# Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad



## theHawk

Amazing how so called "women's groups" would be so upset about the story of a woman ignoring a doctor's recommendation to get an abortion.



> NEW YORK (AP) -- A coalition of women's groups called on the CBS network on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which *critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message*.
> 
> The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, *she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim*, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two college football championships.



CBS urged to scrap anti-abortion Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow - SI.com - 2008 NFL Super Bowl


----------



## bodecea

theHawk said:


> Amazing how so called "women's groups" would be so upset about the story of a woman ignoring a doctor's recommendation to get an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (AP) -- A coalition of women's groups called on the CBS network on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which *critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message*.
> 
> The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, *she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim*, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two college football championships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBS urged to scrap anti-abortion Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow - SI.com - 2008 NFL Super Bowl
Click to expand...


I think it will be wonderful...Will they also talk about Focus on the Family's suggestions on how to raise a non-gay boy?   That's a favorite of mine.


----------



## Gem

They almost always turn down a PETA ad during the Superbowl each year too...so what's the big deal?  They are smart enough to know that while American's are stuffing their faces full of pizza, buffalo wings, and potato chips and cheering for their team...they don't want to think about crazy vegetarians or whether or not they support abortion.  Sounds reasonable to me.  Bring on the Clydesdales selling beer!


----------



## theHawk

Gem said:


> They almost always turn down a PETA ad during the Superbowl each year too...so what's the big deal?  They are smart enough to know that while American's are stuffing their faces full of pizza, buffalo wings, and potato chips and cheering for their team...they don't want to think about crazy vegetarians or whether or not they support abortion.  Sounds reasonable to me.  Bring on the Clydesdales selling beer!



Yea, how dare anyone get an important message out during the highest rated hours of the year, especially if it can save lives.


----------



## xsited1

theHawk said:


> Amazing how so called "women's groups" would be so upset about the story of a woman ignoring a doctor's recommendation to get an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (AP) -- A coalition of women's groups called on the CBS network on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which *critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message*.
> 
> The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, *she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim*, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two college football championships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBS urged to scrap anti-abortion Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow - SI.com - 2008 NFL Super Bowl
Click to expand...


In an alternate universe, the person who found a cure for cancer wasn't aborted.  Good thing the mother didn't follow the doctor's recommendation.


----------



## HistoricalTruth

theHawk said:


> Gem said:
> 
> 
> 
> They almost always turn down a PETA ad during the Superbowl each year too...so what's the big deal?  They are smart enough to know that while American's are stuffing their faces full of pizza, buffalo wings, and potato chips and cheering for their team...they don't want to think about crazy vegetarians or whether or not they support abortion.  Sounds reasonable to me.  Bring on the Clydesdales selling beer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, how dare anyone get an important message out during the highest rated hours of the year, especially if it can save lives.
Click to expand...


Do these types of ads run during American Idol? Survivor? Any of the Bread and Circus reality shows? 

This is a serious question as I watch none of them. I find reality TV to be a big part of the decline of this country. And I am willing to bet, that while people are distracted with other peoples need for attention the commercials are less than educational.


----------



## Gem

> Yea, how dare anyone get an important message out during the highest rated hours of the year, especially if it can save lives.



If CBS doesn't want to run it, it doesn't have to...despite whether I feel or you feel that the message is an important one.

CBS is making a choice - that political ads that might piss off their viewers don't have a place being run during the SuperBowl.  That's their choice - they've demonstrated that they hold that view whether the ad is from a liberal or conservative viewpoint.  They are being consistent - which I appreciate.

Do I think the world would come to an end if football fans found out that doctors wanted one of the player's mom's to abort him but she chose life?  No, I think thats rather cool actually.  But it wasn't my choice...it was CBS's.


----------



## CurveLight

So CBS rejected a pro same sex marriage ad but are putting out an anti-abortion ad by a ridiculously hate filled socially conservative hack whack group.  Thanks for showing once again the "Liberal" media theory is utter bullshit.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> So CBS rejected a pro same sex marriage ad but are putting out an anti-abortion ad by a ridiculously hate filled socially conservative hack whack group.  Thanks for showing once again the "Liberal" media theory is utter bullshit.



They are liberal, but even libs are terrified of pissing off conservative America.  No one ever accused liberals of standing by their principles, espcially if they can make a quick buck.


----------



## theHawk

Gem said:


> Yea, how dare anyone get an important message out during the highest rated hours of the year, especially if it can save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If CBS doesn't want to run it, it doesn't have to...despite whether I feel or you feel that the message is an important one.
> 
> CBS is making a choice - that political ads that might piss off their viewers don't have a place being run during the SuperBowl.  That's their choice - they've demonstrated that they hold that view whether the ad is from a liberal or conservative viewpoint.  They are being consistent - which I appreciate.
> 
> Do I think the world would come to an end if football fans found out that doctors wanted one of the player's mom's to abort him but she chose life?  No, I think thats rather cool actually.  But it wasn't my choice...it was CBS's.
Click to expand...


As far as I know CBS is planning to air it.  You're right, it is their choice to air it or not, that's really not the issue here.

But what I find strange about this story is that pro-"choice" women would be upset by this commercial.  What's wrong with promoting the choice of letting the baby live?  Guess they're not really pro-choice, they're just pro-abortion.


----------



## HistoricalTruth

theHawk said:


> Gem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, how dare anyone get an important message out during the highest rated hours of the year, especially if it can save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If CBS doesn't want to run it, it doesn't have to...despite whether I feel or you feel that the message is an important one.
> 
> CBS is making a choice - that political ads that might piss off their viewers don't have a place being run during the SuperBowl.  That's their choice - they've demonstrated that they hold that view whether the ad is from a liberal or conservative viewpoint.  They are being consistent - which I appreciate.
> 
> Do I think the world would come to an end if football fans found out that doctors wanted one of the player's mom's to abort him but she chose life?  No, I think thats rather cool actually.  But it wasn't my choice...it was CBS's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I know CBS is planning to air it.  You're right, it is their choice to air it or not, that's really not the issue here.
> 
> But what I find strange about this story is that pro-"choice" women would be upset by this commercial.  What's wrong with promoting the choice of letting the baby live?  *Guess they're not really pro-choice, they're just pro-abortion*.
Click to expand...


Maybe they are, but thats still rhetorical nonsense, about the same as calling someone to supports the death penalty Pro-Murder.


----------



## theHawk

HistoricalTruth said:


> Maybe they are, but thats still rhetorical nonsense, about the same as calling someone to supports the death penalty Pro-Murder.



Then maybe you can explain why "pro-choice" groups have such a big problem with  groups promoting the idea of choosing life over death for the child?


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So CBS rejected a pro same sex marriage ad but are putting out an anti-abortion ad by a ridiculously hate filled socially conservative hack whack group.  Thanks for showing once again the "Liberal" media theory is utter bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are liberal, but even libs are terrified of pissing off conservative America.  No one ever accused liberals of standing by their principles, espcially if they can make a quick buck.
Click to expand...



That is what is so endearing......even when people cite evidence that contradicts their claim they ignore it and just keep on repeating until bedtime.  There is no more Conservatism in the US.  Religious extremists who want to use the government to enforce their theology onto others has more in common with Saudi Arabia than America.  My only hope is the Christian Right and Neocons will get the hell out of my Party and stop pretending to be Conservative.  We already have one "C" word and those camps are trying to force it into two.


----------



## Avatar4321

CurveLight said:


> So CBS rejected a pro same sex marriage ad but are putting out an anti-abortion ad by a ridiculously hate filled socially conservative hack whack group.  Thanks for showing once again the "Liberal" media theory is utter bullshit.



Well, I guess that just demonstrates that no matter how committed liberals say they are to their ideals, they wont pass up an opportunity to make a large profit.


----------



## Luissa

I say air it! People will realize CBS isn't liberal media, especially if they denied other group's ads.


----------



## Avatar4321

HistoricalTruth said:


> Maybe they are, but thats still rhetorical nonsense, about the same as calling someone to supports the death penalty Pro-Murder.



That argument makes absolutely no sense. By definition, capital punishment cannot be murder. However, those who are pro death penalty, readily acknowledge that we are advocating for the death of criminals who commit heinous enough crimes that the community thinks he should face death. We aren't pretending we are for some other position while secretly holding our real position. When we say we are pro death penalty, we mean we are in favor of the death penalty.

Now the pro-choice groups are claiming they are in favor of a woman being able to choose whether to have an abortion or not. Now if their position was actually based on a desire for a woman to make a choice, there would be absolutely no reason to be offended that someone who exercised their choice not to abort their child and was encouraging people not as well. In fact, they would be happy that the woman had the choice to.

But that's not the case here.  Here a woman exercised her choice, and they are offended by it. By their actions they are demonstrating that choice really isnt the issue at all. It's a mask to cover up their true position. And logically the only position they could really be advocating that would make them upset in this case is that they are, in fact, pro abortion and not just pro choice.

As I said, if you were pro choice, you wouldnt be upset over someone making a choice for life. You'd only be upset over that if you were actually pro abortion. You can clearly see that your analogy just doesnt hold up under analysis. It sounds nice. But rhetoric doesn't equal reality.


----------



## Modbert

According to CBS own rules, they shouldn't air this.

But I'm pretty sure I posted about this two weeks ago.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> HistoricalTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they are, but thats still rhetorical nonsense, about the same as calling someone to supports the death penalty Pro-Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you can explain why "pro-choice" groups have such a big problem with  groups promoting the idea of choosing life over death for the child?
Click to expand...


I suggest you learn why the protest letter was sent.  It wasn't against the ad being anti-abortion:

"By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid letter and it's dumb to feed into the persecution complex of the Christian Right.  I would protest the ad on the basis it's completely fucking dumb to spend $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS for a 30 second spot by a group that shits all over the name of Jesus to justify its hatred of others.  I'm guessing Jesus would rather see that money care for some kids.  How many kids could helped be fed, housed, and receive medicine for $2.5 million?  That is what I would bitch about.


----------



## CurveLight

Dogbert said:


> According to CBS own rules, they shouldn't air this.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure I posted about this two weeks ago.



CBS is in the business of making money and the Christian Right is a fucking gold mine when it comes to using their stupidity against them to make a good profit.  Look how many idiots the publishers suckered into buying a book by Palin she didn't even write.


----------



## CurveLight

The OP title is as dishonest on two levels.  The first has already been shown but the second is trying to demonize the pro choice crowd by calling them "pro-abortionists."  See, when your position is solid you don't need to rely on such forms of deception.  When you do that it sends the message you are insecure on your own ground.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Luissa said:


> I say air it! People will realize CBS isn't liberal media, especially if they denied other group's ads.



One ad isn't going to magically make CBS a conservative media outlet.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HistoricalTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they are, but thats still rhetorical nonsense, about the same as calling someone to supports the death penalty Pro-Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you can explain why "pro-choice" groups have such a big problem with  groups promoting the idea of choosing life over death for the child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn why the protest letter was sent.  It wasn't against the ad being anti-abortion:
> 
> "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's a stupid letter and it's dumb to feed into the persecution complex of the Christian Right.  I would protest the ad on the basis it's completely fucking dumb to spend $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS for a 30 second spot by a group that shits all over the name of Jesus to justify its hatred of others.  I'm guessing Jesus would rather see that money care for some kids.  How many kids could helped be fed, housed, and receive medicine for $2.5 million?  That is what I would bitch about.
Click to expand...


Focus on Family is homophobic?  You mean homosexuals don't have families?!?!!?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> The OP title is as dishonest on two levels.  The first has already been shown but the second is trying to demonize the pro choice crowd by calling them "pro-abortionists."  See, when your position is solid you don't need to rely on such forms of deception.  When you do that it sends the message you are insecure on your own ground.



Is pro-choice against abortions? hmmm noooooo.. so what's opposite of against? 


Damn you people are stupid!  


The only insecurity I see is from idiots like you.


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you can explain why "pro-choice" groups have such a big problem with  groups promoting the idea of choosing life over death for the child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn why the protest letter was sent.  It wasn't against the ad being anti-abortion:
> 
> "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's a stupid letter and it's dumb to feed into the persecution complex of the Christian Right.  I would protest the ad on the basis it's completely fucking dumb to spend $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS for a 30 second spot by a group that shits all over the name of Jesus to justify its hatred of others.  I'm guessing Jesus would rather see that money care for some kids.  How many kids could helped be fed, housed, and receive medicine for $2.5 million?  That is what I would bitch about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus on Family is homophobic?  You mean homosexuals don't have families?!?!!?
Click to expand...


So, tell us...are  you using their advice on how to raise straight sons?


----------



## Wicked Jester

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn why the protest letter was sent.  It wasn't against the ad being anti-abortion:
> 
> "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's a stupid letter and it's dumb to feed into the persecution complex of the Christian Right.  I would protest the ad on the basis it's completely fucking dumb to spend $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS for a 30 second spot by a group that shits all over the name of Jesus to justify its hatred of others.  I'm guessing Jesus would rather see that money care for some kids.  How many kids could helped be fed, housed, and receive medicine for $2.5 million?  That is what I would bitch about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on Family is homophobic?  You mean homosexuals don't have families?!?!!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, tell us...are  you using their advice on how to raise straight sons?
Click to expand...

It's really quite simple. Raise your children with morals and they won't make the disgusting CHOICE to be homosexuals. If you raise them with morals and they still make the disgusting CHOICE, one must understand that they are whacked in the fucking head.

But then, you already knew that!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn why the protest letter was sent.  It wasn't against the ad being anti-abortion:
> 
> "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's a stupid letter and it's dumb to feed into the persecution complex of the Christian Right.  I would protest the ad on the basis it's completely fucking dumb to spend $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS for a 30 second spot by a group that shits all over the name of Jesus to justify its hatred of others.  I'm guessing Jesus would rather see that money care for some kids.  How many kids could helped be fed, housed, and receive medicine for $2.5 million?  That is what I would bitch about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on Family is homophobic?  You mean homosexuals don't have families?!?!!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, tell us...are  you using their advice on how to raise straight sons?
Click to expand...


My children are already grown and all five of them are straight all done without anyone's advice.


----------



## Luissa

Lonestar_logic said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say air it! People will realize CBS isn't liberal media, especially if they denied other group's ads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One ad isn't going to magically make CBS a conservative media outlet.
Click to expand...

Don't think I said they would become one, try biased. I watch CBS almost every night, and in the law week I have seen stories on the handling of the earthquake in Haiti that didn't make the President look good, and last night I saw another story attacking people like Harry Reid and Pelosi for how much they spent on the Copenhagen trip. If they are liberal television, they are not doing a very good job of getting that point out there.
I know in your head the only unbiased news station is FOX, so I understand your confusion.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Luissa said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say air it! People will realize CBS isn't liberal media, especially if they denied other group's ads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One ad isn't going to magically make CBS a conservative media outlet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't think I said they would become one, try biased. I watch CBS almost every night, and in the law week I have seen stories on the handling of the earthquake in Haiti that didn't make the President look good, and last night I saw another story attacking people like Harry Reid and Pelosi for how much they spent on the Copenhagen trip. If they are liberal television, they are not doing a very good job of getting that point out there.
> I know in your head the only unbiased news station is FOX, so I understand your confusion.
Click to expand...


You said "air it! People will realize CBS isn't liberal media...".  Implying that they never were a liberal media.  Honestly there's not many stories, if any, out there that will make Obama look good. He's failing at every turn. All news media like all people are biased in one way or the other, you and I included.


----------



## strollingbones

If [a father] wants his son to grow up straight, he has to break the mother-son connection that is proper to infancy but not in the boy's interest after the age of three. In this way, the father has to be a model, demonstrating that it is possible for his son to maintain a loving relationship with this woman, his mom, while maintaining his own independence. In this way, the father is a healthy buffer between mother and son.

Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on Family is homophobic?  You mean homosexuals don't have families?!?!!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, tell us...are  you using their advice on how to raise straight sons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My children are already grown and all five of them are straight all done without anyone's advice.
Click to expand...


I bet you used their recommended methods too.


----------



## bodecea

strollingbones said:


> If [a father] wants his son to grow up straight, he has to break the mother-son connection that is proper to infancy but not in the boy's interest after the age of three. In this way, the father has to be a model, demonstrating that it is possible for his son to maintain a loving relationship with this woman, his mom, while maintaining his own independence. In this way, the father is a healthy buffer between mother and son.
> 
> Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?



It leaves the part about about showering with your young son to show him the Family Jewels.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, tell us...are  you using their advice on how to raise straight sons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My children are already grown and all five of them are straight all done without anyone's advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you used their recommended methods too.
Click to expand...


I wasn't aware they had "recommended methods" but apparently you know the group quite well. And since your are not intelligent enough to comprehend what I stated previously, I shall state it again. My children are already grown and all five of them are straight all done *without* anyone's advice.


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My children are already grown and all five of them are straight all done without anyone's advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you used their recommended methods too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware they had "recommended methods" but apparently you know the group quite well. And since your are not intelligent enough to comprehend what I stated previously, I shall state it again. My children are already grown and all five of them are straight all done *without* anyone's advice.
Click to expand...



Ok, so they published YOUR approved methods?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If [a father] wants his son to grow up straight, he has to break the mother-son connection that is proper to infancy but not in the boy's interest after the age of three. In this way, the father has to be a model, demonstrating that it is possible for his son to maintain a loving relationship with this woman, his mom, while maintaining his own independence. In this way, the father is a healthy buffer between mother and son.
> 
> Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It leaves the part about about showering with your young son to show him the Family Jewels.
Click to expand...


How many children have you raised?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you used their recommended methods too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware they had "recommended methods" but apparently you know the group quite well. And since your are not intelligent enough to comprehend what I stated previously, I shall state it again. My children are already grown and all five of them are straight all done *without* anyone's advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so they published YOUR approved methods?
Click to expand...


What methods are those?


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware they had "recommended methods" but apparently you know the group quite well. And since your are not intelligent enough to comprehend what I stated previously, I shall state it again. My children are already grown and all five of them are straight all done *without* anyone's advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so they published YOUR approved methods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What methods are those?
Click to expand...

The ones that Focus on the Family has recommended for raising a straight son.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so they published YOUR approved methods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What methods are those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones that Focus on the Family has recommended for raising a straight son.
Click to expand...


Are you really as stupid as you lead folks to believe? Answer my question, how many children have you raised and are they all homosexuals?


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What methods are those?
> 
> 
> 
> The ones that Focus on the Family has recommended for raising a straight son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really as stupid as you lead folks to believe? Answer my question, how many children have you raised and are they all homosexuals?
Click to expand...


Ah...you want to discuss my family now.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ones that Focus on the Family has recommended for raising a straight son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really as stupid as you lead folks to believe? Answer my question, how many children have you raised and are they all homosexuals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...you want to discuss my family now.
Click to expand...


No just answer the question.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus on Family is homophobic?  You mean homosexuals don't have families?!?!!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, tell us...are  you using their advice on how to raise straight sons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My children are already grown and all five of them are straight all done without anyone's advice.
Click to expand...



...as far as you know....


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So CBS rejected a pro same sex marriage ad but are putting out an anti-abortion ad by a ridiculously hate filled socially conservative hack whack group.  Thanks for showing once again the "Liberal" media theory is utter bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are liberal, but even libs are terrified of pissing off conservative America.  No one ever accused liberals of standing by their principles, espcially if they can make a quick buck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is what is so endearing......even when people cite evidence that contradicts their claim they ignore it and just keep on repeating until bedtime.  *There is no more Conservatism in the US.  Religious extremists who want to use the government to enforce their theology onto others has more in common with Saudi Arabia than America.*  My only hope is the Christian Right and Neocons will get the hell out of my Party and stop pretending to be Conservative.  We already have one "C" word and those camps are trying to force it into two.
Click to expand...


There is no discussion about government involvement in this thread or story.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, tell us...are  you using their advice on how to raise straight sons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My children are already grown and all five of them are straight all done without anyone's advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...as far as you know....
Click to expand...


I know very well. My children and I are very close. All of them are happily married with the exception of my youngest son, he's a sophmore in college has a beautiful girlfriend that he met when he was in high school and they plan on getting married when they're done with school.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HistoricalTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they are, but thats still rhetorical nonsense, about the same as calling someone to supports the death penalty Pro-Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you can explain why "pro-choice" groups have such a big problem with  groups promoting the idea of choosing life over death for the child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn why the protest letter was sent.  It wasn't against the ad being anti-abortion:
> 
> "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an *anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization*, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's a stupid letter and it's dumb to feed into the persecution complex of the Christian Right.  I would protest the ad on the basis it's completely fucking dumb to spend $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS for a 30 second spot by a group that shits all over the name of Jesus to justify its hatred of others.  I'm guessing Jesus would rather see that money care for some kids.  How many kids could helped be fed, housed, and receive medicine for $2.5 million?  That is what I would bitch about.
Click to expand...


Oh my mistake, there aren't upset at the ad being anti-abortion, they're upset because its "anti-equality, anti-choice" and of course a "homophobic organization".  Silly me 

Yea, I am sure Jesus would be much more pleased if people kept silent about abortion, because you know, he would surely be for it.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP title is as dishonest on two levels.  The first has already been shown but the second is trying to demonize the pro choice crowd by calling them "pro-abortionists."  See, when your position is solid you don't need to rely on such forms of deception.  When you do that it sends the message you are insecure on your own ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is pro-choice against abortions? hmmm noooooo.. so what's opposite of against?
> 
> 
> Damn you people are stupid!
> 
> 
> The only insecurity I see is from idiots like you.
Click to expand...



Figures someone from Texas would be the first one to scream lack of comprehension. Lol.....being pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion and the reason is simple:  there are people who respect the Rights of other Citizens. I know that is tough to understand but slow down, crack another bud light or pabst or whatever pisswater you call beer and try to wrap your mind around the idea one can be morally opposed to abortion but also opposed to try and force everyone else to live by their morals.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> The OP title is as dishonest on two levels.  The first has already been shown but the second is trying to demonize the pro choice crowd by calling them "pro-abortionists."  See, when your position is solid you don't need to rely on such forms of deception.  When you do that it sends the message you are insecure on your own ground.



Yea, I am dishonest because I call a spade a spade.  I don't play the word game that liberals do in re-inventing definitions for words.  If you are FOR the ability of women to have abortions on demand then you are PRO-ABORTION.  If they were truely pro-choice then they would support people who send out the message to make the OTHER choice....but they don't.  They fight and protest pro-life movement every chance they get.  They can call themselves whatever the fuck they want, I will call them for exactly how I perceive them, there is no deception or dishonesty in that at all.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you can explain why "pro-choice" groups have such a big problem with  groups promoting the idea of choosing life over death for the child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn why the protest letter was sent.  It wasn't against the ad being anti-abortion:
> 
> "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an *anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization*, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's a stupid letter and it's dumb to feed into the persecution complex of the Christian Right.  I would protest the ad on the basis it's completely fucking dumb to spend $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS for a 30 second spot by a group that shits all over the name of Jesus to justify its hatred of others.  I'm guessing Jesus would rather see that money care for some kids.  How many kids could helped be fed, housed, and receive medicine for $2.5 million?  That is what I would bitch about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my mistake, there aren't upset at the ad being anti-abortion, they're upset because its "anti-equality, anti-choice" and of course a "homophobic organization".  Silly me
> 
> Yea, I am sure Jesus would be much more pleased if people kept silent about abortion, because you know, he would surely be for it.
Click to expand...



If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> Figures someone from Texas would be the first one to scream lack of comprehension. Lol.....being pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion and the reason is simple:  there are *people who respect the Rights of other Citizens*. I know that is tough to understand but slow down, crack another bud light or pabst or whatever pisswater you call beer and try to wrap your mind around the idea one can be morally opposed to abortion but also opposed to try and force everyone else to live by their morals.



I know its tough to understand, but some people actually believe the living human being inside a womb has some rights....like the right to live.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> *If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue? * Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.



Talk about a strawman.....


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really as stupid as you lead folks to believe? Answer my question, how many children have you raised and are they all homosexuals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...you want to discuss my family now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No just answer the question.
Click to expand...


So, you want to discuss my family now.


----------



## ABikerSailor

xsited1 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how so called "women's groups" would be so upset about the story of a woman ignoring a doctor's recommendation to get an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (AP) -- A coalition of women's groups called on the CBS network on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which *critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message*.
> 
> The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, *she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim*, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two college football championships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBS urged to scrap anti-abortion Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow - SI.com - 2008 NFL Super Bowl
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In an alternate universe, the person who found a cure for cancer wasn't aborted.  Good thing the mother didn't follow the doctor's recommendation.
Click to expand...


Interesting point here........first, let's talk a bit about theology........

Jewish people believe in reincarnation.  So do the Hindus as well as several other major theologies.  They state that what you do in this life, will determine what happens in the next.

You're right........if you abort a child, it could have been the next President, world peacekeeper, or someone who advances the human race several steps into the future.

That's one scenario.

But.........would the world really be better off with another Hitler, Attila the Hun, David Koresh, Jim Jones, or any of the others?

That is also a definite possibility as well.

As far as this football player and his Bible verses?  Let him do it, but keep religion out of the SuperBowl...........football is it's OWN religion.  Don't believe?  Go visit Texas in the middle of the season.

And, since from looking at the tattoos of some of the other players, I know some of them are Rastafarian.  Maybe they should paint a Jamacian flag on one cheek and a pot leaf on the other.

I mean..........standing up for your religion is a noble thing, right?


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP title is as dishonest on two levels.  The first has already been shown but the second is trying to demonize the pro choice crowd by calling them "pro-abortionists."  See, when your position is solid you don't need to rely on such forms of deception.  When you do that it sends the message you are insecure on your own ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I am dishonest because I call a spade a spade.  I don't play the word game that liberals do in re-inventing definitions for words.  If you are FOR the ability of women to have abortions on demand then you are PRO-ABORTION.  If they were truely pro-choice then they would support people who send out the message to make the OTHER choice....but they don't.  They fight and protest pro-life movement every chance they get.  They can call themselves whatever the fuck they want, I will call them for exactly how I perceive them, there is no deception or dishonesty in that at all.
Click to expand...



Pro-choice means just that.....women have the Right to choose.  That is no where near pro-abortion.  Do you understand the difference between allowing someone to make a choice and you trying to choose it for them?

If anyone is playing word games it's the anti-choice crowd because they try to label themselves as "pro-life" but they are the first dipshits to beat the war drums and actually try to defend immoral and illegal invasions of other nations that MURDER ACTUAL PEOPLE.  Don't even get started on the death penalty.  Be honest and call yourselves ANTI-CHOICE because you don't want other Americans to be able to choose what they do with their own bodies.  You want to force yourselves between womens' legs.  Isn't there a name for that crime already?  Is there any difference between a rapist telling a woman what to do with her vagina and you?  By all means, please explain the difference?


----------



## bodecea

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn why the protest letter was sent.  It wasn't against the ad being anti-abortion:
> 
> "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an *anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization*, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's a stupid letter and it's dumb to feed into the persecution complex of the Christian Right.  I would protest the ad on the basis it's completely fucking dumb to spend $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS for a 30 second spot by a group that shits all over the name of Jesus to justify its hatred of others.  I'm guessing Jesus would rather see that money care for some kids.  How many kids could helped be fed, housed, and receive medicine for $2.5 million?  That is what I would bitch about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my mistake, there aren't upset at the ad being anti-abortion, they're upset because its "anti-equality, anti-choice" and of course a "homophobic organization".  Silly me
> 
> Yea, I am sure Jesus would be much more pleased if people kept silent about abortion, because you know, he would surely be for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.
Click to expand...


While I understand private groups spending their money as they see fit, I wonder about how all those laid off by Focus on the Family feel about them having the dough for that ad.  And what is it that Focus on the Family seems to think that that time slot will be beneficial to them?


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Figures someone from Texas would be the first one to scream lack of comprehension. Lol.....being pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion and the reason is simple:  there are *people who respect the Rights of other Citizens*. I know that is tough to understand but slow down, crack another bud light or pabst or whatever pisswater you call beer and try to wrap your mind around the idea one can be morally opposed to abortion but also opposed to try and force everyone else to live by their morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know its tough to understand, but some people actually believe the living human being inside a womb has some rights....like the right to live.
Click to expand...



You don't have any access to an unborn unless you go between a woman's legs.  You are saying you don't care what a woman wants to do with her body and her vagina and that you should have control over her body.  Damn, do you ever watch L+O SVU?  If you do there are certain episodes where it may feel like you are looking in a mirror.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> Pro-choice means just that.....women have the Right to choose.  That is no where near pro-abortion.  Do you understand the difference between allowing someone to make a choice and you trying to choose it for them?
> 
> If anyone is playing word games it's the anti-choice crowd because they try to label themselves as "pro-life" but they are the first dipshits to beat the war drums and actually try to defend immoral and illegal invasions of other nations that MURDER ACTUAL PEOPLE.  Don't even get started on the death penalty.  *Be honest and call yourselves ANTI-CHOICE because you don't want other Americans to be able to choose what they do with their own bodies. * You want to force yourselves between womens' legs.  Isn't there a name for that crime already?  Is there any difference between a rapist telling a woman what to do with her vagina and you?  By all means, please explain the difference?



Wow, someone's panties sure are getting bunched up!!!

Sure, I'll play along.  They can be called "pro-choice", because they are for allowing the choice of killing an unborn child because its an inconvenience. Yet you are still unable to answer my very simple question of why this group would oppose a message from a group that favors one of the choices over the other?  Oh wait, you did answer that, its because the opposition group wants to FORCE the woman to make a choice, by taking away her right to murder a child.

Lets apply that to your "forcing yourselves between women's legs" comment.  Shouldn't men be allowed the choice of taking a women whenever he pleases?  NO you say?  So now YOU are FORCING men to not rape women?  The audacity!!!

The truth is society already takes away immoral choices from everyone, thats the entire point of having a civilized society with laws.  Its immoral to steal, so make laws that make it illegal and throw theives in jail.  Its immoral to rape, so make it illegal and throw people in jail when they do it or try to.  Its immoral to murder, so throw people in jail when they do....well except when its a pregnant mother who wants to kill her unborn child....then its OK?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP title is as dishonest on two levels.  The first has already been shown but the second is trying to demonize the pro choice crowd by calling them "pro-abortionists."  See, when your position is solid you don't need to rely on such forms of deception.  When you do that it sends the message you are insecure on your own ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is pro-choice against abortions? hmmm noooooo.. so what's opposite of against?
> 
> 
> Damn you people are stupid!
> 
> 
> The only insecurity I see is from idiots like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Figures someone from Texas would be the first one to scream lack of comprehension. Lol.....being pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion and the reason is simple:  there are people who respect the Rights of other Citizens. I know that is tough to understand but slow down, crack another bud light or pabst or whatever pisswater you call beer and try to wrap your mind around the idea one can be morally opposed to abortion but also opposed to try and force everyone else to live by their morals.
Click to expand...


No thanks, I don't drink alcohol. To me it's pretty cut and dried, either you're against abortion are you're for it. There is no middle ground. And for those you claim that just wants to respect the rights of other people, whose rights are they respecting? The rights of those that choose to destroy a human life? They certainly aren't respecting the rights of those with a different point of view as witnessed by the vitriol they present when addressing pro-lifers. And they certainly aren't respecting the sanctity of life. So in my opinion pro-choice is pro-abortion because it most certainly isn't anti-abortion. Perhaps you should refrain from drinking bud light or pabst or whatever pisswater you call beer and wise up.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...you want to discuss my family now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No just answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you want to discuss my family now.
Click to expand...


Hey stupid! Asking you if you have raised any children isn't discussing your family. A simple yes or no would suffice.

Do I need to remind you that it was you that brought children into the discussion in the first place when you asked about my sons?  Oh and I answered your question without hesitation because unlike you, I'm not afraid of speaking the truth.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Figures someone from Texas would be the first one to scream lack of comprehension. Lol.....being pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion and the reason is simple:  there are *people who respect the Rights of other Citizens*. I know that is tough to understand but slow down, crack another bud light or pabst or whatever pisswater you call beer and try to wrap your mind around the idea one can be morally opposed to abortion but also opposed to try and force everyone else to live by their morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know its tough to understand, but some people actually believe the living human being inside a womb has some rights....like the right to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have any access to an unborn unless you go between a woman's legs.  You are saying you don't care what a woman wants to do with her body and her vagina and that you should have control over her body.  Damn, do you ever watch L+O SVU?  If you do there are certain episodes where it may feel like you are looking in a mirror.
Click to expand...


She had her "choice" before the pregnancy.

You still seem to lack the understanding of the basic fact that the unborn child is its own unique lifeform, with its own unique DNA.  Its not simply a "part of her body", its not even her DNA.


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No just answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you want to discuss my family now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid! Asking you if you have raised any children isn't discussing your family. A simple yes or no would suffice.
> 
> Do I need to remind you that it was you that brought children into the discussion in the first place when you asked about my sons?  Oh and I answered your question without hesitation because unlike you, I'm not afraid of speaking the truth.
Click to expand...


So, you want to discuss my family now.   And no matter what I answer...you would most likely believe me as 'much' as I believe  you.


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is pro-choice against abortions? hmmm noooooo.. so what's opposite of against?
> 
> 
> Damn you people are stupid!
> 
> 
> The only insecurity I see is from idiots like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figures someone from Texas would be the first one to scream lack of comprehension. Lol.....being pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion and the reason is simple:  there are people who respect the Rights of other Citizens. I know that is tough to understand but slow down, crack another bud light or pabst or whatever pisswater you call beer and try to wrap your mind around the idea one can be morally opposed to abortion but also opposed to try and force everyone else to live by their morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thanks, I don't drink alcohol. To me it's pretty cut and dried, either *you're against abortion are you're for it.* There is no middle ground. And for those you claim that just wants to respect the rights of other people, whose rights are they respecting? The rights of those that choose to destroy a human life? They certainly aren't respecting the rights of those with a different point of view as witnessed by the vitriol they present when addressing pro-lifers. And they certainly aren't respecting the sanctity of life. So in my opinion pro-choice is pro-abortion because it most certainly isn't anti-abortion. Perhaps you should refrain from drinking bud light or pabst or whatever pisswater you call beer and wise up.
Click to expand...


Actually, that's not true.   You can be against abortion but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others.   That is probably most pro-choice people.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my mistake, there aren't upset at the ad being anti-abortion, they're upset because its "anti-equality, anti-choice" and of course a "homophobic organization".  Silly me
> 
> Yea, I am sure Jesus would be much more pleased if people kept silent about abortion, because you know, he would surely be for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I understand private groups spending their money as they see fit, I wonder about how all those laid off by Focus on the Family feel about them having the dough for that ad.  And what is it that Focus on the Family seems to think that that time slot will be beneficial to them?
Click to expand...


"All those laid off by Focus on the Family"? Exactly how many were laid off? And please use a reliable source.


----------



## theHawk

bodecea said:


> Actually, that's not true.   You can be against abortion but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others.   That is probably most pro-choice people.



Let me try that logic.


"You can be against rape but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others".

There, hows that?



Seriously, do you believe in any laws?  If you do, then you already are "forcing your own beliefs onto others".


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you want to discuss my family now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid! Asking you if you have raised any children isn't discussing your family. A simple yes or no would suffice.
> 
> Do I need to remind you that it was you that brought children into the discussion in the first place when you asked about my sons?  Oh and I answered your question without hesitation because unlike you, I'm not afraid of speaking the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you want to discuss my family now.   And no matter what I answer...you would most likely believe me as 'much' as I believe  you.
Click to expand...


Go play your childish games with someone else. I no longer have the desire to engage in a conversation with a complete idiot. Your non-answer is answer enough. Whatever children you may have raised I hope the hell they are all homosexuals. At least the bloodline will end with them.


----------



## CurveLight

bodecea said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my mistake, there aren't upset at the ad being anti-abortion, they're upset because its "anti-equality, anti-choice" and of course a "homophobic organization".  Silly me
> 
> Yea, I am sure Jesus would be much more pleased if people kept silent about abortion, because you know, he would surely be for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I understand private groups spending their money as they see fit, I wonder about how all those laid off by Focus on the Family feel about them having the dough for that ad.  And what is it that Focus on the Family seems to think that that time slot will be beneficial to them?
Click to expand...



That's why FOF was careful to say the money was donated "outside" their general fund.  Working for FOF is like working for McDonald's.  You know going in you're surrounded by slimy grease so there's no room for whining at the end of the day.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Figures someone from Texas would be the first one to scream lack of comprehension. Lol.....being pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion and the reason is simple:  there are people who respect the Rights of other Citizens. I know that is tough to understand but slow down, crack another bud light or pabst or whatever pisswater you call beer and try to wrap your mind around the idea one can be morally opposed to abortion but also opposed to try and force everyone else to live by their morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks, I don't drink alcohol. To me it's pretty cut and dried, either *you're against abortion are you're for it.* There is no middle ground. And for those you claim that just wants to respect the rights of other people, whose rights are they respecting? The rights of those that choose to destroy a human life? They certainly aren't respecting the rights of those with a different point of view as witnessed by the vitriol they present when addressing pro-lifers. And they certainly aren't respecting the sanctity of life. So in my opinion pro-choice is pro-abortion because it most certainly isn't anti-abortion. Perhaps you should refrain from drinking bud light or pabst or whatever pisswater you call beer and wise up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true.   You can be against abortion but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others.   That is probably most pro-choice people.
Click to expand...


Do you even read what you write?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I understand private groups spending their money as they see fit, I wonder about how all those laid off by Focus on the Family feel about them having the dough for that ad.  And what is it that Focus on the Family seems to think that that time slot will be beneficial to them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's why FOF was careful to say the money was donated "outside" their general fund.  Working for FOF is like working for McDonald's.  You know going in you're surrounded by slimy grease so there's no room for whining at the end of the day.
Click to expand...


All FOF money is donated, dumbass.



> At Focus on the Family, we recognize that *our finances are donations *sent by loving people who have sacrificed to make their gifts possible. Our obligation, therefore, is to spend that money conservatively and wisely in continuing the ministry.


Financial Reports


----------



## California Girl

HistoricalTruth said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gem said:
> 
> 
> 
> They almost always turn down a PETA ad during the Superbowl each year too...so what's the big deal?  They are smart enough to know that while American's are stuffing their faces full of pizza, buffalo wings, and potato chips and cheering for their team...they don't want to think about crazy vegetarians or whether or not they support abortion.  Sounds reasonable to me.  Bring on the Clydesdales selling beer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, how dare anyone get an important message out during the highest rated hours of the year, especially if it can save lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do these types of ads run during American Idol? Survivor? Any of the Bread and Circus reality shows?
> 
> This is a serious question as I watch none of them. I find reality TV to be a big part of the decline of this country. And I am willing to bet, that while people are distracted with other peoples need for attention the commercials are less than educational.
Click to expand...


Oh, yay! Someone else hates reality tv.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true.   You can be against abortion but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others.   That is probably most pro-choice people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try that logic.
> 
> 
> "You can be against rape but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others".
> 
> There, hows that?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you believe in any laws?  If you do, then you already are "forcing your own beliefs onto others".
Click to expand...



Wow.  That's some scary logic.  The same principle behind being against rape is the same principle being behind pro-choice:  Honoring women the Right to do what they want with their own bodies.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true.   You can be against abortion but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others.   That is probably most pro-choice people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try that logic.
> 
> 
> "You can be against rape but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others".
> 
> There, hows that?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you believe in any laws?  If you do, then you already are "forcing your own beliefs onto others".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That's some scary logic.  The same principle behind being against rape is the same principle being behind pro-choice:  Honoring women the Right to do what they want with their own bodies.
Click to expand...


Of course its scary logic, its liberal logic.

I disagree with your assesment that laws against rape are so "women do what they want with their own bodies".  Its making a violent act against another person illegal.  Thats all the pro-life movement is too....make it illegal to commit the violence of murder against the child.


----------



## manifold

> Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad



I've never in my life met or known anyone that is a *pro-abortionist.*

Although I have encountered one on the internet.

Go figure.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I understand private groups spending their money as they see fit, I wonder about how all those laid off by Focus on the Family feel about them having the dough for that ad.  And what is it that Focus on the Family seems to think that that time slot will be beneficial to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why FOF was careful to say the money was donated "outside" their general fund.  Working for FOF is like working for McDonald's.  You know going in you're surrounded by slimy grease so there's no room for whining at the end of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All FOF money is donated, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At Focus on the Family, we recognize that *our finances are donations *sent by loving people who have sacrificed to make their gifts possible. Our obligation, therefore, is to spend that money conservatively and wisely in continuing the ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Financial Reports
Click to expand...



Thank you for show how FOF lives in hypocrisy.

(what the fuck is "conservative" about spending over $83,000 per second for 30 straight seconds?)


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> Thank you for show how FOF lives in hypocrisy.
> 
> (what the fuck is "conservative" about spending over $83,000 per second for 30 straight seconds?)



My guess would be for the same reason any advertisor would spend such money.  If it reaches millions of people then its worth it.


----------



## manifold

Lonestar_logic said:


> Is pro-choice against abortions?



I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.

But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.


----------



## theHawk

manifold said:


> Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never in my life met or known anyone that is a *pro-abortionist.*
> 
> Although I have encountered one on the internet.
> 
> Go figure.
Click to expand...


You should meet our President.  He was against protecting babies born alive from failed abortion attempts.  He actually was for allowing infanticide.  So naturally he is also a pro-abortion-on-demand.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try that logic.
> 
> 
> "You can be against rape but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others".
> 
> There, hows that?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you believe in any laws?  If you do, then you already are "forcing your own beliefs onto others".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That's some scary logic.  The same principle behind being against rape is the same principle being behind pro-choice:  Honoring women the Right to do what they want with their own bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course its scary logic, its liberal logic.
> 
> I disagree with your assesment that laws against rape are so "women do what they want with their own bodies".  Its making a violent act against another person illegal.  Thats all the pro-life movement is too....make it illegal to commit the violence of murder against the child.
Click to expand...



Thank you for admitting you are a Liberal.  Since it was your logic that seemed scary and you responded by saying it is Liberal logic then one can only conclude you just admitted to being a Liberal.  It's even funnier you once again have to practice outright dishonesty to defend your position.  The only way a child can exist is if it is born.  Since we are discussing the unborn we are not discussing children.  Do you have an honest response available?


----------



## theHawk

manifold said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is pro-choice against abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.
> 
> But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.
Click to expand...


Yea that makes alot of sense.

Its like saying "I'm against murder but I am against any laws that make it illegal".


----------



## Avatar4321

Could someone, preferably who holds the position, explain to me why you seem to think that advocating for people to make a certain choice forces anything on them?

If merely advocating a certain choice and position was forcing others to except it, you would be forcing your viewpoint on me and taking my rights away. Why would you do that?


----------



## manifold

theHawk said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is pro-choice against abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.
> 
> But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea that makes alot of sense.
> 
> Its like saying "I'm against murder but I am against any laws that make it illegal".
Click to expand...


It's actually nothing like that at all.

But I suspect you know that already but you're trying desperately to be a doucher.

Carry on.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> Thank you for admitting you are a Liberal.  Since it was your logic that seemed scary and you responded by saying it is Liberal logic then one can only conclude you just admitted to being a Liberal.  It's even funnier you once again have to practice outright dishonesty to defend your position.  The only way a child can exist is if it is born.  *Since we are discussing the unborn *we are not discussing children.  Do you have an honest response available?



Wow, you must actually be mentally handicapped or something, for so much to just go over your head.

Unborn is an adjective.  Unborn what?  Oooo, could it be an unborn child?  


By the way dipshit, learn basic English before you continue to make a complete jackass of yourself:


Main Entry: *child* 
Pronunciation: \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\
Function: noun 
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren \&#712;chil-dr&#601;n, -d&#601;rn\
Usage: often attributive 
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jat&#803;hara belly
Date: before 12th century
1 a : *an unborn* or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3usually childe  \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : product, result <barbed wireis truly a child of the plains  W. P. Webb>

 child·less  \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\ adjective 

 child·less·ness noun 

 with child : pregnant

Child - Definition and More from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary



God, it must suck being so fucking dumb.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is pro-choice against abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.
> 
> But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea that makes alot of sense.
> 
> Its like saying "I'm against murder but I am against any laws that make it illegal".
Click to expand...


No. It's nothing like that but we knew you would not understand.  The problem is you refuse to admit you want to force yourself (your views) between women's legs.  You keep skipping over that part.  Let's try a rough analogy.  Let's say you don't like beets (or insert any food you don't like) and since you don't like them there should be a law that makes all beets illegal.  Would you support that law?


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you are a Liberal.  Since it was your logic that seemed scary and you responded by saying it is Liberal logic then one can only conclude you just admitted to being a Liberal.  It's even funnier you once again have to practice outright dishonesty to defend your position.  The only way a child can exist is if it is born.  *Since we are discussing the unborn *we are not discussing children.  Do you have an honest response available?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you must actually be mentally handicapped or something, for so much to just go over your head.
> 
> Unborn is an adjective.  Unborn what?  Oooo, could it be an unborn child?
> 
> 
> By the way dipshit, learn basic English before you continue to make a complete jackass of yourself:
> 
> 
> Main Entry: *child*
> Pronunciation: \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren \&#712;chil-dr&#601;n, -d&#601;rn\
> Usage: often attributive
> Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jat&#803;hara belly
> Date: before 12th century
> 1 a : *an unborn* or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
> 2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
> 3usually childe  \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
> 4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
> 5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
> 6 : product, result <barbed wire&#8230;is truly a child of the plains &#8212; W. P. Webb>
> 
> &#8212; child·less  \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\ adjective
> 
> &#8212; child·less·ness noun
> 
> &#8212; with child : pregnant
> 
> Child - Definition and More from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> God, it must suck being so fucking dumb.
Click to expand...



Wow.  That was a lot of work just to say you don't have an honest response.


----------



## theHawk

And by the way Curvelight, thanks for proving my point in post #45

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1945587-post45.html




> I don't play the word game that liberals do in re-inventing definitions for words.


----------



## manifold

I wonder if FauxHawk also wants to make masturbation illegal?  Or perhaps he thinks we need a law to ban eating one's own feces?

If not, then he's definitely pro-shit eating and monkey spanking.


----------



## CurveLight

Lol....I just noticed you said unborn is an adjective then you posted the def that says it's a noun. Lol...teach some more!


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you are a Liberal.  Since it was your logic that seemed scary and you responded by saying it is Liberal logic then one can only conclude you just admitted to being a Liberal.  It's even funnier you once again have to practice outright dishonesty to defend your position.  The only way a child can exist is if it is born.  *Since we are discussing the unborn *we are not discussing children.  Do you have an honest response available?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you must actually be mentally handicapped or something, for so much to just go over your head.
> 
> Unborn is an adjective.  Unborn what?  Oooo, could it be an unborn child?
> 
> 
> By the way dipshit, learn basic English before you continue to make a complete jackass of yourself:
> 
> 
> Main Entry: *child*
> Pronunciation: \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren \&#712;chil-dr&#601;n, -d&#601;rn\
> Usage: often attributive
> Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jat&#803;hara belly
> Date: before 12th century
> 1 a : *an unborn* or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
> 2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
> 3usually childe  \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
> 4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
> 5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
> 6 : product, result <barbed wireis truly a child of the plains  W. P. Webb>
> 
>  child·less  \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\ adjective
> 
>  child·less·ness noun
> 
>  with child : pregnant
> 
> Child - Definition and More from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> God, it must suck being so fucking dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That was a lot of work just to say you don't have an honest response.
Click to expand...


LOL, you're the jackass that decided to re-define the word child.  You were proven wrong.  And yet you still are claiming that I am being "dishonest".



Carry on dipshit.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> And by the way Curvelight, thanks for proving my point in post #45
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1945587-post45.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play the word game that liberals do in re-inventing definitions for words.
Click to expand...



Lol........you totally just missed your own stupidity.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> Lol....I just noticed you said unborn is an adjective then you posted the def that says it's a noun. Lol...teach some more!



Main Entry: *un·born *
Pronunciation: \-&#712;bo&#775;rn\
Function: *adjective *
Date: before 12th century
1 : not born : not brought into life
2 : still to appear : future
3 : existing without birth

Unborn - Definition and More from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Need more schooling?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

manifold said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is pro-choice against abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.
> 
> But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.
Click to expand...


You believe a woman has the right to have an abortion, yet your against abortions. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## manifold

Hawk must also support laws making it illegal to pick your nose and eat it.

If not, that would make him pro-snot gobbling!


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you must actually be mentally handicapped or something, for so much to just go over your head.
> 
> Unborn is an adjective.  Unborn what?  Oooo, could it be an unborn child?
> 
> 
> By the way dipshit, learn basic English before you continue to make a complete jackass of yourself:
> 
> 
> Main Entry: *child*
> Pronunciation: \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren \&#712;chil-dr&#601;n, -d&#601;rn\
> Usage: often attributive
> Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jat&#803;hara belly
> Date: before 12th century
> 1 a : *an unborn* or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
> 2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
> 3usually childe  \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
> 4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
> 5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
> 6 : product, result <barbed wire&#8230;is truly a child of the plains &#8212; W. P. Webb>
> 
> &#8212; child·less  \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\ adjective
> 
> &#8212; child·less·ness noun
> 
> &#8212; with child : pregnant
> 
> Child - Definition and More from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> God, it must suck being so fucking dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That was a lot of work just to say you don't have an honest response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you're the jackass that decided to re-define the word child.  You were proven wrong.  And yet you still are claiming that I am being "dishonest".
> 
> 
> 
> Carry on dipshit.
Click to expand...



Is there any end to your dishonesty?  I used the word UNBORN and you posted the definition of child.  Here is the def of the word I used:

not yet brought into existence; "unborn generations"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Maybe you desire to control other people so much because you can't even control yourself?


----------



## manifold

Lonestar_logic said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is pro-choice against abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.
> 
> But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe a woman has the right to have an abortion, yet your against abortions. Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...



Yes.  I'm against abortions just like I'm against eating my own feces.

But I wouldn't support a law to keep your from eating your own shit, since you seem to like it so much.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is pro-choice against abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.
> 
> But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe a woman has the right to have an abortion, yet your against abortions. Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...


I'm totally against you embarrassing the state of Texas by juxtaposing your avatar to your posts but I support your Right to do it.


----------



## manifold

Hey LoneStar,

Would you support bringing back anti-sodomy laws, especially between two men?

If not, that makes you pro-faggot!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

manifold said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.
> 
> But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe a woman has the right to have an abortion, yet your against abortions. Makes perfect sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I'm against abortions just like I'm against eating my own feces.
> 
> But I wouldn't support a law to keep your from eating your own shit, since you seem to like it so much.
Click to expand...


Grow the fuck up!


----------



## CurveLight

manifold said:


> Hey LoneStar,
> 
> Would you support bringing back anti-sodomy laws, especially between two men?
> 
> If not, that makes you pro-faggot!



I'm confident he/she would have no problem bringing back those laws.  You know, 9/11, Katrina, and freezer burnt ice cream would never have happened if there were no gays.


----------



## manifold

Lonestar_logic said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe a woman has the right to have an abortion, yet your against abortions. Makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I'm against abortions just like I'm against eating my own feces.
> 
> But I wouldn't support a law to keep your from eating your own shit, since you seem to like it so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grow the fuck up!
Click to expand...



I might consider it if you would pull your head from out your ass and educate the fuck up. 

Opposing laws that ban a particular thing doesn't mean you support the thing itself.  Get it?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.
> 
> But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe a woman has the right to have an abortion, yet your against abortions. Makes perfect sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm totally against you embarrassing the state of Texas by juxtaposing your avatar to your posts but I support your Right to do it.
Click to expand...


So now your equating my avatar to killing a baby. That's your argument? I knew liberals were stupid but you take the cake.


----------



## GHook93

Gem said:


> They almost always turn down a PETA ad during the Superbowl each year too...so what's the big deal?  They are smart enough to know that while American's are stuffing their faces full of pizza, buffalo wings, and potato chips and cheering for their team...they don't want to think about crazy vegetarians or whether or not they support abortion.  Sounds reasonable to me.  Bring on the Clydesdales selling beer!



If its obscene or repulsive, which all PETA ads are, then they should be rejected. However, this one seems like its a heart-warming commericial. I think that is more that is more than acceptable.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey LoneStar,
> 
> Would you support bringing back anti-sodomy laws, especially between two men?
> 
> If not, that makes you pro-faggot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confident he/she would have no problem bringing back those laws.  You know, 9/11, Katrina, and freezer burnt ice cream would never have happened if there were no gays.
Click to expand...


Typical liberal tactic, can't argue the merits of the debate so what do they do? Hurl insults, personal attacks and raise strawman arguments.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe a woman has the right to have an abortion, yet your against abortions. Makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally against you embarrassing the state of Texas by juxtaposing your avatar to your posts but I support your Right to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now your equating my avatar to killing a baby. That's your argument? I knew liberals were stupid but you take the cake.
Click to expand...


That was what is known as an analogy regarding legislation but I'm guessing homophobes like you see ANALogy and never get a chance to learn.  I'm glad you think all of your kids are straight because it is clear you don't love your children.  If you did you wouldn't care if they were straight or gay.  Damn, doesn't is suck when you tell on yourself and don't even realize it?


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey LoneStar,
> 
> Would you support bringing back anti-sodomy laws, especially between two men?
> 
> If not, that makes you pro-faggot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confident he/she would have no problem bringing back those laws.  You know, 9/11, Katrina, and freezer burnt ice cream would never have happened if there were no gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic, can't argue the merits of the debate so what do they do? Hurl insults, personal attacks and raise strawman arguments.
Click to expand...


You're a typical coward and I will prove it by offering you a one on one debate on any subject of your choosing.  If you think you know how to debate so well then please pick the subject and we'll start a new thread.

(I'm guessing you'll run and hide like a little kid.  How will you do it? Say I'm too stupid and not worth the time? Lol...)


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey LoneStar,
> 
> Would you support bringing back anti-sodomy laws, especially between two men?
> 
> If not, that makes you pro-faggot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confident he/she would have no problem bringing back those laws.  You know, 9/11, Katrina, and freezer burnt ice cream would never have happened if there were no gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic, can't argue the merits of the debate so what do they do? Hurl insults, personal attacks and raise strawman arguments.
Click to expand...



Oh, you mean like this?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1945497-post43.html


----------



## bodecea

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confident he/she would have no problem bringing back those laws.  You know, 9/11, Katrina, and freezer burnt ice cream would never have happened if there were no gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic, can't argue the merits of the debate so what do they do? Hurl insults, personal attacks and raise strawman arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a typical coward and I will prove it by offering you a one on one debate on any subject of your choosing.  If you think you know how to debate so well then please pick the subject and we'll start a new thread.
> 
> (I'm guessing you'll run and hide like a little kid.  How will you do it? *Say I'm too stupid and not worth the time*? Lol...)
Click to expand...


That seems to be code for he's running away.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally against you embarrassing the state of Texas by juxtaposing your avatar to your posts but I support your Right to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your equating my avatar to killing a baby. That's your argument? I knew liberals were stupid but you take the cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was what is known as an analogy regarding legislation but I'm guessing homophobes like you see ANALogy and never get a chance to learn.  I'm glad you think all of your kids are straight because it is clear you don't love your children.  If you did you wouldn't care if they were straight or gay.  Damn, doesn't is suck when you tell on yourself and don't even realize it?
Click to expand...


So now I'm homophobic? And I don't love my children? Wow you really are out of arguments! Your concession is duly noted.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confident he/she would have no problem bringing back those laws.  You know, 9/11, Katrina, and freezer burnt ice cream would never have happened if there were no gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic, can't argue the merits of the debate so what do they do? Hurl insults, personal attacks and raise strawman arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a typical coward and I will prove it by offering you a one on one debate on any subject of your choosing.  If you think you know how to debate so well then please pick the subject and we'll start a new thread.
> 
> (I'm guessing you'll run and hide like a little kid.  How will you do it? Say I'm too stupid and not worth the time? Lol...)
Click to expand...


Who do you think you're fooling? You're incapable of honest debate as evidenced by this thread.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confident he/she would have no problem bringing back those laws.  You know, 9/11, Katrina, and freezer burnt ice cream would never have happened if there were no gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic, can't argue the merits of the debate so what do they do? Hurl insults, personal attacks and raise strawman arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like this?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1945497-post43.html
Click to expand...


No nothing like that. I wasn't debating Sarge, I was making a comment about you.


----------



## manifold

Lonestar_logic said:


> Who do you think you're fooling? You're incapable of honest debate as evidenced by this thread.



Are you capable of honest debate?

Or are you still going to insist that it's impossible to be pro-choice AND against abortion?


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That was a lot of work just to say you don't have an honest response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you're the jackass that decided to re-define the word child.  You were proven wrong.  And yet you still are claiming that I am being "dishonest".
> 
> 
> 
> Carry on dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any end to your dishonesty?  I used the word UNBORN and you posted the definition of child.  Here is the def of the word I used:
> 
> not yet brought into existence; "unborn generations"
> wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
> 
> 
> Maybe you desire to control other people so much because you can't even control yourself?
Click to expand...


No, you were responding to my post when I said the word child:

Your post:



CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That's some scary logic.  The same principle behind being against rape is the same principle being behind pro-choice:  Honoring women the Right to do what they want with their own bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course its scary logic, its liberal logic.
> 
> I disagree with your assesment that laws against rape are so "women do what they want with their own bodies".  Its making a violent act against another person illegal.  Thats all the pro-life movement is too....make it illegal to commit the violence of murder against the *child*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you are a Liberal.  Since it was your logic that seemed scary and you responded by saying it is Liberal logic then one can only conclude you just admitted to being a Liberal.  It's even funnier you once again have to practice outright dishonesty to defend your position.  *The only way a child can exist is if it is born*.  Since we are discussing the unborn we are not discussing children.  Do you have an honest response available?
Click to expand...


You clearly stated that the only way a child can exist is if it is born.  The dictionary clearly states otherwise.  "The unborn" ARE children. 

Seriously, just give it up, you lost that one.


----------



## jillian

Two cells are not a "child" any more than an egg is a chicken.



and there's no such thing as a pro-abortionist. keep your religious zealotry away from the bodies of people who aren't interested in it.


----------



## theHawk

manifold said:


> I wonder if FauxHawk also wants to make masturbation illegal?  Or perhaps he thinks we need a law to ban eating one's own feces?
> 
> If not, then he's definitely pro-shit eating and monkey spanking.



Not at all, if you want to eat your own shit, by all means, its not infringing on anyone else's human rights.


----------



## theHawk

jillian said:


> Two cells are not a "child" any more than an egg is a chicken.
> 
> 
> 
> and there's no such thing as a pro-abortionist. keep your religious zealotry away from the bodies of people who aren't interested in it.



I see, so a lifeform with its own unique human DNA isn't really a human.  I thought you libs were all about scientific facts.


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic, can't argue the merits of the debate so what do they do? Hurl insults, personal attacks and raise strawman arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a typical coward and I will prove it by offering you a one on one debate on any subject of your choosing.  If you think you know how to debate so well then please pick the subject and we'll start a new thread.
> 
> (I'm guessing you'll run and hide like a little kid.  How will you do it? Say I'm too stupid and not worth the time? Lol...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?* You're incapable of honest debate* as evidenced by this thread.
Click to expand...

Close, Curvelight....but it's still a dodge.


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic, can't argue the merits of the debate so what do they do? Hurl insults, personal attacks and raise strawman arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like this?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1945497-post43.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No nothing like that. I wasn't debating Sarge, I was making a comment about you.
Click to expand...


Oh....you mean like hurling insults and personal attacks about me?


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic, can't argue the merits of the debate so what do they do? Hurl insults, personal attacks and raise strawman arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a typical coward and I will prove it by offering you a one on one debate on any subject of your choosing.  If you think you know how to debate so well then please pick the subject and we'll start a new thread.
> 
> (I'm guessing you'll run and hide like a little kid.  How will you do it? Say I'm too stupid and not worth the time? Lol...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling? You're incapable of honest debate as evidenced by this thread.
Click to expand...



That was fully expected.  I waste my time with people like you and at one time it was fun in some small way but now it's just a waste of time.  I will prove it once again by pointing out I am personally wholly against abortion but I would not use the government to force my personal moral position on the rest of society.  Instead of acknowledging my position you will just try more lame insults.


----------



## Smartt33

bodecea said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how so called "women's groups" would be so upset about the story of a woman ignoring a doctor's recommendation to get an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (AP) -- A coalition of women's groups called on the CBS network on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which *critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message*.
> 
> The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, *she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim*, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two college football championships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBS urged to scrap anti-abortion Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow - SI.com - 2008 NFL Super Bowl
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it will be wonderful...Will they also talk about Focus on the Family's suggestions on how to raise a non-gay boy?   That's a favorite of mine.
Click to expand...


Sarcasm noted.


----------



## Smartt33

HistoricalTruth said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gem said:
> 
> 
> 
> They almost always turn down a PETA ad during the Superbowl each year too...so what's the big deal?  They are smart enough to know that while American's are stuffing their faces full of pizza, buffalo wings, and potato chips and cheering for their team...they don't want to think about crazy vegetarians or whether or not they support abortion.  Sounds reasonable to me.  Bring on the Clydesdales selling beer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, how dare anyone get an important message out during the highest rated hours of the year, especially if it can save lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do these types of ads run during American Idol? Survivor? Any of the Bread and Circus reality shows?
> 
> This is a serious question as I watch none of them. I find reality TV to be a big part of the decline of this country. And I am willing to bet, that while people are distracted with other peoples need for attention the commercials are less than educational.
Click to expand...


Do you see any of the clydesdales during any of your list? Point?


----------



## Smartt33

CurveLight said:


> So CBS rejected a pro same sex marriage ad but are putting out an anti-abortion ad by a ridiculously hate filled socially conservative hack whack group.  Thanks for showing once again the "Liberal" media theory is utter bullshit.



I doubt they will show the commercial. However, If it is true that they did not show the pro same sex marriage commercial, I won't complain.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you're the jackass that decided to re-define the word child.  You were proven wrong.  And yet you still are claiming that I am being "dishonest".
> 
> 
> 
> Carry on dipshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any end to your dishonesty?  I used the word UNBORN and you posted the definition of child.  Here is the def of the word I used:
> 
> not yet brought into existence; "unborn generations"
> wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
> 
> 
> Maybe you desire to control other people so much because you can't even control yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you were responding to my post when I said the word child:
> 
> Your post:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course its scary logic, its liberal logic.
> 
> I disagree with your assesment that laws against rape are so "women do what they want with their own bodies".  Its making a violent act against another person illegal.  Thats all the pro-life movement is too....make it illegal to commit the violence of murder against the *child*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you are a Liberal.  Since it was your logic that seemed scary and you responded by saying it is Liberal logic then one can only conclude you just admitted to being a Liberal.  It's even funnier you once again have to practice outright dishonesty to defend your position.  *The only way a child can exist is if it is born*.  Since we are discussing the unborn we are not discussing children.  Do you have an honest response available?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly stated that the only way a child can exist is if it is born.  The dictionary clearly states otherwise.  "The unborn" ARE children.
> 
> Seriously, just give it up, you lost that one.
Click to expand...



Do you really think bolding one sentence makes another disappear?  You ignored:

"Since we are discussing the unborn we are not discussing children."

I posted the definition for "unborn" once but let me do it again:

not yet brought into existence; "unborn generations"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

And then:

not yet born; yet to come; future; not yet delivered; still existing in the
mother's womb; existing without birth or beginning
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unborn

Your little game is pathetic because you ignore what I said then claim I am wrong based on your dishonesty.  That is what you did when you wrote the thread title and dishonestly characterized the protest of the ad.


----------



## CurveLight

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a typical coward and I will prove it by offering you a one on one debate on any subject of your choosing.  If you think you know how to debate so well then please pick the subject and we'll start a new thread.
> 
> (I'm guessing you'll run and hide like a little kid.  How will you do it? Say I'm too stupid and not worth the time? Lol...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?* You're incapable of honest debate* as evidenced by this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Close, Curvelight....but it's still a dodge.
Click to expand...


Cowards like him are scared to death of a one on one debate because they know there is no way to hide their embarrassment.  They love busy threads like this because they can edit what others say just to get in some cheap shot and still try to appear as though they are able to maintain dialogue.


----------



## CurveLight

Smartt33 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So CBS rejected a pro same sex marriage ad but are putting out an anti-abortion ad by a ridiculously hate filled socially conservative hack whack group.  Thanks for showing once again the "Liberal" media theory is utter bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt they will show the commercial. However, If it is true that they did not show the pro same sex marriage commercial, I won't complain.
Click to expand...


They will put in on the air....right between a bud light and condom commercial.


----------



## ABikerSailor

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.
> 
> But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea that makes alot of sense.
> 
> Its like saying "I'm against murder but I am against any laws that make it illegal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It's nothing like that but we knew you would not understand.  The problem is you refuse to admit you want to force yourself (your views) between women's legs.  You keep skipping over that part.  Let's try a rough analogy.  Let's say you don't like beets (or insert any food you don't like) and since you don't like them there should be a law that makes all beets illegal.  Would you support that law?
Click to expand...


Let's say that someone (Anslinger perhaps?), decided that because he didn't like a certain plant because it was primarily used by non whites (and he was a racist as well), he set up laws to make that little plant illegal in 1939 El Paso?

Actually, that happened.........it's called the Marijuana Tax Stamp.

Yes, sometimes people DO make things illegal for the stupidest reasons.

As far as sperm, eggs, embryos and fetuses and children?

Well..........a sperm by itself is just one cell that can't do much, as it is specialized for only 1 function.  Same with a female's egg.  Neither one is "human".

Combine the 2?  Still gonna have to wait awhile, as any decent doctor will tell you that the mass of cells is just a mass of cells until around the 40th day, when it finally develops a nervous system and can feel pain.

The mass of cells is not a "human" either.  It's more of a growth (kinda like cancer), until the nervous system is developed.

After the 40 day mark and the development of a nervous system?  THEN it's "human".

As far as pro choice?  Well.......this is (or at least I've been told for around 45 years), the land of the free, which means we have the right to act in any way we wish, even if it means breaking laws.

Because then, the police are free to chase and arrest the criminals.

So, the "morning after pill", RU486, as well as scraping the vaginal wall BEFORE it develops a nervous system should be sufficient, without having to resort to the bullshit that the pro lifers try to shunt off as truth.

Matter of fact, if morning after pills were put in EVERY rape kit in America, we could cut down on a lot.  Make the pills available to 17 year olds as well, because that is the age that kids are just starting to get into sexual relationships.

Would cut down on a lot of abortions, but then, what would the Moron Minority do?


----------



## manifold

theHawk said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if FauxHawk also wants to make masturbation illegal?  Or perhaps he thinks we need a law to ban eating one's own feces?
> 
> If not, then he's definitely pro-shit eating and monkey spanking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, if you want to eat your own shit, by all means, its not infringing on anyone else's human rights.
Click to expand...


Define human rights?

I'm pretty sure shooting up herion doesn't infringe on anyone else's human rights either.  Do you support legalizing heroin?


----------



## HistoricalTruth

Avatar4321 said:


> That argument makes absolutely no sense. By definition, capital punishment cannot be murder. However, those who are pro death penalty, readily acknowledge that we are advocating for the death of criminals who commit heinous enough crimes that the community thinks he should face death. We aren't pretending we are for some other position while secretly holding our real position. When we say we are pro death penalty, we mean we are in favor of the death penalty.



First, I support the death Penalty and I am pro-Choice.

I made the statement for a reason..to highlight the idiocy of calling someone that is pro-choice pro-abortion because theyt voice opposition to what they see as a blatantly political statement during a slot that is by nature apolitical. 



> Now the pro-choice groups are claiming they are in favor of a woman being able to choose whether to have an abortion or not. Now if their position was actually based on a desire for a woman to make a choice, there would be absolutely no reason to be offended that someone who exercised their choice not to abort their child and was encouraging people not as well. In fact, they would be happy that the woman had the choice to.



Bullshit. We live in a time of extremes right now, and freedom of expression an speech covers even them. There is nothing inherently evil about voicing opposition to a polar opposite stance. If this were a planned parenthood add of any kind you would be up in arms, because you believe you argue from a higher moral absolute. So do they. 

And none of you can STAND opposing viewpoints.



> But that's not the case here.  Here a woman exercised her choice, and they are offended by it. By their actions they are demonstrating that choice really isnt the issue at all. It's a mask to cover up their true position. And logically the only position they could really be advocating that would make them upset in this case is that they are, in fact, pro abortion and not just pro choice.



Bullshit again. No one is voicing opposition to the woman's choice, again, they are voicing opposition to a political statement during an apolitical television broadcast. I agree with them, I would not support ANY political add during the Superbowl, leftist or Right wing. You are injecting your ideological bent into this and twisting the facts in order to support a whiny and spurious argument.



> As I said, if you were pro choice, you wouldnt be upset over someone making a choice for life. You'd only be upset over that if you were actually pro abortion. You can clearly see that your analogy just doesnt hold up under analysis. It sounds nice. But rhetoric doesn't equal reality.



I am fully pro-choice, and I am happy she made the decision she made because I personally find abortion to be abhorrent. My analogy holds up just fine because the extreme position of both sides is utter bullshit.

If Rhetoric does not equal reality why are you depending on it here?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Quick question for you anti-abortionists...........

Ever hear of a mother killing her kids?  Ever hear of a family that committed sexual abuse towards a child?

I have.

Still think that a life of sexual slavery and eternal servitude is a good deal?

Personally?  I wish that some of the things I've done could have been done away with.

Same with some others, I'm guessing.  What makes your pain more "righteous" than others?


----------



## Anguille

theHawk said:


> *Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad*


 
What exactly is a pro-abortionist?


----------



## CurveLight

Anguille said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is a pro-abortionist?
Click to expand...



It's code for:

"With foresight of knowing one cannot defend a position, engage in deception."


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is a pro-abortionist?
Click to expand...


If an anti-abortionist is someone who is against abortion then a pro-abortionist would be  . . . .


----------



## Immanuel

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is a pro-abortionist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an anti-abortionist is someone who is against abortion then a pro-abortionist would be  . . . .
Click to expand...


But the truth is that there are very few who are truly pro-abortion.  Even the most devout pro-choicers who post here would prefer that abortion was almost non-existant.  Their beliefs, if you really read them on the subject, is that the government should stay out of the decision.  They are not pro-abortion but rather against governmental interference in this particular matter.

As a person with strong libertarian leanings, I must say that is hard to argue with.

Immie


----------



## Zoom-boing

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP title is as dishonest on two levels.  The first has already been shown but the second is trying to demonize the pro choice crowd by calling them "pro-abortionists."  See, when your position is solid you don't need to rely on such forms of deception.  When you do that it sends the message you are insecure on your own ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I am dishonest because I call a spade a spade.  I don't play the word game that liberals do in re-inventing definitions for words.  If you are FOR the ability of women to have abortions on demand then you are PRO-ABORTION.  If they were truely pro-choice then they would support people who send out the message to make the OTHER choice....but they don't.  They fight and protest pro-life movement every chance they get.  They can call themselves whatever the fuck they want, I will call them for exactly how I perceive them, there is no deception or dishonesty in that at all.
Click to expand...


Abortion is legal.  Which is better?

A_ woman_ choosing to have or not have an abortion  

OR

The _government_ making the choice for her.

I think this is where the "pro-choice = pro-abortion" line gets blurred by some.


----------



## midcan5

Curious that the very people who protested and stopped the showing of the Reagan TV fictional documentary on commercial television would feel this way. What's good for the goose....


----------



## theHawk

Anguille said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is a pro-abortionist?
Click to expand...


Someone who is for allowing abortion on demand.


----------



## theHawk

Zoom-boing said:


> Abortion is legal.  Which is better?
> 
> A_ woman_ choosing to have or not have an abortion
> 
> OR
> 
> The _government_ making the choice for her.
> 
> I think this is where the "pro-choice = pro-abortion" line gets blurred by some.



A woman will always have the "choice" of killing her baby or carrying it to full term.  What we're talking about is whether or not one choice (killing) should be legal or illegal.

Government already forbids us from doing thousands of acts.  Why is it when it comes to abortion people scream about the government "forcing" women to do something, but every other law we have somehow isn't forcing people to act in a certain way?


----------



## saveliberty

What is the big deal here?

The networks have no problem with Viagra, GoDaddy, Victoria's Secret, Budweiser, Miller, and host of other advertisers over the years with messages that might offend.  Seems to me you run the ad.  If there is some big controversy, make a space for the opposing point of view to air a commerical at the same price.

Go ahead and show the amputation of limbs prior to removal of the child from the womb.  I'm sure many will be very supportive of the process and results.


----------



## theHawk

Since so many people seem to be so hung up on "pro-abortionist", here is the dictionary definition:


Main Entry: pro·abor·tion 
Pronunciation: \&#716;pr&#333;-&#601;-&#712;bo&#775;r-sh&#601;n\
Function: adjective 
Date: 1972
:* favoring the legalization of abortion*

&#8212; pro&#8211;abor·tion·ist  \-sh(&#601;-)nist\ noun 


Proabortionist - Definition and More from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## theHawk

manifold said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if FauxHawk also wants to make masturbation illegal?  Or perhaps he thinks we need a law to ban eating one's own feces?
> 
> If not, then he's definitely pro-shit eating and monkey spanking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, if you want to eat your own shit, by all means, its not infringing on anyone else's human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define human rights?
> 
> I'm pretty sure shooting up herion doesn't infringe on anyone else's human rights either.  Do you support legalizing heroin?
Click to expand...


Main Entry: human rights
Function: noun plural 
Date: 1766
: rights (as *freedom from **unlawful* imprisonment, torture, and *execution*) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons


----------



## manifold

theHawk said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, if you want to eat your own shit, by all means, its not infringing on anyone else's human rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define human rights?
> 
> I'm pretty sure shooting up herion doesn't infringe on anyone else's human rights either.  Do you support legalizing heroin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Main Entry: human rights
> Function: noun plural
> Date: 1766
> : rights (as *freedom from **unlawful* imprisonment, torture, and *execution*) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons
Click to expand...


In the opinions of many, if not most, unborn fetuses are not "persons."

If you are going to debate an issue honestly, you should at least acknowledge what is opinion and what is fact.


----------



## theHawk

ABikerSailor said:


> As far as sperm, eggs, embryos and fetuses and children?
> 
> Well..........a sperm by itself is just one cell that can't do much, as it is specialized for only 1 function.  Same with a female's egg.  Neither one is "human".
> 
> Combine the 2?  Still gonna have to wait awhile, as any decent doctor will tell you that the mass of cells is just a mass of cells until around the 40th day, when it finally develops a nervous system and can feel pain.
> 
> *The mass of cells is not a "human" either. * It's more of a growth (kinda like cancer), until the nervous system is developed.
> 
> *After the 40 day mark and the development of a nervous system?  THEN it's "human".*




I see, so a fertilized egg in the womb is not of any species?  It doesn't have any DNA?



And by the way, even when you're an adult you are nothing more than a "mass of cells".


----------



## theHawk

manifold said:


> In the opinions of many, if not most, unborn fetuses are not "persons."
> 
> If you are going to debate an issue honestly, you should at least acknowledge what is opinion and what is fact.



Did I ever state otherwise?  I know many people's opinion is that an unborn fetus is not a person. 

I stated that an unborn fetus is a human being, with its own unique human DNA.  That  is a fact, not an opinion.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like this?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1945497-post43.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No nothing like that. I wasn't debating Sarge, I was making a comment about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh....you mean like hurling insults and personal attacks about me?
Click to expand...


The difference is (and I knew I would have to explain this to the mentally challenged) I wasn't debating Sarge I was giving him my opinion about you , however you and curvelight and a few others hurl insults and personal attacks when you're losing an argument (which happens more often than not) and that's because you obviously lack the intelligence required to counter with substantive points and support those points with evidence.  Have I made myself clear or do I need to draw you a picture?


----------



## Anguille

theHawk said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is a pro-abortionist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone who is for allowing abortion on demand.
Click to expand...

Then wouldn't it be more accurate to call them pro choice or pro on demand?

"Pro-abortionist' sayd to me someone who feels that sbortionist should be allowed to live and not be on certain fundamentalist's hit lists.

 From reading the above posts, no one seems to have a clear and universally accepted definition of pro-abortionist. It's like the term "pro-life". It's used by anti and pro choice alike. To me and many others the forced birthers are anti-life but they claim they are. 

I am pro life and I am pro choice. The terms are synonymous to me.

To insure clarity and fairness, I think that people should stick to the terms "pro-choice, limited pro-choice and anti-choice".


----------



## manifold

theHawk said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the opinions of many, if not most, unborn fetuses are not "persons."
> 
> If you are going to debate an issue honestly, you should at least acknowledge what is opinion and what is fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ever state otherwise?  I know many people's opinion is that an unborn fetus is not a person.
> 
> I stated that an unborn fetus is a human being, with its own unique human DNA.  That  is a fact, not an opinion.
Click to expand...


The DNA part is a fact.  The "human being" part is still subjective.

But you're making progress.  Keep it up.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

*Pro-choice people say: "It is uncertain when human life begins; that's a religious question that cannot be answered by science."*

*I say: If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.

Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. 

Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception. 

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception.*


*Pro-choice people say: "The fetus is just a part of the pregnant woman's body, like her tonsils or appendix. You can't seriously believe an embryo is an actual person."*
*
I say:  . A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn's genetic code differs from his mother's. 

The child may die and the mother live, or the mother may die and the child live, proving they are two separate individuals. 

The unborn child takes an active role in his own development, controlling the course of the pregnancy and the time of birth. 

Being inside something is not the same as being part of something. 

There is substantial scientific reason to believe embryos are persons, and should be granted the same rights as older, larger and less vulnerable persons. *


*Pro-choice people say: "The unborn is an embryo or a fetus-just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception-not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child." *

*I say: Like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development. 

Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her. 

From the moment of conception, the unborn is not simple but very complex. 

Prior to the first trimester, the unborn already has every body part she will ever have. 

Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves. 

Even in the earliest surgical abortions, the unborn child is clearly human in appearance. 

Even before the unborn is obviously human in appearance, she is what she is-a human being. 

No matter how much better it sounds, "terminating a pregnancy" is still terminating a life.* 


*Pro-choice people say: "The fetus may be alive, but so are eggs and sperm. The fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one; it's like a blueprint not a house, an acorn not an oak tree." *

*I say: The ovum and sperm are each a product of another's body; unlike the fertilized egg, neither is an independent entity. 

The physical remains after an abortion indicate the end not of a potential life but of an actual life. 

Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning. 

Comparing preborns and adults to acorns and oaks is dehumanizing and misleading. 

Even if the analogy were valid, scientifically speaking an acorn is simply a little oak tree, just as an embryo is a little person. *


*Pro-choice people say: "The unborn isn't a person, with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal, and anyway, who says people have a greater right to live than animals?" *


*I say: Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species. 

Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence. 

The unborn's status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood. 

It is a scientific fact that there are thought processes at work in unborn babies. 

If the unborn's value can be compared to that of an animal, there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals. 

Even if someone believes people are no better than animals, why would they abhor the killing of young animals, while advocating the killing of young children? 

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful. 

Arguments against the personhood of the unborn are shrouded in rationalization and denial. *


*Pro-choice people say: "A fetus isn't a person until implantation or until quickening or viability or when it first breathes." *

*I say:  Implantation is a gauge of personhood only if location, nutrition, and interfacing with others makes us human. 

Quickening is a gauge of personhood only if someone's reality or value is dependent upon being noticed by another. 

Viability is an arbitrary concept. Why not associate personhood with heartbeat, brain waves, or something else? 

The point of viability changes because it depends on technology, not the unborn herself. Eventually babies may be viable from the point of conception. 

In a broad sense, many born people are not viable because they are incapable of surviving without depending on others. 

A child's "breathing," her intake of oxygen, begins long before birth. 

Someone's helplessness or dependency should motivate us to protect her, not to destroy her. *


*Pro-choice people say: "Obviously life begins at birth. That's why we celebrate birthdays, not conception days, and why we don't have funerals following miscarriages." *

*I say: Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific. 

Some people do have funerals after a miscarriage. 

Funerals are an expression of our subjective attachment to those who have died, not a measurement of their true worth. 

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.* 


*Pro-choice people say: "No one can really know that human life begins before birth." *

*I say: Children know that human life begins before birth. 

Pregnant women know that human life begins before birth. 

Doctors know that human life begins before birth. 

Abortionists know that human life begins before birth. 

Feminists know that human life begins before birth. 

Society knows that human life begins before birth. 

The media know that human life begins before birth. 

Prochoice advocates know that human life begins before birth. 

If we can't know that human life begins before birth, how can we know whether it begins at birth or later? *


*Pro-choice people say: "Even if the unborn are human beings, they have fewer rights than the woman. No one should be expected to donate her body as a life support system for someone else." *

*I say: Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live. 

The right to live doesn't increase with age and size, otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults. 

The comparison between baby's rights and mother's rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother's lifestyle, as opposed to the baby's life. 

It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child. *


*Pro-choice people say: "Every person has the right to choose. It would be unfair to restrict a woman's choice by prohibiting abortion." *

*I say: Any civilized society restricts the individual's freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person. 

"Freedom to choose" is too vague for meaningful discussion; we must always ask, "Freedom to choose what?" 

People who are prochoice about abortion are often not prochoice about other issues with less at stake. 

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights. 

Everyone is prochoice when it comes to the choices prior to pregnancy and after birth. 

Nearly all violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds of the right to choose*. 


*Pro-choice people say: "Every woman should have control over her own body. Reproductive freedom is a basic right." *

*I say: Abortion assures that 650,000 females each year do not have control over their bodies. 

Not all things done with a person's body are right, nor should they all be legally protected. 

Prolifers consistently affirm true reproductive rights. 

Even prochoicers must acknowledge that the "right to control one's body" argument has no validity if the unborn is a human being. 

Too often "the right to control my life" becomes the right to hurt and oppress others for my own advantage. 

Control over the body can be exercised to prevent pregnancy in the first place. 

It is demeaning to a woman's body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and "out of control" condition*. 


*Pro-choice people say: "Abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor. It's no one else's business. Everyone has a constitutional right to privacy." *

*I say: The Constitution does not contain a right to privacy. 

Privacy is never an absolute right, but is always governed by other rights. 

The encouragement or assistance of a doctor does not change the nature, consequences, or morality of abortion. 

The father of the child is also responsible for the child and should have a part in this decision. 

The father will often face serious grief and guilt as a result of abortion. Since his life will be significantly affected, shouldn't he have something to say about it? *


*Pro-choice people say:. "It's unfair for an unmarried woman to have to face the embarrassment of pregnancy or the pain of giving up a child for adoption." *

*I say:  Pregnancy is not a sin. Society should not condemn and pressure an unmarried mother into abortion, but should help and support her. 

The poor choice of premarital sex is never compensated for by the far worse choice of killing an innocent human being. 

One person's unfair or embarrassing circumstances do not justify violating the rights of another person. 

Adoption is a fine alternative that avoids the burden of child raising, while saving a life and making a family happy; it is tragic that adoption is so infrequently chosen as an alternative to abortion. 

The reason that adoption may be painful is the same reason that abortion is wrong-a human life is involved. *


*Pro-choice people say: "Abortion rights are fundamental for the advancement of women. They are essential to having equal rights with men." *

*I say:  Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice. 

Some active feminists still vigorously oppose abortion. 

Women's rights are not inherently linked to the right to abortion. 

The basic premises of the abortion-rights movement are demeaning to women. 

Many of the assumptions that connect women's welfare with abortion, the Pill and free sex have proven faulty. 

Some of the abortion-rights strategies assume female incompetence and subject women to ignorance and exploitation. 

Abortion has become the most effective means of sexism ever devised, ridding the world of multitudes of unwanted females. *


*Pro-choice people say: "The circumstances of many women leave them no choice but to have an abortion." *

*I say:  Saying they have no choice is not being prochoice, but pro-abortion. 

Those who are truly prochoice must present a woman with a number of possible choices, rather than just selling the choice of abortion. 

 "Abortion or misery" is a false portrayal of the options; it keeps women from pursuing-and society from providing-positive alternatives. *


*Pro-choice people say: "I'm personally against abortion, but I'm still prochoice. It's a legal alternative and we don't have the right to keep it from anyone. Everyone's free to believe what they want, but we shouldn't try to impose it on others." *

*I say:  To be prochoice about abortion is to be proabortion. 

The only good reason for being personally against abortion is a reason that demands we be against other people choosing to have abortions. 

What is legal is not always right. 

How can we tell people they are perfectly free to believe abortion is the killing of children, but they are not free to act as if what they believe is really true? *


*Pro-choice people say: "'Every child a wanted child.' It's unfair to children to bring them into a world where they're not wanted." *

*I say:  Every child is wanted by someone-there is no such thing as an unwanted child. 

There is a difference between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. 

 "Unwanted" describes not a condition of the child but an attitude of adults. 

The problem of unwantedness is a good argument for wanting children, but a poor argument for eliminating them. 

What is most unfair to "unwanted" children is to kill them. *


*Pro-choice people say: "Having more unwanted children results in more child abuse." *

*I say:  Most abused children were wanted by their parents. 

Child abuse has not decreased since abortion was legalized, but has dramatically increased. 

If children are viewed as expendable before birth, they will be viewed as expendable after birth. 

It is illogical to argue a child is protected from abuse through abortion since abortion is child abuse. *


*Pro-choice people say: "Restricting abortion would be unfair to the poor and minorities, who need it most."* 

*I say:  It is not unfair for some people to have less opportunity than others to kill the innocent. 

The rich and white, not the poor and minorities, are most committed to unrestricted abortion. 

Prochoice advocates want the poor and minorities to have abortions, but oppose requirements that abortion risks and alternatives be explained to them. 

Planned Parenthood's abortion advocacy was rooted in the eugenics movement and its bias against the mentally and physically handicapped and minorities. *


*Pro-choice people say: "Abortion helps solve the problem of overpopulation and raises the quality of life." *

*I say:  The current birth rate in America is less than what is needed to maintain our population level. 

The dramatic decline in our birth rate will have a disturbing economic effect on America. 

Overpopulation is frequently blamed for problems with other causes. 

If there is a population problem that threatens our standard of living, the solution is not to kill off part of the population. 

Sterilization and abortion as cures to overpopulation could eventually lead to mandatory sterilization and abortion. 

The "quality of life" concept is breeding a sense of human expendability that has far-reaching social implications. *


*Pro-choice people say: "Even if abortion were made illegal, there would still be many abortions." *

*I say:  That harmful acts against the innocent will take place regardless of the law is a poor argument for having no law. 

The law can guide and educate people to choose better alternatives. 

History shows that laws concerning abortion have significantly influenced whether women choose to have abortions. *


*Pro-choice people say: "The anti-abortion beliefs of the minority shouldn't be imposed on the majority." *

*I say:  Major polls clearly indicate it is a majority, not a minority, who believe there should be greater restrictions on abortion. 

Many people's apparent agreement with abortion law stems from their ignorance of what the law really is. 

Beliefs that abortion should be restricted are embraced by a majority in each major political party. 

In 1973 the Supreme Court imposed a minority morality on the nation, ignoring the votes of citizens and the decisions of state legislatures. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "The anti-abortion position is a religious belief that threatens the vital separation of church and state." *

*I say:  Many nonreligious people believe that abortion kills children and that it is wrong. 

Morality must not be rejected just because it is supported by religion. 

America was founded on a moral base dependent upon principles of the Bible and the Christian religion. 

Laws related to church and state were intended to assure freedom for religion, not freedom from religion. 

Religion's waning influence on our society directly accounts for the moral deterioration threatening our future. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "If abortion is made illegal, tens of thousands of women will again die from back-alley and clothes-hanger abortions." *

*I say:  For decades prior to its legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys. 

It is not true that tens of thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions before abortion was legalized. 

The history of abortion in Poland invalidates claims that making abortion illegal would bring harm to women. 

Women still die from legal abortions in America. 

If abortion became illegal, abortions would be done with medical equipment, not clothes hangers. 

We must not legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous. 

The central horror of illegal abortion remains the central horror of legal abortion. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "Abortion is a safe medical procedure, safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth." *

*I say:  Abortion is not safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth. 

Though the chances of a woman's safe abortion are now greater, the number of suffering women is also greater because of the huge increase in abortions. 

Even if abortion were safer for the mother than childbirth, it would still remain fatal for the innocent child. 

Abortion can produce many serious medical problems. 

Abortion significantly raises the rate of breast cancer. 

The statistics on abortion complications and risks are often understated due to the inadequate means of gathering data. 

The true risks of abortion are rarely explained to women by those who perform abortions. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "Abortion is an easy and painless procedure." *

*I say:  The various abortion procedures are often both difficult and painful for women. 

Abortion is often difficult and painful for fathers, grandparents, and siblings of the aborted child. 

Abortion is often difficult and painful for clinic workers. 

Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child. 

Even if abortion were made easy or painless for everyone, it wouldn't change the bottom-line problem that abortion kills children. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "Abortion relieves women of stress and responsibility, and thereby enhances their psychological well-being." *

*I say:  Research demonstrates abortion's adverse psychological effects on women. 

The many post-abortion therapy and support groups testify to the reality of abortion's potentially harmful psychological effects. 

The suicide rate is significantly higher among women who have had abortions than among those who haven't. 

Postabortion syndrome is a diagnosable psychological affliction. 

Many professional studies document the reality of abortion's adverse psychological consequences on a large number of women. 

Abortion can produce both short and longer term psychological damage, especially a sense of personal guilt. 

Most women have not been warned about and are completely unprepared for the psychological consequences of abortion. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "Abortion providers are respected medical professionals working in the woman's best interests." *

*I say:  Abortion clinics do not have to maintain the high standards of health, safety, and professionalism required of hospitals. 

Many clinics are in the abortion industry because of the vast amounts of money involved. 

Clinic workers commonly prey on fear, pain, and confusion to manipulate women into getting abortions. 

Clinic workers regularly mislead or deceive women about the nature and development of their babies. 

Abortionists engage in acts so offensive to the public that most media outlets refuse to describe them even in the abortionist's own words. 

Abortionists, feminists, the past president of the United States and many congressmen have defended partial-birth abortion, one of the most chilling medical atrocities in human history. 

Abortion clinics often exploit the feminist connection, making it appear their motive is to stand up for women. 

Doctors doing abortions violate the fundamental creeds of the medical profession. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "What about a woman whose life is threatened by pregnancy or childbirth?" *

*I say:  It is an extremely rare case when abortion is required to save the mother's life. 

When two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. 

Abortion for the mother's life and abortion for the mother's health are usually not the same issue. 

Abortion to save the mother's life was legal before convenience abortion was legalized, and would continue to be if abortion were made illegal again. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "What about a woman whose unborn baby is diagnosed as deformed or handicapped?" *

*I say:  The doctor's diagnosis is sometimes wrong. 

The child's deformity is often minor. 

Medical tests for deformity may cause as many problems as they detect. 

Handicapped children are often happy, always precious, and usually delighted to be alive. 

Handicapped children are not social liabilities, and bright and "normal" people are not always social assets. 

Using dehumanizing language may change our thinking, but not the child's nature or value. 

Our society is hypocritical in its attitude toward handicapped children. 

The adverse psychological effects of abortion are significantly more traumatic for those who abort because of deformity. 

The arguments for killing a handicapped unborn child are valid only if they also apply to killing born people who are handicapped. 

Abortions due to probable handicaps rob the world of unique human beings who would significantly contribute to society. 

Abortions due to imperfections have no logical stopping place; they will lead to designer babies, commercial products to be bred and marketed, leaving other people to be regarded as inferior and disposable.* 


*Pro-choice people say: "What about a woman who is pregnant due to rape or incest?" *

*I say: Pregnancy due to rape is extremely rare, and with proper treatment can be prevented. 

Rape is never the fault of the child; the guilty party, not an innocent party, should be punished. 

The violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape. 

Abortion does not bring healing to a rape victim. 

A child is a child regardless of the circumstances of his conception. 

What about already-born people who are "products of rape"? 

All that is true of children conceived in rape is true of those conceived in incest. *


*Pro-choice people say: "Anti-abortionists are so cruel that they insist on showing hideous pictures of dead babies." *

*I say:  What is hideous is not the pictures themselves, but the reality they depict. 

Pictures challenge our denial of the horrors of abortion. If something is too horrible to look at, perhaps it is too horrible to condone. 

Nothing could be more relevant to the discussion of something than that which shows what it really is. 

It is the prochoice position, not the prolife position, that is cruel. *


*Pro-choice people say: "Prolifers don't care about women, and they don't care about babies once they're born. They have no right to speak against abortion unless they are willing to care for these children." *

*I say:  Prolifers are actively involved in caring for women in crisis pregnancies and difficult child-raising situations. 

Prolifers are actively involved in caring for "unwanted" children and the other "disposable people" in society. 

It is "abortion providers" who do not provide support for women choosing anything but abortion. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "The anti-abortionists are a bunch of men telling women what to do." *

*I say:  There is no substantial difference between men and women's views of abortion. 

Some polls suggest more women than men oppose abortion. 

The great majority of prolife workers are women. 

If men are disqualified from the abortion issue, they should be disqualified on both sides. 

Men are entitled to take a position on abortion. 

There are many more women in prolife organizations that there are in proabortion organizations. 

Of women who have had abortions, far more are prolife activists than prochoice activists. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "Anti-abortionists talk about the sanctity of human life, yet they favor capital punishment." *

*I say:  Not all prolifers favor capital punishment. 

Capital punishment is rooted in a respect for innocent human life. 

There is a vast difference between punishing a convicted murderer and killing an innocent child. *


*Pro-choice people say: "Anti-abortion fanatics break the law, are violent, and bomb abortion clinics."* 

*I say:  Media coverage of prolife civil disobedience often bears little resemblance to what actually happens. 

Prolife civil disobedience should not be condemned without understanding the reasons behind it. 

Peaceful civil disobedience is consistent with the belief that the unborn are human beings. 

Prolife protests have been remarkably nonviolent, and even when there has been violence it has usually been committed by clinic employees and escorts. 

Abortion clinic bombing and violence are rare, and are neither done nor endorsed by prolife organizations.* 


*Pro-choice people say:  "The anti-abortionists distort the facts and resort to emotionalism to deceive the public." *

*I say:  The facts themselves make abortion an emotional issue. 

It is not the prolife position but the prochoice position that relies on emotionalism more than truth and logic. 

The prolife position is based on documented facts and empirical evidence, which many prochoice advocates ignore or distort. 

The prochoice movement consistently caricatures and misrepresents prolifers and their agenda. 

The prochoice movement, from its beginnings, has lied to and exploited women, including the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade and the "Doe" of Doe v. Bolton. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "Anti-abortion groups hide behind a profamily facade, while groups such as Planned Parenthood are truly profamily because they assist in family planning." *

*I say:  The prochoice movement's imposition of "family planning" on teenagers has substantially contributed to the actual cause of teen pregnancy. 

Through its opposition to parental notification and consent, Planned Parenthood consistently undermines the value and authority of the family. 

Planned Parenthood makes huge financial profits from persuading people to get abortions. 

Planned Parenthood has been directly involved in the scandals of trafficking baby body parts. 

As demonstrated in the case of Becky Bell, the prochoice movement is willing to distort and exploit family tragedies to promote its agenda. 

Planned Parenthood, the prochoice movement, and the media ignore family tragedies that do not support the prochoice agenda. *


*Pro-choice people say:  "The last three decades of abortion rights have helped make our society a better place to live." *

*I say:  Abortion has left terrible holes in our society. 

Abortion has made us a nation of schizophrenics about our children. 

Abortion is a modern holocaust we are accomplices to, and which is breeding unparalleled violence. 

Abortion is taking us a direction from which we might never return. 

Abortion has ushered in the brave new world of human pesticides. 

Abortion has led us into complete moral subjectivism in which we are prone to justify as ethical whatever it is we want to do*.


_Pro-choice arguments by Randy Alcorn_


----------



## CurveLight

It does not matter what you call it, be it embryo, fetus, etc.  My legal position rests entirely on the fact you cannot have access without invading the woman's body.  To use the government to invade a woman's body is obscene.  Invading her body violates several platforms of the Constitution.   To answer the obvious question:  No.  The fetus/unborn has no Constitutional rights.  It doesn't even have have human rights because to invade a woman's body Constitutes the very violation claiming to be used to justify endorsing the government to legally violate the woman's body.


----------



## bodecea

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No nothing like that. I wasn't debating Sarge, I was making a comment about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....you mean like hurling insults and personal attacks about me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is (and I knew I would have to explain this to the mentally challenged) I wasn't debating Sarge I was giving him my opinion about you , however you and curvelight and a few others hurl insults and personal attacks when you're losing an argument (which happens more often than not) and that's because you obviously lack the intelligence required to counter with substantive points and support those points with evidence.  Have I made myself clear or do I need to draw you a picture?
Click to expand...


Oh....you have made yourself (and your hypocrisy) crystal clear.      I always love it when people like you make our points for us.


----------



## ABikerSailor

theHawk said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as sperm, eggs, embryos and fetuses and children?
> 
> Well..........a sperm by itself is just one cell that can't do much, as it is specialized for only 1 function.  Same with a female's egg.  Neither one is "human".
> 
> Combine the 2?  Still gonna have to wait awhile, as any decent doctor will tell you that the mass of cells is just a mass of cells until around the 40th day, when it finally develops a nervous system and can feel pain.
> 
> *The mass of cells is not a "human" either. * It's more of a growth (kinda like cancer), until the nervous system is developed.
> 
> *After the 40 day mark and the development of a nervous system?  THEN it's "human".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so a fertilized egg in the womb is not of any species?  It doesn't have any DNA?
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way, even when you're an adult you are nothing more than a "mass of cells".
Click to expand...


Hey Chicken Canary, what part of BEFORE IT HAS A NERVOUS SYSTEM did you miss?

I said it was a growth like cancer.  Yes, it does have DNA, but so does every other living thing.

Are you this stupid in real life, or did you have to fall off a roof and crack your skull open?


----------



## Claudette

theHawk said:


> Gem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, how dare anyone get an important message out during the highest rated hours of the year, especially if it can save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If CBS doesn't want to run it, it doesn't have to...despite whether I feel or you feel that the message is an important one.
> 
> CBS is making a choice - that political ads that might piss off their viewers don't have a place being run during the SuperBowl.  That's their choice - they've demonstrated that they hold that view whether the ad is from a liberal or conservative viewpoint.  They are being consistent - which I appreciate.
> 
> Do I think the world would come to an end if football fans found out that doctors wanted one of the player's mom's to abort him but she chose life?  No, I think thats rather cool actually.  But it wasn't my choice...it was CBS's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I know CBS is planning to air it.  You're right, it is their choice to air it or not, that's really not the issue here.
> 
> But what I find strange about this story is that pro-"choice" women would be upset by this commercial.  What's wrong with promoting the choice of letting the baby live?  Guess they're not really pro-choice, they're just pro-abortion.
Click to expand...


CBS is going to run the ad. Heard it on the news last night. 

This young mans Mother didn't follow her Doctors advice. She decided to have the baby. She made a CHOICE. It was her CHOICE. What a bunch of hooey over a woman making a choice that saved a life instead of taking one. Jeeze.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Wanna know why the doctor told her to have one?  She was having a problem pregnancy, and there was a very real possibility that she would die before full term.

Medical advice to save your life?  She got lucky.  Most people wouldn't refuse chemo (which is toxic) if the doctor told them they have cancer.

Try again.


----------



## Zoom-boing

theHawk said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is legal.  Which is better?
> 
> A_ woman_ choosing to have or not have an abortion
> 
> OR
> 
> The _government_ making the choice for her.
> 
> I think this is where the "pro-choice = pro-abortion" line gets blurred by some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A woman will always have the "choice" of killing her baby or carrying it to full term.  What we're talking about is whether or not one choice (killing) should be legal or illegal.
> 
> Government already forbids us from doing thousands of acts.  Why is it when it comes to abortion people scream about the government "forcing" women to do something, but every other law we have somehow isn't forcing people to act in a certain way?
Click to expand...


I'm anti-abortion but I don't know whether abortion should be legal or not.  Part of me says of course it should be illegal, it's murder; part of me says that if abortion were made illegal it wouldn't stop them from happening and it may very well increase the number of abortions that occur.  If keeping it legal means less abortions are performed isn't that the lesser of two evils, isn't that the better choice?  I don't know.

This is something that will never go away, regardless of whether it's legal or not.  Both sides finding common ground and working from there to reduce the number of abortions may be the best that one can hope for.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....you mean like hurling insults and personal attacks about me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is (and I knew I would have to explain this to the mentally challenged) I wasn't debating Sarge I was giving him my opinion about you , however you and curvelight and a few others hurl insults and personal attacks when you're losing an argument (which happens more often than not) and that's because you obviously lack the intelligence required to counter with substantive points and support those points with evidence.  Have I made myself clear or do I need to draw you a picture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh....you have made yourself (and your hypocrisy) crystal clear.      I always love it when people like you make our points for us.
Click to expand...


And you just proved my point.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ABikerSailor said:


> *Wanna know why the doctor told her to have one?  She was having a problem pregnancy, and there was a very real possibility that she would die before full term*.
> 
> Medical advice to save your life?  She got lucky.  Most people wouldn't refuse chemo (which is toxic) if the doctor told them they have cancer.
> 
> Try again.



Source?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Look it up yourself cocksucker.  You'd just ignore it anyway.

Saw it on the news.


----------



## Avatar4321

CurveLight said:


> It does not matter what you call it, be it embryo, fetus, etc.  My legal position rests entirely on the fact you cannot have access without invading the woman's body.  To use the government to invade a woman's body is obscene.  Invading her body violates several platforms of the Constitution.   To answer the obvious question:  No.  The fetus/unborn has no Constitutional rights.  It doesn't even have have human rights because to invade a woman's body Constitutes the very violation claiming to be used to justify endorsing the government to legally violate the woman's body.



I was unaware that the government was implanting children into women. Would you please cite some sort of reference to support that the government is accessing these women and forcing them to have a child with absolutely no choice being made on their own behalf?

And isnt it funny that terrorists have constitutional rights, but children dont. The position makes no sense. I would think that someone trying to claim they were the party of compassion and standing up for the little guy, would be trying to support the one set of people who have ability to stand up for themselves.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ABikerSailor said:


> Look it up yourself cocksucker.  You'd just ignore it anyway.
> 
> Saw it on the news.



In other words... you have nothing!


----------



## Zoom-boing

ABikerSailor said:


> Wanna know why the doctor told her to have one?  She was having a problem pregnancy, and there was a very real possibility that she would die before full term.
> 
> Medical advice to save your life? * She got lucky.*  Most people wouldn't refuse chemo (which is toxic) if the doctor told them they have cancer.
> 
> Try again.



Maybe . . . or maybe God answered her prayers  . . . or maybe the doctor was wrong.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zoom-boing said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna know why the doctor told her to have one?  She was having a problem pregnancy, and there was a very real possibility that she would die before full term.
> 
> Medical advice to save your life? * She got lucky.*  Most people wouldn't refuse chemo (which is toxic) if the doctor told them they have cancer.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe . . . or maybe God answered her prayers  . . . or maybe the doctor was wrong.
Click to expand...


Or maybe she just is like most people and willing to sacrifice her life if necessary to protect her children.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Lonestar_logic said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself cocksucker.  You'd just ignore it anyway.
> 
> Saw it on the news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words... you have nothing!
Click to expand...


Like I said you penis puffing piss poor pillow biting sperm burping colon jouster, it's true.

Wikipedia is your friend........



> Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in the Philippines to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time.[1] While pregnant Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba. Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life.[1] She carried Timothy to term, and both survived.



Yeah...........I got nothing.

You on the other hand, have just been pwned.

Fuck off you cow fucking fruitcake.


----------



## xsited1

theHawk said:


> Amazing how so called "women's groups" would be so upset about the story of a woman ignoring a doctor's recommendation to get an abortion.
> ...



More proof that they are pro-abortion rather than pro-choice.


----------



## Zoom-boing

ABikerSailor said:


> Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in the Philippines to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time.[1] While pregnant Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba. Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, *the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. *Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life.[1] She carried Timothy to term, and both survived.
Click to expand...


And they both lived?  I'm going with miracle.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Well, considering that they were both missionaries, and had quite a bit of faith in the Big Man Upstairs, I'd be willing to go with the miracle.

I mean.......if they're doing God's work, shouldn't He take care of His employees?

Still doesn't make the SB ad any less nauseating.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ABikerSailor said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself cocksucker.  You'd just ignore it anyway.
> 
> Saw it on the news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words... you have nothing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said you penis puffing piss poor pillow biting sperm burping colon jouster, it's true.
> 
> Wikipedia is your friend........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in the Philippines to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time.[1] While pregnant Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba. Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life.[1] She carried Timothy to term, and both survived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...........I got nothing.
> 
> You on the other hand, have just been pwned.
> 
> Fuck off you cow fucking fruitcake.
Click to expand...


Now that wasn't so difficult now was it?  In all honesty people that talk big like you are actually trying to make up for their cowardice.  I would offer proper debate etiquette, but I'm afraid it would be too difficult for you to understand. Oh and you obviously have a deep-seated desire for beastiality, I suggest you seek therapy for that.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Lonestar_logic said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words... you have nothing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said you penis puffing piss poor pillow biting sperm burping colon jouster, it's true.
> 
> Wikipedia is your friend........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in the Philippines to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time.[1] While pregnant Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba. Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life.[1] She carried Timothy to term, and both survived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...........I got nothing.
> 
> You on the other hand, have just been pwned.
> 
> Fuck off you cow fucking fruitcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that wasn't so difficult now was it?  In all honesty people that talk big like you are actually trying to make up for their cowardice.  I would offer proper debate etiquette, but I'm afraid it would be too difficult for you to understand. Oh and you obviously have a deep-seated desire for beastiality, I suggest you seek therapy for that.
Click to expand...


The only thing you got is a cow crap covered cock.

Telly ya what douche, do a circumcision on your skull, because you're a giant dick.

Like I said, if you had the brainpower to actually look something up, then maybe you wouldn't have to go to TJ, performing in the donkey shows, trying to rustle up some drinking money.

I bet you see two drag marks on either side of your body as well when you walk in sand, as your knuckles are probably 3 feet behind you.

Besides, what the fuck can a punk assed coward like yourself do to me?  I'm betting not much other than bleed.

Fuck off, I ain't doing your work for you again, not my fault your head is up your ass.

So much for "having nothing", eh?


----------



## sboyle24

Don't make Tebow Cry. He does enough of that already.


----------



## Misty

Quote from bikersailor 





> "After the 40 day mark and the development of a nervous system? THEN it's "human".



So 40 days would put the baby inbetween 5 and 6 weeks. 

Doctors will NOT perform abortions while the baby is a blastocyst because their is a greater risk of bleeding to the mother. 

The doctor must wait for the baby to be at least 8 weeks old before it can be aborted. 

An 8 week old baby is alive has human features and will try to swim away from the suction. 

Watch an abortion film and you will see it is a life not a group of cells


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ABikerSailor said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said you penis puffing piss poor pillow biting sperm burping colon jouster, it's true.
> 
> Wikipedia is your friend........
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...........I got nothing.
> 
> You on the other hand, have just been pwned.
> 
> Fuck off you cow fucking fruitcake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that wasn't so difficult now was it?  In all honesty people that talk big like you are actually trying to make up for their cowardice.  I would offer proper debate etiquette, but I'm afraid it would be too difficult for you to understand. Oh and you obviously have a deep-seated desire for beastiality, I suggest you seek therapy for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you got is a cow crap covered cock.
> 
> Telly ya what douche, do a circumcision on your skull, because you're a giant dick.
> 
> Like I said, if you had the brainpower to actually look something up, then maybe you wouldn't have to go to TJ, performing in the donkey shows, trying to rustle up some drinking money.
> 
> I bet you see two drag marks on either side of your body as well when you walk in sand, as your knuckles are probably 3 feet behind you.
> 
> Besides, what the fuck can a punk assed coward like yourself do to me?  I'm betting not much other than bleed.
> 
> Fuck off, I ain't doing your work for you again, not my fault your head is up your ass.
> 
> So much for "having nothing", eh?
Click to expand...


You still have nothing. And you are nothing but a wanna-be tough guy.  By your vivid descriptions I'm pretty sure you are speaking from experience. 

What you fail to understand (because you're obviously not smart enough) is when a person makes a claim it's up to that person to support it.


----------



## Zoom-boing

ABikerSailor said:


> Well, considering that they were both missionaries, and had quite a bit of faith in the Big Man Upstairs, I'd be willing to go with the miracle.
> 
> I mean.......if they're doing God's work, shouldn't He take care of His employees?
> 
> Still doesn't make the SB ad any less nauseating.



Tim's mother was presented with the facts during her pregnancy crisis and she made the choice to carry her baby to term rather than abort.  And she did this knowing that it may cost her her life.  The ad shares their story.  How is that nauseating?


----------



## Foxfyre

Zoom-boing said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna know why the doctor told her to have one?  She was having a problem pregnancy, and there was a very real possibility that she would die before full term.
> 
> Medical advice to save your life? * She got lucky.*  Most people wouldn't refuse chemo (which is toxic) if the doctor told them they have cancer.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe . . . or maybe God answered her prayers  . . . or maybe the doctor was wrong.
Click to expand...


Or maybe it's like the fireman who ignores his colleagues advice not to enter the burning building to save somebody.  Or the guy who smashes a car window and pulls the driver out of the burning wreckage, moments before it explodes.  Sometimes you just consider the other life to be as valuable as your own and that makes you able to take whatever risk is involved.

To compare a living unborn child with cancer strikes me as a good motto for the pro-abortion crowd.

I say kudos to CBS who is willing to run a paid advertisement that illustrates a wonderful outcome to a courageous decision.  If the ad was anti-abortion or pro-life, they probably would be violating their own policy about not doing political advocacy.  But this ad doesn't take a side.  It tells a story.  And if there is a lesson in it, well that's just the way the mop flops.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Misty said:


> Quote from bikersailor "After the 40 day mark and the development of a nervous system? THEN it's "human".
> 
> So 40 days would put the baby inbetween 5 and 6 weeks.
> 
> Doctors will NOT perform abortions while the baby is a blastocyst because their is a greater risk of bleeding to the mother.
> 
> The doctor must wait for the baby to be at least 8 weeks old before it can be aborted.
> 
> An 8 week old baby is alive has human features and will try to swim away from the suction.
> 
> Watch an abortion film and you will see it is a life not a group of cells



Don't confuse bikershithead with facts.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Foxfyre said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna know why the doctor told her to have one?  She was having a problem pregnancy, and there was a very real possibility that she would die before full term.
> 
> Medical advice to save your life? * She got lucky.*  Most people wouldn't refuse chemo (which is toxic) if the doctor told them they have cancer.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe . . . or maybe God answered her prayers  . . . or maybe the doctor was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe it's like the fireman who ignores his colleagues advice not to enter the burning building to save somebody.  Or the guy who smashes a car window and pulls the driver out of the burning wreckage, moments before it explodes.  Sometimes you just consider the other life to be as valuable as your own and that makes you able to take whatever risk is involved.
> 
> To compare a living unborn child with cancer strikes me as a good motto for the pro-abortion crowd.
> 
> I say kudos to CBS who is willing to run a paid advertisement that illustrates a wonderful outcome to a courageous decision.  If the ad was anti-abortion or pro-life, they probably would be violating their own policy about not doing political advocacy.  *But this ad doesn't take a side.  It tells a story.  And if there is a lesson in it, well that's just the way the mop flops.*
Click to expand...


Excellent post!  The bolded?  Exactly.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Zoom-boing said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering that they were both missionaries, and had quite a bit of faith in the Big Man Upstairs, I'd be willing to go with the miracle.
> 
> I mean.......if they're doing God's work, shouldn't He take care of His employees?
> 
> Still doesn't make the SB ad any less nauseating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother was presented with the facts during her pregnancy crisis and she made the choice to carry her baby to term rather than abort.  And she did this knowing that it may cost her her life.  The ad shares their story.  How is that nauseating?
Click to expand...


Like I said, this particular little story is a bit disturbing because they aren't telling all the facts (she was sick), just using Tebow as a way to advocate pro life agendas.

You know, I catch enough of people shoving ideas into my head from watching news and commercials, I don't need it when I'm watching football.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Misty said:


> Quote from bikersailor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "After the 40 day mark and the development of a nervous system? THEN it's "human".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So 40 days would put the baby inbetween 5 and 6 weeks.
> 
> Doctors will NOT perform abortions while the baby is a blastocyst because their is a greater risk of bleeding to the mother.
> 
> The doctor must wait for the baby to be at least 8 weeks old before it can be aborted.
> 
> An 8 week old baby is alive has human features and will try to swim away from the suction.
> 
> *Watch an abortion film and you will see it is a life not a group of cells*
Click to expand...


Of course it's human life.  From conception it's human life; to state otherwise is simply false.


----------



## Zoom-boing

ABikerSailor said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering that they were both missionaries, and had quite a bit of faith in the Big Man Upstairs, I'd be willing to go with the miracle.
> 
> I mean.......if they're doing God's work, shouldn't He take care of His employees?
> 
> Still doesn't make the SB ad any less nauseating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother was presented with the facts during her pregnancy crisis and she made the choice to carry her baby to term rather than abort.  And she did this knowing that it may cost her her life.  The ad shares their story.  How is that nauseating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, this particular little story is a bit disturbing because they aren't telling all the facts (she was sick), just using Tebow as a way to advocate pro life agendas.
> 
> You know, I catch enough of people shoving ideas into my head from watching news and commercials, I don't need it when I'm watching football.
Click to expand...


From what I've heard the commercial _will_ tell the story of Tim's mother and that she was sick, that her doc recommended an abortion but that she chose not to have one.   From Reilly's story no one has seen the ad or read the script except for CBS.  

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6hE2wRRCuo[/ame]

I usually zone out on commercials or change the channel.  Super Bowl beer commercials are worth the watching though!


----------



## theHawk

Anguille said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is a pro-abortionist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who is for allowing abortion on demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then wouldn't it be more accurate to call them pro choice or pro on demand?
> 
> "Pro-abortionist' sayd to me someone who feels that sbortionist should be allowed to live and not be on certain fundamentalist's hit lists.
> 
> From reading the above posts, no one seems to have a clear and universally accepted definition of pro-abortionist. It's like the term "pro-life". It's used by anti and pro choice alike. To me and many others the forced birthers are anti-life but they claim they are.
> 
> I am pro life and I am pro choice. The terms are synonymous to me.
> 
> To insure clarity and fairness, I think that people should stick to the terms "pro-choice, limited pro-choice and anti-choice".
Click to expand...


Once again, another liberal who tries to make an arguement by changing the definition of a word.  The rest of your post is just plain incomprehensible.

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion 
Pronunciation: \&#716;pr&#333;-&#601;-&#712;bo&#775;r-sh&#601;n\
Function: adjective 
Date: 1972
: *favoring the legalization of abortion*

&#8212; pro&#8211;abor·tion·ist  \-sh(&#601;-)nist\ noun 



It's pretty simple people, if you favor legalized abortion you are a pro-abortionist.


----------



## Foxfyre

ABikerSailor said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering that they were both missionaries, and had quite a bit of faith in the Big Man Upstairs, I'd be willing to go with the miracle.
> 
> I mean.......if they're doing God's work, shouldn't He take care of His employees?
> 
> Still doesn't make the SB ad any less nauseating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother was presented with the facts during her pregnancy crisis and she made the choice to carry her baby to term rather than abort.  And she did this knowing that it may cost her her life.  The ad shares their story.  How is that nauseating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, this particular little story is a bit disturbing because they aren't telling all the facts (she was sick), just using Tebow as a way to advocate pro life agendas.
> 
> You know, I catch enough of people shoving ideas into my head from watching news and commercials, I don't need it when I'm watching football.
Click to expand...


Yeah, all those Superbowl commercials telling us what beer to drink or what insurance to buy or what personal hygiene product is most desirable or how to regulate our digestive system is bad enough without having to put up with a story of one woman's courage that had a happy ending.


----------



## skookerasbil

Tebow is a born leader. Guy has a future in whatever he wants to do in life. He's got balls and is the antithesis of the limpwristed lefties in this country!!! Good for him..............

Tough shit on the butchers and those who love them!!!


----------



## CurveLight

Avatar4321 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not matter what you call it, be it embryo, fetus, etc.  My legal position rests entirely on the fact you cannot have access without invading the woman's body.  To use the government to invade a woman's body is obscene.  Invading her body violates several platforms of the Constitution.   To answer the obvious question:  No.  The fetus/unborn has no Constitutional rights.  It doesn't even have have human rights because to invade a woman's body Constitutes the very violation claiming to be used to justify endorsing the government to legally violate the woman's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware that the government was implanting children into women. Would you please cite some sort of reference to support that the government is accessing these women and forcing them to have a child with absolutely no choice being made on their own behalf?
> 
> And isnt it funny that terrorists have constitutional rights, but children dont. The position makes no sense. I would think that someone trying to claim they were the party of compassion and standing up for the little guy, would be trying to support the one set of people who have ability to stand up for themselves.
Click to expand...


I stopped reading at the first sentence.  When you make such a blatantly false statement then what's the point?


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who is for allowing abortion on demand.
> 
> 
> 
> Then wouldn't it be more accurate to call them pro choice or pro on demand?
> 
> "Pro-abortionist' sayd to me someone who feels that sbortionist should be allowed to live and not be on certain fundamentalist's hit lists.
> 
> From reading the above posts, no one seems to have a clear and universally accepted definition of pro-abortionist. It's like the term "pro-life". It's used by anti and pro choice alike. To me and many others the forced birthers are anti-life but they claim they are.
> 
> I am pro life and I am pro choice. The terms are synonymous to me.
> 
> To insure clarity and fairness, I think that people should stick to the terms "pro-choice, limited pro-choice and anti-choice".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, another liberal who tries to make an arguement by changing the definition of a word.  The rest of your post is just plain incomprehensible.
> 
> Main Entry: pro·abor·tion
> Pronunciation: \&#716;pr&#333;-&#601;-&#712;bo&#775;r-sh&#601;n\
> Function: adjective
> Date: 1972
> : *favoring the legalization of abortion*
> 
> &#8212; pro&#8211;abor·tion·ist  \-sh(&#601;-)nist\ noun
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple people, if you favor legalized abortion you are a pro-abortionist.
Click to expand...


If you favor the government forcing it's legal dick between women's legs you are anti-choice and by definition, anti-American.  If you favor legalized abortion you are simply pro choice and pro American.  

We all know you recognize being pro choice doesn't make one pro abortion but since you absolutely suck at debating you need every possible advantage including demonization and deception.


----------



## skookerasbil

Lets face it...........the complete mental meltdown by the lefty k00ks over this is simply more of the perfect illustration of what they are = progressives committed to the death of First Ammendment rights!!!


----------



## CurveLight

skookerasbil said:


> Lets face it...........the complete mental meltdown by the lefty k00ks over this is simply more of the perfect illustration of what they are = progressives committed to the death of First Ammendment rights!!!



I don't agree with the protest but apparently you fell for the OP's dishonest title and characterization.  This thread has never really been on topic.

Also, the FA is more about FOS regarding government restrictions so your hyperbole is as empty as this thread is full of shit.  Why don't you say someone who kills a fly is really trying to blow all planes out of the sky?


----------



## Anguille

ABikerSailor said:


> Quick question for you anti-abortionists...........
> 
> Ever hear of a mother killing her kids? Ever hear of a family that committed sexual abuse towards a child?
> 
> I have.
> 
> Still think that a life of sexual slavery and eternal servitude is a good deal?
> 
> Personally? I wish that some of the things I've done could have been done away with.
> 
> Same with some others, I'm guessing. What makes your pain more "righteous" than others?


 Excellent question! 

A brave and honest post.


----------



## Anguille

saveliberty said:


> What is the big deal here?
> 
> The networks have no problem with Viagra, GoDaddy, Victoria's Secret, Budweiser, Miller, and host of other advertisers over the years with messages that might offend. Seems to me you run the ad. If there is some big controversy, make a space for the opposing point of view to air a commerical at the same price.
> 
> Go ahead and show the amputation of limbs prior to removal of the child from the womb. I'm sure many will be very supportive of the process and results.


I have no problem with the ad being aired. I think Ted Tebow and his mther are two idiots but I have no objection to them making a show of their idiocy during some network event in which more idiots wearing Spandex carress each other's butts then bang heads together.


----------



## dilloduck

> idiots wearing Spandex carress each other's butts then bang heads together.




Cmon----that's such a crude way to represent our first date !


----------



## Anguille

USMB must be pro abortionist. Look at the ad in the top right hand corner.

"1 trick of a tiny belly"


----------



## Anguille

I saw Tebrow speaking on TV yesterday. My gaydar went off big time. How happy are the fundies going to be about him after he and his mother come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples?


----------



## Smartt33

Choosing life is a wonderful thing. Who can deny that?

Some people just don't want to see something good if it convicts them in some way.


----------



## Foxfyre

Anguille said:


> I saw Tebrow speaking on TV yesterday. My gaydar went off big time. How happy are the fundies going to be about him after he and his mother come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples?



I don't see that same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples has anything whatsoever to do with the Tebrow ad.  Interesting that you do though.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> I saw Tebrow speaking on TV yesterday. My gaydar went off big time. How happy are the fundies going to be about him after he and his mother come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples?



That is a pretty intolerant comment coming from a progressive.  Your "gaydar"?  You're making fun of a human being because you think he might be gay?

Why do so many libs slam homosexuals?  

Immie


----------



## CurveLight

Smartt33 said:


> Choosing life is a wonderful thing. Who can deny that?



Ask Bush supporters how they did it.





> Some people just don't want to see something good if it convicts them in some way.




This is the most frustrating point.  Nobody thinks abortion is fun or an excuse to get out of the house.  Anti-Choice camps are disingenuous about that on a regular basis so is their position perversion the manifestation of their frustration for not being able to argue on their own merits?


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw Tebrow speaking on TV yesterday. My gaydar went off big time. How happy are the fundies going to be about him after he and his mother come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty intolerant comment coming from a progressive.  Your "gaydar"?  You're making fun of a human being because you think he might be gay?
> 
> Why do so many libs slam homosexuals?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



There was no intolerant comment.  It was simply a prediction of irony and "gaydar" comes from many gays hiding their orientation.


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw Tebrow speaking on TV yesterday. My gaydar went off big time. How happy are the fundies going to be about him after he and his mother come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty intolerant comment coming from a progressive.  Your "gaydar"?  You're making fun of a human being because you think he might be gay?
> 
> Why do so many libs slam homosexuals?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was no intolerant comment.  It was simply a prediction of irony and "gaydar" comes from many gays hiding their orientation.
Click to expand...


No, sorry, that was an intolerant slam on homosexuals.

A tolerant person would not even recognize or mention his gayness like it was some sort of disease.

I can understand the comment about "fundies" and in that she is correct, but to mention the "gaydar" was a poor way of putting it.  IMHO

Immie


----------



## CurveLight

Anguille said:


> I saw Tebrow speaking on TV yesterday. My gaydar went off big time. How happy are the fundies going to be about him after he and his mother come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples?



Did you learn nothing from the Palin Pythagorean?  If that happened they would just say he was the victim of the gay agenda and the media treated him sooooooooo poorly his mental breakdown resulted in homosexuality to avoid reality.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> I saw Tebrow speaking on TV yesterday. My gaydar went off big time. How happy are the fundies going to be about him after he and his mother come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples?


Don't be silly. He's a fundy. He'll just go for a cure.


----------



## Smartt33

CurveLight said:


> Smartt33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Choosing life is a wonderful thing. Who can deny that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Bush supporters how they did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just don't want to see something good if it convicts them in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most frustrating point.  Nobody thinks abortion is fun or an excuse to get out of the house.  Anti-Choice camps are disingenuous about that on a regular basis so is their position perversion the manifestation of their frustration for not being able to argue on their own merits?
Click to expand...


I believe that if there was a strong survey done it would show that 99% or more of those who have chosen life do not suffer in any way from their decision. 

I also believe that a very large % of those who chose abortion do have negative results, emotional, or physical, or psychological, or even Spiritual.

I believe this survey  would indicate that pro life is only a positive thing, and certainly only meant to be a positive thing.


----------



## CurveLight

Smartt33 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smartt33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Choosing life is a wonderful thing. Who can deny that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Bush supporters how they did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just don't want to see something good if it convicts them in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most frustrating point.  Nobody thinks abortion is fun or an excuse to get out of the house.  Anti-Choice camps are disingenuous about that on a regular basis so is their position perversion the manifestation of their frustration for not being able to argue on their own merits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that if there was a strong survey done it would show that 99% or more of those who have chosen life do not suffer in any way from their decision.
> 
> I also believe that a very large % of those who chose abortion do have negative results, emotional, or physical, or psychological, or even Spiritual.
> 
> I believe this survey  would indicate that pro life is only a positive thing, and certainly only meant to be a positive thing.
Click to expand...


There isn't anything there in response to my post.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

It's amazing how much effort people put in to justify their tolerance to those that kill innocent human lives. 

To those that say. "I'm against abortion but I'm pro-choice", what exactly does that mean? 

Does it mean you wouldn't have an abortion yourself but it's ok if others wish to kill their unborn children? If so, then why are you against abortions yourself?


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty intolerant comment coming from a progressive.  Your "gaydar"?  You're making fun of a human being because you think he might be gay?
> 
> Why do so many libs slam homosexuals?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no intolerant comment.  It was simply a prediction of irony and "gaydar" comes from many gays hiding their orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sorry, that was an intolerant slam on homosexuals.
> 
> A tolerant person would not even recognize or mention his gayness like it was some sort of disease.
> 
> I can understand the comment about "fundies" and in that she is correct, but to mention the "gaydar" was a poor way of putting it.  IMHO
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



It was pointing out hypocrisy from fundies.  That was the sole purpose of the post.  The term gaydar is not a pejorative. 
gaydar.co.uk/


----------



## Gem

Lonestar Wrote:


> It's amazing how much effort people put in to justify their tolerance to those that kill innocent human lives.
> 
> To those that say. "I'm against abortion but I'm pro-choice", what exactly does that mean?
> 
> Does it mean you wouldn't have an abortion yourself but it's ok if others wish to kill their unborn children? If so, then why are you against abortions yourself?



When I say that I am pro-choice but against abortion it means that I believe without a doubt that an abortion stops a human life in its earliest stages of development.  And, I believe without a doubt that there are times when an abortion can be the right course of action for a woman and her doctor to take, and I believe that that option should be legally available to them for those purposes.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gem said:


> Lonestar Wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how much effort people put in to justify their tolerance to those that kill innocent human lives.
> 
> To those that say. "I'm against abortion but I'm pro-choice", what exactly does that mean?
> 
> Does it mean you wouldn't have an abortion yourself but it's ok if others wish to kill their unborn children? If so, then why are you against abortions yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I say that I am pro-choice but against abortion it means that I believe without a doubt that an abortion stops a human life in its earliest stages of development.  And, I believe without a doubt that there are times when an abortion can be the right course of action for a woman and her doctor to take, and I believe that that option should be legally available to them for those purposes.
Click to expand...


I'm pro-life but I believe abortions should be legal and available for extreme cases, i.e rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. But pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed any time for whatever reason. A woman's choice should have been made long before she got pregnant.


----------



## Ravi

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar Wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how much effort people put in to justify their tolerance to those that kill innocent human lives.
> 
> To those that say. "I'm against abortion but I'm pro-choice", what exactly does that mean?
> 
> Does it mean you wouldn't have an abortion yourself but it's ok if others wish to kill their unborn children? If so, then why are you against abortions yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> When I say that I am pro-choice but against abortion it means that I believe without a doubt that an abortion stops a human life in its earliest stages of development.  And, I believe without a doubt that there are times when an abortion can be the right course of action for a woman and her doctor to take, and I believe that that option should be legally available to them for those purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pro-life but I believe abortions should be legal and available for extreme cases, *i.e rape, incest* or when the mother's life is in danger. But pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed any time for whatever reason. A woman's choice should have been made long before she got pregnant.
Click to expand...

This is an attitude I will never understand. If you honestly think abortion is murder, then why would you murder someone that is the product of rape or incest? It's not like it is the potential child's fault.


----------



## jillian

Ravi said:


> This is an attitude I will never understand. If you honestly think abortion is murder, then why would you murder someone that is the product of rape or incest? It's not like it is the potential child's fault.



because THEY want to control other people's bodies...

and it has nothing to do with "life"...it has everything to do with making the harlots pay. They can't paint a red "A" on them, so they want to make sure they "take responsibility" for their actions. They see someone who was raped as not deserving of "punishment".


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Ravi said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar Wrote:
> When I say that I am pro-choice but against abortion it means that I believe without a doubt that an abortion stops a human life in its earliest stages of development.  And, I believe without a doubt that there are times when an abortion can be the right course of action for a woman and her doctor to take, and I believe that that option should be legally available to them for those purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-life but I believe abortions should be legal and available for extreme cases, *i.e rape, incest* or when the mother's life is in danger. But pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed any time for whatever reason. A woman's choice should have been made long before she got pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an attitude I will never understand. If you honestly think abortion is murder, then why would you murder someone that is the product of rape or incest? It's not like it is the potential child's fault.
Click to expand...


I don't believe you should force anyone to have a child that was a produced through a criminal act. Although I'm really on the fence about whether or not these two exceptions should be considered and the reason is, I believe it may be abused. I suppose any woman could claim to have been raped and/or impregnated via incestous relations.  

In a study conducted by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, entitled Why Women Have Abortions, women were asked to give specific reasons why they had an abortion. The top three answers were: 1. Unready for responsibility 2. Can't afford baby now 3. Concern about how having a baby would change her life.

The three reasons, which came in last place and were tied at 1 percent included: 1. Was a victim of rape or incest 2. Husband or partner wanted the abortion 3. Didn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

jillian said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an attitude I will never understand. If you honestly think abortion is murder, then why would you murder someone that is the product of rape or incest? It's not like it is the potential child's fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because THEY want to control other people's bodies...
> 
> and it has nothing to do with "life"...it has everything to do with making the harlots pay. They can't paint a red "A" on them, so they want to make sure they "take responsibility" for their actions. They see someone who was raped as not deserving of "punishment".
Click to expand...


How can you speak for "they"? Do you know what's in their minds and hearts? Try speaking for yourself and not for others.


----------



## Gem

Lonestar Wrote:


> I'm pro-life but I believe abortions should be legal and available for extreme cases, i.e rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. But pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed any time for whatever reason. A woman's choice should have been made long before she got pregnant.



So...like me, you believe that there are times and situations in which killing a human being in its earliest stages of development is the most appropriate choice.  You believe that, in specific situations, that CHOICE should be made available.  In my opinion, you are pro-choice in the purest definition of the word...yet, in other people's opinions, we are both pro-life.

Careful with the, "pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed anytime for whatever reason" however...its an absolute that a) isn't true... and b) is just as ridiculous as this hateful statement of Jillian's:



> because THEY want to control other people's bodies...
> 
> and it has nothing to do with "life"...it has everything to do with making the harlots pay. They can't paint a red "A" on them, so they want to make sure they "take responsibility" for their actions. They see someone who was raped as not deserving of "punishment".


----------



## Ravi

Lonestar_logic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-life but I believe abortions should be legal and available for extreme cases, *i.e rape, incest* or when the mother's life is in danger. But pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed any time for whatever reason. A woman's choice should have been made long before she got pregnant.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an attitude I will never understand. If you honestly think abortion is murder, then why would you murder someone that is the product of rape or incest? It's not like it is the potential child's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you should force anyone to have a child that was a produced through a criminal act. Although I'm really on the fence about whether or not these two exceptions should be considered and the reason is, I believe it may be abused. I suppose any woman could claim to have been raped and/or impregnated via incestous relations.
> 
> In a study conducted by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, entitled Why Women Have Abortions, women were asked to give specific reasons why they had an abortion. The top three answers were: 1. Unready for responsibility 2. Can't afford baby now 3. Concern about how having a baby would change her life.
> 
> The three reasons, which came in last place and were tied at 1 percent included: 1. Was a victim of rape or incest 2. Husband or partner wanted the abortion 3. Didn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering but it still makes no sense to me. In other words, you are willing to murder for the sins of the father. IMO, that is very hypocritical.


----------



## Gem

Ravi, are you pro-choice or pro-life, may I ask?


----------



## Ravi

Both.


----------



## Gem

LOL.  Can you clarify that a bit for me?


----------



## jillian

Lonestar_logic said:


> How can you speak for "they"? Do you know what's in their minds and hearts? Try speaking for yourself and not for others.



you're kidding, right?

look at the title of this thread... and go complain to him.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Gem said:


> Lonestar Wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-life but I believe abortions should be legal and available for extreme cases, i.e rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. But pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed any time for whatever reason. A woman's choice should have been made long before she got pregnant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...like me, you believe that there are times and situations in which killing a human being in its earliest stages of development is the most appropriate choice.  You believe that, in specific situations, that CHOICE should be made available.  In my opinion, you are pro-choice in the purest definition of the word...yet, in other people's opinions, we are both pro-life.
> 
> Careful with the, "pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed anytime for whatever reason" however...its an absolute that a) isn't true... and b) is just as ridiculous as this hateful statement of Jillian's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because THEY want to control other people's bodies...
> 
> and it has nothing to do with "life"...it has everything to do with making the harlots pay. They can't paint a red "A" on them, so they want to make sure they "take responsibility" for their actions. They see someone who was raped as not deserving of "punishment".
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


As I've stated on another post, I'm really on the fence about whether or not rape and incest should be exceptions. After giving it more thought, it's not the fault of the unborn that it's the product of rape or incest so I don't think terminating its life for those reasons are the right reasons. I've also posted reasons why women have abortions and my statement about for "whatever reason " is a true statement unless you consider;  Feels unready for child/responsibility, Feels she can't afford baby, Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities, Relationship problem/Single motherhood, Feels she isn't mature enough, Interference with education/career plans, Parents/Partner wants abortion as not being "whatever reasons".

Why Do Women Have Abortions?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Ravi said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an attitude I will never understand. If you honestly think abortion is murder, then why would you murder someone that is the product of rape or incest? It's not like it is the potential child's fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you should force anyone to have a child that was a produced through a criminal act. Although I'm really on the fence about whether or not these two exceptions should be considered and the reason is, I believe it may be abused. I suppose any woman could claim to have been raped and/or impregnated via incestous relations.
> 
> In a study conducted by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, entitled Why Women Have Abortions, women were asked to give specific reasons why they had an abortion. The top three answers were: 1. Unready for responsibility 2. Can't afford baby now 3. Concern about how having a baby would change her life.
> 
> The three reasons, which came in last place and were tied at 1 percent included: 1. Was a victim of rape or incest 2. Husband or partner wanted the abortion 3. Didn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for answering but it still makes no sense to me. In other words, you are willing to murder for the sins of the father. IMO, that is very hypocritical.
Click to expand...


Seems to me your willing to murder for the sin of the mother or for no sins at all, but out of convenience. I've stated I was on the fence about whether or not rape/incest should be exceptions, I'm still not decided but I'm leaning toward the side of the life of an innocent child.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

jillian said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you speak for "they"? Do you know what's in their minds and hearts? Try speaking for yourself and not for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're kidding, right?
> 
> look at the title of this thread... and go complain to him.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that pro-abortionist aren't upset about the Tebow ad?


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> If you favor the government forcing it's legal dick between women's legs you are anti-choice and by definition, anti-American.  If you favor legalized abortion you are simply pro choice and pro American.
> 
> We all know you recognize being pro choice doesn't make one pro abortion but since you absolutely suck at debating you need every possible advantage including demonization and deception.



Strawman.  Never said anyting of the sort.  In fact, I have no idea what you are even talking about with this "government forcing it's legal dick between women's legs". Yet I'm the one who sucks at debating?  LOL, you're the one who has been twisting words into different meanings, and completely lying about what I favor.  You're whole 'arguement' is that I am somehow in favor of the government forcefully impregnating women, and forcing them to carry that child.  Oh yea, who could forget my "deception" is using the word _pro-abortionist_ as defined by Webster's dictionary.

You libs have fallen off the deep end.  I'm actually stating to believe these latest election loses have cause some severe mental breakdowns in our friends in the liberal community.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you favor the government forcing it's legal dick between women's legs you are anti-choice and by definition, anti-American.  If you favor legalized abortion you are simply pro choice and pro American.
> 
> We all know you recognize being pro choice doesn't make one pro abortion but since you absolutely suck at debating you need every possible advantage including demonization and deception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.  Never said anyting of the sort.  In fact, I have no idea what you are even talking about with this "government forcing it's legal dick between women's legs". Yet I'm the one who sucks at debating?  LOL, you're the one who has been twisting words into different meanings, and completely lying about what I favor.  You're whole 'arguement' is that I am somehow in favor of the government forcefully impregnating women, and forcing them to carry that child.  Oh yea, who could forget my "deception" is using the word _pro-abortionist_ as defined by Webster's dictionary.
> 
> You libs have fallen off the deep end.  I'm actually stating to believe these latest election loses have cause some severe mental breakdowns in our friends in the liberal community.
Click to expand...


State or link the post number where I claimed your position is you favor the government forcefully impregnating women.


----------



## jillian

Lonestar_logic said:


> Are you suggesting that pro-abortionist aren't upset about the Tebow ad?



there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist".


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar Wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how much effort people put in to justify their tolerance to those that kill innocent human lives.
> 
> To those that say. "I'm against abortion but I'm pro-choice", what exactly does that mean?
> 
> Does it mean you wouldn't have an abortion yourself but it's ok if others wish to kill their unborn children? If so, then why are you against abortions yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I say that I am pro-choice but against abortion it means that I believe without a doubt that an abortion stops a human life in its earliest stages of development.  And, I believe without a doubt that there are times when an abortion can be the right course of action for a woman and her doctor to take, and I believe that that option should be legally available to them for those purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pro-life but I believe abortions should be legal and available for extreme cases, i.e rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. But pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed any time for whatever reason. A woman's choice should have been made long before she got pregnant.
Click to expand...


That reveals your position is NOT anchored in the "sanctity of life."  If saving an innocent unborn was your core principle it wouldn't matter how the impregnation occurred.  Without realizing it what you are saying is if a woman fucks without your explicit permission she is not recognizing your attempted domain over her body.   If she gets pregnant she is punished by you trying to exert domain over her body by telling her what to do with it.  

The Christian Right camp has one immutable property that is the cornerstone of all their major positions: Control.  Ubiquitous control without challenge.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

jillian said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that pro-abortionist aren't upset about the Tebow ad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist".
Click to expand...


Is that right?

proabortionist - definition of proabortionist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar Wrote:
> 
> 
> When I say that I am pro-choice but against abortion it means that I believe without a doubt that an abortion stops a human life in its earliest stages of development.  And, I believe without a doubt that there are times when an abortion can be the right course of action for a woman and her doctor to take, and I believe that that option should be legally available to them for those purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-life but I believe abortions should be legal and available for extreme cases, i.e rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. But pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed any time for whatever reason. A woman's choice should have been made long before she got pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That reveals your position is NOT anchored in the "sanctity of life."  If saving an innocent unborn was your core principle it wouldn't matter how the impregnation occurred.  Without realizing it what you are saying is if a woman fucks without your explicit permission she is not recognizing your attempted domain over her body.   If she gets pregnant she is punished by you trying to exert domain over her body by telling her what to do with it.
> 
> The Christian Right camp has one immutable property that is the cornerstone of all their major positions: Control.  Ubiquitous control without challenge.
Click to expand...


You should read the rest of the thread. But being the idiot you are, I doubt that it would clarify things. At what point did I say that a woman needed my permision to engage in sexual activity? And where exactly did I state that I wanted to punish a woman or that I wanted domain over her body?


----------



## jillian

i don't care if you made up a word for it...

no one is pro abortion. they are pro choice...

and pro your staying out of other people's moral decisions.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

jillian said:


> i don't care if you made up a word for it...
> 
> no one is pro abortion. they are pro choice...
> 
> and pro your staying out of other people's moral decisions.



"no one is pro abortion. they are pro choice..." Same thing.

And I didn't make the word up, it's in the dictionary.

Pro-abortionist | Definition of Pro-abortionist at Dictionary.com:

Translation pro-abortionist - English-Spanish Collins dictionary - Reverso

And when googled it gets over 90 thousand results.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-life but I believe abortions should be legal and available for extreme cases, i.e rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. But pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed any time for whatever reason. A woman's choice should have been made long before she got pregnant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That reveals your position is NOT anchored in the "sanctity of life."  If saving an innocent unborn was your core principle it wouldn't matter how the impregnation occurred.  Without realizing it what you are saying is if a woman fucks without your explicit permission she is not recognizing your attempted domain over her body.   If she gets pregnant she is punished by you trying to exert domain over her body by telling her what to do with it.
> 
> The Christian Right camp has one immutable property that is the cornerstone of all their major positions: Control.  Ubiquitous control without challenge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should read the rest of the thread. But being the idiot you are, I doubt that it would clarify things. At what point did I say that a woman needed my permision to engage in sexual activity? And where exactly did I state that I wanted to punish a woman or that I wanted domain over her body?
Click to expand...



I saw you trying to backpedal when someone else pointed out your position is based in control and not the sanctity of life.  I didn't say you explicitly stated you want domain over womens' bodies.  I clearly said:

"Without realizing it what you are saying is...."


I agree with you I am an idiot.  I actually waste time discussing an issue with someone incapable of sincerity and throws out false accusations without even trying to back them up.


----------



## manifold

CurveLight said:


> I agree with you I am an idiot.  I actually waste time discussing an issue with someone incapable of sincerity and throws out false accusations without even trying to back them up.



Don't beat yourself up too much, that describes most of us.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't care if you made up a word for it...
> 
> no one is pro abortion. they are pro choice...
> 
> and pro your staying out of other people's moral decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "no one is pro abortion. they are pro choice..." Same thing.
> 
> And I didn't make the word up, it's in the dictionary.
> 
> Pro-abortionist | Definition of Pro-abortionist at Dictionary.com:
> 
> Translation pro-abortionist - English-Spanish Collins dictionary - Reverso
> 
> And when googled it gets over 90 thousand results.
Click to expand...



Oh puulllleeeease!  We all know you guys use the term pro-abortionist in a pejorative manner to demonize dissent.  Shit, you people ever capable of being honest?


----------



## manifold

I'm going to try to explain my pro-choice, anti-abortion sentiment in the simplest terms possible in the hopes that even the reactionaries might finally get it.

I believe that abortion at any point in the pregnancy is a sin against God, yourself, nature, life, karma or whatever you believe in.

I do not believe that, up to a certain point in the preganacy, abortion should be a *crime*.

Not all sins should also be crimes.  And I especially cannot support making any sin a crime that will NEVER EVER EVER infringe upon me in ANY way.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reveals your position is NOT anchored in the "sanctity of life."  If saving an innocent unborn was your core principle it wouldn't matter how the impregnation occurred.  Without realizing it what you are saying is if a woman fucks without your explicit permission she is not recognizing your attempted domain over her body.   If she gets pregnant she is punished by you trying to exert domain over her body by telling her what to do with it.
> 
> The Christian Right camp has one immutable property that is the cornerstone of all their major positions: Control.  Ubiquitous control without challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should read the rest of the thread. But being the idiot you are, I doubt that it would clarify things. At what point did I say that a woman needed my permision to engage in sexual activity? And where exactly did I state that I wanted to punish a woman or that I wanted domain over her body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I saw you trying to backpedal when someone else pointed out your position is based in control and not the sanctity of life.  I didn't say you explicitly stated you want domain over womens' bodies.  I clearly said:
> 
> "Without realizing it what you are saying is...."
> 
> 
> I agree with you I am an idiot.  I actually waste time discussing an issue with someone incapable of sincerity and throws out false accusations without even trying to back them up.
Click to expand...


First of all I didn't backpedal, after reflecting on my original statement, I wasn't comfortable with the way I stated it and felt obligated to correct the record. Secondly I know what the fuck I'm saying so for you to suggest I didn't realize what I was saying is totally wrong.  But people of your ilk try to spin the words of others to fit your agenda.  The only one here hurling falsehoods is you. But at least you know your standing in life.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't care if you made up a word for it...
> 
> no one is pro abortion. they are pro choice...
> 
> and pro your staying out of other people's moral decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "no one is pro abortion. they are pro choice..." Same thing.
> 
> And I didn't make the word up, it's in the dictionary.
> 
> Pro-abortionist | Definition of Pro-abortionist at Dictionary.com:
> 
> Translation pro-abortionist - English-Spanish Collins dictionary - Reverso
> 
> And when googled it gets over 90 thousand results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh puulllleeeease!  We all know you guys use the term pro-abortionist in a pejorative manner to demonize dissent.  Shit, you people ever capable of being honest?
Click to expand...


Provide evidence that I have used "pro-abortionist" in a pejorative manner. And then you'll find that it is you that isn't being honest.


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no intolerant comment.  It was simply a prediction of irony and "gaydar" comes from many gays hiding their orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry, that was an intolerant slam on homosexuals.
> 
> A tolerant person would not even recognize or mention his gayness like it was some sort of disease.
> 
> I can understand the comment about "fundies" and in that she is correct, but to mention the "gaydar" was a poor way of putting it.  IMHO
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was pointing out hypocrisy from fundies.  That was the sole purpose of the post.  The term gaydar is not a pejorative.
> gaydar.co.uk/
Click to expand...


You may not think it is a pejorative, but in the context it was used, it clearly was.

So what if he is gay?  Why point it out at all?  As if you can tell someone is  gay simply by looking at him or her?  It was stereotypical to say the least.  She made it sound like there was something wrong with being gay.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

Ravi said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar Wrote:
> When I say that I am pro-choice but against abortion it means that I believe without a doubt that an abortion stops a human life in its earliest stages of development.  And, I believe without a doubt that there are times when an abortion can be the right course of action for a woman and her doctor to take, and I believe that that option should be legally available to them for those purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-life but I believe abortions should be legal and available for extreme cases, *i.e rape, incest* or when the mother's life is in danger. But pro-choice advocates believe abortions should be allowed any time for whatever reason. A woman's choice should have been made long before she got pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an attitude I will never understand. If you honestly think abortion is murder, then why would you murder someone that is the product of rape or incest? It's not like it is the potential child's fault.
Click to expand...


Maybe I missed something, but where did he say it was murder?

A person need not believe it to be murder to think it is wrong.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

jillian said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that pro-abortionist aren't upset about the Tebow ad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist".
Click to expand...


Yes, there is, but they are few and far between and most of them profit quite extensively from the procedure.

I do not know of anyone on this site that is pro-abortion.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that pro-abortionist aren't upset about the Tebow ad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is, but they are few and far between and most of them profit quite extensively from the procedure.
> 
> I do not know of anyone on this site that is pro-abortion.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Certainly those who criticized Sarah Palin for knowingly giving birth to a Downs Syndrome baby would be classified as pro abortion.


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is, but they are few and far between and most of them profit quite extensively from the procedure.
> 
> I do not know of anyone on this site that is pro-abortion.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly those who criticized Sarah Palin for knowingly giving birth to a Downs Syndrome baby would be classified as pro abortion.
Click to expand...


No they would not.  They would simply be known as Palin Haters.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw Tebrow speaking on TV yesterday. My gaydar went off big time. How happy are the fundies going to be about him after he and his mother come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty intolerant comment coming from a progressive. Your "gaydar"? You're making fun of a human being because you think he might be gay?
> 
> Why do so many libs slam homosexuals?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

   I'll be 100% behind Tebrow and his mummy when they come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples. 

Clearly you are the one who thinks being gay is something to be made fun of. 

Must suck to be so intollerant.


----------



## Anguille

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw Tebrow speaking on TV yesterday. My gaydar went off big time. How happy are the fundies going to be about him after he and his mother come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty intolerant comment coming from a progressive. Your "gaydar"? You're making fun of a human being because you think he might be gay?
> 
> Why do so many libs slam homosexuals?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was no intolerant comment. It was simply a prediction of irony and "gaydar" comes from many gays hiding their orientation.
Click to expand...

 
You are right about my comment.

I learned the term gaydar from a gay friend and the meaning I learned didn't have anything to do with hiding gayness, more like intentionally giving out the signal.


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is, but they are few and far between and most of them profit quite extensively from the procedure.
> 
> I do not know of anyone on this site that is pro-abortion.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly those who criticized Sarah Palin for knowingly giving birth to a Downs Syndrome baby would be classified as pro abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they would not.  They would simply be known as Palin Haters.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Well yeah, they're Palin haters.  But I think if they criticize her for having the baby instead of aborting it, which they have done, that fits my definition of pro abortion too.


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty intolerant comment coming from a progressive. Your "gaydar"? You're making fun of a human being because you think he might be gay?
> 
> Why do so many libs slam homosexuals?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no intolerant comment. It was simply a prediction of irony and "gaydar" comes from many gays hiding their orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sorry, that was an intolerant slam on homosexuals.
> 
> A tolerant person would not even recognize or mention his gayness like it was some sort of disease.
> 
> I can understand the comment about "fundies" and in that she is correct, but to mention the "gaydar" was a poor way of putting it. IMHO
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 You have issues. Control freaks are known for that.


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw Tebrow speaking on TV yesterday. My gaydar went off big time. How happy are the fundies going to be about him after he and his mother come out in favor of same sex marriage and adoption by gay couples?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly. He's a fundy. He'll just go for a cure.
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's no such thing as a "pro-abortionist".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is, but they are few and far between and most of them profit quite extensively from the procedure.
> 
> I do not know of anyone on this site that is pro-abortion.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly those who criticized Sarah Palin for knowingly giving birth to a Downs Syndrome baby would be classified as pro abortion.
Click to expand...


Who are those people and what did they say?


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an attitude I will never understand. If you honestly think abortion is murder, then why would you murder someone that is the product of rape or incest? It's not like it is the potential child's fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you should force anyone to have a child that was a produced through a criminal act. Although I'm really on the fence about whether or not these two exceptions should be considered and the reason is, I believe it may be abused. I suppose any woman could claim to have been raped and/or impregnated via incestous relations.
> 
> In a study conducted by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, entitled Why Women Have Abortions, women were asked to give specific reasons why they had an abortion. The top three answers were: 1. Unready for responsibility 2. Can't afford baby now 3. Concern about how having a baby would change her life.
> 
> The three reasons, which came in last place and were tied at 1 percent included: 1. Was a victim of rape or incest 2. Husband or partner wanted the abortion 3. Didn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for answering but it still makes no sense to me. In other words, you are willing to murder for the sins of the father. IMO, that is very hypocritical.
Click to expand...

 Other than Allie Baba, who thinks no fetus should be aborted, regardless of rape, I've yet to see any forced birther give a logical and honest explanation why they would condemn the result of a rape or incest to death while demanding the result of any other kind of sexual encounter be carried to term. 

I doubt I ever will.


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an attitude I will never understand. If you honestly think abortion is murder, then why would you murder someone that is the product of rape or incest? It's not like it is the potential child's fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you should force anyone to have a child that was a produced through a criminal act. Although I'm really on the fence about whether or not these two exceptions should be considered and the reason is, I believe it may be abused. I suppose any woman could claim to have been raped and/or impregnated via incestous relations.
> 
> In a study conducted by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, entitled Why Women Have Abortions, women were asked to give specific reasons why they had an abortion. The top three answers were: 1. Unready for responsibility 2. Can't afford baby now 3. Concern about how having a baby would change her life.
> 
> The three reasons, which came in last place and were tied at 1 percent included: 1. Was a victim of rape or incest 2. Husband or partner wanted the abortion 3. Didn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for answering but it still makes no sense to me. In other words, you are willing to murder for the sins of the father. IMO, that is very hypocritical.
Click to expand...

 
 Other than Allie Baba, who thinks no fetus should be aborted, regardless of rape, I've yet to see any forced birther give a logical and honest explanation why they would condemn the result of a rape or incest to death while demanding the result of any other kind of sexual encounter be carried to term. 

I doubt I ever will see them provide one.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no intolerant comment. It was simply a prediction of irony and "gaydar" comes from many gays hiding their orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry, that was an intolerant slam on homosexuals.
> 
> A tolerant person would not even recognize or mention his gayness like it was some sort of disease.
> 
> I can understand the comment about "fundies" and in that she is correct, but to mention the "gaydar" was a poor way of putting it. IMHO
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have issues. Control freaks are known for that.
Click to expand...



Clearly you are the control freak.

Remember you are the one who wants to control the lives of smokers.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an attitude I will never understand. If you honestly think abortion is murder, then why would you murder someone that is the product of rape or incest? It's not like it is the potential child's fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you should force anyone to have a child that was a produced through a criminal act. Although I'm really on the fence about whether or not these two exceptions should be considered and the reason is, I believe it may be abused. I suppose any woman could claim to have been raped and/or impregnated via incestous relations.
> 
> In a study conducted by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, entitled Why Women Have Abortions, women were asked to give specific reasons why they had an abortion. The top three answers were: 1. Unready for responsibility 2. Can't afford baby now 3. Concern about how having a baby would change her life.
> 
> The three reasons, which came in last place and were tied at 1 percent included: 1. Was a victim of rape or incest 2. Husband or partner wanted the abortion 3. Didn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for answering but it still makes no sense to me. In other words, you are willing to murder for the sins of the father. IMO, that is very hypocritical.
Click to expand...

 Other than Allie Baba, who thinks no fetus should be aborted, regardless of rape, I've yet to see any forced birther give a logical and honest explanation why they would condemn the result of a rape or incest to death while demanding the result of any other kind of sexual encounter be carried to term. 

I doubt I ever will see them provide one.


----------



## JimH52

First of all, no one is Pro-Abortion.  Not even those on the far left.  It is a horrific procedure.  The very title of this thread is very revealing.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should read the rest of the thread. But being the idiot you are, I doubt that it would clarify things. At what point did I say that a woman needed my permision to engage in sexual activity? And where exactly did I state that I wanted to punish a woman or that I wanted domain over her body?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw you trying to backpedal when someone else pointed out your position is based in control and not the sanctity of life.  I didn't say you explicitly stated you want domain over womens' bodies.  I clearly said:
> 
> "Without realizing it what you are saying is...."
> 
> 
> I agree with you I am an idiot.  I actually waste time discussing an issue with someone incapable of sincerity and throws out false accusations without even trying to back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I didn't backpedal, after reflecting on my original statement, I wasn't comfortable with the way I stated it and felt obligated to correct the record. Secondly I know what the fuck I'm saying so for you to suggest I didn't realize what I was saying is totally wrong.  But people of your ilk try to spin the words of others to fit your agenda.  The only one here hurling falsehoods is you. But at least you know your standing in life.
Click to expand...


So are you now against abortion in "extreme" cases?

You may know the words you are posting but you don't know the message sent from the description of your position.  Words can be used to send a message different from their normal application and I will give you an example.  If I said: "The logic of a lonestar falls somewhere between comatose and jello." what message would I be sending? Do you think it would be complimentary?  Or do you think it would be another way of describing dumb?


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry, that was an intolerant slam on homosexuals.
> 
> A tolerant person would not even recognize or mention his gayness like it was some sort of disease.
> 
> I can understand the comment about "fundies" and in that she is correct, but to mention the "gaydar" was a poor way of putting it. IMHO
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> You have issues. Control freaks are known for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are the control freak.
> 
> Remember you are the one who wants to control the lives of smokers.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 Remember, you are the one who claims he has a  right demand his neighbor mow his lawn because his not doing so might affect his property values.  That one killed me. 

You'd be the first to protest a smoking bar from operating in your community, particularly if it set up shop next door to you. You'd be claiming it had adversly affected your property values. 

Make that a _gay _smoking bar. 

I'd hate (love) to see the look on your face when an abortion provider opens up a practice next to you..


----------



## manifold

JimH52 said:


> First of all, no one is Pro-Abortion.  Not even those on the far left.



Clearly you've never met Anguille.


----------



## Anguille

manifold said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, no one is Pro-Abortion. Not even those on the far left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you've never met Anguille.
Click to expand...

 And you never will either, so just get over it, John Wayne Bobbit.


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have issues. Control freaks are known for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are the control freak.
> 
> Remember you are the one who wants to control the lives of smokers.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember, you are the one who claims he has a  right demand his neighbor mow his lawn because his not doing so might affect his property values.  That one killed me.
Click to expand...


Wrong!!!

You changed my words in that post.  

I said that my neighbor has the right to complain if I let my lawn go.  I never said that I would complain if he did.




Anguille said:


> You'd be the first to protest a smoking bar from operating in your community, particularly if it set up shop next door to you. You'd be claiming it had adversly affected your property values.
> 
> Make that a _gay _smoking bar.



Wrong again except that bars (smoking or not) do not belong in residential neighborhoods.



Anguille said:


> I'd hate (love) to see the look on your face when an abortion provider opens up a practice next to you..



That would be great!  A perfect opportunity to witness to and care for the young ladies in need and for an opportunity to get to know the providers and their assistants in a non-confrontational manner.

The only way we are ever going to solve our differences is if we are willing to sit down together and speak about the issues.  I could do that with abortion providers... bet you couldn't with smokers. 

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw you trying to backpedal when someone else pointed out your position is based in control and not the sanctity of life.  I didn't say you explicitly stated you want domain over womens' bodies.  I clearly said:
> 
> "Without realizing it what you are saying is...."
> 
> 
> I agree with you I am an idiot.  I actually waste time discussing an issue with someone incapable of sincerity and throws out false accusations without even trying to back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I didn't backpedal, after reflecting on my original statement, I wasn't comfortable with the way I stated it and felt obligated to correct the record. Secondly I know what the fuck I'm saying so for you to suggest I didn't realize what I was saying is totally wrong.  But people of your ilk try to spin the words of others to fit your agenda.  The only one here hurling falsehoods is you. But at least you know your standing in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you now against abortion in "extreme" cases?
> 
> You may know the words you are posting but you don't know the message sent from the description of your position.  Words can be used to send a message different from their normal application and I will give you an example.  If I said: "The logic of a lonestar falls somewhere between comatose and jello." what message would I be sending? Do you think it would be complimentary?  Or do you think it would be another way of describing dumb?
Click to expand...


I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.

But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.


----------



## sboyle24

You can think abortions are wrong and still believe in other peoples' right to think and do what they feel you know.


----------



## Anguille

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are the control freak.
> 
> Remember you are the one who wants to control the lives of smokers.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, you are the one who claims he has a right demand his neighbor mow his lawn because his not doing so might affect his property values. That one killed me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong!!!
> 
> You changed my words in that post. *1*
> I said that my neighbor has the right to complain if I let my lawn go. I never said that I would complain if he did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be the first to protest a smoking bar from operating in your community, particularly if it set up shop next door to you. You'd be claiming it had adversly affected your property values.
> 
> Make that a _gay _smoking bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again except that bars (smoking or not) do not belong in residential neighborhoods. *2*
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hate (love) to see the look on your face when an abortion provider opens up a practice next to you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be great! A perfect opportunity to witness to and care for the young ladies in need and for an opportunity to get to know the providers and their assistants in a non-confrontational manner.
> 
> The only way we are ever going to solve our differences is if we are willing to sit down together and speak about the issues. I could do that with abortion providers... bet you couldn't with smokers.  *3*
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

 
*1  How could I change your post? Only you have access to your account. You must have changed it.*

*2  Why not? Plenty of residential neighborhoods have bars. Are you now proposing we ban them?   I thought your angle was leaving decisions up to property owners?*

*3  I sincerely think that you'd better leave any young ladies entering abortion provider's offices alone. Trust me, if they want to meet with you, they'll come knocking at your door. *

*You say you could get to know providers and their assistants in a non confrontational way but apparently you have never tried to do so. *

*I have met with smokers in non confrontational meetings and issues were solved. The smoking ban was thereafter adhered to. *

*PS. I thought you claimed the smoking ban issue is about property owner's rights?  Now it's about smokers rights? Get your story straight, please.*


----------



## Immanuel

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, you are the one who claims he has a right demand his neighbor mow his lawn because his not doing so might affect his property values. That one killed me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!!!
> 
> You changed my words in that post. *1*
> I said that my neighbor has the right to complain if I let my lawn go. I never said that I would complain if he did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again except that bars (smoking or not) do not belong in residential neighborhoods. *2*
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd hate (love) to see the look on your face when an abortion provider opens up a practice next to you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be great! A perfect opportunity to witness to and care for the young ladies in need and for an opportunity to get to know the providers and their assistants in a non-confrontational manner.
> 
> The only way we are ever going to solve our differences is if we are willing to sit down together and speak about the issues. I could do that with abortion providers... bet you couldn't with smokers.  *3*
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1  How could I change your post? Only you have access to your account. You must have changed it.*
> 
> *2  Why not? Plenty of residential neighborhoods have bars. Are you now proposing we ban them?   I thought your angle was leaving decisions up to property owners?*
> 
> *3  I sincerely think that you'd better leave any young ladies entering abortion provider's offices alone. Trust me, if they want to meet with you, they'll come knocking at your door. *
> 
> *You say you could get to know providers and their assistants in a non confrontational way but apparently you have never tried to do so. *
> 
> *I have met with smokers in non confrontational meetings and issues were solved. The smoking ban was thereafter adhered to. *
> 
> *PS. I thought you claimed the smoking ban issue is about property owner's rights?  Now it's about smokers rights? Get your story straight, please.*
Click to expand...


1) You didn't change my post you changed my words... maybe you can't read?




> You changed *my words* in that post.



2) Ever hear of zoning laws?  

3) I'll speak with any young woman I come in contact with, in front of an abortion clinic or not... Now you want to inhibit my right to free speech?

4) You have met with non-smokers and solved your issues?  First, it doesn't appear that you have solved any issue.  Second, I am guessing that by your statement that the issue is solved, you mean you made them leave your glorious presence before they light up.

5) It is about the owners right and I have not changed that at all.   Are you going to put words in my mouth again?

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

Lonestar_logic said:


> I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.
> 
> But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.



No all abortion is not wrong.  There are circumstances in which difficult decisions must be made.  When a mother has other children to raise and a pregnancy puts her life or ability to function in jeopardy, I can't imagine a more heart wrenching decision, but I can't fault her for choosing the welfare of her living children over the yet unborn one if a choice must be made.  And while I can deeply admire women who value a life they carry for whatever reason, there is no way I can presume to judge a woman's choice who is faced with pregnancy resulting from brutal rape or incest.

Roe v Wade is exquisite in its language when considering such choices.  And that is why Roe chose to leave it to the woman and her doctor in the first trimester, and that is probably the best we can do.  In the second trimester Roe acknowledges that there is an increased interest by the state in that unborn life, and in the third trimester there is a good deal of imterest by the state in that unborn life.  It acknowledges that there can be a valid reason to end a pregnancy at any stage, but Roe did not go so far as to say that a viable unborn life is without value and can be taken with impunity for no better reason than the mother doesn't want to give it life.

That was a later invention by the pro-abortion crowd who refuses to acknowledge that the unborn baby is indeed a human life and the liberal courts who have aided and abetted that mentality.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.
> 
> But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.


 
It seems to me that you have the only honest opinion concerning abortion as something that the government should ban. If it's wrong to abort, it's always wrong. No exceptions because the father committed a crime. Once you make those sort of exceptions then you are saying some lives should be protected and others should be destroyed. Even if all those forms of life are identical and equally desereving of respect. Those who say they are not equal are being blatanly discriminatory against some because of the circumstances of their conception. 

I have heard of women who kept the children they had born of rape because they did not fault the children for what their fathers had done. A friend's daughter married a man whose mother had been raped by his father. I don't know if he ever has had contact with the rapist but he is not ashamed of the circumstances of his birth and by all accounts is a fine person.

In the 19th century in England it was customary in the case where a decision must be made to save the mother's life or save the infant to be born that the doctor asked the husband which he wanted. Some husbands were more interested in getting an heir so the wives where sacrificed. Like damaged cows.

Myself, if I believed  that a woman's life was equal to that of the fetus she was carrying, I would say give preferance to the child to be born as the woman would have already experienced life and the newborn had not yet.


----------



## dipshitliberal

If the babyhatin lefties really are "pro-choice but anti-abortion", why would they be so up in arms about a woman that made the choice not to use her womb as a tomb?  You would think that the "anti-abortion, pro-choice" crowd would be behind Mrs. Tebow.

Of course, that assumes that the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" crowd has an iota of courage and honesty


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HistoricalTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they are, but thats still rhetorical nonsense, about the same as calling someone to supports the death penalty Pro-Murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you can explain why "pro-choice" groups have such a big problem with  groups promoting the idea of choosing life over death for the child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn why the protest letter was sent.  It wasn't against the ad being anti-abortion:
> 
> "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's a stupid letter and it's dumb to feed into the persecution complex of the Christian Right.  I would protest the ad on the basis it's completely fucking dumb to spend $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS for a 30 second spot by a group that shits all over the name of Jesus to justify its hatred of others.  I'm guessing Jesus would rather see that money care for some kids.  How many kids could helped be fed, housed, and receive medicine for $2.5 million?  That is what I would bitch about.
Click to expand...


I am not familiar with this group's activities, can you list specifics that demonstrate "hatred"?


----------



## Immanuel

dipshitliberal said:


> If the babyhatin lefties really are "pro-choice but anti-abortion", why would they be so up in arms about a woman that made the choice not to use her womb as a tomb?  You would think that the "anti-abortion, pro-choice" crowd would be behind Mrs. Tebow.
> 
> Of course, that assumes that the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" crowd has an iota of courage and honesty



As stated earlier, choicers are more concerned with governmental interference than being "pro-abortion" and to be frank, I think it should be said that I haven't heard any choicers bad mouthing Mrs. Tebow.  

These "women's groups" are organizations that claim to speak for women, but don't necessarily speak for all women or even all women that belong to their organization just as The Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and other Christian organizations don't speak for all Christians.  Also, these "women's groups" get paid a hell of a lot of money for speaking out for abortion rights.

Immie


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn why the protest letter was sent.  It wasn't against the ad being anti-abortion:
> 
> "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an *anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization*, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's a stupid letter and it's dumb to feed into the persecution complex of the Christian Right.  I would protest the ad on the basis it's completely fucking dumb to spend $2.5 MILLION DOLLARS for a 30 second spot by a group that shits all over the name of Jesus to justify its hatred of others.  I'm guessing Jesus would rather see that money care for some kids.  How many kids could helped be fed, housed, and receive medicine for $2.5 million?  That is what I would bitch about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my mistake, there aren't upset at the ad being anti-abortion, they're upset because its "anti-equality, anti-choice" and of course a "homophobic organization".  Silly me
> 
> Yea, I am sure Jesus would be much more pleased if people kept silent about abortion, because you know, he would surely be for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.
Click to expand...


Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act".  Go read the gospels and get back to us.


----------



## dipshitliberal

Immanuel said:


> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the babyhatin lefties really are "pro-choice but anti-abortion", why would they be so up in arms about a woman that made the choice not to use her womb as a tomb?  You would think that the "anti-abortion, pro-choice" crowd would be behind Mrs. Tebow.
> 
> Of course, that assumes that the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" crowd has an iota of courage and honesty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As stated earlier, choicers are more concerned with governmental interference than being "pro-abortion" and to be frank, I think it should be said that I haven't heard any choicers bad mouthing Mrs. Tebow.
> 
> These "women's groups" are organizations that claim to speak for women, but don't necessarily speak for all women or even all women that belong to their organization just as The Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and other Christian organizations don't speak for all Christians.  Also, these "women's groups" get paid a hell of a lot of money for speaking out for abortion rights.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


So why the gripe about this woman's choice?


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true.   You can be against abortion but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others.   That is probably most pro-choice people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try that logic.
> 
> 
> "You can be against rape but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others".
> 
> There, hows that?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you believe in any laws?  If you do, then you already are "forcing your own beliefs onto others".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That's some scary logic.  The same principle behind being against rape is the same principle being behind pro-choice:  Honoring women the Right to do what they want with their own bodies.
Click to expand...


How does "tricking" a woman into killing her "child" (by telling her 'it' is not a child, like 'it' could be born a cat or a dog), "HONOR" her?
When she realizes what she did (usually years later), who can comfort her?  She has killed her child, voluntarily.  What a terrible burden to bear for the rest of a life.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I didn't backpedal, after reflecting on my original statement, I wasn't comfortable with the way I stated it and felt obligated to correct the record. Secondly I know what the fuck I'm saying so for you to suggest I didn't realize what I was saying is totally wrong.  But people of your ilk try to spin the words of others to fit your agenda.  The only one here hurling falsehoods is you. But at least you know your standing in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you now against abortion in "extreme" cases?
> 
> You may know the words you are posting but you don't know the message sent from the description of your position.  Words can be used to send a message different from their normal application and I will give you an example.  If I said: "The logic of a lonestar falls somewhere between comatose and jello." what message would I be sending? Do you think it would be complimentary?  Or do you think it would be another way of describing dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.
> 
> But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.
Click to expand...



Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?


----------



## dipshitliberal

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you now against abortion in "extreme" cases?
> 
> You may know the words you are posting but you don't know the message sent from the description of your position.  Words can be used to send a message different from their normal application and I will give you an example.  If I said: "The logic of a lonestar falls somewhere between comatose and jello." what message would I be sending? Do you think it would be complimentary?  Or do you think it would be another way of describing dumb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.
> 
> But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
Click to expand...


libs are idiots.


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pro-choice and I'm also against abortions.
> 
> But I won't be surprised if you can't wrap your head around the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea that makes alot of sense.
> 
> Its like saying "I'm against murder but I am against any laws that make it illegal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It's nothing like that but we knew you would not understand.  The problem is you refuse to admit you want to force yourself (your views) between women's legs.  You keep skipping over that part.  Let's try a rough analogy.  Let's say you don't like beets (or insert any food you don't like) and since you don't like them there should be a law that makes all beets illegal.  Would you support that law?
Click to expand...


How about if we made a law were children under two weren't considered to be human, and if you wanted, you (either parent) could take your child to "a center" and have them "eliminated"?  It would be the "parent's" right to choose?


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try that logic.
> 
> 
> "You can be against rape but also against forcing your own beliefs onto others".
> 
> There, hows that?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, do you believe in any laws?  If you do, then you already are "forcing your own beliefs onto others".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That's some scary logic.  The same principle behind being against rape is the same principle being behind pro-choice:  Honoring women the Right to do what they want with their own bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does "tricking" a woman into killing her "child" (by telling her 'it' is not a child, like 'it' could be born a cat or a dog), "HONOR" her?
> When she realizes what she did (usually years later), who can comfort her?  She has killed her child, voluntarily.  What a terrible burden to bear for the rest of a life.
Click to expand...


You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world.  Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?


----------



## Immanuel

dipshitliberal said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the babyhatin lefties really are "pro-choice but anti-abortion", why would they be so up in arms about a woman that made the choice not to use her womb as a tomb?  You would think that the "anti-abortion, pro-choice" crowd would be behind Mrs. Tebow.
> 
> Of course, that assumes that the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" crowd has an iota of courage and honesty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As stated earlier, choicers are more concerned with governmental interference than being "pro-abortion" and to be frank, I think it should be said that I haven't heard any choicers bad mouthing Mrs. Tebow.
> 
> These "women's groups" are organizations that claim to speak for women, but don't necessarily speak for all women or even all women that belong to their organization just as The Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and other Christian organizations don't speak for all Christians.  Also, these "women's groups" get paid a hell of a lot of money for speaking out for abortion rights.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why the gripe about this woman's choice?
Click to expand...


Like I said, I don't hear many women gripping about this woman's choice.  I hear abortion lobbyists gripping about this ad.  It is what these lobbyists are paid to do.

That is what these organizations get funded for.  These organizations don't speak for women but they get paid by pro-choice women mostly because those women see these groups as fighting against government intervention.  It is true that these groups are more vocal about abortion rights than most women, even most pro-choice women, but these groups are funded because they are effective.

The Christian Coalition doesn't speak for Christians and quite frankly, they don't speak for Christ either, but they get funded... by Christians.

Immie


----------



## logical4u

jillian said:


> Two cells are not a "child" any more than an egg is a chicken.
> 
> 
> 
> and there's no such thing as a pro-abortionist. keep your religious zealotry away from the bodies of people who aren't interested in it.



Most children that are aborted are already formed, you can see eyes, hands and arms, legs, feet and toes.  Most abortions are performed long after those cells have grown into a very 'young' person.


----------



## dipshitliberal

CurveLight said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That's some scary logic.  The same principle behind being against rape is the same principle being behind pro-choice:  Honoring women the Right to do what they want with their own bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does "tricking" a woman into killing her "child" (by telling her 'it' is not a child, like 'it' could be born a cat or a dog), "HONOR" her?
> When she realizes what she did (usually years later), who can comfort her?  She has killed her child, voluntarily.  What a terrible burden to bear for the rest of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world.  Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?
Click to expand...


the trickery lies in claiming you are anti-abortion yet pro-choice, and that a human fetus isn't human.


----------



## dipshitliberal

Immanuel said:


> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated earlier, choicers are more concerned with governmental interference than being "pro-abortion" and to be frank, I think it should be said that I haven't heard any choicers bad mouthing Mrs. Tebow.
> 
> These "women's groups" are organizations that claim to speak for women, but don't necessarily speak for all women or even all women that belong to their organization just as The Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and other Christian organizations don't speak for all Christians.  Also, these "women's groups" get paid a hell of a lot of money for speaking out for abortion rights.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the gripe about this woman's choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I don't hear many women gripping about this woman's choice.  I hear abortion lobbyists gripping about this ad.  It is what these lobbyists are paid to do.
> 
> That is what these organizations get funded for.  These organizations don't speak for women but they get paid by pro-choice women mostly because those women see these groups as fighting against government intervention.  It is true that these groups are more vocal about abortion rights than most women, even most pro-choice women, but these groups are funded because they are effective.
> 
> The Christian Coalition doesn't speak for Christians and quite frankly, they don't speak for Christ either, but they get funded... by Christians.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


so why make a stink over an ad that celebrates the "choice" made by this woman to use her womb for intended purpose?  Especially if the opponents of the ad truly are "pro-choice, yet anti-abortion"?


----------



## CurveLight

dipshitliberal said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.
> 
> But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> libs are idiots.
Click to expand...


Welcome to USMB!  Thank you so much for being upfront that your purpose here is anything but discussion.


----------



## dipshitliberal

CurveLight said:


> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> libs are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB!  Thank you so much for being upfront that your purpose here is anything but discussion.
Click to expand...


my response to your quote was perfectly appropriate.  And thanks for the welcome.


----------



## CurveLight

dipshitliberal said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why the gripe about this woman's choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I don't hear many women gripping about this woman's choice.  I hear abortion lobbyists gripping about this ad.  It is what these lobbyists are paid to do.
> 
> That is what these organizations get funded for.  These organizations don't speak for women but they get paid by pro-choice women mostly because those women see these groups as fighting against government intervention.  It is true that these groups are more vocal about abortion rights than most women, even most pro-choice women, but these groups are funded because they are effective.
> 
> The Christian Coalition doesn't speak for Christians and quite frankly, they don't speak for Christ either, but they get funded... by Christians.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so why make a stink over an ad that celebrates the "choice" made by this woman to use her womb for intended purpose?  Especially if the opponents of the ad truly are "pro-choice, yet anti-abortion"?
Click to expand...



You obviously fell for the dishonest OP.  If you had read the article you would see there was no protest endemic to this ad.  I would fill you in but don't want to deprive you of the joys of obtaining information on an issue before trying to discuss it.


----------



## mudwhistle

I used to hate Tim because he always beats my Vols.

Now I love him.


----------



## CurveLight

dipshitliberal said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does "tricking" a woman into killing her "child" (by telling her 'it' is not a child, like 'it' could be born a cat or a dog), "HONOR" her?
> When she realizes what she did (usually years later), who can comfort her?  She has killed her child, voluntarily.  What a terrible burden to bear for the rest of a life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world.  Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the trickery lies in claiming you are anti-abortion yet pro-choice, and that a human fetus isn't human.
Click to expand...



Well einstein, a fetus is not a human.  That.  Is.  Why.  It.  Is.  Called.  A.  Fetus.  If you knew my position you would know I have already said the label given is irrelevant.  There is also no trickery in being pro-Choice.  That is referencing the legal position.


----------



## dipshitliberal

CurveLight said:


> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I don't hear many women gripping about this woman's choice.  I hear abortion lobbyists gripping about this ad.  It is what these lobbyists are paid to do.
> 
> That is what these organizations get funded for.  These organizations don't speak for women but they get paid by pro-choice women mostly because those women see these groups as fighting against government intervention.  It is true that these groups are more vocal about abortion rights than most women, even most pro-choice women, but these groups are funded because they are effective.
> 
> The Christian Coalition doesn't speak for Christians and quite frankly, they don't speak for Christ either, but they get funded... by Christians.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so why make a stink over an ad that celebrates the "choice" made by this woman to use her womb for intended purpose?  Especially if the opponents of the ad truly are "pro-choice, yet anti-abortion"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously fell for the dishonest OP.  If you had read the article you would see there was no protest endemic to this ad.  I would fill you in but don't want to deprive you of the joys of obtaining information on an issue before trying to discuss it.
Click to expand...


bullshit.  a bunch of you baby-hatin lefties have issue with the ad.  Perhaps once you actually see the ad, you will have adequate information with which to base your protestations.


----------



## dipshitliberal

CurveLight said:


> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world.  Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the trickery lies in claiming you are anti-abortion yet pro-choice, and that a human fetus isn't human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well einstein, a fetus is not a human.  That.  Is.  Why.  It.  Is.  Called.  A.  Fetus.  If you knew my position you would know I have already said the label given is irrelevant.  There is also no trickery in being pro-Choice.  That is referencing the legal position.
Click to expand...


A human fetus is not a human?  what species is it?  Does not the human fetus share 100% of the genetic structure of....homo sapiens?

You are pro.......choose to kill human fetuses for any reason whatsoever.


----------



## manu1959

CurveLight said:


> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world.  Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the trickery lies in claiming you are anti-abortion yet pro-choice, and that a human fetus isn't human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well einstein, a fetus is not a human.  That.  Is.  Why.  It.  Is.  Called.  A.  Fetus.  If you knew my position you would know I have already said the label given is irrelevant.  There is also no trickery in being pro-Choice.  That is referencing the legal position.
Click to expand...


is. a. child. not. a. human. because. it. is. called. a. child.


----------



## dipshitliberal

At what stage of development does the human DNA enter the non-human fetus, CurveLight?


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea that makes alot of sense.
> 
> Its like saying "I'm against murder but I am against any laws that make it illegal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's nothing like that but we knew you would not understand.  The problem is you refuse to admit you want to force yourself (your views) between women's legs.  You keep skipping over that part.  Let's try a rough analogy.  Let's say you don't like beets (or insert any food you don't like) and since you don't like them there should be a law that makes all beets illegal.  Would you support that law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if we made a law were children under two weren't considered to be human, and if you wanted, you (either parent) could take your child to "a center" and have them "eliminated"?  It would be the "parent's" right to choose?
Click to expand...


Trying to equate the unborn with 2 year olds is a great example of intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## CurveLight

dipshitliberal said:


> At what stage of development does the human DNA enter the non-human fetus, CurveLight?



That is wholly irrelevant.  Anti-Choicers seem incapable of grasping the very simple concept of privacy.  I don't care what label you give.  In fact, I will help you out and make this proposal:  At the very moment of conception it is a human being.  Can we agree on that premise?


----------



## Immanuel

dipshitliberal said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why the gripe about this woman's choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I don't hear many women gripping about this woman's choice.  I hear abortion lobbyists gripping about this ad.  It is what these lobbyists are paid to do.
> 
> That is what these organizations get funded for.  These organizations don't speak for women but they get paid by pro-choice women mostly because those women see these groups as fighting against government intervention.  It is true that these groups are more vocal about abortion rights than most women, even most pro-choice women, but these groups are funded because they are effective.
> 
> The Christian Coalition doesn't speak for Christians and quite frankly, they don't speak for Christ either, but they get funded... by Christians.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so why make a stink over an ad that celebrates the "choice" made by this woman to use her womb for intended purpose?  Especially if the opponents of the ad truly are "pro-choice, yet anti-abortion"?
Click to expand...


$$$$$$$$$$$  and lot's of it.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight

dipshitliberal said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> so why make a stink over an ad that celebrates the "choice" made by this woman to use her womb for intended purpose?  Especially if the opponents of the ad truly are "pro-choice, yet anti-abortion"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously fell for the dishonest OP.  If you had read the article you would see there was no protest endemic to this ad.  I would fill you in but don't want to deprive you of the joys of obtaining information on an issue before trying to discuss it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit.  a bunch of you baby-hatin lefties have issue with the ad.  Perhaps once you actually see the ad, you will have adequate information with which to base your protestations.
Click to expand...



You sure you want to embarrass yourself so soon?  I've already stated I disagree with the protest and think it's stupid.  If you read the article you would see the protest is not about the ad itself.  Bah!  You've just proven to be someone to make conclusions based on your ignorance and assumptions.


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That's some scary logic.  The same principle behind being against rape is the same principle being behind pro-choice:  Honoring women the Right to do what they want with their own bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does "tricking" a woman into killing her "child" (by telling her 'it' is not a child, like 'it' could be born a cat or a dog), "HONOR" her?
> When she realizes what she did (usually years later), who can comfort her?  She has killed her child, voluntarily.  What a terrible burden to bear for the rest of a life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world.  Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?
Click to expand...


Answer my question first.


----------



## Anguille

dipshitliberal said:


> bullshit. a bunch of you baby-hatin lefties have issue with the ad. Perhaps once you actually see the ad, you will have adequate information with which to base your protestations.


" Baby-hating, baby killers ...."

All inventions of the doctor killing cult.


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I don't hear many women gripping about this woman's choice.  I hear abortion lobbyists gripping about this ad.  It is what these lobbyists are paid to do.
> 
> That is what these organizations get funded for.  These organizations don't speak for women but they get paid by pro-choice women mostly because those women see these groups as fighting against government intervention.  It is true that these groups are more vocal about abortion rights than most women, even most pro-choice women, but these groups are funded because they are effective.
> 
> The Christian Coalition doesn't speak for Christians and quite frankly, they don't speak for Christ either, but they get funded... by Christians.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so why make a stink over an ad that celebrates the "choice" made by this woman to use her womb for intended purpose?  Especially if the opponents of the ad truly are "pro-choice, yet anti-abortion"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $$$$$$$$$$$  and lot's of it.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I agree with you on that.  If there was no whining then chances are none of us would have known about it nor been affected after the ad aired.  Both lobbyist groups raise a stink over dumb shit to help generate income.  The complaint the station is "aligning" itself with FOF over this is pure bullshit.  It's nothing but a cheap scare tactic to try and make people feel like the Half-Time Show would be SCOTUS overturning R v W.


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does "tricking" a woman into killing her "child" (by telling her 'it' is not a child, like 'it' could be born a cat or a dog), "HONOR" her?
> When she realizes what she did (usually years later), who can comfort her?  She has killed her child, voluntarily.  What a terrible burden to bear for the rest of a life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world.  Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer my question first.
Click to expand...


You claimed there is trickery with absolutely nothing to support that accusation.  How do you expect someone to answer a question of a claim you invented?


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's nothing like that but we knew you would not understand.  The problem is you refuse to admit you want to force yourself (your views) between women's legs.  You keep skipping over that part.  Let's try a rough analogy.  Let's say you don't like beets (or insert any food you don't like) and since you don't like them there should be a law that makes all beets illegal.  Would you support that law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if we made a law were children under two weren't considered to be human, and if you wanted, you (either parent) could take your child to "a center" and have them "eliminated"?  It would be the "parent's" right to choose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to equate the unborn with 2 year olds is a great example of intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...


How?  the main difference is: age.


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world.  Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the trickery lies in claiming you are anti-abortion yet pro-choice, and that a human fetus isn't human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well einstein, a fetus is not a human.  That.  Is.  Why.  It.  Is.  Called.  A.  Fetus.
Click to expand...


You are wrong in this.  A fetus is a stage of life.  In this case a stage of human life. 

A toddler is a human at a certain stage in life as is a fetus and a teenager and a human embryo.  Even that despised "clump of cells" four hours after conception is human and on its way to becoming a fully developed, middle aged human being with a life of its own, if it is allowed to develop.

But that matters not.  The fact is that it is a life and a human life.  It will never be a cat or a dog or a mouse or an elephant.  It will always be a human.

The issue is not and should not be couched in terms of whether or not the fetus is human.  Trying to make it out that it is not human is attempting to use deception to win your case.  

I've read some of your writing before.  I don't think that is your intention, but it is what your argument amounts to.

edit:



CurveLight said:


> In fact, I will help you out and make this proposal:  At the very moment of conception it is a human being.  Can we agree on that premise?



Read this after I made this post.  Yes, we can agree on this premise and we can build on that.  If we are not willing to begin agreeing somewhere, then we will never agree on anything.  

Immie


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world.  Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed there is trickery with absolutely nothing to support that accusation.  How do you expect someone to answer a question of a claim you invented?
Click to expand...


Let me re-phrase it for you: How does encouraging a woman to KILL her unborn "child" (because it can not possibly develope into anyhing other than a "child"), HONOR her?


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> so why make a stink over an ad that celebrates the "choice" made by this woman to use her womb for intended purpose?  Especially if the opponents of the ad truly are "pro-choice, yet anti-abortion"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $$$$$$$$$$$  and lot's of it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you on that.  If there was no whining then chances are none of us would have known about it nor been affected after the ad aired.  Both lobbyist groups raise a stink over dumb shit to help generate income.  The complaint the station is "aligning" itself with FOF over this is pure bullshit.  It's nothing but a cheap scare tactic to try and make people feel like the Half-Time Show would be SCOTUS overturning R v W.
Click to expand...


No kidding and here is an example from my own life.

I probably never would have read _The DaVinci Code_ if the Catholic Church hadn't made such a stink about it.  Thanks to the church, I read the book and I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed it.  Then I saw the movie and enjoyed it as well.

My personal opinion is that Dan Brown should have written a very large check to the Catholic Church.

I highly doubt that anyone would have noticed this ad come Super Bowl Sunday if it had not been for the controversy that has arisen.  I'm watching the Super Bowl (can't decide who I want to win) but I can say that I WILL be watching for this ad.  

edit:

You know now that I think about it, maybe FoF (it was them that produced the ad right? Can't remember for sure) should have thought about planting the controversy out there just to get people watching ahead of time... or maybe they did think about it?

Immie


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if we made a law were children under two weren't considered to be human, and if you wanted, you (either parent) could take your child to "a center" and have them "eliminated"?  It would be the "parent's" right to choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to equate the unborn with 2 year olds is a great example of intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How?  the main difference is: age.
Click to expand...


That's the least important difference.


----------



## Anguille

CurveLight said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to equate the unborn with 2 year olds is a great example of intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How? the main difference is: age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the least important difference.
Click to expand...

 If you see the woman who bears the child as less than human, as so many anti-choice activists do, then age is all they see. The mother is invisible. An egg shell to be cracked and discarded.


----------



## Ravi

Anguille said:


> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit. a bunch of you baby-hatin lefties have issue with the ad. Perhaps once you actually see the ad, you will have adequate information with which to base your protestations.
> 
> 
> 
> " Baby-hating, baby killers ...."
> 
> All inventions of the doctor killing cult.
Click to expand...

I wonder whose sock puppet that was?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.
> 
> But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you have the only honest opinion concerning abortion as something that the government should ban. If it's wrong to abort, it's always wrong. No exceptions because the father committed a crime. Once you make those sort of exceptions then you are saying some lives should be protected and others should be destroyed. Even if all those forms of life are identical and equally desereving of respect. Those who say they are not equal are being blatanly discriminatory against some because of the circumstances of their conception.
> 
> I have heard of women who kept the children they had born of rape because they did not fault the children for what their fathers had done. A friend's daughter married a man whose mother had been raped by his father. I don't know if he ever has had contact with the rapist but he is not ashamed of the circumstances of his birth and by all accounts is a fine person.
> 
> In the 19th century in England it was customary in the case where a decision must be made to save the mother's life or save the infant to be born that the doctor asked the husband which he wanted. Some husbands were more interested in getting an heir so the wives where sacrificed. Like damaged cows.
> 
> Myself, if I believed  that a woman's life was equal to that of the fetus she was carrying, I would say give preferance to the child to be born as the woman would have already experienced life and the newborn had not yet.
Click to expand...


Are you saying in cases where the woman's life is in danger, she should risk losing her life in order for the child to live? That's sounds admirable, I just don't think too many women would come to that decision.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my mistake, there aren't upset at the ad being anti-abortion, they're upset because its "anti-equality, anti-choice" and of course a "homophobic organization".  Silly me
> 
> Yea, I am sure Jesus would be much more pleased if people kept silent about abortion, because you know, he would surely be for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act".  Go read the gospels and get back to us.
Click to expand...


Excellent point Logical4u, "render unto Caesar...."


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you now against abortion in "extreme" cases?
> 
> You may know the words you are posting but you don't know the message sent from the description of your position.  Words can be used to send a message different from their normal application and I will give you an example.  If I said: "The logic of a lonestar falls somewhere between comatose and jello." what message would I be sending? Do you think it would be complimentary?  Or do you think it would be another way of describing dumb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.
> 
> But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
Click to expand...


Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.


----------



## CurveLight

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> How? the main difference is: age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the least important difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you see the woman who bears the child as less than human, as so many anti-choice activists do, then age is all they see. The mother is invisible. An egg shell to be cracked and discarded.
Click to expand...


They clearly don't honor their autonomy as humans but only treat them like performance products or breeding horses. All the comments that justify the anti-choice position based on "She should have thought of that before getting pregnant" shows indignation at the contempt of women for fucking without their permission.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act".  Go read the gospels and get back to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent point Logical4u, "render unto Caesar...."
Click to expand...


Speaking of rewriting the Bible, why did you ignore what Jesus said by truncating the answer?


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.
> 
> But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.
Click to expand...



Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act".  Go read the gospels and get back to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point Logical4u, "render unto Caesar...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of rewriting the Bible, why did you ignore what Jesus said by truncating the answer?
Click to expand...


Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
Click to expand...


You think by asking the same asinine question you will get an answer? You fail!


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my mistake, there aren't upset at the ad being anti-abortion, they're upset because its "anti-equality, anti-choice" and of course a "homophobic organization".  Silly me
> 
> Yea, I am sure Jesus would be much more pleased if people kept silent about abortion, because you know, he would surely be for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act".  Go read the gospels and get back to us.
Click to expand...



What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis?  Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so,  do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement?  Where do you stand on Q?  Does it have credibility?  What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple?  Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans?  Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants?  Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly?  Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?

I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself.  All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts.  Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think by asking the same asinine question you will get an answer? You fail!
Click to expand...



Asking and answering questions will sometimes happen in a discussion.  I hear it is not unusual.  Your clear avoidance of answering indicates fear on some level.  Maybe it's because you don't know how to debate or maybe you see the implications therefore avoiding a very simple question.  In either case, dodging the question and calling me stupid screams insecurity.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point Logical4u, "render unto Caesar...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of rewriting the Bible, why did you ignore what Jesus said by truncating the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.
Click to expand...



Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question.  Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible.  I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means.  You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of rewriting the Bible, why did you ignore what Jesus said by truncating the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question.  Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible.  I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means.  You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.
Click to expand...


Your last couple of posts were quite interesting.

I'd like to know what you think that narrative means, too.  I'd be quite interested in knowing if in coincides with my understanding of the passage.

As to your earlier questions, they too are interesting.  I can't say I can answer all of them, but these all would be an interesting discussion in the religion forum.

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think by asking the same asinine question you will get an answer? You fail!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Asking and answering questions will sometimes happen in a discussion.  I hear it is not unusual.  Your clear avoidance of answering indicates fear on some level.  Maybe it's because you don't know how to debate or maybe you see the implications therefore avoiding a very simple question.  In either case, dodging the question and calling me stupid screams insecurity.
Click to expand...


The question has no bearing on the issue at hand. The debate is about abortion and I'm certain males do not undergo such precedures. You're stupidity has no bearing on my security. I'll remain secure in my convictions no matter how stupid you are.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of rewriting the Bible, why did you ignore what Jesus said by truncating the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question.  Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible.  I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means.  You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.
Click to expand...


This isn't Bible class, I made a point in the way I saw fit. If you wish to provide the quote in its entirety, then be my guest. I never once complained about anyone editing the Bible, perhaps you should seek lessons on reading comprehension.  

As for as knowing scripture, I had plenty of time in a TDCJ unit to read so I do know what that narrative means.


----------



## Foxfyre

Lonestar_logic said:


> The question has no bearing on the issue at hand. The debate is about abortion and I'm certain males do not undergo such precedures. You're stupidity has no bearing on my security. I'll remain secure in my convictions no matter how stupid you are.



Actually the debate re the Tebow ad isn't even about abortion.  All this stuff about abortion and even poor Jesus who got dragged into it is just typical leftwing deflection.

The real issue is simply whether CBS is taking a political position on abortion by running an ad that presumably is one family's story of courage in the face of adversity that had a happy ending.

One would have to be naive to believe that FonF isn't advocating life in the ad. I'm not so naive to believe there is no intended message there.  But, as it has been described, it doesn't take a side in the abortion debate but rather simply tells a story with a great outcome.  I don't see that as a violation of CBS's policy against political ads.

What is threatening to the pro-abortion crowd is that they think celebrating life is somehow opposing a woman's right to choose.   Which suggests that a 'right to choose' to them means choosing abortion and there should be no other emphasis than that.

It's nuts.


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question has no bearing on the issue at hand. The debate is about abortion and I'm certain males do not undergo such precedures. You're stupidity has no bearing on my security. I'll remain secure in my convictions no matter how stupid you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is simply whether CBS is taking a political position on abortion by running an ad that presumably is one family's story of courage in the face of adversity that had a happy ending.
Click to expand...


Advertiser: Planned Parenthood - Election Guide 2008 - The New York Times

Good point... I wonder if they felt the same about TV stations taking sides when they ran these ads.



> Planned Parenthood spent a total of $348,746 to broadcast four television ads, according to statistics compiled by Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising expenditures.



Immie


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question.  Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible.  I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means.  You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't Bible class, I made a point in the way I saw fit. If you wish to provide the quote in its entirety, then be my guest. I never once complained about anyone editing the Bible, perhaps you should seek lessons on reading comprehension.
> 
> As for as knowing scripture, I had plenty of time in a TDCJ unit to read so I do know what that narrative means.
Click to expand...


Logical4u complained about people re-writing the bible and you responded by saying "Excellent point" then proceeded to rewrite the bible by quoting only half of Jesus' answer.  I'm guessing you think Jesus was telling people to pay taxes to Caesar but you come to that conclusion by respecting only half of Jesus' reply.  Try learning the narrative then draw a conclusion instead of trying to make your conclusion fit the narrative.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question.  Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible.  I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means.  You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Bible class, I made a point in the way I saw fit. If you wish to provide the quote in its entirety, then be my guest. I never once complained about anyone editing the Bible, perhaps you should seek lessons on reading comprehension.
> 
> As for as knowing scripture, I had plenty of time in a TDCJ unit to read so I do know what that narrative means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logical4u complained about people re-writing the bible and you responded by saying "Excellent point" then proceeded to rewrite the bible by quoting only half of Jesus' answer.  I'm guessing you think Jesus was telling people to pay taxes to Caesar but you come to that conclusion by respecting only half of Jesus' reply.  Try learning the narrative then draw a conclusion instead of trying to make your conclusion fit the narrative.
Click to expand...


You are truly stupid if you think using a partial quote is "re-writing". If you read the full quote you would find that the words I used are identical to those written in scripture, I re-wrote nothing. And Logical4u did make an excellent point, too bad your not intelligent enough to appreciate it. And now you're going to guess at what conclusion I came to. Then criticize it. Utter stupidity!


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think by asking the same asinine question you will get an answer? You fail!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking and answering questions will sometimes happen in a discussion.  I hear it is not unusual.  Your clear avoidance of answering indicates fear on some level.  Maybe it's because you don't know how to debate or maybe you see the implications therefore avoiding a very simple question.  In either case, dodging the question and calling me stupid screams insecurity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question has no bearing on the issue at hand. The debate is about abortion and I'm certain males do not undergo such precedures. You're stupidity has no bearing on my security. I'll remain secure in my convictions no matter how stupid you are.
Click to expand...



My question is precisely centered on the subject but you obviously keep dodging.  It's not a secret why either so you are only embarrassing yourself.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Bible class, I made a point in the way I saw fit. If you wish to provide the quote in its entirety, then be my guest. I never once complained about anyone editing the Bible, perhaps you should seek lessons on reading comprehension.
> 
> As for as knowing scripture, I had plenty of time in a TDCJ unit to read so I do know what that narrative means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logical4u complained about people re-writing the bible and you responded by saying "Excellent point" then proceeded to rewrite the bible by quoting only half of Jesus' answer.  I'm guessing you think Jesus was telling people to pay taxes to Caesar but you come to that conclusion by respecting only half of Jesus' reply.  Try learning the narrative then draw a conclusion instead of trying to make your conclusion fit the narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are truly stupid if you think using a partial quote is "re-writing". If you read the full quote you would find that the words I used are identical to those written in scripture, I re-wrote nothing. And Logical4u did make an excellent point, too bad your not intelligent enough to appreciate it. And now you're going to guess at what conclusion I came to. Then criticize it. Utter stupidity!
Click to expand...



Some sentences can be edited without changing context or content but this case it changes both and presents a false conclusion by not respecting Jesus' full answer.  By you cherry picking "render unto Caesar" you're trying to make it look like Jesus was saying yes, tribute should be paid to Caesar.  The full answer he gave shows he said to not pay tribute to Caesar and the genius of his response is he said what the Pharisees were hoping he would, but he worded it in a way they could not bring charges of insurrection against him, and that is why they walked away frustrated.  Your rewriting of his answer is a common abuse so you are just repeating what you have seen others do.  The common misconception is claiming Jesus described separation of church and state.  That concept did not exist in 1st century Judea nor the previous three thousand years of Jewish history.  People assume Caesar represented the secular but that is no where close to historical accuracy.  He was worshiped by the Roman Imperial Cult as a deity.  Thus, the contesting question the Pharisees asked of Jesus was not in the frame of Religious versus Secular.  It was between the true Lord and the false god known as Caesar.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking and answering questions will sometimes happen in a discussion.  I hear it is not unusual.  Your clear avoidance of answering indicates fear on some level.  Maybe it's because you don't know how to debate or maybe you see the implications therefore avoiding a very simple question.  In either case, dodging the question and calling me stupid screams insecurity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question has no bearing on the issue at hand. The debate is about abortion and I'm certain males do not undergo such precedures. You're stupidity has no bearing on my security. I'll remain secure in my convictions no matter how stupid you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My question is precisely centered on the subject but you obviously keep dodging.  It's not a secret why either so you are only embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...



What does the emission of semen have to do with a woman killing her unborn child? It appears you're attempting to redirect the discussion, because I see no correlation between the two.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical4u complained about people re-writing the bible and you responded by saying "Excellent point" then proceeded to rewrite the bible by quoting only half of Jesus' answer.  I'm guessing you think Jesus was telling people to pay taxes to Caesar but you come to that conclusion by respecting only half of Jesus' reply.  Try learning the narrative then draw a conclusion instead of trying to make your conclusion fit the narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are truly stupid if you think using a partial quote is "re-writing". If you read the full quote you would find that the words I used are identical to those written in scripture, I re-wrote nothing. And Logical4u did make an excellent point, too bad your not intelligent enough to appreciate it. And now you're going to guess at what conclusion I came to. Then criticize it. Utter stupidity!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Some sentences can be edited without changing context or content but this case it changes both and presents a false conclusion by not respecting Jesus' full answer.  By you cherry picking "render unto Caesar" you're trying to make it look like Jesus was saying yes, tribute should be paid to Caesar.  The full answer he gave shows he said to not pay tribute to Caesar and the genius of his response is he said what the Pharisees were hoping he would, but he worded it in a way they could not bring charges of insurrection against him, and that is why they walked away frustrated.  Your rewriting of his answer is a common abuse so you are just repeating what you have seen others do.  The common misconception is claiming Jesus described separation of church and state.  That concept did not exist in 1st century Judea nor the previous three thousand years of Jewish history.  People assume Caesar represented the secular but that is no where close to historical accuracy.  He was worshiped by the Roman Imperial Cult as a deity.  Thus, the contesting question the Pharisees asked of Jesus was not in the frame of Religious versus Secular.  It was between the true Lord and the false god known as Caesar.
Click to expand...


You are an idiot and you have no idea what your talking about. Please don't attempt to think you know what I meant or what Biblical knowledge I possess. And if you want to preach or give us your intepretations, I suggest you take it to the religious section or go to church!


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question has no bearing on the issue at hand. The debate is about abortion and I'm certain males do not undergo such precedures. You're stupidity has no bearing on my security. I'll remain secure in my convictions no matter how stupid you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is precisely centered on the subject but you obviously keep dodging.  It's not a secret why either so you are only embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does the emission of semen have to do with a woman killing her unborn child? It appears you're attempting to redirect the discussion, because I see no correlation between the two.
Click to expand...



I never tried to equate the two.  That is an assumption you made when you dodged the first time.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are truly stupid if you think using a partial quote is "re-writing". If you read the full quote you would find that the words I used are identical to those written in scripture, I re-wrote nothing. And Logical4u did make an excellent point, too bad your not intelligent enough to appreciate it. And now you're going to guess at what conclusion I came to. Then criticize it. Utter stupidity!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some sentences can be edited without changing context or content but this case it changes both and presents a false conclusion by not respecting Jesus' full answer.  By you cherry picking "render unto Caesar" you're trying to make it look like Jesus was saying yes, tribute should be paid to Caesar.  The full answer he gave shows he said to not pay tribute to Caesar and the genius of his response is he said what the Pharisees were hoping he would, but he worded it in a way they could not bring charges of insurrection against him, and that is why they walked away frustrated.  Your rewriting of his answer is a common abuse so you are just repeating what you have seen others do.  The common misconception is claiming Jesus described separation of church and state.  That concept did not exist in 1st century Judea nor the previous three thousand years of Jewish history.  People assume Caesar represented the secular but that is no where close to historical accuracy.  He was worshiped by the Roman Imperial Cult as a deity.  Thus, the contesting question the Pharisees asked of Jesus was not in the frame of Religious versus Secular.  It was between the true Lord and the false god known as Caesar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot and you have no idea what your talking about. Please don't attempt to think you know what I meant or what Biblical knowledge I possess. And if you want to preach or give us your intepretations, I suggest you take it to the religious section or go to church!
Click to expand...


Then by all means, what did you mean when you misquoted Jesus?  You do realize you're bitching about something you brought into the discussion, don't you?  I have a feeling you will completely dodge the question because when frail people like you get pwned all you do is dodge and call names.  I suspect you'll even try to say you aren't going to state what you meant because it is off topic.....thereby ignoring responsibility for your own actions.


----------



## CurveLight

Foxfyre said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question has no bearing on the issue at hand. The debate is about abortion and I'm certain males do not undergo such precedures. You're stupidity has no bearing on my security. I'll remain secure in my convictions no matter how stupid you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the debate re the Tebow ad isn't even about abortion.  All this stuff about abortion and even poor Jesus who got dragged into it is just typical leftwing deflection.
> 
> The real issue is simply whether CBS is taking a political position on abortion by running an ad that presumably is one family's story of courage in the face of adversity that had a happy ending.
> 
> One would have to be naive to believe that FonF isn't advocating life in the ad. I'm not so naive to believe there is no intended message there.  But, as it has been described, it doesn't take a side in the abortion debate but rather simply tells a story with a great outcome.  I don't see that as a violation of CBS's policy against political ads.
> 
> What is threatening to the pro-abortion crowd is that they think celebrating life is somehow opposing a woman's right to choose.   Which suggests that a 'right to choose' to them means choosing abortion and there should be no other emphasis than that.
> 
> It's nuts.
Click to expand...


Do you people ever read anything before commenting?


----------



## Paulie

What's the worst thing that would happen if the ad was aired?

Some people decided not to have an abortion afterall?

What's there to be angry about with that?


----------



## theHawk

Paulie said:


> What's the worst thing that would happen if the ad was aired?
> 
> Some people decided not to have an abortion afterall?
> 
> What's there to be angry about with that?



You'd be amzaed how afraid the pro-abortionists are.

They are deathly afraid of the public becoming aware of whats going on in abortion clinics around the country.

They are afraid it will cause outrage, and will lead to action and new legislation to protect unborn babies and possibly outlaw abortion.

The American people have not had any voice, we've been told all our lives that it is a "right" for women yet it is no where to be found in the Constitution.  We've never voted on it.  We just need to accept what one Supreme Court decided decades ago.  That's not how our government is supposed to work.  We all have the right to change laws as we see fit.  Isn't it funny how this is such a hot issue with voters, but they won't let the country vote on it nationally?


----------



## Foxfyre

CurveLight said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question has no bearing on the issue at hand. The debate is about abortion and I'm certain males do not undergo such precedures. You're stupidity has no bearing on my security. I'll remain secure in my convictions no matter how stupid you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the debate re the Tebow ad isn't even about abortion.  All this stuff about abortion and even poor Jesus who got dragged into it is just typical leftwing deflection.
> 
> The real issue is simply whether CBS is taking a political position on abortion by running an ad that presumably is one family's story of courage in the face of adversity that had a happy ending.
> 
> One would have to be naive to believe that FonF isn't advocating life in the ad. I'm not so naive to believe there is no intended message there.  But, as it has been described, it doesn't take a side in the abortion debate but rather simply tells a story with a great outcome.  I don't see that as a violation of CBS's policy against political ads.
> 
> What is threatening to the pro-abortion crowd is that they think celebrating life is somehow opposing a woman's right to choose.   Which suggests that a 'right to choose' to them means choosing abortion and there should be no other emphasis than that.
> 
> It's nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you people ever read anything before commenting?
Click to expand...


Yeah a lot of us do.   That really bothers you doesn't it?  Maybe it wouldn't so much if more on your side tried it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question has no bearing on the issue at hand. The debate is about abortion and I'm certain males do not undergo such precedures. You're stupidity has no bearing on my security. I'll remain secure in my convictions no matter how stupid you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is simply whether CBS is taking a political position on abortion by running an ad that presumably is one family's story of courage in the face of adversity that had a happy ending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advertiser: Planned Parenthood - Election Guide 2008 - The New York Times
> 
> Good point... I wonder if they felt the same about TV stations taking sides when they ran these ads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood spent a total of $348,746 to broadcast four television ads, according to statistics compiled by Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising expenditures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Well in Planned Parenthood's defense--and it GALLS me to defend them--they have a right to advertise their perspective and agenda just as FonF does.  But for the ads to be non-political, they would have to tell a story about somebody choosing to abort a baby without any comment on anybody's 'right to choose' just as the Tebow ad simply tells a story without specifically commenting on 'right to life'.

In this particular case, the argument is based on a CBS policy to allow no political ads as Super Bowl advertising.  So the debate is on whether the Tebow ad is political or just a feel good ad.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the worst thing that would happen if the ad was aired?
> 
> Some people decided not to have an abortion afterall?
> 
> What's there to be angry about with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be amzaed how afraid the pro-abortionists are.
> 
> They are deathly afraid of the public becoming aware of whats going on in abortion clinics around the country.
> 
> They are afraid it will cause outrage, and will lead to action and new legislation to protect unborn babies and possibly outlaw abortion.
> 
> The American people have not had any voice, we've been told all our lives that it is a "right" for women yet it is no where to be found in the Constitution.  We've never voted on it.  We just need to accept what one Supreme Court decided decades ago.  That's not how our government is supposed to work.  We all have the right to change laws as we see fit.  Isn't it funny how this is such a hot issue with voters, but they won't let the country vote on it nationally?
Click to expand...


You need to pass out free beer and chronic with this shit.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the worst thing that would happen if the ad was aired?
> 
> Some people decided not to have an abortion afterall?
> 
> What's there to be angry about with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be amzaed how afraid the pro-abortionists are.
> 
> They are deathly afraid of the public becoming aware of whats going on in abortion clinics around the country.
> 
> They are afraid it will cause outrage, and will lead to action and new legislation to protect unborn babies and possibly outlaw abortion.
> 
> The American people have not had any voice, we've been told all our lives that it is a "right" for women yet it is no where to be found in the Constitution.  We've never voted on it.  We just need to accept what one Supreme Court decided decades ago.  That's not how our government is supposed to work.  We all have the right to change laws as we see fit.  Isn't it funny how this is such a hot issue with voters, but they won't let the country vote on it nationally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to pass out free beer and chronic with this shit.
Click to expand...


Welp, must of hit it pretty close to the mark if all you have left are personal insults.


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is simply whether CBS is taking a political position on abortion by running an ad that presumably is one family's story of courage in the face of adversity that had a happy ending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advertiser: Planned Parenthood - Election Guide 2008 - The New York Times
> 
> Good point... I wonder if they felt the same about TV stations taking sides when they ran these ads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood spent a total of $348,746 to broadcast four television ads, according to statistics compiled by Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising expenditures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in Planned Parenthood's defense--and it GALLS me to defend them--they have a right to advertise their perspective and agenda just as FonF does.  But for the ads to be non-political, they would have to tell a story about somebody choosing to abort a baby without any comment on anybody's 'right to choose' just as the Tebow ad simply tells a story without specifically commenting on 'right to life'.
> 
> In this particular case, the argument is based on a CBS policy to allow no political ads as Super Bowl advertising.  So the debate is on whether the Tebow ad is political or just a feel good ad.
Click to expand...


My point was though that they choose to advertise on TV and do not seem to have a problem with it, yet they have a problem when FoF makes that same choice?

PP definitely does have a right to advertise, but why would they deny that right to someone else?

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Advertiser: Planned Parenthood - Election Guide 2008 - The New York Times
> 
> Good point... I wonder if they felt the same about TV stations taking sides when they ran these ads.
> 
> 
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well in Planned Parenthood's defense--and it GALLS me to defend them--they have a right to advertise their perspective and agenda just as FonF does.  But for the ads to be non-political, they would have to tell a story about somebody choosing to abort a baby without any comment on anybody's 'right to choose' just as the Tebow ad simply tells a story without specifically commenting on 'right to life'.
> 
> In this particular case, the argument is based on a CBS policy to allow no political ads as Super Bowl advertising.  So the debate is on whether the Tebow ad is political or just a feel good ad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was though that they choose to advertise on TV and do not seem to have a problem with it, yet they have a problem when FoF makes that same choice?
> 
> PP definitely does have a right to advertise, but why would they deny that right to someone else?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


Oh I see what you mean.  But that isn't what they're doing in this case.  What they are doing is trying to get CBS to reject this ad during the Super Bowl on the grounds that it violates CBS's policy re no political ads during the Super Bowl.  They say it isn't suitable for this 'young' crowd.  Run it instead on--I can't remember what a Planned Parenthood rep recently recommended on Fox, but it was for them to run it on some obscure channel that nobody watches.

FonF on the other hand apparently went to great lengths to make it a message of inspiration and hope and not in the least bit political so that it would not violate the policy and apparently CBS, certainly nobody's idea of part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, agreed.  But the pro-abortionists almost certainly have their panties in a bunch because of the major exposure the ad will get during the Super Bowl.  Of course their public protests  have greatly increased the probability that people will be looking for it now and it will probably be noticed by many more than it would have otherwise.


----------



## Immanuel

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well in Planned Parenthood's defense--and it GALLS me to defend them--they have a right to advertise their perspective and agenda just as FonF does.  But for the ads to be non-political, they would have to tell a story about somebody choosing to abort a baby without any comment on anybody's 'right to choose' just as the Tebow ad simply tells a story without specifically commenting on 'right to life'.
> 
> In this particular case, the argument is based on a CBS policy to allow no political ads as Super Bowl advertising.  So the debate is on whether the Tebow ad is political or just a feel good ad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was though that they choose to advertise on TV and do not seem to have a problem with it, yet they have a problem when FoF makes that same choice?
> 
> PP definitely does have a right to advertise, but why would they deny that right to someone else?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I see what you mean.  But that isn't what they're doing in this case.  What they are doing is trying to get CBS to reject this ad during the Super Bowl on the grounds that it violates CBS's policy re no political ads during the Super Bowl.  They say it isn't suitable for this 'young' crowd.  Run it instead on--I can't remember what a Planned Parenthood rep recently recommended on Fox, but it was for them to run it on some obscure channel that nobody watches.
> 
> FonF on the other hand apparently went to great lengths to make it a message of inspiration and hope and not in the least bit political so that it would not violate the policy and apparently CBS, certainly nobody's idea of part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, agreed.  But the pro-abortionists almost certainly have their panties in a bunch because of the major exposure the ad will get during the Super Bowl.  Of course their public protests  have greatly increased the probability that people will be looking for it now and it will probably be noticed by many more than it would have otherwise.
Click to expand...


Chances are it will be canceled before the Super Bowl because PP is making it a political ad.

But, thank you for clearing up PP's stance on the issue and I do understand a little better where they are coming from.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be amzaed how afraid the pro-abortionists are.
> 
> They are deathly afraid of the public becoming aware of whats going on in abortion clinics around the country.
> 
> They are afraid it will cause outrage, and will lead to action and new legislation to protect unborn babies and possibly outlaw abortion.
> 
> The American people have not had any voice, we've been told all our lives that it is a "right" for women yet it is no where to be found in the Constitution.  We've never voted on it.  We just need to accept what one Supreme Court decided decades ago.  That's not how our government is supposed to work.  We all have the right to change laws as we see fit.  Isn't it funny how this is such a hot issue with voters, but they won't let the country vote on it nationally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pass out free beer and chronic with this shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welp, must of hit it pretty close to the mark if all you have left are personal insults.
Click to expand...


That wasn't a personal insult.  If I said you are a pathetic **** turd, now that would be an ad hom.  My comment was about the rhetoric used....the shit was so stale it's hard to believe anyone still tries to say that crap with a straight face.

Let's get back to the real issue.  Why did you create a false title and ignore the facts in article?


----------



## CurveLight

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well in Planned Parenthood's defense--and it GALLS me to defend them--they have a right to advertise their perspective and agenda just as FonF does.  But for the ads to be non-political, they would have to tell a story about somebody choosing to abort a baby without any comment on anybody's 'right to choose' just as the Tebow ad simply tells a story without specifically commenting on 'right to life'.
> 
> In this particular case, the argument is based on a CBS policy to allow no political ads as Super Bowl advertising.  So the debate is on whether the Tebow ad is political or just a feel good ad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was though that they choose to advertise on TV and do not seem to have a problem with it, yet they have a problem when FoF makes that same choice?
> 
> PP definitely does have a right to advertise, but why would they deny that right to someone else?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I see what you mean.  But that isn't what they're doing in this case.  What they are doing is trying to get CBS to reject this ad during the Super Bowl on the grounds that it violates CBS's policy re no political ads during the Super Bowl.  They say it isn't suitable for this 'young' crowd.  Run it instead on--I can't remember what a Planned Parenthood rep recently recommended on Fox, but it was for them to run it on some obscure channel that nobody watches.
> 
> FonF on the other hand apparently went to great lengths to make it a message of inspiration and hope and not in the least bit political so that it would not violate the policy and apparently CBS, certainly nobody's idea of part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, agreed.  But the pro-abortionists almost certainly have their panties in a bunch because of the major exposure the ad will get during the Super Bowl.  Of course their public protests  have greatly increased the probability that people will be looking for it now and it will probably be noticed by many more than it would have otherwise.
Click to expand...



After all this time and all your useless posts you still fail to address the reason given in your OP article.  Damn this board is full of some jokers.


----------



## Toronado3800

They can advertise all they want.

It'll give me an excuse to say something about big government getting into my womb in front of the room full of Republicans I'll be watching the game with and by the end of the night the Republicans will be soo divided on the issue they'll do less to stop abortion over 20 of the next 28 years than they did over the last 20 of the last 28.

lol.  Them years started to confuse me, but you get the point.


----------



## Foxfyre

CurveLight said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was though that they choose to advertise on TV and do not seem to have a problem with it, yet they have a problem when FoF makes that same choice?
> 
> PP definitely does have a right to advertise, but why would they deny that right to someone else?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I see what you mean.  But that isn't what they're doing in this case.  What they are doing is trying to get CBS to reject this ad during the Super Bowl on the grounds that it violates CBS's policy re no political ads during the Super Bowl.  They say it isn't suitable for this 'young' crowd.  Run it instead on--I can't remember what a Planned Parenthood rep recently recommended on Fox, but it was for them to run it on some obscure channel that nobody watches.
> 
> FonF on the other hand apparently went to great lengths to make it a message of inspiration and hope and not in the least bit political so that it would not violate the policy and apparently CBS, certainly nobody's idea of part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, agreed.  But the pro-abortionists almost certainly have their panties in a bunch because of the major exposure the ad will get during the Super Bowl.  Of course their public protests  have greatly increased the probability that people will be looking for it now and it will probably be noticed by many more than it would have otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After all this time and all your useless posts you still fail to address the reason given in your OP article.  Damn this board is full of some jokers.
Click to expand...


What OP article?  Geez, I usually get gigged for over explaining.  You mean I actually under-explained something?


----------



## Otter_Creek

Kudos to Tebow and CBS.


----------



## CurveLight

Otter_Creek said:


> Kudos to Tebow and CBS.




They know how to make money off of suckers.


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question.  Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible.  I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means.  You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your last couple of posts were quite interesting.
> 
> I'd like to know what you think that narrative means, too.  I'd be quite interested in knowing if in coincides with my understanding of the passage.
> 
> As to your earlier questions, they too are interesting.  I can't say I can answer all of them, but these all would be an interesting discussion in the religion forum.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



Missed this post earlier.  Imao, Jesus said do not give anything to Caesar.  He said to give tribute based on what belongs to whom.  The key is historical context.  Trying to apply his answer through an American or Western lens is no different than putting on a blindfold to prepare for an eye exam.  People see him as affirming the Separation of Church and State but that makes no sense since that concept did not become popular until centuries later.


----------



## jeffrockit

ABikerSailor said:


> Wanna know why the doctor told her to have one?  She was having a problem pregnancy, and there was a very real possibility that she would die before full term.
> 
> Medical advice to save your life?  She got lucky.  Most people wouldn't refuse chemo (which is toxic) if the doctor told them they have cancer.
> 
> Try again.



You are correct but rather than being selfish and thinking only about herself, she had the courage to have the baby. She made a commitment when she got pregnant. Convenience of the mother is not a reason to abort a baby. BTW luck had nothing to do with it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer? There was no question asked, so no answer was required. I simply made a comment and for those that know the Bible the entire verse isn't needed to get the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question.  Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible.  I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means.  You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't Bible class, I made a point in the way I saw fit. If you wish to provide the quote in its entirety, then be my guest. I never once complained about anyone editing the Bible, perhaps you should seek lessons on reading comprehension.
> 
> As for as knowing scripture, I had plenty of time in a TDCJ unit to read so I do know what that narrative means.
Click to expand...


*Hey There Ya Fucking CONVICT!!!!!!!!!!

No fucking wonder you like ass sex.  Apparently you've had a LOT!

So tell me......does Bubba still write you about the hot and steamy nights.*​
You're right.  You didn't complain about anyone editing the Bible.

I did.

Why?  Because of the KJV (most widely used Bible) was heavily edited by the Niceine Council.

Book of Daniel is a wonderful example.  So is the refusal to include the Gnostic Texts.

By the way cock smoker.......feel froggy?


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question.  Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible.  I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means.  You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your last couple of posts were quite interesting.
> 
> I'd like to know what you think that narrative means, too.  I'd be quite interested in knowing if in coincides with my understanding of the passage.
> 
> As to your earlier questions, they too are interesting.  I can't say I can answer all of them, but these all would be an interesting discussion in the religion forum.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Missed this post earlier.  Imao, Jesus said do not give anything to Caesar.  He said to give tribute based on what belongs to whom.  The key is historical context.  Trying to apply his answer through an American or Western lens is no different than putting on a blindfold to prepare for an eye exam.  People see him as affirming the Separation of Church and State but that makes no sense since that concept did not become popular until centuries later.
Click to expand...


I think we are somewhat in agreement if I understand what you meant by "Jesus said do not give anything to Caesar".  Jesus did not command  us to pay taxes in this case, nor did he tells us not to pay taxes.  That was not the point of the passage.  The point was the value that these men put upon earthly riches.   He was not talking about paying your taxes.  He was talking about where these men put their faith... in Caesar or God and to whom they paid tribute.  In my layman's understanding of the passage, I think Jesus was pointing out that the values of both groups, the Pharisees and Herodians, were in the wrong place.  

I'm not sure I have ever seen an argument affirming Separation of Church and State from this passage.   I have seen people argue that Jesus was telling us we should pay our taxes, but that ignores the context of the passage.  

There were two different set of people, of different beliefs, trying to trap Jesus.  The Pharisees who self-righteously preached adherence to God's laws (as interpreted by Pharisees) including tithing and the Herodians who were minions of King Herod who would have profited from the taxes being collected.  If Jesus gave a direct answer to the question he was bound to tick off one of the two groups.  Instead he basically shrugged his shoulders and said give what is due to Caesar to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.

In trying to put this into words, I found this passage and will admit that it helped me to form my answer, but it was basically what I was attempting to say anyway:

Give Unto Caesar | The Brown Bible



> Jesus was being confronted by two different groups of men who had two different sets of beliefs but were conspiring together to get Jesus. The disciples of the Pharisees ascribed to the doctrine of the Pharisees including their strict intrusive rules about tithing. The Herodians were Herods partisans. They were far more interested in not allowing anything to detract from Herods activities on Caesars behalf, including collection of taxes. The two groups together posed a question to Jesus that was unanswerable without giving one group or the other ammunition to accuse Jesus, or so they thought. Had Jesus given a direct response, he would have been attacked no matter what the response was.
> 
> Jesus recognized their wickedness and avoided the confrontation. His response was essentially a non-response, a line that could be interpreted just about any way. He didnt even so much as specifically admit to owing either party anything; just give to Caesar what is his and to God what is His. This was an avoidance of the confrontation, not a teaching.



Note: I know nothing about the site, _The Brown Bible_ or about the author of the above quote.  I do not endorse the site or its teachings.  I simply found that passage while trying to describe the context of the passage and happen to agree with this point.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight

jeffrockit said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna know why the doctor told her to have one?  She was having a problem pregnancy, and there was a very real possibility that she would die before full term.
> 
> Medical advice to save your life?  She got lucky.  Most people wouldn't refuse chemo (which is toxic) if the doctor told them they have cancer.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct but rather than being selfish and thinking only about herself, she had the courage to have the baby. She made a commitment when she got pregnant. Convenience of the mother is not a reason to abort a baby. BTW luck had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...



This is why earlier I pointed out some people see women as performance products instead of people.  It's also superlicious silly to use this one example to extrapolate anything about abortion.  If someone said Tim Mcveigh's mom was in the same situation then it could be said his terrorism is proof women should abort when advised.


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your last couple of posts were quite interesting.
> 
> I'd like to know what you think that narrative means, too.  I'd be quite interested in knowing if in coincides with my understanding of the passage.
> 
> As to your earlier questions, they too are interesting.  I can't say I can answer all of them, but these all would be an interesting discussion in the religion forum.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missed this post earlier.  Imao, Jesus said do not give anything to Caesar.  He said to give tribute based on what belongs to whom.  The key is historical context.  Trying to apply his answer through an American or Western lens is no different than putting on a blindfold to prepare for an eye exam.  People see him as affirming the Separation of Church and State but that makes no sense since that concept did not become popular until centuries later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we are somewhat in agreement if I understand what you meant by "Jesus said do not give anything to Caesar".  Jesus did not command  us to pay taxes in this case, nor did he tells us not to pay taxes.  That was not the point of the passage.  The point was the value that these men put upon earthly riches.   He was not talking about paying your taxes.  He was talking about where these men put their faith... in Caesar or God and to whom they paid tribute.  In my layman's understanding of the passage, I think Jesus was pointing out that the values of both groups, the Pharisees and Herodians, were in the wrong place.
> 
> I'm not sure I have ever seen an argument affirming Separation of Church and State from this passage.   I have seen people argue that Jesus was telling us we should pay our taxes, but that ignores the context of the passage.
> 
> There were two different set of people, of different beliefs, trying to trap Jesus.  The Pharisees who self-righteously preached adherence to God's laws (as interpreted by Pharisees) including tithing and the Herodians who were minions of King Herod who would have profited from the taxes being collected.  If Jesus gave a direct answer to the question he was bound to tick off one of the two groups.  Instead he basically shrugged his shoulders and said give what is due to Caesar to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.
> 
> In trying to put this into words, I found this passage and will admit that it helped me to form my answer, but it was basically what I was attempting to say anyway:
> 
> [snipped]
> 
> Note: I know nothing about the site, _The Brown Bible_ or about the author of the above quote.  I do not endorse the site or its teachings.  I simply found that passage while trying to describe the context of the passage and happen to agree with this point.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


The separation of C+ S is used by those who argue Jesus was saying pay tribute to both Caesar (state) and God (church.)  There are two fundamental problems.  The concept did not exist and Caesar was not secular.  Many Jews viewed Rome's imperial rule over them as punishment for failing to obey God thus they were being trampled by a false god for the price of not honoring the true God.  This is one reason why the Gospels are so full of conflict over what laws and commandments should be followed.

The above Brown interpretation misses the point of Jesus' answer because it tries to make Jesus look like a coward.  He had no problem publicly condemning the Temple or its rulers. It was his outspoken and loud opposition that lead to his Crucifixion. Claiming Jesus tried to avoid conflict misses Jesus' entire ministry.  Look at the reaction from his inquisitors when he answered. If he had avoided answering do you think they would have been marveled and simply slinked away?  No.  They would have pointed out he refused to answer which would have caused him to lose credibility with his followers. Instead they walked away baffled because they could not claim he did not answer and the way he worded the answer could not be used against him.  

Brown's reading is trying to make it significant that both Pharisees and Herodians were trying to trap Jesus and that is used to support the interpretation of Jesus avoiding giving an answer. Technically they were different groups but they formed the same problem (Roman rule through the Temple) and both were equally threatened by Jesus for the same reason: if Jews stopped paying then both groups were subject to getting whacked by Rome.  In looking at Jesus' answer we need to fill in the blanks to see how he said to not pay.  The "what belongs to" phrase is the key.  What belonged to Caesar?  The Roman empire is the common response.  What belongs to God?  The earth and everyone and everything on it.  If they were to give to God what belongs to God then what is left over to give to Caesar?


----------



## geauxtohell

M'eh,  run the ad.  FOTF has a right to speak their mind.

After it, they should run a PSA that states:  "Tim Tebow will never play in a Superbowl."


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act".  Go read the gospels and get back to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis?  Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so,  do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement?  Where do you stand on Q?  Does it have credibility?  What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple?  Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans?  Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants?  Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly?  Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?
> 
> I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself.  All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts.  Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.
Click to expand...


My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible.  It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it.  Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins).  He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.  

Killing a child is a terrible SIN.  You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact.  When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).

I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce).  I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child.  Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?

Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?


----------



## saveliberty

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act".  Go read the gospels and get back to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis?  Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so,  do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement?  Where do you stand on Q?  Does it have credibility?  What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple?  Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans?  Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants?  Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly?  Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?
> 
> I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself.  All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts.  Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible.  It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it.  Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins).  He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.
> 
> Killing a child is a terrible SIN.  You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact.  When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).
> 
> I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce).  I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child.  Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?
> 
> Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?
Click to expand...


Curvelight is using his gay Bible.  He can look at a passage and come to the complete opposite meaning.  Have fun.  Logic4u has a good understanding.  Sin has consequences here too.  I suppose it will now be brought up we are not to judge.  Yet the Bible clearly states you are to go to those who have sinned against you and work it out.  That requires a judgement.


----------



## Immanuel

Re Curvelight post #334:

Good answer, but I believe this is detracting from the rest of the thread and won't continue the discussion here.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act".  Go read the gospels and get back to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis?  Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so,  do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement?  Where do you stand on Q?  Does it have credibility?  What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple?  Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans?  Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants?  Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly?  Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?
> 
> I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself.  All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts.  Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible.  It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it.  Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins).  He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.
> 
> Killing a child is a terrible SIN.  You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact.  When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).
> 
> I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce).  I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child.  Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?
> 
> Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?
Click to expand...



So first I was wrong based on your assumption I've not studied scripture.  Now I'm wrong because I've studied it more than you and I'm caught up on "technicalies."  I asked those questions because I was fairly confident you couldn't answer them without Google.  You also completely ignored my post and your reaction to it.  I pointed out Jesus would much rather have seen the $2.5 million go to helping people for silly things like food and clothes instead of a freaking 30 second commercial.  You responded by accusing me of speaking about Jesus out of pure ignorance.  When you see that is not the case you totally ignore the mistake of your assumption and do a typical soap box dance.


----------



## CurveLight

saveliberty said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis?  Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so,  do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement?  Where do you stand on Q?  Does it have credibility?  What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple?  Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans?  Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants?  Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly?  Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?
> 
> I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself.  All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts.  Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible.  It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it.  Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins).  He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.
> 
> Killing a child is a terrible SIN.  You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact.  When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).
> 
> I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce).  I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child.  Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?
> 
> Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curvelight is using his gay Bible.  He can look at a passage and come to the complete opposite meaning.  Have fun.  Logic4u has a good understanding.  Sin has consequences here too.  I suppose it will now be brought up we are not to judge.  Yet the Bible clearly states you are to go to those who have sinned against you and work it out.  That requires a judgement.
Click to expand...


Gay Bible?  Oh, I get it.  The Bible has the Good News and Gay means happy.  But doesn't that mean all bibles are gay bibles or are you saying not all Bibles have the Good News?

As for your accusation, you're completely full of shit.  The proof is I will invite you and logical4u, and anyone else you want to a debate on any narrative of your choosing.  You will completely avoid it because you know you can't handle it so you'll call me dumb or a waste of time or any other childish remarks you can dream up to try and justify your refusal to back your own claims.


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that ad didn't run does that mean nobody would have ever heard about the abortion issue?  Holy shit you people really truly lack basic comprehension.  You set up strawmen, false dilemmas, and ignore your own fucking articles.  Jesus would be for that money going to actually feed and house people........not contribute to the Roman Imperial Cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act".  Go read the gospels and get back to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis?  Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so,  do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement?  Where do you stand on Q?  Does it have credibility?  What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple?  Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans?  Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants?  Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly?  Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?
> 
> I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself.  All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts.  Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.
Click to expand...


My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible.  It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it.  Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins).  He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.  

Killing a child is a terrible SIN.  You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact.  When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).

I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce).  I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child.  Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?

Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?[/QUOTE]


So first I was wrong based on your assumption I've not studied scripture.  Now I'm wrong because I've studied it more than you and I'm caught up on "technicalies."  I asked those questions because I was fairly confident you couldn't answer them without Google.  You also completely ignored my post and your reaction to it.  I pointed out Jesus would much rather have seen the $2.5 million go to helping people for silly things like food and clothes instead of a freaking 30 second commercial.  You responded by accusing me of speaking about Jesus out of pure ignorance.  When you see that is not the case you totally ignore the mistake of your assumption and do a typical soap box dance.[/QUOTE]

I apologized for saying "read".  You have demonstrated that you stood back and looked at the words.  You did not demonstrate that you have any 'comprehension' of the message (or you would not support abortion).
Your "side tract, distract" methods hold no interest for me.  I will not jump to another unrelated subject.  If you want to talk about abortion: fine.  If you want to talk about Yeshua supporting abortion: you will be negated.  If you want to talk about totally different subjects, let us meet on another thread.  I never claimed to be a Biblical scholar; I do believe I comprehend what I read fairly well (and it doesn't waste time wondering if Paul came in as a spy, I concentrate on what Paul did after he started working as an apostle and his witnessing).

If you can demonstrate where Yeshua spoke of the "justice" of killing unborn children, I would be happy to hear what you have to say.  If you can demonstrate "fully" where the Holy Trinity supported baby sacrifice, I would be willing to listen.  If you cannot, you just might want to leave Yeshua out of your arguements.


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dipshitliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit. a bunch of you baby-hatin lefties have issue with the ad. Perhaps once you actually see the ad, you will have adequate information with which to base your protestations.
> 
> 
> 
> " Baby-hating, baby killers ...."
> 
> All inventions of the doctor killing cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder whose sock puppet that was?
Click to expand...

He swore he would give sock puppetry up. I never believed that for a second.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.
> 
> But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you have the only honest opinion concerning abortion as something that the government should ban. If it's wrong to abort, it's always wrong. No exceptions because the father committed a crime. Once you make those sort of exceptions then you are saying some lives should be protected and others should be destroyed. Even if all those forms of life are identical and equally desereving of respect. Those who say they are not equal are being blatanly discriminatory against some because of the circumstances of their conception.
> 
> I have heard of women who kept the children they had born of rape because they did not fault the children for what their fathers had done. A friend's daughter married a man whose mother had been raped by his father. I don't know if he ever has had contact with the rapist but he is not ashamed of the circumstances of his birth and by all accounts is a fine person.
> 
> In the 19th century in England it was customary in the case where a decision must be made to save the mother's life or save the infant to be born that the doctor asked the husband which he wanted. Some husbands were more interested in getting an heir so the wives where sacrificed. Like damaged cows.
> 
> Myself, if I believed  that a woman's life was equal to that of the fetus she was carrying, I would say give preferance to the child to be born as the woman would have already experienced life and the newborn had not yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying in cases where the woman's life is in danger, she should risk losing her life in order for the child to live? That's sounds admirable, I just don't think too many women would come to that decision.
Click to expand...

Only if I believed that a woman's life is equal to that of a fetus.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.
> 
> But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.
Click to expand...

Are you saying semen has nothing to do with pregnancy?


----------



## geauxtohell

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying semen has nothing to do with pregnancy?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s]YouTube - every sperm is sacred[/ame]


----------



## Anguille

CurveLight said:


> This is why earlier I pointed out some people see women as performance products instead of people.  It's also superlicious silly to use this one example to extrapolate anything about abortion.  If someone said Tim Mcveigh's mom was in the same situation then it could be said his terrorism is proof women should abort when advised.


heh!


----------



## Anguille

geauxtohell said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying semen has nothing to do with pregnancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s"]YouTube - every sperm is sacred[/ame]
Click to expand...



Maybe one of the Bible scholars can explain why men should not spill their seed?


----------



## geauxtohell

Anguille said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying semen has nothing to do with pregnancy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s"]YouTube - every sperm is sacred[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one of the Bible scholars can explain why men should not spill their seed?
Click to expand...


Funny Army quote:

"If every sperm is sacred, than my woobie (slang name for a blanket used while on patrol) must be the Shroud of Turin"


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act".  Go read the gospels and get back to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis?  Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so,  do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement?  Where do you stand on Q?  Does it have credibility?  What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple?  Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans?  Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants?  Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly?  Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?
> 
> I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself.  All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts.  Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible.  It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it.  Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins).  He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.
> 
> Killing a child is a terrible SIN.  You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact.  When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).
> 
> I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce).  I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child.  Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?
> 
> Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?
Click to expand...



So first I was wrong based on your assumption I've not studied scripture.  Now I'm wrong because I've studied it more than you and I'm caught up on "technicalies."  I asked those questions because I was fairly confident you couldn't answer them without Google.  You also completely ignored my post and your reaction to it.  I pointed out Jesus would much rather have seen the $2.5 million go to helping people for silly things like food and clothes instead of a freaking 30 second commercial.  You responded by accusing me of speaking about Jesus out of pure ignorance.  When you see that is not the case you totally ignore the mistake of your assumption and do a typical soap box dance.[/QUOTE]

I apologized for saying "read".  You have demonstrated that you stood back and looked at the words.  You did not demonstrate that you have any 'comprehension' of the message (or you would not support abortion).
Your "side tract, distract" methods hold no interest for me.  I will not jump to another unrelated subject.  If you want to talk about abortion: fine.  If you want to talk about Yeshua supporting abortion: you will be negated.  If you want to talk about totally different subjects, let us meet on another thread.  I never claimed to be a Biblical scholar; I do believe I comprehend what I read fairly well (and it doesn't waste time wondering if Paul came in as a spy, I concentrate on what Paul did after he started working as an apostle and his witnessing).

If you can demonstrate where Yeshua spoke of the "justice" of killing unborn children, I would be happy to hear what you have to say.  If you can demonstrate "fully" where the Holy Trinity supported baby sacrifice, I would be willing to listen.  If you cannot, you just might want to leave Yeshua out of your arguements.[/QUOTE]


What are you on? Assumption Marathon?  I don't support abortions.   I never said anything about Jesus supporting them either.  Let's try this one more time:

J
ESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.


JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.


JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> What hermeneutical approach do you use for your biblical exegesis?  Do you use an Oral Performance model, and if so,  do you place the Pharisees as sympathetic to the Jesus Movement?  Where do you stand on Q?  Does it have credibility?  What do you think about the theory that Paul was initially an undercover agent for the Temple?  Do you think the expansive renovations of the Second Temple backfired and hastened the Jewish Revolt instead of pacifying Judeans?  Did Client-Kings succeed as a buffer between Rome and Jewish peasants?  Do you think the Temple employees were criticized too harshly?  Were they really more concerned about keeping Rome from direct rule over Judeans to prevent their slaughter or were they as selfish as portrayed?
> 
> I can't tell you how lucky I feel to have accidentally bumped into such a great Biblical scholar such as yourself.  All I ask is for you to grant some patience since I might take a little longer than it took you to comprehend these concepts.  Thank you in advance for answering the above questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible.  It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it.  Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins).  He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.
> 
> Killing a child is a terrible SIN.  You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact.  When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).
> 
> I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce).  I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child.  Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?
> 
> Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So first I was wrong based on your assumption I've not studied scripture.  Now I'm wrong because I've studied it more than you and I'm caught up on "technicalies."  I asked those questions because I was fairly confident you couldn't answer them without Google.  You also completely ignored my post and your reaction to it.  I pointed out Jesus would much rather have seen the $2.5 million go to helping people for silly things like food and clothes instead of a freaking 30 second commercial.  You responded by accusing me of speaking about Jesus out of pure ignorance.  When you see that is not the case you totally ignore the mistake of your assumption and do a typical soap box dance.
Click to expand...


I apologized for saying "read".  You have demonstrated that you stood back and looked at the words.  You did not demonstrate that you have any 'comprehension' of the message (or you would not support abortion).
Your "side tract, distract" methods hold no interest for me.  I will not jump to another unrelated subject.  If you want to talk about abortion: fine.  If you want to talk about Yeshua supporting abortion: you will be negated.  If you want to talk about totally different subjects, let us meet on another thread.  I never claimed to be a Biblical scholar; I do believe I comprehend what I read fairly well (and it doesn't waste time wondering if Paul came in as a spy, I concentrate on what Paul did after he started working as an apostle and his witnessing).

If you can demonstrate where Yeshua spoke of the "justice" of killing unborn children, I would be happy to hear what you have to say.  If you can demonstrate "fully" where the Holy Trinity supported baby sacrifice, I would be willing to listen.  If you cannot, you just might want to leave Yeshua out of your arguements.[/QUOTE]


What are you on? Assumption Marathon?  I don't support abortions.   I never said anything about Jesus supporting them either.  Let's try this one more time:

J
ESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.


JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.


JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you know the Bible better....please show me where Yeshua walked up to any person and told them how to spend "their" money.  There were occassions when people asked Him for advice and he knew they were caught up in their possessions; He suggested selling them (to escape worshipping the possessions, not to be poor).

Again, let me know when you have that part about Yeshua telling people how to spend their "own" money.


----------



## Maple

theHawk said:


> Amazing how so called "women's groups" would be so upset about the story of a woman ignoring a doctor's recommendation to get an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (AP) -- A coalition of women's groups called on the CBS network on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which *critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message*.
> 
> The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, *she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim*, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two college football championships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBS urged to scrap anti-abortion Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow - SI.com - 2008 NFL Super Bowl
Click to expand...


It's hilarious to see the PRO-CHOICE not PRO-CHOICE at all when it comes to someone making a decision about her own body that is PRO-LIFE. Palin is another that comes to mind because she chose life for her DOWN'S baby and was vicously attacked over it by the so-called PRO-CHOICERS.


----------



## Foxfyre

Maple said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how so called "women's groups" would be so upset about the story of a woman ignoring a doctor's recommendation to get an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (AP) -- A coalition of women's groups called on the CBS network on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which *critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message*.
> 
> The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, *she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim*, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two college football championships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBS urged to scrap anti-abortion Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow - SI.com - 2008 NFL Super Bowl
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious to see the PRO-CHOICE not PRO-CHOICE at all when it comes to someone making a decision about her own body that is PRO-LIFE. Palin is another that comes to mind because she chose life for her DOWN'S baby and was vicously attacked over it by the so-called PRO-CHOICERS.
Click to expand...


Not so hilarious if they succeed in silencing somebody who is celebrating life to prevent any possibility that a pro life message might be construed from it.  We increase the possibility of losing our First Amendment rights every time that kind of frontal assault on free speech is successful.  When only 'politically correct' speech is allowed in mass media, we are done for as free people.


----------



## CurveLight

Foxfyre said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how so called "women's groups" would be so upset about the story of a woman ignoring a doctor's recommendation to get an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> CBS urged to scrap anti-abortion Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow - SI.com - 2008 NFL Super Bowl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious to see the PRO-CHOICE not PRO-CHOICE at all when it comes to someone making a decision about her own body that is PRO-LIFE. Palin is another that comes to mind because she chose life for her DOWN'S baby and was vicously attacked over it by the so-called PRO-CHOICERS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so hilarious if they succeed in silencing somebody who is celebrating life to prevent any possibility that a pro life message might be construed from it.  We increase the possibility of losing our First Amendment rights every time that kind of frontal assault on free speech is successful.  When only 'politically correct' speech is allowed in mass media, we are done for as free people.
Click to expand...



When you traded oxygen for hyperbole how many carbon footprint credits did you receive?


----------



## Foxfyre

CurveLight said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious to see the PRO-CHOICE not PRO-CHOICE at all when it comes to someone making a decision about her own body that is PRO-LIFE. Palin is another that comes to mind because she chose life for her DOWN'S baby and was vicously attacked over it by the so-called PRO-CHOICERS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so hilarious if they succeed in silencing somebody who is celebrating life to prevent any possibility that a pro life message might be construed from it.  We increase the possibility of losing our First Amendment rights every time that kind of frontal assault on free speech is successful.  When only 'politically correct' speech is allowed in mass media, we are done for as free people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you traded oxygen for hyperbole how many carbon footprint credits did you receive?
Click to expand...


Probably as many as you receive in condemning or criticizing those who simply want to tell a story with a message and are willing to pay to do so.


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies: I meant to say: comprehend the Bible.  It is obvious that you are so caught up in the technicalities, that you just don't get it.  Yeshua was about teaching people that no matter what you have done, once you learn about Him and accept Him, you can be forgiven...if you repent (that also means 'trying' not to repeat your sins).  He showed how much He loved everyone (not just those privileged enough to be born), including the ones that killed Him.
> 
> Killing a child is a terrible SIN.  You can try to spin it all you want, but when it comes down to it, there is that fact.  When it is implies that "Yeshua" would support the "mother's" right to choose, it is bearing false witness (also a sin).
> 
> I do not believe there should be a law about this (it would be impossible to enforce).  I do believe that women should be educated about the "after" effects an abortion can cause: depression, self-loathing, mourning, the knowledge of 'total deception' on the part of those encouraging abortion, and the possibility of never having the opportunity to have another child.  Why do those that support "free choice", not support the information, that would allow the "mother", to make a decision based on ALL the facts?
> 
> Yeshua was about the "Good News", He wanted all peoples to have the information about Him (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit), why do those that support abortion "talk" differently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first I was wrong based on your assumption I've not studied scripture.  Now I'm wrong because I've studied it more than you and I'm caught up on "technicalies."  I asked those questions because I was fairly confident you couldn't answer them without Google.  You also completely ignored my post and your reaction to it.  I pointed out Jesus would much rather have seen the $2.5 million go to helping people for silly things like food and clothes instead of a freaking 30 second commercial.  You responded by accusing me of speaking about Jesus out of pure ignorance.  When you see that is not the case you totally ignore the mistake of your assumption and do a typical soap box dance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologized for saying "read".  You have demonstrated that you stood back and looked at the words.  You did not demonstrate that you have any 'comprehension' of the message (or you would not support abortion).
> Your "side tract, distract" methods hold no interest for me.  I will not jump to another unrelated subject.  If you want to talk about abortion: fine.  If you want to talk about Yeshua supporting abortion: you will be negated.  If you want to talk about totally different subjects, let us meet on another thread.  I never claimed to be a Biblical scholar; I do believe I comprehend what I read fairly well (and it doesn't waste time wondering if Paul came in as a spy, I concentrate on what Paul did after he started working as an apostle and his witnessing).
> 
> If you can demonstrate where Yeshua spoke of the "justice" of killing unborn children, I would be happy to hear what you have to say.  If you can demonstrate "fully" where the Holy Trinity supported baby sacrifice, I would be willing to listen.  If you cannot, you just might want to leave Yeshua out of your arguements.
Click to expand...



What are you on? Assumption Marathon?  I don't support abortions.   I never said anything about Jesus supporting them either.  Let's try this one more time:

J
ESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.


JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.


JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you know the Bible better....please show me where Yeshua walked up to any person and told them how to spend "their" money.  There were occassions when people asked Him for advice and he knew they were caught up in their possessions; He suggested selling them (to escape worshipping the possessions, not to be poor).

Again, let me know when you have that part about Yeshua telling people how to spend their "own" money.[/QUOTE]


As soon as you show where I claimed Jesus ordered people how to spend their money.  This is a great example of why I am such a shitty Christian.  I'm supposed to love you as a brother in Christ and on some level that is true, but.....I can't help saying how fucking ridiculous you look to keep putting words into someone else's mouth to justify your own pathetically retarded self righteous soap box dance.  I clearly said Jesus would PREFER. That is not an order, mandate, law, or commandment.  It's simply a fucking preference.


----------



## CurveLight

Foxfyre said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so hilarious if they succeed in silencing somebody who is celebrating life to prevent any possibility that a pro life message might be construed from it.  We increase the possibility of losing our First Amendment rights every time that kind of frontal assault on free speech is successful.  When only 'politically correct' speech is allowed in mass media, we are done for as free people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you traded oxygen for hyperbole how many carbon footprint credits did you receive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably as many as you receive in condemning or criticizing those who simply want to tell a story with a message and are willing to pay to do so.
Click to expand...



Lol....is that why I've said the protest against the ad is stupid?


----------



## Foxfyre

CurveLight said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you traded oxygen for hyperbole how many carbon footprint credits did you receive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably as many as you receive in condemning or criticizing those who simply want to tell a story with a message and are willing to pay to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....is that why I've said the protest against the ad is stupid?
Click to expand...


You did say that you were against the protest in one post but spent much more time in others saying why they were objecting to the ad for the wrong reasons.  You didn't suggest that they shouldn't object to the ad.  You have spent most of your time on the thread mocking, insulting, ridiculing, or putting down those who don't have a problem with the ad.

See your posts:  #18, #19, #46, #63, #142, #177, #186, #260, #275, and #292 -- that's just a few.  I could have listed a lot more.

So please post the carbon credits you receive putting that much effort into criticizing a simple television ad celebrating life and putting down anybody who thinks it is okay.


----------



## CurveLight

Foxfyre said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably as many as you receive in condemning or criticizing those who simply want to tell a story with a message and are willing to pay to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....is that why I've said the protest against the ad is stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did say that you were against the protest in one post but spent much more time in others saying why they were objecting to the ad for the wrong reasons.  You didn't suggest that they shouldn't object to the ad.  You have spent most of your time on the thread mocking, insulting, ridiculing, or putting down those who don't have a problem with the ad.
> 
> See your posts:  #18, #19, #46, #63, #142, #177, #186, #260, #275, and #292 -- that's just a few.  I could have listed a lot more.
> 
> So please post the carbon credits you receive putting that much effort into criticizing a simple television ad celebrating life and putting down anybody who thinks it is okay.
Click to expand...



This is such a sad display.  Do you realize what you have just done? You admitted I've pointed out the protest against the ad is stupid.  You then try to dismiss that because you don't like my posts.  This is why your camp is rightfully seen as control freaks.  Most of my posts have been on the issue of abortion itself.  So in the future when I state a position I will create a thread just for you.  This way we can be efficient in you telling me what I should post and how often.  I'm eternally grateful your highness has graced me with the wisdom of your razor blade tentacles of control.


----------



## Foxfyre

CurveLight said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....is that why I've said the protest against the ad is stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did say that you were against the protest in one post but spent much more time in others saying why they were objecting to the ad for the wrong reasons.  You didn't suggest that they shouldn't object to the ad.  You have spent most of your time on the thread mocking, insulting, ridiculing, or putting down those who don't have a problem with the ad.
> 
> See your posts:  #18, #19, #46, #63, #142, #177, #186, #260, #275, and #292 -- that's just a few.  I could have listed a lot more.
> 
> So please post the carbon credits you receive putting that much effort into criticizing a simple television ad celebrating life and putting down anybody who thinks it is okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is such a sad display.  Do you realize what you have just done? You admitted I've pointed out the protest against the ad is stupid.  You then try to dismiss that because you don't like my posts.  This is why your camp is rightfully seen as control freaks.  Most of my posts have been on the issue of abortion itself.  So in the future when I state a position I will create a thread just for you.  This way we can be efficient in you telling me what I should post and how often.  I'm eternally grateful your highness has graced me with the wisdom of your razor blade tentacles of control.
Click to expand...


No, that isn't what I did.  I simply pointed out the speciousness of your argument.  (I have been trying to work 'specious' into sentences today so thanks for the opening.)


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So first I was wrong based on your assumption I've not studied scripture.  Now I'm wrong because I've studied it more than you and I'm caught up on "technicalies."  I asked those questions because I was fairly confident you couldn't answer them without Google.  You also completely ignored my post and your reaction to it.  I pointed out Jesus would much rather have seen the $2.5 million go to helping people for silly things like food and clothes instead of a freaking 30 second commercial.  You responded by accusing me of speaking about Jesus out of pure ignorance.  When you see that is not the case you totally ignore the mistake of your assumption and do a typical soap box dance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized for saying "read".  You have demonstrated that you stood back and looked at the words.  You did not demonstrate that you have any 'comprehension' of the message (or you would not support abortion).
> Your "side tract, distract" methods hold no interest for me.  I will not jump to another unrelated subject.  If you want to talk about abortion: fine.  If you want to talk about Yeshua supporting abortion: you will be negated.  If you want to talk about totally different subjects, let us meet on another thread.  I never claimed to be a Biblical scholar; I do believe I comprehend what I read fairly well (and it doesn't waste time wondering if Paul came in as a spy, I concentrate on what Paul did after he started working as an apostle and his witnessing).
> 
> If you can demonstrate where Yeshua spoke of the "justice" of killing unborn children, I would be happy to hear what you have to say.  If you can demonstrate "fully" where the Holy Trinity supported baby sacrifice, I would be willing to listen.  If you cannot, you just might want to leave Yeshua out of your arguements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you on? Assumption Marathon?  I don't support abortions.   I never said anything about Jesus supporting them either.  Let's try this one more time:
> 
> J
> ESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
Click to expand...


Maybe you know the Bible better....please show me where Yeshua walked up to any person and told them how to spend "their" money.  There were occassions when people asked Him for advice and he knew they were caught up in their possessions; He suggested selling them (to escape worshipping the possessions, not to be poor).

Again, let me know when you have that part about Yeshua telling people how to spend their "own" money.[/QUOTE]


As soon as you show where I claimed Jesus ordered people how to spend their money.  This is a great example of why I am such a shitty Christian.  I'm supposed to love you as a brother in Christ and on some level that is true, but.....I can't help saying how fucking ridiculous you look to keep putting words into someone else's mouth to justify your own pathetically retarded self righteous soap box dance.  I clearly said Jesus would PREFER. That is not an order, mandate, law, or commandment.  It's simply a fucking preference.[/QUOTE]

Just how many times did you write "JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL."  I put no words in your mouth.  I understood you to say you knew the Bible.  I was giving you the benefit of doubt.  YOU WERE implying that you knew what Yeshua wanted.  I was asking you to point out how you came to that conclusion.  Still I am puting no words in your mouth, when above you state " Jesus would PREFER"; I do ask you to explain yourself (because it looks a lot like you are bearing false witness against the Savior).
I believe that your implications "are" telling" FotF that they should choose to spend their money on something that you would prefer (not Yeshua).  If that commercial makes ONE mother look at the fetus inside of her like a child and not a "cancer", and she does not kill the child, it 'might' be said to be worth it.  If it saves hundreds or thousands of childrens lives, then IMHO, it is definitely "worth it".


----------



## saveliberty

CurveLight said:


> What are you on? Assumption Marathon?  I don't support abortions.   I never said anything about Jesus supporting them either.  Let's try this one more time:
> 
> J
> ESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.



Sort of hard to clothe and feed child killed by abortion.  Don't you think God would like us to help them?  Sounds like that 30 second commerical is pretty important.

So did God tell you to put the money toward food and clothing in a dream or send an angel during your food relief effort?


----------



## CurveLight

saveliberty said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you on? Assumption Marathon?  I don't support abortions.   I never said anything about Jesus supporting them either.  Let's try this one more time:
> 
> J
> ESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of hard to clothe and feed child killed by abortion.  Don't you think God would like us to help them?  Sounds like that 30 second commerical is pretty important.
> 
> So did God tell you to put the money toward food and clothing in a dream or send an angel during your food relief effort?
Click to expand...


That's pretty damn silly.  The commercial is financially justified by claiming the unborn can't be fed.  Yep.  Maybe you're right.  Maybe I'm living in a dream world and instead of abortion being the most hotly contested political issue over the last forty years it is really a little known topic.  They need this commercial because hardly anyone has ever heard of abortion.  Holy shit you guys never stop inventing ways to embarrass yourselves.


----------



## CurveLight

Foxfyre said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did say that you were against the protest in one post but spent much more time in others saying why they were objecting to the ad for the wrong reasons.  You didn't suggest that they shouldn't object to the ad.  You have spent most of your time on the thread mocking, insulting, ridiculing, or putting down those who don't have a problem with the ad.
> 
> See your posts:  #18, #19, #46, #63, #142, #177, #186, #260, #275, and #292 -- that's just a few.  I could have listed a lot more.
> 
> So please post the carbon credits you receive putting that much effort into criticizing a simple television ad celebrating life and putting down anybody who thinks it is okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is such a sad display.  Do you realize what you have just done? You admitted I've pointed out the protest against the ad is stupid.  You then try to dismiss that because you don't like my posts.  This is why your camp is rightfully seen as control freaks.  Most of my posts have been on the issue of abortion itself.  So in the future when I state a position I will create a thread just for you.  This way we can be efficient in you telling me what I should post and how often.  I'm eternally grateful your highness has graced me with the wisdom of your razor blade tentacles of control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that isn't what I did.  I simply pointed out the speciousness of your argument.  (I have been trying to work 'specious' into sentences today so thanks for the opening.)
Click to expand...


You didn't point out any specious argument.  You were looking so hard to use that word you created a mini fantasy to justify it in your own mind.  Let me help you once again and restate my three arguments in this thread:

1.  Protesting against the ad because it's airing during a fucking child's game is ridiculous.

2.  Jesus would have preferred the money was used to help feed those in need.  

3.  Pro choice is the only position on abortion.

If you want a more accurate use of the word specious then you at your own bullshit.  Like saying protesting this ad seriously threatens the First Amendment.  ROTFL!


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized for saying "read".  You have demonstrated that you stood back and looked at the words.  You did not demonstrate that you have any 'comprehension' of the message (or you would not support abortion).
> Your "side tract, distract" methods hold no interest for me.  I will not jump to another unrelated subject.  If you want to talk about abortion: fine.  If you want to talk about Yeshua supporting abortion: you will be negated.  If you want to talk about totally different subjects, let us meet on another thread.  I never claimed to be a Biblical scholar; I do believe I comprehend what I read fairly well (and it doesn't waste time wondering if Paul came in as a spy, I concentrate on what Paul did after he started working as an apostle and his witnessing).
> 
> If you can demonstrate where Yeshua spoke of the "justice" of killing unborn children, I would be happy to hear what you have to say.  If you can demonstrate "fully" where the Holy Trinity supported baby sacrifice, I would be willing to listen.  If you cannot, you just might want to leave Yeshua out of your arguements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you on? Assumption Marathon?  I don't support abortions.   I never said anything about Jesus supporting them either.  Let's try this one more time:
> 
> J
> ESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you know the Bible better....please show me where Yeshua walked up to any person and told them how to spend "their" money.  There were occassions when people asked Him for advice and he knew they were caught up in their possessions; He suggested selling them (to escape worshipping the possessions, not to be poor).
> 
> Again, let me know when you have that part about Yeshua telling people how to spend their "own" money.
Click to expand...



As soon as you show where I claimed Jesus ordered people how to spend their money.  This is a great example of why I am such a shitty Christian.  I'm supposed to love you as a brother in Christ and on some level that is true, but.....I can't help saying how fucking ridiculous you look to keep putting words into someone else's mouth to justify your own pathetically retarded self righteous soap box dance.  I clearly said Jesus would PREFER. That is not an order, mandate, law, or commandment.  It's simply a fucking preference.[/QUOTE]

Just how many times did you write "JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL."  I put no words in your mouth.  I understood you to say you knew the Bible.  I was giving you the benefit of doubt.  YOU WERE implying that you knew what Yeshua wanted.  I was asking you to point out how you came to that conclusion.  Still I am puting no words in your mouth, when above you state " Jesus would PREFER"; I do ask you to explain yourself (because it looks a lot like you are bearing false witness against the Savior).
I believe that your implications "are" telling" FotF that they should choose to spend their money on something that you would prefer (not Yeshua).  If that commercial makes ONE mother look at the fetus inside of her like a child and not a "cancer", and she does not kill the child, it 'might' be said to be worth it.  If it saves hundreds or thousands of childrens lives, then IMHO, it is definitely "worth it".[/QUOTE]


Your sanctimonious bullshit is a joke.  You try to use the name Yeshua as if it gives you some insight but anyone who has ever actually read the NT knows social economic justice was a core foundation of Jesus' ministry.  You probably have no idea how many time he spoke on economic issues yet you kept making assumptions about me with clearly false claims just to try and find something to whine about.

Know what's even more hilarious?  Your ignorance on the money issue.  Even FOTF has specifically stated the money used to pay for their commercial came from outside donations and was not taken from their general fund.  If FOTF was one hundred percent behind the justification to spend $2.5 million for 30 seconds then why didn't they take it from their own general funds?  Why was it so embarrassing they went out of their way to say the money came from somewhere else?  (rhetorical.  I don't expect a shred of honesty from you.)


----------



## Foxfyre

CurveLight said:


> If you want a more accurate use of the word specious then you at your own bullshit.  Like saying protesting this ad seriously threatens the First Amendment.  ROTFL!



Which I didn't say, but I'm sure in your peculiar way of looking at the world, you did come to that interpretation.  But thanks for restating your position.  I accept it as your interpretation of what you said however specious it makes your arguments to get there.  Do have a nice day.


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you on? Assumption Marathon?  I don't support abortions.   I never said anything about Jesus supporting them either.  Let's try this one more time:
> 
> J
> ESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logical4u quote:
> Maybe you know the Bible better....please show me where Yeshua walked up to any person and told them how to spend "their" money.  There were occassions when people asked Him for advice and he knew they were caught up in their possessions; He suggested selling them (to escape worshipping the possessions, not to be poor).
> 
> Again, let me know when you have that part about Yeshua telling people how to spend their "own" money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curvelight quote:
> As soon as you show where I claimed Jesus ordered people how to spend their money.  This is a great example of why I am such a shitty Christian.  I'm supposed to love you as a brother in Christ and on some level that is true, but.....I can't help saying how fucking ridiculous you look to keep putting words into someone else's mouth to justify your own pathetically retarded self righteous soap box dance.  I clearly said Jesus would PREFER. That is not an order, mandate, law, or commandment.  It's simply a fucking preference.
Click to expand...


Logical4u quote:
Just how many times did you write "JESUS WOULD PREFER THE $2.5 MILLION GO TO FOOD AND CLOTHES FOR THOSE IN NEED INSTEAD OF A 30 SECOND TV COMMERCIAL."  I put no words in your mouth.  I understood you to say you knew the Bible.  I was giving you the benefit of doubt.  YOU WERE implying that you knew what Yeshua wanted.  I was asking you to point out how you came to that conclusion.  Still I am puting no words in your mouth, when above you state " Jesus would PREFER"; I do ask you to explain yourself (because it looks a lot like you are bearing false witness against the Savior).
I believe that your implications "are" telling" FotF that they should choose to spend their money on something that you would prefer (not Yeshua).  If that commercial makes ONE mother look at the fetus inside of her like a child and not a "cancer", and she does not kill the child, it 'might' be said to be worth it.  If it saves hundreds or thousands of childrens lives, then IMHO, it is definitely "worth it".[/QUOTE]

CurveLight quote:
Your sanctimonious bullshit is a joke.  You try to use the name Yeshua as if it gives you some insight but anyone who has ever actually read the NT knows social economic justice was a core foundation of Jesus' ministry.  You probably have no idea how many time he spoke on economic issues yet you kept making assumptions about me with clearly false claims just to try and find something to whine about.

Know what's even more hilarious?  Your ignorance on the money issue.  Even FOTF has specifically stated the money used to pay for their commercial came from outside donations and was not taken from their general fund.  If FOTF was one hundred percent behind the justification to spend $2.5 million for 30 seconds then why didn't they take it from their own general funds?  Why was it so embarrassing they went out of their way to say the money came from somewhere else?  (rhetorical.  I don't expect a shred of honesty from you.)[/QUOTE]

Is this more of the side track, distract method?  We were not discussing the economics lessons in the NT.  We were conflicting over "what would Jesus do".  You have stated repeatedly the money should be spent on the less fortunate (like there could be any less fortunate than those killed, just because they are ALIVE).  
I have asked you to back it up, where did Yeshua ever walk up to someone, spending money and recommend where they should spend the money (you have implied you ARE a Biblical scholar, so you might know this).  Please educate this person that has " ignorance on the money issue" and doesn't have "a shred of honesty".  Maybe you prefer the corrupt church of the inquisition, you would have made a good pope: don't argue, I said it, that makes it so.

I find it amusing how you change your stance:
first it is about the audacity to run an ad supporting the choice of life
then it is "Jesus" would have wanted the money spent on other causes
then it is about the money could be better spent
then it is about where the money originated
then it is about FotF being totally committed
Do you have other issues with this?  Or are you done?


----------



## CurveLight

Foxfyre said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want a more accurate use of the word specious then you at your own bullshit.  Like saying protesting this ad seriously threatens the First Amendment.  ROTFL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which I didn't say, but I'm sure in your peculiar way of looking at the world, you did come to that interpretation.  But thanks for restating your position.  I accept it as your interpretation of what you said however specious it makes your arguments to get there.  Do have a nice day.
Click to expand...



Hahaha....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1959328-post352.html


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:
			
		

> Is this more of the side track, distract method?  We were not discussing the economics lessons in the NT.  We were conflicting over "what would Jesus do".  You have stated repeatedly the money should be spent on the less fortunate (like there could be any less fortunate than those killed, just because they are ALIVE).
> I have asked you to back it up, where did Yeshua ever walk up to someone, spending money and recommend where they should spend the money (you have implied you ARE a Biblical scholar, so you might know this).  Please educate this person that has " ignorance on the money issue" and doesn't have "a shred of honesty".  Maybe you prefer the corrupt church of the inquisition, you would have made a good pope: don't argue, I said it, that makes it so.
> 
> I find it amusing how you change your stance:
> first it is about the audacity to run an ad supporting the choice of life
> then it is "Jesus" would have wanted the money spent on other causes
> then it is about the money could be better spent
> then it is about where the money originated
> then it is about FotF being totally committed
> Do you have other issues with this?  Or are you done?




Is it possible there is a connection between what Jesus had to say about social economics and my pointing ou
t he would prefer the $2.5 million be spent on feeding people?  I've also not implied I am a scholar of any kind. That's more of your petty whining because you got.....you're not worth the effort.


----------



## Foxfyre

Jesus unmistakably had great compassion for the poor, sick, despised etc. and he was the foundation for a new religion that would focus on relief of much human suffering.  But he never despised those who showed him kindness and defended those who did that and were criticized for not giving the money to the poor instead.  As he said, the poor are always with us.  And even while they should not be neglected, they should not be used as an excuse for not doing other things that we should do.

I think Jesus would defend FonF for efforts to change the hearts and minds of people to value and cherish and celebrate life instead of championing the right to destroy it.  And I think he would rightly understand that such effort would not take the food out of the mouths of the poor.


----------



## CurveLight

Foxfyre said:


> Jesus unmistakably had great compassion for the poor, sick, despised etc. and he was the foundation for a new religion that would focus on relief of much human suffering.  But he never despised those who showed him kindness and defended those who did that and were criticized for not giving the money to the poor instead.  As he said, the poor are always with us.  And even while they should not be neglected, they should not be used as an excuse for not doing other things that we should do.
> 
> I think Jesus would defend FonF for efforts to change the hearts and minds of people to value and cherish and celebrate life instead of championing the right to destroy it.  And I think he would rightly understand that such effort would not take the food out of the mouths of the poor.




He said the poor would always be with us because he knew people would do stupid shit like trying to use his name to justify spending $2.5 million on a 30 second tv commercial.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ABikerSailor said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.....the statement you edited from Jesus was him answering a question.  Hence, I asked why you did not provide an honest quote while you complain about people editing the bible.  I'm also one hundred percent confident you have absolutely no idea what that narrative means.  You just repeat what you hear without studying the scriptures for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Bible class, I made a point in the way I saw fit. If you wish to provide the quote in its entirety, then be my guest. I never once complained about anyone editing the Bible, perhaps you should seek lessons on reading comprehension.
> 
> As for as knowing scripture, I had plenty of time in a TDCJ unit to read so I do know what that narrative means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hey There Ya Fucking CONVICT!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> No fucking wonder you like ass sex.  Apparently you've had a LOT!
> 
> So tell me......does Bubba still write you about the hot and steamy nights.*​
> You're right.  You didn't complain about anyone editing the Bible.
> 
> I did.
> 
> Why?  Because of the KJV (most widely used Bible) was heavily edited by the Niceine Council.
> 
> Book of Daniel is a wonderful example.  So is the refusal to include the Gnostic Texts.
> 
> By the way cock smoker.......feel froggy?
Click to expand...


Grow the fuck up.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Bible class, I made a point in the way I saw fit. If you wish to provide the quote in its entirety, then be my guest. I never once complained about anyone editing the Bible, perhaps you should seek lessons on reading comprehension.
> 
> As for as knowing scripture, I had plenty of time in a TDCJ unit to read so I do know what that narrative means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey There Ya Fucking CONVICT!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> No fucking wonder you like ass sex.  Apparently you've had a LOT!
> 
> So tell me......does Bubba still write you about the hot and steamy nights.*​
> You're right.  You didn't complain about anyone editing the Bible.
> 
> I did.
> 
> Why?  Because of the KJV (most widely used Bible) was heavily edited by the Niceine Council.
> 
> Book of Daniel is a wonderful example.  So is the refusal to include the Gnostic Texts.
> 
> By the way cock smoker.......feel froggy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grow the fuck up.
Click to expand...


Surprised you posted here again.  Thought you'd be too embarrassed.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey There Ya Fucking CONVICT!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> No fucking wonder you like ass sex.  Apparently you've had a LOT!
> 
> So tell me......does Bubba still write you about the hot and steamy nights.*​
> You're right.  You didn't complain about anyone editing the Bible.
> 
> I did.
> 
> Why?  Because of the KJV (most widely used Bible) was heavily edited by the Niceine Council.
> 
> Book of Daniel is a wonderful example.  So is the refusal to include the Gnostic Texts.
> 
> By the way cock smoker.......feel froggy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grow the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surprised you posted here again.  Thought you'd be too embarrassed.
Click to expand...


Why would I be embarrassed?


----------



## logical4u

CurveLight said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus unmistakably had great compassion for the poor, sick, despised etc. and he was the foundation for a new religion that would focus on relief of much human suffering.  But he never despised those who showed him kindness and defended those who did that and were criticized for not giving the money to the poor instead.  As he said, the poor are always with us.  And even while they should not be neglected, they should not be used as an excuse for not doing other things that we should do.
> 
> I think Jesus would defend FonF for efforts to change the hearts and minds of people to value and cherish and celebrate life instead of championing the right to destroy it.  And I think he would rightly understand that such effort would not take the food out of the mouths of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said the poor would always be with us because he knew people would do stupid shit like trying to use his name to justify spending $2.5 million on a 30 second tv commercial.
Click to expand...



There you go, bearing false witness against the Savior...again.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying semen has nothing to do with pregnancy?
Click to expand...


No I'm saying that semen emission isn't the same as abortion. Dumbass!


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you're really reaching here aren't ya? If you're trying to equate semen emissions to giving birth then you're even more stupid than I realized.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying semen has nothing to do with pregnancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I'm saying that semen emission isn't the same as abortion. Dumbass!
Click to expand...


Nobody said semen emission is the same as abortion so why object to a claim that was never made?


----------



## CurveLight

logical4u said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus unmistakably had great compassion for the poor, sick, despised etc. and he was the foundation for a new religion that would focus on relief of much human suffering.  But he never despised those who showed him kindness and defended those who did that and were criticized for not giving the money to the poor instead.  As he said, the poor are always with us.  And even while they should not be neglected, they should not be used as an excuse for not doing other things that we should do.
> 
> I think Jesus would defend FonF for efforts to change the hearts and minds of people to value and cherish and celebrate life instead of championing the right to destroy it.  And I think he would rightly understand that such effort would not take the food out of the mouths of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said the poor would always be with us because he knew people would do stupid shit like trying to use his name to justify spending $2.5 million on a 30 second tv commercial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There you go, bearing false witness against the Savior...again.
Click to expand...



Well, since you made the accusation, I guess I should either laugh or laugh a lot.  Think I will simply laugh.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying semen has nothing to do with pregnancy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm saying that semen emission isn't the same as abortion. Dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said semen emission is the same as abortion so why object to a claim that was never made?
Click to expand...


You brought up "semen emisison" and I'm saying to your stupid ass and to your stupid friends that one has nothing to do with the other. Get your head out of your ass!!


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> Let me help you once again and restate my three arguments in this thread:
> 
> 1.  Protesting against the ad because it's airing during a fucking child's game is ridiculous.
> 
> *2.  Jesus would have preferred the money was used to help feed those in need.  *
> 
> 3.  Pro choice is the only position on abortion.
> 
> If you want a more accurate use of the word specious then you at your own bullshit.  Like saying protesting this ad seriously threatens the First Amendment.  ROTFL!






CurveLight said:


> That is what is so endearing......even when people cite evidence that contradicts their claim they ignore it and just keep on repeating until bedtime.  There is no more Conservatism in the US.  *Religious extremists who want to use the government to enforce their theology onto others has more in common with Saudi Arabia than America. * My only hope is the Christian Right and Neocons will get the hell out of my Party and stop pretending to be Conservative.  We already have one "C" word and those camps are trying to force it into two.



Its funny how liberals will claim conservatives are trying to shove their religious morals down everyone else's throats, yet turn around and claim that Jesus would of been for social programs that help the poor so thus we should embrace such programs.

Do you not see how hypocritical you are, or are you fully aware of how dishonest your arguements are but proceed with them anyway because you have no honest way to make a point?

If you're against using "religion" to push forward political agendas, why use Jesus to push your own agenda?  Or course that's a rhetorical question, we all know why you do it - to push forward your own agenda at all costs.


----------



## logical4u

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm saying that semen emission isn't the same as abortion. Dumbass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said semen emission is the same as abortion so why object to a claim that was never made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought up "semen emisison" and I'm saying to your stupid ass and to your stupid friends that one has nothing to do with the other. Get your head out of your ass!!
Click to expand...


Can that "semen emission" thing be taxed?  It must contribute to global warming.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you once again and restate my three arguments in this thread:
> 
> 1.  Protesting against the ad because it's airing during a fucking child's game is ridiculous.
> 
> *2.  Jesus would have preferred the money was used to help feed those in need.  *
> 
> 3.  Pro choice is the only position on abortion.
> 
> If you want a more accurate use of the word specious then you at your own bullshit.  Like saying protesting this ad seriously threatens the First Amendment.  ROTFL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what is so endearing......even when people cite evidence that contradicts their claim they ignore it and just keep on repeating until bedtime.  There is no more Conservatism in the US.  *Religious extremists who want to use the government to enforce their theology onto others has more in common with Saudi Arabia than America. * My only hope is the Christian Right and Neocons will get the hell out of my Party and stop pretending to be Conservative.  We already have one "C" word and those camps are trying to force it into two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its funny how liberals will claim conservatives are trying to shove their religious morals down everyone else's throats, yet turn around and claim that Jesus would of been for social programs that help the poor so thus we should embrace such programs.
> 
> Do you not see how hypocritical you are, or are you fully aware of how dishonest your arguements are but proceed with them anyway because you have no honest way to make a point?
> 
> If you're against using "religion" to push forward political agendas, why use Jesus to push your own agenda?  Or course that's a rhetorical question, we all know why you do it - to push forward your own agenda at all costs.
Click to expand...



You super dumbass.  You took two quotes discussing different issues and you try to push them together to claim hypocrisy?  Spending the money to run the ad doesn't have a fucking thing to do with trying to use the government to force theology onto society.  How can you be so damn desperate to try something so transparently dishonest?


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm saying that semen emission isn't the same as abortion. Dumbass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said semen emission is the same as abortion so why object to a claim that was never made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought up "semen emisison" and I'm saying to your stupid ass and to your stupid friends that one has nothing to do with the other. Get your head out of your ass!!
Click to expand...



How many times have you dodged the question now? Six? Seven?  Lol...head out your ass.....


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said semen emission is the same as abortion so why object to a claim that was never made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up "semen emisison" and I'm saying to your stupid ass and to your stupid friends that one has nothing to do with the other. Get your head out of your ass!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you dodged the question now? Six? Seven?  Lol...head out your ass.....
Click to expand...


That's because the question had no bearing on the abortion debate, dumbass.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up "semen emisison" and I'm saying to your stupid ass and to your stupid friends that one has nothing to do with the other. Get your head out of your ass!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you dodged the question now? Six? Seven?  Lol...head out your ass.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because the question had no bearing on the abortion debate, dumbass.
Click to expand...



Why? Because you say so to dodge the question?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you dodged the question now? Six? Seven?  Lol...head out your ass.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the question had no bearing on the abortion debate, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because you say so to dodge the question?
Click to expand...


Then explain how semen emissions and abortions are comparable.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the question had no bearing on the abortion debate, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because you say so to dodge the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain how semen emissions and abortions are comparable.
Click to expand...


For the 20th time....I never claimed they are comparable.  You can't demand it be explained when that claim was never made.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because you say so to dodge the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain how semen emissions and abortions are comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the 20th time....I never claimed they are comparable.  You can't demand it be explained when that claim was never made.
Click to expand...


Then you are truly stupid. I just stated that semen emissions had no relevance to the abortion debate and you asked "why" then you clearly admit that the two are not comparable. It was you that brought up the question about semen emissions in a debate about abortions when you knew it wasn't a relevent question. That shows just how utterly stupid you are. So I've concluded that you're nothing but a troll who has no desire for honest debate.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain how semen emissions and abortions are comparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the 20th time....I never claimed they are comparable.  You can't demand it be explained when that claim was never made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are truly stupid. I just stated that semen emissions had no relevance to the abortion debate and you asked "why" then you clearly admit that the two are not comparable. It was you that brought up the question about semen emissions in a debate about abortions when you knew it wasn't a relevent question. That shows just how utterly stupid you are. So I've concluded that you're nothing but a troll who has no desire for honest debate.
Click to expand...


My, you are slower than the average anti-choicer.  Semen emissions not being the same as abortions does not mandate it is irrelevant to the debate.  We are discussing the legal aspects of when and why it is appropriate for the government to invade the privacy of one's body.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 20th time....I never claimed they are comparable.  You can't demand it be explained when that claim was never made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are truly stupid. I just stated that semen emissions had no relevance to the abortion debate and you asked "why" then you clearly admit that the two are not comparable. It was you that brought up the question about semen emissions in a debate about abortions when you knew it wasn't a relevent question. That shows just how utterly stupid you are. So I've concluded that you're nothing but a troll who has no desire for honest debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, you are slower than the average anti-choicer.  Semen emissions not being the same as abortions does not mandate it is irrelevant to the debate.  We are discussing the legal aspects of when and why it is appropriate for the government to invade the privacy of one's body.
Click to expand...


I haven't mentioned the governments role or lack thereof in any of my post. This is something you pulled out of your ass to change the subject. I'm arguing as to what should be morally accepted by society, I'm well aware of the fact that abortions are legal in most states. It's my opinion that killing an unborn child is akin to murder and should be treated as such which limits the governments role to simply prosecuting those that choose to terminate an innocent human life. In other words Roe V Wade needs to be repealed.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the question had no bearing on the abortion debate, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because you say so to dodge the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain how semen emissions and abortions are comparable.
Click to expand...

The first can lead to the second.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are truly stupid. I just stated that semen emissions had no relevance to the abortion debate and you asked "why" then you clearly admit that the two are not comparable. It was you that brought up the question about semen emissions in a debate about abortions when you knew it wasn't a relevent question. That shows just how utterly stupid you are. So I've concluded that you're nothing but a troll who has no desire for honest debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, you are slower than the average anti-choicer.  Semen emissions not being the same as abortions does not mandate it is irrelevant to the debate.  We are discussing the legal aspects of when and why it is appropriate for the government to invade the privacy of one's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't mentioned the governments role or lack thereof in any of my post. This is something you pulled out of your ass to change the subject. I'm arguing as to what should be morally accepted by society, I'm well aware of the fact that abortions are legal in most states. It's my opinion that killing an unborn child is akin to murder and should be treated as such which limits the governments role to simply prosecuting those that choose to terminate an innocent human life. In other words Roe V Wade needs to be repealed.
Click to expand...

What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort?  How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> My, you are slower than the average anti-choicer.  Semen emissions not being the same as abortions does not mandate it is irrelevant to the debate.  We are discussing the legal aspects of when and why it is appropriate for the government to invade the privacy of one's body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't mentioned the governments role or lack thereof in any of my post. This is something you pulled out of your ass to change the subject. I'm arguing as to what should be morally accepted by society, I'm well aware of the fact that abortions are legal in most states. It's my opinion that killing an unborn child is akin to murder and should be treated as such which limits the governments role to simply prosecuting those that choose to terminate an innocent human life. In other words Roe V Wade needs to be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort?  How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?
Click to expand...


Sadly you will never stop women from killing their unborn children just as you'll never stop people from committing murder, burglaries or any other illegal activity. The punishment should be debated in a court of law on a case by case basis. Personally I think probation coupled with counseling ought to suffice.


----------



## Foxfyre

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't mentioned the governments role or lack thereof in any of my post. This is something you pulled out of your ass to change the subject. I'm arguing as to what should be morally accepted by society, I'm well aware of the fact that abortions are legal in most states. It's my opinion that killing an unborn child is akin to murder and should be treated as such which limits the governments role to simply prosecuting those that choose to terminate an innocent human life. In other words Roe V Wade needs to be repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort?  How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly you will never stop women from killing their unborn children just as you'll never stop people from committing murder, burglaries or any other illegal activity. The punishment should be debated in a court of law on a case by case basis. Personally I think probation coupled with counseling ought to suffice.
Click to expand...


Abortion as a necessity to preserve life has always been legal in this country and it should remain so.  Abortion because a baby was inconvenient was mostly illegal up until Roe v Wade.   Roe v Wade did not legalize all abortion, but established reasonable guidelines.  In the first trimester, the state would be hands off entirely and that took care of rape, incest, and inconvenience.  In the second trimester, the state could have some interest, and in the third trimester the state could have a great deal of interest; i.e. outlaw all abortion that was not medically necessary.

Of course the liberal courts have corrupted the intent of Roe v Wade by making all abortion legal including the actual birth itself so long as any part of the baby remained in the birth canal.  Our President, as an Illinois legislator, also voted to allow a baby that survived abortion to be killed or neglected to death even if it was completely viable.  I can't imagine the mentality that would see that as a justifiable act.

Evenso, there is no way to outlaw abortion as a means to stop it.  But we certainly do not have to condone it.  And I would be happy or at least happier with the federal government getting out of it altogether and allowing each state and/or local community to decide its policy about that.  I think that would effectively stop abortion for convenience in many places and would save the lives of millions of babies.  I think it would encourage more people to take precautions to avoid an unwanted pregnancy too.

Those hell bent on having an abortion just because they didn't want to give birth to the baby would still have places to go to have it killed.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't mentioned the governments role or lack thereof in any of my post. This is something you pulled out of your ass to change the subject. I'm arguing as to what should be morally accepted by society, I'm well aware of the fact that abortions are legal in most states. It's my opinion that killing an unborn child is akin to murder and should be treated as such which limits the governments role to simply prosecuting those that choose to terminate an innocent human life. In other words Roe V Wade needs to be repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort?  How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly you will never stop women from killing their unborn children just as you'll never stop people from committing murder, burglaries or any other illegal activity. The punishment should be debated in a court of law on a case by case basis. Personally I think probation coupled with counseling ought to suffice.
Click to expand...

You certainly are soft on "murder".


----------



## Anguille

Foxfyre said:


> .  And I would be happy or at least happier with the federal government getting out of it altogether and allowing each state and/or local community to decide its policy about that.  I think that would effectively stop abortion for convenience in many places and would save the lives of millions of babies.  I think it would encourage more people to take precautions to avoid an unwanted pregnancy too.
> 
> Those hell bent on having an abortion just because they didn't want to give birth to the baby would still have places to go to have it killed.



That didn't work before and there is no reason to think it will work ain the future.

What sort of punishment would you think just to mete out to people who abort illegally? What methods of restraint would you propose to prevent women who intend to have an illegal abortion from having one?
Ireland denies them a passport so they are doomed to stay within the borders and give birthor risk a back alley abortion.


----------



## Foxfyre

Anguille said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  And I would be happy or at least happier with the federal government getting out of it altogether and allowing each state and/or local community to decide its policy about that.  I think that would effectively stop abortion for convenience in many places and would save the lives of millions of babies.  I think it would encourage more people to take precautions to avoid an unwanted pregnancy too.
> 
> Those hell bent on having an abortion just because they didn't want to give birth to the baby would still have places to go to have it killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That didn't work before and there is no reason to think it will work ain the future.
> 
> What sort of punishment would you think just to mete out to people who abort illegally? What methods of restraint would you propose to prevent women who intend to have an illegal abortion from having one?
> Ireland denies them a passport so they are doomed to stay within the borders and give birthor risk a back alley abortion.
Click to expand...


It did work before and it will work again.  There are doctors who will perform an illegal abortion--they just call it a D & C--they did it before and they will do it again.  But Doctors who do place a value on the unborn life won't do it.

I did not suggest that the USA follow Ireland's lead.  I suggested that the federal government stay out of it.  Let the local folks decide what they consider to be morally acceptable or not.

People being people, there will always be some who will not value the unborn life and will decide to keep abortion legal.  With the easy mobility available to all citizens here, if your community doesn't allow abortion clinics, you can go where they do.   If that's a bit inconvenient, then maybe more care will be taken to ensure that no pregnancy occurs or, if they get pregnant, they start shopping for bibs and baby furniture.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Foxfyre said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort?  How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly you will never stop women from killing their unborn children just as you'll never stop people from committing murder, burglaries or any other illegal activity. The punishment should be debated in a court of law on a case by case basis. Personally I think probation coupled with counseling ought to suffice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion as a necessity to preserve life has always been legal in this country and it should remain so.  Abortion because a baby was inconvenient was mostly illegal up until Roe v Wade.   Roe v Wade did not legalize all abortion, but established reasonable guidelines.  In the first trimester, the state would be hands off entirely and that took care of rape, incest, and inconvenience.  In the second trimester, the state could have some interest, and in the third trimester the state could have a great deal of interest; i.e. outlaw all abortion that was not medically necessary.
> 
> Of course the liberal courts have corrupted the intent of Roe v Wade by making all abortion legal including the actual birth itself so long as any part of the baby remained in the birth canal.  Our President, as an Illinois legislator, also voted to allow a baby that survived abortion to be killed or neglected to death even if it was completely viable.  I can't imagine the mentality that would see that as a justifiable act.
> 
> Evenso, there is no way to outlaw abortion as a means to stop it.  But we certainly do not have to condone it.  And I would be happy or at least happier with the federal government getting out of it altogether and allowing each state and/or local community to decide its policy about that.  I think that would effectively stop abortion for convenience in many places and would save the lives of millions of babies.  I think it would encourage more people to take precautions to avoid an unwanted pregnancy too.
> 
> Those hell bent on having an abortion just because they didn't want to give birth to the baby would still have places to go to have it killed.
Click to expand...


I'm not against and never have been against the practice when the question of preserving a life was the issue.  I've said that banning abortions would not end the practice entirely, however I do think it would decrease the number of abortions and hopefully women would  make better choices when it comes to procreation. I appreciate your thoughts and I don't totally disagree with all that you've stated, though you made some valid points.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort?  How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly you will never stop women from killing their unborn children just as you'll never stop people from committing murder, burglaries or any other illegal activity. The punishment should be debated in a court of law on a case by case basis. Personally I think probation coupled with counseling ought to suffice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You certainly are soft on "murder".
Click to expand...


I can be.


----------



## Anguille

Foxfyre said:


> Let the local folks decide what they consider to be morally acceptable or not.


No thank you. I do not want local or even non local folks making reproductive decisions for me or any woman. 

Nor do I want them throwing up roadblocks by omitting the 48 hour pill in rape kits, making it necessary to go out of state or the country or any such roadblock they may wish to toss in front of any woman.


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you once again and restate my three arguments in this thread:
> 
> 1.  Protesting against the ad because it's airing during a fucking child's game is ridiculous.
> 
> *2.  Jesus would have preferred the money was used to help feed those in need.  *
> 
> 3.  Pro choice is the only position on abortion.
> 
> If you want a more accurate use of the word specious then you at your own bullshit.  Like saying protesting this ad seriously threatens the First Amendment.  ROTFL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what is so endearing......even when people cite evidence that contradicts their claim they ignore it and just keep on repeating until bedtime.  There is no more Conservatism in the US.  *Religious extremists who want to use the government to enforce their theology onto others has more in common with Saudi Arabia than America. * My only hope is the Christian Right and Neocons will get the hell out of my Party and stop pretending to be Conservative.  We already have one "C" word and those camps are trying to force it into two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its funny how liberals will claim conservatives are trying to shove their religious morals down everyone else's throats, yet turn around and claim that Jesus would of been for social programs that help the poor so thus we should embrace such programs.
> 
> Do you not see how hypocritical you are, or are you fully aware of how dishonest your arguements are but proceed with them anyway because you have no honest way to make a point?
> 
> If you're against using "religion" to push forward political agendas, why use Jesus to push your own agenda?  Or course that's a rhetorical question, we all know why you do it - to push forward your own agenda at all costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You super dumbass.  You took two quotes discussing different issues and you try to push them together to claim hypocrisy?  Spending the money to run the ad doesn't have a fucking thing to do with trying to use the government to force theology onto society.  How can you be so damn desperate to try something so transparently dishonest?
Click to expand...



Both quotes are from you from this same thread, which is completely besides the point.  What does it matter if you are taking about two different issues?  If you are argueing that "Jesus would of done ..." for one issue, then turn around and call people who force their religion on others "religious extremists", that makes you a hypocrit.


----------



## Ravi

*sob* Maybe if Momma had listened to the doctors she would have had a son that could beat 'Bama. *sniff*


----------



## Paulie

Ravi said:


> *sob* Maybe if Momma had listened to the doctors she would have had a son that could beat 'Bama. *sniff*



Wow Rav...

That's on a Manifold kind of level there.

Heartless...tasteless...

I like it


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the local folks decide what they consider to be morally acceptable or not.
> 
> 
> 
> No thank you. I do not want local or even non local folks making reproductive decisions for me or any woman.
> 
> Nor do I want them throwing up roadblocks by omitting the 48 hour pill in rape kits, making it necessary to go out of state or the country or any such roadblock they may wish to toss in front of any woman.
Click to expand...


Being pro-life myself, I still support a 48 hour pill.  ESPECIALLY in the case of rape.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its funny how liberals will claim conservatives are trying to shove their religious morals down everyone else's throats, yet turn around and claim that Jesus would of been for social programs that help the poor so thus we should embrace such programs.
> 
> Do you not see how hypocritical you are, or are you fully aware of how dishonest your arguements are but proceed with them anyway because you have no honest way to make a point?
> 
> If you're against using "religion" to push forward political agendas, why use Jesus to push your own agenda?  Or course that's a rhetorical question, we all know why you do it - to push forward your own agenda at all costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You super dumbass.  You took two quotes discussing different issues and you try to push them together to claim hypocrisy?  Spending the money to run the ad doesn't have a fucking thing to do with trying to use the government to force theology onto society.  How can you be so damn desperate to try something so transparently dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Both quotes are from you from this same thread, which is completely besides the point.  What does it matter if you are taking about two different issues?  If you are argueing that "Jesus would of done ..." for one issue, then turn around and call people who force their religion on others "religious extremists", that makes you a hypocrit.
Click to expand...



Spending the money to run the ad doesn't have a fucking thing to do with trying to use the government to force theology onto society.


----------



## logical4u

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because you say so to dodge the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain how semen emissions and abortions are comparable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first can lead to the second.
Click to expand...


Is this the logic that men should be "controlled" because being a man "can lead" to being a rapist?  You guys are really impressive.

What is your next arguement: we should cut down all the trees in the world because forest "could lead" to fire?


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> Spending the money to run the ad doesn't have a fucking thing to do with trying to use the government to force theology onto society.



I never said it did.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spending the money to run the ad doesn't have a fucking thing to do with trying to use the government to force theology onto society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it did.
Click to expand...


You tried to push the two together to claim hypocrisy.


----------



## CurveLight

This is what I cannot figure out.  Why the hubbub? It's a stupid fucking doritos add in a dress.  We know R v W isn't going to get reversed and even if it did it would not suddenly make abortion illegal.  Me thinks the public is being played for fools.  Again.  

Oh, and Super Bowl ads have royally sucked for at least 5 years now but it is interesting to see the parallel between how sports has become nothing but a focus on money at the same time the commercials have become as much of an attraction as the game itself.


----------



## Contessa_Sharra

strollingbones said:


> If [a father] wants his son to grow up straight, he has to break the mother-son connection that is proper to infancy but not in the boy's interest after the age of three. In this way, the father has to be a model, demonstrating that it is possible for his son to maintain a loving relationship with this woman, his mom, while maintaining his own independence. In this way, the father is a healthy buffer between mother and son.
> 
> Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?


 
I know, I KNOW you are not trying to say that single mothers all raise up boys who CHOOSE to be homosexual men....


----------



## Bendix

It may just be semantics, but why would anyone be _for_ abortion??

I respect a woman's right to be in charge of her own body, but I think abortion is abhorrent. 
Should be a last course of action.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay folks,

If you missed it, today, you can watch that offensive and inflammatory Tim Tebow pro life super bowl ad: here:

Tim Tebow Super Bowl commercial ad: Watch YouTube video here, which doesn't say abortion or pro-life

And, in the interest of fairness, heres the rebuttal ad from the pro-choice camp

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_8NwD9_EVA]YouTube - Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad Response[/ame]


----------



## Avatar4321

That was it? They were upset over THAT?


----------



## Foxfyre

Avatar4321 said:


> That was it? They were upset over THAT?



Yup.  I think so.  I missed it during the Super Bowl this afternoon, but I believe that was it.


----------



## CurveLight

Foxfyre said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was it? They were upset over THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  I think so.  I missed it during the Super Bowl this afternoon, but I believe that was it.
Click to expand...



Pretty funny you posted a video that says she did consider having an abortion.  How could she have been told by a doctor to have an abortion where the doctor could not have done the abortion?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was it? They were upset over THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  I think so.  I missed it during the Super Bowl this afternoon, but I believe that was it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny you posted a video that says she did consider having an abortion.  How could she have been told by a doctor to have an abortion where the doctor could not have done the abortion?
Click to expand...


Because there are such things in this world called airplanes.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  I think so.  I missed it during the Super Bowl this afternoon, but I believe that was it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny you posted a video that says she did consider having an abortion.  How could she have been told by a doctor to have an abortion where the doctor could not have done the abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there are such things in this world called airplanes.
Click to expand...



It was a filipino doctor genius.  He wouldn't have been allowed to even suggest it.  But it's nice to see you struggling to tap dance around the deception.  I bet you even read or heard the airplane comment somewhere else and decided to repeat it because you thought it sounded good.....without thinking.....


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny you posted a video that says she did consider having an abortion.  How could she have been told by a doctor to have an abortion where the doctor could not have done the abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there are such things in this world called airplanes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was a filipino doctor genius.  He wouldn't have been allowed to even suggest it.  But it's nice to see you struggling to tap dance around the deception.  I bet you even read or heard the airplane comment somewhere else and decided to repeat it because you thought it sounded good.....without thinking.....
Click to expand...


And you evidence that proves that doctors in the Philippines aren't allowed to suggest abortions? Oh and I've known about airplanes since I was a young boy watching the suckers soar through the sky, so I didn't need to read it here.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there are such things in this world called airplanes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a filipino doctor genius.  He wouldn't have been allowed to even suggest it.  But it's nice to see you struggling to tap dance around the deception.  I bet you even read or heard the airplane comment somewhere else and decided to repeat it because you thought it sounded good.....without thinking.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you evidence that proves that doctors in the Philippines aren't allowed to suggest abortions? Oh and I've known about airplanes since I was a young boy watching the suckers soar through the sky, so I didn't need to read it here.
Click to expand...


You don't know the abortion laws.  If you did you wouldn't have asked that question.


----------



## theHawk

And we all know everyone everywhere follows the law without question.


----------



## CurveLight

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spending the money to run the ad doesn't have a fucking thing to do with trying to use the government to force theology onto society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tried to push the two together to claim hypocrisy.
Click to expand...



This is why you are such a joke.


----------



## theHawk

Yup, abortions never happen in the Philippines!!!





> *Official estimates put annual abortions at 400,000 to 500,000, and rising*. The World Health Organization estimate puts the figure at nearly 800,000, one of the highest rates of unsafe abortions in Asia.
> 
> Seventy percent of unwanted pregnancies in the Philippines end in abortion said Jean-Marc Olivé, the country representative of the World Health Organization. One of four pregnancies in the Philippines end in abortion, according to Pro-Life Philippines, an anti-abortion group.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/world/asia/15iht-phils.html


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to push the two together to claim hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you are such a joke.
Click to expand...


Don't get your panties in a bunch because every arguement you come up with blows up in your face.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a filipino doctor genius.  He wouldn't have been allowed to even suggest it.  But it's nice to see you struggling to tap dance around the deception.  I bet you even read or heard the airplane comment somewhere else and decided to repeat it because you thought it sounded good.....without thinking.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you evidence that proves that doctors in the Philippines aren't allowed to suggest abortions? Oh and I've known about airplanes since I was a young boy watching the suckers soar through the sky, so I didn't need to read it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the abortion laws.  If you did you wouldn't have asked that question.
Click to expand...


Hey stupid, speeding, robbery, murder etc.. is against the law yet it happens everyday all over the world. Besides they do have abortions in the philipines, but obviously your not bright enough to know that.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a filipino doctor genius.  He wouldn't have been allowed to even suggest it.  But it's nice to see you struggling to tap dance around the deception.  I bet you even read or heard the airplane comment somewhere else and decided to repeat it because you thought it sounded good.....without thinking.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you evidence that proves that doctors in the Philippines aren't allowed to suggest abortions? Oh and I've known about airplanes since I was a young boy watching the suckers soar through the sky, so I didn't need to read it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the abortion laws.  If you did you wouldn't have asked that question.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting on that evidence!


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to push the two together to claim hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you are such a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't get your panties in a bunch because every arguement you come up with blows up in your face.
Click to expand...



Cries the one who claims pro choice = pro abortion......lol....


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> Yup, abortions never happen in the Philippines!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Official estimates put annual abortions at 400,000 to 500,000, and rising*. The World Health Organization estimate puts the figure at nearly 800,000, one of the highest rates of unsafe abortions in Asia.
> 
> Seventy percent of unwanted pregnancies in the Philippines end in abortion said Jean-Marc Olivé, the country representative of the World Health Organization. One of four pregnancies in the Philippines end in abortion, according to Pro-Life Philippines, an anti-abortion group.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/world/asia/15iht-phils.html
Click to expand...



Lol.......and you still don't get it!


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny you posted a video that says she did consider having an abortion.  How could she have been told by a doctor to have an abortion where the doctor could not have done the abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there are such things in this world called airplanes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was a filipino doctor genius.  He wouldn't have been allowed to even suggest it.  But it's nice to see you struggling to tap dance around the deception.  I bet you even read or heard the airplane comment somewhere else and decided to repeat it because you thought it sounded good.....without thinking.....
Click to expand...


Poor argument CL... the fact is that he would not have been legally to suggest it.  You know as well as I do, for the right price a person will do things that are not legal.  He would have taken a big risk for doing so, but then for the right price he might have been willing to do it.  At the very least, if he suggested it and she balked and went to the officials, it would have been his word against hers and nothing would have happened.

When abortion was illegal here in the states, there were still medical professionals that would suggest abortion.  It wasn't legal, but it was done.

Immie


----------



## Avatar4321

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, abortions never happen in the Philippines!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Official estimates put annual abortions at 400,000 to 500,000, and rising*. The World Health Organization estimate puts the figure at nearly 800,000, one of the highest rates of unsafe abortions in Asia.
> 
> Seventy percent of unwanted pregnancies in the Philippines end in abortion said Jean-Marc Olivé, the country representative of the World Health Organization. One of four pregnancies in the Philippines end in abortion, according to Pro-Life Philippines, an anti-abortion group.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/world/asia/15iht-phils.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.......and you still don't get it!
Click to expand...


You're right. He doesn't get it. He hasnt yet realized that you dont care what evidence there is contrary to your position. You think abortion is so important that you can ignore that.

Im sure he will get it very soon. You can only put your hands over your ears and keep your eyes shut for so long before everyone realizes that you dont really care about the facts.


----------



## Anguille

CurveLight said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you are such a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get your panties in a bunch because every arguement you come up with blows up in your face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cries the one who claims pro choice = pro abortion......lol....
Click to expand...

Not so bright, that one. 
A bit of a birdbrain.


----------



## bodecea

I didn't even pay attention to that commercial until the woman talking was tackled at the end.  I thought it was an extension of the Betty White/Snickers commercial.


Wonder how many people in bars and Super Bowl parties heard the "message".  $2.5 million dollars worth of message.


----------



## Anguille

Avatar4321 said:


> You're right. He doesn't get it. He hasnt yet realized that you dont care what evidence there is contrary to your position.


There is no evidence. only supposition. No doctor has come forward to back up her story. Till then, it's just her claiming it happened. I think she made the entire thing up, to make herself into a celebrity. The anti-choicers are just helping to feed her fantasy. Poor Teddy!  His mother is a flake!


----------



## Anguille

bodecea said:


> I didn't even pay attention to that commercial until the woman talking was tackled at the end.  I thought it was an extension of the Betty White/Snickers commercial.
> 
> 
> Wonder how many people in bars and Super Bowl parties heard the "message".  $2.5 million dollars worth of message.


$2.5 million that could have gone to help Haiti.


----------



## theHawk

Anguille said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even pay attention to that commercial until the woman talking was tackled at the end.  I thought it was an extension of the Betty White/Snickers commercial.
> 
> 
> Wonder how many people in bars and Super Bowl parties heard the "message".  $2.5 million dollars worth of message.
> 
> 
> 
> $2.5 million that could have gone to help Haiti.
Click to expand...


Same could be said about any of the commercials.

You could cancel your internet subscription and sell your PC and donate that money to Hati.  That is, if you are really that concerned about them.


----------



## Anguille

theHawk said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even pay attention to that commercial until the woman talking was tackled at the end.  I thought it was an extension of the Betty White/Snickers commercial.
> 
> 
> Wonder how many people in bars and Super Bowl parties heard the "message".  $2.5 million dollars worth of message.
> 
> 
> 
> $2.5 million that could have gone to help Haiti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same could be said about any of the commercials.
> 
> You could cancel your internet subscription and sell your PC and donate that money to Hati.  That is, if you are really that concerned about them.
Click to expand...

I don't have an internet subscription, just a connection. 

I piggyback and donate the savings to a social justice non profit. 

And I don't even claim to be a caring" Christian.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. He doesn't get it. He hasnt yet realized that you dont care what evidence there is contrary to your position.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence. only supposition. No doctor has come forward to back up her story. Till then, it's just her claiming it happened. I think she made the entire thing up, to make herself into a celebrity. The anti-choicers are just helping to feed her fantasy. Poor Teddy!  His mother is a flake!
Click to expand...


His name is Tim you dimwitted fuck!


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. He doesn't get it. He hasnt yet realized that you dont care what evidence there is contrary to your position.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence. only supposition. No doctor has come forward to back up her story. Till then, it's just her claiming it happened. I think she made the entire thing up, to make herself into a celebrity. The anti-choicers are just helping to feed her fantasy. Poor Teddy!  His mother is a flake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His name is Tim you dimwitted fuck!
Click to expand...

I'm glad that's all you have to find fault with my statement.


----------



## saveliberty

Anguille said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> $2.5 million that could have gone to help Haiti.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about any of the commercials.
> 
> You could cancel your internet subscription and sell your PC and donate that money to Hati.  That is, if you are really that concerned about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have an internet subscription, just a connection.
> 
> I piggyback and donate the savings to a social justice non profit.
> 
> And I don't even claim to be a caring" Christian.
Click to expand...


You have no problem misrepresenting everything else, why draw the line at religion?


----------



## Immanuel

bodecea said:


> I didn't even pay attention to that commercial until the woman talking was tackled at the end.  I thought it was an extension of the Betty White/Snickers commercial.
> 
> 
> Wonder how many people in bars and Super Bowl parties heard the "message".  $2.5 million dollars worth of message.



I was watching for the commercial and it was almost over before I even realized it was the commercial I had been specifically watching for.  

I think the only way they can justify the production of that ad was in the controversy that it sparked before the Super Bowl.  The ad itself was hardly eye catching.

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence. only supposition. No doctor has come forward to back up her story. Till then, it's just her claiming it happened. I think she made the entire thing up, to make herself into a celebrity. The anti-choicers are just helping to feed her fantasy. Poor Teddy!  His mother is a flake!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His name is Tim you dimwitted fuck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad that's all you have to find fault with my statement.
Click to expand...


The rest of your rant is mere opinion. I corrected you on the facts and the fact is Tim's name isn't Teddy.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> His name is Tim you dimwitted fuck!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that's all you have to find fault with my statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rest of your rant is mere opinion. I corrected you on the facts and the fact is Tim's name isn't Teddy.
Click to expand...

Teddy is the name of the name of Mrs Tebrow's "abortion doctor".


----------



## Anguille

She wasn't proud of her son, Teddy the abortion doctor. Thus she was a flake.


----------



## theHawk

Looks like the libs are still furious over the ad.




> "*I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it*," said NOW's Terry O'Neill, according to the LA Times. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and *I don't find it charming*. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."
> 
> Before the ad aired, O'Neill responded to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who had criticized NOW's objections to the ad, by saying that &#8220;Focus on the Family has cynically set it up so they can say anyone who disagrees with airing this ad is disrespecting one woman and her choice. NOW respects every woman's right to plan her own family and insists our laws do the same."
> 
> Also prior to its airing, NOW vice president Erin Matson called the Tebow spot "*hate masquerading as love."*
> 
> *Pro-abortion blogger Amanda Marcotte *also took issue with the tackle, writing in a Twitter post: *"Tebow: Hey Mom! Tried to kill you from the womb and failed. How about a blind side tackle? Violence against Moms FTW [for the win]!" *In another tweet, Marcotte called the spot *"misogynist porn for the anti-sex crowd."*
> "I think they're attempting to use humor as another tactic of hiding their message and fooling the American people," the president of the Women's Media Center, another top lobbyist against the ad, told the LA Times.



Pro-Aborts Clash over Short, Sweet Tebow Ad


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that's all you have to find fault with my statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your rant is mere opinion. I corrected you on the facts and the fact is Tim's name isn't Teddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teddy is the name of the name of Mrs Tebrow's "abortion doctor".
Click to expand...


Then it should be easy for you to provide proof of that.


----------



## CurveLight

Avatar4321 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, abortions never happen in the Philippines!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/world/asia/15iht-phils.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.......and you still don't get it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. He doesn't get it. He hasnt yet realized that you dont care what evidence there is contrary to your position. You think abortion is so important that you can ignore that.
> 
> Im sure he will get it very soon. You can only put your hands over your ears and keep your eyes shut for so long before everyone realizes that you dont really care about the facts.
Click to expand...



It's even more ironic now.  He posted a 2005 article.  What year was Tim's mom pregnant with him?  (and you accuse others of ignoring facts. Lol)


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your rant is mere opinion. I corrected you on the facts and the fact is Tim's name isn't Teddy.
> 
> 
> 
> Teddy is the name of the name of Mrs Tebrow's "abortion doctor".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it should be easy for you to provide proof of that.
Click to expand...

He was on Oprah today.


----------



## Anguille

Made you look!!   LOL!


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even pay attention to that commercial until the woman talking was tackled at the end.  I thought it was an extension of the Betty White/Snickers commercial.
> 
> 
> Wonder how many people in bars and Super Bowl parties heard the "message".  $2.5 million dollars worth of message.
> 
> 
> 
> $2.5 million that could have gone to help Haiti.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same could be said about any of the commercials.
> 
> You could cancel your internet subscription and sell your PC and donate that money to Hati.  That is, if you are really that concerned about them.
Click to expand...



Why are social conservatives the worst debaters?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Teddy is the name of the name of Mrs Tebrow's "abortion doctor".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it should be easy for you to provide proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was on Oprah today.
Click to expand...


Then it should be easy for you to prove.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it should be easy for you to provide proof of that.
> 
> 
> 
> He was on Oprah today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it should be easy for you to prove.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahaha!! You really are that dumb!!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was on Oprah today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it should be easy for you to prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hahahahahahahaha!! You really are that dumb!!
Click to expand...


Asking you to prove your claim is dumb? Just admit that you made a mistake and move on.  Oh that's right, you can't!!!! Your concession is duly noted!


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it should be easy for you to prove.
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahahahahaha!! You really are that dumb!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking you to prove your claim is dumb? Just admit that you made a mistake and move on.  Oh that's right, you can't!!!! Your concession is duly noted!
Click to expand...

It's just delicious how stupid you are.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahahahahaha!! You really are that dumb!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to prove your claim is dumb? Just admit that you made a mistake and move on.  Oh that's right, you can't!!!! Your concession is duly noted!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just delicious how stupid you are.
Click to expand...


Tell me what is so stupid or dumb about asking you to prove your claim?


----------



## skookerasbil

the feminist bulldogs can bite me................

Most of the 100 million viewers loved that commerical = a big old spit in the eye of the bulldogs.........


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.......and you still don't get it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. He doesn't get it. He hasnt yet realized that you dont care what evidence there is contrary to your position. You think abortion is so important that you can ignore that.
> 
> Im sure he will get it very soon. You can only put your hands over your ears and keep your eyes shut for so long before everyone realizes that you dont really care about the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's even more ironic now.  He posted a 2005 article.  What year was Tim's mom pregnant with him?  (and you accuse others of ignoring facts. Lol)
Click to expand...


The article is proof that abortions can and do happen in a country where it is illegal, you fucking moron.  What does it matter what year it was?  Unless of course you have proof that in the one year she was pregnant there were absolutely no illegal abortions being performed in that country.


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. He doesn't get it. He hasnt yet realized that you dont care what evidence there is contrary to your position. You think abortion is so important that you can ignore that.
> 
> Im sure he will get it very soon. You can only put your hands over your ears and keep your eyes shut for so long before everyone realizes that you dont really care about the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's even more ironic now.  He posted a 2005 article.  What year was Tim's mom pregnant with him?  (and you accuse others of ignoring facts. Lol)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article is proof that abortions can and do happen in a country where it is illegal, you fucking moron.  What does it matter what year it was?  Unless of course you have proof that in the one year she was pregnant there were absolutely no illegal abortions being performed in that country.
Click to expand...


Nobody said illegal abortions don't happen. Try to be honest.  Just once.  You highlighted the numbers from a 2005 article. Why?


----------



## theHawk

CurveLight said:


> Nobody said illegal abortions don't happen. Try to be honest.  Just once.  You highlighted the numbers from a 2005 article. Why?



Funny, what the hell was the point of these comments then?




CurveLight said:


> Pretty funny you posted a video that says she did consider having an abortion.  How could she have been told by a doctor to have an abortion where *the doctor could not have done the abortion*?






CurveLight said:


> It was a filipino doctor genius.  *He wouldn't have been allowed to even suggest it*.  But it's nice to see you struggling to tap dance around the deception.  I bet you even read or heard the airplane comment somewhere else and decided to repeat it because you thought it sounded good.....without thinking.....


----------



## CurveLight

theHawk said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said illegal abortions don't happen. Try to be honest.  Just once.  You highlighted the numbers from a 2005 article. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, what the hell was the point of these comments then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny you posted a video that says she did consider having an abortion.  How could she have been told by a doctor to have an abortion where *the doctor could not have done the abortion*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a filipino doctor genius.  *He wouldn't have been allowed to even suggest it*.  But it's nice to see you struggling to tap dance around the deception.  I bet you even read or heard the airplane comment somewhere else and decided to repeat it because you thought it sounded good.....without thinking.....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Yes, we already know what dodgeball on here looks like.  Why repeat these free demonstrations?


----------



## ItHappens

Can some link evidence that to Doctor was a phillipine national and also that Mrs. Tebow would have been restricted to travel to the US?
Otherwise your arguments are entirely without merit.


----------



## Foxfyre

ItHappens said:


> Can some link evidence that to Doctor was a phillipine national and also that Mrs. Tebow would have been restricted to travel to the US?
> Otherwise your arguments are entirely without merit.



It is a fact that abortion happens, even in the Phillipines.  It isn't exactly legal but when it is a medical necessity, the authorities there do not intervene or object either.

And none of that has anything at all to do with the Tebow ad which didn't even suggest or imply abortion.  Of course since the pro-abortionists couldn't gig it for that, they are now saying that it promotes violence against women and are appalled.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to prove your claim is dumb? Just admit that you made a mistake and move on.  Oh that's right, you can't!!!! Your concession is duly noted!
> 
> 
> 
> It's just delicious how stupid you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what is so stupid or dumb about asking you to prove your claim?
Click to expand...

Because it was an obvious joke!! I even gave you a clue that it was in the post that followed. It was not my intent to make you look stupid. You've accomplished that on your own. Thanks for the additional laughs.


----------



## ItHappens

Foxfyre said:


> ItHappens said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can some link evidence that to Doctor was a phillipine national and also that Mrs. Tebow would have been restricted to travel to the US?
> Otherwise your arguments are entirely without merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact that abortion happens, even in the Phillipines.  It isn't exactly legal but when it is a medical necessity, the authorities there do not intervene or object either.
> 
> And none of that has anything at all to do with the Tebow ad which didn't even suggest or imply abortion.  Of course since the pro-abortionists couldn't gig it for that, they are now saying that it promotes violence against women and are appalled.
Click to expand...


I don't know for sure that your statement is factual.  But I agree with you.  There is an element in the pro-death movement that is trying to promote the story is a lie.  

The NAG's Terry O'Neill has obviously never had kids, boys in particular.  They tend to rough house...just a little.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just delicious how stupid you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is so stupid or dumb about asking you to prove your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it was an obvious joke!! I even gave you a clue that it was in the post that followed. It was not my intent to make you look stupid. You've accomplished that on your own. Thanks for the additional laughs.
Click to expand...


Sure it was a joke.

After being called out on getting Tim's name wrong you lie and say it's the name of Mrs Tebow's doctor, Then after being asked repeatedly to provide proof of that, you say "it was an obvious joke", the only thing that was obvious was your outright lie. But that's to be expected from you and your ilk. When called out on your obvious lies you attempt to deflect, divert, insult and basically do anything you can to avoid what's obvious to everyone else. You're nothing but a liar and you haven't an ounce of integrity.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is so stupid or dumb about asking you to prove your claim?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was an obvious joke!! I even gave you a clue that it was in the post that followed. It was not my intent to make you look stupid. You've accomplished that on your own. Thanks for the additional laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it was a joke.
> 
> After being called out on getting Tim's name wrong you lie and say it's the name of Mrs Tebow's doctor, Then after being asked repeatedly to provide proof of that, you say "it was an obvious joke", the only thing that was obvious was your outright lie. But that's to be expected from you and your ilk. When called out on your obvious lies you attempt to deflect, divert, insult and basically do anything you can to avoid what's obvious to everyone else. You're nothing but a liar and you haven't an ounce of integrity.
Click to expand...

Oprah is calling. She wants you on her show.


----------

