Pages

Friday, August 29, 2014

Tonight: Youth Rally in Bakersfield, CA


Tonight, SPL West Coast coordinator Monica Snyder will speak at the Make Noise! youth rally in Bakersfield, sponsored by Right to Life Kern County.

Date: Friday, August 29
Time: 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Location: Nile Nightclub, 1721 19th St., Bakersfield, CA

Monica rocked her speech at the Walk for Life West Coast in January. If you can make it to Friday's rally, you're in for a real treat!

41 comments:

The Nun said...

Have a great time Monica. Hope we get a report and pics of how it goes.

Ann Morgan said...

What Myintx thinks is a 'tiny, vulnerable, sweet, innocent human being' that (despite having no brain) just 'wants a chance at life' and deserves to be able to enslave people 'for it's very life'

Ann Morgan said...

What myintx thinks is garbage with no rights or feelings that she wouldn't give a single meal to, and tell to go to jail:

Ann Morgan said...

And, of course, its 'monstrous and dehumanizing' for other people to refer to what is in the petri dish as 'a clump of cells' but not 'monstrous and dehumanizing' for myintx to regard the man in the top picture as a piece of human trash, with less rights, mind, or feelings than what is in the petri dish, who doesn't deserve to be fed and should go to jail. That is, when she isn't attempting to pull her assorted rape and extortion schemes on him.

Ann said...

Monica,

You rock. I hope you had a great time and touched the minds of many young people. Hope Petit(e) M is doing well.

myintx said...

Wow. you sure are grasping at straws. Guess that's all you got left.

Ann Morgan said...

So, what you mean is that you equate actual human beings who are really suffering to 'straws'.

myintx said...

No... You're the one grasping at straws claiming I don't care about people who are suffering.

Ann Morgan said...

It's obvious you don't care about the suffering of any person (or those you claim are 'persons', except when you can use that suffering to control or extort someone else.

myintx said...

I care about all human beings. You only care about women.

Ann Morgan said...

Umm, no. You care about those 'human beings' that can be used as hostages to extort and control others. Including fertilized eggs, frozen embryos, and assorted toddlers hanging onto people's legs, in people's houses and garages.


You've no care at all about starving toddlers in 3rd world countries who you won't sell your house to feed 'for their very lives', homeless people who you won't let into your house to keep warm 'for their very lives', or anyone at all whose 'very life' might possibly inconvenience precious myintx rather than someone else.

myintx said...

I'll bet you don't tell people that advocate for animals that they only care about animals and not human beings.... Just because someone fights for whales or dogs doesn't mean they don't care about children. Just because someone is wants unborn children to have a chance doesn't mean they don't care about born children. You pro-aborts love to make up garbage to try to justify slaughtering unborn children.

Ann Morgan said...

Yeah, the animal rights is a real interesting point. As a matter of fact, animals don't have rights. I've noticed that whenever people start simpering that they want to 'defend the voiceless', they NEVER mean this literally. They are NEVER talking about deaf mute human beings. They are always, always, always talking about something like animals or embryos where what they REALLY mean by their sad feelies about something being 'voiceless' is that it doesn't express an opinion, not because it doesn't have (boo hoo hoo) a VOICE, but because it doesn't have an opinion. Because it doesn't have a functioning human brain, and the supposed 'opinions' and 'chances' and 'rights' that whatever the hell it is, is supposedly 'entitled' to are decided FOR it by other people, and always in such a way as to violate the rights of real human beings.

Ann Morgan said...

**What? you're saying pro-lifers want to kill deaf mute human beings?**

God, you're dumb. I had better reading comprehension when I was 6 years old. What I said was that when whiners like pro-lifers and animal rights activists sob about how they want to 'defend the rights of the VOICELESS', they never mean this in an accurate sense, in that they want to defend the rights of human deaf mutes. What they always mean is that they want to 'defend the rights' of the MINDLESS, things which by their nature (not having a sentient mind) don't have opinions to speak or rights to defend. At no point did I state that anyone wanted to kill deaf mutes. Only an idiot or a liar would say that I said such a thing. Which are you? Enlighten us.

**You are the one who admitted that unborn children are human beings**



I said that in a biological sense, they were human embryos (rather than pig or dog embryos). I further went on to tell you - which you conveniently disregarded - that neither the word human being or simply happening to be part of the human species was some magical condition that caused magical 'rights' to descend out of the heavens like golden light onto anything and everything that might qualify, without other additional factors. Including a brain. Also, regarding the brain, your example of the 'brain dead person who will recover in 9 months' besides showing your complete ignorance of what the term 'brain dead' implies also handwaves away the direction of time, because in the example you gave, there WAS a person with a brain in the past. In the case of the embryo, no such person exists yet. Future 'potential people' do not have rights over the bodies of people existing in the present.

myintx said...

"You care about those 'human beings' that can be used as hostages to extort and control others. Including fertilized eggs, frozen embryos, ..."


See - you said unborn children were human beings... lol.


Love how pro-aborts speak out of both sides of their mouth. Whining about how abortion is a difficult decision then claiming an unborn child isn't even a human being. wow. hypocrites.


An unborn child IS a human being. He or she is a human being at birth, one second before birth, one second before that etc - all the way back to when he or she was created - at fertilization. If you support killing an unborn child, you might as well support killing a newborn as both killings have the exact same result - a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

Ann Morgan said...

**See - you said unborn children were human beings...**

See, you're displaying all the reading skills and maturity of a typical six year old, as the quotation marks I used when I wrote 'human being' are generally understood by most people older than that age to indicate sarcasm. For future reference, and to defuse your idiotic attempts to use grammatical mistakes on my part as some sort of triumphant 'proof' on your part, when I refer to a 'brain' it means a FUNCTIONING brain, not a mass of nerve tissue with no organized thought or sensation. And I am well aware of what species an embryo belongs to. Rights are not granted merely by being a member of the human species qua human species without any additional qualities, any more than a catterpillar of the monarch butterfly species can fly, so stop trumpetting the word 'human' as if it somehow proves anything at all.

**all the way back to when he or she was created - at fertilization.**

So... what's the deal here? The egg suddenly popped into existence from nowhere just when it was fertilized, or the egg is really a dog egg and suddenly becomes 'human' when it's fertilized, or you're handwaving away the question, in order to avoid explaining why the egg doesn't have a right to a 'chance for life' because then it might inconvenience precious myintx.

**If you support killing an unborn child, you might as well support killing a newborn as both killings have the exact same result - a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.**



The same is true if you claim that you shouldn't be forced to have sex whenever you are fertile. Unless you can explaiin how an egg is not a human cell, a 'human' is being denied the 'chance' for a full an productive life. Don't babble about the 'number of chromosomes, either. There are people who have other than 46 chromosomes, and you are not the arbiter of what numbers are valid merely based on what is convenient for you.

secularprolife.org said...

Did I ever say a man has less rights than an unborn child? All innocent human beings should have an equal right to life. A woman's desire for a 'right to happiness' does not mean she can kill her born child, or even her unborn child after viability. She shouldnt be able' to kill her unborn child before viability as well.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you still for killing the unborn children at this link:

http://www.goldenviewultrasound.com/gallery.html

secularprolife.org said...

**Did I ever say a man has less rights than an unborn child?**

You don't need to 'say' it. Your actions in your rape and attempted extortion of babytdaddy, as well as the fact that you don't donate all your extra money to people who need food or shelter for their 'very lives', demonstrate that you don't regard adult men as having rights that you are willing to respect.

**She shouldnt be able' to kill her unborn child before viability as well.**



Nobody is entitled to the body of another person. Not for their very life. If that means killing it, tough.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you donate all your extra money to the needy? or do you same some for retirement?


No one should kill another human being - even their own unborn son or daughter - for 15 minutes of fame or because they are deemed unwanted. They cannot do it after viability (with exceptions), so there goes your bogus 'nobody is entitled' b s.

secularprolife.org said...

**Do you donate all your extra money to the needy? or do you same some for retirement?**


Irrelevent. YOU are the one claiming that the need for ones 'very life' creates a 'right' for a blank check on others. Except then you turn around and handwave away that right whenever it might inconvenience precious you, and your retirement.


I am not the one claiming that the 'need' for a 'very life' creates a 'righ't, so unlike you, the fact that I don' hand over my money to everyone else's 'very life' doesn't make me a hypocrite.

secularprolife.org said...

Parents have a responsibility to the offspring they create. They have the responsibility to provide them food and shelter and protect them. That responsibility should start when their offspring is in the womb. I took responsibility for my offspring - other people should too.

secularprolife.org said...

**Parents have a responsibility to the offspring they create**

And that 'responsibility' has to take the forms you dicate because why?

**That responsibility should start when their offspring is in the womb.**


People do not have 'responsibilities' that they have not freely and explicitly agreed to. Too bad, so sad.

** I took responsibility for my offspring - other people should too.**

Getting stuck with your failed attempt to 'oops' babydaddy in order to try to extort money from him is hardly 'taking responsibility. What it is, is having your own rape and extortion schemes backfire on you.

secularprolife.org said...

Every pro lifer has a choice, they can save one of 1.8 innocent born babies, children and adults, or they can murder them and attempt to save a fetus instead. Pro lifers of course intentionally murder the babies. That is just how it works. Pro lifers murder life and claim to save life.

secularprolife.org said...

So, if a woman doesn't realize she is pregnant until she's in labor, can she kill her unborn child while she is in labor because she didn't sign up for the 'responsibility'? How about if she's in the car on the way to a killing clinic and gives birth - she cannot kill her newborn because she lamely claims she didn't sign up for the responsibility. Parents should have a responsibility for their offspring from the moment their offspring is created (at fertilization). One should not be able to kill their offspring because they don't want to be responsible. How mature is that - fighting for the right not to be responsible. wow. Then again, you throw in the babydaddy b s every chance you get, so I know you're not responsible.


I never said I was dictating. I was voicing my opinion. Post viability abortion laws reflect the opinion of the people of the states that have them. States should be allowed to pass pre-viability abortion restrictions if that is what the people want.

secularprolife.org said...

**So, if a woman doesn't realize she is pregnant until she's in labor, can she kill her unborn child while she is in labor because she didn't sign up for the 'responsibility'?**

So basically, your claim here is that everyone is as stupid as you, and won't realize they are pregnant until they are in labor.

** Parents should have a responsibility for their offspring from the moment their offspring is created (at fertilization)**

Sorry, no.

**Then again, you throw in the babydaddy b s every chance you get, so I know you're not responsible.**



So, basically, your assertion here is that it's 'responsible' to rape and extort a man by having an 'oops' baby on purpose, but 'irresponsible' of anyone else to mention the fact.

secularprolife.org said...

Guess this woman was 'stupid'?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/jennifer-scollin-mom-didnt-know-she-was-pregnant_n_5079249.html



Quit deflecting and answer the question.

secularprolife.org said...

According to the article, the woman didn't get an abortion. Show me one example of a woman who got an abortion while she was in labor - with a full term infant, with the ONLY reason being that she never knew she was pregnant and didn't want the responsibility.


And, btw, you're trying to engage in the Loki's neck fallacy, and play your usual game of 'well if it's not acceptable at 40 weeks, then maybe it's not acceptable at 38 weeks, and maybe also not acceptable at 6 months because it's viable with a lot of care, and not acceptable at 3 months, or one week, and its 'the same human being'.


How about I play that game. If it's acceptable for a girl to get a job as a hooker in the Mustang Ranch when she's 18, how about when she's 17 and 11 months, and how about when she's 16, because that's the legal age for marriage in some states, and how about when she's 14, because girls often got married at that age in medieval times, and how about when she's 9, because that's how old Muhammed's wife was, and why can't she be a hooker when she's 3, because the 3 year old is the 'same human being' as the 18 year old. Or is widdle myintx the only one who gets to play that game?


And don't babble at me about 'deflecting'. You've refused repeatedly to answer my questions.

secularprolife.org said...

I never said the woman had an abortion. Your 'stupid' claim was regarding a woman not finding out she was pregnant until she was in labor. Is she stupid for not finding out she is pregnant until labor? If someone finds out they are pregnant at 32 weeks, is it "enslaving" them if they are not allowed to have an abortion because they don't want to carry the pregnancy for 8 more weeks?

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, it is. Don't like it? Tough. I'm not buying into your latest attempt at the Loki's neck fallacy where you are once again playing the game, why not 40 weeks, why not 32 weeks, why not 20 weeks, and so on back to a zygote.

If you can find a way magical way to get the baby out alive, which does not cause more damage than having an abortion, and are willing to pay for everything, then feel free to do so. Lots of people are stupid. Their stupidity doesn't give others a magical right to their bodies, any more than my failing to find out that a squatter has been hiding in my home all winter until 'only' 8 weeks before spring gives him a right to stay in my house for 'only eight more short weeks'. If I have to shoot him to get him out without getting hurt myself, tough. You want him out without his being shot? You find a way to get him out without my getting hurt. It's not my job to do that because you have sad feelies about squatters and embwyos. You can't find a way to do that? Too bad, so sad.

secularprolife.org said...

And, btw, I notice you are avoiding my question as to exactly why your failing to save all the little precious 'real babies for sure' frozen zef lives by having them implanted in you, is not because you are a psychopath. Your evasive answer that it's the 'parents responsibility' is baloney. If you see a 'real baby for sure' drowning in a wading pool, only a psychopath would simply ignore it on the grounds that it's the 'parent's responsibility' to get it out.


So, either you're a psychopath, or you're lying about widdle frozen embwyos being 'real babies for sure', or contrary to your babble about pregnancy being no harder than eating a bag of doritos, you do in fact, regard pregnancy as an extraordinary burden that you want to impose on other people but not your pwecious self.

secularprolife.org said...

I thought it was your side that said we didn't have to save toddlers about to cross the street?


A pregnancy being a 'burden' doesn't justify killing. A parent cannot kill their newborn because he or she is a burden and it might be a mental burden if they put their child up for adoption. Nope... cannot kill. They HAVE to put in the effort to either make it work or figure out how to live with the fact that their child is in the system. It's their RESPONSIBILITY.

secularprolife.org said...

**A pregnancy being a 'burden' doesn't justify killing.**

A woman can end her pregnancy any time she wants, for any reason she wants. If you can find a way for her to do it without 'killing' the pwecious widdle embwyo, we'll be happy to hear it. Otherwise, too bad, so sad.

**It's their RESPONSIBILITY.**



sorry, no.

secularprolife.org said...

In most states a woman cannot end her pregnancy for any reason she wants after viability. So, a woman cannot legally 'end her pregnancy any time she wants'.


I'm sure racists used to say "too bad, so sad" to all the people who were against "Separate but Equal". Horrible SC decisions can and should be overturned. Roe V Wade is a horrible decision.

secularprolife.org said...

myintx: You keep comparing embryos to blacks. I can show you a physical, complete brain in a black person, and also various means of showing organized brain activity in a black person. Can you show me the same thing in a widdle embrwo or zef? Otherwise your babble about 'well black people were once not considered human' in no way proves that embryos should have rights any more than it proves that worms or rocks should have rights.

The fact that they have (gasp) 'human DNA' doesn't prove that embryos should have rights either. There is no functional difference between human DNA and worm DNA. And you have yet to provide me with ANY reason why ANY 'human being' should have ANY rights. All your definitions are technical appeals to an equivocation fallacy in which you are desperately hoping I will add a non-existent brain to a zef, while you get to remain technically correct by not mentioning the absence of a brain.

And, btw, your repeatedly comparing blacks to a brainless embryo is EXTREMELY racist and insulting to black people. But then, that's the sort of person you are. You don't care about the real rights or feelings of any real person with a real brain, be it babydaddy or blacks. The only people you care about are myintx, and the pwecious embwyos, and the latter only so long as they can be used to make everyone else miserable.

secularprolife.org said...

There is a BIG difference between a human being and a worm. An unborn child IS a human being. Born human beings have rights. They should have rights before they are born as they are the same human being - just in a different stage of development.


It's all discrimination - selfish slave owners discriminated against blacks because of their skin color and pro-aborts discriminate against unborn children based on their size and location. I'm not insulting anyone by stating the TRUTH. Perhaps it's YOU that should be ashamed for supporting discrimination.


All you care about are your fweelings.... Not wanting to do the RIGHT THING if you get pregnant because it might require EFFORT on your part and you might not fweel good for part of the time. Cause it's all about me, me, me, me, me, OH and me! Forget about anyone else. I'll KILL another innocent human being so I can fweel better.

secularprolife.org said...

**There is a BIG difference between a human being and a worm.** Not really. They share a lot of the same DNA, and you seem to think DNA is all-sacred

**An unborn child IS a human being.** And so? An unborn opossum IS an opossum. What's you're point?

**Born human beings have rights.** Why? Why do 'human beings' have rights, but not oppossums. You've yet to give one single reason, you just keep going in circles and babbling about the definition of what a 'human being' is, but refuse to explain why we should have rights, but not opossums, cattle, or worms. You've also called me a 'troll' in your desperation to avoid having to answer this question.

**They should have rights before they are born as they are the same human being - just in a different stage of development.** So, you're fine with a 3 year old having the right to be a hooker?

** selfish slave owners discriminated against blacks because of their skin color and pro-aborts discriminate against unborn children based on their size and location.**

Do blacks have a brain? Yes or no?

Are blacks using someone else's body without their consent?

Yes or no?

You're 'discrimination' whining is nonsense. I could just as easily whine that cattle are being discriminated against because they are (whimper whine boo-hoo) a different species, and it's all discrimination and all the 'TRUTH'. Boo hoo, so fucking what?

**I'll KILL another innocent human being so I can fweel better.** Gaslighting. Try some different material. You didn't give a crap about babydaddy's feelings before you tried your rape and extortion scheme on him, yet you claim to be concerned about the non-existent 'feelings' of brainless zefs.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, guess what, sweetiepie? It is about, me, me, me, and oh yeah, me. Most people like to have sex to feel good. According to you, this makes them worse than your rape and extortion scheme of babydaddy, which was all about you, you, you, and oh yeah, you. Apparently everyone else is 'selfish' except YOU, because they try to be honestly happy together, instead of raping and extorting eachother, and a poor little brainless zef might 'suffer' because of this, instead of a real human being, like babydaddy.


Guess what? When a couple is honest with eachother, they generally are happy together, and don't end up stuck with their 'oops' baby like you did, when babydaddy wouldn't let you extort him. You fucked up trying to extort babydaddy. Learn to deal with it. Your attempts to make everyone else as miserable as you are are al about you, you, you, and oh yeah, you, because it might require EFFORT on your part to mature beyond the level of a six year old and accept the fact that your own misery is your own fault and you don't get to wave the pwecious zefs around to make everyone else as miserable as you. Forget about anyone else. You'll ruin their lives over a brainless zef so YOU can fweel better.

secularprolife.org said...

Go ahead and have sex to feel good. Never said you couldn't, but if you get pregnant, you should not be able to kill your own unborn child. It's called taking RESPONSIBILITY for your actions. Killing an unborn child because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted is NOT taking responsibility.

secularprolife.org said...

I never said DNA is all-sacred. Innocent HUMAN BEINGS should not be killed because they are inconvenient or unwanted.


Human beings have rights. Unborn children ARE human beings - they should have rights too - a basic and fundamental right to life.

secularprolife.org said...

You know, myintx, you are so full of shit you squeak whenever you move. A few pointers for you:

1. Your assertion that the pwecious widdle embwyo is being 'discriminated' against 'just because of it's size' is crap. The fact that the embryo is small is incidental, and NOT the reason that it isn't regarded as a person. You either show me one single pro-choice person who would claim that Rick Moranis's kids in the movie 'Honey I Shrunk the Kids' were no longer people because they were only 1/4 in tall, or retract your statement.

2. There is no 'unborn child'. An widdle embwyo is NOT a tiny little thinking talking person like Rick Moranis's kids. It's a mindless peice of meat and does NOT have a right to someone else's body.

3. Yes, we DO discriminate against people based on location. Learn to fucking deal with reality instead of your fairy world. There are certain locations that some or all people don't have a right to be. You don't have a right to be in a bank vault, in the oval office, in someone else's house, or in someone else's body, without consent. Yes, we do get to kill people if they are 'not wanted' in those places and that's the only way to get them out. If you want to play a game and pretend that all locations are equal, then we'll just take the widdle embwyo out of the mother, if you want to pretend that the inside of her body is no different than the outside, than the reverse is also true, yes?

4. **It's called taking RESPONSIBILITY for your actions. Killing an unborn child because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted is NOT taking responsibility.**

Too fucking bad. Nobody owes a 'responsibility' to something without a brain, and you don't get to decide that they do, because you got stuck with the results of your ill advised extortion schemes. Next time, don't try to extort a man, and you won't get stuck with the results.