Judge Who Jailed Kim Davis Ordered Students Who Opposed Homosexuality to Be Re-Educated

Bunning DavisASHLAND, Ky. — Following yesterday’s jailing of a county clerk for stating that it is not possible for her to obey an order to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals against God’s law, it is now being noted that the same federal judge also once ordered Kentucky students to be re-educated about homosexuality despite their objections.

In 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—the same group that filed suit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis—sued the Boyd County Board of Education to force it to agree to allow a “gay-straight” alliance club to meet at Boyd County High School. A number of parents had strongly opposed the group following its initial formation, with approximately 70 attending a school council meeting to speak out on the matter.

The school board temporarily suspended the meeting of all student groups due to controversy over the matter, but the Bible and drama clubs allegedly continued to meet despite the ban. Students with the alliance subsequently contacted the ACLU, which filed suit over the matter.

Bunning then ordered Boyd County education officials to allow the alliance to meet on campus, declaring that they must be granted the same privileges as other groups, including using the intercom during school hours.

“Absent a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs will be unable to meet at school, unable to benefit from a forum for discussion with other students who are suffering the effects of harassment based on sexual orientation, and unable to work with other students to foster tolerance among all students,” he wrote.

But Bunning also required the school district to implement training as part of a settlement, which mandated school staff and students to undergo diversity education, “a significant portion of which would be devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.”

However, a number of students objected to being forced to watch a video that asserted that it is wrong to oppose homosexuality and that a person’s sexuality cannot be changed. They discovered that they could not opt-out of the training without being penalized, and contacted the legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) for assistance.

  • Connect with Christian News

ADF then sued the Boyd County Board of Education over the matter on behalf of student Timothy Morrison and his parents, who said that the re-education requirement “effectively forces the students to speak in agreement with the school district’s view that homosexuality is a safe and healthy lifestyle that cannot be changed.”

But in 2006, Bunning again ruled that the students must watch the video and could not opt-out because of their Christian identity, stating that the education “rationally related to a legitimate educational goal, namely to maintain a safe environment.” He said that the training wouldn’t mean that students would have to change their religious beliefs, therefore, an opt-out was unnecessary.

“Plaintiffs are not requesting that a student absent from the training be considered an ‘excused’ or that the Board offer an alternate assignment on the issue of diversity. Rather, they seek to opt-out of the training altogether,” Bunning wrote.

“Given the requirements of the consent decree, the Board cannot meet this demand. Moreover, as there is no burden on plaintiffs’ freedom of speech, free exercise or other constitutional right, there is simply no basis for an opt-out,” he said.

Bunning pointed to a First Circuit ruling in making his decision.

“We think it is fundamentally different for the state to say to a parent, ‘You can’t teach your child German or send him to a parochial school,’ than for the parent to say to the state, ‘You can’t teach my child subjects that are morally offensive to me,'” the noted ruling stated.

“If all parents had a fundamental constitutional right to dictate individually what the schools teach their children, the schools would be forced to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moral disagreements with the school’s choice of subject matter,” it reasoned.

Bunning’s decision was then appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned his ruling in October 2007 and sided with Morrison. It stated that the student could seek damages from the school district because the policy and training “chilled” his ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.

“Although a favorable decision cannot provide Morrison an opportunity to travel back in time and utter the speech he withheld, it can provide him with nominal damages,” the three-judge panel ruled in the 2-1 decision. “Even though these damages amount to little, they serve to vindicate his rights.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • KenS

    “The national headquarters likewise brushed off the footage, stating that using the bodies of aborted babies for scientific purposes provides a means of comfort for the mothers of the dead.” Did you get that? “….mothers of the dead.” “….of the dead.” How is this not murder?

    If it is just tissue, why do the mothers need comforting, is it because they know they have killed their baby? This statement alone clearly states that the mothers and the doctors involved know that they are murdering a child!

    • Frank

      Even a single cell is alive.

      • KenS


      • Nofun

        Don’t scratch yourself then … you don’t want to carry out mass murder.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Amen! That’s why they are AGAINST the ultrasound for the abortive mother, but FOR the ultrasound for the organ-harvesting “abortionist.”

      With videos of abortions and pictures of post-abortive babies all over the internet, the only person who can be pro-abortion in 2015 is the willfully ignorant.

      • John_33

        Sadly, many were willfully ignorant of slavery despite the brutality and anti-Biblical nature of the institution publicly on display. They needed to be awakened to the reality, and so it is in this case.

      • Nofun

        Heart surgery is gory too …should we ban that?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Heart surgery is not the intentional killing of a human being. My daughter had open heart surgery. No one died in it. No one.

          To compare heart surgery with abortion is to deny modern-day science and medicine.

          • Nofun

            I am only talking about gore which is what your reason to ban abortion was above.

            Abortion is moral as something in you can never have equal or superior rights to body’s owner. It is a different moral domain and in that domain the pregnant person gets all the say. You jesus and the state get no day.

            Banning abortion is completely immoral as we know through history what happens when that occurs women and girls die or get diseased en masse … and we still have abortion.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I am only talking about gore which is what your reason to ban abortion was above.”

            Have you been drinking tonight? Nowhere did I say anything about gore being the reason to ban abortion. I only made the point that abortionists won’t show the woman the ultrasound of her baby before the abortion because it might change her mind. Similarly, they are busy calling the baby a clump of cells BEFORE the abortion.

            But, when it comes time to harvest the body parts of the baby, all of a sudden the pro-deathers are calling the baby a baby – and using ultrasound so they don’t damage the organs they want to harvest from the baby! Thus, the pro-deathers refute themselves.

            “Abortion is moral as something in you can never have equal or superior rights to body’s owner.”

            False. There are two human beings involved. Both have equal rights in America, or should. Oh, and a woman does not OWN the baby. Babies are not property – they are human beings. Unless you are pro-slavery? 🙂

            “It’s legal, I have the right to choose, it should be allowed for economic reasons, they aren’t human, it’s better for them too, who are you to force your religion on me?” Is this a 21st century Democrat defender of the “right” to abort or a 19th century Democrat defender of the “right” to own black people? Answer: Both.

            “Banning abortion is completely immoral as we know through history what happens when that occurs women and girls die or get diseased en masse … and we still have abortion.”

            The vast majority of illegal abortions done prior to Roe and Doe were done by in doctor’s offices by doctors breaking the law. Coat hangers and the back alley were largely a myth propagated prior to Roe – and the folks who did it later admitted it was a myth. Of course, there will still be abortions when it is made illegal: there are still murders and burglaries and rapes, but you don’t seem to want THOSE things to be made legal, now do you?!? Abortion is murder.

            As for being pro-woman, abortion wounds, and sometimes kills, a woman. The damage is both physical and psychological and is well-documented in peer-reviewed secular sources and medical journals (just take the spaces out):

            http://www .abortionfacts .com/reardon/the-after-effects-of-abortion

            Finally, the overwhelming majority of arguments for abortion can be equally applied outside of the womb. Neither size nor level of development, environment, or degree of dependency are rational reasons to kill ANY human being – inside or outside of the womb. So, we have good logical reasons for believing that abortion is reprehensible. And, as each new video comes out, we have more and more good moral reasons to end abortion. On a more personal level:

            What will it take for you to admit you were on the wrong side of the world’s worst holocaust in human history? Look in those dishes – those are the arms and legs and heads of dead babies floating there. If that is not enough to turn your heart, what is?!? What WILL it take?

          • Nofun

            You mean you want to force women to get ultrasounds, which are often transvaginal, and make them look at it against their will.

            Again, you are sick and you show how depraved fetus worship is.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No reply to the argument – got it.

            “Again, you are sick and you show how depraved fetus worship is.”

            What is wrong, on atheism, with worshipping fetuses? There are no grounds for objective moral values and duties on atheism, and atheists agree with me here:

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going
            to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

            “No evil and no good” in your world. No wonder you are a pro-abort! You cannot even condemn slavery or Jew gassing on atheism. 🙂

          • Nofun

            You have it backwards. Atheists are all for morality but you have to able to say why, rationally, something is moral and in what context.

            Dawkins was talking about the universe not humans. Morality has obvious evolutionary advantages.

            Perhaps you have no idea what you are talking about.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Atheists are all for morality”

            mo·ral·i·ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-]


            1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
            2. moral quality or character.
            3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
            4. a doctrine or system of morals.
            5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

            Then, why do atheists deny the existence of objective moral values and duties? Here are two more:

            “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

            “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond
            themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

            “Dawkins was talking about the universe not humans.”

            Not true. The definition for morality and ethics requires humans in the loop. No one is advancing or defending the idea that inanimate objects have morality or ethics – so Dawkins has no need to refute such a notion.

            “no purpose, no evil and no good,” “no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life,” “ethics is illusory”

            There you have it – that is YOUR world. You don’t get to borrow the existence of objective moral values and duties from the world of the theist – they do not exist to you – they are merely flavors of ice cream. When you make objective moral claims, you are actually acknowledging the existence of God – for which I thank you very much! 🙂

          • Nofun

            1. Wrong, The plural “All”applies to the number of atheists. The “Morality” being referred to was singular. So you are wrong on grammar and morality too.

            2. Apart from chastity which is not moral at all, I agree with the definitions.

            3. Atheists don’t. The religious just think they own morality when their bible is just morally relative. Some recommendations we have laws against.

            4, The William Provine quote is true. The bit about “there is no foundation to ethics” is related to the religious who only act “good” to get some prize after they die. Secular morality does not offer you such inducements.

            5. Inanimate object? Morality provides obvious evolutionary advantages to the group.

            6. Purpose is just personal vanity. Your life’s purpose is to live your life as yourself and perhaps make things better for current and future generations. For this morality is vital.

            Good and evil are just personal judgements, labels and lazy scapegoating. Just and unjust depends on context.

            Murder is our highest crime but we allow the police to murder in limited circumstances and the armed forces to murder in more wide ranging circumstances … all for sound moral reasons.

            Religious morality simply says “do not kill”. Then the bible gives you 100s of examples of righteous killing. Or you call what the police and army do some other term and pretend you are following a consistent biblical morality.

            Secular morality simple says the context is different when the police have to murder someone and it is moral because the greater good is served i.e. the crazy gunman can’t kill any more people. This secular morality is thus consistent and rational and doesn’t try to hide behind other terms.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No reply to the quotes by 3 prominent atheists as to how objective moral values and duties can exist on atheism. Got it.

            “Apart from chastity which is not moral at all, I agree with the definitions.”

            I actually do not care if you agree with the definitions at all. You don’t get to make words mean what they don’t mean.

            “not moral” and “Good and evil are just personal judgements”

            These two statements contradict each other. In the first, you are asserting objective moral values and duties, thus acknowledging the existence of an Objective Moral Law Giver, in the second relative / personal preferences. You cannot have it both ways.

            “The bit about “there is no foundation to ethics” is related to the religious who only act “good” to get some prize after they die. Secular morality does not offer you such inducements.”

            That is because secular “morality” does not exist in any objective sense. You have admitted this elsewhere. On atheism, your “morality” is just a flavor of ice cream and you cannot objectively condemn slavery, Jew gassing, pedophile priests, or any other behavior. “No foundation” means what it says. Live with it.

            “Morality provides obvious evolutionary advantages to the group.”

            There is no objective “morality” in your world. No traffic cop in the animal kingdom to tell who to copulate with whom, or who to murder or rape whom.

            “Your life’s purpose is to live your life as yourself and perhaps make things better for current and future generations.”

            There is no way you can see into the future to arrive at any objective purpose. Anything goes in your world. Want to be like Mother Teresa? Fine. Want to be like Hitler? Also fine.

            “For this morality is vital.”

            You are using “morality” in an objective sense here, denying your atheism. Such does not exist in your world. Please re-read Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse again.

            “Just and unjust depends on context.”

            True in your world. But, because of it, you don’t get to condemn anything, even if someone mistreats you. It’s just their “context,” their ice cream flavor, their different way of “dancing to their DNA.” 🙂

            “Then the bible gives you 100s of examples of righteous killing.”

            You can’t condemn ANYTHING in the Bible, because you have no objective standard to compare it with. You are an atheist: anything goes. Deal with it.

            “This secular morality is thus consistent and rational”

            It is only consistent and rational in the same way that choosing ice cream flavors is:

            “[To] all my Atheist friends.

            Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.

            We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial
            imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.

            We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc.
            Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus
            be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

            I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.” — unknown a-theist

          • Nofun

            1. I did reply. I explained what they were referencing. You want to believe atheism is not having any morality and are deaf and blind to any other interpretation.

            2. I am no making anything up. Chasity is not moral or immoral. It is a choice.

            3. Again nothing leads to a Moral Law Giver because there is no evidence of such an entity. All morality is a discussion among human beings and is largely driven by the notion of fairness. it also evolves for the better in a civilized society.

            Good and evil are subjective judgements when they are applied to people. If you want to call just and unjust, good and evil, go for it … the problem is that those terms negate moral context.
            What is good in one context is evil in another.

          • AJ2

            Women who are not “women” enough to raise their child they created should shut their legs and not kill a harmless innocent baby.

          • Nofun

            Yea, they should lead a dead sexless life like yourself. Perhaps people’s sex lives and their wombs are not your business.

          • AJ2

            You sound so ignorant. I’m trying to save a innocent baby’s life and all you can do is make ignorant comments like you know someone. All women who get abortions should feel guilt forever and they are disgusting and sick for killing a child and the doctors who get them are just as disgusting like baby killers as yourself. You are a subhuman.

          • Nofun

            You are trying to force women to carry a fetus to term against their will. That is wrong. It is torture.

            Insult me all you like as it just shows you have no rational arguments just emotional hysteria.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            As opposed to worshiping Moloch?

          • Nofun

            Wasn’t he a comic book character?
            The devil is christian mythology …. that notion is your problem no one elses.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Since most cultures in the world have some sort of “devil” in their ideas, you are the one who is confused.

          • Nofun

            Yes everyone wants to make some excuse for their actions. The worse is when you think your sins no longer exist because some guy was nailed to a bit of wood 2000 years ago.

            How about being responsible for your actions and stop palming off the blame onto magical entities.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            It isn’t about excuses. There are no excuses in Christianity, but there is forgiveness through Christ.

            How about admitting that abortion kills a human being, and stop making excuses for that? How about women who become pregnant take some responsibility for their problem, instead of killing their child to try and make the problem go away??

          • Nofun

            You forgive yourself and use your faith construct to pretend it someone else is forgiving you.

            It is the ludicrous notion you can pack your sins up on a goat and send the goat out of town and your sins are thus gone.

            Try accepting responsibility for your actions.

            Getting an abortion is taking responsibility … it doesn’t matter if you don’t approve that course of action.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            That’s beyond ridiculous.

            No one is talking about goats here.

            No, murder isn’t a responsible action.

          • Nofun

            The goat analogy perfectly describes the idea you can send your sins away or make them disappear.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Not even close.

          • Nofun

            Does Jesus not absolve you of sin then?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Here is a secular proof for the existence of Hell, your future home should you not repent:

            1. Every natural innate human desire has a corresponding satisfying object in reality. (e.g., thirst has the object of water, hunger has the object of food, etc)

            2. All humans possess a natural innate desire for objective moral justice to be satisfied.

            3. Therefore, objective moral justice exists.

            4. In some cases, objective moral justice is not satisfied in this lifetime. (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, unrepentant abortion “doctors,” abortuary deathscorts, etc)

            5. Therefore, objective moral justice is achieved in an afterlife.

            6. Therefore, Hell exists.

            What will it take for you to admit you were on the wrong side of the world’s worst holocaust in human history? Look in those dishes – those are the arms and legs and heads of dead babies floating there. If that is not enough to turn your heart, what is?!? What WILL it take?

          • Nofun

            Your logic isn’t. 2. is not true at all.

            Justice not being served in one’s lifetime doesn’t suddenly mean it happens elsewhere especially in a magic afterlife for which there is no evidence.

            The worst holocaust was the Reformation wars which wiped out a third of white Europeans and caused a holocaust in every country it infected. All an internal Christian dispute.

            The Nazi holocaust was justified by the decades of virulent anti-Semitism preached in Lutheran churches … Hitler didn’t invent it.

            Hitler used Christianity in every book and speech and cast Jews as Christ killers. Being an atheist I was the correct side of the christian Nazi holocaust.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Your logic isn’t. 2. is not true at all.”

            You mean you don’t desire for objective justice? Then, why do you call out Christians for being “wrong” on anything?!? 🙂

            “Hitler used Christianity in every book and speech and cast Jews as Christ killers. Being an atheist I was the correct side of the christian Nazi holocaust.”

            First of all, there is no objective “right” on atheism – it just does not exist. We have already proven that with your admission that objective morality does not exist. 🙂


            So, Hitler was committed to worshiping a Jew Whose guiding
            principle was to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself?!? Pretty absurd.

            “Not many Germans lost much sleep over the arrests of a few thousand pastors and priests… the Nazi regime intended to eventually destroy Christianity in Germany…As Bormann…said publicly in 1941, ‘National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.’… 13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in
            Germany…18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles, and pictures of saints. 19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf…the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels…and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.” The Rise and Fall of the
            Third Reich, p. 240.

            Thus far, we have:

            1. Crosses and crucifixes taken down and replaced by the Swastika. (Just what modern-day organization is demanding that crosses come down? Oh yes, the Freedom From Thought group. 🙂 (OK, FFRF.))

            2. “Irreconcilability of Nazism and Christianity.” (or Darwinism and Christianity. :-))

            3. Termination of Bible publishing. (To be fair, a-theists haven’t pulled this off yet. But, they do like making fun of it, as opposed to the Quran. :-))

            4. Replacement of the Bible with Mein Kampf. (The latter is a
            remarkably similar tome to “On the Origin of the Species.”)

            5. Arrest of pastors and priests. (That is already happening, in
            a small way, in the West. Guess who is pushing it?)

            6. Hitler’s “Jesus” was a fighter and not a sufferer.

            7. Hitler’s “Christ” died to eradicate the Jewish

            8. Defending against the Jew is Hitler’s “Jesus'”
            highest calling.

            Well, that’s it. Pretty much looks like the Nicene Creed to me!
            🙂 I would say that Joseph Stalin and the president of American A-theists were more “Christian” than Hitler. 🙂

            Here are a couple of quotes you forgot:

            “National Socialism and religion cannot exist together….
            The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”

            “Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

            That’s a big time fail right there. Take a lesson from a former a-theist: if you find your fellow a-theists re-writing history and taking brand new shots at theism, it just might be a Hail Mary due to the fact that the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God, combined with Big Bang, CBR, 2nd Law of
            Thermodynamics, inflationary universe, the BGV Theorem – and a lot more – have slammed the door so tightly shut on rational a-theism that the a-theist is left to inventing blind faith cult myths to go along with Darwinism. God bless!

          • Nofun

            1. What I want or do not want has no bearing on what is … it certainly does automatically posit a magical eternal afterlife for which there is no evidence.

            2. Secular morality is all about objective right. Christianity is about absolute right … which it immediately undermines with contradictory messages. Then because it is a interpreted morality it can be interpreted any way you like …. thus is morally relative.

            Unless you can define the context of each moral you don’t have any.

            3. No one knows if Hitler was a christian as he was a nut …. we do know he used christianity to justify the holocaust.

            “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”
            – Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

            “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn
            splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.”
            – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 1

            “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
            Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

            “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of
            the Almighty Creator.”
            [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]

            “What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.”
            [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]

            “This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the
            practical existence of a religious belief.”
            [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]

            “And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his
            estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.” [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]

            “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

            As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.”

            There is only about 100 more.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “What I want or do not want has no bearing on what is … it certainly does automatically posit a magical eternal afterlife for which there is no evidence.”

            Not true. I gave you a sound argument. The fact that you cannot defeat it is your problem, not mine.

            “Secular morality is all about objective right.”

            It sounds like you now admit the existence of objective moral values and duties? Great – welcome to theism!

            Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do
            not exist.
            Premise 2: Objective moral values DO exist.
            Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

            “No one knows if Hitler was a christian as he was a nut”

            Actually, we know he was NOT a Christian. You provided quotes, and I provided quotes. Words are cheap, actions speak loudly. You failed to address how a “Christian” could:

            1. Worship a Jew Whose guiding principle was to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself, while simultaneously knocking off 6 million Jews.

            2. Take down crosses and crucifixes and replace them with the Swastika. That is blasphemy of the HIGHEST order in Christianity.

            3. Terminate Bible publishing. Doesn’t sound like any Christians I have heard of. 🙂

            4. Replace the Bible with Mein Kampf. Hmm.

            5. Arrest pastors and priests. That would seem to defeat the whole purpose of being a Christian, no? 🙂

            Basically, in order to prove your point, you need to provide Church documents, creeds, letters, etc that support the case that points 1-5 above are the standard practice of the Christian Church over the 1900 years leading up to Hitler’s Reich. Failing that, all you have is a shift from a man who very much behaved as if there was no God (atheists anyone?!? :-)) to his meaningless words. You probably think Obama is a “christian” too because of his words. I have some swamp land for sale. 🙂

          • Nofun

            1. Not sound at all. Like all supernatural beliefs it follows no rational line of logic in the least.

            2. Theism is about morality ordained by supernatural authority and interpreted from books of dogma … themselves rewrites of earlier myths and legend. Jesus is an exact retelling of the Horus and Mithra legends.

            3, We do not know whether Hitler was a christian, nor does it matter as we know he used christianity to justify killing 6 million Jews … or are going to ignore his every speech and book (a snippet of which I gave you above).

            1 to 5 aren’t true at all. It would be up to you to prove your assertions not me. The armed forces belt buckles still said “God with us”. He arrested many people, none of which was a pogram against christians. All you have to say is this priest or nun or whoever is not true ayran christian and then arrest them.

            That’s the wonderful thing about religion, being interpreted morality you can twist it to justify anything.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Bravo! Mind if I share that?

          • Nofun

            Another logic challenged person.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            We know you are.

          • Nofun

            Do I have to poke my tongue out at you again?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You know when they call you names, LadyGreenEyes, you have won. 🙂

          • LadyGreenEyes


          • Nofun

            Keep telling yourself that.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It’s yours! I made it up based on CS Lewis’s argument from desire (for Heaven). I started to think “Don’t we also desire objective justice?” God’s holiness and righteousness demand it – but this is a secular proof for it. So far, atheists have taken some shots at it – but none have found the target. Because deep down, even atheists want justice on some level. God bless you, LadyGreenEyes!

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Awesome. Thx!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are most welcome – anything I can do for someone I admire so much for her stand for the Lord! If you get any questions on it that you cannot answer, I can help too – I can go a couple of levels deep on this when they attack it with silly stuff – like “I desire a Lamborghini!” (Gosh, that was NOT funny, sorry. :-() Or, “I desire to know everything.” Those kinds of attempts are easily refuted.

            This kind of argument from desire has actually held up quite well in the high end philosophical circles. I had not seen one on Hell before – just the one CS Lewis did on Heaven, which was not quite this formal. Believe it or not, some of these types of ontological (existence) arguments come out of some of the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas and are being encouraged by some pretty brilliant modern-day Jesuit philosophers and theologians. I know we have talked about Catholicism, but I just want to say that there have been some incredibly brilliant Jesuits over the centuries, so don’t let that dissuade you from using them. All truth is God’s Truth.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I’ll keep that in mind! You might consider posting to some other sites. There are some serious anti-Christian types on another site I frequent, ATS.

            I agree, some great data over the years from some. People van have real faith even in a place that isn’t supporting them well.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’m following you now – as you will see. I guess I’m a groupie or something. 🙂

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I saw. I do that myself, to see what people say when I agree with them a lot and to catch discussions I might miss, that they don’t.

          • Ken Campbell

            All of this is part of the survival of a social system and is therefore part of our survival as a species. Yes, we have tried to explain it in concrete terms.

            So going through your ‘proof’

            1 is true. We have a cause/effect concept
            2. is true. Humans are naturally social and will attempt to be pro-social
            3 is false. the concept of social order is different throughout time and place.
            4 is true
            5 is false as it cannot be stated as true.
            6 is false

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            3 cannot be false if 1 and 2 are true. 3 follows necessarily from 1 and 2 based on logic. (formally Modus Ponens)

            Similarly, 5 follows by complete disjunctive with 4 (which you accepted as true) and 3 being satisfied necessarily. And, given that, 6 follows necessarily from 5 (and satisfaction of 3).

          • Ken Campbell

            It does not follow naturally. It takes a leap. I can reach other conclusions from 1 and 2. To have a desire for something to exist does not make it exist.

            Number 5 also does not follow from #4. Just because justice does not exist for some people, does not mean that it must exist elsewhere. It can simply not exist.

            #6 could exist if #5 was true. Since number 5 is false, number 6 is irrelevant as a point

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “It does not follow naturally. It takes a leap. I can reach other conclusions from 1 and 2.”

            Simply false. Please study some sophomore level logic and Modus Ponens.

            “To have a desire for something to exist does not make it exist.”

            No one said it did. Do ALL atheists suffer from reading comprehension problems? Please re-read Premise 1 and be more careful in your replies.

            “Number 5 also does not follow from #4. Just because justice does not exist for some people, does not mean that it must exist elsewhere. It can simply not exist.”

            5 follows directly from 4 and 3. The existence of objective moral justice has been established in 3. Please read up on complete disjunctives. This is another logic term you need to be able to understand to debate rationally.

            Thus, 6 is proven.

          • Ken Campbell

            Oh…you want to play rough eh? Modus ponens indeed. If you want this to be the case then I have proven another outcome. If 1 is true and 2 is true, then it is clear that morality is based on the society that generates it and that society will consider the morality to be objective. Thus morality is a social construct that is viewed as objective to satisfy the need of the people who generate it.

            Number 1 ONLY shows that needs have a corresponding solution when it comes to physical needs. It does not apply to ‘wished for’ needs. To make this point, you would need to show that a social need has a corresponding objective solution. You have made an apples and oranges mistake (it happens to elementary debaters)

            Since #3 has not been proven. Even if #3 is proven, it does not lead to an afterlife as this has not been addressed anywhere. It is not a precondition assumption

            Thus #6 is unproven

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Ken, if 1 and 2 are true, then objective moral justice (OMJ) exists. Now, if you want to say that OMJ is a social construct, you would need to show why some societies think Jew gassing is good or slavery is good and some do not. Societal constructs are not any more objective than personal preferences. Even Darwin acknowledged this:

            “If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be any doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” p. 100.

            So, 3 still stands.

            “Number 1 ONLY shows that needs have a corresponding solution when it comes to physical needs.”

            So, now you are backing off on accepting 1?!? 🙂 Knowledge, love, and friendship are all examples of natural innate desires that are non-physical yet which have corresponding objects that exist.

            Since we have 3, and you have accepted 4, we have 5, and, thus 6.

          • Ken Campbell

            Saying something over and over does not make it true. My conclusion is more valid as it does not require morality to actually be objective. It allows it to be perceived as being objective.

            I can show you many instances where one society thinks something is moral and another thinks it is immoral. Capital Punishment is one such issue. Abortion is another. These are all social constructs and vary from community to community.

            Your Charles Darwin quote actually supports the concept that morality is a social construct and can vary. The concept of human sacrifice is another example

            So #3 fails

            I accept #1 for what it states. I do not make any statement on extrapolating it to other issues. In the issues that are shown, there is a cause and effect relationship. Knowledge does not get ‘fed’ by information and love gets fed from a variety of sources. It is not the simplicity of thirst/water hunger/food

            Thus we do not have 6 (sorry, it is not proven because #3 is not proven

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey Ken – thanks for the response!

            “Saying something over and over does not make it true.”

            And bouncing back and forth on Premise 1 doesn’t do much for your argument either. Just kidding, Ken. 🙂

            “My conclusion is more valid as it does not require morality to actually be objective. It allows it to be perceived as being objective.”

            Well, actually I had two ways to go with you on that point: first, I could accept (for the sake of argument only) that your social construct really IS objective. (Some atheists argue for this.) In which case, you would have been accepting Premise 3, but under the equivalence between objective morality and social construct. In terms of the argument, that would still get us Premise 3 being true, and the rest of the dominoes would follow.

            But, I decided to argue for the relative nature of morality under a social construct. Your point about “being perceived” is fascinating to me, as it seems to try to find a middle ground between the two views. I would have to ask you then if you think perception is reality? Or, perhaps, you could just expand on this a little bit – if you have time?

            “I can show you many instances where one society thinks something is moral and another thinks it is immoral.”

            Well, I would just point out that “society” is not of a single mind, within or across societies. In fact, society is not a mind at all.

            “Your Charles Darwin quote actually supports the concept that morality is a social construct and can vary.”

            Yes, that is why I put it forth – to point out that you will have to accept some heinous views on a social construct of morality. AND, to point out that it is not objective: rewind the clock and Darwin’s thought experiment could come true.

            “I accept #1 for what it states.”

            I actually think that is the smart place for you to be. This premise has held up pretty well with no good counterexamples provided yet. (Does not mean someone could not come up with one.)

            Great talking with you, Ken – thanks for hashing this through! And let me know where you are on “perception vs reality,” because Premise 3 is our battleground. Also, let me know how Premise 1 and 2 could not necessarily result in 3. Or, just address that a little more, in addition to what you have already said, if you aren’t getting bored with me yet. 🙂

            I came up with this, but based on some similar concepts and want to see if it has any obvious defeaters. Thanks again very much!

          • Ken Campbell

            Perception is not necessarily reality but it is accepted as reality. For example, we perceive that we are safe in our cars because we are told that there are safety features built in. In fact, we are speeding down the highway with a few millimeters of steel separating us from oblivion. Thus our perception of reality is not the same as actual reality (this is one of the reasons that people are often traumatized in car accidents)

            Thus, we perceive that our society is stable and that we have objective morality guiding us. This is one of the reasons that large empires eventually fail. People begin to believe that the empire is a moral center and that ruling is the natural order of things. Surprise!!! Here comes Attila the Hun.

            So an objective morality does not need to exist ‘in fact’ but can be perceived to exist. From there, the perception can include a supreme judge and a supreme punishment. This has always been one of the main functions of the church in managing societies.

            There are lots of ‘needs’ that cannot be met with a concomitant solution. This occurs more and more the further we rise in Maslow’s Hierarchy.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thanks, Ken – I really appreciate that! Yours is a nuanced view that I had not heard before. I really like how you expressed that, and I will do some thinking on that one. Thanks for helping me work on this proof – you are a smart egg!

          • Accepting, for the sake of argument, that 1-4 are all true, 5 does not follow. You have not demonstrated that all those things which we desire must eventually be provided to us. For example, even though thirst has water as its object, it is entirely possible that a person may desire water and still not get any. I think you’ve also just said that there is no such thing as wishful thinking; i.e. if a person wishes to find a perfect mate, then that perfect mate must exist. Since almost everyone desires a perfect mate, it follows that for everyone to be provided with a perfect mate, the entirety of the human race must be without any character flaws whatsoever.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey, Markb – thanks for replying! I had to go search to see what we were arguing, that thread is so long. 🙂 It is an ontological argument for the existence of Hell.

            OK, so, just for the sake of argument only, you are granting 1-4. How does 5 follow logically? is your question, and a good one it is. Let me work through this. If we know objective moral justice exists, but Stalin, Hitler, and Mao did not achieve it in this lifetime, yet this is a strong natural innate desire of ours, would that not argue for an afterlife with punishment, especially since these 3 guys are merely the top tier criminals, and there are lots of other really heinous ones right below them?

            What I am thinking here is that if there are so many really bad criminals who go unpunished in this lifetime, yet ALL (or almost all) humans desire (naturally and innately) that objective moral justice be achieved, then would not that mean that some sort of “Jail” exists in an afterlife? Or, would that not, at least, argue for the high plausibility of such a “Jail?”

            Anticipating this reply, you very cleverly write:

            “You have not demonstrated that all those things which we desire must eventually be provided to us. For example, even though thirst has water as its object, it is entirely possible that a person may desire water and still not get any.”

            Great point – and the first I have met to make it! Yes, I agree, not everyone who is thirsty will get water – some will die of dehydration. But, water exists. So, in our case, are you saying that, although some people are heinous:

            1. They won’t get Hell, even though Hell exists? Or

            2. Hell does not exist?

            Your argument is for 2, or that 2 is at least logically possible. I am not 100% sure here, but let me, just for the sake of argument, grant that 2 is logically possible and move my argument from deduction to induction (plausibility).

            OK, IF either one of these is possible, then obviously my only counter-move to your (excellent!) point is to say 1 is the solution. In fact, this is the answer that Christian theism (CT) provides us, no? On CT, ALL have sinned and are worthy of Hell, yet some repent, including some really heinous people (Jeff Dahmer, apparently), thus avoiding Hell, even though Hell exists and is serious punishment.

            Have I escaped your near-checkmate here? You said not everyone will get water even though water exists and I say not everyone will get Hell (including some really HORRIBLE folks who nevertheless repented and desired to follow God instead), even though Hell exists. That seems reasonable.

            Now, is this special pleading on Christian theism? Yes, maybe on deduction (I am not 100% sure here), but perhaps not on plausibility or induction. Why? Even when I was an atheist, I used to say “Go to Hell.” Now, that is kind of funny, if you think about it. I think that our desire for some sort of objective cosmic justice is innate, natural, and so incredibly strong that even many atheists will say “Go to Hell.” I used the Lord’s Name in vain a lot too. That’s not funny, but it IS ironic. That’s a pretty strong innate natural desire for objective moral justice when even atheists say “go to Hell,” thus denying their worldview. So, I think that argues for pretty strong plausibility.

            So, at this point, have I shown that, given 1-4, 5 is at least reasonably plausible, even if it is not proven deductively? I think you may have defeated the deductive argument (maybe) but not the inductive (very plausible conclusion, based on the cries of the masses for objective moral justice – just consider the Cecil the Lion story for one, although I can think of better ones in my worldview) argument. I think to increase the plausibility of my desired conclusion, I would need to add other arguments for the existence of God and specifically, for a God Who punishes in the afterlife. (I guess that might not HAVE to be the Christian God, but I argue for that elsewhere anyway.)

            Finally, you write:

            “i.e. if a person wishes to find a perfect mate, then that perfect mate must exist. Since almost everyone desires a perfect mate, it follows that for everyone to be provided with a perfect mate, the entirety of the human race must be without any character flaws whatsoever.”

            This one is easier, and I know I can escape it. When we desire for a “perfect mate,” we are not using the word “perfect” in the sense that the person has never done anything morally wrong (nobody believes that – hopefully!), we mean that the person is an outstanding match. So, I think this is a case where the word “perfect” is being used differently in two places in your paragraph above. So, I think that is called the “fallacy of equivocation,” right?

            But your first point is VERY challenging and has pushed me, for which I thank you immensely, Markb! Let me know what you think of my reply on induction, and thanks again for the really smart reply – you are the first person who has brought that up and I have been presenting this numerous places over the past year or so. You get the Highest Award today! I will think through the logic on deduction and try to put the argument in formal predicate logic symbolism to see if it falls out. Thanks again – you are VERY helpful!

      • LadyGreenEyes

        Well, and worshipers of demons…..

    • my4ty2centsw0rth

      My very first thought also! How can ‘it’ be dead if ‘it was never alive?! Murder is right, KenS! Insanity is becoming the rule of the day!
      Isaiah 5 says they will be making evil good and good evil (among all the rest) in the last days. Never has this been more true.

    • AJ2


    • Nofun

      Recent research shows 95% of women who have abortions have no regrets at all..

      • KenS

        So, the national headquarters spokesperson doesn’t know what she is talking about, is that what you are trying to say. I think I would believe someone who is in the field seeing the remorse of these women daily over some pencil pushing researcher

        • Nofun

          Women don’t make these decisions lightly, like you pretend they do. No one wants an abortion or any medical operation.

          Maybe you are missing the larger point which is women are happy to donate the fetal tissue. So it isn’t a villainous plan to sell baby parts, but a noble, legal, voluntary, life saving gesture.

          • KenS

            Your comment has nothing to do with my reply to you about who to believe, researchers or the National headquarters!
            So now, you just make up another argument when you cannot combat mine?

          • Nofun

            Your argument is out of context wordplay. Its pathetic.

          • KenS

            My comment is out of context? You are the one who brought up research that was not mentioned anywhere in the article. My comment was to that so-called research comment that you made and then was not able to back it up!

          • Nofun

            You are playing word games with out of context phrases such as “mothers of the dead…..of the dead.”

            I did back it up. Extensively. Scroll up.

          • KenS

            It is not a word play, they said the mothers of the dead found comfort by giving the donations. If the mothers needed comfort, that says alot about the state of mind of the mothers knowing that they are killing their children.

            also, I scrolled all the way to the top and nowhere is there a post where you have backed up your claim of “Recent research shows 95% of women who have abortions have no regrets at all.”

          • Nofun

            It was conducted by researchers at the University of California San Francisco. The study was, published in the academic journal PLOS ONE, surveyed 670 women for three years.

          • KenS

            Interesting, You claim to have backed up your research extensively telling me to scroll up, then when i point out that there was no such posts by you, you reply with one survey of 670 women. How does that represent 95% of the women who have abortions? No, sorry but your attempt to back up your statement is what is pathetic here!

          • Nofun

            Small sample polling. Look it up.

          • KenS

            My point is you did not back it up extensively, you did not even back it up with this research until after I called you out on it.

          • KenS

            Ok, since my comment is out of context, according to you, let’s look at your off-topic to this thread’s comment, shall we? According to you, the millions of babies killed since 1972 were all done by people who did not want an abortion. Wow!, So are you telling me they all went into the clinic, thinking they were getting birth control, and came out after having surgery which killed their babies? What a revelation!, I would have never guessed that is how it happened! Sarcasm! All this time we have been told it was the women’s choice, her body, when in fact, according to you these women never made this choice and never wanted to have an abortion. Let’s take all the doctors, nurses, and medical staff to court for murder and accessory to murder since none of these women wanted an abortion! Again Sarcasm, Maybe you should think before you post!

          • Nofun

            Don’t be stupid. My point was women don’t take the decision to have an abortion lightly, as you people claim, as all operations carry a risk.

            Maybe you should brush up on your English comprehension skills.

            Isn’t bearing false witness a sin?

          • KenS

            First off, It’s not bearing false witness whem my comment specifically says that it is sarcasm!
            Secondly, you first part of the sentence said that they do not take it lightly, then your second part of the sentence says that no woman wants to have an abortion. That is the part I was referencing, and that in no way makes a claim that the women don’t take the decision to have an abortion lightly. you tried to you a positive statement (that is not true by the way, of no woman wants to have an abortion to reinforce your women don’t take this lightly statement. But my point is if no woman wants to have an abortion, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion and we wouldn’t have had millions of babies killed since 1972. If no woman wants to have an abortion, then why is it the women’s choice to have it, if the women didn’t want it, then it would be the doctors or boyfriends, husbands, or parents, etc..’s choice to have the abortion not the women who do not want it. That is the fallacy of your argument.

  • Nidalap

    Just the consequences of removing any reference to, or reverence for God from society as a whole. We can see the obvious evil intrinsic to this entire process but, to someone who’s been raised on a very relative morality kind of education, there’s no special sanctity for human life.
    In the end, they’ll start killing people off at both ends of the spectrum; abortion for the babies, Death Panels for those no longer “useful” to society. This is why people keep referencing Nazis and Hitler on these threads. Scream “Godwin’s Law!” all you want, history DOES tend to repeat itself…

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Pro-deathers will scream Godwin’s Law right past the day we find out that Cecile Richards has lampshades made out of aborted fetal tissue.

    • Nofun

      Women choosing to terminate THEIR pregnancies and people choosing their end of life issues for themselves are not part of an evil conspiracy. You and Jesus don’t get a say.

      • Nidalap

        Hey! Defending baby-killing is Nofun! 🙂 And Death Panels aren’t for people to choose their own ends, that’s the government’s job!

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          “Defending baby-killing is Nofun!”

          Quite clever and well-played!

          • Nidalap

            Thank you! Taken in small doses, I’m hilarious! (^_^)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I have that problem too, but ignore it. 🙂

            Nofun is really off his rocker tonight – you should check out his other posts. I am used to atheists being irrational, but he has raised it to a new level tonight.

          • Nidalap

            Well, they’ve gotten some victories from the Supreme Court recently and are feeling their oats a bit. Also, I imagine that they can almost feel how close the criminalization of Christianity is to being a reality here and are a bit anxious to have it be so now…

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Indeed – they really got puffed up, but CMP is delivering blows to their guts with these videos. (Which is why liberal judges are doing everything they can to destroy the 1st Amendment and silence the truth-tellers.)

            Don’t you just feel the presence of God working through these things – all things, good and evil? Think how many soft pro-aborts or fence-sitters will now become pro-life because of these videos and perhaps even take Christianity seriously enough to sincerely investigate its claims.

            Next, think of your nominal pro-life church goers – basically nice Christians who never said or did much in this area or even in evangelizing. What will happen to them after seeing these videos? Well, at least some of them will be much more likely to speak up on abortion and to take the Christian faith more seriously – realizing that our purpose in life is not happiness or being liked by the most people, but, instead, to know, love, and serve the Lord and those made in His Image.

            Meanwhile, the wolves in our churches will be further exposed, just as they are being exposed by their acceptance of gay “marriage.” I believe that these videos will bring more into God’s Kingdom, and, in this way, God will work His Good through our evil. (Not condoning or excusing or encouraging our evil in any way, shape, or form.) This is an amazing time to be a Christian, alive and in this place – and God put us here now for His good reasons.

          • Nofun

            Indiana has closed their investigation, finding PP has no case to answer. Seems like the CMP liars have utterly failed.

          • Nofun

            Oh Boo hoo … the christian victim card is pathetric.

          • Nofun

            Irrational is believing in imaginary magic faith constructs.

          • Nofun


          • LadyGreenEyes

            Talking to a mirror?

          • Nofun

            You are, but what am I [pokes tongue out]

            See I can be infantile too.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            We all knew that already.

          • Tactitus Talks

            YOu are a liar, nothing was debunked about the baby parts being sold. That is why Planned Parenthood hired a PR firm to pressure the news outlets to drop the story. Forensic experts viewed the footage and it was valid. That is also why liberal judges are trying to squelch. Sanger was a racist murder and so are you.

          • Nofun

            How exactly would a PR firm force the media to drop the story … especially when every media outlet is still publishing them.

            Sorry you don’t get your own facts or reality.

            What forensic experts? What on earth has Margaret Sanger got to to do with it?

            You do know that lies make baby jesus cry.

          • Nofun

            Indiana investigated this rubbish and found there was no case to answer. Therefore DEBUNKED.

          • Tactitus Talks

            Investigator: “Did you do it?”

            Answer: “Of course not?” Then they ordered another round of drinks.

            Some of us know what these investigations consist of. Someone they trust (the accused that is) is appointed. This “investigator then asks some questions. Everyone lies, and then they publish the findings: “The Such and such has found no evidence of…..”. Go continue collecting your 25cents a post and continue trolling Christian websites. And gullible pedophile lovers and murders like you buy into it.

            Let’s put it this way: How many years did Bill Cosby molest women? Since the 70s, and only when his political views became critical of blacks did they REALLY start going after him. Nothing was debunked.

          • Nofun

            You really think that is how the police investigate things? Really?

            Accept the videos were doctored to substantiate a lie … everyone else has.

          • Tactitus Talks

            Actually I know. Brother is a chief of police. Why isn’t Sharpton in prison for tax evasion. Why isn’t Jesse Jackson in prison for embezzlement. If the issue is politically charged, they will sweep it under the rug. Planned Parenthood, for example has broken the the law for 30 years. A 12 year old girl shows up for an abortion, they give her an abortion and NEVER question why the 40 year old man with her.. Every state and federal law DEMANDS that if there is ANY evidence of child abuse or molestation, they MUST inform the police. For some strange reason, Planned Parenthood is exempt from this. A child predator can rape a child, get her pregnant and be assured of continued access to that child. Because Planned Parenthood is “protected”.
            Planned Parenthood is wrapped in a lie. How about all those FREE MAMMOGRAMS? Obama talked about them in the debates. Every apologist has come out during this uproar and SAID, Planned Parenthood gives FREE MAMMOGRAMS. Another lie. They don’t even have the facilities to give mammograms. They may give referrals, but so what, so does the American Cancer Society. Lie after lie, and we are supposed to believe some unedcuated troll like yourself that PP is telling the truth now. You are pathetic.

            As far as the videos being doctored, keep chirping that you squirrel. Forensics have proven they are real. Why do you think they want to go after the people that made the video. If they were bunk, they would ignore them. Why does Planned Parenthood have a PR firm to strong arm the networks. They were not doctored, they are real.

            So go keep crying about Cecil the Lion and cooking Lobsters, and Planned Parenthood being a benevolent society. All the people involved in it are part of the 1%. How is it that BANKERS (part of the 1%) are EVIL, but these mega rich PP executives, doctors, and activists (also part of the 1%) are PURE. YOu poor pathetic sheep.

          • Nofun

            Pointless deflection and dredging up more older heavily edited videos does nothing for your argument.

          • Tactitus Talks

            You have a pathetic inability to understand 6th Grade English. THE VIDEOS WERE NOT EDITED – a forensic expert pointed it out. And btw “evil” edited VIDEOS, even if they were, it is a non issue, seeing the left uses them all the time to promote THEIR AGENDA. CBS/NBC/ABC, 60 minutes et al. Your are both a liar and a buffoon.

            Now answer the arguments idiot.

            Planned Parenthood violating the laws by not involving the police when underaged girls show up pregnant. – violation of both state and federal laws – PP admitted to doing it because they don’t want to discourage the 12 year old from “getting the abortion”.

            Ongoing lies by all PP supporters including our President that to defund Planned Parenthood would cause Women’s health issues for mammograms because they claim that Planned Parenthood GIVES MAMMOGRAMS. That is a abject lie. Nothing to do with videos. Even the Washington Post called it a lie.

            So in two instances we have PROVEN that Planned Parenthood violates laws and lies in the name of profits.
            PP has a track record of flaunting the law for profits. Its leadership is among the mega rich. It is strange that you people DECRY oil companies, banks, fast food companies, and retailers for GREED, but ignore the very GREED in PP. What is worse, is PP hides behind its NON PROFIT STATUS.

            As far as investigations – I have the benefit of first hand knowledge that all investigations are manipulated. Answer that. To claim that Indiana investigated and therefore it is debunked is drollery. If there was a TRUE investigation, there would be a grand jury. BY EXCLUDING A GRAND JURY, they are not investigating, simply claiming investigation.

          • Nofun

            What forensic expert? Why are there 2 versions?

          • Tactitus Talks

            Breitbart verified it, the expert documented that the videos were valid. If there are other versions, the media is “editting” them for time slots in network news segments. News shows regularly edit content, for example the Trayvon Martin tape, of the 911 call with Zimmerman. They actually doctored it. Planned Parenthood is not attacking the veracity of the tape, they are trying to have it ignrored and the story killed by hiring a PR firm to do it. Along with that they are lying (again) about their services. All of those Hollywood apologists saying that women will die from breast cancer because PP won’t be performing mammograms. The laughable thing about that is that Planned Parenthood DOES NOT PERFORM MAMMOGRAMS, never have. They perform referrals, but so does the Salvation Army, Red Cross, and the American Cancer Society.

          • Nofun

            Breitbart … funny.

            There are 2 versions. One heavily edited … one not. Below is a few of these many edits.

            Dishonest edit 1:
            FARRELL: And we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this. And we deviate from our standard in order to do that.

            So,you know, we can do it in a way that we’re still verifying that everything is there for the safety of the patient, but then we maintain the integrity of that sample. So yeah, that’s definitely something we can do. So as far as, this is our standard process,

            telling you then we can get creative about when and where and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue needs. [The Center for Medical Progress, 8/4/15]

            Dishonest edit 2:
            FARRELL: Yea, because it falls under research. They lump it in and as far as the “monitoring” goes, that’s our registration and stuff. Counciling. “The following must be involved in protocol” So here’s information about what we have to say, in the protocol itself. The consent forms that we have to use. “The clinician has to sign a form that says the tissue was donated, the consent was obtained prior to collecting the tissue, and

            no alteration in the timing of the termination of the pregnancy, or the method used was made for obtaining the tissue.

            ” That’s why I said we can do it in terms of this,

            but we can’t delay an abortion in order to get a later gestation. Of course, that’s unethical

            or anything that’s going to put her at risk in terms of “no alteration was made in terms of the timing of the termination or the method used.”

            So if we’re going to be doing a surgical procedure, the surgical procedure is going to be the same.

            We’re not going to say hey, let’s experiment with giving you, you know, whatever medication. [Center for Medical Progress, 8/4/15]

            Dishonest edit 3:
            ACTOR: Okay. So it sounds like as far as your cost, it’s not going to be, it’ll just be, you’re already set up.

            FARRELL: We’re already set up, we will definitely need to work out something as far as covering additional cost for additional things related to it–

            ACTOR: Exactly, exactly.

            FARRELL: I’m very particular about working with the language of the budgeted contract to where the language is specific to covering the administrative costs and not necessarily the per-specimen, because that borders on some language in the federal regs that’s a little touchy.

            ACTOR: Mhm.

            FARRELL: And of course, we don’t offer the patient any compensation at all, and of course you know that. [Center for Medical Progress, 8/4/15]

          • Tactitus Talks

            Very good, you made that whole thing up. How much is Planned Parenthood paying you to do this? I happen to know a congressional investigator. WE can get your account by court order.

          • Nofun

            Ohh scary …. internet threats. I laugh in your fat fundamentalist face.

            I am merely relaying what is public knowledge. You can’t accept you are being lied to because you want believe the phony edited narrative.

          • Nofun

            Where is that congressional investigator? I am still shaking in my boots.

          • Tactitus Talks

            Some of us have more important things to do that dealing with a troll hired by a PR firm that was underwritten by tax payer money to put off the heat from Planned Parenthood. See the new video by the way. Still coming out, nobody is doing anything.

            IN your case, thanks for reminding me. The issue would be planned parenthood obsconding with funds for a PR firm, not you for taking the money.

          • Nofun

            So it was an idle, hysterical threat. It was funny while it lasted.

            You just have to believe there is giant conspiracy behind someone not agreeing with you. You can’t acccept you are just wrong and your anti-choice position is immoral.


          • Tactitus Talks

            No, I got busy. Thanks for reminding me.

          • They produced the un edited versions for people like you that thought you could force people into accepting propaganda. IT isn’t working.

          • Nofun

            The unedited version show the truth which does not follow the narrative of selling body parts for profit. Both Indiana and Massachusetts have closed their investigations and state there is no case to answer.

            The phony videos have failed utterly.

          • Because you say so? Smart people watch the video and do not take your word for it.

          • Nofun

            Smart people. Funny. You want to see something in them because you think it will give you leverage to force women to be pregnant against their will. Sorry it is no there. The wheels have come off the story.

          • If you were so sure, you would not be so intent on defending yourself and your argument.

          • Nofun

            So I should give up of I think I’m right. Ummmmm No.

            Why don’t you give up if you think you are right.

          • Indiana has a huge pro life presence and one state does not DEBUNK facts that Florida announced they were coming and Planned Parenthood still was found doing illegal things.

          • NOfun is the genius plan the PR firm came up with.

          • Nofun

            Actual Indiana and Massachusetts have closed their inquiries and found no case to answer. Body parts aren’t being sold.

            Women are making voluntary donations to medical science and PP is charging a storage and transport fee all of which is aligned with law on fetal tissue donation.

          • That means nothing. You are fooled if you think this is about just the illegal infractions PP committed in regard to fetal tissue law. No law is above God, and he is removing the veil off of many people’s eyes. THey will not stand by anymore, they have a conscience, and a moral compass which will lead them to different opinions on abortion as a whole. What you are doing on a pro life site to spew your lies is silly at best, but what you are doing in reality compared to the justice of God is like farting at the thunder..Keep on…God will not be mocked.

          • Nofun

            Everyone knows what abortion is, no one has veiled eyes.

            The fact is PP are not selling baby parts kills.

            If you have a morality at all you have to say why, rationally, something is moral and in what context. The bible is an interpreted morality and thus can be interpreted anyway you like …. thus is morally relative.

            The bible only talks about the “quickening” which is a third trimester event …. so it does not support banning abortion before that at all.

            Since it also says its biblical moral to kill your own children if they disobey of diss you, it really doesn’t support an anti-choice position in the least.

          • At the time you are speaking, God was keeping his children separated from the very acts you and I are debating so that generations would not destroy themselves with sin. Sin is quick when it gains access, and rebellion is the beginning of all kinds of evil. It leads ultimately to a people calling good evil and evil good. The harsh consequences of rebellion kept many at bay, but now anything is relative if you interpret it as “good.” PP is selling baby parts. And you are still on a pro life board arguing with other pro lifers trying to intimidate and insult their compassion and back them in a corner. We all have a choice, but we are not free from the consequences. Why don’t you just say what is true in your heart. YOu believe in murdering one for the sake of the other in the name of convenience. You real angst is God has stipulations because he is God, and you are not.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Your last sentence speaks volumes.

        • Nofun

          Maybe you need to actually find out what you are talking about:

          a) There are no death panels.
          b) Making clear your wishes for end of life care is your choice.
          c) No babies involved in abortion … just a woman’s pregnancy which is none of your business.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            They were proven to exist. Suicide is wrong. Babies die as a result of abortion. Lying won’t change the facts.

          • Nofun

            1) The Death panels things won the lie of year award in 2013. Show us your so called proof …please.

            2) Suicide is none of your business either.

            3) No, a woman’s pregnancy gets terminated by her choice. No babies involved.

            4) Lying won’t change the facts.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            An “award” from some liberal lying group is meaningless. Suicide is anyone’s business. Decent human beings care about one another. Are you picketing to do away with suicide hotlines, too? If someone is pregnant, there is, by definition, a baby involved. A product of the modern school system, I see!

          • Nofun

            1) I am all for suicide hot lines … it is still none of your business.

            2) But you are not decent since you have repeated said you think women deserve to die for having an abortion.

            3) If someone is pregnant a pregnancy is involved when it is born it is baby. But its good yo acknowledge the women at last … you know that mere fetus wrapper whose life is of no consequence to you.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Yes, in fact, it is. I am not an uncaring monster like some people.

            Murder is a crime, and punishable many places by death. Abortion is murder. Do you need this more clear?

            No, it’s a baby inside the womb. Small, helpless, but still a baby. Planned Parenthood even admits this, in their claims that donated “tissue” helps to comfort the mother of the dead baby.

            Your denial fools no one, not even yourself.

          • Nofun

            Abortion is not murder though. Terminating a pregnancy is the right of the pregnant. Forced pregnancy is torture.

            And yes that does make you uncaring monster and completely immoral.

          • 80 percent of unexpected pregnancies end in LIFE by choice. Stop repeating a lie from hell about women that don’t agree with you.

          • Nofun

            What lie am I telling now?

            Yes that 80% get their choice, why shouldn’t the other 20% get their choice.

          • There choice leads to 100% death.

          • Nofun

            No, the women live on and will mostly have future children too.

          • Nofun

            No proof of death panels then? I am shocked.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            No answer? I am not shocked. Typical dodge.

          • Nofun

            The “just say it back to them” tactic makes you look foolish when you have nothing to back it up.

            If you can’t provide any evidence of death panels we can agree they are lies then …yes?

          • All the organs are present at 8 weeks. It is not a blob of tissue, and your abortionist you are defending even pointed out that is was a baby. How do you explain that mr. phd

          • Nofun

            I am not making any of those arguments. None of that matters anyway. When something is in you, you get the say, not the thing in you. It is that simple.

            No one wants an abortion and no one has sex in order to get one because its so much fun.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’ve got a PhD, and even I knew that – despite it. 🙂

          • So why is it that governments will charge a mother with negligence if there are drugs found in the childs system, or if she admits to drug use during pregnancy?

      • LadyGreenEyes

        Women killing their children via abortion are committing murder by hire. You tell God someday that He doesn’t have a say, and see how that works out for you.

        • Nofun

          They are not murdering anything. Something in you cannot have equal or superior rights to your body, thus abortion is morally justified.

          When something is not IN you then you have equal rights. They are two different moral domains.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            A baby isn’t “something in you”; it’s someone. At 10-12 weeks, you can see fingers and toes, and faces, in ultrasound. That isn’t a lump of tissue. NO ONE actually believes what you claim. That is an excuse, and it’s old and worn out and invalid, and everyone knows it.

          • Nofun

            It is still in you and thus cannot have rights superior to that of the body’s owner.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Who said anything about superior? Try EQUAL. As in, an equal right to life. No one owns a baby, either. Pro-slavery, I see.

          • Nofun

            Can’t be equal either. A fetus can never have equal or superior rights to that of the body’s owner because it is not the fetus’s body.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Bull. Every human being gets equal rights. A mother doesn’t own her child. Slavery is illegal.

          • Nofun

            Again when something is in you is a different moral domain to when something is not in you. A fetus can never have equal rights to the body’s owner … it is in a woman by her permission and that permission can be revoked at anytime for any reason.

          • Because you do not believe all humans have equal rights. How many pregnancies can be traced back to sex? hmmmmm….How many people have died from not having sex?

          • Tactitus Talks

            The legal standing about abortion is not that point at all. It is simply a right to privacy. The government has NEVER given rights to our own body, otherwise, they would never allow the draft, execution, or an allowance to take any controlled substance.

          • Nofun

            The state owns your body, hey. Good luck with that.

          • What you are saying is not all humans are created equal.

          • Nofun

            Not when something is in you, no. That is a different moral domain. A fetus cannot have equal or superior rights to the body’s owner because it is not the fetus’s body.

          • it is not “something” it is a human life. Equally important.

          • Nofun

            Not when its inside you. It is not an independent entity and wouldn’t even exist except for the woman’s body. It is deeply immoral to force a woman to be pregnant against her will.

            A fetus gets no say about its inception nor whether the woman wishes to take it to term.

  • FoJC_Forever

    The primary issue isn’t whether or not human bodies are being sold for research and production, the issue is murdering a child, which is shedding innocent blood. This issue is actually just a distraction for people to get angry about, so the real issue doesn’t get addressed. Abortion should be made completely illegal, but the medical industry and those who have little or no regard for human life won’t allow it.

    Democrats support the right to murder a baby and the Republicans pretend to be against it, but do little to nothing to stop it. America will go to war in other countries, claiming to be protecting our nation and helping oppressed people, but babies have been and are being slaughtered by the millions and they just look the other way.

    The innocent blood will be avenged.

    Judgement is coming.

    • YOu are right. What our country has done striking hands with this devil in every aspect of daily life from face cream to medical devices and groceries is going to come back on us if we don’t repent. The zombie apocalypse aint nothing compared to the wrath of God.

  • Josey

    Abortion isn’t about women’s healthcare, it is someone getting pregnant and the pregnancy being an inconvenience, an unwanted pregnancy that leads one to even think about killing their offspring. And as a society that has desensitized the practice of abortion to women, the women believe they are not committing murder, it is satanic, abortion was taught by fallen angels. It is a form of genocide, depopulation, birth control is what it is. Rebellion against God who commanded Adam and Eve to go forth, be fruitful and populate the earth. psalm 127:3-5 3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

    • Nofun

      You think that is a top anti-choice argument but the reverse is true, Bringing up a child is the most difficult thing you will ever do … it is nether a convenience or an inconvenience. Pretending its easy is just a lie.

      Its none of your business no matter what bible says … do you really think the world is being depopulated? Delusional much?

      • 41.3 million immigrants in our country in 2013. The same year, death rates, if you add the amount of abortions to that number, are very close to the amount of births. The amount of births are only about 40,000 more than deaths. WE should take care of our own and stop using population as the excuse for murder.

        • Nofun

          Abortion is nothing to do with population … it is a women having a choice about carrying a fetus to term. Only the pro Dead women and girls lobby claim its a population issue.

          To think the earth is running out of people is insane. This country isn’t either as we still have massive immigration.

          • You are obviously not very informed with what many believe that are pro abortion. The woman had a choice to not have sex. It is no longer just her body, when a child is conceived. Women are not turned away by their doctors. This is not about women’s health. If it were, the little girls that are aborted would be allowed to live.

          • Nofun

            It is her body at all times. People rarely, in their lives, have sex with the express purpose to get pregnant.

            Considering the number of times 300 million people have sex the need to abort at all is rare. Some people like yourself want to have dead sexless lives, guess what most don’t.

            Fetuses of either gender can never have an equal or superior say over the pregnant s person’s body at any time because it is not their body.

            Again its pretty simple morality. Forced pregnancy is torture.

          • I made mad huh? Why are you so determined to defend people you have no particular interest in? If you were involved in an abortion, I can tell you God can forgive, and does love you..

          • Nofun

            Your faith construct can’t love anyone. It can’t forgive you either. An adult is suppose to be responsible for their actions.

            You can’t just pack up all your sins on some dead guy nailed to a bit a wood 2000 years ago and pretend they don’t exist anymore. That is the height irresponsibility.

          • Nope, life choices have life consequences. We are not immune from taking responsibility or making restitution. IT is in the grand scheme of things, and faith in a SINLESS God. Faith that he would love us like that, and give us the ability to love others that way.

          • Nofun

            You can love others without magic supernatural entities being involved. Imaginary faith constructs don’t love you.
            Getting an abortion is taking responsibility.

          • If you say you love, but have not God, then you are a liar, for God is love. Love is patient, love is Kind. Love does not boast, it is not easily angered. Love is not selfish. Love does not bring up the past. Love forgives. Love delights in the truth. Love does not celebrate when evil prevails. Love hopes all things,believes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. That is real love, and you can’t get that anywhere else except from God.

    • AJ2

      Amen only selfish evil women get abortions. A baby is a blessing that God gave no matter what and who are they to kill a child? No one.

  • Nofun

    Indiana has closed their investigation finding PP has no case to answer. All of these videos are heavily edited to produce the desired outcome. The GOP cowards that are trying to defund PP signed the acts involved in fetal tissue donation. No laws were broken except by the illegal video makers themselves.

    • LadyGreenEyes

      It is completely legal to make a video in a public place. No permission is needed.

    • and yet the unedited versions are there as well. When other media Giants start releasing their unedited videos of interviews and investigations, I might begin to believe them.

      • Nofun

        Not sure what other videos have to do with these.

  • Nofun

    Did you know that GOP presidential candidates fully support abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Here is an edited transcript of my secret interview:

    “I am a conservative running for presidency and I completely do approve of abortion and will fight for Planned Parenthood. As a Christian I can
    support abortion at any stage. The GOP has always proudly been pro –
    death and they should be ashamed”

    The tapes don’t lie. I only edited out the stuff that doesn’t matter.

  • FoJC_Forever

    To think that people can stand a look at a plate splattered with the remains of a human child is more horrific than words can describe.

    Focusing on defunding Planned Parenthood is a mistake. The focus should be on completely outlawing abortion and make the crime punishable by death.

    It isn’t about money. It’s about the shedding of innocent blood, the murdering of an innocent child.

    • Nofun

      Ban abortion then women and girls die and get diseased en masse and you still have abortion thus banning abortion is immoral.

      Voluntarily donating fetal tissue that would otherwise be destroyed is both moral and noble.

      • Tactitus Talks

        That is also a lie. there are more deaths from botched abortions under this legal setting, than when they were illegal. The “back alley” abortionist is a lie, and you are simply a left wing troll who has to make their living blogging. Too bad you didn’t get a degree so you could be gainfully employed.

        • Nofun

          Any proof of that bunch of lies. I am a PhD … what are you again? … a professional christian that lies.

          • Don’t insult the people that are pro life and not Christian.

          • Nofun

            If only they were pro-life. Supporting the banning of abortion is the opposite of being pro-life religious or not.

          • You have no facts to back that argument up.

          • Bucksergeant

            I see you tied into the black racist “No Fun.” Sorry about that. His Nome de Plume fits him but the last word should be “brains” not fun.

          • Nofun

            Why on earth do you think I’m black?
            Is it just everyone you hate just must be black.

          • Bucksergeant

            If it walks like a duck
            ..you know the rest …
            p.s. I am multi racial

          • Nofun

            So I sound black do I? How does that work?
            Sorry sarge you are full of it.

          • Bucksergeant

            Pot calling the kettle black? Unfortunately if you’re not black you need to improve your writing skills. What exactly is wrong with being black? Are you a racist? It would appear so. Why did that upset you? You are as dumb as a box of rocks.

          • Nofun

            No, I am not block either. Top writing skills there.

            I just want to know why you think I’m black … I am sure it wasn’t for negative racist reasons … right.

          • Bucksergeant

            No Brains, you’re back. Good to hear from you again. I see you’re doubling down on the stupid. I’m glad that you’re not a block. Maybe a block head. When you say your prayers tonight (if you pray ) ask your creator for an increase in the thing you are sorely lacking and that is intelligence.

          • Nofun

            Why would I talk to a faith construct?
            Admit you are not up to this arguing task …. go yell at someone to calm down.

          • Bucksergeant

            Sorry a-hole, not religious at all. I happen to be against infanticide. You obviously think it’s o.k. to kill. I just checked your dashboard. You are one of the real losers that post on disqus. I suggest a grammar text . You are in obvious need.
            p.s. I respond to every post. Especially if they are from an ignoramus.

          • Nofun

            I am against infanticide too. I’m for the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy though. Do you think it could be none of your business?

            “A grammar text” ……classic.

          • Bucksergeant

            Terminate a pregnancy? Is it a human baby (or in prog talk, a fetus?) Murder is everyone’s business. I recommended a grammar text because I looked at your dashboard and you reverted to a slight case of ebonics. Then you implied that you are not black. Is that the case or another one of your deflections? I am of mixed race and I would never deny it. Are you denying that your black? Classic…

          • Nofun

            Babies are born. Before that it is a women’s pregnancy. Something in you cannot have equal or superior rights to the body’s owner. It is in a woman by her permission and that permission can be revoked at any time for any reason.

            I am white you clown. Forget about race for 2 minutes … if you can.

          • Bucksergeant

            If you are white you obviously went to the wrong schools. It’s the ‘ole walk like a duck thingy. If I am a clown then you are Coulrophobic and in desperate need of psychological counseling. The sooner the better.

          • Nofun

            So no actual counter argument then?

            I accept your surrender sarge.

          • Bucksergeant

            Yaa right, declare victory and run. Next you’ll be attacking punctuation and grammar. Oh wait, you can’t, can you?

          • Nofun

            You are the only one attacking grammar, sarge.

            Try an actual argument.

          • Bucksergeant

            I’ve posted facts, you blow them off. You have reverted to an attacker. I respond in the exact way I am approached. I guarantee you will not like the continuation of your attacks, period. I attacked your grammar because it is exactly like an ebonics speaker trying to post correctly. I do not believe you’re white and I fault you for denying your heritage. This is my last polite post to you.

          • Nofun

            What facts?

          • Bucksergeant

            Another stupid comment posted by a black guy denying his heritage by claiming to be white.

          • Nofun

            I am not insulted by being called black. Its amusing you think I would be.. I think there is a name for people that think being called black is an insult … starts with “R”.

            You have many up voting girlfriends.

          • Bucksergeant

            You are a fool if you think I was tying to insult you. An insult is something that is not true. You can’t be insulted because everything said about you by all the other posters is the truth. And the veiled reference that I am a Repub? Guess again as*hole, I’m not. And I have NO girlfriends except the one I married 24 years ago. You really are a jerk.

          • Nofun

            I would never call you a Repub …… I am not that rude.

            Still why do you think calling someone black is an insult? The fact I am the whitest man you will ever meet makes it twice as puzzling.

          • Bucksergeant

            I have never said that, those are your words not mine. Please change your Nome de plume to No Brains . You are just another moron ashamed of his/her heritage. If you were white why would you have to proclaim it? I fault you for that. Get a grammar text book ..

          • Nofun

            I proclaim it because you seem to be incapable of admitting you are wrong.

            Lets remember you claimed I was black because you were criticizing my wording and grammar … the implication being that all black people are semi literate.

            If any one needs grammar lessons its you. Drop and give me 20.

          • Bucksergeant

            No Brains, you’re back and as usual putting words in someone’s mouth they never said, it is a shame that you have no friends in real life and have to post to someone who knows you for the fool you are. Again you are just a black woman pretending you are white and thus denying your heritage. The only 20 your going to get are across your back and from your husband.

          • Nofun

            So why did you claim:
            “Unfortunately if you’re not black you need to improve your writing skills”

            See you are a wee bit racist.

            Oh and by the way if you aren’t terrified of gay people, gay insults don’t work.

            Still isn’t your motto to never leave your mates behind.

          • Bucksergeant

            Another stupid comment by the twisted sister of Disqus. I read your dashboard. You never post anything but attacks and far left talking points. No wonder you’re a hateful person. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that you don’t have any mirrors in your dwelling because even you cannot stand the sight of yourself. You are one sick puppy. Sick . Hey Everyone, look at no brain’s dashboard.

          • Nofun

            Angry, bro.

            Good to see you aren’t denying your racist statements anymore.

            Progress at last.

          • Bucksergeant

            Another stupid comment by the twisted sister of Disqus. Everyone, look at no brain’s dashboard. You really are not smart enough to be posting on the disqus threads.
            p.s. Bro? Right from the ghetto. Yaa your not black. Wink, wink.

          • Nofun

            You seem to be on repeat sarge … running out of ammo?

          • Bucksergeant

            I see that you are attacking several other posters simultaneously. You really are a no-life sicky. This is just another stupid comment by a person with no Brains. Another stupid comment by the twisted sister of Disqus.

          • Nofun

            Don’t understand discussion do we. It isn’t just saluting and nodding your head.

          • Bucksergeant

            Another stupid comment by Nobrains, the twisted sister of Disqus.

          • Nofun

            Get some new material.

          • Bucksergeant

            If you don’t like it, quit responding. Another stupid comment by Nobrains, the twisted sister of Disqus.

          • Nofun

            I love how think calling someone a women is an insult too.

            Misogyny and racism … you right wngers have it all and are all the same.

          • Bucksergeant

            Another stupid comment by Nobrains, the twisted sister of Disqus.

          • Nofun

            Running on empty sarge.
            Tell us how a fetus is a baby again … at least that was on topic.

          • Bucksergeant

            Another stupid comment by Nobrains, the twisted sister of Disqus.

          • Nofun

            Notice your little friends are not upvoting you anymore. Even they are bored with you.

            You aren’t fun to control anymore. I accept your surrender. Toodles.

          • Bucksergeant

            No surrender. No compromises. Your an ignoranus (sic) and I’ll be here as long as you are. This is the second time you declared victory and ran.

          • Bucksergeant

            . .Another stupid comment by Nobrains, the twisted sister of Disqus.

          • Bucksergeant

            p.s. I’ll be here as long as you are.

          • Nofun

            Good to see I can control you and make you keep coming back.

            If only you had something to say about anything. The racial and gay epithets are becoming dull.

          • Bucksergeant

            Nobrains, You can’t even control your bowels let alone my comings and goings. I respond to every attack, even from a child like you who is ashamed of his own racial makeup. I’ll be here as long as you are . Did You settle your fight yet with the other two posters or are they still beating the HeII out of you. I love it when you come back. You are just another fool. I see you are on late today because of work, were you able to upgrade that man’s order of fries to a large?

          • Nofun

            Again we are back to the racism. Its all you have hey sarge.

          • Bucksergeant

            Another stupid comment by Nobrains, the twisted sister of Disqus.

          • Nofun

            Gain get some new material … only up voting girlfriends think that is amusing the tenth time.

          • Bucksergeant

            ..Another stupid comment by Nobrains, the twisted sister of Disqus.

          • Nofun

            God your boring.

          • Bucksergeant

            ..Another stupid comment by Nobrains, the twisted sister of Disqus.

          • Laughing Cartman

            Nobrains=nofun=nogods=no balls.
            same same

          • Bucksergeant

            It’s funny that you said that. I think NoFun is a girl.

          • Nofun

            We know through history that banning abortion causes women and girls to die and get diseased on masse ….. and we still have abortion. Thus it is immoral.

            It pretty simple really.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Facts are not a liberal thing, JesusFlunky.

          • Nofun

            Facts are just librul spin, right.

          • Jubal Early

            What does a Ph.D. have to do with anything? If you want to throw resumes on the table, I’ll make you look like a community college drop out… again… what does your education accomplishments have to do with abortion?

            I have two Bachelor Degrees, an LLM Degree, a JD Degree and a Ph.D. in Healthcare Administration and none of it means jack when it comes to abortion and neither does yours.

            In the case of abortion, you’re either a sociopath that doesn’t value life or you’re against abortion. Simple as that.

          • Nofun

            I was replying to his comment about education and his lies about botched abortions.

            Banning abortion proves you don’t value life. Fetus worship is sick and evil.

          • Jubal Early

            “Fetus worship is sick and evil.” Only a sociopath could possibly come up with this as a description for people that don’t want babies murdered.

          • Nofun

            Babies are born. A pregnancy being taken to term is a woman’s decision … you can’t make her do it against her will … only a sociopath would not see that as torture.

          • Jughead417

            The CMP videos are not only shedding light on the barbaric inhumanity of infanticide, but they also have provoked pro-abort apologists to reveal their demented, mentally-disordered thinking. It’s quite possible this sicko is using a term bandied about in the circles she travels. These cancerous human implants have spread far beyond the Stage IV Roe v. Wade malignancy.

          • Jubal Early

            It’s like when the first Nazi concentration camps were first discovered, and the whole world could see that WW2 was not just a war, but a defining battle between good and evil. It shocked the conscience and even the people sitting on the fence, and trying to stay out of it, finally had to choose between good and ultimate evil.

            This is no different. Low information people and those hiding their eyes from the truth, have finally had to either say this is disgusting or, yes I’m an evil bastard and I can find silver linings in killing babies.

          • Thomas

            Very well said Jubal!!!

          • cwgf


          • Nofun

            It doesn’t.

            Tacittus talked said “Too bad you didn’t get a degree so you could be gainfully employed.”

            So I informed him he was wrong. It got you girls excited with up votes though hey.

      • KenS

        “Ban abortion then women and girls die and get diseased en masse and you still have abortion thus banning abortion is immoral.”
        By that logic, banning rape and murder and other crimes that people will still do after that ban is immoral as well.

        • Nofun

          When something is in you it is a different moral domain. The body’s owner gets all the say then.

          Banning rape and murder is moral.

          Banning abortion is immoral as women die and get diseased en masse as history shows.

          Its not rocket science.

          Grow an actual morality.

          • KenS

            Your morality is off it’s rocker. You pro-choice people only want to call it a baby when it suits you. Case in point, if a man kills a pregnant woman as she is waiting in line to get an abortion, he is charged with two homicides(murder), one for the woman and one for the baby, which somehow now is considered a living human being, whereas before the murder it was only tissue.
            If you can be convicted of murder of an unborn child, then a woman should not be able to kill said unborn child, period!

          • Nofun

            No, we call it a baby when it is one …when its born.

            So some law put there by fetus worshipers proves what again?

            There is no such thing as an unborn child. It is a woman’s pregnancy until its born.

      • FoJC_Forever

        If a person wants to murder their baby, they deserve to die. Making abortion legal to save those who want to have their baby killed is wicked.

        Both selling and donating baby’s bodies is wicked.

        Judgement is coming.

      • B.S. Women wont die if abortion is illegal. Teens under age of 17 have 6.4% of total abortions. Only 1 % of abortion reasons are listed as rape. It is a matter of convenience. Half of all pregnancies are unexpected, and yet 6 out of 10 of those women choose life. THE MAJORITY WOMEN ARE FOR LIFE Those facts come from a pro choice research company, so spin it all you like. Don’t hide behind women because only about 21% of them chose abortion. This isn’t our narrative. It is big business. We love our children.

        • Nofun

          None of those facts are relevant.
          A women doesn’t need a reason to abort.

          You know how many 21% of women are. If abortion were banned 100s would die and 1000s would get diseased AND WE STILL HAVE ABORTION. Thus banning abortion is immoral.

          You only love fetuses as a justification for pushing your nose into people’s lives … a place it has no business being. Fetus worship is sick and evil.

  • AJ2

    A woman who murders her unborn innocent little baby should not be around kids at all. Babies are not “specimens” they are human and have feelings too,they have to be in excruciating pain to get pulled apart like a rib. Whoever gets an abortion and performs it is a subhuman. Abortions are disgusting and vile and so are the so called “woman who get them”. They will have to answer to God one day for harming his children.

    • Nofun

      God does the most aborting … he is thus all for it.

      • AJ2

        Do not lie on God. He does not like blasphemy.

        • Nofun

          So all those non-embeded fertilized eggs, miscarriages and still births are not his doing then?.

          He doesn’t seem to control much then.

          Plenty of lying for god here though.

  • Harry S.

    A lot of folks got upset because Planned Parenthood doesn’t make mammograms available. But …

    Few women would be worried about mammogram coverage or availability if they knew that, contrary to the official narrative (which is based on medical business-fabricated pro-mammogram “scientific” data), there is marginal, if any, reliable evidence that mammography reduces mortality from breast cancer in a significant way in any age bracket but a lot of solid evidence shows the procedure does provide more serious harm than serious benefit (read: Rolf Hefti’s ‘The Mammogram Myth’ – see outline at TheMammogramMyth dot com – and Peter Gotzsche’s ‘Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy’).

    IF women (and men) at large were to examine the mammogram data above and beyond the information of the mammogram business cartel (eg American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Komen), they’d also find that it is almost exclusively the big profiteers of the test (eg radiologists, oncologists, medical trade associations, breast cancer “charities” etc) who promote the mass use of the test and that most pro-mammogram “research” is conducted by people with massive vested interests tied to the mammogram industry.

    Most women are fooled by the misleading medical mantra that mammograms save lives simply because the public has been fed (“educated” or rather brainwashed) with a very one-sided biased pro-mammogram set of information circulated by the big business of mainstream medicine.

    • and besides that, many lumps are associated with food, and a caffeine.

  • Farrel also mentioned companies of medical devices requesting specimens. General Electric is making such devices. Ultrasound machines nonetheless and they also donate to planned parenthood. Glaxo, Bayer, the list goes on and on. Glaxo has no problem testing on animals, I’m just wondering if they are testing on fetal tissue as well. Estee Lauder Cover Girl, Ya’ll might get mad, but Jimmy dean makes a lot of sausage and Hillshire brands donates to Planned Parenthood as well. What is in their sausage? PP has how many pounds of baby remains a week? Farrel also said throwing it away was a waste. Wonder what we are really eating…..Tyson might be able to tell us, since they are a family company….

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      You’re turning me into a veggie.

      • My husband is upset with me too, and wants me to stop digging stuff up.

        • Nofun

          Maybe he just wants you to come back to reality.

          • He got worried his Dr. Pepper was on the list.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          I spent a year as a vegetarian – felt great. Then, at almost exactly the one year mark, I craved meat like crazy. Figured my body was telling me something, so I am a carnivore again. But, with your research…

          • Nofun

            But you are Aussie Shepard so that is not surprising.

          • I think being a hippy is probably the best thing any of us could do.

    • Nofun

      So you really think sausages are made of fetuses? Sheesh!

  • kings kid

    Will be praying for you non-believers.