Member since Dec 4, 2012



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Abortion rights limits are indeed attacks on women

@gini yes, darn those pesky narrow minds who have a problem with the poisoning and dismembering of unborn children and the selling of their bodies. Ends do not justify the means- would you agree it would be wrong to kill a newborn and use their body parts to heal someone else? How is killing a fetus and using their body any different? Research and medical advancements must be guided by ethics.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by chl on 11/30/2015 at 5:43 PM

Re: “Abortion rights limits are indeed attacks on women

' Fetus' just means 'little one' or 'little child' in Latin- it is not inherently derogatory. Calling a 'fetus' a 'fetus' describes the stage of development of a person- just as 'newborn', 'baby', 'toddler', 'adolescent',' teen,' 'adult'... does . A corpse refers to the body of a dead human being. A deceased fetus leaves a corpse just as a deceased adult does.

4 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by chl on 11/03/2015 at 6:33 PM

Re: “Abortion rights limits are indeed attacks on women

@Mark - Your analogy does not work. A fetus resides within a woman's body but is not a body part of the woman.

A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn's genetic code differs from his or her mother's because he (or she) has his own body- with its own body parts. This is why an unborn child's heart stop's beating, but the mother's doesn't. Or how an unborn child can have male genitalia (because he is a boy), while a woman can never grow male genitalia herself.

An unborn child is not a hypothetical, future child. They are alive and will continue to live, thrive and grow unless something kills them.

6 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by chl on 10/31/2015 at 4:25 PM

Re: “Abortion rights limits are indeed attacks on women

ALL women who seek an abortion are already mothers. Abortion does not change the fact that a reproduction has occurred- that a new individual human organism has been called into existence. Abortion kills that human being.

Pro-choice discussion today, including what is presented here by MAT, has several, glaring faults. Most significant is, that it is rare, if ever, that the abortion supporter addresses the Pro-Life claim that abortion is equivalent to infanticide. If they are not the same, then explain how. Try to do this without ad hominem attacks on the Pro-life community.

If you cannot adequately explain this, you may begin to understand why nearly all of the situations that "need" the answer of abortion, must be seen as they truly are- circumstances that affect two people. This does not diminish the significance of the issues addressed by MAT- it is only to say that the solution to these problems cannot be found in killing one of the two people involved.

If my use of "person" here troubles you, please explain how a human being is ever not a person.

The recent scandal involving Planned Parenthood highlights the personhood of the unborn. The organs involved in trafficking are not the mother's organs. They belong to another person. We do not have the right to do whatever we want with another person's body. History has taught us, that we do not own other human beings- we do not have the right to kill someone else and use their body, even for 'life saving' medical research. This is what is scary and troubling about our time.

Yes, the profound reality of being a woman, is that we are the carriers of new people- this should give us pause before engaging in the action that causes new life to be created.

10 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by chl on 10/29/2015 at 10:19 AM

Re: “The holy war next door

Kara-to speak in generalities about what "most" pro-life people are doing or not doing is not an argument- it is a convenient and entirely subjective distraction. It is an attempt to avoid the reality of a discussion of what abortion is.

Over 300,000 people protest the capital on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade every year- This is just a minority of the millions of people in this country who profess to be pro-life. How can you possibly know what millions of people are doing or not doing? Or what they believe about the death penalty or healthcare or anything?

This article counters your argument- it shows that among these protesters are women looking to help other women to keep their babies- for nothing in return.

Planned Parenthood makes a billion dollars a year on abortions! They sell abortions. These protesters are not selling anything. Who has the altruistic motive here? PP takes your money, kills your baby and then sends you on your way. People like Mary Jost are helping women (pre and post natal) with every possible issue- food, clothing, housing, you name it, to keep mothers and their babies together or to find an adoptive home- to help women give their children life and to meet both of their needs- at birth and beyond.

Many women who protest PP have had abortions and suffered tremendously and want to stop other women from experiencing the same pain. They want to eliminate the crisis for these women, not to eliminate their baby.

I am aware that there are few among us like Mother Teresa- she is the ideal to strive for- but, being against abortion, does not mean you want to see children die, or to be molested or any other possible tragedy. Many of these protesters are mothers- did they abandon their own children after birth, caring only for them in utero?!

The problem is, that it is very hard to defend the images of abortion that these protesters are showing. The Pro-choice solution is to divert the issue and demonize those who are trying to show this reality.

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by chl on 10/14/2013 at 1:27 AM

Re: “The holy war next door

I prefer Mother Teresa (over George Carlin)- she called abortion "the greatest threat to peace in the world,"- she was a perfect model of the pro-life mission: reverence for all human life- from conception to natural death.

A desire to end the violence of abortion does not mean a hatred for all other humanity- it is a mission of inclusiveness- to expand human rights to the entire spectrum of human life.

3 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by chl on 10/10/2013 at 10:21 AM

Re: “The holy war next door

How can any complaints against these protesters be taken seriously?

Planned Parenthood must regularly dispose of body parts- like the tiny hand the protesters are showing.

Why take issue with the image, but not with what is proves?

Planned Parenthood kills and dismembers tiny human bodies, that is a fact.

Following a surgical abortion, clinic workers gather the remains of the baby and measure the size of his or her feet, in order to document gestational age.

City is concerned with preserving the right of PP to dismember tiny human bodies for profit. They are concerned with the fears of bad drivers, who may have to look twice in order not to hit people on a sidewalk. They are concerned with protecting people from knowing what they are about to do before they do it.

City is questioning the first amendment rights of citizens with whom they disagree with politically.

This has become a routine with City- avoiding the discussion of what abortion really is.

If you don't like seeing images of the violence abortion causes, then take issue with what abortion is.

If you want to defend the violence of abortion, of its perpetrators and profiteers like Planned Parenthood, then do it openly. Defend the image of the severed hand! Defend those who make money cutting it off!

Every complaint of this article pales in comparison to the truth of what these protesters are showing. Don't move next to a Planned Parenthood, if you don't want to know what they do.

6 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by chl on 09/28/2013 at 8:36 AM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2017 City Newspaper.

Website powered by Foundation.