Home - List All Discussions

Missouri Judge: Planned Parenthood Must Pay Back State Funds

PP must pay over $650,000 in public funds back to the state.

by: yoda

Missouri Judge: Planned Parenthood Must Pay Back State Funds
Jefferson City, MO (LifeNews.com) -- A Missouri judge has ordered two Planned Parenthood abortion businesses to pay back over $650,000 in public funds back to the state. The abortion facilities indicate they will appeal the decision. County Circuit Judge Werner Moentmann ruled that a prohibition on state family planning dollars going to affiliates of abortion businesses was constitutional. The battle over the money has gone on for years and a similar lawsuit made its way to the state Supreme Court before being dismissed. The state's high court did not rule on the arguments in the case. Moentmann's decision is the third time a judge has said the abortion business was not entitled to the money. According to an AP report, Gov. Matt Blunt praised the ruling, saying it was "very encouraging to see a court embracing the culture of life that Missourians hold dear." "This is great news for all pro-life taxpayers in the state," said Samuel Lee of Campaign Life Missouri, whose statement was distributed by the Catholic Conference. " If the ruling stands on appeal, Missouri will be completely out of the business of directly or indirectly subsidizing the abortion industry."

full story: http://www.lifenews.com/state1078.html

reply from: AmericanPie

Heh. I see I'm not banned yet. Okay.

For the record, I am totally against any state or federal tax money going to fund clinics or facilities that perform abortions. I believe that taxpayers who are against abortions should not be forced to pay for them through taxation.

On the other hand, if no tax money at all went to fund the clinics, then anti-choicers would be forced to shut their yap about privately funded abortions. Right?

Of course not. Their goal is to butt into private persons' lives and forceably inflict their will on all regardless of whether or not their taxes pay for abortions. What a wonderfully democratic concept.

reply from: Hereforareason

Thank you.

No more about that than "Privatly funded muders".

Amber

reply from: Allizdog2000

Give it time....

When the "Freedom of Choice Act" is made into Law, Public hospitals will have to provide Abortions on Demand.

The Libtards want to butt into people's personal lives. They want to legalize and force affirmation and acceptance of every hideous amoral activity.

reply from: Tam

I don't know why you think poor debating is a bannable offense. Didn't you see that bobinsky is still around?

reply from: yoda

You mean like inflicting your will on someone by killing them?

Is that what you had in mind, the 43 million unborn babies that have had their mother's/father's will inflicted on them until they died?

reply from: AmericanPie

Hardly! LOL!!! They want to give those who wish to have the choice to do what they want with their own bodies, to do it. Those who do not wish to partake of this avenue, don't have to. In other words, people should tend to their own business and take their noses out of other peoples' buttholes.

That is known as freedom. You evidently are against it.

reply from: AmericanPie

Yep, that's exactly what I had in mind.

I'm curious....when the government does a census, do they figure the "unborn" into their count?

reply from: Tam

Yep, that's exactly what I had in mind.

I'm curious....when the government does a census, do they figure the "unborn" into their count?

I doubt you don't know the answer to that. So tell me, pie--do you support abortions for the whole 9 months? Because they're not on the census until they're born, so they must not count, right? So you'd support abortion of all non-born babies, right? Up until the day of birth? Or maybe, like LochFyne, until the day after birth? Or like Peter Singer, perhaps--a month after birth? Where do you draw the line, pie?

reply from: yoda

Is this another of your "flippant" remarks, or do you actually endorse the killing of 43 million babies?

reply from: AmericanPie

There is no line because every case is different with a whole new set of circumstances. Normally I go with: after the fetus is viable, meaning it can live outside the womb, then it should be born. I figure even the most asinine of women can figure out they're pregnant and what they're going to do with it by about 5 months gestation. And if they can't, tough. However, if the mother's life is in danger in the 9th month, she takes precedence.

I personally would know if I was a week pregnant. See Yod, I am a woman!!!

Oh spare me the rod for "flippancy", please. It's getting old. Is there something you don't understand about that statement? If not, then why do you ask it a second time? I could say I endorse nothing, that it's none of my business what another woman does with her uterus and whatever's in it, but you would simply say that I "endorse it" anyway, so I'll save you asking your question a third time and say yeah, I endorse it. So what? I didn't have 43 million abortions and I'm not responsible for the 43 million women who did.

reply from: yoda

No, you're not responsible for all 43 million. But if someone reads your words on this forum and moves closer in their mind to abortion because of them, then you may have a partial responsibility for their abortion. And I'm almost sure you'd be proud of that, and would brag about it, right?

reply from: AmericanPie

Absolutely not. I wouldn't care in the least. It's none of my business. Which is where we differ. You make EVERYBODY'S business YOUR business.

reply from: yoda

Well that explains why you don't care in the least about the 43 million deaths.

Is it any of your business if your neighbor kills their newborn? (Please, leave off the legalisms, this is a question of whether you think it's "your business" or not...... we know the law already, okay?)

reply from: AmericanPie

If you know the law, why do you ask, then? It's impossible to leave off the "legalisms". Why?

Because you seem to continually forget one thing. Abortion is LEGAL. What a woman does within the law is NOT my business. It shouldn't be anyone's except the woman's. The murder of a newborn child is NOT legal. If my neighbor murdered his DOG and I knew about it, then yes, it would be my business. Murdering a DOG is a misdemeanor. Murdering a newborn is a felony.

You are comparing a legal (if "immoral" activity according to you) with an illegal activity. There is no comparison in my view.

reply from: Allizdog2000

Because you seem to continually forget one thing. Abortion is LEGAL. What a woman does within the law is NOT my business. It shouldn't be anyone's except the woman's. The murder of a newborn child is NOT legal. If my neighbor murdered his DOG and I knew about it, then yes, it would be my business. Murdering a DOG is a misdemeanor. Murdering a newborn is a felony.

You are comparing a legal (if "immoral" activity according to you) with an illegal activity. There is no comparison in my view.

It's nearly impossible to debate with someone that has no morals or sense of ethics. Abortion is Legal, but it still doesn't make it moral. Alcohol, Prosititution (in some states) are legal, doesn't make it moral.

If some woman had an abortion... to cover up some infidelity. I wouldn't want to know about it. I wouldn't ask about it. But I will speak out against it in general and lobby to have Roe V Wade overturned. So, I am staying out of women's personal business. We are exercising OUR LEGAL RIGHTS.

That is because, you're callous!



reply from: AmericanPie

Because I support each individual woman's right to make her own decision, you say I "have no morals or sense of ethics". LOL Okay, whatever. If I could shake the skeletons out of your closet, I'd like to bet that my morals and/or sense of ethics far outstrip yours. Just because you make a career out of running around saving embryos and fetuses doesn't automatically give you "morals" or a "sense of ethics". You could be the serial murderer of the century. How the f do we know??? Hitler was an animal lover. He wouldn't hurt an animal if his life depended on it. Get the picture??

Excellent, that's what you should do. It's still a free country last time I looked. I, in turn, lobby to have the government keep its face out of everyone's business. Which I am free to do as well.

I've been called far worse.

reply from: Allizdog2000

Because I support each individual woman's right to make her own decision, you say I "have no morals or sense of ethics". LOL Okay, whatever. If I could shake the skeletons out of your closet, I'd like to bet that my morals and/or sense of ethics far outstrip yours. Just because you make a career out of running around saving embryos and fetuses doesn't automatically give you "morals" or a "sense of ethics". You could be the serial murderer of the century. How the f do we know??? Hitler was an animal lover. He wouldn't hurt an animal if his life depended on it. Get the picture??

Here we go again, Invoking Hitler again!! You're lack of morality is apparent in nearly every post you have made. No, I didn't mention anything about my morals. We are all sinners, no one is near perfect. The Pro-Lifers on this board display far more morals and ethics than any of the Pro-Abortionists.

Because you probably are...

reply from: AmericanPie

Spare me your drivel about "sinners", ok? Morality comes from within. Not from any Being floating in the sky. I was "invoking" Hitler as you say, to give you an analogy. Sorry if it hewed too close to the bone for ya.

You don't know me. You don't know my life, or anything about it. Yet you say I have a "lack of morals" because I favor people making their own choices rather than some government or religious entity doing it for them. Very well, since you generalize like this,

You do know what they say about sticks and stones, right?

reply from: bobinsky

Well how about taxpayers who don't want their taxes going to organizations or causes that they don't believe in? Or are just the anti-choicers given the opportunity to decide where their tax money goes? I don't want my money going to abstinence-only education when it's been proven that this is ineffective and useless.
In the case of poor women, why should they get the shaft concerning abortion? Only those who can afford it can terminate pregnancies while poor women do what?

reply from: Allizdog2000

you should be sorry for be lame and unoriginal in your argument. I will not spare you any "drivel" about sinning. Abortion is a mortal sin. You endorse a mortal sin. And call it "Women's Rights"

After reading your posts, I don't want to.

You're lack of morality comes from promoting abortion. You can't be Pro-Choice and Moral!

PPFA (and allies, NOW and NARAL) murdered more Americans than all the wars and terrorist acts combined! So, whom are the terrorists? When the most safest place in the world, A mother's womb is no longer safe. They don't respect human life. Nor do you.

Sticks and Stones will break your brokens, but words will hurt so much more!

reply from: yoda

You really do know that's a totally meaningless statement, don't you? EVERYONE makes "their own choices", in one way or the other. YOU say you choose to obey laws even if you don't agree with them, that's a "choice".

Or did you mean the "choice" that only refers to killing your own baby?

reply from: AmericanPie

Bob, yep, I hear ya.

Which is I why I think tax money should be doled out to these "causes" very sparingly, if at all.

Hey...I don't want my tax money going to make Haliburton richer in Iraq. Sadly, there's nothing I can do about it. Right now, anyway.

reply from: AmericanPie

Oh my yes, I should be sorry for be lame. Absolutely. Show me where in the Bible it states that abortion is a "mortal sin". Point me to the passage, please. Err...not the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" one. For if God meant abortion he would've said "thou shalt not abort thy fetus".

That was just a statement. I mean...you weren't really expecting me to divulge my...shhh...innermost secrets, were you??

Many who are anti-choice are also pro-death penalty. Yet they are considered "moral" by the anti-choice crusaders, even though both procedures end life...one not developed yet, and one fully developed into adulthood. Explain that conundrum, please. Spare me the crap that "ending the life of a criminal is justified." Both procedures end life. Explain how those who are against abortion can still support the death penalty and be considered "moral".

Translated: I'd much rather be on a bloody crusade to save the embryos and feti of the world, rather than doing something positive for those who are already here...like promoting peace on this war-stricken earth.

I've never killed anything in my life. I wonder...can you say the same? Normally such militants as yourself have a BIG skeleton swinging in their closet. Hmm. Food for thought.

May I suggest using the grammar-check on your computer?

That is a ridiculous statement!

What was the last law you deliberately disregarded, Yod, did you get away with it, and if you did...HOW did you get away with it? Curiosity strikes me here. Enlighten us.

Three little words strike me here. YOUR OWN BABY. Yes, that's right. As in...mine. Not YOUR baby, but MINE, or that of any woman, a stranger you don't know and never will know, and over something that has not developed enough to be called a "baby" yet, but rather is called an "embryo" or "fetus" until its birth. "YOUR OWN BABY". How then, do you have the right to tell her what she may do in a private matter that concerns you NADA? How do you feel you have the right to force her to see things YOUR way?

reply from: ChristianLott

God, that's so wonderful to hear.

Like water in a desert. Pro abortion people have destroyed our country.

We will all learn. If we can't we'll die.

reply from: bobinsky

What strikes me is the hypocrisy of these people. Lott had no problem "knocking up" a woman, then refused to marry her - he wanted the cream but not the cow - so she aborted the twins she was carrying that were supposedly Lott's. When he wanted to avail himself of abortion, he had no issue with it, but now he wants to tell other women what to do with their bodies? I don't think so.
Some anti-choicers, maybe quite a few, I don't know for sure, have a "story" like Norma McCorvey's, wherein the choice was good enough for her, but now they've seen the "error of their ways" and want to tell others how to live. BS. Ya screwed up; tough. Stay out of other people's lives.

reply from: sarah

What's wrong with, "ya screwed up; tough". Now take responsibiltity for your actions??? And not make the child in your womb pay the ultimate price?

Or is that too much to expect of people?

reply from: bobinsky

Amp, if I remember correctly - it's late and I'm exhausted - isn't Missouri the state that gave us that fine first-bush term AG John Ashcroft, you know, the guy running for office in Missouri and he lost to a dead man? This is Missouri? Yeah, boy. Then bush dumps his dumb butt like a hot potato.

reply from: AmericanPie

Oh. So that's the skeleton that swings so mightily in the dusty corner of Lott's closet. Verrrrrry interesting. I knew it had to be something. So now he feels he must atone for his "actions", I assume. Very honorable, yes indeed. But atone for your own actions if you want to atone, Lott. Volunteer your time at an adoption agency. Better yet, get married and adopt a few kids. Offer your services at a facility for homeless mothers and children. Do something constructive and positive, rather than brandishing a sword and crusading around the country, making every woman pay for your "sin". Every woman's uterus is none of your business.

Edited to add: Yes, Bob, it was Missouri.

reply from: bobinsky

So it was Missouri! Can you imagine forever being known as "John Ashcroft, former AG, who lost to a dead man in a state election"? The irony of it all! And that idiot bush stumps him for AG. The dead guy would have done a better job.

Yep, Amp, as I said, it seems that once all the dust has settled, anti-choicers have stories, if they are to be believed. Only thing is, I don't want to hear them. I don't care.

edited to add: Look far enough back in the archives and you'll read some stories that'll curl your hair permanently! Lots of very interesting stuff back there.

reply from: Allizdog2000

Uh... Liberals, especially FemNazis and Glorified Paralegals, That feed apon and enjoy the victimhood status. A Right-Wing Government or a Christian theocracy is what this nation needs to go back to being moral. The Laws of God, The Laws of Nature, then the Laws of Man. We have that reversed. The Laws of Man, Nature then God.



reply from: ChristianLott

I won't respond to generalizations about my history. The best you can do is deflate and disparage and twist.

Dance.

You claim murdering babies is okay. What more is there to know?

You're going to Hell.

reply from: yoda

Relevance? Or just poking around?

So, you're claiming it's okay to kill a baby because it's "your baby"? Wow..... what compassion....

BTW:

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.

INTELLIHEALTH:
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|
"Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.

BIOTECH Life Sciences Dictionary: http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search.mhtml?bo1=OR&word=&search_type=normal&def=baby 2. Edward's Syndrome ( Edwards' syndrome, trisomy 18, trisomy E) Definition:

A congenital disorder caused by a baby having an extra copy of chromosome 18 (three instead of the normal two). Characteristics of the disorder include a large number of different malformed organs and malformed physical features of the face and skeletal structure. In most cases, the child dies before it is born; 90% of babies born live die within a year of birth. Symptoms may be less severe when the trisomy occurs after fertilization during mitosis in the zygote (10% of cases), than when the trisomy occurs during the meiosis which produced the egg or sperm (90% of cases).

For more information, visit http://www.icondata.com/health/pedbase/files/TRISOMY2.HTM.

STEDMAN'S Online Medical Dictionary: http://www.stedmans.com/section.cfm/45
Baby: Sorry, but the Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary-Abridged doesn't include a definition for this term.

reply from: yoda

Nasty personal attacks are the primary weapons in the proabort arsenal, CL.

reply from: Hereforareason

Is that an actual quote from one of his previous posts? If so, CL when did you change your mind about abortion? And how drastically?

Amber

reply from: yoda

You're asking CL to comment on a nasty personal attack from a proabort?

My, my....... your loyalties really are showing now!

reply from: Hereforareason

If it's a true story and he posted it here, he meant for it to be discussed. Or he should have thought twice before he posted it.

bobinsky did not come out calling him... names. She stated the facts, it seems, from what he earlier posted. Which I am trying to find out if he did. If it wasn't a true story it would be a very low blow personal attack.

Amber

reply from: yoda

NO KIDDING?? And the fact that CL already indicated he didn't wish to respond to that LOW BLOW PERSONAL ATTACK completely escaped your attention?

So now you want to rub his nose in it a little?

How very kind of you.........

reply from: Hereforareason

I guess this is the way you opperate all the time huh?
No, I asked him a question and if he doesn't want to answer it fine. That's his right. I did not come out calling him names and telling him he did a wicked thing yada yada yada. I asked a question. You have a problem with it? Obvioulsy.

Are you saying that the story is not true? By the way, it was not directed at him but given as information to another. Another who was debating with him.

Amber

reply from: yoda

You just won't let it go, will you? A proabort made a nasty personal attack, and CL posted that he would not respond to it, but you just won't let it go, will you?

So because it was posted as gossip instead of directed to the victim, that makes it better?

Do you really enjoy discussing nasty personal attacks that much? Or just those against ProLifers?

reply from: Hereforareason

I am asking a question for my information. If it bugs you lay off and let CL tell me if he doesn't want to answer.



Let's see. We would need a definition of gossip. If correct information is being given for a reason, not just story telling and talking behind people's backs, no I wouldn't call it gossip.

I'm tempted to give you an example of "nasty personal attacks".

If you want to see me that way, you aren't going to see me any other way. You've made your choice. .
If someone is asking me a serious question, I'll answer. But I've already wasted more time than I can afford responding to you yoda.

Amber

reply from: yoda

He's already said he doesn't want to respond to that attack............. and we've all heard more than we wanted to from you about it.

reply from: AmericanPie

No, Lott, actually I'm going to Wal-Mart.

Hey dude. I understand your concern now, believe me. With a past like yours, I definitely understand it and I would be living in fear of damnation every moment, as you are doing now.

reply from: AmericanPie

Attack? Hardly, Yod. Bob just discussed a little bit of CL's history, that's all. She couldn't help it if his history is somewhat selfish and ugly, CL did that on his own.

I kinda thought it was something like that. No one could be such a bent-out-of-his-mind-crusader as he is and not have a verrrrry black past to atone for.

reply from: yoda

I've noticed that those who make the nasty personal attacks don't usually admit they're doing anything wrong. But that's all you proaborts have to bring to the debate, so we understand.

reply from: Tam

I disagree with this. Wasn't it the case that he considered some people less than human? That means he must have considered them animals, and had no qualms about exterminating them by the millions. Hitler was a sick, twisted man whose ethics were so off that the above statement is offensive to me as an animal lover and a lover of human beings.

reply from: sarah

I disagree with this. Wasn't it the case that he considered some people less than human? That means he must have considered them animals, and had no qualms about exterminating them by the millions. Hitler was a sick, twisted man whose ethics were so off that the above statement is offensive to me as an animal lover and a lover of human beings.

Oh yes, he was a great animal lover. That's why he killed his dog right before he killed himself.

reply from: Tam

I disagree with this. Wasn't it the case that he considered some people less than human? That means he must have considered them animals, and had no qualms about exterminating them by the millions. Hitler was a sick, twisted man whose ethics were so off that the above statement is offensive to me as an animal lover and a lover of human beings.

Oh yes, he was a great animal lover. That's why he killed his dog right before he killed himself.

Oh, so much for "wouldn't hurt an animal if his life depended on it"!

reply from: yoda

I saw a tv program about his WW1 experience, and they said he was very cruel to a stray dog that had taken up residence in his trench.

But I think that the more telling thing was that he had himself photographed patting the Hitler youth boys on the head just before the end of the war, and then he sent them into battle against the Russian tanks.

reply from: sarah

Amazing how these pro-aborts have selective memory and can find ways to defend the likes of Hitler and MS!! Who's mind is twisted??? Hmmm, shall we answer that?

reply from: bobinsky

Amber, here is ONE of CL's posts concerning the slaughter of his twin babies. I fail to see how something that CL has posted on several public forums can be considered anything but public knowledge. He even asks people to read his "story". Now that a simple question has been asked about a truthful statement I made - not gossip, not personal attack, but a true statement quoted from the horse's mouth - yoda's all over the place. If CL doesn't want to dwell on this or talk about it, fine, but don't be posting it on forums and asking people to read it. And this is part of the hypocrisy that anti-choicers spew: they want the option when THEY needed it, but now that they think about it, it's wrong, so they want to remove the same option from everyone else. This is nothing but sheer hypocrisy. And if CL has an issue with discussing this, he shouldn't be posting it and asking people to read it.

I've bolded the relevant section that CL and yoda choose to ignore:

05/15/2005 12:01 AM
ChristianLott
Senior Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 04/18/2005
Please read this:

UNWANTED

I post this all the time because this seems to be the pro aborts main argument. If you just take the time to read, you will find out that your argument only sounds good, but in practice - it doesn't work.

Child abuse and violence increased on a huge scale after roe v wade.

As a personal story, my grandmother told my mother she didn't want to have her or her sisters and that the only reason she did was because her husband (my grandfather) 'made' her. well, I can tell you - I love my life and I am thankful I am here. I took care of my grandmother for two years after my grandfather died and I don't regret it, I just don't think she's .... to put it mildly, she has issues.

When I was young I was angry at my mother for putting me in this world. I used to tell her I hated her.

I've changed though. It took me a long time to realize. I think my heart really changed after my ex girlfriend murdered our babies. Before everything was like a bad movie, like a recurring, meaningless drama - living each day without purpose. Morals were just 'cultural issues'. Only after I saw what I was partly responsible for, the murder of my own babies, did it dawn on me. This isn't a movie.

This ain't gossip, Amber. As I said, it's straight from the horse's mouth. If you believe CL's changed, that's fine. But because he says he's changed doesn't make it so. And you can clearly see that no one's talking behind anyone's back - it's right out here in the open.

reply from: SueYu

I just thought you all could use a history lesson. None of you got it right though the first one was far more right than wrong. But the rest of you get a zero.

http://www.geocities.com/hitlerwasavegetarian/

He not only loved animals, he was a vegetarian because of it.

Carry on.

reply from: bobinsky

Thank you for the history lesson, Sue Yu. And welcome to the board. I saw a documentary of one of Hitler's secretaries who also vouched for his love of animals, especially dogs and in particular Blondie. Did Blondie not have a litter of pups? I believe he killed Blondie first so he knew that she wouldn't be abused or mistreated by the advancing Russians. I can't say that I blame him for making sure she wouldn't suffer at the hands of the troops because they were out for revenge.

Thanks again for the lesson.

reply from: bobinsky

Oh give me a break, yoda. CL tells this same story on different boards for everyone to boo-hoo over and now I'm making a personal attack by repeating what he's already repeated several times himself. Why does CL not wish to respond to the truth I posted? Does he have a problem with the truth? Aren't you people all for taking responsibility for the lives created? CL didn't do this. He walked away, he weaseled out of his responsibility and his babies were slaughtered. And you have no problem with this when he did it, but you can call pro-choicers murderers? A little double-standard here, doncha think? If he didn't want to talk about it or have it mentioned in a discussion, why does he post it?

reply from: ChristianLott

Responsibility?

How do you know?

She'll never find out what kind of father I'd have been because she made her demands and slaughtered the babies a week later.

It's called panic and we can only thank her pro abort girlfriends for rushing her into it.

You really want to talk about my life or are you taking half truths and fitting them to your agenda?

The former I'm sure. That's why I don't talk to ex ACLU attorneys with a chip on their shoulder. You don't want the truth, you want something to fit your agenda regardless of the damage to others.

Butcher.

reply from: sarah

Sorry, but you get the Zero for posting a defense of Hitler. The first poster said he couldn't hurt an animal if his life depended on it! HE KILLED HIS DOG! It takes some kind of twisted logic to say he couldn't when HE DID!

http://www.geocities.com/hitlerwasavegetarian/

He not only loved animals, he was a vegetarian because of it.

Carry on.

Well, now I've heard everything! I cannot believe my eyes.

HITLER COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLEY KNOWN THE MEANING OF LOVE!

And how anyone could think or post anything to the contrary is mind boggling!!!! And speaks VOLUMES about the poster!!!!
Only a pro-abort could find something that sugar coats this MONSTER! I suppose you think Margaret Sanger was a model citizen instead of a completely heartless racist.
Do you know how repulsive and OFFENSIVE it is for someone with a Jewish heritage to read this???????

reply from: sarah

Something looks a little suspicious about the name "Sue Yu".....sounds like "ambulance chaser" talk to me. I guess the technical term is "Lawyer"...hmmm.

Maybe Terry should be informed, he will be able to tell if the IP's are the same. I found the post by "Sue Yu" offensive enough to wonder.

reply from: YodeMan

Sorry, but you get the Zero for posting a defense of Hitler. The first poster said he couldn't hurt an animal if his life depended on it! HE KILLED HIS DOG! It takes some kind of twisted logic to say he couldn't when HE DID!

http://www.geocities.com/hitlerwasavegetarian/

He not only loved animals, he was a vegetarian because of it.

Carry on.

Well, now I've heard everything! I cannot believe my eyes.

HITLER COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLEY KNOWN THE MEANING OF LOVE!

And how anyone could think or post anything to the contrary is mind boggling!!!! And speaks VOLUMES about the poster!!!!
Only a pro-abort could find something that sugar coats this MONSTER! I suppose you think Margaret Sanger was a model citizen instead of a completely heartless racist.
Do you know how repulsive and OFFENSIVE it is for someone with a Jewish heritage to read this???????

Thanks for the information Sue.

And Sarah, how you can function in your black-and-white, good v. evil, all-or-nothing world, without your head exploding from the internal pressure, is beyond me. You know, Hitler was a baby once, then a child. Even a Christian!! He became quite the model of evil, to be sure. But he wasn't the spawn of Satan either. But I expect nothing less. You people think that if a woman destroys even a single embryo, she is just like Hitler and Stalin. And it is not about finding goodness in people like them. It is about knowing the truth. The whole, ugly, complicated truth. Something you obviously have a hard time with. And by the way, are you a Christian?

reply from: bobinsky

Listen, Sparky, it's not MY agenda that's at play here. You demonize and condemn women that have abortions yet when the time came for you to stand up and take responsibility for YOUR actions, you didn't do it. Doesn't matter what "demands" you say she made. You want to force women to bear children they don't want and can't care for, yet you took the easy way out when it came time for you. What our story shows is that you are a hypocrite. Because of your lack of responsibility - yeah, you wanted the 3 seconds of ecstasy but not the responsibility - those babies were slaughtered. So I would think long and hard if I were you about condemning anyone else AND lecturing other people about responsibility.
As far as half truths, I read your stories because you said "Please read this". So if there are half-truths in the matter, they had to come from you, since I quoted you word-for-word.

We already KNOW what kind of father you were: you walked away from the woman carrying twins. This says a lot about what kind of person you are. If you really cared about those babies, you'd have done what it took to save them. But you didn't.

reply from: YodeMan

Or she is Asian, you idiot!! What is offensive here is you. Look how you treat a new member! Making fun of her name...belittling her opinion...condemning her facts without offering a single bit of evidence to dispute them...My God - grow up already. Or do you think this is grade-school recess?

reply from: bobinsky

Who cares what you think, sob sister? Do you know how many Jews are repulsed by abortion being compared to the holocaust? I posted an article about this very same subject and the fact that Jews think it is degrading for the Jews that suffered and died at the hands of Hitler to be compared to feti and you ignored it. So why should anybody care that you're offended when you don't care if others are? Quid pro quo.

edited to add:
I have a neighbor of Jewish descent who lost much of her family in the holocaust and she get livid when someone compares what happened to her relatives to a fetus being aborted.
Also, Jews weren't the only ones who died at Hitler's hands. You seem to forget this.

reply from: sarah

Ordinarily I would not answer a personl question. But, under these circumstances I will as to let you know why my "head" doesn't explode.

I am a JEW who became a Christian later in life. My Jewish heritiage is a great source of joy and Godly pride. Unless you are a Jew who has lost family members to the holocuaust you could not possibly understand the outrage and offense at reading ANYTHING that remotley sugar coats anything about the monster Hitler.
I would rather risk my "head exploding" then spend one minute with the mindset "YOU PEOPLE" live within.
That you could say anything whatsoever to tone down or try and paint a face of humanity on the very embodiment of evil is BEYOND ME!

I really didn't use to think this, really I didn't....but after the last month on these boards I am beginning to believe that pro-aborts are some of the most cold, heartless humans beings there are, fastly approaching evil itself.

reply from: sarah

Or she is Asian, you idiot!! What is offensive here is you. Look how you treat a new member! Making fun of her name...belittling her opinion...condemning her facts without offering a single bit of evidence to dispute them...My God - grow up already. Or do you think this is grade-school recess?

What I think is, she offended Jews. If you don't like that then too doggone bad.
Cry me a river.
You're the IDIOT, but then I don't expect anything less from pro-aborts, NOT ANYMORE!

reply from: sarah

Who cares what you think, sob sister? Do you know how many Jews are repulsed by abortion being compared to the holocaust? I posted an article about this very same subject and the fact that Jews think it is degrading for the Jews that suffered and died at the hands of Hitler to be compared to feti and you ignored it. So why should anybody care that you're offended when you don't care if others are? Quid pro quo.

edited to add:
I have a neighbor of Jewish descent who lost much of her family in the holocaust and she get livid when someone compares what happened to her relatives to a fetus being aborted.
Also, Jews weren't the only ones who died at Hitler's hands. You seem to forget this.

People with heart care...but, then since you don't have one I wouldn't expect you to.

And I haven't forgotten anything, you dolt.

And it just so happens that I know plenty of Jews who find abortion as equally repulsive as the holocaust. So, who cares what you think. And where did I compare the two in my reply to Sue Yu? You people assume entirely too much!
I didn't ignore anything, I try and scroll past anything you post. I didn't reply to your diatribe because I didn't see the stupid thing.
So, save your indignation and take it where someone cares!

reply from: YodeMan

Ordinarily I would not answer a personl question. But, under these circumstances I will as to let you know why my "head" doesn't explode.

I am a JEW who became a Christian later in life. My Jewish heritiage is a great source of joy and Godly pride. Unless you are a Jew who has lost family members to the holocuaust you could not possibly understand the outrage and offense at reading ANYTHING that remotley sugar coats anything about the monster Hitler.
I would rather risk my "head exploding" then spend one minute with the mindset "YOU PEOPLE" live within.
That you could say anything whatsoever to tone down or try and paint a face of humanity on the very embodiment of evil is BEYOND ME!

I really didn't use to think this, really I didn't....but after the last month on these boards I am beginning to believe that pro-aborts are some of the most cold, heartless humans beings there are, fastly approaching evil itself.

So, you are a Christian. Well, to answer what I've highlighted: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." He was a human being. God loved him. And even died for the likes of him, you, and me. How 'bout that for the "face of humanity". I may not like it. You may not like it. But there it is all the same. I guess the Christian qualities of mercy and forgiveness have no place in your life. But regardless, I am not the idiot here, nor the one with the problem. You clearly have issues of faith and your Jewish heritage to deal with. I hope for you the best. What Hitler did to the Jews is clearly an evil act. But he did many heinous things to many people and groups of people. What if I told you I am of Polish heritage? Or French? Or what if I am from the Sudan? Or one of my ancestors was killed during the Inquisition? Or Salem witch hunts? We can all claim the "human suffering" trump card in one way or another. But if facts of history offend you, to the point you will completely cut down an innocent new member, then you need to deal with some things. And for what it is worth, no, I can't imagine what it was or is like to be a Jew. And my heart goes out to you and your family, even to your people. But that is no excuse for the kind of behavior you have exhibited here. The Holocaust was a terrible, history-changing event. But it is not a universal, for-all-time, trump card and excuse.

reply from: Skippy

Seven days is a reasonable and sufficient amount of time for a woman to give a man to decide whether he's going to do right by her or not.

reply from: SueYu

I'm a historian. I gave you a few actual facts from history to counter the falsehoods you wrote. This was about Hitler being an animal lover. Not a people lover. I gave you some facts from history showing that he was indeed an animal lover. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish people or "pro-aborts" and I have no idea how Margaret Sanger entered the conversation. I gave you some historical facts. If you don't like the facts, don't read them. But it's best if you don't try to rewrite history.

By this response to my first post, you show that you are a very argumentative and belligerent lady. Many of the posters on this board are, I've discovered by reading the posts. Does a person dare not open his or her mouth here, without fear of swift reprisal?

reply from: chooselife

Did I miss something?? Why are we debating whether or not Hitler loved or didn't love animals? He killed 6 million PEOPLE!! I don't care if he had 50 dogs and treated them like kings....even Charles Manson can get a dog to love him....that is what dogs do....they love and worship the person that feeds them and pets them. How again does this relate to the topic of abortion??

reply from: Skippy

Actually, he killed about twice that many. For whatever reason, though, in most people's minds the only ones that "count" are the jews he killed.

reply from: SueYu

The statement was made that Hitler was an animal lover. That he wouldn't hurt an animal if his life depended on it.

Counter statements were made, doubting that he was an animal lover.

I provided links to quotes and anecdotes from Hitler and from others who personally knew him, stating that he was indeed an animal lover. And a vegeterian.

You state that he killed 6 million people. Actually, it was more than that. But this has nothing to do with the original statement, that he was an animal lover. Nothing. No claim was made that he was a people lover. The statement was made that he was an animal lover, it was refuted by some of you here, and I provided historical documentation showing that he was indeed an animal lover.

Again this has nothing to do with any of his other beliefs or actions. He simply adored animals. That is a fact. What do you not understand? Do you think that because he was one of the worst mass murderers of the 20th century that he can't possibly have an affection for animals? Even the most hideous human beings of history have held affection in their hearts for animals and various other things, like flowers, or nature, and the like.

I was refuting several statements made here with historical fact. You and several others took offense. Sorry about that, but it isn't my problem.

PS: My ancestry is Asian. "Yu" is my last name. Sorry if it offends some of you, but again, it isn't my problem.

reply from: sarah

Ordinarily I would not answer a personl question. But, under these circumstances I will as to let you know why my "head" doesn't explode.

I am a JEW who became a Christian later in life. My Jewish heritiage is a great source of joy and Godly pride. Unless you are a Jew who has lost family members to the holocuaust you could not possibly understand the outrage and offense at reading ANYTHING that remotley sugar coats anything about the monster Hitler.
I would rather risk my "head exploding" then spend one minute with the mindset "YOU PEOPLE" live within.
That you could say anything whatsoever to tone down or try and paint a face of humanity on the very embodiment of evil is BEYOND ME!

I really didn't use to think this, really I didn't....but after the last month on these boards I am beginning to believe that pro-aborts are some of the most cold, heartless humans beings there are, fastly approaching evil itself.

So, you are a Christian. Well, to answer what I've highlighted: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." He was a human being. God loved him. And even died for the likes of him, you, and me. How 'bout that for the "face of humanity". I may not like it. You may not like it. But there it is all the same. I guess the Christian qualities of mercy and forgiveness have no place in your life. But regardless, I am not the idiot here, nor the one with the problem. You clearly have issues of faith and your Jewish heritage to deal with. I hope for you the best. What Hitler did to the Jews is clearly an evil act. But he did many heinous things to many people and groups of people. What if I told you I am of Polish heritage? Or French? Or what if I am from the Sudan? Or one of my ancestors was killed during the Inquisition? Or Salem witch hunts? We can all claim the "human suffering" trump card in one way or another. But if facts of history offend you, to the point you will completely cut down an innocent new member, then you need to deal with some things. And for what it is worth, no, I can't imagine what it was or is like to be a Jew. And my heart goes out to you and your family, even to your people. But that is no excuse for the kind of behavior you have exhibited here. The Holocaust was a terrible, history-changing event. But it is not a universal, for-all-time, trump card and excuse.

I stand by my initial postings concerning putting a face of "humanity" on the likes of Hitler. And I'll take any correction concerning any fault I have with those views from someone I have respect twords and who actually know me. What has light to do with darkness?

As soon as you can see the "humanity" in the life of the unborn then you have my full permission to correct me on my stance of "mercy and forgiveness". Until then you only have my permission to save it till such a time.

You want to tell me about finding "excuses"? I've seen the spiritual and biblical contortions people have to go thru in order to support abortion while at the same time professing a knowledge and relationship with God. These children are created in His image. I'll take my chances the day I stand before Him with my hatred of all things concerning Hitler rather than have the blood of the innocent on my hands.

reply from: Hereforareason

No it's not your problem and it shouldn't matter.

Amber

reply from: ChristianLott

Good point, Skippy.

50 million babies have been slaughtered by abortion they say, but that's only from abortion mills. The rest are slaughter at 5-7 days old through abortifacients like the Pill and Norplant and the IUD.

reply from: yoda

I've never known you to post any "truth", so I can't answer that question. Why don't you ask CL?

reply from: sarah

Hitler loved animals, yet he killed his dog. Pro-aborts love children, yet they have no problem with them being killed within the womb. I see the connection.

At one time this board was a very peacful and respectful place to post. Things have changed over the last month or so, I'll give you that. I can see where you would wonder if there is the need to fear "swift reprisals". For that, I apologize.

Having to endure personal attacks for this length of time, I've lost my resolve not to reciprocate. And for that I apologize to you personally.

This being a debate forum there are bound to be differing opinions. I know what you say history has said about Hitler loving animals. However, I stand by my contention that he did no such thing. His conduct proves without a shadow of a doubt he was not capable of love for anything. In my view, if you love something you protect it and at all costs. He did no such thing. And since Yodavater mentioned in his post that he saw a documentary about his treatment of a stray dog during his time in WWI, I would say that only helps bolster the real truth of the matter, even in the face of some portion of history saying otherwise.

History doesn't always get everything right.

reply from: SueYu

You apparently did not read my full post. So I will repost this part for you:

Thank you. Apology accepted.

I really don't know how history can be denied. My thesis for grad school was about the Third Reich, so I think I can speak with authority on this topic.

Horrible personages throughout history have done "nice things" from time to time. Did you know that Caligula, the most depraved and bloodthirsty caesar of ancient Rome, was so fond of his horse Incitatus, that he made him a "member" of the Senate, kept him in the palace where he had his own handmaid and room, and forbid anyone to touch him? In fact, the price for even getting close to the horse was death. Yet Caligula slaughtered thousands and thousands of innocents and tortured thousands more. Just for his own pleasure.

History is in the past. It really can't "get" anything right because it is the past, therefore it's already been done. History is what it is, and a lot of it is ugly. It's a documented recording of the events of humankind. That is all. History is fact. Philosophy is "truth" and is therefore debatable, unlike history.

Unfortunately, a lot of humankind's history IS ugly. But there is also a lot that isn't.

reply from: chooselife

Yes I will accept the correction that Hitler killed more than 6 million people. However, no one answered how Hitler being an animal lover has anything remotely to do with a discussion about abortion....

reply from: bobinsky

Caligula had many, ah, issues that he needed to deal with, especially familial fondness. I was unaware of the story about his horse. Interesting.

You are indeed correct that history is past, it is written and can't be changed, but this doesn't stop people from attempting to rewrite it anyway.

reply from: bobinsky

This is what's weird, Yode, about "christianity". Christ died for everyone - even Hitler - and he gets the same chance as everybody else, like Mother Teresa (don't start with me, Yode). Why?
But look at all the hatred and bloodshed in the Bible, with god smiting people left and right, killing woman and children who'd done nothing wrong, just because he was angry. What sort of justice is this?

reply from: SueYu

Familial fondness indeed! Especially with his sister Drusilla, whom he married, impregnated, and then when she was about 6 months pregnant, he strung her up and disemboweled her and the unborn child along with it. Believing himself a "god", he feared the child she was carrying would become "greater" than he. He gave new meaning to the word "depraved".

Ok, I realize this isn't a history forum. I guess enough's enough.

reply from: yoda

I agree wholeheartedly. Enough.

reply from: Hereforareason

You're close, but I think you might be missing something.
Christ died for everyone's sins, but that is only if they accept it. A prisoner on death row isn't going to get out if a pardon is given him but he refuses it.

where is that? can you give me a reference? Or bible story?

Amber

reply from: YodeMan

This is what's weird, Yode, about "christianity". Christ died for everyone - even Hitler - and he gets the same chance as everybody else, like Mother Teresa (don't start with me, Yode). Why?
But look at all the hatred and bloodshed in the Bible, with god smiting people left and right, killing woman and children who'd done nothing wrong, just because he was angry. What sort of justice is this?

Ok, I won't start, but it is so tempting...

As to why?, like another poster said it is about "accepting", not chances. Many also believe that one cannot travel beyond the "opportunity" for redemption in this life. It is available to all. I think even Hitler would have had the opportunity for last rights if he requested it. I doubt he would have ever asked, though. Mother Teresa was who she was because early in her life she chose a certain path. Hitler was who he was at the end because he long before chose a very different path. You're looking at the end result only, not the whole long road that led him there. Try to see him as a happy child frolicking in the fields(I'm sure he had at least one such moment in life!), and maybe it will make more sense. It is not about the chances he missed, but rather the choices he, and I'm sure others for him, made. Obviously MT and Hitler are very different and not equals in terms of goodness, but they were equals in the sense of "all men are created equal". And on that basis, he too was one of God's children.

As far as the second part, I just don't know Bob. I've heard so much twisting and defending of the OT Yahweh over the years that I am thoroughly lost. Sometimes, to me, Jesus and Yahweh seem like two totally different gods. Even Jesus debunks much of the OT and shows us a completely different way. All I know for sure is that the OT was a very different time, the OT is always careful to make clear that God is exercising righteous judgement on the evil in the world, and there are many good things there that are mirrored in the NT. But beyond that, I don't know, and all that is just not enough for me, and I have more and more of a problem with this very thing as time goes on. But in the end, I choose the teachings of Jesus and the picture he paints of God. And if I can't reconcile something, I go with Jesus, not Yahweh. And unlike another poster, that is my only claim before God, not my ideas or my morality or which set of rules I follow. I think for a Christian, Jesus is the only place to go for the center of your faith. And I think many today, while they claim otherwise, don't really believe that and live by it. The Ten Commandments and church doctrines sure seem more popular today as objects of worship.

I'm sure that didn't help. I wish I could explain it better, but I'm questioning much of my own faith these days. And you know which group of Christians I blame for that, right??


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