What crazy as organization are these people with? Im all for freedom of speech but the photos they are using are outlandish, I don't have kids but this would be totally wrong for them to see.

Maybe you godless liberals enjoy killing babies a little too much. The left has no moral compass. Anything goes for them.

I am opposed to these terrible pictures as well. When I pass them I tell my kids not to look and continue playing Call of Duty.

its all about the kids, huh?

please.

You don't care about the kids seeing it.

You dont want it said, and so much for free speech

it's all about the children..............

pic unrelated
Attachments:

@Gorgon Blvd.

please. . its what the OP started the thread with--that he didn't want "the kids" to see the fetus pictures.

give it a rest. . .broadcast tv is wall to wall soft core porn, and as the above poster pointed out, "the kids" regularly play videogames simulating torture and mutilation.

Plus this an sentimentalization of child hood--before the only thing with thought it was appropriate for kids to see was porn, kids saw plenty of death and gore.

And they were probably the better for it

Too many idiots. Not enough abortions.

@Ito,
have you thought about starting the ball rolling. . . maybe with a retroactive self-abortion?

I'm afraid my body is too large for the hose.

Is that demonstration taken place in front of the abortion clinic?

I am woman and for pro life, but I don't blame those who choose an abortion.

I have seen my friend going through the abortion when I was a college student.
It was horrible to see as a friend.

Her boyfriend didn't want to accompany her to the clinic.
Her boyfriend didn't have (or didn't want to pay) money to cover the expense.
Her boyfriend was not happy that he couldn't have a sex with her after the operation.
Her boyfriend still refused to use a condom, but forced her to take pills.
Her boyfriend dumped her for his guilty feeling.

I hate to listening the preaching like "Don't kill our babies" to women.
Don't blame women who are physically and emotionally suffered.
So many blames go to men who cannot handle their wives/girlfriends' unwanted pregnancy.

To make it short, the demonstration in front of the clinic won't change anything.
We have got to educate kids - show them shocking pictures at a sex education class.
They need to learn consequences of unprotected sex. No sex before marriage is better.

haniel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that demonstration taken place in front of the
> abortion clinic?
>
> I am woman and for pro life, but I don't blame
> those who choose an abortion.
>
> I have seen my friend going through the abortion
> when I was a college student.
> It was horrible to see as a friend.
>
> Her boyfriend didn't want to accompany her to the
> clinic.
> Her boyfriend didn't have (or didn't want to pay)
> money to cover the expense.
> Her boyfriend was not happy that he couldn't have
> a sex with her after the operation.
> Her boyfriend still refused to use a condom, but
> forced her to take pills.
> Her boyfriend dumped her for his guilty feeling.
>
> I hate to listening the preaching like "Don't kill
> our babies" to women.
> Don't blame women who are physically and
> emotionally suffered.
> So many blames go to men who cannot handle their
> wives/girlfriends' unwanted pregnancy.
>
> To make it short, the demonstration in front of
> the clinic won't change anything.
> We have got to educate kids - show them shocking
> pictures at a sex education class.
> They need to learn consequences of unprotected
> sex. No sex before marriage is better.

How about you educate your own kids with good morals, values and some common sense instead of resorting to shock and awe type photos. Instead of devoting some time to volunteer and help people these nut jobs are out there wasting good poster boards and time to display this trash.

The year is 2012 and we know what causes pregnancy. Abortion shouldnt even come up except in case of rape. Otherwise show some common sense and use protection. There is also the morning after pill, use it.

What is wrong with showing the truth?

prolifers are funny. they bitch because a fetus is aborted, but are ok with letting man trying to change nature by attempting to get a woman pregnant via fertility facilities. Nature told these women to fuck off.

A coworker of mine who was driving his preschoolers to daycare was so pissed, that he circled around the block, came back, and ripped the signs out of the ground and put them in his trunk. He then disposed of them at a dumpster at work.

The signs in question featured hacked up fetuses. Completely in appropriate to display in public, and if my kids were with me, I'd be livid.

This was at Eaton Place near Rt 29/50 and 123.

@rob
you are such a liar. . . catholics believe that abortion is murder and invitro is just as grave a sin

I just find it ironic that these pro-lifers lose all interest in people once they have passed beyond the embryo stage. If they would spend just a fraction of their time caring about unwanted children or the women entering these clinics...

It's so strange that they pick on women who are at this vulnerable point of their lives, but could not give a fuck about women who aren't pregnant.

It's such a waste of time and energy. There are already 7 billion fully developed fetuses walking around on this planet... Can't we just deal with them?

I wonder if they care this much about tadpoles?

I'm surprised this isn't deemed as some sort of public indecency and stopped

liberal mom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am opposed to these terrible pictures as well.
> When I pass them I tell my kids not to look and
> continue playing Call of Duty.

+1, well-observed.

Don't let a fetus defeat us.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just find it ironic that these pro-lifers lose
> all interest in people once they have passed
> beyond the embryo stage. If they would spend just
> a fraction of their time caring about unwanted
> children or the women entering these clinics...

Yeah, actually, we do spend a lot of time, money, and energy helping those people. They're called "Crisis pregnancy centers", and you can find them all over.

And if abortion really is murder, as we think it is, which is the bigger problem? Killing a million babies a year or...well, anything else?

You really ought to educate yourself before you start mouthing off.

Abortion isn't murder. If it were it would be called murder.

There are so many other problems facing the world and our country and yet we let a vocal minority of lunatics hold our politics hostage with this issue.

Women have been aborting children since the beginning of time and doing so in some horrific ways before it was legal to do so. If 1 million mothers are doing this now with a relatively safe medical procedure, you can only imagine the carnage we will go back to if a safe legal option is not available.

We can go back to the good old' days when the rich would quietly have the procedure done in the back room of a doctor's office and poor women using a coat hangar.

I don't mind these idiots standing out on the streets protesting. They can join ranks with the God Hates Fags wackos and really create a spectacle. I just wish the media and the politicians would stop paying attention to them.

Thank you for conceding the point about crisis pregnancy centers.

We can disagree about issues, of course. But let's at least agree on the facts. Pro-life people do an enormous amount for women and children after they're born, too.

Bottom line why force someone to have a child who 1. Isn't ready to bare the responsibility and 2. Doesn't want to have the child. If you want them to have the kid go adopt one to make up for the despair you are having.

I like all the tards that have the double standard: arbortion is murder but capital punishment is allowable, and morrally acceptable because of....well I cant seem to articulate this position-maybe someone can show me the way

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for conceding the point about crisis
> pregnancy centers.

I am not sure what those are, but if these crisis centers do anything more than lay guilt on pregnant women and actually help with prenatal care, them that is commendable.

I never post or argue this subject because it is generally the province of the mentally unstable.

There are a million other subjects that deserve more attention than this, including providing counseling and medical services to women who actually want to have a baby. Trying to convince those that don't to have one is just a bad idea for everyone involved. On moral grounds there are plenty of other things to be outraged about rather than inventing this one.

Here's what happens at "Crisis pregnancy centers" - or, at least, what used to. An anxious young woman walks in and is given a pregnancy test. While waiting for the results of the test, she is forced to watch a pro-life video with terrifying images. If she has any sense, she gets the hell out of there.

And thank you Ito for your thoughtful posts.

babafeet,

I can only speak for myself. I see babies as being unable to defend for themselves and who did not ask to be murdered. I see people(adults who are more than aware of what they are doing) who commit crimes against people that society has deemed to be so outrageous they deserve to no longer live in our society.

bobafeet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like all the tards that have the double
> standard: arbortion is murder but capital
> punishment is allowable, and morrally acceptable
> because of....well I cant seem to articulate this
> position-maybe someone can show me the way

The double standard exists in order to allow the self righteous to display that they are more moral and spiritual than you.
Making sense and consistant thinking are secondary.

Arlingtonkid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> babafeet,
>
> I can only speak for myself. I see babies as
> being unable to defend for themselves and who did
> not ask to be murdered. I see people(adults who
> are more than aware of what they are doing) who
> commit crimes against people that society has
> deemed to be so outrageous they deserve to no
> longer live in our society.

Of course fetuses and embryos can't defend themselves and they aren't asking to be "murdered".They aren't asking anything.
Their brains are underdeveloped, they have no self awareness. They lack the intelligence of a salamander.

Everyone who is against abortion should volunteer to care for the otherwise unwanted babies. Whats that? You won't save the lives of the poor little victims?
Then you are an accomplice in their murder!

bobafeet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like all the tards that have the double
> standard: arbortion is murder but capital
> punishment is allowable, and morrally acceptable
> because of....well I cant seem to articulate this
> position-maybe someone can show me the way

Of course it is. Society kills people criminals (when absolutely necessary) to defend itself the same way you defend yourself from a criminal who is trying to kill you and take your money.

Do you think about these things before you say them, or do you just try to find ways to look down on others and make it up?

BEH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone who is against abortion should volunteer
> to care for the otherwise unwanted babies. Whats
> that? You won't save the lives of the poor little
> victims?

We do. We run crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies and private charities that give new mothers the things they need, including training, we will accept any babies who aren't wanted and find them homes.

But that doesn't suit your agenda to acknowledge that...so you don't.

Simple minded nut jobs... case closed!

@Ito

You are such a fraud--you come on this thread and argue and then when you start getting beaten in the argument, claim you don't really want to argue about it, and your opponents are irrational. . . . if you don't mind the people on the street, then why chime in? that's what the OP was about. . .

@BEH and bobafet

The difference is the unborn never did anything wrong. Capital Punishment is on the guilty. Also its the State that does the killing, like in war. The individual then isn't responsible for taking the life of the guilty.

And the objections to Capital Punishment all disappear when were talking about Hitler or Osama Bin Laden. Then its all "git 'er done!"

Finally on the status of fetuses "personhood" how do you know what their "intelligence" is? When we can start killing people that are stupid for being stupid, can we get the tards next? And if a fetus isn't a person, then how come it has human DNA, and not the same DNA as its mother or father, like their toes or appendix or any other "blob of tissue"?

@2con4you - you sound as crazy as the original one

@slops - yeah.....and sometimes terrorist scum, also: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-709777.html

@Kardinal - it's the legal and tasteful ways of opinion changing that you are mentioning that should be put on the forefront. The asswipes who stand on a sidewalk with nasty pictures just make any anti-abortion person look like just another asshole.


@the asswipes with the pics on the 29: If someone's like me, on the fence on the whole thing, then how do you want me to see you and others like you when you pull up to the light with yr anti-abortion bumper sticker? Do you want me to see you like a normal person, or like a terrorist asshole? Well, you really arent helping yr cause at all doing what you are doing. All you are doing is reminding me that you are crazy just like the type of person who would kill a man in his church handing out pamphlets on a Sunday Morning cause you dont like what he believes in.

Damn, I could have joined the party!

@roflcopter - I always educate my kids with good morals, values and common sense.

My kids (lower elementary) already saw pictures of fetuses and embryos and such including sperms and ova in the children's encyclopedia. They know what they are. "If" they saw a picture that shows the fetus is removed from mother's uterus, they must think that the awful thing has happened.

I believe human life begins from conception. To think of Jesus... to think of the Annunciation...life begins from conception... isn't it? I also consider the day I conceive a baby is the day my baby arrives to my life.

I don't support shocking posters in public, but such a sensational propaganda is also within freedom of speech and freedom of expression...no matter how you hate.

@2concerned4

These idiots have every right to stand on the street and hold up their signs. I'm not getting beaten in an argument if I agree that stupid people have a right to do stupid things.

My point is that there are a million better things to be upset about than abortion on the right and the left.

You are exactly the type of person I don't want to have a discussion about this with because you really care about the fetus more than the woman carrying it. In effect, you are more worried about the blood clot in her womb.

Life might begin at conception, but that is irrelevant. You can't take that zygote out of the woman and make it live at that point.

I just wish people would stop worrying what is going on in someone else's vagina.
I also wish that our politicians and media would stop giving these domestic terrorists a platform.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> My point is that there are a million better things
> to be upset about than abortion on the right and
> the left.

It may be your "point", but if someone believes an abortion kills a unique human being, it rings rather hollow.

> Life might begin at conception, but that is
> irrelevant. You can't take that zygote out of the
> woman and make it live at that point.

How would it be irrelevant? Newborns can't survive on their own without external action and caring either. Only the environment and method of delivery of such care has changed.

snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How would it be irrelevant? Newborns can't survive
> on their own without external action and caring
> either. Only the environment and method of
> delivery of such care has changed.

It is irrelevant because after a child is born, it is not solely dependent on the mother for its life. There is a reason why children aren't given names before they are born.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is irrelevant because after a child is born, it
> is not solely dependent on the mother for its
> life.

I don't see how that makes your point any better. Sounds like as long as there are 'options' in terms of providing care then it's real life, but if care is limited to the mother it's some sort of fake life? That's a dangerous precedent.

Look, I realize there are numerous physiological differences between being in-womb and outside, but if you're going to open up the possibility that life begins at conception, dismissing it as an irrelevancy opens us all sorts of issues.

If a child dies from miscarriage is it suicide? Is it manslaughter because of negligence by the mother?

This issue is the "perfect storm" for the true believers in the sky daddy. People who have imaginary friends get all caught up in the abortion issue because the idea of life beginning at conception implies a soul being created by some mythological being. When those who have faulty logic to believe in talking snakes and angels and devils influencing daily activity get to thinking about what happens when a woman gets pregnant, this is the result. I really wish the church pushed the stork story harder on its followers.

The reality? It's a biological accident by the parents. They fucked, some sperm survived long enough to fertilize an egg. The first time the woman realizes it only comes weeks later.

Not every pregnancy goes full term to begin with and it is a great burden on the mother to ensure that it does.

The other reasons why this is a perfect storm is that it ties into all the social issues. Women aren't supposed to enjoy sex, it's for procreation only. People aren't supposed to have sex unless they have been married by a church. A woman once impregnated by a man has to live with the consequences for the rest of her life. It's all really backward. The Taliban have all of these views and then some.

Before contraception, women would start having children as soon as they hit puberty and continue until menopause. In fact, biologists now believe that menopause was one of the evolutional breakthroughs that led to modern man and homo sapiens finally becoming modern-- death during childbirth would kill older women, but if women could stop becoming pregnant at a certain age, then these grandmothers would live long enough to pass on important information to the tribe: "Don't eat those berries!" or "Your grandfather died falling off that cliff. Be careful!"

We don't need women having 8 - 10 children anymore. Yes there is contraception, but condoms break and shit happens.

Jesus never complained about abortions. In fact, infanticide was quite common in those days.

If you are so concerned about the ink blots that are removed during the first trimester, could the alternative of making it illegal or more difficult be better? Are we to doom a 13 year old to motherhood? Is a woman with 6 kids to be forced to have another?

The burden of this debate always falls on the woman. John Lennon was right when he said, "Woman is the nigger of the world."

I doubt most women who get abortions do so with a light heart and no guilt.

If these personhood amendments pass, I can't wait to hear the debates about when social security numbers can be issued.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a child dies from miscarriage is it suicide? Is
> it manslaughter because of negligence by the
> mother?

No and no. I see where you're going, but I'm not biting.

>
> This issue is the "perfect storm" for the true
> believers in the sky daddy. People who have
> imaginary friends get all caught up in the
> abortion issue because the idea of life beginning
> at conception implies a soul being created by some
> mythological being. When those who have faulty
> logic to believe in talking snakes and angels and
> devils influencing daily activity get to thinking
> about what happens when a woman gets pregnant,
> this is the result. I really wish the church
> pushed the stork story harder on its followers.

Very amusing.

> Not every pregnancy goes full term to begin with
> and it is a great burden on the mother to ensure
> that it does.

So?

> Women aren't supposed to enjoy sex, it's for procreation
> only.

False dichotomy.

> People aren't supposed to have sex unless
> they have been married by a church.

False (since you added those last 3 words).
>
> We don't need women having 8 - 10 children
> anymore.

I agree, but abortion isn't the answer.

>
> Jesus never complained about abortions. In fact,
> infanticide was quite common in those days.

Argument from silence, and a ridiculous one at that. Jesus didn't speak explicitly on a lot of things, but it's pretty easy to piece together God's thoughts on them unless you have some really screwy hermeneutics.

>
> If these personhood amendments pass, I can't wait
> to hear the debates about when social security
> numbers can be issued.

Oh please, you can support the idea of a conceived fetus as life/human being without taking it to unnecessary and ridiculous conclusions, if for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.

@Ito
You claim that the other side is a bunch of credulous cretins but then you make arguments that contradict even your own.

For example, your infanticide argument--the practice of infanticide during the Roman Empire was exposure of the infant, already born, somewhere outside of town--are you saying because Christ didn't mention this that he or anyone approve of it? Do you approve of it? Christ didn't mention alot of what was going on in Rome at the time, which is not pretty much universally condemned, even by your freethinking friends--does that mean he condoned?

And your statement about the taliban--because the taliban shares a view that makes it patently wrong? And where do you think the taliban got the view--Islam is a Christian heresy so of course they're going to share many of the proscriptions of Christianity. . . .

The rest of your "arguments" amount to something like 'waaah! that sounds mean so it can't be true! waaah!'

Guess what--good looking people, rich people, powerful people, all pretty much live better lives than everybody else. Sometimes the wrong man goes to jail and the orphan gets molested and then gets cancer.

Your going to have to have some better method of making decisions than 'this isn't fair so i don't believe it' to figure out what's true and what's not. That is, if you want any one to listen to you.

Which you obviously do, since you are posting here.

Again, on a thread whose original point was the free speech of anti-abortion protesters should be suppressed.

BEH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arlingtonkid Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > babafeet,
> >
> > I can only speak for myself. I see babies as
> > being unable to defend for themselves and who
> did
> > not ask to be murdered. I see people(adults
> who
> > are more than aware of what they are doing) who
> > commit crimes against people that society has
> > deemed to be so outrageous they deserve to no
> > longer live in our society.
>
> Of course fetuses and embryos can't defend
> themselves and they aren't asking to be
> "murdered".They aren't asking anything.
> Their brains are underdeveloped, they have no self
> awareness. They lack the intelligence of a
> salamander.
>
> Everyone who is against abortion should volunteer
> to care for the otherwise unwanted babies. Whats
> that? You won't save the lives of the poor little
> victims?
> Then you are an accomplice in their murder!


Even after being born, babies need help, so I guess you would be in favor of killing babies after they are born too? brains are not fully developed until well after birth. Next.

2con4u - no, the thread isnt about suppressing free speech - it's about the assholes on the side of the street. Dont try to twist up shit, jackass........
@snowden - they do the Twist better than Chubby Checker LoLz
@Ito - most of the pro-lifer who prefer the "Harassment" method to get their point across..............well they are the same type of ppl who believe "barefoot and pregnant" is the moral role of women, y'know? :(

> Argument from silence, and a ridiculous one at
> that. Jesus didn't speak explicitly on a lot of
> things, but it's pretty easy to piece together
> God's thoughts on them unless you have some really
> screwy hermeneutics.
>

The Oracle at Delphi used to interpret the thoughts of the gods. Researchers have figured out that the "visions" came from inhaling vapors that came out of a cave.

This is really the crux of my argument. If we are going to make public policy based on interpretations of a book written by people written during the Byzantine Empire 1600 years ago, then we are screwed. Constantine was smart enough to mould this religion to rebuild his empire and it is amazing that it still mesmerizes people to this day.

However, we live in the age of reason. We are supposed to realize that people need to make decisions not only for the betterment of their lives, but for the betterment of society. If the mother, who is actually carrying the tadpole doesn't want it, why should you be arguing for it? As grisly as abortion is! It is safer than the alternatives.

Ok I've stated my piece, you all have fun with it. The wackos who spend every waking moment worried about this and carry the signs with mangled fetuses have every right to do so. If the signs make you sick, don't look at them. As long as all they are doing is protesting and not blowing up clinics or threatening doctors lives, let them have their fun. It's a sad existence, but that is what they want to do with their lives. That, and talk to their imaginary friend.

What's funny about the religious argument about abortion is that the bible isn't anti-abortion.

According to the bible (in many locations), life begins with breathing, i.e., after birth.

For example, genesis 2:7 "God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Again in Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."

Of course the anti-abortion people say god or the pope is telling them something different now, but it really goes against their bible.

Meh. Pro-life, pro-choice, I don't care.

Showing chopped-up fetuses on a street corner is beyond the pale.

I can't show a boob in public, but I can show a live decapitation to toddlers. Something is terrible f'ed up to allow that to be legal. But then again, this is Virginia...

I saw some homely looking dude with a 10 foot high sign speaking against abortion in Kamp Washington area(Fairfax City) on Sunday afternoon. Was standing right at the crossroads of route 29 and route 50.
It was a very hot day and I stopped to offer him a Heineken but he said ,"fuck that Shit!"

The "assholes" on the side of the street are exercising free speech. Speech that you don't want to hear. Because it hurts you conscience. So you want to suppress it.

That's what it means when people want to make forms of speech "illegal" or "beyond the pale"

Get it, Gorgo?

Killing babies is ok but killing convicted murderers is wrong.
Attachments:

dr welby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The year is 2012 and we know what causes
> pregnancy. Abortion shouldnt even come up except
> in case of rape. Otherwise show some common sense
> and use protection. There is also the morning
> after pill, use it.


This is the most useful statement anyone has made.

If a golden road is laid before you and you CHOOSE to not be cautious going down it, well deal with it. I did and I was just a kid, now that one's getting ready to go to college...

I don't wanna show my kids pics like that. I've raised them to be people who take responsibility for their actions. People who have a value of human life. My aunt had 1 abortion ovr 30yrs ago, and now she's over 50 and will never have the kid she wanted later in life, because I love her I don't say 'I wonder why'. I agree they shouldn't have nasty pictures to make their ponit, at least not where little kids have to see. But I agree with the the statement I copied above.

@Gordon-weren't those the same kids that were at MY kid's school???? Trying to let her and all her friends know how evil and sinful they are? Go back to the meme's! for me? ;)

@Jen - yeah, same ppl

@2con - no, it's you who dont get it. Nice sidestep there though, Dorothy. But aint my first rodeo. We grown ups call it a "Straw Man" approach. Cute, but pretty 8th grade of ya.

Anywho, has not a thing to do with conscience, just reality. YOU are, in reality, the ONLY person to bring up any speech being made illegal on this thread so I dont know what's going on in that head of yrs.

They are distasteful. And to put distasteful pics on the side of a public highwat is being an asswipe. It's the exact same thing as like if I were to put a Goatse pic up all around a school or something. Same exact thing with these asshole protesters.

pic unrelated



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2012 09:47AM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

You can go to as many rodeos as you want, Rodeo clown--but the point is about free speech.

The speech here is a picture, but presumably you object to kids hearing "abortion is murder" because then they'd think their mom is a murderer and there'd be all kind of embarrassing questions to answer, like, why'd you kill my brother, mom? Why didn't you kill me?

These are qualitative different intentions that those who display pornography.

And liberal mom, ArlingtonKid, and haniel have all remarked this is a speech issue above, and

topsgotta, HNK3U, WNYTY have all said it should be prohibited.

So you are not only stupid, but you are a liar as well.

Freethinking Fraud.

As I wrote, I disagree completely with these people that abortion should be illegal. However, I will defend the rights of these people to show their signs and protest to my last breath. These people deserve the right to show the extremism of their position and also deserve all the public ridicule the receive for doing it.

If you don't like the pictures, don't look at them. If you don't agree with what they are saying, don't listen.

dude, no wonder you took 2con's name - yr just as crazy............none of thoes ppl said ANYTHING should be prohibited:

tops said it's wrong to see.
Posted by: Tops gotta ()
Date: July 01, 2012 07:03PM
What crazy as organization are these people with? Im all for freedom of speech but the photos they are using are outlandish, I don't have kids but this would be totally wrong for them to see.

HNK said they were inappropriate,
Re: Pro life demonstration on lee hwy
Posted by: hNK3U ()
Date: July 01, 2012 10:49PM
A coworker of mine who was driving his preschoolers to daycare was so pissed, that he circled around the block, came back, and ripped the signs out of the ground and put them in his trunk. He then disposed of them at a dumpster at work.
The signs in question featured hacked up fetuses. Completely in appropriate to display in public, and if my kids were with me, I'd be livid.
This was at Eaton Place near Rt 29/50 and 123.

WNYTY stated shock that it was legal.
Re: Pro life demonstration on lee hwy
Posted by: WNYTY ()
Date: July 03, 2012 10:48PM
Meh. Pro-life, pro-choice, I don't care.
Showing chopped-up fetuses on a street corner is beyond the pale.
I can't show a boob in public, but I can show a live decapitation to toddlers. Something is terrible f'ed up to allow that to be legal. But then again, this is Virginia...

You do know how the internet works? You cant just pretend that what ppl type is gonna change cause it's gonna just stay there the same way they wrote it, k? So you can STFU on that whole "liar" tip, Closeminded asswipe. YOu can twist it up all you want, but "Free Speech" aint the issue - its the fact we dont like assholes standing with distasteful pics on the street, plain and simple. If it was a "free speech" deal, we'd be speaking in at 401 Courthouse Sq, not Fairfax Underground..........

whoops, forgot the unrelated pic.............. If the pro-life movement ppl could just plan this in advance, maybe ppl would start listening to them more.................



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2012 11:27AM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

@ito - nobody said anything about it being illegal - this 2con is just as crazy as the other one, is all LoLz

Let me spell it it out for you:
"Completely in appropriate to display in public" means should be prohibited

"Something is terrible f'ed up to allow that to be legal" means should be prohibited

"I'm surprised this isn't deemed as some sort of public indecency and stopped" means should be prohibited.

and finally "Im all for freedom of speech but the photos they are using are outlandish, I don't have kids but this would be totally wrong for them to see"

Saying "I'm all for freedom of speech" and then "but" yadda yadda yadda means you think these images should be prohibited.

Pornography is and should be prohibited. Profanity is and should be prohibited. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is and should be prohibited. The reasons for these are well rehearsed.

And it is clear from the above quoted posts, that these posters want the public square protected from these images as well.

Otherwise they'd says stuff like Ito says along the lines of "well, I disagree but I will defend. . . "

I will not defend others right to show pornography. In fact I will take it from them and rip it apart. And I will expect the law to protect me and not them. But if I choose show a picture of an aborted fetus, then I will expect the law to protect me from those who want to take it away and rip it apart.

And who's crazier--the lunatic who posts all over the place for days on end, or the lunatics who match him post for post in order to bait and egg them on?

Tough call. . .

@2concerned

You mean like we are doing for you? We enjoy baiting lunatics. That is what we "do" here.

The reason why pornography exists is because it is protected free speech too. There are public obsecenity laws and the community has the right to determine what is allowable in the public space.

You probably would not get the cops backing if you physically destroyed pornography or these idiots' mutilated fetus signs. Expression of free speech ends when you start getting in physical confrontations with others.

@Ito - as easy as killing flies LoLz
@2con - it only means "prohibited" if yr off yr meds and following someone you dont know around on the interweb, I guess...................and oh yeah - Porno is not really "prohibited" http://bit.ly/uKPhhZ unless you are talking about the type of porno you are into....................which of course would kinda explain the creepy "follow Gordon around the interweb" thing you got going on..........

Anywho, hope you have a happy 4th :)

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Yeah, i don't think Ole Gorgo would be quite so worked up with all the epithets and the preening if it were just baiting. . . I think the conscience was sparked there, but maybe not.

At any rate he/she/it is a demonstrated liar, as was demonstrated.

Pornography is not legal in public, which again, seems to be the point of the posters up above--that they don't want their kids to see the fetus pictures, just like, presumably, they don't want their kids to see porno. That means its prohibited, stupid. And that's what they want--no free speech with pictures of fetuses on the street.

As to who is crazy, well, we've had 30 years of unfettered abortion, contraception, divorce on demand and now gay marriage--and how's that society working out for you there?

You recall Einstein's definition of insanity? keep it up. . .

And I post after you Gorgo because (1) you post everywhere on this thread and (2) I think you are fraud. A fraud freethinker. You claim to be all "everything goes" except when you don't like it. And I'm baiting you.

Red Brix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's funny about the religious argument about
> abortion is that the bible isn't anti-abortion.
>
> According to the bible (in many locations), life
> begins with breathing, i.e., after birth.
>
> For example, genesis 2:7 "God formed a man from
> the dust of the ground and breathed into his
> nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a
> living being."
>
> Again in Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God hath made me,
> and the breath of the Almighty hath given me
> life."
>
> Of course the anti-abortion people say god or the
> pope is telling them something different now, but
> it really goes against their bible.


That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard concerning abortion and the Bible. First, Adam is hardly a good example, as that was a fairly unique situation. And the Job verse doesn't even prove your point.

There are numerous other passages in both the OT and NT (e.g. Psalm 22, 51, 139, Jeremiah 1, Luke 1 and 18 and Galatians 1, etc.) which would flat out contradict the inference you try to make.

Reading tea leaves makes more sense.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before someone started quoting chapter and verse.

A thought
Attachments:

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reading tea leaves makes more sense.
>
> I knew it would only be a matter of time before
> someone started quoting chapter and verse.


Yeah and notice it wasn't a pro-life person who started it.

Good to know liberals would like me aborted.

The first amendment doesn't have any stipulation for being pretty. Whether you agree or disagree, its an honor that in this country, we are allowed to protest peacefully. Many countries would love this but don't have it.

In utero: zygote/embryo/fetus.
Post-birth: baby.
At the very least, people should acquire proper knowledge of such topics before participating in a debate regarding the ethics of legal abortion.
First off, a fetus isn't a "baby" until BIRTH, whereby it is officially an autonomous life-form. The fetus is entirely dependent on its host's compliance in order to survive and develop accordingly, prior to birth.
For instance, if a baby's mother dies the child is no less able to breathe and sustain life(provided there are others to care for him/her)than they were when the mother was previously alive.

On the other hand, when pregnant women die, the developing fetus simultaneously expires. If her respiration & heartbeat end, all bets are off. A fetus is by definition, a parasite until gestation is complete, thus not classifiable as a human life.

Furthermore, fetuses are incapable of experiencing pain as is often suggested by countless pro-life lowlifes. Take all that overzealous propaganda and shove it. Or at least quit pretending the fuss is based on the welfare of fetal rights rather than your collective hatred of women, particularly those who dare exercise reproductive control/prevention.

.................
Attachments:

dr welby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The year is 2012 and we know what causes
> pregnancy. Abortion shouldnt even come up except
> in case of rape. Otherwise show some common sense
> and use protection. There is also the morning
> after pill, use it.

What about ectopic pregnancies that require termination? Women should power through for 9 months, HOPING doctors' predictions of imminent death are inaccurate?
Or if the fetus is determined to have sub-fractional chances of successfully surviving pregnancy or childbirth--who in their right mind takes their chances and willingly subjects themselves to miscarrying/stillbirth? That experience is guaranteed to end in emotional trauma; especially if said pregnancy was a planned, wanted endeavor.

See that's the major issue with the application of personal moral beliefs on others. You are not aware of case-sensitive circumstances; nor are you fit to dictate choices made by others, regardless of their motive(s).

Reality bites.

@captain obvious

Waaah!! Its hard!! life is hard!! many people get a raw deal!!! so i don't believe in the obvious purpose of sex, and would like to extinguish its consequences so i can treat my cohabiting girlfriend as a semen-wastebasket!

Do they even have those anymore? wastebaskets? how quaint!

2concerned4you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @captain obvious
>
> Waaah!! Its hard!! life is hard!! many people get
> a raw deal!!! so i don't believe in the obvious
> purpose of sex, and would like to extinguish its
> consequences so i can treat my cohabiting
> girlfriend as a semen-wastebasket!

One of the most advantageous features offered through the advancement of civilization & particularly medicine is the ability to fornicate without the consequence of mandatory parenthood. It's also quite apparent that contraception has proven no hindrance to procreation rates, given the volume of our current population.
Get off your high horse already. Preaching the sentiment that childbirth is the only acceptable motive for engaging in sex is a hallmark of intellectual degeneration, and your cause is a detriment to mankind.

Not to mention...satan will be happy to extinguish your soul with a smerk on his face....

how many puds have you squeezed off captain o, prior to your curing of cancer. . . oh my bad, you were saving your lassitude for some greater problem. . . . poverty?. . . economic inequity. . . war. . .


wow, apparently you saved it for sleeping in and kicking her out. . . nice call

2concerned:

Are you a misogynist or just a prude?

If woman wants to have a baby, she must consider a fetus as her "baby". She may be joyful when a pregnancy test shows positive. Otherwise, she is only afraid of being pregnant.

Don't you know some (many) women forget taking pills in their busy schedule? Not only once or twice. So, morning after pills are handy for them. Really? Some of them cannot even remember when the last menstrual period was (therefore Ogino method won't work either). And pills are not safe for women's health in a long run. Don't you see law suits against pharmaceutical companies?

Actually, one of my children is with special needs. I never took those screening tests when I was pregnant because I knew I never abort my baby. When I learned the fact, I was shocked to receive the news. Nonetheless, I LOVE him very much and I am glad to have him in this world. He needs some help and support while he enjoys his life. I am willing to take that challenge as his mom. Honestly, I never regret anything at all.

I know some women choose to take screening tests and then decide what to do. It's totally up to them. Still, it was mixed feeling when I heard my friend said she could not sacrifice herself to take care of a child with disability. So, she will abort a baby (fetus) if the screening tests come back with "positive".

All in all, I don't apply my personal moral beliefs on others including my said friend. I just go with my own beliefs. Pro-life is one of them. Again, I don't support the extremist.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2concerned:
>
> Are you a misogynist or just a prude?

2conservative is presumably a specimen of christian fundie republicunt, complete with 44"-waist khaki panties caught in a perpetual bunch...because tree-hugging, fag-enabling secular heathens undermine our traditional American values by encouraging reprehensible levels of sexual immorality!

the pro-life movement acknowledges menstruation as nature's punishment to sexually active, fertile women incapable of meeting their inherently assumed monthly goal: pregnancy.

@Ito,
I would say that it is you who are the "misogynist". treating women as if they wanted or enjoyed sex like men do is inherently "misogynistic". Even if you subscribe to some version of evolutionary materialist psychology, they couldn't possibly because of the limits of physiology.

But it seems pretty obvious they don't anyway, empirically. Women have a natural affinity for babies, and want to get pregnant, hence the current ludicrous debates about "having it all" . . . .

I just happen to think that's a good thing, and appreciate that about women--actually admire that they are different than men.

@Captain O
I also find it amusing how all you free thinking openminded types immediately start slapping the labels on those who advance arguments you cant address. "fundie" "repubulicunt" "misogynist"--what happened to all of the tolerant openminded, live and let live-ness, hmmm?

How about addressing the point, or have we exceeded you meager capabilities in that regard.

@2c4u

I feel bad for you that you feel that women do not want or enjoy sex "like men do". That might be your own personal experience and for that I am sorry.

I guess your point of view is a little better than the fundamentalist types who believe that women are responsible for original sin and "tempt" men to have lust.

I guess you answered my question though, you are a prude.

So your belief must be that most women just tolerate a man's penis just for the sake of him implanting his seed. They crave having that baby and are willing to undergo some sort of humiliation in order to achieve their goal.

You also believe that women are more or less just biding their time in life until they get old enough to get married and have children. "Having it all" would be that they would want to have a career or life outside the home, but you believe that most (if not all) women would prefer to stay at home and raise babies.

Is this right?

I didn't say they don't enjoy sex as much as men do, i said they don't enjoy it like men do.

Is this so revolutionary? If they did, public restrooms would probably be filled with more than just homoerotic assignations--and there'd be far less movies about all the problems with "friends with benefits", don't you think?

It seems pretty obvious.

as to the second point, that "women are just biding their time until they . . . .have children."

Absolutely.

What is a "career" anyways, compared to bringing a new life in the world.

What is "life outside the home"? spending 8-10 mandatory hours per day with people who really neither like nor respect you?

Pushing papers around in an office?

even medicine now is 70% bureaucracy. . . . what idiot would choose this over actually raising a person.

On the prude part, sure. If the opposite means I have to praise casual sex and porn.

Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but I just want to see if you agree with this...

The "Sexual Revolution" brought about by the "pill" and contraceptives in the 1960s was an aberration and an affront to god and the natural nature of women. Sex should not be had before marriage because the purpose of sex is to have children and not for mere sexual gratification (mainly of men).

The world was a better place when there was a nuclear family when women did not work and spent their time in the home taking care of the kids.

Generally speaking, do you feel that women do not necessarily want to have a career like men do, but are forced to work outside the home because it is the only way to make ends meet? Compared to the job of child bearing, women should not bother seeking higher education or a purpose in life other than the family?

Do you think that women are not as smart as men or why is it that they wouldn't want a career? Why wouldn't they have interests beyond raising children? Is it because of their natural "affinity" for children that gives them purpose in life?

There is no way the government should be telling women if they should get an abortion or not.

@Ito

Agree with much of it, except would assign women's desire for "careers" to the same "Sexual Revolution" currents--a steady drumbeat that marriage and family were thwarting and some kind of slavery. Those currents go well back before the beginning of the 20th century.

Also I don't know how "smart" has anything to do with wanting a "career". It seems to me like people that believe they have a "career" nowadays are the stupid ones. Pushing paper around so someone else can get rich from your efforts just makes you a wage slave.

The really "smart" ones either figure out how to make money for doing nothing, or at least something totally independent of others assigning of a value to it

2concerned4you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Captain O
> I also find it amusing how all you free thinking
> openminded types immediately start slapping the
> labels on those who advance arguments you cant
> address. "fundie" "repubulicunt"
> "misogynist"--what happened to all of the tolerant
> openminded, live and let live-ness, hmmm?
>
> How about addressing the point, or have we
> exceeded you meager capabilities in that regard.

Tolerance is not unconditional, don't know what could've made you think otherwise. And unlike you & all those LL Bean-clad cronies of the same ilk, us "open-minded" longhairs don't conspire to eliminate personal freedoms(abortion, gay marriage)and continue to picket in hopes of popularizing your brand of hate-culture.

Why would you expect to receive openmindedness, when your rhetoric preaches the exact opposite? Is this another sensationalized cognitive dissonance--the only technique that the Grand Ole Party/Golf Oil & Prostitutes relies on, now that they're losing considerable traction, as well as credibility?

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Abortion isn't murder. If it were it would be
> called murder.
>
> There are so many other problems facing the world
> and our country and yet we let a vocal minority of
> lunatics hold our politics hostage with this
> issue.
>
> Women have been aborting children since the
> beginning of time and doing so in some horrific
> ways before it was legal to do so. If 1 million
> mothers are doing this now with a relatively safe
> medical procedure, you can only imagine the
> carnage we will go back to if a safe legal option
> is not available.
>
> We can go back to the good old' days when the rich
> would quietly have the procedure done in the back
> room of a doctor's office and poor women using a
> coat hangar.
>
> I don't mind these idiots standing out on the
> streets protesting. They can join ranks with the
> God Hates Fags wackos and really create a
> spectacle. I just wish the media and the
> politicians would stop paying attention to them.

+1

2concerned4you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as to the second point, that "women are just
> biding their time until they . . . .have
> children."
>
> Absolutely.
>
> What is a "career" anyways, compared to bringing a
> new life in the world.
>
> What is "life outside the home"? spending 8-10
> mandatory hours per day with people who really
> neither like nor respect you?

> On the prude part, sure. If the opposite means I
> have to praise casual sex and porn.

Those matters boil down to personal discretion and individual goals. It's not your place to determine where women should or shouldn't be applying themselves in life. Several don't aspire to become parents, or are professionally-oriented and prefer to define themselves through career success.

@gianni: +1 It's so pathetic that some ppl can only see women only as "objects" or "goals" not as individuals
@Capt - cause they would rather be an asshole to women than respect them or seriously try to want to help them (even IF they disagree with them)
@bleeder - next, they will want you to have to register it as soon as it starts working LoLz
@Ito - sounds like 2cons is more like ................well: the same type of ppl who believe "barefoot and pregnant" is the moral role of women, y'know? :( And stop being so closeminded. Why can you ONLY see 2con being a misogynist OR a prude? It is obvious that they are both. LoLz

and because you were so baiting and begging for my attention (what is it WITH these nutcases needing my input??? can somebody explain this to me? Been happening for over a year now.............blows my mind to this day o_0 )

@2con - still crazy, I see. Also best to know what season it is before you bait cause I wasnt here LoLz. To answer yr question, though: 30 years ago, society thought it was coming apart at the seems. US was in a wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy worse recession than the shit we just went thru. The black plague known as AIDS was running rampant with no end in site. And as scary as terrorism is nowadays, IT DOES NOT EVEN FUCKING COME CLOSE TO THE THOUGHT OF THE WORLD BEING BLOWN TO FUCKING BITS BY NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST!!!!

So yeah, in the last 30 years , society has come along quite nicely thank you very much. Maybe someday, you will be mature enough to join us..........

pic unrelated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2012 07:43AM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

Gorgo! you took 5 min. off? good for you! get some rest...

yeah, this 21century is really a utopia--we sure got rid of those std's, and the new "knowledge economy", you know the one, where bankers dream of even more catastrophic ways of making bonuses, while the rest of us suffer any losses because of the insane risk and leverage their "knowledge" has put into the global system--yeah that's really a boon.

And you think the recession in the 70s and 80s was worse than what's going on now? Try reading a little--and hold on to your socks, cause this "recession" hasn't even gotten going yet.

An all for what? even the 40% of the household worth that the middle class just lost in about 4 years, they were previously spending on crap they didn't need. Ipads and the rest of the crap they have so they don't have to look at each other. Yep that's progress.

AIDS running rampant? who thought that 30 years ago? maybe gays, but everybody else thought it was just about about as dangerous as they do now.

But the real point is whether all these kids we have today with ADHD, and all the rest of the dysfunctions which have rendered the educational "system" we have pretty much defunct wouldn't be better off with two parents.

Where do you think all these pathologies come from? flouride? climate change?

how bout the profound sense that they are not really wanted, and are just another checkbox on the way to "having it all"

But go ahead, keep claiming its progress. It worked for the soviets, after all. Maoists too!

I notice progress is working out for EVERYBODY

except ppl like you LoLz

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Pretty interesting, how tea-tards claim a collective mission to reduce extraneous government intervention in everyday life, yet continually propose laws and policies which specifically aim to thwart various forms of contraceptives.

@Capt
Attachments:

As a woman....

I've been told many times I f*** like a man. So, you're wrong on that point. You either don't like sex the same, or you're a man and have never experienced a fiesty woman. It has nothing to do with casual sex.

I'm 100% sure my eldest daughter will never have kids. She doesn't want them at all. I look forward to being proud of thr career she'll have after college. Neither of us are waiting for her to have kids to fulfill her destiny as a woman.

That said, my birth control failed, and I don't believe in abortion. But I had my tubes tied at 22, had to sign the paperwork 3x I was so young. I'd have done it at 16 if given the option. I love my kids, I'm glad I have them. I'd love #4, but I am SO glad I never met him/her thanks to the tubal. Doesn't that go against what was just said by 2C4Y?

Back on the ranch---

How do I "protect" my kids from your freedom of speech if it's huge banners on the side of the road? on here, online, I block a web page, same with cable, I use parental settings...I don't have the button when I'm driving.

I'm not dissing freedom of speech, just really, turn your sick pics toward the people/building you're pretesting against. Not random motorists, you don't know who's on your side and just doesn't wanna see that. I don't have to look at it just because I don't believe in abortion, I'm already there, but now I'd never join a demonstration.

aww, Gorgo, back already? guess those seasons are "catching" up on you

Good, i'm happy for you that you are pleased with the way things are going, though. Maybe you'll have less to post about, especially after they legalize pot. Then you can just take a cannabis holiday and just not have to worry about things.

I'm sure they'll tell you when to be happy or anxious, and how many kids you get to have, and what kind of public housing you get to live in.

Captain Zero,

As somebody mentioned above, abortion is a pretty poor form of "contraception" especially as it misses the definition of the word.

And I don't even understand your philosophy--it seems like you are libertarian (which is what the "tea-tards" are) but only for sexual activity? So you want the gummint to regulate everything else so you can do whatever you want with your privates? have you ever even read Brave New World?

Jen K,

You really don't get how men think. This is what men want out of sex--it lasts about 5 minutes, and then they get to go to sleep. Then maybe later then same thing. And if they give in to the baser desires, they'd like it with a different person every time, preferably, also one that is about 20years old. Everything else that you've heard is bs. I'm sure some "sensitive" guys will come on here and lie about it, because they are whipped, but that's pretty much the biology of it.

Do you want that? I don't think so.

2concerned4you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But go ahead, keep claiming its progress. It
> worked for the soviets, after all. Maoists too!

So let me see if I get your point here...

You are comparing a society whose major problems are that people are too fat because of an abundance of food, spending too much time in front of a computer, who don't get exercise because the majority of people drive their cars to work and to the supermarket instead of walking, to these regimes:

Soviets: Who stood in line for hours and hours to get a loaf of bread in the middle of winter, who Stalin killed millions of people because he collectivized the farms and sent his political enemies to the gulag. Who micromanaged every facet of a person's life from cradle to grave.

Maoists: Who also killed millions of people because of collectivization of farms, who killed all the small birds in the country because Mao didn't like them (and then the country was overwhelmed by insects), who tried to boost steel production by making each village have its own blast furnace, who killed millions of people because they did not conform to its single-minded political ideology.

---

Again, abortion is a first-world problem when there are not many other serious problems to worry about. There are still many countries in the world where children and pregnant women's major concern is malnutrition and access to clean water. Where access to prenatal care means a 3 day walk to the nearest clinic.

You believe that women have no other purpose in life besides reproduction, so I guess the idea of abortion really upsets your worldview. Fortunately for the rest of the population, we realize that women should be allowed to choose what to do with their bodies and their lives. We are fortunate to live in a country that does not force women to have abortions (one family, one child) and we are fortunate that we live in a country that has access to contraceptives and that educates its women to be something more than baby makers.

Hyperbole is a good instrument in making your argument, but comparing the U.S. in the 21st Century to 20th Century China and the Soviet Union makes you look like a lunatic.

Contraception is defined as a method of birth control and abortion, by default, prevents childbirth. I assume abortion is rarely a first choice, considering the procedure is costly and requires the help of professionals in contrast to the Pill, rubbers etc which are administered by patients themselves.

In summary, it doesn't make sense to conclude that the purpose of abortion is slut-enabling. It's a situational last resort in many cases, given its inconvenience and stigma. If unwelcome pregnancy is not a burden you'll ever bear, all this moral meddling is of no discernable relevance.

2concerned4you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jen K,
>
> You really don't get how men think. This is what
> men want out of sex--it lasts about 5 minutes, and
> then they get to go to sleep. Then maybe later
> then same thing. And if they give in to the baser
> desires, they'd like it with a different person
> every time, preferably, also one that is about
> 20years old. Everything else that you've heard is
> bs. I'm sure some "sensitive" guys will come on
> here and lie about it, because they are whipped,
> but that's pretty much the biology of it.
>
> Do you want that? I don't think so.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.................. I think I see the root cause of all this hatred towards women who are getting some LoLz. 5 minutes, huh? Yeah, that explains a heck of a lot ROFLMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

2concerned4you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jen K,
>
> You really don't get how men think. This is what
> men want out of sex--it lasts about 5 minutes, and
> then they get to go to sleep. Then maybe later
> then same thing. And if they give in to the baser
> desires, they'd like it with a different person
> every time, preferably, also one that is about
> 20years old. Everything else that you've heard is
> bs. I'm sure some "sensitive" guys will come on
> here and lie about it, because they are whipped,
> but that's pretty much the biology of it.
>
> Do you want that? I don't think so.

Lame excuses for lame sexual performance. Yeah, keep telling the ladies how they can't possibly comprehend this universal male state-of-mind. That'll totally cover for an inability to fuck your way out of a paper bag.

And the bit on biological wiring and irresistible 20-year-olds? Calling bullshit. The virtue associated with achieving a high quantity of sex partners, in addition to youthfully appealing specimen of partners are considered STATUS BOOSTERS which originated via society rather than inherent to human nature.

@Ito,
No, I'm comparing a society where over 50% of the country is on some form of psychotropic mediation, probably 70% if you include Cannabis--where did this epidemic come from?

Moreover, as China's one child policy, and Russia's negligible birthrate demonstrate, this is not a first world problem. Moreover, as the non-replacement birthrates and consequent financial demographic problems demonstrate (in Japan, in Europe, and now in China) if the solution to the worlds problems is forbidding people to breed, we're in for a lot worse problems than we have now.

Finally, I believe the best destiny of both women and men are to be baby makers!

Talk about your first world problems, if you believe people get to "define" themselves, or "choose" what to do with their bodies and lives, well, that's really crazy.

Do maids and janitors get to "define" themselves with their careers? The world still needs ditch diggers, so I guess they'll have to.

To people "choose" not to have cancer, or degenerative chronic diseases? will they ever?

This notion that we get to "choose" to "define" ourselves in any way is not only absurd, it is offensive to the billions who are not able to delude themselves that pushing papers or electrons around in airconditioned offices is in anyway meaningful, or satisfying.

Can't you see how grotesque the implications of what you are forced to argue are? Why are you even arguing this progress shit? Isn't the point here that you should be able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with whatever orifice you want? But now you have trapped your self into not only arguing that "hey, its my body" but now "hey, things are much better now."

Would you please read Brave New World? Its like you are a parody of that.

And all this so that you can suppress fetus pictures?

Finally Captain Zero. You are really monumentally ignorant.

Contra-ception ("contra" means against, and "ception" means conceive, as in conception) means the "prevention of the fusion of gametes during or after sexual activity" (see wikipedia, or really any dictionary).

You see this thing--conception--happens before birth, roughly nine months or so, and is what Contra-ception is trying to prevent.

Abortion is by definition something else--the killing of someone (or something, if you prefer) already conceived.

Do you really not understand that? its the definitions of the words--the euphemisms like "birth control" or "planned parenthood" are really getting to you there. Only if you totally change the definition of Contraception does it include abortion. And why would you? Then you just have to come up with a new word for that original thing "the prevention of the fusion of gametes during or after sexual activity".

Why would you do that, if the word, based on the latin it is derived from, already describes that, unless you want to confuse the issue, and make the abortion seem like something it is not.

@legiticus

Told ya!

I new some whipped loser would have to come on here and try to pretend that in every man is some cuddling, tantric, geriatrico-phile waiting to get out.

You see, the answer that every man give to this type of scolding, is what shows that men and women are different--he shrugs, goes and finds some nubile young thing to bang, and then coyotes his way back to his pad.

"Status boosters" really explains all the hooters, and strip joints. . .

Dissect it any way you please. At the end of the day, abortion is a type of birth control. Conception doesn't pertain to the subject to the extent you're suggesting--the ultimate result of reproductive control and prevention is the consistent desired outcome.

And conception does not equate to the dawn of life, otherwise the fetus would be viable outside of the womb immediately as opposed to 9 months later. Also explains why birthdays indicate the first day out of utero, not the date you were conceived.

Conflating children with embryos is such a fucking logical fallacy, keep talking about my *~ignorance~* and your swell theory on female predetermination to service humanity through bearing children and making proper, ladylike decisions in regards to handling pregnancy.

Captain Zero
I call you ignorant because you are ignorant. Contra, from the Latin preposition "contra + acc." meaning against, and Ception, from the latin verb "concipio, concipere" meaning to catch or to conceive.

Its just what the word means. Contraception is just a combination of those two words. Which means that abortion is not contraception, which you said above.

So now you switch to abortion is a type of "birth control", which is again, not what you said above, not to mention that "birth control" is a euphemism, originally for contraception, but now including pretty much anything.

By your reasoning, so would killing the mother and child with a bomb since that also would prevent birth, but you know, rather than all this silly, semantic sophistry, why not just affirm that "Abortion is Good." and be done with it.

Since that's the extent of your reasoning--simple predication--just affirm what you want and be done with it. And stop pretending you are "arguing".

You are just scolding those who disagree with you, because what you believe is "good".

Also, you'll excuse me, given your above evidence reasoning "capacities" from not deferring to your definition of a "logical fallacy".

Pray tell, what are "embryos" if not human beings?

They are alive (that's the point of killing them).

They have human DNA.

And they have unique human DNA.

What are they then? And if you yet again re-define some word, like "human" to exclude a meaning you don't like, how are we going to stop those who want to define others as "not-human" for one reason or another.

And its not like this is some academic debate--defining people as "non-human" has been the cause of most of the atrocities of the 20th century.

But you are probably right--progress will not abide such idle formalities--nothing to see here. . . move along, progress being made. . .

> Talk about your first world problems, if you believe people get to "define" themselves, or "choose" what to do with their bodies and lives, well, that's really crazy.

How is it crazy that individuals should be free to choose what to do with their lives? Yes, people do get to choose whether they will be janitors, firemen, policemen, construction workers. These might seem like demeaning, base jobs to you, but people who work for a living, regardless of what job they choose, can take pride in what they do. I work in IT for a living, but I have also swung a hammer and have dug a ditch or two. I can tell you that when you dig a really nice ditch with a shovel, it is really satisfying whey you have done it right.

Your world is that we don't have free will. You believe that the Almighty has a "plan" for all of us that we must live by. If you shoot your seed in 5 minutes into a woman, she has to live with the consequences for that for the rest of her life...

> Pray tell, what are "embryos" if not human beings?

> They are alive (that's the point of killing them).

> They have human DNA.

> And they have unique human DNA.

This is the point. Embryos are not human beings any more than eggs you buy at the supermarket are chickens. An embryo does not become a person until it is outside the womb. One of the reasons why we issue birth certificates as proof of who you are is because you do not become a person until you are born.

A woman should get to decide whether she bears a child in a free society. She should have the freedom to choose or not to choose. The government and the church should not be there to tell her whether she will be a servant to another human being for the rest of her life (to raise a child). Thankfully for the human race, 50% of the population frequently do choose to carry a baby for 9 months and then raise that child to adulthood.

2concerned4you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Captain Zero
> I call you ignorant because you are ignorant.
> Contra, from the Latin preposition "contra + acc."
> meaning against, and Ception, from the latin verb
> "concipio, concipere" meaning to catch or to
> conceive.
>
> Its just what the word means. Contraception is
> just a combination of those two words. Which means
> that abortion is not contraception, which you said
> above.
>
> So now you switch to abortion is a type of "birth
> control", which is again, not what you said above,
> not to mention that "birth control" is a
> euphemism, originally for contraception, but now
> including pretty much anything.
>
> By your reasoning, so would killing the mother and
> child with a bomb since that also would prevent
> birth, but you know, rather than all this silly,
> semantic sophistry, why not just affirm that
> "Abortion is Good." and be done with it.
>
> Since that's the extent of your reasoning--simple
> predication--just affirm what you want and be done
> with it. And stop pretending you are "arguing".
>
> You are just scolding those who disagree with you,
> because what you believe is "good".
>
> Also, you'll excuse me, given your above evidence
> reasoning "capacities" from not deferring to your
> definition of a "logical fallacy".
>
> Pray tell, what are "embryos" if not human beings?
>
>
> They are alive (that's the point of killing
> them).
>
> They have human DNA.
>
> And they have unique human DNA.
>
> What are they then? And if you yet again re-define
> some word, like "human" to exclude a meaning you
> don't like, how are we going to stop those who
> want to define others as "not-human" for one
> reason or another.
>
> And its not like this is some academic
> debate--defining people as "non-human" has been
> the cause of most of the atrocities of the 20th
> century.
>
> But you are probably right--progress will not
> abide such idle formalities--nothing to see here.
> . . move along, progress being made. . .

Oooh, go on with your bad self! Black & white concrete cognition is sure to extinguish all opponents.

If a proverbial embryo is human by virtue of its unique DNA, jizz is a person too, along with hair strands.

The reason you're up against disapproval does not boil down to an urgency to be agreed with. More like, your ideology has readily identified you as a holier-than-thou, self-righteous prick relying on misguided analogies and prejudice in attempt to distribute guilt and blame where it doesn't belong.

No point in further elaboration from my end, granted every exchange falls on deaf ears.

"What is 'life outside the home'? spending 8-10 mandatory hours per day with people who really neither like nor respect you?"

Ha! You just described most kids.

But seriously, you really are a misogynistic troglodyte.

"Black & white concrete cognition"?

WTF is that?

What you got from me was cold, clear logic.

Its not DNA which makes you a person, its unique HUMAN DNA that indicates that something is not just a part of you (like hair or semen), but rather something or someone in their own right.

Its up to you come up with a definition for it.

Anyway, i don't really care what you think of me. What I do care to do is to show, as you have most admirably (thanks for that!) is that your entire ideology boils down to "Abortion is Good."

Here's the syllogisms:

Birth control is necessary for the way things are now.

the way things are now is good.

Birth control is good.

Abortion is birth control.

Abortion is good.

Except those pictures don't really go with that affirmation.

Which is why people object to them.

But as one of the people who stand out on that corner with the pictures, I don't really care if you object to them. In fact, that's kind of the point.

Which is why some people above have to say--"well, someone should really remove those pictures"

Which is what this thread was about in the first place.

I get the impression that if team pro-life actually cared about reducing or ending the need for abortion, they'd push for access to preventative contraception alternatives like condoms, hormonal birth control and the like, in addition to supporting causes such as comprehensive sex ed programs versus the typically favored abstinence-only youth lectures.

Wonder why the movement hasn't attempted to accomplish any of the above alternatives. Wait. No I don't.

The reason why, gianni, is because many on team pro life, like catholics, believe contraception itself is nearly as bad as abortion, but you already knew that.

Every sperm is sacred.

oh you CANNOT do that without the link, Ito - SHAME ON YOU!!!!!

@gianni - cause the ppl you see on the street harrassing women dont really care about the issue - they are getting off on the power trip. They are getting off on making the women going to the clinics feel like shit. They care more about that than they do those women actually getting help.
They hate the fact that women have access to things that make them sexually free, and hate the type of women who even WANT to be sexually free. That's why they have their "message" tailored the way they do.

It's all about power tripin, yo. Same as any other rapist, really. Targeting women to get control over their body.

good scene

@Capt O - like 2con said to you last..............
"..............Which is what this thread was about in the first place."

which, translated, means...................
Attachments:

@Gorgo,

LOL!

That's some wild psychologizing there!

How bout the obvious reason stated above--that the intent of the pictures is in fact to make women feel like shit, so they will stop having abortions?

well at least you are finally admitting that you want women to feel like shit when they drive past the pictures.

which of course, is the textbook definition..............
Attachments:

2concerned4you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason why, gianni, is because many on team
> pro life, like catholics, believe contraception
> itself is nearly as bad as abortion, but you
> already knew that.

Sure as shit...but I ask, how might the cause reach further audiences and gain traction without the proposal of a feasible solution to abortion? Without at least one pro-life approved (and largely reliable) resource geared at family planning and/or STD prevention, abstinence is the assumed answer. Realistically, advising long-term celibacy at least until marriage hasn't proven successful and is also problematic; we're damned using artificial birth control and further damned should the lack of protection inspire others to look into abortion once it's too late.

of course, they could stop going for the abortion and not feel like shit anymore. But really, is the purpose of life just not to feel shitty? Is it the worst thing in the world to feel remorse? Or maybe the thing that you are contemplating doing or did is worse. . . I'm sure deadbeat dads feel shitty once in a while for having left their kids, or maybe even rapists feel shitty . . . how come no one is out there defending their right not to feel shitty. . .

See what I mean, people? They arent interested in not stopping abortions as much as they are into making women feel shitty...............

And you know this is true cause if they were REALLY into stopping abortion, they'd do it the same way ppl sale brats dolls - they'd do something cool and interesting

or at least try....................

but no - they'd rather make women feel shitty

the whole "we are trying to protect children" message is not the true reason behind it all or else they'd be using a more effect method to deliver their cause. It's crazy. Who the hell else other than pro-lifers and Al Qida (Al-Queda? Al-Kida? Al-Coo-Coo if you ask me LoLz) uses vile imagery in order to promote their cause?

edit: I've been asked to point out that yeah, not ALL pro-lifers are like the sign & harassment assholes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2012 03:07PM by Gordon Blvd.

you mean other than you--see your sunscreen post on this tread.

Save the pretense of offence. I'm sure your little sunscreen pic makes the "bitches" feel grrrrreat.

And the point is stopping people from choosing to have abortions not stopping abortions.

God, through nature, induces abortions all the time. Just like God, through nature, kills people all the time.

The problem is when men do these things for themselves and their own convenience.

not "bitches", but "bitch"
you in particular

but beyond that point, funny how you can't conceive of "bitch" beyond the gender role that your feeble mind has associated with it. I think you are a bitch and I have no idea what yr gender is, yo. And could really care less.

Anyways, the point TRULY "is stopping people from choosing to have abortions" then you would be putting that message in a more appealing light same as any other advertiser.

But trying to work on the problem as a whole isnt as much fun as targeting women at a weak moment in their life. Worst part is that you are shitting all over Christ - taking His message and using it to hurt ppl purposely. And as you yourself pointed out:

Re: Pro life demonstration on lee hwy
Posted by: 2concerned4you ()
Date: July 06, 2012 01:03PM
"that the intent of the pictures is in fact to make women feel like shit"

And in the name of the Holy Spirit y'all do this. Which is, of course, why we call you guys asswipes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2012 04:26PM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

> God, through nature, induces abortions all the time. Just like God, through nature, kills people all the time.

Yes. Its God's will. The imaginary friend who sees all and controls everything in the universe. He's the one that plants the seed and it is man's folly to interfere with his great plan.

As others have pointed out, the concern for the embryo is not the big concern here. It is moral legislation. The pro-lifers are obsessed with oppressing women, just like the Taliban. Praise be to Allah that conservative values always keep the woman in her place, barefoot, pregnant, breastfeeding and locked away out of sight.

The concept of original sin in traditional societies usually place the blame for lust on the woman -- she is the temptress who makes men do lustful things. She bares the blame for being a slut, a whore, or a "loose woman" for giving in to the sin of sex outside the blessed union before God.

It is because of backwards views like this that vibrators and sexual lubricants can't be sold in the Bible belt. In conservative societies in Africa, they practice female circumcision to prevent a woman from even possibly enjoying the act of sex.

2con4u is disgusted by your photo Gordon, because the implication that a man could ejaculate anywhere else but inside a vagina is SIN! A black spot on your soul that Jesus will remember forever. On judgement day, a man will stand at the pearly gates with a big book. It will list all the sinful thoughts and actions of you wretched fornicators.

Its not just the abortion that is wrong, its the whole act of sex if done without intent of creating a child in wedlock. Its also the concept that women are second class citizens. Their role is to have babies and raise the family, while the man is free to do what he wants.

We have spent a decade fighting the Taliban and religious extremists in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The ironic thing is that we have our own religious extremism right here.

2concerned4you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really don't get how men think. This is what
> men want out of sex--it lasts about 5 minutes, and
> then they get to go to sleep. Then maybe later
> then same thing. And if they give in to the baser
> desires, they'd like it with a different person
> every time, preferably, also one that is about
> 20years old. Everything else that you've heard is
> bs. I'm sure some "sensitive" guys will come on
> here and lie about it, because they are whipped,
> but that's pretty much the biology of it.

oh. weren't you on soapbox professing god's noble expectations of mankind which only permits fucking for your future families thus any unrelated incentives to knock boots warrants damnation?

that big guy in the sky sure has a sense of humor, no doubt about it. dude cursed a number of men whence he placed timers set at 5 minute-limits on their dongs & then placed another hex upon various women, unable or uninterested in fulfilling the lord's orders to treat her vajay-jay as if it were a clown car, akin to the capacity which St. Michelle Duggar has achieved.

@ Gorgon
So now we've progressed from the poor children who can't be made to look at the pictures, to the poor women who shouldn't be exposed to them because it makes them feel shitty.

And Jesus too--that's a stretch! I not sure I'm really convinced of your concern for him--like that sin is what is responsible for his torture and death, sins like abortion, fornication, contraception, and pornography. Apparently its for some soppy sentimentality like "oh your spreading hate". Please.

Try to pick a single violin, and play that one--it makes it easier for people to generate the schmaltzy sentimentality that you think passes for assent.

@Ito
"Its not just the abortion that is wrong, its the whole act of sex if done without intent of creating a child in wedlock."

Bingo! Ding ding ding ding! That's it! That's the point! That's why the purpose isn't to lessen the number of abortions by bribing people with federal aid and giving them free contraception (though with all the clinics around, you'd have to be an idiot to pay for it nowadays) its to stop people for hurting themselves by making the choice to contracept or have an abortion, which can add murder to sin..

I don't know why you think this is such a discovery--the Catholic Church still excommunicates anyone who has an abortion or who participates in it.

@AntiZ

yep I was. I was just distinguishing between the biological elements of sex drive as experienced differently by men and women. This has all kinds of big science words like testosterone, oxytocin. . . to back it up, so I suggest you move along, and get back to listening to Depeche Mode..

Re: Pro life demonstration on lee hwy new
Posted by: 2concerned4you ()
Date: July 06, 2012 06:35PM

So now we've progressed from the poor children who can't be made to look at the pictures, to the poor women who shouldn't be exposed to them because it makes them feel shitty.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A:where did I say anything about children looking at anything? That crazy-thing is again messin' with yr head.........

----------------------------------------------------------------


And Jesus too--that's a stretch! I not sure I'm really convinced of your concern for him--like that sin is what is responsible for his torture and death, sins like abortion, fornication, contraception, and pornography. Apparently its for some soppy sentimentality like "oh your spreading hate". Please.

Try to pick a single violin, and play that one--it makes it easier for people to generate the schmaltzy sentimentality that you think passes for assent.
----------------------------
a: So because you question my love for Him, it's ok to shit on His name, is that your reasoning? Pathetic, if true. Sad straw man (again?) approach if false.

But whatevs. You can stick yr fingers in yr ears and pretend that your intentional bullying of women isnt a sin all you want. Or is it that one sin makes your sin ok? Normal people dont think like that. And I know Christ didnt roll like that.

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Free speech is about ideas. There is no idea being conveyed in these images. Therefore, like goatse, these images are not speech and can be regulated.

Hell, you can't show a nipple in public in VA (see Cuccinelli covering up the Virginia seal), but you can show a preschooler dismembered corpses? That's fucked up.

Hell, I think these protestors are twisted in the brain and fucked up to show those images in public to little kids. Seriously, what sort of perv does that? I have relatives that travel down here every January for the pro-life march, and they were livid that some asshat would show those pictures on a street corner, but because it's distasteful, but also because the potential backlash against the movement.

"If you love me keep my word"

That's what Jesus said about love for him.

And what was his word--it was that not a single jot or title of the old law was to be abrogated, but the entirety was to be obeyed not only in spirit but in letter.

Of fornication and adultery, he said that even considering it was tantamount to committing it.

And this is what he meant by love one another as I have loved you--because he says that's what loving him means--to keep the commandments.

He also said that he came not to bring peace but a sword, and to light a fire for which he eagerly anticipated the burning. Then he picked up a whip, and made the money changers feel "shitty."

@ukyxv

I think the above exchange has shown, its not the images, its the intent ("thought police 10-4) and it seems to be the same intent show by people who pray the rosary outside of clinics. . . or whatever. . . That they intend to give witness, i mean make women who want abortions feel shitty.

Just like im sure John the Baptist made Herod feel shitty. And Herodias and Salome, for that matter. And they were women. So that's the crime. Saying things which cannot be heard.

I believe there is a verse that says, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Thankfully the U.S. is not yet a theocracy so quoting verses from your hocus pocus book means nothing to us heathens. Christianity would have remained a bizarre cult had Constantine not decided to make it the state religion of the Byzantine Empire.

Its ironic that we are in the 21st Century, typing on computers and we're still dealing with a religion that dominated the middle ages with debates of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Can we please advance beyond the superstition? If everyone can figure out that there is no Santa Claus by age 6, how is it that people can't get past the idea that there is no sky daddy who keeps a list and checks it twice and knows if we are naughty and nice?

Litmus test: Its ok if you pray to god, but if he talks back to you, they come and put you in a loony bin. (Unless you are a televangelist)

@ito
I was just responding to Gorgo's latest fraud, that he was offended on behalf of Jesus, and then offended at my disbelief of that

And, in response to your verse, the very idea of showing the pictures is to stop the sin at all.

But your remark betrays your central argument--that you, and by extension those going to get an abortion are going to go ahead an do it anyway, regardless of the horror of having to look at a picture of what they're about to do

Isn't it ironic (proper use of that word) that when you go in for most surgeries, doctors can't wait to show you pictures of what they are about to do--ultrasounds, colonoscopys, heart surgeries--you practically have to watch of those TLC videos which are always on--you know the ones, no not the gastric bypass ones, and not the conjoined twin separating ones, but the ones about open heart surgery.

Anyway its ironic that people are supposed to look at these with wonder, curiousity and admiration, and yet the comparatively dull fetus pictures are so hurtful and offensive.

Someone really ought to do something about The Learning Channel, and PBS Nova, and afternoon syndicated doctor shows, so that the kids don't have to see it

@Ito - yr litmus test is broken cause ppl get talked back to from God everyday. Just reality, bro. You may not believe, but by calling ppl who hear (or for your sake of argument, feel they hear) from God "Crazy" like that is disrespectful to them same way as if I called you out yr name simply for not believing.
If I respect yr Atheism, you should respect my Christianity, fair enough? Believe me when I tell you there is a VAST DIFFERENCE between any large organized religion and the True Spirit of God so dont buy what you hear off the TV LoLz


Re: Pro life demonstration on lee hwy new
Posted by: 2concerned4you ()
Date: July 07, 2012 08:56AM

Someone really ought to do something about The Learning Channel, and PBS Nova, and afternoon syndicated doctor shows, so that the kids don't have to see it


a: we normal ppl have such a thing called an "off switch". Part of that "progress" thingee we were talking about earlier.

Newsflash! Doesnt matter if you offend me. This thread has not a thing to do with me (PRO TIP!: If you notice, you are the only one who cares about what I think). I just think it's pathetic that someone who pretends to be Loyal Catholic uses Christ intentionally to hurt, as you stated you do............if indeed you are into posting these pictures in the Name and Blood of Christ. Is this true or am I mistaken? Are these actions being done in His Name or not?

I don't have to respect your Christianity. Its a free country and people are free to believe what they want, but I don't have to endorse a religion or ignore its fallacies of logic.

If someone tries to reinforce their argument on a subject by quoting me their horoscope I am going to call them out on it.

Gordon, if you are going to try to point out that the pro-life crowd are doing something that is un-Christian, you are going to find yourself fighting against two millennia of the church quoting scripture to condone all sorts of horrific acts and policies.

Also, you are arguing against the majority view of Christianity here. They are firmly on the side of 2con4u. As he points out, the Vatican's official view is that the protesters on the street are doing God's work. This is the business of the Christian theology: shaming sinners for their sin. Repent and be saved.

My argument is that if you are willing to delude yourself into believing in talking snakes, angels interceding in daily lives, a divine being who knows all and sees all, then you have a flaw in your logical reasoning. If you think a man with a funny hat and smoking purse in Rome is infallible, then you must also believe that his word on this subject is also right. He believes that abortion is a sin. If you believe that abortion is a sin, then it only follows that you will do anything to prevent this "murder" from taking place.

In that way, I can understand 2con4u's views, and those of the pro-life movement -- because they are the consistent with the teachings of their church. If you believe in the concept of sin, then you must understand that public shaming of sinners is part of the belief system.

However, if you are free from all of this and can make your decisions on your own without having all of this nonsense as your cultural reference, you will look at the situation and see maniacs holding up signs of mutilated fetuses to scared teenagers who are about to undergo a medical procedure. You see a religion trying to impose its backwards beliefs on others.

When you read about the atrocities of the Taliban, you will see they are not very different.

Bless the children...
Attachments:

> Isn't it ironic (proper use of that word) that when you go in for most surgeries, doctors can't wait to show you pictures of what they are about to do--

This is not what doctors do. They might explain the procedure, but they don't show you pictures of what the procedure looks like before performing it. This is akin to a restaurant showing how chickens are slaughtered on the menu.

@Ito - You dont, it is, and they are LoLz. However, if you want to present your case in a truly effective dialogue, you're gonna want to learn how to respect the other side's P.O.V.

I grew up in a Baptist household as a kid. Family's HEAVY into it. I became agnostic, then Atheist in college. You cannot even BEGIN to imagine the debates in religious doctrine I would get into with my buds who where Campus Christians - boy, did I get to hear a lot of ppl's reasoning behind God, etc. I taught a lot and learned a lot - lesson #1: God is real, but has not a THING to do with anything you've read in any book, that's for sure LoLz.

Me, I believe in God, but I dont buy the message that you and 2con have bought regarding that the Vatican is God, or that just cause someone in a church tells you something, that you dont have to question it. I follow the Christian path cause it's what I know and it's a GREAT guide if you use it with a little common sense and understand it's a buncha books put together, for a reason and you cant use all the rules from 2 billion years ago like it makes sense now. Others follow different paths - I dont judge them at all - in fact, I reckon we are all heading to the same place, just taking different ways, is all.....................as long as we are all trying to help out, that is.

I mean, you want ppl to hear what you have to say, right? And you make some pretty intelligent points I know I cant argue. 2con-types and Taliban are soooooooooooooooooooooooooo not too far apart, it makes me cry to know they are in this country. But they always have been. They loved that dude when he was blowing up clinics and gay clubs down south and only really turned on him after he murdered that Turkish Camera dude and that old lady in Atlanta in 96 ( in the middle of our fucking Olympics..............asshole.)

But you need to know that not all Christians are clones - dont believe the media hype. The Christ I know and love trashed a church cause it was just like McLean Bible Church (Matt 21) and ended up getting arrested for doing shit like that for the simple reason that the Megachurhes when he was alive were full of shit same way they are now.

Anywho, all I'm saying is that if you want to make an Atheist discussion among believers of faith, and you are not respecting the believers, then you are just as bad as 2con on the side of the road. I mean, yeah, you're right - You dont have to respect shit - ESPECIALLY the bullshit I say LoLz.............but if you want a more fruitful dialogue (and dont wanna be "just another asswipe") yr gonna want to learn to respect others, definitely when it comes to religion.


Unless you want to be an asshole. But then yr just like 2con and the Taliban then, y'know?

@Sandusky!!! +1
Attachments:

@Ito,
Sure they do, and i note you pass over the televised examples.

@Gorgo

So then if the tv has an off switch, the passers by at the clinic also have eyelids and are able to turn their heads.

But what it proves is that he images are not so disturbing they aren't shown elsewhere, but rather its reflecting on the intended action that is disturbing. Which is the point.

ps. I don't think i offend you at all.

This is another one of your fraudulent poses for arguments.

Its a kind of brinksmanship where you attempt to scold people off arguments by saying they are offensive.

But its silly because even if you believe it, I don't intend to offend you or say anything inherently offensive. I'm just pretty much stating the facts of the position--why the people hold up the signs, and why others object to them.

And Its is right about this "This is the business of the Christian theology: shaming sinners for their sin. Repent and be saved."

From the Pharisees, to the Sadducees, to Herod, to Judas, Jesus and his followers were pretty candid about calling out sinners, and calling them to repentance. And they called this Charity--the love of God for his own sake and the love of creatures for him.

And I note you are yet again exploiting victims to call your opponents names--now blaming all catholics for pedophilia, and I'm sure the victims of pedophilia love being invoked against self-serving screeds against the church.

So why don't you go back to pretending your are offended on behalf of the women who are made to feel "shitty."

Gordon Blvd Rocks +1
Attachments:

@Gordon

I would never attack anyone for their religious beliefs, per se. I have traveled the world and have been to St. Peter's in Rome a number of times. Last year I was in St. Sophia in Istanbul. Also last year I spent a month in India where I spent 3 days in Varanasi on the Ganges River -- a truly moving experience. I have spent so much time traveling through Europe and Russia, I can't tell you how many churches and cathedrals I have been to.

I have read the bible and most of a translation of the Koran. I grew up in a community that was mostly Jewish (my family is not).

So in short, I have been a student of religion and philosophy. I admire those who can live their lives based on the core teachings of any religion.

However...

If you are going to use your religious beliefs to legislate, as a means to govern other's behavior, then you are making a mistake. If you feel that your own mythology entitles you to a lack of human compassion or logic in the public sphere, you deserve to be called out for a failure in logic.

I am largely agreeing with your viewpoint that most Christians are somehow able to separate their cultural beliefs from their faith. Again, though, if you REALLY believe in Santa Claus, then you must believe that you will get coal in your stocking if you do naughty things. If you believe that there is a spirit created by god when you receive the spark of life, the pro-life argument is the logical conclusion. That is the main reason why this discussion can never go anywhere. That is why true believers can't fathom the logic of evolution or any other scientific reasoning that goes against their "teachings".

@Ito
And Ito I respect your honesty about the opposing position, and its consistency, even if you find it repulsive and idiotic.

But just to clarify one element--Catholics and many other non-Catholic pro-lifers believe that Abortion is not a religious prohibition, like eating meat on certain days or other commands that come from religious devotion--they believe it is against the Natural Law.

I know many find the phrase "natural law" quaint, but the founders obviously believe in it (see the Declaration of Independence). And some actions which go against the natural law (murder. . . ) must be publicly forbidden for the sake of public order and the common good.

Thats the position, anyway. . .

@2con- well, putting nasty pics up like that on the side of the road is most CERTAINLY against "natural law"...................... Thats the position, anyway. . .


@Ito - in my lifetime, I have learned that at least for me yes, you get coal in yr stocking if you do naughty things. But you get really cool prizes for playing the game and walking "The Path" best you can. And it has nothing to do with any particular book as much as it has to do with the gush between yr ears and the hands at the ends of yr arms and what you choose to do with both, y'know? I cant say for others as they are..........well, other LoLz.

But there are TONS of true believers who fathom the logic of evolution - in fact the guy who taught me the Theory of Evolution (6th Grade science teacher) was a BIG into Jesus, funny enough. I was too young to know there was an issue about it even though I do remember him bringing up Scopes.

Anywho, I'm a True Believer and I know dinosaurs existed and evolution works. I believe in a "spark of life" sure. But I also believe that human development, the "stuff" that makes you you isnt there for quite some time. Others believe other things. That's why you cant lump all Believers together, is all I'm saying.

and oh yeah ....FUCK using religions beliefs to legislate!

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Pretty funny we just had a monster thread on sluts and now they complain about sluts getting abortions.

They complain about more people claiming disability and food stamps yet clamor for more military spending and wars.

The problem is that some people are insulated from the consequences of their actions, and it's not just the woman getting the abortion or the kid going on welfare.

Hypocrisy....
Attachments:

IF THE RIGHTWING ZELOTS WOULD PUT THEAR RETORHIC&HATEFULL HEARTS DOWN,& PUT THEIR MONEY WHEAR THEIR MOUTH IS ,AND BE WILLING TO TAKE CARE OF THES BABIES. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT TOWARDS THE RIGHT TO LIFE CAMPAIN & OUTRAGES LAWS BEING PUT ON WOMANS LIVES , AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO LEGISLATE END TO BIRTH CONTROL OMG I FEEL LIKE I LIVE IN A CONTRADICTION BUBLE WITH PEOPLE THAT WILL NOT WORK WITH SOME DEMS TO DO SOMTHING EVERYONE CAN LIVE WITH,YOU WANT IT YOUR WAY PERIOD , I AM 56 YEARS OLD WITH THREE BEUTIFULL CHLDREN HAVE ALLWAYS LIVED PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK MY WIFE WAS A STAY AT HOME MOM WE LOVE OUR KIDS VERY MUCH AND WE COULD NEVER USE ANY THING LIKE ABORTION TO MAKE OUR LIVES BETTER , BUT I WILL ALLWAYS FIGHT FOR A FAMILY OR WOMANS RIGHT TO CHOOSE, AND IF I HAD LISTEND TO MY CONSERVITIVE FAMILY WHEN MY WIFE WAS PREGNANT MY CHLDREN WOULD NOT BE HEAR TODAY,SO I WOULD NEVER NEVER TRY TO TELL ANYONE WHAT THEY SHOULD DO,LET ALONE ALOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE THIS DECISION,AND ENFORCE THES PROPOSED DRACONION LAWS. BY THE WAY I THOUT YOU WANTED LESS GOVERNMENT ? FREE SPEACH FOR EMBREOS?. ALL THIS NONSENS WOULD LEAD TO BIBLE LEGISTRATION,WHAT NEXT DEATH PENALTY FOR MISING THE SABOTH ? AND I DO BELIEV IN JESUS , BUT WILL NEVER GO BACK TO A CHURCH THAT TEACHES BOLONIE, RIGHT WING HATE, AND INTOLORANCE FOR ALL OTHER RELIGIONS