Home - List All Discussions

Pro-personhood Navy.

Warm weather fun.

by: faithman

We once fixed a 20 ft bamboo pole on a boat, tied on an IAAP poster, and road up and down the river that goes thru the park at our Fourth Of July celebration. Being on the water puts you under a whole different set of laws, and makes it more difficult for local authorities to supress your message. It also puts some space between you, and any troubelsome bortheads that might try to attack your display.
Of course I kinda like it when borties try to destroy my private property. Some states still allow you to defend yourself and your property from evil aggression. And some states have right to carry laws as well. Crime pays in lead sometimes.

reply from: faithman

If you don't have a boat, you can make a little floatie out of 2 liter plastic pop bottles, and put your signage on that. Then float it in places full of folk. This would be a great project for kids, like home schoolers. Look up pop pop boats opn the net. you could make little steam boats that would be a very cute witness of womb life. Canoes, kayacs, roe boats and the like make good platforms for signs. when you are using the live pictures in my sig, you can do things in public that are very well recieved by the general public. You can also get the sticky back velcroe and put signs on the back of your foldy chair at the open air concerts. Lets make this the summer of personhood, and pro-life a life style. The more we main stream our issue, the more main stream America will get involved.

reply from: sander

Wow, Faithman, you've got tons of good ideas!
Thanks for sharing. Summer is a good time to do these things. I'll get some on the back of my chair we take on summer trips.

reply from: faithman

You forgot..........................Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Bump

reply from: nancyu

OOps. It won't happen again.

reply from: jujujellybean

Fman nobody reads this why the heck do you bother? It's just a waste of space!

reply from: nancyu

Has anyone seen the movie "The Great Debaters"? I rented it the other day. It's an Oprah movie, but it was pretty good. One of the students had a great line at the end. It might have been a famous quote that he was repeating. Anyway it was something like this:
"If a law is unjust, I have a duty to fight against it; whether it be through civil disobedience or through violence. You should pray that I choose the former."

reply from: nancyu

Either way, this is a really great idea.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhhgkGNPXso
Personhood USA at the 2010 Colorado Personhood Initiative Campaign

reply from: angelofsorrow

I have a pro-life sign that's weather-resistant that I really wanted to display on
our property but my family members fear it would be vandalized. They also fear I would
be physically assaulted. My family doesn't want me to go near the local abortion
clinic but I go anyway to pray and offer encouragement to the other pro-life folks
who bravely stand out there in all kinds of weather. I stay for a few minutes then
leave but not without telling my fellow pro-lifers how proud I am of them.

reply from: faithman

Thank you for what you do. Every little bit helps!!

reply from: Banned Member

All he has to do is look for a big ugly woman treading water holding a power drill. How hard can that be to spot?

reply from: carolemarie

Slavery is alive and well and flourishing! Get educated--the USA is the number three destination country for trafficked people...

reply from: sander

What the heck is the matter with you?
We're talking about slavery as when it was legal.
Wow, you just can't stand it if a proabort's argument is defeated.

reply from: sander

What the heck is the matter with you?
We're talking about slavery as when it was legal.
Wow, you just can't stand it if a proabort's argument is defeated.
You'll have to re-do that sentence, it doesn't make any sense.
A human fetus is just another word for human young. You would have made a good little slave owner, since human beings are no longer allowed to be deemed as "property".
Just so we're clear on how wrong you are:
Origin of the word fetus:
1350 - 1400; ME < L f?tus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, young still in the womb, equiv. to f?- (v. base attested in L only in n. derivatives, as f?mina woman, f?cundus fecund, etc.; cf. Gk th?sthai to suck, milk, OHG t?an to suck, OIr denid (he) sucks) + -tus suffix of v. action

reply from: Cecilia

What the heck is the matter with you?
We're talking about slavery as when it was legal.
Wow, you just can't stand it if a proabort's argument is defeated.
You'll have to re-do that sentence, it doesn't make any sense.
A human fetus is just another word for human young. You would have made a good little slave owner, since human beings are no longer allowed to be deemed as "property".
Just so we're clear on how wrong you are:
Origin of the word fetus:
1350 - 1400; ME < L f?tus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, young still in the womb, equiv. to f?- (v. base attested in L only in n. derivatives, as f?mina woman, f?cundus fecund, etc.; cf. Gk th?sthai to suck, milk, OHG t?an to suck, OIr denid (he) sucks) + -tus suffix of v. action
sorry, my english is not the best when I dont care so much.
the definition of fetus which is what i think you posted does nt mean anything to what i said. a fetus is a womans property and domaine.

reply from: sander

Then don't bother posting when you don't care. It just takes up space and is a waste of time for others.
It means something if you didn't believe the propaganda that de-humanized the human baby in the womb by using the term, "fetus".
The human fetus is still a human being, a seperate living person who should never be looked at as someone else's "property".
You have believed the same lie that made slavery legal, society de-humanized the black person and said they didn't rise above "property".
It's a very sick way of looking at other people, even if those other people are hidden safely in their mother's womb.

reply from: 4choice4all

Fetus is unborn offspring...the root for born offspring is prol or proli. In Latin there was a differentiation.

reply from: siri

Sander, sticks and stones, baby! LOL

reply from: sander

You don't even have that right.
Words have impact, moron.
Try and wake up.

reply from: siri

?I don't have what right--to speak? Huh?

reply from: faithman

Once again you mis represent what was said. She said she would knock wholes in my boat, which would indeed place everyone on board in danger of being drown. I stated that if someone endangered me or mine, I would defend myself. Once again you totally ignore the evil aggression that was being threatened against me. Don't mess with me or mine, and you won't have a prob, now will you? But if you present yourself a threat, then you just might get what you deserve. That was the whole jist of the exchange, not what you are trying to twist it into.

reply from: yoda

Is that why you think it's okay to kill the unborn, because you think they are "property"?
Or is it that you think women should have the "CONTROL" over the life of their child?

reply from: siri

Faithman--Don't have the quote in front of me, if what was said was that she would punch a hole in your boat, then I guess I would disapprove, although I think in saying that she was just letting off steam in a very human way, considering your provocations. Under no circumstances can I condone assaulting a pregnant woman, however, even in self-defense. The child is not at fault. And it is not prolife. Whatever the law might say. But the irony of you complaining about someone else's "evil" aggression is rich!

reply from: faithman

What is rich, is a prodeath piss ant like you trying to bring any kind of moral clarity to this issue. Our whole point about abortion on demand, is that the child is not at any fault. What about that evil aggression scanc? How about poking holes in perfectly viable children, and sucking their brains out? Or bathing them in saline? Or poisioning them with RU486? And this death sentance is carried out just because they aren't wanted. Sooooo death scancs can let off steam, but I am not given the same consideration? Your double standard is what's rich here.

reply from: sander

What is rich, is a prodeath piss ant like you trying to bring any kind of moral clarity to this issue. Our whole point about abortion on demand, is that the child is not at any fault. What about that evil aggression scanc? How about poking holes in perfectly viable children, and sucking their brains out? Or bathing them in saline? Or poisioning them with RU486? And this death sentance is carried out just because they aren't wanted. Sooooo death scancs can let off steam, but I am not given the same consideration? Your double standard is what's rich here.
You call her double standard "rich"....you're too kind.
She's a stinking, lousy baby killing supporter. They live off of and on hypocirisy.
It's their life's blood.
She's trying to make a big stink so she can look so superior to those who loath the idea of women killing off their own sons and daughters.
She's a miserable failure.

reply from: sander

Don't be an idiot.
I never said you don't have the right to speak.
Of course, if it was up to me all you lousy, dirty rotten, no good baby killers/supporters would be banned from this site.
But, the powers that be disagree.

reply from: faithman

Isn't it though!?
SOOOOOO prodeath scancs get to blow off steam, but I don't?

reply from: siri

What is rich, is a prodeath piss ant like you trying to bring any kind of moral clarity to this issue. Our whole point about abortion on demand, is that the child is not at any fault. What about that evil aggression scanc? How about poking holes in perfectly viable children, and sucking their brains out? Or bathing them in saline? Or poisioning them with RU486? And this death sentance is carried out just because they aren't wanted. Sooooo death scancs can let off steam, but I am not given the same consideration? Your double standard is what's rich here.
You call her double standard "rich"....you're too kind.
She's a stinking, lousy baby killing supporter. They live off of and on hypocirisy.
It's their life's blood.
She's trying to make a big stink so she can look so superior to those who loath the idea of women killing off their own sons and daughters.
She's a miserable failure.
"Faith" man--no kidding the fetus is not at any fault.( That's why prochoice and reasonable prolife people are trying to make abortion unnecessary. Try to pay attention).
Men who belong to the Army of God, praise terrorists like Scott Roeder and brag about their small *****--excuse me, big gun collection--do tend to attract more attention when they "let off steam" than the average folk might attract, 'tis true. Comes with the territory I guess.
Sander--how are you today.

reply from: siri

Don't be an idiot.
I never said you don't have the right to speak.
Of course, if it was up to me all you lousy, dirty rotten, no good baby killers/supporters would be banned from this site.
But, the powers that be disagree.
I responded to your attempt to insult me by saying "sticks and stones" and you posted "you don't even have that right" without specifying what right I don't have...hence my question...not that I am all that interested.

reply from: faithman

What is rich, is a prodeath piss ant like you trying to bring any kind of moral clarity to this issue. Our whole point about abortion on demand, is that the child is not at any fault. What about that evil aggression scanc? How about poking holes in perfectly viable children, and sucking their brains out? Or bathing them in saline? Or poisioning them with RU486? And this death sentance is carried out just because they aren't wanted. Sooooo death scancs can let off steam, but I am not given the same consideration? Your double standard is what's rich here.
You call her double standard "rich"....you're too kind.
She's a stinking, lousy baby killing supporter. They live off of and on hypocirisy.
It's their life's blood.
She's trying to make a big stink so she can look so superior to those who loath the idea of women killing off their own sons and daughters.
She's a miserable failure.
"Faith" man--no kidding the fetus is not at any fault.( That's why prochoice and reasonable prolife people are trying to make abortion unnecessary. Try to pay attention).
Men who belong to the Army of God, praise terrorists like Scott Roeder and brag about their small *****--excuse me, big gun collection--do tend to attract more attention when they "let off steam" than the average folk might attract, 'tis true. Comes with the territory I guess.
Sander--how are you today.
OOOOOHHH So people get to threaten if they are prodeath scancs, but anybody who supports the duty to defend the innocent gets condemned. And who said I belonged to the AOG? I never did. I know a few of them, but I am not a member. I only have one rifle, because that is all that is needed. Try to poke a whole in my boat and see.

reply from: Yuuki

Isn't it though!?
SOOOOOO prodeath scancs get to blow off steam, but I don't?
Faithman... I do of course wish for you to blow off steam. But it should be a rare thing. I personally feel that many of your comments to people are angry and rude. Is this because you always feel like you have a lot of steam to blow off?

reply from: faithman

Isn't it though!?
SOOOOOO prodeath scancs get to blow off steam, but I don't?
Faithman... I do of course wish for you to blow off steam. But it should be a rare thing. I personally feel that many of your comments to people are angry and rude. Is this because you always feel like you have a lot of steam to blow off?
uuuuuuuhhhh//// 3000 or some dead babies a day? What do you think!!! ???

reply from: Yuuki

Isn't it though!?
SOOOOOO prodeath scancs get to blow off steam, but I don't?
Faithman... I do of course wish for you to blow off steam. But it should be a rare thing. I personally feel that many of your comments to people are angry and rude. Is this because you always feel like you have a lot of steam to blow off?
uuuuuuuhhhh//// 3000 or some dead babies a day? What do you think!!! ???
Why are you mad at the people on this forum, Faithman? Many of them are pro-life, and even many of those who are pro-choice or in transition have never had an abortion. I can understand being angry about abortion, but I can't understand why that makes you angry at people. We have had our differences but people on this forum have asked time and again for your forgiveness, and have said that they forgive you.
There is a way to be passionate about an issue and not hurt people in the process of expressing that passion.
Martin Luther King Jr. was certainly mad about the oppression of his people; but he did not yell and scream and belittle every white man he saw. He did not consider white people his "enemy", as so many of you consider pro-choicers to be your "enemy". He sought to work with them for equality. And he did it through legal means, without blowing up KKK homes or lynching Neo Nazis. He let the other side commit the violence. The movement that made the most impact during those times was one of true pacifism.
Being pacifist doesn't mean being idle, and it doesn't mean waiting to be aggressive at the first chance you get. "Oh, he got near me, kinda pushed me, I have the right to punch him now!".
Did you know that the bus boycott lasted for longer than a YEAR? A year... we have single days where we protest. If something lasts a week people freak out. A year? Impossible. But it worked because everyone joined in; everyone was in agreement and participated.
The young black and white students who rode buses through the south also practiced true pacifism. For it, they were beaten, watched one of the buses set ablaze, and even arrested.
Why were they effective? Because they were actively passive. Pacifism is not inactivity.

reply from: nancyu

Don't be an idiot.
I never said you don't have the right to speak.
Of course, if it was up to me all you lousy, dirty rotten, no good baby killers/supporters would be banned from this site.
But, the powers that be disagree.
I responded to your attempt to insult me by saying "sticks and stones" and you posted "you don't even have that right" without specifying what right I don't have...hence my question...not that I am all that interested.
She meant that you didn't have that "right" meaning "correct" In other words, you had it wrong. Seemed clear enough to me.

reply from: faithman

Isn't it though!?
SOOOOOO prodeath scancs get to blow off steam, but I don't?
Faithman... I do of course wish for you to blow off steam. But it should be a rare thing. I personally feel that many of your comments to people are angry and rude. Is this because you always feel like you have a lot of steam to blow off?
uuuuuuuhhhh//// 3000 or some dead babies a day? What do you think!!! ???
Why are you mad at the people on this forum, Faithman? Many of them are pro-life, and even many of those who are pro-choice or in transition have never had an abortion. I can understand being angry about abortion, but I can't understand why that makes you angry at people. We have had our differences but people on this forum have asked time and again for your forgiveness, and have said that they forgive you.
There is a way to be passionate about an issue and not hurt people in the process of expressing that passion.
Martin Luther King Jr. was certainly mad about the oppression of his people; but he did not yell and scream and belittle every white man he saw. He did not consider white people his "enemy", as so many of you consider pro-choicers to be your "enemy". He sought to work with them for equality. And he did it through legal means, without blowing up KKK homes or lynching Neo Nazis. He let the other side commit the violence. The movement that made the most impact during those times was one of true pacifism.
Being pacifist doesn't mean being idle, and it doesn't mean waiting to be aggressive at the first chance you get. "Oh, he got near me, kinda pushed me, I have the right to punch him now!".
Did you know that the bus boycott lasted for longer than a YEAR? A year... we have single days where we protest. If something lasts a week people freak out. A year? Impossible. But it worked because everyone joined in; everyone was in agreement and participated.
The young black and white students who rode buses through the south also practiced true pacifism. For it, they were beaten, watched one of the buses set ablaze, and even arrested.
Why were they effective? Because they were actively passive. Pacifism is not inactivity.
were you alive during that time? I marched the marches, and sang the songs. But the thing you conveniantly leave out is the fact america was also burning. It was the riots as much as it was the marches that changed things. So don't talk down your condesending liberal nose to me. I lived those times, not just read about them in a book, or watched a PBS special.

reply from: Yuuki

There were riots Faithman, but they are not what is remembered the most. I am glad to hear you participated, though I hope it was on the side of racial freedom. It was not a riot that ended discrimination on the buses. Violence is not right; you say violence is not right against the unborn; how can you be a hypocrite and say it is alright against born people?
No, I didn't live then. That doesn't mean my opinions aren't valid however. I look at the world differently from you, because of my age, my childhood, my education, and the world I live in. Differently, but not bad. So yes, I have what you may consider a flowery, weak view of how we should approach this issue - all issues. But look at what I see from the past. I see a century of violence. I see violence done against our country. And I don't want to do that. I don't want to see that. And many people my age feel that way too. We don't want to see any more violence for our children. We want them born in a world of peace.

reply from: sander

Don't be an idiot.
I never said you don't have the right to speak.
Of course, if it was up to me all you lousy, dirty rotten, no good baby killers/supporters would be banned from this site.
But, the powers that be disagree.
I responded to your attempt to insult me by saying "sticks and stones" and you posted "you don't even have that right" without specifying what right I don't have...hence my question...not that I am all that interested.
She meant that you didn't have that "right" meaning "correct" In other words, you had it wrong. Seemed clear enough to me.
Thanks Nancy.
I can't believe she's really that stupid, but then proaborts are always looking for a fight, (they're violent by nature), so sometimes it's hard to tell.

reply from: faithman

You miss the whole point kiddo. And yes we did march on the side of civil rights. All I am trying to say is, that your view of history is unballanced. Violence is nessisary sometimes to stop evil aggression. Many cities were a flame during that time. And it was just as much the burning building, as it was the peacful sit in that changed things. It was a violent revolution that made us a free nation. Despots very rarely give up without a violent fight. Whether it is british rule, or Jim crow.

reply from: Yuuki

I don't believe violence is the best solution or that it should be praised. I don't know why this is how I am, but I just feel this way. And I truly feel - at least from the way I was educated - that violence is almost always wrong, and should only be used as a last resort. It shouldn't be used to get your point across. It should only be used to directly defend your life if someone is attacking YOU or your child then and there. I was taught you should not seek out to create violence, or plan to do violence. So you shouldn't plan a violent riot, or plan to bomb some place, or plan to shoot someone.

reply from: carolemarie

Violence is wrong and the only time we can use it is when we are in mortal danger or as a soldier defending his country....violence is wrong.
However, evil people don't care about that....they have no problem with killing thousands of unarmed people or enslaving people such as what is going on in Dufar or Sudan or any of a hundred places in our world....then the question becomes do we let them do it? Or stop them using force.....that is the question that got us into World War 2...can you in good conscience not stop agression and genocide like the Nazi's were doing?

reply from: sander

And what about this, CM?
Romans 6:1-2
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
I like to get answers, so I'll just follow you around until you address this scripture.
If hitler claimed to be a Christian, do you think he's in heaven now? Will he stand before the judgement throne and get a pass because he claimed Christianity and just never learned to think right?

reply from: faithman

I believe violence should be the very last option. I also agree that it should be defensive. I also believe in being better at it than the evil aggressor. I don't believe in might makes right, but I do believe that right should be mighty. Sometimes the only thing a bully understands, is a closed fist, and the will to use it.

reply from: Yuuki

Shooting a man at his church is not defensive... Unless the man was currently beating you up. That's my own personal opinion. I find the ideal to be Ghandi, or someone who submits passively as Christ did. Yes, he got angry once or twice, but his over all message - and his final sacrifice - was one of passive resistance. As far as I have interpreted it, anyway.

reply from: faithman

I understand why you feel the way you do. ALL I ask is that you stop and consider that it just may have been defensive from this stand point. True it was not a matter of self defence. But is a man responcible for the defence of the innocent as well? Should we stand by and watch a mad man slaughter children in the school house? Should we stand by and allow a woman to be raped? 4 thousand years of western culture, and 2 thousand years of church history says no. Evil aggression must be stopped with what ever force is nessisary. When "pro-life" took that off the table, they assured themselves to be a failure. Main stream pro-life agrees with Planned Parenthood, that the womb child does not deserve the same consideration that we afford every born child. It is this double speak that assures failure to protect the womb child for decades to come, as well as assures the checks comming in to a failed cash cow called the prolife movement.

reply from: Yuuki

I understand why you feel the way you do. ALL I ask is that you stop and consider that it just may have been defensive from this stand point. True it was not a matter of self defence. But is a man responcible for the defence of the innocent as well? Should we stand by and watch a mad man slaughter children in the school house? Should we stand by and allow a woman to be raped? 4 thousand years of western culture, and 2 thousand years of church history says no. Evil aggression must be stopped with what ever force is nessisary. When "pro-life" took that off the table, they assured themselves to be a failure. Main stream pro-life agrees with Planned Parenthood, that the womb child does not deserve the same consideration that we afford every born child. It is this double speak that assures failure to protect the womb child for decades to come, as well as assures the checks comming in to a failed cash cow called the prolife movement.
I have said before I understand Scott Roeder's thought process, but that I still believe he was 100% wrong in what he did. We all feel like we want to hit this person or that person, but that doesn't mean it is right to do so. We can control those urges. Scott should have sought help when he realised he was growing so frustrated; he could have become involved in volunteer services caring for abandoned newborns or something like that; maybe counseling women or working at a CPC. We are always told as teachers when we are frustrated at a student to seek out help instead of taking it out on that student.
But Scott directed his energies in the wrong direction, and now someone is in jail, someone is dead, and there is a dark stain on the pro-life movement. No one won, because abortion is still legal.
As far as defending innocents, that is a difficult discussion to have because we have something in this country called the police. As I've said in other discussions, I believe that part of what we give up by being a citizen of a nation is the right to take violent action against others. We give that right to the government.
Unless a situation is imminent and the police can't get there in time and what the person is about to do is illegal, you cannot and should not take action. In the case of Tiller's death, no one was being threatened a the moment, no one was in danger at that moment, and according to state and federal law, abortion is legal. I believe laws should be fought with laws. Unless an entire government is completely oppressive, a violent uprising is not appropriate or ethical.

reply from: faithman

I understand why you feel the way you do. ALL I ask is that you stop and consider that it just may have been defensive from this stand point. True it was not a matter of self defence. But is a man responcible for the defence of the innocent as well? Should we stand by and watch a mad man slaughter children in the school house? Should we stand by and allow a woman to be raped? 4 thousand years of western culture, and 2 thousand years of church history says no. Evil aggression must be stopped with what ever force is nessisary. When "pro-life" took that off the table, they assured themselves to be a failure. Main stream pro-life agrees with Planned Parenthood, that the womb child does not deserve the same consideration that we afford every born child. It is this double speak that assures failure to protect the womb child for decades to come, as well as assures the checks comming in to a failed cash cow called the prolife movement.
I have said before I understand Scott Roeder's thought process, but that I still believe he was 100% wrong in what he did. We all feel like we want to hit this person or that person, but that doesn't mean it is right to do so. We can control those urges. Scott should have sought help when he realised he was growing so frustrated; he could have become involved in volunteer services caring for abandoned newborns or something like that; maybe counseling women or working at a CPC. We are always told as teachers when we are frustrated at a student to seek out help instead of taking it out on that student.
But Scott directed his energies in the wrong direction, and now someone is in jail, someone is dead, and there is a dark stain on the pro-life movement. No one won, because abortion is still legal.
As far as defending innocents, that is a difficult discussion to have because we have something in this country called the police. As I've said in other discussions, I believe that part of what we give up by being a citizen of a nation is the right to take violent action against others. We give that right to the government.
Unless a situation is imminent and the police can't get there in time and what the person is about to do is illegal, you cannot and should not take action. In the case of Tiller's death, no one was being threatened a the moment, no one was in danger at that moment, and according to state and federal law, abortion is legal. I believe laws should be fought with laws. Unless an entire government is completely oppressive, a violent uprising is not appropriate or ethical.
This government has become completely oppressive towards the preborn, and has usurped the authority of WE THE PEOLE. Tiller killed at least 60,000 children, and vowed to continue doing so. It is my ferverent hope to end this peacfuly. That is why I advocate the use of imagry represented in my sig. But it is the hight of hypocricy to continue to use bloody imagry, and then condemn the actions that imagry provokes. The abortion laws in this country are unconstitutional. Not one ledgislator introduced a bill that became law. The other 2 branches of government should declare RvW unconstitutional, as is their duty. OIur founders told us that if a Gov. becomes despotic, we have the right and duty to over throw it. Our high jacked government does need to be over thrown, and restored back to what it was established to be. We have a far better chance at restoration, if every citizin over the age of 18 buys a 12 gage pump shot gun. The second amenment was given to we the People tp protect us from government. It is an armed citizenry that keeps us free. It is the posibility of an armed uprising that keeps government in check. Unfortunantly We The People have forgotten that, and the cost is 50 million dead and counting.

reply from: Yuuki

? I don't edit my posts Faithman, you know that. There's no need to quote them without comment.

reply from: faithman

Just a slip of the fingures. Take a chill pill.

reply from: Yuuki

Just a slip of the fingures. Take a chill pill.
I was just wondering

reply from: Yuuki

I understand why you feel the way you do. ALL I ask is that you stop and consider that it just may have been defensive from this stand point. True it was not a matter of self defence. But is a man responcible for the defence of the innocent as well? Should we stand by and watch a mad man slaughter children in the school house? Should we stand by and allow a woman to be raped? 4 thousand years of western culture, and 2 thousand years of church history says no. Evil aggression must be stopped with what ever force is nessisary. When "pro-life" took that off the table, they assured themselves to be a failure. Main stream pro-life agrees with Planned Parenthood, that the womb child does not deserve the same consideration that we afford every born child. It is this double speak that assures failure to protect the womb child for decades to come, as well as assures the checks comming in to a failed cash cow called the prolife movement.
I have said before I understand Scott Roeder's thought process, but that I still believe he was 100% wrong in what he did. We all feel like we want to hit this person or that person, but that doesn't mean it is right to do so. We can control those urges. Scott should have sought help when he realised he was growing so frustrated; he could have become involved in volunteer services caring for abandoned newborns or something like that; maybe counseling women or working at a CPC. We are always told as teachers when we are frustrated at a student to seek out help instead of taking it out on that student.
But Scott directed his energies in the wrong direction, and now someone is in jail, someone is dead, and there is a dark stain on the pro-life movement. No one won, because abortion is still legal.
As far as defending innocents, that is a difficult discussion to have because we have something in this country called the police. As I've said in other discussions, I believe that part of what we give up by being a citizen of a nation is the right to take violent action against others. We give that right to the government.
Unless a situation is imminent and the police can't get there in time and what the person is about to do is illegal, you cannot and should not take action. In the case of Tiller's death, no one was being threatened a the moment, no one was in danger at that moment, and according to state and federal law, abortion is legal. I believe laws should be fought with laws. Unless an entire government is completely oppressive, a violent uprising is not appropriate or ethical.
This government has become completely oppressive towards the preborn, and has usurped the authority of WE THE PEOLE. Tiller killed at least 60,000 children, and vowed to continue doing so. It is my ferverent hope to end this peacfuly. That is why I advocate the use of imagry represented in my sig. But it is the hight of hypocricy to continue to use bloody imagry, and then condemn the actions that imagry provokes. The abortion laws in this country are unconstitutional. Not one ledgislator introduced a bill that became law. The other 2 branches of government should declare RvW unconstitutional, as is their duty. OIur founders told us that if a Gov. becomes despotic, we have the right and duty to over throw it. Our high jacked government does need to be over thrown, and restored back to what it was established to be. We have a far better chance at restoration, if every citizin over the age of 18 buys a 12 gage pump shot gun. The second amenment was given to we the People tp protect us from government. It is an armed citizenry that keeps us free. It is the posibility of an armed uprising that keeps government in check. Unfortunantly We The People have forgotten that, and the cost is 50 million dead and counting.
It's not everyone though; that's what I meant. Not that we shouldn't defend them and fight for them, but the fact is that it is not complete oppression of ALL peoples. I don't think our entire government needs to be overthrown; I staunchly disagree with that. And you already know I don't think everyone needs a gun heh.
I do agree that the abortion laws are totally unconstitutional.

reply from: faithman

I understand why you feel the way you do. ALL I ask is that you stop and consider that it just may have been defensive from this stand point. True it was not a matter of self defence. But is a man responcible for the defence of the innocent as well? Should we stand by and watch a mad man slaughter children in the school house? Should we stand by and allow a woman to be raped? 4 thousand years of western culture, and 2 thousand years of church history says no. Evil aggression must be stopped with what ever force is nessisary. When "pro-life" took that off the table, they assured themselves to be a failure. Main stream pro-life agrees with Planned Parenthood, that the womb child does not deserve the same consideration that we afford every born child. It is this double speak that assures failure to protect the womb child for decades to come, as well as assures the checks comming in to a failed cash cow called the prolife movement.
I have said before I understand Scott Roeder's thought process, but that I still believe he was 100% wrong in what he did. We all feel like we want to hit this person or that person, but that doesn't mean it is right to do so. We can control those urges. Scott should have sought help when he realised he was growing so frustrated; he could have become involved in volunteer services caring for abandoned newborns or something like that; maybe counseling women or working at a CPC. We are always told as teachers when we are frustrated at a student to seek out help instead of taking it out on that student.
But Scott directed his energies in the wrong direction, and now someone is in jail, someone is dead, and there is a dark stain on the pro-life movement. No one won, because abortion is still legal.
As far as defending innocents, that is a difficult discussion to have because we have something in this country called the police. As I've said in other discussions, I believe that part of what we give up by being a citizen of a nation is the right to take violent action against others. We give that right to the government.
Unless a situation is imminent and the police can't get there in time and what the person is about to do is illegal, you cannot and should not take action. In the case of Tiller's death, no one was being threatened a the moment, no one was in danger at that moment, and according to state and federal law, abortion is legal. I believe laws should be fought with laws. Unless an entire government is completely oppressive, a violent uprising is not appropriate or ethical.
This government has become completely oppressive towards the preborn, and has usurped the authority of WE THE PEOLE. Tiller killed at least 60,000 children, and vowed to continue doing so. It is my ferverent hope to end this peacfuly. That is why I advocate the use of imagry represented in my sig. But it is the hight of hypocricy to continue to use bloody imagry, and then condemn the actions that imagry provokes. The abortion laws in this country are unconstitutional. Not one ledgislator introduced a bill that became law. The other 2 branches of government should declare RvW unconstitutional, as is their duty. OIur founders told us that if a Gov. becomes despotic, we have the right and duty to over throw it. Our high jacked government does need to be over thrown, and restored back to what it was established to be. We have a far better chance at restoration, if every citizin over the age of 18 buys a 12 gage pump shot gun. The second amenment was given to we the People tp protect us from government. It is an armed citizenry that keeps us free. It is the posibility of an armed uprising that keeps government in check. Unfortunantly We The People have forgotten that, and the cost is 50 million dead and counting.
It's not everyone though; that's what I meant. Not that we shouldn't defend them and fight for them, but the fact is that it is not complete oppression of ALL peoples. I don't think our entire government needs to be overthrown; I staunchly disagree with that. And you already know I don't think everyone needs a gun heh.
I do agree that the abortion laws are totally unconstitutional.
When an unconstitutional law has been forced on us, then yes, all of us have been oppressed. Our rights, and the authority as citizens, has been usurped. If we do not stop this usurpation soon, then yes, it will take an armed revolt to set it staight again. It is healthy for government to fear the governed, and visa versa. It is this ballance that keeps us free. every one over 18 should by a 12 gage pump, even if you don't buy a bullet for it. It is an armed citizenry that keeps america free. That is why UN socialist want controll forced on America, and the world. It is easier to "control" a population that can not defend itself.

reply from: Yuuki

I came home the other night late from a movie premier. We have a gun in our house. I found myself concerned that my mother or father might hear my noise, become worried, and load the gun and shoot me. I am more frightened knowing that gun is there than I ever was in a home without a gun. I believe violence is wrong, and even threatening to do violence (by having a gun, even unloaded) in the way you are saying, is wrong. We shouldn't have to threaten our government with death. Aren't we more civilized than that?

reply from: faithman

50 million dead, and you have the gumption to ask that question? Civilized indeed!!!

reply from: Yuuki

50 million dead, and you have the gumption to ask that question? Civilized indeed!!!
Well try to understand what I mean by that, and remember where I have come from, views-wise. And remember too that pro-choicers often view their stance as being more civilized than ours. They feel we are backwards-thinking women-oppressors who want all females to be pregnant and barefooted in the kitchen. They feel they are promoting women's rights. They truly and honestly feel this, so I can understand why they think they are being civilized. Obviously, killing children is not civilized in our opinions, but they come up with many reasons to hide this fact - not from us, but from themselves.

reply from: siri

Don't be an idiot.
I never said you don't have the right to speak.
Of course, if it was up to me all you lousy, dirty rotten, no good baby killers/supporters would be banned from this site.
But, the powers that be disagree.
I responded to your attempt to insult me by saying "sticks and stones" and you posted "you don't even have that right" without specifying what right I don't have...hence my question...not that I am all that interested.
She meant that you didn't have that "right" meaning "correct" In other words, you had it wrong. Seemed clear enough to me.
Thanks Nancy.
I can't believe she's really that stupid, but then proaborts are always looking for a fight, (they're violent by nature), so sometimes it's hard to tell.
Uhhh, you don't have to be stupid to not know which use of the word "right" she meant, since it has 2 meanings...and I and other prochoicers are certainly not looking for a fight more than you are. " Violent by nature"? Don't make me laugh. And re. looking for a fight, your gratuitous insult here is just a great illustration.

reply from: faithman

50 million dead, and you have the gumption to ask that question? Civilized indeed!!!
Well try to understand what I mean by that, and remember where I have come from, views-wise. And remember too that pro-choicers often view their stance as being more civilized than ours. They feel we are backwards-thinking women-oppressors who want all females to be pregnant and barefooted in the kitchen. They feel they are promoting women's rights. They truly and honestly feel this, so I can understand why they think they are being civilized. Obviously, killing children is not civilized in our opinions, but they come up with many reasons to hide this fact - not from us, but from themselves.
That is why I "insult" them. A person can not honestly change until they look at themselves honestly. Only a monster would advocate such slaughter. Ya don't want to be a monster, don't advocate for the slaughter of the innocent. I am sure many a Nazi thought they we mentally superior to all others. I am sure they were "good" people, who didn't personally kill jews. But it was their mind set that made the mass slaughter posible. It is the same with abortion. A borthead may not be the one who actually kills the womb child, but it is their minds set that enables it to happen. All bortheads are just as big a monster as Tiller. The sooner they realize that, the sooner some may turn from their evil baby killing ways. All bortheads are evil in my book. That is the way it is, and I don't apologize one bit for it.

reply from: Yuuki

I was not changed by the insults though. I was changed by kind words, and a video, and someone asking me to be introspective. Insulting someone is not a proper teaching strategy. Educators don't go around insulting their students; we wouldn't have a job! And students don't learn that way. I do not blame the general population of Germany for the NAZI's terrible work, and I don't think anyone should do so. They were indeed wrong, and I believe pro-choicers are wrong, but I don't believe it is right to kill them or insult them, especially when our entire stance is about love, life, and caring about women and their children. It just seems completely contradictory and counter-productive.
You can say abortion is murder; but attacking a woman and calling HER a murderer is not right and won't get you anywhere.

reply from: sander

If you would have used your head, no doubt you could have figured out which was the right meaning, via context.
There's your lesson for the day. No charge...this time.
I'm not looking for a fight, I'm welcomed on this site by the owner, you're an intruder, only tolerated for our amusment. Thought you knew that. I can post the owner's own words that will back that up, if you wish.
You're on a site that is PRO-LIFE, not PRO-ABORTION, or PRO-MODERATE or any other such nonsense.

Oh yes, anyone who supports the willfull slaughter of innocent, helpless children has a violent streak a mile wide. You're just pretending it doesn't exist, but you're only fooling yourself.

See above.

reply from: siri

Hi Sander, how are you.

reply from: Rosalie

All he has to do is look for a big ugly woman treading water holding a power drill. How hard can that be to spot?
Your misogyny and your overall issues with the opposite sex are blatantly obvious from comments like this one. Get help.

reply from: nancyu

All he has to do is look for a big ugly woman treading water holding a power drill. How hard can that be to spot?
Your misogyny and your overall issues with the opposite sex are blatantly obvious from comments like this one. Get help.
Learn the correct usage of the word "misogyny." Your lack of skills in grammar are blatantly obvious. Get a tutor.
Augustine obviously does not hate women. At the least, he does not advocate their slaughter.
It appears that you must hate unborn children. This is blatantly obvious from your support of a woman's "right to choose" to kill her own children for any old stupid reason.

reply from: nancyu

Rosalie's Signature:
Is that so? How much thought did you put into this statement Rosalie?
A: The pro life position is: No one has the right to intentionally kill innocent human beings. And unborn children ARE innocent human beings. How again is that misogyny?
B: If your signature is true you would also have to agree that it is misandry not to allow a man to "make his own decisions" regarding his body, health and future. Suppose his wife is a lying, cheating, pro abort who physically abuses him. Shouldn't he be allowed the same "right to choose" to kill her?

reply from: Rosalie

I am more educated than you ever will be, and I am very much aware of what that word means. It fits you and your ilk perfectly.
I don't advocate the slaughter of unborn women (or men), either. And he clearly has issues with women, it's blatantly obvious.
It doesn't surprise me that someone as unintelligent as you would feel the need to make up a lie in a desperate hope to insult me. What a failure you are.
Is that so? How much thought did you put into this statement Rosalie?
A: The pro life position is: No one has the right to intentionally kill innocent human beings. And unborn children ARE innocent human beings. How again is that misogyny?
It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand.
You cannot take the woman out of the equation - yet you always attempt to do so. Protecting 'the innocent', as you call the fetuses, might sound all superior and seemingly good but you always forget to mention that to 'protect the innocent', you have to override the will, needs and concerns of a woman.
The fact that it's absolutely okay for you to do that in order to push your disgusting agenda that fetuses have the right to reside inside of a woman regardless of her wishes and thus blatantly disregarding her most basic rights is migoynist.
Please use your brain next time. A man's spouse is never living inside of his body and off his bodily resources, therefore this poor excuse for an analogy is completely invalid. There are no similarities between a fetus living inside of a woman and off her bodily resources and an unfaithful spouse.
I wonder how you could even come up with something this stupid. Oh, I know. You are trying to ignore the differences between fetuses and born people, that's how.

reply from: onterroristwatch

What are you doing on the internet? Shouldn't you get back to sitting in the bushes with a sniper rifle outside of some doctor's home?

reply from: nancyu

Never leave home without my ipad.

reply from: Gaufre

Wow, that is real sadistic of you "faithman." Not to mention but actually if you were to induce a miscarriage in many states you'd be the one tried for murder. Also in some states she'd have the right to shoot you to protect her unborn. Love your hypocrisy. You talk like a domestic abuser, blaming the victim and even showing that you dont care one wit about her pregnancy nor her fetus. Real "pro-life" of you.

reply from: Gaufre

joe,
How are you to convince any pro-choice people out there that pro-life adherents arent terrorists when you talk like that? Its simply sadistic and Jesus did not go around being violent torwards others, even those who tortured and killed him. He even forgave murderers. Perhaps you should not designate yourself Gods judger and instead leave that to God himself.

reply from: Gaufre

joe,
Lets not forget that Hitler was against abortion and forbade it for German women and for those female slaves they were often raped and forcibly impregnated. The issue is a lot more complex that what youre demonstrating. Dont use the persecuted as props for your fundamentalism.


2014 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics