Home - List All Discussions

Why I pick on CM

Input welcome.

by: nancyu

Because she is holding us and our babies hostage. She won't get behind personhood measures until she is assured that women won't be punished.

reply from: yoda

I know of no other area of criminal justice in this country where the instigator of the killing of an innocent person is held blameless, while the person hired by that instigator is punished.
It is a rank, odious perversion of the whole idea of criminal justice.

reply from: nancyu

That bears repeating.
Let's all remember why we came here, and what the purpose of this forum is.
And that bears repeating.
It's hard enough sometimes to stay on track when the proaborts come slinking in with their anti-life propaganda, but when you add pro-lifers to the same mix on the same side...well, you get what we got last night.
What we got last nite was a false pro-lifer being exposed, and folk reacting emotionaly insted of objectively looking at what was said. We had a so called pro-lifer say they agreed with the abortion industry that the womb child is second in consideration to killer mom's interest, and killing a womb child is diferent than killing a 2 year old born child. We have also had this she wolf in pro-life wool say that she would fight personhood if future she wolves didn't get a free hunting license to walk away clean after killing womb children. I do not care what any of you say, that is not pro-life no matter how much they pretend to be. You defend people like that, you join them, and give up being pro-life your selves. The must be a line drawn here. It is very clear. either you advocate the interest of the womb child or you do not. either advocate personhood, or shut up about being pro-life. This issue started when personhood was denied. It will end when it is established. Anything less is a farces, and anyone who advocates less is false.

reply from: nancyu

I think we should call it Our Baby and refuse to choose.
Screw forgiveness?
Where is that coming from?
I say this, because I've heard enough already. I can forgive somethings without being asked for forgiveness. There are some things I will never be able to forgive whether asked or not. I've just through with the topic. It has become irrelevant to me. No body knows what will happen to mothers or abortionists, who will be forgiven, and who won't. That doesn't change the FACT that abortion MUST STOP!!
That is where that is coming from!
Then don't post if you have nothing to contribute to the thread.
How we treat other people matters. It matters to God, if it doesn't to you.
If you want people to change their minds on abortion, it usually is a good idea to talk to them. And if you are being rude and spiteful, they will not listen to you. This is common sense. Positions on abortion can change if those who are speaking are at least polite. Norma McCorvey (Roe) was won over by the kindness of people. So was Carol Everett and Bernard nathenson. All of them started having dialog with people who treated them with kindness. They held firm to the truth, but they were not hateful or mean to those they were witnessing to. We are suppose to be ambassadors for Christ in every encounter with another human being.

reply from: nancyu

Why are you posting this everywhere?
We disagree on this bill.
And you are required to forgive by God, not me.
I started posting this everywhere after you irritated me by telling me not to post. (but I forgive you for that now) And I posted it originally, because it is what I think. And at least for the moment I have a right to say what I think.
What bill? The one to outlaw abortion? I thought you wanted abortion to be outlawed.

If the Holy Father Himself stood before me in the flesh today and told me that I must forgive an abortion, I would humbly and respectfully say, "Father, I can't"

reply from: nancyu

We don't need CaroleMarie in order to do this. She is evil, in my very humble and uneducated opinion, but if she won't support the bill without the exception, then she is useless. I don't think we need her endorsement, any more than we need an endorsement from Satan, to get this bill passed.

reply from: nancyu

What good are laws that can't be enforced?
You are a fool if you believe that we are on the same team.

reply from: nancyu

I had this in my notes. I'm not sure which thread it was in though:
"Think of what would happen if smoking became illegal today. Some would quit and stop, but some are so addicted, they would do anything to get a cigarette, so if smoking became a crime, it would make sense to make the punishment light in the beginning, while establishing a non smoking culture.
So I think at least for the first 10 years or so that abortion is illegal that the punishment for illegal abortions should be restricted to the abortion provider, and probation given to the woman."
Unbelievable! so women are addicted to having abortions, so they would need, say 10 years or so, to adjust before punishment for them should be "fazed in"

reply from: nancyu

A self righteous "purist" minority who think that we should save EVERY child, not just some.
A self righteous "purist" minority who want the laws passed NOW, and not wait until all of the pro aborts have approved every detail.
A self righteous "purist" minority who don't CARE what the punishment is because NOTHING is worse than letting abortion go on for one more day!
We don't need CM to pass this and we don't need CP to pass this. If we are waiting for approval from those who are doing the crime, we are even worse fools than they are.

reply from: nancyu

I'm a proud member of the self righteous "purist" minority. How about you?

reply from: yoda

When we're talking about our goals, I think it's important to emphasize exactly that..... saving every child. Otherwise, we are no better than the prodeathers.
IF someone wants to push a "half-measure" that will just save a few, I may not actively oppose them (unless that measure somehow legitimizes the killing of the ones left out), but I certainly will not endorse any half-measures as "my goal".
The goal must always be the ultimate protection of all unborn babies, not just the ones where we can prosecute the abortionist and let the murderous mom go free.
The way you defined that term, I'd be proud to join you!

reply from: Faramir

We don't need CaroleMarie in order to do this. She is evil, in my very humble and uneducated opinion, but if she won't support the bill without the exception, then she is useless. I don't think we need her endorsement, any more than we need an endorsement from Satan, to get this bill passed.
Personal attacks of other prolifers--especially ones like her who are working hard--are counter productive.
Your comment is evil, however.

reply from: sander

I would think no pro-lifer would oppose any law that will save the babies. It doesn't make sense to do otherwise. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face, but, it would be the baby's nose and face as usual, that pays the price for such actions.
It's not been by choice, but we've been taking what we can get all along for the babies. The goal should still be the ultimate law that will give the babies personhood status.
And then let the chips fall where they may. If that includes the mother being punished, so be it. Laws are suppose to be just, fair, equitable, no?

reply from: joe

Personal attacks of other prolifers--especially ones like her who are working hard--are counter productive.
Your comment is evil, however.
Faramir, you defending a person that denies protection to the unborn shows who truly is evil here.

reply from: joe

Your method of outlawing abortion has failed for 35 years. Your method has allowed the murder of 50,000,000 innocent human beings with no accountability.
How much longer should we wait? How much more blood needs to be spilled? I for one am ready for a change and if purifying the movement is necessary to get that accomplished then let it be.

reply from: yoda

"Punishment" has worked reasonably well to keep the number of murders, rapes, robberies, etc. to a minimum for hundreds of years. And yet now we are being told that we must choose between reducing abortion and punishing those who commit it? That makes no sense at all, as the whole purpose of punishing an act of violence is to reduce it's frequency.

reply from: Teresa18

Please, let's not have another "attack CaroleMarie session". As I said in previous threads, she is pro-life. She is working to end abortion. She just supports a different method than you. She doesn't support women being punished. Big deal. She's in agreement with many in the pro-life movement. I don't either, and neither does Mr. Crutcher or Father Pavone.
Let's get a personhood bill passed. Like I said, I think the emphasis will be on going after the abortion providers.

reply from: yoda

That's what we're trying to do. Carole says she's opposed to the personhood bill unless it contains "exceptions", and we're stating why we're opposed to those exceptions. This is way beyond a personality conflict, this cuts to the heart of the abortion issue. What's wrong with that? Are we not allowed to debate personhood for fear it might offend someone?
Maybe, and maybe not. But if "exceptions" are included, all murdering moms will get off scot free.

reply from: Faramir

That's what we're trying to do. Carole says she's opposed to the personhood bill unless it contains "exceptions", and we're stating why we're opposed to those exceptions. This is way beyond a personality conflict, this cuts to the heart of the abortion issue. What's wrong with that? Are we not allowed to debate personhood for fear it might offend someone?
Maybe, and maybe not. But if "exceptions" are included, all murdering moms will get off scot free.
A personal attack thread is not "debating."

reply from: joe

This in my opinion is at the very heart of our movement. We must equate the unborn to the born, no compromises.
We all know that juries will be lenient in regards to punishing the guilty mothers but let it be done at that point in time.
For now we must establish personhood of the unborn in the mind, heart and soul of every individual in this country. That includes all aspects of personhood, the same protection that applies to all persons. This should be the goal and uncompromising position of every pro-life individual and I believe a necessary position to protect the unborn.

reply from: yoda

Exactly, Joe.
If we don't speak up for the equality of the unborn, who will?

reply from: FideiSpeiCaritatis

Very well said, Teresa. I completely agree.

reply from: nancyu

This in my opinion is at the very heart of our movement. We must equate the unborn to the born, no compromises.
We all know that juries will be lenient in regards to punishing the guilty mothers but let it be done at that point in time.
For now we must establish personhood of the unborn in the mind, heart and soul of every individual in this country. That includes all aspects of personhood, the same protection that applies to all persons. This should be the goal and uncompromising position of every pro-life individual and I believe a necessary position to protect the unborn.
Very well said, Joe, I agree with you.

reply from: Faramir

I think we should praise her and thank her for the work she is doing RIGHT NOW to save babies.

reply from: sander

Exceptions, where have we heard that word before?
If those who are prolife are not only opposed but will fight against such a bill without "exceptions", then where does that leave those people? I'm sure CM isn't the only one, so I'm addressing the whole of those who feel like that.
It leaves those people, imo, not fully committed to the womb child just like the other so-called pro-lifers who have "exceptions" in their pro-life stance. They are not full committed either. Sad. Sad for the babies and sad for those who so desperatley want to see the slaughter of the innocent stopped.

reply from: yoda

And you know, I have no quarrel with anyone being wishy washy, or half hearted, if that's how they feel. But when they get in the way of dedicated prolifers and try to hinder them, I do feel a bit more quarrelsome.

reply from: nancyu

It is a very big deal. This bill needs to be passed, regardless of who will be punished.
And it is a big deal when you propagate this message of forgiveness to mislead women into thinking they are going to get a free pass. This deception is wrong, and will only backfire on this movement. Is this what you want to have happen?

reply from: 4given

Disgusting isn't it?
There is no such thing as a "prolifer with exceptions" They would be considered pro-choice. For me, being pro-life means that I value the unborn life, just as I value my own. Saying otherwise means that I find my life to be of greater importance. It is sad.

reply from: 4given

Likewise. I take issue with those that also waste time with "feeling posts", neglecting to respect for a moment the seriousness of the issue at hand- which is the unprotected child in the womb.

reply from: Faramir

Disgusting isn't it?
There is no such thing as a "prolifer with exceptions" They would be considered pro-choice. For me, being pro-life means that I value the unborn life, just as I value my own. Saying otherwise means that I find my life to be of greater importance. It is sad.
Do you know what "exceptions" they are referring to?
If I'm not mistaken, she meant exception in the sense that she didn't want women punished, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I think that by taking her word "exception" out of context, they gave it a meaning she did not intend. I do not think she means exception in the sense of making an exception for rape, for example.
Maybe she'll come and explain it, but it would be understandable if she didn't want to participate in this attack thread against her.

reply from: nancyu

She is doing NOTHING!!!

reply from: carolemarie

That's what we're trying to do. Carole says she's opposed to the personhood bill unless it contains "exceptions", and we're stating why we're opposed to those exceptions. This is way beyond a personality conflict, this cuts to the heart of the abortion issue. What's wrong with that? Are we not allowed to debate personhood for fear it might offend someone?
Maybe, and maybe not. But if "exceptions" are included, all murdering moms will get off scot free.
What is the current status of these "personhood" bills. The Georgia one was defeated and I don't know of one that is currently being debated, do you?
If there isn't one being at least introduced, isn't supporting it a tad pointless?
There is however a ban on abortion being reintroduced in South Dakota! I am very excited about that. South Dakota will be the first state that bans abortion. How great is that!

reply from: nancyu

That's what we're trying to do. Carole says she's opposed to the personhood bill unless it contains "exceptions", and we're stating why we're opposed to those exceptions. This is way beyond a personality conflict, this cuts to the heart of the abortion issue. What's wrong with that? Are we not allowed to debate personhood for fear it might offend someone?
Maybe, and maybe not. But if "exceptions" are included, all murdering moms will get off scot free.
What is the current status of these "personhood" bills. The Georgia one was defeated and I don't know of one that is currently being debated, do you?
If there isn't one being at least introduced, isn't supporting it a tad pointless?
There is however a ban on abortion being reintroduced in South Dakota! I am very excited about that. South Dakota will be the first state that bans abortion. How great is that!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18785

reply from: nancyu

No, it isn't pointless to support it. Not even a tad pointless.
Oh, Ye of Little Faith.

reply from: isaiahmom5242007

I say this we should always support personhood it is given by God by nautral moral law no goverment no senators no one but God gives us personhood and he has already given it to us. People choose not to valid it for the unborn that is the probelm. I say that we should do all we can to protect unborn babies, and have compassion for women and never judge condem or be hurtful to them. I do say this when abortion is finally illgeal and women do choose to have abortion we cant turn a blind eye. There has to be some Enforcment . I mean the baby is a person also with feelings and a soul and rights . We should not say thrown away the key on them , but they have to be held accountable for your actions. God Bless

reply from: sander

Disgusting isn't it?
There is no such thing as a "prolifer with exceptions" They would be considered pro-choice. For me, being pro-life means that I value the unborn life, just as I value my own. Saying otherwise means that I find my life to be of greater importance. It is sad.
Exactly. If you've got to have "exceptions" then you can't possibly be pro-life.
Likewise, if you have to have "exceptions" to the one thing that would guarantee life and protection to the unborn, then that too is not 100% pro-life, imo.
It would be the only crime where all parties were not subject to justice, which is inherently unfair.

reply from: nancyu

Exactly, Bingo, Amen.

reply from: nancyu

That's what we're trying to do. Carole says she's opposed to the personhood bill unless it contains "exceptions", and we're stating why we're opposed to those exceptions. This is way beyond a personality conflict, this cuts to the heart of the abortion issue. What's wrong with that? Are we not allowed to debate personhood for fear it might offend someone?
Maybe, and maybe not. But if "exceptions" are included, all murdering moms will get off scot free.
A personal attack thread is not "debating."
This isn't a personal attack thread, any more than yours addressed to Sander was, or the one addressed to faithman was.

reply from: Faramir

We don't need CaroleMarie in order to do this. She is evil, in my very humble and uneducated opinion, but if she won't support the bill without the exception, then she is useless. I don't think we need her endorsement, any more than we need an endorsement from Satan, to get this bill passed.
Comments like "she is evil" is a personal attack.
This thread was created to serve your purpose of making unfair and cruel personal attacks.

reply from: yoda

Only here on this forum, for now.
How so? A movement for a personhood bill has to start somewhere, doesn't it? But if the lack of an active effort in a legislature is significant, isn't it just as "pointless" to oppose it?
It's probably a good thing, but it's very flawed in that it contains exceptions for rape and incest. Of course, that's the only way they felt it had a chance to pass. And even if it does, it will be in conflict with Roe and subsequent decisions, and remain moot until Roe is overturned. So it will be nothing more than an "emotional victory" at best.

reply from: nancyu

Just as "great!" as it would be if two of my children were murdered, and one lived.
I would be happy for the one who lived,
but I couldn't rejoice and celebrate his life quite as much when remembering and grieving for the two that didn't.

reply from: Faramir

Just as "great!" as it would be if two of my children were murdered, and one lived.
I would be happy for the one who lived,
but I couldn't rejoice and celebrate his life quite as much when remembering and grieving for the two that didn't.
Extremely poor analogy.

reply from: nancyu

So sorry, I didn't know I was in grammar school. Do you have any suggestions for a better one?
Here's another one for you:
If "Bob" was assaulting a child, (or a baby) and "Larry" came and attacked Bob, would you tell Larry that he was being mean and spiteful, and that he should try to be more forgiving and charitable?

reply from: Faramir

Neither work.
What if abortion becomes illegal in South Dakota?
That means less babies will be killed there.
That means they will be setting an example for other states to follow.
Why not save what can be saved?

reply from: Faramir

A better anology would be that if 40,000 people die in car accidents every year, and if a special device were made that could be put in a car that could save 5,000 of them, that would be good news, wouldn't it?
The prospect of abortion being made illegal in SD is GOOD NEWS.

reply from: nancyu

Here's another one for you:
If "Bob" was assaulting a child, (or a baby) and "Larry" came and attacked Bob, would you tell Larry that he was being mean and spiteful, and that he should try to be more forgiving and charitable?
Neither work.
What if abortion becomes illegal in South Dakota?
That means less babies will be killed there.
That means they will be setting an example for other states to follow.
Why not save what can be saved?
They both worked for me.
I don't remember saying I would be unhappy if abortion is illegal in South Dakota.
I would be ecstatic. It will save some lives. Especially those with mothers who abort for the sake of convenience (which is alot of them!) Because it would be even more inconvenient to travel across state lines, than it would be to carry their child to term.
Those who are being aborted for other reasons will still be killed. Whether they are killed here or there makes no difference to me. And no, it won't necessarily set an example. Neighboring states might just be happy for the extra revenue.
Now answer this one:
If "Bob" was assaulting a child, (or a baby) and "Larry" came and attacked Bob, would you tell Larry that he was being mean and spiteful, and that he should try to be more forgiving and charitable?
You know you should really work on your reading skills. You don't seem to be paying attention to what is written.

reply from: JesusLovesYou

Abortion is a sin. Sins can be forgiven if the sinner repents and generally feels bad about what they did. Otherwise, who's to say if they're forgiven or not. Even if the sin is forgiven, legally people should be held responsible for their crimes. I really think it does depend on the age of the woman, her situation, and if she was manipulated or taken advantage of.

reply from: Faramir

But your analogy followed Carole's comments about abortion being made illegal in SD, and I didn't see how it was the same as that.
And in your scenario above, of course Larry should come over and do whatever he has to do to prevent Bob from harming the child.
How does this apply to the comments about SD?

reply from: yoda

That's what prompted me to put him on iggy..... he will not respond to plain, simple questions. It's as if his monitor did not display them.

reply from: yoda

Those types of mitigating circumstances are best considered by a judge and/or a jury, not written into law.

reply from: sander

That's what prompted me to put him on iggy..... he will not respond to plain, simple questions. It's as if his monitor did not display them.
They are displayed all right. He just doesn't have what it takes to answer.

reply from: nancyu

That's what prompted me to put him on iggy..... he will not respond to plain, simple questions. It's as if his monitor did not display them.
Good suggestion, I might just take that advice.

reply from: Faramir

That's what prompted me to put him on iggy..... he will not respond to plain, simple questions. It's as if his monitor did not display them.
Be sure to tell yoda that I did answer your question, and remind him I have an issue with him taking snippets of posts out of context and distorting the meaning.
I can't respond to a dishonest question.

reply from: nancyu

But on the other hand, I'm getting a kick out of the fact that he keeps bumping up CM's "attack thread"

reply from: sander

Right, abortion is sin. And just because earthly laws say it's leagal doesn't pass muster with God. God has instituted earthly authorities to address His wrath on evildoers. Punishment is suppose to deter man from getting horribly evil.
Case in point: no punishment for abortion and now we have over 50 million dead babies.
And as Yoda said, the courts should be the ones deciding what to do about any mitigating circumstances.

reply from: sander

It's a dilema for sure...there's nothing like a good laugh now and then!

reply from: Faramir

Right, abortion is sin. And just because earthly laws say it's leagal doesn't pass muster with God. God has instituted earthly authorities to address His wrath on evildoers. Punishment is suppose to deter man from getting horribly evil.
Case in point: no punishment for abortion and now we have over 50 million dead babies.
And as Yoda said, the courts should be the ones deciding what to do about any mitigating circumstances.
A lot of God's people don't want the women to be punished.
What if the earthy authority goes along with that idea?
Is it of God or is it evil to have a situation where abortion is illegal but there is no punishment for the woman?

reply from: nancyu

That's what prompted me to put him on iggy..... he will not respond to plain, simple questions. It's as if his monitor did not display them.
Maybe he needs his screen cleaned. Try this faramir.
http://www.smoothmarketplace.com/screencleaner.swf

reply from: yoda

ROTFLMAO!! Good one!

reply from: sander

Thanks for the huge laugh, Nancy!
That worked better than caffeine to get the system working this morning!!

reply from: Teresa18

That's what we're trying to do. Carole says she's opposed to the personhood bill unless it contains "exceptions", and we're stating why we're opposed to those exceptions. This is way beyond a personality conflict, this cuts to the heart of the abortion issue. What's wrong with that? Are we not allowed to debate personhood for fear it might offend someone?
Maybe, and maybe not. But if "exceptions" are included, all murdering moms will get off scot free.
The personhood bills do not get into such things as legal ramifications. They simply declare the unborn worthy of protection like the born. Once that happens, states will either apply the law that is on the books, or they will write laws to address abortion.
On another note, this is Georgia's personhood site:
http://www.personhood.net/default.htm

reply from: sander

And that's all we ask along with the support of all pro-lifers.
I only fear those who are on the prolife side fighting against such a law reconizing the unborn as persons worthy of protection.
A collective voice, opposing the law, from our side would be exploited to the hilt and work against the babies, yet again.

reply from: nancyu

And that's all we ask along with the support of all pro-lifers.
I only fear those who are on the prolife side fighting against such a law reconizing the unborn as persons worthy of protection.
A collective voice, opposing the law, from our side would be exploited to the hilt and work against the babies, yet again.
And THAT is the one and only reason why I pick on carolemarie. We NEED YOUR SUPPORT. I pray that we have it!

reply from: Faramir

You also throw her abortions in her face, which is not right.
You should just criticize her views if you don't like them. Her personal life should not be a factor.
And that's all we ask along with the support of all pro-lifers.
I only fear those who are on the prolife side fighting against such a law reconizing the unborn as persons worthy of protection.
A collective voice, opposing the law, from our side would be exploited to the hilt and work against the babies, yet again.
And THAT is the one and only reason why I pick on carolemarie. We NEED YOUR SUPPORT. I pray that we have it!

reply from: isaiahmom5242007

I think that when abortion is made illegal that we can have compassion for women but you cant give someone a free pass for killing a child. If you do then why not someone that kills a 4 year old or such. I mean a child is a child right. so if you punish someone that takes the life of a 4 year old then why should you not punish someone that takes a life of a unborn baby. non judgement is the key,but you cant excuse killing a innocent baby. I dont see why women that have abortions should be given a free pass. It is not like we are forcing anyone to be a parent, but you cant just take a innocent life. There are other option then abortion to say you cant give personhood to a unborn baby is silly as I said before God has already given every human person hood some choose not valid that , but it does not mean it doent exsit. So again I will not condem someone or be hateful but I will not say that there should be any consequenses to killing a innocent baby. If you say that you want to make sure women arent punished then you are saying that the baby is only worth saving if the mother doent get in trouble. Does that make sense to you.If you want all abortion to stop then we have to all agree that abortion takes the life of a innocent baby then we must follw the course of action . If you kill a innocent baby then you have to be punished . Should we turn our nose up at them no should we forgive them yes That is the way that Christ wants us to live, but we can not for one second think that it is okay to kill a innocent baby and get away with it. I say this not to start a agrument but if your pro life then your pro life you cant have any exceptions. if you do then you de value the life of the very people that we are trying to protect the defence less and the innocent . there is no excuse for taking there lives and you have to be accountable for your actions God Bless

reply from: nancyu

Very well said.
Exactly right.

reply from: Faramir

Because we have an abortion culture that has told us for over three decades abortion is good.
We will give them a pass for that reason, and just go after those who promote and perform abortions.
This is not an off-the-wall proposition. Many agree including people who are smart and compassionate like Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life and many others in the prolife movement.
Hidden in these words and many of the words of the like-minded here, is not a desire for justice or for protection of babies, but for judgement and revenge.
It's made more obvious by that fact that these comments are made in a thread whose purpose is to attack and degrade someone who is post-abortive. It's not her ideas that are being attacked, or the abortions would not be mentioned over and over.

reply from: nancyu

Because we have an abortion culture that has told us for over three decades abortion is good.
We will give them a pass for that reason, and just go after those who promote and perform abortions.
This is not an off-the-wall proposition. Many agree including people who are smart and compassionate like Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life and many others in the prolife movement.
Hidden in these words and many of the words of the like-minded here, is not a desire for justice or for protection of babies, but for judgement and revenge.
It's made more obvious by that fact that these comments are made in a thread whose purpose is to attack and degrade someone who is post-abortive. It's not her ideas that are being attacked, or the abortions would not be mentioned over and over.
No it is not revenge, it is justice. It is your opinion that women should get a free pass, some agree and some don't. The truth is it must be left for a jury to decide.
We CAN NOT say okay it is only a person if.... This is not justice or mercy for the unborn, and it is NOT what it means to be pro life. Personhood needs to be granted regardless of whether or not women will be punished.
Faramir..Stop and Think!!!!!! Feel, Do you have no heart? How can you be so proud to call yourself Catholic and appear to have no Soul?
It's beyond me it truly is.

reply from: Faramir

If you would keep carolemarie's personal life out of your arguments, it would be easier for me to believe you are sincere. Otherwise, it looks like you're using your beliefs to knock someone upside the head, because that is what you're doing to carol. I'm not referring to your arguments, but to the judgements you continue to make about her personally.

reply from: nancyu

I have made NO judgements about her personally! I have my opinion of her personally. Judgement is Not up to me.
If you want to leave her out of it then why do you keep bumping this particular thread?

reply from: nancyu

Because we have an abortion culture that has told us for over three decades abortion is good.
We will give them a pass for that reason, and just go after those who promote and perform abortions.
This is not an off-the-wall proposition. Many agree including people who are smart and compassionate like Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life and many others in the prolife movement.
Hidden in these words and many of the words of the like-minded here, is not a desire for justice or for protection of babies, but for judgement and revenge.
It's made more obvious by that fact that these comments are made in a thread whose purpose is to attack and degrade someone who is post-abortive. It's not her ideas that are being attacked, or the abortions would not be mentioned over and over.
No it is not revenge, it is justice. It is your opinion that women should get a free pass, some agree and some don't. The truth is it must be left for a jury to decide.
We CAN NOT say okay it is only a person if.... This is not justice or mercy for the unborn, and it is NOT what it means to be pro life. Personhood needs to be granted regardless of whether or not women will be punished.
Faramir..Stop and Think!!!!!! Feel, Do you have no heart? How can you be so proud to call yourself Catholic and appear to have no Soul?
It's beyond me it truly is.

reply from: Faramir

I have made NO judgements about her personally! I have my opinion of her personally. Judgement is Not up to me.
If you want to leave her out of it then why do you keep bumping this particular thread?
Why do you mention her abortions? Those are her own personal sins she chose to share. We have all sinned. If I knew any of your sins, would you want me to bring them up in every post?
They would be irrelevant to the discussion.
You're using the discussion as an excuse to demean and degrade someone.
Why not make your arguments without bringing up someone's sins?

reply from: isaiahmom5242007

I am not or will not attack anyone for there past My faith as a Catholic tells me that I am to see Christ in everyone. revenage is never the motive , but if you steal a car do you not get punished. The people that perform abortion should be punished , but I say this and I say it with compassion abortion is a choice and we have free will that mean we know right from wrong when you choose to kill your baby then yes you should be punished it is innocent blood that has been shed. That being said w shall not condem judge nor cast stones. Justice is diffrent from revenage in the fact that reveage has anger as it fuel and Justice has righting a wrong as the fuel. I have not judged or said anything about anyone and there past. I am only saying that we cant just go after the abortion performers that is not logial , if a women self aborts then what ? so the question is that people may feel that if you punish someone that you look down on them or cast stones which is not true . Your show them that there are consequences to actions and we cant just kill innocent people and that inclues unborn babies. so again I say Justice yes reveage no .

reply from: isaiahmom5242007

You cant give someone a free pass because they have been told abortion is okay. If someone been told that rape is wrong , yet sees the wrongnes in rape sees teh trama that rape causes and still does it they know right from wrong. If you ask a 5 year old if killing a baby is okay they will say no right? It is common sense that killing a innocent baby is wrong. There is so much data and infomation these days if you choose not to find out and get informed then you cant blame soceity. IT is called personal responabilty and that means informing educating and making decsion that you know is in line with God Law and man law. That is the probelm I follow God law therefore I cant break man law becasue God is Good and his laws are just . We all make mistakes , but we have to think about things before we do them and not place the blame on what society taught us. But what God has taught us. God Bless

reply from: sheri

Isasahsmom, you sound like you have a well formed concience, and that is good, however many people have not studied this issue or even given it a thought untill they have to make the decision. These among other reasons are mitigating factors that lessen the guilt that a person is responcible for in regards sin.
Also our corrupt society does have an adverse impact on people. A person is expected to know instintively that it is wrong to kill a baby and i agree with that however if society, your parents, your Doctor,etc. tell you " it is not a baby yet at only 3 weeks so take this pill" I could honestly see how a person could be tricked into excepting a very evil sin. Then once youve done it you will defend your decision rather then face the too horrid truth.
So it makes sense to me to punish the abortionist, but I just dont think its a good idea to punish the woman in all circumstances.

reply from: carolemarie

And that's all we ask along with the support of all pro-lifers.
I only fear those who are on the prolife side fighting against such a law reconizing the unborn as persons worthy of protection.
A collective voice, opposing the law, from our side would be exploited to the hilt and work against the babies, yet again.
And THAT is the one and only reason why I pick on carolemarie. We NEED YOUR SUPPORT. I pray that we have it!
No it isn't. That is your excuse to be hateful.
I get it. You hate women who had abortions. We all get it. I will manage to live with your disaproval.
I suggest you go on and work on your bill and try to get it passed and leave me alone about it. When and if it gets introduced, then talk to me about it.

reply from: sander

Blaming society isn't a defense, it's tried in courts and it doesn't usually hold up, and rightfully so.
Once the womb child recieves personhood, then the courts will make the determenation as to what the mitigating circumstances are and punish or not accordingly.
The main thing is to get these babies personhood status and then let the chips fall where they may. Save the babies.

reply from: sander

Some don't want to hear past what they think they've heard.
Nobody, not one single person that I've read on these boards, concerning this topic, desires revenge.
Every Chritian knows that revenge belongs to God and He WILL REPAY, so His Word says.
God is also interested in justice, he gave governing authorties power to exact His warth on those who do wrong. Note the words "His wrath".
And why? So evil would be kept in check! His earthly wrath is far easier than the eternal wrath to come. But, some would deny God's Word...that is beyond me too.

reply from: carolemarie

Some don't want to hear past what they think they've heard.
Nobody, not one single person that I've read on these boards, concerning this topic, desires revenge.
Every Chritian knows that revenge belongs to God and He WILL REPAY, so His Word says.
God is also interested in justice, he gave governing authorties power to exact His warth on those who do wrong. Note the words "His wrath".
And why? So evil would be kept in check! His earthly wrath is far easier than the eternal wrath to come. But, some would deny God's Word...that is beyond me too.
It is revenge cloaked in religious verbage.

reply from: sander

Some don't want to hear past what they think they've heard.
Nobody, not one single person that I've read on these boards, concerning this topic, desires revenge.
Every Chritian knows that revenge belongs to God and He WILL REPAY, so His Word says.
God is also interested in justice, he gave governing authorties power to exact His warth on those who do wrong. Note the words "His wrath".
And why? So evil would be kept in check! His earthly wrath is far easier than the eternal wrath to come. But, some would deny God's Word...that is beyond me too.
It is revenge cloaked in religious verbage.
You are entitled to characterize God's Word as religious verbage, but I'll still take His Word over anyone else's any day.
Your issues are with God. I hope you come to terms with that someday.

reply from: yoda

What puzzles me about your position in this debate is that you abandon any discussion of the issues and make personal remarks. No one is attacking you personally, and yet you ignore their statements on the issues, and try to make it a personal conflict.
If the idea of giving unborn humans equality with born humans is personally repulsive to you, then you and I are not on the same wavelength.

reply from: isaiahmom5242007

Okay I am new and havent followed the threads . can I ask what is Carolmarie stance . Like I said I dont belive attacking someone or belittleing anyone solves anything and it goes againist my Faith , I jut want to know what the fuss is about. Do we not all agree that the unborn are just as human as me and you and they should be protected.

reply from: yoda

The current disagreement is about declaring the unborn to legally be "people", just like born "people". Many of us favor it, since it grants legal equality to the unborn.

reply from: Faramir

What puzzles me about your position in this debate is that you abandon any discussion of the issues and make personal remarks. No one is attacking you personally, and yet you ignore their statements on the issues, and try to make it a personal conflict.
If the idea of giving unborn humans equality with born humans is personally repulsive to you, then you and I are not on the same wavelength.
"No one is attacking you personally."
???????????????????????
What the heck?
Could someone please tell yoda--since he can't see me--that she's been regularly knocked around and had her personal sins thrown in her face daily, and multiple times in this thread.

reply from: sander

I've never personally attacked CM on the issue we disagree on and I will only speak for myself.
The "fuss" is NOT that CM has a differing opinion on the matter of personhood status for the womb child. The "fuss" is that she has stated she would "actively fight" against any such legislation, since it would hold all parties respsonible for the murder of the unborn. She also would "actively fight" against any legislation that would prohibit BC, even though most BC causes the death of a newly ferterlized egg.
Personhood status would give the womb child the same rights and protections as born people. And as you know, if someone "hires" a killer to murder someone, that person is held as responsible as the one who pulled the trigger.
This stance strikes some of us as anti-life and even you have said it doesn't make sense.
So, it's the "actively fighting" against such legislation that has me stumpped. If she has the right to state her objections then don't all of us have the right to argue against that stance? After all, it's the babies that would be most affected.

reply from: faithman

The problem here is that CM has also stated that the womb child is on a different level to the born child. She opposes equality as well.

reply from: carolemarie

Sure! Here is my position on the personhood bill.
I don't believe America is ready to outlaw birth control and most prolifers are not ready to jail women, not to mention those who are prochoice. If we take care of those two items, you might have a chance of actually passing the bill.
America is deeply divided over the abortion topic. If our side insist in jailing women and outlawing birth control we will lose. It is more important to ban abortion than to make sure your view of justice is satisfied, IMHO
I believe that abortion will end when the profit is taken out and if we punish those who perform abortions, we will end it. I have a mainstream prolife opinion, like National Right for LIfe, Priest for Life...
Blessings,
Carolemarie

reply from: carolemarie

What puzzles me about your position in this debate is that you abandon any discussion of the issues and make personal remarks. No one is attacking you personally, and yet you ignore their statements on the issues, and try to make it a personal conflict.
If the idea of giving unborn humans equality with born humans is personally repulsive to you, then you and I are not on the same wavelength.
Yes they are attacking me personally! It is a personal attack to tell me that I am pro-choice and should get an award along with Obama for helping abortion continue. Sandler has agreed with that , you have and Augustine as basically called me evil, Nancy says I am evil. Joe calls me a babykiller and the rest of you agree with it. Or rather you see no need to not encourage that kind of talk. And I am getting rather sick of it.
Then you have the nerve to say nobody is attacking me personally? That is a lie. Topics of why I hate cm abound on this board--I am feeling very attacked by most of you.
What is repulsive to me is the jailing women part and banning birth control. I have no problem with the rest of the bill.

reply from: Faramir

Those who are so eager to see that the woman is punished are not taking into consideration the many "accomplices" involved. Abortion is a crime that involves a lot more than just the pregnant woman.

reply from: faithman

This post is totally dishonest. No one accept bortheads are contending that the other parties get a free walk. It is the double standard that is being contended. We have a so called prolifer who says that women who murder their womb children get a free walk, while killers of born children should be punished. Then they say that the pre-born are on a different "level" to the womb child. At it's very core, this issue is about equality for the womb child. The shortest distance between here and there is a straight line to personhood. A line killer carole has vowed to resist the whole way. This post further proves just how dishonest you are, and the only reason you are here is to be a disruptive force to hender the real work going on. Just what did you do with the cards sent to you for free? When was the last time you did anything of real substance to stop the slaughter? I guess all you have the guts to do is make stupid little "what if" posts on line. But real life action must be too terrorfying a thought for his little self.

reply from: Faramir

Some don't want to hear past what they think they've heard.
Nobody, not one single person that I've read on these boards, concerning this topic, desires revenge.
Every Chritian knows that revenge belongs to God and He WILL REPAY, so His Word says.
God is also interested in justice, he gave governing authorties power to exact His warth on those who do wrong. Note the words "His wrath".
And why? So evil would be kept in check! His earthly wrath is far easier than the eternal wrath to come. But, some would deny God's Word...that is beyond me too.
I don't deny God's Word, but I sometimes deny sander's interpretation of it.
(I'm not saying this directly to her, since she can't see me).

reply from: joe

My apologies if you take this personally Carolemarie. Please understand this is not personal.
Understand that some are committed to protecting the unborn through truth. I do not tell you how to save the unborn through your mission and you should not likewise. There is only one way to have peace here.....it is your decision.
I cannot and will not compromise on what I see as essential in protecting the unborn...please respect that. For the sake of peace, speak about the unborn as if they are our brothers and sisters...because they are.

reply from: isaiahmom5242007

In a few of my punishment I have said women should be puished if they have a abortion. i do agree that they should recieve some punishment , but jail is always not the key. education and compassion is the key. I tell you this that I am against B/C all the way it is my faith and I beleive that it contributes to the culture of death. Most women that have abortion were on b/c . so it hurts not helps cause. The only way that we can get to these women are if we show them love and compassion and that they have other choices, and that we understand there crisis and are willing to help them to relieve that crisis. Punishment in the form of education . I say this once agagin everysingle human being has personhood and it is this soceity that chooses not to vailid it. God our creator gave us that when we get our soul . okay and I hope that we can come together on this. But I say this if a women has abortion after abortion and doent care what she is doing and knows her actions are right then do we turn a blind eye? I see that there are mainly two types of women that have abortion those who are scared and are force fed abortions that do not knwo what they are ultimaly doing and then there are women that have the education the knowlege , yet still have the abortion and well contuine to have abortions ? I then say do we turn a blind eye. what about late term abortions? when the there is no doubt that the baby is not tissue . There are not black and white there are grey areas and we need to address those God Bless

reply from: 4given

http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/appleton.htm

Birth Control Pills and Abortion
I became more and more involved politically. We were a full-service clinic. We dealt with all types of sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, condoms, everything. I began to work more with organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NAF on certain projects.
I was issuing birth control pills after an abortion, and this is where I learned the real business and the real work of the abortion industry.
I would be able to counsel a woman and say, "Alright, we don't want you to have to go through this procedure again. We want to get you started on birth control pills. We'll give you your first packet free." We could do this because the pharmaceutical companies gave it to us free. It's good marketing. So we could distribute one pack free and write a prescription for five months worth. Everybody makes out.
If the birth control pill doesn't work for you this time, it may be that it's a little too strong. But don't worry, come on back because there's one that's a little lower dose.
Now the pharmaceutical companies and Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry were not stupid. They knew that the less dose of estrogen in those pills, the more likely it was they were going to fail. But you don't have to worry. We can bring you right back here for another abortion.
They even used percentages, by the way. Thirty percent failure rate, because were going to use the real low estrogen pill. So that means thirty percent will come back. And if we forget to tell you, by the way, that if you get the flu and have to be put on antibiotics, the chemical reaction between the birth control pill and the antibiotic renders the birth control pill worthless, and totally ineffective, so we have another twenty percent. Thank you, come back around.
When I started counseling women there were seven forms of sexually transmitted diseases. There are now twenty. But don't worry, you can come back to us for that. Of course we will get you on some medication for that, and we know what the antibiotics do to the pill. Bingo! We have another ten, fifteen percent coming back around. Thank you.

reply from: yoda

Interesting quote, but I didn't say it.

reply from: Faramir

I agree. What is especially sad is that so many Chirsitians have bought into birth control, including Catholics who are explicity forbidden, and are contributing to the culture of death.

reply from: yoda

No, that's a statement about the effects of your actions.
No, the thread with the most direct comment is this one, which says "why I pick on cm", not "why I hate cm". There is a difference.
Yes, it seems almost as if those two things are more repulsive to you than even abortion itself.

reply from: yoda

We've been trying education and compassion for 35 years, and where has it gotten us? If you'll look at the reasons women give for having abortion, very few of them involve a lack of education, or compassion on the part of prolifers. They involve things like not wanting to spend the money on another baby, not wanting to miss any work or school, not wanting to anger family or husband, etc. Things like that are not overcome by education and/or compassion from prolifers, they are overcome by making abortion against the law and punishing ALL those guilty of compliance. It is a proven fact that making something punishable by law, and enforcing that law, reduces the frequency of that act.
There is never any genuine doubt about the human nature of a human baby, that is propagandistic lies spread by prodeath supporters.
Life and death are black and white. You can't get any more black and white than the decision of whether to kill a baby or not to kill it.

reply from: 4given

Check out this link:
http://www.thepillkills.com/

reply from: carolemarie

Spin it how ever you want. It has been bashing me and personal attacks.
My integrity and Christianity have been attacked as well as having to put up with being called evil.

reply from: Faramir

No, that's a statement about the effects of your actions.
No, the thread with the most direct comment is this one, which says "why I pick on cm", not "why I hate cm". There is a difference.
Yes, it seems almost as if those two things are more repulsive to you than even abortion itself.
Wow, did he ever totally "overlook" the issues about bona fide personal attacks.
I've never seen such dishonesty.
He's as cruel as the attackers, but in a more subltle and underhanded way.
(Please pass this message on to yodadistorter. He can't see me).

reply from: Faramir

I saw what he did with my own eyes. It was disgusting.

reply from: nancyu

I saw what he did with my own eyes. It was disgusting.
That would be me. I call 'em as I see 'em. But it's not my place to judge. Just presenting my opinion, (which I did say was humble and uneducated.)

reply from: Faramir

I saw what he did with my own eyes. It was disgusting.
That would be me. I call 'em as I see 'em. But it's not my place to judge. Just presenting my opinion, (which I did say was humble and uneducated.)
I was referring to yodadistorter who totally ignored the examples of personal attacks, and got in a few licks of his own, though in a very subtle and sneaky way.

reply from: nancyu

Way to go Yoda! Score one for the SRPM.

reply from: cracrat

What total crap. In order for a new drug to be granted a licence in this country or the US, it must be demonstrated to be at least as effective as a competitor drug. If the pharma companies tried to get a less effective drug past the FDA, they'd be laughed out of that office faster that you can say 'It's all a big humanist conspiracy'.
Quick correction, the flu is caused by a virus so antibiotics would be completely ineffectual.
That is why you tell your doctor when you are on other medication. If you're on the pill he/she will offer you a different antibiotic that doesn't clash or else recomend you not have sex during your course of antibiotics.

reply from: yoda

(Although I must admit, I did understate the severity of the criticism being directed her way...... but I guess I get so much of it myself I just tend to let it roll off like water off a duck's back. Hey, it's all for the babies, right?)

reply from: yoda

I don't know who "it" is, but I must admit that after I said that, I recalled that you have been the target of some pretty strong condemnations here. So I take back the assertion that you haven't been attacked, because both you and your views have been. I haven't attacked you personally, but I have been quite blunt about your stated positions.
Of course, that's one of the risks we take on a "free-wheeling" forum such as this. I get attacked pretty regularly, myself. One so called "prolifer" even has a profane nickname for me. But I find that the ignore button takes care of most of that, and I just tolerate the rest for the sake of the babies.
And you know, there's another excellent reason to use the iggy button, and that is to avoid the temptation to become sidetracked by personal conflicts. I'm just as easily tempted as the next person to respond personally to a personal criticism, so really it's as much for my benefit as anything else to not read certain posters here. In the long run, I think we're all better to avoid all that, and use all our energies to post for the babies instead.
So yeah, you will from time to time have to "put up with" being called evil, and other names. But isn't that a small price to pay for the privilege of defending the babies? Shouldn't we try to absorb such attacks with grace and humility, rather than fighting back to defend our reputation? Which is more important, really?

reply from: cracrat

From the Moderator Watch the threats and language please. I think you can get your point across without that nonsense.
The moderator's right. There is absolutely no need for that and I apologise utterly to any and all whom I may have offended with such brutish language.

reply from: Faramir

Just for the fun of it, let's all put everyone else on ignore.
Then we'll never read a post we don't like.

reply from: Faramir

I can't believe he is still whining over this ONE incident, yet keeps reposting a lie about me several times a day. Can anyone think of a word that begins with "H"?
He doesn't need his precious "iggy" button to keep from seeing the "d" word posted a long time ago.
He says far worse about me, such as calling me a "so called" prolifer, besides his continual lies and distortions, yet note that I'm not too chicken to read it.
(Someone please pass this on to yodawhocannotseeme).

reply from: cracrat

I can't believe he is still whining over this ONE incident, yet keeps reposting a lie about me several times a day. Can anyone think of a word that begins with "H"?
He doesn't need his precious "iggy" button to keep from seeing the "d" word posted a long time ago.
He says far worse about me, such as calling me a "so called" prolifer, besides his continual lies and distortions, yet note that I'm not too chicken to read it.
(Someone please pass this on to yodawhocannotseeme).

reply from: Faramir

Thank you for your assistance cracrat, but in fairness to you, I must warn you that if you continue in this manner, you face the risk of ending up in iggyland. And I can tell you that it's very lonely here.

reply from: yoda

Originally posted by: cracrat
So you and Faramir both are in love with me? My, my, you two will be fighting over me before you know it....

reply from: yoda

Well, since you are his agent now, I'll ask you: why would someone who has called me a profane name (and never retracted it) be whining about others calling someone a name?
Isn't that just a bit hypocritical?

reply from: cracrat

Not to worry, Sander's already ignoring me and I don't feel left out. I still get to read her posts. Besides which, I can just bin off this account and start up a new one. It'll take him a while to figure it all out.

reply from: yoda

I could care less what alias you post under..... I react to the words, not the name at the top of the post. Go right ahead, I'm sure you've got several of them warmed up already......

reply from: cracrat

Well, since you are his agent now, I'll ask you: why would someone who has called me a profane name (and never retracted it) be whining about others calling someone a name?
Isn't that just a bit hypocritical?
I prefer to think of myself as an argument facilitator. I can understand you ignoring the various trolls and wotnot that crop up here from time to time, but why also those who challenge you? Avoiding the debate doesn't make it go away.
Whatever Faramir may or may not be guilty of, why must others sink to such a level? Morality never seems to be in short supply here, why not take a little of it to the high ground and take the slights on the chin?

reply from: yoda

It all depends on the nature of the "debate". If it is a dung slinging contest, then I feel disinclined to participate. And that's pretty much all Faramir seems to want to do, sling dung at everyone who doesn't agree with him.
And it seems that you are sliding in that direction as well of late...since you totally ignored my question....... as usual.....

reply from: Faramir

If anyone cares to pass this along to yodavater, I do regret using that word beginning with "d." It was done once and out of frustration, but I regret saying it. I also made a comment that a couple posters acted as if they had a stick in a certain orifice. I know I included sander, and possibly one other, but don't remember who, and I regret saying that. I withdraw those comments and apologize for them, and will do my best to refrain from similar vulgarities in the future.

reply from: Fartamire

NO NO, YOU BIG PHONY........
Don't grovel!! Show the world what a great big buttinski you are!!
You and crackrat can defeat them all, those self-righteous purists #@$%^*)^$%#@ !!

reply from: yoda

What are you talking about now, Fartamire?
And who is this Crack Mouse?

reply from: sander

Can't we just call him fart for short? Think of the time and space saved.

reply from: yoda

How about FartBoy? I read where someone called him that, and it sounds easy to say.

reply from: cracrat

What question did I ignore?

reply from: Faramir

What question did I ignore?
That's the excuse he give for sending me to iggyland. Or at least that was the excuse the first time. The next time is was "dung throwing."
I think he has issues with people who strongly and persistently disagree, and ignoring them is easier than dealing with the challenge.

reply from: nancyu

For more of why go to:
"Why would anyone who calls themselvs pro life deny personhood for the unborn"

reply from: xnavy

i would love to see a person hood law. punishment for the woman----if someone came into my house and killed my daughter renee, my
first thing i would do is tell them to give their heart to God but their butt is mine and i am the lawn mower. then i would call the law.

reply from: faithman

http://www.all.org/associates/dec.htm

reply from: nancyu

Bump...and with this bump comes a challenge to the CM defenders of the world. Show me one post in which carolemarie said "an unborn child is a person"
Show me one post that shows me that she supports full legal personhood for the unborn child in the womb.

reply from: nancyu

Maybe you are not one of them cp, but there definitely are CM defenders.
I'm sorry we're boring you.

reply from: Faramir

It all depends on the nature of the "debate". If it is a dung slinging contest, then I feel disinclined to participate. And that's pretty much all Faramir seems to want to do, sling dung at everyone who doesn't agree with him.
And it seems that you are sliding in that direction as well of late...since you totally ignored my question....... as usual.....
And then, 2 posts later:
I told you yesterday...his double standard is "for the babies."
All his name calling, word twisting, sneaky digs, and tacit support of the loonies and hateful on this board is "for the babies."

reply from: Faramir

You're obsessed.
Take a break for awhile.

reply from: faithman

It all depends on the nature of the "debate". If it is a dung slinging contest, then I feel disinclined to participate. And that's pretty much all Faramir seems to want to do, sling dung at everyone who doesn't agree with him.
And it seems that you are sliding in that direction as well of late...since you totally ignored my question....... as usual.....
And then, 2 posts later:
I told you yesterday...his double standard is "for the babies."
All his name calling, word twisting, sneaky digs, and tacit support of the loonies and hateful on this board is "for the babies."
And all your silly post are for your own ego, and very rarely, if ever, defend the personhood of the womb child. We sent you cards phony. What did you do with them?

reply from: faithman

It all depends on the nature of the "debate". If it is a dung slinging contest, then I feel disinclined to participate. And that's pretty much all Faramir seems to want to do, sling dung at everyone who doesn't agree with him.
And it seems that you are sliding in that direction as well of late...since you totally ignored my question....... as usual.....
And then, 2 posts later:
I told you yesterday...his double standard is "for the babies."
All his name calling, word twisting, sneaky digs, and tacit support of the loonies and hateful on this board is "for the babies."
And all your silly post are for your own ego, and very rarely, if ever, defend the personhood of the womb child. We sent you cards phony. What did you do with them?
"We" sent you cards....Very interesting....
"we" are people of personhood. "We" are full partakers of each others efforts. "we" are committed to full equality thru established personhood. "We" will never stop until that uncompromised goal is met. You may be able to knock one out with your slander, but there are 10 more "We's" to take that one's place. "We" may not all agree on how to get there, but "We" are determined to get there no matter how many "we" have to walk over; whether they purposely layed down on the wire, or were knocked down because of oposition. I find that most interesting as well.

reply from: faithman

How is this "slanderous?" How would it "knock you out?" Is there something you want to tell us, son?
"we" are people of personhood. "We" are full partakers of each others efforts. "we" are committed to full equality thru established personhood. "We" will never stop until that uncompromised goal is met. You may be able to knock one out with your slander, but there are 10 more "We's" to take that one's place. "We" may not all agree on how to get there, but "We" are determined to get there no matter how many "we" have to walk over; whether they purposely layed down on the wire, or were knocked down because of oposition. I find that most interesting as well.

reply from: Faramir

Yes, you sent me a dozen or so cards. Thank you.
I sent you a PM telling you what I thought.
I do not feel comfortable distributing those cards because I cannot tell what the message is. There is an embryo on one side, and Protestant-type prosletyzing on the other side.
I do not push religion--especially in the manner and style on that card.
I would be more inclined if it were the picture on one side, and information on the other, such as at however many weeks it is, it has "a beating heart, finger, toes, brainwaves" etc.
So thank you for sending them. I have looked at them and considered them, but will not be distributing them or asking for more, since I think the message they send is confusing and not effective. MHO.

reply from: galen

why not put the cards to some other use... ie black out the back... use them to creat your own 'graveyard' of innocents in your front yard...
leave them in the local laundry near a protestant church etc.?

reply from: faithman

Then photo copy the front and put yopur own message on the back if you are so turned off by the simple truth on the back.

reply from: 4given

Faramir-
*You're obsessed.
Take a break for awhile.*

reply from: Faramir

Then photo copy the front and put yopur own message on the back if you are so turned off by the simple truth on the back.
I have no probelem with the photograph or with the scripture quotes.
But as a unit, IMHO it sends a confusing message.
They are just not my style.
If they work for you, great.

reply from: nancyu

A page gone by, and still no one is up for the challenge.
JUJU!! GratiaPLana!!! where are you? yoohoo!

reply from: carolemarie

A page gone by, and still no one is up for the challenge.
JUJU!! GratiaPLana!!! where are you? yoohoo!
For the zillionth time: An unborn child is a person. And I have answered this over and over, but somehow it isn't able to sink in your head. Just because I think your bill has serious flaws, doesn't mean I don't think children in the womb are not people! If I didn't think that they were people, why would I bother with trying to talk their mom's out of having an abortion? The baby is a person, the Doctor is a person the mother is a person. All of us are people.

reply from: faithman

A page gone by, and still no one is up for the challenge.
JUJU!! GratiaPLana!!! where are you? yoohoo!
For the zillionth time: An unborn child is a person. And I have answered this over and over, but somehow it isn't able to sink in your head. Just because I think your bill has serious flaws, doesn't mean I don't think children in the womb are not people! If I didn't think that they were people, why would I bother with trying to talk their mom's out of having an abortion? The baby is a person, the Doctor is a person the mother is a person. All of us are people.
And for the zillilonith time the only flaws is your agreement with planned parenthood that the womb child is less than a person than the born child, and does not deserve the same consideration. You bother talking to their moms because you value them more than the babies they kill. Just like you valued yourself more than the 3 you had slaughtered. The life at conception act has no flaws at all. It merely states that from the moment of conception the womb child would be recognized as an equal person which automaticly over turns roe, and the court could not say other wise because the language in Roe already states just that. You may think that womb children are people, but you have point blank stated that they are less a person than the mother who kills them. You further make the idiotic assurtion that future serial killers such as yourself should get a free walk for paying to murder the womb person. Excuse me, but that tells me you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, and really don't care about womb childen at all. You most assuredly value the killer over the ones they kill. And your voice is conflicked because you have indulged in the abortion crime yourself, and insted of condemning the pratice, you make excuses for it. You murdered 3 and want to call us mean? You advocate future killers get a free walk, and you call our cause flawed? All is see is a murderer at heart blowing smoke to cover up what they really are.

reply from: carolemarie

A page gone by, and still no one is up for the challenge.
JUJU!! GratiaPLana!!! where are you? yoohoo!
For the zillionth time: An unborn child is a person. And I have answered this over and over, but somehow it isn't able to sink in your head. Just because I think your bill has serious flaws, doesn't mean I don't think children in the womb are not people! If I didn't think that they were people, why would I bother with trying to talk their mom's out of having an abortion? The baby is a person, the Doctor is a person the mother is a person. All of us are people.
And for the zillilonith time the only flaws is your agreement with planned parenthood that the womb child is less than a person than the born child, and does not deserve the same consideration. You bother talking to their moms because you value them more than the babies they kill. Just like you valued yourself more than the 3 you had slaughtered. The life at conception act has no flaws at all. It merely states that from the moment of conception the womb child would be recognized as an equal person which automaticly over turns roe, and the court could not say other wise because the language in Roe already states just that. You may think that womb children are people, but you have point blank stated that they are less a person than the mother who kills them. You further make the idiotic assurtion that future serial killers such as yourself should get a free walk for paying to murder the womb person. Excuse me, but that tells me you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, and really don't care about womb childen at all. You most assuredly value the killer over the ones they kill. And your voice is conflicked because you have indulged in the abortion crime yourself, and insted of condemning the pratice, you make excuses for it. You murdered 3 and want to call us mean? You advocate future killers get a free walk, and you call our cause flawed? All is see is a murderer at heart blowing smoke to cover up what they really are.
Awww...don't be mad because you are exposed for the pro-death person you really are.
The only difference between you and someone who supports abortion is that you support the killing of abortion providers and they support the killing of babies. Just the flip side of the same coin.

reply from: faithman

A page gone by, and still no one is up for the challenge.
JUJU!! GratiaPLana!!! where are you? yoohoo!
For the zillionth time: An unborn child is a person. And I have answered this over and over, but somehow it isn't able to sink in your head. Just because I think your bill has serious flaws, doesn't mean I don't think children in the womb are not people! If I didn't think that they were people, why would I bother with trying to talk their mom's out of having an abortion? The baby is a person, the Doctor is a person the mother is a person. All of us are people.
And for the zillilonith time the only flaws is your agreement with planned parenthood that the womb child is less than a person than the born child, and does not deserve the same consideration. You bother talking to their moms because you value them more than the babies they kill. Just like you valued yourself more than the 3 you had slaughtered. The life at conception act has no flaws at all. It merely states that from the moment of conception the womb child would be recognized as an equal person which automaticly over turns roe, and the court could not say other wise because the language in Roe already states just that. You may think that womb children are people, but you have point blank stated that they are less a person than the mother who kills them. You further make the idiotic assurtion that future serial killers such as yourself should get a free walk for paying to murder the womb person. Excuse me, but that tells me you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, and really don't care about womb childen at all. You most assuredly value the killer over the ones they kill. And your voice is conflicked because you have indulged in the abortion crime yourself, and insted of condemning the pratice, you make excuses for it. You murdered 3 and want to call us mean? You advocate future killers get a free walk, and you call our cause flawed? All is see is a murderer at heart blowing smoke to cover up what they really are.
Awww...don't be mad because you are exposed for the pro-death person you really are.
The only difference between you and someone who supports abortion is that you support the killing of abortion providers and they support the killing of babies. Just the flip side of the same coin.
At least I am on the oposit side. You are on the same side of the coin drenched in the blood of innocent womb children. The 3 you have personally killed, and all the blood of those who have, and will be slaughtered, because you hindered the day when the womb child enjoys equality thru personhood. Flip all the coins you want, but you lose the toss every time.

reply from: faithman

Then photo copy the front and put yopur own message on the back if you are so turned off by the simple truth on the back.
I have no probelem with the photograph or with the scripture quotes.
But as a unit, IMHO it sends a confusing message.
They are just not my style.
If they work for you, great.
The only one who is confused is a grudge bearing phony who won't use the cards because you simply don't like the one who sent them to you. Now who is the hater? The picture, and the scriptures work perfect to gether. They have been used to introduce people to womb life and the author of it. You are confused willingly so. It is time you quit accusing people of the "sin" you are guilty of. HATER!

reply from: Faramir

I don't like "faithman." But I don't know who YOU are. You might actually be a swell guy in real life and are just pretending to be a mean SOB on the board for the fun of it, and I try not to judge people by message board posts. So it's not personal.
I think that the image on the front is great, but when I got the cards, my first impression was that I didn't understand the purpose. I couldn't tell if it was a prolife message or an attempt to save me.

reply from: faithman

I don't like "faithman." But I don't know who YOU are. You might actually be a swell guy in real life and are just pretending to be a mean SOB on the board for the fun of it, and I try not to judge people by message board posts. So it's not personal.
I think that the image on the front is great, but when I got the cards, my first impression was that I didn't understand the purpose. I couldn't tell if it was a prolife message or an attempt to save me.
Try both. Saved people do not kill womb children. If you have a prob with them, pass them along to some one who will use them. They are far too costly to sit on a self somewhere collecting dust. They are a proven Baby saver, and everyone who uses them are full partakers of all the miracles they produce. If you choose to cut yourself off from that, so be it, but at least give someone else a chance at it.

reply from: faithman

How is that? Do "saved people" not sin? The majority of abortions are performed on "Christians," so are you saying those Christians are not "saved," or that they aren't "Christians?" I've met very few Christians who do not claim to be "saved." Are you an "OSAS" Christian? Do you believe that Christians can continue to sin after being "saved," and that they simply have to "repent" afterward?
That is exacly what I am saying. Saved people do not kill innocent babies. I am not a OSAS christian. I am OSNLTL.

reply from: Faramir

How is that? Do "saved people" not sin? The majority of abortions are performed on "Christians," so are you saying those Christians are not "saved," or that they aren't "Christians?" I've met very few Christians who do not claim to be "saved." Are you an "OSAS" Christian? Do you believe that Christians can continue to sin after being "saved," and that they simply have to "repent" afterward?
That is exacly what I am saying. Saved people do not kill innocent babies. I am not a OSAS christian. I am OSNLTL.
Not everyone who is receptive to the idea of prolife is necessarily receptive to a sales pitch for Christianity.
There's a time and place for that, of course, but I think the message should be one or the other.
And from a Catholic perspective, your idea about salvation is flawed, but I don't know what OSNLTL means.

reply from: faithman

How is that? Do "saved people" not sin? The majority of abortions are performed on "Christians," so are you saying those Christians are not "saved," or that they aren't "Christians?" I've met very few Christians who do not claim to be "saved." Are you an "OSAS" Christian? Do you believe that Christians can continue to sin after being "saved," and that they simply have to "repent" afterward?
That is exacly what I am saying. Saved people do not kill innocent babies. I am not a OSAS christian. I am OSNLTL.
Not everyone who is receptive to the idea of prolife is necessarily receptive to a sales pitch for Christianity.
There's a time and place for that, of course, but I think the message should be one or the other.
And from a Catholic perspective, your idea about salvation is flawed, but I don't know what OSNLTL means.
Not a single catholic that I know has had problems with the cards, and many have helped in financing, and distributing them all across the country. Once again, if you do not care to participate, then give them to someone who will, or send them back. We sent them in good faith at no expence to you. But it seems you are betraying our trust, and were insincere about your request. Either use them or pass them along. Don't "abort" them because you are inconvenianced by their message of life. If the scriptures don't bother an agnostic, they shouldn't bother you. But any excuse will work when you are looking for one.

reply from: Faramir

You sent me about 75 cents worth of cards and you keep whining about it.
Give me your paypal address and I'll send you a dollar, ok?
Those cards are not for me. I'm not saying they are bad, just that I don't feel comfortable using that approach.
But I did ask for samples in good faith. You posted the info and I responded. I at least gave it a chance.
You should have sent just one card.
And I also sent you info about where you could print cards more cheaply next time. Based on the costs you posted, you can do much better at other printers. I know because I have used post cards for advertising many times and have had many thousands of cards printed over the years.

reply from: yoda

Unborn babies and the monsters who kill them are on the same coin?
You see no difference?

reply from: yoda

True. I'd team up with a person of good faith from any major religion to fight abortion. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

reply from: carolemarie

Unborn babies and the monsters who kill them are on the same coin?
You see no difference?
adovacating killing babies is the flip side of advocating killing Dr's . Both positions are prodeath. Both groups solve problems by killing. Both groups are wrong.
The ends DO NOT justify the means.
No matter who you advocate killing, it is not prolife. Killing isn't pro-life.

reply from: carolemarie

???Christians still sin and some have abortions.
I think of it as the King David syndrome.

reply from: Faramir

Unborn babies and the monsters who kill them are on the same coin?
You see no difference?
This posts wins the "extreme obtusity award."
She clearly stated that those who kill abortion providers and those who kill babies are people on two sides of the same coin--that they both kill unjustly.

reply from: yoda

Quite frankly, I haven't seen any regulars on this forum advocate killing an abortion doctor. Do you have a link to such a post?
I understand that you refuse to acknowledge the true definition of the term "pro-life", so I know where you're coming from there.
Killing is not a black and white thing. Killing someone who is trying to kill you or a family member for no good reason is not the same as intentionally killing an innocent person.
Killing a criminal (who is trying to kill an innocent person) in the line of duty as a police officer is not the same as intentionally killing an innocent person.
Killing an invader while defending your country against invasion by a foreign aggressor is not the same as intentionally killing an innocent person.
So yes, sometimes killing is within the norm for a pro-lifer.

reply from: sander

How so? Bethsheba didn't have an abortion.

reply from: carolemarie

How so? Bethsheba didn't have an abortion.
David had her husband killed to cover up his sin.
Women have abortions to cover up their sins. Same thing

reply from: Teresa18

I have never had the cards sent to me, but I would not be uncomfortable at all passing them out. The picture on the front is scientific fetal development. The Scripture on the back introduces people to Christ or reminds people that he is the source of life. As Christians we are called to spread the word of Christ in the world.
If you prefer, though, you could copy the image from the front and put your own information about fetal development on the back. You could make your own cards.

reply from: sander

How so? Bethsheba didn't have an abortion.
David had her husband killed to cover up his sin.
Women have abortions to cover up their sins. Same thing
Okay, I see your point.

reply from: carolemarie

Prolife=supporting the protection of human life from conception to natural death. That pretty much sums it up.
There is no excuse to advocate or support killing of abortion providers. It is a prodeath postion, no better than the person who supports the killing of unborn children.

reply from: joe

She clearly is a moron...

reply from: yoda

I note there is no link or attribution with that, so I assume you made it up, or got it from an unreliable source like wiki.
Once again, I ask you for a link to a post on this forum in which one of the regulars advocates or supports the killing of abortion providers. Do you have one?

reply from: joe


They cannot be worse than you, since you also killed. Btw, they can say a little Jesus pray and off to heaven they go.

reply from: Faramir

How so? Bethsheba didn't have an abortion.
David did something just as bad by putting her husband in the front lines so he would be killed, and so his sin would not be found out.

reply from: nancyu

I took the I Am A Person poster with me when I went to the clinic in NH. One girl looked at the poster, and admired the little feet and hands, and said, "he's so cute!"
This reaction to a photograph of a child at only 7 weeks from conception. This is a pretty powerful message IMO. Can't imagine why anyone who is pro life would oppose this message.

reply from: Faramir

Are you purposely misrepresenting me, or did you not thorougly read the posts?
THAT message was not opposed.
Nothing was actually "opposed," anyway.

reply from: carolemarie

You know very well that they defend Paul Hills actions. That makes them prodeath

reply from: sander

How so? Bethsheba didn't have an abortion.
David did something just as bad by putting her husband in the front lines so he would be killed, and so his sin would not be found out.
Did you purposely miss the exchange I had with CM? Or was it an oversight?

reply from: Faramir

How so? Bethsheba didn't have an abortion.
David did something just as bad by putting her husband in the front lines so he would be killed, and so his sin would not be found out.
Did you purposely miss the exchange I had with CM? Or was it an oversight?
I saw after I made my post that CM made a similar comment, but I didn't see anything else, but now I'm curious and will look.

reply from: Faramir

Ok, I see your response. Again, I made my post before I saw any of that.

reply from: yoda

No link again? Whether or not they "defended" Paul Hill's actions is another matter. You claimed that someone here advocates or supports killing of abortion providers. That is quite a different matter. No wonder you can't provide a link for that.

reply from: faithman

No link again? Whether or not they "defended" Paul Hill's actions is another matter. You claimed that someone here advocates or supports killing of abortion providers. That is quite a different matter. No wonder you can't provide a link for that.
A killer always wants to accuse others of what they have done to take attention off of themselves. Birds of a feather always defend their own. These birds just like to peck the preborn to pieces for selfish reasons. This murderous crow simply want to make shure that the future flock goes free to kill as they please. Is that crow, or crown? Either way, the womb child is just as dead if we were to follow there call. Or maybe they are mocking birds mimicking the call to life, but actually calling folk to the cause of death. You can not protect an evil aggressor and say you are a defender of innocent life.

reply from: carolemarie

Quit trying to parse what I said. Since you need me to restate this in simple English here you go:
Anyone who SUPPORTS and claims they SUPPORT Paul Hill's actions is prodeath and not prolife.
If you will not say that Paul Hill's actions are wrong YOU ARE SUPPORTING THEM AND YOU ARE PRODEATH

reply from: faithman

Quit trying to parse what I said. Since you need me to restate this in simple English here you go:
Anyone who SUPPORTS and claims they SUPPORT Paul Hill's actions is prodeath and not prolife.
If you will not say that Paul Hill's actions are wrong YOU ARE SUPPORTING THEM AND YOU ARE PRODEATH
Doth says the killer of 3.

reply from: nancyu

A page gone by, and still no one is up for the challenge.
JUJU!! GratiaPLana!!! where are you? yoohoo!
For the zillionth time: An unborn child is a person. And I have answered this over and over, but somehow it isn't able to sink in your head. Just because I think your bill has serious flaws, doesn't mean I don't think children in the womb are not people! If I didn't think that they were people, why would I bother with trying to talk their mom's out of having an abortion? The baby is a person, the Doctor is a person the mother is a person. All of us are people.
Thank you, CM! HOORAY!!
But no this is not the "zillionth time" it is the FIRST TIME you have typed those words. Show me where they are before this post, and I will humbly apologize to you.
Why are you saying that my "bill" has serious flaws. What "bill" are you talking about? Please show me my bill, and point out its flaws so that I can correct them.

reply from: nancyu

Quit trying to parse what I said. Since you need me to restate this in simple English here you go:
Anyone who SUPPORTS and claims they SUPPORT Paul Hill's actions is prodeath and not prolife.
If you will not say that Paul Hill's actions are wrong YOU ARE SUPPORTING THEM AND YOU ARE PRODEATH
And if you continue to say abortion is legal, you are supporting THE LEGALITY OF abortion, and you are PRODEATH

reply from: carolemarie

Quit trying to parse what I said. Since you need me to restate this in simple English here you go:
Anyone who SUPPORTS and claims they SUPPORT Paul Hill's actions is prodeath and not prolife.
If you will not say that Paul Hill's actions are wrong YOU ARE SUPPORTING THEM AND YOU ARE PRODEATH
And if you continue to say abortion is legal, you are supporting THE LEGALITY OF abortion, and you are PRODEATH
Roe v Wade made abortion legal in the USA. WE are a nation under rule of law and the law says abortion is legal. Acknowledging that isn't supporting abortion or supporting it in anyway. You need to seriously get a grip. Chanting mindlessly that it goes against the statements in the Declaration of Independance is rather pointless. It will be legal until the law changes.

reply from: nancyu

Quit trying to parse what I said. Since you need me to restate this in simple English here you go:
Anyone who SUPPORTS and claims they SUPPORT Paul Hill's actions is prodeath and not prolife.
If you will not say that Paul Hill's actions are wrong YOU ARE SUPPORTING THEM AND YOU ARE PRODEATH
And if you continue to say abortion is legal, you are supporting THE LEGALITY OF abortion, and you are PRODEATH
Roe v Wade made abortion legal in the USA. WE are a nation under rule of law and the law says abortion is legal. Acknowledging that isn't supporting abortion or supporting it in anyway. You need to seriously get a grip. Chanting mindlessly that it goes against the statements in the Declaration of Independance is rather pointless. It will be legal until the law changes.
I seriously, have a grip. And I'm not chanting the Declaration of Independence. In my signature I am quoting the United States Constitution.
It is illegal to murder persons. An unborn child is a person.
Roe V Wade was set in place to encourage women to murder their own children, and lead them to believe it is "legal." Laws supporting abortion are illegal. If you are truly pro life, and if you truly believe an unborn child is a person, it shouldn't be so difficult for you to conclude that abortion is not legal.
Roe V Wade prohibits the enforcement of these laws when it comes to abortion. But Roe V Wade is unconstitutional if an unborn child is a person. And you just admitted that an unborn child IS a person, didn't you? Or did I just read you wrong?

reply from: nancyu

I assume you are at the library reading up on Constitutional law, so I will wait patiently for your response

reply from: carolemarie

I decided to go check out the 14th amendment, since it has been awhile since I took a PS class.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Please note the requirement is that the person be born or naturalized in the US. Unborn children haven't been born, and would not fall under the protection afforded by the 14th amendment.
Mindless chanting doesn't change the reality that Roe v Wade is the law of the land. Abortion is legal and saying it isn't doesn't make it so.

reply from: faithman

And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.

reply from: MotherForLife

Okay, someone please fill me in...what on earth has Carole done to deserve such hatred on this forum?! She's pro-life, right?
*confused*

reply from: cracrat

She had three abortions when she was younger. She has also said she would oppose anti-abortion legislation that did not make exceptions for instances of rape, incest or life-of-the-mother on the grounds that she doesn't believe it would pass into law.
But yes, she is pro-life. And from what I can discern, does more for the chlidren than all her haters put together.

reply from: faithman

She had three abortions when she was younger. She has also said she would oppose anti-abortion legislation that did not make exceptions for instances of rape, incest or life-of-the-mother on the grounds that she doesn't believe it would pass into law.
But yes, she is pro-life. And from what I can discern, does more for the chlidren than all her haters put together.
That simply isn't true. We have supplied hundreds of thousands of peices of literature to frontline advocates all over the country [including CM]. We have driven truth trucks, handed things out at political conventions, as well as demonstrated at clinics. What you have SSSSOOOOO conveniantly left out is her "exceptions" are not the ones numbered here. The biggest problem is that she has vowed to fight personhood for the womb child if it does not provide a loop whole for future killer moms a free walk for paying to have their baby slaughtered at the human butcher shop. She continues to use pro-death arguments and rhetoric to oppose equality thru Personhood. Now she and her defenders want to hide behind the end all be all secular humanist tactic of calling people haters who oppose her constant posting of anti womb child insanity. SSSSSOOOO I guess we are to ignore the hate crime she commited against her own children, and her perverting of everything holy to excuse it. This issue simply ends when personhood is established for the womb child. Then all who are involved in the conspiracy to murder the preborn would meet the same justice handed down by 12 jurist, that those who conspire to kill a born person now must face under existing law. She opposes equality because she values the interest of the killer, over those being killed.Anyone with a lick of sence can see who the killer and hater is. But double mind willing ignorance is a cronic illness in "pro-life". An illness that is deady to the womb child.
'

reply from: Faramir

Note that she does not want punishment for women who abort, just as many prolifers do not want that at this stage, but that since she admits to having had three abortions, a couple posters feel it is their duty to call her a killer and remind her of that many times each day.
Nice, huh?

reply from: yoda

Why not read the forum and decide for yourself? Or respond to specific points in specific posts? Or would you simply rather stir something up?

reply from: Faramir

Why not read the forum and decide for yourself? Or respond to specific points in specific posts? Or would you simply rather stir something up?
Don't mind yodavater, either.
He treats all new people like this.
That's his unique way of saying "welcome to the forum."
BTW, welcome. I look forward to your posts, and I think your question is not "stirring something up" but is quite normal.

reply from: faithman

Note that she does not want punishment for women who abort, just as many prolifers do not want that at this stage, but that since she admits to having had three abortions, a couple posters feel it is their duty to call her a killer and remind her of that many times each day.
Nice, huh?
Nice try farty. But adding "at this stage" implies that if the law changes, then CM types would be for the punishment for all involved. CM has vowed to fight any justice for killer mom. She wants them to ALWAYS get a free walk. All we are saying that if Presonhood is ever established, that all laws that govern the punishment of those who murder the born, would govern those who slaughter the womb child. No new laws would have to be passed and a jury of 12 gets the last say. That is the way we have always dealt with murderers, and those who conspire to commit murder. Why should those who kill womb children get a free walk? And yet CM and you both deny the personhood of womb children by saying they do not deserve the same protection and justice that is afforded every born person. You seem to like it that way, and would rather the killer protected than the innocent ones they kill.

reply from: nancyu

Carolemarie, you need to reread it.
You have confusion over who is a 'citizen" and who is a "person"
Yes you need to be born or naturalized to be considered a citizen. (you got one right answer)
But you DON'T need to be a "citizen" in order to be considered a "person."
Are we allowed to murder non citizens? I swear I've repeated this so many times, my fingers are numb. LEARN TO READ!!

reply from: nancyu

She had three abortions when she was younger. She has also said she would oppose anti-abortion legislation that did not make exceptions for instances of rape, incest or life-of-the-mother on the grounds that she doesn't believe it would pass into law.
But yes, she is pro-life. And from what I can discern, does more for the chlidren than all her haters put together.

That is incorrect. No beer for you today cracrat.
Our problem with CM is her vow to fight personhood "tooth and nail" if it means banning birth control and/or punishing women.

reply from: faithman

Carolemarie, you need to reread it.
You have confusion over who is a 'citizen" and who is a "person"
Yes you need to be born or naturalized to be considered a citizen. (you got one right answer)
But you DON'T need to be a "citizen" in order to be considered a "person."
Are we allowed to murder non citizens? I swear I've repeated this so many times, my fingers are numb. LEARN TO READ!!
And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.

reply from: carolemarie

Whatever!
Abortion IS LEGAL. Our courts have made it so and just saying it is illegal doesn't make it so. Your answer to everything can't be "abortion isn't legal" because it is legal. That is the effect of Roe v Wade on the law.

reply from: faithman

And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.

reply from: faithman

And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.

reply from: Faramir

I think it's time for nancyu to put her money where her mouth is.
All she has to do is become a cop, and she can start making arrests and shutting down abortion clinics.

reply from: nancyu

Whatever???!!!!
No It is NOT. Read the Constitution. Look at an unborn childhttp://www.littlesproutimaging.com/photos.htm PERSONS
NO ONE can tell me it is "legal" to murder them. It is NOT. Roe V Wade is a figment of your imagination. It is turned upside down and inside out. An unborn child is a person. And abortion is NOT LEGAL.
Go ahead CM, keep trying to convince me otherwise. It's just that I am so cotton picking dense. I can't get it through my thick head that it is legal to murder some persons, but not others. Which ones can I murder CM?
Does it mean anything to you that the only ones agreeing with you are the pro aborts?

reply from: Faramir

Whatever???!!!!
No It is NOT. Read the Constitution. Look at an unborn childhttp://www.littlesproutimaging.com/photos.htm PERSONS
NO ONE can tell me it is "legal" to murder them. It is NOT. Roe V Wade is a figment of your imagination. It is turned upside down and inside out. An unborn child is a person. And abortion is NOT LEGAL.
Go ahead CM, keep trying to convince me otherwise. It's just that I am so cotton picking dense. I can't get it through my thick head that it is legal to murder some persons, but not others. Which ones can I murder CM?
Does it mean anything to you that the only ones agreeing with you are the pro aborts?
I think you're probably the only person in the US who thinks abortion is illegal.
It's a shame it's legal, but you've been making a total idiot of yourself.
But if you're so convinced, start making some citizens' arrests.

reply from: carolemarie

Whatever???!!!!
No It is NOT. Read the Constitution. Look at an unborn childhttp://www.littlesproutimaging.com/photos.htm PERSONS
NO ONE can tell me it is "legal" to murder them. It is NOT. Roe V Wade is a figment of your imagination. It is turned upside down and inside out. An unborn child is a person. And abortion is NOT LEGAL.
Go ahead CM, keep trying to convince me otherwise. It's just that I am so cotton picking dense. I can't get it through my thick head that it is legal to murder some persons, but not others. Which ones can I murder CM?
Does it mean anything to you that the only ones agreeing with you are the pro aborts?
Roe v Wade isn't a figment of my imagination. It is the law of the land. It may be wrong, but it is still the law.
And it is legal to have an abortion in America.
So to answer you questions, you can't kill anyone Nancy. The most you can do is hire a Dr. to kill your baby while you are pregnant. Because that is legal in America.
So if your done playing word games, perhaps you could actually get to work doing something to help these babies and their moms.

reply from: faithman

Whatever???!!!!
No It is NOT. Read the Constitution. Look at an unborn childhttp://www.littlesproutimaging.com/photos.htm PERSONS
NO ONE can tell me it is "legal" to murder them. It is NOT. Roe V Wade is a figment of your imagination. It is turned upside down and inside out. An unborn child is a person. And abortion is NOT LEGAL.
Go ahead CM, keep trying to convince me otherwise. It's just that I am so cotton picking dense. I can't get it through my thick head that it is legal to murder some persons, but not others. Which ones can I murder CM?
Does it mean anything to you that the only ones agreeing with you are the pro aborts?
I think you're probably the only person in the US who thinks abortion is illegal.
It's a shame it's legal, but you've been making a total idiot of yourself.
But if you're so convinced, start making some citizens' arrests.
No, there are several whjo know abortion is illegal. Just some of us are willing to say so, and are willing to confront bort heads no matter how many times the "Chant" they are pro-life.

reply from: carolemarie

Whatever???!!!!
No It is NOT. Read the Constitution. Look at an unborn childhttp://www.littlesproutimaging.com/photos.htm PERSONS
NO ONE can tell me it is "legal" to murder them. It is NOT. Roe V Wade is a figment of your imagination. It is turned upside down and inside out. An unborn child is a person. And abortion is NOT LEGAL.
Go ahead CM, keep trying to convince me otherwise. It's just that I am so cotton picking dense. I can't get it through my thick head that it is legal to murder some persons, but not others. Which ones can I murder CM?
Does it mean anything to you that the only ones agreeing with you are the pro aborts?
I think you're probably the only person in the US who thinks abortion is illegal.
It's a shame it's legal, but you've been making a total idiot of yourself.
But if you're so convinced, start making some citizens' arrests.
No, there are several whjo know abortion is illegal. Just some of us are willing to say so, and are willing to confront bort heads no matter how many times the "Chant" they are pro-life.
It merely makes me sane to state the obvious...the sky is blue, grass in green and abortion is legal in America.

reply from: faithman

Whatever???!!!!
No It is NOT. Read the Constitution. Look at an unborn childhttp://www.littlesproutimaging.com/photos.htm PERSONS
NO ONE can tell me it is "legal" to murder them. It is NOT. Roe V Wade is a figment of your imagination. It is turned upside down and inside out. An unborn child is a person. And abortion is NOT LEGAL.
Go ahead CM, keep trying to convince me otherwise. It's just that I am so cotton picking dense. I can't get it through my thick head that it is legal to murder some persons, but not others. Which ones can I murder CM?
Does it mean anything to you that the only ones agreeing with you are the pro aborts?
I think you're probably the only person in the US who thinks abortion is illegal.
It's a shame it's legal, but you've been making a total idiot of yourself.
But if you're so convinced, start making some citizens' arrests.
No, there are several whjo know abortion is illegal. Just some of us are willing to say so, and are willing to confront bort heads no matter how many times the "Chant" they are pro-life.
It merely makes me sane to state the obvious...the sky is blue, grass in green and abortion is legal in America.
And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.

reply from: carolemarie

Whatever???!!!!
No It is NOT. Read the Constitution. Look at an unborn childhttp://www.littlesproutimaging.com/photos.htm PERSONS
NO ONE can tell me it is "legal" to murder them. It is NOT. Roe V Wade is a figment of your imagination. It is turned upside down and inside out. An unborn child is a person. And abortion is NOT LEGAL.
Go ahead CM, keep trying to convince me otherwise. It's just that I am so cotton picking dense. I can't get it through my thick head that it is legal to murder some persons, but not others. Which ones can I murder CM?
Does it mean anything to you that the only ones agreeing with you are the pro aborts?
I think you're probably the only person in the US who thinks abortion is illegal.
It's a shame it's legal, but you've been making a total idiot of yourself.
But if you're so convinced, start making some citizens' arrests.
No, there are several whjo know abortion is illegal. Just some of us are willing to say so, and are willing to confront bort heads no matter how many times the "Chant" they are pro-life.
It merely makes me sane to state the obvious...the sky is blue, grass in green and abortion is legal in America.
And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.
And you support and call hero's people who kill abortion providers, proving your a ranting maniac, pro death and a voice to safely ignore.

reply from: faithman

Whatever???!!!!
No It is NOT. Read the Constitution. Look at an unborn childhttp://www.littlesproutimaging.com/photos.htm PERSONS
NO ONE can tell me it is "legal" to murder them. It is NOT. Roe V Wade is a figment of your imagination. It is turned upside down and inside out. An unborn child is a person. And abortion is NOT LEGAL.
Go ahead CM, keep trying to convince me otherwise. It's just that I am so cotton picking dense. I can't get it through my thick head that it is legal to murder some persons, but not others. Which ones can I murder CM?
Does it mean anything to you that the only ones agreeing with you are the pro aborts?
I think you're probably the only person in the US who thinks abortion is illegal.
It's a shame it's legal, but you've been making a total idiot of yourself.
But if you're so convinced, start making some citizens' arrests.
No, there are several whjo know abortion is illegal. Just some of us are willing to say so, and are willing to confront bort heads no matter how many times the "Chant" they are pro-life.
It merely makes me sane to state the obvious...the sky is blue, grass in green and abortion is legal in America.
And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.
And you support and call hero's people who kill abortion providers, proving your a ranting maniac, pro death and a voice to safely ignore.
And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.

reply from: carolemarie

Whatever???!!!!
No It is NOT. Read the Constitution. Look at an unborn childhttp://www.littlesproutimaging.com/photos.htm PERSONS
NO ONE can tell me it is "legal" to murder them. It is NOT. Roe V Wade is a figment of your imagination. It is turned upside down and inside out. An unborn child is a person. And abortion is NOT LEGAL.
Go ahead CM, keep trying to convince me otherwise. It's just that I am so cotton picking dense. I can't get it through my thick head that it is legal to murder some persons, but not others. Which ones can I murder CM?
Does it mean anything to you that the only ones agreeing with you are the pro aborts?
I think you're probably the only person in the US who thinks abortion is illegal.
It's a shame it's legal, but you've been making a total idiot of yourself.
But if you're so convinced, start making some citizens' arrests.
No, there are several whjo know abortion is illegal. Just some of us are willing to say so, and are willing to confront bort heads no matter how many times the "Chant" they are pro-life.
It merely makes me sane to state the obvious...the sky is blue, grass in green and abortion is legal in America.
And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.
And you support and call hero's people who kill abortion providers, proving your a ranting maniac, pro death and a voice to safely ignore.
And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.
You only post what you agree as well. As does everyone on the board.
Unlike you, I am prolife for the baby, mom and abortion provider. I am a REAL prolifer. You are just a prodeath shill.
FYI: The supreme court decides if something is constitutional, not you. They said Roe is constitutional. You are free to disagree and work to change it. But it is legal and because the highest court in the land, (charged with ruling on the constitutionality of law) has ruled that it is constitutionally valid it is.
All your ranting will not change that.

reply from: sander

Carol,
Do you need some help on learning how to quote without taking up so much space?
It's really easy, trust me, if I can learn anyone can!

reply from: faithman

Whatever???!!!!
No It is NOT. Read the Constitution. Look at an unborn childhttp://www.littlesproutimaging.com/photos.htm PERSONS
NO ONE can tell me it is "legal" to murder them. It is NOT. Roe V Wade is a figment of your imagination. It is turned upside down and inside out. An unborn child is a person. And abortion is NOT LEGAL.
Go ahead CM, keep trying to convince me otherwise. It's just that I am so cotton picking dense. I can't get it through my thick head that it is legal to murder some persons, but not others. Which ones can I murder CM?
Does it mean anything to you that the only ones agreeing with you are the pro aborts?
I think you're probably the only person in the US who thinks abortion is illegal.
It's a shame it's legal, but you've been making a total idiot of yourself.
But if you're so convinced, start making some citizens' arrests.
No, there are several whjo know abortion is illegal. Just some of us are willing to say so, and are willing to confront bort heads no matter how many times the "Chant" they are pro-life.
It merely makes me sane to state the obvious...the sky is blue, grass in green and abortion is legal in America.
And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.
And you support and call hero's people who kill abortion providers, proving your a ranting maniac, pro death and a voice to safely ignore.
And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.
You only post what you agree as well. As does everyone on the board.
Unlike you, I am prolife for the baby, mom and abortion provider. I am a REAL prolifer. You are just a prodeath shill.
FYI: The supreme court decides if something is constitutional, not you. They said Roe is constitutional. You are free to disagree and work to change it. But it is legal and because the highest court in the land, (charged with ruling on the constitutionality of law) has ruled that it is constitutionally valid it is.
All your ranting will not change that.
And once again the cherry picking baby killer just posts that which they agree with, and ignores the rest of the document. 40 words into the preamble is the Word posterity. Which means future generations. The spirit of the constitution is set in the preamble, and most assuredly includes the preborn posterity of the land. Also, The 14th amendment in section 5, as well as the roe discission it self, gives congress the authority to include the womb child under constitutional protection. Once again the baby killer uses pro-death rhetoric to justify the killing of the pre-born. One can not continue to protect the enemies of womb children, and not be numbered with them. You pervert everything you touch, and ignore scripture, history, and the constitution, just like the judicial tyrants who started this mess in the first place. Abortion is not constitutionally legal, just like owning slaves was a violation of our founding documents, no matter how much a usurping court wanted to say to the contrary. Roe is a betrail of law, and rights that are derived from the Creator whom you dishonor by ignoring His call to establish justice. The only mindless chanting is the howl of a baby killing wolf who is barely covered in the little lamb skins of those she had put to death. The spirit of murder still resides in you, and the fruit of your mouth proves it on a reagular basis.

reply from: carolemarie

LOL
Maybe I should just quit trying to reason with the unreasonable....

reply from: faithman

LOL
Maybe I should just quit trying to reason with the unreasonable....
I know you were looking in a mirror when you said that.

reply from: nancyu

I find it amazing that you say "whatever!" regarding what is written in the US Constitution. And "whatever!" to declaring that an unborn child is a person.
This says alot about who you are and what you believe. It also does the same for those who support and defend your ideas. Even pro choicers say that if they were pro life, they would fight for personhood.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Wait, why are you being persecuted by your own side? Because you are stating the obvious?

reply from: carolemarie

As far as I can tell their problems are:
a. I had three abortions in my past when I was a teenager and prochoice.
b. I don't think the personhood bill will pass unless they change the bits that ban birth control and jail women. And probably to pass it also needs rape/incest exceptions.
c. I don't want to see people kill abortion providers. I call it evil they call them hero's.
d. I go to abortion clinics and do sidewalk counseling and then stay and do post-abortion outreach and give the women a small gift bag with a mug and tea and chocolate along with some resources and the bible and my phone #. I care about them and the baby. They think giving them a piece of chocolate is a encouragment to have another abortion.
e. They hate all of the above.
f. And I think people who are prochoice are wrong and not my enemy, so I try to treat them fairly.
g. I think that abortion is currently legal in America.

reply from: faithman

killer moms must go free!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

As far as I can ascertain their problems are:
a. I had three abortions in my past when I was a teenager and prochoice.
b. I don't think the personhood bill will pass unless they change the bits that ban birth control and jail women. And probably to pass it also needs rape/incest exceptions.
c. I don't want to see people kill abortion providers. I call it evil they call them hero's.
d. I go to abortion clinics and do sidewalk counseling and then stay and do post-abortion outreach and give the women a small gift bag with a mug and tea and chocolate along with some resources and the bible and my phone #. I care about them and the baby. They think giving them a piece of chocolate is a encouragment to have another abortion.
e. They hate all of the above.
f. And I think people who are prochoice are wrong and not my enemy, so I try to treat them fairly.
g. I think that abortion is currently legal in America.
You sound like a very kind woman. Keep doing what you're doing. Minds are better changed through love, not hate! You are the kind of pro-lifer I greatly respect
I agree (obviously) with many of the things you've mentioned. I don't think pro-lifers are my enemy; we are all just people. I am horrified and confused by pro-lifers who want to murder abortionists. How anti-life can you get!? It's crazy. They say murdering an innocent baby doesn't fix a rape, so why do they think killing an abortionist fixes the abortions he or she has done? It doesn't. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Plus, since abortion is currently legal, even if elective abortions were outlawed this exact moment, you could do absolutely nothing to any woman who has had an abortion in the past or any doctor who has previously performed the procedure, because it is against the constitution to convict someone of a crime that wasn't illegal when they did it. I forget what part of law that is.
As for birth control, that should never, ever be banned. Birth control is one of pro-life's greatest allies. I've seen it researched somewhere, but it turns out that NFP kills just as many - if not more - unimplanted embryos than chemical birth control. I know no one is going to believe me on that without a source so I'll try to find where those statistics come from.
As for your previous abortions... What are these guys problems? You're not allowed to change your mind!? I can only think of the movie Dogma... "Ideas can be changed, but beliefs can't."

reply from: faithman

Baby killing abortionist must be protected, and killer moms must go free!!

reply from: carolemarie

To be fair, they only want to jail people who break the law after it is passed.
Not to make it retro-active.
Still, I oppose that idea. I am for making performing an abortion against the law. That way those who profit off women's problems will be punished, not a woman who feels trapped and backed against the wall.

reply from: faithman

Let murderous mom go free

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Performing the abortion, vs being the person getting the abortion. That's a major distinction, and I agree.

reply from: faithman

Performing the abortion, vs being the person getting the abortion. That's a major distinction, and I agree.
SSSSOOOOO if the one who pays the killer of a born person should go free as well?

reply from: nancyu

The Supreme Court decided that Roe V Wade was Constitutional. Do you know why that is? It is because they couldn't come to an agreement as to whether or not unborn children are "persons."
I dare to disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, because I can see with my own two eyes, that they are "persons." And I know in my heart, and with everything that I know, and everything that I believe, that this is the truth.
You have also stated that they are "persons" Have you changed your mind now? Are you in agreement with the Roe Vs Wade decision?

reply from: carolemarie

. I object to you constantly claiming abortion is against the law. It isn't.
I don't care about their(SC) reasoning. It doesn't matter what idiotic reasoning was used. It had the effect of making abortion legal.

reply from: faithman

killer moms must go free

reply from: 4given

What about the woman who does not feel trapped? I also am unclear about the jailing bit. When abortion is illegal, what do you think the mother should be charged with, if anything?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Performing the abortion, vs being the person getting the abortion. That's a major distinction, and I agree.
SSSSOOOOO if the one who pays the killer of a born person should go free as well?
A fetus is not a born person.

reply from: 4given

We thank you for that information!

reply from: faithman

Performing the abortion, vs being the person getting the abortion. That's a major distinction, and I agree.
SSSSOOOOO if the one who pays the killer of a born person should go free as well?
A fetus is not a born person.
We are talking if personhood is established. The killer of three says that killer mommy still goes free.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What about the woman who does not feel trapped? I also am unclear about the jailing bit. When abortion is illegal, what do you think the mother should be charged with, if anything?
If the abortion has already taken place, she should be fined the cost she payed for the abortion. She should also have to participate in some kind of therapy program and she should be taught some form of birth control whether hormonal or not (NFP). The fine will pay for her therapy and training. If she cannot pay right away, it should be put into a payment program.
If a woman gets pregnant accidentally, she will feel trapped. I can't think of any other emotion to describe it. It is proven that abortion WILL happen even if it is illegal. The downside is that then, both the mother and child have a very high chance of dying. I do not believe the woman deserves punishment - pregnancy was an accident. She needs help, not prison time.
That's for a first offense. After that, if she gets another illegal abortion, then jail time is appropriate unless she has one heck of a good reason - in which case, she probably could have gotten the abortion legally.

reply from: faithman

What about the woman who does not feel trapped? I also am unclear about the jailing bit. When abortion is illegal, what do you think the mother should be charged with, if anything?
If the abortion has already taken place, she should be fined the cost she payed for the abortion. She should also have to participate in some kind of therapy program and she should be taught some form of birth control whether hormonal or not (NFP). The fine will pay for her therapy and training. If she cannot pay right away, it should be put into a payment program.
If a woman gets pregnant accidentally, she will feel trapped. I can't think of any other emotion to describe it. It is proven that abortion WILL happen even if it is illegal. The downside is that then, both the mother and child have a very high chance of dying. I do not believe the woman deserves punishment - pregnancy was an accident. She needs help, not prison time.
That's for a first offense. After that, if she gets another illegal abortion, then jail time is appropriate unless she has one heck of a good reason - in which case, she probably could have gotten the abortion legally.
And they call us confused. If personhood is established, then the womb child would be equal to the born child, and all laws already on the books would aply equally for murdering either one.

reply from: 4given

It doesn't matter, they won't be able to convict her.
She can always plead temporary insanity, brought on by the stress of an unwanted pregnancy.
I am not out to "convict" her either- My hope is that one will be convicted by their poor choices and desire to mend their situation. People can plead whatever. If you hired someone to snuff out a rival.. whether completed or not- would you be charged with conspiracy to commit murder? If that act was carried out- would it them be Murder of the 1st degree? (pre-meditated murder) Insanity can be plead by whomever.. ultimately it would be uyp to the judge and jury.. right? So what should the mother be charged with? If the unborn are given protection under the law and recognized as "persons". What charge would be acceptable then?

reply from: faithman

It doesn't matter, they won't be able to convict her.
She can always plead temporary insanity, brought on by the stress of an unwanted pregnancy.
I am not out to "convict" her either- My hope is that one will be convicted by their poor choices and desire to mend their situation. People can plead whatever. If you hired someone to snuff out a rival.. whether completed or not- would you be charged with conspiracy to commit murder? If that act was carried out- would it them be Murder of the 1st degree? (pre-meditated murder) Insanity can be plead by whomever.. ultimately it would be uyp to the judge and jury.. right? So what should the mother be charged with? If the unborn are given protection under the law and recognized as "persons". What charge would be acceptable then?
They only like playing what ifs, if they control the ifs.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't support this bill. I would support a ban on performing abortions. Dr. would be jailed for exploiting women for money. It would end almost all abortion.

reply from: faithman

I don't support this bill. I would support a ban on performing abortions. Dr. would be jailed for exploiting women for money. It would end almost all abortion.
SSSSSOOOO paying for the murder of a child is not a crime?

reply from: 4given

I don't support this bill. I would support a ban on performing abortions. Dr. would be jailed for exploiting women for money. It would end almost all abortion.
I did not ask you about a bill. I specifically asked you "When abortion is illegal, what do you think the mother should be charged with, if anything?"
You did not answer my other questions about the acceptable age of children when involving life decisions. When should a child (what age) be given the respect of communication or input?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Even if personhood is given to the fetus, that does not make it the same thing as a born child. Plus, I don't think personhood will ever be granted to a fetus/embryo of any age. Thirdly, the woman has a right to control her body and that includes not having a fetus inside of her. She may not have the right to kill it, but she does have the right to remove it.
How would you feel about a law that prevented the LETHAL removal of a fetus from a woman's body? Unless for the exceptions bla bla bla.

reply from: Faramir

A quote from Nancyu from page 1 of this thread--a reminder of the meanspirited motivation behind this thread.
The irony that carolemarie likely does more for the prolife cause than any of her prolife detractors has been noticed by more than me.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't think she should be charged with anything, just like it was before Roe when abortion was not legal.
We were talking about if a mother was going to carry to term a baby and die in the process, should the kids have imput - right? I said I didn't think it was a decision for the kids, it was for the parents to make. I don't think I would consider any age acceptable for my family, to burden the kids with that. Even if they were 30. My life, my decision. It has nothing to do with not respecting them and everything to do with protecting them.

reply from: galen

___________________________________________________
how would you fellabout this law... that statement above implies you would be for such a law.. and that would remove previable pregnancies from the list meaning no early abortions either.

reply from: 4given

Interesting. Respect vs. protect... I guess I always combined the two... I am glad you are able to summarize the conversation... maybe understanding the point? I sometimes wonder if you willingly ignore the questions and content.. or if you don't want to bother yourself with an answer.

reply from: Faramir

Everyone has to do what they think is best. For me, I would not involve children of any age in such a decision. It would not burden them it.

reply from: nancyu

The sky is blue (sometimes)
The grass is green (sometimes)
Abortion is not legal. Not in America, not anywhere, ever.

reply from: cracrat

It's legal here.
See: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1181037

One of the 'bessings' of not having a written constitution. Though with the current shambles in charge, I'd rather the constitutional status quo remained.

reply from: faithman

So why aren't the courthouses full of 4,000 women (who have aborted) a day if it isn't legal?
You're wrong.
Abortion is, by and large, legal.
Because our court system is full of secular humanist scum who take great glea in protecting criminals inted of the innocent ones who the the murderers slaughter. You know, kinda like killer carole.

reply from: yoda

No, it is an unborn person.

reply from: yoda

Always put a price on a human life, right?

reply from: yoda

No, it would just mean a boom in the "do it yourself" abortion kit sales, and I think you know that.
Besides, if you're willing to jail a "doctor" for performing an illegal abortion, why not jail a women for doing the same thing on herself?

reply from: yoda

Yes, legally it would. There is no "second class person" status in this country.

reply from: yoda

Now, there's the kiss of death......
Aren't you the same poster who said (in "I am new here") that having 3 or 4 abortions is "inexcusable"?

reply from: yoda

INCLUDING those you do on yourself?????????????????

reply from: yoda

It is a distinction without a difference, and your agreement only emphasizes that.
But then I'm sure you'd give someone who hired a hit man a free walk, right?

reply from: sander

Now, there's the kiss of death......
Aren't you the same poster who said (in "I am new here") that having 3 or 4 abortions is "inexcusable"?
The whole post just bears repeating.

reply from: yoda

Now, there's the kiss of death......
Aren't you the same poster who said (in "I am new here") that having 3 or 4 abortions is "inexcusable"?
The whole post just bears repeating.
Yeah, it does, doesn't it?

reply from: Faramir

Now, there's the kiss of death......
Aren't you the same poster who said (in "I am new here") that having 3 or 4 abortions is "inexcusable"?
The whole post just bears repeating.
Yeah, it does, doesn't it?
I don't understand the significance of this post. What's the point?

reply from: yoda

Four score and seven years ago...... how's the rest of that go.....?

reply from: Faramir

It was posted, then quoted and praised, and then quoted and praised by the original poster.
So someone thinks there is a good point here, and I'm asking is what it is. I don't get it.

reply from: sander

It's just like most posts, Faramir, personal opinion. I personally thought it bore repeating because if someone like liberal (sorry, can't remember her full user name) agrees with something genuine, her coming from a disengenious position...."kiss of death" rings true, "to me".
As far as the second point, liberal has said more than one abortion is INEXCUSEABLE. I think the response is self-explanitory.
It has nothing personal to do with CM, in my, pointing out what Yoda said.
Hope that makes sense, because that's probably as good as it's going to get.

reply from: Faramir

OK, thanks.
But I don't agree that if someone bad says something good about someone, that that means the person praised is also bad. (Not that I'm saying LCR is bad).
If a prochoicer praises a prolifer for being civil, does that mean the prolifer is a really a proabort or a bad person?
I don't think it follows.
A prochoicer could praise Jesus for something too.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm not discussing the amount of abortions she's had; she was young, and that is an exception in my opinion. Secondly, my POINT was not about the NUMBER of abortions she had, but rather than YOU people seem to be unwilling to let her be pro-life just because she had abortions. Basically, you are saying that it is impossible for her to change her point of view or her opinions.

reply from: Faramir

"Doth says the killer of three."
That's faithman's typical response to carolemarie, and he's the only one here who is so cruel, and it's not just on occasion, but is habitual, and several times a day. But what puzzles me is why this abusive man is so often praised by others. I can't figure that one out.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

OK, so if she can "remove it" without killing it, we would be willing to consider allowing that then. Your "right" to "control your body" need not include allowing you to "control it" in such a way as to cause the death of your child. You certainly have a right to not conceive, if that is your choice, but once you conceive, you can no longer choose not to, regardless of whether it was actually a conscious choice to begin with. Prohibiting abortion would in no way deprive a mother of the right to make personal choices (those which do not directly involve others) or effect her right to "bodily autonomy." We currently do not allow anyone to exercise their right to "bodily autonomy" in such a way as to infringe on the rights of others (legal abortion representing a glaring inconsistency in the law), and current abortion law gets around this simply by denying the unborn the same "rights" all other human beings take for granted.
lol, sorry, you got a bit convoluted there. That's like saying "Once you are dead, you don't have a choice to not be dead". Once you conceive, that's it, you've conceived. That can end one of two ways: birth, or abortion/miscarriage. I agree with you, it just got a bit noodly there.
Because I do understand the bodily autonomy issue you bring up, which strangely pro-choice people use too, is why I wish there was a way to remove the fetus alive. Originally on the pro-choice side, the argument continues on that the fetus is invading the woman's body and using it against her will... But let's be honest here. That's how our bodies are supposed to work. You can't call a natural process an "invasion". It's just an attempt to dehumanize the fetus.
On the basest level I agree that illegalizing most abortions does not infringe on a woman's rights any more than murder being illegal infringes on my rights. HOWEVER, a hitch in that argument is the fact that the young fetus is not a person. 20+ weeks, yes, I am willing to agree that it deserves personhood.
Because the fetus lacks many born human - person aspects (physically and mentally) why do you want to call it a person? Just because it is human and alive, that makes it a person? Do you not distinguish between simply human and being a person?
Abortion is not a simple issue to me. It is not simply an issue of "it's a baby so it's bad to abort it" nor "it's the woman's choice no matter what". I refuse to view the issue from those polarized points of view.
I think abortion needs to be controlled. Right now the only control I know if is a limit at 20 weeks on elective abortions. However, because it is a human life involved (whether it is a person or not) I think a woman needs to justify herself.
Every pro-choice lesson (propaganda?) screams out at me when I say these things. "Abortion is legal so it will be safe!", "You shouldn't punish women for having sex!", "They'll abort anyway!", and on and on. I don't know how I feel about that yet.
There is not true metaphor to describe the unborn inside of a mother. What this nation needs is not just a law, but an entire infrastructure built FOR the sexually active and pregnant women.
1. Birth control needs to be promoted, whether hormonal, barrier, or NFP. Lies need to stop being spread about the pills and condoms - every time I hear them my stomach churns. Lies also need to stop being spread about NFP. I'll admit 100% that I was wrong about it - but that's because all I heard was how bad it was!!
2. Better support needs to be available to women who do become accidentally pregnant. Because that's the problem, accidental pregnancy. Women need places they can go that will be supportive without shoving a bible down their throat.
3. We need a social revolution, where premarital pregnancy isn't taboo. It doesn't need to be a christian revolution; in fact I heavily think it shouldn't be. Everyone has the right to believe anything they want, that's one of the principals this nation was founded on. However, we do need to unite under some common principals and ethics.
4. Adoption needs to be more widely discussed, and if reform needs to happen in the fostering business, then it needs to change.
5. A strong program needs to be made for mothers who wish to keep their child, that gets them into the work-force and off governmental aid as fast as possible. If you want to raise your child, then YOU need to raise it, not my tax money. I'm all for helping you get there; god knows I wouldn't be where I am without help from my parents. Help is needed. But once I'm set, I will be independent from their aid.
Until these things happen, I don't think people will be ok with removing abortion rights from women. Because we don't have these things, women who become accidentally pregnant are stigmatized, looked down upon as sluts, told they can't succeed, fired from jobs, etc etc.

reply from: carolemarie

Just ask me again if I don't answer.
I forget sometimes that I haven't answered something, sometimes I need to think about it, and sometimes I just am not really clear about what you are asking. You tend to be brief, which is good, but sometimes makes me unsure what you are asking I tend to multi task while on the board and get distracted with other things.

reply from: carolemarie

Now, there's the kiss of death......
Aren't you the same poster who said (in "I am new here") that having 3 or 4 abortions is "inexcusable"?
Why would I consider her remarks the kiss of death? I don't think everything someone who is prochoice says is wrong. And this poster is pretty ambivalant about abortion. She leans prolife, just cares about the woman and her situtation.

reply from: carolemarie

INCLUDING those you do on yourself?????????????????
Yoda,
I know you think we are going to devote tons of resourse to sniffing out who is self-aborting, but women have been doing that forever. I know women who had ran their car into a pole to cause miscarriages, those who have thrown themselves down stairs, those who used herbs....these are truly desperate women. You can't stop that. You will have no way to know that, so speculating about it is well pointless.
So no, they wouldn't be charged with anything. The last thing anyone wants is the government investigating micarriages! Talk about an invasion of privacy and unwarranted intrusion in women's lives! Laws can't change a persons heart...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What you should focus on, Yoda, is not sniffing out women who self-abort, but preventing their pregnancy, or preventing their abortion!!! These women are terrified, isolated and desperate. They are not killing because they are evil, they are killing because they are terrified. HELP them, don't punish them.

reply from: carolemarie

Ignore them. They are idiots.
What has always seemed strange to me is to support abortion, but find multiple abortions disgusting. It doesn't make sense at all, and even those prochoicers who are really millitant get snippy about it. If abortion is okay if you are not willing to be pregnant, then the number of procedures shouldn't matter.
I think it is because perhaps it makes the prochoice movement look bad to have women marching around saying I had 7 or I had 5. That makes it a little ....icky. All sympathy gained for women in a bad situtation or tough spot evaporates....
But the truth is that most abortions are repeat abortions. Multiple abortions are really common now days. So if you think 3 + is unacceptable, that is the majority of abortions performed. Perhaps abortion itself is really what is unacceptable....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Ignore them. They are idiots.
What has always seemed strange to me is to support abortion, but find multiple abortions disgusting. It doesn't make sense at all, and even those prochoicers who are really millitant get snippy about it. If abortion is okay if you are not willing to be pregnant, then the number of procedures shouldn't matter.
I think it is because perhaps it makes the prochoice movement look bad to have women marching around saying I had 7 or I had 5. That makes it a little ....icky. All sympathy gained for women in a bad situtation or tough spot evaporates....
But the truth is that most abortions are repeat abortions. Multiple abortions are really common now days. So if you think 3 + is unacceptable, that is the majority of abortions performed. Perhaps abortion itself is really what is unacceptable....
I don't disapprove of multiple abortions because it makes me look bad to say "I had 10!". I disapprove of them for the same reason I disapprove of excessive drinking. Everything in moderation.
Most of the people on this site are so offensive that even if one or two of the nice ones convinced me of pro-life rhetoric (which they have come very close to) I wouldn't want to call myself pro-life because of their terrible behavior.

reply from: carolemarie

Ignore them. They are idiots.
What has always seemed strange to me is to support abortion, but find multiple abortions disgusting. It doesn't make sense at all, and even those prochoicers who are really millitant get snippy about it. If abortion is okay if you are not willing to be pregnant, then the number of procedures shouldn't matter.
I think it is because perhaps it makes the prochoice movement look bad to have women marching around saying I had 7 or I had 5. That makes it a little ....icky. All sympathy gained for women in a bad situtation or tough spot evaporates....
But the truth is that most abortions are repeat abortions. Multiple abortions are really common now days. So if you think 3 + is unacceptable, that is the majority of abortions performed. Perhaps abortion itself is really what is unacceptable....
I don't disapprove of multiple abortions because it makes me look bad to say "I had 10!". I disapprove of them for the same reason I disapprove of excessive drinking. Everything in moderation.
Most of the people on this site are so offensive that even if one or two of the nice ones convinced me of pro-life rhetoric (which they have come very close to) I wouldn't want to call myself pro-life because of their terrible behavior.[/q
It sounds to me like you lean toward a prolife position. You care about women and the baby, and you care about helping women make good choices for their lives, especially avoiding the same behavior that has brought them to the clinic. You recognize that women don't like being in the position of having to choose termination and that it is a very stressful and painful spot for them, and that some are desperate. You have empathy for them, which is wonderful. Love is a powerful weapon for good!
I think that abortion is always wrong, unless it is the life of the mother. But there was a time when I believed that women had the right to make the best choice for their life they could. I believed a lot like you! I didn't know the fetal development facts, and to be honest, Ididn't go looking for them, because I wanted to believe that it was okay to get the abortion. My personal issues cost me more than I would have thought possible to pay. I didn't expect to be depressed or suicidal, I just thought I would merrily go on about my life. It had a profound effect on me. Looking back, I would have fared better by having the baby and putting it up for adoption.
What is ironic is that I am an adoptive mom now, of a great little boy. I respect her for her integrity and how brave she had to be.
I can't imagine the world without my son. He is everything to me.
Blessings,
Carolemarie

reply from: Faramir

That's easy to explain and his comments are quite appropriate considering the name of this thread.
He's making a nasty dig. Is that anything new?

reply from: sander

Liberal said,
You are so over the map, I don't think even YOU can keep track of what you say. You've said on several occassions that more than one abortion is "INEXCUSABLE".
Now, they ARE excusable. I can't believe someone can be this intellecutally dishonest and expect anyone to take them seriously. It's just not possible. You may be able to fool a couple on here that all ready believe the way you do or half believe the way you do, but the tally is low.
Your eugenic views of life are highly offensive to pro-life people, just get use to it and save the whining for some place else. You're a master at excuse making, you're not any where near pro-life, so blaming others is yet just another intellecutally dishonest statement and a poor attempt at yet another "excuse".

reply from: carolemarie

]
So you think that being rude and hateful is attractive and makes people attracted to the prolife position?
Interesting perspective....

reply from: sander

So you think that being rude and hateful is attractive and makes people attracted to the prolife position?
Interesting perspective....
The difference between you and me, Cm, is you reserve your rudeness and hatefulness for the pro-lifers. Now, THAT'S the interesting perspective.
And what you precieve to be rudness and hatefulness is not so, it's just not kissing the rear end of the enemy while trying to make myself look good.

reply from: Faramir

I have never seen CM be rude and hateful to prolifers.
I HAVE seen her react to some very nasty comments directed at her.
Let's face it and be honest. She's been a punching bag for three prominent prolifers here.

reply from: sander

Apparently you see what you want to see, no problem, we all do that from time to time.
She's been plenty rude to me in the past and I've been accused of saying all kinds of things I've never said, but I'm a grown up and can deal with these things on my own and believe it or not, she can too.
I don't hold grudges, but now and then I'm going to speak up, is that okay with you?

reply from: yoda

Basically, you are trying to get out of your own words, because you find them inconvenient now.
YOU used the word "inexcusable" to describe someone who had 3 or 4 abortions, and I even asked you to repeat it, and you did.
You can't lie your way out of this one, it's too well documented.

reply from: yoda

"Wrong"? There is no right or wrong about someone kissing up to you.
"Ambivalent"? Not at all. "Leans prolife"? Not at all.... she just tries to fake us out with her "exceptions"..... like saying that someone having 3 or 4 abortions is "inexcusable".
You are much too easily manipulated if you think this poster is anywhere near being prolife.... and I saw her posts on another forum for several months. In truth, she is the most dogmatic, illogical, committed proabort I've ever seen..... anywhere.
Kindness to someone who is trying to deceive you and others is not kindness...... it is cooperation.

reply from: yoda

Carole, you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what I think, so please stop lying.
And please, please STOP DODGING THE QUESTION..... oh, what's the use, you'll just ignore this post, or dodge it again, won't you?
You know quite well that my question in this regard has NOTHING at all to do with ENFORCEMENT...... it is ONLY about whether it is RIGHT or WRONG to give women LEGAL permission to self-abort.
You KNOW ALL THAT, and yet you keep on dodging the question, or ignoring my posts...... you're not fooling anyone, really you're not.

reply from: yoda

What YOU should focus on, Liberal, is being HONEST with yourself and others.
You have a long way to go to accomplish that, but you begin by being honest about what I am asking carole, and what your answer would be to the same question.
Wait...... did I just ask you to be honest? Forget that.......

reply from: yoda

Yet another lie.
Your attitude towards killing babies can have NO connection to your feelings about ANY prolifer....... that's simply an outright lie.
What has any BABY done to you?

reply from: yoda

Actually, Liberal said it was "inexcusable", not "disgusting".
So, do you think she has "excused" you yet?

reply from: yoda

AND people will continue to murder other people, even though it is illegal.
So, your point would be..............?????????????????????

reply from: yoda

You are so over the map, I don't think even YOU can keep track of what you say. You've said on several occassions that more than one abortion is "INEXCUSABLE". .
Oh, how quickly she tries to forget that.............

reply from: yoda

So, you think that people are attracted to the prolife movement because they find prolifers polite and loving?
Or do they come to this movement because the idea of healthy women killing healthy babies sends shivers up and down their spines, and makes them physically ill?
What about it, is this a popularity contest between the proaborts and the prolifers, or is this about the babies?
WHICH IS IT?

reply from: faithman

Basically, you are trying to get out of your own words, because you find them inconvenient now.
YOU used the word "inexcusable" to describe someone who had 3 or 4 abortions, and I even asked you to repeat it, and you did.
You can't lie your way out of this one, it's too well documented.
And here is the other lie. It has little to do with past abortions, but with present defence of killers, and present opposition to personhood for womb children. But drowning folk grasp at any straw man they can. Particularly those drowning in the blood of womb children.

reply from: sander

You are so all over the map, I don't think even YOU can keep track of what you say. You've said on several occassions that more than one abortion is "INEXCUSABLE". .
Oh, how quickly she tries to forget that.............
Well, she can try.........

reply from: faithman

You are so all over the map, I don't think even YOU can keep track of what you say. You've said on several occassions that more than one abortion is "INEXCUSABLE". .
Oh, how quickly she tries to forget that.............
Well, she can try.........
She is only trying to back track because it shines a light on the evil of her new friend CM. It is all about how they FFFFFFFFEEEEEEEEAAAAALLLLL, and the life of the womb child comes a very distant 2nd to the FFFFFFFFFEEEEEEEEAAAAALLLLings of killer mommy dearest. When personhood is established, the killers can express their feelings thru the bars.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Blah blah blah...
What I actually said, dear pro-lifers, was that it was becoming inexcusable, not that it set-in-stone-was. Secondly, if ANY of those abortions were for an "exception" then that one doesn't count.
I personally consider any teen abortion to be an exception, as I do not believe teens should be giving birth. Thus, all three of her abortions are excusable. Do I wonder exactly why she had three? Of course I do! But that would be up to her to tell me. I already forgive her because she was just a kid when she had those abortions. For all I know she was forced. She was also probably very confused and frightened. Who knows the multitudes of influences working on her at the time? She was just a kid, give her a break. Kids are very easily influenced.

reply from: faithman

AAAHHHHH the foundation of quick sand allows for wiggling. But the end result is the same. The more you wiggle, the more you sink. What kind of "break" did she give her "kids"? Oh thats right, broken bodies in a clinic dumpster, and the promise to fight for future killers to give the womb child the same "break".

reply from: carolemarie

"Wrong"? There is no right or wrong about someone kissing up to you.
"Ambivalent"? Not at all. "Leans prolife"? Not at all.... she just tries to fake us out with her "exceptions"..... like saying that someone having 3 or 4 abortions is "inexcusable".
You are much too easily manipulated if you think this poster is anywhere near being prolife.... and I saw her posts on another forum for several months. In truth, she is the most dogmatic, illogical, committed proabort I've ever seen..... anywhere.
Kindness to someone who is trying to deceive you and others is not kindness...... it is cooperation.
She is prolife to a certain point which is a start. After 20 weeks she thinks is wrong she thinks multiple abortions are wrong. That is a whole lot different from the usual opinion of the prochoice crowd.

reply from: carolemarie

Actually, Liberal said it was "inexcusable", not "disgusting".
So, do you think she has "excused" you yet?
I just think it is weird that prochoicers think it's okay for some number they dreamed up, but not anymore than that. You can only feel that way if you recognize that abortion is fundamentally flawed even if it is just on your sub-conscience level.

reply from: yoda

You said NOTHING about any "exceptions".
And the word "becoming" doesn't really change anything, does it?
Isn't that great? You excuse her, and she excuses you!! See how nice that works out???
Oh, btw, who gave you the moral authority to declare that all babies of teenage girls are expendable?
Do you think that carole agrees with that excuse?

reply from: yoda

No, she isn't prolife at all. She is PROCHOICE with certain exceptions that happen to make her feel better, that's all. She really doesn't give a damn about any babies, anywhere. She's already said the only reason she opposes post viability abortions is that it's a "waste"..... not that an innocent person is being killed.
Wake up and smell the coffee, you are rewarding some very nasty behavior.

reply from: carolemarie

So, you think that people are attracted to the prolife movement because they find prolifers polite and loving?
Or do they come to this movement because the idea of healthy women killing healthy babies sends shivers up and down their spines, and makes them physically ill?
What about it, is this a popularity contest between the proaborts and the prolifers, or is this about the babies?
WHICH IS IT?
If you treat people badly they will not listen to you. How have you managed to live all these years without knowing that?
Treat others the way you want to be treated, surely your mother has told you that over the years....

reply from: yoda

Of course it's illogical, but what else is new? When have you ever known a proabort that paid any attention to logic?
But it doesn't mean they necessarily think there is any moral flaw with ANY abortion, they just think it's "wasteful". Like spilling gasoline or something.

reply from: faithman

No, she isn't prolife at all. She is PROCHOICE with certain exceptions that happen to make her feel better, that's all. She really doesn't give a damn about any babies, anywhere. She's already said the only reason she opposes post viability abortions is that it's a "waste"..... not that an innocent person is being killed.
Wake up and smell the coffee, you are rewarding some very nasty behavior.
But yoda, this is the "pro-lifer" that celebrates a bill that has the vedry same exceptions that gave us abortion on demand, and has condemned the Personhood bill in Colorado because it doesn't provide for the same deadly exceptions. Why would it suprise us that she defends the "pro-life" views of deadly enemies of the womb child? If you number yourself with the, you are one of them. No "exceptions".

reply from: yoda

I really don't care if "THEY" listen to me or not!! What I'm posting here is for any lurkers, and any other prolifers who need to know how to answer the lies of the proaborts who come here!! So to hell with whether any proabort reads what I post here or not.... I REALLY DON'T CARE!!
Don't you get it yet? We're not here to "convert" the proaborts, we're here to DEFEAT them and STOP them from killing babies!!
People do NOT become prolifers because some prolifer talked sweet to them, or whispered sweet nothings into their ears..... but you refuse to respond to that, don't you? People become prolifers because they sense that killing babies is WRONG!!
And if telling the plain, simple truth is "treating people badly", then by all means put me in jail for my crimes!!
But don't ever, ever expect me to be mealy-mouthed about the slaughter of thousands of innocent babies every day..... I'll leave that to YOU!!

reply from: yoda

"Surprise" is not one of the emotions I'm feeling right now.......

reply from: faithman

"Surprise" is not one of the emotions I'm feeling right now.......
Now now....blood pressure...

reply from: Faramir

I really don't care if "THEY" listen to me or not!! What I'm posting here is for any lurkers, and any other prolifers who need to know how to answer the lies of the proaborts who come here!! So to hell with whether any proabort reads what I post here or not.... I REALLY DON'T CARE!!
Don't you get it yet? We're not here to "convert" the proaborts, we're here to DEFEAT them and STOP them from killing babies!!
People do NOT become prolifers because some prolifer talked sweet to them, or whispered sweet nothings into their ears..... but you refuse to respond to that, don't you? People become prolifers because they sense that killing babies is WRONG!!
And if telling the plain, simple truth is "treating people badly", then by all means put me in jail for my crimes!!
But don't ever, ever expect me to be mealy-mouthed about the slaughter of thousands of innocent babies every day..... I'll leave that to YOU!!
Being a rude pr**k does not get your message across. It does not help the babies. It is not "telling the truth." It is simply yodavater being a rude pr**k for the sake of yodavater.
Being civil to those who are confused or in denial is not being "mealy mouthed." Refusing to be abusive to the enemy is not to approve of the enemy's error.
Abortion is a horrible injustice. But it is digusting to see some use this injustice as an excuse to harrass and abuse others. That does not help the babies. It does not help the prolife cause. It's just an ego trip.

reply from: nancyu

So, you think that people are attracted to the prolife movement because they find prolifers polite and loving?
Or do they come to this movement because the idea of healthy women killing healthy babies sends shivers up and down their spines, and makes them physically ill?
What about it, is this a popularity contest between the proaborts and the prolifers, or is this about the babies?
WHICH IS IT?
If you treat people badly they will not listen to you. How have you managed to live all these years without knowing that?
Treat others the way you want to be treated, surely your mother has told you that over the years....
If only this were true about pro aborts, maybe they wouldn't kill their innocent children.

reply from: faithman

I really don't care if "THEY" listen to me or not!! What I'm posting here is for any lurkers, and any other prolifers who need to know how to answer the lies of the proaborts who come here!! So to hell with whether any proabort reads what I post here or not.... I REALLY DON'T CARE!!
Don't you get it yet? We're not here to "convert" the proaborts, we're here to DEFEAT them and STOP them from killing babies!!
People do NOT become prolifers because some prolifer talked sweet to them, or whispered sweet nothings into their ears..... but you refuse to respond to that, don't you? People become prolifers because they sense that killing babies is WRONG!!
And if telling the plain, simple truth is "treating people badly", then by all means put me in jail for my crimes!!
But don't ever, ever expect me to be mealy-mouthed about the slaughter of thousands of innocent babies every day..... I'll leave that to YOU!!
Being a rude pr**k does not get your message across. It does not help the babies. It is not "telling the truth." It is simply yodavater being a rude pr**k for the sake of yodavater.
Being civil to those who are confused or in denial is not being "mealy mouthed." Refusing to be abusive to the enemy is not to approve of the enemy's error.
Abortion is a horrible injustice. But it is digusting to see some use this injustice as an excuse to harrass and abuse others. That does not help the babies. It does not help the prolife cause. It's just an ego trip.
Doth says the idiot who finds excuses not to do anything, rather than actually defending womb life. The only thing you help, is your self to your stupid opinion.

reply from: sander

I really don't care if "THEY" listen to me or not!! What I'm posting here is for any lurkers, and any other prolifers who need to know how to answer the lies of the proaborts who come here!! So to hell with whether any proabort reads what I post here or not.... I REALLY DON'T CARE!!
Don't you get it yet? We're not here to "convert" the proaborts, we're here to DEFEAT them and STOP them from killing babies!!
People do NOT become prolifers because some prolifer talked sweet to them, or whispered sweet nothings into their ears..... but you refuse to respond to that, don't you? People become prolifers because they sense that killing babies is WRONG!!
And if telling the plain, simple truth is "treating people badly", then by all means put me in jail for my crimes!!
But don't ever, ever expect me to be mealy-mouthed about the slaughter of thousands of innocent babies every day..... I'll leave that to YOU!!
Being a rude pr**k does not get your message across. It does not help the babies. It is not "telling the truth." It is simply yodavater being a rude pr**k for the sake of yodavater.
Being civil to those who are confused or in denial is not being "mealy mouthed." Refusing to be abusive to the enemy is not to approve of the enemy's error.
Abortion is a horrible injustice. But it is digusting to see some use this injustice as an excuse to harrass and abuse others. That does not help the babies. It does not help the prolife cause. It's just an ego trip.
Yoda was not being rude, he was expressing his opinion with emotion, now if you want to pick the rude words stated in the two above posts, guess who's name pops out? If you want to find any "personal attacks", guess whose name pops out again?
I thought you turned over a new leaf and were going to stop doing your own brand of harrassing? You went over the top with that kind of name calling and all you accomplished was the very thing you just exploded over.
Blessed are the peacmakes? Where did that go?

reply from: Faramir

The remark was not directed at one comment but his overall tactics, which are very sneaky and underhanded.
There is no objection to him being strong about his views about why he his prolife and his reasons, etc. But the fact is that he uses those beliefs as an excuse to attack others.
I think I was being charitible by calling him a rude pr**k, because I think he's a lot worse than that.
It is not harrassment to occassionally point out an harasser--which he is in a very big way.
He's no different than faithman and nancyu, except that he makes a pretense of being above that type of blatantant and obvious abuse. But he has more subtle and more effective ways of sticking the knife in.
Faithman, nancyu, and yodavater--why so many of you kiss their butts is a mystery. I don't know what they do in real life, but on the board they are disgraceful representatives of the prolife movement, imho.

reply from: sander

Okay, then...so much for the peacmakers, your choice, no problem.

reply from: faithman

You last litle sig to your post is a lie. Your opinion is never humble. Rarely has there been a borthead, or phony prolifer that you haven't ran to defend. You got cards from us under false pretences, and came up with really flimsy excuses for not using them. You waist our time and resources, then pontificate as to how this open forum should be ran. Just why do you waist everyones time [includding your own aparently] with crap that really is meaningless to those who really defend womb life? I would find your silliness entertaining, if it were not SSSSSSOOOOOOO sad, and SSSSSSSOOOOO deadly to womb life.

reply from: Faramir

I'm still happy to make peace with anyone who wants to make peace with me. And I don't want any wars, espcecially among prolifers.
But I have to be honest, too.
And on an unmoderated board, unfortunately it is sometimes necessary to speak loudly to get a point across.
If this were a truly moderated board, name calling and demeaning other posters would not be allowed. That's how there could be some semblance of peace. Of course it could also be voluntary, but if half the members are more interested in taking shots at others than in a civil discussion, a one-sided peace can only do so much.

reply from: faithman

I'm still happy to make peace with anyone who wants to make peace with me. And I don't want any wars, espcecially among prolifers.
But I have to be honest, too.
And on an unmoderated board, unfortunately it is sometimes necessary to speak loudly to get a point across.
If this were a truly moderated board, name calling and demeaning other posters would not be allowed. That's how there could be some semblance of peace. Of course it could also be voluntary, but if half the members are more interested in taking shots at others than in a civil discussion, a one-sided peace can only do so much.
There is only one side to any peace. Peace means to be set at one. I am not at one with baby killers, or phony lifers. There can be no peace with those who are the enemy to womb children. A one sided peace would end abortion. But you can not have it as long as you agree with your enemy, and defend those who's "opinions" are SSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOO deadly to the womb child.

reply from: Faramir

So, you think that people are attracted to the prolife movement because they find prolifers polite and loving?
Or do they come to this movement because the idea of healthy women killing healthy babies sends shivers up and down their spines, and makes them physically ill?
What about it, is this a popularity contest between the proaborts and the prolifers, or is this about the babies?
WHICH IS IT?
">http://atheism.about.com/od/lo.../a/falsedilemma.htm[/q

reply from: yoda

This thread is the perfect example of why I keep Fartboy on iggy permanently.
Try it, you'll like it!

reply from: Faramir

Poor yodavater doesn't understand that by being civil to someone on the opposite side, it in no way means to accept the position of the opposite side.
Heck he's not even civil to people on his own side.
No wonder he has to live in "iggyland."
If you happen to peek, yoda, do some thinking about the concept of a "false dilemma," since you fall into that error so often.

reply from: yoda

I really don't care if "THEY" listen to me or not!! What I'm posting here is for any lurkers, and any other prolifers who need to know how to answer the lies of the proaborts who come here!! So to hell with whether any proabort reads what I post here or not.... I REALLY DON'T CARE!!
Don't you get it yet? We're not here to "convert" the proaborts, we're here to DEFEAT them and STOP them from killing babies!!
People do NOT become prolifers because some prolifer talked sweet to them, or whispered sweet nothings into their ears..... but you refuse to respond to that, don't you? People become prolifers because they sense that killing babies is WRONG!!
And if telling the plain, simple truth is "treating people badly", then by all means put me in jail for my crimes!!
But don't ever, ever expect me to be mealy-mouthed about the slaughter of thousands of innocent babies every day..... I'll leave that to YOU!!
IF I were going about lying to myself and others about something as important as the life and death of millions of innocent babies, and generally making a complete fool of myself as these pro-babykilling fools are, then I damn sure would WANT someone to TELL ME!! NOT give me some mealy mouth horsecrap like you put out!!

reply from: Faramir

It is possible to tell the plain simple truth and still not be a jerk.
You're still very confused.

reply from: faithman

It is possible to tell the plain simple truth and still not be a jerk.
You're still very confused.
But you would deny a "jerk" from telling the truth simply because you want to play "nice guy" to killers. Do you you like, and just leave us alone. Their will always be killers for you to defend. We are out to just stop this bunch. If you continue to number yourself with them don't get you BVD's knotted up just because you get hit by what was intended for pro-death scum.

reply from: english

Ok, exactly what does carolemarie agree and disagree with?
I'm a "purist" but all pro-lifers should stick together, no matter whether true pro-life or almost pro-life, because ultimately we all want no abortions, and it hinders the movement to hate each other.
We should even stick with pro-aborts because I'm sure they don;t want abortion either, for the women's sakes.
Basically, we should all strive to reduce abortion in the meantime before becomes illegal.

reply from: nancyu

To anyone who believes that an unborn child is a person; to anyone who believes that abortion is murder of a person; to anyone who believes that murder is illegal, abortion is illegal already.
Is anyone who doesn't believe any of these things really pro-life? Some who call themselves "pro-life" are really only pro-born life. Even Planned Parenthood would qualify for the title.

reply from: yoda

Why not ask carolemarie?
Being pro-life does not require you to agree with any other pro-lifer's views, if that's what you mean by "sticking together".
Now you're living in a dream world. Most proaborts really don't care how many abortions occur, they just want to protect the industry.

reply from: carolemarie

I think the main thing is that I had abortions before I was a christian. They claim that isn't what they disaree about, but Faithman spends all his post calling me a babykiller ....
Nancy seems to believe that you can't state the truth, that Roe made abortion legal in America.
I am prolife. I have spent the last 13 years doing sidewalk counseling, post-abortion healing and awareness speaking and teaching and volunteer at a CPC, supply testimony for bills to limit or stop abortion.
I just am a realist. I don't believe personhood bills will pass without some exceptions. I oppose wasting my time on things that can't pass. If this bill came to my state, I would work on getting those exceptions in.
I believe that America is deeply divided on abortion and we need as many of the middle of the roaders as we can get to vote things we want. If you insist on banning birth control, or imply or say that all miscarriages will be investigated and insist on jailing women rather than the abortion providers you will lose. That saves not one baby.
I support the S. Dakota abortion ban because it will pass. I supported it the first time around with no exceptions and it lost, because the polling interview showed that the people wanted the exceptions for rape and incest. This time around the bill has those exceptions, which if it passes will virtually end abortion in that state.
I also oppose using violence to end abortion, and will not support or call someone who murders abortion providers a hero.
And I believe in being kind to women who had abortions and reaching out IN LOVE to them. If you are pro-choice, you are not my enemy, you are someone who God loves and just believes things that are not true, so I see no reason to call names and be spiteful. I will talk to you and I will be your friend and I will tell you the truth, and let God change your heart.
I believe change is in part relationship based.
They just hate anyone who dares disagree with them. I advise all new people to never agree with me or they will jump down their throats as well....

reply from: yoda

What is frustrating to me is that you won't say whether you would support a personhood bill if you thought it actually had a chance to pass, or if it had already passed. You won't state on principle whether you support personhood for the unborn.
Surely you're not that dumb? Surely you know it won't actually save any babies, right? Tell me you're not that dumb, please?
Well, you're right there. Proaborts are not our enemies, they are the enemies of the unborn. You remember them, right?
Getting a little melodramatic, aren't you? Throwing in a little hyperbole just for effect? Oh wait, I think I hear Fartboy chomping at the bits to jump in at this point and call me more profanities...... or is that really just you in disguise?

reply from: jujujellybean

are you for real? IF abortion was illegal, do you think there would be 4000 babies dying a day? No. It may be legalized murder, but in no way is it illegal. And saying so ignores the blatant fact.
I know, I know, the blatant fact is that it's a person. Well, it's legalized murder. NO ONE is saying it's right, (besides the pro aborts) but it IS legal. If it was illegal, do you think we would be here debating it?

reply from: GratiaPlena

She's telling the truth. New posters (or any posters, for that matter) who agree with her are immediately bashed.

reply from: yoda

I haven't seen any "bashing", but I have noticed a pattern in which "new" posters show up here for seemingly no other reason than to chastise those of us who disagree with CM.
When you come to a forum with a chip on your shoulder like that, you can expect people to take exception to your lectures.

reply from: nancyu

are you for real? IF abortion was illegal, do you think there would be 4000 babies dying a day? No. It may be legalized murder, but in no way is it illegal. And saying so ignores the blatant fact.
I know, I know, the blatant fact is that it's a person. Well, it's legalized murder. NO ONE is saying it's right, (besides the pro aborts) but it IS legal. If it was illegal, do you think we would be here debating it?
Yes, I am for real.
If you believe an unborn child is a person, if you believe abortion is murder of a person, If you believe murder of persons is illegal, you should also believe that abortion is illegal.
Pro Choice is the side which says "abortion is legal. Go kill your child it is legal. Please kill your child, it is okay, really it is. We want you to kill your child. Don't worry, you will never be punished. It is legal, legal, legal. God wants you to kill your child. Don't worry about that silly Constitution of the United States which says"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Don't worry about that silly Commandment from God that says "Thou Shalt Not Murder" Abortion is legal, legal, legal. So legal, it is as legal as getting a tooth pulled."
Read this juju! Think about this juju. This is your last chance to convince me you are pro life as you say, or just another clone.

reply from: jujujellybean

ABORTION KILLS A PERSON.
IT KILLS A BABY.
IT KILLS A HUMAN.
There are situations where killing is legal. What would you say about people who are killed for murdering other people? Would you continue on your thing and say that it's not legal?
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU I DON'T WANT IT THAT WAY???? Just because it is that way doesn't mean we want it to be that way.
THERE IS SUCH A THING AS LEGALIZED MURDER. Abortion is one of those circumstances. NO ONE IS SAYING WE WANT IT THAT WAY. I WISH ABORTION WAS ILLEGAL. But it's not.
Anyone else here wanna throw in two cents? Am I the only one who thinks abortion really is legal?
And I am NOT a clone as much as you may want to believe that. If anything, you and fman might be, but seriously, I don't care what you believe about me. I don't have to convince you of anything. What you think about me doesn't matter.

reply from: yoda

Well, if it only costs two cents.........
I think it's a minor semantic point. Abortion ought never have been made legal like it was, the court itself broke the law in Roe. But if you want to use "legal" to describe what the courts allow, then it's legal.
On rare occasions, either congress or the president will stand up and defy the court, and the court has to back down. Sadly, that's very rare.

reply from: Faramir

Of course it's legal. Why the heck would we be prolife if it were illegal?
Of course you're not a clone. Nancyu has some "issues," but she's in the clique, so she can get away with those outrageous comments.

reply from: sander

Exactly how is she getting away with those comments, Faramir? Is there some kind of law she's breaking and getting a pass? Should she have been banned and didn't?
I would think you alone are johnny enough on the spot to point out her infractions. Wouldn't that be the reason she got her own personal thread?

reply from: jujujellybean

Well, if it only costs two cents.........
LOL do I get a tip? I usually get at least a buck fifty....
I think it's a minor semantic point. Abortion ought never have been made legal like it was, the court itself broke the law in Roe. But if you want to use "legal" to describe what the courts allow, then it's legal.
yes, that's what I think. and I am tired of being called a clone and pro abort for simply stating that it IS, currently, legal. Do I have to be a pro abort to state that fact? I don't think so...
On rare occasions, either congress or the president will stand up and defy the court, and the court has to back down. Sadly, that's very rare.
Yes. Unfortunate, definitely...

reply from: Faramir

Well, if it only costs two cents.........
I think it's a minor semantic point. Abortion ought never have been made legal like it was, the court itself broke the law in Roe. But if you want to use "legal" to describe what the courts allow, then it's legal.
On rare occasions, either congress or the president will stand up and defy the court, and the court has to back down. Sadly, that's very rare.
Law enforcement allows it too.
Try calling the cops and having abortionists arrested.
It looks like you have no choice but to tell yodavater to take a long walk off a short pier, nancyu. He says abortion is legal too.

reply from: nancyu

She's telling the truth. New posters (or any posters, for that matter) who agree with her are immediately bashed.
Because those who agree with her are usually the ones who are pro choice. We tend to disagree with their ideas.

reply from: nancyu

Abortion is permitted by law. Does that make you happy. I refuse to say it is legal, because to me it is NOT. I'm sorry if that offends anyone.

reply from: nancyu

Well, not that sorry.

reply from: nancyu

Well, if it only costs two cents.........
LOL do I get a tip? I usually get at least a buck fifty....
I think it's a minor semantic point. Abortion ought never have been made legal like it was, the court itself broke the law in Roe. But if you want to use "legal" to describe what the courts allow, then it's legal.
yes, that's what I think. and I am tired of being called a clone and pro abort for simply stating that it IS, currently, legal. Do I have to be a pro abort to state that fact? I don't think so...
On rare occasions, either congress or the president will stand up and defy the court, and the court has to back down. Sadly, that's very rare.
Yes. Unfortunate, definitely...
Juju, I am convinced you're not a clone (I think) but I do still have a disagreement with you, and you don't seem to be understanding my point of view. I will try once again to explain. Please at least try to understand.
You might still think I'm wacky, but here it is. My opinion is that the legality of abortion is one of two things. Either it is a huge lie, or it is a huge mistake. I simply can't except the legality of it, when I know that an unborn child is a person.
I also believe that no new laws need to be created in order to wipe out Roe VS Wade. All that is needed is attitudes and beliefs to change so that everyone realizes fully that the unborn are persons who should be protected in the same way every other person is protected. It frustrates me that pro life should already have this attitude, but some don't.
It begins with you. I'm asking you kindly, don't repeat the lie, and don't perpetuate the mistake. An unborn child is a child like any other, who should be protected and defended like any other. You are pro life! This is your duty to help set the rest of the world straight on this. Abortion is illegal already.
An unborn child is a person
It is illegal to murder persons
Abortion is murder of a person
If you believe these things, how can it follow that abortion is legal?
I am not calling you a pro abort for not understanding this. But it shows a pro abort mindset to insist that abortion is legal.

reply from: Faramir

She's telling the truth. New posters (or any posters, for that matter) who agree with her are immediately bashed.
Because those who agree with her are usually the ones who are pro choice. We tend to disagree with their ideas.
There are plenty of prolifers who agree with her, though not on all points. I certainly don't agree with everything she says.
But I know she is a kind person who is helping to save babies and who fights against abortion.
So that's enough to make her a friend of the unborn and an enemy of abortion.
There are just some hateful people who enjoy attacking her and enjoy either bringing up her past abortions, or in watching others rub them in her face.
I have not seen a prochoicer agree with her that abortion is an immoral act that should be illegal. Have you?
Of course you are extremely confused about this, since you think abortion is illegal.
I think you are the only prolifer here who states that, so you have more people to pick on about that than juju and carolemarie.

reply from: 4given

Pray tell your newfound understanding of nancyu will mean you will stop obsessing over her.. and Yoda? I noticed a slight decline in the obsessive posts about Sir Yoda- but after reading the bs is bs.. I can't help but to think the faramir is fari.. no wait.. the faramir is bsbuster, bloviater,cantastandher.. God knows (and the web master) what other screen names you have used. Lighten up. Move on. You made whatever point you were after. Now you are looking more and more like the problem here. Capish?

reply from: Faramir

I am truly blessed to have others looking out for me and keeping me in line.
And you forgot about spaceman--my favorite.

reply from: carolemarie

Are you a democrat? They seem to believe if they say something long enough that makes it true...and you seem to be suffereing from the same disease.

reply from: 4given

I am truly blessed to have others looking out for me and keeping me in line.
And you forgot about spaceman--my favorite.
Funny. I thought Spaceman was a proabort.
And I am quite sure there are far more. Any way- stop with the games and desire to divide. Either you appreciate the drama or you want to disquiet the calm.. It seems like a personal issue with you.

reply from: Faramir

I am truly blessed to have others looking out for me and keeping me in line.
And you forgot about spaceman--my favorite.
Funny. I thought Spaceman was a proabort.
And I am quite sure there are far more. Any way- stop with the games and desire to divide. Either you appreciate the drama or you want to disquiet the calm.. It seems like a personal issue with you.
Why do you single me out?
You let yodavater, faithman, and nancyu spout all kinds of nonsense and say NOTHING. But you are always all over me like a rash if I make a post that you think is out of line.
(I take it back about faithman a little--you did reprimand him for some bad language, but never say anything about the abusive way he communicates with some others).
And I do not have any "puppet" accounts here. I created a few accounts in fun and as satire. They have about 2 or 3 posts each, if that. And I thought they were funny and creative.
I have no desire to "divide" anything or anyone. The divisiveness is already here, caused by posters who are way too eager to label anyone as a "proabort," who is not politically correct as they see it.

reply from: 4given

Perhaps because you tend to take your point further than it should go. It is difficult to tell if you create the opportunity to hero up- or if you thrive on the opportunity to do so. Either scenario.. more drama than desired..
I don't "let" anyone do or say anything. To each their own. I don't read what each poster says. I am in turn blessed by the opportunities and truth all of the listed have shared with me.
Your posts tend to cause division. It isn't about politics, but morality.
To thine own self be true...

reply from: Faramir

You don't know what I meant?
Nancyu calls someone a "scum."
You say NOTHING about it.
I make a post that demonstrated that nancyu has made that and many other nasty posts, and you have an issue with me for having the nerve to quote them.
You are not consistent.
There are others here who cross lines over and over, and you say nothing.
But if I point out that the line was crossed, you come down on me as if pointing out that it was wrong to call someone a "scum" is worse than actually calling someone a scum.
And it's not just that one, but many others.
I made a some points about why "buying American" is not necessarily the best way to go, and why. But instead of addressing my points, yoda has resorted to childishness and quoting the Gettysburg Address.
You say nothing about nonsense like that.
You say nothing about faithman calling carole "killer carole" over and over and over.
But if I criticize yoda or faithman or nancyu you're quick to jump in.
Are you guys all related or something?

reply from: galen

but you in return say nothing to ChM.. so you and nacy are about the same dontcha think...
and for your info Yoda and CM have delightful debates.. very civilised ones at that in several threads..

reply from: faithman

Perhaps because you tend to take your point further than it should go. It is difficult to tell if you create the opportunity to hero up- or if you thrive on the opportunity to do so. Either scenario.. more drama than desired..
I don't "let" anyone do or say anything. To each their own. I don't read what each poster says. I am in turn blessed by the opportunities and truth all of the listed have shared with me.
Your posts tend to cause division. It isn't about politics, but morality.
To thine own self be true...
I guess he chooses to ignore the post where you have gotten on to me, and the biggest fuss I had when I first came here was yoda. I have been deleted several times by the mod, so his cry babying about an unmoderated forum are simply unfounded. I have freely given him cards, and he has done absolutly nothing with them. That is kinda an abortion in a way. When you have an oportunity to hand out stuff and don't because it might be inconveniant. The least he could do is pass them along to someone who will use them. An adoption if you will. These are proven baby savers, and to cop an atitude about them is unfounded, and shows one to be pro-life in name only. If one were truely pro-life, they would take every oportunity to save a womb child. But he prefers to act like a PMS ole biddy who has their thong in a knot because everyone don't act just right. If he would spind just an eighth of the time doing sothing constructive insted of defending baby killers, he wouldnt have time to post stupidity here.

reply from: 4given

Faramir- you don't know what has or has not been said. Perhaps exercising discretion (i.e. pm) may better suit you and your cause.

reply from: Faramir

No I am not the same as nancyu.
I am not abusive.
It might delight yoda to browbeat CM, and it might delight others to watch it, but I don't think that it is delightful at all.
Ask CM if she thinks the way he treats her is a "delight."

reply from: galen

i can tell by the way they post to each other that thier hearts are both in the right place.. and you browbeat just as much as yoda does.
IMHO keeping these personal posts up has been cathartic but now its probably time for all of it to stop.
anyway.. i think i'll concentrate on the science for a bit and LCR and others.. its better for my health to actually convert people than to argue with people who just won't get thier own heads on straight... they know who they are.

reply from: 4given

And I agree. An 8th of the time would likely save some lives. I have seen the deleted posts. As obnoxious as you have been to others, I know your heart's cry. I want those cards you sent to him and I want your wife to have the postage refund. I appreciate who you are to me- Gracious, generous and polite. I value your experience and willingness to freely give to those (myself included) who desire to change the world around us and actively fight the abortion demon! So thank you.
*sidenote* who knew that an old biddy still wore a thong?!

reply from: Faramir

I didn't start the "pick on carole" thread, you know.
Preach to someone else about stopping, please.

reply from: Faramir

Please post an example, galen.

reply from: galen

oh gees just look at the introductory post for LCR.. you jumped on yoda and then later on questioned her conversion wich is exactly what yoda was doing..
come on i know your not that dense.

reply from: Faramir

I didn't question her conversion.
She backed down from it herself.
Besides, I did praise her for the progress she made.
I've been cordial to her since she's been here--and have made no digs, as did master yoda, the expert digger.

reply from: galen

i didn't say you were the sole problem.. all i said was that the 2 of you give as good as you get.. believe me.. we're none of us rainbows..

reply from: Faramir

I am sure God smiles everytime he calls a baby killer or a prolifer who disagrees with him a "scanc."
And I will happily refund his whole dollar's worth of postage if he gives me his address again.

reply from: faithman

I am sure God smiles everytime he calls a baby killer or a prolifer who disagrees with him a "scanc."
And I will happily refund his whole dollar's worth of postage if he gives me his address again.
Just go give them to some one who will use them numb skull. "scanc" means a woman of low moral charator. It pretty much fits those who have been addressed as such.

reply from: yoda

That is true, and even Blackmun admitted as much in Roe. All that is needed is legal recognition of the humanity of ........ (get this) human, unborn babies.
It's like the court closed it's eyes and said "I can't see the humanity of unborn human babies".

reply from: yoda

Reading this thread has been a pleasant experience for me..... seeing your replies to Fartnomore without having to read all his..... very nice!

reply from: jujujellybean

Well, if it only costs two cents.........
LOL do I get a tip? I usually get at least a buck fifty....
I think it's a minor semantic point. Abortion ought never have been made legal like it was, the court itself broke the law in Roe. But if you want to use "legal" to describe what the courts allow, then it's legal.
yes, that's what I think. and I am tired of being called a clone and pro abort for simply stating that it IS, currently, legal. Do I have to be a pro abort to state that fact? I don't think so...
On rare occasions, either congress or the president will stand up and defy the court, and the court has to back down. Sadly, that's very rare.
Yes. Unfortunate, definitely...
Juju, I am convinced you're not a clone (I think) but I do still have a disagreement with you, and you don't seem to be understanding my point of view. I will try once again to explain. Please at least try to understand.
I understand it perfectly well. I am trying to point out to you the flaws in your thinking.
You might still think I'm wacky, but here it is. My opinion is that the legality of abortion is one of two things. Either it is a huge lie, or it is a huge mistake. I simply can't except the legality of it, when I know that an unborn child is a person.
while you may not be able to accept it personally, the truth of the matter is that according to every other person in America, abortion is legal, and your personal opinion in this case differs from the law and reality.
I also believe that no new laws need to be created in order to wipe out Roe VS Wade. All that is needed is attitudes and beliefs to change so that everyone realizes fully that the unborn are persons who should be protected in the same way every other person is protected. It frustrates me that pro life should already have this attitude, but some don't.
It begins with you. I'm asking you kindly, don't repeat the lie, and don't perpetuate the mistake. An unborn child is a child like any other, who should be protected and defended like any other. You are pro life! This is your duty to help set the rest of the world straight on this. Abortion is illegal already.
IF abortion is illegal, how come if a woman went up to a policeman and asked if abortion was legal here, he would tell her by golly it is?
An unborn child is a person
It is illegal to murder persons
Abortion is murder of a person
If you believe these things, how can it follow that abortion is legal?
BECAUSE, LIKE I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THERE IS SUCH A THING AS LEGALIZED MURDER. This would be one of those cases. It may be murder, but unfortunately, IT IS LEGAL. So is the death penalty....and that is murder but in some cases it is legal.
I am not calling you a pro abort for not understanding this. But it shows a pro abort mindset to insist that abortion is legal.
NO IT DOESN'T. ALL I AM STATING IS REALITY. The court made abortion a legal procedure in 1972 and sadly, it is still legal! To say I have a 'pro abort mindset' simply because I am stating the blatant fact in no way qualifies me for that label.

reply from: nancyu

Did you even read what I wrote? I give up.
Nevermind.

reply from: jujujellybean

yes I did. did you read what I wrote???

reply from: nancyu

Yes. I'll agree to disagree with you. It's the best I can do.

reply from: yoda

Are there such things as "illegal" laws? If there are, then that certainly would apply to abortion laws.

reply from: nancyu

It certainly would. Any laws which support abortion in my opinion are illegal laws, which I won't accept. They support a woman's ability to get an abortion, they don't make it "legal." They only make it appear to be legal.

reply from: faithman

Yes. That is how we convicted the Nazi war criminals. They hid behind "it was legal" as a defence of all the folks they killed in the camps. That is why the Allieds marched the German citizens thru the camps. Willing ignorance may be a conveniant excuse, but it is not a good one. 2000 years of church history, as well as the founding of this country, are based on the fact that we are not subject to illegal laws, or a despotic government. When Government stops serving, and starts lording over us, it is no longer a just or legal government.

reply from: jujujellybean

right. that's so true....it goes against so many principles but they just don't care.

reply from: nancyu

No, this is a MAJOR semantic point. The "legality" of abortion is a lie, based on more lies. There are some out there that want people to continue to believe that abortion is legal. When everyone wakes up and realized it is NOT legal, it is murder of a child, it no longer will be "legal" This is a lie resting on the backs of turtles (more lies) and we're the turtles who continue to spread the lie that it is legal.
It is NOT. Call me crazy if you want to, just stop saying it is legal to murder unborn children, do you not realize, that the belief that this is legal, is what encourages this to continue?
Just stop saying it, is this too much to ask? The justices on the Supreme Court are human beings who made a mistake. They didn't see the unborn as persons. Pro life DOES, DON'T WE????
From Roe Vs Wade:
I remember a post by CM, basically laughing at me for stating that abortion is illegal already, and that I was repeating a lie hoping it would become the truth. That is not it. It is not a lie. It is the truth. I am asking that we repeat the truth until it becomes the truth again.
This was a mistake. This point should NOT have been conceded, and we must stop conceding this point. There is no case cited which holds that a fetus is NOT a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
An unborn child IS A PERSON. It is illegal to murder persons.
Say it. It will roll off your tongue after a few tries.

reply from: carolemarie

If 70 percent of people claim abortion is illegal, Roe v Wade makes them liars.
Just saying something doesn't magically make it come true.

reply from: yoda

Of course it is. Just like the Dred Scott decision, which said that slaves were not "people" was based on lies. Many, many court decisions are based on lies, as are many actual laws, also.
That's okay with me. Thing is, we need to also brand as illegal some other things that our government has done, and is doing, if we're going to use that tactic on abortion. Like the Indian Removal Act, which the SCOTUS actually declared unconstitutional, but was put into effect anyway by Andrew Jackson. Now, THAT was an "illegal act" made "legal" by presidential proclamation.
Abortion is "permitted" by the legal authorities who hold power in this country. Saying it is illegal because it was approved by an out of control SCOTUS simply puts a different meaning to the word "legal". It puts it into the realm of "legitimacy", and Roe was definitely an "illegitimate" decision.
I for one have no problem equating illegitimacy with illegality.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Such court rulings are inevitably overruled, just as Dred Scott was.

reply from: nancyu

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to those who actually believe the unborn are persons.
I'm not going to bother arguing with pro aborts, you have minds which seem to be incapable of reason. Oh, yeah, because you're mindless wads of tissue.

reply from: Faramir

I believe the unborn are persons.
I believe abortion is legal.
That is not a contradiction.
It is a bad law, but it is not a contradiction to make that statement, and it is simply facing the sad reality.
I am prolife and I hope for laws that will end abortion and make it illegal.

reply from: nancyu

Of course it is. Just like the Dred Scott decision, which said that slaves were not "people" was based on lies. Many, many court decisions are based on lies, as are many actual laws, also.
That's okay with me. Thing is, we need to also brand as illegal some other things that our government has done, and is doing, if we're going to use that tactic on abortion. Like the Indian Removal Act, which the SCOTUS actually declared unconstitutional, but was put into effect anyway by Andrew Jackson. Now, THAT was an "illegal act" made "legal" by presidential proclamation.
Abortion is "permitted" by the legal authorities who hold power in this country. Saying it is illegal because it was approved by an out of control SCOTUS simply puts a different meaning to the word "legal". It puts it into the realm of "legitimacy", and Roe was definitely an "illegitimate" decision.
I for one have no problem equating illegitimacy with illegality.
Me for two. Did you ever notice how much easier it is to argue with those who are agreeable. Much less stress. If people would just admit I'm right, life would be so much easier on us all.
Don't you agree?

reply from: yoda

Claro! Múy bueno, señora!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm agreeable with that.

reply from: Faramir

I'm agreeable with that.
I'm confused about your position.
Do you want abortion to be illegal?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Not immediately. I don't think it's wise to do so; our society isn't ready. What I want is for abortion to become obsolete.

reply from: Faramir

Would you vote for a prolife candidate?

reply from: faithman

You don't seem to get it yet. Try and put yourself in the position of the child. what if you were the one vunerable to be chopped up by a killer legally? What if soemone said they didn't want your exicusion stoppped even though you commited no crime? Abortion on demand needs to stop just as fast as we can get it done. If it ended tonight, it would be 35 years to late for 50 million womb children. These children are not real to you yet. All they are is pawns in your opinion. Try putting your self in their place just for a second, and then say "not yet". It is easy to sacrifice someone else's life for what you believe, now isn't it?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I have put myself in that position every time a pro-lifer asks me that question. I can say without a doubt that if my mother were going to die, I would rather be killed than her. I used to say I also wouldn't have cared no matter what her reason, but that has changed recently. I wouldn't want to harm her way of life.
I can't do anything about those who have already been aborted. I simply know that history shows sudden change does not work. A society must change first, and that doesn't happen fast.
So yes, not yet.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Would you vote for a prolife candidate?
It would depend on all their other stances. I do not vote based on one issue; I think it is extremely stupid. Liberals do it just as badly as conservatives.

reply from: nancyu

You know what is funny? The "pro lifers" who say that society needs to change before laws do, then they say that the laws need to change before society will. They won't say the words "abortion is illegal" which might help to change society and the laws.
Ain't that funny?
It's simply a matter of principle. If YOU are pro life, if YOU believe an unborn child is a person, than YOU should believe abortion is illegal. Do the laws dictate what YOU can believe?

reply from: yoda

Our society isn't "ready" to STOP killing 4,000 unborn babies a day?
Our society isn't "ready"?
Murder has NEVER become obsolete, has it? And yet we still have laws against it, don't we?
How many million more babies must die before you think "our society is ready" to stop killing them?

reply from: yoda

How about slavery in this country? Did the Emancipation Proclamation happen "slowly"?
JUSTICE DELAYED is JUSTICE DENIED....... and you seem to want to deny justice for the 4,000 babies being slaughtered every day in this society.

reply from: yoda

Both things can happen at the same time... there is no "priority" for changing society. We just need to get it done NOW.

reply from: faithman

But as evidenced by the posts on this board, the womb child is just a topic of discussion. They are more than willing to allow the child to die while they talk it to death. Womb children are not a topic. They are little persons who deserve the same, and equal consideration with born persons. Personal aggendas like killer carole's are the worst in my opinion. They are a cancer on the pro-life body, that steals focus and energy, and waists it on efforts that will not save one child at all. Until we clean the house from neo lifer phony aggendas, then the womb child will remain a second class topic, and their personhood just a chip to be bargained away in the personal interest poker game.

reply from: nancyu

So you are forcing your belief on other babies who might not agree with your idea. You also might think differently if you actually were the one having your limbs torn off, or being suffocated and starved within your mother's womb.
Society can change in the blink of an eye, so can laws.

reply from: yoda

I think the real question is: ARE YOU READY?

reply from: yoda

Thus the old saying "It all depends on whose ox is being gored"......

reply from: nancyu

Thus the old saying "It all depends on whose ox is being gored"......
Ain't that the truth!

reply from: 4given

Thus the old saying "It all depends on whose ox is being gored"......
Ain't that the truth!

reply from: nancyu

Now, there's the kiss of death......
Aren't you the same poster who said (in "I am new here") that having 3 or 4 abortions is "inexcusable"?
The whole post just bears repeating.
Yeah, it does, doesn't it?
Good ole days...


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