User Profile: Deborah


Member Since: March 24, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [1] February 7, 2016 at 8:47pm

    There is a serious flaw in the argument that we should reserve a “right” to an abortion for cases of rape and incest. To do so switches the argument that it is the circumstances in which we were conceived that give us our right to life. Either the human embryo is a person or not a person. It cannot both.

  • [1] January 24, 2016 at 7:41am


    You are right in that merely banning abortion will not resolve this issue. This issue–abortion–will be most effectively addressed as abortion becomes UNTHINKABLE. And that takes time. And I think it is happening–slowly. The tide is finally turning.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 7, 2016 at 11:52am


    Your “logic” really means this: Human beings are nothing more than animals that have no choice but to have sex.

  • January 7, 2016 at 11:49am

    Correction: My “indeed” was meant for ActiveDutyWarrior. More “morning after” pills is really MORE abortions. They are just being done chemically instead of mechanically and at the human being’s younger age.

  • January 7, 2016 at 11:47am


  • [1] January 7, 2016 at 11:46am


    You have essentially defined pregnancy as uterine implantation. Are you aware of that? “Progressives” have RE-DEFINED pregnancy as beginning with uterine implantation. The biological definition of pregnancy–yes, I said BIOLOGICAL–has always begun with the sperm meeting–penetrating–the egg. From that point onward is a unique being with typically 46 chromosomes.

    When the sperm meets the egg is called CONCEPTION. And it often occurs in the fallopian tube. Ever heard of an ectopic pregnancy? That is when the fertilized egg fails to leave the fallopian tube, thus failing to implant in the uterus. Thus, does this not strongly suggest that fertilization often begins in the fallopian tube?

    Responses (1) +
  • January 7, 2016 at 11:37am

    You are absolutely correct. The “morning after” pill is often given after conception occurs. These drugs act to create an environment that is hostile to the implantation of the egg. Somebody here is making a claim that this drug acts by preventing conception. I do not believe that is true. However, if my sources are trustworthy, and I do believe that they are,ever inform me otherwise, I will stand corrected.

    I will not stand by someone who merely claims they are right because they are a medical student. Medical schools, these days, are ruled by political correctness, not by Truth. For one, most medical students no longer take the Hippocratic Oath, which says, “Do no harm,” among other things.

  • January 7, 2016 at 11:29am


    Your terminology is messed up. For one, you have mistaken “contraception” with “conception.”

    Try again.

    Secondly, life actually begins before conception. A sperm is life. An egg is life. These matters are not matters of when LIFE begins. Instead, when does life become a human person? It happens when the egg meets the sperm, thus, beginning a unique being with 46–at least typically 46–chromosomes.

    Conception often begins in the fallopian tube, prior to uterine implantation. And I did not learn this in Church or from reading the Bible.

    Oh, and by the way, I did not go to medical school. But I have studied plenty of biology, and I am a registered nurse. Does this count?

  • January 7, 2016 at 11:19am

    Thank you. Conception very often occurs in the fallopian tube, prior to uterine implantation. “Progressives” have redefined pregnancy as beginning with uterine implantation.

  • [3] December 24, 2015 at 8:56am

    The tide IS turning. I don’t recall anyone saying “Happy Holidays” to me this year, no matter where I shopped. And in most cases, the store workers initiated the greetings. At choir practice last night, other members complained about political incorrectness going too far. It was refreshing!!

  • [15] December 4, 2015 at 8:55am

    I will believe the Republicans want to repeal Obamacare when they move beyond symbolic. But even then, I am afraid the SCOTUS will try to salvage it. I really want to be wrong on this. It’s almOst impossible to turn a big government program around once it is implemented.

  • [4] December 3, 2015 at 10:25am

    This school has done nothing wrong. If the school is approving secular displays and songs while including a live nativity, then no violation exists.

    Actually, our country went off the rails a few decades ago. When I was in high school back in the seventies and eighties, there were no objections to things explicitly Christian or to Christmas. In fact, our choir sang many Christmas songs dedicated to Christ. We never heard about any controversies or complaints. The more elite choir, the Lyric Theatre Singers, sang ONLY songs that were explicitly Christian.

    Christmas comes only once a year, as does Presidents Day, Labor Day, the 4th of July, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, etc. Do you hear of objections to these celebrations? For the most part, no. To celebrate Christmas, among other things, is really not problematic at all. If our country celebrated only Christian holidays, then there would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    I believe this judge’s decision will eventually be struck down.

  • [3] December 2, 2015 at 8:53am

    Interesting, brigott. My late husband Mike died after a long battle with a rare appendiceal cancer. By the time he had his first surgery to remove the tumors, his appendix was completely obliterated by the disease. Six months prior to his diagnosis, he had a bad bout of shingles on the right side of his face and in his right eye. It seemed to me that he got sick more readily than other people. I can’t help but wonder how long his appendix was missing. I always felt Mike had a problem with his immune system.

  • October 18, 2015 at 8:51am

    I do not claim to have the knowledge you have on these matters. However, it would seem to me he would be asking questions that would lead her to lead him into the house. I can imagine someone posing as someone who claimed they were authorized to enter her house, say, a “repairman,” and he would come into her house and take advantage of her. This man is asking a closed-ended, “yes” or “no” question. He may have been following her because he was specifically looking for someone he could quickly and easily access to get information. She was available because she was running. In other words, her presence was convenient.

    Although, yes, I can understand her fear.

    My hunch is that he was harmless.

  • October 18, 2015 at 8:37am

    One cannot simply leave anything in the mailbox. It is strictly for use by the USPS. Oh, and by the way, this is something I only recently learned.

  • October 18, 2015 at 8:30am

    A slight edit to my previous post: The man’s presentation was PECULIAR, not PROBLEMATIC. The man’s stretching out his hand may look peculiar, but he may have been doing this to clearly show his arm and that he did not have a weapon.

  • [1] October 18, 2015 at 8:15am

    I want to share this story about something that happened this past summer in my “neck of the woods.” A woman in a local small city had been complaining that she was being stalked, by whom, I do not know at this moment. A local cop gave her a very brief lesson on how to use a gun. A man walked up to her porch (he was a delivery man who had come to her door mistakenly), the woman freaked out because she did not know who he was, he turned around and began walking away, and the woman shot him in the back. And this shot killed him. The woman was arrested for murder, and the cop lost his job owing to his bad instructions that he gave the woman.

    Lesson: Never shoot anyone outside of your house who is walking away. We cannot always assume a stranger has ill intentions. I support her right to bear arms and to be afraid. This particular man may not have had ill intentions. However, his presentation, at least IMHO, was problematic. He really could have been looking for “Robert.”

    Another lesson: If you want to learn how to properly use a handgun, take lessons from an official gun trainer, and get licensed for CCW.

    Enough said.

    I know what it is to be afraid of strangers. I have experienced stalking. Although, so far, it has not involved–at least for the most part–strange men walking up to the door. (Knock on wood!) A ton of common sense would have kept the woman (the local woman, that is) out of jail, and the cop would still be working.

    Responses (2) +
  • October 15, 2015 at 9:06am


    You are morally confused and philosophically challenged. I don’t believe you really believe what you are saying. What is it you embrace? Whatever viewpoint it is that you embrace, you do so because you think it is preferable to other belief systems. You, therefore, lie to yourself and others. AND, unfortunately, the SCOTUS is just as confused as you are.

    You believe the following: “What’s right for me is right for me, and what’s right for you is right for you.” If what you say is true, and you really embrace it, you should have no problem at all if a Jihadist decides to cut off your head. After all, “it’s right for him.” And you should have no problem with the bombings of the World Trade Center and other events of September 11, 2001. After all, it was “right with them.”

    You are a moral relativist. But moral relativists, when they become a victim of another person, cease being relativists, at least for the moment, and display righteous indignation.

    I hope you grow up someday.

  • [8] October 12, 2015 at 5:21pm

    I don not believe that these out-of-control justices–although I believe this term is a misnomer–merely want to stamp their own beliefs onto us. Instead, they are COWARDS and CAREERISTS. They are terrified of losing their power and becoming politically irrelevant. And this makes them relativists who do not really believe or vote for what is truly right. So, in the end, MIGHT makes RIGHT. In a sense, they might as well vote that 2 plus 2 equals 5. The truth be damned.

    We live in sad and dangerous times.

  • [15] October 12, 2015 at 3:50pm

    Never forget the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Do you all remember the looters pushing buggies of “goodies” that they robbed from stores? And do you think people of this same mentality will limit their looting to stores? NOT!!

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love