Thank you all again. If anyone has a linked to Tyler's story, created a page for Tyler, and I haven't listed you, or if anyone has contacted other places, email me or post that on the Cheer for Tyler board [link also on that main page] so I can add these items to those lists.

Actually, there's nothing in scripture that specifically criticizes slavery. But, interestingly enough, Paul spends a good deal of Ephesians 6 exhorting slaves in their conduct to their masters and vice versa. Any freedom from slavery that is referred to in scripture is in direct relation to spiritual freedom, not actual physical freedom.

1. Latin America, where kids are starving, has MORE abortions (as well as infanticides and abandoned children) than the US;
2. Christianity does NOT condone slavery; this is a popular misconception. Listen to the battle hymn of the republic, citing Jesus as the inspiration for abolition.
3. Child molestation by priests has happened, but that does not make it moral, or consistent with Catholicism;
4. My pet peeve: Scientology is not a religion. It was founded by atheistic science fiction writers to see if they could get away with avoiding taxes by calling themselves a religion. Its a scam, costing innocent people hundreds of thousands of dollars, while paying a few celebrities millions to say they belong. It is not a religion.

"[I]f the shoe was on the other foot, and we lived in a country controlled by an anti-choice majority with laws against abortion, you can be sure there would be no such thing as freedom of speech -- because the anti-choice secretly abhor it. Any pro-choice dissent would be quickly quashed, with 'offenders' likely jailed." Bold speculative statements for the author of that article to make, considering that the article is about an incident in which pro-life speech was "quickly quashed" by the "pro-choice," not the other way around!

In a CBR article about a GAP display that was brought to the University of Tennessee (where CBR received threats of violence), CBR says, "Had pro-life activists threatened UT pro-aborts in any way, even in jest, the incident would have made national news and U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno's thugs would have rumbled out of garrison. But when the pro-aborts make threats, even homicidal, they are shrugged off as mere rhetorical excess."

I have to agree with you here. For years, those that we can only call anti-abortion, and not pro-life, have been rationalizing their violence by using this very same argument... "it's so terrible, that I couldn't help but do anything but ____, and therefore the fault of the other party not myself." If keb will support that argument (even indirectly), then I wonder if keb will also agree that anti-abortion violence is acceptable because anti-abortionists view abortion as so heinous that they must resort to violence? I mean here we're talking about justifying actions because a sign is offensive to someone... but what about the fact that killing an unborn child is offensive to others? It seems to me then, that those openly advocating "choice" are inciting hate also. If the GAP is guilty of inciting "hate" and possibly creating a breach of peace by displaying their signs, then every pro-choice group that has ever held a public rally or meeting [where pro-"choice" rhetoric is spewed] is guilty of the same thing. *I* feel every bit as riled as Ms. Kaiser did, when *I* hear the callous disregard for human life preached by the "choice" camp, yet I have never resorted to destroying life or property in that name.

The woman in question, Erin Kaiser, is a granddaughter of a Jewish Holocaust survivor and had recently had an abortion. She took exception to being portrayed as a Nazi and racist. In other words, she had recently legally, arbitrarily put her unborn child to death, and she objected to being compared to Nazis, who had legally, arbitrarily put people to death.

Maybe a good lesson in this is to be careful whose voice one appropriates when one makes one's hateful statements. Some people don't like being used and exploited for such purposes. Yup--such as women with post-abortion stress syndrome whose pain is invalidated by the pro-choice camp and who are dismissed by the pro-choice camp as mere pawns for the pro-life movement; disabled people, people in poverty, people who were conceived by rape/incest, and victims of abuse who are glad to have been spared death by abortion but are used as abortion rights poster children; Sandra Cano, Doe of Doe v. Bolton, who never wanted to have an abortion but whose story was exploited by her radical feminist lawyer to push abortion on demand; pregnant women whose unborn children are disabled, pregnant women in poverty, and pregnant young girls who don't want to abort but are singled out by the pro-choice camp as candidates for abortion--as if they have a duty to society to abort; the Scottish 12-year-old whose decision not to abort was publicly condemned worldwide by pro-abortion advocates (I guess a woman's/girl's "choice" is to be respected as an agonizing, personal and private decision only if her choice is to abort); etc.

Forget JCE. *I* went there, and unlike him, I finished all four years. I've caught him in various lies and misrepresentations of the school's policies on Friction. He's just got an ax to grind.

The main culprits in the raid were members of a college pro-abortion organization called UBC Students for Choice: Erin Kaiser (spearhead of UBC Students for Choice), Jon Chandler, and Leslie Washington. The pro-life display was sponsored by a college pro-life organization called UBC Students for Life.

The University of Victoria Students' Society (UVSS), who officially take a pro-abortion stance, does not recognize their campus pro-life club, Youth Protecting Youth (YPY). That means that YPY does not receive funding taken from fees collected from all University of Victoria students, pro-life and pro-abortion alike. The campus pro-abortion club, however, does receive funding. The pro-life display that choicists destroyed was UBC Students for Life's way of protesting UVSS' refusal to acknowledge YPY.

Concerns regarding UVSS' refusal to recognize YPY may be directed to:
Morgan Stewart, Chair of UVSS: chair@uvss.uvic.ca
University of Victoria President's Council: dgoard@uvvm.uvic.ca

And as far as women "having it all," who WANTS it all? As a single, childfree woman, I can tell you from the other side that it's awful having to work with these women who are trying to juggle jobs and kids. I have to listen to incessant babble about their children (when I have deadlines that are fast approaching), I have to take messages from the kids (as if I don't have enough messages to take already), and it is assumed that I'm available for extra projects since I don't have children. I am chastised for missing work because of a chronic, incurable, unpreventable disease, and yet those who have children get extra time off with no such chastisement, whether it's to give birth or to take the kid to the doctor's office. Ladies, make your choice! If you want children, then by all means have them, but make sure you can afford them first. If you want to work, then do so, but either quit once you have children, or don't have them at all!

I though, am willing to consider the fact that you may indeed be of higher intellect than everyone here. I wonder though... to aid me in that endeavor, could you kindly furnish me with further information regarding your intellectual achievements? I'm specifically looking for details to support why the arguments of everyone here [seeing that you blanketly attributed arguments and thought here on this site to "drivel"] are inferior, regardless of the fact that some of the contributors here are well-respected for their intellect.

I suspect that you've come to this conclusion based on a select few individuals that participate here, for whom you have developed, shall we say, a certain "dislike" for? Keeping in mind that some of the conributors here such as:

Karen Brauer - (She left a mark of reasonable scientific success which is partially tracable in "Medline". Currently President of Pharmacists For Life International.)

Linda Prussen-Razzano - (Linda has a list of reputable organizations for whom she's been a registered speaker or received merit awards from. She is currently working as a research associate for an electrical engineering firm and awaiting publication of her first full-length novel.)

Michelle Malkin - (An editorial writer and columnist for the Seattle Times, Michelle was the 1995 Warren Brookes Fellow at the Competitive Institute and her commentary has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Detroit News, L.A. Daily News, Denver Post, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers. In 1997, Michelle co-hosted a public affairs television program, Chronicles, on the local CBS affiliate in Tacoma, Washington.)

Joyce Mucci - (Joyce previously co-hosted the public affairs radio program "Off Center" on her local CNN affiliate, KPHN 1190. Her book, Beyond Consent - The Title X Family Planning Story will be published next year.)

Stephanie Birmingham - (Stephanie hosts her own radio talk-show on WGOW-FM, 102.3 FM in Chattanooga, TN. On her show, and through her writing and speaking engagements, Stephanie publically dissertates on the inviolability of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.)

are respected for their intellect, and their contributions, I'm hoping that you will be able to provide me with a little more to go on to enable me to back you up in your assertion that their arguments and thoughts are "drivel", while yours are not.

Really keb, this thing you keep coming here with all seems just too personal, which in the past I've found makes it darn near impossible to be objective. I'd like to close by giving you one thing to think about, for it seems that you've taken this whole thing with Brenda, the Leftgrrl/Leftgrll thing, etc. a tad too seriously. Brenda's thrown a few "lighthearted" comments your way throughout this, and I'm just wondering why you're taking this so seriously?

"Anyone that takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not." - Vaclav Havel, Disturbing the Peace (Knopf)

Melissa, the scary thing I was trying to get across was that I see a lot of what Julie wrote about from people that definitely don't "qualify" as being a "yuppie". It's downright sad. I've seen a lot of people in that middle bracket who seem desperate to have more stuff, bigger stuff, better stuff, and feel that they "have" to work in order to have it. I'm sure they do have to have both working in order to have it, but what's sad is that most times... the kids would be happier having them and an average house instead of not having them and having a showier house, or whatever. Kids don't care about that kind of stuff unless we teach them to.

I can relate to your vacation comment. Everyone does need a vacation... necessity is a good word, but the question is whether the vacation has to be one that requires a significant cash committment, or one that simply facilitates rest and a break from stress. I was talking about people that feel "vacation" means going away... transportation, hotels, etc. etc., regularily. Those types of vacations are often what people feel pressured to take in order to "keep up with the Joneses", and if we think about it, in the past, families just didn't expect that regularily. Where I am, we have a scheduled "February Break" as well as an "Easter/Spring Break", and I just counted so many people I know going away on this break, that it's unbelievable. This means (for many of them) that they are financing two plane trip/hotel/etc. holidays per year counting the ever-necessary summer vacation. They then speak about how they "have to work"! Oy. Whatever happened to planning an in town "vacation", putting aside the daily stresses and making time to enjoiy each other where you are? That's a vacation from the daily grind, but for many these days, it isn't good enough.

I find it silly that so many are taking exception to any use of "grrl" that doesn't meet with their approval. "Grrl" is a term used to signify much more than angst-ridden rebellions. On a recent shopping trip, I found a scrabbooking kit dedicated to the "grrl". Obviously, the use of the term was meant to signify that the kit was "hip" "up-to-date", etc. Nowhere did I get an indication that this scrapbook kit was marketed to those that have previously profaned contributors here, those that feel "they" are solely entitled to use the term. I sincerely hope then, drawing on Carolyn's previous comments that while profaning and dressing down the founders and contributors of Rightgrrl, that they also do the same for others using the "grrl" term. I add though, that while doing this, they should write to the manufacturers of some of these available products, and suggest that they too, have no right to use the term "grrl" Perhaps Rightgrrl could [as a public service] provide the addresses of some of these companies to aid these frustrated real "grrls" in their complaints?

On the issue of Julie's article, I'd like to point out that there seems to be a lot of misconceptions about where and how many people "need" to work. I realize that there are people that need to have both spouses working. At the same time though, I believe that the numbers of people in this real and legitimate need, are not as high as we've been led to believe. In the year 2000, we define "need" quite differently than our predecessors. Yes... if both must work in order that the family has food/clothing/etc. that is one thing. For many though, "needs" are defined in such a way that makes me ashamed of our society. I have worked when we needed another income to make the rent and grocery bill. I also stay home now, but not because I am fortunate that my husband can "keep us up in style" or the like, but because I choose that for this period of time, many things my friends "need" are things I can wait for, because my children need me. I see a lot of people in the same situation as I... that aren't the "yuppies" mentioned in one reply, but are working because they want the 1800 square foot house right now, instead of the 1000.

It is our idea of "need" that causes the problem. In the article Having it both ways (Feb. 2000 Reader's Digest), Camilla Cornell points out that while the popular belief that two incomes are needed to support a family resulting in 70% of families being dual income as opposed to 30%, thiry years ago; statistics don't bear that out. "Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are almost the same as in 1957; the cost of many electronic products has fallen; and since 1961 the percentage of disposable income Canadians spend on groceries has dropped from 18.1 percent to 9.3 percent." She goes on to question and answer that the reason we find it so hard to survive on one income is that we expect more than our parents. Good point. She quotes Marc Denhez, author of The Canadian Home: From Cave to Electronic Cocoon, in that "the average Canadian home cost about 2.5 times family income in 1943, when most women didn't work, and still costs about 2.5 times family income when women do." The issue, as seen by both, is that "house sizes have risen substantially, from an average of 800 square feet in 1943, to nearly 1500 square feet by 1998"

I tend to favour that explanation, and pepper it with my own additions. My oldest sibling could be my mother for the age difference. In her early days of wedded bliss, it was normal for a newly married couple to rent, to struggle and to [later] fondly recall those "romantic" dinners where there wasn't much but a pot of beans and a loaf of bread... but they had each other. These days, new couples expect a lavish honeymoon, a new house, and regular holidays.... or from what I've seen at least. If you've been married ten years and [horrors] have children, and aren't even in your own home, much less able to be thinking about moving out of that "starter" home... you're way behind. Those of us choosing to forego some of this stuff to stay home with our children are looked upon as though we're some strange being from another planet.

I realize that there are those that really need to work. I have been there. Julie's article to me though, was speaking to that {and I do believe it to be large] group of individuals for whom need is better described as want... and I am NOT referring to the "yuppies". This group is all around us, influencing whether or not our youngsters feel the outcast for being in $25.00 shoes instead of $85.00, that our houses are half the size, and [horrors again] maybe rented... and those that would have the nerve to tell a mother of three contemplating four, that because they won't be able to have regular ski trips at Christmas, that they are "nuts" for having any more kids these days than they can provide with such "needs". We all need to step back and ask ourselves why we "need" things that in the past, our parents managed to do without... so that they could actually parent us?

Oops, the message should read


justlife---thanks for the dose of reality:-)

Stupidity is apparently a global thing ;-)

Your posts and mine are still in the other guestbook to anyone who wishes to check, though I'd think that they'd find your description of nontraditional prolifers, the likes of which hang out here and there, as "wolves in sheep's clothing" to be indicative of your take on left-wing activism on the parts of prolifers.

Sass - LOL! Great hate mail - truly exemplifies the oft-followed rule of, "If you can't attack what the person's saying, attack what the person's NOT saying!" My most recent amusement in that category occured when a certain prochoicer, reluctant to believe that supporting the protection of unborn human life didn't exclude supporting the protection of born human life took issue with me for posting a link to my human rights site. Yup, no WAY could a prolifer sincerely be against human rights abuses - the only reason I put a few hours into that site every week is so that I can...oh, wait, there are prochoicers lurking here...wouldn't want to give away the plot!

As far as Clinton, I can't speak for the rest of the "grrls," but for me, it is not the fact that Clinton had an affair that is so disturbing. It is the fact that he lied about it under oath, and that his mistress insisted that her friend perjure herself as well. In fact, said mistress brought up other Clinton opposers who are now dead, in a not-so-subtle attempt to threaten Tripp into compliance. No, my fellow Gen X'er, it goes far beyond a simple slap and tickle in the Oval Office.

In case you're reading Tyler, or perhaps someone else is checking in for you... this is for you:

That's because our foremothers actually (gasp!) stayed home and took care of their own children! Wow, what a concept! (This is not a slam to you, Realist, but to our society in general.) If women would wait until they could afford to stay home and take care of their kids, there wouldn't be a NEED for maternity leave. If single women would either (a) properly use birth control or (b) abstain from sex, then they wouldn't have to whine and complain about how "hard" it is to be a single mother. Gee, yah THINK? (And I do realize that some women are single moms because of divorce or widowhood; I'm not talking about them, but about women who are single when they become pregnant and then expect everyone else to bend over backwards to help them through their "difficult" time.)

Maternity leave and other "family friendly" policies, most of which are female-centric, will have exactly the same effect now that Anthony's women's labor laws had: they will backfire. Why hire a woman who is going to be gone for 3-6 months (at the company's expense), require costly on-site daycare and lactation rooms, pose possible lawsuits for "discrimination," and lower productivity by spending large amounts of time on the phone talking to/about the kids AND regaling other employees with stories about their kids? (Believe me, it happens ALL the time where I work.) It is more cost-effective to hire a man who will not do most of these things (although there are some exceptions), and so it puts us right back where we were a hundred years ago.

If a woman wants to work, let her work. If she wants to be a mother, then let her be a mother. If she wants to be a working mother, then let her be a working mother. But don't expect the rest of us to bend over backwards to help her do it.

First, all of the bills I have seen proposed prohibiting abortions DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, punish the mother. Abortions are, for many women, a desperate response to a complicated set of circumstances...for which they pay a mental and physical price later in life. Thus, your illogical leap to the unfounded and baseless conclusion that Pro-Lifers are advocating imprisoning women is, quite simply, laughable.

Second, Pro-Abortion advocates do not tell us what we CAN DO, they tell us what we are WORTH. They have, through the rhetoric used to justify abortions, dehumanized all unborn life...all unborn children are effectively WORTHLESS. Children, wanted or unwanted, are no longer guaranteed their Constitutional right to LIFE. Were a perpetrator to enter my house with the sole purpose of killing my unborn child, under abortion law I have no legal recourse for the loss of my unborn baby. It is a considered a "viable tissue mass," despite the fact that it had a brain, a heart, and a spinal cord at just 8 weeks, and was a fully formed but underdeveloped child at just 12 weeks. Hence, the argument used to justify their "choice" to terminate their pregnancy has pre-empted my "choice" to love and nurture my child in the womb.

The primary difference between those who are Pro-Life versus those who support abortions is simple: we see the unborn child as a child. We recognize that from the 8th week of development (at the latest), the baby has the necessary sensory organs to feel the pain of it's own death. Most women, particulary young women, are not aware of this important fact which may drastically influence their decision. We recognize that emotional ramifications can occur, anniversay syndrome and encroaching guilt, over a momentary act that has permanent consequences; again, these details are often not provided to women being counseled about abortion. There are no reunions for the aborted child. There are no second chances for the aborted child. Just a few more important aspects never raised in the pro-abortion "debate."

A side note here: I visited your site too Love. I have to say that some of your writings seem so contradictory to the way you conduct yourself. One thing I want to say in regards to your comments about suicide and the children of rape/incest... you should know that being conceived of want does not guarantee a great life, and therefore being conceived not of want does not guarantee a life of misery. Everyone has value, regardless of the circumstances they were conceived in. Really... you contradict yourself so often, I wonder if you really know what you believe yet, or if you just needed some controversial writing on your site to get some attention?

Choicists claim prolifers have no right to JUDGE pregnant womens choices, etc., in the process legislating against it. Lifers shoot back nobody has a right to kill somebody for "prolifey" reasons, often. Both are wrong. The Prolife position is demonstrable to science, not because its exactly prolife in terms of RESPECT, personally for LIFE, but an OBLIGATION by law to defend it, even if one didnt value it, per se, be they calling themselves by any label, and everyone really knows it deep down. What most choicist argue is temp REAL ESTATE and "dependency" means she can kill, anyway, regardless. Of course, since we know that newborns are all totally dependent on their mothers, and if she tries to claim she can deny "it" food, like breastmilk (using her body resources, like gestating) or formula,(using her wallet, she doesnt owe the separated entity a "free lunch") are false, and such a mother would be charged with reckless endangerment and abandonment and go up for murder one, but the hypocrisy of Roe is that due to ONE MANS view (Blackmun) about dividing a pregnancy theoretically, totally emotionally in nonscienctific sections of trimesters and saying if and when a woman can kill, when viability even, not that its valid marker either, per se, is even constantly downward evolving. Its all a lie. Also, if science can show life starts at fertilization, and it does, then whether lifers or choicers choose to value it is immaterial, because legally we have to defend it. So, choicists cannot say its prolife bias, because someone can CHOOSE to say, "not value human life" PERSONALLY, in that they WISH they could easily do so, but LEGALLY they cannot be permitted, makes no difference if they are "prochoice" or "prolife" on abortion. Finally, the assessment that MEN cant pass judgment and even laws, because they are men has no basis because men are able to determine unemotionally the science of the matter, so their sex is immaterial to judging or laws pertaing to actions allowable to women. This is a scam to avoid all persons from seeing the truth about abortion ITSELF, by illogic...

Considering that pro-choicers look upon an unborn child as "potential life"--life that is possible but not actual, and considering that pro-choicers criticize pro-lifers for defending unborn children who are existent and alive and growing: It's funny when a pro-choicer argues that her abortion was in deference to children who didn't even exist (weren't even conceived) at the time of the abortion, children whom she would argue could have been rightfully ripped to pieces in the womb for whatever reason she deemed fit.

This is like saying WOMEN have no right to judge rapists and agree it should be illegal and prosecutable or not, assuming we are talking male on female rape, because they arent doing the raping. Or even more removed, a "majority" (say white) person not being able to speak or influence votes on "minority" (non-whites) discrimination issues and resolutions. That has nothing to do with logically and scientifically analyzing the situation, drawing conclusions and voting power, formally or informally, and segregating by sex would not be defensible in such a case if we polled folks. It would probably not stand Constitutional scrutiny. Why is it different here? Are you as upset at all the MEN on the Supreme Court who ruled on Roe to allow abortions? How about clinic escorts? In addition, the obvious fact that men father all of these children, thus having a cataclysmic stake in the outcome in any direction, precludes their exclusion, which is ONE reason why Roe ITSELF is Unconstitutional on the face of it, including the weller- known life loss aspect in debates. I also find it curious that you admit it *was* a *child*, because you said so WRT to your husband, IIRC. If so, wouldnt that prove lifers right in their stances? Or is a child killable only based on temporary real estate regardless of his or her humanity?

Yep, it sure is! Our government wants us to be unhealthy and limbless so we can protest less when our commie-kissing prez initiates the New World Order...

Oops! Wrong board! :-) But seriously, I'm not saying that these mistakes happen because the government instructs doctors to commit them. I'm saying that, in an attempt to appease HMO's, which are notorious for denying life-saving treatments, the doctors realize that this may be the only chance they have to "fix" this patient, and common sense goes right out the window. Or, perhaps they are less-qualified doctors (as suggested by other posters) who really don't know the difference between a healthy kidney and a diseased one. Perhaps the unhealthy kidney looked just like the healthy one and it was in fact an error in the x-rays which may have been performed by a less-qualified technician. Of course the government didn't command the doctors to harm patients (that only happens in syphillis experiments on black inmates and germ-warfare experiments on soldiers in the Gulf War), but because of strict limitations by the HMO's, the doctors are not free to use their best judgement or give their patients the best care available.

HP, I thought the same thing! I've heard of cases here in the US of doctors amputating the wrong leg, removing the wrong lung, and so forth, and I've always thought that they should be able to tell the difference between the healthy limb or organ and the degenerated unhealthy one. In one case, I heard the doctor use the excuse that "the x-ray was reversed." I would rather be sewn back up and cut open a second time so the docs could figure out what was going on than to have a healthy organ removed, but of course, that would cost too much money and the HMO would be mad. Never mind the fact that dialysis and organ transplants are far more costly! Grrr...

I heard a comedian once say that HMO stood for "have money or die." I don't think he was far off...

Did you notice that King Bill referred to the US as a nation state?

Imagine that you were raised in Cuba. Imagine that you loved your country [Cuba]. You would probably be furious that Americans refuse your right to your child simply because they do not believe in the political system in your country. Put this way, I do not understand how you can not believe a son belongs with his natural parent. It is not our place to judge so harshly especially when we know little about the father and his beliefs. Obviously he loves his country and wishes to raise his cuban son in their country.

PLM's personal report on the march, on 1-22-2000:

I bought a Mother Teresa pro-child slogan t-shirt to support the workers in the park near the start of the procession to the Capitol steps. I then spoke at length to several heads of local CPCs and one church leader about prolife strategies. We sent around a petition against Planned Parenthood, and signed for a law regarding Euthanasia pain relief reform. I was near the front of the procession with a PL helium balloon tied to my arm and a PL sign. We marched to the Capitol chanting loudly over and over for the 20 minute procession to the Governer's offices of "Hey ho, (and "hey hey ho ho") Roe must go!". I probably yelled near the loudest of anyone in the crowd of 1400, (about 100 were manning the beginnings and endings of the event separated by several blocks.) Marching were mostly women, some men and all on the young to very young side mostly. It seemed most were pretty subdued and it took several blocks to get people into the chanting mode, unlike last year when we fought for parental consent passage. I urged people on near me and they eventually responded. Most onlookers registered no reaction, but we did have one heckler in a passing car as we made our way down Congress ave to the Capitol. The police escorted us. Once there, Mariachi bands played, and a few speakers appeared, including a Texas A&M "Aggies" (who are supposed to be dumb and hickish) humor sketch. A celibate priest spoke and used that to make a point about abortion "aborting itself". One speaker talked of how many Planned Parenthoods were closed down in Texas due to their efforts, bringing cheers, as petitions against them re-circulated among the crowd. The best part which drew the biggest applause was the announcement that Texas is the most prolife state in the USA, with more bills passed restricting abortion access than any other, supposedly. A reporter, acting all fair, talked to a mother with a special needs child about adoption hangups where people want to adopt and cant against their wills. I stood next to them near the front of the Capitol steps. I spoke at the tables set up to several CPC workers, and I may write some articles for a local one's newsletter at their offer.

Now the news media:

Predictably, the reporter went back and called us "anti-abortion" and not prolife, over and over in her article and referred to GARTL (Greater Austin Right To Life) as "the antiabortion group", proving the suspicions right in advance of a throng of Alan Keyes supporters I spoke to who noted the negative connoctations of being "against" something and the oppostion "for" something, which the paper also fell in line with, calling them "abortion rights supporters". The headline in the paper read "1500 cheer anti-abortion laws in annual protest at Capitol". Note use of "anti", not "prolife". The paper also made sure they printed crap from the "other side" about the whole affair, probably for "balance". NBC affiliate channel 4 surprisingly printed soundbytes from the head speaker, a woman who likened abortion with *abuse* of "womens rights" due to lack of informed consent, effects upon, etc.-they didnt make us look bad or silly, the report was one of the freshest I have ever seen on tv! The paper, referring to the quotes of the special needs adoptive mother in the crowd who was interviewed, predictably didnt print her most important lines regarding the red tape tie ups in adopters accepting babies from women considering abortion also as an alternative, which she insinuated raises the abortion rate as a result. This selective reporting, typical of the media, is one reason lifers are losing the propaganda war when our strongest arguments are deleted or ommitted. The reporter only mentioned the physical ATTENDANCE of the woman and her son, NOT her arguments about adoption WRT abortion. Also a favorite is to make them all look heavily religious or basing their arguments against abortion on that, and printing quotes always from the most religious attenders and making their views seem universal. When we opposed Planned Parenthood, we were called "anti-Planned Parenthood" without explanation of why and using the now familiar negative qualifyer trick, which I maintain is a subsection of Rightgrrl's (and About.com guide) Christina Dunnigan's perspective on TOMA, or "top of the mind awareness".

Yesterday, Sarah Weddington (Roe attorney infamy) and other "pro-choice" advocates staged a counter rally at the University of Texas at Austin not too far the lifer march on Saturday. I did not attend, and didnt see the tv coverage, but my experience is that it probably made several channels, probably more than the lifer one, with longer coverage, and the spin would be more positive using positive buzz-words like "prochoice" (they consistently refuse to call us by our choice of name "prolife" and use negative qualifyers like "anti-abortion") and will likely have used also the happy term "abortion rights supporters" both on tv and in the paper. As of this writing, I havent even read the paper, and as I said I didnt catch the news coverage on tv of the abortion supporter rally, but experience tells me this recuring theme of bias will likely appear...

Norman says: What's wrong with that and if he says he wants to stay in America why can't we bring his father here?

I think that there concerns of repercussions on the family and even friends who remain in Cuba. If there were some way for the father (and any other family members who wanted to) to come to America to be with Elian without fearing for the safety of those who remained in Cuba, I would certainly support it. Elian could be with his family, AND grow up in a free country.

"All orthodox Christians are to be removed from California immediately and their property confiscated."

Exactly Meagan. Elian, even if the claim about her motives to risk his life in unsafe transport were about "giving him freedom" Elian at *6* is simply so young he cannot give informed consent to the concept of being willing, given his impressionability and naivete, to come here seeking "freedom from Castro's regime". At 6 he doesnt possess the long range consequences reasoning power to decide something like citizenship because he is too easily bended to the wills of forces like he is getting in Miami to stay. He doenst have the maturity to withstand that. Or sex. Or drinking. Or voting. Funny how folks are so blinded by politics that they cant see how silly that assertion is. They sit there and talk of "hearing Elian-lets see what he wants!" Oh yeah, at 6! He cant even know all the ways he WILL NEED his father on down the line. He isnt an adult, he is a CHILD. His life was likely average, not in immediate danger. He then went on a boat, under the *control* of his mother, that he probably had no idea was poorly made and rickety to assess the risk and whether he wished to take it to escape Castro, etc. He doesnt have the maturity to ferret that out. The fact that so few can see this obvious fact when they SHOULD as adults, is a telling pointer to the fact that logic and common sense have gone out the window, because politics are involved when they never should have been in the first place. The next thing you know we will all hear how a Republican senator has talked to Elian and "knows" that he supports the Embargo against Cuba due to his understanding of what a bad man Castro is! The point is not that Castro ISNT scum, but that we delude ourselves into believing Elian KNOWS this at 6 and agrees he consented to coming here, "knows what he wants" knew the risks but because he, like us, values freedom so much, he was willing to risk his neck and did so freely, and we are only helping him in citizenship to "do what the boy himself wants", etc. Its all about US, not HIM, its our fantasy. Thats why even AFTER the Dateline piece, the grammas, etc. tons of people are still acting like they KNOW what the mothers motivation was, that it was her giving her life for her sons freedom, etc. and that we should honor her memory as such, etc. We dont CARE what the truth is and never did!

It's politics, plain and simple. The Miami Cubans want to "get back" at Castro, and they have the money and political clout to do so. It's sheer evil that they're using a child to do this, although I'm sure that they've brainwashed themselves into thinking that it's "in his best interest."

Unbelievable, you say? According to Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/burton/index.html), The Congressman trying to prevent Elian Gonzalez's return to Cuba, Rep.Dan Burton, gets more campaign funding from Florida's Cuban exile community than from his own folks back home in Hoosierland. How much more? Burton appears to have another, less lofty motivation for his actions on behalf of the Cuban-American exile community. A close look at his campaign finances by the Indianapolis Star has revealed that Burton has raised over $30,000 from South Florida contributors so far in his current campaign, compared to only $4,700 -- or only one-sixth of that amount -- from backers in his home state.

But wait. It gets better! You know the judge who ruled for him to stay in the US against the INS instructions that he be returned to Cuba? Seems she has ulterior motives, too. Even the very judiciary now wrestling with the case is tainted. Judge Rodriguez, who made that legally dubious intervention inthe custody battle, relied in her reelection upon the very same political advisor now orchestrating the campaign by the boy's Miami relatives. Hmm... But wait! It gets worse. Seems the good judge also had ties to Elian's family as well. Judge Rodriguez is paying the consultant $10,000...(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/gonzales/index1.html) I've read somewhere, too, that the Judge used Elian's aunt, the wife of the uncle who is trying to get custody of him, as her PR person during her campaign. (Unfortunately, I forget where I saw that, but I'll look it up later and give the reference.)

Oh, and his loving US "family" who only cares about "what's best for Elian"? I like the way Salon puts it: The relatives who know what's best for him, the ones he's known for just a few weeks, haven't helped. Instead of shielding him from the media mobs, they trot him out before TV cameras like a circus animal in the most contrived appearances, nudging him to wave the subpoena above his head. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/15/cuba/index2.html)

It's all about politics, plain and simple. The Miami relatives, while I'm sure that they do have some concern for the boy, have also taken advantage of the situation to further their own political motives. Absolutely despicable. And we think communism is bad...

I've also heard of this, but we have to remember that the operative word in the 80's case is "teen." He was 12 or 13, not 6. HE chose to remain there, his parents CHOSE to return to Russia (or wherever). He wasn't kidnapped by one parent without the other's knowledge, he didn't witness the tragic death of his mother, his life was never in danger, and at least his parents got a chance to argue their point of view. The kid was indeed granted HIS desire to stay in the US, and even HE says that Elian should go home because he's too young to make that decision! (This was also on Dateline, or at least a nearly identical story.)

Yes, it's true, today my twenties are but a memory. Thanks Carolyn for the wishes. Thanks ~Sass for the e-mail. I'll answer soon. Hang in there, sahg.

A)Why do people go around saying they "KNEW" the father agreed to him coming here, misinforming others innocently into believing that-if they are not blinded by politics and anti-Castro rage and are acting in the best interests of the child when we KNOW, and have from day one nearly, that that wasnt likely true and is now for all practical purposes and intents debunked by Dateline NBC 1-17-2000?

B) Why do people say they KNOW Castro HAS and IS pressuring the father based PURELY on anecdotal extrapolation? Wheres the *PROOF*?

C) Why do people assume the father wants Elian to stay *here* based on the same reasoning in "B" (proof, sources please!)-but applied to the concept that many immigrant mothers and fathers sac their own rights to a relationship to their child for the chance of a better life for said child in the USA?

D) Worst of all, why do people think that because we supposedly can provide a better *income* for Elian, and disagree with the government itself of his place of origin, i.e. Communism as a system vs Capitalism, that that means fathers rights are meaningless in comparison (because that IS what they are saying) of a father who lacks any evidence of unfitness, had a close relationship to the boy, for 6 years, is worth less than us giving him toys and taking him to Disneyland? How is it the best interests of Elian to have those "benefits" at the *expense* of his own *father* in his life? How on earth could people think that in comparison, the value a father provides a child is of lesser import than these arguments, when thousands of years of experience show us otherwise? Where is ANY evidence of Elian being abused by CASTRO in Cuba directly and not having a loving normal family life as shown on Dateline with his basic needs of food, water and shelter met? It should be a SLAM DUNK easy decision, dontcha tink?

The reality is, Norman, Elian probably doesnt even know (or until we got our hands on him) who Castro really is, his human rights record, or cares. I didnt, and likely YOU didnt, even NOTICE our president until about 8. Even then I barely recall Ford. A childs radar screen doesnt include embargos. The first president I knew really was Carter. Elian WAS, by reports, living a normal life of a child in Cuba. It may come as a shock to you but parents all over the world in places like Cuba raise kids that turn out ok. I mean, its not America, Castro is a pig, but to suggest that those parents should have their parental rights terminated without consent and without wrongdoing THEMSELVES is folly. This demonizing and politicizing a child cutody case is too much bad policy wonking. It cant work. Because once you set the precedent, you open the door for Castro and other goons to do the same to OUR children using reverse propaganda, when they claim Communism is "the way" and Capitalism is "evil". No, I agree WE are right, but thats not the point, see? Further, you open the door to abusive abductor Americanized foreign parents to do likewise also in reverse. Suppose a man is Cuban born. He impregnates an American female. The woman gets custody after she refuses an abortion offer. He wants it adopted, the woman refuses. He pretends to be a fair father, and without consent or warning on a visitation, he BOLTS backl to Cuba, and places the baby for adoption. Castro argues the child is better of a Cuban citizen anyway, because we are "corrupt" and wont give it back to the mother. The man has found a neat way, now that child custody politicalization is fair play, to avoid child support. The father who plans on signing his rights off in Cuba unilaterally can claim "best interests of the child". Theres nothing stopping the father from claiming its better off being raised under Communism in a 2 parent home than raised by a single mother, now is there?

This proves the points Meagan, myself, Kathleen Parker make about societys contempt, mistrust, without any reason even in the face of condridictory evidence-of fathers. We trust the mother. Usually blindly. We assume purest motives. If it had been reversed sexes, nobody woould find ulterior motives and second guess that a mothers plea for her childs return under any "regime" was anything but genuine. Thats because we take it for granted that "of course" any mother would want her child, becuase they "of course" have a closer than glue relationship. Now, when its a father? Suspicion and mistrust despite the preliminary reports from the American relatives, *not* Castro or the USA goverment! People STILL argue even after Dateline shows otherwise! Why is is so hard for us to believe a father would want and need his flesh and blood and likewise, but not the reverse? The Dateline story showed them to be VERY close, and yet we get:"what family? How close were they?" If you didnt know what the status was, and he *was* asking for him back, which is documented everywhere, why not give the father the benefit of the doubt we all would give to any mother? If this had happened to any mother anywhere, would people demand extensive interviews to prove she was close to the boy before considering handing him back? We immediately treated him as SUSPECT, not a loving father. We asked for Birth Certificates and paternity tests on an apparently known de facto father (having accepted Elian in his home as his own for YEARS) and IIRC legally. Would they presume mere finances and politics, having nothing to do with her fitness as a MOTHER-is equal or greater on a scale of values in determining "best interests of the child" to the love and care only a mother can provide? No. The excuse is he isnt speaking freely, its Castro, but come on, no matter the ruler, we'd believe a mother demanding her child back regardless without question because wed ASSUME that she wanted her child. Because we fundamentally respect that bond AND we assume its strong and want to preserve it and expect it offers value to mother and child that is priceless and inviolate. No way do we assume anything CLOSE to the same for men/fathers. Look, we think living fatherless with Disneyland are better for a child than *having* a poorer financially father who probably loves, misses and wants him who hasnt done anything wrong that we know of and was close to him! Crude finances, that we can "give Elian a better life with opportunities hes never have in Cuba" is trumping over anything fatherhood has to offer Elian past, present or future. Wanna lay odds that people would write articles about a separated Cuban mother being no big deal compared to watching Pokeman? Its no accident that when I debate abortion, I hear *constant* claims of "the father is just on an ego trip, he doesnt really want the baby he just wants to "get off" on the idea of a woman bearing his child, he wants to watch her balloon as proof of his manly virility, he doesnt really love baby and want baby, he wants to oppress and dominate women *using* baby, hes not really in love with the baby, so the sperm donor shouldnt have a say in the abortion of his genetic material". Nuff said...

RAD, was that before or after his child was kidnapped and held hostage in a foreign country?

Ok, evidence SHOWS us, and we had inklings (from the US family IIRC) before Dateline Monday, that the mother was "responsible" after breaking up with Juan WRT her visitation agreement which provided father and child a close relationship. That is what a GOOD mother, separated from the father SHOULD do ordinarily. (I assume everyone naturally agrees.) Both parents were closely bonded. In custody cases, the stability of the homelife is a factor. There exists stability. In Cuba. Because that IS where this boy came from and was born in, not the USA. Elian supposedly said we should save his schoolbooks from Cuba, does he fancy a return but fears transport itself? For 6 years, they shared parenting duties. No evidence known to exist shows the mother abused Elian physically or sexually. Or Juan, dittos. Now, if everyone can agree that, intrinisically, she was a good mother who possibly showed poor judgement in some serious ways, but that she RAISED Elian (along with Juan, dittos) for 6 years as a happy normal child who laughed, ran and played with his cousin Eliana, what does this prove? Recall, the only trauma he is likely going thru isnt from living in Cuba, but from watching his mother die and separation from his father, which purportedly he is on record as saying he wants Juan to join him *here* but that just indicates in his 6 yo mind he equates returns with inner tubes and not safe transport. It proves that the arguments for keeping him, in absence of proven unfitness by his father are weak. What kind of mother was she BEFORE getting on that rickety boat? A good one. Was she abusing Elian by giving birth under Castro in and of itself? And was she a bad mother all the while for 6 years of co-parenting peacefully with Juan IN CUBA? No. What effect HAS living under Castro HAD on Elian when we strip the propaganda away? Except for the above mentioned obvious trauma inducers, he appears thus far ok DESPITE being raised in Cuba. He and his family, and Elian's mother were unknown folks of average means and meaningless to Castro. Now, its debatable, ironically. If Elian had been quietly shipped back, which legality will probably require eventually anyway, things might have been different. Our main argument to sending him back is that doing so is tantamount to child abuse. That we can offer Elian a better life here of means, etc. not possible under Castro. Anyone want to say that his mother's decision for 6 years to birth, parent and raise and school this boy was child abuse and qualifies her as a child abuser because she didnt bolt Cuba to protect her child as a *newborn*? The point is, neither of these parents were unfit. You *cannot* use political SURROUNDINGS and whether or not the nation of origin (e.g. Capitalism vs Communism) as *evidence* of making a case for "best interests of the child" invokement in a custody or parental rights case when the parent hasnt done WRONG. If they are not abusive, neglectful, or abandoning, their rights trump. Parents, like Juan and Elians mom all over the world RAISE kids ROUTINELY in less than savory conditions. They are doing so NOW in Cuba, etc. Why should Juan's parental rights be nonconsenually terminated, but the demonstrator parents in Cuba (for him) can keep theirs? How is that fair to either parent or child? Its not. Fact is, a normal unbrainwashed child would rather live in a tent in Uganda on cold oatmeal as long as their parent tucks them to bed than in Disneyland all year round dining on lobster! Elian's best interest is obvious. It aint here. Anyway, ONCE ou set this dangerous precedent, what is to stop Castro, or anyone else, from applying the same logic to a kidnapped American child in reverse later on?

No, I actually heard the opposite. He knew that she was taking Elian for the weekend, to spend time with her in Cuba. She was supposed to bring him back that Sunday, but she called that afternoon and said that she wanted to keep him until Tuesday so she could take him to Havannah. The father agreed, as she did this from time to time, and didn't know until Tuesday, when his son didn't come home, that she had fled the country with the child. The boyfriend's family, however, knew about the trip several weeks in advance, knew that the mother planned on kidnapping her son, and yet never felt a moral obligation to let Elian's dad in on it so he could prevent it.

PLM says: What is disturbing is how few people grasp that Elians mother was wrong no matter what because she took it on herself to terminate Elian's relationship de facto to Juan.

Good point, and I'm afraid from some of my previous posts that I may have sounded like that, too. But no, the mother was wrong, no matter how good her intentions might have been, or if she was bringing him to the US for the "right" reasons.

And I think that the big problem with our society as a whole is that we always assume that "mother knows best." We like to assume that a mother's motives are always in the best interest of her child, and that a mother can't possibly act out of selfish motives. This, of course, is not true, but we like to think it is. So of course everyone assumed that the mother was trying to give her son a life of liberty, and that she knew what was best for her child, and therefore she should be supported no matter what. When it comes to light that her motives were in fact primarily selfish, people are shocked, and I believe that this accounts for the about-face.

Norman says: Elian may be a six year old child but I think he is old enough to understand the difference between freedom and living in a vast prison camp called Cuba.

Really? When you were in first grade, did you comprehend the difference between the two? Elian's life in Cuba was not as awful as we would like to assume. His father had his own company and, while not rich by our standards, was doing very well in Cuba. They lived in a two-story house, not a hut with a dirt floor. Elian was surrounded by family and friends. In fact, part of the Dateline piece showed videotape of Elian's fifth birthday party (in Cuba). Could the family afford a camcorder if they were starving to death? No, Norman, I don't believe that Elian considered his home to be a "vast prison camp." From a political viewpoint, especially compared to our own country, it CAN be seen as a vast prison camp. But don't throw the baby (literally?) out with the bathwater. There is a huge difference between the Castro regime and a strongly-bonded family unit, even though both exist within the same country, and the latter is under the rule of the former.

Which begs the question: what family? How close was he to his father?

According to the special, he was VERY close to his father. He followed his daddy about like a little puppy dog, and the family members interviewed in Cuba said that Elian was very close to his father.

And his family in the US? To the best of my knowledge, he had never even MET these people until he got here. What right do they, or we as a country, have to keep this child away from his father? Sorry, Norman, but I still feel as I have from the beginning: a child belongs with his parent(s) unless he is being abused or neglected or does not have his basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, medical care) met. This child is a prisoner of a political war, and keeping him here is criminal.

Whose wishes are they? Elians or his captors? And they ARE captors, because they are NOT even giving him a real choice or all the facts. They also are because the father, who by law and moral code MUST represent his child, is being defied. The mere fact that people cannot see how odd it would be that a boy raised for years with a father who lacks evidence of abuse, who he was reportedly close to, but *would* want to stay, suggests manipulation and child abuse in the USA, not Cuba if he is against his father. We see this alot in parental alienation cases, and this IS one, and was one from day one. Thats not NORMAL for a child. Chldren will naturally pick the father over anything because the bond is so powerful that if one doesnt, it suggests brainwashing. You have to understand children to grasp why this situation makes no sense. Ask yourself why a 6 yo girl, say, snatched by her NC father in the USA, thinks after weeks of brainwashing by her father that her mother is dead or doesnt love or want her "anymore" in her life. Because at 6, and in the arms of someone she trusts completely who is alot older and wiser than she, her own father, is telling her its ok and what he is saying is the truth. The girl believes it. She has no other choice. Or it suggest disengenous leaving out of key facts to Elian about transport problems and his view of that NOW. i.e., he equates in his young mind the inner tube with retransport, and folks here wont rain on his parade there and inform him that he can HAVE his father AND not go thru that ordeal again, the trauma of what happened specifically to him, his mothers loss, his life nearly being expunged. Note, he is supposedly being on record as saying he misses his father and wants him to join him here. Very likely, he doesnt want to repeat the trauma of transport, which in his young mind he equates to ALL trips Cuba, and NOT that hes in love with all the "freedom" America offers. At his age, he probably knows little about Castro, his human rights record, or the embargo. But people are making it LOOK like Elian "knew" he wanted at 6 to risk his life in weak transport, is in love with democracy (he probably cares more about other things closer to his 6 yo radar screen, politics, Capitalism vs Communism being very low on that list!)and wants to STAY. We are putting words into his mouth.and hanging on his every word, anxious to interpret that as a sign of proof of "our" side...

PLM

JCEII, Dateline does do some puff pieces and has made some mistakes in the past, but they've also done a lot of very good work. Besides, the Dateline broadcast has not been my only source of information.

Brenda, thank you. I don't get to be "brilliant" very often! ;-)

We should not forget that prior to her relationship to this man, she was a good mother by the reports, not an evil one. She responsibly shared parenting with Juan, and was also close to the boy. Then, suddenly she bolted, no doubt to keep her relationship to Elian AND the man, Dateline suggests. She was, on the face of it, in error WRT to judgement. But the evidence does NOT indicate she was a bad mother or had a history of interfering with Juan's access UNTIL recently! We DONT know yet if she was threatened herself or blackmailed into coming by this man. It would be a mistake to suggest that we know she was mean spirited or just in love and ditzy, because the past history evidence available actually condridicts that assertion because she kept her parenting contract with Juan evidently after their separation and when she entered another relationship. The evidence, even more profoundly shows what I have attested to all along, which was that she was a good mother who exercised poor judgement, which Dateline suggested. There is no evidence PRIOR to this event that she interfered with her child's relationship to his father or that she was abusive to Elian or he feared her. Elian was by reports close to both, they each supported each others visitation and then this suddenly happened. It lends credence to the possibility that the mother may not have wanted to go to the USA to begin with, or coercion.

Since Norman was kind enough to address me, I'll address him.

But as Carolyn pointed out, since Cuba is a Communist tyranny, there is no way to know how much the wishes of Elian's father are truly his desires or whether he was pressured by Castro to demand the return of his son to help Castro score a propaganda coup against the U.S.

And once again, we're back to looking for ulterior motives. Couldn't it possibly be that this man actually loves his son and wants him back simply because he loves and misses him? According to the Dateline piece, he thinks that it's ludicrous that Americans would even consider that he "really wants" his son to stay in America. It sounds like we're pointing the propaganda finger in the wrong direction.

Then we have to also take into consideration the fact that Elian's mother died bringing him to this country and that the boy has relatives here in America whose wishes should also be considered by the courts.

Well, as I've already stated, his mother's motives were purely, um, romantically based. I feel bad that Elian lost his mother, but I don't pity or cannonize her. She felt that her own personal happiness was worth ripping her child away from the only home he's ever known and risking his life, just so she could be with her lover. No saint in my book.

I will take a moment to address Meagan and add its my view which I have stated here before, that while I think family ties are important, I value freedom more. In this country, we just don't send people back to a tyranny where they can't exercise the freedoms we have here.

Uh, Norman, do you know what the US Coast Guard usually does with Cuban and Haitian "boat people"? Please tell me that you are aware that the good ol' US of A rounds these people up and sends them back to their country of origin! Your statement is either very naive or deliberately wrong so you can make your point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former.

As for the parent-child vs. freedom issue, are you aware that this boy's relatives already have him in therapy? Sure, he might need some help to get through the trauma of watching his mother die, but don't you think that being ripped away from his father as well makes his situation ten times worse? As someone who has suffered emotional trauma, I can tell you that spending years in therapy (and often at the hands of quacks) is NOT freedom. Why put the child through further trauma instead of sending him back home to familiar surroundings and familiar people who can help him through this? Yes, communism is bad, but emotionally raping a child is far, far worse.

The case of Elian Gonzalez isn't about a child who was brought here to this country because his mother wanted to get rich, but to have a life of freedom for herself and her son.

No, it was about a woman who cared more about her sex life than the emotional and physical well-being of her own child.

The Clinton Administration thinks we ought to send Elian back to appease Castro because the Cuban Communist dictator is throwing a temper tantrum over the fact the Cuban boy might choose to live in a free country instead of a Communist dictatorship. And if this is what Elian wants, why shouldn't it be respected?

Why shouldn't it be respected? Because he is a six-year-old child! Think about it. The only form of transportation that he can comprehend between the two countries is a rickety old boat that kills people! Of course he's going to be terrified of going back home! He can't comprehend an airplane or a larger ship. Sure, he may know that such things exist, but he's too young to understand that these are safer than the boat he came here on.

And do we really know his wishes, or is it just more reverse-propaganda? I read an on-line article that said that a reporter asked him what he wanted, but since a plane was going overhead at the time, the relative/translator said that he couldn't understand what the boy said. Well, then, why didn't he just ask him again when the plane was gone? Was it because he didn't like what the child had to say? Sure, new toys and Disneyland and a new puppy are fun for awhile, but I'm sure that this child is ready to go back home to the family that he has known all of his life.

However the courts finally rule, it will be what's best for the child and not what's best for the Clinton Administration or what's best for Castro.

Yes, this is the same great court system that sends children back home to parents who admit to beating them or molesting them. This is the same great court system that will rip a two-year-old child away from his adopted parents just because his birth-mother, single and penniless, has changed her mind. This is the same great court system that allows unborn children to be ripped from their mothers' wombs because they are inconvenient. This is the same great court system that sentences tax evaders (sp?) to five to ten years of jail, but sentences a mother who kills her toddler to two years of jail. You have more faith in the integrity of the courts than I do, Norman.

This boy belongs with his father. He's suffered enough. When he's older, he can decide for himself where he wants to live, but for now, he belongs at home.

Sara, I appreciate your honesty, and your courage to use the word "abortion" to describe what you support. Thank you for not hiding behind "choice" or "reproductive fredom" because those are not the issues. Abortion is.

I can understand where those who are against it are comming form.

You'll understand even more in a moment.

But I simply think it's wrong to bring a baby into this world that's not going to have the same equal opportunities as a baby with a fully matured mother and father.

My take on the Cuban boy's situation is as follows. What these shortsighted politicians do not seem to grasp since their only concern is the Cuban vote, is that our refusal to return him to his country of birth will effect others who are trying to have their children returned from foreign countries. Here is the scenario. A U.S. citizen marries a foreign national. They have children. The foreign national decides that the U.S is too decadent to raise his children so he decided to take them back to his country of birth where they can be raised under the strict teachings of whatever fundamentalist religion he practices. The wife being distraught appeals to the U.S. government to intervene on her behalf. The foreign country in question cites the Cuban boy as precedence as to why they do not have to return the children. In this scenario the foreign national has a stronger case since he is not some distant relative but the biological father. Case closed!

This is an excellent point! (The issue that comes immediately to my mind is genital mutilation--a lot of middle-eastern cultures still practice this, and young girls are often taken overseas for the "procedure." Disgusting.)

And besides, this child is NOT American, his parents are (and were) not American, so we have no jurisdiction in this case. What will we do next? Start raiding third-world countries, rounding up all of the oppressed children, and bringing them here to live off of our welfare system? Keeping the children of Cuban boat people before shipping the parents back to Cuba? Who will take care of all of them? We can't even take care of our OWN children! How many kids, born in the US to US citizens, go to bed hungry every night, are abused and tortured by "care"takers, are born addicted to drugs because the mother thought that her drug addiction was more important than her baby's health? I think we should concentrate on our OWN children and stop trying to cure the world's ills. We, as a nation, are holding this child hostage, and that is unacceptable.

And, I refuse to glorify a woman who kidnaps her child and nearly kills it. Yes, I know Cuba is communist, and that's a lousy political system, but this six-year-old and his father don't care about politics; the father just wants his son back. Who blames him? How would you feel if it was YOUR kid?

And finally, I'm not at all surprised that the judge who granted custody of Elian to his uncle was a woman. Many women blame men of thinking primarily with a certain body part, but most women only think with their uterus. (And yes, I AM really a female!) Who does she think that she is to keep this child away from his father? I'm supposing that her "maternal instincts" kicked in and the "mom is always right dad is always wrong" philosophy came into play. After all, mom was trying to give her child a life of freedom, and dad wants to keep him oppressed. Did the judge ever stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, the mother was a selfish wench who wanted to go to America and not leave her son behind? Maybe SHE was the selfish one with ulterior motives. How would it look for a mother to abandon her own child? Of course, we'll never be able to ask her, because she's dead. So instead, we let an American judge, who does not know the family, who does not know the situation, who probably does not know Cuban culture, make ASSUMPTIONS about the condition that the child was living in and what is best for him. Did she talk to the father? Did she try to get his POV? Or did she just go on the word of the relatives? What is so strange about a father wanting his child? He DID have custody of the boy. If he didn't love him, he would see this as an easy way to get out of his parental obligations. Has anyone thought of that? Of course not. A child belongs with its biological parent(s) unless he's being abused or neglected. Neither is the case in the Elian situation or we would have heard about it by now. Yes, communism is bad, but stealing a child from his immediate family and holding him hostage in a foreign country is far worse.

That is because we VALUE highly MOTHER CHILD RELATIONSHIPS and fathers are seen as unneccessary and trivial except for child support. Theres no outrage because the relationship isnt seen as imperitive, its discardable with frightening ease at the silliest of assertions lackng proof. And we wonder why men are so apethic often and dont want babies, demand abortions, I wonder where they GET this message? They are getting it all over the place!

If the father hasnt abused the child, HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS TAKE PRECEDENCE. Not Disneyland, politics, or anything else should come between a father, who just happens to not be American, and news flash, many fathers exist elsewhere other than the USA and love their kids just as much, to hinder or severe that relationship that easily is DISGUSTING AND SICK.

You know, I feel so bad for this kid's dad. His child was kidnapped, nearly killed, and is now being held hostage by a foreign country. Sure, Cuba may not be the best place in the world to raise a kid, but unless the child was starving to death or being abused (and there's no evidence of either of those things or the BHL's would have hailed them as reasons to keep the kid here), he belongs with his father. He's already lost his mother, and most likely watched her die; it is nothing but cruelty to take away his father, too.

PLM has brought up this point earlier, and I'll bring it up again: if it had been the child's FATHER who had taken him and nearly killed him, he would have been rushed back home to the loving arms of his concerned mother in no time flat. And also, if this were an AMERICAN kid in CUBA, we probably would have gone to war by now. This whole thing is sickening. It's a political tug-of-war that is destroying the life of this poor little kid. He's going to have phsychological problems for the rest of his life because of this whole mess.

JCEII, you really don't understand, do you? I'm sorry for that, because I think you've experienced a lot of sadness because you don't understand. I don't want to make fun of you, or knock you as others might, for I really am sorry that you've had such experiences in life.

I don't know if you're a true sola scriptura believer or just someone that seeks to find explanation from the scriptures and misunderstands. You cannot take each and ever passage in the bible literally as to do so would really leave one thinking Jesus was totally bonkers. Technically the passage you cite does say that, but the meaning is more easily understood if you take into account other passages such as Mt 10:37 "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"

Jesus (in Luke 14:25) is either bonkers for telling us to hate each other, and then in John, telling us to love each other as He has loved us... or what He is really saying in Luke 14:25, is that we must "hate" as in He's using strong language to show us how very important it is that we place HIM first, as He tells us in Mt. 10:37. Those that literally interperet each and ever passage in scripture easily fall prey to misunderstandings as it only follows that if Jesus tells us in one passage to hate each other and in another passage to love each other... He would be certifiable, no?

The scriptures are best understood as a whole... and by doing so, you can see that what Jesus challenges us to do is to love HIM first, making living as He wishes us to our priority... and to do so, we must love each other as He has loved us.

In 1 Cor 7:1, Paul certainly does say "It is well for a man not to touch a woman", but he goes on to clarify that... it does not stand as a single statement indicating men should not touch women. In 1 Cor 7:2, Paul clarifies that because the inherant nature of man is to be sinful, that while he (in the verse you quoted) approves of abstinence, that if one cannot be abstinent, that a man should have his own wife and a woman her own husband. 1 Cor 7:2"But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" So Paul is giving abstinence his endorsement, but also endorsing marriage and sexual relations within marriage. One cannot say that people should all be celibate in order to follow the scriptures.

JCEII, I really do sympathize with you. I've read the posts from a while ago about your struggles and why you remain abstinent. Please don't allow life situations to make you bitter and cause you to seek to misrepresent scriptures in order to find your solace in their misrepresentations. You know, my dh's uncle didn't marry until he was in his forties, we have a good friend who is in his forties and not married, and I also have family that has waited until later before finding the right person. It seems to me that you do wish to have found a person, and because you haven't, are bitter and seek to make yourself feel better in the way you speak. You quote scripture... so I assume you believe. If you believe, then how do you know it isn't God's will that you find someone late in life? Being bitter will only make that harder. If you believe in the scriptures... then by the other token, if it is God's will that you remain single, and celibate... why be bitter about that either? The other option is that you don't believ in the scriptures, and only quote them to show us how "wrong" we are. The gift of the scriptures is best used by each one of us... to improve on ourselves... not to judge others.

I had wanted to address your Catholic comments, but will do that in another post as this one is already quite lengthy. I honestly wish you peace JCEII, and whatever God's will is for you, I hope you can come to terms and find happiness in it. :-)

PLM, you're doing nothing good for yourself or for the RTL movement with your angry attacks on Carolyn and me for your false belief that we are being anti-male. You're scaring off prolife men who would be able to do more effectively everything you say you want to see done because they don't want to be seen as hostile and controlling like you. You're making yourself look completely ignorant by attacking the people who would have been your allies and by misstating the views of the prolife women.

< HREF="http://209.15.71.24/op/discussion/"> MBOP posts

*too strongly*

about abortion, because if he does, even if his views are factually fair and equal objectively, he ***will*** painted as controlling, a woman dominator, by both sides. So men learn to keep quiet. The law (men having no rights and men make most of these the laws!) is a powerful teacher of what is expected of men, and whats expected is they are to support whatever the woman decides, in either direction and otherwise have no opinion being male. FTR, this, as I have said, *IS*, hands down, the single biggest reason abortion was legalized and stays so. Men feel guilty needlessly and cant say no to women on this, reflected in numerous court cases, where the men feel pity for the "burdons of gestation" as in the recent Canada ruling I have been moping about, and from Blackmun on down to the senate/congressional reviews in the 70's AND 80's. The MEN chimed along with women defenders of abortion, in that "no man can understand and its not their bodies that get messed up so its easy for men to talk" etc. This conditioning has the effect of silencing men. Borts LOVE having no men seriously involved, fathers having no rights, etc. Because that means they win forever by force in voting dynamics. A split when it comes to votes is roughly assured if only women are involved. Borts like to act like men dont exist, and are terrified of the implications if they are seriously supported and hypocrisies are laid bare, because it means abortion rights for women and the pereception of it being a womans issue alone is DOOMED. To win and keep winning, they MUST at all costs keep the focus on women. That is why one of the principle practical goals of the PL mvt ought to be pushing fathers rights and involving men, because we can compete with borts for a *forced* *post born* victim, and claim a population segment that, by definition, cant be their cup of tea. Borts actually *cant* use men the way we can, because they dont favor them having *any* say and WE do. The most needlessly underused resourse germane to our side ONLY, given unilateral abortion laws, in prolife is: men...

The quote you were so upset at?

Misleading stat of the day Prolife INfonet: "Women are more pro-life than men -- a trend over the past decade. Sixty- one percent of women hold a pro-life."

Reading it for context, you'd see that the person that penned that made the error. Though it states women are more prolife than men", clearly the balance of the statement clarifies that what the person really meant was that more women are pro-life, not that women are more pro-life. It seems you've gotten into a flap over a simple grammatical error.

Now, I'm not a fan of the "whole language" philosophy in teaching children to read, preferring phonics myself... but in this case, the whole language philosophy of when in doubt about a word, read the whole sentence to aid in understanding what the meaning of the word is, would have done wonders in this situation.

The quote was regarding the fact that there is a higher percentage of women considering themselves pro-life and not pro-choice as there are men considering themselves pro-life instead of pro-choice. Let's not continue this ridiculous arguing about who's "more" pro-life than who; it reminds me of the ridiculous squabbling between others I've seen on the net, about who's a better Christian.... more holy... etc. Just stick to fighting the pro-choice philosophy and everyone will be better off.

Thank you for proving my point. You DO believe all of us RTL women are closet abortion supporters. You DO misrepresent the known fact that more men support abortion because men have more to gain from it than women. You're the only man who doesn't see this. Abortion benefits MEN, not women. Abortion benefits male employers who don't want to deal with special needs to pregnant employees. Abortion benefits men who want the sex but not the accompanying responsibilities.

Misleading stat of the day Prolife INfonet: "Women are more pro-life than men -- a trend over the past decade. Sixty- one percent of women hold a pro-life."

First, without defining what prolife is you cant have accurate stats. Many women consider themselves "prolife" but make exceptions for "hard cases". Many women are personally prolife BUT wouldnt tell another woman. Asking men is is problematic because they have no votes. They are conditioned to see it as a womans issue everywhere and by everyone. What are they supposed to say, when they cannot act on their beliefs, personally, whatever they are, uniliaterally? Men tell women what they THINK women want to hear. They wont get in a womans face (except me!) and tell her what they really feel. The world is filled with silent prolifeish men who wont speak up out of conflicting conditioning, and feel they are protecting women and their feelings. Then, get the same men in a group where women are claiming its a womans right, and "no man should even have an opinion", they become field mice. I had this experience recently where I argued the case I always do, won my points after heated debate and refuting sexism, and the man sat and said not ONE WORD. In reality, when interviewed, men are so brainwashed into viewing it being hopeless in terms of them having either rights or say, AND the concept that they couldnt or would feel bad about "telling a woman what to do with her body" that when men are interviewed by men, they give alot more prolife responses, when interviewed by WOMEN, they support "a womans right to choose". IOW, they are telling women what they think they want to hear. If I were to ask men privately, (and I do this alot) I hear alot of variation, and alot more unforgiveness about it, anger over no choice, and *personal* prolifeness. Many men have swallowed prochoice and even some misinterpreted prolife womens line of guilt over the concept of a woman "having to bear a child against her will, with all the physical discomfort that goes along with it", so they go along and are begrudgingly "prochoice". Men see how prolife men are treated, in debates of any kind, even by their own side. So prochoice MEN arent the same as prochoice women.

When women speak of choice, they not only are talking about another womans right to choose, regardless of what she thinks, they are usually reflecting a wish to have that OPTION themselves, even if they think they wont ever use it or even get pg. Men, OTOH, who are prochoice, are not saying men should have *any* choice, they are saying the women *alone* can decide-they will never BE that theoretical female! Big difference. They are doing it FOR women, not for men. So are women who are prochoice. Prolife women arent claiming abortion as a right, but in their lack of self interest they have more in common with prochoice (males only!) than prochoice females. The paternalism men have is the number one reason by far for male abortion support, such as the attitude typified and probably heartfelt by Senator John McCAIN. Alot of women, on both sides wrongly assume most of these prochoice males support abortion because they can use it second hand to get off off paying. Wrong. They usually support it because they think women do. Because they feel impish about the idea of men telling women what to do because of the idea that she will bear the physical aspects (perceived as "burdons") of pregnancy. Its mostly sympathy for the woman, not proabortionism per se. And they are conditioned to this view because everyone on *all* sides and the media sadly portrays abortion as only a womans issue. Its like men dont exist on the face of the earth. And THAT is what keeps abortion legal, BTW...

Sehlat, I think you meant you dont support abortion not because it violated her parental rights if forced, but bc its killing the baby. I dont think women, even pc ones, much less pl ones, support forced abortion (WRT to the mothers view of her desire d outcome for her pregnancy) if the father doesnt want it! I think you mean the pure PL position is your purpose. And so do I agree, and thats why I want the power to ACT to DO THAT as an individual man like you can as a woman. This common assertion misses the point. You are arguing from the position of the person who HAS no forced abortion usually on her. You say, its the killing thats the main issue. But when you debate abortion, you try to convincethe person with power to choose currently the woman only) in your arguments. This thinking underscoreds the importance of fathers rights, and leads to rationalized no action for them, because lifers claim "life" is the issue. It IS, but do you see my point? Its easy to say this as a WOMAN, because you are the one controlling your reproductive destiny. Ideally, we want NO abortion. No legal choice to KILL. To keep as an outgrowth of it simply NOT being killed. I agree! But abortion IS legal Sehlat. And believe me, if tomarrow abortion stayed legal, but MEN had the choice, and knowing banning right now WAS unrealistic, you wouldnt be just touting about how mothers rights to not be forcibly aborted wasnt the issue, but the killing itself was. *Not* because you dont care about the killing, but because BOTH are interrelated issues! You dont speak to the fetus in a crisis pregnancy. You speak to who holds power over them. The mother currently as long as abortion itself is legal AND unilateral. Why are you finding every reason in the world to NOT act on fathers rights instead of lobbying for them? Do we lifers act this way about Ray Carruth, or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act? Nope. We talk of the right to choose BIRTH by mothers. Both sides did in their plans for legislation, even the proabortion version of it! Not that life isnt the main issue at core level for most all of us, including ME. It misses the POINT about the need for legal reform. These arent mutually exclusive issues in praxis. If you think about it, empowering men will make them better fathers because they feel they can choose it, and value and keep it, their fatherhood. You will have alot fewer abortions for many reasons even beyond vetoes. Without giving men the power to protect, as fathers do so well instinctually, their job, in fact, men will stay away from the issue, feel helpless, and it will heighten their PASS, and it will be just women arguing and that favors borts. Do you see why?

Your response is IDENTICAL to many proabortion persons. Nearly indistinguishable from proabortion females, but you are prolife! And you are on "my" side. Kind of like the CPC worker who, after hearing the truth, said men shoud just get vasectomies. Never mind these men dont WANT to NOT have children. Instead of celebrating fatherhood, you assume, once again, that I am tearing down women and accusing them of bortophilia just because of this. men's bodies werent made to gestate. We dont want that anyway. What we want is equal rights. Men dont gestate, and never have, but women expect from the dawn of time men to expect women to not have to abort, even though it makes men "fathers against their will" and to pay child support. You add you are coming up with solutions. Why didnt equal legal rights top your list to fight for, instead of male gestation, which is more expensive, unnatural, and harder to implement? You keep making this debate about women, their feelings, and offenses to them by suggesting that equal rights means men are saying women cant be trusted. Why not focus on the real issues, which are why men dont have any rights but women do? If you support men having rights, then what is the problem?

A pregnant womans bf wants an abortion. She goes to a CPC, they will tell her because she has CHOICE, she can keep and not abort, (or abort!) and or adopt. The first with or without his input in any direction.

A man who impregnated a female wants to keep baby his gf wants to abort, and enters CPC. He is told, SORRY, she has all the rights, you cant do anything, you cant save the babys life or be a father. He is left without recourse. Dependent on what SHE does. By giving men HOPE, and reason to believe they can have a say in their lives, we help them heal as abortion victims. We can help women avoid abortion by educating them, and they can choose, but men cant "learn" because on each abortion, they have no legal power.

Point is, makabe, that is a potential abortion death that wouldnt have happened. because the WOMAN can stop her OWN abortion (just not other womens) but the man CANT stop HIS *UNLESS* he has legal power like the mother does! Thats prolife as possible under legal abortion interim periods.

CPC's, by defualt, must only address the woman, and that keeps men out and the result is thousands of deaths that would have been saved. Or do you think if men had vetoes abortion rates wouldnt plummet, because they WOULD!

So, you think half the population not having parental rights to their own child is obsessive to cling to the idea? Thats silly. You cant say its the same, as women lifers arent being told by choicers they cant stop their OWN abortions. Are you prolife? A woman or man? How is this "my own side of the issue". If this was mothers being rightless, would you say that? I cant believe you said that! You cant possibly TALK about this ENOUGH! The laws prove that. You arent discussing the ONLY relevant issue on this, which is:

What a two-faced hypocrite! Isn't Gore a bortophile? How is THAT helping children? Isn't it the Democrats who want to maintain a welfare state, keeping women (and their children) in a state of perpetual poverty and despair with no incentives to help themselves? Isn't it the Democrats who support partial birth abortion? What right does ANY Democrat have to make such stupid comments about Republicans? Of course, not EVERY Democrat is a bortophile, and not EVERY Republican is a saint, but I'd say that Republicans definitely have a much better track record than the Democrats when it comes to helping children!

Meagan

At least Meagan LISTENS! Yes, Meagan, you are correct partly. We have just revealed more sexism. Why is it a man is passionate about basic equal rights on something this important, so he doesnt have to go thru a FUTURE forced abortion, to control his own destiny, hes accused of being bitter toward women of one having prior aborted on him so thats why hes so passionate? The talk AGAIN is about HIM and *NOT* about the inequities of the legal system which is the REAL, SOLE ISSUE. Incredible. Again, reverse it. No woman living under these laws would be grilled and thought of as merely expressing anger over a past forced abortion under such a legal system by an ex bf, or spouse! Its like a man who says fathers should have rights. The response isnt, "oh, how nice he must love his child!" The response is, "what ulterior motive does that controlling male have where he wants to control women under patriarchy? He must have a big ego, he wants the woman to bear his child so he can feel like a big man!" Show me where a woman, whose *BF* wants to abort, is portrayed by ANYBODY on either side of the debate about abortion as being an egoist child support grabber, unless its a freak case with a rich sports star. It wouldnt happen. Because our society RESPECTS MOTHERHOOD. We dont question her desire to parent, to love the chil or say she doesnt and is just having a baby to spite and control the father/man, do we? Never once do they consider most men may LIKE children, maybe they want to parent, possibly even more than the mother, do they? We think a womans reasons to NOT be a mother are more compelling than a mans to BE a dad! Look at the Cuban boy case, read Kathleen Parker's columns on this, shes right, and its really sad...

Passivity wont win fathers rights. Our job is to beat them in court, overturn privacy in Roe, ban and criminalize abortions, sue abortionists silly, and win with fencers. I win fencers ALL the time. IRL even more, and even crack some female borts. I wont win borts, *mostly.* The right way is defending the abuses even where abortion is legal, one of the main ones is the fathers rights issue. If youve given up the male view and defending that, trying to distance yourself from ME, a powerful lifer who fights for children, you are playing into bort hands. riverdance saw this, and just hates it when lifers meekly go along with whatever a debate evading bort, which describes most (and river oughta know-she used to try feigning being offended, too as she was a rabid bort).

You must support and BACK prolife men who stand up for fatherhood uncompromisingly against abuse. Too worry about what ifs and offending borts is fruitless in the end, you can never please them enough, its about winnning fencers by showing they are unreasonable and their position isnt compassionate Sehlat, and the best argument that is provably not dilutable, is fathers rights. If you use women, they can always claim she must SIGN, etc. We need stronger weapons. Most lifers are nice quiet types. This isnt a nice quiet affair, and it doesnt lend itself to love fests.

And the fathers rights angle ISNT abortion from the "MANS POV"! This is a serious error sehlat! This is HUMAN RIGHTS. Civil rights. basic parental rights women have, equal protection under law for fathers! Would anybody on any side suggest arguing against forced abortion on women is "womans side only".? The mans POV on abortion, as a lifer, Sehlat, if prolife, *****IS**** (or should be!) YOUR POV! You should be, even as a female, as RABID about securing vetoes for fathers as ME! And as a lifer, you shouldnt need me or in spite of ANYTHING "PLM" does, should be uncompromising on this! If these laws were saying no mother had say, but *I* as a man DID, even lacking that worry MYSELF, as a lifer, I would 24-7 being harping on mothers rights. Because of the need to defend the weak and helpless in abortion IS our calling, we ideally want to ban, but in meantime we need to secure the father to break the privacy concepts of Roe. We dont exist to NOT offend borts and find common ground, we exist to WIN LIFE BY LAW!

Read Erin Hudson's article on this site, Rightgrrl. You are mistaken if you think shes wrong. The support *isnt* there, and its senseless. Show me, Sehlat, ONE SINGLE POST HARDLY where people went on and on and blamed the female for the man demanding and abortion and telling her she should have known, and if she hadnt slept around, she'd a known his stance presex, so mothers rights if they had none legally werent a big deal, choose better! It doesnt happen. People blame the perp.

AS THEY SHOULD!!!

Let the *FEMALE* be the perp, and people AGAIN blame the man, like they always do. They take a reversed sex setup and turn that into him not sleeping around, knowing what she will do (forgetting she can change her mind freely) presex. Then, they accuse him of thinking women are all bort happy. Show me where if women had no rights, and demanded them, that that means they are accusing men of all being deadbeat dads who want murdered babies. It just doesnt happen. The double standards and sexism is on BOTH aisles in the abortion debate. Nobody will seriously criticize the female for she is the pregnant one, and has our sympathy tears no matter what, and many men, even they are running out of fear themselves are portrayed as "jerks" by all! This inability to hold women accountable, blaming men for the whole thing when they arent even the ones with linear forcing sequence power in terminations, from the law down, IS why abortion was passed into being and is perpetuated, and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Thats why among general society, if a man runs, demands abortion, hes a "deadbeat dad." If a woman wants an abortion, shes NOT a dbmom, but a "woman's righter feminist" and folks CHEER...

Some of us are forced to distance ourselves from him, especially those of us who discuss abortion from a "common ground" POV. I have been forced to *give up* ever defending life from a man's point of view because I don't want someone "on the fence" to think I'm as ready to attack as he is. (Yes, I can defend life and argue the man's POV. Did it many years before you ever got online, PLM.)

The men's POV needs to be made known. I fear, however, that PLM's hostility toward female pro-lifers has hurt his cause. I wonder how many women he has insulted will no longer consider the man's perspective, or at least not admit it openly? I wonder how many people with reservations about abortion became more solidly pro-abortion because PLM's anger confirmed all the rumors about RTL being a way for angry men to "control" women? I wonder how many people got turned off by him attacking the people who were on his side? I wonder how many pro-life men are afraid to speak up because they don't want to be seen as angry and ready for combat?

We don't give Rad any heat for any pro-male or pro-people with disabilities arguments. Rad knows we're behind him even though we don't defend men or people with disabilities with every single breath and keystroke, as you want us to do. Rad doesn't pipe up with "and don't forget..." or claim that we don't care. He doesn't say he's more pro-life than the rest of us. Rad understands very well that those of us defending life in general automatically include defending the rights of the subgroups involved. (*smoooch* Thanks, Rad.)

If I remember right from one of his former posts, he does counsel men who are in this situation, so that could be where his passion for the issue comes from.

Sehlat also says: In an abortion-supportive society, I do something really amazing: I don't put myself in a position where I may have to deal with a pregnancy and a man who could try to force me into an abortion.

Great, isn't it? When I first moved out on my own, I remember my roommates constantly worrying about pregnancy and diseases, while I was unconcerned since I was abstinent. Then I became active, and it was awful. I constantly worried about being pregnant, even when I'd start my period. I usually couldn't relax and stop worrying about it unless it had been 9 months since my last experience, because I had heard about women who were pregnant and didn't even know it until they gave birth! And I was always afraid that I was carrying some awful disease that hadn't produced symptoms yet. I finally came to my senses and have gone back to abstinence, and it's great! The brief pleasure of sex is NOT worth all the worrying and the emotional aftermath.

Contrary to PLM's belief, I (and all the other RTL women) do not oppose abortion when a woman is forced into it but support it if the father doesn't want it. I oppose the slaughter of children, PERIOD.

Not all women RTL or not, are out to slaughter the children of some guy just to show that they can. Women arguing RTL from women's POV's does not mean we don't care about men's POV's and want to see them get burned. We just describe what we know, and we answer the most common arguments for abortion because they happen to involve women's situations and viewpoints.

So he says we have the "choice" (ugh, some nasty choice at that) of abortion and he does not. In case he hasn't noticed, this is a *right-to-life* women's site. Just because we have that "choice" (yucch) to kill our own children does not mean we will use it, or that we even want it. Abortion kills children. We don't want that any more than he does. We oppose abortion as completely as he does, whether we have wombs or not. But... as long as he continues to speak to us as if we are closet abortion supporters just because we have wombs and could therefore abort, he is going to keep getting chewed out.

Male pregnancy research is picking up. I had first read about it in the 1980's, but technology is advancing to the point where human trials could be possible in a few years. Hurry, get your name at the top of the trial list today!

When you state your question as you do, you automatically assume every woman is a closet abortion supporter. I oppose abortion, PERIOD. I don't like seeing mothers forced into it. I don't like seeing fathers forced to lose their children. For you to assume the things you do is nothing less than an insult to all pro-life women. Of course we do not want to live with forced abortion like women in China do. However, as you're so good at missing, you forget that opposing abortion automatically means we would oppose forcing a father to lose the child he wants to raise.

Ok, Sehlat, I am die hard against abortion, too. You know that. I would rather be KILLED first. Would you be fine living under these laws and have me dowplay their significance on your life, (after all just choose a prolife man and trust him) that said that if *I* got you pregnant, I alone could decide the fate of your baby, in all directions, you have no rights or say by law to the fetus? What's the matter, dont trust me, or men to NOT make you have an abortion because we all know seemingly prince charming men never run out on a pg gf without warning, demand abortions, etc. If you and tons of women dont trust men to not demand abortions, proven by articles all over the net blasting men for 180'ing, WHY should I trust women NOT to abort? MORE IMPORTANT: Why should I HAVE TO? To not *offend women* (!!!) because to suggest that independent rights ARE IMPERITIVE at all costs for men is to not trust you?

So, Sehlat, would you or would you NOT like to live under these laws in reverse and would *YOU* trust us males with your entire future in all directions to choose wisely, with your vote only limited to trusting his prolife views put to the test in an actual pregnancy crisis? Yes or no? I'm waiting..

Having said that, HP, consider you said "if men got pg they couldnt handle it too wimpy" (rough quote) but you seem to think we can fight to the death in combat no problem but WOMEN cant! This is very assumptive and prejudicial. How do you know (other than the obvious fact that being male, my body isnt made for it so if it were artifically made to gestate it might be even more risky than the natural one of females) that I couldnt handle it? You are talking to someone who has had BOTH of his knees ripped from the sockets and relocated them MYSELF screaming in agony, the one of the most searingly painful things I have ever felt (twice!) in my life and I talked to a woman who had gone thru pregnancy and childbirth AND the same severe knee dislocation and she said childbirth was ALOT EASIER-and had a JOY component and the knee-nada! Let me tell you, I would rather sooner do THAT if it was a choice between that and abortion if it was *my* kids' life on the line! I would do it, and I wouldnt care if it meant I could die, I WOULD RISK IT GIVEN NO OTHER CHOICE and I am NOT KIDDING, no really. REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And to you prochoice women, I am not just saying this because I "wont ever have to prove it". Dont think I am fooling-I am a man who always tells it like it is, you always know where I stand...

Meagan, I wasnt trying to insult you, I have even agreed with alot of what you have said here in the past over the regulars here on various things. What I AM trying to do, is get you to look at the most telling comments of yours I quoted above. they are (or will) be used by borts as "yeah buts" you have already lost this debate to the choicers because they are going to use your previous reasoning against you and fathers. Now, think hard. *Why* on WHAT RATIONALE do YOU suppose proabortion women claim the mother, without any regard for the reproductive rights, parental rights, feelings of, love by the father, respect for the father WHICH IF IT WAS APPLIED TO THE WOMAN WOULD BE A CRIME OF ALL TIME-is able to do as she pleases? In fact, many such women, even some prolife women, feel the father should have no say as the child is adopted right in front of him. *Why?* Simple. "He has a genetic tie only!" Funny how that simple genetic tie is enough to make for child support 100% of the time under law, even where he HAS tried to abandon the pregnancy situation, they tell him no amount of running changes his OBLIGATION but the father who in the OPINION of the court in a contested adoption, initiated by the mother, which he never asked for, must prove a *subjective qualifyer* in court in several states to simply get a review (which may go against him if the court merely finds "best interest" whatever that means-would be served with the adoptive couple) to overturn the adoption? Notice in ALL cases the mother is expected to sign. No signature is valid prebirth, but in several states mens are on simple waivers. Its all based on a profound *oversimplification* and *selective* diminuation on WHAT fathers do (pre and post natal) or their purpose. It influences opinions about father's rights, but seldom does about responsibilities. Its all sophistry when examined in great detail, and fools alot of people. Its based on a curious brand of female biology egocentrism to most women. I am not saying your points about the mother's physical state are irrelevant, I am merely telling you this is the *ammunition* by which proabortion women live by. And you are giving it too them, whether you realize it or not, and hold the above quoted views, you are missing the point about how liferx must propagandize the father to win with fencers. As a matter of fact, women interviewed as to WHY they aborted literally NEVER cite the physical aspect disparity as even being on the map. The minute somebody mentions the father having an interest, suddenly she gets a backache! Suddenly, her epidural is paramount! Really, all the direct experience factors cited could be as easily construed as BENEFITS only women experience. But the problem is many women today ARENT sharing this thing-especially proaboriton females. They are excluding. And they are using biology to do it and yet are expecting men to be held to theirs selectively. That is why men are so turned off. Nobody wants to be a "part" of a pregnancy where you are viewed as the bad guy or as some meaningless party compared to the woman whose role is undervalued and isnt respected, while everybody addresses every question to HER and never to you! In fact, one woman I debated with was puzzled as to WHY *ANY* father would want to keep his child and oppose an unwed womans choice to adopt! Her reaction was "its just his *ego* that he sired a child, the woman goes thru the pregnancy, only she should have a say in abortion AND adoption!" You see? A woman goes thru pregnancy, and its this wonderfully perceived bonding experience. The man is treated like a sperm donor, as if he has no regard for the welfare of the child, no feelings, no desire to PARENT. Its automatically assumed. Like Kathleen Parker noted in her column about the Cuban boy, she received letters where his motives where questioned, the only one which he has, his relationship and love for his child, is totally ignored. Its assumed he MUST have SOME ulterior nonpure motive. Now, Meagan WHERE do YOU suppose that comes from? Its often the same mindset of that prochoice female I just mentioned. She looked me in the FACE and told me if I "get some girl pregnant" as she accusatorily put it, I would only refuse adoption on my ego, not my feelings, which she couldnt imagine amounted to anything in comparison to the mother. I had no relationship to it unless it was at least 9 months old, I had been in the home, and had raised it, regardless of what the mother did or didnt do to prevent that. The same reasoning is applied in abortion. I asked her, "suppose a woman is forced to have an abortion?" This was seen as a terrible LOSS by her. I asked her about the reverse, and she looked puzzled, and claimed I was "about control, ego," etc. We had NEVER debated any of this ever before, and my entire conversation was about MERE EQUAL RIGHTS AND RESPECT which I extended to the woman without a question, and never once expected more, and yet I got accused of "ale domination". Notice the similiarity here. A man suggests fathers matter, they should have equal rights, and he's a "control freak" NOT A LOVING FATHER. She assumed it was all ego, AND "no great loss its just a GENETIC TIE". You, Sehlat, HP, etc. arent getting this kind of thing daily from MEN in reverse. How many men think the fathers opinion in a pregnancy is the ONLY one with weight and think one way abortion or weak birthmother protection laws are ok to do to WOMEN by force? Not many. I can go out and FIND DOZENS of women who feel this way, based on various prejudices gainst fathers, based on twisting the meaning of biology and gestation who WILL and defend such abuse/rape of men, and wont even *recognize* any loss by the man, but WOULD if it was a woman. Try living in the man's shoes for a change. Pretend you are a prolife MALE. Go into abortion debate forums and listen to womens reactions about your rights being based on their perceptions of what OTHER men do. Simply ask for equal rights in nonlife threat pregnancies, and watch how they treat you. Worse, look for support from lifers, and prepare to be amazed. You wont be able to TELL half the time which ones are prolife or proabortion. No kidding! In fact, read Erin Hudson's article on Rightgrrl, and you will see in the forums and IRL that the reaction is men must "pay" for irresponsible men, so its no great loss if some aborted on-or as the man can superficially "run" bioligically from a pregnancy he has no business complaining!

But the point is our society has developed a total loss of what the purpose of a father is. Can YOU, Meagan, tell me what that purpose IS?

Its another slap in the face to suggest fathers dont matter until birth, and thats NOT TRUE.

Did I SAY that? No, I didn't. I said that the physical burden was on the woman. Of course the father is going to have anxieties of his own, and these are every bit as real and as valid as the mother's. What part of "financial care, prenatal doctors' visits, nursery preparation, and convincing his wife that she is still beautiful in spite of looking like she's swallowed a watermelon" did you NOT understand? What part of this says that the father does not have a role until his baby is born? And believe me, from the hormonal temperament of some pregnant women, I pity the men who have to live with them!

What angers men is this subtle pushing away of men and comments about "men just cant understand and cant share the physical burdon" etc.

There is a big difference between "men can't understand" and "men can't share the physical burden." The latter is a biological FACT. The former, I didn't say or imply, at least not intentionally. If you inferred it from my posts, I apologize, as I certainly did not mean to say anything to that effect. I'm not saying that the man has no feelings in the matter or that his feelings don't matter; I'm saying that the woman is, by biology, the parent who bears the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth. If you would like to continue to argue this point, I would like to refer you to a copy of Gray's Anatomy.

It places the mother on mount olympus and puts the father as some uninvolved sperm donor bystander.

Ho, ho! This is rich! PLM, I invite you to see the, er, conversations I've had with others (especially someone named "Rain") on the bulletin board at http://bbs.slate.com/bbs/slate-dearprudence/index.asp. I have, in fact, been arguing the very fact on that board that pregnant women shouldn't be given special privelages and be treated like princesses! (The debate was about those ludicrous "pink parking" spots that are popping up in various places.)

Its like nothing he feels emotionally matters because SHE is the physically pregnant one. He is expected to merely be "supportive" and have no real meaningful anxiety himself, (especially compared to the mother) like a support ROBOT!!!! AND The y cant conceive a father could even be connected in any meaningful way compared to the woman because its not in his body.

I never said this, or anything like this. And I will agree that yes, there are women out there who have that very attitude. But I am not one of them, so don't try to use this argument against me. It is futile.

Have you girls tried putting up with THAT...

PLM, dear, I stopped being a "girl" almost 20 years ago. Please don't try to be condescending; it's very unattractive.

I havent dismissed it. I simply dont OVERRATE IT. Womens bodies, Meagan, are DESIGNED FOR CHILDBIRTH.

I don't overrate it, either, PLM. I just pointed out the fact (yes, a biological FACT) that pregnancy can be and usually is hard on the female body, despite its design. The human body is also designed to stand upright, but you don't want to do it for 9 months straight!

TWISTING IT into that meaning women up til birth ought to have superior *legal* rights to the baby is the sticking point. ... MEN HAVE NO RIGHTS.

I agree with you 100%! I never said otherwise! I had hoped that my illustration about my friend would have made my stance perfectly clear, but apparently it didn't. All I said was that the woman is the one who is physically carrying the baby, and that she bears the physical burden instead of the man. I never said that the men didn't have burdens to bear as well; they just don't have the physical act of childbearing! Does this mean that the woman should have more rights to "her own body" than the man does? No, this is ludicrous, because the unborn child, fetus, glob of cells, whatever you choose to call it, is NOT part of her body. The DNA is different, for cryin' out loud! The only reason that women have more rights in pregnancy decisions is that they have a closer proximity to the kid, and are able to TAKE those rights by force, if needed. After all, a woman is with it for 24 hours a day. Even the most devoted father-to-be cannot be with his wife/girlfriend/whatever for 24 hours a day. Is this fair? No. Is it right? Nope. Does it justify a woman's having more to say about her pregnancy than the man who impregnated her? Absolutely not. But for now, that's the way it is. I have known women who have had children and never even TOLD the father that he had a child. Is this fair or right? No, of course not, but it's the way things are. Until laws are passed to change the situation, it will remain this way. If you want to make changes, I suggest that you focus your time and energy on your congressmen instead of on people who already agree with you.

In any given abortion, the man has no say beyond what the woman allows, and that is what MUST CHANGE.

I agree 100%! I never said otherwise. It IS absolutely unfair that a man's child can be killed without his consent; it is wrong that his child can be put up for adoption without his consent; and it is wrong that either of these things can be done agains t his will or without his knowledge. I haven't seen anyone here argue against that or disagree with you. You seem to be fighting windmills instead of the real enemy.

What angers men is this subtle pushing away of men and comments about "men just cant understand and cant share the physical burdon" etc. It places the mother on mount olympus and puts the father as some uninvolved sperm donor bystander. Its like they act like the man isnt scared as well, e.g., "what are *YOU* worried about, I am the one with the backache,!-show some appreciation of the SACRIFICE I am making to bear your child!" etc. This will only piss the man off and make him head for Alaska, not the maternity ward. Or what his experience is, can be perfectly understood by her but *not* vice versa. Its another slap in the face to suggest fathers dont matter until birth, and thats NOT TRUE. This is incredibly egotistical. Its like nothing he feels emotionally matters because SHE is the physically pregnant one. He is expected to merely be "supportive" and have no real meaningful anxiety himself, (especially compared to the mother) like a support ROBOT!!!! This is WHY so many women expect fathers to have no rights in abortion, they assume the mans experience is trumped by the womans because of gestation. They cant conceive a father could even be connected in any meaningful way compared to the woman because its not in his body. Truth is, he often has the SAME concerns as you do, but often women act like men are from different planets in this thing, and we arent. In fact, OFTEN the father is the one into the pregnancy, the woman isnt and that is even more frustrating to that man because he feels powerless. One father I knew tried to get his wife to reasonably follow a healthy prenatal diet no long ago, and she blew up at him. Have you girls tried putting up with THAT and hormones of ANOTHER (while being expected to be perfectly understanding, after all, you feel "fine", right?) for 9 months? Do you ever listen to yourselves talking to the men that gave you that little bundle of joy while pregnant? Are you supportive of the father and his WISHES that are designed for your childs best interests? The mother I knew just didnt get it. He was trying to BE INVOLVED in a way he SHOULD BE, and she pushed him away. This is what pisses men off. DONT DO THIS. If more women would RETURN RESPECT TO THE FATHER and CONCERN over his feelings, they would have alot more MEN to share it WITH!!!!

I havent dismissed it. I simply dont OVERRATE IT. Womens bodies, Meagan, are DESIGNED FOR CHILDBIRTH.

TWISTING IT into that meaning women up til birth ought to have superior *legal* rights to the baby is the sticking point. Proabortion women use this to argue for discrepency in rights. This cant be applicable, because men are not allowed to use their * lack* of gestational biology to avoid responsibility, or to argue for limits on burdons in support on multiple fetuses in paternity cases, which, by biology WOMEN CANT SHARE DOING THE SAME SEX ACTS except in freak cases. The law shows NO MERCY for mens biology, it cannot for womens and meet equal protection clauses of law.

SO:

THEY HAVE *NO* REAL CHOICES. Understand now? You, Sehlat, HP are women. You have no understanding of what it feels like to be powerless about your own destiny, to have your own religious views on it, against it, totally under control of the man (or in the case of men-women) and have the legal system *support* this rape of your voice. For women, aborting or not is a

CHOICE Theres no consent form (and thats the point there should be) that the woman going in on any abortion has to abide by which requires a signature from the babys father to *ENSURE* he agrees with her choice. He has no due process of law. The importance of this cannot be understated. The level to which many women take this for granted also cannot be understated, given how downplayed this fact is even by lifer females.

The woman aborting *HAS* to, by *LAW* sign consent papers for abortion. If a man "benefits" and is prochoice, he is only benefitting from HER CHOICE which by chance agrees with his. Or she terms, and ditto. He has no independent votes of any kind, and thats the simple bottom line. In any given abortion, the man has no say beyond what the woman allows, and that is what MUST CHANGE. Its not me or men who are controlling, its the women who act like 50% divisions of legal rights is men controlling women that is controlling! All I ask for is 50% rights as a FATHER. NOTHING ELSE. Got it?

This isn't to say that the man's part in the pregnancy isn't important; it certainly is, and a woman who has a supportive man by her side is lucky indeed. But the woman's physical health is at risk, even in the best of pregnancies, and this shouldn't be so readily dismissed.

It isn't that we necessarily disagree, for we do have sympathy for men who get screwed over by women who have abortions over their objections and offers to raise the children. The problem is that Rightgrrl is a site primarily for women (although anyone is welcome, of course), and we see abortion and related problems from a woman's point of view. Many abortion supporters come on here and say we are anti-woman and selling out to men because we don't support abortion. We use arguments showing that women are harmed by abortion and do not benefit from it like the NOW crowd claims. IOW, we directly respond to the criticisms.

PLM's message is solely by a man for men. He doesn't realize it, and often denies it when confronted, but he comes off as very controlling and seems to act like he believes women are irresponsible. He has also accused a few of us (including me.... big mistake) for being less pro-life than him because we do not address the men and abortion issue as often as he does.

How many? Don't know. Perhaps men's assessment of women would be much more accurate if they weren't always getting their brains caught in their zippers?? Why do I all of sudden feel like I'm trapped in an episode of Benny Hill?

Makabe, R. says: There is a guy, who appears to be from the U.K., making suggestions that the U.S. should alter its military policies regarding the service of women.

Whoa, I didn't even notice that! Thanks, Makabe! Hey, Jim, unless you're a US citizen who is in the UK for some reason, stay out of our politics! What right do you have to tell US what to do?

JCEII says: But I do agree that as a society we need to curb the young women having children and the OLDER men who, for a good percentage, are the cause of their pregnancies. . .what is wrong with these older men who like to impregnate teen age girls?

This is a very good point. Although I don't know the statistics, a LOT of girls who become pregnant under the age of 16 have done so with a man who is over 18--and sometimes even in his mid-to-late 20's! This is, first of all, sickening. It's pedophilia, plain and simple. And secondly why aren't these men prosecuted for statatory rape? Even if the girl was "willing," it is illegal!

And a lot of time it's the parents' fault, too. My dumb parents let my little sister, when she was 15, date a guy who was 21! What the heck were they thinking! She initially lied about his age and said he was 19, but even that's unthinkable! She was with him for two years, he treated her like crap, took her virginity (which she was happy to give up at the time, but now regrets very much). My main problem with the whole situation was: why the heck would a 21-year-old even WANT to date a 15-year old? Gross! I think he followed the philosophy of "get 'em young and raise 'em right."

Okay, moving on...

Heather says: IMHO, I think this [young girls pushing baby carriages] is more common in the more rural of communities. I think girls in smaller communities aren't exposed to the kind of educational competition, career drives and cosmopolitan lifestyles that girls growing up in suburbia do.

This is also common in inner-city areas, and I believe it's for a lot of the same reasons, although a sense of defeat and depression may also contribute to it. After all, if a young girl has a miserable life, a baby may seem to be her ticket to freedom and happiness, as the government will pay for her to have her own apartment, raise the child, and so forth. But it doesn't take her long to realize that her life is not the utopia that she thought it would be, and the money the government gives her isn't quite enough, so she continues to have more children to try to make ends meet, and it turns into a viscious cycle.

HP says: It might help you socially to do a little OCD behavioral therapy and not insert your abortion vs. men argument into every discussion, even when it is unrelated.

I disagree. I think that it WAS valid in the argument at hand. And, I'll also go out on a limb and suggest that PLM is so adamant (or as you would call it, "obsessive") about the issue because it hits close to home; that either he himself or a close friend was in this situation. (And PLM, there's no need to either confirm or deny this.) I know how traumatizing this can be because it happened to one of my dearest friends. He got his girlfriend pregnant (the condom broke) and she insisted on having an abortion. He pleaded with her not to, promised to take care of the child, and even offered to take the child and allow her to cut all ties with it. But she would not agree, and since it was "her body," she scheduled the abortion. There was nothing my friend could do about it. Luckily (?) she miscarried before her appointment, or at least TOLD my friend that she did to ease his guilt. This all happened several years before I even met him, and it still bothers him to this day, some 10 years after it happened.

As far as the male compliance with taking BC, I think it depends on the male, just as some women are more dependable than othes. But if you can't trust your partner to take his or her pills accurately, you're better off using barrier methods. Oh, and you'd better RETHINK the relationship, because if you don't trust your partner with this kind of life-altering responsibility, then there are some serious problems in the relationship.

Well, I THINK that's everything! Sorry to post such a whopper!