Pro-Life Pajama Mama

4D Ultrasound at 12 weeks

2008-03-17T14:33:00.003-05:00

Here's a 4D video of a baby at 12 weeks gestation (at the end of the first trimester) when most abortions occur.

"Rational and Informed" vs. "Hysterical and Manipulated"

2007-04-28T13:17:00.000-05:00

Interesting how the entire pro-abortion machine insists that a woman who chooses to kill her unborn child is a "rational, informed, and self-directed individual"; however, if she grows to regret her abortion and suffers from guilt and depression as a result, suddenly she is a "mentally unstable victim of pro-life rhetoric".

Funny how when a woman's feelings support the pro-abortion agenda, pro-aborts applaud her "strength and self-determination"; however, when her personal reality contradicts the abortion promoters, the woman is deemed a "hysterical object of pity and ignorance". Supposed "feminists" are quick to dismiss the negative feelings that a post-abortive woman experiences (although thousands of sworn affidavits have been submitted to Congress). Poor, poor creature.

It's notable how pro-aborts decry showing graphic photos of aborted fetuses, and even the offering of an ultrasound to a mother considering abortion because it might "make her feel bad". Sounds like concern for her "feminine sensibilities", doesn't it? But, don't pro-aborts say that she is a smart person who can handle the unwhitewashed medical facts? What is more truthful and objective than a picture unaccompanied by commentary?

Patients are not expected to do their own research into heart surgery, then procure a heart surgeon to perform their self-prescribed remedy. A surgeon who fails to explain a procedure's ins and outs, risks and side-effects to a patient is guilty of malpractice. An abortionist who does the same is made very, very wealthy off the back of a desperate and possibly uninformed woman. Like a crack addict, a woman comes to an abortionist whom she's never met (so much for the private relationship "between a woman and 'her' doctor"), and like a crack dealer, the abortionist "takes care" of the woman ("makes her well" so to speak) for a steep financial price. Never mind the long-term price to her psychological, emotional, and possibly physical health.

The pro-abortion machine capitalizes on a pregnant woman's desperation and deliberately-induced ignorance of the facts, then accepts her after-experience only when it suits their agenda. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that abortionists, and the legislators and judges who protect them, are interested in only one thing; making sure that a woman "chooses" (or rather is coerced into) aborting her child. Money and a sick twisted version of feminist ideology are the driving forces behind this campaign of death, and the perpetrators should be ashamed of themselves for disengenuously hiding behind "right to privacy" and "women's equality" and other made-up "rights" to accomplish their disgusting goals.

The assembly line at the butcher shop is open for business and women are lining up after being told that it is the answer to all of their problems.

So much for "safe, legal and rare".

Regret does not mean dwelling on tragedy

2007-02-27T15:02:00.000-05:00

Many women AND men may be afraid to admit that they regret a past abortion for fear of implying that they don't love their present children or their present spouse.

Some spouses may take it this way. It's easy to see why. Had you not aborted your child, it may be unlikely that you would have met your spouse or had the children that you currently have. It's important that you gauge your spouse's personality and determine whether it is wise to express these feelings. If you do decide to go ahead and talk about this issue, it is useful to craft your words to make it perfectly clear that your feelings are not about rejecting your current family; what it IS about is examining one's life.

Make it clear that, only through the love and wonder that your loved ones have brought to your life have you discovered what a gift you rejected in the past by turning to abortion. You are grateful that God has seen fit to give you a wonderful spouse and children in spite of your past rejection of that gift.

You can regret the past and still embrace the present, if you just trust in God. Regret doesn't necessarily have to mean dwelling on tragedy...just learning from it is enough.

"An unexamined life is not worth living."
- Socrates

And the hits just keep on comin'...

2007-02-21T16:55:00.000-05:00

RE: World's Smallest Surviving Preemie Goes Home From Hospital

You know, it's amazing how science and medicine continue to chop down pro-aborts' arguments one by one. Sonograms, 3D Sonograms, embryology, post-natal care and pre-natal surgery all continue to chip away at the "fetuses are not people" hogwash.

Older and larger babies than this miracle child, born at 21-1/2 weeks from conception, are allowed to be legally chemically burned to death, dismembered, and brain-drained in the process of abortion, all in the name of convenience. It can only become more obvious to all people that the abomination that we call abortion must be stopped in the name of humanity.

"No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars or sailed an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit."
- Helen Keller (1880 - 1968)

Something to think about...

2007-02-20T20:04:00.000-05:00

There are lots of stories in the news today that would be great to write about...but today, I feel like sharing some simple but wise words that come in the form of a song called "Find Yourself" by country artist Brad Paisley;

When you find yourself
In some far off place
And it causes you to rethink some things
You start to sense that slowly
You're becoming someone else
And then you find yourself
When you make new friends in a brand new town
And you start to think about settlin' down
The things that would have been lost on you
Are now clear as a bell
And you find yourself
Yeah that's when you find yourself
Where you go through life
So sure of where you’re headin'
And you wind up lost and it's
The best thing that could have happened
‘Cause sometimes when you lose your way it's really just as well
Because you find yourself
Yeah that’s when you find yourself
When you meet the (child)
That you've been waitin' for
And she's everything that you want and more
You look at her and you finally start to live for some one else
And then you find yourself
That’s when you find yourself
When we go through life
So sure of where we're headin'
And we wind up lost and it's
The best thing that could have happened
‘Cause sometimes when you lose your way it's really just as well
Because you find yourself
Yeah that's when you find yourself

"If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans."
- unknown

"The only moral abortion is YOUR abortion"

2007-02-17T11:48:00.000-05:00

I'm assuming you have heard the phrase "The only moral abortion is MY abortion"? It's a method that "pro-choicers" use to point out hypocrisy of the pro-life side. They hold up examples of preachers and other pro-lifers who have had or have sent their daughters in for abortions while maintaining that abortion is wrong "except in their particular and unique situation".

While I find the behavior of these so-called "pro-lifers" hypocritical, offensive, and quite sad, I also submit to you that the "pro-choice" side bears their own burden of hypocrisy, combined with a hefty dose of elitism and judgment.

You see, it's very popular today to proclaim "I believe that it is wrong to kill an unborn child, and I would not do it to my child. But, I think it's okay for other unborn children to be aborted if their mother so chooses, especially if the mother is young or poor or the child is deformed."

In other words "The only moral abortion is the abortion of YOUR child. Please, do your substandard kid a favor and end his miserable life before he is born."

It's important to understand that this "pro-choice" view is much more prevalent than the former "pro-life" view. Understand that there are disengenuous people on both sides and that none of them deserve respect. Consistency is the only truth.

"Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering - and it's all over much too soon." - Woody Allen (1935 - )

Children WORSE off in U.S., even with the "panacea" of 34 years of legal, on-demand abortions

2007-02-15T09:46:00.000-05:00

RE: U.S., U.K. rank last in survey of child welfare - UNICEF report looked at industrialized countries.

Sadly, abortion supporters will look at this as a function of financial and social inequality, when in reality, it is a function of the legacy of 34 years of legal abortion/infanticide and the inevitable devaluation of children as an important and fundamental resource of our society. I call it "The Culture of the Disposable Child".

If, after 34 years, abortion has failed to solve all social ills, as it was promised and is still promised to do, then why is it still touted as "The Answer"? Why is it still tolerated? Why hasn't it been properly analyzed and critiqued as to whether it is a legitimate vehicle of social engineering? I submit to you that it IS an effective vehicle of social engineering...of the worst kind. It has successfully reduced the morals of this country to the lowest common denominator, requiring the bare minimum of our government, of our medical providers, of our mothers, AND of our fathers. After all, isn't it easier to just ELIMINATE a group of people that may be more susceptible to problems than it is to solve the actual problems? Abortion is simply and purely a function of laziness and apathy, which inevitably carries over to affect the lives of BORN children in the long run. This was not the initial goal of legalizing abortion, but it has become the reality of this poorly thought out policy.

Since abortion was legalized in 1973; child abuse/murder rates are up; rates of sexual abuse of children are up; teen sex rates are up; teen pregnancy rates are up; STD rates are up; child poverty rates have increased; the number of deadbeat dads is up; violence BY children is up; teen drug, alcohol, and smoking rates are up; teen suicide rates are up; breast cancer rates are up (more info); infertility rates among women are up; rates of depression and suicide among women are up: the social security system is in crisis because we're not replacing tax-paying workers quickly enough to continue to pay for the elderly who are living longer than ever thanks to medical advances.

It's amazing to me that our society labels the practice of abortion as "beyond reproach"...it's just more of the same...ideology trumping other truly sound policies.

"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency."
- Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919), 'The Strenuous Life,' 1900

Happy Birthday, Susan B. Anthony! Your feminist pro-life legacy lives on...

2007-02-14T21:08:00.000-05:00

Here is a letter I received from Feminists for Life. I thought it would be nice to share it with you:
____________

One hundred and eighty-seven years ago today, Susan Brownell Anthony was born in Adams, Massachusetts. Celebrate her life with us.

Here are some things to read, some things to do, some things to buy, some things to post, some things to dream—something for everyone to do to honor the great suffrage organizer who left us with so many great gifts to love!

Do what is meaningful to you—but for Susie's sake—and those we serve: Do something!

- Read all about it! Susan B. Anthony: Pro-Life Feminist? In the latest issue of The American Feminist,® FFL staffer Cat Clark sets the record straight about Susan B. Anthony's opposition to abortion.

- Wear your heart on your sleeve—or tote, t-shirt, guest towels, pillows and more. Download and print your free Susan B. Anthony iron-on transfer designs.
View the transfer images and download!
Read the directions and get some ideas!

- It's Herstory Worth Repeating: Susan B. Anthony, 1820-1906 Spring 1998, pg. 19

- Tell ’em like it is: Susan B. Anthony Quotes - also available to download or purchase as a part of the Voices of Our Feminist Foremothers poster

- Download and post Susan B. Anthony ad (read guidelines)
Large 8.5"x11"
Small 4"x6"

- Feminists for Life continues the legacy of our feminist foremothers

- Be inspired to create a radically loving world: Read about FFL's dream campus including the Susan B. Anthony Child Care Center!

- Share a loving cup: Susan B. Anthony and other feminist foremother mugs.

- It's not too late. Tell a friend you have bought a copy of ProLife Feminism Yesterday and Today: Expanded Second Edition, and it's winging its way to her now!

I hope you found something in our Susan B. Anthony e-kit to share with someone you love. Because women deserve better,
Serrin M. Foster
President Feminists for Life of America

In Susan B. Anthony's publication The Revolution, was written:
"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive; love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh,
thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"
Abortion was referred to as "child murder."
- The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

"We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil...It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed."
- The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
"All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy."
- The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

___________
Let's all remember that the ORIGINAL feminists denounced abortion as a tool used to oppress women, NOT to free them. Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.

"Our children change us... whether they live or not."
- Lois McMaster Bujold, "Barrayar", 1991

Death Certificates for Aborted Babies - Finally! Now enforce "Abuse of Corpse" laws and we'll be getting somewhere...

2007-02-14T16:59:00.000-05:00

RE: Tennessee Bill Would Require Death Certificates for Aborted Fetuses
Wednesday, February 14, 2007

It's about time.

I've long wondered why doctors who perform abortions are not required to submit death certificates for the dead babies. Shouldn't autopsies and exams be required to determine whether the baby was indeed deformed/imperfect/ill, especially if that was the reason that the baby's mother "chose" to kill him?

Also, shouldn't the death certificate show cause of death as "homicide"? If not, what WOULD be appropriate to list as the cause of death?

While we're at it, let's require that abortionists follow "Abuse of Corpse" laws as follows:

a) follow guidelines for handling of the dead body of the aborted baby as they would for any human remains. The disposal of the body must be either by cremation, burial or other dignified means, as opposed to being thrown in and mixed with the ripped apart and mangled body parts of hundreds of other aborted babies, then thrown into a dumpster labeled "medical waste". The mother killing her baby should have to also pay for the cost of this dignified disposal, in addition to the fee she must pay for the abortionist's "medical abortion services".

b) before the abortion, obtain a signed release from the baby's mother giving the abortionist permission to harvest the dead baby's organs and other body parts to DONATE to science. I though that profiting financially from the SALE of the body parts of another human being was illegal in this country?

In these ways, little by little, the Pro-Life Movement will win. It's only a matter of time. Soon, the Supreme Court will no longer be able to look the other way from their duty to protect the most defenseless of all American citizens.

"Constant dripping hollows out a stone."
- Lucretius

Suicide vs. Abortion - Are both informed choices?

2007-02-13T09:45:00.000-05:00

I've always been amazed at the hypocrisy and downright contradiction when pro-aborts say that a woman who commits suicide is not in her "right mind", but that a woman who aborts her unborn baby is "a mature woman making an informed and conscientious choice whose judgment should be trusted without question".

But wait...isn't it the woman's body to do with as she pleases, even if she's only 12? Aren't we supposed to support ANY decision a woman makes, regardless of what we personally think of it? Isn't "right" and "wrong" only a matter of what each individual believes? And if so, why shouldn't every woman be able to attempt suicide and face no repurcussions when she is unsuccessful. After all, it's HER body, right? No one should be able to tell her what to do with HER body, should they? Especially the government! By that logic, I guess women should be able to freely use drugs, self-mutilate, and become prostitutes without the law "standing in the way of her personal freedom of choice". Rubbish.

I find it ironic that the abortion industry insists on discounting women's testimony of the trauma that past abortions have caused them, manifesting in Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS). When the statistics are shown to them, they dismiss them by saying, "well, these women had emotional and psychological problems to begin with". So which is it? Are women who seek abortions "mature, responsible and capable women making a difficult but informed decision that is beyond reproach" or are they "mentally ill women whose psychological problems before or after an abortion are of no concern or consequence to the abortion industry"?

It is obvious to me that the abortion industry cares NOTHING for women...they only care for her money and the government subsidies that keep their bank accounts fat and happy. If you believe that the abortion industry cares about the health of women while they promote consequence free sex and fallible birth control, you probably also believe that Phillip-Morris really wants to help people quit smoking while they secretly manipulate nicotine levels in their cigarettes. It's just baloney.

And people are eating it between two slices of white bread with Miracle Whip...but they ARE starting to gag on it a little...encouraging.

"Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try."
- Peggy Noonan (1950 - ), in Good Housekeeping

Absurd Initiative about same-sex marriage would be a great way to get people talking about abortion

2007-02-06T17:09:00.000-05:00

Interesting story today: The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has introduced an initiative in the state legislature;
_________

Initiative 957
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:
- add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
- require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
- require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
- establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
- make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

What we are about
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.
The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."
_________________

I think this is actually a very good illustration of how to dismantle an opponent's argument, and it does well what it means to do; illustrate the flaw of arguing against same-sex marriage based on the assumption that the only reason for marriage between a man and a woman is to create children.

Because of the success of this argument, I wonder if an Initiative would be embraced by any state or the U.S. legislature allowing a mother to murder her child up to the age of three years old, since (according to pro-abortion arguing points):

- the toddler is smaller than a teen or an adult;
- the toddler is less developed than a teen or an adult;
- the toddler is utterly dependent on other adults for his or her survival, and;
- the toddler is generally not recognized as sentient, or self-aware, since most of us do not have any memory of being younger than three.
- the mother would not have to provide reasons for her actions, but some reasons that might surface are;
* the baby would interfere with the mother’s education;
* the baby would be better off dead than live with a disability;
* the baby is being or has been abused, and would therefore be better off dead, or;
* the baby’s mother is having financial difficulties and needs to lighten her load – additionally the baby would be better off dead than poor.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up Roe v. Wade. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitional and thus weaken Roe itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the pro-abortion lobby who have long screamed that abortion should be legal because an unborn child is not a person be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

"This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being thoroughly worn out before you are thrown on the scrap heap; the being a force of Nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy."
- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950), Man and Superman, Epistle Dedicatory

Who IS allowed to speak?

2007-02-01T22:29:00.000-05:00

I had an abortion in 1989. I have come to terms with it and now my goal is to educate as many people as possible about the facts of abortion. After all, if we're going to be given a choice, shouldn't we have all of the facts, told from both sides of the issue? It seems to me, though, that women have a right to choose as long as they do so based on the scant information that the abortion industry and our government want to reveal to her.

Anyway, when I debate about abortion, I always reveal my past experience with abortion, and I inevitably get my favorite response from pro-aborts (that is, I hear it when they've run out of counter-points and have nothing more constructive to say) It goes something like this:

"You're a hypocrite...you had an abortion, so who are you to criticize other women who have one?" (Sometimes followed with nonsense about "glass houses" and "stones"...)

This reminds me of one of the other favorite mantras of the pro-abort Feminazis; "Men don't have a uterus so they have no right to have an opinion about abortion." (Sometimes followed with nonsense about "9 months of misery" and "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"...whatever)

My question is this; Who's left? I mean, after eliminating the two groups; men and women who have had an abortion, the only group left is women who have NOT had abortions. I ask, does this make sense? What makes the opinion of women who have not had an abortion any more valuable than that of men? How can the opinion of a woman who has not had an abortion be viewed as more imporant or worthy of attention than the opinion of a woman who has gone through one? Who better to attest to the pros and cons of all aspects of abortion than a woman who has walked that walk?

Instead, pro-aborts promote abortion as a panacea for all of the ills of society. Then, when women are suckered by the political climate that says abortion is ok, right? because it's legal, right? then it's open season on the woman if she expresses that she had a negative experience. It's an almost sadistic attitude that says; "If a woman is stupid enough to get an abortion, she deserves all the misery she gets. She will have to answer to God for her actions." I personally think that's a sick, sadistic view and smacks a little of a "survival of the fittest" philosophy. Eugenics, anyone? Genocide, anyone? Elitism, anyone?

The hidden message that pro-aborts give when they say these things is not that the opinions of women who've had abortion and of men don't count; they just don't count if they're pro-life. For all of the talk of "choice", pro-aborts are VERY intent on squelching the voices of those who disagree with them and castigating women who fell for the abortion propaganda machine.

"Trust one who has gone through it."
- Virgil (70 BC - 19 BC), The Aeneid

Pro-choice-but-only-for-reasons-that-I-think-are-worthy

2007-01-30T11:46:00.000-05:00

What I always find interesting about "pro-choice" arguments is that most always follow with the caveat "but I don't believe abortion should be used as birth control or multiple times by irresponsible women who refuse to use reliable birth control."

Why not? If abortion is morally acceptable...if abortion is perfectly safe...if abortion is nothing more than the equivalent of removing a cancerous tumor...then why shouldn't a woman do it 50 times? 100 times? If it is perfectly normal and acceptable to do it once, then it should be perfectly normal and acceptable to do it an unlimited number of times. Why on the second, third or fourth abortion is suddenly a woman viewed with disgust, even by those who portend to be "pro-choice"? If you're truly pro-choice, why shouldn't you applaud a mother who aborts her unborn baby simply because her dog doesn't like kids OR if the unborn baby is a boy and the mother only wanted a girl. Why not...it's her choice, isn't it? Nothing at all wrong with abortion, is there? It's not a baby yet, so there's really no difference between preventing a pregnancy and terminating one, is there? Why aren't pro-choicers in favor of women just ditching birth control pills and condoms and getting abortions every other month?

I'll tell you why. It's because, deep down, "pro-choicers" know that abortion takes the life of another human being, and they KNOW that taking the life of another human being is WRONG, no matter what the circumstances. Their acceptance of abortion to fix a "temporary lapse of judgment and responsibility" by a mother is merely a rationalization to demonstrate how "woman-friendly" they are. It's a feel-good, politically correct smokescreen used by spineless individuals to deflect conflict from themselves so they can sit in their comfortable little world and turn a blind eye to the horrors of abortion. As it is, abortion is being accepted under the guise of "choice" as somewhat of a "get out of jail free card" for women who just refuse to acknowledge the implied acceptance of the chances of getting pregnant by participating in an act (sex) that inevitably eventually leads to the creation of another individual human life. There's a political agenda that we've all been brainwashed to accept in this country, and "pro-choicers" have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. Question: Why don't men get a "get out of jail free card", too? Why are the "choices" for men so limited? They are limited to whatever the mother decides? Why is the mantra for men "he should have kept it in his pants", when it is so politically incorrect to say the same thing about the woman, especially when women should actually have MORE incentive to do so considering the increased stake she has in preventing pregnancy? Women have the choices of; have the baby and keep him or her; have the baby and give him or her up for adoption; have the baby and take him or her to a nearby hospital or fire station and drop them off without consequence or further responsibility; or kill the unborn baby before he or she has a chance to live out their natural life (a life that was brought about by the mother and father's actions, as we all know). The last choice supposedly ends all further consequences and effects on the mother for the rest of her life (we now know that this is not always the case; many women are physically injured or killed by abortion, and a large portion of women are psychologically and emotionally harmed by abortion, sometimes leading to suicide or at least a long, painful path of self-destruction through substance abuse and/or promiscuity.)
A father's choice is; let the mother make the decision kill their child without any input or consideration of the father's wants or feelings, or; be emotionally and financially responsible for a child that THEY may not have wanted but had no say in whether he or she was born (we know this is not true; the father ALSO had the option of not having sex to prevent the life for which he is now responsible, whether the child is allowed to be born or not). The ultimate result of abortion-on-demand for women will be that men will win the right to financially abandon their progeny in the interest of equal rights, which will in turn promote MORE abortions. This is a slippery slope we're on here, people.

If abortion were to be allowed AT ALL, it should only be allowed for women under the age of consent in the state in which they reside. After all, they are really the only ones who cannot legally consent to the act of sex, regardless of their willingness to participate, and therefore do not have the ability to enter into an implied contract between themselves and any unborn human being who comes into being because of her actions. This is the only logical policy if the "pro-choice" argument were to be implemented in it's truest form.

We all know that this is ridiculous because the life within the mother is human, regardless of how he or she came to be or of the age of the mother. The circumstances of his or her existence are irrelevant.

Get a grip, people. Without the inherent right to life, all subsequent rights are meaningless.

I wonder if Al Gore would consider making a documentary entitled "An Inconvenient Life"?

"Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress at all, but just terrible things."
- Russell Baker (1925 - )