BSBD Tiller the Baby Killer

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Why don't you just go ahead and show us all the military training manual that says that, m'kay?

Where did I say military is pro-life?
(not to mention most countries around the world still have mandatory draft).

You didn't - you said the military doesn't care about civilians since "they don't pray Jesus" - shall I re-quote to refresh your memory, or do you still recall it from where you erased it from *MY* post?

You made the claim, now PROVE it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

in short, you want to remove any choice from the man - and relegate him to only responding in the 'approved' manner to whatever the woman chooses

Not at all. I’ve just not denied a women’s autonomy over her body for 9 months.

Quote

I'll completely join the choice crowd as soon as they make it non-sexist

Welcome to the pro-choice crowd. )

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

insurance companies do not recognize fetuses... by this logic the hardcore pro-lifer should not associate, but to hell with the fetuses when it's not in their best interest or stands in their way of personal gain I guess

Yes, they do not recognize fetuses - meaning you cannot add a fetus into your family policy. However it's usually covered under maternity, as it was in our case. If a policy doesn't cover maternity, or has a bunch of exclusions, then it might be a problem.

But in this case I don't think it's abortion-related - it's just insurance business, they want to collect as much money as possible, and pay as little as possible.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[porpoishead 5]

I stand corrected then.

I had a civilian policy and however it did not cover the NICU bill.

they stuck me with the bill included him @ 48 hrs and only covered back to within 24 hrs if I recall correctly...total NICU was around 13k I paid over 8k of it..

if you want a friend feed any animal
Perry Farrell

[georgerussia 0]

I just checked what I said, and found the following military-related quote in my post you referred to:

Quote

An enemy soldier is even worse example, as a lot of people who suffer during wars are actually women and children. But this is usually ok, and they're not considered innocent because they do not pray Jesus.

and then you're saying that:

Quote

you said the military doesn't care about civilians since "they don't pray Jesus"

As you could see, the "military doesn't care about civilians" part was introduced by yours truly. So please don't ask me to prove your theories.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Next time you see an anti-life person

You mean the one who supports wars and death penalty, right?

Quote

ask them if they support the legalization of drugs, same sex marriages, the blank panthers, the ku klux klan, etc...

Denying abortion has a very direct consequence of introducing unwanted children into the world, who will likely to need foster care and adoption. Therefore if someone is anti-choice, it is very appropriate to ask what do they personally do to counter the possible consequences.

However I'm failing to see any direct relationship between death penalty and blank panthers/KKK. Could you please enlighten me?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

I paraphrased rather than quoting you again. In the future, I will make sure to repeat the quote, since you obviously couldn't remember your own words even AFTER deleting them from my post that you answered.

Regardless, now that you've re-read your own words, go ahead and show us the manual claiming that someone, somewhere is "not considered innocent because they do not pray Jesus" (there - I even quoted you yet AGAIN to keep your memory refreshed).

Regulation number, chapter and paragraph along with the quote from the manual/regulation, please. I want to be able to look it up for myself to confirm it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So why are comatose people on life support considered legal people but viable fetuses aren't?

For example, because they have birth certificate. Good enough reason.

Quote

PS: Who (exactly) gets to decide to terminate life support?

In case of my friend his mother made this decision (and had to flew from Europe to do so). He had a girlfriend but he wasn't married. Not sure if it changed anything.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I paraphrased rather than quoting you again.

Your English is difficult to understand. Does "paraphrased" mean "made it"? You clearly said completely different things from what I said, and then you asked me to provide evidence to the things you said. If you call this "paraphrase", then please don't paraphrase me again.

Quote

In the future, I will make sure to repeat the quote, since you obviously couldn't remember your own words even AFTER deleting them from my post that you answered.

I just quoted my own words for your convenience in the post you just replied to. Don't you have enough courage to admit that you just made up some stuff out of blue sky, which simply wasn't there?

Quote

Regardless, now that you've re-read your own words, go ahead and show us the manual claiming that some someone is "not considered innocent because they do not pray Jesus" (there - I even quoted you yet AGAIN to keep your memory refreshed).

Are you kidding? Were my words in quotes, or did I refer in any way that they come from any kind of manual? In fact I don't believe "pro-life" people have manual. Sometime I doubt they could write anything larger than one page pamphlet.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I paraphrased rather than quoting you again.

Your English is difficult to understand. Does "paraphrased" mean "made it"? You clearly said completely different things from what I said, and then you asked me to provide evidence to the things you said. If you call this "paraphrase", then please don't paraphrase me again.

Try a dictionary - that should clear up your confusion.

Quote

Are you kidding? Were my words in quotes, or did I refer in any way that they come from any kind of manual? In fact I don't believe "pro-life" people have manual. Sometime I doubt they could write anything larger than one page pamphlet.

What was that about "making stuff up", again?

Seeing as how your quote (here, I'll give it again) -

as a lot of people who suffer during wars are actually women and children. But this is usually ok, and they're not considered innocent because they do not pray Jesus.

Now, since your quote speaks of war, I'd say it's pretty obvious you're talking about the military. Unless, of course, there's a few divisions of anti-abortionists invading other countries that everyone ELSE in the world missed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Wow. It really does sound like people here support his murder.

I do not and I know for a fact some people need killing

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Now, since your quote speaks of war, I'd say it's pretty obvious you're talking about the military.

No, I was talking about the "pro-life" crowd attitude toward wars and people/children who suffer in those wars. If you read Tom's message I replied to, it would be pretty obvious to you that we were talking about pro-life movement, and not military.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Now, since your quote speaks of war, I'd say it's pretty obvious you're talking about the military.

No, I was talking about the "pro-life" crowd attitude toward wars and people/children who suffer in those wars. If you read Tom's message I replied to, it would be pretty obvious to you that we were talking about pro-life movement, and not military.

No problem, then - show me literature from, say, the National Right to Life Foundation that says that it's ok for women and children to suffer in wars because they don't pray to Jesus.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

No problem, then - show me literature from, say, the National Right to Life Foundation that says that it's ok for women and children to suffer in wars because they don't pray to Jesus.

I would be really happy to know how the National Right to Life Foundation would address this issue, but I really doubt they address it at all, because doing so would reveal their hypocrisy. Basically it would be the same as if you asked me to show the Catholic Church rules which allow priest to molest young boys, and then dismiss all the accusations of pedophilia just because there is no such rule.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

No problem, then - show me literature from, say, the National Right to Life Foundation that says that it's ok for women and children to suffer in wars because they don't pray to Jesus.

I would be really happy to know how the National Right to Life Foundation would address this issue, but I really doubt they address it at all, because doing so would reveal their hypocrisy. Basically it would be the same as if you asked me to show the Catholic Church rules which allow priest to molest young boys, and then dismiss all the accusations of pedophilia just because there is no such rule.

So, in other words, you were talking shit that you couldn't prove - no problem.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So, in other words, you were talking shit that you couldn't prove - no problem.

As I said, you wouldn't understand it anyway. So be it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Next time you see an anti-life person

You mean the one who supports wars and death penalty, right?

It appears to be pointless trying to convey a point ... feel free to continue to use poor labels (pro-choice and pro-life) out of context.

Quote

Quote

ask them if they support the legalization of drugs, same sex marriages, the blank panthers, the ku klux klan, etc...

Denying abortion has a very direct consequence of introducing unwanted children into the world, who will likely to need foster care and adoption. Therefore if someone is anti-choice, it is very appropriate to ask what do they personally do to counter the possible consequences.

However I'm failing to see any direct relationship between death penalty and blank panthers/KKK. Could you please enlighten me?

Once again, it appears to be pointless trying to convey a point ... feel free to continue to use poor labels (pro-choice and pro-life) out of context.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

in short, you want to remove any choice from the man - and relegate him to only responding in the 'approved' manner to whatever the woman chooses

Not at all. I’ve just not denied a women’s autonomy over her body for 9 months.

Do you honestly not understand how you are denying the man's autonomy? The woman has the choice on whether to have an abortion which determines whether the man has to pay child support.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[wmw999 2,123]

The word "choice" is problematic when there is more than one party involved, because there are scenarios where one or more party will not have their choice respected. So a set of rules to govern the priority of the choice have evolved.

The word "life" is problematic because, well, most everyone is pro their own life at least.

But "pro abortion" is not accurate, because there are plenty of people who are for the rights of others to do things that are detestable to them. I'm for the rights of Nazis to congregate and print pamphlets in the US. That does not make me pro-Nazism.

"Anti abortion" is the most accurate of the 4 most commonly-used terms, but even it has problems. Because, again, there are plenty of pro-choice people who are personally against abortion.

So maybe pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion-rights? Or do we accept the commonly-given (or taken) names, and quit quibbling about wording, because there's no way SC will be changing the self-description wording of national groups?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Butters 0]

Quote

The word "choice" is problematic when there is more than one party involved, because there are scenarios where one or more party will not have their choice respected. So a set of rules to govern the priority of the choice have evolved.

The word "life" is problematic because, well, most everyone is pro their own life at least.

But "pro abortion" is not accurate, because there are plenty of people who are for the rights of others to do things that are detestable to them. I'm for the rights of Nazis to congregate and print pamphlets in the US. That does not make me pro-Nazism.

"Anti abortion" is the most accurate of the 4 most commonly-used terms, but even it has problems. Because, again, there are plenty of pro-choice people who are personally against abortion.

I'm glad you get the point I've been trying to convey over and over regarding the terms pro-choice and pro-life. After all, someone could be pro-choice for the 1st and 2nd trimester and then pro-life for the 3rd (or some other variation) ...

Quote

So maybe pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion-rights? Or do we accept the commonly-given (or taken) names, and quit quibbling about wording, because there's no way SC will be changing the self-description wording of national groups?

The problem with using the commonly-given (or taken) names is that certain posters are using the names themselves as arguments. I've tried giving examples to show how ridiculous this type of argument is but they don't appear to understand ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Do you honestly not understand how you are denying the man's autonomy? The woman has the choice on whether to have an abortion which determines whether the man has to pay child support.

That's the main issue. She is "only" arguing the point of the woman having the choice to abort or not. It neglects the point that choosing to have the baby doesn't end at that point - then the child must be raised. That's the true responsibility that's being declined with abortion (9 months? yes. But also the next 16 to 30 years after that).

The man doesn't have a say in the 9 months parts today - that's acceptable. With that, nerdgirl is done and can claim victory.

But that's not the part I'm discussing. I'm talking about the next 20 years after. But she's not acknowledging any of that discussion. It's too sticky and the logical results (Distasteful as it is) is just not in line with the pro-choice position on the same.

that's the sexist part of the policy. it doesn't allow the man to abort that part. Which I think is the moral equivalent of the women's right to choose.

again, the logical retort for the status quo is simple, (after birth it's a child, before the birth it's just a parasite - therefore the man 'aborting' the responsibility is so much worse than the woman aborting the 'exact same' responsibility by disengaging earlier in the process) - 1 - HOW CONVENIENT for the woman. 2 - it's just to sticky to argue so better to avoid it

edit: in the end, it's really simple

an abortion is not just to end a pregnancy (most cases) - it's to decline a very serious and long term commitment that will last for years

and that's understandable

my point is simply, if the woman has that right, so then should the man

1 both abort - no problem
2 she aborts, he doesn't - too bad for him, it's her body
3 he aborts, she doesn't - it's her body, but she's on her own after
4 - she doesn't, he doesn't - well, they both will raise the child that results, good luck to them, hope they find a way to do it

it's the only way allow both partners this 'autonomy' that's apparently so important

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

The problem with using the commonly-given (or taken) names is that certain posters are using the names themselves as arguments.

Then don't argue with those posters. Argue with the ones talking substance, or start your own substance. Otherwise you're just feeding the arguments of quibblers.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

The problem with using the commonly-given (or taken) names is that certain posters are using the names themselves as arguments.

Then don't argue with those posters. Argue with the ones talking substance, or start your own substance. Otherwise you're just feeding the arguments of quibblers.

Wendy P.

that's right - that's why we are on the Pro-Goodness team

Instead of the Pro-Evil team

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

The problem with using the commonly-given (or taken) names is that certain posters are using the names themselves as arguments.

Then don't argue with those posters. Argue with the ones talking substance, or start your own substance. Otherwise you're just feeding the arguments of quibblers.

Wendy P.

Wise words ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[wmw999 2,123]

Until there is a male equivalent of pregnancy, with its financial, physical, and social impacts on women, it will never be even. That doesn't make it OK for a woman to terminate a pregnancy that the father really wanted, but the father's really wanting the pregnancy to go to completion WILL impact the mother, even if he wants sole custody and will sign the appropriate adoption papers. The mother's decision to go forward with the pregnancy and not to name the father will NOT impact the father. Obviously if one or the other starts collecting welfare, the rules change again.

The mother's decision to go forward with the pregnancy in light of the father's lack of desire to support the baby is unfair to the father.

But the inherent differences brought by biology make this an impossible argument to have a really clear-cut answer.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)