Home - List All Discussions

very strange

by: faithman

I find it very strange that a so called leader would use hard to come by resources to rat out pro-lifers. $50,000 would buy over 2 million IAAP cards. Wouldn't that go much futher in stopping abortion, than paying a snich? I thought Catholics were supposed to be anti death penalty? How can this backwards collar judas sell pro-lifers out to a pro-abort Government that lethal injects those who truely act as if a womb child deserves the same defensive action as the born? 30 pieces Pravone has agrred with Planned Parenthood that the innocents in the womb is second class and does not deserve the same consideration as life that has managed to escape abortion and are born. He agrees with the bortheads that the womb person does not deserve protection that every born person enjoys. In fact, he has denied the personhood of the womb child.http://www.priestsforlife.org/pressreleases/01-04-01pressrewardfund.htm

reply from: carolemarie

Discouraging violence and helping protect human life is what the church should do.
That is prolife.
Paul Hill and the rest who advocate killing are wrong.
The are pro-death

reply from: faithman

All who know that CM could careless about the womb child, and continuosly undermines their personhood, raise your http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby12.html [Click "HANDS" for results]

reply from: KaylieBee

Also funny how all those pictures were of babies in the later weeks...

reply from: Faramir

April 4, 2001
Priests for Life Offers $50,000 Reward
Announcement comes on Anniversary of King's Assassination

Priests for Life, the Catholic association which assists clergy of all denominations to address the abortion issue, announced today that it is offering $50,000 to anyone providing authorities with information leading to the capture of fugitives wanted for abortion clinic shootings.
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of the group, stated: "The purpose of this reward is not only to help police apprehend abortion clinic shooting suspects, but also to actively discourage this kind of violence.
"The pro-life movement categorically rejects the philosophy of violence," Fr. Pavone continued. "It is never permissible to take a life, whether it is that of an unborn child or that of an abortion provider. Those individuals who perpetrate violence against abortionists are actually "pro-choice," because they believe it is sometimes OK to take a life to solve a problem."
Fr. Pavone said that Priests for Life started this fund a couple of years ago, after several benefactors suggested the idea and then supplied the money. The reward fund is currently being held in a special account marked specifically for that purpose.
Priests for Life chose today, April 4th, as the day on which to make this announcement, in tribute to the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated on this date in 1968. Fr. Pavone said: "Dr. King has always been my hero and my model. He was a champion for the cause of non-violent resistance against evil. That is exactly what Priests for Life and the pro-life movement is all about. We are dedicated to stopping the evil of abortion through non-violent means. Unfortunately, there are misguided individuals in any cause who sometimes act in ways contrary to the principles of that cause. In the event any abortionist is ever the victim of violence--- and we earnestly hope this will never happen again--- Priests for Life stands ready to assist financially in the capture of the criminal. That is how much we are committed to the philosophy of non-violence."

Commentary
Unfortunately, there has been some misunderstanding about this "reward fund."
First of all, this fund has existed for almost two years, and was not created or announced to coincide with any recent developments in the news. We make no statements or judgments regarding the guilt of anyone accused of killing an abortionist.
Secondly, we did not raise this money. It was given to us by donors who want it used exclusively as a reward fund. Under the law, we are not free to use this money in any other way. It is in a totally separate account, and does not take anything away from our other projects and activities. In those other projects and activities, by the way, we spend over a hundred times more money on things like promoting alternatives to abortion and encouraging and assisting pro-life activists to peacefully oppose abortion.
Moreover, we will take strict measures to see to it that at no time in the future is the reward fund, or the promise of it, used to exacerbate an already biased and unfair treatment of pro-life people at the hands of our "justice" system. It won't be given when there is any doubt about someone's guilt.
It is a reward offered to stop activity which is not pro-life. The pro-life stand is a stand of nonviolence. It is our hope that the existence and promise of the fund, even if it is never used, will serve to counteract the increased efforts of the pro-abortion groups to paint us all as violent.
The effort won't make sense if viewed only from a perspective "internal" to the pro-life movement -- that is, how the groups within the movement, especially the most activist ones, see each other. It makes sense only in the light of trying to explain to the next stranger who walks down the street whether the pro-life movement supports violence or not.
Now some of the people who have objected to this fund have no problem with the killing of abortionists. We do, and so does the Church. That, of course, is the reason we're doing what we're doing.
-- Priests for Life Media Department

reply from: faithman

Thanks for posting this betrail of the womb person.

reply from: Faramir

He doesn't see those who would do violence as "prolifers." I think he sees them as another horn on the same devil.

reply from: faithman

He doesn't see those who would do violence as "prolifers." I think he sees them as another horn on the same devil.
All who believe that farty and Pravone have sold out the personhood of the womb child to be popular, raise your http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby12.html [Click "HANDS" for results]

reply from: sander

You think dead babies are funny?
So, how many weeks do they have to be before you don't find dead babies funny?

reply from: nancyu

Sander, you're arguing with a clump of tissue.

reply from: galen

i find no problem with this reward fund.

reply from: faithman

Because you would rather protect the abortionist than the ones they slaughter.

reply from: sander

Yeah, I know, the kind full of snot, right?

reply from: galen

even on this thread... that annoying buzzing sound comes accross...

reply from: nancyu

Yeah, I know, the kind full of snot, right?
Yup, that's the kind.

reply from: faithman

Because you would rather protect the abortionist than the ones they slaughter.

reply from: sheri

The "accuser of our brethren" is now attacking Fr. Pavone I see. Was it getting boring for you just picking on women?
How is this helpful in saving the babies?

reply from: galen

vexing wouldn't put up with his advances....

reply from: faithman

By exposing a traitor, and promoting defence of the personhood of the womb child.

reply from: carolemarie

I want to know who supports Faithmans assertations that killing abortion providers is good prolife work that God would approve of? Who supports this on this board?

reply from: Faramir

I don't see how any sane or logical person could possibly be drawn to the prolife cause based on his posts on this board. I'm reasonably new to this board and don't know a lot about prolife activism except what I've read, but I can't see him as anything but an enemy to the prolife cuase, and I'm astounded that otherwise reasonable and compassionate people either give him a pass or suck up to him.

reply from: galen

joe, leftist, satan....

reply from: Faramir

They might be obviously supportive, but what about those who refuse to condemn? Do they show support by their silence?

reply from: Faramir

I don't support his support of violence and I don't support his abusiveness.
He is not a prolifer I would want to get anywhere near.
I see vindictiveness and hatefulness and babies as a means to excuse it.

reply from: faithman

No body really cares what a baby killer wants. And I dont really care who aproves or disaproves. You are a low lying baby killer. You have not fully repented as seen by how you would rather protect your fellow killers than the ones you have killed. You are the most sorriest excuse of being pro-life I have ever seen. You undermine the personhood of the womb child in favor of killer mom at every turn, and would like us to believe that you are anything else than the baby killer that you are. When you get over yourself, and start truely standing for the womb child, let us know. Until then, the best thing for you to do is shut your baby blood stained lips and shut up. Killers like you should be in the back of the bus, not trying to drive it over the "agreement with abortion" clift.

reply from: carolemarie

Your just mad because nobody agrees with you.
They don't agree because your position is prodeath, just like the prochoicers and they are prolife, like me.

reply from: yoda

In which post does he say that? Or are you quoting what others claim he supports?
Focus on facts, please...... this speculation gets us nowhere......

reply from: yoda

Quote the posts, please....... gossip does no one any good.

reply from: yoda

Do you even know what "prolife" means? The REAL meaning of the word, not your made up fantasy?

reply from: galen

look at the entire aggression thread...i would post all those little snide snippettet of theirs but you and i both know they would just bulk up this thread... so i referr you to them .. right now its on the second page... but just for you i'll bump it.

reply from: galen

BTW a quote from FM
SHEESH !!!! For the thousanded time, yes it is justifiable to stop evil aggression with lethal force. 2000 years of christian history, every country on the planet, and just plain common sence say so. Are all you so called passifist going to start picketing every police station? Are you going to advocate a change in the law so that no one can defend life from aggressors? Are we going to continue to allow ourselves to be dooped by baby killing phonies like CM into believing that all justice for the womb child is evil? I guess God could care less that she killed 3 because she prayed her little Jesus prayer, so she gets to skate along free, and pervert His word and call it ministry. All 50 states have laws that say it is justifiable to defend ones self, and any innocent person from those who intend to do harm. If a womb child is equal in humanity, then they deserve the same consideration. If you do not agree with that, then you agree with planned parenthood that the womb child is a second class citizen, and deserves no consideration at all. CM has consistantly stated that, and has point blank said she would fight personhood if it made a womb child equal in consideration to a woman who would kill them. That is not the voice of a repentant sinner, but an arrogant murderer who wants to use the name of Christ to excuse her crime against the womb child.

reply from: galen

another quote this time from Joe..

joe
Executive Member
Posts: 878
Joined: 12/18/2007
Originally posted by: concernedparent
Whether you think abortion will be stopped only by violent activism, or that peaceful protests and educating the public represents our best chance for success, there can be no denying that we need support. The more people we get on our side, the better our chances of success, and this is true regardless of what methods you think will win in the end. Anyone who agrees with this logical conclusion must therefore agree that public opinion and the "image" we present is key to eventual success. Logically, the question becomes, "does violence win people to our side?"
Since most people who advocate and/or condone anti-abortion violence obviously only give lip service to their convictions, even if they believe violence can win the day, some very important questions arise. First, will their public support of violence actually convince people to act on those convictions? If not, what is the point?
We need real support. We have roughly 50% public support already. Why is nothing changing?
Because when you condemn violence you reinforce the belief that the unborn are not quite as valuable as the born. It is a confusing message to the masses that this is a issue but it is not important. To go out and vote for more important issues since this is not truly murder.
What is it that blinds you to this fact? You fear to speak it, concernedparent...you fear the truth.
The unborn are worthy of life, let our words testify to the world that it is indeed a fact.
-------------------------
"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extend that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' Matthew 25:45
...do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant. (Didache [A.D. 70]).
"Whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child."

reply from: carolemarie

Do you even know what "prolife" means? The REAL meaning of the word, not your made up fantasy?
It's pro-death to support killing abortion providers.
It's pro-death to support killing babies.
Neither is a pro-life position.
Let me know if you need further clarification on that.....

reply from: galen

i have decided NOT to post from leftists as he is strangely absent from this arena and also he has sunsequently said that he does NOT advocate violence...
however i have not had a chance to test that as he left off postsing so soon after making those statements.

reply from: Faramir

In which post does he say that? Or are you quoting what others claim he supports?
Focus on facts, please...... this speculation gets us nowhere......
Unless you have faithman on ignore too, you don't need any quotes. They are everywhere. You can't miss them--unless of course you are choosing to turn a blind eye to his support of violence.
So far you have refused to condemn violent tactics as a means of fighting abortion.

reply from: yoda

No, no...... that's not gonna get it. When someone posts something that you think is support for aggression...... respond to it then and there. Don't wait a day or two and then make a generalized comment about what "someone wants"..... please, please post a DIRECT RESPONSE TO A DIRECT QUOTE....... okay?
Is that really asking too much?

reply from: galen

ok try this....posted on leftists blog.
These environNazi bastards! Locate them, and shoot them. Why are the politicians so afraid of these *****s? Are you tired of this*****yet? What will it take for you to get the balls enough to march up the Capitol and scare the ever loving*****out of Congress?!?! This nation is full of weak pansy assed pussies! I am ashamed to be an American lately. Bunch of gutless wimps.
Posted by Leftistdestroyer at 8:10 PM 0 comments Links to this post
_____________________________________________________-
oh and i referrr you to a couple of quotes from the agression thread on joe and FM...

reply from: carolemarie

No, no...... that's not gonna get it. When someone posts something that you think is support for aggression...... respond to it then and there. Don't wait a day or two and then make a generalized comment about what "someone wants"..... please, please post a DIRECT RESPONSE TO A DIRECT QUOTE....... okay?
Is that really asking too much?
Dude...seriously! We know you can read....

reply from: yoda

And what is the nature of your disagreement with this statement? Do you claim that every reaction other than a purely pacifist one is immoral? Do you claim that all acts of self defense, and of defense of other innocents is always immoral?
He made a very general statement, can you refute it or not?

reply from: galen

No, no...... that's not gonna get it. When someone posts something that you think is support for aggression...... respond to it then and there. Don't wait a day or two and then make a generalized comment about what "someone wants"..... please, please post a DIRECT RESPONSE TO A DIRECT QUOTE....... okay?
Is that really asking too much?
_________________________________________________-
yes at times they are on ... and i am on... and i post then... others we are not on at the same time... but guess you didn't go further into this thread... for your quotes.

reply from: yoda

Where's the part of this quote that says that killing abortion providers is good prolife work that God would approve of?

reply from: galen

And what is the nature of your disagreement with this statement? Do you claim that every reaction other than a purely pacifist one is immoral? Do you claim that all acts of self defense, and of defense of other innocents is always immoral?
He made a very general statement, can you refute it or not?
____________________________________________________
yes, i feel that it is always immoral to take a life... and guess what i did that refute on his terms...
but again... you won't read that so i guess i can't even debate this with you. unless you want me to repost the agression thread and every other time he has said it to this one...

reply from: galen

Where's the part of this quote that says that killing abortion providers is good prolife work that God would approve of?
_____________________________________________
that is his postition in that entire thread... and others... don't you read?

reply from: yoda

There is no such term as "pro-death" that is recognized by any online dictionary.
"Pro-life" means OPPOSITION to the legality of elective abortion, according to online dictionaries.
Let me know if you are willing to have an intellectually honest, rational discussion about the meaning of words associated with abortion.

reply from: carolemarie

There is no such term as "pro-death" that is recognized by any online dictionary.
"Pro-life" means OPPOSITION to the legality of elective abortion, according to online dictionaries.
Let me know if you are willing to have an intellectually honest, rational discussion about the meaning of words associated with abortion.
Right back at you Yoda!

reply from: yoda

I sure can... and we know you can make up stuff and throw it at others all day long.
So what else is new?

reply from: Faramir

Why don't you just own up to it yoda, and admit that you approve of violence? With your continual enabling of faithman and your continual opposition to his critics, it's glaringly obvious.

reply from: yoda

What someone posts on a blog has nothing to do with what they post here, unless it is quoted here and they support it here. Did he?
Well, I do hope that you managed to respond DIRECTLY to them, so I won't have to "interpret" them and "read between the lines"...... that's just too destructive of forum decorum, IMO.

reply from: yoda

Say what? What difference does it make when you respond? You do know how to use the quote button, I'm sure...... right?

reply from: galen

____________________________________________________________
these are his feelings on the subject...someone bumped a bit ago
11/30/2006 03:45 PM

yodavater
CEO
Posts: 13951
Joined: 04/12/2004
Yes, apparently the gist of what we are being told is that we must not tolerate the kind of violence that has taken the lives of three abortionists, but that we MUST TOLERATE the violence that has taken 47 million lives of innocent babies.
Why, I ask you, must we tolerate the 47 million killings and not the 3?
Because the law tells us to?
Is that the extent of the morality of the prolife movement, obey the law and tolerate 47 million baby's deaths?
-------------------------
The RESULT of a very bad "choice" (abortion) is usually something very bad (dead baby). http://www.abortionknoxville.com
______________________________________________
now you know where he stands on this subject... just go to his thread...violence must not be tolerated.

reply from: galen

yep sure do know how to quote yoda... why don't you do a bit of light reading...?

reply from: yoda

Now you're changing the subject. The use of lethal force in self defense is not what you are accusing him of, is it?
Just the parts that say "that killing abortion providers is good prolife work that God would approve of".
CAN YOU FIND THOSE PARTS TO QUOTE HERE?

reply from: galen

Say what? What difference does it make when you respond? You do know how to use the quote button, I'm sure...... right?
_______________________________________________
yep sure do know how to use that little button... used it a lot in the agression thread.

reply from: yoda

I haven't seen anyone say that but you so far...... do you have a link to it?

reply from: yoda

Kindergarten level debate?

reply from: Faramir

____________________________________________________________
these are his feelings on the subject...someone bumped a bit ago
11/30/2006 03:45 PM

yodavater
CEO
Posts: 13951
Joined: 04/12/2004
Yes, apparently the gist of what we are being told is that we must not tolerate the kind of violence that has taken the lives of three abortionists, but that we MUST TOLERATE the violence that has taken 47 million lives of innocent babies.
Why, I ask you, must we tolerate the 47 million killings and not the 3?
Because the law tells us to?
Is that the extent of the morality of the prolife movement, obey the law and tolerate 47 million baby's deaths?
-------------------------
The RESULT of a very bad "choice" (abortion) is usually something very bad (dead baby). http://www.abortionknoxville.com
______________________________________________
now you know where he stands on this subject... just go to his thread...violence must not be tolerated.
As usual, he's playing some word games here, and making a false dilemma.
To not tolerate the murder of abortion doctors DOES NOT MEAN that abortions are tolerated.
Then I take it from this statement that he is in favor of violent means of stopping abortion.

reply from: yoda

Is that how you "interpret" what I said?
You know, I could interpret what you are saying to mean that we ought to assassinate all politicians that disagree with our position.
How could you refute that?

reply from: yoda

I'm doing my best to catch up...... but so far, all I see is fartnomore begging me to "own up to it"..... which is as good as an admission that I have never said any such a thing, true?
I mean, wouldn't he have quoted me if I had?

reply from: galen

I haven't seen anyone say that but you so far...... do you have a link to it?
_____________________________________
i'm bumping them up for you... you must agree that its easier to bump them than to link to them and fill this thread... but semantics... say what YOU feel about the issue... not attack on how you don't like what other people say...

reply from: yoda

Yeah, bumping is REAL easy..... you don't have to point out anything in particular, just say "READ THAT THREAD".
How tough would it be to quote one sentence that says "that killing abortion providers is good prolife work that God would approve of"?
Wouldn't that be a pretty short quote?

reply from: galen

yep sure would... and then you cry ' out of context' you forget i've gone through this with you before.

reply from: yoda

No, I promise I'd never say that......
Btw, I just looked over the aggression thread, and I couldn't find what you claim they said.
Was that just your "interpretation" of what they said, perhaps?
You know, I could interpret what you are saying to mean that we ought to assassinate all politicians that disagree with our position.
How could you refute that?
How about a reward? If I offered a reward for someone to find a post of FM or Joe's that said "that killing abortion providers is good prolife work that God would approve of", do you think anyone could find it?

reply from: galen

i don't think that is fair yoda... everyone interprets what they read....
even you... so why not answer the question i asked you?
i answer all of yours...

reply from: carolemarie

Definition of pro-life from Wikipedia
Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that fetuses and embryos are human beings, and therefore have a right to live.
Definition of terms from Wikipedia
"Pro-choice" implies the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life."

reply from: yoda

Okay, show me ONE post in which I have accused someone of saying something that I ACTUALLY just "interpreted"..... can you do that?
What question?

reply from: yoda

Wiki is NOT a respectable, reliable dictionary by ANY MEANS......
ANYONE CAN EDIT IT ANYTIME....... and proaborts constantly edit and re-edit it.
Did you not know that?

reply from: bsbuster

____________________________________________________________
these are his feelings on the subject...someone bumped a bit ago
11/30/2006 03:45 PM

yodavater
CEO
Posts: 13951
Joined: 04/12/2004
Yes, apparently the gist of what we are being told is that we must not tolerate the kind of violence that has taken the lives of three abortionists, but that we MUST TOLERATE the violence that has taken 47 million lives of innocent babies.
Why, I ask you, must we tolerate the 47 million killings and not the 3?
Because the law tells us to?
Is that the extent of the morality of the prolife movement, obey the law and tolerate 47 million baby's deaths?
-------------------------
The RESULT of a very bad "choice" (abortion) is usually something very bad (dead baby). http://www.abortionknoxville.com
______________________________________________
now you know where he stands on this subject... just go to his thread...violence must not be tolerated.
Yodavater,
There are a few things wrong with your reasoning.
First, you've created a false dichotomy--as if opposing violence done to abortion doctors would mean supporting the violence of abortion. That does not have to be the case, and that is not the case for the vast majority of prolifers. Not tolerating the deaths of the abortion doctors--which is an attempt to control the behavior of prolifers--is not the toleration of 47 million baby's deaths, which currently is the law and cannot be controlled.
And opposing violence done to abortion providers is not the "extent of the morality of the prolife movement." That's a ridiculous insinuation. The opposition is because it is immoral and because it is counterproductive.
Lasty, I see no denouncement of violence as a means to fight abortion. Is it fair to infer that your silence is approval?

reply from: yoda

Well fartnomore, I actually didn't create a thing.... I merely asked questions about what someone else said. You apparently want to read much more into my words than is there, putting words in my mouth. Now, where have I seen that done before..... hmmmm.......
Good, you've answered the question. You did know it was a rhetorical question, right?
No, but then fairness was never your strong suit, was it?

reply from: sander

Oh boy, here we go again. From arguments of "silence" we could interpert anything anyone says (or doesn't say) anyway we want.
That is what is not fair.
I've heard dozens of so called Christians say because Jesus Himself didn't mention abortion in that term, He approves of abortion.
So, are the "argument from silence" folks going to agree with that too?

reply from: yoda

Fairness doesn't seem to matter. When you can put words in someone's mouth and then attack them over those same words, anything goes.
How do you like fartnomore's new nic?

reply from: sander

Well, fairness should matter. Fairness is at the very heart of the prolife argument.
4,000 children in the womb will face that unfairness today while discussions on....what the heck this discussion about anyway?
Unfair.

reply from: carolemarie

It is just as good as any other online dictionary. And actually, it is an encylopedia.

reply from: faithman

Doth says the killer of three. What an endorsment?

reply from: yoda

No dictionary/encyclopedia that you can edit yourself is worth warm spit. Most academics ridicule anyone who quotes from it. In fact, the only people whom I've seen consistently quote from it are radical proaborts who want desperately to change the meanings of common everyday words.
What does that tell you?

reply from: faithman

No dictionary/encyclopedia that you can edit yourself is worth warm spit. Most academics ridicule anyone who quotes from it. In fact, the only people whom I've seen consistently quote from it are radical proaborts who want desperately to change the meanings of common everyday words.
What does that tell you?
It tells me that the killer of 3 uses pro-death resources, and rhetoric on a regular basis, and has the gaul to tell us it is pro-life.

reply from: bsbuster

No dictionary/encyclopedia that you can edit yourself is worth warm spit. Most academics ridicule anyone who quotes from it. In fact, the only people whom I've seen consistently quote from it are radical proaborts who want desperately to change the meanings of common everyday words.
What does that tell you?
I've seen prolifers quote it and be criticized by prochoicers for using it.
What does that tell you?
What specifically was wrong with the wikipedia definition of prolife?

reply from: galen

try this def yoda....
prolife
One entry found.
pro-life

Main Entry: pro - life
Pronunciation: \(?)pr?-?l?f\
Function: adjective
Date: 1971
: antiabortion
- pro - lif·er \-?l?-f?r\ noun
and as you refused to answer questions yesterday on this subject .. that is a reason for me to inferr that YOU yourself see no problem in the violence getting out of controll...and that makes me sad because it put you in a light ( to me ) that is just as bad as those people who say..'i'm against abortion personally, but i won't tell anyone else what to do.'
To wich i say... if you see an injustice you must adress it.

reply from: faithman

No dictionary/encyclopedia that you can edit yourself is worth warm spit. Most academics ridicule anyone who quotes from it. In fact, the only people whom I've seen consistently quote from it are radical proaborts who want desperately to change the meanings of common everyday words.
What does that tell you?
I've seen prolifers quote it and be criticized by prochoicers for using it.
What does that tell you?
What specifically was wrong with the wikipedia definition of prolife?
You don't know http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

reply from: jujujellybean

No dictionary/encyclopedia that you can edit yourself is worth warm spit. Most academics ridicule anyone who quotes from it. In fact, the only people whom I've seen consistently quote from it are radical proaborts who want desperately to change the meanings of common everyday words.
What does that tell you?
I've seen prolifers quote it and be criticized by prochoicers for using it.
What does that tell you?
What specifically was wrong with the wikipedia definition of prolife?
You don't know http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
Oh lordy PLEASE don't start that again...we've had quite enough of that....
And I can't resist..."I'm the rubber, you're the glue, everything YOU post bounces of me and sticks on you!"
LOL I am with a lot of little kids a lot of the time...you pick up a few things!

reply from: yoda

Why no link? I'm always interested in finding new sources for legitimate definitions, would you please link that one, or at least say where you got it?
I've asked you once already to tell me what question you're talking about. You did not respond. How can I answer your question when you wont' tell me what you're talking about?
What violence, and whose control? That's too general of a statement to respond to.

reply from: yoda

No dictionary/encyclopedia that you can edit yourself is worth warm spit. Most academics ridicule anyone who quotes from it. In fact, the only people whom I've seen consistently quote from it are radical proaborts who want desperately to change the meanings of common everyday words.
What does that tell you?
I've seen prolifers quote it and be criticized by prochoicers for using it.
What does that tell you? What specifically was wrong with the wikipedia definition of prolife?
You don't know http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
It wasn't a definition as such, it was simply some individual's very broad concept of the term. "Genuine" definitions reflect how the majority of society uses a term, not how some individual with a computer and a modem decide to describe it.
I do not use wiki definitions, simply because they are not arrived at in a legitimate academic/scientific fashion. And I don't accept them as such.

reply from: cracrat

Except that that would make wiki definitions more valid. If anyone can adjust a definition then logically it will continue to change and adjust in line with usage. Articles about contentious issues, such as pro-life/abortion, tend to be fairly rigourously policed to minimise abuse.
A dictionary penned by a person or team of people will be only be as accurate as their research since it doesn't allow for outside input beyond that which they seek. There is no way of knowing how extensive or thorough their research was and the fact that it comes hard-bound doesn't make it so. Besides which as soon as it's printed, it is out of date.
Of course, if the dictionary which Yoda relies on is one of these online ones that allows users to contribute definitions, it is, by his logic, as invalid as wikipedia.

reply from: galen

Why no link? I'm always interested in finding new sources for legitimate definitions, would you please link that one, or at least say where you got it?
I've asked you once already to tell me what question you're talking about. You did not respond. How can I answer your question when you wont' tell me what you're talking about?
What violence, and whose control? That's too general of a statement to respond to.
________________________________________________
dictionary.com
i satnd by the rest.

reply from: yoda

I've asked you TWICE already to tell me what question you're talking about. You did not respond. How can I answer your question when you wont' tell me what you're talking about?
What violence, and whose control? That's too general of a statement to respond to.
HERE IS THE LATEST ONLINE VERSION FROM DICTIONARY.COM:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
pro-life
Audio Help /pro??la?f/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proh-lahyf] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
- adjective
opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life.

reply from: galen

all i can tell you is what was there when i posted that... and that was it.. next time i'll post a complete page.. sorry.

reply from: yoda

Okay, no problem.
However, if you ever want another definition, use the "OneLook" website, it will give you many different references at once. http://www.onelook.com

Here are several I have gathered:
pro-life adjective against open access to abortion: in favor of bringing the human fetus to full term, especially by campaigning against open access to abortion and against experimentation on embryos http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736610

pro-life adjective opposed to the belief that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion if she does not want to have a baby
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=63328&dict=CALD

pro-life -adj.
opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/pro-life

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
pro-life -adjective opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-life&r=66

pro-life adjective supporting the belief that it is immoral for a pregnant woman to have the freedom to choose to have an abortion (= an operation to end a pregnancy) if she does not want to have a baby http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=prolife*1+0&dict=A


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