[beezdotcom]

So as I said, it's a huge can of worms to start talking about whether or not we should even be going to the extreme measures necessary to keep a 20-week baby alive outside the womb.

I think the aforementioned survivors would vote "yes".

But of course all of that is completely off topic for this thread, and for my original post. :-)

Ah, yes, agreeing with the post about how "unChristian" it was to "sneak her in". Funny, seems like she came through the front door. And sang, to EVERYONE'S pleasure. And got applauded. The anger came LONG after she had sat down. Were the people mad that she was there - or were they mad that they learned an extra detail that they didn't care to know?

[BagCamAddict]

Oh I don't disagree with that. But as I said, it's a big can of worms. (Who pays for all the effort to keep that one baby alive, how many others die because resources are spent keeping that one alive that could have been spread out to others, etc., etc.) I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm just saying it's a big topic.

And I don't think the people were mad at either of the two things you mentioned. I think they were mad at the false pretext under which she was introduced - Cerebral Palsy - when the true motive was the Planned Parenthood angle. If I were in that audience, I could feel both joy at having heard her sing, and joy at hearing her story of accomplishments and survival, AND anger at the person for "duping" the audience with the false introduction. I just don't see why there had to be any "duping" at all. Why the false pretext? Why not just bring the woman in and say, by the way, here's the other side of the Planned Parenthood story. So I think that's where the anger was, and that's why I agreed with the first person who posted that comment. (False pretext isn't exactly "Christian-like.")