He's Back: Anti-Abortion Crusader Randall Terry Leads the Protests at Notre Dame

I am a Christian that does not believe in murdering the unborn. When you abort a child you are killing America's future!
Posted by: R. Pfau

too bad so many 'christians' thought slavery was a good idea....

DK

you can throw in as many false choices as you like.... the issue remains the same..
you claim that cells deserve rights..... I believe people have rights.... I notice you don't address the issue of the frozen embryos ....what about those 'cells'...? are kids who masturbate going to be charged ?... what next...? and you didn't see the need to address rape or incest..... that's typical and again absolutist..

re: 'I drive drunk and drive my car into a bunch of people "
that, is exactly the kind of comment which will keep 'you folks' on the fringe....

OBAMA IS NOT GOD.

Mark Olsen your comment was well said! I am proud to be an American but for the first time I am not proud of our President. He is dismantling this Country 1 brick at a time. No common ground to be reached here. I am a Christian that does not believe in murdering the unborn. When you abort a child you are killing America's future!

Since you guys are so for "pro-choice" you might also consider advocating other free choices as well.. like for example if I drive drunk and drive my car into a bunch of people - I shouldn't be responsible for their death.. after all it was just a free choice on my part.

Also if I women has the "right to choose" then the father should as well. How about a waiver that the women signs if the father is not interested in being responsible for his actions, so he is not responsible for child care if she goes forward with the birth.

I mean according to you people everyone should be "free" regardless of the consequences of their actions. If the life of developing children shouldn't get in the way of your fun, i'm not sure why we should stop there. No need to be responsible for ourselves in any matter really.

A Guy,

I didn't imply any control over how or when people have sex, I simply stated that sex always risks pregnancy and you should be responsible for choosing to take the risk.

I'm not sure how you read that I said "tell hell with the women." I agreed they need aid, not exactly throwing them to the wolves.
It's you who are saying "to hell with the child" while only focusing on the women.
I'm saying both the child and women have seperate needs and rights and you can't take away the rights of the child just because it's convenient for YOU, especially considering YOUR the one who risked the child being created by having sex.
It's called being responsible for your own actions, not just walking around the earth like you have a right to do whatever is good for you regardless of the consequences.
What don't you understand of that?

And just like I said in my last post - it's not about religion, but right and wrong.
I might not believe the same way you do, but i'm pretty sure you would agree that I don't have a right to walk up to someone in your family and kill them.
Yet somehow you think YOU have the right to just disregard the rights of the unborn with no discussion, because it's convient for you, and i'm the Orwellian????

DK

your implied absolutist control over how and when people have sex is very Orwellian, folks can only 'get it on' according to your standards? .... amazin'

the 'problem' with the anti-choice side is that you pick sides.... to hell with the women who happens to be pregnant, whether she wanted to be or not, raped, incest, accident, med problems, whatever.

the comments about people who are 'pro-abortion' are a myth......

the advocacy of the pro-choice side is about being against folks like you, who believe they know what's best for everyone in every situation, you want to decide what other women can do.....

I don't think that's your call to make.... your religious background might force you to your conclusions, but, not everybody believes as you do.

DK
why stop there: interesting quote from a comment below

"What about all those frozen embryos, just think if all the good 'right to life women' had themselves inseminated with 3, 4, 5 of these 'potential people'.. how many lives would saved....?
any takers here?"

Hello Lydia,

I agree with you that it's wrong to denounce a poor person for having an abortion but not be willing to provide them aid if needed.
Our country is way behind in other industrial countries in providing social services for our citizens - in health care, child care etc.
We spend tons of money on wars so we can be on "top" instead of helping our citizens survive and thrive.

But that is were our agreement ends.
The problem with the "pro choice" side is that it ignores the rights of another living entity (the unborn child). The pro choice advocates try to do this by denying a unborn child is really a child - which is completely as illogical as saying an infant isn't a child that deserves rights. (because an infant is also a developing human, not fully developed just like an embryo).
Regardless of how hard it is to deal with, when someone chooses to have sex they also choose to risk pregnancy which then gives rights to that new entity - the same right to life that every other human shares.
It's about personal responsibility - and frankly if you are not able to handle the responsibility you should not have sex.
I would get 5 jobs before aborting a child because I understand they have a sacred right to life. I also think society needs to do much more to help people.

Also I obviously don't agree with it being just a "personal" decision. It's a "personal" decision before you decide to risk pregnancy by having sex (even safe sex).
You can decide not to get pregnant by not risking it.
But once you risk it and get pregnant then you have created a new being with rights of it's own... and it's no longer your "personal" decision anymore.
It's also NOT just a religious thing but also civil. Just like an infant has a right to protection under the law, so should the child in a mothers belly. I don't have to believe in God to know that is right, just like I know it's not ok that the Nazi killed a bunch of innocent people as well and that wasn't right.

My basic point- That we can better "come together" and work on ways to provide the social aid needed when you pro-choice folks stop needing to advocate the violation of the rights of the unborn.
Until then it's going to be a struggle.

"I have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd understands that our world is becoming dangerously over-crowded with people, to the detriment of all the rest of the beautiful creations of God."

This is a chilling and twisted way of saying let's start playing God. Let's start killing people so that we (whoever the lucky "we" are) have a little more elbow room.

How much more selfish, self-serving (and wrong) can a statement be? It's a bold justification for extermination, slaughter and genocide of both the born and unborn.

Simply chilling.

Terry solicited donations by declaring on his website that "The purveyors of abortion on demand have stripped Randall Terry of everything he owned," but failed to disclose that the money would be used to pay for his new $432,000 house.
" World noted that the same month he paid the deposit on his new home, a court ruled that Terry, who divorced his first wife and has remarried, "was not paying a fair share of child support."

I have to wonder if the anti-abortion crowd understands that our world is becoming dangerously over-crowded with people, to the detriment of all the rest of the beautiful creations of God. That one Bible quote about going forth and multiplying was said at a time when humans were just about wiped out. As my grandma used to say, God gave us brains to use them. So obviously a comment about having lots of babies said when people were scarce doesn't make sense when people are crowding out the rest of nature He created.

Obama spoke with honesty. The people on the two sides of this argument will never agree. The very best thing we can do is work together to make sure there are as few women as possible in need of an abortion.
It is highly hypocritical to denounce a poor woman for having an abortion, and then complain when the poor get assistance to feed their family. Just as it is wrong to think minimum wage is okay and to not support a living wage law. The honest truth is all forms of birth control fail 2-3% of the time. That is a lot of unplanned pregnancies. And financially there are a lot of folks who simply can't afford another child. The women I know who got an abortion were married, had two or three kids already and knew they had reached their financial,time and emotional limit for their family. One married woman was a stay at home mom with two young children and also cared for her live-in elderly parents. This is not a decision that the government should make for people. It is a very personal choice. Our country is a nation of laws that is not supposed to mix religion into those laws.
As a married mom of three, I can honestly say I couldn't have handled more kids and done a good job of it, as well as the financial difficulties another child would have added. Everyone is different, some could be a good parent to none, or two or eight.That is another part of why this is a personal decision.

Once the Illuminati get the Pope and the Vatican, maybe there will be fewer problems with Catholics.

Also receiving honorary degrees this year:
Margaret Bent
Alfred C. DeCrane Jr.
Cardinal Walter Kasper
Helen Lieberman
Sydney Pollack
Helen R. Quinn
Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain
William P. Sexton
Patrick Toole
Cicely Tyson

Just wondering if anyone knows what their position is on abortion? If they support abortion should they be not be honored? Maybe the college should have all those who they intend to "honor" fill out a questionairre so they can pass a litmus test. To not honor the president United States for supporting the laws of the country he leads (abortion is legal) is ridiculous.

Two wars that we might want to consider fighting.. planned parenthood and alcohol & drug abuse..

We can change our entire social fabric if we spend time and money on these things.. too much is wasted on this pro vs. pro argument.

Why didn't Bush do anything for you anti-abortion supporters in the 8 years. Did everyone see the support the President received from the students and the invited guests for nearly all parts of his speech. I think there are many millions out there supporting the President on the approach he is taking on every issue, small and major.

What about all those frozen embryos, just think if all the good 'right to life women' had themselves inseminated with 3, 4, 5 of these 'potential people'..
how many lives would saved....?
any takers here?

If only the pro-lifers were as pro-life outside the womb - our world would be a much better place.
Posted by: Ms. G

Well said Ms. G ................ Bravo
I won't bother posting all the biblical commentary on killing children, even one's own.

Randall Terry?
you mean the role model Randall Terry? LOL
When will the media stop giving fraud hypocrites like this air time?

Additional evidence suggests that actions by Terry and Operation Rescue may have provoked violence at abortion clinics.
As the New York Times reported on July 20, 2001, "One of his [Terry's] most avid followers in Binghamton was James E. [ Kopp, now charged in the 1998 murder of a doctor who performed abortions in Buffalo [New York]." Kopp was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. A November 6, 1998, Times report further detailed Terry's connection to Kopp:

In March 1988, Randall Terry took in three troubled foster children ages 3, 8 and 12. He adopted them seven years later. In 2000, Terry divorced his wife of 19 years and married Andrea Kollmorgen.

Both of Terry's adopted daughters became pregnant outside of marriage; one later converted to Islam.

In 2004, Terry's son Jamiel Terry, the middle child who had been born in jail, publicly announced that he was a homosexual and wrote an article for Out Magazine for which he was paid $2,500.

Terry contends much of the article was written by other people and most of the statements purported to be facts in the article were untrue. Terry promptly disowned his son and claimed that he had "prostituted" the family name. He attributed Jamiel's sexuality to his biological mother, saying that she was a prostitute.