Home - List All Discussions

Why did Sigma say: I support the legalized KILLING OF BABIES If they are attached to another against the other's will?

Come on siggy...... speak up!!

by: yoda

But I'm not gonna let him. Here's what transpired:
I SAID: (in "Cleaning thread - cont. from previous heaven / hell thread")
02/22/2006 02:57 PM
Author Icon
yodavater
Senior Member
Posts: 4072
Joined: 04/12/2004
"SIG supports the legalized KILLING OF BABIES If they are attached to another against the other's will."
SIG SAID:
02/22/2006 04:02 PM
Author Icon
Sigma
Senior Member
Posts: 662
Joined: 01/08/2006

Sure, that'll work.

reply from: Hereforareason

That is sick.
But I have had someone tell me that they think it should be legal to kill a child up to 1 year of age, because the mother can't possibly know before hand what a pain it will be.
I stopped the debate at that point. There is no more to discusse. Everyone see's their position for what it is.
MURDER!

Amber

reply from: yoda

You're so right, Amber. There are times like that when you just reach the end of the debate. When the probabykilling crowd says stuff like "I don't think an unborn baby's life is worth a plugged nickel", I know it's time to move on.

reply from: AshMarie88

Ugh... I don't know what I would have done if I talked to a person like that. That is one of the most disgusting things I've heard from the pro-aborts.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

That is SICKENING. It makes me want to vomit.

reply from: tjlsmom

You go, yodavater! Which topic did the exchange take place in?

reply from: yoda

It is in "Cleaning thread - cont. from previous heaven / hell thread", next to last post right now.

reply from: nsanford

Going by his posts, that seems to be his view in so little words. But essentially, isn't that what I've been saying also?!

reply from: yoda

Did you mean "so many words"? Yes, that seems to be what most every probabykilling advocate is saying in so many words, but I wanted to see it in plain, ordinary, everyday words, not euphemisms.

Does that statement apply to your position also? And why do you not find it "insulting" any more?

reply from: nsanford

Yes. My bad. And I still do find it slightly insulting. Pro-babykilling? Nice term, did you think it up on your own?

reply from: AshMarie88

You are pro(for) women killing their own babies.

Thus, pro-baby killing.

reply from: tjlsmom

It is in "Cleaning thread - cont. from previous heaven / hell thread", next to last post right now.

Thanks for the info.......I just read this entire thread, and have a few comments:

1) Yodavater, you are a good debater.

(And I enjoy your posts, you put things so forthrightly!)

.............Well, I had originally posted some other comments because I felt Sigma had gone way over the top, and I wanted to set him/her straight in no uncertain terms.... but I removed them. It took awhile (and a few hours of sleep), and I could very well be wrong about Sigma, but I think I remember seeing his/her particular kind of "arrogance" once before............ I don't know though, so I won't go into it.

reply from: nsanford

That is horrible. When the baby is born, there are other ways to get rid of the child. Adoption, or something!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Indeed! It's absolute absurdity.

reply from: yoda

Still no explanation as to why the plain, honest truth in the simplest possible terms is "slightly insulting"?

Have you ever considered that IF the plain, honest truth is the simplest possible terms is insulting, then perhaps there is something insulting about your position???

I'd like to take credit for it, but I had Tam's help.

reply from: tjlsmom

That is SICKENING. It makes me want to vomit.

Wasn't there a professor hired at Princeton a few years ago as chairman of the Ethics Department or something? Prof. Peter Singer? He not only holds that sick view, but actively promotes it. And yet he got the job.

reply from: Elaine

Originally posted by: nsanford
Yes. My bad. And I still do find it slightly insulting. Pro-babykilling? Nice term, did you think it up on your own?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still no explanation as to why the plain, honest truth in the simplest possible terms is "slightly insulting"?

Have you ever considered that IF the plain, honest truth is the simplest possible terms is insulting, then perhaps there is something insulting about your position???

I'd like to take credit for it, but I had Tam's help.

yodavater:
If you think pro-babykilling is not insulting to those who are pro-choice because it is the "plain, honest truth . . ." do you agree that "pro-forcing a woman to have her rapists baby" is not insulting to those who consider themselves anti-choice?

reply from: Hereforareason

Hi Elaine. I think "pro-not letting a woman murder a child because of what someone else did" would be more accurate.

Rape is an awful thing. And rapist should be punished. But, why kill someone, becuase someone else raped you? It really doens't make sense. Rape+Murder does not = everything fine again. It only makes things worse. Should that woman be "forced to have her rapist baby"? Not in the sense of keeping it maybe, but do you know how many peopel are out there wanting to adopt a baby?? Not that that really matters though. Someone else wanting that child, isn't what makes it morally wrong. It's the stopping of a heart beat, of life.
Amber

reply from: AshMarie88

That is horrible. When the baby is born, there are other ways to get rid of the child. Adoption, or something!

But when the child is still in the womb, let's mutilate it! Yay!

Come on... it's all horrible, and it's all wrong, and there are other ways!

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Elaine.

Not at all. I'm proud to be accused of advocating force to protect the lives of unborn babies, and I wear the anti-choice label proudly also (because it means "anti-abortion").

Can you explain why using the most basic, most accurate language would be insulting?

reply from: ThunderKitten

A question for sigma:

So in the case of siamese twins, which twin has the right to remove the other by leathal force? The twin on the left, the twin on the right? Whoever does it first? After all, no one has the right to live attached to another person against that's person's will, do they??

reply from: dignitarian

That is SICKENING. It makes me want to vomit.

Wasn't there a professor hired at Princeton a few years ago as chairman of the Ethics Department or something? Prof. Peter Singer? He not only holds that sick view, but actively promotes it. And yet he got the job.

tjlsmom:

The following is an exerpt from an earlier post on Dr. Singer. I thought you would find this interesting.

Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University is among the world's most preeminent specialists in the field of bioethics. Please read below what Dr. Peter Singer has to say about the right to life.

(As quoted from Fr. Robert Spitzer’s “Healing the Culture”. Emphasis is mine.)

(Quote)

"IF THE FETUS DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME CLAIM TO LIFE AS A PERSON, IT APPEARS THAT THE NEWBORN BABY DOES NOT EITHER, and the life of the newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee...if we can put aside....emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants. ... If we must have a point at which the developing human being has the same right to life as you or me ...this right, I would suggest, emerges gradually during the first few months after birth."

(Unquote)

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: tabithamarcotte

He is bordering on the edge of psychosis and demensia, I swear.

reply from: Elaine

"I'm proud to be accused of advocating force to protect the lives of unborn babies, "

FORCE?? So you are one of those "pro-lifers" who thinks it is ok to kill in the name of "saving babies"? Gotcha. So if you were to use the most accurate language to describe you it would be "one who advocates killing to avoid killing" -- nice.

reply from: nsanford

That is horrible. When the baby is born, there are other ways to get rid of the child. Adoption, or something!

But when the child is still in the womb, let's mutilate it! Yay!

Come on... it's all horrible, and it's all wrong, and there are other ways!

AshMarie, no self respecting pro-choicer says "Yay, abortion is legal, lets go convince women to have some!" Deep down everybody hates abortion. Yes, even pro choicers.

reply from: ProChoice

AshMarie, no self respecting pro-choicer says "Yay, abortion is legal, lets go convince women to have some!" Deep down everybody hates abortion. Yes, even pro choicers.

Yes, I agree. Being a pro-choice advocate myself, I don't go thinking things like that. I don't condone the act itself entirely. Yet I understand, unlike the anti-abortionists, that choices need to be made avaliable.

reply from: ProChoice

You are pro(for) women killing their own babies.

Thus, pro-baby killing.

No I believe the correct term is pro-ForWomansRightToTheirBody.

reply from: ProChoice

but do you know how many peopel are out there wanting to adopt a baby??

Over 100,000 children are out there in the system right now, looking for adoptive families. What makes you think that all these children (and the children who are "saved" from abortions) are wanted in this world?

reply from: yoda

HARDLY! Don't you even recognize your own rhetoric? "Force" is YOUR side's euphemism for making abortion illegal........ forgotten that already?

reply from: yoda

Like hell you do. Quite frankly, I've never known a "self-respecting pro-choicer" anyway.

reply from: yoda

NOPE. IT'S "PROBABYKILLING ADVOCATE"!

reply from: yoda

NOT newborns!

reply from: nsanford

Wrong. Since you want to use pro-babykilling, I think I'm going to use that from now on.

Seems pretty fair to me. No more sugarcoating. Anti-choicers.

reply from: ProChoice

NOPE. IT'S "PROBABYKILLING ADVOCATE"!

You may call it "probabykilling" but most people (and apparantly the supreme court that constituitionalized abortion) call it a woman's right to her body.

reply from: yoda

Hey, I LOVE that phrase!

Main Entry: an·ti·choice Pronunciation: "an-ti-'chois, "an-"tI-Function: adjectiveDate: 1978: ANTIABORTION
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=antiabortion

reply from: domsmom

(As quoted from Fr. Robert Spitzer’s “Healing the Culture”. Emphasis is mine.)

(Quote)

"IF THE FETUS DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME CLAIM TO LIFE AS A PERSON, IT APPEARS THAT THE NEWBORN BABY DOES NOT EITHER, and the life of the newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee...if we can put aside....emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants. ... If we must have a point at which the developing human being has the same right to life as you or me ...this right, I would suggest, emerges gradually during the first few months after birth."

(Unquote)
OMG. That's just inhumane. It's people like him who are flushing this society straight down the toilet with thier latest dump.

reply from: yoda

Yes, it sounds "inhumane", but think about it for a moment. Isn't that really the logical extension of the probabykilling positon?

Since, as he points out, there is no real difference between a fetus and a newborn, what moral difference is there between abortion and infanticide?

Answer: NONE

reply from: nsanford

My point. Women should be able to make the choice for themselves.

reply from: Alexandra

Why do you hate abortion? I want to hear this one.

reply from: yoda

My point. Women should be able to make the choice for themselves.
And babies should be able to die to preserve their mother's "choice"?

Is that your theory, babies ought to die for the "choice" of the mothers?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Because "choice" is worth dying for, of course !

reply from: tjlsmom

Or, "my choice is worth someone else dying for!"

reply from: yoda

Exactly!

I wonder what happened to poor ole Siggy.........??

reply from: Sigma

Whichever the body "belongs" to. In the case of siamese twins, it is not clear-cut who is living off of whom. Even if one is the "weaker", both were born with that body and both have a claim to it. In the case of pregnancy, the body is obviously the woman's, while the fetus is attached to and using her bodily processes to live.

reply from: MaleNurse

It looks like s/he's back.
I've decided to let you all see what I look like rather than the stethiscope.. So my author icon is changed. Yes, that is actually me !
Glad things are back to normal at HQ's.

reply from: yoda

"The" body? In a pregnancy, there are TWO bodies, Einstein!

reply from: Tam

"The" body? In a pregnancy, there are TWO bodies, Einstein!
bumping this post!!

reply from: yoda

Just GOT to bump this thread!

reply from: yoda

Gotta keep this one current, so Siggy doesn't forget about it.

reply from: yoda

I wonder what Siggy meant by that?

reply from: Hereforareason

Sigma, whan an abortionist injects a saline solution into the woman, it burns a body. Whose body does it burn?
when he inserts a vaccum and vaccums something out, what is it that he vaccumed out?
Would it by any chance be, a body?
Amber

reply from: Sigma

From what I understand, saline abortions are no longer done. It would burn the body of the fetus.
The body of the fetus.
What you quoted tacitly admits that the fetus has a body, at least of sorts. The point of what I said was that the body being used was the woman's alone. This is not the case with siamese twins, who both can make that claim.

reply from: Hereforareason

Sort of? If that baby's body wasn't working, it wouldn't need the mother's body. It would be expelled in a NATURAL abortion. In other words, not induced by man.
Really? first I've heard of it. Do you have any evidence for that?
Amber

reply from: Sigma

The body of the fetus does not work as in it does not support life functions on its own. The woman's body supports both. Have I satisfactorily explained what you quoted? I would have thought it obvious to whomever read that post, but it appears I overestimated that.
It was something I read a while ago. I'll have to actually look it up later.

reply from: yoda

"Tacitly admits"? Can there be any doubt? Is there a creature on this green earth that doesn't have a body... "of sorts"?
And what is a "body of sorts"? Are there fractions of bodies (in your world), or what?

reply from: yoda

That depends on what you call a "life function". The fetus obtains nourishment, shelter, and warmth from it's mother, but it's totally in charge of it's own development and internal processes. There are NO connections between the nervous systems of the mother and the fetus.

reply from: yoda

Time to bump this little jewel again..............

reply from: yoda

What a BLATENT LIE.
Any honest student of human reproduction knows that the baby's body controls all it's own development. There is NO connection between the nervous and/or hormonal systems of the mother and baby.

reply from: yoda

This one is for nsanford, who tried to deny me my right to label myself as an ANTIBABYKILLING advocate..........

reply from: yoda

Must not forget Sigma today.

reply from: yoda

Siggy will feel neglected if I don't bump this one.

reply from: nsanford

As you tell me,
Poor baby, need a crying towel?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Nsanford, freedom of speech is actually IN the Constitution.

reply from: nsanford

So? It was my survey, and I should be able to decide what is an acceptable answer and what is not.
Other than that, I've never directly told him that he couldn't identify himself as anti-babykilling, as idiotic as it is.

reply from: yoda

Sure! Loan me the one I gave you, okay?

reply from: yoda

So you're into "pre-censorship"?
You ask us to define our position, then censor us ahead of time?
Do you have control issues, perhaps?

reply from: yoda

Show me one document in which they call it that.

reply from: yoda

"Slightly insulting"? Why ONLY slightly? Isn't being said to be in favor of killing babies "highly" insulting? Or do babies only qualify for "slightly"?

reply from: yoda

This is a good day to bump this one................

reply from: yoda

It just will not do for sigma to go one day without seeing this one again....

reply from: yoda

It's been four whole days since I bumped this one.........

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Lol, you just won't give up on this board, will you, yoda?

reply from: yoda

Nope!
BTW, I just relocated the thread of the "famous statement", it's on page 16.
;-)

reply from: yoda

Some people speak about the "abortion wars", but the real war is the one against unborn children..... and the are losing that war.

reply from: yoda

Wow, it's been four days since this was bumped!

reply from: yoda

Yoo hoo, oh Siggy siggy siggy.........

reply from: yoda

It's been three days since I said hello to Siggy.......... HELLO SIGGY!

reply from: yoda

When one steps back and takes a look at the "big picture", human reproduction is not subject to moral analysis, nor are it's particular details logically usable to make moral claims as to "rights".
What Siggy and other probabykilling advocates want us to forget is that nothing that is an integral part of our natural reproductive process can be said to impose an undue burden on women, because neither "Nature" nor God is guilty of imposition. No "remedy" for the natural process of reproduction is morallly justified, because no moral damage has been done.
We must reproduce, or disappear as a species. WHEN we reproduce, we have only one way to do it. WHEN the reproductive process begins within our bodies, we take on responsibility for another human life. Even in the rare event that the process of reproduction is forced upon us, that responsibility is no less.
What can possibly be more sickening than to see grown people try to justify the slaughter of tiny, helpless babies?

reply from: Tam

That's the case with every argument for abortion on demand.

reply from: yoda

Those "arguments" amount to "execution vehicles".
If we get taken in by them, we get onboard, and ride along with the babykillers to the abortuary, and help them to kill babies.
Every single one of them is dishonest and/or calloused to the point of being sociopathic, but what else could they be? How do you make a compassionate plea to kill a baby?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Bump!
I think Sigma needs a reminder.

reply from: yoda

We haven't forgotten you, Siggy baby!

reply from: faithman

Pro-abort males are punks, who have givin up their right to be called men. Real men protect the weak and inocent, not advocate their distruction. Real men defend children and sacrifice their lives for their safty, and provision. Real men protect and care for the mothers of their children, not drag them to a clinic and make them party to murder. Real men do not rape little girls then escort them to the clinic to cover their crime. Yes, pro-abort males are punks that give our gender a very bad name.

reply from: yoda

They sure do. We've got several examples right here.

reply from: faithman

I guess some china shops need bustin up.

reply from: yoda

On the babykilling side, absolutely.

reply from: faithman

Stupid pro-aborts/ pro-choice/ baby killers/murderers.

reply from: 1003

point one, name calling is unproductive. point two, there are plenty of men who do not protect the weak and the innocent. point three, as pro-choice and a man, i do not advocate the killing of the innocent. i advocate the right to kill fetuses.
i'm so glad that we have people out there to define a broad portion of our society into these narrow boxes. without them, there would be no one to ignore.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Fetuses are innocent, judging from the fact they've done no wrong...

reply from: AshMarie88

1003, you call yourself pro-life? Hahaha!
Yes you do advocate the right of killing the innocent, by the way. You advocate the right of killing the unborn. Obviously you advocate killing innocents.

reply from: yoda

I see we were visited by the abortion faries yesterday. Aren't they just typical of probabykilling advocates?

reply from: Tam

Wait, you're being confusing. AFAIK, you're EITHER pro-life OR you advocate the "right" to kill fetuses. Which is it?

reply from: yoda

I think that maybe 1003 is one of the trolls left over from yesterday, perhaps?

reply from: yoda

Ah, another troll-free day!

reply from: yoda

No way am I going to forget Siggy today, no sir!

reply from: faithman

Make the babies dead.... suck the brains from their head.... a little saline....erases JR from the seen.... ain't nothing keener... than to suck um thru a vacume cleaner... Don't care about their plight... to kill the baby is mommies right

reply from: yoda

You know, if we're not careful, this topic will drift too far down and be out of sight....... wouldn't want that now, would we?

reply from: faithman

...and that would be...

reply from: yoda

Unfortunate..........

reply from: faithman

Like a womb child appointment to Planned parenthood?

reply from: yoda

Right. Sad and regretable.

reply from: yoda

Morally unfathonable.

reply from: yoda

Totally depraved, and devoid of all traces of human decency.

reply from: yoda

Horrible, dispicable, disgusting, "make you shudder just to think of them" degenerates.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Not mindless, heartless.

reply from: faithman

Hiding their evil behind a tree of good?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Concerned, I see your point, but no matter how kind an abortionist may seem, they lift out the tiny limbs, they look the baby in the eye, they touch the soft fingers and toes. It's not a matter of not knowing the baby is a human being. Maybe feminists don't know it, but those who actually practice the abortions know the baby is human, but they cancel out humanity because they believe something else is more important.
People who are kind abortionists are like "kind" slaveowners. You can read their testimonies everywhere. Their kindness, for me, is more frightening than outright cruelty. The people who smiled and ushered American Indians into reservations "for their own good" the people who owned slaves because "they couldn't take care of themeslves" are the antecedents of the people who perform abortions "out of compassion." These people aren't really kind, they know those they hurt are human and just don't care. We do have to love our enemies, we do have to address them in ways that don't alienate, but we can't fool ourselves, they aren't good.

reply from: faithman

Hiding their evil behind a tree of good?

reply from: yoda

I didn't see the film, but your first sentence is one large oxymoron. No one who performs abortions can be a "kindly old woman", IMO. They are most certainly NOT kind to the babies they kill, regardless of how the proabort film producers portray them on the screen. I'm sure the producer did not show Vera being interviewed about her attitude towards the babies she kills, did she?
Are there misguided probabykilling advocates? Maybe, I can't rule that out. But here's the thing, on this forum we're not dealing with "most who support abortion", we're dealing with the special kind of abortion supporters, who come online to try to persuade others to follow in their bloody path. Like the Pied Piper, they play their flute and try to hypnotize their audience into forgetting all about morality, all about decency, all about everything except the selfish interests of the woman who wants to kill her baby.
And to this kind of baby killing advocate, I cannot say "nothing personal", because to me this is a very personal subject. Nor can I withhold my opinion about their actions and their attitudes, because there is no academic, logical, or debatable reason to support or oppose abortion, it is all about emotions.
Our emotions are what we use to set our values, and our values are what tell us (on our side) that it's wrong for a healthy mother to kill a healthy baby. If someone wants to argue that a mother's financial security is more valuable than her baby's life, what "logic" are you going to use to overcome that? No, it boils down to basic human respect for the lives of innocent babies, and that is a very emotional subject.
So my strategy will be to continue to point out how incredibly repulsive I find the attitudes of the babykillers who come on this forum to extol the virtues of killing babies. And I might occassionally mention that I also find them personally repulsive, but that's just unavoidable after an extended period of heated debate.
I can't be detached and cool in this debate, if I could why would I be here?

reply from: yoda

Hiding their evil behind a tree of good?
And putting their evil in a disguise consisting of tortured, twisted words.

reply from: yoda

Well put, Shiprah. If I didn't believe that with all my heart, why would I be here day after day? What would be the point?

reply from: faithman

The scripture says to chasen a child often and dispise not their crying. I feel the same way about scum bag maggot pro-aborts. Let um whine. I have no sympathy for anyone who tortures womb children. The kid gloves they want us to treat them with, come from the hide of dead preborn kids. When they stop the killing, and repent of it, I'll be nice. Until then, this is war. And if all I am allowed to hurl is insults for the moment, then proabort scum should count their blessings.

reply from: donkeybong

whoa, hold up. the scripture also says to "love your enemies", and "turn the other cheek", faithman... you can still totally believe that what they're doing is wrong, and do what you can to stop them, but they're still God's people that you're being mean to.

reply from: faithman

They are not God's people, but the children of wrath, disobediance, and satan. I am well aware of the scriptures you site. But the most loving thing I can do for a proabort sum bag maggot, is to ruff them up enough to realize The eternal damnation to come if they don't turn to Christ. I know most don't understand that, but thats OK, I ain't ask for aproval nor permission. Romans 13 says that governments are to be a terror to evil doers. We the people are the government, of which I raised my right hand and swore to protect, even to my own death.

reply from: yoda

"Mean"? We're supposed to be nice and kind to those who kill babies, and encourage others to do so?
Whose side are you on?

reply from: faithman

"Mean"? We're supposed to be nice and kind to those who kill babies, and encourage others to do so?
Whose side are you on?
Now now yoda. don't be mean!!

reply from: donkeybong

yodavater, I think you're confusing loving someone and loving their acts. you can hate the abortions that someone supports, but hating them isn't going to change them. developing a relationship with them and letting them know that what you think they're doing is wrong, is the best weapon we have against abortionists.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Just like the Nazi who held the little Jewish girl's hand while pushing her into the pit of lava.

reply from: faithman

DUDE!! Please.You are not nice to a bank robber, you make him stop. You are not nice to an abortionist until after you make them stop. These people are beyond reason, and no "kind" words will make them stop. We must establish justice before we can extend mercy, other wise mercy is cruel.

reply from: yoda

Okay, a little background is in order here. I'm agnostic, to begin with. Second, I'm not possessed of any fantasies about converting probabykilling advocates into kindly, baby-kissing saints. Those of their number who are compelled to come to a forum like this to spread their poison are unlikely to change their stripes.
I'm here to try to convince the "unconvinced readers" of the foolishness and heartlessness of the words of the probabykilling advocates. Doing that requires some cold hard bluntness about the words of, and the motivations of those who try to convince us to kill babies.
And yes, it requires some emotional expression to say why I despise their words, actions, and motivations. And by extension, why I despise the author of those words.

reply from: yoda

Or until they stop on their own, yes. Same with the women who abort, I will not be kind to them until they realize the error of their ways and express regret for killing their babies.

reply from: faithman

Your prob is not with those you do not understand. The word says that one plows, one plants, one waters. Plowing is a very dirty back breaking unapreciated job. But the ground must be broken. What I do makes the "nicy nicers" job effective. I understand your objection to what I do, for you must. It gives you common ground with the scum bag maggot pro-abort punks. The good cop bad cop thing. I also realize that if all you do is plow, nothing grows. That is why this man of justice gives way to the people of mercy, for mercy over rides justice. But do not despise the chasening rod of God's justice. For if we do not do our job, your mercy has no place to land. I truly wished I had your job CP, but if I don't do mine, your's is useless, and ineffectual.

reply from: yoda

Please excuse the comparison, but the way you're talking about that movie reminds me of how some women talk about their "soap operas" as if they were real life. How can you come to those conclusions by watching an actress in a movie? You seem to be saying that Vera Drake was precisely as she was portrayed by the porbabykilling writers, producers, and actors in that movie.
I see a couple of flaws in your logic there. One, the folks who "get insulted" on this forum are not the "misinformed" or "confused" innocents you seem to think they are, IMO. There may be some "lurkers" to the forum who fit that description, but the ones who "get insulted" are the closed minded, open mouthed purveyors of the bloody practice of baby killing who know precisely what the are doing and want to pull others into their misery. I react when they attempt to spread their lies, deceptions, and distractions in such a way as to reveal their true intentions here. I don't jump on people who ask polite questions and/or are open minded.
Two, if we "underreact" to their incredibly audacious claims and slanders against unborn babies, we may give the impression that this whole thing is just an "academic discussion" about a controversial subject that is mostly a matter of opinion, and nothing to get "emotional" about. That is precisely what the babykillers want people to think..... "Nothing to get excieted about here, folks, we're just killing... er.. aborting.... a few .... er... fetuses". If we adopt a calm, reasonable, friendly attitude towards this subject, they have already won. Unless we are moved to our very deepest emotions by the carnage that is abortion, we have no reason to be here.
I must disagree strongly. It is our DUTY to "judge" the actions and the words of these "monsters", and by extension judge them. The word "judge" is not profanity OR a "bad thing", in the sense I'm using it:
Main Entry: judge Function: verb Inflected Form(s): judged; judg·ing
1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=judge
">http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dic...ionary&va=judge
We'll never know how long it would've taken for slavery to be removed from the social fabric of the south, had the civil war not happened. But it's worth noting that even Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's opponent in his first race for President, advocated trusting the states to "decide the issue for themselves", rather than "imposing a solution on them". And a lot of people agreed with him, even in the north.
I think it's noteworthy to look at the title and first post of this thread. If you can read that post, and still not feel any emotions strong enough to cause you to make an "emotional" response, then apparently we are not on the same wavelength.

reply from: faithman

iconoclast are important for the servival of this country. As along as we allow the proaborts to present themselves as these intelectual superiors, the babies will die. Oh please Mr. Japanees would you mind not bombing or military in sneak attacks anymore. Please Mr burgerlar, would you not break into homes anymore. Please Mr proabort, could we please not kill womb children anymore. We must defeat them for the sake of the child in the womb. Evil does not stop until it is made to stop. That is why we have a 2nd amendment. We must break the image of the pro-aborts as anything other than scum bag maggot killers, and down right evil in heart and deed.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I don't' think most slaveowners would have responded to either. They were getting too much psychological, sexual, and monetary profit from slavery to care about condemnation, and no appeal would work because they saw slaves each day and lived intimately with them and still didn't recognize their humanity, they themselves commited the horrors so no visceral testimony would move them. Abortion is different because very few people are intimately involved -- most tax payers, feminists, lawyers, etc. don't know the scientific truth about the unborn or the graphic nature of abortion. Slavery ended, not because slaveowners changed their minds, but because they no longer had the legal right to own slaves. Abortion will end, not because abortionists change their minds, but because it will eventually become illegal through the courts, congress, or maybe even vote.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Abortionists quotes I'm sure scriptwriters didn't put in Vera Drake
http://www.gospelweb.net/abortionquotes.htm

reply from: yoda

I sometimes wonder about that "ignorance", Shiprah. Is it really possible to be that ignorant without being willing, even eager to be decieved? Can a normal, average person actually swallow the proabort lies without first having some desire to be decieved?
Take a woman and/or her "mate" who find themselves financially pressured by an unexpected pregnancy, what's their motivation to know the truth? If they allow themselves to be decieved, and willingly go along with the lies of the proaborts, they can "enjoy" financial relief by killing their kid. On the other hand, if they reject the lies and put a minimal effort into discovering the truth, they will find themselves committed to the financial needs of their child for the next 20 years or so. Isn't that a powerful motive to pretend to be "ignorant", and shift the blame to the proaborts who lied to them?

reply from: Shiprahagain

I agree that people choose ignorance, but I think they do so somewhat subconsciously.

reply from: Tam

CP is right. I would have seen the truth much sooner if not for the fact that the situation is so polarized and there is so much antagonism on both sides. I wouldn't have wasted so much time supporting something that is indefensible.
On the other hand, there is no point in pussyfooting around. The truth is the truth.
This makes me think about the very first thing that got me thinking about abortion in a new way, after being pro-choice all those years. At some point, maybe I'll post excerpts from that, I guess I should, but my point is that although it was extremely firm in its utter condemnation of abortion as evil and horrible, its tone was more of a loving appeal to conscience than a chastisement. That is what finally shook me up enough without sending me running to wake me up. I went to my husband and asked him point blank when he thought life begins. He (raised Catholic, and a lifelong pro-lifer) said that it begins at conception. Biological fact backs up this statement, and my own nonviolent convictions made it a fairly straightforward path to becoming pro-life myself (or, more accurately, realizing I already was pro-life and had been mistakenly supporting the wrong side for a long time).

reply from: yoda

That people do get into a rut by being loyal to "their side" is well known to be a part of human behavior, especially when there is a great deal of hostility between the two sides. It's strongly influenced by their desire to remain friends with others on "their side", usually. But is the rhetoric of the "other side" to blame for that, or is that just human nature? And how much weight can you place on "would have's"?
Yep. And showing reverence for the truth is a good policy, and always produces good results in the end, IMO.
What stands out to me there is not what happened after you asked him that question, but why you didn't ask him or a reputable, unbiased scientist that question sooner. What was it that kept your from digging deeper into those "biological facts" all those months? Was there a dread of finding out things that might "complicate" your relationships with your "friends"?
I'm not trying to minimizing your triumph in opening your eyes and your heart to the truth, that was a very admirable, courageous action. I'm just wondering if you can recognize what it was that motivated you not to ask those questions sooner.

reply from: faithman

CP is right. I would have seen the truth much sooner if not for the fact that the situation is so polarized and there is so much antagonism on both sides. I wouldn't have wasted so much time supporting something that is indefensible.
On the other hand, there is no point in pussyfooting around. The truth is the truth.
This makes me think about the very first thing that got me thinking about abortion in a new way, after being pro-choice all those years. At some point, maybe I'll post excerpts from that, I guess I should, but my point is that although it was extremely firm in its utter condemnation of abortion as evil and horrible, its tone was more of a loving appeal to conscience than a chastisement. That is what finally shook me up enough without sending me running to wake me up. I went to my husband and asked him point blank when he thought life begins. He (raised Catholic, and a lifelong pro-lifer) said that it begins at conception. Biological fact backs up this statement, and my own nonviolent convictions made it a fairly straightforward path to becoming pro-life myself (or, more accurately, realizing I already was pro-life and had been mistakenly supporting the wrong side for a long time).
That has been my point all along about which imagrey to use. To the mushy middle, the live stuff, to the sold out death merchants, rub um in the blood. But what we have on this forum [on the death side] is sold out proabort scum bag maggot punks. They are not nice, and they are not reasonable. If it were a born child, the out rage would be heard round the world. But because the are womb childern tucked away out of site, even the prolifers relagate them to second class citizens who do not deserve the same protections as an already born child. Until the moral hecupping ceases, and we are ready to take it to what ever is nesisary to stop it, The children will die.

reply from: Tam

Ok, remember I already knew abortion kills babies. I had become pro-choice because I mistakenly believed that there wasn't anything I could do to save those babies, but that I could at least prevent their mothers from dying with them, by keeping abortion legal, which was supposed to mean, keeping it safe. I didn't know enough about the issue then, and trusted the wrong people (Democrats, the Abortion Party) too much.
So, when I asked him when he thought life begins, it wasn't so much to get a grip on abortion in general, it was to start thinking about whether or not it's ever okay. I could clearly see that later-term abortion was killing a baby, but whether something like an IUD qualified, that sort of thing--that was the line of thought I was getting at with that question--where to draw the line. I was realizing that I couldn't support abortion the way I had been supporting it--but I wasn't sure whether or not I should oppose it 100% or take some other position.
Obviously, I oppose it 100%. Why hadn't I started asking that question sooner? Because I had been supporting abortion regardless of the gestational age of the children being killed, thinking mistakenly that they were goners anyway. It's easy to stay in a mindset that you adopted in childhood and early adolescence, and yet I am intelligent and inquisitive enough that once I realized, "Hey, I can't support abortion this way anymore," the first thing that I did was to think about whether there was any part of it that I could support--whether there was any "cutoff" age for me. I didn't question the whole rape/incest thing--it never seemed to me that children conceived in rape should be any different from other kids--but I did wonder where my opposition to abortion should begin, and when he said "conception," I immediately recognized that as the truth based on biology I had already taken. It was an easy leap then to realizing that I had to oppose abortion of all children, and that conception was the dividing line between not having a child and having a child in the womb, and therefore the only logical and morally defensible point at which to draw any such line.
Anyway, so the reason I wasn't digging around to think about when to oppose abortion, or which abortions to oppose, was that I wasn't opposing abortion because I thought the pro-life position wasn't about the lives of the children, it was about controlling the women, and that legal abortion = safe abortion and illegal abortion = back alley butchery. As I mentioned in another post, that was a load of crap, but anyway, it wasn't until I got to the point of -- it wasn't even that the myth was debunked and THAT changed my mind. It was that I realized that even if all of that were true, I still couldn't support abortion anymore--and then wondered where the opposition should start.
Does that make any sense?

reply from: yoda

Yep. That's the eye-opener for a lot of us, I think. Like when the probabykilling advocates start to throw a load of very personal crap at us, and we stop to ask "Hey! Even if all that is true, how does it make it right to kill little babies?"
Yes, I can understand how you could be "brainwashed" into believing that there was "nothing you could do to save babies" (so you might as well try to save the mothers who are killing them). It's one of those "easy to swallow lies" that probabykillers love to throw out. Especially if one isn't old enough to remember pre-'73 USA, you'd have to do a good bit of research to see the deception in that piece of proabort horsecrap. I was 30 years old in '73, so I do remember a time when very few people supported abortion, at least in public.
The thing about proabort lies is best said in that old saying "Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, but error, wounded, writhes in pain and dies among it's worshipers".

reply from: faithman

Hopefully your efforts will convert some scum bag maggot pro-abort punks. But don't blame me if I can't hold my breath that long. If it is a baby then when will we make them stop? what is wrong with now? Chamberland thought he could reason with Hitler, and england was almost lost. You don't reason with a mad dog. You put him out of everybodies misery.

reply from: yoda

I have no desire to be intentionally offense, but neither do I care to go out of my way not to offend a babykiller. I feel that my emotional objections to their words and actions are the most important thing I have to convey on this forum. Emotions such as repulsion and disgust are the heart and soul of my objection to the killing of babies, and I can't think of any other reason why anyone would want to be here.

reply from: yoda

Poor Siggy will feel slighted if this thread slips back to page two..........

reply from: faithman

I prefur pro abort scum bag maggot punk. Of course coward sums it up pretty good too. Can't see why a baby killer would get mad for being identified for what they are?!! snicker snicker

reply from: yoda

Slight of hand, trickery, and misrepresentation are the stock and trade of the probabykiller. Forcing them to face the truth is like throwing ice water in their face.

reply from: faithman

I prefer boiling, but thats just me.

reply from: Tam

Can we not be honest and passionate without being intentionally offensive? Is it not in the best interests of our cause to do so? I do not support candycoating the issues, I merely recommend reasonable use of diplomacy.
By all means. I don't think I was suggesting we be intentionally offensive.

reply from: faithman

Can we not be honest and passionate without being intentionally offensive? Is it not in the best interests of our cause to do so? I do not support candycoating the issues, I merely recommend reasonable use of diplomacy.
By all means. I don't think I was suggesting we be intentionally offensive.
They intentionally kill. This is war. One we must win for the womb childrens sake.

reply from: Tam

Can we not be honest and passionate without being intentionally offensive? Is it not in the best interests of our cause to do so? I do not support candycoating the issues, I merely recommend reasonable use of diplomacy.
By all means. I don't think I was suggesting we be intentionally offensive.
They intentionally kill. This is war. One we must win for the womb childrens sake.
Ok, I don't think ANYONE is arguing that when someone is acting like a complete jerk, we have to be all diplomatic and nice. However, you would be the first one to say that there can be a lot accomplished through "nice" that isn't accomplished through the more in-your-face methods. You focus on the use of ultrasound pix vs. the use of aborted baby pix, but it also applies to what words we choose.
The thing is, you may think that the people reading this forum are all either diehard proaborts or committed prolifers. However, it is a certainty that the same crowd to whom you would not show the dead baby pix are also reading this forum.
As I said, there is no point is pussyfooting around--the truth is the truth. But there is a difference between diluting the truth to appease some idiot, and using a modicum of tact and consideration when speaking publicly, even when the person you are debating has sunk to the level of a cranky adolescent.

reply from: faithman

Can we not be honest and passionate without being intentionally offensive? Is it not in the best interests of our cause to do so? I do not support candycoating the issues, I merely recommend reasonable use of diplomacy.
By all means. I don't think I was suggesting we be intentionally offensive.
They intentionally kill. This is war. One we must win for the womb childrens sake.
Ok, I don't think ANYONE is arguing that when someone is acting like a complete jerk, we have to be all diplomatic and nice. However, you would be the first one to say that there can be a lot accomplished through "nice" that isn't accomplished through the more in-your-face methods. You focus on the use of ultrasound pix vs. the use of aborted baby pix, but it also applies to what words we choose.
The thing is, you may think that the people reading this forum are all either diehard proaborts or committed prolifers. However, it is a certainty that the same crowd to whom you would not show the dead baby pix are also reading this forum.
As I said, there is no point is pussyfooting around--the truth is the truth. But there is a difference between diluting the truth to appease some idiot, and using a modicum of tact and consideration when speaking publicly, even when the person you are debating has sunk to the level of a cranky adolescent.
Yes mam

reply from: yoda

Indeed, every review of that movie by an antibabykilling advocate I've seen implies that very thing.
What was the "strong prolife message" you think you saw in the movie?

reply from: faithman

Indeed, every review of that movie by an antibabykilling advocate I've seen implies that very thing.
What was the "strong prolife message" you think you saw in the movie?
Did you see it, or are you wanting to discuss it based solely on the reviews you read? Obviously it was embarrassing to the family to be associated with an illegal abortionist and Vera kept the whole thing under cover. I didn't think it showed her in a very good light regarding the abortion issue and was moved by her sons reaction when all came to light. One of the most important (imo) revelations was the fact that from every other aspect of her life, she appeared to be a very loving and caring person, and honestly did not think what she was doing was wrong. This was not a portrayal of an evil monster who takes pleasure in causing harm to defenseless babies. This was a portrayal of a good woman who felt she was helping women in their time of need, and if she realized that she was actual;ly ending the lives of real people, I don't believe for one minute she could have done what she did.
I think some prolifers have a poor understanding of their opponents in this issue and that causes them to react in a way that is counterproductive. I regret that I was unable to make my point clearly enough to be understood by all. Of course, there are those on both sides of the issue that consider their own views to be the last word and they are not open to considering any thought which didn't originate in their own superior intellects, so I guess we have to realize when it's time to give up on attempting to share our own personal insights................ So, everyone who doesn't agree with me on each and every point of this issue is an idiot and/or heartless monster, woohoo!?!?!?
I don't care to understand baby killers. It ain't nessisary to make them stop. I understand sold out evil when I see it. Winning popularity contests won't save babies. If abortion is murder, when are we going to start acting like it?

reply from: yoda

No, I have not seen it, and I am asking you about the "positive" impressions you seem to have of it. If I wanted to discuss the negative reviews I have seen, I would have said so.
Okay, the only negative you listed was that you "didn't think it showed her in a very good light regarding the abortion issue and were moved by her sons reaction when all came to light". That's not much of a condemnation, is it?
Then you go on to describe this FICTIONAL character in glowing terms, as if the CHARACTER on the screen was a real, flesh and blood person!
What is it about this FICTIONAL PORTRAYAL of Vera Drake that strikes such a chord with you? WHY do you think it represents REALITY? Do you actually know abortionists who fit this description? Is it your belief that many, or most abortionists are like that? Or did this movie convince you that they all are "good people who don't think they are doing wrong"?
Whatever.

reply from: faithman

It is the pro-life "chamberland's" that help keep abortion leagal. Abortion is a horible act done by unreasonable sold out evil monsters. The abandoned their humanity by adovating the destruction of womb children. We call child molesters monsters, and we make them stop, but some how we don't make the conection that the worst form of child molestation there is, is abortion.. It is cold bloodedly killing an inocent child, not just some point to win in a polite debate. And yes, those who do the deed, or advocate it, are scum bag maggot punks.

reply from: yoda

But wait, I saw a movie in which a child molester was a good person who did not think they were doing anything wrong...... so we may have misjudged them all, right? </sarcasm>

reply from: faithman

Have to admit,your sure a wordy fella.

reply from: yoda

Whatever else happens, Siggy must not be forgotten.

reply from: yoda

Poor ole Siggy has been absent lately. Does anyone miss him/her?

reply from: yoda

Can't let this topic fade away, in case Siggy shows up again.......

reply from: cali1981

This is a great topic. I hope that Sig continues to read it if he/she returns.

reply from: holopaw

Exactly, they know they are murderers. They try to hide it by dehumanizing the unborn child and using smoke screens. They call themselves Pro-Choice, they are really Pro-Death.

reply from: yoda

Siggy has probably returned here many times, under different aliases.....

reply from: holopaw

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people say abortion is the worse child abuse there is. I don't think there needs to be a hierarchy. Both are horrible. It seems like you're diminishing the evil of child abuse. If all children are equal then there isn't a need to differentiate between the abuse they suffer. Was slavery worse than the holocaust? Both were horrific times in our world's history. I'd rather say abortion is a form of child abuse, but not the worse one.

reply from: yoda

Let's just say that abortion is one of the "most deadly forms" of child abuse, okay?

reply from: Shiprahagain

I agree with Yoda. I mean, I'd rather be beaten than killed so I consider the fatal forms of abuse worse than the non-fatal. But of any physical thing that could be done to me, I can't think of anything (beatings, 3rd degree burns, etc,) worse than having your brain sucked from your head.

reply from: yoda

Now that Siggy is back, maybe he will comment on this topic a little more........

reply from: yoda

WHO was it that agreed with that statement, Sigma????

reply from: laurissamarcotte

We won't mention any names, Sigma...

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I wonder why Sigma never replies to this thread?

reply from: yoda

Me too!
Maybe if we keep it at the top of the list, he'll eventually see it...........????

reply from: yoda

Yoo hoo Siggy..... where are you? 8-O

reply from: yoda

Has anyone heard from Siggy today?

reply from: yoda

Poor Sigma probably can't see this thread unless I keep it at the top.......

reply from: Tam

Gee, was it SIGMA who agreed to this?

reply from: yoda

You know, the name kind of rings a bell......... I think it may have been him/her...... but he/she will no doubt post on this thread real soon now, and we'll know for sure.... or maybe sorta kinda......... 8-O

reply from: yoda

Good morning, Siggy baby!

reply from: yoda

Anyone seen Siggy baby?

reply from: yoda

I think maybe siggy baby is too dense to notice this thread........

reply from: yoda

Oh my, this thread is drifting low....... got to keep it up..........

reply from: laurissamarcotte

As galen said: here siggy siggy siggy....

reply from: yoda

Ah yes....... here siggy siggy siggy..... welcome back, siggy baby........ want to post on this thread?

reply from: yoda

Hello siggy siggy............. how ya doin today, sigmeister?

reply from: yoda

HELLO there siggy........ can you see your thread now? YOOOO HOOOO siggy baby.........

reply from: yoda

Oh..... siggy siggy siggy....... yoo hooo....... siggy siggy........ yoo hoooooo........

reply from: cali1981

BUMP
Care to reply, Sigma?

reply from: yoda

I think siggy is just shy, cali....... you know, stage fright, sorta?

reply from: yoda

YO, siggy! YO siggy! Yo siggy baby!! Happy Thanksgiving, siggy baby!

reply from: faithman

The fact remains, and has yet to be answered, That if a criminal hurts or kills a womb child, it is a crime. But if an abortionist kills a child, it is sanctioned by the government. If a criminal is killed while presenting themselves to be an eminant danger to a womb child, it is justifiable homicide. SSSSSOOOO in some instances it is totally justifiable to kill someone intent on murdering a womb child. That is the political reason Paul Hill was not allowed to put on a justifiable homicide deffence. The pro-abort judge knew he had a good chance to win. It is totally dishonest for anyone, particularly some one who claims to be pro-life, to say it is wrong to stop the abortionist includding deadly force.

reply from: yoda

Yo, siggy baby........ was up? Did you have a nice Turkey Day, siggy?

reply from: faithman

It's been answered. You can defend the unborn if the mom wants you to, otherwise, the law allows no physical intervention.
And that is fair and just how?!!!

reply from: yoda

Ah, are we back to "we must obey the law at all times, regardless of the circumstances" again?

reply from: faithman

Have about 10,000 I AM A PERSON cards in stock, waiting to be handed out. How bout it passifist? Or does handing out pictures of womb childen constitute violence?

reply from: yoda

Yo siggy, siggy............. step up to the plate and sink your sharp teeth into this, siggy.......

reply from: yoda

Poor ole siggy........ too busy to notice this thread, I guess....... or he's gone partially blind....... I wonder how we could get this thread in the part of the screen that he can see? Anybody know what part of the screen siggy can see?

reply from: faithman

Not at all. I'm proud to be accused of advocating force to protect the lives of unborn babies, and I wear the anti-choice label proudly also (because it means "anti-abortion").
Can you explain why using the most basic, most accurate language would be insulting?
Have about 10,000 I AM A PERSON cards in stock, waiting to be handed out. How bout it passifist? Or does handing out pictures of womb childen constitute violence?
Have about 10,000 I AM A PERSON cards in stock, waiting to be handed out. How bout it passifist? Or does handing out pictures of womb childen constitute violence?

reply from: yoda

I wonder why siggy can't see this thread..................... hmmmm............. ???

reply from: yoda

Welcome back siggy........ are your hands bloody with baby blood today, or did you wash them?

reply from: yoda

Speak up, siggy........ defend your statement!

reply from: yoda

Yoo-hoo......... siggy-wiggy...... come out, come out wherever you are........

reply from: yoda

Why did you say that, siggy-poo? Inquiring minds want to know, siggy-poo.........

reply from: yoda

I see siggy is back........ I think I'll put siggy on iggy.....

reply from: yoda

Poor ole siggy will think we've forgotten about him, if we don't keep this up front.......

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Here siggy siggy siggy....

reply from: yoda

Yoo hoo......... siggy......... siggy........... siggy............... sooooweee!

reply from: yoda

Yoo-hooooo............. oh, siggy-pooo..............

reply from: faithman

Check out the site in signature

reply from: clamydia

i am happy to see some anti-aboartion defenders, like concernedparent, who do care what the other side thinks and is open for a dialogue.
And dear faithman: violating others rights, as (even if u are to smart to directly state that) physically harm and threaten them, which is as i understand (but i am from a different christan believe than you i guess and i use my brain and my heart for forming opinions and making decisions) is a BAD a thing as in your arrogant anti-abortion opinion killing a baby. Any doctor, nurse or woman going for an abortion harmed by people of your believe is as much a human being as a baby.
P.s.: i am sorry, that i have not read your version of God's commendments, but i have the feeling you are the one who needs care - more precise psychiatric care, because fanatism can blur your mind as bad as does an illness.
Thank you for reading.

reply from: bradensmommy

Clam, ol NONfm is what we consider an anarchist christian. If you do not agree with him or his beliefs he has got it in his little peabrain that you are wrong and you are going to burn in the flames of hell. Most of us have him on ignore which saves headaches. His posts are nothing but mindless BS.

reply from: faithman

Check out the site in signature

reply from: yoda

Oh lookie.......... siggie baby is back! woooo-hooooo!

reply from: yoda

Yoo-hooo......... oh siggy-pooo.......... here's your favorite little thread, siggy-poooo

reply from: Teresa18

Sigma should reply to this thread.

reply from: yoda

Seems like everyone but siggy-poo thinks so........

reply from: yoda

Can't let siggy-poo feel slighted........

reply from: Teresa18

Yoda, I have a feeling Sigma has you on ignore. He never responds to a word that you say. He probably can't see what you are writing.
This is a good thread, though. This proves exactly how Siggy feels without all the deflected answers to questions and pro-choice speak. That's what abortion is, the LEGALIZED KILLING OF CHILDREN ATTACHED TO ANOTHER AGAINST THE OTHERS WILL.
That's what you support, right Sigma?

reply from: yoda

Sure, he has me on ignore and I have him on ignore.
However, he cannot avoid seeing the title of this thread!

reply from: yoda

Poor ole siggy-poo hasn't been getting as much attention lately as he likes.....

reply from: yoda

Oh siggy-pooo............... here siggy....... here siggy....... here siggy...........

reply from: yoda

One more time for dear, sweet ole siggy-poo............. yoooo hoooo, siggy-poooooo!


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics