is your concept, not mine. You’re still in the same boat as Mr. Crazy where every abortion is this cold-blooded ghastly murder and you know as well as I do that is NOT the case. All I am saying is don’t tar all abortions with the same brush. You don’t and can’t know all the circumstances.

            “You see, it doesn’t fare so well for those who don’t make the “personhood” cut. They are the ones who lose their lives, often for no other reason than because their existences are inconvenient.”

            Often. But always? This is the point you keep missing over and over and over.

            “Here is the quote that appeared on this thread yesterday….”You surely cannot be this dumb, Valri. Inducing labor to save the lives of the mother AND child has always been legal.”

            Which is not what I was referring to at all. When I’m talking about something like FOR EXAMPLE an ectopic pregnancy where there’s no choice but for the fetus to die, what on earth does that have to do with inducing labor?

          • PJ4

            EXAMPLE an ectopic pregnancy where there’s no choice but for the fetus to die, what on earth does that have to do with inducing labor?

            No choice, huh?
            That’s actually a term for you people
            “No choicers”
            Haha! Thanks for the inspiration?

            I see you never tire of being wrong.
            Let me school you again

            http://www(dot)asons(dot)co(dot)uk/resources/ectopic-pregnancy-not-always-a-death-sentence/

            You’re welcome
            Namaste

          • MamaBear

            My online inflammatory breast cancer support group has almost 500 women in it. IBC hits young women disproportionately, young pregnant or nursing women. I have seen dozens who gave their introduction to the group as “I was diagnosed with IBC while pregnant and my child is now ___ old.” Never a single one that said she got an abortion because of cancer, but a few have admitted to changing oncologists because the original oncologist wanted them to get one.
            IBC metastasizes at a much higher rate than other breast cancers. Every time I read another of these young mothers’ stories, I say a prayer that that mother will see her child grow up and I thank God my cancer came after my children were grown.
            The natural instinct of most women is to protect their children no matter what. Our culture is working hard against those natural protective feelings.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thank you for sharing this – I did not know that about IBC. And, yes, you are more fortunate than so many – I thank God for that too!

            When my daughter was diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses as a teen, and as yours truly was participating in a Perpetual Pity Party, God kept surrounding us with so many people who had it worse than she did. It was WAY beyond coincidental. It was like God was saying “Hey, when are you going to figure out that you have Someone to thank?!?” It was one of the last straws that broke this former atheist’s back – yes, indeed, He is not silent and He is there. (With apologies to Francis Schaeffer)

          • MamaBear

            A Christian author who has written about breast cancer (and is a survivor herself) and is preparing another book where she wants to include material for those of us who are metastatic, recently asked me (yes little ol’ me) for advice for those newly diagnosed metastatic. At the top of my list were to remember God is in control, take life one day at a time, and count your blessings no matter how small.

          • PJ4

            Mama bear, you are an amazing woman
            I feel lucky to be counted as one of your friends ?❤️?

          • Basset_Hound

            Ditto. Isn’t the comparison between the classless “Valri” and MamaBear who deals with her circumstances with grace and dignity is like the difference between night and day.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’m trying to develop MamaBear’s grace and dignity. Haha – THAT will NEVER happen – saints are rare.

          • MamaBear

            Thank you PJ, Basset and World, but I am a long way from sainthood. I feel fortunate to have you three as my friends.

          • Griffonn

            While I won’t call her a saint, I hear ya on the wanting to emulate her grace & dignity.

          • PJ4

            Omg, yes!

          • latinovet

            MamaBear,
            Keep fighting the good fight!
            You are an inspiration to me.

          • Basset_Hound

            Oh really? I KNOW.

            So which abortions are the good ones? The ones where the mother “really agonizes” about her choice, or the ones where she comes out of the clinic doing the Doogie to the tune of Pharell Williams’ “Happy”?

            Sorry, to disappoint, but they ARE all ghastly cold-blooded murders . YOU know that the “sometimes women’s circumstances leave them no choice” line is a cop out which prevents women from seeking (and society from offering) solutions which protect the integrity of BOTH lives.

            In a nutshell, there are NO circumstances which justify one person extricating herself from a
            tight spot by killing an innocent person who had nothing to do with the situation other than to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (or in this case, the wrong womb). Especially if you play semantic games with the concept of personhood so that you can tell yourself “it doesn’t really matter”.

            Often. But always? This is the point you keep missing over and over and over.

            REALLY? So you just KNOW that a child would be better off dead than in poverty? After all, poor people make such crappy parents, right? So you just KNOW that life with a disability such as Down’s Syndrome or spina bifida would suck just SOOOO BAD that death is preferable? And
            what about the “unwanted” child? Do you honestly think if a woman set out to get pregnant, then life for the child is all lollipops and unicorn farts? That a woman doesn’t ever become disillusioned when she’s confronted with a dependent, needy demanding baby and THEN decide she’s not “mommy material”? So if abortion is OK before the child is born, then why not infanticide after? After all, you just KNOW the child would be better off dead than
            unwanted because you’re clairvoyant. Or a Time Lord from Planet Gallifrey, right?

            But wait??? You’re BAWLING and throwing grand mal hissy fits that you’re “pro-choice” Except for the choices of those that don’t meet YOUR developmental criteria for personhood.

          • Valri

            “So which abortions are the good ones?”

            NONE of them are good, I mean how ignorant can you possibly be? But just because they’re not “good” does not mean they were not NECESSARY. It’s not all teen girls having a good time and not taking precautions. Why do you continue to pretend that’s all there are? What is the matter with you?

            “Sorry, to disappoint, but they ARE all ghastly cold-blooded murders.”

            Yeah, well Cletus, I was born with a more progressive mindset than you and know that everything isn’t as cut and dried as you want it to be.

            “In a nutshell, there are NO circumstances which justify one person extricating herself from a tight
            spot by killing an innocent person who had nothing to do with the situation other than to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (or in this case, the wrong womb).”

            Yep, cute, that’s the A to Z of abortion circumstances right there, right? Just “a tight spot”. Nothing more mitigating than that. Just a crazy teenage girl throwing caution to the wind. And by the way, calling it a “person”? You’re going to have some serious opposition to that from the real world.

            “REALLY? So you just KNOW that a child would be better off dead than in poverty?”

            No! Do you? Are you the pregnant mother? Then how DARE you pretend that you are?

          • MamaBear

            Actually, having spent my adult life with the children of poverty, I can assure you they’re better off poor than dead. Poverty can be escaped, as I am reminded everytime I run into a former student who finished school and has a good job. Death is awfully permanent.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, yes, and yes! With special awards for “Doogie to the tune of Pharell Williams’ “Happy”” and “lollipops and unicorn farts” and “Time Lord from Planet Gallifrey” and “grand mal hissy fits.”

            (I’m not sure I even fully comprehend “unicorn farts,” but that’s what makes it CREATIVE, and worthy of special mention! :-))

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You did it. Now, she is babbling along completely unhinged making every one of your points for you. I do believe you gave her a DISQUS concussion. 🙂

          • Basset_Hound

            No, but I’m getting whiplash trying to figure out whether I’m on Christian News Network or LAN.

            OH WAIT! I see another cheap shot just below your response in my feed. Why am I not surprised.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Actually, CNN has NEVER seen the likes of this. They want to see what real spiritual warfare looks like, and PJ4, Basset_Hound, and MamaBear are on a Crusade! (With apologies to the agnostic PJ4.)

          • MamaBear

            And to return to the subject of this article, the guidelines for assisted suicide and euthanasia will over time become more arbitrary and capricious ad subjective until like Belgium and the Netherlands, it is not just the terminal, but the disabled and chronically ill, and even the physically healthy who are mentally ill.
            In a society with over a million healthy unborn babies per year aborted simply for convenience, they really think assisted suicide and euthanasia will not be similarly abused?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Valri thinks that if she says “WGC would murder the mother,” then that means WGC would murder the mother. 🙂 As far as I know, I am NOT, nor have I ever been, a “mother murderer.” 🙂

            But perhaps that term is abort-speak for “WGC is trying to encourage mothers from murdering their offspring, or signing off on same.” I guess she thinks it is neato-kewl for people to stand by and smile knowingly while Susan Smith drives her kids in the lake too.

          • Basset_Hound

            Of course. Because we don’t know what widdle Susie’s circumstances were.

          • Basset_Hound

            I know. Pretty damned pathetic isn’t it.

          • Valri

            Don’t be so hard on yourself. You can overcome this ignorance.

          • Basset_Hound

            Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back. You’re not that clever.

          • Valri

            Well, God knows you’re my hero, Jethro. So full of tolerance and understanding and compassion. As opposed to, say, the KKK.

          • Valri

            ” I guess she thinks it is neato-kewl for people to stand by and smile knowingly while Susan Smith drives her kids in the lake too.”

            How long will be be before you’re QUOTING me on saying this thing you just pulled out of your backside?

            Here’s what the late, great George Carlin had to say about people like you:

            “Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re preborn, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re f***ed. Conservatives don’t give a s*** about you until you reach military age. Then they think you’re just fine. Just what they’ve been looking for. Conservatives want live babiesso they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life… pro-life… These people aren’t pro-life, they’re killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they’ll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it? They’re not pro-life. You know what they are? They’re anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don’t like them. They don’t like women. They believe a woman’s primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh yes, now Valri is quoting George Carlin, when she cannot quote a medical or biological textbook that shows that life begins at some magical point during the pregnancy that miraculously occurs 5 minutes after the abortion takes place, regardless of when it is! (especially if there is a prom dress involved) 🙂

            Haha – Yes, Carlin shows the bankruptcy of your position: “If conservatives don’t vote for massive welfare, liberals get to knock off 1.2 million babies in the womb every year!” I love it – thank you for confirming what we already know about you – you hate the children of the poor! 🙂

            You should try this one that pro-aborts are using now: “If you don’t personally adopt every unwanted child from a woman going into an abortion clinic, we get to keep up the massive baby sacrifice – yipee!” Yes, that is really a talking point now.

          • Basset_Hound

            Oh, so THAT’S why many of our churches partner with low income schools to provide supplies and to mentor children.

            So THAT’S why we perform “honey do” jobs like house painting and tree removal for senior citizens.

            So THAT’S why we provide groups such as Celebrate Recovery for those who struggle with addictions.

            So THAT’S why we participate in programs like Open Table who mentor the poor, to encourage them in gaining job skills, and in more making constructive life choices.

            So THAT’S why we were the first to arrive after Hurricane Sandy to provide aid and why we’ve been back to New Orleans for years to rebuild houses.

            So THAT’S why conservatives actually GIVE their time and money to the poor instead of encouraging them to depend on the government welfare state.

            Because dammit, some weeded out foulmouthed misogynist hippie “comedian” says we “don’t care about babies once they’re born” . And notice how Carlin treats women in his routines? It’s funny that he says WE are the ones who want women to be “broodmares” when HE refers to them as being nothing but “cum-catchers”.

            Wonder who’ll you’ll be quoting next, the Diceman?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s PJ4 quality right there! You have achieved new status – from now on, when you arrive, you will be seated at the best table in the house. 🙂 You get extra bonus points for the table-flipping on Carlin. — signed, the BH Groupie Chief

          • Basset_Hound

            Carlin did say that words are used to hide from the truth . That seems to be the case for Valri.

            PS Carlin on global warming is hilarious.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Abortion – abuse and murder of another party.

            There, now your list is more complete.

          • Griffonn

            It’s very important that we put sick people out of their caregiver’s misery, eh?

          • Valri

            Terminally ill people? If they request it. It’s their life, they should have the choice to die with dignity or to have a long, painful, drawn-out death which I know is your preference. However you are not them.

          • Griffonn

            Except we know that the two reasons why terminally ill people want to die is (1) fear of not having adequate pain meds and (2) fear of being a burden.

            Both of which you are actively encouraging.

            Because we have seen in Europe how all the talk about safeguards is just talk, and even when doctors openly speak of overriding wishes or not asking consent, there are never any prosecutions. In fact, they’ve expanded the list: they are offing people for sex change regret, for depression, for blindness – instead of treating conditions they are exploiting situational depression as a replacement for “informed” consent. They’ve even extended euthanasia to include minors – the parents can give consent now.

            The idea that euthanasia has something to do with caring about the people they want to ill is a lie. It’s about sick people being unwanted.

          • wiffle

            I’ve gotten into 2 no-win longish online conversations about assisted suicide, both trolled now that I think about.

            When I knocked through every arguement, their bottom line is “I want the MD to do exactly what I want, when I want, because if life doesn’t hold pleasure for me, I’d rather be dead.” That it might impact other people immediately or in the future is of no consequence. Also not considered is the willingness to just do it themselves, which is not that hard when you think about it. The selfishness is unreal.

            The stuff is not totally theorically to me. If we get the same lawsuit dominoes that did in abortion and marriage, it’s quite possible that we could see this in a decade or two in states that don’t want anything to do with it. My Mother who is chronically depressed, in poor physical condition, and has openly talk of suicide off and on for decades is right now living in assisted living. It will might be her that ends up dead someday at the hands of a “caring” MD who never realized that she’s always changed her mind and wanted to live.

          • MamaBear

            I heard of just such a case in Belgium, where a woman had decades of periods of deep depression, but always decided she wanted to live and even enjoyed her life between depression episodes. She was in good physical health. One day her son got notified to have her body picked up at the hospital. She had been depressed again and been euthanized, no family members notified in advance where they might have talked her out of it. Nothing they could do legally in under Belgium law either, the doctor and hospital had immunity.

          • BobbyWasTheCat

            oh, so well stated….especially your last sentence.

          • Basset_Hound

            Unfortunately, I can’t post a link to this. If I do, it will end up in moderation limbo, and the address is quite long. On July 9, 2014, the UK Daily Mail posted an article about a Dutch professor, who formerly supported his country’s assisted law was now going to Parliament, literally BEGGING the Brits not to make the same mistake. He said safeguards don’t work and it is totally out of control. That alone should tell us something.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nice rebuttal. So true, yet so pithy. 🙂

          • Griffonn

            Can’t claim credit – I think that goes to

            @Mother_of_4_Original

          • MamaBear

            Considering that one of the top two reasons for assisted suicide is feeling they are a burden. Caregivers are very influential in whether you feel like a burden or feel loved and wanted. There is a world of difference between “I’m so tired of doing all this for you” and “I’m so thankful I still have you.”
            I’m pretty sure some of these who advocate suicide or euthanasia, especially young healthy people who advocate it, are fearful of being “stuck” as caregivers.

          • Basset_Hound

            And as for dying with dignity and with a minimum of pain, Frontline showed back in February how this can be accomplished WITHOUT euthanasia. Each of these patients were able to die comfortably, surrounded by family and friends. I tried to post this link several days ago, but it ended up in “Moderation” limbo.

            http://www.pbs(dot)org/wgbh/pages/frontline/being-mortal/

            This is how Jesus would have wanted it done.

          • MamaBear

            I like what the doctor said at the end, that we live for something bigger than ourselves.
            Each of these people was treated with compassion and genuine dignity. None were made to feel like they were a burden, but instead that they would be deeply missed.
            I’m still at the stage where treatments are working with a decent quality of life, but I also know what is coming eventually. I’m hoping for years, but as we saw in the show, cancer is very unpredictable.

          • Griffonn

            Jesus actually wasn’t a big fan of humans appropriating decisions that rightfully belong to God.

            You must be talking about Teddy Ruxpin Jesus, that parody-Jesus who exists to make selfish people feel good about themselves?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Teddy Ruxpin Jesus”

            (stifling giggles :-))

          • Basset_Hound

            Or the parody Jesus she constructed out of her blindness, prejudice and bigotry, whilst she wags her fingers and lectures US about having these characteristics.

          • John N

            So instead of actual evidence for people being obliged to die, you come up with an opinion of a guy who clearly is against euthanasia?

            >’Non-voluntary euthanasia is now being justified by appealing to the social duty of citizens and the ethical pillar of beneficence’

            Where is this justified?

            By the way, I’m very well aware of what is happening in Belgium and the Netherlands, something you clearly are not.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            You are surprised? I didn’t expected nothing else from a christian like him/her. He/she stated that he/she isn’t a friend of the (Netherlands government still makes me giggle) Dutch government

          • John N

            Surprised? No.

            The way World uses and abuses any argument he can find to hide the fact that he only has one – his version of his god forbids it – is not new at all.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Awww, poor baby can’t come up with decent logic, and needs Jolanda’s shoulder to cry on. 🙂 (If you had seen her “logic” over on LAN, you would have converted to Christianity just to flee it. :-))

            Why is it that when I defeat your emotion-laden assertions with secular evidence, logic, and philosophy, it is YOU who brings up God?!? Are you praying for better success to Someone you don’t believe in? 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “you come up with an opinion of a guy who clearly is against euthanasia”

            Classical ad hominem. Based on that “logic,” I do not have to consider anything you say to be credible because you are not a conservative Christian. 🙂

            Are you claiming that the Dutch government is lying when it reports involuntary euthanasias that occur there?

          • John N

            >’Classic ad hominem’
            Since the article shows no evidence of people being obliged to die, what else is there to argue? Or do you deny this article was directed against euthanasia?

            And where do you see the Dutch government reporting people are obliged to die? Because that was your statement. If you can’t support it, you must be wrong – either ignorant or lying.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Since the article shows no evidence of people being obliged to die, what else is there to argue? ”

            Just because you say something is true does not make it true, John. The article provides sufficient evidence for the slippery slope that you wish had not occurred but clearly has in Holland, Belgium, and now, Oregon.

            “And where do you see the Dutch government reporting people are obliged to die?”

            Don’t be dense, John: no one in the Dutch government is going to come out and says the words “You are obliged to die.” Surely, you understand the concept of economics, no? The article I provided gave you good argument for that having happened, and the fact that the Dutch government itself records the number of involuntary euthanasias is hard-core proof of same. I mean, they admit it, John – what more will it take for you to believe it?!?

            Or, are you one of those who still believes that Planned Murder in Da Hood provides mammograms?!? (ROFLMAO. :-))

          • John N

            >’The article provides sufficient evidence for the slippery slope that you wish had not occurred but clearly has in Holland, Belgium, and now, Oregon.’

            You clearly didn’t read the article nor looked at the sources, It doesn’t provide any evidence for such a ‘slippery slope’, unless you call anecdotes and comments from anonymous doctors evidence. If you think otherwise, please show the evidence.

            >’The article I provided gave you good argument for that having happened’

            Arguments are not evidence, World. If you had read the source articles you would know that the figures for palliative or terminal sedation without explicit request of the patient have not changed significantly since euthanasia became legal. So no slippery slope in the Netherlands or Belgium. Maybe you better stick to your religuous arguments, at least that would be the honest thing to do.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Arguments are not evidence, World.”

            They most certainly are! That’s like saying that the proof that there are no even prime numbers larger than 2 is not evidence for same – absurd! That would be quite the revelation you are peddling to the technical world. 🙂

            “If you had read the source articles you would know that the figures for palliative or terminal sedation without explicit request of the patient have not changed significantly since euthanasia became legal.”

            Oh, nice shift of goalposts there. We are not talking about the requirements, we are talking about the practice. And the practice does not line up with the requirements, unless you believe that involuntary euthanasias are in line with the requirements? 🙂 I would note that, there IS evidence that the Dutch government maintains a wink and a nod policy with respect to involuntary euthanasias, since they merely slap doctors and nurses on the wrist when they conduct them.

            I will take it for granted that you are NOT denying the fact that the Dutch government tracks the number of KNOWN involuntary euthanasias? (We can assume, without loss of generality, that there are unknown cases of involuntary euthanasia.)

            It seems to me that you are willing to deny good evidence and logic and argumentation in order to hold to a preconceived notion on this issue.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            You know that the law in Holland passed in 2001 right? So ‘in 30 years’ uhm, I don’t think so. Yep like @John N and I stated, writteb by a guy who is against euthanasia. Try again.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            What are you babbling about, now, Jolanda?!? Are you suffering from a concussion after “running into” MamaBear, Basset_Hound, and PJ4 over on LAN? 🙂

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            What? So you post something about what some guy wrote, but don’t read it yourself? First sentence from the article ‘in 30 years, the Netherlands etc. The euthanasia law in Holland passed in 2001 and now we are 2015. So that guy can’t count or he is plain stupid.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I see the confusion – that included public policy discussion.

            Here are the first words in the introduction to the article I linked:

            “Euthanasia is generally defined as the act, undertaken only by a physician, that intentionally ends the life of a person at his or her request 1,2. The physician therefore administers the lethal substance. In physician-assisted suicide ( pas ) on the other hand, a person self-administers a lethal substance prescribed by a physician.

            To date, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg have legalized euthanasia 1,2. The laws in the Netherlands and Luxembourg also allow pas . In the United States, the states of Oregon and Washington legalized pas in 1997 and 1999 respectively, but euthanasia remains illegal 3. The situation in the state of Montana is currently unclear; a bill legalizing pas was passed by the state legislature in 2010, but was recently defeated by the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee.

            In the Netherlands, euthanasia and pas were formally legalized in 2001 after about 30 years of public debate 1. Since the 1980s, guidelines and procedures for performing and controlling euthanasia have been developed and adapted several times by the Royal Dutch Medical Association in collaboration with that country’s judicial system. Despite opposition, including that from the Belgian Medical Association, Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002 after about 3 years of public discourse that included government commissions. The law was guided by the Netherlands and Oregon experiences, and the public was assured that any defects in the Dutch law would be addressed in the Belgian law. Luxembourg legalized euthanasia and pas in 2009. Switzerland is an exception, in that assisted suicide, although not formally legalized, is tolerated as a result of a loophole in a law dating back to the early 1900s that decriminalizes suicide. Euthanasia, however, is illegal 4. A person committing suicide may do so with assistance as long as the assistant has no selfish motives and does not stand to gain personally from the death. Unlike other jurisdictions that require euthanasia or assisted suicide to be performed only by physicians, Switzerland allows non-physicians to assist suicide.”

            The 30 years includes the public debate over euthanasia.

            I think back to the Nazis trying to force Dutch doctors to assist them in euthanasia after Germany invaded Holland, and now we see the Dutch doctors behaving little differently from the Nazi doctors:

            http://fee .org/freeman/from-small-beginnings-the-road-to-genocide/

            Excerpt:

            “Dr. Alexander contrasted the actions of the German medical profession with those of doctors in the Netherlands under German occupation, who refused to take the first small step to genocide.

            In December 1944, an order was issued by the Nazi authorities to all Dutch physicians: It is the duty of the doctor, through advice and effort, conscientiously and to his best ability, to assist as helper the person entrusted to his care in the maintenance, improvement and re-establishment of his vitality, physical efficiency and health. The accomplishment of this duty is a public task.

            This statement might appear on first reading to be unobjectionable and innocuous. However, the Dutch medical profession, which was aware of the extermination system in place on the other side of the Dutch-German border, recognized that this order would serve as a basis for the promulgation of a new standard of care that would place first priority upon the return of patients to productivity for the state, rather than the relief of suffering. Physicians would consequently be subordinated to the state and its interest to maximize utility.

            Dutch physicians unanimously refused to comply. When the Nazis threatened to revoke uncooperating doctors’ licenses to practice, all doctors returned their licenses and closed their offices, but continued to see patients in private. The Nazis then arrested 100 Dutch doctors and sent them to concentration camps, but the medical profession refused to back down. The result was that no Dutch doctor participated in a killing and the Nazi plans for medical exterminations in the Netherlands were not carried out.”

            My, how Holland has fallen!

      • Elie Challita

        So you are against martyrdom, or joining high risk professions?

  • MamaBear

    In Oregon, if you are terminal and on Medicaid, you have to have a life expectancy of at least a certain number of months (I believe it is 24) to get treatments other than pain meds or assisted suicide drugs, even though the law says you have to have 6 months or less to get the suicide drugs. Do not kid yourselves into thinking government and insurance companies will not be encouraging this on a widespread level.
    Doctor’s prognosis are merely educated guesses. I had a cousin told six months. He only made it three. I have a friend whose husband was told 6 months almost a year ago. He recently took his grandkids bowling. The median survival for my kind of cancer is two and a half years. I recently passed that and even achieved remission.
    Every place that has legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide, both life extending treatments and end of life palliative care has become harder to obtain. As it is, almost every cancer patient I know has had to fight insurance at some time to get a particular drug or treatment. With legalized assisted suicide as an option, common sense dictates this will only get worse.
    I also fear this will put a damper on continued research. Why spend money developing life-extending treatments when encouraging suicide is cheaper?
    We need to help the dying. We have made great progress in palliative care since my grandmother’s death, but we still have a great deal of room for improvement. We need to find more treatments that allow for better quality of life for all our terminal and disabled, not prematurely kill them.
    This is personal for me. I have metastatic inflammatory breast cancer. I know remission is not likely to be permanent, I achieved it for a short time once before.
    I am also concerned about the effect this will have on our morals and compassion as a society. I know when I die, I will go to be with my Lord. But, neither myself nor anyone else have the right to take my or anyone else’s life before God says my days are done. Life is a precious gift.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Thank you for being a voice in the wilderness, MamaBear! God is working His good through you so beautifully.

    • John N

      >’But, neither myself nor anyone else have the right to take my or anyone else’s life before God says my days are done’

      Fine for you. Nobody will force you to end your life. Now please, let other people decide for themselves if they do want to have that right.

    • Desertcatn

      Well said, praying for you! They gave my Mom six-months for leukemia, but she lived almost five years, a lot of it is the will to live!

      • MamaBear

        Thank you for the prayers, Desertcatn.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      I will keep you in Prayer. My Grandma died from Breast cancer. My mom and sister are survivors of it. I hope you stay in Remission. With God all things are possible!

      • MamaBear

        Thank you, LadyFreeBird.

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          Your welcome.

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      That is your right and choice. Like it’s someone elses right and choice to have there life end the way they see fit.

  • John N

    >“In those countries that have legalized euthanasia (Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg) the numbers seeking the procedure are spiraling ever upward,” it explained. “In 2013 there were 1,087 cases of euthanasia in Belgium, up 27 percent on the figures for 2012, while 2012 saw a 25 percent increase on the numbers for 2011.’

    Correct, and in 2001 it was zero. What did you expect? More and more people discover the option of deciding for themselves when and how they want to die.
    The article also conveniently forgets to mention that the 1,087 cases of 2013 represent 1,7% of the total number of deaths.

    >”In Holland, it has been estimated that 12.3 percent of all deaths are now via euthanasia.”

    Official figures for 2014 (which can be found easily on the net) give 5.306 euthanasia-cases out of 139.000 deaths, which is 3.8%. Guess that gives a good impression of the quality of the sources for this stuff. By the way, the country is called the Netherlands.

  • bowie1

    It would be really crazy if those who were in favor of this bill would be opposed to capital punishment since both end in death.

    • MamaBear

      Actually, many of them, like those who favor aborting the unborn, really are anti-capital punishment.