# The hypocrisy of anti abortion activists



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

An opinion piece but it's spot on.

"An abortion rights leader is calling out anti-abortion activists who spread lies about -- or incite violence against -- abortion providers, then act appalled when violence actually transpires."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ar.al&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=FB


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Most of us remember Bill O'Reilly's "Tiller the baby killer" campaign, then when Tiller was shot to death by a right-wing zealot O'Reilly denied any responsibility for the incident.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKpqfeACPwg[/ame]


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Kermit Gonsal.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Kermit Gonsal.


Kermit Gonsnell was sentenced to life without parole for three counts of first-degree murder in May 2013.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Kermit Gonsnell was sentenced to life without parole for three counts of first-degree murder in May 2013.


Yes, he was! But he did horrific things didn't he? He is a supporter of your opinions.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, he was! But he did horrific things didn't he? He is a supporter of your opinions.


A supporter of my opinions? Can you explain?

Dr. Gonsnell was a murderer, I've never advocated for murder. Why are you insinuating I am? That's not nice.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Most of us remember Bill O'Reilly's "Tiller the baby killer" campaign, then when Tiller was shot to death by a right-wing zealot O'Reilly denied any responsibility for the incident.


O'Reilly is absolutely vile.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, he was! But he did horrific things didn't he? He is a supporter of your opinions.


Could you be more clear about what point you're making? If I'm going to be accused of something I would like to know exactly what I'm being accused of.

Since this evidently relates to the topic of this thread, are you suggesting that the pro-choice community advocated what Gonsnell did?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

What a dog and pony show...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> What a dog and pony show...


How so? Can you explain? You don't agree with the article I linked, or just don't like the subject?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> How so? Can you explain? You don't agree with the article I linked, or just don't like the subject?


"Dog and pony show" is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends. Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_and_pony_show


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

He posted that so he could brag about it over in that other forum. It is the new in thing to do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> "Dog and pony show" is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends. Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_and_pony_show


Thanks, but I know the definition of "dog and pony show". 

I think painterswife has it right tho.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Kermit *Gonsal*.


He's doing life on prison, starting in 2013.
You've been bringing him up for months and still don't even know his name
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7469648-post107.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/kermit-gosnell-abortion-doctor-gets-life-term.html


> May 15, 2013 Â· PHILADELPHIA â Dr. Kermit Gosnell was sentenced on Wednesday to life in prison without parole for the murder of a baby born alive in a botched abortion


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> What a dog and pony show...





> Typically, the term is *used in a pejorative sense* to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it


So by your own admission you're just trolling rather than trying to actually contibute to the thread.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Woolieface said:


> What a dog and pony show...


It is once again on hearer and just yet another trolling post to see if THEY can get under the skin of Christians, because we don't believe in such crap as abortions, how many off these nutcase threads are there going be on here which have been the brunt of laughter throughout the internet and a laughing stock as to what this forum has turned into!!!!!!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Could you be more clear about what point you're making? If I'm going to be accused of something I would like to know exactly what I'm being accused of.
> 
> Since this evidently relates to the topic of this thread, are you suggesting that the pro-choice community advocated what Gonsnell did?


Please point out exactly where I accused YOU of anything? Just playing victim again?

Yes, the pro choice community supported him, he is one of them. He believed in the vision of Sanger.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

painterswife said:


> He posted that so he could brag about it over in that other forum. It is the new in thing to do.


Brag about what?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> It is once again on hearer and just yet another trolling post to see if THEY can get under the skin of Christians, because we don't believe in such crap as abortions, how many off these nutcase threads are there going be on here which have been the brunt of laughter *throughout the internet* and a laughing stock as to what this forum has turned into!!!!!!


Don't confuse one other site with "the internet" when all those people are posting here too.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> An opinion piece but it's spot on.
> 
> "An abortion rights leader is calling out anti-abortion activists who spread lies about -- or incite violence against -- abortion providers, then act appalled when violence actually transpires."
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ar.al&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=FB


Yep all anti-abortion is celebration the shooting. Kill any body that is in support of abortions. That is the meaning you want to want to get over.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Are you trying to say I don't have a right to post here? ****... how....mature! ound: Taking another human life is murder. Try all you want to make yourself feel ok about it. It's not. It's a sickness.


I think it's a sickness to try to control a woman into doing your bidding, you don't seem to have a problem with it.

Do you believe in the death penalty? I'm sure you don't as its taking a human life, so to you it's murder.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think it's a sickness to try to control a woman into doing your bidding, you don't seem to have a problem with it.
> 
> Do you believe in the death penalty? I'm sure you don't as its taking a human life, so to you it's murder.


To kill one's unborn child is the most vile thing that I can think of. The mother, of all things is the one to choose this route. Wow, just wow, that turns humanity on it's head and demeans everything about it....

Right after that, I consider the killing of another who is not actively harming another to come in as second most vile.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> To kill one's unborn child is the most vile thing that I can think of. The mother, of all things is the one to choose this route. Wow, just wow, that turns humanity on it's head and demeans everything about it....


I can't imagine it's an easy thing for any woman to do. It doesn't concern you. It's a private issue that is ultimately the woman's decision.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> I'm not the one trying to control woman, that's what the liberals are doing. I'm for a jury deciding the fate of a criminal. Does that make sense to you? Probably not. Im not above taking another humans life if the need is clear and a danger would be avoided. Why are you such a fan of one person making a life or death decision that's completely one sided with no eminent danger, other than a dead human baby?
> 
> You own the sickness!


You definitely want to control all women by trying to make it illegal for them to do what they want with their body. That is a sickness. How else do you want to control women? Do you think there should be force too?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I can't imagine it's an easy thing for any woman to do. It doesn't concern you. It's a private issue that is ultimately the woman's decision.


It should concern everyone that another human, with no eminent danger, would even consider taking another human life.

Years from now folks will look back at this and see the true horror that it is.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> It should concern everyone that another human, with no eminent danger, would even consider taking another human life.
> 
> Years from now folks will look back at this and see the true horror that it is.


You do realize that abortion was illegal until Roe v. Wade, right? Dang.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You definitely want to control all women by trying to make it illegal for them to do what they want with their body. That is a sickness. How else do you want to control women? Do you think there should be force too?


I don't want to control anyone, you do! That's the sickness. To kill another human without any danger is a sickness. Why do you want to control men? That's a sickness too.

Please tell me how exactly I'm trying to control anyone? By refusing to pay for their choice to murder another human? Really?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that abortion was illegal until Roe v. Wade, right? Dang.


Means nothing to me. Murder is still murder. You even said it right here, it used to be illegal. Who got the law changed?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

If anyone would hurt any of my children including my unborn one it would be an easy decision. Yes i am for the death penalty, if you have made it there you are obviously a threat to society and need to be gone. An unborn child cannot make a decision and cannot fight for themselves they have done nothing wrong but they loose their life because their mother or even the father is an idiot! But a jury that decides someone dies I am good with that. I am good with killing those who oppose the US and more importantly I am good with killing any and all that threaten my family. Abortion is wrong no matter how you look at it, it is a killing of convieniance.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> I don't want to control anyone, you do! That's the sickness. To kill another human without any danger is a sickness. Why do you want to control men? That's a sickness too.
> 
> Please tell me how exactly I'm trying to control anyone? By refusing to pay for their choice to murder another human? Really?


Nope. You want control over a woman's body by telling her she must carry a pregnancy. Do you want to use force too? What lengths will you go to force her?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> *Means nothing to me. Murder is still murder. You even said it right here, it used to be illegal. Who got the law changed?*


Dang. Wow. SCOTUS decided that a woman has the right to choose what happens to _her_ body. I seriously had to explain that to you? That's sad and scary at the same time. Really? You really didn't know that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. You want control over a woman's body by telling her she must carry a pregnancy. Do you want to use force too? What lengths will you go to force her?


Nope, nope , nope your wrong! How exactly am "i" controlling anyone? What woman am i telling anything too? What are you trying to say with your angry statement? Murder is a sickness, admit it!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Nope, nope , nope your wrong! How exactly am "i" controlling anyone? What woman am i telling anything too? What are you trying to say with your angry statement? Murder is a sickness, admit it!


You want to make abortion illegal. You want to control all woman into carrying a pregnancy because you think it's wrong. Forcing women to do anything is a sickness. What will you do to force her? How far will you go?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Dang. Wow. SCOTUS decided that a woman has the right to choose what happens to _her_ body. I seriously had to explain that to you? That's sad and scary at the same time. Really? You really didn't know that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal?


That made me laugh! Thanks! Assuming what folks know and disagree with can show some to be the fools that they really are. You assume too much! :hysterical:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> I keep telling you, I don't want force anyone to do anything. Why is that just so hard for you to understand? Why are you trying to force me to say something I never said or want? Maybe that sickness is preventing cognitive reasoning. :shrug:


So you are pro choice now? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you are pro choice now? Is that what you're saying?


Nope, not at all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Means nothing to me. Murder is still murder.


Yet we attack a hospital in Afghanistan and it's not a big deal.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Nope, not at all.


If you are anti abortion you are trying to control all women. Even you must be able to understand that... you're telling them they can't decide what happens to their own bodies. You want to force them to carry a pregnancy to term.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yet we attack a hospital in Afghanistan and it's not a big deal.


Did I say that? Or are you projecting again? Wishful thinking? Not sure what your intent here is?

How is fighting a war against foriegn terrorists comparable?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Yet we attack a hospital in Afghanistan and it's not a big deal.


Good point. And all the dead Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis aren't an issue either.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Good point. And all the dead Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis aren't an issue either.


I guess the Americans that lost their lives don't matter then!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Good point. And all the dead Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis aren't an issue either.


What are YOU doing to stop that? It's not comparable though, just grasping at straws.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Ok, I'll bite, what about controlling men by mothers and courts to finance or acquiese to other conditions if parenthood that men are not supposed to have a final say over whether a child will be born.

Is that not also society controlling men?

If we are not going to control women, can we agree that we should not control men either?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you're pro choice again? As I explained, clearly, if you are anti abortion you want to control all women and force them to carry all pregnancies to term.


Nope. How about my question?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Nope.


Well, it's perfectly clear that you are never going to admit that you want control over all women and want to force them to carry all pregnancies to term. That's what pro unborn is, there is no other way to describe it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, it's perfectly clear that you are never going to admit that you want control over all women and want to force them to carry all pregnancies to term. That's what pro unborn is, there is no other way to describe it.


If your so closed minded to think it's your way only, there's nothing more I can say. Nothing is absolute.

It's NOT a control issue, but you just can't get past that.

How about that question ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Reading through this thread I notice no one on the anti abortion side has said a word about how they have no qualms at all about those countless babies that will never chase a butterfly or play with a puppy because they were considered "inconvenient" by good wholesome reasponsable women who practice other forms of birth control. It makes no difference to those unborn children when their mother "chooses" to deny them their right to life.... They still aren't going to be born and live to see their own children like God planned. Doesn't sound like pro life to me.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Reading through this thread I notice no one on the anti abortion side has said a word about how they have no qualms at all about those countless babies that will never chase a butterfly or play with a puppy because they were considered "inconvenient" by good wholesome reasponsable women who practice other forms of birth control. It makes no difference to those unborn children when their mother "chooses" to deny them their right to life.... They still aren't going to be born and live to see their own children like God planned. Doesn't sound like pro life to me.


Post#33 and 39


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> An opinion piece but it's spot on.
> 
> "An abortion rights leader is calling out anti-abortion activists who spread lies about -- or incite violence against -- abortion providers, then act appalled when violence actually transpires."
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ar.al&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=FB


What is amazing is that these videos that were put out regarding Planned Parenthood were NOT "heavily maniuplated" other than the editing to make the shorter videos when the full videos are clearly available right alongside it and one could VERY easily see that what is being shown in the shorter videos is just as much truth as the long ones. Yes, PP was selling baby parts and altering abortions to be able to get the most money possible for those parts. That's a fact. No where does the man mentioned in the article call for vigilante justice against these facilities at all and that's what this was. This is not hypocrisy at all and if one can't see that.....well, I don't know how to help you.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks, but I know the definition of "dog and pony show".
> 
> I think painterswife has it right tho.


I agree. She's good at them too but not as prolific at producing them as you are.:happy2:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Post 33


Irish Pixie said:


> Dang. Wow. SCOTUS decided that a woman has the right to choose what happens to _her_ body. I seriously had to explain that to you? That's sad and scary at the same time. Really? You really didn't know that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal?


Post39


JeffreyD said:


> It should concern everyone that another human, with no eminent danger, would even consider taking another human life.
> 
> Years from now folks will look back at this and see the true horror that it is.


My post presenting my question


Yvonne's hubby said:


> Reading through this thread I notice no one on the anti abortion side has said a word about how they have no qualms at all about those countless babies that will never chase a butterfly or play with a puppy because they were considered "inconvenient" by good wholesome reasponsable women who practice other forms of birth control. It makes no difference to those unborn children when their mother "chooses" to deny them their right to life.... They still aren't going to be born and live to see their own children like God planned. Doesn't sound like pro life to me.





Texaspredatorhu said:


> Post#33 and 39


ok, I still fail to see how anything in post 33 or 39 addresses using other forms of birth control (the pill, IUDs, condoms, abstinence etc) being evil, a sickness, or murder. Women who use those methods of preventing an inconvenient child seem to get a pass. Not just a pass but are usually praised for being "responsible". :shrug:


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Post 33
> 
> Post39
> 
> ...


Now I understand what you saying. Personally I don't use or believe in any of it nor does my wife. We are also Catholic and I am more strict than her but I am not speaking for her I do not believe in it at all.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Post 33
> 
> Post39
> 
> ...


You conveniently forgot...abstenance. My personal opinion is that the least distructive solution would be to prevent two cells, not yet formed into a human, from merging. Much better than waiting for a baby to form and making a consious to murder an unborn child.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Ok, I'll bite again, lol.

If I understand your pov, you believe all life is real and continuing since life began, so by not allowing all sperms and eggs to connect (which you see as life) then people are choosing to terminate life for each of them. Right?

If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize. I was trying to remember what your points were in prior threads.

My thoughts regarding that are that sperm and egg do not produce a separate living being until they are joined. So, there is not a separate life til then, so a separate life has not ended, and the "death" of those separate cells is the same as the other cells in our bodies that die during a lifespan, but do not make the living person die.

Also, it is not mathematically or scientifically even, possible for all sperm and eggs to be joined and grow to life. Just isn't possible to make those numbers work, so God must not have intended for each sperm and egg to join to begin life.

God created us to also be able to have intercourse and not always gave it lead to pregnancy.

Miscarriages happens too, and so some of those lives were not intended to grow to live births IMO as part of God's plan.

I don't understand the whys of it all. But, I accept that if I did have it all figured out, there would be no need for faith. And, faith is an important part of having a relationship with God IMO.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Post 33
> 
> Post39
> 
> ...


FYI- those are not 33 and 39 when I wrote that, they have since been deleted!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> If anyone would hurt any of my children including my unborn one it would be an easy decision. Yes i am for the death penalty, if you have made it there you are obviously a threat to society and need to be gone. An unborn child cannot make a decision and cannot fight for themselves they have done nothing wrong but they loose their life because their mother or even the father is an idiot! But a jury that decides someone dies I am good with that. I am good with killing those who oppose the US and more importantly I am good with killing any and all that threaten my family. Abortion is wrong no matter how you look at it, it is a killing of convieniance.


You are good with an awful lot of killing for a pro-lifer.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

So to go back to the OP do any of you believe the recent PP videos and the rabid attacks by pro-life groups and GOP candidates influenced Mr. Dear to carry out this attack on the PP clinic? 

Plenty of people here posted a ton of posts blaming BLM for a spate of cop killings even though not one single one was actually traced back to BLM. Are you applying the same rationale in this situation? 

Operation Rescue has been a very hateful and ugly anti-abortion group from the getgo. I can still remember hearing Randall Terry's crazy rants on AFR. He scared me back when I was still a Christian and a pro-lifer. He wasn't the only pro-life leader who advocated killing Doctors. 

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/op...-moveme?_ga=1.259217673.2017418826.1448851543



> In 1993, when Florida abortion provider Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Michael Griffin, the ârescueâ movement faced a very public split over whether violence was an acceptable way of furthering its cause. After Gunnâs murder, Christian Reconstructionist and militant anti-abortion activist Paul Hill began circulating what has become known as the âdefensive action statement,â a justification of the murder of abortion providers that was signed by 34 âpro-lifeâ leaders: "We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him."​


Bombings and attempted clinic bombings have been liked to these groups too and many of them are proud of their incitement to violence.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> You are good with an awful lot of killing for a pro-lifer.


Why do you people defend the guilty yet so gleefully approve of the murder of the most innocent?
Talk about hypocrites.
Bloodthirsty hypocrites.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> So to go back to the OP do any of you believe the recent PP videos and the rabid attacks by pro-life groups and GOP candidates influenced Mr. Dear to carry out this attack on the PP clinic?
> 
> Plenty of people here posted a ton of posts blaming BLM for a spate of cop killings even though not one single one was actually traced back to BLM. Are you applying the same rationale in this situation?
> 
> ...


You sure pretend to know what people are thinking
I really think you like spreading falsehoods and generalizations because you get to say whatever foul thing comes to your mind.
Now go whine about how you were insulted
Just do it honestly


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gibbsgirl said:


> Ok, I'll bite again, lol.
> 
> If I understand your pov, you believe all life is real and continuing since life began, so by not allowing all sperms and eggs to connect (which you see as life) then people are choosing to terminate life for each of them. Right?
> 
> ...


You are fairly close in your understanding of my pov. I know that not all sperm and eggs are not going to get together, but those that can and are denied doing so by deliberate measures are just as dead as those that do make the connection and are deliberately disposed of at a later date. You are also correct in thinking I beleive there is no new life, but rather life began.... At some point and every living thing today are the result of that life reproducing itself one generation at a time. It seems to be up for discussion just how life began, some say God created it, others claim life just happened when conditions happened to bring all the necessary components all together at the right time. Either theory is a tough nut to swallow. Me? I'm going with the god theory. I also look at virtually all life forms seem to do their best to reproduce at every opportunity.... With only one exception.... That of course is the human race! What makes us so much better, wiser, or more holy than all other species? I really don't want to discuss "souls" since there is zero evidence those critters exist. Life can be seen all around us every day..... I beleive in life.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Heck, lets just give up now, Let the illegal immigrants and refugees have this country. It used to be "the good of the family", "the good of the nation," now it is "all about me." "The heck with wanting to see my family grow, the heck with having a strong nation." Lets just not reproduce and waste away leaving our country for others. " After all It's my body, and I'll do with it what I please to heck with anyone else, to heck with the future. I don't want kids, I need to find myself." The West is dying. Used to be women were thrilled to have become pregnant, thrilled to see their family grow, but the "woman dominance movement" (feminism) brain washed women that it was bad to have children, telling them they were victims of male aggression. Now the once cherished baby is just a piece of meat to be destroyed. So since we can no longer replace ourselves we might as well give this country to any illegal, refugee, or ISIS extremist that wants it, because they are happy to multiply, happy to take over, happy to have us exterminate ourselves. After all its all about self rather than the greater good of society. "Its my body, I can do what I want, because I'm selfish."


> The replacement rate&#8211;the reproduction rate that keeps a population stable&#8211;for developed countries is 2.1, yet nearly half the worldâs population has birth rates lower than that. The U.S. has a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.0&#8211;nearly the replacement rate&#8211;with Hispanic immigrants leading in birth rates. The U.S. is aging but not as fast as many other countries. A 2010 census showed that 31.4 million Americans live alone&#8211;27% of all households (equal to the percentage of childless couples). *Living alone allows people to pursue individual freedom, exert personal control and go through self-realization,* but these people have fewer children.
> 
> Western European countries have low fertility rates, below the replacement rate of 2.1. Germany: 1.4 (its total population is 81.9 million, of which 8.2% are foreigners). Holland: 1.8 (16.5 million, of which 4.4% are foreigners). Belgium: 1.8 (10.8 million, of which 9.8% are foreigners). Spain: 1.4 (46.1 million, of which 12.4% are foreigners). Italy: 1.4 (60.2 million, of which 7.1% are foreigners), the Popeâs views notwithstanding. Sweden, which provides deep support for parents, has a high TFR of 1.9 (9.4 million, of which 6.4% are foreigners), but thatâs still below the replacement rate. Ireland and the U.K. also have high TFRs, at 2.1 and 1.9, respectively, but these rates are derived from non-European immigrant parents.


 http://www.forbes.com/global/2012/0...ation-declining-birth-rates-lee-kuan-yew.html


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

So I should have had children even though I never wanted to because it's some kind of duty?

I don't think so.

ETA, And it wasn't to 'find' myself, it was to BE myself. I would have been very unhappy as a mother, no child should be raised by a mother who doesn't want to be one for goodness sakes.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> So I should have had children even though I never wanted to because it's some kind of duty?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> ETA, And it wasn't to 'find' myself, it was to BE myself. I would have been very unhappy as a mother, no child should be raised by a mother who doesn't want to be one for goodness sakes.


Who ever said you had to raise a child? No one forced you to be intimate either, your choice.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Who ever said you had to raise a child? No one forced you to be intimate either, your choice.


Post #61.

As to your second sentence you're absolutely right, but it was an assumption on your part, correct notwithstanding, that I have been fortunate enough to not have ever been forced.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

gibbsgirl said:


> Ok, I'll bite, what about controlling men by mothers and courts to finance or acquiese to other conditions if parenthood that men are not supposed to have a final say over whether a child will be born.
> 
> Is that not also society controlling men?
> 
> If we are not going to control women, can we agree that we should not control men either?


No, I doubt anyone on that side of it thinks a man is worth an opinion about his offspring.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Post #61.
> 
> As to your second sentence you're absolutely right, but it was an assumption on your part, correct notwithstanding, that I have been fortunate enough to not have ever been forced.


Ok, I'm sorry, I just reread post 61 and don't see where it said that at all. I read that it WAS a wonderful thing to want and raise a family (i agree) and that some would now not want to "sacrifice" their "lives" to do that. I see raising a family as a privilege and as such, whatever "sacrifices" must be made, are just a part of that privilege. Its life. I saw a dose of reality. It IS your choice, but it is what it is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yet we attack a hospital in Afghanistan and it's not a big deal.


That wasn't intentional, and is partly the hospital's fault, as you well know


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Annsni said:


> What is amazing is that these videos that were put out regarding Planned Parenthood were NOT "heavily maniuplated" other than the editing to make the shorter videos when the full videos are clearly available right alongside it and one could VERY easily see that what is being shown in the shorter videos is *just as much truth as the long ones*. Yes, *PP was selling baby parts and altering abortions* to be able to get the most money possible for those parts. That's a fact. No where does the man mentioned in the article call for vigilante justice against these facilities at all and that's what this was. This is not hypocrisy at all and if one can't see that.....well, I don't know how to help you.


There was the same amount of "truth" in all of them, which is to say nearly *none*.

They have not "sold baby parts for profit", and they did not "alter abortions".
Both of those acts are illegal

Parts of the videos weren't even showing PP facilities or employees.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> No, I doubt anyone on that side of it thinks a man is worth an opinion about his offspring.


If men had to carry them for 9 months they would have some choice in the matter, but the logical thing is to leave that decision to the person whom is the most affected.

You wouldn't support the man's decision if he was in favor of the abortion, so really this whole premise is another distraction from the actual topic, which really isn't about abortion at all, although it is another example of the real topic:



> The hypocrisy of anti abortion activists


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> You are good with an awful lot of killing for a pro-lifer.


JUSTIFIED! Abortion is not justified its convieniance to a dirt bag mother and father in many cases!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If men had to carry them for 9 months they would have some choice in the matter, but the logical thing is to leave that decision to the person whom is the most affected.
> 
> You wouldn't support the man's decision if he was in favor of the abortion, so really this whole premise is another distraction from the actual topic, which really isn't about abortion at all, although it is another example of the real topic:


Isn't this what you just got on me about, telling people what they think. At he end of the day you ending an INNOCENT LIFE. 

Is this your hobby to play the devils advocate and stir the pot and try to sound all full of wisdom? You appear to be very arrogant and full of yourself. Have a blessed day.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was the same amount of "truth" in all of them, which is to say nearly *none*.
> 
> They have not "sold baby parts for profit", and they did not "alter abortions".
> Both of those acts are illegal
> ...


LOL - Funny. The videos have been shown to be the full truth and the fact of what is happening in some PP facilities. You can deny the plain facts all you want but that doesn't make your beliefs true.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> LOL - Funny. The videos have been shown to be the full truth and the fact of what is happening in some PP facilities. You can deny the plain facts all you want but that doesn't make your beliefs true.


If the videos were true, why hasn't PP been closed down and charges filed? Can you explain?

There _are_ at least two lawsuits filed against the Center for Medical Progress.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> If the videos were true, why hasn't PP been closed down and charges filed? Can you explain?
> 
> There _are_ at least two lawsuits filed against the Center for Medical Progress.


Do you honestly think that the liberal government would even slightly consider shutting down Planned Parenthood? If it were fully legal, why did Planned Parenthood agree to stop the selling of baby parts?


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

*True Hypocrisy*


three people killed and nine injured in an abortion clinic.

1.21 million killed and NO injuries in all the abortion clinics.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Do you honestly think that the liberal government would even slightly consider shutting down Planned Parenthood? If it were fully legal, why did Planned Parenthood agree to stop the selling of baby parts?


Oh, OK. Got it. It's a vast liberal government conspiracy. I understand now.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

popscott said:


> *True Hypocrisy*
> 
> 
> three people killed and nine injured in an abortion clinic.
> ...


Abortion is legal. Has been for over 40 years, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. Nothing. Nada. Zip.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

popscott said:


> *True Hypocrisy*
> 
> 
> three people killed and nine injured in an abortion clinic.
> ...


Actually, many of those women WERE injured and the babies that were unsuccessfully aborted may have been born injured as well. I know of MANY women who were very clearly emotionally injured by their abortions.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion is legal. Has been for over 40 years, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. Nothing. Nada. Zip.


I bet people said that about slavery too.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> I bet people said that about slavery too.


Slavery was over turned because all people have the personal right not to be owned and controlled. A woman's right to choose what happens to her own body was enacted into law for the same reason.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> If the videos were true, why hasn't PP been closed down and charges filed? Can you explain?
> 
> There _are_ at least two lawsuits filed against the Center for Medical Progress.


Grow up. Of course there was money in it for PP. PP is all about money just like any other business. If not, why do they get all that money from government? They may claim to be nonprofit like some other businesses, but did you ever see ANY nonprofit turn down money because it would make them show a profit for the year? People work for PP just like any business and they also want raises and benefits as well as the head honchos wanting big salaries. PP squeezes all the money they can from every source it can, including baby parts, just like any business does. If they thought they could squeeze a $100 office visit fee out of some poor teenager, they would be happy to do it. They are not some altruistic group intent on helping people any more than the stream of law firms on TV offering to help you get what you deserve from some evil drug company that made some drug that may have given you a nosebleed.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Slavery was over turned because all people have the personal right not to be owned and controlled. A woman's right to choose what happens to her own body was enacted into law for the same reason.


Except the baby isn't her body.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> Grow up. Of course there was money in it for PP. PP is all about money just like any other business. If not, why do they get all that money from government? They may claim to be nonprofit like some other businesses, but did you ever see ANY nonprofit turn down money because it would make them show a profit for the year? People work for PP just like any business and they also want raises and benefits as well as the head honchos wanting big salaries. PP squeezes all the money they can from every source it can, including baby parts, just like any business does. If they thought they could squeeze a $100 office visit fee out of some poor teenager, they would be happy to do it. They are not some altruistic group intent on helping people any more than the stream of law firms on TV offering to help you get what you deserve from some evil drug company that made some drug that may have given you a nosebleed.


What part of "not for profit" do you have a problem comprehending?  

"The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is an independent, nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization formed as the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Fortifying our commitment to protect womenâs health, educate teens, and prevent unintended pregnancies, the Action Fund engages in educational and electoral activity, including public education campaigns, grassroots organizing, and legislative advocacy." 

From: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are#sthash.SYJxn7Kc.dpuf


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Except the baby isn't her body.


It's part of her body until it's viable. Basic biology. 

This has been done so often I can trot out the real facts in my sleep, do you really want to go through it again?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Slavery was over turned because all people have the personal right not to be owned and controlled. A woman's right to choose what happens to her own body was enacted into law for the same reason.


 Again, slavery wasn't "over turned" it took an amendment to the Constitution to make it unconstitutional. 

The parallels are clear between slavery and abortion. The slave master looked upon his chattel as something less than human and so, justified the institution. They were his property and no one had the right to take them away. It was legal, for hundreds of years, and there was nothing anyone could do about it, nothing, nada, zip.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's part of her body until it's viable. Basic biology.
> 
> This has been done so often I can trot out the real facts in my sleep, do you really want to go through it again?


Basic biology is that the baby has different DNA than mom.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Again, slavery wasn't "over turned" it took an amendment to the Constitution to make it unconstitutional.
> 
> The parallels are clear between slavery and abortion. The slave master looked upon his chattel as something less than human and so, justified the institution. They were his property and no one had the right to take them away. It was legal, for hundreds of years, and there was nothing anyone could do about it, nothing, nada, zip.


I'm sorry you didn't like my wordage... the point is crystal clear tho. No one has the right to own and/or control anyone else. So, no slavery either through owning another person or controlling a woman's body and forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Basic biology is that the baby has different DNA than mom.


Is it viable outside her body? Nope, not until about 22 weeks. I'm not a proponent of of late term abortion, but I also won't infringe on a woman's right to have one. It's not my decision, it's hers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Isn't this what you just got on me about, telling people what they think. At he end of the day you ending an INNOCENT LIFE.
> 
> Is this your hobby to play the devils advocate and stir the pot and try to sound all full of wisdom? You appear to be very arrogant and full of yourself. Have a blessed day.


No, I "got on you" for trying to *deny* you were doing it while complaining about it too

At the end of the day, the decision has nothing to do with you, and you have no right to force your ideas on anyone else.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Annsni said:


> LOL - Funny. *The videos have been shown to be the full truth *and the fact of what is happening in some PP facilities. You can deny the plain facts all you want but that doesn't make your beliefs true.


No, they have not.
There has been no evidence found of anything illegal.
I'm not the one in denial here



Annsni said:


> Do you honestly think that the liberal government would even slightly consider shutting down Planned Parenthood? If it were fully legal, why did Planned Parenthood agree to stop the selling of baby parts?


They didn't "stop" because they never did it to begin with


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry you didn't like my wordage... the point is crystal clear tho. No one has the right to own and/or control anyone else. So, no slavery either through owning another person or controlling a woman's body and forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want.



Yeah about that right people have to not be controlled by others. We are controlling fathers.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I "got on you" for trying to *deny* you were doing it while complaining about it too
> 
> At the end of the day, the decision has nothing to do with you, and you have no right to force your ideas on anyone else.


Yeah, about not forcing your ideas on others. We are controlling fathers.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> What part of "not for profit" do you have a problem comprehending?


What part of 500 million dollars federal funding do you not understand?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

popscott said:


> What part of 500 million dollars federal funding do you not understand?


Your point is? Not. for. profit. No profit. All of that funding goes into operations. *Not.for.profit*.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Yeah about that right people have to not be controlled by others. We are controlling fathers.


No one is forcing fathers to have an unwanted pregnancy, and as I told Woolieface, you wouldn't support the father if he wanted the abortion, as many of them do.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, they have not.
> There has been no evidence found of anything illegal.
> I'm not the one in denial here
> 
> ...


http://www.wsj.com/articles/planned...ng-reimbursements-for-fetal-tissue-1444744800


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by popscott View Post
> What part of 500 million dollars federal funding do you not understand?


None of that money funds abortions.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> http://www.wsj.com/articles/planned...ng-reimbursements-for-fetal-tissue-1444744800


From your link: Planned Parenthood Federation of America said it will immediately stop accepting *reimbursements* for supplying fetal tissue for medical research, an attempt to tamp down a controversy that has led to Republican investigations in Congress and an effort to end federal funding.

They are still donating fetal tissue for medical research, but aren't accepting reimbursement for the cost of shipping it to the research labs. 

Do you understand the difference between selling and the reimbursement of shipping costs?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> From your link: Planned Parenthood Federation of America said it will immediately stop accepting *reimbursements* for supplying fetal tissue for medical research, an attempt to tamp down a controversy that has led to Republican investigations in Congress and an effort to end federal funding.
> 
> They are still donating fetal tissue for medical research, but aren't accepting reimbursement for the cost of shipping it to the research labs.
> 
> Do you understand the difference between selling and the reimbursement of shipping costs?


Semantics. I don't think it costs $300 to ship one single baby part to a nearby facility, do you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Annsni said:


> http://www.wsj.com/articles/planned...ng-reimbursements-for-fetal-tissue-1444744800


Do you understand the term "reimbursement"?

It means they are *recovering* the money they had to spend to obtain the donated tissues.

It does NOT mean they are "selling baby parts"



> Planned Parenthood Stops Taking *Reimbursements* for Fetal Tissue


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of that money funds abortions.


It shocks me that people still don't know, or understand, about the Hyde Amendment.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Semantics. I don't think it costs $300 to ship one single baby part to a nearby facility, do you?


It's a liberal government conspiracy, right? 

Sigh. It's not like shipping vitamins from Amazon...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Annsni said:


> Semantics. *I don't think* it costs $300 to ship one single baby part to a nearby facility, do you?


What you might "think" has no bearing on reality.
There are more costs involved than mere "shipping".

All that was explained in the videos too


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Your point is? Not. for. profit. No profit. All of that funding goes into operations. *Not.for.profit*.


Can you show where PP EVER returned a dime of their federal funding because they happened to show a profit one year? Can you show me where any nonprofit EVER refused a donation because it was the end of the year and that donation would put them into profit? They all use accounting methods to handle profit so it is eaten up or carried over to the next year. A $200,000 profit can disappear if the head honchos get a bonus or pay raise. So can a 2 million dollar profit.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> Can you show where PP EVER returned a dime of their federal funding because they happened to show a profit one year? Can you show me where any nonprofit EVER refused a donation because it was the end of the year and that donation would put them into profit? They all use accounting methods to handle profit so it is eaten up or carried over to the next year. A $200,000 profit can disappear if the head honchos get a bonus or pay raise. So can a 2 million dollar profit.


It is put back into patient care- no profit. Why is that so hard to understand? 

Do you think it's an honor system? Or are there are checks to make sure that everything received goes back into the agency?

Or are you a liberal government conspiracy person too?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry you didn't like my wordage... the point is crystal clear tho. No one has the right to own and/or control anyone else. So, no slavery either through owning another person or controlling a woman's body and forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want.


 Her choice should end when she allows a man to inseminate her. The only time that isn't true is in case of rape. Oh, and people are controlled all of the time, many times to protect others, and many times not.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

poppy said:


> Can you show where PP EVER returned a dime of their federal funding because they happened to show a profit one year? Can you show me where any nonprofit EVER refused a donation because it was the end of the year and that donation would put them into profit? They all use accounting methods to handle profit so it is eaten up or carried over to the next year. A $200,000 profit can disappear if the head honchos get a bonus or pay raise. So can a 2 million dollar profit.


Well, we know that a lot of it goes into the campaign funds of leading Democratic candidates.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you understand the term "reimbursement"?
> 
> It means they are *recovering* the money they had to spend to obtain the donated tissues.
> 
> It does NOT mean they are "selling baby parts"


Selling baby parts = money
reimbursement = money

Got it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Her choice should end when she allows a man to inseminate her. The only time that isn't true is in case of rape. Oh, and people are controlled all of the time, many times to protect others, and many times not.


So a "life" brought about by rape doesn't have the same rights as all? Why? If all "life" is precious and all "life" deserves an equal chance why is that "life" different and subject to another's decision? And how long does one get to make that decision?


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> It shocks me that people still don't know, or understand, about the Hyde Amendment.


Is it Hide or Hyde?


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> So a "life" brought about by rape doesn't have the same rights as all? Why?


So a life brought about by a women cheating on her husband doen't have a right to life. Why does the baby have to pay for the mother mistake with it's life?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> So a "life" brought about by rape doesn't have the same rights as all? Why? If all "life" is precious and all "life" deserves an equal chance why is that "life" different and subject to another's decision? And how long does one get to make that decision?


 
Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe it does and I don't believe that children, conceived in rape, deserve to die. But, we were speaking of choice here. In the vast majority of pregnancies, women choose to let a man inseminate her. In a very few cases, she doesn't.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Your point is? Not. for. profit. No profit. All of that funding goes into operations. *Not.for.profit*.


Being Non-Profit Does NOT mean you CAN'T make MONEY~! Plain and simple. 
Look at how many Hospitals are making money and STILL BEING NOT FOR PROFIT. Git Real They MAKE MONEY off this crap! Quit dancing around semantics, just to Fit Your agenda of this bs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

popscott said:


> So a life brought about by a women cheating on her husband doen't have a right to life. Why does the baby have to pay for the mother mistake with it's life?


You use this meme a lot, do you think it's real?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Being Non-Profit Does NOT mean you CAN'T make MONEY~! Plain and simple.
> Look at how many Hospitals are making money and STILL BEING NOT FOR PROFIT. Git Real They MAKE MONEY off this crap! Quit dancing around semantics, just to Fit Your agenda of this bs.


Please Google "not for profit definition". Thanks.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

popscott said:


> Is it Hide or Hyde?


Spoken like a true liberal government conspiracist. :thumb:


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

We have a not for profit motocross track. When they make a profit they improve fencing, structures, watering, equipment, etc...

They never have too much money


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe it does and I don't believe that children, conceived in rape, deserve to die. But, we were speaking of choice here. In the vast majority of pregnancies, women choose to let a man inseminate her. In a very few cases, she doesn't.


You can't have it both ways. Either there is a "life" deserving the right to live or there isn't. The minute you grant an exception to take one "life" based on a woman's thinking you must grant the same exception to all women. Anything less is a flaw in logic. If an innocent life is an innocent life is an innocent life all having the same rights there logically can't be an exception.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe it does and I don't believe that children, conceived in rape, deserve to die. But, we were speaking of choice here. In the vast majority of pregnancies, women choose to let a man inseminate her. In a very few cases, she doesn't.


Huh. I thought birth control failure was fairly common... Oh, I was correct. Here's a handy dandy chart:










It really doesn't matter- abortion is legal in all 50 states.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> You use this meme a lot, do you think it's real?


Yep... it is the "real" in "reality"



Irish Pixie said:


> Spoken like a true liberal government conspiracist. :thumb:


Thank you. .........


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

oneraddad said:


> We have a not for profit motocross track. When they make a profit they improve fencing, structures, watering, equipment, etc...
> 
> They never have too much money


Sure they do it never was meant that they or anyone or any business could not Make Money. They just can't Keep It. LOL They have to keep Using it up and make improvements etc.
How many of those non profit hospitals would be around if they could Not Make Money.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> You can't have it both ways. Either there is a "life" deserving the right to live or there isn't. The minute you grant an exception to take one "life" based on a woman's thinking you must grant the same exception to all women. Anything less is a flaw in logic. If an innocent life is an innocent life is an innocent life all having the same rights there logically can't be an exception.


Hmm...I think this was said
*"I don't believe that children, conceived in rape, deserve to die."*
Seems clear enough. The point there was that Conception was a choice in all cases but rape. I see nothing there indicating that abortion is a condoned "choice" either way.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> You can't have it both ways. Either there is a "life" deserving the right to live or there isn't. The minute you grant an exception to take one "life" based on a woman's thinking you must grant the same exception to all women. Anything less is a flaw in logic. If an innocent life is an innocent life is an innocent life all having the same rights there logically can't be an exception.


 Again there was no exception implied. My point was that, in the vast majority of cases, the choice occurred prior to conception. Much like any other type of homicide the only justifiable abortion is in self defense.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Huh. I thought birth control failure was fairly common... Oh, I was correct. Here's a handy dandy chart:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Huh...... your chart does not include birth control by abortion. Why?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

popscott said:


> Yep... it is the "real" in "reality"
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. .........


Please explain how the perfect outline of a fetal foot can show through the uterine wall, muscle, and skin. Rudimentary knowledge of anatomy makes the statement foolish and totally impossible. 

Much like most of your statements.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

popscott said:


> Huh...... your chart does not include birth control by abortion. Why?


Because abortion isn't birth control. You think it is? Seriously?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Because abortion isn't birth control. You think it is? Seriously?



If not birth control, what is it ?


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Because abortion isn't birth control.


The question is... Did you seriously just type that?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

oneraddad said:


> If not birth control, what is it ?


The _termination_ of a pregnancy. Birth control is to _prevent_ pregnancy.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I "got on you" for trying to *deny* you were doing it while complaining about it too
> 
> At the end of the day, the decision has nothing to do with you, and you have no right to force your ideas on anyone else.


And you have the right to? Give me a break, good effort!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Her choice should end when she allows a man to inseminate her. The only time that isn't true is in case of rape. Oh, and people are controlled all of the time, many times to protect others, and many times not.





Woolieface said:


> Hmm...I think this was said
> *"I don't believe that children, conceived in rape, deserve to die."*
> Seems clear enough. The point there was that Conception was a choice in all cases but rape. I see nothing there indicating that abortion is a condoned "choice" either way.


Actually, this is what was said. It was refined but the logical fallacy doesn't disappear. If all "life" is sacred and deserves rights than all "life" must get those rights. If any exception is made than the premise that all "life" has the same rights cannot be true. Whether you, or anyone else, would make the same choice is irrelevant to the argument. If all women have equal rights, all have the same right to choose.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> The _termination_ of a pregnancy. Birth control is to _prevent_ pregnancy.


I think terminate is synonymous with kill depending on application! I was told to stop forcing my ideas on people, I guess your crowd is exempt from that!


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The _termination_ of a pregnancy. Birth control is to _prevent_ pregnancy.



The end result no matter what words you use, the pregnancy is being controlled.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Again there was no exception implied. My point was that, in the vast majority of cases, the choice occurred prior to conception. Much like any other type of homicide the only justifiable abortion is in self defense.


No choice was implied. You stated it quite clearly when you voiced the rape exception. Now you've entered another exception into the discussion. The possible detriment to the health of the woman carrying it. A fetus can threaten the life of the woman thus invoking your self defense exception. Of course your "only" statement here contradicts your rape statement earlier.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

oneraddad said:


> The end result no matter what words you use, the pregnancy is being controlled.


I agree, but abortion still isn't birth control.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, but abortion still isn't birth control.



To a lot of women it is


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> No choice was implied. You stated it quite clearly when you voiced the rape exception. Now you've entered another exception into the discussion. The possible detriment to the health of the woman carrying it. A fetus can threaten the life of the woman thus invoking your self defense exception. Of course your "only" statement here contradicts your rape statement earlier.


 I actually used the word "choice" in my OP. What I didn't use in my OP was the word "abortion". The only time that the choice was not hers is in the case of rape. That is a true statement. I never implied that an exception should exist for rape, nor did I say it outright. If the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy, it is logical to allow abortion in order to save at least one of the two lives. 

It is justifiable to kill a person who is an immediate danger to your life. It is not justifiable to kill someone who is simply "in your way".


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Please explain how the perfect outline of a fetal foot can show through the uterine wall, muscle, and skin. Rudimentary knowledge of anatomy makes the statement foolish and totally impossible.
> 
> Much like most of your statements.


Some people don't understand words very well.....

So that is when one might use pictures to make a point....

By the way..... the bubble words are not really the baby speaking, just thought I'd let you know.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is forcing fathers to have an unwanted pregnancy, and as I told Woolieface, you wouldn't support the father if he wanted the abortion, as many of them do.


Well, technically, except for rape, no one is forcing mothers to have unwanted pregnancies either.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry you didn't like my wordage... the point is crystal clear tho. No one has the right to own and/or control anyone else. So, no slavery either through owning another person or controlling a woman's body and forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want.





Farmerga said:


> Her choice should end when she allows a man to inseminate her. The only time that isn't true is in case of rape. Oh, and people are controlled all of the time, many times to protect others, and many times not.





Farmerga said:


> I actually used the word "choice" in my OP. What I didn't use in my OP was the word "abortion". The only time that the choice was not hers is in the case of rape. That is a true statement. I never implied that an exception should exist for rape, nor did I say it outright. If the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy, it is logical to allow abortion in order to save at least one of the two lives.
> 
> It is justifiable to kill a person who is an immediate danger to your life. It is not justifiable to kill someone who is simply "in your way".


Here are your post and the one you were responding to. It seems fairly clear to me that the choice you were referring to was the choice to terminate the pregnancy not the choice to get pregnant. But let's say you were. You're specific in that case to differentiating between a woman who chose to let a man impregnate her and one who was raped. What of the woman who chose to use birth control which failed. She didn't choose to become pregnant. In fact, she chose to try not to. Do all her choices end then, also?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Here are your post and the one you were responding to. It seems fairly clear to me that the choice you were referring to was the choice to terminate the pregnancy not the choice to get pregnant. But let's say you were. You're specific in that case to differentiating between a woman who chose to let a man impregnate her and one who was raped. What of the woman who chose to use birth control which failed. She didn't choose to become pregnant. In fact, she chose to try not to. Do all her choices end then, also?


It is clear to you because that is what you want it to say. Logic would dictate that, in the case of questions, my follow up posts should be consulted. 

I will say again as clearly as possible "THERE SHOULD BE NO ABORTIONS except in defense of the life of the mother." How is that? 

The choice to kill the child is the only choice I would limit. There are many other choices that would remain.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

popscott said:


> Some people don't understand words very well.....
> 
> So that is when one might use pictures to make a point....
> 
> By the way..... the bubble words are not really the baby speaking, just thought I'd let you know.


The words are a rather stupid cliche. Do you realize that the picture is complete rubbish and clearly photo shopped? Or don't you care because you think it supports your anti abortion agenda?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, it's perfectly clear that you are never going to admit that *you want control over all women *and want to force them to carry all pregnancies to term. That's what pro unborn is, there is no other way to describe it.


There's that mind reading gone wrong again
If that's true, then we can say *you want all babies murdered,* cut apart and sold for profit.
Right?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If men had to carry them for 9 months they would have some choice in the matter, but the logical thing is to leave that decision to the person whom is the most affected.
> 
> You wouldn't support the man's decision if he was in favor of the abortion, so really this whole premise is another distraction from the actual topic, which really isn't about abortion at all, although it is another example of the real topic:


And if Mom decides to have the baby, suddenly, he's involved..at least financially, no choice in either one.
That's the liberal version of "fair"


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> If the videos were true, why hasn't PP been closed down and charges filed? Can you explain?
> 
> There _are_ at least two lawsuits filed against the Center for Medical Progress.


Because the corrupt DOJ run by racist activist and hate monger friends of the hateful Obama?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> The words are a rather stupid cliche. Do you realize that the picture is complete rubbish and clearly photo shopped? Or don't you care because you think it supports your anti abortion agenda?


Do you care that saying anti abortion rather than prolife supports your agenda?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion is legal. Has been for over 40 years, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. Nothing. Nada. Zip.


Owning guns, even scary looking guns has been legal for hundreds of years, yet that doesn't stop the leftists you support from trying to take that away
Hypocrisy is rampant on your side
Kill babies, save the murderers
Take my rights but not yours
Hypocrisy


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> It is clear to you because that is what you want it to say. Logic would dictate that, in the case of questions, my follow up posts should be consulted.
> 
> I will say again as clearly as possible "THERE SHOULD BE NO ABORTIONS except in defense of the life of the mother." How is that?
> 
> The choice to kill the child is the only choice I would limit. There are many other choices that would remain.


It's clear to me because logic dictates it. You cannot lose the ability to make a choice you already have. You cannot lose the choice to allow a man to inseminate you after it has happened. The only choice available to you then is what to do about the product of that choice. That is the choice you referenced. Your words, not mine. But thanks for clarifying your position.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

oneraddad said:


> If not birth control, what is it ?


Slaughter?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I wish inflammatory, fallacious statements hurt.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> It's clear to me because logic dictates it. You cannot lose the ability to make a choice you already have. You cannot lose the choice to allow a man to inseminate you after it has happened. The only choice available to you then is what to do about the product of that choice. That is the choice you referenced. Your words, not mine. But thanks for clarifying your position.


 You are twisting in the wind. All I said was that, in a vast number of pregnancies, the woman has chosen to allow a man to inseminate her, and in cases of rape she didn't have that choice. That is it. I can't help that your flawed logic let you read something into it that wasn't there, but, 
I have come to expect it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> You are twisting in the wind. All I said was that, in a vast number of pregnancies, the woman has chosen to allow a man to inseminate her, and in cases of rape she didn't have that choice. That is it. I can't help that your flawed logic let you read something into it that wasn't there, but,
> I have come to expect it.


Nah, that's what you wished you said. I changed none of your words nor their meaning. I've also come to expect your reaction.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Hypocrisy? OK, tell me... two adults get together to have consensual sex. [not to confuse anyone, a man and a woman] Both use protection. The protection fails, the woman wants to have the baby but the man, who is in no position to support that child at this point in his life suggests an abortion or adopting that child out. Is he rightfully able to bow out of that situation if she chooses against his wishes to have the child and bring it up HERSELF?

This should be good.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Actually, this is what was said. It was refined but the logical fallacy doesn't disappear. If all "life" is sacred and deserves rights than all "life" must get those rights. If any exception is made than the premise that all "life" has the same rights cannot be true. Whether you, or anyone else, would make the same choice is irrelevant to the argument. If all women have equal rights, all have the same right to choose.


It's well established that some believe in the right of a woman to choose to kill her child. I wouldn't dream of being here to post in argument to that. The dust came off my feet over that one on round 12 or whatever.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *Her choice should end *when she allows a man to inseminate her. The only time that isn't true is in case of rape. Oh, and people are controlled all of the time, many times to protect others, and many times not.


But it doesn't.
*Yours* ends when it's about someone other than yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> Yep... it is the "real" in "reality"
> 
> Thank you. .........


Do you have the statistics on all these "pregnancies from adultery"?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> But it doesn't.
> *Yours* ends when it's about someone other than yourself


Is it that hard to recognize our abortion laws have not provided protection of rights for all by giving the choice entirely to a mother?

Leave the children out of it for a minute, cause everybody is pretty settled on their own feelings in that department.

A man should have some protections provided for his rights since women gave been recognized as the final ---- caller on whether a child will be born. 

My thoughts anyway.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> But it doesn't.
> *Yours* ends when it's about someone other than yourself


 
If I see a man savagely beating a woman, can I not choose to intervene, or, have the law intervene? That choice would be about someone other than myself, and, by your reasoning, is none of my concern.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Shine said:


> Hypocrisy? OK, tell me... two adults get together to have consensual sex. [not to confuse anyone, a man and a woman] Both use protection. The protection fails, the woman wants to have the baby but the man, who is in no position to support that child at this point in his life suggests an abortion or adopting that child out. Is he rightfully able to bow out of that situation if she chooses against his wishes to have the child and bring it up HERSELF?
> 
> This should be good.



Bow out ?

Just as you believe a child has a right to life, it also has right to support. Doesn't matter what the parents think.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> No, I doubt anyone on that side of it thinks a man is worth an opinion about his offspring.


I think the man's opinion is important depending on the circumstances of the conception. Sometimes the man is dangerous and the pregnancy could get the woman badly beaten or even killed. Sometimes the pregnancy comes from a one night chance meeting. I think if the woman is involved in a long term committed relationship with the father then there should be a discussion and the father's opinion should be taken into consideration.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Nah, that's what you wished you said. I changed none of your words nor their meaning. I've also come to expect your reaction.


You did, indeed read into my comments, things that weren't there. As I never used the word "abortion" in reference to "choice" in the post of which we speak, but, rather, the choice, in question was to be inseminated and I did use that word.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> JUSTIFIED! Abortion is not justified its convieniance to a dirt bag mother and father in many cases!


 Justification is all in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> And* you have the right to*? Give me a break, good effort!


You seem confused.
I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

oneraddad said:


> Bow out ?
> 
> Just as you believe a child has a right to life, it also has right to support. Doesn't matter what the parents think.


That same exact sentence could be the logic used to force a mother to keep a pregnancy.

I'm not saying I think women need to be forced to keep pregnancies.

But, I don't like men (or women) being legally shackled by the govts or other parents ciersion into what they are obligated to do.

Imo, its a very relevant part if why families gave been so weakened.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

oneraddad said:


> Bow out ?
> 
> Just as you believe a child has a right to life, it also has right to support. Doesn't matter what the parents think.


 I believe that is the point. If birth control fails, and a pregnancy results, the woman can have an abortion, adopt the child out, or, keep and raise the baby. She then can use force of law to compel the father to support the results of her choice. He, on the other hand, is almost completely at the mercy of the mother, no matter if he has any interest in the child, or, not. 

Now, I believe that he should be compelled to support the child, but, I also believe that she shouldn't have the choice to kill it for convenience sake.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> I think the man's opinion is important depending on the circumstances of the conception. Sometimes the man is dangerous and the pregnancy could get the woman badly beaten or even killed. Sometimes the pregnancy comes from a one night chance meeting. I think if the woman is involved in a long term committed relationship with the father then *there should be a discussion and the father's opinion should be taken into consideration.*


There should be, but there is no legality behind it. The entire thing is built on the "rights" of women while men continue to be disregarded trash in the affair. It's like every unplanned pregnancy was an immaculate conception or something...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

poppy said:


> Can you show where PP EVER returned a dime of their federal funding because they happened to show a profit one year? Can you show me where any nonprofit EVER refused a donation because it was the end of the year and that donation would put them into profit? They all use accounting methods to handle profit so it is eaten up or carried over to the next year. A $200,000 profit can disappear if the head honchos get a bonus or pay raise. So can a 2 million dollar profit.


That is actually not how non-profits work at all. You can't hand it as a bonus to the CEO. That would be capitalism.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

gibbsgirl said:


> That same exact sentence could be the logic used to force a mother to keep a pregnancy.
> 
> I'm not saying I think women need to be forced to keep pregnancies.
> 
> ...



You're Wrong !


It's called being responsible for your actions. If you make a baby you need to be paying documented support for it. Go tell your mortgage company that only your husband is responsible for the debt.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Well, technically, except for rape, no one is forcing mothers to have unwanted pregnancies either.


The anti-abortion contingent *wants* to force them to carry them to full term. 

They want abortions outlawed, not allowing them to end an unwanted pregnancy.

They want to control what others do, plain and simple


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> There should be, but there is no legality behind it. The entire thing is built on the "rights" of women while men continue to be disregarded trash in the affair. It's like every unplanned pregnancy was an immaculate conception or something...


Well to go back to the argument of most pro-lifers here if he doesn't have sex he will never have to worry about that right?  I think in most committed relationships the father and the mother do have a conversation about it. Sadly in a lot of relationships where the mother would like to keep the baby she is strong armed by her husband or boyfriend to have an abortion.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Her choice should end when she allows a man to inseminate her. The only time that isn't true is in case of rape. Oh, and people are controlled all of the time, many times to protect others, and many times not.


Wow. I can not even formulate a response to that.....


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The anti-abortion contingent *wants* to force them to carry them to full term.
> 
> They want abortions outlawed, not allowing them to end an unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> They want to control what others do, plain and simple


 So, do you advocate taking all laws off of the books? Do away with prohibitions on theft, murder, rape, fraud, tax evasion, etc.? Are those laws not an attempt to control what others do?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

oneraddad said:


> You're Wrong !
> 
> 
> It's called being responsible for your actions. If you make a baby you need to be paying documented support for it. Go tell your mortgage company that only your husband is responsible for the debt.


I am all for people being responsible. As was noted above, that "holding one to be responsible" thing is slanted towards the women, through their right with a free "Get out of Parenthood Free" card. There is no provision for a man to execute such an option. This is utter hypocrisy in its perfect definition.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> I believe that is the point. If birth control fails, and a pregnancy results, the woman can have an abortion, adopt the child out, or, keep and raise the baby. She then can use force of law to compel the father to support the results of her choice. He, on the other hand, is almost completely at the mercy of the mother, no matter if he has any interest in the child, or, not.
> 
> Now, I believe that he should be compelled to support the child, but, I also believe that she shouldn't have the choice to kill it for convenience sake.



Your believe is pro-life, support that life. It's about the children, remember ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> And if Mom decides to have the baby, suddenly, he's involved..at least financially, no choice in either one.
> That's the liberal version of "fair"


If you think it's "unfair", get the laws changed.
I had nothing to do with them


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Well, we know that a lot of it goes into the campaign funds of leading Democratic candidates.


That's not true either. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Wow. I can not even formulate a response to that.....


 Why? It is called being responsible for ones actions. Women usually have the choice as to whom they allow to inseminate them, do they not?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

oneraddad said:


> You're Wrong !
> 
> 
> It's called being responsible for your actions. If you make a baby you need to be paying documented support for it. Go tell your mortgage company that only your husband is responsible for the debt.


I disagree with that perspective of seeing children as part of a business transaction to be compared to a bank mortgage. Children are people not assets or liabilities IMO.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Owning guns, even scary looking guns has been legal for hundreds of years, yet that doesn't stop the leftists you support from trying to take that away
> Hypocrisy is rampant on your side
> Kill babies, save the murderers
> *Take my rights but not yours*
> Hypocrisy


You still have the right to not have an abortion.
The laws don't affect you at all


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Well to go back to the argument of most pro-lifers here if he doesn't have sex he will never have to worry about that right?  I think in most committed relationships the father and the mother do have a conversation about it. Sadly in a lot of relationships where the mother would like to keep the baby she is strong armed by her husband or boyfriend to have an abortion.


True, if abstinence is practiced, neither of them have to worry about it...but since it takes two...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> That's not true either. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html


 
And I will raise you this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2012


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> Hmm...I think this was said
> *"I don't believe that children, conceived in rape, deserve to die."*
> Seems clear enough. The point there was that Conception was a choice in all cases but rape. I see nothing there indicating that abortion is a condoned "choice" either way.


No conception is not a choice in all cases but rape. Birth control is used and it fails. That was a definite choice not to conceive. Sex can be coerced but not meet a lot of people's standards of rape. If a man has sex with his wife when she doesn't want it is that rape? How about if the woman is asleep? Under the influence? Making a poor decision for various reasons? Stuck in an abusive relationship?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I was a single Dad of 3 from the third grade on.


ETA: I surely didn't have time to be on the internet while being a parent.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> And I will raise you this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2012


That's from their political action fund. No federal dollars or non-profit dollars go into that. It's money they raise outside of their non-profit organization. For example plug Focus on the Family into their search. They are a religious non-profit but they also have a political donation arm.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

oneraddad said:


> Your believe is pro-life, support that life. It's about the children, remember ?


 That is what I said.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

oneraddad said:


> I was a single Dad of 3 from the third grade on.
> 
> 
> ETA: I surely didn't have time to be on the internet while being a parent.


You got someone pregnant when you were in 3rd grade? :huh:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> That's from their political action fund. No federal dollars or non-profit dollars go into that. It's money they raise outside of their non-profit organization. For example plug Focus on the Family into their search. They are a religious non-profit but they also have a political donation arm.


 Funny how they can get around these silly laws, can't they? It is money that PP uses to support (buy) politicians that they like, is it not?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> No conception is not a choice in all cases but rape. Birth control is used and it fails. That was a definite choice not to conceive. Sex can be coerced but not meet a lot of people's standards of rape. If a man has sex with his wife when she doesn't want it is that rape? How about if the woman is asleep? Under the influence? Making a poor decision for various reasons? Stuck in an abusive relationship?


I disagree with the part about it being a definite choice if contraception is used. I think the choice is more accurately that they hope there is no child conceived, but they are choosing to accept the risk that it could happen.

Sort of the way a driver hopes to be safe with no accidents or tickets, but if one happens, people don't respond with a lot of pity if the driver demands that it should have never happened because they chose for it not to. Sometimes property and people's lives are changed forever even after repairs, and all drivers know they take that chance by driving.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Is it that hard to recognize our abortion laws have not provided protection of rights for all by giving the choice entirely to a mother?
> 
> Leave the children out of it for a minute, cause everybody is pretty settled on their own feelings in that department.
> 
> ...


You just want to take away the woman's rights.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> No conception is not a choice in all cases but rape. Birth control is used and it fails. That was a definite choice not to conceive. Sex can be coerced but not meet a lot of people's standards of rape. If a man has sex with his wife when she doesn't want it is that rape? How about if the woman is asleep? Under the influence? Making a poor decision for various reasons? Stuck in an abusive relationship?


Let's say sex was a choice then...and we all know what can happen with that. If you take the chance...you deal with whatever you get from that and unplanned pregnancies are not the only unplanned consequence possible. There are preppers on this site, right? We all get the concept 

Poor decisions are poor decisions...we gotta live with them.

I'm not personally one for making exceptions for abortion because of rape, etc... One victim is quite enough. Obviously I'm not advocating asking a rapist's opinion on his child but the vast majority of cases involves a father who never gets a voice at all.

Of course none of these problems would exist if there wasn't a legal right for a woman to abort in the first place.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Hypocrisy? OK, tell me... two adults get together to have consensual sex. [not to confuse anyone, a man and a woman] Both use protection. The protection fails, the woman wants to have the baby but the man, who is in no position to support that child at this point in his life suggests an abortion or adopting that child out. Is he rightfully able to bow out of that situation if she chooses against his wishes to have the child and bring it up HERSELF?
> 
> This should be good.


You already know the applicable laws


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You just want to take away the woman's rights.


Actually I don't. I do want to stop forcing people's tax dollars to support abortions. And, I do want women to be better informed about physical and mental health issues related to abortion and other health issues. But, that's because I want that area if healthcare improved upon for all people. And, I do want balance for men's rights regarding being parents, because they have lost a lot of ground in that department in recent decades.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> If I see a man savagely beating a woman, can I not choose to intervene, or, have the law intervene? That choice would be about someone other than myself, and, by your reasoning, is none of my concern.


You've tried comparing *illegal* acts to abortion before.
It was just as pointless an argument then as it is now.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've tried comparing *illegal* acts to abortion before.
> It was just as pointless an argument then as it is now.


But, it used to be legal for a man to beat his wife. So, you are saying that I didn't have the choice back then, but, I do now? Plus, that is not what you said you said that if the choice was about someone other than myself, I had no choice. So, which is it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> So, do you advocate taking all laws off of the books? Do away with prohibitions on theft, murder, rape, fraud, tax evasion, etc.? Are those laws not an attempt to control what others do?


This is about *abortion*, not every law there is.

If you had logical arguments to make, you wouldn't have to resort to the illogical.

Let's keep things in context


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> This is about *abortion*, not every law there is.
> 
> If you had logical arguments to make, you wouldn't have to resort to the illogical.
> 
> Let's keep things in context


 But, you accused the anti-abortion crowd of wanting to control what others do. That would seem to imply that any case of controlling what people do would be wrong, in your eyes. I merely gave some examples of laws, currently on the books, that attempt to control the actions of others, and asked for your opinion as to if or if they should not be repealed. If you want to keep it specific, write your posts specifically.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> You got someone pregnant when you were in 3rd grade? :huh:


He's precocious


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> But, it *used to be legal for a man to beat his wife*. So, you are saying that I didn't have the choice back then, but, I do now? Plus, that is not what you said you said that if the choice was about someone other than myself, I had no choice. So, which is it?


No, it was not.
It's just another attempt to turn the topic to something other than abortions, and a good example of the true intended topic.

It's starting to go in circles as always.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

gibbsgirl said:


> I disagree with the part about it being a definite choice if contraception is used. I think the choice is more accurately that they hope there is no child conceived, but they are choosing to accept the risk that it could happen.
> 
> Sort of the way a driver hopes to be safe with no accidents or tickets, but if one happens, people don't respond with a lot of pity if the driver demands that it should have never happened because they chose for it not to. Sometimes property and people's lives are changed forever even after repairs, and all drivers know they take that chance by driving.



But be responsible and pay for the repairs to the other drivers vehicle when you have an accident.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> But, you accused the anti-abortion crowd of wanting to control what others do. *That would seem to imply *that any case of controlling what people do would be wrong, in your eyes. I merely gave some examples of laws, currently on the books, that attempt to control the actions of others, and asked for your opinion as to if or if they should not be repealed. If you want to keep it specific, write your posts specifically.


It doesn't imply anything outside of the context of "abortions", which is what this thread has been turned into.

I have no control over what you infer from simple statements I make, and it's not like we haven't had the same conversation before.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it was not.
> It's just another attempt to turn the topic to something other than abortions, and a good example of the true intended topic.
> 
> It's starting to go in circles as always.


 Yes, it was: The "rule of thumb" legend is largely bunk but, at times, it was legal to beat ones wife:

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/mythsofwomenshistory/a/rule_of_thumb.htm


So, in your world we can't point to other barbaric acts, that used to be legal, to shine a light on a barbaric act that is currently legal? How convenient for you.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't imply anything outside of the context of "abortions", which is what this thread has been turned into.
> 
> I have no control over what you infer from simple statements I make, and it's not like we haven't had the same conversation before.


 But you use general statements all of the time. "They want to control women". How? Do we want to put women in chains keep them at home with an apron and a broom? I will answer, NO! We want to prevent the ongoing homicide of millions of unborn babies. Other than that little atrocity, we generally don't care what women, or, anyone else does as long as their actions do no harm to others.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> But you use general statements all of the time. "They want to control women". How? Do we want to put women in chains keep them at home with an apron and a broom? I will answer, NO! We want to prevent the ongoing homicide of millions of unborn babies. Other than that little atrocity, we generally don't care what women, or, anyone else does as long as their actions do no harm to others.


What do you call forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want? There doesn't have to be chains in order to control someone.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You just want to take away the woman's rights.


You just want to take away the babies rights.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

oneraddad said:


> But be responsible and pay for the repairs to the other drivers vehicle when you have an accident.


The drivers and/or owners of the vehicle have to deal with that responsibilityt. Not the passengers.

Our legal system treats men and women both as driver as far as parental responsibilities. But, our laws are not recognizing that men are in the passenger position for some important issues.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> What do you call forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want? There doesn't have to be chains in order to control someone.


 Having her be responsible for her actions. What do you call forcing a man to pay for a child, he didn't want, for 18 + years?


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> The words are a rather stupid cliche. Do you realize that the picture is complete rubbish and clearly photo shopped? Or don't you care because you think it supports your anti abortion agenda?


Prove it's photoshopped.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Having her be responsible for her actions. What do you call forcing a man to pay for a child, he didn't want, for 18 + years?


I'm only discussing the fact you (collective anti abortion activists) want total control over a woman's body by forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want. 

How can it not be control if a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem confused.
> I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything


You are forcing your belief on everyone and saying theirs is wrong if it does not mirror yours. Same concept different side of the fence but once again you win all knowing and powerful.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm only discussing the fact you (collective anti abortion activists) want total control over a woman's body by forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want.
> 
> How can it not be control if a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want?


You're arguing to protect a legal right that currently exists. What about the legal changes that have not been put into place to protect men's rights?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm only discussing the fact you (collective anti abortion activists) want total control over a woman's body by forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want.
> 
> How can it not be control if a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want?


Maybe she should have chose to not have sex! Grabbing an electric fence comes with the inherent risk of being shocked, sex has the risk of unwanted child, don't want the bad side of it don't do it!


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Having her be responsible for her actions. What do you call forcing a man to pay for a child, he didn't want, for 18 + years?


So babies daddy tells mommy to get an abortion and now he's not liable ?

Mommy can't do it on here own and asks for help, now what ?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

oneraddad said:


> So babies daddy tells mommy to get an abortion and now he's not liable ?
> 
> Mommy can't do it on here own and asks for help, now what ?


Adoption!!!!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

oneraddad said:


> So babies daddy tells mommy to get an abortion and now he's not liable ?
> 
> Mommy can't do it on here own and asks for help, now what ?


You don't seem to be getting it. I support compelling fathers of children to be liable for the consequences of their actions. I also support the compelling of mothers to be liable for their actions as well.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

oneraddad said:


> So babies daddy tells mommy to get an abortion and now he's not liable ?
> 
> Mommy can't do it on here own and asks for help, now what ?


I guess she can have an abortion, or do it alone, or get help from lived ones, or work hard to get a better relationship with her baby daddy so he will want to help.

Those are options. I tend to think it helps when men and women are married to iron out those details. But, that isn't a guarantee.

There are options, I just don't care for the one that involves the welfare system. No free rides. Kids are not meal tickets for unprepared deadbeat parents.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I wish inflammatory, fallacious statements hurt.


Is that why you sling them around?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm only discussing the fact you (collective anti abortion activists) want total control over a woman's body by forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want.
> 
> How can it not be control if a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want?


Just like being in control of her body to stop her from shooting someone, or, taking things that do not belong to her. The baby is not her body. It is a would be victim of her "choice".


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

gibbsgirl said:


> The drivers and/or owners of the vehicle have to deal with that responsibilityt. Not the passengers.
> 
> Our legal system treats men and women both as driver as far as parental responsibilities. But, our laws are not recognizing that men are in the passenger position for some important issues.



How is the man a passenger ?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I think the man's opinion is important depending on the circumstances of the conception. Sometimes the man is dangerous and the pregnancy could get the woman badly beaten or even killed. Sometimes the pregnancy comes from a one night chance meeting. I think if the woman is involved in a long term committed relationship with the father then there should be a discussion and the father's opinion should be taken into consideration.


In other words, he's financially responsible depending on ol' Mom's "choice"?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

oneraddad said:


> How is the man a passenger ?


The driver has control of where the vehicle goes, passengers do not. Women have control of whether a pregnancy continues or they have an abortion, they are driving the decision, men are involved, but a passenger for the final decision.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Just like being in control of her body to stop her from shooting someone, or, taking things that do not belong to her. The baby is not her body. It is a would be victim of her "choice".


Basic biology, the fetus is part of the woman until it's viable. Viability is around 22 weeks. 

We're talking about abortion, correct? Not shooting someone, or stealing things. If you take away a woman's right to choose, you are forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term. That is control.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> Having her be responsible for her actions. What do you call forcing a man to pay for a child, he didn't want, for 18 + years?


And that's why liberals champion abortion, they don't believe they have to be responsible for their own choices, their own actions.
It's always someone else who pays for their mistakes and poor judgement.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, but abortion still isn't birth control.


What do you call it?



Irish Pixie said:


> I'm only discussing the fact you (collective anti abortion activists) *want total control over a woman's body *by forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want.
> 
> How can it not be control if a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want?


Nobody wants "Total control over a woman's body"
It's about saving a life
You (Collective you) can go get pierced, tattooed, drunk, shot up dope, cut yourself, paint your butt blue, cut off your ears, pierce whatever you want. 
You can have implants, things removed, rearranged, stamped, parted, inflated, deflated, slashed, burned, dented, dimpled, stretched, lifted, lowered, whatever you want.
Nobody is trying to control your "body" or your "brains"
If a man shoots and kills a pregnant woman, it's a double homicide...suddenly, it's not just a fetus, not just a lump of tissue, but "it" is still dead.
What part of killing another human do you not get?
why do you work so hard to make it acceptable?
What kind of person is not disgusted with the slaughter of millions in this country?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Basic biology, the fetus is part of the woman until it's viable. Viability is around 22 weeks.
> 
> We're talking about abortion, correct? Not shooting someone, or stealing things. If you take away a woman's right to choose, you are forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term. That is control.


 
There is nothing in basic biology that states that an embryo/zygote/fetus is part of the woman's body. To the contrary, they tend to discuss the two different entities for the separate life forms they are. The only ones who try to sell the false idea that the fetus is part of the woman's body are those who are rabid supporters of abortion. 

Here is a basic biology lesson on the human reproductive system, you will notice that, in no way, do the writers claim that the results of conception are part of the mother's body:

http://mcwdn.org/body/reproductive.html


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> There is nothing in basic biology that states that an embryo/zygote/fetus is part of the woman's body. To the contrary, they tend to discuss the two different entities for the separate life forms they are. The only ones who try to sell the false idea that the fetus is part of the woman's body are those who are rabid supporters of abortion.
> 
> Here is a basic biology lesson on the human reproductive system, you will notice that, in no way, do the writers claim that the results of conception are part of the mother's body:
> 
> http://mcwdn.org/body/reproductive.html


When does a fetus become viable?

Don't bother. I've had enough of the merry go round. Abortion is legal, it has been legal for over 40 years. There is absolutely nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> And that's why liberals champion abortion, they don't believe they have to be responsible for their own choices, their own actions.
> It's always someone else who pays for their mistakes and poor judgement.



Like supporting a child


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> When does a fetus become viable?
> 
> Don't bother. I've had enough of the merry go round. Abortion is legal, it has been legal for over 40 years. There is absolutely nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion.


 
Just because the child is not capable of surviving outside the mother's womb, doesn't make it part of her body. 

And I will say one more time. Slavery was legal for 100's of years, until it wasn't.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Just because the child is not capable of surviving outside the mother's womb, doesn't make it part of her body.
> 
> And I will say one more time. Slavery was legal for 100's of years, until it wasn't.


Good luck removing a civil right from half of the citizens of the United States. I think you'll have about as much success as trying to reinstate slavery.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Good luck removing a civil right from half of the citizens of the United States. I think you'll have about as much success as trying to reinstate slavery.


 
It would seem that a sizable chunk of that half of the population would support reducing that particular "right": http://www.theguardian.com/science/...apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

oneraddad said:


> Like supporting a child


Exactly


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> You just want to take away the babies rights.


They have no rights before birth, and limited rights until age 18


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You already know the applicable laws



OK, another non-answer by you to a very logical question that presents the paradox of why women receive special consideration where the men receive unequal treatment with regards to parental choice. Are you against Parental Choice? Do you want equal rights for everyone or not? Do you think that certain people should more rights than others?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They have no rights before birth, and limited rights until age 18


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are* Life,* Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> You are forcing your belief on everyone and saying theirs is wrong if it does not mirror yours. Same concept different side of the fence but once again you win *all knowing and powerful*.


My *disagreeing* with an idea is hardly the same as wanting to force someone to *do* something they don't want to do.

If you think that is comparable to making a woman carry a pregnancy to full term, you're mistaken.

Your childish little barbs just take away your credibility.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> OK, another non-answer by you to a very logical question that presents the paradox of why women receive special consideration where the men receive unequal treatment with regards to parental choice. Are you against Parental Choice? Do you want equal rights for everyone or not? Do you think that certain people should more rights than others?


I'm not playing this silly game with you


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> But you use general statements all of the time. "They want to control women". * How?* Do we want to put women in chains keep them at home with an apron and a broom? I will answer, NO! We want to prevent the ongoing homicide of millions of unborn babies. Other than that little atrocity, we generally don't care what women, or, anyone else does as long as their actions do no harm to others.


You want to force them to live by your standards.
Why keep pretending it's anything else?
It's really not fooling anyone



> http://womenshistory.about.com/od/mythsofwomenshistory/a/rule_of_thumb.htm


This discussion isn't about English Common Law from over 100 years ago.
If you had rational *timely* arguments to make, you wouldn't be dragging up these irrational comparisons


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not playing this silly game with you


Safe answer and a way to say that you do not support equal rights for everyone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> But you use general statements all of the time. "They want to control women". * How?* Do we want to put women in chains keep them at home with an apron and a broom? I will answer, NO! We want to prevent the ongoing homicide of millions of unborn babies. Other than that little atrocity, we generally don't care what women, or, anyone else does as long as their actions do no harm to others.


You want to force them to live by your standards.
Why keep pretending it's anything else?
It's really not fooling anyone



> http://womenshistory.about.com/od/mythsofwomenshistory/a/rule_of_thumb.htm


This discussion isn't about English Common Law from over 100 years ago.
If you had rational *timely* arguments to make, you wouldn't be dragging up these irrational comparisons


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> Prove it's photoshopped.


Do you *seriously* think it's real?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> My *disagreeing* with an idea is hardly the same as wanting to force someone to *do* something they don't want to do.
> 
> If you think that is comparable to making a woman carry a pregnancy to full term, you're mistaken.
> 
> Your childish little barbs just take away your credibility.


Take away all day. You have credibility only with those that agree with you. Poppin' smoke. Have a blessed day.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They have no rights before birth, and limited rights until age 18


Why is murdering a pregnant woman double homicide if killing a fetus isn't murder? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you *seriously* think it's real?


Can you seriously prove it is not?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

We're sorry... Only questions this tall will be answered...


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you *seriously* think it's real?





Irish Pixie said:


> The words are a rather stupid cliche. Do you realize that the picture is complete rubbish and clearly photo shopped? Or don't you care because you think it supports your anti abortion agenda?



This lady disagrees with you.

Oh wait... the video must be photoshopped!!!!!

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whGYz22NOoU[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> Why is murdering a pregnant woman double homicide if killing a fetus isn't murder?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act


Because only the mother can choose to end a pregnancy, and even she has to do it by legal means.

Your own source also explained it:


> (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution&#8212;
> (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
> (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
> (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> Can you seriously prove it is not?


It's obvious it's not.
It shouldn't require any proof, since common sense alone should tell you it's impossible



> Oh wait... the video must be photoshopped!!!!!


The video is nothing at all like the photo


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

But, inside of the woman in the video is the "thing" that Pro-Abortion people are advocating for the killing of. Sad... It is alive and you're going all in on a 5-4 decision from an activist court that has time and time again been manipulated for political means to think that this is a good thing.

When people come to their senses, may you all be forgiven for what has been done.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> But, inside of the woman in the video is the "thing" that Pro-Abortion people are advocating for the killing of. Sad... It is alive and you're going all in on a 5-4 decision from an activist court that has time and time again been manipulated for political means to think that this is a good thing.
> 
> *When people come to their senses*, may you all be forgiven for what has been done.


When people come to their senses, they will realize what other people do is none of their business.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The video is nothing at all like the photo


It seems some folks here think what happened in the video could not have happened either, just like the photo....


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because only the mother can choose to end a pregnancy, and even she has to do it by legal means.


That does not answer where the second murder charge applies in a double homicide if the baby is only a thing and has no rights as you claim.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When people come to their senses, they will realize what other people do is none of their business.


To protect the killing of the innocent is our business. Period.


Well it sure works for the refugees but not those âthingsâ in a pregnant ladyâs belly.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

popscott said:


> To protect the killing of the innocent is our business. Period.
> 
> 
> Well it sure works for the refugees but not those âthingsâ in a pregnant ladyâs belly.


You're protecting killing? 

The lady's belly is none of your business. Keep your nose out of her belly button.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> That does not answer where the second murder charge applies in a double homicide if the baby is only a thing and has no rights as you claim.


Your own source answered it.
I never said it was a "thing", just that it has no rights, which is explained in the source you posted.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When people come to their senses, they will realize what other people do is none of their business.


When people come to their senses they will see that it is wrong to kill another. 

When people come to their senses they will understand that we need to stand up and work towards protecting those that are innocent and defenseless. 

When people come to their senses they will understand that life is more important than convenience.

Luke 18:16
Then Jesus called for the children and said to the disciples, "Let the children come to me. Don't stop them! For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> To protect the killing of the innocent is our business. Period.
> Well it sure works for the refugees but not those âthingsâ in a pregnant ladyâs belly.


No, it's not your business at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> When people come to their senses they will see that it is wrong to kill another.
> 
> When people come to their senses they will understand that we need to stand up and work towards protecting those that are innocent and defenseless.
> 
> ...


You don't get to dictate to others
You only get to make decisions for yourself.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't get to dictate to others
> You only get to make decisions for yourself.


I will work towards educating others until my last breath and there is absolutely nothing that you can do to stop me other than hastening that last breath...

Why do many women suffer from depression after aborting a child? Why? 

I will tell you why, what they did was wrong and they know it. You appear to want to continue providing women with a easy access to a procedure that will devastate them when they realize what they have done.

And then in some twisted Machiavellian-Dali theater, you try to get them to think that they have done a good thing by letting their former child, torn from the womb, be ripped to pieces and sent to others so that they can make profits for their companies.

When, in the end, all that abortion is is pure evil.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shine said:


> When people come to their senses they will see that it is wrong to kill another.
> 
> When people come to their senses they will understand that we need to stand up and work towards protecting those that are innocent and defenseless.
> 
> ...


And when the SC comes tot THEIR senses things can and will be reversed. Good things to happen for those that wait till GOOD people finally take this country Back~!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I will work towards educating others until my last breath and there is absolutely nothing that you can do to stop me other than hastening that last breath...
> 
> Why do many women suffer from depression after aborting a child? Why?
> 
> ...


All that preaching doesn't change anything at all.

It's still none of your business, and you don't get to determine what is right or wrong for others

Browbeating them and telling them they are murders, evil, vile, etc, is not "educating" anyone.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All that preaching doesn't change anything at all.
> 
> It's still none of your business, and you don't get to determine what is right or wrong for others
> 
> Browbeating them and telling them they are murders, evil, vile, etc, is not "educating" anyone.


Society's entire structure is filled with determinations of what us right or wrong for others.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When people come to their senses, they will realize what other people do is none of their business.


So snipers pissing on some dead bodies was a problem why? America should have kept their nose out of what those PROTECTING their right to do whatever they wants business. 

I guess we should stay out of the business of westboro baptist church when they protest a military funeral because it's none of our business. 

I guess we should let the idiots of Ferguson, MO burn the sucker to the ground because it's none of our business. 

I guess we should let people break into our houses because that's their business. 

I guess I can shoot my neighbor for passing a no trespassing sign coming down my drive and tell the judge it's not you business it's between me and him!

Saving a helpless life is my business, it's also the business of every service member past and present to make sure you can LIVE, your RIGHT!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

gibbsgirl said:


> Society's entire structure is filled with determinations of what us right or wrong for others.


Society unfortunately has no structure in America anymore.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Society unfortunately has no structure in America anymore.


Yeah, it does seem like a lot of structures are being dismantled. Doesn't make a lot of sense sometimes.

Like, if you keep strippng parts off a car, eventually it won't be driveable anymore.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> Yeah, it does seem like a lot of structures are being dismantled. Doesn't make a lot of sense sometimes.
> 
> Like, if you keep strippng parts off a car, eventually it won't be driveable anymore.


Perfect analogy to what some herein are advocating for, Do it if it feels good, where have I heard that before?​


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

You doom and gloom folks need to move to the West coast, I don't see the decaying of America that you do. Crime is down, jobs are up, people are happy, the economy is thriving and the standard of living is so much better then 6-7-8 years ago.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

oneraddad said:


> You doom and gloom folks need to move to the West coast, I don't see the decaying of America that you do. Crime is down, jobs are up, people are happy, the economy is thriving and the standard of living is so much better then 6-7-8 years ago.


Jobs are not up, those receiving benefits are down creating that illusion. Riots in big cities over police shootings show how "happy" people are, the the economy is slowing rapidly, take a gander at the gas pumps and realize that that right there alone cost 13000 jobs in one day! Maybe it is you that should live on the west coast in narnia where pot is legal!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

FYI- don't care if you smoke dope one way or another that wasn't meant to be judging.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Jobs are not up, those receiving benefits are down creating that illusion. Riots in big cities over police shootings show how "happy" people are, the the economy is slowing rapidly, take a gander at the gas pumps and realize that that right there alone cost 13000 jobs in one day! Maybe it is you that should live on the west coast in narnia where pot is legal!


Are you in the west? I thought you were from TX?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Stationed in 29 palms for 2 years and change, most painful experiance in my life!


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Not around here


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> FYI- don't care if you smoke dope one way or another that wasn't meant to be judging.



I have a medical marijuana card


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

oneraddad said:


> I have a medical marijuana card


Didn't ask all that, it wasn't meant to be a judging comment, just a random fact of the west coast.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Didn't ask all that, it wasn't meant to be a judging comment, just a random fact of the west coast.



I'm glad there's Marines like you to protect the Navy's gates.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

oneraddad said:


> You doom and gloom folks need to move to the West coast, I don't see the decaying of America that you do. Crime is down, jobs are up, people are happy, the economy is thriving and the standard of living is so much better then 6-7-8 years ago.


I wouldn't imagine that you would see the grunge and other things that go on in the cities no-a-days being in the High Sierras [I think that you said once] - it is not all roses, believe me. 3 shootings within 2 miles of me in the last week when there haven't been that many in the last 5 years. Gas is down killing jobs in the energy sector, my job field is glutted, making less money working outside of my chosen field, people are on the take big time here-abouts, and not just a few. You go for a good bit between finding truly honest people. It is sad.

ETA, I would bet that your post was sarcasm...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Funny how they can get around these silly laws, can't they? It is money that PP uses to support (buy) politicians that they like, is it not?


Everybody buys politicians. Even your most beloved, sanctified religious groups. It's the way it works today. Your problem isn't with PP it's with money in politics which is a whole 'nother ball of wax.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> I disagree with the part about it being a definite choice if contraception is used. I think the choice is more accurately that they hope there is no child conceived, but they are choosing to accept the risk that it could happen.
> 
> Sort of the way a driver hopes to be safe with no accidents or tickets, but if one happens, people don't respond with a lot of pity if the driver demands that it should have never happened because they chose for it not to. Sometimes property and people's lives are changed forever even after repairs, and all drivers know they take that chance by driving.


Your analogy implies having sex is doing something wrong. If you get a ticket it's because you chose to break the law. If you cause an accident you were negligent or wilfully doing wrong. If you are a safe and cautious driver and you get blindsided by someone driving through an intersection I highly doubt anyone will berate you for getting in your car will they? Just like no one should berate you for having sex and getting pregnant because you took all possible precautions and your birth control failed. 

Sex is not evil. Sex is not just for procreation. Sex is not wrong. It isn't.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Just like no one should berate you for having sex and getting pregnant because you took all possible precautions and your birth control failed.


Lol All Possible Precautions...

This is my Wife Jane and that is little Houdini over there on the swing...


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Your analogy implies having sex is doing something wrong. If you get a ticket it's because you chose to break the law. If you cause an accident you were negligent or wilfully doing wrong. If you are a safe and cautious driver and you get blindsided by someone driving through an intersection I highly doubt anyone will berate you for getting in your car will they? Just like no one should berate you for having sex and getting pregnant because you took all possible precautions and your birth control failed.
> 
> Sex is not evil. Sex is not just for procreation. Sex is not wrong. It isn't.


You or I or both are misinterpreting each other here. I was not trying to make sex sound evil. I don't think driving is evil either. I was saying they come with risks that drivers, like sexually active people, are aware of and accept, even when they try and be cautious to prevent accidents.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

oneraddad said:


> I'm glad there's Marines like you to protect the Navy's gates.


Never heard that one before.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

popscott said:


> It seems some folks here think what happened in the video could not have happened either, just like the photo....


I really hate to give any validity to this absurd argument of yours but here it is plain and simple. The video you posted is of a woman at 38 weeks gestation. I saw a head moving around and probably an arm. I did not see a tiny foot and all 5 toes clearly outlined. At 38 weeks her baby is fully viable. 

Your picture which if you knew anything at all about pregnancy or human anatomy you would also clearly see is photo shopped. If she could actually see the baby's foot at that stage of pregnancy she had best get to a hospital because something has gone very wrong!

And it's been debunked in several places on the internet. Here it is on Buzzfeed along with 14 other photos you have probably also been happily believing were real. Sorry to ruin your day. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/15-viral-pinterest-photos-that-are-actually-fake#.yvW9Rm1xY


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Never heard that one before.


My brother was navy and he uses it all the time...lol


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> You or I or both are misinterpreting each other here. I was not trying to make sex sound evil. I don't think driving is evil either. I was saying they come with risks that drivers, like sexually active people, are aware of and accept, even when they try and be cautious to prevent accidents.





> Originally Posted by *gibbsgirl*
> _I disagree with the part about it being a definite choice if contraception is used. I think the choice is more accurately that they hope there is no child conceived, but they are choosing to accept the risk that it could happen.
> 
> Sort of the way a driver hopes to be safe with no accidents or tickets, but if one happens, *people don't respond with a lot of pity if the driver demands that it should have never happened because they chose for it not to.* Sometimes property and people's lives are changed forever even after repairs, and all drivers know they take that chance by driving._


So if a friend of yours went out to get groceries and as she was driving through a green light she was blindsided by a drunk driver who plowed through a red light you would show her no pity? It was all her fault for getting in her car that day? 

I understand we all have to accept the consequences of our actions but if we do everything we can to be responsible and protect ourselves and something outside of our control goes wrong I don't see us as being responsible for that. It's not my fault if another driver gets drunk and plows into me and it's not my fault if I take my BC pills every day and they fail. Neither person should be faulted and both are to be pitied.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Jobs are not up, those receiving benefits are down creating that illusion. Riots in big cities over police shootings show how "happy" people are, the the economy is slowing rapidly, take a gander at the gas pumps and realize that that right there alone cost 13000 jobs in one day! Maybe it is you that should live on the west coast in narnia where pot is legal!


I don't think they have pot in Narnia..... I suppose that could explain the talking lions and fauns though. 

Jobs are up here in AR. No pot though sadly.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> So if a friend of yours went out to get groceries and as she was driving through a green light she was blindsided by a drunk driver who plowed through a red light you would show her no pity? It was all her fault for getting in her car that day?
> 
> I understand we all have to accept the consequences of our actions but if we do everything we can to be responsible and protect ourselves and something outside of our control goes wrong I don't see us as being responsible for that. It's not my fault if another driver gets drunk and plows into me and it's not my fault if I take my BC pills every day and they fail. Neither person should be faulted and both are to be pitied.


No, I'm not saying you can't pity them. I'm saying ng if the person's attitude is that it's ridiculous or unacceptable that they were in an accident, then yeah you might not pity them a ton. That's not to be heartless, especially when it's really not a drivers fault. But, the reality is that even though it might not be someone's fault, IMO its dumb to have an attitude that does not at least accept that we all no there are no guarantees when we drive.

I also think that during conception men and women are the drivers. They are both responsible for their actions. Where I think it is prejudicial is when a pregnancy occurs.

At that point, women are given a second chance to decide again if a child is it is not going to be born. Men are not. The justice and welfare system are designed to provide through taxes and forcing the father to be a support system to whatever she decides to do on her own at that point. I have a problem with that.

It doesn't mean I want to take away a woman's right to choose what she does regarding a pregnancy. But, the position men are put in by having no say and being at the mother and courts mercy for decades when ultimately they have no say in becoming fathers because a woman gets to decide 100% is awful IMO.

Either they both get a say, which is unlikely. It, women need to be ultimately 100% responsible for their kids since we get 100% decision power.

Doesn't mean I think kids don't need dad's. I just think the law needs to catch up to recognizing that picking on parent to have more power means releasing the other parent if legal obligations.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> No, I'm not saying you can't pity them. I'm saying ng if the person's attitude is that it's ridiculous or unacceptable that they were in an accident, then yeah you might not pity them a ton. That's not to be heartless, especially when it's really not a drivers fault. But, the reality is that even though it might not be someone's fault, IMO its dumb to have an attitude that does not at least accept that we all no there are no guarantees when we drive.
> 
> I also think that during conception men and women are the drivers. They are both responsible for their actions. Where I think it is prejudicial is when a pregnancy occurs.
> 
> ...


I can see your point there that it is unfair to the man to have to support the child when he has no say in whether it is kept or not. I don't see any good way to fix it. What if he chooses abortion and the mother thinks it is wrong? What if he chooses to keep it and the mother doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy? I really do sympathize with the point that if a single night's mistake is made the mother has the option to make it all go away and the father does not. And that's not fair. I just have no good ideas on fixing it.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

My thought is let the men off the hook and let the women keep the decision.

Imo things are a disaster with no signs of improvement as far as strong stable family homes.

If women knew they were in it alone they might be more selective about pregnancy risks and more dialed in to being with committed men.

If men knew it was up to them, and they were not going to get beat down mentally and financially by the women and court system, IMO it would remove a lot of their frustrations about not being a true decision maker and partner in providing for their children.

That's obviously not a perfect solution. I think it would improve things beyond where they are now. the way we're doing it now isn't anything to brag about, and men really did get stomped down and something has to be done to set that right IMO.

II find it frustrating though that it's not easy to have that discussion because if the argument about pro abortion or pro life. They are both important discussions IMO. They should both be talked about. Since we're at the point where abortions are legally allowed, im interested in the topic of men'srights. Intentionalky or not roe v wade, recognized a woman's right in choice and effectively removed a man's.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

The reason men are now forced to pay child support is because throughout history they have knocked up women and left them and the child to survive on their own and there were no safety nets. The only real difference between now and 100 years ago is that society tended to force the man to marry and take responsibility in a lot of cases. Or if he wouldn't or couldn't the mother was forced into adoption. I don't think we want to go back to that.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

No but we shouldn't stay stuck where we are, because men definitely got stripped of rights and the consequences have not proven fruitful IMO.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> I really hate to give any validity to this absurd argument of yours but here it is plain and simple. The video you posted is of a woman at 38 weeks gestation. I saw a head moving around and probably an arm. I did not see a tiny foot and all 5 toes clearly outlined. At 38 weeks her baby is fully viable.
> 
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/15-viral-pinterest-photos-that-are-actually-fake#.yvW9Rm1xY


Really... at this point - who cares? We know what is inside of that woman, why try to deny it?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> The reason men are now forced to pay child support is because throughout history they have knocked up women and left them and the child to survive on their own and there were no safety nets. The only real difference between now and 100 years ago is that society tended to force the man to marry and take responsibility in a lot of cases. Or if he wouldn't or couldn't the mother was forced into adoption. I don't think we want to go back to that.


I grant you that this did happen. I would ask you though, what is proper with regards to the whole "Parenting Rights" scenario, so that both parties have similar rights?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Planned Parenthood is now revealing that women on those picket lines protesting Planned Parenthood and abortion services are* also patients at Planned Parenthood for abortions.*~! Interesting 

Veeerrrrry Interesting indeed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> So* if a friend of yours went out to get groceries and as she was driving through a green light she was blindsided by a drunk driver who plowed through a red light you would show her no pity? It was all her fault for getting in her car that day? *
> 
> I understand we all have to accept the consequences of our actions but if we do everything we can to be responsible and protect ourselves and something outside of our control goes wrong I don't see us as being responsible for that. It's not my fault if another driver gets drunk and plows into me and it's not my fault if I take my BC pills every day and they fail. Neither person should be faulted and both are to be pitied.


legally the friend would not be held accountable for causing the accident in most cases. However in my way of thinking one should be paying attention and expect the unexpected anytime they are behind controls of a couple thousand pounds of machinery. How can someone not see a car heading for them and be able to avoid a collision? there are very few accidents where one party is completely blameless. I'm fairly certain that the same thing applies to unwanted pregnancys.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

coolrunnin said:


> My brother was navy and he uses it all the time...lol


Sarcasm. I have heard them all, there is a hate between all branches that will never die.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> So snipers pissing on some dead bodies was a problem why? America should have kept their nose out of what those PROTECTING their right to do whatever they wants business.
> 
> I guess we should stay out of the business of westboro baptist church when they protest a military funeral because it's none of our business.
> 
> ...


Again, all that rhetoric doesn't change reality.
It's none of your business *as an individual *what other people do.
Ridiculous analogies about illegal acts don't really help you


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Society's entire structure is filled with determinations of what us right or wrong for others.


"Society" *as a group* has decided abortions should be legal.
Individuals have no right to decide for others.
Context is everything


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

popscott said:


> Why is murdering a pregnant woman double homicide if killing a fetus isn't murder?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act


It shouldn't be. Most of these laws were originated by anti abortion supporters in an effort to convey some "personhood" on the fetus and grant them rights they've never had. Theyre bad law often passed in an emotional reaction to a pregnant woman being killed. Emotion and political expediency are seldom grounds for good legislation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Planned Parenthood is now revealing that women on those picket lines protesting Planned Parenthood and abortion services are* also patients at Planned Parenthood for abortions.*~! Interesting
> Veeerrrrry Interesting indeed.


Links?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Planned Parenthood is now revealing that women on those picket lines protesting Planned Parenthood and abortion services are* also patients at Planned Parenthood for abortions.*~! Interesting
> 
> Veeerrrrry Interesting indeed.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Links?


I'd be interested in reading the link(s) as well.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Again there was no exception implied. My point was that, in the vast majority of cases, the choice occurred prior to conception. Much like any other type of homicide the only justifiable abortion is in self defense.


But doesn't the "life" she's carrying have the same right to self defense? Why is the decision on who lives only the woman's? If both have the same right to life don't both have the same right to defend theirs? With modern medicine the power to act has shifted. Shouldn't the "life" she's carrying have a voice and say in the matter?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, all that rhetoric doesn't change reality.
> It's none of your business *as an individual *what other people do.
> Ridiculous analogies about illegal acts don't really help you


But, we the people, a vast majority find abortion to be wrong, so it is our business and the politicians business to change it!

FYI the top analogy is not illegal!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> But, we the people, *a vast majority find abortion to be wrong*, so it is our business and the politicians business to change it!
> 
> FYI the top analogy is not illegal!


No true at all. http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx

Couple that with the majority does not get to override our rights because they don't agree with them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Texaspredatorhu View Post
> But, we the people, a vast majority find abortion to be wrong, so it is our business and the politicians business to change it!


Not long ago there was a poll done here and well over half wanted abortions to remain legal.



> FYI the top analogy is not illegal!


So?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm tempted to join this discussion, but upon seeing the 34 deleted posts I believe that may not be wise. Nonetheless, here's my 2 cents:
I don't agree with abortion. I care for all life, big and small. I refrain from killing insects when I don't have to. Thus, the idea of killing a potential human makes my head reel. On the other hand, I'm not going to go shoot up a planned parenthood building because I think I'm right. I do believe all life is precious, but some people don't, and maybe I don't want those people raising kids to begin with. If they've managed to overrule the evolutionary motherhood traits that serve to perpetuate the species, it's a strong point to say they may have overruled other basic motherhood instincts. 
In summary, abortion under rape and strong similar circumstances is acceptable.
Convenience abortions, for financial or other weak circumstances, is unacceptable.
I do not think teens should be getting pregnant. They do not need The Pill, they do not need sex-change operations, and they do not need abortions. They need abstinence.
And it may be very difficult to draw the line there, thus, I say provide all of the above, but with more strings attached to discourage the activity. Ultimately, the problem is that Americans no longer view life with much reverence - but then, looking at history, we never really have.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not long ago there was a poll done here and well over half wanted abortions to remain legal.
> 
> 
> So?


Here, is not America. Here is very liberal. So?

You said they were illegal acts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Here, is not America. Here is very liberal. So?


"Here" is part of America, and everyone keeps saying the "liberals" here are a minority.



> You said they were illegal acts.


No, that is not what I said.

This is what I said:



> Ridiculous analogies about illegal acts don't really help you


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Here" is part of America, and everyone keeps saying the "liberals" here are a minority.
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said.
> ...


Oh ok you lumped them together so now you just back pedaling.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Oh ok you lumped them together so now you just back pedaling.


Not at all.

*You* lumped them together in your own mind

I only commented about the* illegal* acts.

One more time:



> Quote:
> Ridiculous analogies *about illegal acts *don't really help you


Had I lumped them together, I wouldn't have said "about illegal acts"

There may or may not be some laws covering urinating on a corpse, and it's certainly not conduct acceptable under the UCMJ


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> legally the friend would not be held accountable for causing the accident in most cases. However in my way of thinking one should be paying attention and expect the unexpected anytime they are behind controls of a couple thousand pounds of machinery. How can someone not see a car heading for them and be able to avoid a collision? there are very few accidents where one party is completely blameless. I'm fairly certain that the same thing applies to unwanted pregnancys.


Are you serious? I have seen at least 2 accidents in my life where the other driver had no way of avoiding the accident. In one case a car hydroplaned sideways into a car in the other lane. No way for the other driver to see him and no where for him to go if he did. They wound up flipped into a water filled ditch and I had to crawl in and help drag them out. 

Second case was a semi that slammed right into the back of a car and literally ran it over. No survivors. So far as that goes I was stopped at a red light with cars in front of me. A taxi cab plowed into the back of me at 55mph. I saw him but had no place I could go before he hit me. 

Plenty of accidents happen that are neither person's fault and definitely not the victims fault. Y'all boggle the mind sometimes with your victim blaming.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Oh good grief patchouli,

I hope I straightened out my words last night OK to clarify. Cause I was not trying to get us off in the weeds with the driver/accident comparison. It wasn't about blaming people for accidents.

Accidents are no bueno, and sometimes horribly tragic. I was trying to connect the idea of us all making an informed decision when we drive or have sex. That we hope for and try and avoid accidents. But, that if we acted like we "never knew" small or big accidents can happen, then that's sorta unrealistic. And that even though we try hard to be safe, we are on some level choosing to accept the risks.

I wasn't trying to bad mouth acar accident victims. I could have used sports, flying in planes, trusting restaurants not to get you sick, etc for comparison.

I hope we're good. Sorry if my words are coming up short.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Are you serious? I have seen at least 2 accidents in my life where the other driver had no way of avoiding the accident. In one case a car hydroplaned sideways into a car in the other lane. No way for the other driver to see him and no where for him to go if he did. They wound up flipped into a water filled ditch and I had to crawl in and help drag them out.
> 
> Second case was a semi that slammed right into the back of a car and literally ran it over. No survivors. So far as that goes I was stopped at a red light with cars in front of me. A taxi cab plowed into the back of me at 55mph. I saw him but had no place I could go before he hit me.
> 
> Plenty of accidents happen that are neither person's fault and definitely not the victims fault. Y'all boggle the mind sometimes with your victim blaming.


yes there are a few accidents that cannot be avoided by the victim... But the vast majority could be avoided if caution were to be exercised.... On the hi ways or in the bedroom.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> Oh good grief patchouli,
> 
> I hope I straightened out my words last night OK to clarify. Cause I was not trying to get us off in the weeds with the driver/accident comparison. It wasn't about blaming people for accidents.
> 
> ...


We are good. I was just flabbergasted by YH's opinion that almost all accidents are partly the victims fault. I strongly disagree.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not at all.
> 
> *You* lumped them together in your own mind
> 
> ...


Yeah whatever word it how you want now. 

Doesn't change the fact the American public doesn't need to know what happens there.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> No true at all. http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx
> 
> Couple that with the majority does not get to override our rights because they don't agree with them.


The minority is trying to override our rights because of ignorance and propaganda.
Will you stick up for our gun rights when your president finally lines up and goes for them?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> The minority is trying to override our rights because of ignorance and propaganda.
> Will you stick up for our gun rights when your president finally lines up and goes for them?


You see rights can sometimes bite a person in the rear end if they CLING to it too much.~! And will snap off at some point tin time when they hang too much weight on it. LOL
And that is what so many on the left are trying to do and use it as a safety net, when it can not be used like hat everything is not fair in this world and rights are one way that will never ever be equal to all as these guns RIGHTS and others are suited to ONLY a few that oppose ANYTHING they dislike. And when they Demand something you my goodness give US OUR rights. Baloney and horse pucky on the bunch of them.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Yeah whatever word it how you want now.
> 
> Doesn't change the fact the American public doesn't need to know what happens there.


Seriously? I think they do and the soldiers there need to act with basic common decency. That act reflected on the ugliness of those soldiers and America. Shoveling it away into the darkness doesn't make it go away.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> The minority is trying to override our rights because of ignorance and propaganda.
> Will you stick up for our gun rights when your president finally lines up and goes for them?


Would that be possible without amending the constitution?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> You see rights can sometimes bite a person in the rear end if they CLING to it too much.~! And will snap off at some point tin time when they hang too much weight on it. LOL
> And that is what so many on the left are trying to do and use it as a safety net, when it can not be used like hat everything is not fair in this world and rights are one way that will never ever be equal to all as these guns RIGHTS and others are suited to ONLY a few that oppose ANYTHING they dislike. And when they Demand something you my goodness give US OUR rights. Baloney and horse pucky on the bunch of them.



Does anybody have a decoder ring I can borrow ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Yeah whatever word it how you want *now*.
> 
> Doesn't change the fact *the American public doesn't need to know* what happens there.


It's been worded exactly the same the whole time, since I copied and pasted the original statement, which is still there for anyone to see

Saying they "don't need to know" doesn't speak too highly of their actions, does it? 

I still don't know why you even brought it up in a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with the military


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I was trying to connect the idea of us all making an informed decision when we drive or have sex.


I've never had an overwhelming urge to drive a car, and everyone makes decisions, good or bad and informed or not.

No one much past puberty hasn't been taught about the biology of sex, so "uninformed" really doesn't fly


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wr said:


> Would that be possible without amending the constitution?


They've been actively taking guns away from folk, takimg rigjts away from folks, manipulating yhe supply of weapons and ammunitions for decades.

Yes, the 2nd amendment is still there. No, it has not stopped them. And, nothing remarkable gas happened to change the direction.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've never had an overwhelming urge to drive a car, and everyone makes decisions, good or bad and informed or not.
> 
> No one much past puberty hasn't been taught about the biology of sex, so "uninformed" really doesn't fly


Wow. I guess you agree with me. I feel like I just saw a unicorn, lol.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's been worded exactly the same the whole time, since I copied and pasted the original statement, which is still there for anyone to see
> 
> Saying they "don't need to know" doesn't speak too highly of their actions, does it?
> 
> I still don't know why you even brought it up in a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with the military


We were talking about it being no ones business. It's war, what we do is NOT the American publics business. The only thing they need to know is we are doing our job.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Seriously? I think they do and the soldiers there need to act with basic common decency. That act reflected on the ugliness of those soldiers and America. Shoveling it away into the darkness doesn't make it go away.


Remember that when they drag the headless body of an American down the street. They know we follow the rules and no one else does. That is why no one needs to know!


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Remember that when they drag the headless body of an American down the street. They know we follow the rules and no one else does. That is why no one needs to know!


I agree with you that war is tragically very ugly. I don't care for the way we seem to have created this expectation that war should be politically correct. Nor, the way we play this back and forth game with when we're leaving and what exactly the military will be deploying.

We need to fight less often. And, if we're going to fight, I say we let the dog off the chain so to speak. I'd much rather congress declare war if it's necessary, and the military be free to report to us when it is finished.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

oneraddad said:


> Does anybody have a decoder ring I can borrow ?


If you find one please translate for the rest of us! :huh:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> They've been actively taking guns away from folk, takimg rigjts away from folks, manipulating yhe supply of weapons and ammunitions for decades.
> 
> Yes, the 2nd amendment is still there. No, it has not stopped them. And, nothing remarkable gas happened to change the direction.


I have a few people on ignore. Um can you tell me how we got to gun rights in this thread? I'm lost. :help:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Remember that when they drag the headless body of an American down the street. They know we follow the rules and no one else does. That is why no one needs to know!


Moral high ground. Not much point in fighting them if you want to be just like them under the cover of darkness now is there?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Painters wife made a comment about majority not taking away rights, cornhusker quoted and asked if she felt the same way about gun rights being protected, wr quoted and asked if that could happen without a new amendment, I quoted and said it has been happening without the amendment being changed.

I think that's more or less the chain of it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> Moral high ground. Not much point in fighting them if you want to be just like them under the cover of darkness now is there?


The king of "Obama and liberals are the cause of all evil in the world", can you guess?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Moral high ground. Not much point in fighting them if you want to be just like them under the cover of darkness now is there?


Sometimes you need to strike fear into the enemy! Your one to speak on moral high ground.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> Would that be possible without amending the constitution?


This "administration" doesn't really go by the Constitution.
Obama thinks he's supreme ruler, he's supposed to be a public servant.
He and Bloomberg will bribe, blackmail and lie to get what they want, and as long as they have people gullible enough to make excuses for them and mock those who don't agree with them, then they'll get away with it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> We were talking about it being no ones business. It's war, what we do is NOT the American publics business. The only thing they need to know is we are doing our job.


We were talking about *abortions* being no ones business.
The military is everyone's business, but again, that's not the topic here.

This is about:


> The hypocrisy of anti abortion activists


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We were talking about *abortions* being no ones business.
> The military is everyone's business, but again, that's not the topic here.


Analogies oh wise one! Pay attention.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Sometimes you need to strike fear into the enemy! Your one to speak on moral high ground.


I have always stuck firmly to the moral high ground. Not sure what you meant by your poke. I do hope you are no longer active duty if you advocate terrorism.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> *I have always stuck firmly to the moral high ground. *Not sure what you meant by your poke. I do hope you are no longer active duty if you advocate terrorism.


Congrats!!i am glad to hear that you have always done your very best to insure the fertilization of every egg you have laid since puberty and have had the perseverance to take each pregnancy to full term. There are too many who can't be bothered to fulfill their moral duty to do so. Always with some excuse or other about being too young, not having found a life mate yet and a host of other excuses. Usually it boils down to the same reason some opt for an abortion..... Having that child will be inconvenient.
There is no moral high ground to be found among those who fail to bring that child into the world.... no matter the excuse.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Congrats!!i am glad to hear that you have always done your very best to insure the fertilization of every egg you have laid since puberty and have had the perseverance to take each pregnancy to full term. There are too many who can't be bothered to fulfill their moral duty to do so. Always with some excuse or other about being too young, not having found a life mate yet and a host of other excuses. Usually it boils down to the same reason some opt for an abortion..... Having that child will be inconvenient.
> There is no moral high ground to be found among those who fail to bring that child into the world.... no matter the excuse.


you weren't responsible for any Monty Python scripts were you?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> you weren't responsible for any Monty Python scripts were you?


Naw, I don't do silly, Python was silly. This thread is about hypocrisy so I thought I would point out some.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> I have always stuck firmly to the moral high ground. Not sure what you meant by your poke. I do hope you are no longer active duty if you advocate terrorism.


The good news is that the Marine Corps is filled with people that pray for war and want to go to war. The sad news is that I am no longer active, the incredible news is, I don't share a title with you and your kind!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> The good news is that the Marine Corps is filled with people that pray for war and want to go to war. The sad news is that I am no longer active, the incredible news is, I don't share a title with you and your kind!


*
God Bless The United States Marine Corps. 
Thank you for your service young man!*

Oh, and the whole shooting was a bank robbery gone wrong, and the medias complete fabrication of 'baby parts'......

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/11/28/3726130/planned-parenthood-bank-robbery/


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> God Bless The United States Marine Corps.
> Thank you for your service young man!
> 
> Oh, and the whole shooting was a bank robbery gone wrong, and the medias complete fabrication of 'baby parts'......
> ...


Exactly how does a link discussing how the bank robbery scenario was wrong and concluding with the editor of a right wing site walking back his comments saying it was a failed bank robbery prove it was a bank robbery. It seems it disproves the theory.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Exactly how does a link discussing how the bank robbery scenario was wrong and concluding with the editor of a right wing site walking back his comments saying it was a failed bank robbery prove it was a bank robbery. It seems it disproves the theory.


TOTALLY proves my point.

Media outlet 1 says "definitely a pro life chrisitian that targeted pp and the proof is he said baby parts"

Media outlet 2 says "loner mentally ill man who has a cross on his chicken coop of a home targeted pp"

Media outlet 3 says "trust fund baby from educated family liberal back round popped a screw and watched too many videos about pp and that made him target pp"

Media outet 4 says "liberal man with no religious backround tried to rob a bank, it went terribly wrong, and he hid in a pp".


SOMEWHERE in all those 'news' outlets, is the truth; however I doubt we will ever know it.
We are only told what the government run media wants us to hear......

Sieg Heil.......


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> TOTALLY proves my point.
> 
> Media outlet 1 says "definitely a pro life chrisitian that targeted pp and the proof is he said baby parts"
> 
> ...


Media outlet one runs with bad, unverified information because news is a competitive business and being first counts. Outlets 2,3 and 4 jump on it because they can't afford to be left behind. The twitter sphere picks it up and those with an agenda yell some more. The smoke clears. Facts come out. Some responsible people say they were wrong. Others double down because they're more interested in being right and the politics of the matter than any truth. A but more hypocracy.

We don't know all the facts. I've seen no reports from the bank or anyone inside that a robbery was attempted. No surveillance video from the bank supporting this contention. No statement from a defense attorney saying this was a failed bank robbery, not a terrorist attack on an abortion clinic. Facts will continue to come out. What they will prove about this incident I don't know for sure. What I do know for sure that even if it is proven incontrovertibly false the bank robbery narrative will be continued to be believed and promulgated by some. A bit more hypocracy by those who claim to value the truth so highly.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> TOTALLY proves my point.
> 
> Media outlet 1 says "definitely a pro life chrisitian that targeted pp and the proof is he said baby parts"
> 
> ...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And the you have those media types that just because THEY did not report it. IT didn't happen, and never did take place. LOL


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Why does not anyone just point out that this person is deranged and that he killed others and stick only to that point? Why do they have to add their agenda so that they can jump up onto the stage to make their opinions known, to attempt to puff out their chest and claim the high ground, to use the actions of some demented person for their own purposes?

Why are some so ready to jump on the bandwagon without waiting for the real story?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> The good news is that *the Marine Corps is filled with people that pray for war and want to go to war*. The sad news is that I am no longer active, the incredible news is, I don't share a title with you and your kind!


Yes, sadly there are fools everywhere.
The military tends to attract a lot of them


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> *
> God Bless The United States Marine Corps.
> Thank you for your service young man!*
> 
> ...


Posting it again won't change the fact it contradicts your claims 
You should really read your sources before posting them


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, sadly there are fools everywhere.
> The military tends to attract a lot of them


Sadly, this is true. Of course there are amazing men and women in the military but some of the things my husband relays about what he witnessed are deeply disturbing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Why does not anyone just point out that this person is deranged and that he killed others and stick only to that point? Why do they have to add their agenda so that they can jump up onto the stage to make their opinions known, to attempt to puff out their chest and claim the high ground, to use the actions of some demented person for their own purposes?
> 
> Why are some so ready to jump on the bandwagon without waiting for the real story?


We could say the same for radical Islam. Or we can say the truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Sadly, this is true. Of course there are amazing men and women in the military but some of the things my husband relays about what he witnessed are deeply disturbing.


Yes, there is this fantasy they are *all* "special" somehow, but reality is they are just people too, with all the same problems as everyone else.

Some of the best people I've ever known are or were in the military, and I can also say the same about some of the worst.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> We could say the same for radical Islam. Or we can say the truth.


How is what this man did any different than a Jihadist shooting people?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> How is what this man did any different than a Jihadist shooting people?


That was my point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> How is what this man did any different than a Jihadist shooting people?


Her reply really wasn't about him


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> How is what this man did any different than a Jihadist shooting people?


It's not as long as that is what his intent was. Seems likely, but it would be interesting to see more evidence about his past and how the shooting played out.

Otherwise, it will become another mislabeled gate crime like when it automatically becomes a hate crime if the shooter and victim were different races. They are not all hate crimes.

It's difficult enough to sort out which people are jihadists when we gave to rely on questionable or non existent foreign records of people.

We really should at least be doing a better job when both parties are American to sort out those details. Otherwise, IMO it just enflanes racial tensions based on false information. And, the worst victims in that I think are the actual victims of crimes who deserve the truth. Sometimes, motives are racist, political, etc. Sometimes, people are just evil. Sometimes, its a messy mix because people do things claiming to be part of a group and that group does not actually claim them


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> How is what this man did any different than a Jihadist shooting people?


How is the man who lured and gunned down a 9 year old boy different than a Jihadist?

How are gang members who do drive by shootings (um all the time) any different than Jihadist?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> How is the man who lured and gunned down a 9 year old boy different than a Jihadist?
> 
> How are gang members who do drive by shootings (um all the time) any different than Jihadist?


"Jihad" means "*holy* war"

Gang shootings have nothing to do with "religion"

(I thought you said you couldn't see all the posts)


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> The good news is that the Marine Corps is filled with people that pray for war and want to go to war. The sad news is that I am no longer active, the incredible news is, I don't share a title with you and your kind!


I am not sure who "me and my kind" are exactly. War is sometimes a necessity and I don't fault you for your willingness and even eagerness to go and fight. It's your win at all costs and morality be damned that I take issue with. If we have no honor we might as well be ISIS.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I am not sure who "me and my kind" are exactly. War is sometimes a necessity and I don't fault you for your willingness and even eagerness to go and fight. It's your win at all costs and morality be damned that I take issue with. If we have no honor we might as well be ISIS.


I think there's truth in what you're both saying. But, sometimes I think we forget, intentionally or not, that if we're going to fight a war l, it better be because there's no other good option, and if that's the case, slwe have to accept that we can try and be "good sports" but the goal is to defeat an enemy, that kind of win might not be possible with flawless sportsmanship.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, there is this fantasy they are *all* "special" somehow, but reality is they are just people too, with all the same problems as everyone else.
> 
> Some of the best people I've ever known are or were in the military, and I can also say the same about some of the worst.


WOW, freak me out. We have the same viewpoint on something. Only thing that I would add is that there are some absolutely rock solid Hero's in the Military but the need to call each and every one a "Hero" when all they've done is the job that they signed up to do is beyond me. I do not know how many Ribbons, Medals and Commendations that I received in my short tenure for all kinds of what not and all I did was to do my job the best that I could.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> How is the man who lured and gunned down a 9 year old boy different than a Jihadist?
> 
> How are gang members who do drive by shootings (um all the time) any different than Jihadist?


In the sense that they are both acts of terrorism and revenge they are exactly the same. Like BFF pointed out they don't have the religious angle but not all terrorism does.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I would say all violent crime would fall under the definition of terrorism.

It is terrifying to be raped, have a gun shoved in your face, to get jumped and beat down, to be robbed, to have your house set on fire while you are in it, etc.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I would say all violent crime would fall under the definition of terrorism.
> 
> It is terrifying to be raped, have a gun shoved in your face, to get jumped and beat down, to be robbed, to have your house set on fire while you are in it, etc.


I kind of agree. Except some crime is only scary to the victim or a small number of people, like a household or family etc. Not everyone with knowledge of it becomes terrified of facing the same fate.

Terrorists, IMO, take actions and make threats that are designed to harm some, and simultaneously, terrify vast numbers of people, who will fear attack.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> In the sense that they are both acts of terrorism and revenge they are exactly the same. Like BFF pointed out they don't have the religious angle but not all terrorism does.


Gangs don't necessarily have strict faith based religion at the core of what they do. But, whether they have ties to a god fearing religion or not, IMO, they follow their beliefs with a religious commitment and dedication to their practices.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I would say all violent crime would fall under the definition of terrorism.
> 
> It is terrifying to be raped, have a gun shoved in your face, to get jumped and beat down, to be robbed, to have your house set on fire while you are in it, etc.


No, it doesn't
Terrorism has a definition all it's own, and not every crime falls under that definition just because it's scary


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I would say all violent crime would fall under the definition of terrorism.
> 
> It is terrifying to be raped, have a gun shoved in your face, to get jumped and beat down, to be robbed, to have your house set on fire while you are in it, etc.





Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it doesn't
> Terrorism has a definition all it's own, and not every crime falls under that definition just because it's scary


That brings up an interesting point.
Legal definitions and real life definitions aren't always the same.
Almost every crime involves some sort of hate, yet aren't considered a "hate crime".
Likewise, most violent crimes involve terror to the victim, but aren't legally defined "terrorism".
A person can defraud millions, but gets less time than a bank robber who steals $100.
The more complicated the law, usually the worse off we all are.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Well we live in a world of 'touchy feeley-ness'.

We can't just say "3 black men broke into the home of a preachers wife, violently raped her, and shot her in the head 3 times, leaving her dead while her 1 year old son cried in the next room. All 3 men were paroled felons".

We can't just say "1 white man started shooting in location 1 and ended up in location 2, killing 3 innocent people. He has a long violent and mentally unstable history. Details to come as we are in the middle of an investigation'

We can't just say "2-3 people of middle eastern appearance gunned down 18 people at a Christmas Party. Details to come because we are in the middle of an investigation.

Fox was tripping all over itself saying "The suspects name is saed farook, but we don't want to assume this is a middle eastern man..."
What?
Are you kidding me?

Your preferred media source will determine the 'truth' you get.......


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And they were right not to assume he was middle eastern. He was born here.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

His wife was not......and you know what I meant.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> His wife was not......and you know what I meant.


And your quote didn't reference his wife. You rail about accuracy in reporting and getting the "true" story and not jumping to conclusions. Yes, what you meant was obvious and all the more appropriate in a thread about hypocracy.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> We can't just say "*2-3 people of middle eastern appearance* gunned down 18 people at a Christmas Party. Details to come because we are in the middle of an investigation.


I did, I just didn't 'label' her as a female, wife.
And the way I worded it would fall under "accurate reporting" w/o agenda's and hype.
2-3 is the accurate number of shooters.
"people" accurately describe 'who' pulled the trigger
"middle eastern appearance" accurately describes the "people" who pulled the trigger.

That is 'accurate' reporting thus far.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

You can say whatever you wish. You were criticizing Fox's reporting. Why ? Maybe you can explain. Again, the man wasn't middle eastern. He was American. Fox's reporting happened after his death. And it was accurate. What would be the point of reporting on his appearance? It couldn't be public safety. The public was already safe from this man no matter what he appeared to be.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> You can say whatever you wish. You were criticizing Fox's reporting. Why ?


Because they were kitty footing around about his name.
Saed Farook...
But they were falling all over themselves "but we don't know if he is middle eastern or not". We just can't speculate, bla bla bla......
Really.........
Enough w/ the PC. 



> Maybe you can explain. Again, the man wasn't middle eastern. He was American.


Again, my quote " "*2-3 people of middle eastern appearance* gunned down 18 people at a Christmas Party. Details to come because we are in the middle of an investigation. 



> Fox's reporting happened after his death. And it was accurate. What would be the point of reporting on his appearance? It couldn't be public safety. The public was already safe from this man no matter what he appeared to be.


My point is, there is no consistency in 'media' (or much truth for that matter).......
Workplace violence? Are you serious right now?
Body armor, IED's, etc?
Oh, that's right, just like Fort Hood.....that was workplace violence too.....

That's my point.

The colorado movie shooter was "full of body armor, etc" but he was "mentally disabled?" No one explained how a poor kid like him had THOUSANDS of dollars in armor, ammo, etc.

The colorado shooter from a few days ago is a "radical christian pp hater".
Really? Cause his record says he's a life time loser, and wanted his 15 min of fame.

The OR shooter? Again 'mentally disabled', he couldn't get a date so that was his excuse.

Sandy Hook? mentally disabled, video games made him do it.

The gangbanger that lured a 9 year old into an alley in Chicago and gunned him down like a dog is just a thug, no more news on him.

They gobble up our time and energy, and in the end, we still don't know "the truth".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Because they were kitty footing around about his name.
> Saed Farook...
> But they were falling all over themselves "but we don't know if he is middle eastern or not". We just can't speculate, bla bla bla......
> Really.........
> ...


I'll repeat. He wasn't middle eastern. He was American. You criticize all the examples of labels being applied yet you want to affix a label. I'll wait details before I ascribe a motive. Earlier you wished to deflect possible blame from an ideology because you found false information that was prematurely reported. Yet here you wish to frame possible motive with incomplete information. Very appropriate for a thread with this title.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Because they were kitty footing around about his name.
> Saed Farook...
> But they were falling all over themselves "but we don't know if he is middle eastern or not". We just can't speculate, bla bla bla......
> Really.........
> ...


Farook married his wife in Saudi Arabia. Chances are very good indeed SHE was NOT a American not in the sense of being born here.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I'll repeat. He wasn't middle eastern. He was American. You criticize all the examples of labels being applied yet you want to affix a label. I'll wait details before I ascribe a motive. Earlier you wished to deflect possible blame from an ideology because you found false information that was prematurely reported. Yet here you wish to frame possible motive with incomplete information. Very appropriate for a thread with this title.


I'm just going to throw out a rhetorical question, did he consider himself American first or middle eastern? If he was radicalized it could have changed his perception of his true origins.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

no really said:


> I'm just going to throw out a rhetorical question, did he consider himself American first or middle eastern? If he was radicalized it could have changed his perception of his true origins.


It's an interesting question. It might be worthwhile to examine what opened him to possible radicalization. Most who embrace their country feel at least somewhat embraced by it. Most who reject and act against it feel somehow rejected by it. I wasn't born in this country. My mother spoke with an accent. I've never been asked in casual conversation whether I am American. I doubt anyone walking down the street ever doubted my citizenship or reacted to me based on where I might be from. Knowing a few Muslims and having heard their stories I can say their experience isn't always so pleasant. Sometimes how we treat others comes back upon us. 

Let the attacks on my character begin. I don't blame the US for all the world's ills. I do recognize our role in some of them. I don't think everyone is an islamophobe or a racist. I know some exist and know the effect they can have. Before some of you are so quick to look askance at someone for whatever reason maybe think about what that look might result in.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> It's an interesting question. It might be worthwhile to examine what opened him to possible radicalization. Most who embrace their country feel at least somewhat embraced by it. Most who reject and act against it feel somehow rejected by it. I wasn't born in this country. My mother spoke with an accent. I've never been asked in casual conversation whether I am American. I doubt anyone walking down the street ever doubted my citizenship or reacted to me based on where I might be from. Knowing a few Muslims and having heard their stories I can say their experience isn't always so pleasant. Sometimes how we treat others comes back upon us.
> 
> Let the attacks on my character begin. I don't blame the US for all the world's ills. I do recognize our role in some of them. I don't think everyone is an islamophobe or a racist. I know some exist and know the effect they can have. Before some of you are so quick to look askance at someone for whatever reason maybe think about what that look might result in.


Coming from a family of many immigrants I do understand what you are saying. It is not uncommon for people of my ethnicity to come under more scrutiny, especially along the border. Do I take it as an insult or attack, no? I expect with the actions of the cartels, human traffickers, arms dealers and drug runners to be looked at with a bit more intensity. IMHO we have a terrorist nation on our southern border.

I want the authorities to clean up the mess that is the border area. I live here, so do my family and friends.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Fox was tripping all over itself saying "The suspects name is saed farook, but we don't want to* assume* this is a middle eastern man..."
> What?
> *Are you kidding me*?


Did you ever hear of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> His wife was not......and you know what I meant.


Yes, you meant you assumed something that was incorrect based on the *sound* of a name, instead of looking for the facts beforehand


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Deleted double post


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Terrorism, like AGW is largely blown out of proportion, by government and the Media, to further their agendas. Things will happen, in a free society, that cannot be stopped while maintaining a free society. We must not let the actions of a few idiots lead us to give up the freedoms we enjoy. (any more than we already have)


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ack, now we throw AGW into the mix, as well. How about if we throw gay rights in while we're at it? Confederate flag maybe.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ack, now we throw AGW into the mix, as well. How about if we throw gay rights in while we're at it? Confederate flag maybe.


 I just picked an issue, that the Left uses to gain money and power, to go with the issue that the Right uses to gain money and power. What? I am all about being fair and balanced.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Both issues are sometimes blown out of proportion.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did you ever hear of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar



 Oh No!
Don't tell me he was the 3rd shooter!




I had forgotten about him and a few others, since they've retired.
Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay)
Yousef Islam (Cat Stevens)
.......and more if I could remember them.

We've always had American Muslims here and very few problems.
What's the deal now?
Why in the world are these fanatics going around executing people?
Are they THAT demented that they want to kick the meanest dog on the block to see if his bite is worse than his bark?
I don't get it.
:shrug:


----------

