Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day

Gingi Edmonds-The face of religious extremist immorality!

Posted in Skepdude by Skepdude on March 25, 2009

I previously linked to a Pharyngula entry about the Montana plane crash that killed 14 people, 7 of them children. As PZ pointed out some self appointed Christian “moralist” decided to use this tragedy as a cheap shot to make a case for his antiabortion views. It is time for Mrs. Edmonds to pay the price for her insolence, Skepfeeds style.

Gingi, opens her piece of crap article with this:

Some of you may have seen the major news story of the private plane that crashed into a Montana cemetery, killing 7 children and 7 adults.

But what the news sources fail to mention is that the Catholic Holy Cross Cemetery owned by Resurrection Cemetery Association in Butte – contains a memorial for local residents to pray the rosary, at the ‘Tomb of the Unborn’. This memorial, located a short distance west of the church, was erected as a dedication to all babies who have died because of abortion.

Completely and utterly irrelevant! Why should the news sources even mention that? Only by some strange twisting of logic would one find something conspiratorial about this. That tell us right away what kind of person we’re dealing with here.

What else is the mainstream news not telling you? The family who died in the crash near the location of the abortion victim’s memorial, is the family of Irving ‘Bud’ Feldkamp, owner of the largest for-profit abortion chain in the nation.

Obviously when reporting the death of 14 people and SEVEN CHILDREN, one of the first things you ought to report is the occupation of the parents, of course. That and the fact that there was some stupid memorial set up by a bunch of morons who just like to feel like they are morally superior the rest of us. Obviously!

Family Planning Associates was purchased four years ago by Irving Moore “Bud” Feldkamp III, owner of Allcare and Hospitality Dental Associates and CEO of Glen Helen Raceway Park in San Bernardino. The 17 California Family Planning clinics perform more abortions in the state than any other abortion provider – Planned Parenthood included – and they perform abortions through the first five months of pregnancy.

Well, isn’t that evil! And what does that have to do with the plane crash you might ask. Patience, patience my child.

Although Feldkamp is not an abortionist, he reaps profits of blood money from the tens of thousands of babies that are killed through abortions performed every year at the clinics he owns. His business in the abortion industry was what enabled him to afford the private plane that was carrying his family to their week-long vacation at The Yellowstone Club, a millionaires-only ski resort.

Ah so the father was bad, bad, bad. And he’s rich too, so that must be a bad thing as well. Just wait a little longer, she must be getting to a point here. I personally think that such ad hominems are irrelevant to the question of the crash, but I am a little biased, I am reasonable!

In my time working for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, I helped organize and conduct a weekly campaign where youth activists stood outside of Feldkamp’s mini-mansion in Redlands holding fetal development signs and raising community awareness regarding Feldkamp’s dealings in child murder for profit. Every Thursday afternoon we called upon Bud and his wife Pam to repent, seek God’s blessing and separate themselves from the practice of child killing.

Well isn’t that nice! Stalkers! I am sure they were doing God’s work. I wonder would they be willing to slay their sons if their God asked them to?

I don’t want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual ‘I told you so’ moment, but I think of the time spent outside of Feldkamp’s – Pam Feldkamp laughing at the fetal development signs, Bud Feldkamp trying not to make eye contact as he got into his car with a small child in tow – and I think of the haunting words, ‘Think of your children.’ I wonder if those words were haunting Feldkamp as well as he stood in the snow among the remains of loved ones, just feet from the ‘Tomb of the Unborn’?

But you just did turn this tragic event into an “I told you so“, and it is despicable and creepy and assholerish! Is she trying to say that Mr. Feldkamp had this coming? That this is what the stalkers were trying to warn him about? And here I am thinking the stalkers’ main objective was to harass the guy, not warn him for his sake. They must be nice stalkers! I would think the words “Think of your children” are more threatening than they are prophetic, but that’s just me.

I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation. I pray that God will use this unfortunate catastrophe to soften the hearts of Bud and Pam and that they will draw close to the Lord and wash their hands of the blood of thousands of innocent children, each as precious and irreplaceable as their own.

Right, because that’s what you PREY upon isn’t it, moments of great tragedy and emotional turmoil to turn it into a profitable situation for you! What a bully! And this is supposed to draw them closer to God? I would imagine they would rip God’s head of his shoulders if he so much as showed his face around them.  Your Lord is nothing but a bloodthirsty bully, a tyrant who can’t stop killing innocent children to punish their parents right? I mean isn’t that what he did to the Egyptians and according to you to the Feldkamps? You should be ashamed of this God.

“I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then.” (Deut. 30:19)

And also Mrs. Edmonds you should be ashamed of yourself. There you go rubbing your belly,  full of pride and pleasure at someone else’s tragedy.  You think this fantasy you have constructed makes sense. You seem to think this is fair, that the only way to save “unborn babies from being killed” is by killing other babies and kids.  For using this event this way you are a despicable human being.

Mrs. Edmonds you claim to have chosen life…but you are gloating over death!

49 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. a said, on March 25, 2009 at 2:04 PM

    Um, have you looked at her website? Gingi’s a girl, not a guy, FYI.

    • Skepdude said, on March 25, 2009 at 5:07 PM

      Actually no I haven’t. Ok, everyone in your mind replace every he/his with she/her. Thank you a.

      Update-just cause I’m such a nice guy I’ve fixed everything so you don’t have to do a mental swap as you’re reading. Ain’t I great?

    • warriorwoman73 said, on December 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM

      Who care what her gender is? She’s a hypocrite and is NOT “Christian” in the least…merely delusional.

  2. Pain said, on March 26, 2009 at 4:49 AM

    We are overwhelmed with outrage at this arrogant little person and her cockeyed worldview. What people cannot get from companionship and relationships it seems they replace with religious insanity. She should apologize to the Feldkamps–immediately.

  3. Ajax said, on March 26, 2009 at 6:24 PM

    Skepdude, you rock!
    Mrs. Edmonds you claim to have chosen life…but you are gloating over death!…….ouch!

  4. Pages tagged "religious" said, on March 27, 2009 at 1:19 AM

    [...] bookmarks tagged religious Gingi Edmonds-The face of religious extremist immo… saved by 3 others     musicloverchica bookmarked on 03/27/09 | [...]

  5. WBN said, on March 27, 2009 at 11:30 AM

    Actually, the lady is not gloating; she is merely pointing out the irony of the crash being so close to the Tomb of the Unborn. Some people really think the unborn living are really humans! I notice she didn’t say all the horrible things about the family she disagrees with that you said about her. Hmmmm, interesting.

    • Skepdude said, on March 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM

      And what are the horrible things that I attributed to her that she did not say?

      Secondly, you don’t have to say something explicitly in order to imply it.

    • warriorwoman73 said, on December 15, 2012 at 12:52 PM

      Well then, you need to re-read the article WBN, because she most certainly did say nothing but hateful things about the Feldkamp family. Ignorance really is bliss, apparently. Gingi is NOT Christian – she’s got down the talk, but lacks the love and compassion. She’s going to the hell she gloats about.

  6. Lindsey K said, on March 27, 2009 at 11:36 AM

    Nice article SkepDude. That broad’s been crazy for a loooong time. I even had to file a police report against her for harrassment!! “Survivor of the abortion holocaust”? Yeah, and I’m the pope. Check out the link below if you want to read a little pro-life vs. pro-choice action.

    And yes, it’s beyond offensive that some idiot with a keyboard would in any way insinuate that the people AND CHILDREN who were killed in the plane crash had somehow brought it upon themselves. What a black hearted psychotic freak.

    http://24yearsexperience.blogspot.com/2009/01/ha-ha-she-called-herself-whore.html

  7. John said, on March 27, 2009 at 12:40 PM

    Does anyone else not find it suspicious that Gingi knows so much about this incident? How did she know about the Tomb? And only 2 days after? And who took the picture of the crash right when it happened? How many people are in Butte MO cemetary with a digital camera and can snap such a great quality pic?

    Gingi, where were you that day?

    Hmmm…maybe I watch too much TV, but this is very odd that so much information is known by her, all these “coincidences” work out just right for her article…

    And on her page she says she’s an author and photographer? Ummmmmm, ok, I don’t know.

  8. MJH said, on March 31, 2009 at 4:46 PM

    WBN is the mother of the scum Gingi.

  9. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on April 8, 2009 at 3:03 PM

    If Gingi had written on behalf of animal rights, her action woul by now be praised to high heavens. Her mistake was to speak on behalf of the most vulnerable members of humanity, the unborn. I wonder whose moral values have been compromised.

    • Skepdude said, on April 8, 2009 at 3:27 PM

      That doesn’t make sense to me, I’m having a hard time thinking of the animal rights equivalent to this story. What would that be, a researcher who works with animals, and then his dogs die or something? You must elaborate, Doctor!

  10. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on April 8, 2009 at 7:39 PM

    Skepdude,

    I just finished reading your comments again to make sure I will not be misquoting what you stated. You said the following:

    1. “Why should the news sources even mention that?”

    The reason is very simple. The media did identify Dr. Feldkamp as the owner of a dental clinic in San Bernardino. This represents a minor investment of this man. A dental clinic brings peanuts in profits when compared with 17 abortion clinics. Was this omission accidental or intentional by the media? You be the judge.

    2. “That and the fact that there was some stupid memorial set up by a bunch of morons who just like to feel like they are morally superior the rest of us.”

    You have just insulted millions of Catholics who consider human life a sacred gift of God. I am not a Catholic, but I admire the Pope’s stand on what is right regardless of the consequences. For two millenia life was considered sacred. Now it has been cheapened beyond recognition. I admire the Catholic position on abortion. The Pope is not looking which way the moral winds are blowind like many Americans do. This is a moral asset and not a sign of supidity.

    3. “’Think of your children’ are more threatening than they are prophetic, but that’s just me.”

    According to the report. Mrs. Feldkamp just laughed in response to this “alleged” threat. How can a 16 sweet young girl be looked upon as threatening is beyond me. Did she carry a gun, or were they there merely praying and appealing to the conscience of this man?

    4. Your Lord is nothing but a bloodthirsty bully, a tyrant who can’t stop killing innocent children to punish their parents right?

    Did Gingi suggest that God killed those three innocent families? It looks like you are jumping the gun. Please, read her remarks again. I do not see in her report describing God in such a light. The Lord is our protector. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances he removes said protection from us. God removed his protection even from his own Son when the Jewish leaders crucified him. Would you argue that God killed his own son? Neither did God protect millions of martyrs who perished at the hand of their enemies. Would you conclude that God killed those faithful Christians?

    5. There you go rubbing your belly, full of pride and pleasure at someone else’s tragedy.

    Where do you see the pleasure in what Gingi has written. I do not see her gloating over the tragic event, but rather crying for the victims and also for the victims of abortion.

    6. Mrs. Edmonds you claim to have chosen life…but you are gloating over death!

    You must be clairvoyant. You can read Gingi’s mind and emotions, but your can’t read what she has written!

  11. Lindsey K said, on April 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM

    Wow Nic, for a Ph.D. (a supposed Ph.D. anyway, god knows the internet is full of liars and idiots using photoshop) you sure do seem to have some trouble grasping the written word. Nowhere in Gingi’s craptastic “article” does she write that she is “crying for the victims”, but rather her “article” implies that this death was some sort of divine retribution. Does she come out and say that directly? No, but the implication was strong enough to make bloggers around the nation run for their keyboards to disprove the claims made by the sorry excuse for a human being known as Gingi Edmonds.

    I can’t speak for the writer of this particular blog, but if you’re looking for someone who’s clairvoyant, I’m your girl. Heck, I can tell from here that you’re a sad, misguided soul who talks a lot, but says nothing of value. Pretty accurate, huh? :-)

    You think that thinly veiled threats such as “think of your children” are funny? Seriously? You must have been living in a cave for the past twenty years if you think that teenagers aren’t capable of murder. Mary Bell was only ten when she and a friend murdered a young boy. Think of Columbine-they were teenagers. What about the murder of James Bulger or the case of Carol Ann Fugate? For someone claiming to have a Ph. D, you should really think (or at least research) before you speak (or in this case, type).

    Anyhow, you’re probably Gingi pretending to be a new person by inventing a fake name (she does that) or her sister using a made up account (she does that too) so your words mean nothing to me. Nothing of importance anyway.

    Have a nice day. :-)

  12. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on April 14, 2009 at 9:19 PM

    Lindsey K,

    I am responding in spite of your insulting tone for Gingi’s sake and for the sake of the average three thousand abortions that are performed every day in America on unborn children whose only guilt is merely having not had the chance to take their first breath yet. I suspect that you will pile additional insults when you respond to my posting. I will try to avoid such debasing tactics.

    If you need documentation in order to verify that my Ph.D. diploma is genuine, I can provide it. It took me a decade to complete the program on a part time basis, since I could not neglect my normal real estate business entirely, and I did this for the sake of the unborn. This tremendous investment in time and money I do not expect to recoup this side of eternity, since I am 77 and I am not looking for a teaching job at a university. I did this because my religious community would not give me a chance to be heard without a title attached to my name. I invested thousands of hours into this goal, and now you argue that I am an “idiot.” May the good Lord forgive you! Please, do not interpret this as a threat, like you did with Gingi!

    You claim that I “sure do seem to have some trouble grasping the written word.” Here is Gingi’s words which you argue I am having trouble understanding. Let the reader decide whether your accusation against me had any merit:

    “I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation. I pray that God will use this unfortunate catastrophe to soften the hearts of Bud and Pam and that they will draw close to the Lord and wash their hands of the blood of thousands of innocent children, each as precious and irreplaceable as their own.”

    Notice the following: 1. Gingi repeats the word “pray” twice. 2. She asserts that the airplane crash was an “unfortunate catastrophe.” 3. She hopes that the Feldkamps will draw “close to the Lord.” 4. She expresses her hope that Feldkamp will recognize his need of “repentance.” 5. Gingi states that the children Feldkamp engages in killing are as precious as the children he lost in the tragic event.

    I have read Gingi’s article many times and I fail to see what you see there: an implication of a divine retribution. This is why I suggested that the author of this blog was “clairvoyant.” I can’t read Gingi’s mind, but I do believe that if God wanted to punish Feldkamp for killing the innocents he could have done a much better job than targeting the innocent instead of the guilty. As far as I can see, all Gingi suggested was that this tragic incident could be used by God to lead Feldkamp to get out of the business of killing unborn children. This is a far cry from suggesting that the tragedy was evidence of “divine retribution.”

    You stated the following as evidence of your clairvoyance: “I can tell from here that you’re a sad, misguided soul who talks a lot, but says nothing of value.” I will let the readers decide whether your mind reading is worth a dime or not, and I will refrain from coming down to the low level quality of your discourse. I prefer to exchange ideas about the issue at hand instead of attaching the character of the opponent. If you are looking for a fight, you will have to find somebody else. This is not my favorite sport!

    Your suggestion that Gingi is capable of murder and that her actions in front of Feldkamp’s home were threatening is unsupported by the evidence at hand. The “Columbine” teenagers were not praying Christians. They actually hated Christians. One of them asked one of the victims whether she believe in Jesus Christ, and when she responded in the affirmative, he shot her point blank, killing her. Is this the type of clairvoyance you are proud of? If you think that I should have done some research about the Columbine event, think of your lack of knowledge about the identity of those Columbine teenagers.

    Your total lack of clairvoyance ability is evident in your last statement: “You’re probably Gingi pretending to be a new person by inventing a fake name … or her sister using a made up account.”

    If you want to know who I am, simply type my name onto your Internet browser, or go to my web site http://sdaforum.com and read what I have written and the news I have posted in the past. If you answer this post of mine, try responding in a civilized manner instead of resorting to insults. You probably are aware that those who resort to attacking the character of an opponent usually do this because they do not have good arguments to defend their position on the main issue.

    And by the way, Nic is my real name, not a pseudonym, and I am not female but a male. I grew up in Argentina, where my name was translated from my Polish birth certificate as Nicolas. I shortened it to Nic.

  13. Skepdude said, on April 15, 2009 at 9:14 AM

    Nic,

    You say you don’t see how Gingi was suggesting that the tragedy was evidence of “divine retribution.” Then you quote this from her article :

    “I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation.” Read that again, IN THE FACE OF THIS TRAGEDY…..RECOGNIZE NEED FOR REPENTANCE. The only way the need for repentance can be tied with the tragedy is if the tragedy was precisely meant as retribution for the actions one must repent for, otherwise that sentence makes no sense. Why would one repent for an action that has nothing to do with the tragedy?

    You know you can pick it apart as much as you want. In my eyes the implication that this was retribution for his abortion business is very strong. What also comes across as I read this article is a certain attitude of “they deserved this”. She even says that she doesn’t want to turn this into a “I told you so”, except that she does, quite clearly. Even Gingi apparently sees that this is in fact how her entry comes across.

    The logic is simple. If she really thinks there is no connections between the crash and his abortion business, she would not have mentioned it. The simple fact that she mentioned it strongly implies that she does see it as divine retribution, that she does feel it was deserved and coming his way, and I can’t help but feel that she gets some satisfaction out of this whole thing.

  14. Lindsey K said, on April 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM

    I stand by my previous posting and if anything “Nic”, you’ve done nothing but prove me right-so thanks! You stated that you don’t feel a sixteen year old girl is capable of committing murder, and I gave you several examples of young children who have committed murder. Nowhere in my writings did I say that the Columbine killers (or any of the other convicted child murderers) were Christian, but rather I was making the point that children are more then capable of committing such extreme acts of violence then one might think. However, since you chose to read my posting in such a careless manner you completely missed the point I was making.

    I am always amused by people like you, people who claim to be so high and mighty and the sort who would never go looking for a fight (not your favorite sport you say? Your actions suggest otherwise, but I’ll refrain from insinuating that your confusion is a result of your senility. That would be quite insulting.) and yet here you are, endlessly surfing the blog of a person whose opinions are vastly different then your own, leaving page long diatribes in an effort to defend your position to people who (though I can’t speak for everyone) aren’t interested in whatever point it is you’ve been attempting to make. Nor does anyone care why you go by Nic as opposed to Nicolas-what on earth does that have to do with this blog? Let’s try and focus on the issue at hand, shall we? Again, I’ll refrain from insinuating that this has anything to do with your age and the slow mental decline that people begin to experience in your seventies. Also, I’m afraid I’m not interested in visiting your website. I don’t actively seek out people whose opinions are vastly different from my own, because I don’t go out looking for drama-and I recommend you begin doing the same. Find other like-minded (one might say small-minded, but that would be a cheap shot) folks such as yourself and join them in their crusade to do…whatever it is people like you do. I wouldn’t know because I’m too busy going to church and teaching Sunday school. Oh, and volunteering with the Family Promise Program.

    And for the record, I never once indicated that I believed little Miss Gingi was capable of committing murder. She’s far too stupid to commit such a crime, even if she does have a record. Don’t believe me? Check out Sacramento Police Report Number 2009-1800589.

    Oh, and if you didn’t realize that my jokingly claiming to be clairvoyant was merely a jab at YOUR previous insult to the writer and your insinuation that he must be clairvoyant himself, then don’t know quite what to tell you. I thought you didn’t resort to that sort of name calling thing. Hypocrisy is a funny thing, isn’t it?

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Have a nice day. :-)

    P.S. Next time could you please try and refrain from posting the same comment twice in a row? It’s bad enough that I was subjected to your commentary once, but twice is two times too many.

    • Skepdude said, on April 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM

      WordPress put his comments on hold for moderation. I assume he thought something went wrong and copied and pasted it again. In that case it was not his fault.

      • Lindsey K said, on April 15, 2009 at 5:04 PM

        Fair enough. Even though your opinions differ from his, it’s nice to see that you’re willing to step up and defend an error that was not his fault. Good man.

  15. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on April 15, 2009 at 9:42 PM

    Skepdude,

    Thanks for your comments dated April 15, 2009 at 9:14 AM. I have never met Gingi, and I can’t read her mind. Nevertheless, if she is truly pro-life, she can’t rejoice when three innocent families including seven children perish in a tragic event like this.

    Take the case of King David. He suffered endless persecution by King Saul, yet when King Saul died, David wrote one of the most moving eulogies found in the Bible. He could have rejoiced that the one who had mistreated him had died. He did not. Gingi prayed for the Feldkamps before the tragic accident, and I am sure she must have prayed for the grieving parents following the crash.

    Your argument that “The only way the need for repentance can be tied with the tragedy is if the tragedy was precisely meant as retribution for the actions one must repent for, otherwise that sentence makes no sense” is evidence that you are reading between the lines. Your reasoning is based on the premise that Gingi is not a true pro-life individual.

    Look at Jesus: He prayed for those who were torturing him. Consider the case of Stephen: He asked God not to take into account the merciless actions of those who were stoning him. I believe that Gingi was sincere when she prayed for the Feldkamps before the tragedy, and I have no reason to doubt her sincerity after the death of the innocents.

    What you need is to decide whether Feldkamp needs to repent of having invested his fortune into the abortion business. If killing innocent unborn children is a noble business enterprise like dentistry, law, teaching, or engineering; then there should be no stigma associated with the killing of unborn babies, and no stigma either in sharing with readers the fact that Fedlkamp’s busines was abortion.

    On the other hand, if profiting from the shedding of innocent blood is not a noble business, then Feldkamp needs to disconnect himself from such activity. This had nothing to do with the death of three innocent families whose tragic death all Christians lament. If you are truly pro-life, you will likely see things my way.

    On one occasion Jesus was asked whether those who had perished in the tragic collapse of a tower were more sinful than the rest of the Galileans. Jesus responded by affirming that those who had perished in said tragedy were no more sinners than the rest of the population and that they all were sinners in need of repentance. Jesus added: “Unless you repent, you will all perish,” and perish they did when the Roman came and massacred one million of Jews and destroyed the city and the Holy Temple.

    “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder;” likewise, guilt and virtue are in the eye of the beholder. I succeeded in verifying this recently after I came across Gingi’s story. I shared it by Email with some of my friends and acquaintances. Those who are in the pro-life camp thanked me for doing this, while those who believe that there is nothing wrong with killing the unborn faulted me for sharing the story with them at a moment like this.

    Fifteen years ago my youngest daughter died in a car accident in the city of Redlands, the city where the Feldkamps live. Do I believe that God punished her for her sins? She was a saint in my opinion. Tragic accidents do happen on a daily basis on a random basis. Is God involved in those tragedies?

    God did not design humans to travel at high speeds inside the machines we humans invented. This remind me of what someone stated when the original automobile was tested on a dusty road travelling at five miles per hour. The person predicted the following: “This machine will one day kill someone.”

    Skepdude,

    Thank you for your posting dated April 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM. Is there a way to delete one of my identical postings? I normally prepare my comments on my own computer and then when I am done I copy and paste it online. When my comments didn’t show up after the first trial, I figured I had done something wrong, so I tried again. I am glad I didn’t keep truing! Evidently, I am new to your web site.

    Lindsey K thinks that I should limit my comments to web sites where eveybody is of the same opinion. Wow! What a revelation! I thought that blogs were designed for the civilized exchange of opinions, but Lindsey thinks that preaching to the choir is the only way to behave in your site. If my style is offensive, or if I am not welcome at your site, please let me know!

    • Skepdude said, on April 15, 2009 at 10:59 PM

      You are entitled to your opinion and to express it as you see fit, and so does any other commenter, so long as we keep it below nasty, and I don’t want anyone to feel unwelcome. I would encourage people to lay off the ad hominems and concentrate on the actual arguments, I agree with you on that point. We can disagree while being civil.

      I have deleted one of the double comments.

  16. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on April 15, 2009 at 10:31 PM

    Lindsey,

    I read the comments you posted on April 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM and you did prove me right. I did predict that you would respond with more insults, and you did. Is this the reason you go to church for? The Bible encourages us to show proper respect for the aged. Have you ever read this? You made fun of my age twice, and you don’t even know me! What is the point of going to church on Sundays if during the week you try to destroy the reputation of those who dare to disagree with you on the issue at hand? I forgive you, but please live up to what you stated as your main objective: “Let’s try and focus on the issue at hand, shall we?

    For your information, the reason I explained the name I go by is because you did assume that I was a female. Here is what you stated: “you’re probably Gingi pretending to be a new person by inventing a fake name.”

    Was it unreasonable for me to explain why I chose my name as “Nic” instead of Nick? Many people assume that “Nic” is the short form for “Nicole,” and conclude that I am not a male. Actually, not long ago I was nominated for the “Outstanding Women in Business” club.

    You accused me of reading your postings “in such a careless manner.” That is exactly what you did when you stated the following: “You stated that you don’t feel a sixteen year old girl is capable of committing murder.”

    Did I say that? Did you read what I had stated or did you rather read my posting in a “careless manner”? I do know that children can commit the ultimate crime. This is something that has been in the news recently. There is no dispute about this.

    My argument was that I did not have reason to believe that Gingi was capable of committing murder and that her praying in front of the Feldkamp home should not be interpreted as a threatening action. She did not go with a gun in her hand, but rather with a prayer. Do you really see this as threatening?

    You are suggesting that it is improper for me to participate in Skepdude’s Blog. I am waiting for Skepdude’s response regarding this. If he/she thinks that I am unwelcome here, I will gracefully move on.

  17. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on April 16, 2009 at 12:16 AM

    Skepdude,

    Thanks!

  18. Lindsey K said, on April 16, 2009 at 4:55 PM

    Actually, I go to church for the wine. :-)

    No one is saying you shouldn’t participate in this blog, I just think it’s ironic that you claim not to seek out arguments, yet here you are, surfing the blog of someone whose opinions differ greatly from your own-and let’s not forget that you too came out of the gate swinging: Did you or did you not say (and this is a rhetorical question, though I’m relatively certain you’ll respond with some attempt at justification) “You must be clairvoyant. You can read Gingi’s mind and emotions, but your can’t read what she has written!”? That sounds awfully insulting for someone who claims not to seek out arguments.

    Oh, and for the record, this was offensive:

    “Lindsey K thinks that I should limit my comments to web sites where everybody is of the same opinion. Wow! What a revelation! I thought that blogs were designed for the civilized exchange of opinions, but Lindsey thinks that preaching to the choir is the only way to behave in your site. If my style is offensive, or if I am not welcome at your site, please let me know!”

    I said nothing of the sort-you must be awfully tired from jumping to all those conclusions. Your sarcasm was mildly amusing, but completely untrue. I need not for your “forgiveness” and if you carefully read my previous posting, you can see that I didn’t insult your age, but rather used a play on words that allowed me to insult you without *actually* insulting you. A little trick I picked up over the years-I’ve become quite good at it if I do say so myself.

    Anyhow, this is about the writer’s blog and the article he wrote, not about you and your white noise commentary. And as such…

    You know what really gets to me, Skepdude? The “Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust” crap that this chick is involved with. I personally find it extremely offensive that they would compare themselves with the survivors of the REAL holocaust, but what are your thoughts? I have a hard time believing that I’m the only one offended by that.

    • Skepdude said, on April 17, 2009 at 12:55 PM

      Honestly the whole Abortion Holocaust thing is an utterly ridiculous expression to me, but you gotta give it to them, from a marketing point of view it works very well.

      Am I offended by this expression? I can’t say that I am. I am not Jewish, I did not witness the thing, and I’m at least a half a century removed, so it is hard to get the necessary emotional connection to be offended. I do think its tasteless and a cheap use of an actual human tragedy, but what can you do? Freedom of speech requires that people have the right to say tasteless and hurtful things. It’s a price we must be willing to accept.

  19. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on April 17, 2009 at 1:18 AM

    Lindsey K, stated the following on April 16, 2009 at 4:55 PM: “I go to church for the wine.” Perhaps I should find a church like that. In my church wine is served only three or four times a year instead of every weekend.

    Lindsey, your clairvoyance has failed you again. I do not normally surf the internet looking for a fight. I came across this blog as I searched the Internet in my attempt to verify the alleged fact that Feldkamp was in fact the owner of those 17 abortion clinics, because some of my friends were questioning this. As you can see, you missed again in your attempt at ridiculing what I do.

    Said search helped me discover something else: That Feldkamp is a member of a church located only four miles from where I live, a church I have visited on numerous occasions. It pains me to know that someone who grew up in my own community of faith is engaged in the destruction of human life.

    I also learned that most of the adults who perished in the terrible tragedy went through the same school my children attended when they were young. As you can see, I do not surf the Internet in order to kill time or to look for a fight.

    You fault me for coming out “swinging” in my first posting. If you take the time to read the original blog you will probably discover that mine was in fact a mild response to what I considered to be an unfair characterization of what Gingi had done. I am pro-life, although I do not participate in most of the pro-life activities. Nevertheless, my sympathies resonate with the main goal of the pro-life movement.

    I am convinced that the modern genocide of the unborn is the direct result of the sexual revolution of the sixties. It goes against everything the Bible stands for. In my daily devotionals, I have been reading the book of Ezequiel, the prophet. I find there that one of the greatest sins of God’s people then was the sacrifice of children to the pagan god Moloch.

    There is a great similarity between said cruel practice and what we do today to our children. They burned their unwanted children with fire. We burn them with chemicals. They did this after birth, while we do it before they have a chance to take their first breath. We protect those engaged in this bloody business and ridicule anybody who makes an attempt to speak in defense of those who can’t speak for themselves.

    You claim the following: “I didn’t insult your age.” Here is what you stated: “I’ll refrain from insinuating that your confusion is a result of your senility … I’ll refrain from insinuating that this has anything to do with your age and the slow mental decline that people begin to experience in your seventies.” I will let the reader decide whether this was or wasn’t an insult directed at me.

    You ended up by ridiculing the survivors claim that they are the survivors of a modern genocide. Listen, Hitler annihilated merely six millions human beings, we have exterminated 50 million so far, and we are exterminating approximately three thousand more every day the law protects the merciless killing of the innocents. If this is not genocide, then I do not know the meaning of the term. My dictionary defines genocide as the “the deliberate and systematic destruction” of a specific group of human beings.

    I could say much more, but you do not seem to be in a mood to engage in a civilized exchange of views. I am saying this not for your sake, but rather for the sake of those who might read this and stop to think about the insane behavior we are engaged in: the destruction of our own progeny and observing how it is being replaced with illegals and potential future terrorists.

    I was reading the other day that 60 years ago our nation was the biggest creditor on earth, while now we are the largest debtor. This tells me that our morality has some practical consequences for our financial and moral condition.

    • Skepdude said, on April 17, 2009 at 12:59 PM

      Nic,

      You say “I was reading the other day that 60 years ago our nation was the biggest creditor on earth, while now we are the largest debtor. This tells me that our morality has some practical consequences for our financial and moral condition.” – That’s a Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc logical fallacy. There is no way you can tie morality with the debt, but I’d love to see you try. Furthermore, even if true, it would be a Non Sequitur, nothing follows from that statement that has any bearing upon the abortion issue which you are debating here.

    • Lindsey K said, on May 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM

      Sigh. I wish I had endless free time to surf the net looking for people to insult and truths to twist. Ah well. Some of us have to work for a living, thus my month later reply. I was bored, what can I say.

      And wow, the concept of humor sure does go right over your head, doesn’t it? Who would really go to church for the wine? Everybody knows the bread is way better. :-)

      Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to my crystal ball readings. Apparently my clairvoyance skills just aren’t what they used to be. (That was a joke too-just trying to help you keep up). ;-)

  20. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on April 17, 2009 at 9:41 PM

    Skepdude,

    The connection between morality and God’s blessing is firmly rooted in the teaching of the biblical prophets. Of course, I have no idea whether this has any meaning for you. If you do not value the wisdom contained in the Bible, then the connection is in the eye of the beholder. Some individuals have trouble admitting that the king is naked. If you are of the opinion that dismembering the tiny body of an unborn baby and tearing it to pieces before birth is morally acceptable, no argument will do the trick of convincing you that there is a connection between morality and abortion.

    • Skepdude said, on May 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM

      Are you aware of the Irish abuse scandal that’s in the news? That settles the morality and God question once and forever in my mind.

      And there is a difference between a bunch of cells and the “tiny body of an unborn baby”. I do not advocate for willy-nilly abortion at any stage in the pregnancy. Obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. I have a problem with drawing the line at the moment of conception. That is not acceptable to me.

  21. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on April 17, 2009 at 9:53 PM

    Skepdude,

    Regarding your comments dated on April 17, 2009 at 12:55 PM: Are you questioning the Jewish genocide half a century ago, the abortion genocide that is taking place today, or both?

    My dictionary defines genocide as the “deliberate and systematic destruction” of a specific group of human beings. Was the German killing of Jews deliberate and systematic? If yes, then it was a genocide in my book. Is the killing of the unborn deliberate and systematic today in the U.S.? If yes, then it deserves to be labeled as genocide.

    If you disagree, then can you share with me and your readers your personal definition of genocide?

    • Skepdude said, on May 21, 2009 at 10:25 PM

      There is no such thing a abortion genocide. I did not question the Jewish genocide, I said I was removed by over a half of century so it was hard for me to get emotionally riled up, which it is and I am not ashamed of admitting it.

      Second, the definition of genocide you give is incomplete. Webster defines it as “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”. You left out the racial, political or cultural group. Which group do the aborted cells fall under? Thirdly, abortion is not systematic. Not all pregnancies end in abortion, which is what systematic would mean applied to this case. I think you’re getting confused.

  22. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on May 22, 2009 at 9:24 AM

    Thanks for your response! It all depends on whose definition you use. Compare your limited definition with the one found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

    “While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

    Please, read carefully this expanded definition of genocide and tell me whether the targeted destruction of unwanted children before birth does or does not qualify as genocide. Also compare the number of victims. The Nazi estermination of six million human beings with the 50 million of abortion in the United States alone. If you count the number of abortions in the entire world, it would probably ten times more.

    If you reject this expanded definition of genocide, tell me why!

    • Skepdude said, on May 22, 2009 at 9:35 AM

      I don’t reject it. It does not apply. The aborted cells do not qualify as a “national, ethnical, racial or religous group” you would have to be able to assert that before you appeal to that definition. So let’s hear it how a week old zygote is part of any of the above mentioned groups. Get to typin’!

  23. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on May 22, 2009 at 9:41 AM

    Skepdude stated the following on May 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM:

    “And there is a difference between a bunch of cells and the “tiny body of an unborn baby”. I do not advocate for willy-nilly abortion at any stage in the pregnancy. Obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. I have a problem with drawing the line at the moment of conception. That is not acceptable to me.”

    I am curious as to where you draw the line. For two thousand years physicians were required by the Hippocratic Oath to draw the line at the moment of conception. You evidently reject this. Can you tell me why? Is humanity better off morally by thrashing said Hippocratic Oath? I have lived close to eight decades, and I have never seen such a widespread disregard for human life by the general population.

    • Skepdude said, on May 22, 2009 at 11:17 AM

      I do not know where the line is drawn precisely, but I do not reject the idea of abortion solely because I don’t know at what point in the nine months I would start feeling that we’re doing something wrong. If a woman finds out that the sex she had last week resulted in a pregnancy and she wants to stop it I have no problem with it. If an eight month pregnant woman wants to stop at that point I have a problem with that.

      I guess rule of thumb is that the point where the fetus can possibly survive outside of the womb, given the best medical care available is the starting point for one to start deliberating about the line. From there the line can be moved backwards or forward depending on many factors.

      Does that clarify my position?

  24. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on May 22, 2009 at 10:58 PM

    Skepdude, on May 22, 2009 at 9:35 AM you stated the following:

    “I don’t reject it. It does not apply. The aborted cells do not qualify as a “national, ethnical, racial or religous group” you would have to be able to assert that before you appeal to that definition. So let’s hear it how a week old zygote is part of any of the above mentioned groups.”

    Evidently we are not talking about the same subject. You are talking a zygote, while I am talking about the abortion of unborn babies. By the time a woman discovers she is pregnant, there is already a beating heart and blood circulating through his/her tiny body. Most abortions are performed when there is a recognizable body with a head, a torso, two arms and two lower extremities. In other words, I am talking about the killing of tiny and not so tiny human beings. These represent the group of humans who are the main target of abortion.

    You need to read again the definition of genocide I cited: “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;”

    My question: Are the unborn human beings I described members of our U.S. national group of human beings? Notice also that said definition specifically underlines the fact that the genocide aim is to “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”

    If you still think that my definition does not apply to the type of abortion I described, please, let me know why!

    • Skepdude said, on May 23, 2009 at 8:12 AM

      Nic, no one has an intent to destroy the group of unborn babies. That would be required for the word genocide to apply. You would need to have a person or group of people whose goal would be to destroy all unborn babies as a goal, or as many of them as they possibly can. Who is trying to do that? The woman that is concerned with one abortion, and one abortion only, her own, or the doctor that provides the service only to the women that go and ask for it?

  25. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on May 22, 2009 at 11:16 PM

    Skepdude,

    Thank you for your response dated May 22, 2009 at 11:17 AM. Personally I prefer to draw the line at conception for many reasons. Here are some of them:

    1. Drawing the line at eight months of pregnancy would allow the destruction not only of tiny developing babies, but also babies who are viable.

    2. Killing innocent human beings violates my personal ethical moral values.

    3. Most abortions are performed when the developing baby is easily recognizable as a human being.

    4. Using abortion as a method of birth control has a tendency to encourage three sins specifically condemned in the Christian Holy Book: Adultery, fornication, and the shedding of the blood of innocent human beings.

    5. Abortion tends to deplete the population of a country. Were it not for legal and illegal immigration, the population of Japan, Italy, Germany, Russia, and U.S. would slowly plummet.

    6. Justifying the destruction of human beings tends to lessen our respect for the sanctity of human life.

    7. The unborn are members of our human race, and when we abort them we are depriving them of what our Constitution guaratees to all: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness.”

    • Skepdude said, on May 23, 2009 at 8:20 AM

      #1-Agreed.
      #2-Also agreed,but it depends on what you consider innocent human being and how you define that
      #3-Viability outside the womb in my mind trumps that argument. Furthermore that goes back to the line argument, if the line has been stretched too far forward maybe it needs to be moved back, but that does not warrant all the way back to conception
      #4-No one is suggesting it should be used as a method of birth control, but unintended pregnancies occur even when appropriate birth control is used. The holy book argument does not concern me or a few other billion of people in this earth.
      #5-On the flip side the Earth has an overpopulation issue.
      #6-Same goes back to pulling the plug. Viability is important.
      #7-Except that the mothers life and pursuit of happiness could be deprived as well when you make abortion illegal.

  26. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on May 25, 2009 at 12:35 AM

    Skepdude,

    Thanks for your answer dated May 23, 2009 at 8:20 AM.

    Regarding Item 2: I define an innocent human being as one who had commited no crime.

    Item 3: I prefer to draw the line at conception. I believe that when in doubt, since we are dealing with a human being instead of a woman’s appendix, it is better to err on the side of caution.

    Item 5: Half a century ago I read in the Reader’s Digest an article dealing with how the people of Hunza, a remote place near the Himalaya Mountains, solved the problem of overpopulation. When a couple reached the maximum number of children permitted by the law, their sexual life ended for them. This way, they had no need to kill their own children.

    Item 6: Viability has no valid meaning for me. Whether the baby is born or unborn, it cannot survive without total support from the mother or a mother substitute. After birth, the baby is still fully dependent on others for survival.

    Item 7: Killing her own flesh and blood will not make her happy. She will have to bear the guilt of having contributed the the death of an innocent human being. Nine months of inconvenience can never outweigh the permanent and irreversible deprivation of life of her own baby. After birth, she can always give the baby up for adoption. Adoption is a better option. Ad + Option= Adoption.

  27. a said, on May 29, 2009 at 8:49 AM

    Nic, how is it someone as perpetually stupid as you managed to get a Ph.D? Oh wait, it’s the internet, where you can claim whatever the fuck you like.

    Especially with gems like these: “I was reading the other day that 60 years ago our nation was the biggest creditor on earth, while now we are the largest debtor. This tells me that our morality has some practical consequences for our financial and moral condition.”

    Yeah, the US’s debt had NOTHING to do with idiotic voters. /sarcasm

    The last time we had a surplus was with a relatively decent president, Clinton, whose only problem was cheating on his spouse. I’ll take him any day over the string of failures we call ‘Republicans’. Don’t believe me? Look – pretty pictures!

    http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/fiscalconservative.jpg

    Fuck, you’re stupid.

  28. Skepdude said, on May 29, 2009 at 9:40 AM

    Ok folks, lets try to keep the name calling and the insults to a minimum ok? We can disagree without calling each other names. That is not conducive to open dialogue which is important. I do not engage in the practice of deleting what I consider abusive comments, but I don’t like the angry tone of some comments, and if they get out of hand I might have to reconsider my position on this issue. Thank you.

  29. Nic Samojluk, Ph.D. said, on May 30, 2009 at 12:43 AM

    Skepdude,

    This is probably my last posting on your blog. There are plenty of Internet blogs where I can engage in the serious exchange of views without having to become the target of vicious, vulgar and unjustified attacks by anonymous individuals who engage in such low level of discourse when they have no valid arguments to defend their position on the issue being discussed. I am not planning to dignify my critic with a reponse. I refuse to come down to his/her level!

  30. Astra said, on June 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM

    Gee, it really is too bad Gingi is a “Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust”, because otherwise I wouldn’t have to read her ridiculous and insulting blog.
    The way these god-botherers go on about this made up “God” and what he tells us to think/do/say is really getting tiring.

  31. Astra said, on June 9, 2009 at 12:17 PM

    Oh dear – I just read the part where Nic the PhD tells us he’s 77 years old. That is just precious!

  32. Gingi Eye Treatment Set said, on September 28, 2010 at 5:43 PM

    [...] Gingi Edmonds-The face of religious extremist immorality! I don't want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment, but I think of the time spent outside of Feldkamp's – Pam Feldkamp laughing at the fetal development signs, Bud Feldkamp trying not to make eye [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: