Say Anything Blog

It may be interesting to somehow track how life turns out for the children who may have been born but otherwise would not have been without such a law in place. As I understand it, the most common reason for abortion among young children is the lack of a stable income, health insurance, and general maturity needed to raise a child. Will any of that suddenly change due to parental notification?

As I understand it, the most common reason for abortion among young children is the lack of a stable income, health insurance, and general maturity needed to raise a child. Will any of that suddenly change due to parental notification?

Why would it?

I honestly can’t think of one valid reason why parents should not, as a general rule, be notified of their child’s pregnancy. Not one.

Obviously, Rob, because the father raped his daughter and THAT is why she needs and abortion..... obviously... 

likwidshoe, that’s my point exactly. It leads to bringing children into the world who will be raised by people who are not emotionally or financially prepared to do so.

Wouldn’t addressing the issues that lead to people becoming pregnant or deciding to have an abortion (such as the ones listed above) be a more humane way to prevent abortions? 

It may be interesting to somehow track how life turns out for the children who may have been born but otherwise would not have been without such a law in place.

They’re far more likely to end up in jail, use drugs, and give birth out of wedlock. Or so I’ve heard…

Dave: So, killing them before they get the chance to go wrong is the solution?

Sorry about that.  I just don’t think that enabling people to avoid responsibility for their actions does anything to improve society.

Ed Kohler asked, Wouldn’t addressing the issues that lead to people becoming pregnant or deciding to have an abortion (such as the ones listed above) be a more humane way to prevent abortions?

No. Because it doesn’t work. There are always going to be fuckups in life and no amount of programs, knowledge, or education negates that fact. A "more humane way to prevent abortions" is to outlaw them and punish those who commit abortion.

 So, killing them before they get the chance to go wrong is the solution?

I didn’t say that.

Dave: You didn’t say those exact words, but you implied that the saved children would be a negative influence on society, thus indicating that the lower rate of abortion with parental notification is a bad thing.  The obvious conclusion: Abortion(killing them before they are born) is better than having them live.

Parental notification for a medical procedure is noy only important but necessary. I have a friend who was of age and she almost bled to death on the way home after her abortion! I swear the Planned Parenthood clinics are not interested in any after care or follow ups! Abortion is not as easy on the body as it sounds??? If a parent or friend OR Someone isn’t around after to care for the person? All kinds of things can happen. Infections and bleeding to death are just two of many other concerns… In public school students that have so much as an asprin are expelled from school if the parent has not written permission. It would seem if an under age child wanting this procedure should have parental knowledge. Don’t hospitals and doctors have to have permission to operate? Abortion is an operation. I would imagine what ever your feelings on abortion are? A parent would want to be aware of their child having any type of operation?…

Zsa I do not mean this near as mean as it is going to sound so I apologize up front.

Do you have any friends that have not had a tramatic abortion experience? Oh and by the way you can get an infection from any invasive medical procedure.

Zsa Zsa: Was this the same Planned Parenthood that performed that abortion in the 8th month?

Rob wrote:

Parental Notification Law Causes Teen Abortion Rates To Drop In Texas

Article says:

Abortion rates dropped for girls ages 15 through 18, even though the 18-year-olds were not subject to the law.

It looks like just fewer women are having abortions.

"fewer women are having abortions." or their are less drive in movie theaters or they had their abortions in Arizona.

Zsa Zsa has a great point about the deadliness of abortion vs. normal pregnancy; just consider the basic fact that when a baby is born, the  mother is generally only about 50 yards from an emergency room, and stays there for a day or two.  Not so with an abortion, and many have noted that those who go into the abortion trade are generally the lower end of the gynecology class.

Regarding the question of "what about how these kids will grow up?", this claim has been consistently made; that abortion simply eliminates the children who would have had a rough go of it, and that with Roe V. Wade, unwanted children are a smaller proportion.

But if that’s true, why has child abuse exploded?  Why is poverty a more persistent phenomenon than it was in 1973?  I’d suggest it’s partly because dads have learned that they don’t have to marry the women they impregnate in the past 30 years, greatly because abortion is now legal.  As a result, Dad never grows up, and Mom (and child) stay in poverty--growing up to create more out of wedlock births and a crime wave.

Ed-- If there was a rape, she needed to call 911 and report it.  Then the state would become her parent.  Simple, call 911, go to the hospital.  Prosecute him for statutory rape.

Ed-- If there was a rape, she needed to call 911 and report it.  Then the state would become her parent.  Simple, call 911, go to the hospital.  Prosecute him for statutory rape.

Exactly. 

I think everyone on this thread want to prevent abortions. likwidshoe, there are less abortions when people have medical care and a decent job. Take a look at the annual abortion trends. Notice how many fewer abortions there were under the better economy we had during the Clinton administration:

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats_2.htm

 Unfortunately, things have been going the other way lately with cuts to health programs and higher unemployment.

Richard...I hate to say it BUT,most of my friends have had abortions. It was not the same clinic that did the 8th month procedure. That 8th. month abortion was 1975 or 76 and that was in Colorado Springs. This was in Okla. and it was in the 80’s. I am so against abortion But, I still have had friends ask me to go with them or to give them money! Go figure??? I really do know alot of women who use abortion as a means of birth control. That is what makes me sick about it!… I had one friend who came right out and said she refused to take the pill because it made her gain weight! She had multiple abprtions. That was her "CHOICE"...She was the one who asked me for money so she could get an abortion! She was well aware of how against it I am ...

Ed Blathers- Unfortunately, things have been going the other way lately with cuts to health programs and higher unemployment.  -  Both of the bolded points are WRONG!

Ed, Please spend a minute and extrapolate your example to 50 years ago, then to 100 years ago, then to 1000 years ago.  What do you find?  Was the abortion rate higher 50 years ago, or lower?  Was health care easier to get 50 years ago, or now?  Were wages higher 50 years ago or now?  Were the things we have today like cars, air conditioning, TV, x-ray, etc, easier to get 50 years ago, or today?  Again, further extrapolate this to 100 years ago, then 1000 years ago.

We do not have a "reduced" access to health care.  Cuts in health programs in today’s dollars doesn’t mean anything.  We’re still spending more on health entitlements than we did during Clinton’s presidency, and 5000 times as much as we did 50 years ago.

Public funding of "health care" (or the lack of it) does not change our ability to access it.  (not yet anyway. If Hillary has her way, it will be illegal to pay a Doctor cash for services rendered.)  I can go to any doctor in the US, pay him for his services and leave, all without any "assistance" from the government, and I long for the day when more people consider this an option.

My mother works for a Doctor who will see patients for $25 cash if they have no insurance.  

Why do you assume that you have to have insurance in order to seek medical care?  Why do people think that? 

Also, please note that unemployment is NOT higher now than it was under Clinton.

I wouldn’t have given her the money, Zsa Zsa.   I’d give her the advice, "if you don’t want children, can’t afford them or the (relatively cheap) abortion procedure, then DON’T HAVE SEX!"

Ah, but I keep forgetting...  it’s not possible for people to abstain.   

Zsa Zsa wrote: 

That 8th. month abortion was 1975 or 76 and that was in Colorado Springs.

Really? Because right here (http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/02/16/athome_abortions/#c56796) you write:

I know Witchita Kansas will gladly perform an abortion during the 9th month for extra money!

Take a look at the annual abortion trends. Notice how many fewer abortions there were under the better economy we had during the Clinton administration:

Better economy under Clinton or better press coverage of the good economic news while Clinton was in office?  The unemployment rate is currently lower than it ever was while Clinton was in office.  Home ownership is at an all time historical high.  So please explain to me where the bad economy is other than in the pages of the NY Times.

So, if you grant me that we have a better economy now, you might still be right since your uncited statistic of fewer abortions during the Clinton years is a lie.

So, if you grant me that we have a better economy now, you might still be right since your uncited statistic of fewer abortions during the Clinton years is a lie.

Hm. I did not know that. Thanks for the link, Kbiel.

As I understand it, the most common reason for abortion among young children is the lack of a stable income, health insurance, and general maturity needed to raise a child.

 The unspoken implication being that children who would be born to poor, uneducated parents would be better off never having been born.  By that logic, we should be sterilizing anyone on public assistance.

Dave...That is true. The person I know who had an abortion in her 8th. month was in Colorado Springs. Her dad forced her to do it. I was at bording school and when I came back home I asked her what she had, boy or girl? She told me a boy and told me what her dad made her do! She can no longer have children because she had some kind of infection in her tubes or something that prevented her from being able to get pregnant? Wichita will do that procedure. I guess it is not as uncommon as I thought? All the States allow it now.

Rabbit Trail, meet Dave.  Dave, meet Rabbit Trail....  Go buy a blog, they’re just your price!

we should be sterilizing anyone on public assistance

Agreed.  And to make sure they have something to pass the time, lets buy them a Playstation ($300) and some games ($60+ each), oh yeah, and a controller ($40 ?) or two... 

Oh wait, they already have those things… Why is it they can’t seem to be raising their families a little better? 

And before the haters start up, I am talking about (and I suspect kbeil too) the lifelong public assistance types... 

And before the haters start up, I am talking about (and I suspect kbeil too) the lifelong public assistance types…

Oh no.  Don’t include me in that.  I wasn’t advocating sterilization; I was just extending the thought out to its logical conclusion to illustrate its absurditiy.

I was being sarcastic, as I assumed (rightly) you were. 

I do, however, think there might be a program that allows (pays ?) for voluntary sterilization for those who can’t resist the urge, as 2H9 mentions…

The unspoken implication being that children who would be born to poor, uneducated parents would be better off never having been born.  By that logic, we should be sterilizing anyone on public assistance.

kbiel, that may be how you see it, but it is absolutely now how I see it. I imagine you consider people who think that way are crazy, which makes perfect sense. But nobody really believes that.

Using that logic, anyone who decides not to make as many babies as possible once they’ve reach sexual maturity is in essence carrying out murder through abstinence. An equally ludicrous statement.

Seth, why do women have abortions today?

Ed: Actually, Dave has said that very thing a number of times.

I think we might require sterilization to be part of every abortion procedure, especially when it is done with taxpayer money.  After all, if the woman wants to have sex without having to deal with the inevitable consequence, that is the way to do it. 

Using that logic, anyone who decides not to make as many babies as possible once they’ve reach sexual maturity is in essence carrying out murder through abstinence. An equally ludicrous statement.

 What?!?  That is quite the non sequitur.  On the other hand, allowing people to justify abortion because the child might have a rough life can easily be extended to preventing those pregnancies in the first place.

Seth, I didn’t give her the money! I did talk her into having the baby though. She had already had 3 abortions prior to that one. She ended up giving the baby up for adoption. She has some kind of agreement with the adoptive parents where she gets to see him??? I have not seen or spoke to her in years so I am not sure how that all worked out? I do know she spent the first couple of birthdays with the family and she recieved letters from the adoptive parents.

Ed asks - Seth, why do women have abortions today?

Well, Ed, there are a variety of reasons.  I’d have to guess that the majority of Abortions are done as a form of contraception.  The pregnant female determines that she made a mistake in having sex.  She has an abortion to absolve herself of the responsibility of her actions.

Your turn to answer some questions:

What makes you think that health care is being denied to anyone? 

Why do you equate ‘lack of insurance’ with ‘lack of health care’?

Do you know what a doctor charges for an office visit?

Do you realize that most of the costs in the medical industry are related to federal compliance and insurance paperwork? 

Do you think it’s true that repetitively giving people something that they do not work for develops a dependency for that thing?

Is you life better or worse than your great grandfathers?  Why / Why Not? Do you think this is true for most other Americans? Why / Why Not?

She has some kind of agreement with the adoptive parents where she gets to see him???

 Zsa Zsa, well, good!   I’m sure this worked out better for the boy than the alternative.

And going way back to Likwidshoe’s comment - There are always going to be fuckups in life and no amount of programs, knowledge, or education negates that fact. A "more humane way to prevent abortions" is to outlaw them and punish those who commit abortion.

Though it may sound mean, we should prop these people up as the losers they are and show all of our children the reasons NOT TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.  These people would only server as an example to others on how not to live.  The majority would get it faster, seeing the real world example of where being stupid gets you, and within a generation, fewer people would mimic the poor behavior.  By coddling and apologizing for f-ups we tell the next generation that "it’s okay to screw up… someone will cover for you… don’t worry about it." 

For the record, the office in Wichita that does do 9th month infanticide is owned by "Dr." Tiller.  Look up National Right to Life, or any other mainstream right to life group, and you’ll find commentary about the man--whose "expertise" recently sent one of his patients to the hospital, and I believe the morgue.  It is also a fact that abortion often results in sterility due to uterine scarring and/or tubal damage.  That’s what happens when the placenta is separated from the uterus, especially when the woman’s body isn’t otherwise ready for that separation.

Seth -

Amen for the Consequences talk.  We need more people in this country to hear it!  Keep it up!  If you run for something I can vote in, make sure I know about it... 

Tom,

Thank you Sir!  I will, indeed!  Once I figure out, how, where, and when.  

Seth -

Amen for the Consequences talk.  We need more people in this country to hear it!  Keep it up!  If you run for something I can vote in, make sure I know about it... 

Me too Seth.

Awww, thanks Carol!     You just keep Rob motivated and we will do it!

I betting on his becoming governor of ND.  I’m pushing and supporting.  You, Rob, and some of your pals here are the good guys.  (Notice I said "some.)

I keep telling my mom that I have no interest in being a politician.  I’m not sure I’m capable of the kind of butt kissing that takes.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’d think you’d only have to kiss butt until you get it.  Then you slam it to the liberal rats.  Bring some common sense to the political world.

Ed Kohler said, I think everyone on this thread want to prevent abortions. likwidshoe, there are less abortions when people have medical care and a decent job. Take a look at the annual abortion trends. Notice how many fewer abortions there were under the better economy we had during the Clinton administration:

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats_2.htm

Unfortunately, things have been going the other way lately with cuts to health programs and higher unemployment.

I am curious Ed. What do you do when every single bit of your argument is soundly defeated with easily gained facts?

Do you step back and admit that you were totally wrong and that you have no argument left?

The ball is in your court.

Do you step back and admit that you were totally wrong and that you have no argument left?

An excellent question, LikWid.  I like to think I would, in his shoes. 

I am curious about the results of this challenge... 

Ed asks,

why do women have abortions today?

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions

What’s sad about those statistics, were they to be taken as Gospel Truth, is that only 6% of abortions are because of "health", another 2% because of rape (I HIGHLY doubt), which leaves 92% because of some sort of inconvenience… sad....

Dave redeems himself...  Credit given when due!

DocDave - Your comparison between abortions and the cold/flu is a good one, but flawed.  It is actually easier to get rid of an inconvenient baby than a cold or the flu.... 

likwidshoe, that’s my point exactly. It leads to bringing children into the world who will be raised by people who are not emotionally or financially prepared to do so.

Isn’t that what adoption for? Plus if these young people are not ready to take the responsibility of their actions they should not be having sex in the first place.

Plus if these young people are not ready to take the responsibility of their actions they should not be having sex in the first place.

AMEN to that! 

Well, rather than address the question at hand, Ed retaliates…

Thanks for the link, Seth. I’m not going to convince you of anything, so it’s really pointless to try. Instead, it’s just kind of fun to find out just how out there you are on some issues.

If by retaliate, you mean republish your own words, then yes, I retaliated. How O’Reilly of you to consider such an act retaliation. LOL.

DocDave -

I am still not quite sure about "allegory" even with dictionary.com, although one of my favorite movies makes use of it a rather funny line (Paul Bettany), but please be sure I was going for humor, as I assumed you were too. 

I offered the smiley but I can’t get the actual faces to work... 

Ed -

Rather than whine when called to the mat, why don’t you  bring your answer?  And be sure to read Dave’s statistics.  They show that most (over 90%) abortions can be attirbuted to "inconvenience", as Seth said.

Well, it’s just common sense.  If over one million abortions performed yearly were mostly due to rape/incest and/or "health of the mother", we would be having an epidemic of rape and incest of biblical proportions, and an avalanche of health problems associated with pregnancy.  Since neither of those things is true, most abortions must be for birth control purposes.

Yes, poverty is very inconvenient.

Ed: So now you imply that poverty is sufficient justification for abortion?  Do you have any figures on that?  Poor people have less responsibility for their actions than do other people?  They are second-class citizens, then?  Poor people should then practice abstinence, I guess, to be responsible. 

"Poor people should then practice abstinence, I guess, to be responsible." 

Yup!  But to Libs, the idea that ANYONE can be responsible for themselves is reprehensible.  It’s like saying "Minorities can achieve success without Affirmative Action."  Reprehensible to Libs... 

But watch out Robert, you might find yourself the topic of some stupid blog post... 

Seth: Too late!  Way too late.  My point was that using poverty as an excuse for abortion is the same flawed thinking that uses rape/incest or "health of the mother" as an excuse.

I have to say, Robert, that I put "Rape/Some Incest" in a completely different category from "Poverty" or "Poor Choices".   The woman doesn’t have a choice in the first case, and so, I would prefer to leave this decision to the woman.

As far as the "Health of the Mother"… this is a no-brainer for me.  The baby dies.

When anyone makes the choice to have sex, they should have to live with the consequences...  Those not wanting children may choose not to have sex…

Seth, I’m in your corner 100 %.  You and Rob just keep fighting the good fight and we’ll win.

 There is no reason for anyone to go with out health care.  In our own community we have a free clinic that anyone can go to.  It is run by real doctors and real RNs.  If a proverty stricken person has a health problem all he needs to do is check the local health center for information.  It takes a little work.  I met a girl who griped she couldn’t get inhalers for her asthma.  I made one phone call and she’s taken care of.  Help is out there if people look for it.  Some I think though want help to come to them.  But you know how it goes.... "The Lord helps those who help themselves."

Seth, I don’t understand how you can put the health of the mother over the life of an unborn child? Who has more life to live? The mother should have understood the potential dangers of pregnancy of before having sex, don’t you think?

 Stop being such a pro-choice wimp. Grow a spine.

Who has more life to live?

Women, on average, live longer than men. Whites, on average, live longer than blacks. Should we factor this into our everyday decisions? Say, we only have black soldiers fight in wars, not whites? After all, of course, "who has more life to live?". On average, it’s white people!

Babies live longer than adults. Grow a spine, Dave. She made a choice and should die for her unborn child.

Babies live longer than adults.

And women live longer than men. We’ve already covered this. 

She made a choice and should die for her unborn child.

What if the sex was unconsensual? You still support it? Killing a woman who was unlucky enough to be the victim of a rape?

What the heck!   Dave is making sense.  Dang my pre-conceived notions....  (Keep it up, Dave.  Compliments intended!)

Uh, could someone check...  Has Ed responded to Seth’s quesitons?

What if the King of Fools (another post I presume) is right that the health of the mother is a red herring that no longer applies thanks to the advances of modern medicine?  Could we stop killing babies then?

Carol -

You’re funny, when you aren’t helping people, that is...  "Help is out there if people look for it."  It’s the job of the gov’t to bring the hand-outs, er I mean help to the people....  Silly girl.

My son is afraid of horses.  Could you tell me if they are dangerous.  I’ll pass along your answer as an "expert witness".  Thanks. 

Dave, grow a spine. If you’re going to be consistent in your pro-life stance there can be no exceptions.

Seth: I didn’t say they were in the same category, only that they were examples of the same flawed thinking.  That thinking is that it’s OK to kill the unborn child for some social reason.  I don’t buy the rape/incest excuse because it punishes the child for the sins of the father.  Health of the mother might be one of the few legitimate excuses for killing an unborn child, IMO.  I think that is the real choice of the mother.  She can choose to either sacrifice herself or the child.  I do wonder, in this day and age, when 5-months premies are successfully kept alive, ahow many pregnancies are really a threat of death to the mother.  I tend to regard it as the doctor legitimizing abortion.

Ed wrote: 

If you’re going to be consistent in your pro-life stance there can be no exceptions.

I’m judging by this utter lack of a response, Ed, that you do in fact support forcing a raped woman to give birth to a baby even if doing so will cause her to die. You would support sentencing that raped woman to death.

Good question, Dave. I’ll leave that one to the actually pro-lifers on this forum.

Ed: Nice dodge.  The child is still being punished for something that is not its fault.  Justify that.

Sorry robert108. I can’t even pretent to be as far out on this issue as you apparently are.

Ed; Ah, so your position precludes you from doing anything beyond criticizing others? Nice!

Ed: "...far out..."?  Please explain.  I am against putting children to death for the sins of the parents.  That’s "far out"?  What is your "sensible" position?

Robert - You screwed up when you entered this keystroke, "?", in your post to Ed.  He is genetically incapable of responding to those interrogatives…

Me too, robert. Looks like we agree afterall. And do we agree that people should have access to birth control, day after pills, and receive accurate sex education so they understand the consequences of engaging in sexual behavior?

Ed:  If you agree, then why the "far out" classification?  Here are my answers, in order:

Yes, as long as "access" doesn’t include financing with taxpayer money. If it’s a private choice paid for by the individual with their own money, it’s OK with me.  I’m for individual independence.

Not necessarily.  "Day after" pills seem to have health issues.

No, if it’s from anyone other than their parents, in the case of pre-puberty kids.  I think sexualizing them that young creates more problems than it promises to solve.  Public sex education, in any case, seems to be highly agendized in the PC direction.  I also don’t agree that the public education system should function as parent in any area.  I think it should stick with academic subjects, and butt out of the social areas. 

It sounds like you’re more of a libertarian than the religious whacko in the White House. He’s butted into the schools more than any president I can remember.

carol said, I met a girl who griped she couldn’t get inhalers for her asthma.

Tell her that the over-the-counter Primatene Mist inhalers are 14 bucks, the prescription Albuterol inhalers are 18 bucks, and to get off of her lazy ass and go get one.

Ed Kohler says, Stop being such a pro-choice wimp. Grow a spine.

Huh? Ed, you have no argument left. You’re left with nothing but insults.

Sorry robert108. I can’t even pretent to be as far out on this issue as you apparently are.

Avoid it Ed.

It sounds like you’re more of a libertarian than the religious whacko in the White House. He’s butted into the schools more than any president I can remember.

Avoid it Ed. Just mindlessly insult. Don’t admit that you have no argument.

Ed: Instead of dealing with the issue at hand, you change the subject.  BTW, I’m a conservative, most definitely not a libertarian.  The President isn’t a religious whacko.  Any more far leftie talking points?  Are you from Kos or DU?

understand the consequences of engaging in sexual behavior

Does anyone really think there is a large number out there who genuinely don’t already understand this mechanism?

And the Pres "butted into the schools" to get them to actually teach American kids something.  Stuff like Math, Reading, Science, not "geo-political economics" a la "Prof" Bennish.  The NCLB may be a disaster, but I attribute that to the bi-zillion page Legislation mentaility in Wash, DC rather than any particular error on the part of Pres or Ted Kennedy or anyone else.

Ed: It occurs to me that you are probably anti-Christian.  You have that right, just like the President has a right to be Christian.  Or maybe you are one of those lefties that think Christians are not entitled to religious freedom?

Carol -

You’re funny, when you aren’t helping people, that is...  "Help is out there if people look for it."  It’s the job of the gov’t to bring the hand-outs, er I mean help to the people....  Silly girl.

My son is afraid of horses.  Could you tell me if they are dangerous.  I’ll pass along your answer as an "expert witness".  Thanks. 

Tom.  I don’t know what you intended to say here?  Was it with tongue in cheek?

Robert, I don’t buy the rape/incest excuse because it punishes the child for the sins of the father.

 I don’t buy that a woman should have to carry and deliver the product of a hate filled act against her.  These is suffering enough with the rape, this should be her call. 

Making the choice to have sex was a choice to chance creating a life.  There is a big difference here.

Thanks Carol!!!

Ed, Seth, I don’t understand how you can put the health of the mother over the life of an unborn child? Who has more life to live? The mother should have understood the potential dangers of pregnancy of before having sex, don’t you think?

Moron!  I’m not suggesting legislation to FORCE women to bear the child!  But I’m not going to force her DEATH either.  It’s her choice at that point.

Seth: You are right for the mother;  rape is not a choice, consensual sex is a choice.  On the other hand, for the child, it’s all the same: death either way.  So I guess you make a choice: unpleasantness for the mother vs death for the child.  In time, the mother gets compensated by the love of the child.  I’m not saying it’s the ideal situation, but what is?  The child gets no compensation unless it gets to live.  See the difference?

Ed: It occurs to me that you are probably anti-Christian.

Far from it. Ed is actually the Antichrist! Look at the horns! Mwahahahaha!!!

Carol -

The Silly Girl comment was tongue-in-cheek.  The horse question was also, but to a lesser degree...  My son is afraid of them. 

Dave: How is that different from anti-Christian?