Comments on: Todd Akin’s “junk science” hurts the abortion debate for all pro-life Americans

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:07:00 +0000

excuse me, but I am catholic and, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
1, yes we condemn contraception, but not women who get pregnant. That is just ludicrous. Prr-marital sex is a sin, but you are not “condemned” for doing it, I just had a baby outside of wedlock and I still go to church, I still am welcomed and my priest told me that, God does not make mistakes, people do, but He doesn’t. That is what he said when I told him I was pregnant. And as to why we ban contraception, it is because when you make the choice as to weather or not you are going to be pregnant, the idea is that you are likening yourself to God. Children are a blessing from God, and by using contraception you are telling God, “no, I do not want your blessing, I know better than you thank you very much.” NFP allows you to still limit your families size while still leaving yourself open to God’s plan.
2, The whole thing about out breeding? I don’t even know what to say to that BS. Also, Protestants loose members to the Church all the time too. But the Church teaches that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and that we should pray and work towards common ends, not fight amongst ourselves. I do not know where you are coming up with this idea that the Vatican wants to over-populate Protestants out of popularity.
3, I have NEVER heard that sperm is equal to an unborn baby. There is teachings against masturbation but not because sperm is holy life, that is just rediculous and saying things like that make me really wonder as to the legitimacy of your sources.

By: MikeMck

MikeMck — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:17:00 +0000

MikeMck
I worked with Todd Aiken in a ministry called Missiongate in St. Louis. Todd Aiken has proven through the years to be a strong Christian gentleman, and I don’t believe that he meant to say what he said. But if that is what he really believed, then it was wrong, but in no way should disqualify him from running for the U.S. senate. He has a lifetime of work, both public and private, that has been characterized by integrity and concern for others. I think that it is reprehensible that GOP fatcats tried to force him off the ballot. The people of Missouri elected him to be their candidate, so let it be decided at the ballot box. Senator McCaskill I personally like, but her support of the President’s policies have shown that she is fundamentally out of step with the majority of Show-Me state residents.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:41:00 +0000

Sanger’s obsession with eugenics can be traced back to her own family. One of 11 children, she wrote in the autobiographical book, My Fight for Birth Control, that “I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families.” Just as important was the impression in her childhood of an inferior family status, exacerbated by the iconoclastic, “free-thinking” views of her father, whose “anti-Catholic attitudes did not make for his popularity” in a predominantly Irish community.

The fact that the wealthy families in her hometown of Corning, N.Y., had relatively few children, Sanger took asprima facie evidence of the impoverishing effect of larger families. The personal impact of this belief was heightened 1899, at the age of 48. Sanger was convinced that the “ordeals of motherhood” had caused the death of her mother. The lingering consumption (tuberculosis) that took her mother’s life visited Sanger at the birth of her own first child on Nov. 18, 1905. The diagnosis forced her to seek refuge in the Adirondacks to strengthen her for the impending birth. Despite the precautions, the birth of baby Grant was “agonizing,” the mere memory of which Sanger described as “mental torture” more than 25 years later. She once described the experience as a factor “to be reckoned with” in her zealous campaign for birth control.

From the beginning, Sanger advocacy of sex education reflected her interest in population control and birth prevention among the “unfit.” Her first handbook, published for adolescents in 1915 and entitled, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, featured a jarring afterword:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:33:00 +0000

No one has the “right” to choose for any woman. This should not be a debate, nor should there be any law regarding this issue.

By: Paolina Garcia

Paolina Garcia — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:41:00 +0000

The Catholic Church has completely corrupted this issue. Believe me, I know as a former supporter of the Vatican. They condemn even contraception, and then condemn women who get pregnant because they can’t use contraception!

It’s seemingly a calculated plan of the Vatican that since they lose converts to Protestants they can just “outbreed” them by banning contraception. It’s been working great in getting South America overpopulated and pouring across the border, in a decade America will be more Catholic than Protestant for the first time in history.

There is a difference between sperm and a fetus. If the GOP continues to allow the Vatican to shift this debate to say a sperm is basically the same thing, we will ostracize all people who have logic.

If you allow women contraception and the morning after pill we can virtually eradicate ALL abortions. There is a difference between fetus and sperm! They are misquoting scripture (the spilling of seed thing is because the man did not want to impregnate the woman he was obligated to).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:11:00 +0000

Goodbye, and don’t let the door hit you on your way out. Go to mediamatters where they make things up out of thin air. We won’t miss your insults and sarcasm.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:08:00 +0000

Another euphamism for abortion is “membrane” , or of course, a “little bit of tissue.” They will never use the correct term: baby.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:05:00 +0000

During one of my pregnancies, my doctors discovered a serious problem. One of them advised me to abort because I had a 50/50 chance of surviving the pregnncy. The second doctor (in the same practice) said he agreed with the 50/50 part, but that he could not advise me as to what to do. My husband said he would support me no matter which decision I made. That night when I kissed my two little boys goodnight, I wondered how they would fare if I did not live.

That was a long time ago, and I’m happy to tell you that my daughter, born from that high-risk pregnancy, was born healthy and happy, and now has two daughters of her own.

When someone says they are pro-choice, pray that they make the “right” choice.

By: J G

J G — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:40:00 +0000

There is no such thing as “Pro Choice” if you are the baby being torn to pieces or chemically burned to death. I am a single woman and I vote. Pro Choice really has the effect of anti-baby when the baby is inconvenient for you. Planned Parenthood’s history began with a woman named Margaret Sanger who hated black babies and wanted to kill them through abortion. Unfortunately those that profit politically or monetarily do not want us to remember this information or consider that the baby is the one who is tortured to death during abortion.

By: Paula Forester

Paula Forester — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:17:00 +0000

People talk about a woman’s choice on abortion. The choice, except for rape, was made when the baby was conceived. If that act wouldn’t have taken place there wouldn’t be a baby.