Home - List All Discussions

Are you ok with Carolemarie being referred to as Killer Carole?

Do personal attacks help save babies?

by: Faramir

I cringe every time I see "killer carole" and the like.
Why is it tolerated?
Am I in the minority?
Once or twice would be bad enough, and a good enough reason to be booted on a more regulated board. But it's become a way of life for one poster, and his associates and supporters seem to have little problem with it.

reply from: rsg007

I totally agree. Even if you believe she is a "killer" (which obviously I don't), there is no excuse for hatred thinly veiled as "advancing the cause."

reply from: Faramir

I have been on boards where I have been the butt of some very nasty comments, but they were always from the "other side" of the issue, and moderators, even though also on the "other side" step in to either edit the posts and/or make warnings.
But even those nasty comments from "the enemy" were just general insults.
I have never seen someone so hounded usinsg something so personal, and it's from someone on the SAME SIDE.
I think this is something that is so horrible and so abusive that no other poster of goodwill should tolerate it. I have seen too many others defend him, or look the other way, and as I see it, by their encouragement or silence, they are approving of this horrible behavior.
I have seen others suggest that we're all on our own and we're here to save the babies, and we should each post as we please, that we've got the "ignore" button, etc., and that this is an "emotional issue" and expect there to be "passion" etc., but none of this flies with me. It all seems like excuses.
And often the same people get their licks in too, but in very subtle ways. And I have seen the "slyness" you are referreing to, have experienced it, and sometimes think it's on the same level or worse.
Personal attacking seems to be a sport here.
Can't Christians and prolifers show a little restraint? Especially in dealing with their own?

reply from: yoda

How about "Killer Tiller"? Is that name all right with you, or not? And why?

reply from: Faramir

What does that have to do with her? Are you comparing the two? Are you justifying calling Carole a "killer"?

reply from: yoda

Just answer the question, yes or no.
You do remember how to use those words, don't you?

reply from: Faramir

Make a thread about it.
This one is about Carole being attacked regularly.
Are you ok with it or not?

reply from: yoda

I'm neither okay with it nor am I determined to attack those who do it. I have my own way of expressing my feelings about things, and I respect that others have their way. You should try that.
BTW, this whole thread is a waste of forum space, since the moderator seems to pay no attention to your personal likes and dislikes.
Now, do you object to the name "Killer Tiller", or not? YES OR NO??

reply from: Faramir

I'm neither okay with it nor am I determined to attack those who do it. I have my own way of expressing my feelings about things, and I respect that others have their way. You should try that.
BTW, this whole thread is a waste of forum space, since the moderator seems to pay no attention to your personal likes and dislikes.
Now, do you object to the name "Killer Tiller", or not? YES OR NO??
I don't know what "Killer Tiller" has to do with this topic. It seems like you're changing the subject. I don't know anything about Tiller except what I've seen on posts here, and I can see why he would get a name like that, and I would not criticize anyone for using such a name.
But regarding calling a Christian prolifer on this forum a "killer"--that is very abusive, wrong, immoral, unjust, creepy, and a whole host of other adjectives that might come to me later. It's not the type of thing that is proper to overlook, imho.

reply from: Faramir

Example of a more "subtle" kind of attack. A prolifer being accused of being a prochoicer:
Many people who identify themselves as prochoice say exactly the same thing. They say that abortion is one choice, but there are others that are better.
Just recognizing abortion as a one of the "choices" places you in the realm of "prochoice".

reply from: yoda

FINALLY, an answer....
NOW then, would you object to, or criticize anyone who called the customers of Killer Tiller "killers" also?

reply from: ProInformed

I did not participate in the poll because none of the answers really matched my POV.
I had an abortion in my past, and so have all of my sisters and my mother.
Part of the reason we did so was because of misplaced trust and ignorance... part of the reason was because of involvement in a lifestyle that was wrong... part of the reason was fear... and part of the reason was being pressured to abort.
I have since learned about the lies told by the abortion industry, have changed my lifestyle drastically, and have gained much courage.
I have at times been called a hypocrite for becoming pro-life. But my being 'pro-choice' and having an abortion was largely based on ignorance and misplaced trust. Once I learned the truth about abortion and fetal development, the lifestyle, fears, people and pressures that influnced my decision to abort lost their ability to influence me.
I SHOULD have refused to abort even though I believed the lies that my baby was microscopic. I SHOULD have spoke up against the pressures to abort when I truly did not want to. I SHOULD NOT have become involved physically and emotionally with a male who cared so little for me and my baby...
ALL that it would have taken to save my baby's life would have been being given the facts. I would have put up with whatever consequences would be inflicted against me for refusing to cave to the pressure to abort IF I knew the truth. I wanted some 'valid' excuse to not go through with it. If I had been able to see my baby in a sonogram I would bnot have had the abortion. If I had been todl the truth about fetal development I would never have let them kill my baby. If abortion were illegal I would have refused to do it. If I was told the truth about possible problems with future pregnancies I would have refused to do it.
But I was lied to and given false assurances. I submitted. For that I AM ashamed. I DO blame myself for the role I played in my baby's death. But I am also aware of the considerable amount of deception and pressure it took to get me to go through with it.
I do understand how somebody might want to call women who have had abortions 'murderers' or 'killers'. It IS killing (but technically not currently legally 'murder') - an innocent baby has been killed.
But to do so is IMHO both dishonest and cruel when it fails to acknowledge the amount of deception and pressure employed to get most women to abort.
Yes, there are some women who would still abort anyway even if they knew the truth and were not being pressured to abort; females are capable of sociopathy - not just males.
One of the reasons pro-aborts REMAIN enslaved to the pro-abort mentlaity is the fear of facing the truth about what they've done. Regardless if how hesitant they were to become involved in an abortion, once the abortion is over they typically become VERY devoted to 'abortion rights' and/or the lifestyle that depends on abortion. IMHO this is because of fear, even if they aren't aware they are afraid. Of course it comes off as crass coldheartedness - sociopathy even. I admit that once I had the abortion I pretended that I had wanted it. I changed. IMHO MOST pro-aborts are motivated by complicity; their own responsibility in the death of a baby by abortion causes them to throw themselves into defending abortion as a way of defending themselves against facing the horrible truth.
FORMER pro-aborts, women who HAD abortions in their past but are now pro-life, and FORMER abortionists IMHO exhibit a lot of courage for speaking up in spite of the ridicule they are subjected to from pro-aborts (and unfortunately even from some pro-lifers).
Now, having said all that... I am not pro-censorship.
The posters who believe women who have had abortions before becoming pro-life are (still?) killers will continue to think that way even if they aren't allowed to post that. If the posting rules ban personal attacks and the targets of the hostility want to report them and have that stopped I'm OK with that too.
I am curious as to why such name-calling is being done. I remember hearing that post-aborted women was the fastest growing sector of the pro-life movement (but I don't know if that is still true - there seems to be a LOT of pro-life teens and college kids now!) so I wonder what purpose it would serve to bash a bunch of women who are new or potential pro-lifers?

reply from: Faramir

FINALLY, an answer....
NOW then, would you object to, or criticize anyone who called the customers of Killer Tiller "killers" also?
Are you tring to make some logical case that it's acceptable to abuse a poster here by continually calling her a "killer"?

reply from: Faramir

Thank you for sharing your story.
I do not understand the cruelty from some prolifers. i had never seen anything like it before I came to this board. And I don't understand those who remain silent about the cruelty, or those who pat such cruel people on the back for doing such a great job.
A "killer" is somone who kills. If your abortion is in your past and you no longer advocate it and refuse to do it again, you are not a killer. I would have been hard pressed to call you that in the past as well, since you acted in ingnorace and under pressure.
Since this is an open board and since these abusive attacks are allowed, it only stands to reason that complaints about the abuse would be allowed too.
My thread is just a friendly reminder of some of the types of people we prolifers are thown in with. Some of them it appears are using the noble cause of saving babies as an excuse to bully others, which is shameful, and it exploits the babies they claim to care about.
This is really not such an irrelevant topic as some would like to make it out to be. The postabortive woman is often a victim and is often the best witness against abortion. Are we really helping the babies by beating them up, or by justifying it?
This thread is about a bigger subject than just one member of this board.

reply from: speck

A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble. ~Gandhi

reply from: sander

Facing the truth is the hardest thing, but in doing so, it sets us free.
I admire and appreciate the once proabort advocate who sees the horrible truth of abortion. They should be welcomed into the prolife cause with open arms.
Those who have seen their error and realize they have killed another human being need our support. Operative words.."error", "realize".
The only problem I have is with those who would fight against legislation that would give the child personhood status. And I don't care if they've always been prolife and never have had an abortion, to me, that's irrelevant to the issue of personhood.

reply from: Faramir

Facing the truth is the hardest thing, but in doing so, it sets us free.
I admire and appreciate the once proabort advocate who sees the horrible truth of abortion. They should be welcomed into the prolife cause with open arms.
Those who have seen their error and realize they have killed another human being need our support. Operative words.."error", "realize".
The only problem I have is with those who would fight against legislation that would give the child personhood status. And I don't care if they've always been prolife and never have had an abortion, to me, that's irrelevant to the issue of personhood.
I agree with what sander said for the most part, except that in the case in question, the disagreement involving personhood and punishment does not give anyone the right to use their personal past against them.

reply from: faithman

Facing the truth is the hardest thing, but in doing so, it sets us free.
I admire and appreciate the once proabort advocate who sees the horrible truth of abortion. They should be welcomed into the prolife cause with open arms.
Those who have seen their error and realize they have killed another human being need our support. Operative words.."error", "realize".
The only problem I have is with those who would fight against legislation that would give the child personhood status. And I don't care if they've always been prolife and never have had an abortion, to me, that's irrelevant to the issue of personhood.
I agree with what sander said for the most part, except that in the case in question, the disagreement involving personhood and punishment does not give anyone the right to use their personal past against them.
Personal pasts became public info when killer carole posted it. The killer could have kept ones trap shut. Also the killer has point blank said that it would fight equality thru personhood if it meant future serial womb child killers met equal justice with born child serial killers. If you feel compelled to "defend" the serial killer of womb children, instead of the womb children themselves, by all means you are free to do so. My compuction is to defend the womb children from killers like Carole, and make sure that future killers are put up where they can't kill anymore. The courts use people's personal past against them all the time. When one braggs about killing three, that is not someone I want to listen to about saving womb children from killers. Particularly when they have openly voiced their intent to fight personhood in favor of future fellow baby killers.

reply from: nancyu

Facing the truth is the hardest thing, but in doing so, it sets us free.
I admire and appreciate the once proabort advocate who sees the horrible truth of abortion. They should be welcomed into the prolife cause with open arms.
Those who have seen their error and realize they have killed another human being need our support. Operative words.."error", "realize".
The only problem I have is with those who would fight against legislation that would give the child personhood status. And I don't care if they've always been prolife and never have had an abortion, to me, that's irrelevant to the issue of personhood.
I agree with what sander said for the most part, except that in the case in question, the disagreement involving personhood and punishment does not give anyone the right to use their personal past against them.
Personal pasts became public info when killer carole posted it. The killer could have kept ones trap shut. Also the killer has point blank said that it would fight equality thru personhood if it meant future serial womb child killers met equal justice with born child serial killers. If you feel compelled to "defend" the serial killer of womb children, instead of the womb children themselves, by all means you are free to do so. My compuction is to defend the womb children from killers like Carole, and make sure that future killers are put up where they can't kill anymore. The courts use people's personal past against them all the time. When one braggs about killing three, that is not someone I want to listen to about saving womb children from killers. Particularly when they have openly voiced their intent to fight personhood in favor of future fellow baby killers.
There you go Faramir. This answer works for me too, and you are a horrible horrible person to be sticking up for someone who would fight against personhood for unborn children, just for the sake of avoiding possible punishment for the mother. You blame it all on the abortionist who would have no job if the mother didn't walk into that abortion clinic. How do you know that abortionist isn't a woman who hasn't been victimized by the same misinformation that everyone else has? hmmm?
Shame on you!

reply from: nancyu

And why did you start another attack CM thread anyways???

reply from: sander

Yikes, faramir agreed with something I said! Wait...I've got to go re-check my pro-life stance.
Fighting against personhood...couple that with wanting exceptions for rape, incest and bc...well, what the heck kind of prolife stance is that????

reply from: 4given

I must have missed something.. I will look for it.. personhood.. exceptions, what?.. There is no such thing as truly pro-life person that has an "exception" imo.. and God knows I hear so much of that.. Pro-abort ploy.. Again, I guess I missed it. But I trust you, so I will search again..

reply from: Faramir

I have not see her or any prolifers on this site make exceptions for rape or incest. If she or any prolifer does, that's inconsistent, and not fully prolife, and that is certainly a good reason for dispute.
But this issue is that there is no excuse for calling somene a "killer" based on past errors, and as of this post only one out of nine have said that calling her a killer is acceptable.

reply from: 4given

Okay folks- I will again address this point. Is calling other pro-lifers names counterproductive? Quite possibly. I am thankful for any and every effort dedicated to the saving of human lives, even if I do not agree. I am thankful. We are a diverse group of people and I appreciate that others can reach the mothers and relate to them, where I can not. All agree, I am sure. I may not agree with some views, but respect that another pro-lifer has different methods and ideas. The baby is the bottom line. I will call an injustice when I have seen one, but to carry on.. I try not to. So others tell me: Are you ok with the various threads that are monopolizing time and energy on feelings, as opposed to abortion related feelings?

reply from: nancyu

I have not see her or any prolifers on this site make exceptions for rape or incest. If she or any prolifer does, that's inconsistent, and not fully prolife, and that is certainly a good reason for dispute.
But this issue is that there is no excuse for calling somene a "killer" based on past errors, and as of this post only one out of nine have said that calling her a killer is acceptable.
You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?
Are you dense or something???? I keep saying that unborn babies are people, are you hard of reading??
And I am perfectly fine with my past. I regret those decisions. I have repented and God has forgiven me and healed me without scars. I am perfectly fine and blessed and happy. I have a great adopted son and life is pretty great. I fully understand exactly what I did, which is why I try to help other women make better choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth. I have never said abortion was okay.
Are you dense? What would you answer be?
to THIS question:
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?
Of course I would say that! As I have said 1 billion times to you in this thread....it doesn't follow we need to jail the moms or to ban birth control! What about the life of the mother and rape and incest? These things are deal breakers in our country and you are going to have to address them or your bill will die. I stand by the statement your bill has flaws and without addressing them it will never pass. I wouldn't support it the way it is now.
Now you are entitled to think otherwise, and work hard to promote it...but don't tell other prolifers that we are not prolife if we don't agree with you.

reply from: carolemarie

One that will get a bill passed to ban abortion!
Without those exceptions we can't get bills passed. If you have been paying attention to the debate in this nation you would know that.
Henry Hyde introduced the life begins at conception every time Congress opened for I don't know how long. It is shot down everytime. Duncan Hunter has introduced that legislation and it is shot down. Georgia introduced that legislation and it was shot down.
S. Dakota passed a ban and the voters rejected it over the lask of exceptions for rape and incest
And wanting a ban on BC is really way out there.
I advocate actually winning and passing legislation that will end most abortion deaths. I would think that would override your personal ldesire for no exceptions.
If it is really about the babies, then you would agree and fight for something we can pass and end the killing!
As for calling me names, all I can say if you can't tell the difference between someone who is prolife, but disagrees with you on some points, or someone who is for abortion, then you need to reexamine what you actually think. I have spent years and years trying to help women chose life and helping provide the resourses for them to do just that, it is outragous that you would have the nerve to call me prochoice. I find your abuse rather puzzling and strange.
And I venture to mention that not all prolifers agree with you. You are not the plumb line for what is and what is not going to work.
Abortion kills children and destroys womens lives! I absolutely oppose it in all forms.
Now can we move on to something else???

reply from: sander

The babies, the babies, the babies!
That should be the first and last consideration, always.
However, I do feel advocating for personhood status for the babies fits the criteria of the prolife/proabort debate.

reply from: sander

One that will get a bill passed to ban abortion!
Without those exceptions we can't get bills passed. If you have been paying attention to the debate in this nation you would know that.
Henry Hyde introduced the life begins at conception every time Congress opened for I don't know how long. It is shot down everytime. Duncan Hunter has introduced that legislation and it is shot down. Georgia introduced that legislation and it was shot down.
S. Dakota passed a ban and the voters rejected it over the lask of exceptions for rape and incest
And wanting a ban on BC is really way out there.
I advocate actually winning and passing legislation that will end most abortion deaths. I would think that would override your personal ldesire for no exceptions.
If it is really about the babies, then you would agree and fight for something we can pass and end the killing!
As for calling me names, all I can say if you can't tell the difference between someone who is prolife, but disagrees with you on some points, or someone who is for abortion, then you need to reexamine what you actually think. I have spent years and years trying to help women chose life and helping provide the resourses for them to do just that, it is outragous that you would have the nerve to call me prochoice. I find your abuse rather puzzling and strange.
And I venture to mention that not all prolifers agree with you. You are not the plumb line for what is and what is not going to work.
Abortion kills children and destroys womens lives! I absolutely oppose it in all forms.
Now can we move on to something else???
First of all, I never have called you a name. I've disagreed with some of your views, is that not permitted either?
And having exceptions is not a prolife stance. I can't help it if that bothers your sensibilities.
I am uncompromisingly pro-life, no apologies, and I can handle others disagreeing with me on that stand.
It's that squishy middle that keeps marching babies into the killing fields, if you're fine with that, then sobeit.

reply from: Faramir

If we could have legislation today that would outlaw abortion, but make exceptions for rape and incest or legislation ten years from now that would outlaw abortion, but make no exceptions, would you take the compromise and save a lot of babies, or wait until you get exactly what you want?
If it's going to take a law that makes exceptions to get the ball rolling, it's not ideal, but it's a step in the right direction.
Besides, it wouldn't have to stop there. The push could then be made to remove the exception clauses.

reply from: nancyu

One that will get a bill passed to ban abortion!
Without those exceptions we can't get bills passed. If you have been paying attention to the debate in this nation you would know that.
Henry Hyde introduced the life begins at conception every time Congress opened for I don't know how long. It is shot down everytime. Duncan Hunter has introduced that legislation and it is shot down. Georgia introduced that legislation and it was shot down.
S. Dakota passed a ban and the voters rejected it over the lask of exceptions for rape and incest
And wanting a ban on BC is really way out there.
I advocate actually winning and passing legislation that will end most abortion deaths. I would think that would override your personal ldesire for no exceptions.
If it is really about the babies, then you would agree and fight for something we can pass and end the killing!
As for calling me names, all I can say if you can't tell the difference between someone who is prolife, but disagrees with you on some points, or someone who is for abortion, then you need to reexamine what you actually think. I have spent years and years trying to help women chose life and helping provide the resourses for them to do just that, it is outragous that you would have the nerve to call me prochoice. I find your abuse rather puzzling and strange.
And I venture to mention that not all prolifers agree with you. You are not the plumb line for what is and what is not going to work.
Abortion kills children and destroys womens lives! I absolutely oppose it in all forms.
Now can we move on to something else???
Of course we all want an abortion ban, ASAP, but we can never, never stop fighting for full personhood for ALL unborn children. A child conceived from rape, is every bit as much a person as one who is born to two loving married parents.
The reason I think of you more as pro choice is because you are still only considering the lives of those children whose mother "chooses" to let live. What about the ones who aren't "chosen" who are left to die? I'm afraid for these who are going to be left out of this abortion ban. Those who are still going to be killed by abortifacient birth control, with no penalty for the mother who kills her child in this way.
We are pro life, how can you expect us to stop arguing and fighting for this that we believe. Unborn children are persons in every sense of the word, with no exceptions.

reply from: nancyu

If we could have legislation today that would outlaw abortion, but make exceptions for rape and incest or legislation ten years from now that would outlaw abortion, but make no exceptions, would you take the compromise and save a lot of babies, or wait until you get exactly what you want?
If it's going to take a law that makes exceptions to get the ball rolling, it's not ideal, but it's a step in the right direction.
Besides, it wouldn't have to stop there. The push could then be made to remove the exception clauses.
I would vote yes, on any abortion ban. But I won't stop fighting until full personhood is established. No exceptions.

reply from: faithman

Personal pasts became public info when killer carole posted it. The killer could have kept ones trap shut. Also the killer has point blank said that it would fight equality thru personhood if it meant future serial womb child killers met equal justice with born child serial killers. If you feel compelled to "defend" the serial killer of womb children, instead of the womb children themselves, by all means you are free to do so. My compuction is to defend the womb children from killers like Carole, and make sure that future killers are put up where they can't kill anymore. The courts use people's personal past against them all the time. When one braggs about killing three, that is not someone I want to listen to about saving womb children from killers. Particularly when they have openly voiced their intent to fight personhood in favor of future fellow baby killers.

reply from: 4given

The babies, the babies, the babies!
That should be the first and last consideration, always.
However, I do feel advocating for personhood status for the babies fits the criteria of the prolife/proabort debate.
Right.. and I agree. However, this thread isn't about personhood.. It is about "treatment" and "feelings". So these feelings are abortion related. I can see the problem with me here.. Was this thread intended to help with the personhood/abortion-related feelings, or here to talk about other posters?

reply from: Faramir

If we could have legislation today that would outlaw abortion, but make exceptions for rape and incest or legislation ten years from now that would outlaw abortion, but make no exceptions, would you take the compromise and save a lot of babies, or wait until you get exactly what you want?
If it's going to take a law that makes exceptions to get the ball rolling, it's not ideal, but it's a step in the right direction.
Besides, it wouldn't have to stop there. The push could then be made to remove the exception clauses.
I would vote yes, on any abortion ban. But I won't stop fighting until full personhood is established. No exceptions.
I agree.
IF we have to make exceptions in the begining, it's certainly a lot better than nothing, and at least we have a position of strength to work from to make the case about the exceptions.
From what I can see, that's what carolemarie is saying too.

reply from: isaiahmom5242007

please cant we all just get along. I mean that is mean and hatful to call any one names. I mean we are being just like the pro choicers when we say mean and hateful things to each other. I say this the personhood debate is on going which if your pro life shouldnt be a question. Person hood is give from God not man. I have a probelm when people say that we should any fight for the reconiznion of personhood only if the mother is not punished. I do feel that we should condem those who have abortion , but they have to be held accountable. I am not sayng what should or should not be the punishment, because I dont know honestly. I will say this you cant fight for the unborn and put a price on there head , I mean to say that we should give them personhood only if the mother isnt punished , defeats the purpose. You then assign a value to there worth either they are a human being that deserves all the rights given by God. We cant contuine to make excuses all teh time for people that make bad decsions. should we help them yes should be there for them yes should we show them love yes and Christ yes But we cant do all the work for them they have to inform themselves they have to seek out what is true and real. That doent mean we dont help them , I feel that in our hearts we all know abortion is wrong and goes against God. I mean it it some things that you just know. We have to educate people and show then the truth. I hope we all can just foucs on saving babies and stop trying to cut each other down,. God Bless

reply from: yoda

Thank you for a very thoughtful and compassionate post. I'm curious to know something about the sentence I quoted: Do you think it makes a difference as to how many abortions a woman has had, regarding whether or not deception and pressure were the cause of those abortions?

reply from: yoda

Once again, no answer from the King of Question Dodgers.....

reply from: yoda

I think it's called "prochoice with exceptions".

reply from: yoda

That's the bottom line, really. Issues like name-calling can be dealt with by the use of the ignore button, but starting many threads and posting many combative, confrontational posts about name-calling can only divert attention away from our struggle to stop the killing of babies.
Personally, I suspect that is the motivation here, not protecting anyone.

reply from: yoda

But at least they DID try........ they didn't just throw up their hands and surrender "a few babies".

reply from: yoda

By golly, I think you're on to something there!

reply from: yoda

Unfortunately we have certain posters who refuse to either ignore posters they don't like, or put them "on ignore", and who would rather keep the forum in constant turmoil by keeping a constant drumbeat of personal conflict going between various members here. No, they're not really here to fight for the babies, they're here to disrupt the forum any way they can. And this thread is a perfect example of that.

reply from: Faramir

That's the bottom line, really. Issues like name-calling can be dealt with by the use of the ignore button, but starting many threads and posting many combative, confrontational posts about name-calling can only divert attention away from our struggle to stop the killing of babies.
Personally, I suspect that is the motivation here, not protecting anyone.
There are around 20 threads on this page, and around 20 more on the next. You know what's here now, but you've been back to visit several times.
There are threads that I think are a waste of time and that have nothing to do with abortion.
I ignore them. And I'm not so paranoid to suspect that they are a sneaky attempt to "divert attention away from our struggle to stop the killing of babies."

reply from: cracrat

And yet you've just posted 7 responses in 15 minutes on this disruptive thread. Go figure.

reply from: Faramir

And yet you've just posted 7 responses in 15 minutes on this disruptive thread. Go figure.
I wonder if it ever occurred to him that the peronal attacks are extremely disruptive and counterproductive to saving babies.
But without personal attacks, what fun would this place be for him?

reply from: isaiahmom5242007

actucally you cant have any exceptions in bills that relate to abortion and I know first hand that many right to life groups would not have any exception including rape and incest. I think when you have exception you are still putting a price on human life and saying that there value is disposble. I beleive that we can find a way to get bills past without compromising the babies. God Bless

reply from: faithman

Personal pasts became public info when killer carole posted it. The killer could have kept ones trap shut. Also the killer has point blank said that it would fight equality thru personhood if it meant future serial womb child killers met equal justice with born child serial killers. If you feel compelled to "defend" the serial killer of womb children, instead of the womb children themselves, by all means you are free to do so. My compuction is to defend the womb children from killers like Carole, and make sure that future killers are put up where they can't kill anymore. The courts use people's personal past against them all the time. When one braggs about killing three, that is not someone I want to listen to about saving womb children from killers. Particularly when they have openly voiced their intent to fight personhood in favor of future fellow baby killers.

reply from: Faramir

It's very bad logic to have exceptions rape and incest.
But if that's the legislation that first gets proposed, why not support it?

reply from: sander

I think it's called "prochoice with exceptions".
Yep, and it's also called appeasment.
We're not called to compromise or appease, we're called to stand up for the babies, be their voice and fight for what is rightfully theirs; personhood.

reply from: nancyu

Thank you for your common sense arguments. They are a breath of fresh air.

reply from: sander

Well put.
If we, the pro-life community, as a WHOLE don't start with that premise, but rather, start out with the "exceptions", we have indeed put our seal of approval on the idea that some lives are worthier than others.
Some have caved in and have given over ground. This is a war, you don't give ground without an all out fight.

reply from: carolemarie

Well put.
If we, the pro-life community, as a WHOLE don't start with that premise, but rather, start out with the "exceptions", we have indeed put our seal of approval on the idea that some lives are worthier than others.
Some have caved in and have given over ground. This is a war, you don't give ground without an all out fight.
Then nothing passes and babies die. That is crazy. Pass what you can and work on the rest after you have at least that. 90% of all abortions would stop. That is a good thing.

reply from: carolemarie

But at least they DID try........ they didn't just throw up their hands and surrender "a few babies".
And all babies continue to die there.
They are going back with the exceptions and now the legislation will probably pass.

reply from: nancyu

The sad thing is would be pro choice legislation, not pro life legislation. Victims of rape and incest are still "persons" Some birth control can still kill "persons" Even an early term baby is still a baby. Babies will still continue to die. And their murderers will still go free.
Fewer is good, but it ain't good enough.

reply from: Faramir

Prochoice legislation?
I'm sure Planned Parenthood will be behind it, then.

reply from: nancyu

To hear many tell it, it seems we need the support of Planned Parenthood to pass legislation. Why stop at offering exception for rape and incest? Why not offer exceptions that are already there. How about abortion is illegal unless the mother doesn't want her child for any reason.
If we can't convince anyone that ALL unborn children are persons. We can't convince them of anything.

reply from: faithman

Personal pasts became public info when killer carole posted it. The killer could have kept ones trap shut. Also the killer has point blank said that it would fight equality thru personhood if it meant future serial womb child killers met equal justice with born child serial killers. If you feel compelled to "defend" the serial killer of womb children, instead of the womb children themselves, by all means you are free to do so. My compuction is to defend the womb children from killers like Carole, and make sure that future killers are put up where they can't kill anymore. The courts use people's personal past against them all the time. When one braggs about killing three, that is not someone I want to listen to about saving womb children from killers. Particularly when they have openly voiced their intent to fight personhood in favor of future fellow baby killers.

reply from: Faramir

Apparently that legislation was defeated.
If it looks like it can be passed with the exceptions, thereby making over 90% of abortions illegal, should we save those babies, or let them die until we get the bill you want?

reply from: faithman

It is about the personhood of the womb child. Once established, all this craziness goes away. So pro-personhood folks just need to ingnore prochoice/prolife and keep the focus on personhood for the womb child. Anything else is a distraction, and ultimatly deadly to our preborn brothers and sisters. They are who we fight for, and there is where our loyalty belongs, not to a "movement" that has sold them out, and cares more about looking good, than saving BABIES lives. This is 1st last and always about the child in the womb. This is not about all the neo-prolifers that have personal aggendas, who have even point blank said on this forum that they would fight presonhood tooth and nail just to keep future killers out of Jail. Pro-personhood folks need to quit being bogged down in emotionalism, and realize the guilty should be prosicuted. That no new laws will have to be legislated when personhood for the womb child is established. The ones already there will work just fine, and a jury of 12 citizens have the final say. Pro-personhood people need to elect state legislators that will establish personhood at the state level, then let them graduate to the federal level to get the job done there as well. WE THE PEOPLE need to speak loud and often. It is time we quit asking, and demand action on behalf of children in the womb. Or we can continue to play stupid little semantical games and watch the children die another 3 plus decades.

reply from: carolemarie

Prochoice legislation?
I'm sure Planned Parenthood will be behind it, then.
Nobody is saying they are not people. What we are saying is that if you don't put the exceptions in , no abortions are stopped.
Right now, 4,000 babies die every day. That is horrible and tragic and must be stopped.
Legislation that bans abortion, but allows for rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions will stop over 90% of all abortions.
It is crazy to say, let the killing continue till we get the perfect bill.
Pro-choice legislation is already in effect---it's called Roe v Wade...

reply from: Faramir

Prochoice legislation?
I'm sure Planned Parenthood will be behind it, then.
Nobody is saying they are not people. What we are saying is that if you don't put the exceptions in , no abortions are stopped.
Right now, 4,000 babies die every day. That is horrible and tragic and must be stopped.
Legislation that bans abortion, but allows for rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions will stop over 90% of all abortions.
It is crazy to say, let the killing continue till we get the perfect bill.
Pro-choice legislation is already in effect---it's called Roe v Wade...
I know what you're saying.
It's ridiculous it could be called "prochoice legislation."

reply from: yoda

Carole, the legislation in South Dakota was never meant to "save babies", because they knew it would be struck down by the Supreme Court. It was meant to make a statement, that's all.
So they tried to make the best statement they could, and came up a little short. But they did not agree to the "exceptions" you mention until they had at least tried. They did not try to look into the tea leaves or the crystal ball and say "Oh we mustn't try to save ALL the babies, or we will fail". The tried first, and then when they failed they settled for a much less satisfactory compromise.
And the babies WILL CONTINUE to die there, as long as the Supreme Court protects baby killing....... didn't you know that?

reply from: Faramir

Carole, the legislation in South Dakota was never meant to "save babies", because they knew it would be struck down by the Supreme Court. It was meant to make a statement, that's all.
So they tried to make the best statement they could, and came up a little short. But they did not agree to the "exceptions" you mention until they had at least tried. They did not try to look into the tea leaves or the crystal ball and say "Oh we mustn't try to save ALL the babies, or we will fail". The tried first, and then when they failed they settled for a much less satisfactory compromise.
And the babies WILL CONTINUE to die there, as long as the Supreme Court protects baby killing....... didn't you know that?
I realize yoda is hiding behind is iggy button and can't see my response, so I would like to make a general comment.
Carolemarie has already acknowledged that the legislation with no exceptions was introduced and defeated. She never said or implied such legislation was wrong.
She was just accpeting the fact that a compromise step is now necessary.
I am not speaking for carolemarie, but am pointing out yodaveter's deceptive and sly practices. He's twisting words so he can have an excuse to browbeat someone.
If you are not yodavater politically correct, you will be subjected to this treatment or will be iggified.
It's sad that there are so many prolifers on this site who are such bad examples and make prolifers look like morons and mean and intolerant people. Not that I don't appreciate the nice, thoughtful ones, but they are overshadowed.
I don't see why yodavater so often stoops to such dishonest tactics. He's already on the right side of the issue. Why is he so bent on going after prolifers, and why does he use distortion and trickery?

reply from: sander

Carole, the legislation in South Dakota was never meant to "save babies", because they knew it would be struck down by the Supreme Court. It was meant to make a statement, that's all.
So they tried to make the best statement they could, and came up a little short. But they did not agree to the "exceptions" you mention until they had at least tried. They did not try to look into the tea leaves or the crystal ball and say "Oh we mustn't try to save ALL the babies, or we will fail". The tried first, and then when they failed they settled for a much less satisfactory compromise.
And the babies WILL CONTINUE to die there, as long as the Supreme Court protects baby killing....... didn't you know that?
I don't know what on earth is so hard to understand about this issue.
The pro-choice people with exceptions. want us to start from a position of defeat right off the bat.
How long did it take to give slaves their rightful position of full personhood?
Was anyone saying this should happen with exceptions?
The movement to overturn slavery never once caved into any demands, but fought to the death to give these precious human beings their God given right of full personhood.
We're so busy worrying about what WON'T pass, we've missed many oportunities to take a full pro-life stand.

reply from: Faramir

Carole, the legislation in South Dakota was never meant to "save babies", because they knew it would be struck down by the Supreme Court. It was meant to make a statement, that's all.
So they tried to make the best statement they could, and came up a little short. But they did not agree to the "exceptions" you mention until they had at least tried. They did not try to look into the tea leaves or the crystal ball and say "Oh we mustn't try to save ALL the babies, or we will fail". The tried first, and then when they failed they settled for a much less satisfactory compromise.
And the babies WILL CONTINUE to die there, as long as the Supreme Court protects baby killing....... didn't you know that?
I don't know what on earth is so hard to understand about this issue.
The pro-choice people with exceptions. want us to start from a position of defeat right off the bat.
How long did it take to give slaves their rightful position of full personhood?
Was anyone saying this should happen with exceptions?
The movement to overturn slavery never once caved into any demands, but fought to the death to give these precious human beings their God given right of full personhood.
We're so busy worrying about what WON'T pass, we've missed many oportunities to take a full pro-life stand.
You're responding to the yodavater distorted version.
I think the point has been made that we all want personhood for every reason, but that if a compromise needs to be made, once the best is striven for, there is nothing wrong with making 90% of abortions illegal, and THEN going after the rest.

reply from: nancyu

Carole, the legislation in South Dakota was never meant to "save babies", because they knew it would be struck down by the Supreme Court. It was meant to make a statement, that's all.
So they tried to make the best statement they could, and came up a little short. But they did not agree to the "exceptions" you mention until they had at least tried. They did not try to look into the tea leaves or the crystal ball and say "Oh we mustn't try to save ALL the babies, or we will fail". The tried first, and then when they failed they settled for a much less satisfactory compromise.
And the babies WILL CONTINUE to die there, as long as the Supreme Court protects baby killing....... didn't you know that?
I don't know what on earth is so hard to understand about this issue.
The pro-choice people with exceptions. want us to start from a position of defeat right off the bat.
How long did it take to give slaves their rightful position of full personhood?
Was anyone saying this should happen with exceptions?
The movement to overturn slavery never once caved into any demands, but fought to the death to give these precious human beings their God given right of full personhood.
We're so busy worrying about what WON'T pass, we've missed many oportunities to take a full pro-life stand.
Exactly right. We already have legislation with exceptions. You cannot abort your child unless you want to, or someone else forces you to.
If anyone wants to remove some abortion rights DO IT. Do you see any pro lifer standing in the way of doing that?? We certainly won't fight it "tooth and nail" like some pro lifers (CM) have said they would do to personhood.
But nothing is going to stop us from fighting for personhood in every sense of the word for each and every unborn child. No exceptions.
(oops edited)

reply from: sander

Therein lies the difference between true prolifers and prochoicers with exceptions.
We won't fight whatever protections can be gained for the babies, but prochoicers with exceptions will. Nice, huh. *sigh*

reply from: nancyu

I think Faramir said something about turning the tables on us. How did that work out for you Faramir?

reply from: Faramir

Have you not obeyed yoda's order to put me on ignore?
I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I wasn't suggesting turning the tables on prolifers, just turning the tables and asking what if you have that opportunity--right now. What if you could sign a bill that makes abortion illegal, except for rape and incest.
Will you sign it and save babies NOW, or let a whole bunch of them die unless and until you have things your way?

reply from: nancyu

My way???? What is that supposed to mean??

reply from: Faramir

Would you try to block a compromise?
Would you let the babies who could be saved by a compromise die until more perfect legislation is passed?

reply from: nancyu

Have you not obeyed yoda's order to put me on ignore?
I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I wasn't suggesting turning the tables on prolifers, just turning the tables and asking what if you have that opportunity--right now. What if you could sign a bill that makes abortion illegal, except for rape and incest.
Will you sign it and save babies NOW, or let a whole bunch of them die unless and until you have things your way?
No I haven't denied you "personhood" yet, but I do have my list started.
I've already told you I would like to see exactly how the bill would be worded. If it prevents future efforts toward personhood, I could not sign it. Otherwise, hand it over, where do I sign?
And what do you mean by this: "until you have things your way?" What on earth is that supposed to mean?? Do you not support legal "personhood" for the unborn?

reply from: Faramir

"Your way" meant that I was wondering if you were so intent on "all or nothing," if you would sacrifice the good that could be achieved right now, if there were a viable compromise.
I have not seen a prolifer here yet who does not think abortion is wrong in the cases of rape and incest. But if that's what we have to start with, then there's nothing wroing with taking it and saving most of them, while working on making the necessary corrections.

reply from: nancyu

Answer the question!
Is an unborn child a person? In every sense of the word?
I've answered your question Faramir. Now answer mine.

reply from: carolemarie

Carole, the legislation in South Dakota was never meant to "save babies", because they knew it would be struck down by the Supreme Court. It was meant to make a statement, that's all.
So they tried to make the best statement they could, and came up a little short. But they did not agree to the "exceptions" you mention until they had at least tried. They did not try to look into the tea leaves or the crystal ball and say "Oh we mustn't try to save ALL the babies, or we will fail". The tried first, and then when they failed they settled for a much less satisfactory compromise.
And the babies WILL CONTINUE to die there, as long as the Supreme Court protects baby killing....... didn't you know that?
No it was not meant to just make a statement. It was meant to ban abortion in S. Dakota. And it never called for banning birth control and jailing moms.
The reason the rape and other exceptions were added was because on the exit polls the voters said they would have voted for it if those items were in. They put in what it takes to pass the bill. Which ought to be a lesson for those who were watching...you can't do it without those exceptions.
Any bill that bans abortion will meet up with the court system.

reply from: Faramir

Yes, I believe an uborn child is a person.
Not part of a person and not an incomplete person, but a person.

reply from: carolemarie

Therein lies the difference between true prolifers and prochoicers with exceptions.
We won't fight whatever protections can be gained for the babies, but prochoicers with exceptions will. Nice, huh. *sigh*
Here is a perfect example of you calling names. So now I am a prochoicer with exceptions? Or not a true prolifer...because I don't agree with bills that have no chance of passing.
You can't seriously think America is going to ban birth control or jail women or not insist on an exception for rape, incest and the life of the mother. If you believe that our country is ready to embrace a bill like that, you are living in serious denial.
I know this country isn't ready for anything like this, so it would be a total waste of time to pursue it.

reply from: sander

Therein lies the difference between true prolifers and prochoicers with exceptions.
We won't fight whatever protections can be gained for the babies, but prochoicers with exceptions will. Nice, huh. *sigh*
Here is a perfect example of you calling names. So now I am a prochoicer with exceptions? Or not a true prolifer...because I don't agree with bills that have no chance of passing.
You can't seriously think America is going to ban birth control or jail women or not insist on an exception for rape, incest and the life of the mother. If you believe that our country is ready to embrace a bill like that, you are living in serious denial.
I know this country isn't ready for anything like this, so it would be a total waste of time to pursue it.
Did you see YOUR name in my post? I was referring to anyone who, is pro-lilfe with the exceptions of rape and incest (which makes them acutally, pro-chioce with exceptions) Is that YOU, CM? I had in mind the likes of McCain and those who think like that as a whole. I don't think YOU are pro-chioce with exceptions except when it comes to personhood legislation. Am I right?
Now's the chance to clear things up. If you do think like McCain, then you can bet I'll think of YOU as pro-chioce with exceptions.
Now, if the shoe fits, wear it, otherwide you'll need to retract your accusations.
I'll go ahead and makes things really simple, so there won't be any further mis-understandings.
Are you, CM, pro-life across the board? Would you like to see ALL babies concieved protected, no exceptions?

reply from: Faramir

That was amazing, Sander.
You made the insult, then dodged it when confronted, and finished with a demand for an apology.
I don't know if I'm more amazed by the decptiveness or the arrogance.

reply from: nancyu

An unborn child is a person.

reply from: nancyu

A person in this country has the right to be protected by the laws of this country.

reply from: nancyu

An unborn child is a person.

reply from: nancyu

An unborn child has the right to be protected by the laws of this country.

reply from: carolemarie

Therein lies the difference between true prolifers and prochoicers with exceptions.
We won't fight whatever protections can be gained for the babies, but prochoicers with exceptions will. Nice, huh. *sigh*
Here is a perfect example of you calling names. So now I am a prochoicer with exceptions? Or not a true prolifer...because I don't agree with bills that have no chance of passing.
You can't seriously think America is going to ban birth control or jail women or not insist on an exception for rape, incest and the life of the mother. If you believe that our country is ready to embrace a bill like that, you are living in serious denial.
I know this country isn't ready for anything like this, so it would be a total waste of time to pursue it.
Did you see YOUR name in my post? I was referring to anyone who, is pro-lilfe with the exceptions of rape and incest (which makes them acutally, pro-chioce with exceptions) Is that YOU, CM? I had in mind the likes of McCain and those who think like that as a whole. I don't think YOU are pro-chioce with exceptions except when it comes to personhood legislation. Am I right?
Now's the chance to clear things up. If you do think like McCain, then you can bet I'll think of YOU as pro-chioce with exceptions.
Now, if the shoe fits, wear it, otherwide you'll need to retract your accusations.
I'll go ahead and makes things really simple, so there won't be any further mis-understandings.
Are you, CM, pro-life across the board? Would you like to see ALL babies concieved protected, no exceptions?
Sure.
I would also like to see peace on earth, but I will settle for a cease fire

reply from: faithman

Some very good points have been made here. It is CM's crowd who have vowed to fight personhood, while personhood folks have already said they will accept any progress on the way to equality thru personhood. The other stupid thing being said by the baby killing carole, is what a big waist of time it is to advocate personhood for the womb child. On the contrary. The more personhood is demanded, the more momentum it gains. The various state bills are as much victories, even though they do not pass now. It brings up awareness. The slave abolitionist were told the same things. They had punks like CM trying to discourage them from absolute equality and freedom for the african slave. But perserverance is key. Wilberforce faught for over 20 years before the slave trade ended in England. Stand strong fellow personhood advocates. Absolute truth, absolutly wins in the end. The attacks by lying thieves like CM are proof you are headed in the right direction. It is a fact that everytime Personhood legislation is introduced, it gains more suport. We must make personhood our litmus test for those who want our vote. Detractors like CM? will be exposed, and left in the ash heap of history, while those who remain stedfast to the end will see final victory. The most important thing to do now, is get the IAAP material, and get it in front of as many eyes as we can. Just ignore false ones like CM. They are a waist of time, and nothing more than a speed bump on the way to the final goal. It is good to take away the lessons learned here. People with personal agendas can never be trusted. They can be useful in distribution of material, but sooner or later they will sell out the womb child if the child get's in the way of their real purpose. Keep your eye on the prize. Equality thru personhood is the goal. It is not a waist of time. We are getting closer everyday. And more and more prolifers are realizing what a pack of lies false pro-lifers like CM are selling. Compromise is not our goal. Personhood for the womb child is. Never lose sight of that, and never stop until that goal is reached, no matter how many "compromises" we have to over come to get there.

reply from: cracrat

If, for example, Tennessee were to outlaw abortion on any grounds, no questions asked, could a pregnant woman not just hop across the border to Kentucky and get one there? Or doesn't it work like that?
I'm just wondering if the State Bills are more symbollic than anything else since people seeking abortion can just go across state lines and get one anyway.

reply from: faithman

If, for example, Tennessee were to outlaw abortion on any grounds, no questions asked, could a pregnant woman not just hop across the border to Kentucky and get one there? Or doesn't it work like that?
I'm just wondering if the State Bills are more symbollic than anything else since people seeking abortion can just go across state lines and get one anyway.
Of course you are purposely missing the point. The point is to establish personhood on all fronts. To make people aware of how to get actual change. Every state bill passed sets up a challenge in the courts. Even if the bill does not pass now, they always seem to gain momentum for another try. The biggest obsticle is the false pro-lifers like CM who undermine the effort from within. There is a need for a big house cleaning, or abandoning the house all together if it has become too rotten. The only time the truth does not win out, is when you don't use it, or water it down with compromise for personal agenda. Killer carole is the poster child for defeat thru compromise.

reply from: cracrat

If, for example, Tennessee were to outlaw abortion on any grounds, no questions asked, could a pregnant woman not just hop across the border to Kentucky and get one there? Or doesn't it work like that?
I'm just wondering if the State Bills are more symbollic than anything else since people seeking abortion can just go across state lines and get one anyway.
Of course you are purposely missing the point. The point is to establish personhood on all fronts. To make people aware of how to get actual change. Every state bill passed sets up a challenge in the courts. Even if the bill does not pass now, they always seem to gain momentum for another try. The biggest obsticle is the false pro-lifers like CM who undermine the effort from within. There is a need for a big house cleaning, or abandoning the house all together if it has become too rotten. The only time the truth does not win out, is when you don't use it, or water it down with compromise for personal agenda. Killer carole is the poster child for defeat thru compromise.
It was a valid question I think. In this country, people in Wales pay less for their NHS prescriptions than those in England which has led to the perverse situation of there being more people registered with Welsh GPs than there are people in Wales.
So, if Tennessee were to outlaw abortion could a woman seek her abortion in neighbouring Kentucky? Would she be breaking any laws or regulations? Does a person have to seek medical help in their State of residence or is there nothing to stop people shopping around State to State for the best deal, so to speak?

reply from: nancyu

If, for example, Tennessee were to outlaw abortion on any grounds, no questions asked, could a pregnant woman not just hop across the border to Kentucky and get one there? Or doesn't it work like that?
I'm just wondering if the State Bills are more symbollic than anything else since people seeking abortion can just go across state lines and get one anyway.
Of course you are purposely missing the point. The point is to establish personhood on all fronts. To make people aware of how to get actual change. Every state bill passed sets up a challenge in the courts. Even if the bill does not pass now, they always seem to gain momentum for another try. The biggest obsticle is the false pro-lifers like CM who undermine the effort from within. There is a need for a big house cleaning, or abandoning the house all together if it has become too rotten. The only time the truth does not win out, is when you don't use it, or water it down with compromise for personal agenda. Killer carole is the poster child for defeat thru compromise.
It was a valid question I think. In this country, people in Wales pay less for their NHS prescriptions than those in England which has led to the perverse situation of there being more people registered with Welsh GPs than there are people in Wales.
So, if Tennessee were to outlaw abortion could a woman seek her abortion in neighbouring Kentucky? Would she be breaking any laws or regulations? Does a person have to seek medical help in their State of residence or is there nothing to stop people shopping around State to State for the best deal, so to speak?
State victories are very important victories and steps in the right direction. When you consider the fact that many abortions are "convenience" abortions. Making it a little less convenient to obtain one, it seems to me, would drastically reduce the number of abortions.
I'm betting many women will find that it's less convenient to travel for an abortion than to have a baby.


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