Pro-abortionists furious at Tim Tebow ad

[Anguille]

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

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

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

Immie

You have issues. Control freaks are known for that.

Clearly you are the control freak.

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

Immie

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

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

Make that a gay smoking bar.

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

 

[manifold]

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

Clearly you've never met Anguille.

 

[Anguille]

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

Clearly you've never met Anguille.

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

 

[Immanuel]

You have issues. Control freaks are known for that.

Clearly you are the control freak.

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

Immie

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

Wrong!!!

You changed my words in that post.

I said that my neighbor has the right to complain if I let my lawn go. I never said that I would complain if he did.

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

Make that a gay smoking bar.

Wrong again except that bars (smoking or not) do not belong in residential neighborhoods.

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

That would be great! A perfect opportunity to witness to and care for the young ladies in need and for an opportunity to get to know the providers and their assistants in a non-confrontational manner.

The only way we are ever going to solve our differences is if we are willing to sit down together and speak about the issues. I could do that with abortion providers... bet you couldn't with smokers.

Immie

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

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


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

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

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

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

I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.

But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.

 

[sboyle24]

You can think abortions are wrong and still believe in other peoples' right to think and do what they feel you know.

 

[Anguille]

Clearly you are the control freak.

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

Immie

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

Wrong!!!

You changed my words in that post. 1
I said that my neighbor has the right to complain if I let my lawn go. I never said that I would complain if he did.

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

Make that a gay smoking bar.

Wrong again except that bars (smoking or not) do not belong in residential neighborhoods. 2

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

That would be great! A perfect opportunity to witness to and care for the young ladies in need and for an opportunity to get to know the providers and their assistants in a non-confrontational manner.

The only way we are ever going to solve our differences is if we are willing to sit down together and speak about the issues. I could do that with abortion providers... bet you couldn't with smokers. 3

Immie

1 How could I change your post? Only you have access to your account. You must have changed it.

2 Why not? Plenty of residential neighborhoods have bars. Are you now proposing we ban them? I thought your angle was leaving decisions up to property owners?

3 I sincerely think that you'd better leave any young ladies entering abortion provider's offices alone. Trust me, if they want to meet with you, they'll come knocking at your door.

You say you could get to know providers and their assistants in a non confrontational way but apparently you have never tried to do so.

I have met with smokers in non confrontational meetings and issues were solved. The smoking ban was thereafter adhered to.

PS. I thought you claimed the smoking ban issue is about property owner's rights? Now it's about smokers rights? Get your story straight, please.

 

[Immanuel]

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

Wrong!!!

You changed my words in that post. 1
I said that my neighbor has the right to complain if I let my lawn go. I never said that I would complain if he did.




Wrong again except that bars (smoking or not) do not belong in residential neighborhoods. 2

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

That would be great! A perfect opportunity to witness to and care for the young ladies in need and for an opportunity to get to know the providers and their assistants in a non-confrontational manner.

The only way we are ever going to solve our differences is if we are willing to sit down together and speak about the issues. I could do that with abortion providers... bet you couldn't with smokers. 3

Immie

1 How could I change your post? Only you have access to your account. You must have changed it.

2 Why not? Plenty of residential neighborhoods have bars. Are you now proposing we ban them? I thought your angle was leaving decisions up to property owners?

3 I sincerely think that you'd better leave any young ladies entering abortion provider's offices alone. Trust me, if they want to meet with you, they'll come knocking at your door.

You say you could get to know providers and their assistants in a non confrontational way but apparently you have never tried to do so.

I have met with smokers in non confrontational meetings and issues were solved. The smoking ban was thereafter adhered to.

PS. I thought you claimed the smoking ban issue is about property owner's rights? Now it's about smokers rights? Get your story straight, please.

1) You didn't change my post you changed my words... maybe you can't read?

You changed my words in that post.

2) Ever hear of zoning laws?

3) I'll speak with any young woman I come in contact with, in front of an abortion clinic or not... Now you want to inhibit my right to free speech?

4) You have met with non-smokers and solved your issues? First, it doesn't appear that you have solved any issue. Second, I am guessing that by your statement that the issue is solved, you mean you made them leave your glorious presence before they light up.

5) It is about the owners right and I have not changed that at all. Are you going to put words in my mouth again?

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.

But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.

No all abortion is not wrong. There are circumstances in which difficult decisions must be made. When a mother has other children to raise and a pregnancy puts her life or ability to function in jeopardy, I can't imagine a more heart wrenching decision, but I can't fault her for choosing the welfare of her living children over the yet unborn one if a choice must be made. And while I can deeply admire women who value a life they carry for whatever reason, there is no way I can presume to judge a woman's choice who is faced with pregnancy resulting from brutal rape or incest.

Roe v Wade is exquisite in its language when considering such choices. And that is why Roe chose to leave it to the woman and her doctor in the first trimester, and that is probably the best we can do. In the second trimester Roe acknowledges that there is an increased interest by the state in that unborn life, and in the third trimester there is a good deal of imterest by the state in that unborn life. It acknowledges that there can be a valid reason to end a pregnancy at any stage, but Roe did not go so far as to say that a viable unborn life is without value and can be taken with impunity for no better reason than the mother doesn't want to give it life.

That was a later invention by the pro-abortion crowd who refuses to acknowledge that the unborn baby is indeed a human life and the liberal courts who have aided and abetted that mentality.

 

[Anguille]

I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.

But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.

It seems to me that you have the only honest opinion concerning abortion as something that the government should ban. If it's wrong to abort, it's always wrong. No exceptions because the father committed a crime. Once you make those sort of exceptions then you are saying some lives should be protected and others should be destroyed. Even if all those forms of life are identical and equally desereving of respect. Those who say they are not equal are being blatanly discriminatory against some because of the circumstances of their conception.

I have heard of women who kept the children they had born of rape because they did not fault the children for what their fathers had done. A friend's daughter married a man whose mother had been raped by his father. I don't know if he ever has had contact with the rapist but he is not ashamed of the circumstances of his birth and by all accounts is a fine person.

In the 19th century in England it was customary in the case where a decision must be made to save the mother's life or save the infant to be born that the doctor asked the husband which he wanted. Some husbands were more interested in getting an heir so the wives where sacrificed. Like damaged cows.

Myself, if I believed that a woman's life was equal to that of the fetus she was carrying, I would say give preferance to the child to be born as the woman would have already experienced life and the newborn had not yet.

 

[dipshitliberal]

If the babyhatin lefties really are "pro-choice but anti-abortion", why would they be so up in arms about a woman that made the choice not to use her womb as a tomb? You would think that the "anti-abortion, pro-choice" crowd would be behind Mrs. Tebow.

Of course, that assumes that the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" crowd has an iota of courage and honesty

 

[logical4u]

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

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

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

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

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

I am not familiar with this group's activities, can you list specifics that demonstrate "hatred"?

 

[Immanuel]

If the babyhatin lefties really are "pro-choice but anti-abortion", why would they be so up in arms about a woman that made the choice not to use her womb as a tomb? You would think that the "anti-abortion, pro-choice" crowd would be behind Mrs. Tebow.

Of course, that assumes that the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" crowd has an iota of courage and honesty

As stated earlier, choicers are more concerned with governmental interference than being "pro-abortion" and to be frank, I think it should be said that I haven't heard any choicers bad mouthing Mrs. Tebow.

These "women's groups" are organizations that claim to speak for women, but don't necessarily speak for all women or even all women that belong to their organization just as The Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and other Christian organizations don't speak for all Christians. Also, these "women's groups" get paid a hell of a lot of money for speaking out for abortion rights.

Immie

 

[logical4u]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love how people that would "rewrite" the Bible to mean what they "want" it to say, want to lecture those that are actually trying to follow it about "how Jesus would act". Go read the gospels and get back to us.

 

[dipshitliberal]

If the babyhatin lefties really are "pro-choice but anti-abortion", why would they be so up in arms about a woman that made the choice not to use her womb as a tomb? You would think that the "anti-abortion, pro-choice" crowd would be behind Mrs. Tebow.

Of course, that assumes that the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" crowd has an iota of courage and honesty

As stated earlier, choicers are more concerned with governmental interference than being "pro-abortion" and to be frank, I think it should be said that I haven't heard any choicers bad mouthing Mrs. Tebow.

These "women's groups" are organizations that claim to speak for women, but don't necessarily speak for all women or even all women that belong to their organization just as The Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and other Christian organizations don't speak for all Christians. Also, these "women's groups" get paid a hell of a lot of money for speaking out for abortion rights.

Immie

So why the gripe about this woman's choice?

 

[logical4u]

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

Let me try that logic.


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

There, hows that?



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

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

How does "tricking" a woman into killing her "child" (by telling her 'it' is not a child, like 'it' could be born a cat or a dog), "HONOR" her?
When she realizes what she did (usually years later), who can comfort her? She has killed her child, voluntarily. What a terrible burden to bear for the rest of a life.

 

[CurveLight]

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

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

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

I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.

But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.

Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?

 

[dipshitliberal]

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

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

I'm against abortions and I'm still not certain about the "extreme" cases, my nature is to say any and all abortions are wrong, however rape cases bother me in that the woman would have to make the choice whether to raise the child or put it up for adoption. Surely she wouldn't want to raise the child, it being a constant reminder of the horror of being raped.

But if I had to be nailed down to one decision I'd have to favor life over death in all cases with the only exception being the life of the mother being threatened.

Would you support a law regulating all semen emissions from males 18 years and older?

libs are idiots.

 

[logical4u]

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

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

Yea that makes alot of sense.

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

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

How about if we made a law were children under two weren't considered to be human, and if you wanted, you (either parent) could take your child to "a center" and have them "eliminated"? It would be the "parent's" right to choose?

 

[CurveLight]

Let me try that logic.


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

There, hows that?



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

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

How does "tricking" a woman into killing her "child" (by telling her 'it' is not a child, like 'it' could be born a cat or a dog), "HONOR" her?
When she realizes what she did (usually years later), who can comfort her? She has killed her child, voluntarily. What a terrible burden to bear for the rest of a life.

You anti-Choicers are the most consistent post editors in the world. Where is there any trickery in saying we should honor womens' Right to privacy and sole domain over their bodies?