# Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad May Be Based On Falsehood



## blu

Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad May Be Based On Falsehood


bwhahahaha. I hope this is real just to make tebow look dumber than he already does


----------



## ABikerSailor

Apparently, this is the Christian Coalition's version of Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink.

A bunch of bullshit, wrapped up in lies.


----------



## Immanuel

> Because abortion under any circumstance has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930 and is punishable by a six-year prison term, Allred says she finds it hard to believe that doctors would have recommended the procedure.



Oh yes, I believe everything Gloria Allred says.

Isn't she one who continually claimed that if abortion were made illegal again we would go back to "doctors" performing back alley abortions?  That would insinuate that a doctor would recommend an abortion and do so in a presumably unhealthy environment... i.e. a back alley.

Why would she even think that the same thing would not happen in the Philippines?



> The attorney, who has represented a roster of famous clients, claims she will lodge a complaint with the FCC and FTC "if this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her choice," according to RadarOnline.



Who cares if they point out that abortions were illegal in the Philippines at the time?  What difference does that make?  If the ad is true then someone recommended that Mrs. Tebow have an abortion and she chose life instead.  Now, Allred and crew want to make her out to be a devil for doing so?  How frigging sick can Allred be?

It makes no difference whether or not the abortion was legal.

Oh and does this mean that Tim Tebow cannot be President?  Was he born in the Philippines?  Do we have a birth certificate for him?  Tell me it is not a Hawaiin Birth Certificate... please!  

Immie


----------



## Xenophon

Why on earth does anyone read the blog of a loon like Arrinana Huffington?

The woman is a fool and her blog is rediculous:

Abortion in the Philippines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its all sourced, so mock it if you like, abortions happen even in the Phillipennes despite some silly lawyer's nonsense.


----------



## Skull Pilot

I never heard of this tebow guy and can't help but wonder why anyone gives a flying fuck about what he says enough to warrant multiple threads


----------



## chanel

Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

chanel said:


> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...



Same reason that our local Pro choice bunch are busy trying to throw dirt on the story. They are NOT about choice unless that CHOICE is to abort. Anyone willing to choice life is just wrong and has to be brought to understand not to share those thoughts and feelings with impressionable women of any age. Better that they be taught that choice means having an abortion cause they don't want to get fat while carrying the baby.


----------



## Ravi

blu said:


> Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad May Be Based On Falsehood
> 
> 
> bwhahahaha. I hope this is real just to make tebow look dumber than he already does


I wonder if he'll cry during the ad? He seems to spend a lot of time crying on television.


----------



## code1211

Skull Pilot said:


> I never heard of this tebow guy and can't help but wonder why anyone gives a flying fuck about what he says enough to warrant multiple threads




He's a college quarterback.  A pretty good one.  

This qualifies him as an expert on most topics.

This is why Jeanine Garofalo is qualified to vomit opinions on anything in front of a camera and why Nancy Pelosi is suddenly a medical expert.

We live in a society that cannot distinguish between wisdom and fame.


----------



## chanel

code1211 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of this tebow guy and can't help but wonder why anyone gives a flying fuck about what he says enough to warrant multiple threads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's a college quarterback.  A pretty good one.
> 
> This qualifies him as an expert on most topics.
> 
> This is why Jeanine Garofalo is qualified to vomit opinions on anything in front of a camera and why Nancy Pelosi is suddenly a medical expert.
> 
> We live in a society that cannot distinguish between wisdom and fame.
Click to expand...


----------



## blastoff

It's their standard playbook stuff.  Those in favor of killing babies - that is, a woman's right to choose (to kill) - have no tolerance for those who want to preserve lives. 

Right to life is pretty clear and simple.  Right to choose is simply a euphemistic way to say they favor killing.


----------



## chanel

You may be right.  I never considered the pro-choice movement to be pro-abortion until some of the women's groups starting attacking Sarah Palin and her handicapped baby.  That disgusted me beyond words.


----------



## Toro

blu said:


> Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad May Be Based On Falsehood
> 
> 
> bwhahahaha. I hope this is real just to make tebow look dumber than he already does



I'll believe the mother over a grandstanding ideologue shill with an axe to grind.  What a disgusting ad hominem attack.


----------



## chanel

Yes.  And did it ever occur to the OP that she could have traveled back to the U.S. for the procedure?


----------



## Avatar4321

code1211 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of this tebow guy and can't help but wonder why anyone gives a flying fuck about what he says enough to warrant multiple threads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's a college quarterback.  A pretty good one.
> 
> This qualifies him as an expert on most topics.
> 
> This is why Jeanine Garofalo is qualified to vomit opinions on anything in front of a camera and why Nancy Pelosi is suddenly a medical expert.
> 
> We live in a society that cannot distinguish between wisdom and fame.
Click to expand...


No, we live in a society that has never seen wisdom so alll we have to rely on is fame.


----------



## rightwinger

Tebows story is inspirational, but I don't get the point

Doctors told his mother that if she tried to have the baby, she could have died or the baby may have had serious medical problems. The mother gambled and won....Tebow was the result

Does this mean we should get commercials of women who were advised to abort and died because they didn't? Is the intent of the commercial to tell women that they should ignore their doctors and try to have children regardless of the potential consequences?


----------



## Zoom-boing

From the article:



> The ad, which is* expected to promote an anti-choice message*, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.



Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term. 

Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?


----------



## ba1614

Skull Pilot said:


> I never heard of this tebow guy and can't help but wonder why anyone gives a flying fuck about what he says enough to warrant multiple threads



 He's a decent QB on a good team and I do like watching him play. Besides that, I don't give a fuck either.


----------



## ba1614

Zoom-boing said:


> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ad, which is* expected to promote an anti-choice message*, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
Click to expand...


Yup, "Pro-Choice" is a pure bullshit name for their side of the issue, it's pro abortion and that's it that's all. If you choose life you don't fit their agenda.


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ad, which is* expected to promote an anti-choice message*, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
Click to expand...


It appears his mother did not have a choice for two reasons.  The first is it was illegal.  The second is she had a position of no abortions.  She couldn't make the choice to abort because abortion was not an option.
  It will send the message that if you truly celebrate family then you will join the anti-Choice crowd and imply you really don't love life or your family.

All that being said.  This has to be one of the dumbest fucking protests I've seen since prohibition.


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ad, which is* expected to promote an anti-choice message*, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears his mother did not have a choice for two reasons.  The first is it was illegal.  The second is she had a position of no abortions.  *She couldn't make the choice to abort because abortion was not an option.*
> It will send the message that if you truly celebrate family then you will *join the anti-Choice crowd* and imply you really don't love life or your family.
> 
> All that being said.  This has to be one of the dumbest fucking protests I've seen since prohibition.
Click to expand...


Of course it was an option - an option recommended by her doctor - but it was an option that she did not _choose_.

Many people balk when 'pro-choice' is equated to 'pro-abortion' and yet . . . . when a woman is pregnant there are only two options, carry the pregnancy to term or abort.  'Anti-choice crowd'?  Does choice only apply if the woman opts for abortion?


----------



## CurveLight

ba1614 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ad, which is* expected to promote an anti-choice message*, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, "Pro-Choice" is a pure bullshit name for their side of the issue, it's pro abortion and that's it that's all. If you choose life you don't fit their agenda.
Click to expand...


Between the two it is the pro-life camp that has a bullshit term.  Trying to tell others what to do with their bodies is not pro-life.  By definition it is anti-choice.  They don't want women to have the ability to make their own decisions.  Pro-choice is accurate because it respects women's right to choose.  It is ridiculous to claim being pro choice = pro abortion.  If pro life means no abortions then pro abortion would be all abortions.  Can you point out where the pro choice crowd advocates terminating all pregnancies?  If you people think you can pull your bullshit you better log off and go watch some tv.  This isn't amateur night.


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears his mother did not have a choice for two reasons.  The first is it was illegal.  The second is she had a position of no abortions.  *She couldn't make the choice to abort because abortion was not an option.*
> It will send the message that if you truly celebrate family then you will *join the anti-Choice crowd* and imply you really don't love life or your family.
> 
> All that being said.  This has to be one of the dumbest fucking protests I've seen since prohibition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was an option - an option recommended by her doctor - but it was an option that she did not _choose_.
> 
> Many people balk when 'pro-choice' is equated to 'pro-abortion' and yet . . . . when a woman is pregnant there are only two options, carry the pregnancy to term or abort.  'Anti-choice crowd'?  Does choice only apply if the woman opts for abortion?
Click to expand...



How was it an option if abortions were illegal?  How was it an option if she had a position of no options?


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, "Pro-Choice" is a pure bullshit name for their side of the issue, it's pro abortion and that's it that's all. If you choose life you don't fit their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Between the two it is the pro-life camp that has a bullshit term.  *Trying to tell others what to do with their bodies is not pro-life*.  By definition it is anti-choice.  They don't want women to have the ability to make their own decisions.  Pro-choice is accurate because it respects women's right to choose.  It is ridiculous to claim being pro choice = pro abortion.  If pro life means no abortions then pro abortion would be all abortions.  Can you point out where the pro choice crowd advocates terminating all pregnancies?  If you people think you can pull your bullshit you better log off and go watch some tv.  This isn't amateur night.
Click to expand...


That's the sticking point in the abortion debate.  'Pro-choice' says it's the_ woman's body_ to do with as she chooses; 'pro-life' say it's the unborn's body and thus, the _unborn's life_, that is affected.   

Isn't a woman who has an abortion doing the very thing that she rebels against?  Isn't she 'making the decision about what will happen to anothers (the unborn) body'?


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears his mother did not have a choice for two reasons.  The first is it was illegal.  The second is she had a position of no abortions.  *She couldn't make the choice to abort because abortion was not an option.*
> It will send the message that if you truly celebrate family then you will *join the anti-Choice crowd* and imply you really don't love life or your family.
> 
> All that being said.  This has to be one of the dumbest fucking protests I've seen since prohibition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was an option - an option recommended by her doctor - but it was an option that she did not _choose_.
> 
> Many people balk when 'pro-choice' is equated to 'pro-abortion' and yet . . . . when a woman is pregnant there are only two options, carry the pregnancy to term or abort.  'Anti-choice crowd'?  Does choice only apply if the woman opts for abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How was it an option if abortions were illegal?  How was it an option if she had a position of no options?
Click to expand...


Illegal doesn't mean it can not happen.  I'll wait until a better source other than HP presents information on this. 

It's always an option; not taking it doesn't remove the option.

Does choice only apply if the woman opts_ for_ abortion?  That's what I'm trying to understand here.


----------



## dilloduck

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was an option - an option recommended by her doctor - but it was an option that she did not _choose_.
> 
> Many people balk when 'pro-choice' is equated to 'pro-abortion' and yet . . . . when a woman is pregnant there are only two options, carry the pregnancy to term or abort.  'Anti-choice crowd'?  Does choice only apply if the woman opts for abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was it an option if abortions were illegal?  How was it an option if she had a position of no options?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal doesn't mean it can not happen.  I'll wait until a better source other than HP presents information on this.
> 
> It's always an option; not taking it doesn't remove the option.
> 
> Does choice only apply if the woman opts_ for_ abortion?  That's what I'm trying to understand here.
Click to expand...


Opting to give birth is the weenie choice. You only are brave and independent if you opt to abort. Giving any credit to a woman who opts to give birth steals everyone elses thunder.


----------



## Zoom-boing

dilloduck said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How was it an option if abortions were illegal?  How was it an option if she had a position of no options?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal doesn't mean it can not happen.  I'll wait until a better source other than HP presents information on this.
> 
> It's always an option; not taking it doesn't remove the option.
> 
> Does choice only apply if the woman opts_ for_ abortion?  That's what I'm trying to understand here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opting to give birth is the *weenie *choice. You only are brave and independent if you opt to abort. Giving any credit to a woman who opts to give birth steals everyone elses thunder.
Click to expand...


Weenies are part of why there is even a debate on this!!


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, "Pro-Choice" is a pure bullshit name for their side of the issue, it's pro abortion and that's it that's all. If you choose life you don't fit their agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between the two it is the pro-life camp that has a bullshit term.  *Trying to tell others what to do with their bodies is not pro-life*.  By definition it is anti-choice.  They don't want women to have the ability to make their own decisions.  Pro-choice is accurate because it respects women's right to choose.  It is ridiculous to claim being pro choice = pro abortion.  If pro life means no abortions then pro abortion would be all abortions.  Can you point out where the pro choice crowd advocates terminating all pregnancies?  If you people think you can pull your bullshit you better log off and go watch some tv.  This isn't amateur night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the sticking point in the abortion debate.  'Pro-choice' says it's the_ woman's body_ to do with as she chooses; 'pro-life' say it's the unborn's body and thus, the _unborn's life_, that is affected.
> 
> Isn't a woman who has an abortion doing the very thing that she rebels against?  Isn't she 'making the decision about what will happen to anothers (the unborn) body'?
Click to expand...



You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was an option - an option recommended by her doctor - but it was an option that she did not _choose_.
> 
> Many people balk when 'pro-choice' is equated to 'pro-abortion' and yet . . . . when a woman is pregnant there are only two options, carry the pregnancy to term or abort.  'Anti-choice crowd'?  Does choice only apply if the woman opts for abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was it an option if abortions were illegal?  How was it an option if she had a position of no options?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal doesn't mean it can not happen.  I'll wait until a better source other than HP presents information on this.
> 
> It's always an option; not taking it doesn't remove the option.
> 
> Does choice only apply if the woman opts_ for_ abortion?  That's what I'm trying to understand here.
Click to expand...


Wow.  Someone actually fell for it.  You have just helped prove Pro Choice is the only position on abortion.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ad, which is* expected to promote an anti-choice message*, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
Click to expand...


The ad is bad advice.  But then again the beer ads are bad advice too.


----------



## saveliberty

NYcarbineer said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ad, which is* expected to promote an anti-choice message*, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ad is bad advice.  But then again the beer ads are bad advice too.
Click to expand...


Having children is bad advice?  Please explain.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Zoom-boing said:


> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ad, which is* expected to promote an anti-choice message*, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
Click to expand...


Actually..........no.

Tebow's mother was a missionary in the Philippines during the pregnancy.  She contracted and illness, and as a result of the illness and resulting toxic shock, her placenta ruptured.  The doctors in the PI didn't have the required medical facilities, and the doctor recommended that she have an abortion to stay alive.

Recovering from something like that is hard enough in the States, at current technology, how much harder do you think it was when Tebow was born?

Some of you people have stated that you are against abortion, except in cases to save the mother, incest, or rape.

This was a medically recommended thing, by a qualified doctor, because her chances of survival, as well as the child's were in the very low end of the scale.

So, take your false, hypocritical umbrage over this ad being protested.

Like I said in another thread, I wouldn't mind it so much if they would just TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH AND NOT SPIN THEIR BULLSHIT INTO IT!

THAT is why I think the ad is fucked.


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between the two it is the pro-life camp that has a bullshit term.  *Trying to tell others what to do with their bodies is not pro-life*.  By definition it is anti-choice.  They don't want women to have the ability to make their own decisions.  Pro-choice is accurate because it respects women's right to choose.  It is ridiculous to claim being pro choice = pro abortion.  If pro life means no abortions then pro abortion would be all abortions.  Can you point out where the pro choice crowd advocates terminating all pregnancies?  If you people think you can pull your bullshit you better log off and go watch some tv.  This isn't amateur night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the sticking point in the abortion debate.  'Pro-choice' says it's the_ woman's body_ to do with as she chooses; 'pro-life' say it's the unborn's body and thus, the _unborn's life_, that is affected.
> 
> Isn't a woman who has an abortion doing the very thing that she rebels against?  Isn't she 'making the decision about what will happen to anothers (the unborn) body'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
Click to expand...


Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?


----------



## Zoom-boing

ABikerSailor said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ad, which is* expected to promote an anti-choice message*, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually..........no.
> 
> Tebow's mother was a missionary in the Philippines during the pregnancy.  She contracted and illness, and as a result of the illness and resulting toxic shock, her placenta ruptured.  The doctors in the PI didn't have the required medical facilities, and the doctor recommended that she have an abortion to stay alive.
> 
> Recovering from something like that is hard enough in the States, at current technology, how much harder do you think it was when Tebow was born?
> 
> Some of you people have stated that you are against abortion, except in cases to save the mother, incest, or rape.
> 
> *This was a medically recommended thing, by a qualified doctor, because her chances of survival, as well as the child's were in the very low end of the scale.*
> 
> So, take your false, hypocritical umbrage over this ad being protested.
> 
> Like I said in another thread, I wouldn't mind it so much if they would just TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH AND NOT SPIN THEIR BULLSHIT INTO IT!
> 
> THAT is why I think the ad is fucked.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  And Tim's mother _chose_ to carry her pregnancy to term, even knowing that it would risk both their lives.  

Abortion doesn't get dibs on the pro-choice term but from people's reaction to this commercial it sure seems as if pro-choice = pro-abortion.  Otherwise, why would they be so upset at her choice?


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the sticking point in the abortion debate.  'Pro-choice' says it's the_ woman's body_ to do with as she chooses; 'pro-life' say it's the unborn's body and thus, the _unborn's life_, that is affected.
> 
> Isn't a woman who has an abortion doing the very thing that she rebels against?  Isn't she 'making the decision about what will happen to anothers (the unborn) body'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
Click to expand...


No that isn't what I'm saying.  I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
  What is your answer?


----------



## Immanuel

Skull Pilot said:


> I never heard of this tebow guy and can't help but wonder why anyone gives a flying fuck about what he says enough to warrant multiple threads



Hehe, 

You must work too much!  

Or you are not from Florida.  He's almost a god around here and to Gator fans... he is God.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually..........no.
> 
> Tebow's mother was a missionary in the Philippines during the pregnancy.  She contracted and illness, and as a result of the illness and resulting toxic shock, her placenta ruptured.  The doctors in the PI didn't have the required medical facilities, and the doctor recommended that she have an abortion to stay alive.
> 
> Recovering from something like that is hard enough in the States, at current technology, how much harder do you think it was when Tebow was born?
> 
> Some of you people have stated that you are against abortion, except in cases to save the mother, incest, or rape.
> 
> *This was a medically recommended thing, by a qualified doctor, because her chances of survival, as well as the child's were in the very low end of the scale.*
> 
> So, take your false, hypocritical umbrage over this ad being protested.
> 
> Like I said in another thread, I wouldn't mind it so much if they would just TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH AND NOT SPIN THEIR BULLSHIT INTO IT!
> 
> THAT is why I think the ad is fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And Tim's mother _chose_ to carry her pregnancy to term, even knowing that it would risk both their lives.
> 
> Abortion doesn't get dibs on the pro-choice term but from people's reaction to this commercial it sure seems as if pro-choice = pro-abortion.  Otherwise, why would they be so upset at her choice?
Click to expand...



Name two people who are upset with her choice.


----------



## ABikerSailor

An egg by itself is nothing more than a potential something. 

A sperm by itself is nothing more than a motile cell with potential to be something.

Right sperm meets right egg?  It starts to divide and form more cells.  At this time as well, it is STILL NOT A HUMAN.

At around the 40 day mark, the cells finally form a network of connections, and your nervous system is formed.  At that time, the embryo is now capable of feeling pain.

THAT is when it's "human".


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No that isn't what I'm saying.  *I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> What is your answer?
Click to expand...


Sure sounds like that's what you're saying to me, you want to go with because the chicken isn't dancing it's not really a chicken.*  I'm* not equating the unborn with the born, I'm equating the unborn with being human life.  When an abortion happens that human life is terminated, ended, destroyed.


----------



## Zoom-boing

ABikerSailor said:


> An egg by itself is nothing more than a potential something.
> 
> A sperm by itself is nothing more than a motile cell with potential to be something.
> 
> Right sperm meets right egg?  It starts to divide and form more cells.  At this time as well, it is *STILL NOT A HUMAN.*
> 
> At around the 40 day mark, the cells finally form a network of connections, and your nervous system is formed.  At that time, the embryo is now capable of feeling pain.
> 
> THAT is when it's "human".



A fully formed human?  Nope.  But it is human (if it isn't human then what is it?) and it is life (if it wasn't life then abortion wouldn't be needed to destroy it).

So because it's not a fully formed human capable of feeling pain . . . it isn't human at all?


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually..........no.
> 
> Tebow's mother was a missionary in the Philippines during the pregnancy.  She contracted and illness, and as a result of the illness and resulting toxic shock, her placenta ruptured.  The doctors in the PI didn't have the required medical facilities, and the doctor recommended that she have an abortion to stay alive.
> 
> Recovering from something like that is hard enough in the States, at current technology, how much harder do you think it was when Tebow was born?
> 
> Some of you people have stated that you are against abortion, except in cases to save the mother, incest, or rape.
> 
> *This was a medically recommended thing, by a qualified doctor, because her chances of survival, as well as the child's were in the very low end of the scale.*
> 
> So, take your false, hypocritical umbrage over this ad being protested.
> 
> Like I said in another thread, I wouldn't mind it so much if they would just TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH AND NOT SPIN THEIR BULLSHIT INTO IT!
> 
> THAT is why I think the ad is fucked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And Tim's mother _chose_ to carry her pregnancy to term, even knowing that it would risk both their lives.
> 
> Abortion doesn't get dibs on the pro-choice term but from people's reaction to this commercial it sure seems as if pro-choice = pro-abortion.  Otherwise, why would they be so upset at her choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name two people who are upset with her choice.
Click to expand...


Her choice was to carry Tim to term and they're putting an advocacy ad on CBS about it - and her choice - and people are upset over that.  CBS urged to scrap anti-abortion Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow - SI.com - 2008 NFL Super Bowl


----------



## Immanuel

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the sticking point in the abortion debate.  'Pro-choice' says it's the_ woman's body_ to do with as she chooses; 'pro-life' say it's the unborn's body and thus, the _unborn's life_, that is affected.
> 
> Isn't a woman who has an abortion doing the very thing that she rebels against?  Isn't she 'making the decision about what will happen to anothers (the unborn) body'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
Click to expand...


I think in another thread, it was CurveLight that wrote that he would agree that a fetus was human life.

Sorry, CL, if I am mistaken that it was you that said that.  Not attempting to put words in your mouth.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually..........no.
> 
> Tebow's mother was a missionary in the Philippines during the pregnancy.  She contracted and illness, and as a result of the illness and resulting toxic shock, her placenta ruptured.  The doctors in the PI didn't have the required medical facilities, and the doctor recommended that she have an abortion to stay alive.
> 
> Recovering from something like that is hard enough in the States, at current technology, how much harder do you think it was when Tebow was born?
> 
> Some of you people have stated that you are against abortion, except in cases to save the mother, incest, or rape.
> 
> *This was a medically recommended thing, by a qualified doctor, because her chances of survival, as well as the child's were in the very low end of the scale.*
> 
> So, take your false, hypocritical umbrage over this ad being protested.
> 
> Like I said in another thread, I wouldn't mind it so much if they would just TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH AND NOT SPIN THEIR BULLSHIT INTO IT!
> 
> THAT is why I think the ad is fucked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And Tim's mother _chose_ to carry her pregnancy to term, even knowing that it would risk both their lives.
> 
> Abortion doesn't get dibs on the pro-choice term but from people's reaction to this commercial it sure seems as if pro-choice = pro-abortion.  Otherwise, why would they be so upset at her choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name two people who are upset with her choice.
Click to expand...


I can name one... Gloria Allred.  That is the best I can do.

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell

RetiredGySgt said:


> Same reason that our local Pro choice bunch are busy trying to throw dirt on the story. They are NOT about choice unless that CHOICE is to abort. Anyone willing to choice life is just wrong and has to be brought to understand not to share those thoughts and feelings with impressionable women of any age. Better that they be taught that choice means having an abortion cause they don't want to get fat while carrying the baby.



Abortion isn't a cause I pay much attention too, but this is a silly statement.

Of the two, the only side that wants to deny someone their "choice" is the pro-life movement.  To say that "pro-choice only supports abortion" is absurd.  You don't see Pro-choice movements picketing labor and delivery wards/hospitals trying to force women to get an abortion.  

The same is not true for the other side of the coin.

Other than that, I suspect the Huffington Post article is wrong.  There are always medical indications for termination of a pregnancy where the mother's life is in danger.  While the Philippines might have outlawed abortion, I doubt they would word the law so there was no exception for this situation.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Zoom-boing said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> An egg by itself is nothing more than a potential something.
> 
> A sperm by itself is nothing more than a motile cell with potential to be something.
> 
> Right sperm meets right egg?  It starts to divide and form more cells.  At this time as well, it is *STILL NOT A HUMAN.*
> 
> At around the 40 day mark, the cells finally form a network of connections, and your nervous system is formed.  At that time, the embryo is now capable of feeling pain.
> 
> THAT is when it's "human".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fully formed human?  Nope.  But it is human (if it isn't human then what is it?) and it is life (if it wasn't life then abortion wouldn't be needed to destroy it).
> 
> So because it's not a fully formed human capable of feeling pain . . . it isn't human at all?
Click to expand...


If it doesn't have a nervous system, it doesn't have a brain.

If it doesn't have a brain, it's not capable of self will and free thought.

If it's not capable of self will and free thought, it doesn't have a soul.

If it doesn't have a soul, it's not human.


----------



## geauxtohell

rightwinger said:


> Tebows story is inspirational, but I don't get the point
> 
> Doctors told his mother that if she tried to have the baby, she could have died or the baby may have had serious medical problems. The mother gambled and won....Tebow was the result
> 
> Does this mean we should get commercials of women who were advised to abort and died because they didn't? Is the intent of the commercial to tell women that they should ignore their doctors and try to have children regardless of the potential consequences?



Exactly.  It's not like Tebow's mom was a single mother who was forced to make a hard decision based on her status in life.

As it stands, Tebow's mom was faced with a medical dilemma.  This would fall under the category of "exception for the health of the mother" which few people (even the most adament pro-life people) agree on.   

What they won't show is the woman who gambled and came up snake eyes.  That should be the point that is made, not some idiotic bullshit about the laws of the Philippines.

All this plays right into Jimmy Dobson's hand, because it makes the pro-choice people look desperate to suppress their opinion.  

Let them run their damn ad.  The only thing it is saying is "I didn't listen to my Drs. advice, and neither should you!".  That's not going to resonate well.


----------



## Immanuel

The fact is that there are two parts of the "pro-choice" movement.

You have the people who profit from abortion, Planned Parenthood, Gloria Allred, NOW, NARAL, Emily's List etc.  These are the people who could almost be termed Pro-abortion.

But, then you have the vast majority of pro-choice people.  These are the people who do not profit from the procedure but look at the issue and whether or not they would ever consider the option of abortion, believe that the decision lies solely with the pregnant mother and that this is not something that the government should interfere with in any way whatsoever.

To claim that this second group is "pro-abortion" is not only wrong but detrimental to the cause of defending life.  It is no less wrong than claiming that the pro-life movement is "anti-choice".

Immie


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually..........no.
> 
> Tebow's mother was a missionary in the Philippines during the pregnancy.  She contracted and illness, and as a result of the illness and resulting toxic shock, her placenta ruptured.  The doctors in the PI didn't have the required medical facilities, and the doctor recommended that she have an abortion to stay alive.
> 
> Recovering from something like that is hard enough in the States, at current technology, how much harder do you think it was when Tebow was born?
> 
> Some of you people have stated that you are against abortion, except in cases to save the mother, incest, or rape.
> 
> *This was a medically recommended thing, by a qualified doctor, because her chances of survival, as well as the child's were in the very low end of the scale.*
> 
> So, take your false, hypocritical umbrage over this ad being protested.
> 
> Like I said in another thread, I wouldn't mind it so much if they would just TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH AND NOT SPIN THEIR BULLSHIT INTO IT!
> 
> THAT is why I think the ad is fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And Tim's mother _chose_ to carry her pregnancy to term, even knowing that it would risk both their lives.
> 
> Abortion doesn't get dibs on the pro-choice term but from people's reaction to this commercial it sure seems as if pro-choice = pro-abortion.  Otherwise, why would they be so upset at her choice?
Click to expand...


She made a very bad choice, and got lucky.  Encouraging others to make a very bad choice is irresponsible.


----------



## geauxtohell

Immanuel said:


> The fact is that there are two parts of the "pro-choice" movement.
> 
> You have the people who profit from abortion, Planned Parenthood, Gloria Allred, NOW, NARAL, Emily's List etc.  These are the people who could almost be termed Pro-abortion.
> 
> But, then you have the vast majority of pro-choice people.  These are the people who do not profit from the procedure but look at the issue and whether or not they would ever consider the option of abortion, believe that the decision lies solely with the pregnant mother and that this is not something that the government should interfere with in any way whatsoever.
> 
> To claim that this second group is "pro-abortion" is not only wrong but detrimental to the cause of defending life.  It is no less wrong than claiming that the pro-life movement is "anti-choice".
> 
> Immie



I see it as a simple matter of a patient's autonomy over their own health.  Patient's have the right to make choices over matters involving their own health, even if they are detrimental.  

I would expand that to physician assisted suicide, based on the Oregon model, which I believe should be a patient's choice as well.


----------



## NYcarbineer

How much is Focus on the Family paying for this ad?


----------



## NYcarbineer

In 2004, CBS rejected an ad from the United Church of Christ that was essentially an invitation to gays to join their Church.


----------



## Immanuel

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that there are two parts of the "pro-choice" movement.
> 
> You have the people who profit from abortion, Planned Parenthood, Gloria Allred, NOW, NARAL, Emily's List etc.  These are the people who could almost be termed Pro-abortion.
> 
> But, then you have the vast majority of pro-choice people.  These are the people who do not profit from the procedure but look at the issue and whether or not they would ever consider the option of abortion, believe that the decision lies solely with the pregnant mother and that this is not something that the government should interfere with in any way whatsoever.
> 
> To claim that this second group is "pro-abortion" is not only wrong but detrimental to the cause of defending life.  It is no less wrong than claiming that the pro-life movement is "anti-choice".
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see it as a simple matter of a patient's autonomy over their own health.  Patient's have the right to make choices over matters involving their own health, even if they are detrimental.
> 
> I would expand that to physician assisted suicide, based on the Oregon model, which I believe should be a patient's choice as well.
Click to expand...


That would put you as a member of the second group.

Immie


----------



## NYcarbineer

From what I've heard, this would be about the closest Tim Tebow is ever going to get to appearing in a Super Bowl.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Does this mean that Focus on the Family is going to start endorsing Jack Kevorkian as well?


----------



## Immanuel

NYcarbineer said:


> How much is Focus on the Family paying for this ad?



Someone earlier said $2.5 million and that it could have been put to better use actually helping people in need.  Geez, if I am not mistaken it was you.  If so, you would be right.

Immie


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

code1211 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of this tebow guy and can't help but wonder why anyone gives a flying fuck about what he says enough to warrant multiple threads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's a college quarterback.  A pretty good one.
> 
> This qualifies him as an expert on most topics.
> 
> This is why Jeanine Garofalo is qualified to vomit opinions on anything in front of a camera and why Nancy Pelosi is suddenly a medical expert.
> 
> We live in a society that cannot distinguish between wisdom and fame.
Click to expand...

Why should I listen to you are you famous? Do you have big tits?Are you a vegan?


----------



## bodecea

Skull Pilot said:


> I never heard of this tebow guy and can't help but wonder why anyone gives a flying fuck about what he says enough to warrant multiple threads



Isn't he the loser quarterback from Florida?  or Florida State?  or Miami?   I can't keep them straight.


----------



## rightwinger

geauxtohell said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tebows story is inspirational, but I don't get the point
> 
> Doctors told his mother that if she tried to have the baby, she could have died or the baby may have had serious medical problems. The mother gambled and won....Tebow was the result
> 
> Does this mean we should get commercials of women who were advised to abort and died because they didn't? Is the intent of the commercial to tell women that they should ignore their doctors and try to have children regardless of the potential consequences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  It's not like Tebow's mom was a single mother who was forced to make a hard decision based on her status in life.
> 
> As it stands, Tebow's mom was faced with a medical dilemma.  This would fall under the category of "exception for the health of the mother" which few people (even the most adament pro-life people) agree on.
> 
> What they won't show is the woman who gambled and came up snake eyes.  That should be the point that is made, not some idiotic bullshit about the laws of the Philippines.
> 
> All this plays right into Jimmy Dobson's hand, because it makes the pro-choice people look desperate to suppress their opinion.
> 
> Let them run their damn ad.  The only thing it is saying is "I didn't listen to my Drs. advice, and neither should you!".  That's not going to resonate well.
Click to expand...


I am opposed to abortions because having a baby is not "convenient" at the time. If Tebows mother had economic issues and decided to have the baby anyway, the ad would make sense.
In a case where the mothers health is at risk and she gambles and wins, we should not get ads telling other mothers they should make the same choice because the baby might become a Heisman winning QB.


----------



## bodecea

NYcarbineer said:


> How much is Focus on the Family paying for this ad?



You've got to wonder considering they've had two waves of lay offs due to "lack of money".


----------



## Immanuel

rightwinger said:


> In a case where the mothers health is at risk and she gambles and wins, we should not get ads telling other mothers they should make the same choice because the baby might become a Heisman winning QB.



I read your earlier post that said much the same thing and could not think of a reply.  Thinking about it now, I would say that to some extent maybe it is not a message that should not be heard for the reason you listed.  

We all assume that Mrs. Tebow's life was in grave danger (and maybe it was) because a doctor in the Philippines said so.  Doctors are not always right.  It appears that in Mrs Tebow's case the doctor was wrong.

That being said, if the message is "don't listen to your doctor... he is lying to you" that could lead to the deaths of women.  I for one do not want to see that happen.

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell

Immanuel said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that there are two parts of the "pro-choice" movement.
> 
> You have the people who profit from abortion, Planned Parenthood, Gloria Allred, NOW, NARAL, Emily's List etc.  These are the people who could almost be termed Pro-abortion.
> 
> But, then you have the vast majority of pro-choice people.  These are the people who do not profit from the procedure but look at the issue and whether or not they would ever consider the option of abortion, believe that the decision lies solely with the pregnant mother and that this is not something that the government should interfere with in any way whatsoever.
> 
> To claim that this second group is "pro-abortion" is not only wrong but detrimental to the cause of defending life.  It is no less wrong than claiming that the pro-life movement is "anti-choice".
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see it as a simple matter of a patient's autonomy over their own health.  Patient's have the right to make choices over matters involving their own health, even if they are detrimental.
> 
> I would expand that to physician assisted suicide, based on the Oregon model, which I believe should be a patient's choice as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would put you as a member of the second group.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


So be it.  I am less concerned with the semantics of the issue and more concerned with the pragmatism behind the patient autonomy movement.


----------



## geauxtohell

NYcarbineer said:


> How much is Focus on the Family paying for this ad?



On that note, if you ever want to see something obscene, check out the FOTF complex in Colorado Springs.  

A lot of mouths could be fed with the money spent on building that monstrosity.


----------



## Zoom-boing

ABikerSailor said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> An egg by itself is nothing more than a potential something.
> 
> A sperm by itself is nothing more than a motile cell with potential to be something.
> 
> Right sperm meets right egg?  It starts to divide and form more cells.  At this time as well, it is *STILL NOT A HUMAN.*
> 
> At around the 40 day mark, the cells finally form a network of connections, and your nervous system is formed.  At that time, the embryo is now capable of feeling pain.
> 
> THAT is when it's "human".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fully formed human?  Nope.  But it is human (if it isn't human then what is it?) and it is life (if it wasn't life then abortion wouldn't be needed to destroy it).
> 
> So because it's not a fully formed human capable of feeling pain . . . it isn't human at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it doesn't have a nervous system, it doesn't have a brain.
> 
> *If it doesn't have a brain, it's not capable of self will and free thought.
> 
> If it's not capable of self will and free thought, it doesn't have a soul.
> *
> If it doesn't have a soul, it's not human.
Click to expand...


Is a brand new baby, fresh out of the oven, capable of self will and free thought?  No they haven't grown (and won't for many, many years) to the point of being able to do this.  So to equate not being capable of self will and free thought to not having a soul to not being human . . . . sorry, not buying it.

Who is to say when the soul enters the picture?  What if you don't believe that humans have souls?  Are souls what make us human?

I don't know how to see what grows inside a woman during pregnancy as anything other than human life.  A developing human, yes . . . but human and life, none the less.


----------



## Immanuel

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it as a simple matter of a patient's autonomy over their own health.  Patient's have the right to make choices over matters involving their own health, even if they are detrimental.
> 
> I would expand that to physician assisted suicide, based on the Oregon model, which I believe should be a patient's choice as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would put you as a member of the second group.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So be it.  I am less concerned with the semantics of the issue and more concerned with the pragmatism behind the patient autonomy movement.
Click to expand...


I have found it difficult to argue with the second group lately.  I realize they are not "for" abortion and in fact view the issue of abortion in much the way that I view many other issues.  That being that it simply is not the place of the government to make those decisions for the people.

The one disagreement I have with group two, is that I view the most important purpose of the government is to defend life and liberty of its citizens.

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell

rightwinger said:


> I am opposed to abortions because having a baby is not "convenient" at the time. If Tebows mother had economic issues and decided to have the baby anyway, the ad would make sense.
> In a case where the mothers health is at risk and she gambles and wins, we should not get ads telling other mothers they should make the same choice because the baby might become a Heisman winning QB.



I totally agree.  To me, that is the issue.  I can't figure out why the people who are so offended over it have missed this simple point.

This is about telling women to ignore medical advice and take a risk with their own life, not about shunning "elective" abortions.


----------



## Queen

chanel said:


> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...



I don't understand why the anti-choice people have to use lies to make their point. 

Your post is a lie. No one's flipping out because someone chose life. 

People are flipping out because the story in the ad is a lie. Abortion is illegal in the Phillipines so doctors don't recommend it. They can't perform it. Do you think they would send a patient to a back alley illegal abortion or give her a coathanger? 

Please. 

I guess you liar lovers approve of the right wing Christian lies because you really do love lies. You tell them yourselves too. 

Maybe that explains it. You righties really do love the lies.


----------



## geauxtohell

Immanuel said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a case where the mothers health is at risk and she gambles and wins, we should not get ads telling other mothers they should make the same choice because the baby might become a Heisman winning QB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read your earlier post that said much the same thing and could not think of a reply.  Thinking about it now, I would say that to some extent maybe it is not a message that should not be heard for the reason you listed.
> 
> We all assume that Mrs. Tebow's life was in grave danger (and maybe it was) because a doctor in the Philippines said so.  Doctors are not always right.  It appears that in Mrs Tebow's case the doctor was wrong.
> 
> That being said, if the message is "don't listen to your doctor... he is lying to you" that could lead to the deaths of women.  I for one do not want to see that happen.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


The Doctors were obviously wrong in this instance.  That being said, the statement here is absolutely "don't listen to your doctor".  

Tebow's mother already had four children and was a Chrisian missionary.  She would have never considered the abortion if it had not been a medical emergency.


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think in another thread, it was CurveLight that wrote that he would agree that a fetus was human life.
> 
> Sorry, CL, if I am mistaken that it was you that said that.  Not attempting to put words in your mouth.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



That's pretty close.  I basically gave carte blanche for anyone to use any term they want.  For whatever reason some assume I deny it is a human rising so they think if they keep pointing that out they have accomplished something.


----------



## geauxtohell

Immanuel said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would put you as a member of the second group.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So be it.  I am less concerned with the semantics of the issue and more concerned with the pragmatism behind the patient autonomy movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found it difficult to argue with the second group lately.  I realize they are not "for" abortion and in fact view the issue of abortion in much the way that I view many other issues.  That being that it simply is not the place of the government to make those decisions for the people.
> 
> The one disagreement I have with group two, is that I view the most important purpose of the government is to defend life and liberty of its citizens.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


And I deem it as inappropriate for other people to try and insert themselves into another person's decision making process over their own health and body.  

As it stands, late term abortion is illegal.  I deem that as reasonable.


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And Tim's mother _chose_ to carry her pregnancy to term, even knowing that it would risk both their lives.
> 
> Abortion doesn't get dibs on the pro-choice term but from people's reaction to this commercial it sure seems as if pro-choice = pro-abortion.  Otherwise, why would they be so upset at her choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name two people who are upset with her choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her choice was to carry Tim to term and they're putting an advocacy ad on CBS about it - and her choice - and people are upset over that.  CBS urged to scrap anti-abortion Super Bowl ad featuring Tebow - SI.com - 2008 NFL Super Bowl
Click to expand...



That doesn't show anyone who is upset with her choice.  That article is about a protest regarding a tv ad.  They are two different issues.


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think in another thread, it was CurveLight that wrote that he would agree that a fetus was human life.
> 
> Sorry, CL, if I am mistaken that it was you that said that.  Not attempting to put words in your mouth.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty close.  I basically gave carte blanche for anyone to use any term they want.  For whatever reason some assume I deny it is a human rising so they think if they keep pointing that out they have accomplished something.
Click to expand...


I was certain it was pretty close to the idea you used, but didn't want to search for the quote to find it.

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell

Queen said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why the anti-choice people have to use lies to make their point.
> 
> Your post is a lie. No one's flipping out because someone chose life.
> 
> People are flipping out because the story in the ad is a lie. Abortion is illegal in the Phillipines so doctors don't recommend it. They can't perform it. Do you think they would send a patient to a back alley illegal abortion or give her a coathanger?
> 
> Please.
> 
> I guess you liar lovers approve of the right wing Christian lies because you really do love lies. You tell them yourselves too.
> 
> Maybe that explains it. You righties really do love the lies.
Click to expand...


I doubt it was illegal if medically indicated.  If it were, that would make the law draconian and dangerous.  

The real issue is that Tebow's mom is telling people to ignore medical advice.  It worked out in her case.  She was lucky.


----------



## Xenophon

Planned parenthood should counter with an add showing Stalin's mother, saying 'why didn't I abort the lil bastard?'


----------



## Queen

geauxtohell said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much is Focus on the Family paying for this ad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On that note, if you ever want to see something obscene, check out the FOTF complex in Colorado Springs.
> 
> A lot of mouths could be fed with the money spent on building that monstrosity.
Click to expand...


Focus on the Family is paying for the ACORN pimp's defense! 

That's how they focus on the family.


----------



## Immanuel

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So be it.  I am less concerned with the semantics of the issue and more concerned with the pragmatism behind the patient autonomy movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have found it difficult to argue with the second group lately.  I realize they are not "for" abortion and in fact view the issue of abortion in much the way that I view many other issues.  That being that it simply is not the place of the government to make those decisions for the people.
> 
> The one disagreement I have with group two, is that I view the most important purpose of the government is to defend life and liberty of its citizens.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I deem it as inappropriate for other people to try and insert themselves into another person's decision making process over their own health and body.
> 
> As it stands, late term abortion is illegal.  I deem that as reasonable.
Click to expand...


I understand your point of view... just don't agree with it.  

That being said, I'm tired of the two "middle grounds" group two in this case and those of us who are "pro-life" but don't profit from the "pro-life" propaganda but simply believe in defending human life at all costs allowing the lobbyists to fight this battle for us.

If we leave it up to them, we will never arrive at a solution to the issue.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No that isn't what I'm saying.  *I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> What is your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure sounds like that's what you're saying to me, you want to go with because the chicken isn't dancing it's not really a chicken.*  I'm* not equating the unborn with the born, I'm equating the unborn with being human life.  When an abortion happens that human life is terminated, ended, destroyed.
Click to expand...



I will comment when you respect the conversation.  Kind of silly to ignore simple questions and put words in others mouths and expect a response.


----------



## Queen

geauxtohell said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why the anti-choice people have to use lies to make their point.
> 
> Your post is a lie. No one's flipping out because someone chose life.
> 
> People are flipping out because the story in the ad is a lie. Abortion is illegal in the Phillipines so doctors don't recommend it. They can't perform it. Do you think they would send a patient to a back alley illegal abortion or give her a coathanger?
> 
> Please.
> 
> I guess you liar lovers approve of the right wing Christian lies because you really do love lies. You tell them yourselves too.
> 
> Maybe that explains it. You righties really do love the lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt it was illegal if medically indicated.  If it were, that would make the law draconian and dangerous.
> 
> The real issue is that Tebow's mom is telling people to ignore medical advice.  It worked out in her case.  She was lucky.
Click to expand...


Some of the illegal abortions women get in the Phillipines are by herbs. So yes, ingesting something to have an abortion is illegal there. 

It didn't work out in her case, because she is obviously lying by saying a doctor suggested abortion in a country were abortion is completely and totally illegal. 

Her story is a lie. She isn't lucky, she's a liar.


----------



## geauxtohell

Queen said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much is Focus on the Family paying for this ad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On that note, if you ever want to see something obscene, check out the FOTF complex in Colorado Springs.
> 
> A lot of mouths could be fed with the money spent on building that monstrosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus on the Family is paying for the ACORN pimp's defense!
> 
> That's how they focus on the family.
Click to expand...


While I support their right to free speech and assembly, I find FOTF to be one of the most obnoxious groups in this country.

Let's not forget that Jimmy D advocated for Iraq based on St. Augustine's "just war" argument.

I've also never heard them condemn the death penalty.

"Pro-life" my ass.  I guess brown lives don't care.

At least the catholic church is consistent.


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> That's pretty close.  I basically gave carte blanche for anyone to use any term they want.  For whatever reason some assume I deny it is a human rising so they think if they keep pointing that out they have accomplished something.



If you're referring to me you are mistaken.  I asked you if you meant by your scrambled eggs/dancing chickens that what grows inside a woman isn't human life.  Your response was no but you offered no further explanation, as noted below.



CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that isn't what I'm saying.  I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> What is your answer?
Click to expand...





Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No that isn't what I'm saying.  *I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> What is your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure sounds like that's what you're saying to me, you want to go with because the chicken isn't dancing it's not really a chicken.*  I'm* not equating the unborn with the born, I'm equating the unborn with being human life.  When an abortion happens that human life is terminated, ended, destroyed.
Click to expand...


----------



## geauxtohell

Queen said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why the anti-choice people have to use lies to make their point.
> 
> Your post is a lie. No one's flipping out because someone chose life.
> 
> People are flipping out because the story in the ad is a lie. Abortion is illegal in the Phillipines so doctors don't recommend it. They can't perform it. Do you think they would send a patient to a back alley illegal abortion or give her a coathanger?
> 
> Please.
> 
> I guess you liar lovers approve of the right wing Christian lies because you really do love lies. You tell them yourselves too.
> 
> Maybe that explains it. You righties really do love the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was illegal if medically indicated.  If it were, that would make the law draconian and dangerous.
> 
> The real issue is that Tebow's mom is telling people to ignore medical advice.  It worked out in her case.  She was lucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the illegal abortions women get in the Phillipines are by herbs. So yes, ingesting something to have an abortion is illegal there.
> 
> It didn't work out in her case, because she is obviously lying by saying a doctor suggested abortion in a country were abortion is completely and totally illegal.
> 
> Her story is a lie. She isn't lucky, she's a liar.
Click to expand...


"Pennyroyal Tea".................

I wouldn't be so quick to call her a liar.  There are medical indications for termination of a pregnancy.  Any Doctor would admit that, and I doubt the laws of the country wouldn't make an exception for the life of the mother.


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No that isn't what I'm saying.  *I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> What is your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure sounds like that's what you're saying to me, you want to go with because the chicken isn't dancing it's not really a chicken.*  I'm* not equating the unborn with the born, I'm equating the unborn with being human life.  When an abortion happens that human life is terminated, ended, destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I will comment when you respect the conversation.  *Kind of silly to ignore simple questions and put words in others mouths and expect a response.*
Click to expand...


This is what you just did with me. As noted above, you said 'I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born'.  YOU put words into MY mouth.  I did answer your question, again, as noted above.

Explain your scrambled eggs/dancing chicken analogy cause I don't know what you mean by it.


----------



## Queen

geauxtohell said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was illegal if medically indicated.  If it were, that would make the law draconian and dangerous.
> 
> The real issue is that Tebow's mom is telling people to ignore medical advice.  It worked out in her case.  She was lucky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the illegal abortions women get in the Phillipines are by herbs. So yes, ingesting something to have an abortion is illegal there.
> 
> It didn't work out in her case, because she is obviously lying by saying a doctor suggested abortion in a country were abortion is completely and totally illegal.
> 
> Her story is a lie. She isn't lucky, she's a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Pennyroyal Tea".................
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to call her a liar.  There are medical indications for termination of a pregnancy.  Any Doctor would admit that, and I doubt the laws of the country wouldn't make an exception for the life of the mother.
Click to expand...


That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar. 

Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities


----------



## Queen

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure sounds like that's what you're saying to me, you want to go with because the chicken isn't dancing it's not really a chicken.*  I'm* not equating the unborn with the born, I'm equating the unborn with being human life.  When an abortion happens that human life is terminated, ended, destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will comment when you respect the conversation.  *Kind of silly to ignore simple questions and put words in others mouths and expect a response.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what you just did with me. As noted above, you said 'I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born'.  YOU put words into MY mouth.  I did answer your question, again, as noted above.
> 
> Explain your scrambled eggs/dancing chicken analogy cause I don't know what you mean by it.
Click to expand...


OMG It's not hard to understand. 

You say a cluster of cells in a uterus is a child. 

Do you think that when you order eggs for breakfast you're going to get a chicken dinner?


----------



## geauxtohell

Immanuel said:


> The fact is that there are two parts of the "pro-choice" movement.
> 
> You have the people who profit from abortion, Planned Parenthood, Gloria Allred, NOW, NARAL, Emily's List etc.  These are the people who could almost be termed Pro-abortion.
> 
> But, then you have the vast majority of pro-choice people.  These are the people who do not profit from the procedure but look at the issue and whether or not they would ever consider the option of abortion, believe that the decision lies solely with the pregnant mother and that this is not something that the government should interfere with in any way whatsoever.
> 
> To claim that this second group is "pro-abortion" is not only wrong but detrimental to the cause of defending life.  It is no less wrong than claiming that the pro-life movement is "anti-choice".
> 
> Immie



On that note, I see the "pro-life" movement as being similar with two distinct groups.

There are those that are truly "pro-life" and oppose any form of destruction of life, to include the death penalty and un-necessary war.  I would put the Catholic Church in that catagory.

Then there are those who are simply "anti-abortion" and could give a flip about anything but that issue.  I put FOTF in that catagory.  For that group, I really think the abortion issue is simply a means to assimilate money and power.


----------



## Immanuel

Queen said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the illegal abortions women get in the Phillipines are by herbs. So yes, ingesting something to have an abortion is illegal there.
> 
> It didn't work out in her case, because she is obviously lying by saying a doctor suggested abortion in a country were abortion is completely and totally illegal.
> 
> Her story is a lie. She isn't lucky, she's a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pennyroyal Tea".................
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to call her a liar.  There are medical indications for termination of a pregnancy.  Any Doctor would admit that, and I doubt the laws of the country wouldn't make an exception for the life of the mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities
Click to expand...


Simply because it is illegal in the Philippines does not mean that it does not happen. 

My Gosh!  Maybe the Pro-choice lobbyists have been lying to us all along.  They tell us that before Roe women went to the back alleys to get illegal abortions and that if Roe is overturned it will happen all over again.

Are you claiming that is a lie?

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell

Queen said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the illegal abortions women get in the Phillipines are by herbs. So yes, ingesting something to have an abortion is illegal there.
> 
> It didn't work out in her case, because she is obviously lying by saying a doctor suggested abortion in a country were abortion is completely and totally illegal.
> 
> Her story is a lie. She isn't lucky, she's a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pennyroyal Tea".................
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to call her a liar.  There are medical indications for termination of a pregnancy.  Any Doctor would admit that, and I doubt the laws of the country wouldn't make an exception for the life of the mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities
Click to expand...


Really?  I must have missed that.

Wow, what a shitty law.  Either way, the message is "ignore your doctors".


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much is Focus on the Family paying for this ad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone earlier said $2.5 million and that it could have been put to better use actually helping people in need.  Geez, if I am not mistaken it was you.  If so, you would be right.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



That was me.


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much is Focus on the Family paying for this ad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone earlier said $2.5 million and that it could have been put to better use actually helping people in need.  Geez, if I am not mistaken it was you.  If so, you would be right.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was me.
Click to expand...


Ah hell!  I'm not going to say that *YOU* were right.   At least not twice in one day.  Your head might begin to swell.

Immie


----------



## Misty

I think it's a truly inspirational story and see no reason why it shouldn't be told

all the people who are freaking out have no reason to, his mom chose life and now she has a wonderful son.


----------



## chanel

Yes - and no one has seen the ad.  The protest is over the group; not the commercial.  Much ado about nothing if you ask me.


----------



## Misty

From wiki;

Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in Manila 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.


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Pennyroyal Tea".................
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to call her a liar.  There are medical indications for termination of a pregnancy.  Any Doctor would admit that, and I doubt the laws of the country wouldn't make an exception for the life of the mother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply because it is illegal in the Philippines does not mean that it does not happen.
> 
> My Gosh!  Maybe the Pro-choice lobbyists have been lying to us all along.  They tell us that before Roe women went to the back alleys to get illegal abortions and that if Roe is overturned it will happen all over again.
> 
> Are you claiming that is a lie?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



The problem is pure deception.  They tried to say she didn't abort purely out of a moral conviction and we now know that is not true.  Her choice was based on 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.  A back door abortion would have been no less risky than continuing the pregnancy.   She's looking like a WMD Palin reject that got tedowed by common sense.


----------



## Misty

I knew the liberal vampires would try to bring this poor kid down

keep talking, it will backfire right in your stupid abortion loving faces.


----------



## Misty

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities
> 
> 
> 
> Simply because it is illegal in the Philippines does not mean that it does not happen. My Gosh!  Maybe the Pro-choice lobbyists have been lying to us all along.  They tell us that before Roe women went to the back alleys to get illegal abortions and that if Roe is overturned it will happen all over again.
> Are you claiming that is a lie?
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is pure deception.  They tried to say she didn't abort purely out of a moral conviction and we now know that is not true.  Her choice was based on 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.  A back door abortion would have been no less risky than continuing the pregnancy.   She's looking like a WMD Palin reject that got tedowed by common sense.
Click to expand...


his parents were Christian missionaries. She was not going to have an abortion for any reason.   She is not a liar.


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply because it is illegal in the Philippines does not mean that it does not happen.
> 
> My Gosh!  Maybe the Pro-choice lobbyists have been lying to us all along.  They tell us that before Roe women went to the back alleys to get illegal abortions and that if Roe is overturned it will happen all over again.
> 
> Are you claiming that is a lie?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is pure deception.  They tried to say she didn't abort purely out of a moral conviction and we now know that is not true.  Her choice was based on 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.  A back door abortion would have been no less risky than continuing the pregnancy.   She's looking like a WMD Palin reject that got tedowed by common sense.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  She had the "option" of an abortion.  The fact that she chose not to exercise that option is her decision and the reason(s) that she made that choice is/are immaterial.

Also, you don't know what they are trying to say.  You have not seen the ad.  Until we do, we only have the protest groups outrage at the fact that Mrs Tebow chose life.

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell

Misty said:


> I knew the liberal vampires would try to bring this poor kid down
> 
> keep talking, it will backfire right in your stupid abortion loving faces.



I think telling future mothers to ignore medical advice and take a risk with their own life simply to fall in line with FOTF myopic stance on the "pro-life" issue is what will backfire.

As has been noted, this wasn't an issue where Tebow's mom had to make a decision based out of "convenience" or "social situation" or any of the other things that the pro-life group harps on.

Instead, this is a clear cut issue of trying to tell woman that they should carry a child even to the detriment of their own health.  

If FOTF is going to go that route, they will quickly be marginalized.  Most everyone agrees that abortion should be an option when the life of the mother is at stake.


----------



## Misty

She lived, he lived, if anyone was a liar it was the doctor


----------



## geauxtohell

Misty said:


> She lived, he lived, if anyone was a liar it was the doctor



Oh bullshit.  Doctors don't have a crystal ball.  They just advise patients of the risk.  A placental abruption is extremely dangerous as the woman has a real chance of going into septic shock/DIC.  It's no different than pre-ecclampsia where the only sure fire way to treat it is to deliver the child (luckily PE generally happens when there is a chance that a premature infant can survive.  There is still a huge risk that the child will not survive).  Sticking you head in the sand about the risks behind pregnancy doesn't change the fact that there is a lot of risk with it.

This could have been a misdiagnosis or Mrs. Tebow could have been lucky.

That doesn't change the fact that there are medical indications for abortion and telling women to ignore them puts their lives at risk.

One anecdote doesn't change the basic facts of the issue.  

BTW, you do realize that, until recent years, childbirth was one of the leading mortality factors for women, right?


----------



## Queen

Misty said:


> From wiki;
> 
> Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in Manila 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.



Since anyone can change or add to wiki, that's not a valid source. 

The truth is that abortion is illegal in the Phillipines, even when a woman's life is in danger. So a doctor would not recommend an illegal procedure as he could not perform it, legally. 

Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities

Restrictions on Abortion

The Incidence of Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Current Level and Recent Trends

There is no doubt that abortion is illegal in the Phillipines.


----------



## Queen

Misty said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply because it is illegal in the Philippines does not mean that it does not happen. My Gosh!  Maybe the Pro-choice lobbyists have been lying to us all along.  They tell us that before Roe women went to the back alleys to get illegal abortions and that if Roe is overturned it will happen all over again.
> Are you claiming that is a lie?
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is pure deception.  They tried to say she didn't abort purely out of a moral conviction and we now know that is not true.  Her choice was based on 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.  A back door abortion would have been no less risky than continuing the pregnancy.   She's looking like a WMD Palin reject that got tedowed by common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> his parents were Christian missionaries. She was not going to have an abortion for any reason.   She is not a liar.
Click to expand...


She couldn't have had an abortion in the Phillipines. It's completely and totally illegal. Unless she went for a back alley abortion or used a coathanger herself, there's no way to get an abortion in the Phillipines. 

The lie is that the doctor advised her to get one. 

Maybe he wanted her to fly to the USA or another country where it's legal and get one......that's the only possible way he could have advised her to get an abortion. The doctor in the Phillipines could not legally save her life with an abortion.


----------



## Queen

Immanuel said:


> I disagree.  She had the "option" of an abortion.  The fact that she chose not to exercise that option is her decision and the reason(s) that she made that choice is/are immaterial.
> 
> Also, you don't know what they are trying to say.  You have not seen the ad.  Until we do, we only have the protest groups outrage at the fact that Mrs Tebow chose life.
> 
> Immie



OMG do you people even care a little about the truth? 

She had no OPTION of an abortion. 

Not in the Phillipines. 

Abortion under any circumstance is ILLEGAL there.


----------



## Immanuel

Queen said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  She had the "option" of an abortion.  The fact that she chose not to exercise that option is her decision and the reason(s) that she made that choice is/are immaterial.
> 
> Also, you don't know what they are trying to say.  You have not seen the ad.  Until we do, we only have the protest groups outrage at the fact that Mrs Tebow chose life.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG do you people even care a little about the truth?
> 
> She had no OPTION of an abortion.
> 
> Not in the Phillipines.
> 
> Abortion under any circumstance is ILLEGAL there.
Click to expand...


OMG!  Is your head buried in the frigging sand.  She had an option.  It would have been an illegal abortion, but the option was there.

You guys are always claiming that not given the option of a legal abortion, women will chose the illegal option and die.  Now, you want to say there is no illegal option for convenience sake?

Immie


----------



## code1211

Avatar4321 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of this tebow guy and can't help but wonder why anyone gives a flying fuck about what he says enough to warrant multiple threads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's a college quarterback.  A pretty good one.
> 
> This qualifies him as an expert on most topics.
> 
> This is why Jeanine Garofalo is qualified to vomit opinions on anything in front of a camera and why Nancy Pelosi is suddenly a medical expert.
> 
> We live in a society that cannot distinguish between wisdom and fame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we live in a society that has never seen wisdom so alll we have to rely on is fame.
Click to expand...



We've seen it.  Usually it's contained in our humor.  Mark Twain and Will Rogers come to mind.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Queen said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will comment when you respect the conversation.  *Kind of silly to ignore simple questions and put words in others mouths and expect a response.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what you just did with me. As noted above, you said 'I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born'.  YOU put words into MY mouth.  I did answer your question, again, as noted above.
> 
> Explain your scrambled eggs/dancing chicken analogy cause I don't know what you mean by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG It's not hard to understand.
> 
> *You say a cluster of cells in a uterus is a child. *
> 
> Do you think that when you order eggs for breakfast you're going to get a chicken dinner?
Click to expand...


No, I didn't.  If you had bothered to read my posts I said that what grows inside of a woman is human life.  Note the conversation I had earlier with CL, below.



CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that isn't what I'm saying.  I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> What is your answer?
Click to expand...



CL put words into my mouth - as you just did - saying I was equating the unborn (scrambled eggs) with the born (dancing chicken).  No, I wasn't.  You and CL need to go back and actually read what I've posted.

I'll reiterate my point again for the both of you.    

A six week old fetus is not the same as a 6 week old birthed baby is not the same as a 6 year old child is not the same as a 60 year old.

From conception to death humans develop, grow, change.  But the commonality in a 6 week old fetus to a 60 year old is that they are both _human life_.  Different stages of human life?  To be sure, but_ human life_ none the less.


----------



## blu

Misty said:


> I knew the liberal vampires would try to bring this poor kid down
> 
> keep talking, it will backfire right in your stupid abortion loving faces.



no one has to bring him down, he already sucks both on and off the field. he will have 1 or 2 years top in the nfl.


----------



## blu

Misty said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply because it is illegal in the Philippines does not mean that it does not happen. My Gosh!  Maybe the Pro-choice lobbyists have been lying to us all along.  They tell us that before Roe women went to the back alleys to get illegal abortions and that if Roe is overturned it will happen all over again.
> Are you claiming that is a lie?
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is pure deception.  They tried to say she didn't abort purely out of a moral conviction and we now know that is not true.  Her choice was based on 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.  A back door abortion would have been no less risky than continuing the pregnancy.   She's looking like a WMD Palin reject that got tedowed by common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> his parents were Christian missionaries. She was not going to have an abortion for any reason.   She is not a liar.
Click to expand...


learn2read. she said it was suggested to abort him, and that is under dispute


----------



## beowolfe

Immanuel said:


> Because abortion under any circumstance has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930 and is punishable by a six-year prison term, Allred says she finds it hard to believe that doctors would have recommended the procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I believe everything Gloria Allred says.
> 
> Isn't she one who continually claimed that if abortion were made illegal again we would go back to "doctors" performing back alley abortions?  That would insinuate that a doctor would recommend an abortion and do so in a presumably unhealthy environment... i.e. a back alley.
> 
> Why would she even think that the same thing would not happen in the Philippines?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attorney, who has represented a roster of famous clients, claims she will lodge a complaint with the FCC and FTC "if this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her choice," according to RadarOnline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares if they point out that abortions were illegal in the Philippines at the time?  What difference does that make?  If the ad is true then someone recommended that Mrs. Tebow have an abortion and she chose life instead.  Now, Allred and crew want to make her out to be a devil for doing so?  How frigging sick can Allred be?
> 
> It makes no difference whether or not the abortion was legal.
> 
> Oh and does this mean that Tim Tebow cannot be President?  Was he born in the Philippines?  Do we have a birth certificate for him?  Tell me it is not a Hawaiin Birth Certificate... please!
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


I think you're missing the point.  I'm not a Gloria Allred fan, but what she's hypothosizing is that if abortions were illegal in the Phillipiines at the time, that it would have been unlikely a Phillipine doctor who grew up with the restrictions would recommend an abortion.  Not having checked if Allred is correct on the Phillipine restriction, I wouldn't jump to support nor reject her premise.  Instead of having a 'knee jerk' reaction to her, I'm going to check to see if she is correct.


----------



## Avatar4321

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that isn't what I'm saying.  I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> What is your answer?
Click to expand...


I guess that depends. Do you tend to scamble fertilized eggs? or are you civilized like the rest of us.


----------



## beowolfe

beowolfe said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because abortion under any circumstance has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930 and is punishable by a six-year prison term, Allred says she finds it hard to believe that doctors would have recommended the procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I believe everything Gloria Allred says.
> 
> Isn't she one who continually claimed that if abortion were made illegal again we would go back to "doctors" performing back alley abortions?  That would insinuate that a doctor would recommend an abortion and do so in a presumably unhealthy environment... i.e. a back alley.
> 
> Why would she even think that the same thing would not happen in the Philippines?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attorney, who has represented a roster of famous clients, claims she will lodge a complaint with the FCC and FTC "if this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her choice," according to RadarOnline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares if they point out that abortions were illegal in the Philippines at the time?  What difference does that make?  If the ad is true then someone recommended that Mrs. Tebow have an abortion and she chose life instead.  Now, Allred and crew want to make her out to be a devil for doing so?  How frigging sick can Allred be?
> 
> It makes no difference whether or not the abortion was legal.
> 
> Oh and does this mean that Tim Tebow cannot be President?  Was he born in the Philippines?  Do we have a birth certificate for him?  Tell me it is not a Hawaiin Birth Certificate... please!
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're missing the point.  I'm not a Gloria Allred fan, but what she's hypothosizing is that if abortions were illegal in the Phillipiines at the time, that it would have been unlikely a Phillipine doctor who grew up with the restrictions would recommend an abortion.  Not having checked if Allred is correct on the Phillipine restriction, I wouldn't jump to support nor reject her premise.  Instead of having a 'knee jerk' reaction to her, I'm going to check to see if she is correct.
Click to expand...


I'm unable to quickly very the 1930 date, but abortions are indeed illegal in the Phillipines.  Does that mean that some doctor in a Phillipino hospital didn't suggest she have an abortion?  No.  It doesn't mean that.  However, if it happened, it does appear the doctor was taking a big risk.


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone earlier said $2.5 million and that it could have been put to better use actually helping people in need.  Geez, if I am not mistaken it was you.  If so, you would be right.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah hell!  I'm not going to say that *YOU* were right.   At least not twice in one day.  Your head might begin to swell.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



Ask around....it can't possibly swell anymore! Lol.


----------



## Immanuel

beowolfe said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because abortion under any circumstance has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930 and is punishable by a six-year prison term, Allred says she finds it hard to believe that doctors would have recommended the procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I believe everything Gloria Allred says.
> 
> Isn't she one who continually claimed that if abortion were made illegal again we would go back to "doctors" performing back alley abortions?  That would insinuate that a doctor would recommend an abortion and do so in a presumably unhealthy environment... i.e. a back alley.
> 
> Why would she even think that the same thing would not happen in the Philippines?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attorney, who has represented a roster of famous clients, claims she will lodge a complaint with the FCC and FTC "if this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her choice," according to RadarOnline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares if they point out that abortions were illegal in the Philippines at the time?  What difference does that make?  If the ad is true then someone recommended that Mrs. Tebow have an abortion and she chose life instead.  Now, Allred and crew want to make her out to be a devil for doing so?  How frigging sick can Allred be?
> 
> It makes no difference whether or not the abortion was legal.
> 
> Oh and does this mean that Tim Tebow cannot be President?  Was he born in the Philippines?  Do we have a birth certificate for him?  Tell me it is not a Hawaiin Birth Certificate... please!
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're missing the point.  I'm not a Gloria Allred fan, but what she's hypothosizing is that if abortions were illegal in the Phillipiines at the time, that it would have been unlikely a Phillipine doctor who grew up with the restrictions would recommend an abortion.  Not having checked if Allred is correct on the Phillipine restriction, I wouldn't jump to support nor reject her premise.  Instead of having a 'knee jerk' reaction to her, I'm going to check to see if she is correct.
Click to expand...


I followed some links.  It appears that she is correct about abortion being illegal in the Philippines.  According to pro-choice lobbyists, it should not matter that abortion is illegal as we have all been told that if abortions are illegal women will go to the back alleys to get what they need.

Immie


----------



## CurveLight

Avatar4321 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that isn't what I'm saying.  I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> What is your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that depends. Do you tend to scamble fertilized eggs? or are you civilized like the rest of us.
Click to expand...



Irony in glimmer.  Those who claim to be the most pro life are the fastest to avoid it.


----------



## Immanuel

beowolfe said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I believe everything Gloria Allred says.
> 
> Isn't she one who continually claimed that if abortion were made illegal again we would go back to "doctors" performing back alley abortions?  That would insinuate that a doctor would recommend an abortion and do so in a presumably unhealthy environment... i.e. a back alley.
> 
> Why would she even think that the same thing would not happen in the Philippines?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if they point out that abortions were illegal in the Philippines at the time?  What difference does that make?  If the ad is true then someone recommended that Mrs. Tebow have an abortion and she chose life instead.  Now, Allred and crew want to make her out to be a devil for doing so?  How frigging sick can Allred be?
> 
> It makes no difference whether or not the abortion was legal.
> 
> Oh and does this mean that Tim Tebow cannot be President?  Was he born in the Philippines?  Do we have a birth certificate for him?  Tell me it is not a Hawaiin Birth Certificate... please!
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're missing the point.  I'm not a Gloria Allred fan, but what she's hypothosizing is that if abortions were illegal in the Phillipiines at the time, that it would have been unlikely a Phillipine doctor who grew up with the restrictions would recommend an abortion.  Not having checked if Allred is correct on the Phillipine restriction, I wouldn't jump to support nor reject her premise.  Instead of having a 'knee jerk' reaction to her, I'm going to check to see if she is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm unable to quickly very the 1930 date, but abortions are indeed illegal in the Phillipines.  Does that mean that some doctor in a Phillipino hospital didn't suggest she have an abortion?  No.  It doesn't mean that.  However, if it happened, it does appear the doctor was taking a big risk.
Click to expand...


As would she, if she had taken that option.

It seems to me, because I am not denying the fact of back alley abortions when abortion is illegal, that doctors take that risk for the right price.

Also, according to the articles, everyone is assuming that it was a doctor that advised her of the option, and maybe it was.  It might also have been a nurse.  I'll wait to see the ad itself.

Several good points have been brought up about this ad from what I would call the "other" side.  I've mixed feelings on the ad itself, but not the right of FotF to broadcast it.

Immie


----------



## Anguille

blu said:


> Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad May Be Based On Falsehood
> 
> 
> bwhahahaha. I hope this is real just to make tebow look dumber than he already does


----------



## beowolfe

I can see scenarios in my mind that would show how it could have happened and how it probably did not happen.

1. A Phillipino doctor sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, saw an American woman with a distressed pregancy.  Since she was in the Phillipines, he could have assumed that she had money and could afford it and suggested it.  I thnk this scenario would depend on the doctor not knowing she was a christian missionary.

2. There is no way a Phillipino doctor would recommend an abortion to an American christian missionary IF he knew she was a missionary.  He would be taking the risk of being turned in to the authorities since abortion was illegal at the time.

2.


----------



## geauxtohell

beowolfe said:


> I can see scenarios in my mind that would show how it could have happened and how it probably did not happen.
> 
> 1. A Phillipino doctor sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, saw an American woman with a distressed pregancy.  Since she was in the Phillipines, he could have assumed that she had money and could afford it and suggested it.  I thnk this scenario would depend on the doctor not knowing she was a christian missionary.
> 
> 2. There is no way a Phillipino doctor would recommend an abortion to an American christian missionary IF he knew she was a missionary.  He would be taking the risk of being turned in to the authorities since abortion was illegal at the time.
> 
> 2.



Or

3.  "You will die if we don't terminate your pregnancy, too bad you are in the Phillipines were it is illegal, but if you fly back to the states, the Doctors will tell you the same thing."

I am not so quick to call Tebow's mom a liar.  In fact, I don't see it as terribly germane to the issue.  What I do see as germane is FOTF advocating that women ignore medical advice.  

I don't see why that hasn't been brought up.


----------



## geauxtohell

geauxtohell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that there are two parts of the "pro-choice" movement.
> 
> You have the people who profit from abortion, Planned Parenthood, Gloria Allred, NOW, NARAL, Emily's List etc.  These are the people who could almost be termed Pro-abortion.
> 
> But, then you have the vast majority of pro-choice people.  These are the people who do not profit from the procedure but look at the issue and whether or not they would ever consider the option of abortion, believe that the decision lies solely with the pregnant mother and that this is not something that the government should interfere with in any way whatsoever.
> 
> To claim that this second group is "pro-abortion" is not only wrong but detrimental to the cause of defending life.  It is no less wrong than claiming that the pro-life movement is "anti-choice".
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On that note, I see the "pro-life" movement as being similar with two distinct groups.
> 
> There are those that are truly "pro-life" and oppose any form of destruction of life, to include the death penalty and un-necessary war.  I would put the Catholic Church in that catagory.
> 
> Then there are those who are simply "anti-abortion" and could give a flip about anything but that issue.  I put FOTF in that catagory.  For that group, I really think the abortion issue is simply a means to assimilate money and power.
Click to expand...


Case in point, there is nothing "pro-life" about this guy.

Activist Roeder convicted of abortion provider's murder - CNN.com

He is a fucking assassin.  Pure and simple.


----------



## beowolfe

geauxtohell said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see scenarios in my mind that would show how it could have happened and how it probably did not happen.
> 
> 1. A Phillipino doctor sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, saw an American woman with a distressed pregancy.  Since she was in the Phillipines, he could have assumed that she had money and could afford it and suggested it.  I thnk this scenario would depend on the doctor not knowing she was a christian missionary.
> 
> 2. There is no way a Phillipino doctor would recommend an abortion to an American christian missionary IF he knew she was a missionary.  He would be taking the risk of being turned in to the authorities since abortion was illegal at the time.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or
> 
> 3.  "You will die if we don't terminate your pregnancy, too bad you are in the Phillipines were it is illegal, but if you fly back to the states, the Doctors will tell you the same thing."
> 
> I am not so quick to call Tebow's mom a liar.  In fact, I don't see it as terribly germane to the issue.  What I do see as germane is FOTF advocating that women ignore medical advice.
> 
> I don't see why that hasn't been brought up.
Click to expand...


I think we all (men and women) are the final arbiters on what medical proceedures we will or won't undergo.  We can have all sorts of reasons that we think are important enough to ignore medical advice, even if it costs us our lives.  In the end, it is, and I think it should be, the patient who tells the doctor how to proceed and not the other way around. Which is why I'm pro choice.


----------



## geauxtohell

beowolfe said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see scenarios in my mind that would show how it could have happened and how it probably did not happen.
> 
> 1. A Phillipino doctor sympathetic to a woman's right to choose, saw an American woman with a distressed pregancy.  Since she was in the Phillipines, he could have assumed that she had money and could afford it and suggested it.  I thnk this scenario would depend on the doctor not knowing she was a christian missionary.
> 
> 2. There is no way a Phillipino doctor would recommend an abortion to an American christian missionary IF he knew she was a missionary.  He would be taking the risk of being turned in to the authorities since abortion was illegal at the time.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or
> 
> 3.  "You will die if we don't terminate your pregnancy, too bad you are in the Phillipines were it is illegal, but if you fly back to the states, the Doctors will tell you the same thing."
> 
> I am not so quick to call Tebow's mom a liar.  In fact, I don't see it as terribly germane to the issue.  What I do see as germane is FOTF advocating that women ignore medical advice.
> 
> I don't see why that hasn't been brought up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all (men and women) are the final arbiters on what medical proceedures we will or won't undergo.  We can have all sorts of reasons that we think are important enough to ignore medical advice, even if it costs us our lives.  In the end, it is, and I think it should be, the patient who tells the doctor how to proceed and not the other way around.
Click to expand...


I agree.  As I said, I see the abortion issue as a patient autonomy issue.  Patients have the right to refuse medical advice, even if it is detrimental to their health.  As a student, I've seen patients refuse to take insulin, even though it is inevitably going to result in their early demise.  

That being said, on the larger issue, I find it to be poor form for FOTF to run an ad where they advocate women ignoring medical advice.  If it becomes an issue, I don't see how they won't get blow back from it.  

In whatever decision making capacity I have into the matter, if I was given the choice between the chance that my wife would die or be seriously harmed versus carrying a baby to term, that would be a no brainer.  (I realize that men have no legal rights to compel or prevent their wives from carrying a child, I just said that for perspective).


----------



## beowolfe

geauxtohell said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or
> 
> 3.  "You will die if we don't terminate your pregnancy, too bad you are in the Phillipines were it is illegal, but if you fly back to the states, the Doctors will tell you the same thing."
> 
> I am not so quick to call Tebow's mom a liar.  In fact, I don't see it as terribly germane to the issue.  What I do see as germane is FOTF advocating that women ignore medical advice.
> 
> I don't see why that hasn't been brought up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all (men and women) are the final arbiters on what medical proceedures we will or won't undergo.  We can have all sorts of reasons that we think are important enough to ignore medical advice, even if it costs us our lives.  In the end, it is, and I think it should be, the patient who tells the doctor how to proceed and not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  As I said, I see the abortion issue as a patient autonomy issue.  Patients have the right to refuse medical advice, even if it is detrimental to their health.  As a student, I've seen patients refuse to take insulin, even though it is inevitably going to result in their early demise.
> 
> That being said, on the larger issue, I find it to be poor form for FOTF to run an ad where they advocate women ignoring medical advice.  If it becomes an issue, I don't see how they won't get blow back from it.
> 
> In whatever decision making capacity I have into the matter, if I was given the choice between the chance that my wife would die or be seriously harmed versus carrying a baby to term, that would be a no brainer.  (I realize that men have no legal rights to compel or prevent their wives from carrying a child, I just said that for perspective).
Click to expand...


I would think that most men, would take the position that if they had to choose between the woman and the baby, they would choose the woman.  I don't know too many men who would insist on a woman going through with a pregnancy if there were a serious threat to her life.


----------



## geauxtohell

beowolfe said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all (men and women) are the final arbiters on what medical proceedures we will or won't undergo.  We can have all sorts of reasons that we think are important enough to ignore medical advice, even if it costs us our lives.  In the end, it is, and I think it should be, the patient who tells the doctor how to proceed and not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  As I said, I see the abortion issue as a patient autonomy issue.  Patients have the right to refuse medical advice, even if it is detrimental to their health.  As a student, I've seen patients refuse to take insulin, even though it is inevitably going to result in their early demise.
> 
> That being said, on the larger issue, I find it to be poor form for FOTF to run an ad where they advocate women ignoring medical advice.  If it becomes an issue, I don't see how they won't get blow back from it.
> 
> In whatever decision making capacity I have into the matter, if I was given the choice between the chance that my wife would die or be seriously harmed versus carrying a baby to term, that would be a no brainer.  (I realize that men have no legal rights to compel or prevent their wives from carrying a child, I just said that for perspective).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that most men, would take the position that if they had to choose between the woman and the baby, they would choose the woman.  I don't know too many men who would insist on a woman going through with a pregnancy if there were a serious threat to her life.
Click to expand...


I don't think many women would either.  I think Tebow's mom is the exception.  If her placenta was truly abrupted, it was tremendiously risky for her to carry the baby to term.

The placenta, when exposed, has a ton of tissue factor in it that sets off the bodies clotting cascade so that you have thousands of microemboli going through your system.  As if that wasn't bad enough, once you've exhausted the equillibrium of your clotting factors, the body can't stop any bleed and the real danger is that a person will hemorrhage and die of shock.  

If that was truly the situation, she was pretty brave.   

Placental abruption is a medical emergency that always calls for immediate intervention.*


*This statement made by a mediocre medical student and not a real doctor.


----------



## dilloduck

Zoom-boing said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal doesn't mean it can not happen.  I'll wait until a better source other than HP presents information on this.
> 
> It's always an option; not taking it doesn't remove the option.
> 
> Does choice only apply if the woman opts_ for_ abortion?  That's what I'm trying to understand here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opting to give birth is the *weenie *choice. You only are brave and independent if you opt to abort. Giving any credit to a woman who opts to give birth steals everyone elses thunder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weenies are part of why there is even a debate on this!!
Click to expand...


You keep my weenie outta this  !!


----------



## CurveLight

dilloduck said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opting to give birth is the *weenie *choice. You only are brave and independent if you opt to abort. Giving any credit to a woman who opts to give birth steals everyone elses thunder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weenies are part of why there is even a debate on this!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep my weenie outta this  !!
Click to expand...



Don't think that would be difficult.  Word is you once lost your weenie in a thimble.  That came out of a Barbie Doll house.


(couldn't resist! Lol....you can't leave a set up like that and expect no response)


----------



## Dr Gregg

No surprising, most of the pro life arguments (I think anti-choice is more fitting of a name than pro life) are generally based on falsehoods. They just can't stand that people don't think the same as them, and they have to lie and twist things to make an argument.  Not all, but many I've seen do this.

It's just incredible they would spend close to 3 million dollars on a 30 second commercial when that money could actually make an impact and help to reduce unwanted babies. Provide support for poor or teen mothers. BUt instead they just want to force people to live by their standards.  

FoF is nuts, they will preach abstinence only is the way to go, which doesn't work and leads to unwanted pregnancies and probably more abortions, refusing to stand behind sex education that combines the two (birth control methods and abstinence).

yet another example of people not facing the realities of life, and nothing gets done.


----------



## Dr Gregg

chanel said:


> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...


/'

Nobody flips out when someone chooses life, its when they try to ram that decision down other people's throats like I'm pretty sure this commercial is going to do.

Most people would prefer to not have abortions, its not taken lightly.


----------



## Dr Gregg

RetiredGySgt said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason that our local Pro choice bunch are busy trying to throw dirt on the story. They are NOT about choice unless that CHOICE is to abort. Anyone willing to choice life is just wrong and has to be brought to understand not to share those thoughts and feelings with impressionable women of any age. Better that they be taught that choice means having an abortion cause they don't want to get fat while carrying the baby.
Click to expand...



This is exactly the type of lie I mentioned. Nobody promotes abortion, but they allow people to make their own reproductive choices, as many pro choice people probably wouldn't have an abortion. But I guess you can keep telling yourself that as to demonize people that have different opinions of you. Doesn't really bode well for your argument IMO


----------



## chanel

Dr Gregg said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...
> 
> 
> 
> /'
> 
> Nobody flips out when someone chooses life, its when they try to ram that decision down other people's throats like I'm pretty sure this commercial is going to do.
> 
> Most people would prefer to not have abortions, its not taken lightly.
Click to expand...


Oh really?  Is that why the people at Planned Parenthood are prevented from using the word "baby"?  Is that why the Planned Parenthood website state that there are generally no "long term effects"?  Is that why CHILDREN can make that decision themselves?

I happen to be pro-choice.  In fact I used to contribute to Planned Parenthood because I thought they were providing a needed service in preventing teen pregnancy.  But they are not.  They are a business just like any other who needs to maintain/expand their market to keep themselves solvent.  Economics 101.

If Planned Parenthood can advertise in schools, I don't see any reason why these people can't advertise on T.V.


----------



## rightwinger

Dr Gregg said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason that our local Pro choice bunch are busy trying to throw dirt on the story. They are NOT about choice unless that CHOICE is to abort. Anyone willing to choice life is just wrong and has to be brought to understand not to share those thoughts and feelings with impressionable women of any age. Better that they be taught that choice means having an abortion cause they don't want to get fat while carrying the baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the type of lie I mentioned. Nobody promotes abortion, but they allow people to make their own reproductive choices, as many pro choice people probably wouldn't have an abortion. But I guess you can keep telling yourself that as to demonize people that have different opinions of you. Doesn't really bode well for your argument IMO
Click to expand...


You are right. Nobody promotes having an abortion....EVER
If Tebows mom can tell about how she was told that having a baby could kill her but she did it anyway and ended up with a Heisman winning QB as a son...what would be the outcry if the other side ran ads about women who didn't abort and ended up dying?


----------



## chanel

She wouldn't be famous.  And what if the other side showed a commercial about a woman who died AFTER getting an abortion?  

Nobody promotes having an abortion - EVER?  Wrong.



> When interviewed, many crisis pregnancy center counselors and volunteers working with post-abortive women say the remark they've heard most is: "I felt I had no choice." In a survey published by the American Family Association Journal in 2002:
> 
> &#8226;56% felt pressured by other people or circumstances.
> 
> &#8226;84% stated they would have chosen otherwise if different options had been presented.
> 
> &#8226;40% were still hoping for other options while at the abortion clinic in a confused state of mind, but didn't get any (abortion clinics are not required to present other choices in every state).
> 
> In Everett's Blood Money, she reveals being paid $25 for each abortion she sold when she worked for other clinics, and was impressed with the amount of money to be made. "We did not discuss alternatives to abortion, Everett said. "Our counselors were paid generously to sell a product, and that's what they did."



http://www.lydias-house.com/gpage6.html


----------



## CurveLight

chanel said:


> She wouldn't be famous.  And what if the other side showed a commercial about a woman who died AFTER getting an abortion?
> 
> Nobody promotes having an abortion - EVER?  Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When interviewed, many crisis pregnancy center counselors and volunteers working with post-abortive women say the remark they've heard most is: "I felt I had no choice." In a survey published by the American Family Association Journal in 2002:
> 
> &#8226;56% felt pressured by other people or circumstances.
> 
> &#8226;84% stated they would have chosen otherwise if different options had been presented.
> 
> &#8226;40% were still hoping for other options while at the abortion clinic in a confused state of mind, but didn't get any (abortion clinics are not required to present other choices in every state).
> 
> In Everett's Blood Money, she reveals being paid $25 for each abortion she sold when she worked for other clinics, and was impressed with the amount of money to be made. "We did not discuss alternatives to abortion, Everett said. "Our counselors were paid generously to sell a product, and that's what they did."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exploring 12 common myths about legal abortion
Click to expand...


Gotta worthwhile source?


----------



## chanel

That's it.  Not going to research a 2002 article, when then you'll ask for something more recent.  Find conflicting stats and we can talk.

It doesn't matter what those numbers are.  Rightwinger said it never happens.


----------



## CurveLight

chanel said:


> That's it.  Not going to research a 2002 article, when then you'll ask for something more recent.  Find conflicting stats and we can talk.
> 
> It doesn't matter what those numbers are.  Rightwinger said it never happens.




Homey don't play dat.


----------



## Dr Gregg

chanel said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...
> 
> 
> 
> /'
> 
> Nobody flips out when someone chooses life, its when they try to ram that decision down other people's throats like I'm pretty sure this commercial is going to do.
> 
> Most people would prefer to not have abortions, its not taken lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?  Is that why the people at Planned Parenthood are prevented from using the word "baby"?  Is that why the Planned Parenthood website state that there are generally no "long term effects"?  Is that why CHILDREN can make that decision themselves?
> 
> I happen to be pro-choice.  In fact I used to contribute to Planned Parenthood because I thought they were providing a needed service in preventing teen pregnancy.  But they are not.  They are a business just like any other who needs to maintain/expand their market to keep themselves solvent.  Economics 101.
> 
> If Planned Parenthood can advertise in schools, I don't see any reason why these people can't advertise on T.V.
Click to expand...


No, its because they use scientific terms, like embryo and fetus, since they are different than a born 'baby"

PP is a non profit organization, they offer cheap birth control options as well as other reproductive options.  They don't push abortion, that's absurd, they let the patient decide wha'ts right for them.   They can advertise on TV all they want, its just an incredible waste of money and their resources when they should be more focused on limiting abortions instead of trying to make it illegal, that's my point

From their website:  _If you are trying to decide if abortion is the right choice for you, you probably have many things to think about. Learning the facts about abortion may help you in making your decision. You may also want to learn more about parenting and adoption._

does that look like they are pushinb abortion? This is the  type of lies and mudslinging garbage I'm talking about


----------



## Anguille

chanel said:


> She wouldn't be famous.  And what if the other side showed a commercial about a woman who died AFTER getting an abortion?
> 
> Nobody promotes having an abortion - EVER?  Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When interviewed, many crisis pregnancy center counselors and volunteers working with post-abortive women say the remark they've heard most is: "I felt I had no choice." In a survey published by the American Family Association Journal in 2002:
> 
> 56% felt pressured by other people or circumstances.
> 
> 84% stated they would have chosen otherwise if different options had been presented.
> 
> 40% were still hoping for other options while at the abortion clinic in a confused state of mind, but didn't get any (abortion clinics are not required to present other choices in every state).
> 
> In Everett's Blood Money, she reveals being paid $25 for each abortion she sold when she worked for other clinics, and was impressed with the amount of money to be made. "We did not discuss alternatives to abortion, Everett said. "Our counselors were paid generously to sell a product, and that's what they did."
> 
> 
> 
> Exploring 12 common myths about legal abortion
Click to expand...

lydia's house is pretty secretive about their mission and sponsors. None are listed.

The welcome page says this: "Lydia's House does not accept government grants or support that would prohibit us from teaching the Bible. We unashamedly teach that Jesus is the answer.'


----------



## Dr Gregg

chanel said:


> She wouldn't be famous.  And what if the other side showed a commercial about a woman who died AFTER getting an abortion?
> 
> Nobody promotes having an abortion - EVER?  Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When interviewed, many crisis pregnancy center counselors and volunteers working with post-abortive women say the remark they've heard most is: "I felt I had no choice." In a survey published by the American Family Association Journal in 2002:
> 
> 56% felt pressured by other people or circumstances.
> 
> 84% stated they would have chosen otherwise if different options had been presented.
> 
> 40% were still hoping for other options while at the abortion clinic in a confused state of mind, but didn't get any (abortion clinics are not required to present other choices in every state).
> 
> In Everett's Blood Money, she reveals being paid $25 for each abortion she sold when she worked for other clinics, and was impressed with the amount of money to be made. "We did not discuss alternatives to abortion, Everett said. "Our counselors were paid generously to sell a product, and that's what they did."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exploring 12 common myths about legal abortion
Click to expand...



You call that a legit source, somebody made a website, it must be true. The opening page has a picture of somebody praying. yeah, I'm going to believe that crap from a clearly biased pro life website. Get real


----------



## CurveLight

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d.html/178-0454894-6789516?rn=0&a=0880705485&er=1]Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman's Right to Choose:Amazon:Books[/ame]


----------



## Dr Gregg

CurveLight said:


> Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman's Right to Choose:Amazon:Books



anybody can write a book and spout their biases, there is no fact checking required, just look at palin's book


----------



## CurveLight

Dr Gregg said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman's Right to Choose:Amazon:Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can write a book and spout their biases, there is no fact checking required, just look at palin's book
Click to expand...


Soon as you show where I claimed the book was accurate then your post will make sense.  All I did was provide a reliable link the book does exist.


----------



## bodecea

Dr Gregg said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason that our local Pro choice bunch are busy trying to throw dirt on the story. They are NOT about choice unless that CHOICE is to abort. Anyone willing to choice life is just wrong and has to be brought to understand not to share those thoughts and feelings with impressionable women of any age. Better that they be taught that choice means having an abortion cause they don't want to get fat while carrying the baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the type of lie I mentioned. Nobody promotes abortion, but they allow people to make their own reproductive choices, as many pro choice people probably wouldn't have an abortion. But I guess you can keep telling yourself that as to demonize people that have different opinions of you. Doesn't really bode well for your argument IMO
Click to expand...



Exactly...if you were to believe the Clerk....funny tho that may sound, then Pro-Abortion folks would be haunting the obi-gyn wards trying to force people into getting abortion...maybe holding up signs of dead pregnant women and blocking obi-gyn clinics to force their view.   Maybe even shooting a few obi-gyn doctors if they insist on continuing help women carry to term.


----------



## CaféAuLait

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears his mother did not have a choice for two reasons.  The first is it was illegal.  The second is she had a position of no abortions.  *She couldn't make the choice to abort because abortion was not an option.*
> It will send the message that if you truly celebrate family then you will *join the anti-Choice crowd* and imply you really don't love life or your family.
> 
> All that being said.  This has to be one of the dumbest fucking protests I've seen since prohibition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was an option - an option recommended by her doctor - but it was an option that she did not _choose_.
> 
> Many people balk when 'pro-choice' is equated to 'pro-abortion' and yet . . . . when a woman is pregnant there are only two options, carry the pregnancy to term or abort.  'Anti-choice crowd'?  Does choice only apply if the woman opts for abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How was it an option if abortions were illegal?  How was it an option if she had a position of no options?
Click to expand...


It is still illegal today...

Just because it is 'illegal' does not mean they are not being done: 



> The Department of Health has created a program to address the complications of unsafe abortion, Prevention and Management of Abortion and its Complications. This program had been tested in 17 government-run hospitals by 2003. [3]





Abortion in the Philippines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears his mother did not have a choice for two reasons.  The first is it was illegal.  The second is she had a position of no abortions.  *She couldn't make the choice to abort because abortion was not an option.*
> It will send the message that if you truly celebrate family then you will *join the anti-Choice crowd* and imply you really don't love life or your family.
> 
> All that being said.  This has to be one of the dumbest fucking protests I've seen since prohibition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was an option - an option recommended by her doctor - but it was an option that she did not _choose_.
> 
> Many people balk when 'pro-choice' is equated to 'pro-abortion' and yet . . . . when a woman is pregnant there are only two options, carry the pregnancy to term or abort.  'Anti-choice crowd'?  Does choice only apply if the woman opts for abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How was it an option if abortions were illegal?  How was it an option if she had a position of no options?
Click to expand...


You are one stupid fuck!! She did have an option, she could have flown back to the states for the procedure, she could have opted for an illegal abortion but she opted to give birth instead.

The Incidence of Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Current Level and Recent Trends

Abortion in the Philippines: a national secret | Reuters

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/world/asia/15iht-phils.html


----------



## ABikerSailor

Bottom line on this ad is that the woman ignored doctors advice, went off and did her own thing, got a miracle granted, and now has a mediocre football player for a son.

So............in accordance with Christians, it's okay to go against what your doctor says about your life, have a child even though you can die while coming to full term, as well as can the baby, and then (because you're a Christian), use that same story 20 something years later to manipulate people into believing your own brand of bullshit.

Got it.

No wonder I'm not a Christian.  I can't handle the lying to everyone.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ABikerSailor said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> An egg by itself is nothing more than a potential something.
> 
> A sperm by itself is nothing more than a motile cell with potential to be something.
> 
> Right sperm meets right egg?  It starts to divide and form more cells.  At this time as well, it is *STILL NOT A HUMAN.*
> 
> At around the 40 day mark, the cells finally form a network of connections, and your nervous system is formed.  At that time, the embryo is now capable of feeling pain.
> 
> THAT is when it's "human".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fully formed human?  Nope.  But it is human (if it isn't human then what is it?) and it is life (if it wasn't life then abortion wouldn't be needed to destroy it).
> 
> So because it's not a fully formed human capable of feeling pain . . . it isn't human at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it doesn't have a nervous system, it doesn't have a brain.
> 
> If it doesn't have a brain, it's not capable of self will and free thought.
> 
> If it's not capable of self will and free thought, it doesn't have a soul.
> 
> If it doesn't have a soul, it's not human.
Click to expand...


If it's not human then what is it? A reptile?


You are one stupid gaybiker!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor

Apparently, you've never read your Bible, Lone Idiot No Logic.

Might wanna start soon, because Jesus is coming, and boy is He pissed!


----------



## Dr Gregg

Lonestar_logic said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fully formed human?  Nope.  But it is human (if it isn't human then what is it?) and it is life (if it wasn't life then abortion wouldn't be needed to destroy it).
> 
> So because it's not a fully formed human capable of feeling pain . . . it isn't human at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it doesn't have a nervous system, it doesn't have a brain.
> 
> If it doesn't have a brain, it's not capable of self will and free thought.
> 
> If it's not capable of self will and free thought, it doesn't have a soul.
> 
> If it doesn't have a soul, it's not human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's not human then what is it? A reptile?
> 
> 
> You are one stupid gaybiker!!!
Click to expand...


keeping the stereotype of Texans alive


----------



## Anguille

ABikerSailor said:


> .... and then (because you're a Christian), use that same story 20 something years later to manipulate people into believing your own brand of bullshit.


You can replace Christian in your sentence with any religion. But in this country it is mostly Christians doing that. Simply because they outnumber the other religions. Anyone can say God told them to do this or that. Only honest people don't play that game.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ABikerSailor said:


> Apparently, you've never read your Bible, Lone Idiot No Logic.
> 
> Might wanna start soon, because Jesus is coming, and boy is He pissed!



What does the Bible have to do with the question I asked? And since you're not a Christian why the fuck do you care if Jesus comes or not?


----------



## Zoom-boing

ABikerSailor said:


> Bottom line on this ad is that the woman ignored doctors advice, went off and did her own thing, got a miracle granted, and now has a mediocre football player for a son.
> 
> So...........*.in accordance with Christians, it's okay to go against what your doctor says about your life*, have a child even though you can die while coming to full term, as well as can the baby, and then (because you're a Christian), use that same story 20 something years later to manipulate people into believing your own brand of bullshit.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> No wonder I'm not a Christian.  I can't handle the lying to everyone.



Her doctor gave her the facts and she made a decision, she made a choice.  She chose a chance at life over definite death.

My son, 16, is special needs.   His dx is atypical autism.  He wasn't dx'd until he was 6 1/2 - very late for this dx - despite the fact that we had been to no less than half a dozen doctors (all 'tops in their field) since the time he was about 16 months or so.  The first doc, a big wig at CHOP, told us to go home, don't worry all kids develop at their own pace, no therapy, nothing special.  Our gut said he was wrong.  Next doc said get him into therapy asap.  Hmmm.  Took another 10 docs and several years b/4 we got that dx.  And this too was despite the fact that we repeatedly told these docs our gut take on it . . . but we're just the parents, what the hell do we know.  Right?  

Tim's parents took in all the facts and decided to listen to their gut instead of their doctor.  Doctors are not God and one should not treat them as if their word is gospel.  Especially if their gut says otherwise.

Oh, one other thing on the bolded.  Yes, Tim's mother was willing to risk her own life, to give whatever it took, in order to give Tim a chance at being born.  I find it peculiar that people fault her for this.


----------



## Stephanie

This Superbowl ad proves the real agenda of the PRO ABORTION group and it's followers.

they are Pro choice when it is for their side, but any other, FORGET IT.


----------



## Hellokitty

Queen said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the illegal abortions women get in the Phillipines are by herbs. So yes, ingesting something to have an abortion is illegal there.
> 
> It didn't work out in her case, because she is obviously lying by saying a doctor suggested abortion in a country were abortion is completely and totally illegal.
> 
> Her story is a lie. She isn't lucky, she's a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pennyroyal Tea".................
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to call her a liar.  There are medical indications for termination of a pregnancy.  Any Doctor would admit that, and I doubt the laws of the country wouldn't make an exception for the life of the mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities
Click to expand...



Maybe it was suggested for her to return to the US in order to have an abortion?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Lonestar_logic said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you've never read your Bible, Lone Idiot No Logic.
> 
> Might wanna start soon, because Jesus is coming, and boy is He pissed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Bible have to do with the question I asked? And since you're not a Christian why the fuck do you care if Jesus comes or not?
Click to expand...


What does the Bible have to do with it?  Well.......according to that particular piece of literature, if you don't have a soul, you aren't really human.

It's also reflected in mythology in the form of zombies and vampires.

And, when the electricity in your body is no longer there?  Your nervous system has shut down, and now, your soul has left your body.  Many people speak of this in near death experiences, with the result being, their body is nothing more than dead meat.

So yeah......that more than answers the question you'd asked, because I told you that without a nervous system, it was just tissue.  Human tissue, but just tissue none the less.

Is your bicep muscle more "you" than your brain?

And, as far as why do I care about Yeshua (that's His proper name, I mean, if your name was Robert, would you want to be called "Roberto"?  I wouldn't, but I digress......), the reason that I care is because He is my Big Brother.

He's also yours if you believe the Bible, you know........Adam and Eve starting the family of Mankind, and since Yeshua joined that family over 2,000 years ago, that means He's older than me......I'm only 45.

Therefore, He is my Big Brother.  So is Buddha incidentally.


----------



## bodecea

Stephanie said:


> This Superbowl ad proves the real agenda of the PRO ABORTION group and it's followers.
> 
> they are Pro choice when it is for their side, but any other, FORGET IT.



So Pro Choice people are not Pro Choice all the time?    Funny about that one, because I've seen a self avowed Pro-Life person on these very boards say on more than one occasion that someone should have been aborted.

Talk about a selective belief system.


----------



## Immanuel

bodecea said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Superbowl ad proves the real agenda of the PRO ABORTION group and it's followers.
> 
> they are Pro choice when it is for their side, but any other, FORGET IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Pro Choice people are not Pro Choice all the time?    Funny about that one, because I've seen a self avowed Pro-Life person on these very boards say on more than one occasion that someone should have been aborted.
> 
> Talk about a selective belief system.
Click to expand...


You will also find Pro-life people, such as myself that are not afraid to say that under certain circumstances the death penalty is not out of the question.

Neither the Pro-choice nor the Pro-Life stances are 100% choice or life.

I for one do not expect someone that says they are pro-choice to be for every single choice that is to be made.  I would not expect someone who is pro-choice to necessarily be for the choice of euthanasia or assisted suicide (those two terms are not the same) or for the choice of using drugs, but I would expect the pro-choice person to be willing to allow a woman to actually chose to save the life of the baby within her.

The pro-life stance is not even all life.  The death penalty is one area where many pro-lifers differ as are just wars.  Some of us can even abide by assisted suicide while I find the euthanasia thing distasteful myself, I can guess there are some "pro-life" people out there that think euthanasia should be legal.

Nobody is perfect.

I, too, have seen at least one pro-life person state that so-and-so should have been aborted.  I find that statement extremely distasteful whether it is intended as a joke or not.

Immie


----------



## ABikerSailor

Don't tell someone they should have been aborted.......it's not nice.

Tell 'em they should have been a blowjob and their momma shoulda swallowed.


----------



## del

Queen said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why the anti-choice people have to use lies to make their point.
> 
> Your post is a lie. No one's flipping out because someone chose life.
> 
> People are flipping out because the story in the ad is a lie. Abortion is illegal in the Phillipines so doctors don't recommend it. They can't perform it. Do you think they would send a patient to a back alley illegal abortion or give her a coathanger?
> 
> Please.
> 
> I guess you liar lovers approve of the right wing Christian lies because you really do love lies. You tell them yourselves too.
> 
> Maybe that explains it. You righties really do love the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was illegal if medically indicated.  If it were, that would make the law draconian and dangerous.
> 
> The real issue is that Tebow's mom is telling people to ignore medical advice.  It worked out in her case.  She was lucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the illegal abortions women get in the Phillipines are by herbs. So yes, ingesting something to have an abortion is illegal there.
> 
> It didn't work out in her case, because she is obviously lying by saying a doctor suggested abortion in a country were abortion is completely and totally illegal.
> 
> Her story is a lie. She isn't lucky, she's a liar.
Click to expand...


call me crazy, but the last time i checked the u.s. embassy in the phillipines is  a) u.s. sovereign terrritory (i.e. phillipine law does not apply) and b) possessed of a medical staff capable of performing an abortion for a u.s. citizen.

why don't you spend your time doing something useful, like blaming bush?

give my best to that publicity seeking termegant gloria allred when you see her.

<smooch>


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ABikerSailor said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you've never read your Bible, Lone Idiot No Logic.
> 
> Might wanna start soon, because Jesus is coming, and boy is He pissed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Bible have to do with the question I asked? And since you're not a Christian why the fuck do you care if Jesus comes or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Bible have to do with it?  Well.......according to that particular piece of literature, if you don't have a soul, you aren't really human.
> 
> It's also reflected in mythology in the form of zombies and vampires.
> 
> And, when the electricity in your body is no longer there?  Your nervous system has shut down, and now, your soul has left your body.  Many people speak of this in near death experiences, with the result being, their body is nothing more than dead meat.
> 
> So yeah......that more than answers the question you'd asked, because I told you that without a nervous system, it was just tissue.  Human tissue, but just tissue none the less.
> 
> Is your bicep muscle more "you" than your brain?
> 
> And, as far as why do I care about Yeshua (that's His proper name, I mean, if your name was Robert, would you want to be called "Roberto"?  I wouldn't, but I digress......), the reason that I care is because He is my Big Brother.
> 
> He's also yours if you believe the Bible, you know........Adam and Eve starting the family of Mankind, and since Yeshua joined that family over 2,000 years ago, that means He's older than me......I'm only 45.
> 
> Therefore, He is my Big Brother.  So is Buddha incidentally.
Click to expand...


So you know exactly when the soul enters into a body?

Which chapter and verse says "if you don't have a soul, you aren't really human"?

You do realize the Bible states that all creatures have souls.

"Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens."  Genesis 1:20,21

You do know that the soul is a religious construct whose existence cannot be proven.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Lonestar_logic said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Bible have to do with the question I asked? And since you're not a Christian why the fuck do you care if Jesus comes or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Bible have to do with it?  Well.......according to that particular piece of literature, if you don't have a soul, you aren't really human.
> 
> It's also reflected in mythology in the form of zombies and vampires.
> 
> And, when the electricity in your body is no longer there?  Your nervous system has shut down, and now, your soul has left your body.  Many people speak of this in near death experiences, with the result being, their body is nothing more than dead meat.
> 
> So yeah......that more than answers the question you'd asked, because I told you that without a nervous system, it was just tissue.  Human tissue, but just tissue none the less.
> 
> Is your bicep muscle more "you" than your brain?
> 
> And, as far as why do I care about Yeshua (that's His proper name, I mean, if your name was Robert, would you want to be called "Roberto"?  I wouldn't, but I digress......), the reason that I care is because He is my Big Brother.
> 
> He's also yours if you believe the Bible, you know........Adam and Eve starting the family of Mankind, and since Yeshua joined that family over 2,000 years ago, that means He's older than me......I'm only 45.
> 
> Therefore, He is my Big Brother.  So is Buddha incidentally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know exactly when the soul enters into a body?
> 
> Which chapter and verse says "if you don't have a soul, you aren't really human"?
> 
> You do realize the Bible states that all creatures have souls.
> 
> "Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens."  Genesis 1:20,21
> 
> You do know that the soul is a religious construct whose existence cannot be proven.
Click to expand...


When does the soul enter into the body?  Well, according to the Tanach and the Torah, it happens somewhere around the 40 day mark.  By the way, for simpletons like you, the Torah is actually the beginning part of the Old Testament.

Which chapter and verse does it state you need a soul to be human?  Many stories in the Bible reflect that.  And, so does modern society, as people who are considered "soul less bastards" are generally those that others consider less than human, like Jeffrey Dahmer, or any other serial killer.

As far as everything having a soul?  Not really, it's more like animals and plants have angels that are assigned to that particular living thing.  Also explains why animals have instinct and humans have free will.

As far as the soul being a religious construct that can't be proven?  Wrong again.  Doctors and scientists have proven that when a person dies, they become 21 grams lighter, for no reason whatsoever, and, it's been constant when measured........21 grams.

You know, instead of having sex with your cattle, actually reading something other than your own fucked up bullshit, you may wish to expand your horizons to something OTHER than breeding yourself silly with your cattle.


----------



## theHawk

blu said:


> Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad May Be Based On Falsehood
> 
> 
> bwhahahaha. I hope this is real just to make tebow look dumber than he already does



Yea, because she couldn't had jumped onto a plane to the US or Japan to get "the procedure" done if she had wanted one.


----------



## ABikerSailor

I guess this is FoF's version of Dr. Kevorkian...........

"Feel like getting having a kid?  You've got only a 5 percent chance of success.  If this happens, ignore your doctor, place your faith in God, and hope you get a miracle."

"If not, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place, and so God will call you and your child home".

Yeah........real positive message.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ABikerSailor said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the Bible have to do with it?  Well.......according to that particular piece of literature, if you don't have a soul, you aren't really human.
> 
> It's also reflected in mythology in the form of zombies and vampires.
> 
> And, when the electricity in your body is no longer there?  Your nervous system has shut down, and now, your soul has left your body.  Many people speak of this in near death experiences, with the result being, their body is nothing more than dead meat.
> 
> So yeah......that more than answers the question you'd asked, because I told you that without a nervous system, it was just tissue.  Human tissue, but just tissue none the less.
> 
> Is your bicep muscle more "you" than your brain?
> 
> And, as far as why do I care about Yeshua (that's His proper name, I mean, if your name was Robert, would you want to be called "Roberto"?  I wouldn't, but I digress......), the reason that I care is because He is my Big Brother.
> 
> He's also yours if you believe the Bible, you know........Adam and Eve starting the family of Mankind, and since Yeshua joined that family over 2,000 years ago, that means He's older than me......I'm only 45.
> 
> Therefore, He is my Big Brother.  So is Buddha incidentally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know exactly when the soul enters into a body?
> 
> Which chapter and verse says "if you don't have a soul, you aren't really human"?
> 
> You do realize the Bible states that all creatures have souls.
> 
> "Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens."  Genesis 1:20,21
> 
> You do know that the soul is a religious construct whose existence cannot be proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does the soul enter into the body?  *Well, according to the Tanach and the Torah, it happens somewhere around the 40 day mark.  By the way, for simpletons like you, the Torah is actually the beginning part of the Old Testament.*
> 
> Which chapter and verse does it state you need a soul to be human?  Many stories in the Bible reflect that.  And, so does modern society, as people who are considered "soul less bastards" are generally those that others consider less than human, like Jeffrey Dahmer, or any other serial killer.
> 
> As far as everything having a soul?  Not really, it's more like animals and plants have angels that are assigned to that particular living thing.  Also explains why animals have instinct and humans have free will.
> 
> As far as the soul being a religious construct that can't be proven?  Wrong again.  Doctors and scientists have proven that when a person dies, they become 21 grams lighter, for no reason whatsoever, and, it's been constant when measured........21 grams.
> 
> You know, instead of having sex with your cattle, actually reading something other than your own fucked up bullshit, you may wish to expand your horizons to something OTHER than breeding yourself silly with your cattle.
Click to expand...


Cite the specific text. Which is what I asked for in the first place but you dodged it like the coward you are. 

21 grams?  hahaahhaahah   Educate yourself you stupid fuck! 

snopes.com: Weight of the Soul


----------



## JFK_USA

blastoff said:


> It's their standard playbook stuff.  Those in favor of killing babies - that is, a woman's right to choose (to kill) - have no tolerance for those who want to preserve lives.
> 
> Right to life is pretty clear and simple.  Right to choose is simply a euphemistic way to say they favor killing.



This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make a choice to better their life. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that they determine is not right for them. 

Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.


----------



## Zoom-boing

A body without a soul is a corpse.  What grows inside of the womb is not a corpse it is life.   Human life.  So the 40 day as the mark of when 'that blob of tissue' becomes human?  No.  It is life and it is human from the moment of conception.  The very beginning of being a human?  Yes.  But human life to be sure.


----------



## mal

chanel said:


> Well I still don't understand the controversy.  Why do the pro-CHOICE people flip the fuck out whenever someone CHOOSES life?  Isn't that one of the "options" discussed at Planned Parenthood?  Or maybe not...



Damn it!... You are going to Confuse, Frustrate and Anger them...



peace...


----------



## Zoom-boing

JFK_USA said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's their standard playbook stuff.  Those in favor of killing babies - that is, a woman's right to choose (to kill) - have no tolerance for those who want to preserve lives.
> 
> Right to life is pretty clear and simple.  Right to choose is simply a euphemistic way to say they favor killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make *a choice to better their life*. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that *they determine is not right for them*.
> 
> Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.
Click to expand...


The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.


----------



## JFK_USA

Zoom-boing said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's their standard playbook stuff.  Those in favor of killing babies - that is, a woman's right to choose (to kill) - have no tolerance for those who want to preserve lives.
> 
> Right to life is pretty clear and simple.  Right to choose is simply a euphemistic way to say they favor killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make *a choice to better their life*. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that *they determine is not right for them*.
> 
> Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
Click to expand...


Ok let me do this slowly since I believe being Republican is saying you are legally retarded. 

WE      DO       NOT       HAVE       UNLIMITED      RESOURCES      ON      THIS     PLANET.

WE      CAN     NOT       KEEP       HAVING      TONS      OF       CHILDREN    TAKING     UP   MORE      RESOURCES     THAT     ARE     NOT     UNLIMITED. 


Listen to this reason as well. You republicans complain about the debt the US government has. Okay, if a lady is making $25,000 a year and is single with no kids, she is paying taxes. Maybe not a substanial amount but is paying taxes. 

She is now pregnant and isn't going to get a raise anytime soon. She has no college degree and hasn't even started college. She may want to get an abortion at a one time cost of $600. Now she could have two options from the government. 

1. Get the abortion with a one time $600 federal tax credit. 

2. Have the child, get a $1000 a year child tax credit. Also the earned income credit of $1,668 dollars each year. A grand total of $2,668. Over the span of 18 years (not counting for inflation) cost the taxpayers $30,024 dollars. 

So why not offer poor people a tax credit to get the one time abortion to stop the growth of our deficit? I know this is too logical for a republican to understand so I will forgive you for putting our nation in more debt because of a "moral obligation."


----------



## Dr Gregg

Zoom-boing said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's their standard playbook stuff.  Those in favor of killing babies - that is, a woman's right to choose (to kill) - have no tolerance for those who want to preserve lives.
> 
> Right to life is pretty clear and simple.  Right to choose is simply a euphemistic way to say they favor killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make *a choice to better their life*. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that *they determine is not right for them*.
> 
> Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
Click to expand...



WRONG!!!. It's about freedom, as I've said before, but I know you people don't want to hear it, much easier to attempt to demonize the opposition, but most pro choice people wouldn't have an abortion, they just think its the women's right to choose. Period. Spin it however you want.

And so many pro-life (anti choice is better) only care about the unborn for ideological purposes, once they are born you hear many claim"stop having kids, I dont' want my taxes to pay for your children"


----------



## Zoom-boing

Dr Gregg said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make *a choice to better their life*. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that *they determine is not right for them*.
> 
> Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!!!. It's about freedom, as I've said before, but I know you people don't want to hear it, much easier to attempt to demonize the opposition,* but most pro choice people wouldn't have an abortion, they just think its the women's right to choose.* Period. Spin it however you want.
> 
> And so many pro-life (anti choice is better) only care about the unborn for ideological purposes, once they are born you hear many claim"stop having kids, I dont' want my taxes to pay for your children"
Click to expand...


Given a choice between the woman or government deciding, I'm with the woman.

How are the unborn suppose to voice their choice in the matter if 'pro-life' people don't speak for them?  The unborn don't get a choice; the woman does.   Spin?  I don't think so, Tim.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

JFK_USA said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make *a choice to better their life*. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that *they determine is not right for them*.
> 
> Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok let me do this slowly since I believe being Republican is saying you are legally retarded.
> 
> WE      DO       NOT       HAVE       UNLIMITED      RESOURCES      ON      THIS     PLANET.
> 
> WE      CAN     NOT       KEEP       HAVING      TONS      OF       CHILDREN    TAKING     UP   MORE      RESOURCES     THAT     ARE     NOT     UNLIMITED.
> 
> 
> Listen to this reason as well. You republicans complain about the debt the US government has. Okay, if a lady is making $25,000 a year and is single with no kids, she is paying taxes. Maybe not a substanial amount but is paying taxes.
> 
> She is now pregnant and isn't going to get a raise anytime soon. She has no college degree and hasn't even started college. She may want to get an abortion at a one time cost of $600. Now she could have two options from the government.
> 
> 1. Get the abortion with a one time $600 federal tax credit.
> 
> 2. Have the child, get a $1000 a year child tax credit. Also the earned income credit of $1,668 dollars each year. A grand total of $2,668. Over the span of 18 years (not counting for inflation) cost the taxpayers $30,024 dollars.
> 
> So why not offer poor people a tax credit to get the one time abortion to stop the growth of our deficit? I know this is too logical for a republican to understand so I will forgive you for putting our nation in more debt because of a "moral obligation."
Click to expand...


That's about the worst pro-abortion argument I've ever heard. Using your logic , killing unborn children not only saves us money but our natural resources as well. I bet your in favor of sterilizing the population by artificially medicating municipal water supplies.


----------



## Zoom-boing

JFK_USA said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make *a choice to better their life*. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that *they determine is not right for them*.
> 
> Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok let me do this slowly since I believe being Republican is saying you are legally retarded.
> 
> WE      DO       NOT       HAVE       UNLIMITED      RESOURCES      ON      THIS     PLANET.
> 
> WE      CAN     NOT       KEEP       HAVING      TONS      OF       CHILDREN    TAKING     UP   MORE      RESOURCES     THAT     ARE     NOT     UNLIMITED.
> 
> 
> Listen to this reason as well. You republicans complain about the debt the US government has. Okay, if a lady is making $25,000 a year and is single with no kids, she is paying taxes. Maybe not a substanial amount but is paying taxes.
> 
> She is now pregnant and isn't going to get a raise anytime soon. She has no college degree and hasn't even started college. She may want to get an abortion at a one time cost of $600. Now she could have two options from the government.
> 
> 1. Get the abortion with a one time $600 federal tax credit.
> 
> 2. Have the child, get a $1000 a year child tax credit. Also the earned income credit of $1,668 dollars each year. A grand total of $2,668. Over the span of 18 years (not counting for inflation) cost the taxpayers $30,024 dollars.
> 
> So why not offer poor people a tax credit to get the one time abortion to stop the growth of our deficit? I know this is too logical for a republican to understand so I will forgive you for putting our nation in more debt because of a "moral obligation."
Click to expand...


Kill the unborn to stop the growth of the deficit.

Government stop spending money we don't fucking have on shit we don't fucking need.

Can you see what's wrong with your option (besides the fact that you are a loon)?  Doubtful.


----------



## bodecea

Zoom-boing said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!!!. It's about freedom, as I've said before, but I know you people don't want to hear it, much easier to attempt to demonize the opposition,* but most pro choice people wouldn't have an abortion, they just think its the women's right to choose.* Period. Spin it however you want.
> 
> And so many pro-life (anti choice is better) only care about the unborn for ideological purposes, once they are born you hear many claim"stop having kids, I dont' want my taxes to pay for your children"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given a choice between the woman or government deciding, *I'm with the woman.*
> 
> How are the unborn suppose to voice their choice in the matter if 'pro-life' people don't speak for them?  The unborn don't get a choice; the woman does.   Spin?  I don't think so, Tim.
Click to expand...



So, you're pro-choice.


----------



## Dr Gregg

Zoom-boing said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!!!. It's about freedom, as I've said before, but I know you people don't want to hear it, much easier to attempt to demonize the opposition,* but most pro choice people wouldn't have an abortion, they just think its the women's right to choose.* Period. Spin it however you want.
> 
> And so many pro-life (anti choice is better) only care about the unborn for ideological purposes, once they are born you hear many claim"stop having kids, I dont' want my taxes to pay for your children"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given a choice between the woman or government deciding, I'm with the woman.
> 
> How are the unborn suppose to voice their choice in the matter if 'pro-life' people don't speak for them?  The unborn don't get a choice; the woman does.   Spin?  I don't think so, Tim.
Click to expand...


they don't have a choice until they are born and viable.


----------



## Anguille

Queen said:


> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities


But it's just a little white lie.


----------



## Anguille

bodecea said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Superbowl ad proves the real agenda of the PRO ABORTION group and it's followers.
> 
> they are Pro choice when it is for their side, but any other, FORGET IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Pro Choice people are not Pro Choice all the time?    Funny about that one, because I've seen a self avowed Pro-Life person on these very boards say on more than one occasion that someone should have been aborted.
> 
> Talk about a selective belief system.
Click to expand...

So have I. They are paradoxical people, those anti-choicers.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities
> 
> 
> 
> But it's just a little white lie.
Click to expand...


You must have missed the articles I posted in post #141. 

Here's one:

In the Philippines, abortion is legally restricted. *Nevertheless, many women obtain abortionsoften in unsafe conditionsto avoid unplanned births*. In 1994, the estimated abortion rate was 25 per 1,000 women per year; no further research on abortion incidence has been conducted in the Philippines. 

The Incidence of Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Current Level and Recent Trends


----------



## Anguille

ABikerSailor said:


> Don't tell someone they should have been aborted.......it's not nice.
> 
> Tell 'em they should have been a blowjob and their momma shoulda swallowed.





Now you are really crossing over into distasteful country ... or tasteful depending on your appetite.


----------



## Anguille

del said:


> call me crazy, but the last time i checked the u.s. embassy in the phillipines is  a) u.s. sovereign terrritory (i.e. phillipine law does not apply) and b) possessed of a medical staff capable of performing an abortion for a u.s. citizen.
> 
> why don't you spend your time doing something useful, like blaming bush?
> 
> give my best to that publicity seeking termegant gloria allred when you see her.
> 
> <smooch>


When is the last time you actually checked when you claimed that you had checked something lately, you crazy publicity seeking know it all emu!


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> A body without a soul is a corpse.  What grows inside of the womb is not a corpse it is life.   Human life.  So the 40 day as the mark of when 'that blob of tissue' becomes human?  No.  It is life and it is human from the moment of conception.  The very beginning of being a human?  Yes.  But human life to be sure.


I have no soul, you calling me a corpse? Almost every cell in my body is alive, whether combined with a sperm cell or not. You insult my cells by insinuating they are not human.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's their standard playbook stuff.  Those in favor of killing babies - that is, a woman's right to choose (to kill) - have no tolerance for those who want to preserve lives.
> 
> Right to life is pretty clear and simple.  Right to choose is simply a euphemistic way to say they favor killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make *a choice to better their life*. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that *they determine is not right for them*.
> 
> Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
Click to expand...

So you agree, the so called "pro life" movement does not care about actual living human beings.


----------



## Anguille

JFK_USA said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make *a choice to better their life*. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that *they determine is not right for them*.
> 
> Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok let me do this slowly since I believe being Republican is saying you are legally retarded.
> 
> WE      DO       NOT       HAVE       UNLIMITED      RESOURCES      ON      THIS     PLANET.
> 
> WE      CAN     NOT       KEEP       HAVING      TONS      OF       CHILDREN    TAKING     UP   MORE      RESOURCES     THAT     ARE     NOT     UNLIMITED.
> 
> 
> Listen to this reason as well. You republicans complain about the debt the US government has. Okay, if a lady is making $25,000 a year and is single with no kids, she is paying taxes. Maybe not a substanial amount but is paying taxes.
> 
> She is now pregnant and isn't going to get a raise anytime soon. She has no college degree and hasn't even started college. She may want to get an abortion at a one time cost of $600. Now she could have two options from the government.
> 
> 1. Get the abortion with a one time $600 federal tax credit.
> 
> 2. Have the child, get a $1000 a year child tax credit. Also the earned income credit of $1,668 dollars each year. A grand total of $2,668. Over the span of 18 years (not counting for inflation) cost the taxpayers $30,024 dollars.
> 
> So why not offer poor people a tax credit to get the one time abortion to stop the growth of our deficit? I know this is too logical for a republican to understand so I will forgive you for putting our nation in more debt because of a "moral obligation."
Click to expand...


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!!!. It's about freedom, as I've said before, but I know you people don't want to hear it, much easier to attempt to demonize the opposition,* but most pro choice people wouldn't have an abortion, they just think its the women's right to choose.* Period. Spin it however you want.
> 
> And so many pro-life (anti choice is better) only care about the unborn for ideological purposes, once they are born you hear many claim"stop having kids, I dont' want my taxes to pay for your children"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given a choice between the woman or government deciding, I'm with the woman.
> 
> How are the unborn suppose to voice their choice in the matter if 'pro-life' people don't speak for them?  The unborn don't get a choice; the woman does.   Spin?  I don't think so, Tim.
Click to expand...

The "pro life" speaking for them is no more giving them any choice than the mother is. Many religious people are all for allowing mothers to chose which religion their baby will be raised in, (even if she puts it up for adoption!) . They should be consistent with that belief. If the woman's religious belief allows for abortion, have some respect for her religion. 

Otherwise you are just sending out spin.


----------



## Anguille

Dr Gregg said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!!!. It's about freedom, as I've said before, but I know you people don't want to hear it, much easier to attempt to demonize the opposition,* but most pro choice people wouldn't have an abortion, they just think its the women's right to choose.* Period. Spin it however you want.
> 
> And so many pro-life (anti choice is better) only care about the unborn for ideological purposes, once they are born you hear many claim"stop having kids, I dont' want my taxes to pay for your children"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given a choice between the woman or government deciding, I'm with the woman.
> 
> How are the unborn suppose to voice their choice in the matter if 'pro-life' people don't speak for them?  The unborn don't get a choice; the woman does.   Spin?  I don't think so, Tim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they don't have a choice until they are born and viable.
Click to expand...

Even then they have limited choice. Suicide is still illegal.


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> call me crazy, but the last time i checked the u.s. embassy in the phillipines is  a) u.s. sovereign terrritory (i.e. phillipine law does not apply) and b) possessed of a medical staff capable of performing an abortion for a u.s. citizen.
> 
> why don't you spend your time doing something useful, like blaming bush?
> 
> give my best to that publicity seeking termegant gloria allred when you see her.
> 
> <smooch>
> 
> 
> 
> When is the last time you actually checked when you claimed that you had checked something lately, you crazy publicity seeking know it all emu!
Click to expand...


recently


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities
> 
> 
> 
> But it's just a little white lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed the articles I posted in post #141.
> 
> Here's one:
> 
> In the Philippines, abortion is legally restricted. *Nevertheless, many women obtain abortionsoften in unsafe conditionsto avoid unplanned births*. In 1994, the estimated abortion rate was 25 per 1,000 women per year; no further research on abortion incidence has been conducted in the Philippines.
> 
> The Incidence of Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Current Level and Recent Trends
Click to expand...

 I did not miss your articles. I still think Mrs Tebrow  needs to do some 'splainin'. She had to have left an awful lot out of her story for it to be even be somewhat plausible.  I think she's a publicity grabbing liar.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's just a little white lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed the articles I posted in post #141.
> 
> Here's one:
> 
> In the Philippines, abortion is legally restricted. *Nevertheless, many women obtain abortionsoften in unsafe conditionsto avoid unplanned births*. In 1994, the estimated abortion rate was 25 per 1,000 women per year; no further research on abortion incidence has been conducted in the Philippines.
> 
> The Incidence of Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Current Level and Recent Trends
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not miss your articles. I still think Mrs Tebrow  needs to do some 'splainin'. She had to have left an awful lot out of her story for it to be even be somewhat plausible.  I think she's a publicity grabbing liar.
Click to expand...


What exactly did she lie about?


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed the articles I posted in post #141.
> 
> Here's one:
> 
> In the Philippines, abortion is legally restricted. *Nevertheless, many women obtain abortionsoften in unsafe conditionsto avoid unplanned births*. In 1994, the estimated abortion rate was 25 per 1,000 women per year; no further research on abortion incidence has been conducted in the Philippines.
> 
> The Incidence of Induced Abortion in the Philippines: Current Level and Recent Trends
> 
> 
> 
> I did not miss your articles. I still think Mrs Tebrow  needs to do some 'splainin'. She had to have left an awful lot out of her story for it to be even be somewhat plausible.  I think she's a publicity grabbing liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly did she lie about?
Click to expand...

That she was told to have an abortion. To her it was just a white lie.


----------



## Ravi

Just think, one day Trig Palin can get on the teevee and make a similar appeal to emotion since his Mom considered aborting him.

Funny that Palin is pro-choice.


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not miss your articles. I still think Mrs Tebrow  needs to do some 'splainin'. She had to have left an awful lot out of her story for it to be even be somewhat plausible.  I think she's a publicity grabbing liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did she lie about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That she was told to have an abortion. To her it was just a white lie.
Click to expand...


as opposed to your outright lie.

cool


----------



## AmericanFirst

CurveLight said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, "Pro-Choice" is a pure bullshit name for their side of the issue, it's pro abortion and that's it that's all. If you choose life you don't fit their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Between the two it is the pro-life camp that has a bullshit term.  Trying to tell others what to do with their bodies is not pro-life.  By definition it is anti-choice.  They don't want women to have the ability to make their own decisions.  Pro-choice is accurate because it respects women's right to choose.  It is ridiculous to claim being pro choice = pro abortion.  If pro life means no abortions then pro abortion would be all abortions.  Can you point out where the pro choice crowd advocates terminating all pregnancies?  If you people think you can pull your bullshit you better log off and go watch some tv.  This isn't amateur night.
Click to expand...

Women DO NOT have the right to kill a child. The father has a right to say also. If a woman does not want the child then refrain from what causes pregnancy. Unlike popular belief the constitution does not protect murdering a child.


----------



## Anguille

Ravi said:


> Just think, one day Trig Palin can get on the teevee and make a similar appeal to emotion since his Mom considered aborting him.
> 
> Funny that Palin is pro-choice.


I wonder how many women who considered abortion and didn't do it regret their choice. I heard about a woman a few years ago who was stalked by the son she had put up for adoption after being brutally raped and barely escaping death at the hands of the father. I believe the son finished the job his father had set out to do or nearly killed her after making her life hell for several years.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make *a choice to better their life*. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that *they determine is not right for them*.
> 
> Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree, the so called "pro life" movement does not care about actual living human beings.
Click to expand...


Don't be stupid.  The unborn are human and they are alive.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Dr Gregg said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!!!. It's about freedom, as I've said before, but I know you people don't want to hear it, much easier to attempt to demonize the opposition,* but most pro choice people wouldn't have an abortion, they just think its the women's right to choose.* Period. Spin it however you want.
> 
> And so many pro-life (anti choice is better) only care about the unborn for ideological purposes, once they are born you hear many claim"stop having kids, I dont' want my taxes to pay for your children"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given a choice between the woman or government deciding, I'm with the woman.
> 
> How are the unborn suppose to voice their choice in the matter if 'pro-life' people don't speak for them?  The unborn don't get a choice; the woman does.   Spin?  I don't think so, Tim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they don't have a choice until they are born and viable.
Click to expand...


They cannot speak for themselves.  Good thing the pro-life people care and speak for them.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree, the so called "pro life" movement does not care about actual living human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.  The unborn are human and they are alive.
Click to expand...

So you only care about the unborn. Thanks for the clarification, dummy.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree, the so called "pro life" movement does not care about actual living human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.  The unborn are human and they are alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you only care about the unborn. Thanks for the clarification, dummy.
Click to expand...


Spinning again I see.  Pro-life cares about_ human life_.  Both the born and unborn.


----------



## Anguille

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!!!. It's about freedom, as I've said before, but I know you people don't want to hear it, much easier to attempt to demonize the opposition,* but most pro choice people wouldn't have an abortion, they just think its the women's right to choose.* Period. Spin it however you want.
> 
> And so many pro-life (anti choice is better) only care about the unborn for ideological purposes, once they are born you hear many claim"stop having kids, I dont' want my taxes to pay for your children"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given a choice between the woman or government deciding, I'm with the woman.
> 
> How are the unborn suppose to voice their choice in the matter if 'pro-life' people don't speak for them?  The unborn don't get a choice; the woman does.   Spin?  I don't think so, Tim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "pro life" speaking for them is no more giving them any choice than the mother is. Many religious people are all for allowing mothers to chose which religion their baby will be raised in, (even if she puts it up for adoption!) . They should be consistent with that belief. If the woman's religious belief allows for abortion, have some respect for her religion.
> 
> Otherwise you are just sending out spin.
Click to expand...

bump


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given a choice between the woman or government deciding, I'm with the woman.
> 
> How are the unborn suppose to voice their choice in the matter if 'pro-life' people don't speak for them?  The unborn don't get a choice; the woman does.   Spin?  I don't think so, Tim.
> 
> 
> 
> The "pro life" speaking for them is no more giving them any choice than the mother is. Many religious people are all for allowing mothers to chose which religion their baby will be raised in, (even if she puts it up for adoption!) . They should be consistent with that belief. If the woman's religious belief allows for abortion, have some respect for her religion.
> 
> Otherwise you are just sending out spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bump
Click to expand...


The unborn can't choose what religion they want to follow if they are snuffed out via abortion.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "pro life" speaking for them is no more giving them any choice than the mother is. Many religious people are all for allowing mothers to chose which religion their baby will be raised in, (even if she puts it up for adoption!) . They should be consistent with that belief. If the woman's religious belief allows for abortion, have some respect for her religion.
> 
> Otherwise you are just sending out spin.
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unborn can't choose what religion they want to follow if they are snuffed out via abortion.
Click to expand...

 In other words, the religion of the pregnant woman is irrelevant. Only that of the anti-choicers counts.


----------



## NYcarbineer

AmericanFirst said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, "Pro-Choice" is a pure bullshit name for their side of the issue, it's pro abortion and that's it that's all. If you choose life you don't fit their agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between the two it is the pro-life camp that has a bullshit term.  Trying to tell others what to do with their bodies is not pro-life.  By definition it is anti-choice.  They don't want women to have the ability to make their own decisions.  Pro-choice is accurate because it respects women's right to choose.  It is ridiculous to claim being pro choice = pro abortion.  If pro life means no abortions then pro abortion would be all abortions.  Can you point out where the pro choice crowd advocates terminating all pregnancies?  If you people think you can pull your bullshit you better log off and go watch some tv.  This isn't amateur night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women DO NOT have the right to kill a child. The father has a right to say also. If a woman does not want the child then refrain from what causes pregnancy. Unlike popular belief the constitution does not protect murdering a child.
Click to expand...


The right of 1st trimester abortion is protected by constitutional law.

btw, if fathers are to have a say, how do you propose to break the tie if father says no abortion, mother says abortion?

Secondly, how do you prove the man is the father?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Zoom-boing said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's their standard playbook stuff.  Those in favor of killing babies - that is, a woman's right to choose (to kill) - have no tolerance for those who want to preserve lives.
> 
> Right to life is pretty clear and simple.  Right to choose is simply a euphemistic way to say they favor killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why. We aren't against people choosing to have the baby, the mother of my child did and I am fine with that. The problem with these pro-life people is that they do not want a person to have the free will to make *a choice to better their life*. But these "christians" believe that people should not have any free will to terminate a pregnancy that *they determine is not right for them*.
> 
> Christians are so awesome, I mean they make themselves look like idiots daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concern of 'pro-choice' people is self; the concern of 'pro-life' people is the life of the unborn.
Click to expand...


No, the concern of pro-life people is sticking their noses where they don't belong.


----------



## CaféAuLait

Since cocaine is illegal to use in the US does that mean no one has ever suggested I use it? Euthanasia is also illegal ( except Oregon)  but I know doctors who have suggested it and practiced such. Abortion was once illegal in the states but they were still performed.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not miss your articles. I still think Mrs Tebrow  needs to do some 'splainin'. She had to have left an awful lot out of her story for it to be even be somewhat plausible.  I think she's a publicity grabbing liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did she lie about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That she was told to have an abortion. To her it was just a white lie.
Click to expand...


You have evidence that suggest she wasn't advised to have an abortion?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

NYcarbineer said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between the two it is the pro-life camp that has a bullshit term.  Trying to tell others what to do with their bodies is not pro-life.  By definition it is anti-choice.  They don't want women to have the ability to make their own decisions.  Pro-choice is accurate because it respects women's right to choose.  It is ridiculous to claim being pro choice = pro abortion.  If pro life means no abortions then pro abortion would be all abortions.  Can you point out where the pro choice crowd advocates terminating all pregnancies?  If you people think you can pull your bullshit you better log off and go watch some tv.  This isn't amateur night.
> 
> 
> 
> Women DO NOT have the right to kill a child. The father has a right to say also. If a woman does not want the child then refrain from what causes pregnancy. Unlike popular belief the constitution does not protect murdering a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of 1st trimester abortion is protected by constitutional law.
> 
> btw, if fathers are to have a say, how do you propose to break the tie if father says no abortion, mother says abortion?
> 
> Secondly, how do you prove the man is the father?
Click to expand...


Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that abortion at anytime is protected?


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women DO NOT have the right to kill a child. The father has a right to say also. If a woman does not want the child then refrain from what causes pregnancy. Unlike popular belief the constitution does not protect murdering a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right of 1st trimester abortion is protected by constitutional law.
> 
> btw, if fathers are to have a say, how do you propose to break the tie if father says no abortion, mother says abortion?
> 
> Secondly, how do you prove the man is the father?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that abortion at anytime is protected?
Click to expand...


Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that sleeping at anytime is protected?  (that is called an analogy and it is not comparing sleeping to abortion.  It's pointing out the fallacious claim that if abortion is not specifically mentioned then it is not protected.  If sleeping is not specifically mentioned then by your argument it is not protected.)


----------



## Big Black Dog

What about Free Speech in this country?  If she want's to spend a couple million dollars to say what she wanted to say on tv go for it.  It's her dime.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of 1st trimester abortion is protected by constitutional law.
> 
> btw, if fathers are to have a say, how do you propose to break the tie if father says no abortion, mother says abortion?
> 
> Secondly, how do you prove the man is the father?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that abortion at anytime is protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that sleeping at anytime is protected?  (that is called an analogy and it is not comparing sleeping to abortion.  It's pointing out the fallacious claim that if abortion is not specifically mentioned then it is not protected.  If sleeping is not specifically mentioned then by your argument it is not protected.)
Click to expand...


Hey stupid, I'm not the one that made the claim, I'm asking idiot number two to be more specific and tell me what part of the constitution is being referred to. Obviously you don't have the answer, so piss off!


----------



## CurveLight

Big Black Dog said:


> What about Free Speech in this country?  If she want's to spend a couple million dollars to say what she wanted to say on tv go for it.  It's her dime.




She didn't pay for the ad.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn can't choose what religion they want to follow if they are snuffed out via abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, the religion of the pregnant woman is irrelevant. Only that of the anti-choicers counts.
Click to expand...


No, in other words the life of the unborn dibs anything else. Tell me how an aborted human can decide what religion they want to follow if they don't exist?  Abortion takes away _their (the unborn's) choice_.

What religion condones abortion?

You can dance around this issue till the cows come home but at the end of the day abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.  Moo.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that abortion at anytime is protected?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that sleeping at anytime is protected?  (that is called an analogy and it is not comparing sleeping to abortion.  It's pointing out the fallacious claim that if abortion is not specifically mentioned then it is not protected.  If sleeping is not specifically mentioned then by your argument it is not protected.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I'm not the one that made the claim, I'm asking idiot number two to be more specific and tell me what part of the constitution is being referred to. Obviously you don't have the answer, so piss off!
Click to expand...


There's this little known SCOTUS case of R v W that says it is protected by the 4th Amendment.  The case is less than 1200 years old so we understand why you weren't aware of it as you are a bit slow at learning.


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn can't choose what religion they want to follow if they are snuffed out via abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the religion of the pregnant woman is irrelevant. Only that of the anti-choicers counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in other words the life of the unborn dibs anything else. Tell me how an aborted human can decide what religion they want to follow if they don't exist?  Abortion takes away _their (the unborn's) choice_.
> 
> What religion condones abortion?
> 
> You can dance around this issue till the cows come home but at the end of the day abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.  Moo.
Click to expand...


The unborn have no rights.


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the religion of the pregnant woman is irrelevant. Only that of the anti-choicers counts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, in other words the life of the unborn dibs anything else. Tell me how an aborted human can decide what religion they want to follow if they don't exist?  Abortion takes away _their (the unborn's) choice_.
> 
> What religion condones abortion?
> 
> You can dance around this issue till the cows come home but at the end of the day abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.  Moo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unborn have no rights.
Click to expand...


They have the right to a chance at life.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that sleeping at anytime is protected?  (that is called an analogy and it is not comparing sleeping to abortion.  It's pointing out the fallacious claim that if abortion is not specifically mentioned then it is not protected.  If sleeping is not specifically mentioned then by your argument it is not protected.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I'm not the one that made the claim, I'm asking idiot number two to be more specific and tell me what part of the constitution is being referred to. Obviously you don't have the answer, so piss off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's this little known SCOTUS case of R v W that says it is protected by the 4th Amendment.  The case is less than 1200 years old so we understand why you weren't aware of it as you are a bit slow at learning.
Click to expand...


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This protects abortions?


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, in other words the life of the unborn dibs anything else. Tell me how an aborted human can decide what religion they want to follow if they don't exist?  Abortion takes away _their (the unborn's) choice_.
> 
> What religion condones abortion?
> 
> You can dance around this issue till the cows come home but at the end of the day abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.  Moo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn have no rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.
Click to expand...


No they don't.  They have no rights.


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.  They have no rights.
Click to expand...


They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.


----------



## bodecea

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of 1st trimester abortion is protected by constitutional law.
> 
> btw, if fathers are to have a say, how do you propose to break the tie if father says no abortion, mother says abortion?
> 
> Secondly, how do you prove the man is the father?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that abortion at anytime is protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that sleeping at anytime is protected?  (that is called an analogy and it is not comparing sleeping to abortion.  It's pointing out the fallacious claim that if abortion is not specifically mentioned then it is not protected.  If sleeping is not specifically mentioned then by your argument it is not protected.)
Click to expand...


Might I add, the Right to Procreate isn't mentioned in the Constitution either....but people seem to do it and courts seem to uphold it all the time.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I'm not the one that made the claim, I'm asking idiot number two to be more specific and tell me what part of the constitution is being referred to. Obviously you don't have the answer, so piss off!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's this little known SCOTUS case of R v W that says it is protected by the 4th Amendment.  The case is less than 1200 years old so we understand why you weren't aware of it as you are a bit slow at learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This protects abortions?
Click to expand...


Yes. Have you read the R v W decision?  Of course not.


----------



## bodecea

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  They have no rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.
Click to expand...


If you want to go that route...every sperm and every egg has the RIGHT to a chance at life.   And if you want to talk about RIGHTS to a chance at life, then you next start talking about punishing people who have miscarriages....perhaps involuntary manslaughter?


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  They have no rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.
Click to expand...


You don't care about the Right to life.  If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  They have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't care about the Right to life.  If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.
Click to expand...


Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion.  Does the aborted?  No.


----------



## Zoom-boing

bodecea said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  They have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to go that route...every sperm and every egg has the RIGHT to a chance at life.   And if you want to talk about RIGHTS to a chance at life, then you next start talking about punishing people who have miscarriages....perhaps involuntary manslaughter?
Click to expand...



Sperm and egg separate are not a human.  At the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, human life begins.  Abortion destroys this human life.


----------



## CurveLight

bodecea said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that abortion at anytime is protected?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that sleeping at anytime is protected?  (that is called an analogy and it is not comparing sleeping to abortion.  It's pointing out the fallacious claim that if abortion is not specifically mentioned then it is not protected.  If sleeping is not specifically mentioned then by your argument it is not protected.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might I add, the Right to Procreate isn't mentioned in the Constitution either....but people seem to do it and courts seem to uphold it all the time.
Click to expand...


I like this angle because it reveals their hypocrisy in a different light.  If they claim there is a right to life then they must advocate everyone receives the exact same healthcare regardless of what people can afford.  Of course they reject that which helps show their "Life" tag is bullshit.  They want control over women.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's this little known SCOTUS case of R v W that says it is protected by the 4th Amendment.  The case is less than 1200 years old so we understand why you weren't aware of it as you are a bit slow at learning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This protects abortions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Have you read the R v W decision?  Of course not.
Click to expand...


R v W isn't part of the constituion.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it specifically state that sleeping at anytime is protected?  (that is called an analogy and it is not comparing sleeping to abortion.  It's pointing out the fallacious claim that if abortion is not specifically mentioned then it is not protected.  If sleeping is not specifically mentioned then by your argument it is not protected.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might I add, the Right to Procreate isn't mentioned in the Constitution either....but people seem to do it and courts seem to uphold it all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like this angle because it reveals their hypocrisy in a different light.  If they claim there is a right to life then they must advocate everyone receives the exact same healthcare regardless of what people can afford.  Of course they reject that which helps show their "Life" tag is bullshit.  They want control over women.
Click to expand...


Now you're saying healthcare is a right?  If so, then once again you've shown yourself to be utterly stupid.


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to go that route...every sperm and every egg has the RIGHT to a chance at life.   And if you want to talk about RIGHTS to a chance at life, then you next start talking about punishing people who have miscarriages....perhaps involuntary manslaughter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sperm and egg separate are not a human.  At the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, human life begins.  Abortion destroys this human life.
Click to expand...


Sperm and egg are both necessary.  For the "chance at life" you would have regulate them both to be consistent in your position.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This protects abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Have you read the R v W decision?  Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> R v W isn't part of the constituion.
Click to expand...


Never said it was.  Thanks for playing Strawman Marathon.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might I add, the Right to Procreate isn't mentioned in the Constitution either....but people seem to do it and courts seem to uphold it all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like this angle because it reveals their hypocrisy in a different light.  If they claim there is a right to life then they must advocate everyone receives the exact same healthcare regardless of what people can afford.  Of course they reject that which helps show their "Life" tag is bullshit.  They want control over women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're saying healthcare is a right?  If so, then once again you've shown yourself to be utterly stupid.
Click to expand...


No I didn't say healthcare is a right.  You really are on a Strawman marathon.  Please re-read my post respond to what it says instead this constant and insane practice of yours to make up claims I have not said.


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about the Right to life.  If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion.  Does the aborted?  No.
Click to expand...


You want to take away the Right for women to live their lives by telling them what to do with their bodies.


----------



## midcan5

When right to life hypocrites show the same concern for the living I'll take them serious, till then it is just a feel good moral crutch that requires nothing of the moralist. We can't even pass health care for all children in this nation and we are pro life - what horseshit!


"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time."

HISTORY OF ABORTION

Boston Review &mdash; Judith Jarvis Thomson


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about the Right to life.  If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion.  Does the aborted?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to take away the Right for women to live their lives by telling them what to do with their bodies.
Click to expand...


Is that what you mean by pro-choice?  That women (and men) have the right to do whatever they want with _their_ bodies?  I'm all for that.  

What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion?  What part of her body is removed?  None.  Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it.  What part of the unborn is left after an abortion?  None.

The very thing that pro-choicers holler about -- that no one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body -- is the very thing they do when they have an abortion.  They decide whether another human even gets a body.  <sniff, sniff>  Smells like hypocrisy.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like this angle because it reveals their hypocrisy in a different light.  If they claim there is a right to life then they must advocate everyone receives the exact same healthcare regardless of what people can afford.  Of course they reject that which helps show their "Life" tag is bullshit.  They want control over women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're saying healthcare is a right?  If so, then once again you've shown yourself to be utterly stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't say healthcare is a right.  You really are on a Strawman marathon.  Please re-read my post respond to what it says instead this constant and insane practice of yours to make up claims I have not said.
Click to expand...


This is another example of how you idiots cannot comprehend written english. I first asked a question, notice the (?) at the end, that means it wasn't a declaration but a simple question. The next line's key word is "if", meaning in the event that is what was meant. Once again you've shown your stupidity.


----------



## Dr Gregg

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about the Right to life.  If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion.  Does the aborted?  No.
Click to expand...


first off, its not even the feti's choice to begin with, do they get to decide whether their parents try to get pregnant? 

and the aborted don't even realize anyway that they are not getting a choice


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're saying healthcare is a right?  If so, then once again you've shown yourself to be utterly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't say healthcare is a right.  You really are on a Strawman marathon.  Please re-read my post respond to what it says instead this constant and insane practice of yours to make up claims I have not said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is another example of how you idiots cannot comprehend written english. I first asked a question, notice the (?) at the end, that means it wasn't a declaration but a simple question. The next line's key word is "if", meaning in the event that is what was meant. Once again you've shown your stupidity.
Click to expand...


As I said before, my stupidity shines bright every time I quote you and expect sincere dialogue.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't say healthcare is a right.  You really are on a Strawman marathon.  Please re-read my post respond to what it says instead this constant and insane practice of yours to make up claims I have not said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of how you idiots cannot comprehend written english. I first asked a question, notice the (?) at the end, that means it wasn't a declaration but a simple question. The next line's key word is "if", meaning in the event that is what was meant. Once again you've shown your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said before, my stupidity shines bright every time I quote you and expect sincere dialogue.
Click to expand...


Your stupidity shines whether you quote me or not and you wouldn't know sincere dialogue if it bit you in the ass.


----------



## CurveLight

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion.  Does the aborted?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take away the Right for women to live their lives by telling them what to do with their bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you mean by pro-choice?  That women (and men) have the right to do whatever they want with _their_ bodies?  I'm all for that.
> 
> What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion?  What part of her body is removed?  None.  Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it.  What part of the unborn is left after an abortion?  None.
> 
> The very thing that pro-choicers holler about -- that no one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body -- is the very thing they do when they have an abortion.  They decide whether another human even gets a body.  <sniff, sniff>  Smells like hypocrisy.
Click to expand...



This is the same fallacious argument of trying to compare the unborn with the born.  When you ignore basic tenets of any argument and invent fantasies you can create hypocrisy at will.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of how you idiots cannot comprehend written english. I first asked a question, notice the (?) at the end, that means it wasn't a declaration but a simple question. The next line's key word is "if", meaning in the event that is what was meant. Once again you've shown your stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, my stupidity shines bright every time I quote you and expect sincere dialogue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupidity shines whether you quote me or not and you wouldn't know sincere dialogue if it bit you in the ass.
Click to expand...



Lol.....really?  You ignored the R v W case on the basis that particular court case isn't in the Constitution yet you want to accuse others of not knowing sincere dialogue?  Rotfl......you fucking people are a joke.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, my stupidity shines bright every time I quote you and expect sincere dialogue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity shines whether you quote me or not and you wouldn't know sincere dialogue if it bit you in the ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.....really?  You ignored the R v W case on the basis that particular court case isn't in the Constitution yet you want to accuse others of not knowing sincere dialogue?  Rotfl......you fucking people are a joke.
Click to expand...


I ignored nothing. A declaration was made that abortions were protected under constitutional law. In the US, the US Constitution is the basis for all constitutional law. You cited Roe V Wade and the 4th amendment as your answer when I questioned the declaration. Fact is Roe V Wade has nothing to do with the 4th amendment, but why let little things like facts get in your way.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn can't choose what religion they want to follow if they are snuffed out via abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the religion of the pregnant woman is irrelevant. Only that of the anti-choicers counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in other words the life of the unborn dibs anything else. Tell me how an aborted human can decide what religion they want to follow if they don't exist?  Abortion takes away _their (the unborn's) choice_.
Click to expand...

Do you think parents have the right to raise their kids in their religion? 


Zoom-boing said:


> What religion condones abortion?


 Quite a few allow for abortion, many Protestant sects among them. In colonial times the law protected a woman's right to abort up to quickening and this was during a time when this country was overrun by a huge percentage of zealots, some of whom hung women for being witches. 





Zoom-boing said:


> You can dance around this issue till the cows come home but at the end of the day abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.  Moo.


Call it what ever you want you still have no business telling any woman what to do with her body or judge her for choosing something you would not for your own body. 

Dance around that all you want, you won't get very far. America is the land of the free.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, in other words the life of the unborn dibs anything else. Tell me how an aborted human can decide what religion they want to follow if they don't exist?  Abortion takes away _their (the unborn's) choice_.
> 
> What religion condones abortion?
> 
> You can dance around this issue till the cows come home but at the end of the day abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.  Moo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unborn have no rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.
Click to expand...

No more than any cell with DNA. If the unborn were to be determined to have rights, they certainly would not be allowed to be usurped by religious special interest groups..


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about the Right to life.  If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion.  Does the aborted?  No.
Click to expand...

You must be one of those who thinks having a kid is like getting a haircut, to borrow a phrase from Immie. Why should women mind giving up 9 months and more of their lives? Their life just grows back, like hair.  
The aborted live the life they are intended to live, just like all of us. You are trying to play God when you interfere in a woman's pregnancy. Shame on you!


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity shines whether you quote me or not and you wouldn't know sincere dialogue if it bit you in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.....really?  You ignored the R v W case on the basis that particular court case isn't in the Constitution yet you want to accuse others of not knowing sincere dialogue?  Rotfl......you fucking people are a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ignored nothing. A declaration was made that abortions were protected under constitutional law. In the US, the US Constitution is the basis for all constitutional law. You cited Roe V Wade and the 4th amendment as your answer when I questioned the declaration. Fact is Roe V Wade has nothing to do with the 4th amendment, but why let little things like facts get in your way.
Click to expand...


Abortions are protected under the Constitution as the Supreme Court declared quite a few weeks ago.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

Read up on the case and this time you have no excuse for your mind boggling ignorance.


----------



## Anguille

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  They have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't care about the Right to life.  If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.
Click to expand...

Women are invisible to people like Zoom. They are mere egg shells to be broken and tossed on the compost pile after being used as incubators.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This protects abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Have you read the R v W decision?  Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> R v W isn't part of the constituion.
Click to expand...

Neither is every single law passed since the Constitution, dimwit!


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion?  What part of her body is removed?  None.  Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it. .


And you claim to have had children?  !! 

Every breath a pregnant woman takes, every bit of nourishment she consumes, every step she takes she expends energy to feed and bear the growing load. If that were not so women could abort at anytime and the anti choicers could all fall over themselves to claim the the zygotes and the fetuses and tuck them into their wombs themselves. 
Not every woman's uterus is intact aftr an abortion and even fewer after a pregnancy taken to term.


----------



## Anguille

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take away the Right for women to live their lives by telling them what to do with their bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you mean by pro-choice?  That women (and men) have the right to do whatever they want with _their_ bodies?  I'm all for that.
> 
> What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion?  What part of her body is removed?  None.  Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it.  What part of the unborn is left after an abortion?  None.
> 
> The very thing that pro-choicers holler about -- that no one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body -- is the very thing they do when they have an abortion.  They decide whether another human even gets a body.  <sniff, sniff>  Smells like hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same fallacious argument of trying to compare the unborn with the born.  When you ignore basic tenets of any argument and invent fantasies you can create hypocrisy at will.
Click to expand...

This is someone who compared a woman's womb with a smoky barroom in another thread.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did she lie about?
> 
> 
> 
> That she was told to have an abortion. To her it was just a white lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have evidence that suggest she wasn't advised to have an abortion?
Click to expand...

I'm not taking her word for it after reading that abortion was illegal in Philippines at the time she claims she was prescribed one.
This woman makes a mockery of any woman who has truly decided to go against medical advise and not have an abortion. I think she invented the entire thing to make hrself look like some kind of media superstar.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.....really?  You ignored the R v W case on the basis that particular court case isn't in the Constitution yet you want to accuse others of not knowing sincere dialogue?  Rotfl......you fucking people are a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ignored nothing. A declaration was made that abortions were protected under constitutional law. In the US, the US Constitution is the basis for all constitutional law. You cited Roe V Wade and the 4th amendment as your answer when I questioned the declaration. Fact is Roe V Wade has nothing to do with the 4th amendment, but why let little things like facts get in your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions are protected under the Constitution as the Supreme Court declared quite a few weeks ago.
> 
> caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
> 
> Read up on the case and this time you have no excuse for your mind boggling ignorance.
Click to expand...


I'm well aware of R v W. moreso than you apparently.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Have you read the R v W decision?  Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R v W isn't part of the constituion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is every single law passed since the Constitution, dimwit!
Click to expand...


That's it! That's your response? running out of arguement I see. Que sera.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> That she was told to have an abortion. To her it was just a white lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have evidence that suggest she wasn't advised to have an abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not taking her word for it after reading that abortion was illegal in Philippines at the time she claims she was prescribed one.
> This woman makes a mockery of any woman who has truly decided to go against medical advise and not have an abortion. I think she invented the entire thing to make hrself look like some kind of media superstar.
Click to expand...


Hey stupid her doctor advised her to have an abortion, that's not the same as being prescribed an abortion, but make shit up as you go if it makes you feel smart. 

You don't beleive her yet you have nothing of substance to base that one other your intolerance of those that choose life instead of death for their unborn child. Abortions being illegal has never stopped anyone from obtaining one. I find it hypocritical that you would use the legalities of abortion as the basis of your argument.


----------



## Zoom-boing

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take away the Right for women to live their lives by telling them what to do with their bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you mean by pro-choice?  That women (and men) have the right to do whatever they want with _their_ bodies?  I'm all for that.
> 
> What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion?  What part of her body is removed?  None.  Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it.  What part of the unborn is left after an abortion?  None.
> 
> The very thing that pro-choicers holler about -- that no one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body -- is the very thing they do when they have an abortion.  They decide whether another human even gets a body.  <sniff, sniff>  Smells like hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same fallacious argument of trying to compare the unborn with the born.  When you ignore basic tenets of any argument and invent fantasies you can create hypocrisy at will.
Click to expand...


I never compared the unborn to the born.  That was you putting words in my mouth.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have evidence that suggest she wasn't advised to have an abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking her word for it after reading that abortion was illegal in Philippines at the time she claims she was prescribed one.
> This woman makes a mockery of any woman who has truly decided to go against medical advise and not have an abortion. I think she invented the entire thing to make hrself look like some kind of media superstar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid her doctor advised her to have an abortion, that's not the same as being prescribed an abortion, but make shit up as you go if it makes you feel smart.
> 
> You don't beleive her yet you have nothing of substance to base that one other your intolerance of those that choose life instead of death for their unborn child. Abortions being illegal has never stopped anyone from obtaining one. I find it hypocritical that you would use the legalities of abortion as the basis of your argument.
Click to expand...


Considering abortion is 100% illegal and that her doctor would have face imprisonment doing an abortion i'd say there is reasonable cause to believe the Tebow's may be trying to Haggertize the public for their own benefit.


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion?  What part of her body is removed?  None.  Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it. .
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim to have had children?  !!
> 
> Every breath a pregnant woman takes, every bit of nourishment she consumes, every step she takes she expends energy to feed and bear the growing load. If that were not so women could abort at anytime and the anti choicers could all fall over themselves to claim the the zygotes and the fetuses and tuck them into their wombs themselves.
> *Not every woman's uterus is intact aftr an abortion and even fewer after a pregnancy taken to term.*
Click to expand...


so my 5 brothers and sisters are adopted?

who knew?


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about the Right to life.  If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women get to live their lives after they have an abortion.  Does the aborted?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be one of those who thinks having a kid is like getting a haircut, to borrow a phrase from Immie. Why should women mind giving up 9 months and more of their lives? Their life just grows back, like hair.
> The aborted live the life they are intended to live, just like all of us. You are trying to play God when you interfere in a woman's pregnancy. Shame on you!
Click to expand...


Sex has consequences, pregnancy is one of those consequences.  Don't want a kid?  Use birth control or don't have sex.  

Women 'give up nine months of their lives'.   You mean they don't live and breath and go about living during that time?  Abortion destroys human life, abortion takes away the life of another.  What don't you get about that? 

Women who abort the unborn are the ones playing God.  And they fail miserably.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> ]Abortions being illegal has never stopped anyone from obtaining one.[/B] I find it hypocritical that you would use the legalities of abortion as the basis of your argument.


You are quite wrong about that. And you are being a complete and total  hypocrite if you are going to claim it's okay to outlaw abortion because people will still be able to get them.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have the right to a chance at life.  Abortion takes away their chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about the Right to life.  If you did you wouldn't want to take away women's Right to live their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women are invisible to people like Zoom. They are mere egg shells to be broken and tossed on the compost pile after being used as incubators.
Click to expand...


The unborn are invisible to people like Anguille.  They are mere eggs to be broken and tossed on the compost pile after being sucked out of the womb.  

Pssst . . . want me to post some pics so we can all see for our very own exactly what it is that abortion does?


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion?  What part of her body is removed?  None.  Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it. .
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim to have had children?  !!
> 
> Every breath a pregnant woman takes, every bit of nourishment she consumes, every step she takes she expends energy to feed and bear the growing load. If that were not so women could abort at anytime and the anti choicers could all fall over themselves to claim the the zygotes and the fetuses and tuck them into their wombs themselves.
> Not every woman's uterus is intact aftr an abortion and even fewer after a pregnancy taken to term.
Click to expand...


What body part of a woman is removed when she has an abortion?


----------



## Anguille

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion?  What part of her body is removed?  None.  Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it. .
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim to have had children?  !!
> 
> Every breath a pregnant woman takes, every bit of nourishment she consumes, every step she takes she expends energy to feed and bear the growing load. If that were not so women could abort at anytime and the anti choicers could all fall over themselves to claim the the zygotes and the fetuses and tuck them into their wombs themselves.
> *Not every woman's uterus is intact aftr an abortion and even fewer after a pregnancy taken to term.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so my 5 brothers and sisters are adopted?
> 
> who knew?
Click to expand...

Pretty shoddy defense on your part. Not every woman is what I said. What do you know about pregnancy anyway? 

Speaking of what comes after and abortion and what doesn't come after an unwanted pregnancy. How many of you forced birthrs out there know for sure that your mother did not have an abortion before she had you? Had she gone through with the pregnancy, you wouldn't exist. 
You would have been pre-emptively aborted.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you mean by pro-choice?  That women (and men) have the right to do whatever they want with _their_ bodies?  I'm all for that.
> 
> What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion?  What part of her body is removed?  None.  Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it.  What part of the unborn is left after an abortion?  None.
> 
> The very thing that pro-choicers holler about -- that no one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body -- is the very thing they do when they have an abortion.  They decide whether another human even gets a body.  <sniff, sniff>  Smells like hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same fallacious argument of trying to compare the unborn with the born.  When you ignore basic tenets of any argument and invent fantasies you can create hypocrisy at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is someone who compared a woman's womb with a smoky barroom in another thread.
Click to expand...


Wrong, YOU made that comparison and tried to push it as if I did.  You failed, after you  ignored most of my posts in that thread.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the woman's body is altered after she has an abortion?  What part of her body is removed?  None.  Why, her uterus is even intact so she can have another shot at it. .
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim to have had children?  !!
> 
> Every breath a pregnant woman takes, every bit of nourishment she consumes, every step she takes she expends energy to feed and bear the growing load. If that were not so women could abort at anytime and the anti choicers could all fall over themselves to claim the the zygotes and the fetuses and tuck them into their wombs themselves.
> Not every woman's uterus is intact aftr an abortion and even fewer after a pregnancy taken to term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What body part of a woman is removed when she has an abortion?
Click to expand...

The growth inside her attached by an umbilical cord which is diverting nourishment and blood.

Maybe you need to take  biology class? Do you know what comes out if she carries the pregnancy to term?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

CurveLight said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking her word for it after reading that abortion was illegal in Philippines at the time she claims she was prescribed one.
> This woman makes a mockery of any woman who has truly decided to go against medical advise and not have an abortion. I think she invented the entire thing to make hrself look like some kind of media superstar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid her doctor advised her to have an abortion, that's not the same as being prescribed an abortion, but make shit up as you go if it makes you feel smart.
> 
> You don't beleive her yet you have nothing of substance to base that one other your intolerance of those that choose life instead of death for their unborn child. Abortions being illegal has never stopped anyone from obtaining one. I find it hypocritical that you would use the legalities of abortion as the basis of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering abortion is 100% illegal and that her doctor would have face imprisonment doing an abortion i'd say there is reasonable cause to believe the Tebow's may be trying to Haggertize the public for their own benefit.
Click to expand...


Got any evidence to refute Mrs Tebow's affirmation? Of Course not. Just your assumption and since your stupidity has already been established and by your own admission. I'd say you have zero credibility.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same fallacious argument of trying to compare the unborn with the born.  When you ignore basic tenets of any argument and invent fantasies you can create hypocrisy at will.
> 
> 
> 
> This is someone who compared a woman's womb with a smoky barroom in another thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, YOU made that comparison and tried to push it as if I did.  You failed, after you  ignored most of my posts in that thread.
Click to expand...

I ignored nothing. I was shocked and dismayed by that disgusting comparison you made. A woman's womb is not a place of business, IMO. You seem to think otherwise.


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim to have had children?  !!
> 
> Every breath a pregnant woman takes, every bit of nourishment she consumes, every step she takes she expends energy to feed and bear the growing load. If that were not so women could abort at anytime and the anti choicers could all fall over themselves to claim the the zygotes and the fetuses and tuck them into their wombs themselves.
> *Not every woman's uterus is intact aftr an abortion and even fewer after a pregnancy taken to term.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so my 5 brothers and sisters are adopted?
> 
> who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty shoddy defense on your part. Not every woman is what I said. What do you know about pregnancy anyway?
> 
> Speaking of what comes after and abortion and what doesn't come after an unwanted pregnancy. How many of you forced birthrs out there know for sure that your mother did not have an abortion before she had you? Had she gone through with the pregnancy, you wouldn't exist.
> You would have been pre-emptively aborted.
Click to expand...


what you said is *even fewer women's uteri are intact after carrying a baby to  term*. 

you said it, not me. 

i don't want to get too technical here so let me just say you're full of shit.


----------



## Anguille

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> so my 5 brothers and sisters are adopted?
> 
> who knew?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty shoddy defense on your part. Not every woman is what I said. What do you know about pregnancy anyway?
> 
> Speaking of what comes after and abortion and what doesn't come after an unwanted pregnancy. How many of you forced birthrs out there know for sure that your mother did not have an abortion before she had you? Had she gone through with the pregnancy, you wouldn't exist.
> You would have been pre-emptively aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what you said is *even fewer women's uteri are intact after carrying a baby to  term*.
> 
> you said it, not me.
> 
> i don't want to get too technical here so let me just say you're full of shit.
Click to expand...

  Believe it or not, an generally abortion is less stress on a woman's body than is a pregnancy carried to term.


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty shoddy defense on your part. Not every woman is what I said. What do you know about pregnancy anyway?
> 
> Speaking of what comes after and abortion and what doesn't come after an unwanted pregnancy. How many of you forced birthrs out there know for sure that your mother did not have an abortion before she had you? Had she gone through with the pregnancy, you wouldn't exist.
> You would have been pre-emptively aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what you said is *even fewer women's uteri are intact after carrying a baby to  term*.
> 
> you said it, not me.
> 
> i don't want to get too technical here so let me just say you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Believe it or not, an generally abortion is less stress on a woman's body than is a pregnancy carried to term.
Click to expand...


well, duh. now you can explain to me how the uterus is destroyed by pregnancy as you have claimed.

i'll wait.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]Abortions being illegal has never stopped anyone from obtaining one.[/B] I find it hypocritical that you would use the legalities of abortion as the basis of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong about that. And you are being a complete and total  hypocrite if you are going to claim it's okay to outlaw abortion because people will still be able to get them.
Click to expand...


I'm not naive enough to think by making abortions illegal it would stop abortions. Only an idiot like you would think that. I mean isn't it you and idiot number three that thinks Mrs Tebow is lying because she was advised to have an abortion in a country that has banned the practice? You're sounding more and more hypocritical with each post.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim to have had children?  !!
> 
> Every breath a pregnant woman takes, every bit of nourishment she consumes, every step she takes she expends energy to feed and bear the growing load. If that were not so women could abort at anytime and the anti choicers could all fall over themselves to claim the the zygotes and the fetuses and tuck them into their wombs themselves.
> Not every woman's uterus is intact aftr an abortion and even fewer after a pregnancy taken to term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What body part of a woman is removed when she has an abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The growth inside her attached by an umbilical cord which is diverting nourishment and blood.
> 
> Maybe you need to take  biology class? Do you know what comes out if she carries the pregnancy to term?
Click to expand...


Dodge balling and _still _not answering the question.  The umbilical cord and placenta are only present during pregnancy and are not a permanent body part of either the woman or the baby.  The fact that the afterbirth is delivered from the womb after the birth tells you this.   

One last time, what body part of a woman's body is no longer intact after she has an abortion?

Try this one  . . . what part of the unborn's body is no longer intact after it is aborted?


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is someone who compared a woman's womb with a smoky barroom in another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, YOU made that comparison and tried to push it as if I did.  You failed, after you  ignored most of my posts in that thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ignored nothing. I was shocked and dismayed by that disgusting comparison you made. A woman's womb is not a place of business, IMO. You seem to think otherwise.
Click to expand...


You made the smoky bar room comparison, not me.  You are lying . . . but you know that.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> I'm not naive enough to think by making abortions illegal it would stop abortions.


Make up your mind. Do you want abortion to be available or not? Laws are made to be followed, maybe that's news to you? We don't right laws because some maniacs like you want to amke a statement about how they feel about abortion. Especially if that statement is a false one.


----------



## Anguille

Anguille said:


> Speaking of what comes after and abortion and what doesn't come after an unwanted pregnancy. How many of you forced birthers out there know for sure that your mother did not have an abortion before she had you? Had she gone through with the pregnancy, you wouldn't exist.
> You would have been pre-emptively aborted.



 no responses?


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, YOU made that comparison and tried to push it as if I did.  You failed, after you  ignored most of my posts in that thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I ignored nothing. I was shocked and dismayed by that disgusting comparison you made. A woman's womb is not a place of business, IMO. You seem to think otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made the smoky bar room comparison, not me.  You are lying . . . but you know that.
Click to expand...

It's all in the thread. You claimed that anyone who was for choice should also be in favor of allowing smoking in barrooms because they are privately owned places of business. Sick that you would even equate a womb with a place of business, much less such a sordid and dirty one.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ignored nothing. I was shocked and dismayed by that disgusting comparison you made. A woman's womb is not a place of business, IMO. You seem to think otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the smoky bar room comparison, not me.  You are lying . . . but you know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all in the thread. You claimed that anyone who was for choice should also be in favor of allowing smoking in barrooms because they are privately owned places of business. *Sick that you would even equate a womb with a place of business, much less such a sordid and dirty one*.
Click to expand...


Again, your comparison, your words, _not mine_.  If you recall, you bought up 'the womb' in that thread.

The decision to ban smoking should be one the owner of the facility should make,  rather than the government, and the customer can choose whether to patronize that particular establishment or not.

This thread is about abortion not smoking.


----------



## Anguille

Zoom-boing said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the smoky bar room comparison, not me.  You are lying . . . but you know that.
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in the thread. You claimed that anyone who was for choice should also be in favor of allowing smoking in barrooms because they are privately owned places of business. *Sick that you would even equate a womb with a place of business, much less such a sordid and dirty one*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your comparison, your words, _not mine_.  If you recall, you bought up 'the womb' in that thread.
> 
> The decision to ban smoking should be one the owner of the facility should make,  rather than the government, and the customer can choose whether to patronize that particular establishment or not.
> 
> This thread is about abortion not smoking.
Click to expand...

So why did you bring up abortion in a smoking thread?  

Anyway, thanks for confirming what I said you said.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in the thread. You claimed that anyone who was for choice should also be in favor of allowing smoking in barrooms because they are privately owned places of business. *Sick that you would even equate a womb with a place of business, much less such a sordid and dirty one*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your comparison, your words, _not mine_.  If you recall, you bought up 'the womb' in that thread.
> 
> The decision to ban smoking should be one the owner of the facility should make,  rather than the government, and the customer can choose whether to patronize that particular establishment or not.
> 
> This thread is about abortion not smoking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why did you bring up abortion in a smoking thread?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for confirming what I said you said.
Click to expand...


In the smoking thread I asked "Why should the government butt in concerning the choice of smoking but butt out concerning the choice of abortion?" and noted your words from mani's abortion thread concerning choice.  This was your answer.  Your words, your comparison, not mine.



> Honest to God, Boing, if you don't know the difference between a public barroom and a woman's womb no amount of biology lessons is going to help you. Unless of course, you see them both as a place for conducting business and pulling in cash.  though, in the case of the womb, in your twisted view, the womb would not be the property of the woman whose body enclosed it.



I never said the bolded nor the above; you did.  

I'm done playing your little ping pong game.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not naive enough to think by making abortions illegal it would stop abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind. Do you want abortion to be available or not? Laws are made to be followed, maybe that's news to you? We don't right laws because some maniacs like you want to amke a statement about how they feel about abortion. Especially if that statement is a false one.
Click to expand...


My mind has been made up but apparently you're too busy flip flopping with Zoom that you can't understand plain english. Roe V Wade needs to be repealed. Abortions should only be performed when the womans life is in imminent danger and no other options are available. Having said that, and as I've already stated, enacting laws making abortions or anything illegal will not cause the actions to cease. There will always be those that think the laws do not apply to them. But I do beleive it would aid in decreasing the number of abortions. I think abstinence needs to be the focus o
in all sex education classes and a recent federal study concludes that such programs do work. 

Study: Abstinence sex ed is effective | Columbus Dispatch Politics


----------



## beowolfe

Anguille said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in the thread. You claimed that anyone who was for choice should also be in favor of allowing smoking in barrooms because they are privately owned places of business. *Sick that you would even equate a womb with a place of business, much less such a sordid and dirty one*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your comparison, your words, _not mine_.  If you recall, you bought up 'the womb' in that thread.
> 
> The decision to ban smoking should be one the owner of the facility should make,  rather than the government, and the customer can choose whether to patronize that particular establishment or not.
> 
> This thread is about abortion not smoking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why did you bring up abortion in a smoking thread?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for confirming what I said you said.
Click to expand...




You have me curious now as to which of you brought that up.  What was the name of the thread?  I'll go and look.


----------



## Newby

Skull Pilot said:


> I never heard of this tebow guy and can't help but wonder why anyone gives a flying fuck about what he says enough to warrant multiple threads



He's a christian and openly displays that, therefore they must destroy.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not naive enough to think by making abortions illegal it would stop abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind. Do you want abortion to be available or not? Laws are made to be followed, maybe that's news to you? We don't right laws because some maniacs like you want to amke a statement about how they feel about abortion. Especially if that statement is a false one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind has been made up but apparently you're too busy flip flopping with Zoom that you can't understand plain english. Roe V Wade needs to be repealed. Abortions should only be performed when the womans life is in imminent danger and no other options are available. Having said that, and as I've already stated, enacting laws making abortions or anything illegal will not cause the actions to cease. There will always be those that think the laws do not apply to them. But I do beleive it would aid in decreasing the number of abortions. I think abstinence needs to be the focus o
> in all sex education classes and a recent federal study concludes that such programs do work.
> 
> Study: Abstinence sex ed is effective | Columbus Dispatch Politics
Click to expand...

What a phony you are. You claim to be for making abortion illegal but only because you are convinced it will still be available.


----------



## Anguille

beowolfe said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your comparison, your words, _not mine_.  If you recall, you bought up 'the womb' in that thread.
> 
> The decision to ban smoking should be one the owner of the facility should make,  rather than the government, and the customer can choose whether to patronize that particular establishment or not.
> 
> This thread is about abortion not smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you bring up abortion in a smoking thread?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for confirming what I said you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have me curious now as to which of you brought that up.  What was the name of the thread?  I'll go and look.
Click to expand...








  			 			 			 			Poll:  			 			 			Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Anguille said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind. Do you want abortion to be available or not? Laws are made to be followed, maybe that's news to you? We don't right laws because some maniacs like you want to amke a statement about how they feel about abortion. Especially if that statement is a false one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mind has been made up but apparently you're too busy flip flopping with Zoom that you can't understand plain english. Roe V Wade needs to be repealed. Abortions should only be performed when the womans life is in imminent danger and no other options are available. Having said that, and as I've already stated, enacting laws making abortions or anything illegal will not cause the actions to cease. There will always be those that think the laws do not apply to them. But I do beleive it would aid in decreasing the number of abortions. I think abstinence needs to be the focus o
> in all sex education classes and a recent federal study concludes that such programs do work.
> 
> Study: Abstinence sex ed is effective | Columbus Dispatch Politics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a phony you are. You claim to be for making abortion illegal but only because you are convinced it will still be available.
Click to expand...


Wow you've proven yourself to be beyond stupid. Now show me where I've stated that I want Roe V Wade reversed because people can still get abortions? That makes no sense, but coming from you, I'm not surprised.

For the mentally challenged (meaning YOU) this is my position. I would like to see Roe V Wade reversed. Now does that mean abortions won't happen in back alleys or cheap motel rooms? No, but it will serve as a deterrent and I do beleive the number of abortions would decrease. Now if you get "You claim to be for making abortion illegal but only because you are convinced it will still be available" out of that, then you are undoubtedly the dumbest person I've ever encountered.


----------



## Anguille

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mind has been made up but apparently you're too busy flip flopping with Zoom that you can't understand plain english. Roe V Wade needs to be repealed. Abortions should only be performed when the womans life is in imminent danger and no other options are available. Having said that, and as I've already stated, enacting laws making abortions or anything illegal will not cause the actions to cease. There will always be those that think the laws do not apply to them. But I do beleive it would aid in decreasing the number of abortions. I think abstinence needs to be the focus o
> in all sex education classes and a recent federal study concludes that such programs do work.
> 
> Study: Abstinence sex ed is effective | Columbus Dispatch Politics
> 
> 
> 
> What a phony you are. You claim to be for making abortion illegal but only because you are convinced it will still be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you've proven yourself to be beyond stupid. Now show me where I've stated that I want Roe V Wade reversed because people can still get abortions? That makes no sense, but coming from you, I'm not surprised.
> 
> For the mentally challenged (meaning YOU) this is my position. I would like to see Roe V Wade reversed. Now does that mean abortions won't happen in back alleys or cheap motel rooms? No, but it will serve as a deterrent and I do beleive the number of abortions would decrease. Now if you get "You claim to be for making abortion illegal but only because you are convinced it will still be available" out of that, then you are undoubtedly the dumbest person I've ever encountered.
Click to expand...

Thanks for elucidating on your dumbness.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not naive enough to think by making abortions illegal it would stop abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind. Do you want abortion to be available or not? Laws are made to be followed, maybe that's news to you? We don't right laws because some maniacs like you want to amke a statement about how they feel about abortion. Especially if that statement is a false one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind has been made up but apparently you're too busy flip flopping with Zoom that you can't understand plain english. Roe V Wade needs to be repealed. Abortions should only be performed when the womans life is in imminent danger and no other options are available. Having said that, and as I've already stated, enacting laws making abortions or anything illegal will not cause the actions to cease. There will always be those that think the laws do not apply to them. But I do beleive it would aid in decreasing the number of abortions. I think abstinence needs to be the focus o
> in all sex education classes and a recent federal study concludes that such programs do work.
> 
> Study: Abstinence sex ed is effective | Columbus Dispatch Politics
Click to expand...


You know, you are stating that abortions need to be stopped, unless of course, the womans life in in imminent danger.

Then it's okay.

Tebow's mother was in imminent danger, and, her life expectancy was dropping fast.

Does this mean that you would have been in favor of Tebow being aborted?  You stated it would be okay in your last post..........

Or.......

Are you just another garden variety hypocrite Dim Bulb No Logic?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

ABikerSailor said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind. Do you want abortion to be available or not? Laws are made to be followed, maybe that's news to you? We don't right laws because some maniacs like you want to amke a statement about how they feel about abortion. Especially if that statement is a false one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mind has been made up but apparently you're too busy flip flopping with Zoom that you can't understand plain english. Roe V Wade needs to be repealed. Abortions should only be performed when the womans life is in imminent danger and no other options are available. Having said that, and as I've already stated, enacting laws making abortions or anything illegal will not cause the actions to cease. There will always be those that think the laws do not apply to them. But I do beleive it would aid in decreasing the number of abortions. I think abstinence needs to be the focus o
> in all sex education classes and a recent federal study concludes that such programs do work.
> 
> Study: Abstinence sex ed is effective | Columbus Dispatch Politics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, you are stating that abortions need to be stopped, unless of course, the womans life in in imminent danger.
> 
> Then it's okay.
> 
> Tebow's mother was in imminent danger, and, her life expectancy was dropping fast.
> 
> Does this mean that you would have been in favor of Tebow being aborted?  You stated it would be okay in your last post..........
> 
> Or.......
> 
> Are you just another garden variety hypocrite Dim Bulb No Logic?
Click to expand...


I respect Mrs. Tebow's decision. As I said in the event that the mothers life is in danger and no other options are available then I would not blame a woman for making the decision to abort. I'm not going to play the "what if" game with a stupid gaybikershitstain. Now runalong and play little boy and let us grownups talk.


----------



## CurveLight

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mind has been made up but apparently you're too busy flip flopping with Zoom that you can't understand plain english. Roe V Wade needs to be repealed. Abortions should only be performed when the womans life is in imminent danger and no other options are available. Having said that, and as I've already stated, enacting laws making abortions or anything illegal will not cause the actions to cease. There will always be those that think the laws do not apply to them. But I do beleive it would aid in decreasing the number of abortions. I think abstinence needs to be the focus o
> in all sex education classes and a recent federal study concludes that such programs do work.
> 
> Study: Abstinence sex ed is effective | Columbus Dispatch Politics
> 
> 
> 
> What a phony you are. You claim to be for making abortion illegal but only because you are convinced it will still be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you've proven yourself to be beyond stupid. Now show me where I've stated that I want Roe V Wade reversed because people can still get abortions? That makes no sense, but coming from you, I'm not surprised.
> 
> For the mentally challenged (meaning YOU) this is my position. I would like to see Roe V Wade reversed. Now does that mean abortions won't happen in back alleys or cheap motel rooms? No, but it will serve as a deterrent and I do beleive the number of abortions would decrease. Now if you get "You claim to be for making abortion illegal but only because you are convinced it will still be available" out of that, then you are undoubtedly the dumbest person I've ever encountered.
Click to expand...


You're a pathetic bitch and it is sad to know you raised five kids. I hope those apples didn't simply fall far from tree....I hope they were blasted away with the force equal to a thousand nukes because idiot control freaks like you do nothing but shit on Life.


----------



## Dr Gregg

I just saw the Tebow commercial, and there wasn't really a political message in there at all.

So its not really a big deal. Never mentioned anything about claiming to have an abortion, just said "many people thought he wasn't going to be born or be ok"

So the fuss was for nothing


----------



## Immanuel

Dr Gregg said:


> I just saw the Tebow commercial, and there wasn't really a political message in there at all.
> 
> So its not really a big deal. Never mentioned anything about claiming to have an abortion, just said "many people thought he wasn't going to be born or be ok"
> 
> So the fuss was for nothing



For nothing?

I think that with all the hoopla over the ad the last week or so, Focus on the Family got the message out without having to say anything about it... or did the abortion rights lobbyists get the message out for them?

I wonder if they planted a hint on the "message" early just to provoke the lobbyists.


Immie


----------



## Anguille

I think it was CBS that got the message and then gave one to the Fuck the Family group.


----------



## Darkwind

Immanuel said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw the Tebow commercial, and there wasn't really a political message in there at all.
> 
> So its not really a big deal. Never mentioned anything about claiming to have an abortion, just said "many people thought he wasn't going to be born or be ok"
> 
> So the fuss was for nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For nothing?
> 
> I think that with all the hoopla over the ad the last week or so, Focus on the Family got the message out without having to say anything about it... or did the abortion rights lobbyists get the message out for them?
> 
> I wonder if they planted a hint on the "message" early just to provoke the lobbyists.
> 
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Very likely.  The ad had nothing in it to protest.

Looks like the left just got played big fucking time.


----------



## Toro

It was a good ad.


----------



## ABikerSailor

The ad sucked.


----------



## del

Lonestar_logic said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not naive enough to think by making abortions illegal it would stop abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind. Do you want abortion to be available or not? Laws are made to be followed, maybe that's news to you? We don't right laws because some maniacs like you want to amke a statement about how they feel about abortion. Especially if that statement is a false one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind has been made up but apparently you're too busy flip flopping with Zoom that you can't understand plain english. Roe V Wade needs to be repealed. Abortions should only be performed when the womans life is in imminent danger and no other options are available. Having said that, and as I've already stated, enacting laws making abortions or anything illegal will not cause the actions to cease. There will always be those that think the laws do not apply to them. But I do beleive it would aid in decreasing the number of abortions. I think abstinence needs to be the focus o
> in all sex education classes and a recent federal study concludes that such programs do work.
> 
> Study: Abstinence sex ed is effective | Columbus Dispatch Politics
Click to expand...


the abstinence program in the study is nothing like the the current federal model.


----------



## Dr Gregg

Immanuel said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw the Tebow commercial, and there wasn't really a political message in there at all.
> 
> So its not really a big deal. Never mentioned anything about claiming to have an abortion, just said "many people thought he wasn't going to be born or be ok"
> 
> So the fuss was for nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For nothing?
> 
> I think that with all the hoopla over the ad the last week or so, Focus on the Family got the message out without having to say anything about it... or did the abortion rights lobbyists get the message out for them?
> 
> I wonder if they planted a hint on the "message" early just to provoke the lobbyists.
> 
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



Fine, and they didn't change anybody's mind. Maybe many won'tr have abortion themselves, but they will still be pro choice and leave it to the mother


----------



## Anguille

Dr Gregg said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw the Tebow commercial, and there wasn't really a political message in there at all.
> 
> So its not really a big deal. Never mentioned anything about claiming to have an abortion, just said "many people thought he wasn't going to be born or be ok"
> 
> So the fuss was for nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For nothing?
> 
> I think that with all the hoopla over the ad the last week or so, Focus on the Family got the message out without having to say anything about it... or did the abortion rights lobbyists get the message out for them?
> 
> I wonder if they planted a hint on the "message" early just to provoke the lobbyists.
> 
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, and they didn't change anybody's mind. Maybe many won'tr have abortion themselves, but they will still be pro choice and leave it to the mother
Click to expand...

Right. If anything, The ad was pro choice. And that's really the issue. leaving the choice up to the woman.


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> For nothing?
> 
> I think that with all the hoopla over the ad the last week or so, Focus on the Family got the message out without having to say anything about it... or did the abortion rights lobbyists get the message out for them?
> 
> I wonder if they planted a hint on the "message" early just to provoke the lobbyists.
> 
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, and they didn't change anybody's mind. Maybe many won'tr have abortion themselves, but they will still be pro choice and leave it to the mother
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. If anything, The ad was pro choice. And that's really the issue. leaving the choice up to the woman.
Click to expand...


But the overall tone of the ad was that of pro-life, or at least that's how it was perceived, and why the left didn't want it aired.

That's the argument here...why would so-called pro choice supporters be against an ad that touched upon the results of one of the two 'choices' in such a situation?  Because this choice happened to be life, and those against the ad are not in fact pro-choice, but simply pro-abortion?


----------



## Dr Gregg

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, and they didn't change anybody's mind. Maybe many won'tr have abortion themselves, but they will still be pro choice and leave it to the mother
> 
> 
> 
> Right. If anything, The ad was pro choice. And that's really the issue. leaving the choice up to the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the overall tone of the ad was that of pro-life, or at least that's how it was perceived, and why the left didn't want it aired.
> 
> That's the argument here...why would so-called pro choice supporters be against an ad that touched upon the results of one of the two 'choices' in such a situation?  Because this choice happened to be life, and those against the ad are not in fact pro-choice, but simply pro-abortion?
Click to expand...


The only thing that made it pro life was "Focus on teh Family" at the end. Without that, it could be taken for anything really. ANd I don't think people have a problem with the commercial now that we have seen it. But we know FoFs dirty, lying tactics to push their agenda, so most figured it would be a blaring anti choice commercial. But it wasn't


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, and they didn't change anybody's mind. Maybe many won'tr have abortion themselves, but they will still be pro choice and leave it to the mother
> 
> 
> 
> Right. If anything, The ad was pro choice. And that's really the issue. leaving the choice up to the woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the overall tone of the ad was that of pro-life, or at least that's how it was perceived, and why the left didn't want it aired.
> 
> That's the argument here...why would so-called pro choice supporters be against an ad that touched upon the results of one of the two 'choices' in such a situation?  Because this choice happened to be life, and those against the ad are not in fact pro-choice, but simply pro-abortion?
Click to expand...

The objection was to CBS airing an ad on a touchy political issue when CBS claims to be unbiased. The ad is definately anti-abortion, though not overtly anti-choice. 
Depends on what you mean by "pro-abortion". 
Does "pro-abortion"  mean to you a movement to encourage women to abort? Or does it mean a movement to alleviate the stigma some women feel when considering abortion? What does it mean to you? 
If it's in opposition to anti-abortion then I would say it means the former. 

I think you can be anti abortion but pro choice and pro abortion and likewise be pro abortion and pro choice. People ar also anti abortion and anti choice but I have never heard of anyone being pro-abortion and anti-choice, though there must exist someone somewhere who is.


----------



## Anguille

Dr Gregg said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. If anything, The ad was pro choice. And that's really the issue. leaving the choice up to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the overall tone of the ad was that of pro-life, or at least that's how it was perceived, and why the left didn't want it aired.
> 
> That's the argument here...why would so-called pro choice supporters be against an ad that touched upon the results of one of the two 'choices' in such a situation?  Because this choice happened to be life, and those against the ad are not in fact pro-choice, but simply pro-abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that made it pro life was "Focus on teh Family" at the end. Without that, it could be taken for anything really. ANd I don't think people have a problem with the commercial now that we have seen it. But we know FoFs dirty, lying tactics to push their agenda, so most figured it would be a blaring anti choice commercial. But it wasn't
Click to expand...

Focus on Family would be better named Fuck the Family.


----------



## Anguille

Dr Gregg said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. If anything, The ad was pro choice. And that's really the issue. leaving the choice up to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the overall tone of the ad was that of pro-life, or at least that's how it was perceived, and why the left didn't want it aired.
> 
> That's the argument here...why would so-called pro choice supporters be against an ad that touched upon the results of one of the two 'choices' in such a situation?  Because this choice happened to be life, and those against the ad are not in fact pro-choice, but simply pro-abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that made it pro life was "Focus on teh Family" at the end. Without that, it could be taken for anything really. ANd I don't think people have a problem with the commercial now that we have seen it. But we know FoFs dirty, lying tactics to push their agenda, so most figured it would be a blaring anti choice commercial. But it wasn't
Click to expand...

I wonder if CBS requested Fuck the Family revise the ad after the anti CBS uproar? It's a possibility. Why they would even consider taking this organizations money is beyond common sense but money is money to many executives.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Keep your religion outta my football, and I'll keep my foot outta your ass.


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. If anything, The ad was pro choice. And that's really the issue. leaving the choice up to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the overall tone of the ad was that of pro-life, or at least that's how it was perceived, and why the left didn't want it aired.
> 
> That's the argument here...why would so-called pro choice supporters be against an ad that touched upon the results of one of the two 'choices' in such a situation?  Because this choice happened to be life, and those against the ad are not in fact pro-choice, but simply pro-abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The objection was to CBS airing an ad on a touchy political issue when CBS claims to be unbiased. The ad is definately anti-abortion, though not overtly anti-choice.
> Depends on what you mean by "pro-abortion".
> Does "pro-abortion"  mean to you a movement to encourage women to abort? Or does it mean a movement to alleviate the stigma some women feel when considering abortion? What does it mean to you?
> If it's in opposition to anti-abortion then I would say it means the former.
> 
> I think you can be anti abortion but pro choice and pro abortion and likewise be pro abortion and pro choice. People ar also anti abortion and anti choice but I have never heard of anyone being pro-abortion and anti-choice, though there must exist someone somewhere who is.
Click to expand...


Why is the ad "definitely" anti-abortion?  Simply because of fof?

If there are two choices in such a situation, and an ad is created touching upon the choice of life and the results of such, why must it be anti-abortion?

It's pretty sad that one can not purchase ad time to promote the results of their _choice_, without having to endure such criticism.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Did Planned Parenthood show an ad of their own?  I thought I read they were going to . . . .


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the overall tone of the ad was that of pro-life, or at least that's how it was perceived, and why the left didn't want it aired.
> 
> That's the argument here...why would so-called pro choice supporters be against an ad that touched upon the results of one of the two 'choices' in such a situation?  Because this choice happened to be life, and those against the ad are not in fact pro-choice, but simply pro-abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> The objection was to CBS airing an ad on a touchy political issue when CBS claims to be unbiased. The ad is definately anti-abortion, though not overtly anti-choice.
> Depends on what you mean by "pro-abortion".
> Does "pro-abortion"  mean to you a movement to encourage women to abort? Or does it mean a movement to alleviate the stigma some women feel when considering abortion? What does it mean to you?
> If it's in opposition to anti-abortion then I would say it means the former.
> 
> I think you can be anti abortion but pro choice and pro abortion and likewise be pro abortion and pro choice. People ar also anti abortion and anti choice but I have never heard of anyone being pro-abortion and anti-choice, though there must exist someone somewhere who is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the ad "definitely" anti-abortion?  Simply because of fof?
> 
> If there are two choices in such a situation, and an ad is created touching upon the choice of life and the results of such, why must it be anti-abortion?
> 
> It's pretty sad that one can not purchase ad time to promote the results of their _choice_, without having to endure such criticism.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually see the ad yet. I've only read descriptions of it and am going by those. So maybe I should do that now. 

Unless Fuck the Family has changed their stance that ad was intended to applaud a woman who decided to take a questionable pregnancy to full term. Between pro and anti that puts them on the anti side. 
I think it's great that CBS had to answer to criticism. They need to keep on neutral ground if they want to continue serving a wide audience. Why would you be against criticism? Isn't that free speech? A libertarian kind of thing?


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the overall tone of the ad was that of pro-life, or at least that's how it was perceived, and why the left didn't want it aired.
> 
> That's the argument here...why would so-called pro choice supporters be against an ad that touched upon the results of one of the two 'choices' in such a situation?  Because this choice happened to be life, and those against the ad are not in fact pro-choice, but simply pro-abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> The objection was to CBS airing an ad on a touchy political issue when CBS claims to be unbiased. The ad is definately anti-abortion, though not overtly anti-choice.
> Depends on what you mean by "pro-abortion".
> Does "pro-abortion"  mean to you a movement to encourage women to abort? Or does it mean a movement to alleviate the stigma some women feel when considering abortion? What does it mean to you?
> If it's in opposition to anti-abortion then I would say it means the former.
> 
> I think you can be anti abortion but pro choice and pro abortion and likewise be pro abortion and pro choice. People ar also anti abortion and anti choice but I have never heard of anyone being pro-abortion and anti-choice, though there must exist someone somewhere who is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the ad "definitely" anti-abortion?  Simply because of fof?
> 
> If there are two choices in such a situation, and an ad is created touching upon the choice of life and the results of such, why must it be anti-abortion?
> 
> It's pretty sad that one can not purchase ad time to promote the results of their _choice_, without having to endure such criticism.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of pro abortion and have you ever met anyone who is pro abortion and anti choice?


----------



## Anguille

ABikerSailor said:


> Keep your religion outta my football, and I'll keep my foot outta your ass.


 Deal!!!!


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objection was to CBS airing an ad on a touchy political issue when CBS claims to be unbiased. The ad is definately anti-abortion, though not overtly anti-choice.
> Depends on what you mean by "pro-abortion".
> Does "pro-abortion"  mean to you a movement to encourage women to abort? Or does it mean a movement to alleviate the stigma some women feel when considering abortion? What does it mean to you?
> If it's in opposition to anti-abortion then I would say it means the former.
> 
> I think you can be anti abortion but pro choice and pro abortion and likewise be pro abortion and pro choice. People ar also anti abortion and anti choice but I have never heard of anyone being pro-abortion and anti-choice, though there must exist someone somewhere who is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the ad "definitely" anti-abortion?  Simply because of fof?
> 
> If there are two choices in such a situation, and an ad is created touching upon the choice of life and the results of such, why must it be anti-abortion?
> 
> It's pretty sad that one can not purchase ad time to promote the results of their _choice_, without having to endure such criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't actually see the ad yet. I've only read descriptions of it and am going by those. So maybe I should do that now.
> 
> Unless Fuck the Family has changed their stance that ad was intended to applaud a* woman who decided* to take a questionable pregnancy to full term. Between pro and anti that puts them on the anti side.
> I think it's great that CBS had to answer to criticism. They need to keep on neutral ground if they want to continue serving a wide audience. Why would you be against criticism? Isn't that free speech? A libertarian kind of thing?
Click to expand...


so you're pro-choice as long as you agree with the choice.

shocker


----------



## Anguille

ABikerSailor said:


> Keep your religion outta my football, and I'll keep my foot outta your ass.


Wait!  I thought football was a kind of religion? Or maybe a religion substitute?


----------



## geauxtohell

I have to admit the ad was much ado about nothing.  I wonder if that was the original cut, or if FOTF did some editing?


----------



## Anguille

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the ad "definitely" anti-abortion?  Simply because of fof?
> 
> If there are two choices in such a situation, and an ad is created touching upon the choice of life and the results of such, why must it be anti-abortion?
> 
> It's pretty sad that one can not purchase ad time to promote the results of their _choice_, without having to endure such criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't actually see the ad yet. I've only read descriptions of it and am going by those. So maybe I should do that now.
> 
> Unless Fuck the Family has changed their stance that ad was intended to applaud a* woman who decided* to take a questionable pregnancy to full term. Between pro and anti that puts them on the anti side.
> I think it's great that CBS had to answer to criticism. They need to keep on neutral ground if they want to continue serving a wide audience. Why would you be against criticism? Isn't that free speech? A libertarian kind of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you're pro-choice as long as you agree with the choice.
> 
> shocker
Click to expand...

  I can't decide if you are channeling JenT or Immie right now.


----------



## Anguille

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the ad "definitely" anti-abortion?  Simply because of fof?
> 
> If there are two choices in such a situation, and an ad is created touching upon the choice of life and the results of such, why must it be anti-abortion?
> 
> It's pretty sad that one can not purchase ad time to promote the results of their _choice_, without having to endure such criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't actually see the ad yet. I've only read descriptions of it and am going by those. So maybe I should do that now.
> 
> Unless Fuck the Family has changed their stance that ad was intended to applaud a* woman who decided* to take a questionable pregnancy to full term. Between pro and anti that puts them on the anti side.
> I think it's great that CBS had to answer to criticism. They need to keep on neutral ground if they want to continue serving a wide audience. Why would you be against criticism? Isn't that free speech? A libertarian kind of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you're pro-choice as long as you agree with the choice.
> 
> shocker
Click to expand...

I agree with a woman having the right to choice, yes. Many women will do what I would not chose to do, but they are not me and I am not them.


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't actually see the ad yet. I've only read descriptions of it and am going by those. So maybe I should do that now.
> 
> Unless Fuck the Family has changed their stance that ad was intended to applaud a* woman who decided* to take a questionable pregnancy to full term. Between pro and anti that puts them on the anti side.
> I think it's great that CBS had to answer to criticism. They need to keep on neutral ground if they want to continue serving a wide audience. Why would you be against criticism? Isn't that free speech? A libertarian kind of thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you're pro-choice as long as you agree with the choice.
> 
> shocker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't decide if you are channeling JenT or Immie right now.
Click to expand...


i think for myself and i stand by what i said.


----------



## Anguille

geauxtohell said:


> I have to admit the ad was much ado about nothing.  I wonder if that was the original cut, or if FOTF did some editing?


I think the whole questioning of the validity of Mrs Tebro's story made them reconsider and do some editing. I don't think we will ever know for sure. Just like we can never know how much truth was in her story.


----------



## Dr Gregg

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the ad "definitely" anti-abortion?  Simply because of fof?
> 
> If there are two choices in such a situation, and an ad is created touching upon the choice of life and the results of such, why must it be anti-abortion?
> 
> It's pretty sad that one can not purchase ad time to promote the results of their _choice_, without having to endure such criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't actually see the ad yet. I've only read descriptions of it and am going by those. So maybe I should do that now.
> 
> Unless Fuck the Family has changed their stance that ad was intended to applaud a* woman who decided* to take a questionable pregnancy to full term. Between pro and anti that puts them on the anti side.
> I think it's great that CBS had to answer to criticism. They need to keep on neutral ground if they want to continue serving a wide audience. Why would you be against criticism? Isn't that free speech? A libertarian kind of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you're pro-choice as long as you agree with the choice.
> 
> shocker
Click to expand...



dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.  make whatever choice they want. The pro life people can't accept the prochoice people's choices, as they want to take away a choice.


----------



## Paulie

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objection was to CBS airing an ad on a touchy political issue when CBS claims to be unbiased. The ad is definately anti-abortion, though not overtly anti-choice.
> Depends on what you mean by "pro-abortion".
> Does "pro-abortion"  mean to you a movement to encourage women to abort? Or does it mean a movement to alleviate the stigma some women feel when considering abortion? What does it mean to you?
> If it's in opposition to anti-abortion then I would say it means the former.
> 
> I think you can be anti abortion but pro choice and pro abortion and likewise be pro abortion and pro choice. People ar also anti abortion and anti choice but I have never heard of anyone being pro-abortion and anti-choice, though there must exist someone somewhere who is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the ad "definitely" anti-abortion?  Simply because of fof?
> 
> If there are two choices in such a situation, and an ad is created touching upon the choice of life and the results of such, why must it be anti-abortion?
> 
> It's pretty sad that one can not purchase ad time to promote the results of their _choice_, without having to endure such criticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't actually see the ad yet. I've only read descriptions of it and am going by those. So maybe I should do that now.
> 
> Unless Fuck the Family has changed their stance that ad was intended to applaud a woman who decided to take a questionable pregnancy to full term. Between pro and anti that puts them on the anti side.
> I think it's great that CBS had to answer to criticism. They need to keep on neutral ground if they want to continue serving a wide audience. Why would you be against criticism? Isn't that free speech? A libertarian kind of thing?
Click to expand...


By applauding a woman for choosing life, that's anti-abortion?

I'm not understanding your logic here.  Unless the ad specifically made an effort to frown upon the alternative choice, the ad is not anti-abortion. 

And while I agree with the right to criticize, that doesn't mean I can't find certain criticism to be sad under certain circumstances.  I don't have to support your position, to support your RIGHT to it.


----------



## Anguille

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're pro-choice as long as you agree with the choice.
> 
> shocker
> 
> 
> 
> I can't decide if you are channeling JenT or Immie right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think for myself and i stand by what i said.
Click to expand...

So come on out and be open about what you meant by that ambiguous statement? 

"so you're pro-choice as long as you agree with the choice."
Sounds like you say I  am only for allowing a woman to have a choice so long as it conforms to a choice I've already made for her. 
Do explain. please.


----------



## Skull Pilot

I finally saw the "controversial" ad.

OMG it was horrible.

The N.O.W wackos are trying to say it promotes violence against women because a big tough ball player dared hug his mommy too roughly

Tebow ad falls short of the hype - latimes.com

What I want to know is why NOW is not condemning Snickers for airing an ad that glorifies violence against old women


----------



## Anguille

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the ad "definitely" anti-abortion?  Simply because of fof?
> 
> If there are two choices in such a situation, and an ad is created touching upon the choice of life and the results of such, why must it be anti-abortion?
> 
> It's pretty sad that one can not purchase ad time to promote the results of their _choice_, without having to endure such criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't actually see the ad yet. I've only read descriptions of it and am going by those. So maybe I should do that now.
> 
> Unless Fuck the Family has changed their stance that ad was intended to applaud a woman who decided to take a questionable pregnancy to full term. Between pro and anti that puts them on the anti side.
> I think it's great that CBS had to answer to criticism. They need to keep on neutral ground if they want to continue serving a wide audience. Why would you be against criticism? Isn't that free speech? A libertarian kind of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By applauding a woman for choosing life, that's anti-abortion?
> 
> I'm not understanding your logic here.  Unless the ad specifically made an effort to frown upon the alternative choice, the ad is not anti-abortion.
> 
> And while I agree with the right to criticize, that doesn't mean I can't find certain criticism to be sad under certain circumstances.  I don't have to support your position, to support your RIGHT to it.
Click to expand...

When you ask if it one or the other then that is the limited choice to be made. it certainly isn't pro the choice of abortion so what is left? 

Mrs Tebrow was not choosing life, (assuming her sketchy story is true) she was choosing to risk life to some undetermined degree. Women do that every time they get pregnant. All pregnancy carries some degree of risk. For some the risk is worth whatever they are hoping to gain. For others it is not.
Do you think it is pro life to ignore the danger that pregnancy entails? 
Yes, of course, the right to speech includes you right to whine about criticism of CBS and FtheF.


----------



## Anguille

Dr Gregg said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're pro-choice as long as you agree with the choice.
> 
> shocker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.  make whatever choice they want. The pro life people can't accept the prochoice people's choices, as they want to take away a choice.
Click to expand...

It's one of the stock meaningless clever sounding retorts that impress only the simple minded.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't actually see the ad yet. I've only read descriptions of it and am going by those. So maybe I should do that now.
> 
> Unless Fuck the Family has changed their stance that ad was intended to applaud a woman who decided to take a questionable pregnancy to full term. Between pro and anti that puts them on the anti side.
> I think it's great that CBS had to answer to criticism. They need to keep on neutral ground if they want to continue serving a wide audience. Why would you be against criticism? Isn't that free speech? A libertarian kind of thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By applauding a woman for choosing life, that's anti-abortion?
> 
> I'm not understanding your logic here.  Unless the ad specifically made an effort to frown upon the alternative choice, the ad is not anti-abortion.
> 
> And while I agree with the right to criticize, that doesn't mean I can't find certain criticism to be sad under certain circumstances.  I don't have to support your position, to support your RIGHT to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you ask if it one or the other then that is the limited choice to be made. it certainly isn't pro the choice of abortion so what is left?
> 
> Mrs Tebrow was not choosing life, (assuming her sketchy story is true) she was choosing to risk life to some undetermined degree. Women do that every time they get pregnant. All pregnancy carries some degree of risk. For some the risk is worth whatever they are hoping to gain. For others it is not.
> Do you think it is pro life to ignore the danger that pregnancy entails?
> Yes, of course, the right to speech includes you right to whine about criticism of CBS and FtheF.
Click to expand...


That is a stretch even for you

and you forgot to mention the risks of abortion

If you are truly pro choice, you would not criticize a woman for choosing to have a child by saying she chose to risk her life.

people who have abortions risk their lives too.


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're pro-choice as long as you agree with the choice.
> 
> shocker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.  make whatever choice they want. The pro life people can't accept the prochoice people's choices, as they want to take away a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's one of the stock meaningless clever sounding retorts that inpress only the simple minded.
Click to expand...


i knew you were impressed but i didn't expect you to admit it. what business is it of yours that she decided to carry a risky pregnancy to term?

here's a hint. 
none.


----------



## geauxtohell

Anguille said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit the ad was much ado about nothing.  I wonder if that was the original cut, or if FOTF did some editing?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the whole questioning of the validity of Mrs Tebro's story made them reconsider and do some editing. I don't think we will ever know for sure. Just like we can never know how much truth was in her story.
Click to expand...


I never really was bothered with the "truth" of the story, I think it is as she claims it to be. 

What did bother me was that she was essentially going to advocate that women ignore medical advice.

This wasn't an issue of her choosing not to have an "elective abortion", it was a case of her gambling with her life.

That's not a prudent message for FOTF to start advocating.


----------



## geauxtohell

del said:


> i knew you were impressed but i didn't expect you to admit it. what business is it of yours that she decided to carry a risky pregnancy to term?
> 
> here's a hint.
> none.



It's not anyone's business, until she starts advocating other women do the same.

Then it becomes everyone's business.

Like I said, the ad was much ado about nothing, but considering that Tebow's mom decided to go primetime with the issue, it's not accurate to say that it's not our business.  

Before this, I certainly didn't know about the situation.


----------



## del

geauxtohell said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i knew you were impressed but i didn't expect you to admit it. what business is it of yours that she decided to carry a risky pregnancy to term?
> 
> here's a hint.
> none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not anyone's business, until she starts advocating other women do the same.
> 
> Then it becomes everyone's business.
> 
> Like I said, the ad was much ado about nothing, but considering that Tebow's mom decided to go primetime with the issue, it's not accurate to say that it's not our business.
> 
> Before this, I certainly didn't know about the situation.
Click to expand...


neither did i, and i must say that since i've become aware of it, i'll do my best to forget it.


----------



## Anguille

Skull Pilot said:


> That is a stretch even for you
> 
> and you forgot to mention the risks of abortion
> 
> If you are truly pro choice, you would not criticize a woman for choosing to have a child by saying she chose to risk her life.
> 
> people who have abortions risk their lives too.


It's possible to disagree with a woman's choice and still respect and honor her right to it. This is a fundamental concept many forced birthers have enormous difficulty grasping. !!!!!!

I support, respect and honor Mrs Tebrow's right to make a foolish decision concerning her own body. I think she made a dangerous choice (that is, *assuming* she has been truthful ). I couldn't care less if the world might have missed out on having one more football star.


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stretch even for you
> 
> and you forgot to mention the risks of abortion
> 
> If you are truly pro choice, you would not criticize a woman for choosing to have a child by saying she chose to risk her life.
> 
> people who have abortions risk their lives too.
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible to disagree with a woman's choice and still respect and honor her right to it. This is a fundamental concept many forced birthers have enormous difficulty grasping. !!!!!!
> 
> *I support, respect and honor* Mrs Tebrow's right to make a foolish decision concerning her own body. I think she made a dangerous choice (that is, *assuming* she has been truthful ). I couldn't care less if the world might have missed out on having one more football star.
Click to expand...


yeah, it comes shining through in your every post on the subject.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Zoom-boing said:


> 'Pro-choice' says it's the_ woman's body_ to do with as she chooses;


Not all pro-choicers believe that.

As for those that do?


That's because they failed biology class.


And they're mentally retarded.


----------



## geauxtohell

del said:


> neither did i, and i must say that since i've become aware of it, i'll do my best to forget it.



I agree.  But, as I said, the Tebows, and not anyone on this board, decided to make this personal issue a public interest story.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CurveLight said:


> You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?




Biology 101...


Today's lessons:

1) An egg must be fertilized to develop

2) Chicken eggs harvested for consumption on chicken farms are never fertilized


Ergo, it's more like getting your redwings than eating a chicken.


----------



## geauxtohell

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988324 said:
			
		

> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pro-choice' says it's the_ woman's body_ to do with as she chooses;
> 
> 
> 
> Not all pro-choicers believe that.
> 
> As for those that do?
> 
> 
> That's because they failed biology class.
> 
> 
> And they're mentally retarded.
Click to expand...


While I don't agree with the wording of that previous post, I believe that a patient's right to autonomy and privacy drives the abortion issue.  

And I neither failed biology class and am not "mentally retarded".

BTW, don't let the Palinites see you use the term retarded.  That's a big no-no now*.

*Unless of course, Rush Limbaugh says it.  If that is the case it is "satire".


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

ABikerSailor said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ad, which is* expected to promote an anti-choice message*, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.
> 
> 
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually..........no.
> 
> Tebow's mother was a missionary in the Philippines during the pregnancy.  She contracted and illness, and as a result of the illness and resulting toxic shock, her placenta ruptured.  The doctors in the PI didn't have the required medical facilities, and the doctor recommended that she have an abortion to stay alive.
> 
> Recovering from something like that is hard enough in the States, at current technology, how much harder do you think it was when Tebow was born?
> 
> Some of you people have stated that you are against abortion, except in cases to save the mother, incest, or rape.
> 
> This was a medically recommended thing, by a qualified doctor, because her chances of survival, as well as the child's were in the very low end of the scale.
> 
> So, take your false, hypocritical umbrage over this ad being protested.
> 
> Like I said in another thread, I wouldn't mind it so much if they would just TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH AND NOT SPIN THEIR BULLSHIT INTO IT!
> 
> THAT is why I think the ad is fucked.
Click to expand...



I posted the ad earlier.


Name one lie in it.

-She was pregnant

-She was in danger

-She was advised to abort

-She chose not to

-She had Tebow

-He became a football player

-She loves her son

Prove one of the claims false.


----------



## Anguille

Dr Gregg said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. If anything, The ad was pro choice. And that's really the issue. leaving the choice up to the woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the overall tone of the ad was that of pro-life, or at least that's how it was perceived, and why the left didn't want it aired.
> 
> That's the argument here...why would so-called pro choice supporters be against an ad that touched upon the results of one of the two 'choices' in such a situation?  Because this choice happened to be life, and those against the ad are not in fact pro-choice, but simply pro-abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that made it pro life was "Focus on teh Family" at the end. Without that, it could be taken for anything really. ANd I don't think people have a problem with the commercial now that we have seen it. But we know FoFs dirty, lying tactics to push their agenda, so most figured it would be a blaring anti choice commercial. But it wasn't
Click to expand...

I wonder if CBS requested Fuck the Family revise the ad after the anti CBS uproar? It's a possibility. Why they would even consider taking this organizations money is beyond common sense but money is money to many executives.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CurveLight said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that what grows inside of a woman isn't human?  Isn't life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that isn't what I'm saying.  I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born.  If you order scrambled eggs for breakfast are you asking for dancing chickens?
> What is your answer?
Click to expand...








Can someone shop the name to read 'curvelight'?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

ABikerSailor said:


> Right sperm meets right egg?  It starts to divide and form more cells.  At this time as well, it is STILL NOT A HUMAN.




Yes, it is.


I see you ditched biology 101 with Curve and JD


----------



## Skull Pilot

Anguille said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stretch even for you
> 
> and you forgot to mention the risks of abortion
> 
> If you are truly pro choice, you would not criticize a woman for choosing to have a child by saying she chose to risk her life.
> 
> people who have abortions risk their lives too.
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible to disagree with a woman's choice and still respect and honor her right to it. This is a fundamental concept many forced birthers have enormous difficulty grasping. !!!!!!
> 
> I support, respect and honor Mrs Tebrow's right to make a foolish decision concerning her own body. I think she made a dangerous choice (that is, *assuming* she has been truthful ). I couldn't care less if the world might have missed out on having one more football star.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to imply that I AM A FORCED BIRTHER?

You'd be wrong.......again.

I am of the mind that it is none of my business whether a woman chooses to have a kid or not.  Unlike you who must pass judgment on whether the choice was "good" or not.

That is assuming you are being truthful regarding your stance in the issue.


----------



## Anguille

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.  make whatever choice they want. The pro life people can't accept the prochoice people's choices, as they want to take away a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> It's one of the stock meaningless clever sounding retorts that inpress only the simple minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i knew you were impressed but i didn't expect you to admit it. what business is it of yours that she decided to carry a risky pregnancy to term?
> 
> here's a hint.
> none.
Click to expand...

LOL!!
And what business is it of USMB to run a message board? 

Here's a hint.

The same. 

None.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

geauxtohell said:


> What they won't show is the woman who gambled and came up snake eyes.




Nobody's stopping you from making such an ad


----------



## ABikerSailor

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988341 said:
			
		

> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article:
> 
> Tim's mother had the options of abortion or carrying the baby to term.  She opted for the latter; she_ chose_ to carry Tim to term.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this ad will promote an anti-choice message.  Or is 'choice' only applicable when the choice made is abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually..........no.
> 
> Tebow's mother was a missionary in the Philippines during the pregnancy.  She contracted and illness, and as a result of the illness and resulting toxic shock, her placenta ruptured.  The doctors in the PI didn't have the required medical facilities, and the doctor recommended that she have an abortion to stay alive.
> 
> Recovering from something like that is hard enough in the States, at current technology, how much harder do you think it was when Tebow was born?
> 
> Some of you people have stated that you are against abortion, except in cases to save the mother, incest, or rape.
> 
> This was a medically recommended thing, by a qualified doctor, because her chances of survival, as well as the child's were in the very low end of the scale.
> 
> So, take your false, hypocritical umbrage over this ad being protested.
> 
> Like I said in another thread, I wouldn't mind it so much if they would just TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH AND NOT SPIN THEIR BULLSHIT INTO IT!
> 
> THAT is why I think the ad is fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the ad earlier.
> 
> 
> Name one lie in it.
> 
> -She was pregnant
> 
> -She was in danger
> 
> -She was advised to abort
> 
> -She chose not to
> 
> -She had Tebow
> 
> -He became a football player
> 
> -She loves her son
> 
> Prove one of the claims false.
Click to expand...


I didn't say the claims were false, I said the ad was fucked because of the bullshit they spun into it.  

Context, as well as the actual words used are necessary here.

FoF (a radical Christian group vehemently against abortions), as well as Tebow being such a momma's boy, and his mother for telling people to go against doctors advice.

THAT is my problem with this ad.


----------



## geauxtohell

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988350 said:
			
		

> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right sperm meets right egg?  It starts to divide and form more cells.  At this time as well, it is STILL NOT A HUMAN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> 
> I see you ditched biology 101 with Curve and JD
Click to expand...


Ugh.  How lame that this issue always hedges on silly semantics.

I don't care what people call it, I still see it as fundamentally a patient autonomy and privacy issue.  

I feel the same way about P.A.S.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Immanuel said:


> We all assume that Mrs. Tebow's life was in grave danger (and maybe it was) because a doctor in the Philippines said so.  Doctors are not always right.  It appears that in Mrs Tebow's case the doctor was wrong.


That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.


Dumbass.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Queen said:


> People are flipping out because the story in the ad is a lie. Abortion is illegal in the Phillipines so doctors don't recommend it. They can't perform it. Do you think they would send a patient to a back alley illegal abortion or give her a coathanger?





Xenophon said:


> Why on earth does anyone read the blog of a loon  like Arrinana Huffington?
> 
> The woman is a fool and her blog is rediculous:
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines - Wikipedia, the free  encyclopedia
> 
> Its all sourced, so mock it if you like, abortions happen even in the  Phillipennes despite some silly lawyer's nonsense.



.


----------



## geauxtohell

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988358 said:
			
		

> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they won't show is the woman who gambled and came up snake eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody's stopping you from making such an ad
Click to expand...


Actually, time, money, and interest stop me.

This is not my cause de celebre' (or whatever).

At any rate, if anyone wants to dispute the danger an abrupted placenta places the mother in, there is plenty of scientific literature on the matter.

Ruptured placenta = maximal risk for D.I.C. and death from shock (if you survive the micro-thrombi).


----------



## Skull Pilot

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
			
		

> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all assume that Mrs. Tebow's life was in grave danger (and maybe it was) because a doctor in the Philippines said so.  Doctors are not always right.  It appears that in Mrs Tebow's case the doctor was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
Click to expand...


Doesn't it boil down to the simple fact that it was her choice to have a kid even if the pregnancy was high risk?

People do it every day

Shit you getting in your car is statistically more dangerous than her having a kid

so I guess we all make bad decisions


----------



## Anguille

geauxtohell said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit the ad was much ado about nothing.  I wonder if that was the original cut, or if FOTF did some editing?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the whole questioning of the validity of Mrs Tebro's story made them reconsider and do some editing. I don't think we will ever know for sure. Just like we can never know how much truth was in her story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never really was bothered with the "truth" of the story, I think it is as she claims it to be.
> 
> What did bother me was that she was essentially going to advocate that women ignore medical advice.
> 
> This wasn't an issue of her choosing not to have an "elective abortion", it was a case of her gambling with her life.
> 
> That's not a prudent message for FOTF to start advocating.
Click to expand...

I concur, but the questionable validity of her story made her actions even more disgraceful. 


"That's not a prudent message for FOTF to start advocating."

That's why I call it Fuck the Family.

They lost on this score.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Queen said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the illegal abortions women get in the Phillipines are by herbs. So yes, ingesting something to have an abortion is illegal there.
> 
> It didn't work out in her case, because she is obviously lying by saying a doctor suggested abortion in a country were abortion is completely and totally illegal.
> 
> Her story is a lie. She isn't lucky, she's a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pennyroyal Tea".................
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to call her a liar.  There are medical indications for termination of a pregnancy.  Any Doctor would admit that, and I doubt the laws of the country wouldn't make an exception for the life of the mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities
Click to expand...



The same link says many happen anyway.


Making _you_ a liar


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all assume that Mrs. Tebow's life was in grave danger (and maybe it was) because a doctor in the Philippines said so.  Doctors are not always right.  It appears that in Mrs Tebow's case the doctor was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't it boil down to the simple fact that it was her choice to have a kid even if the pregnancy was high risk?
> 
> People do it every day
> 
> Shit you getting in your car is statistically more dangerous than her having a kid
> 
> so I guess we all make bad decisions
Click to expand...


It is certainly her choice to ignore medical advice, just as it is for anyone else.

That doesn't make it a sound policy to advocate wholesale.  I suspect that is why FOTF showed a watered down version of the story.

BTW, it is certainly not statistically more dangerous to get in a car than to have an abrupted placenta.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Queen said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will comment when you respect the conversation.  *Kind of silly to ignore simple questions and put words in others mouths and expect a response.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what you just did with me. As noted above, you said 'I'm saying you're trying to equate the unborn with the born'.  YOU put words into MY mouth.  I did answer your question, again, as noted above.
> 
> Explain your scrambled eggs/dancing chicken analogy cause I don't know what you mean by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG It's not hard to understand.
> 
> You say a cluster of cells in a uterus is a child.
> 
> Do you think that when you order eggs for breakfast you're going to get a chicken dinner?
Click to expand...


Does it hurt, forcing yourself to say something so fucking stupid?


----------



## geauxtohell

Anguille said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the whole questioning of the validity of Mrs Tebro's story made them reconsider and do some editing. I don't think we will ever know for sure. Just like we can never know how much truth was in her story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never really was bothered with the "truth" of the story, I think it is as she claims it to be.
> 
> What did bother me was that she was essentially going to advocate that women ignore medical advice.
> 
> This wasn't an issue of her choosing not to have an "elective abortion", it was a case of her gambling with her life.
> 
> That's not a prudent message for FOTF to start advocating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I concur, but the questionable validity of her story made her actions even more disgraceful.
> 
> 
> "That's not a prudent message for FOTF to start advocating."
> 
> That's why I call it Fuck the Family.
> 
> They lost on this score.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  They won simply by generating controversy.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Immanuel said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Pennyroyal Tea".................
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to call her a liar.  There are medical indications for termination of a pregnancy.  Any Doctor would admit that, and I doubt the laws of the country wouldn't make an exception for the life of the mother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point. It's been posted on this thread. The abortion law in the Philpines is total and complete. There is no expection for the woman's life. That's the point of this thread. That's why the woman is a liar.
> 
> Abortion in the Philippines-Reasons and Responsibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply because it is illegal in the Philippines does not mean that it does not happen.
> 
> My Gosh!  Maybe the Pro-choice lobbyists have been lying to us all along.  They tell us that before Roe women went to the back alleys to get illegal abortions and that if Roe is overturned it will happen all over again.
> 
> Are you claiming that is a lie?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

Their ilk never tells the truth, Immie


----------



## Skull Pilot

geauxtohell said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it boil down to the simple fact that it was her choice to have a kid even if the pregnancy was high risk?
> 
> People do it every day
> 
> Shit you getting in your car is statistically more dangerous than her having a kid
> 
> so I guess we all make bad decisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is certainly her choice to ignore medical advice, just as it is for anyone else.
> 
> That doesn't make it a sound policy to advocate wholesale.  I suspect that is why FOTF showed a watered down version of the story.
> 
> BTW, it is certainly not statistically more dangerous to get in a car than to have an abrupted placenta.
Click to expand...


Are you sure??

https://health.google.com/health/ref/Placenta+abruptio



> Prognosis
> 
> *The mother does not usually die from this condition*. However, the following increase the risk for death in both the mother and baby:
> 
> * Absence of labor
> * Closed cervix
> * Delayed diagnosis and treatment of placenta abruption
> * Excessive blood loss resulting in shock
> * Hidden (concealed) vaginal bleeding in pregnancy
> 
> Fetal distress appears early in the condition in about half of all cases. The infants who live have a 40-50% chance of complications, which range from mild to severe.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

chanel said:


> Yes - and no one has seen the ad.  The protest is over the group; not the commercial.  Much ado about nothing if you ask me.


I posted this in another thread

Bing Video: Focus on the Family: Tebow


----------



## Anguille

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stretch even for you
> 
> and you forgot to mention the risks of abortion
> 
> If you are truly pro choice, you would not criticize a woman for choosing to have a child by saying she chose to risk her life.
> 
> people who have abortions risk their lives too.
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible to disagree with a woman's choice and still respect and honor her right to it. This is a fundamental concept many forced birthers have enormous difficulty grasping. !!!!!!
> 
> *I support, respect and honor* Mrs Tebrow's right to make a foolish decision concerning her own body. I think she made a dangerous choice (that is, *assuming* she has been truthful ). I couldn't care less if the world might have missed out on having one more football star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, it comes shining through in your every post on the subject.
Click to expand...

So you are calling me anti-choice.  

But *I support, respect and honor* your right to present yourself as intellectually dishonest and uninterested in debate.


----------



## Anguille

Skull Pilot said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all assume that Mrs. Tebow's life was in grave danger (and maybe it was) because a doctor in the Philippines said so.  Doctors are not always right.  It appears that in Mrs Tebow's case the doctor was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't it boil down to the simple fact that it was her choice to have a kid even if the pregnancy was high risk?
> 
> People do it every day
Click to expand...

Some people do it because they have no choice.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Anguille said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it boil down to the simple fact that it was her choice to have a kid even if the pregnancy was high risk?
> 
> People do it every day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people do it because they have no choice.
Click to expand...


This ad was about a woman who did have a choice so what's your point?


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it boil down to the simple fact that it was her choice to have a kid even if the pregnancy was high risk?
> 
> People do it every day
> 
> Shit you getting in your car is statistically more dangerous than her having a kid
> 
> so I guess we all make bad decisions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly her choice to ignore medical advice, just as it is for anyone else.
> 
> That doesn't make it a sound policy to advocate wholesale.  I suspect that is why FOTF showed a watered down version of the story.
> 
> BTW, it is certainly not statistically more dangerous to get in a car than to have an abrupted placenta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure??
> 
> https://health.google.com/health/ref/Placenta+abruptio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prognosis
> 
> *The mother does not usually die from this condition*. However, the following increase the risk for death in both the mother and baby:
> 
> * Absence of labor
> * Closed cervix
> * Delayed diagnosis and treatment of placenta abruption
> * Excessive blood loss resulting in shock
> * Hidden (concealed) vaginal bleeding in pregnancy
> 
> Fetal distress appears early in the condition in about half of all cases. The infants who live have a 40-50% chance of complications, which range from mild to severe.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Considering the finality of death, at what point are you comfortable with playing the odds of "usually doesn't"?


----------



## Skull Pilot

geauxtohell said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly her choice to ignore medical advice, just as it is for anyone else.
> 
> That doesn't make it a sound policy to advocate wholesale.  I suspect that is why FOTF showed a watered down version of the story.
> 
> BTW, it is certainly not statistically more dangerous to get in a car than to have an abrupted placenta.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure??
> 
> https://health.google.com/health/ref/Placenta+abruptio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prognosis
> 
> *The mother does not usually die from this condition*. However, the following increase the risk for death in both the mother and baby:
> 
> * Absence of labor
> * Closed cervix
> * Delayed diagnosis and treatment of placenta abruption
> * Excessive blood loss resulting in shock
> * Hidden (concealed) vaginal bleeding in pregnancy
> 
> Fetal distress appears early in the condition in about half of all cases. The infants who live have a 40-50% chance of complications, which range from mild to severe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering the finality of death, at what point are you comfortable with playing the odds of "usually doesn't"?
Click to expand...


That would be* my* choice not yours

why does that seem not to register with you?


----------



## Anguille

Skull Pilot said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stretch even for you
> 
> and you forgot to mention the risks of abortion
> 
> If you are truly pro choice, you would not criticize a woman for choosing to have a child by saying she chose to risk her life.
> 
> people who have abortions risk their lives too.
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible to disagree with a woman's choice and still respect and honor her right to it. This is a fundamental concept many forced birthers have enormous difficulty grasping. !!!!!!
> 
> I support, respect and honor Mrs Tebrow's right to make a foolish decision concerning her own body. I think she made a dangerous choice (that is, *assuming* she has been truthful ). I couldn't care less if the world might have missed out on having one more football star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that I AM A FORCED BIRTHER?
> 
> You'd be wrong.......again.
> 
> I am of the mind that it is none of my business whether a woman chooses to have a kid or not.  Unlike you who must pass judgment on whether the choice was "good" or not.
> 
> That is assuming you are being truthful regarding your stance in the issue.
Click to expand...

ou
You infer that. I implied nothing. You are not the topic of this thread.
If you are so "none of my business"  why do you make it your business to to comment on my having an opinion on Mrs. Tebrow's actions?


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure??
> 
> https://health.google.com/health/ref/Placenta+abruptio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the finality of death, at what point are you comfortable with playing the odds of "usually doesn't"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be* my* choice not yours
> 
> why does that seem not to register with you?
Click to expand...


I think it's not registering with you.  I never said it wasn't your choice (assuming you are a woman.  If you are a man, it's not your choice at all.).

I said advocating a position of telling women to ignore medical advice is bad ju ju.  

You are more than free to take un-necessary risks with your life.  Telling other people they should follow your lead is where it becomes idiotic.


----------



## Skull Pilot

geauxtohell said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the finality of death, at what point are you comfortable with playing the odds of "usually doesn't"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be* my* choice not yours
> 
> why does that seem not to register with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's not registering with you.  I never said it wasn't your choice (assuming you are a woman.  If you are a man, it's not your choice at all.).
> 
> I said advocating a position of telling women to ignore medical advice is bad ju ju.
> 
> You are more than free to take un-necessary risks with your life.  Telling other people they should follow your lead is where it becomes idiotic.
Click to expand...


The answer to your response is not gender specific.

You asked

*



			Considering the finality of death, at what point are you comfortable with playing the odds of "usually doesn't"?
		
Click to expand...

*
Why do I have to be a woman to answer that?

And people ignore medical advice all the time.  What do you care if they do?

Again not your choice but theirs.


----------



## Anguille

geauxtohell said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never really was bothered with the "truth" of the story, I think it is as she claims it to be.
> 
> What did bother me was that she was essentially going to advocate that women ignore medical advice.
> 
> This wasn't an issue of her choosing not to have an "elective abortion", it was a case of her gambling with her life.
> 
> That's not a prudent message for FOTF to start advocating.
> 
> 
> 
> I concur, but the questionable validity of her story made her actions even more disgraceful.
> 
> 
> "That's not a prudent message for FOTF to start advocating."
> 
> That's why I call it Fuck the Family.
> 
> They lost on this score.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  They won simply by generating controversy.
Click to expand...

Controversy is good. I think they lost. We shall see if privacy rights continue to be eroded as is their intent.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Anguille said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible to disagree with a woman's choice and still respect and honor her right to it. This is a fundamental concept many forced birthers have enormous difficulty grasping. !!!!!!
> 
> I support, respect and honor Mrs Tebrow's right to make a foolish decision concerning her own body. I think she made a dangerous choice (that is, *assuming* she has been truthful ). I couldn't care less if the world might have missed out on having one more football star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that I AM A FORCED BIRTHER?
> 
> You'd be wrong.......again.
> 
> I am of the mind that it is none of my business whether a woman chooses to have a kid or not.  Unlike you who must pass judgment on whether the choice was "good" or not.
> 
> That is assuming you are being truthful regarding your stance in the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ou
> You infer that. I implied nothing. You are not the topic of this thread.
> If you are so "none of my business"  why do you make it your business to to comment on my having an opinion on Mrs. Tebrow's actions?
Click to expand...


Because i don't like self righteous judgmental people


----------



## Skull Pilot

Anguille said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur, but the questionable validity of her story made her actions even more disgraceful.
> 
> 
> "That's not a prudent message for FOTF to start advocating."
> 
> That's why I call it Fuck the Family.
> 
> They lost on this score.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  They won simply by generating controversy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Controversy is good. I think they lost. We shall see if privacy rights continue to be eroded as is their intent.
Click to expand...


How does one woman telling people she was glad she had a kid  erode every other woman's rights?


----------



## Anguille

Skull Pilot said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it boil down to the simple fact that it was her choice to have a kid even if the pregnancy was high risk?
> 
> People do it every day
> 
> 
> 
> Some people do it because they have no choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This ad was about a woman who did have a choice so what's your point?
Click to expand...

You said people do it every day and I pointed out to you one of the reasons why. 

It's arguable how much choice Mrs, Tebrow actually had seeing as she was in a country where abortion was illegal.


----------



## Anguille

Skull Pilot said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that I AM A FORCED BIRTHER?
> 
> You'd be wrong.......again.
> 
> I am of the mind that it is none of my business whether a woman chooses to have a kid or not.  Unlike you who must pass judgment on whether the choice was "good" or not.
> 
> That is assuming you are being truthful regarding your stance in the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ou
> You infer that. I implied nothing. You are not the topic of this thread.
> If you are so "none of my business"  why do you make it your business to to comment on my having an opinion on Mrs. Tebrow's actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because i don't like self righteous judgmental people
Click to expand...

Then don't be one.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Anguille said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people do it because they have no choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This ad was about a woman who did have a choice so what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said people do it every day and I pointed out to you one of the reasons why.
> 
> It's arguable how much choice Mrs, Tebrow actually had seeing as she was in a country where abortion was illegal.
Click to expand...


she could have returned to the states for an abortion if she chose to

face it the fact that she didn't choose to abort bothers you.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Anguille said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> ou
> You infer that. I implied nothing. You are not the topic of this thread.
> If you are so "none of my business"  why do you make it your business to to comment on my having an opinion on Mrs. Tebrow's actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because i don't like self righteous judgmental people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then don't be one.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one judging a woman for having a kid.  you are


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> The answer to your response is not gender specific.
> 
> You asked
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the finality of death, at what point are you comfortable with playing the odds of "usually doesn't"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Why do I have to be a woman to answer that?



Because, legally, if you are not the mother; you have no say in the matter.  If my wife got pregnant and decided to have an abortion, I could not legally stop her.



> And people ignore medical advice all the time.  What do you care if they do?



Because I see the consequences of it as a medical student.   



> Again not your choice but theirs.



I agree.  My issue with this, again, is in telling other women that they should also ignore medical advice.


----------



## Anguille

Skull Pilot said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This ad was about a woman who did have a choice so what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> You said people do it every day and I pointed out to you one of the reasons why.
> 
> It's arguable how much choice Mrs, Tebrow actually had seeing as she was in a country where abortion was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> she could have returned to the states for an abortion if she chose to
> 
> face it the fact that she didn't choose to abort bothers you.
Click to expand...

Since I think she invented the whole story her so-called choice could hardly bother me. Wouldn't bother me anyway since I don't know her. 

That Fuck the Family encourages women to disregard medical advice *does *bother me. Face that fact and deal.
Maybe you are for the celebration of ignoring doctor's advice, maybe this is the advice you want any children you may have to follow? That would be sad.

If you can't, kindly crawl back into your "non judgmental' hole and whine to yourself.


----------



## Skull Pilot

geauxtohell said:


> The answer to your response is not gender specific.
> 
> You asked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the finality of death, at what point are you comfortable with playing the odds of "usually doesn't"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Why do I have to be a woman to answer that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, legally, if you are not the mother; you have no say in the matter.  If my wife got pregnant and decided to have an abortion, I could not legally stop her.
Click to expand...


You question had nothing to do with abortion but rather the assessment and acceptance of risk.



> And people ignore medical advice all the time.  What do you care if they do?
> 
> Because I see the consequences of it as a medical student.




So you should respect your patients wishes even if you believe them wrong.



> Again not your choice but theirs.
> 
> I agree.  My issue with this, again, is in telling other women that they should also ignore medical advice.



She did not tell other women to do any such thing.  She merely stated what she did and that she was glad she did


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> I'm not the one judging a woman for having a kid.  you are



Lame.  Until they decided to make the story a superbowl ad, it was a private ordeal and no one cared.

Now that they did my sentiments are that I am glad that Tebow's mom didn't have an adverse outcome.

I think it's absurd to advocate a position that tells women they should ignore medical advice.

You guys don't do nuance, do you?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Anguille said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said people do it every day and I pointed out to you one of the reasons why.
> 
> It's arguable how much choice Mrs, Tebrow actually had seeing as she was in a country where abortion was illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she could have returned to the states for an abortion if she chose to
> 
> face it the fact that she didn't choose to abort bothers you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since I think she invented the whole story her so-called choice could hardly bother me. Wouldn't bother me anyway since I don't know her.
> 
> That Fuck the Family encourages women to disregard medical advice *does *bother me. Face that fact and deal.
> Maybe you are for the celebration of ignoring doctor's advice, maybe this is the advice you want any children you may have to follow? That would be sad.
> 
> If you can't, kindly crawl back into your "non judgmental' hole and whine to yourself.
Click to expand...


She did not encourage any such thing.  She merely stated that she chose to try to carry the child to term and that she was glad she did

And you have no proof she made up the whole thing do you?


----------



## Skull Pilot

geauxtohell said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one judging a woman for having a kid.  you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lame.  Until they decided to make the story a superbowl ad, it was a private ordeal and no one cared.
> 
> Now that they did my sentiments are that I am glad that Tebow's mom didn't have an adverse outcome.
> 
> I think it's absurd to advocate a position that tells women they should ignore medical advice.
> 
> You guys don't do nuance, do you?
Click to expand...


Why does it matter when the ad was aired.


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> You question had nothing to do with abortion but rather the assessment and acceptance of risk.



No doubt.  I made that response, because you decided to speak in the first person.  Since I know see you are a man, it's not really your choice at all.

Back to the risk issue; perhaps you can answer the original question.



> So you should respect your patients wishes even if you believe them wrong.



Yeah, that's what we are taught.  I only take umbrage with it if the patients decide to tell other patients to behave in an idiotic manner.



> She did not tell other women to do any such thing.  She merely stated what she did and that she was glad she did



You obviously haven't watched the whole video on the website that the ad directed people too, have you?


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one judging a woman for having a kid.  you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lame.  Until they decided to make the story a superbowl ad, it was a private ordeal and no one cared.
> 
> Now that they did my sentiments are that I am glad that Tebow's mom didn't have an adverse outcome.
> 
> I think it's absurd to advocate a position that tells women they should ignore medical advice.
> 
> You guys don't do nuance, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter when the ad was aired.
Click to expand...


Are you serious or just being deliberately obtuse?


----------



## Skull Pilot

geauxtohell said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You question had nothing to do with abortion but rather the assessment and acceptance of risk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt.  I made that response, because you decided to speak in the first person.  Since I know see you are a man, it's not really your choice at all.
> 
> Back to the risk issue; perhaps you can answer the original question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you should respect your patients wishes even if you believe them wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what we are taught.  I only take umbrage with it if the patients decide to tell other patients to behave in an idiotic manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She did not tell other women to do any such thing.  She merely stated what she did and that she was glad she did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously haven't watched the whole video on the website that the ad directed people too, have you?
Click to expand...


The original question cannot be answered here because I have not been presented with a situation where i was forced to make such an assessment.  but regardless of the situation, the choice is mine and mine alone.  You have no right to judge my choice as wrong if you disagree.

So you think it's idiotic to disagree with a doctor.  So all people who disagree with their doctors are idiots?

I saw the ad as it aired on TV.  That is the issue is it not?>


----------



## Skull Pilot

geauxtohell said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lame.  Until they decided to make the story a superbowl ad, it was a private ordeal and no one cared.
> 
> Now that they did my sentiments are that I am glad that Tebow's mom didn't have an adverse outcome.
> 
> I think it's absurd to advocate a position that tells women they should ignore medical advice.
> 
> You guys don't do nuance, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter when the ad was aired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious or just being deliberately obtuse?
Click to expand...

So if the ad aired during the Olympic figure skating gold medal event, you wouldn't be as irate?


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> The original question cannot be answered here because I have not been presented with a situation where i was forced to make such an assessment.



Nor will you.  You aren't a woman.

At any rate, your response is a lot easier than trying to answer the question, huh?  



> but regardless of the situation, the choice is mine and mine alone.



Unless you are the mother, it is not your choice at all.



> You have no right to judge my choice as wrong if you disagree.



I am not judging someone elses' "choice", I am judging someone else giving bad advice wholesale on the most watched program in television history.  That ended up not being the case. Like I said, much ado about nothing.  

Though the FOTF video is much more pointed (since you obviously haven't seen it).



> So you think it's idiotic to disagree with a doctor.  So all people who disagree with their doctors are idiots?



Kindly don't put words in my mouth.  This little attempt at digression is silly and will remain unanswered.



> I saw the ad as it aired on TV.  That is the issue is it not?>



You aren't reading what am actually posting are you?  I think I see the problem.


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> So if the ad aired during the Olympic figure skating gold medal event, you wouldn't be as irate?



First, I am not irate about the ad.  You obviously haven't read what I actually said about it.

Secondly, and I thought this was obvious, the Superbowl is germane to the issue due to its audience.


----------



## Anguille

Skull Pilot said:


> She did not tell other women to do any such thing.  She merely stated what she did and that she was glad she did


Sugarcoat it all you want. "merely"


----------



## geauxtohell

Anguille said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> She did not tell other women to do any such thing.  She merely stated what she did and that she was glad she did
> 
> 
> 
> Sugarcoat it all you want. "merely"
Click to expand...


BTW, have you seen the FOTF segment?  The mom's story is much more ambiguous.  I am beginning to think there might be some truth in your claim that Tebow's mom might have hyped this story.


----------



## Anguille

Skull Pilot said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I think she invented the whole story her so-called choice could hardly bother me. Wouldn't bother me anyway since I don't know her.
> 
> That Fuck the Family encourages women to disregard medical advice *does *bother me. Face that fact and deal.
> Maybe you are for the celebration of ignoring doctor's advice, maybe this is the advice you want any children you may have to follow? That would be sad.
> 
> If you can't, kindly crawl back into your "non judgmental' hole and whine to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She did not encourage any such thing.  She merely stated that she chose to try to carry the child to term and that she was glad she did
> 
> And you have no proof she made up the whole thing do you?
Click to expand...

There is that whimsical "merely" again.


----------



## Skull Pilot

geauxtohell said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original question cannot be answered here because I have not been presented with a situation where i was forced to make such an assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor will you.  You aren't a woman.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight.  A man cannot have a medical condidtion where he may choose to weigh the risk of not following a doctor's advice?

You're in medical school right?

And you wonder why people don't listen to doctors.



> At any rate, your response is a lot easier than trying to answer the question, huh?



Ask me a question.  At what point would I not take the advice of a doctor?

It depends on the specifics which you have not given.



> but regardless of the situation, the choice is mine and mine alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are the mother, it is not your choice at all.
Click to expand...


What?

The whole point is that a woman does have a choice.   But you want it to be a choice you agree with.





> I am not judging someone elses' "choice", I am judging someone else giving bad advice wholesale on the most watched program in television history.  That ended up not being the case. Like I said, much ado about nothing.
> 
> Though the FOTF video is much more pointed (since you obviously haven't seen it).



I said I saw the ad as it was aired on TV and in that ad I did not hear any advice to do anything.



> So you think it's idiotic to disagree with a doctor.  So all people who disagree with their doctors are idiots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kindly don't put words in my mouth.  This little attempt at digression is silly and will remain unanswered.
Click to expand...



That was a question if you didn't get it and you said 





> Yeah, that's what we are taught. I only take umbrage with it if the patients decide to tell other patients to behave in an idiotic manner.


  So what is an idiotic manner?  Going against medical advice and having a kid?





> I saw the ad as it aired on TV.  That is the issue is it not?>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't reading what am actually posting are you?  I think I see the problem.
Click to expand...


I am but I don't know why i bother.


----------



## Anguille

oops! I accidentally reread one of your posts, Pilot.

LOL!  they all sound alike.


----------



## Anguille

Skull Pilot said:


> So you think it's idiotic to disagree with a doctor.  So all people who disagree with their doctors are idiots?


You flunked 3rd grade Logic, I see.


----------



## Anguille

Skull Pilot said:


> You have no right to judge my choice as wrong if you disagree.


So do as I say but not as I do?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Anguille said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no right to judge my choice as wrong if you disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> So do as I say but not as I do?
Click to expand...


Where did I say you were wrong?

I said you were self righteous and judgmental

I am correct in that assessment.


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> So let me get this straight.  A man cannot have a medical condidtion where he may choose to weigh the risk of not following a doctor's advice?



I never stated that.  We were talking specifically about placental abruption, which you deemed no less dangerous than riding in a car. 

Idiotic.  Find a Dr. who will tell you that it's not a medical emergency.



> You're in medical school right?



Yes, you obviously are not.



> And you wonder why people don't listen to doctors.



Not really.



> Ask me a question.  At what point would I not take the advice of a doctor?
> 
> It depends on the specifics which you have not given.



And is further pointless since I see no need to play 20 questions with you.  I've never stated you don't have a choice.  I've stated I disagree with a person taking their poor choices and advising other people to do the same.



> What?
> 
> The whole point is that a woman does have a choice.   But you want it to be a choice you agree with.



Bullshit.  Tell me what I do and do not "agree with".  Please.



> I said I saw the ad as it was aired on TV and in that ad I did not hear any advice to do anything.



No shit.  My take on the SB ad, since you obviously didn't read it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1988152-post303.html



> Touched a nerve huh?



Intellectual dishonesty tends to do that to me.  



> I am but I don't know why i bother.



You are obviously not.


----------



## Anguille

geauxtohell said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> She did not tell other women to do any such thing.  She merely stated what she did and that she was glad she did
> 
> 
> 
> Sugarcoat it all you want. "merely"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, have you seen the FOTF segment?  The mom's story is much more ambiguous.  I am beginning to think there might be some truth in your claim that Tebow's mom might have hyped this story.
Click to expand...

No, I should take a look.


----------



## geauxtohell

Anguille said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sugarcoat it all you want. "merely"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, have you seen the FOTF segment?  The mom's story is much more ambiguous.  I am beginning to think there might be some truth in your claim that Tebow's mom might have hyped this story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I should take a look.
Click to expand...


Do.  I'd be interested in your opinion.  Tebow's mom never states she was diagnosed with a placental abrubtion in the ad.  Instead, she states she had to deal with a Dr. who appeared to think she should abort the baby for reasons unknown (seriously, other than stating that the Dr. deemed it as "just a mass of cells" we are never told why).  This bad Dr./Patient encounter convinced Mrs. Tebow to abandon any prenatal care for her child until delivery (maybe she couldn't find another Dr.?)

It wasn't until the delivery that they discovered the placenta had a minor abruption. 

Granted, it's a form of a PSA, so I can understand the desire to not get in the weeds in the medical jargon that I am hung up on, but again, it seems like "much ado about nothing".


----------



## Zona

Remember ladies, don't have an abortion if your life is in jeopardy.  You will be fine and have a potential nfl player for a kid.  

Makes sense.


----------



## Skull Pilot

geauxtohell said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  A man cannot have a medical condidtion where he may choose to weigh the risk of not following a doctor's advice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never stated that.  We were talking specifically about placental abruption, which you deemed no less dangerous than riding in a car.
Click to expand...


You said more than once that because I was not a woman.....

And the question you asked about risk was not about a specific medical condition.

Do you want me to quote it again?

And I said having a kid was no more dangerous than getting in a care before placental abruption was mentioned.  After I posted that mothers don't usually die from it

which is where you jumped in.

Try to keep up.


> Idiotic.  Find a Dr. who will tell you that it's not a medical emergency.



Who said it wasn't?



> You're in medical school right?





> Yes, you obviously are not.



And now I know why I don't trust doctors.



> And is further pointless since I see no need to play 20 questions with you.  I've never stated you don't have a choice.  I've stated I disagree with a person taking their poor choices and advising other people to do the same.



She has every right to say what she did. Even if you don't agree with it.


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> You said more than once that because I was not a woman.....
> 
> And the question you asked about risk was not about a specific medical condition.
> 
> Do you want me to quote it again?
> 
> And I said having a kid was no more dangerous than getting in a care before placental abruption was mentioned.  After I posted that mothers don't usually die from it
> 
> which is where you jumped in.
> 
> Try to keep up.



Coming from you, that last statement is too funny.  

Since you are hopelessly lost, let me draw you a map:  the issue has always been placental abruption, which you've deemed as not that serious since a website told you that most of the time the mother lives.  Prior to the Superbowl, my issue with the ad is that, per the hype around it, Tebow's mom choose to ignore medical advice and was going to advise other women to do the same.  After the Superbowl, I stated the hype was much ado about nothing.  Now, after seeing the FOTF ad, I am dubious that Tebow's mom was ever knowingly in a medical predicament where she had to make a hard choice.  I am beginning to suspect that she might have hyped the severity of the matter a little bit.  

Now let me address something else you said that was curious; that riding in a car was more dangerous than childbirth.  It's curious because childbirth has, historically, been the leading mortality factor for women.  If it is deemed as "not that dangerous" now it is because medicine has advanced and women listen to their Drs.   



> Who said it wasn't?



I am assuming you are going to claim you did not.  I agree you did not state that directly, though you were pretty dismissive of the matter earlier.




> And now I know why I don't trust doctors.



Good thing for you, I am not a doctor.



> She has every right to say what she did. Even if you don't agree with it.



Wow, now you are going to skew this into a first amendment issue? 

Guess what, I never stated she didn't have a right to say what she said.

Guess we can get rid of that strawman, huh?


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible to disagree with a woman's choice and still respect and honor her right to it. This is a fundamental concept many forced birthers have enormous difficulty grasping. !!!!!!
> 
> *I support, respect and honor* Mrs Tebrow's right to make a foolish decision concerning her own body. I think she made a dangerous choice (that is, *assuming* she has been truthful ). I couldn't care less if the world might have missed out on having one more football star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, it comes shining through in your every post on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are calling me anti-choice.
> 
> But *I support, respect and honor* your right to present yourself as intellectually dishonest and uninterested in debate.
Click to expand...


no, i'm saying you neither support, honor nor respect mrs tebrow's right to make her *foolish* choice. quite the opposite, in fact. you've mocked, demeaned and questioned the truthfulness of the woman throughout this thread.

i thought i was pretty clear. *shrug*


----------



## Anguille

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, it comes shining through in your every post on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are calling me anti-choice.
> 
> But *I support, respect and honor* your right to present yourself as intellectually dishonest and uninterested in debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, i'm saying you neither support, honor nor respect mrs tebrow's right to make her *foolish* choice. quite the opposite, in fact. you've mocked, demeaned and questioned the truthfulness of the woman throughout this thread.
> 
> i thought i was pretty clear. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Amazing!  Someone even denser than Skunk Pilot! Mrs T.' s right is something she shares with every woman in America. Her penchant for flights of fancy, attention seeking and lying is something she only shares with a few. I'm sure with not much more effort you can attain her standard too.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Immanuel said:


> That would insinuate that a doctor would recommend an abortion and do so in a presumably unhealthy environment... i.e. a back alley.



You can't be this dense. Its a fucking figure of speech. It doesn't literally mean its performed in a back alley shit for brains. Do you not understand basic figures of speech? How many hours do you stay up wandering how kids who "grow up on the street" don't get run over by cars while they are sleeping?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Skull Pilot said:


> You said more than once that because I was not a woman.....
> 
> And the question you asked about risk was not about a specific medical condition.
> 
> Do you want me to quote it again?
> 
> And I said having a kid was no more dangerous than getting in a care before placental abruption was mentioned.  After I posted that mothers don't usually die from it
> 
> which is where you jumped in.
> 
> Try to keep up.





> Coming from you, that last statement is too funny.
> 
> Since you are hopelessly lost, let me draw you a map:  the issue has always been placental abruption, which you've deemed as not that serious since a website told you that most of the time the mother lives.  Prior to the Superbowl, my issue with the ad is that, per the hype around it, Tebow's mom choose to ignore medical advice and was going to advise other women to do the same.  After the Superbowl, I stated the hype was much ado about nothing.  Now, after seeing the FOTF ad, I am dubious that Tebow's mom was ever knowingly in a medical predicament where she had to make a hard choice.  I am beginning to suspect that she might have hyped the severity of the matter a little bit.



I got in to the thread late.  There was no mention in the ad that was aired about her condition.  I didn't seek out any other versions of tha ad because the ad that aired during the game was the issue not the ad on piece on the internet.

If you just watched the aired ad, there was nothing offensive about it.

My point was that after all the hype and hyperbole, the ad that was aired was pretty benign.&#9824;



> Now let me address something else you said that was curious; that riding in a car was more dangerous than childbirth.  It's curious because childbirth has, historically, been the leading mortality factor for women.  If it is deemed as "not that dangerous" now it is because medicine has advanced and women listen to their Drs.



Historically, people didn't live much past 40.  Childbirth is not the danger it used to be. I thought you wanted to be a doctor, you should know this.  Even Mrs Tebow's condition is not fatal.  With the proper care a woman with placental abruption won't usually die from it.

So if she made that choice good for her.  If another woman makes that choice, it is none of your concern.




> And now I know why I don't trust doctors.





> Good thing for you, I am not a doctor.



Let's hope you never will be.



> She has every right to say what she did. Even if you don't agree with it.





> Wow, now you are going to skew this into a first amendment issue?
> 
> Guess what, I never stated she didn't have a right to say what she said.
> 
> Guess we can get rid of that strawman, huh?



Not at all.  She made a choice you didn't disagree with and you believe she shouldn't tell anyone about it because they might make the same "idiotic" choice.

Basic right of free speech there.


----------



## Immanuel

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
			
		

> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all assume that Mrs. Tebow's life was in grave danger (and maybe it was) because a doctor in the Philippines said so.  Doctors are not always right.  It appears that in Mrs Tebow's case the doctor was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
Click to expand...


No, it does not mean that the doc was wrong.  I am certain he was right that she was taking a risk and quite possibly a serious risk.  He advised her to have an abortion.  She chose not to heed his advice for which people like Anguille have condemned her.

He was, however, wrong on the odds. 

Sometimes doctors are too conservative.  Sometimes they "err" on the side of caution.  In this case, if she had heeded his advice there would have been at least one death.  

In this case, it appears that the doctor was, in fact, erring on the side of caution.  

BTW, I didn't say that there was no risk at all, but rather the insinuation that she *could very possibly die* if she gave birth appears to have been wrong.  

Also, odds were that the Colts would be Super Bowl Champs today... guess what just like the odds in this case... those odds were wrong.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel

SpidermanTuba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would insinuate that a doctor would recommend an abortion and do so in a presumably unhealthy environment... i.e. a back alley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be this dense. Its a fucking figure of speech. It doesn't literally mean its performed in a back alley shit for brains. Do you not understand basic figures of speech? How many hours do you stay up wandering how kids who "grow up on the street" don't get run over by cars while they are sleeping?
Click to expand...


No shit, shit-for-brains, it is a figure of speech.  Am I not allowed to use fucking figures of speech too? 

"Back Alley" typically meant in unsanitized rooms performed by unqualified individuals in unsafe conditions and that is what my post insinuated.  Generally, they were performed off the main road (back alleys) in areas that the authorities would not "stumble" (another fucking figure of speech) upon the procedures that were going on in the "back rooms" of these "doctors" (two more fucking figures of speech) offices.

Immie


----------



## del

Anguille said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are calling me anti-choice.
> 
> But *I support, respect and honor* your right to present yourself as intellectually dishonest and uninterested in debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, i'm saying you neither support, honor nor respect mrs tebrow's right to make her *foolish* choice. quite the opposite, in fact. you've mocked, demeaned and questioned the truthfulness of the woman throughout this thread.
> 
> i thought i was pretty clear. *shrug*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing!  Someone even denser than Skunk Pilot! Mrs T.' s right is something she shares with every woman in America. Her penchant for flights of fancy, attention seeking and lying is something she only shares with a few. I'm sure with not much more effort you can attain her standard too.
Click to expand...


QED

i'll endeavor to persevere


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all assume that Mrs. Tebow's life was in grave danger (and maybe it was) because a doctor in the Philippines said so.  Doctors are not always right.  It appears that in Mrs Tebow's case the doctor was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean that the doc was wrong.  I am certain he was right that she was taking a risk and quite possibly a serious risk.  He advised her to have an abortion.  She chose not to heed his advice for which people like Anguille have condemned her.
> 
> He was, however, wrong on the odds.
> 
> Sometimes doctors are too conservative.  Sometimes they "err" on the side of caution.  In this case, if she had heeded his advice there would have been at least one death.
> 
> In this case, it appears that the doctor was, in fact, erring on the side of caution.
> 
> BTW, I didn't say that there was no risk at all, but rather the insinuation that she *could very possibly die* if she gave birth appears to have been wrong.
> 
> Also, odds were that the Colts would be Super Bowl Champs today... guess what just like the odds in this case... those odds were wrong.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...



How do we know what her doctor said?


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean that the doc was wrong.  I am certain he was right that she was taking a risk and quite possibly a serious risk.  He advised her to have an abortion.  She chose not to heed his advice for which people like Anguille have condemned her.
> 
> He was, however, wrong on the odds.
> 
> Sometimes doctors are too conservative.  Sometimes they "err" on the side of caution.  In this case, if she had heeded his advice there would have been at least one death.
> 
> In this case, it appears that the doctor was, in fact, erring on the side of caution.
> 
> BTW, I didn't say that there was no risk at all, but rather the insinuation that she *could very possibly die* if she gave birth appears to have been wrong.
> 
> Also, odds were that the Colts would be Super Bowl Champs today... guess what just like the odds in this case... those odds were wrong.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know what her doctor said?
Click to expand...


Only from the information that has been insinuated since this controversy began.

And going from that, we only know that the doctor advised that she have an abortion due to health risks.  We have to assume that the doctor did not advise an illegal procedure, that would have put his freedom in jeopardy, without serious reason... i.e. "chances are that you could very possibly die".

I would say that the odds  are very good that the doctor would not do such a thing.  Wouldn't you?

Immie


----------



## del

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean that the doc was wrong.  I am certain he was right that she was taking a risk and quite possibly a serious risk.  He advised her to have an abortion.  She chose not to heed his advice for which people like Anguille have condemned her.
> 
> He was, however, wrong on the odds.
> 
> Sometimes doctors are too conservative.  Sometimes they "err" on the side of caution.  In this case, if she had heeded his advice there would have been at least one death.
> 
> In this case, it appears that the doctor was, in fact, erring on the side of caution.
> 
> BTW, I didn't say that there was no risk at all, but rather the insinuation that she *could very possibly die* if she gave birth appears to have been wrong.
> 
> Also, odds were that the Colts would be Super Bowl Champs today... guess what just like the odds in this case... those odds were wrong.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know what her doctor said?
Click to expand...


the archangel raphael told me.


----------



## CurveLight

Immanuel said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean that the doc was wrong.  I am certain he was right that she was taking a risk and quite possibly a serious risk.  He advised her to have an abortion.  She chose not to heed his advice for which people like Anguille have condemned her.
> 
> He was, however, wrong on the odds.
> 
> Sometimes doctors are too conservative.  Sometimes they "err" on the side of caution.  In this case, if she had heeded his advice there would have been at least one death.
> 
> In this case, it appears that the doctor was, in fact, erring on the side of caution.
> 
> BTW, I didn't say that there was no risk at all, but rather the insinuation that she *could very possibly die* if she gave birth appears to have been wrong.
> 
> Also, odds were that the Colts would be Super Bowl Champs today... guess what just like the odds in this case... those odds were wrong.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know what her doctor said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only from the information that has been insinuated since this controversy began.
> 
> And going from that, we only know that the doctor advised that she have an abortion due to health risks.  We have to assume that the doctor did not advise an illegal procedure, that would have put his freedom in jeopardy, without serious reason... i.e. "chances are that you could very possibly die".
> 
> I would say that the odds  are very good that the doctor would not do such a thing.  Wouldn't you?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


So you're assuming what the doctor said but have no way of knowing or verifying.  Correct?


----------



## Immanuel

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know what her doctor said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only from the information that has been insinuated since this controversy began.
> 
> And going from that, we only know that the doctor advised that she have an abortion due to health risks.  We have to assume that the doctor did not advise an illegal procedure, that would have put his freedom in jeopardy, without serious reason... i.e. "chances are that you could very possibly die".
> 
> I would say that the odds  are very good that the doctor would not do such a thing.  Wouldn't you?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're assuming what the doctor said but have no way of knowing or verifying.  Correct?
Click to expand...


Does anyone involved in this discussion have any way of knowing or verifying anything?

Immie


----------



## Skull Pilot

Isn't it sad really that the choice of one woman made freely with all risks and benefits weighed is causing such an uproar (genuine or not).


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Skull Pilot said:


> Isn't it sad really that the choice of one woman made freely with all risks and benefits weighed is causing such an uproar (genuine or not).



indeed.


----------



## ItHappens

Is it documented this was a Doctor in the Phillipines or had she gone off the islands to receive such important care?


----------



## Immanuel

ItHappens said:


> Is it documented this was a Doctor in the Phillipines or had she gone off the islands to receive such important care?



As far as I know, it is all information leaked by the Pro-choice movement attempting to bad-mouth FotF.  To my knowledge, Focus on the Family has not made any statements about it although I imagine there is something on their website, which by the way, the ad sent viewers to.

Immie


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> I got in to the thread late.  There was no mention in the ad that was aired about her condition.  I didn't seek out any other versions of tha ad because the ad that aired during the game was the issue not the ad on piece on the internet.
> 
> If you just watched the aired ad, there was nothing offensive about it.
> 
> My point was that after all the hype and hyperbole, the ad that was aired was pretty benign.&#9824;



No shit.  I said the same thing four pages ago.



> Historically, people didn't live much past 40.  Childbirth is not the danger it used to be. I thought you wanted to be a doctor, you should know this.



No shit.  You are echoing my exact words.



> Even Mrs Tebow's condition is not fatal.  With the proper care a woman with placental abruption won't usually die from it.



According to what? Your website?  Like I said, it's a medical emergency.  Ironically, Tebow's mom said that she refused to get any prenatal care after being told she should abort.  However, the interview makes it seem much less like a medical issue and more like a personality conflict between her and her Dr.



> So if she made that choice good for her.  If another woman makes that choice, it is none of your concern.



I agree, up until she starts running ads telling women to ignore medical advice.  That ended up not being the case here.



> Let's hope you never will be.



Whether I succeed or not will have nothing to do with your hopes and everything to do with mine.  



> Not at all.  She made a choice you didn't disagree with and you believe she shouldn't tell anyone about it because they might make the same "idiotic" choice.
> 
> Basic right of free speech there.



LMAO.  You really are a dim bulb.  I never said Tebow's mom didn't have a constitutional right to say what she wanted to say.  

I said it was wrong for her to tell women to ignore medical advice.  

That's it.  

That's not what she ended up doing in the ad.  So, as I said, much ado about nothing.

You've been so out to lunch on this issue, it's not even funny.


----------



## geauxtohell

Immanuel said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all assume that Mrs. Tebow's life was in grave danger (and maybe it was) because a doctor in the Philippines said so.  Doctors are not always right.  It appears that in Mrs Tebow's case the doctor was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean that the doc was wrong.  I am certain he was right that she was taking a risk and quite possibly a serious risk.  He advised her to have an abortion.  She chose not to heed his advice for which people like Anguille have condemned her.
> 
> He was, however, wrong on the odds.
> 
> Sometimes doctors are too conservative.  Sometimes they "err" on the side of caution.  In this case, if she had heeded his advice there would have been at least one death.
> 
> In this case, it appears that the doctor was, in fact, erring on the side of caution.
> 
> BTW, I didn't say that there was no risk at all, but rather the insinuation that she *could very possibly die* if she gave birth appears to have been wrong.
> 
> Also, odds were that the Colts would be Super Bowl Champs today... guess what just like the odds in this case... those odds were wrong.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


If you actually watch the interview on the FOTF site, it seems that the Tebows weren't even aware of the abrupton until delivery.  

It puts the whole issue in a different light.

It seems to me that, at best, Mrs. Tebow has hyped this a little (or maybe other hyped it).  

You can watch her interview and follow the fact pattern and tell me if you think otherwise, though.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1988365 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That she beat the odds doesn't mean the doc was wrong abut the odds.
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean that the doc was wrong.  I am certain he was right that she was taking a risk and quite possibly a serious risk.  He advised her to have an abortion.  She chose not to heed his advice for which people like Anguille have condemned her.
> 
> He was, however, wrong on the odds.
> 
> Sometimes doctors are too conservative.  Sometimes they "err" on the side of caution.  In this case, if she had heeded his advice there would have been at least one death.
> 
> In this case, it appears that the doctor was, in fact, erring on the side of caution.
> 
> BTW, I didn't say that there was no risk at all, but rather the insinuation that she *could very possibly die* if she gave birth appears to have been wrong.
> 
> Also, odds were that the Colts would be Super Bowl Champs today... guess what just like the odds in this case... those odds were wrong.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know what her doctor said?
Click to expand...


Purely per her reporting, which is not really helpful.  Tebow's mom makes it seem like she ran into a pro-abortion Dr. who expressed a personal opinion she disagreed with, but never gave her a medical indication for needing to abort her child.  

Like I said, it seems a little hyped by FOTF.  Tebow's mom had no intention of aborting her child based on someone elses' personal opinion. 

In that light, it seems a little bit like a fish tale.


----------

