Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Press Releases and Film News => Topic started by: Allhallowsday on April 18, 2012, 02:28:56 PM



Title: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 18, 2012, 02:28:56 PM
Reporter Megan Carpentier undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound to frame abortion debate 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/reporter-megan-carpentier-undergoes-unnecessary-transvaginal-ultrasound-frame-155926605.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/reporter-megan-carpentier-undergoes-unnecessary-transvaginal-ultrasound-frame-155926605.html)


Plenty of pundits on both sides of the ideological aisle have weighed in on the country's ongoing abortion debate and the transvaginal ultrasound mandates passed by several states—what some people argue is part of the GOP's so-called "war on women." But few have actually gone through the procedure—which is why Megan Carpentier, executive editor of the progressive news site Raw Story, decided to have a "completely unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound" and document the experience for readers.

"It was vigorously uncomfortable," Carpentier wrote, partly "because the technician has to press the wand directly against the areas she wants to get an image of—your uterus, Fallopian tubes and ovaries—so there's more movement and more direct contact with pressure-sensitive areas of your body..."

...She concluded: "It's not a choice to be made at a distance by elected officials with an ideological axe to grind, little medical knowledge and a belief that it's acceptable to require doctors to put unnecessary instruments inside women's bodies in an effort to achieve in practice what they can't constitutionally pass into law: an end to abortion."


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/reporter-megan-carpentier-undergoes-unnecessary-transvaginal-ultrasound-frame-155926605.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/reporter-megan-carpentier-undergoes-unnecessary-transvaginal-ultrasound-frame-155926605.html)


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 18, 2012, 02:53:42 PM
You are doing some serious baiting lately, my friend.

But I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 18, 2012, 03:05:56 PM
You are doing some serious baiting lately, my friend.

But I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it.
You obviously don't typically look at my news postings.  Perhaps the last couple of days may seem baiting, but I think they are interesting stories well worth discussion, and I've been posting controversial news stories here as long as I've belonged. 


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 18, 2012, 03:08:22 PM
You are doing some serious baiting lately, my friend.

But I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it.
You obviously don't typically look at my news postings.  Perhaps the last couple of days may seem baiting, but I think they are interesting stories well worth discussion, and I've been posting controversial news stories here as long as I've belonged. 

Just seems to be a higher volume I guess. I love it. But hey, you should know I look because I get involved in them. Party on.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: alandhopewell on April 18, 2012, 03:16:20 PM
     What's wrong with requiring a woman to have an ultrasound if she wants an abortion? It's nothing more than providing her with information so as to make an informed choice.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 18, 2012, 03:56:29 PM
     What's wrong with requiring a woman to have an ultrasound if she wants an abortion? It's nothing more than providing her with information so as to make an informed choice.
Requiring?  I don't think the government should legislate requirements regarding lots of things, including medical procedures.  Did you read the article? 


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 18, 2012, 04:13:02 PM
Here are a couple of observations for consideration.

I do think it's a little ironic that the same side of the political spectrum that opposes mandatory healthcare is in favor of a mandatory medical procedure.

It's also more than a little sad how damaging the polarization of America has become. Personally I am opposed to abortion, and would support it being largely illegal. But this to me is pretty obviously a separate issue. Yet, because of this stagnating polarization that trickles down from Washington to the very fabric of American life, such an issue just gets shoved to one side or the other.

Very sad. Polarization is a stagnating, mentally debilitating reality in America today. I believe that in many ways it is affecting the American psyche in ways far more destructive than any left or right agenda that we would be led to believe is the enemy. It is because of this polarization that we can't resolve our national budget. My two young boys throwing sand at each other in their sandbox show as much maturity as I see in Congress.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 18, 2012, 05:32:32 PM
Personally, I believe with our founders that the first duty of government is to defend the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens.  That includes unborn life.  Requiring someone to actually see what it is they are proposing to kill - and I do not choose that word lightly; I firmly believe abortion KILLS unborn children - is the least we can ask of them before they have that tiny life chopped into pieces and sucked into a sink.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 18, 2012, 05:53:34 PM
Personally, I believe with our founders that the first duty of government is to defend the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens.  That includes unborn life.  Requiring someone to actually see what it is they are proposing to kill - and I do not choose that word lightly; I firmly believe abortion KILLS unborn children - is the least we can ask of them before they have that tiny life chopped into pieces and sucked into a sink.

Despite our differences, we agree on abortion. I think there is nothing wrong with "asking" somebody to do anything. "Requiring" it is a different story. I honestly find it surprising that those who would oppose mandatory healthcare would support ANY mandatory medical procedure. I'm confused.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: lester1/2jr on April 18, 2012, 06:14:56 PM
Quote
I think there is nothing wrong with "asking" somebody to do anything. "Requiring" it is a different story.

I agree. It's unconstitutional. My tax dollars going to pay for a procedure the women having it dont want or need? no thanks.  Jesus didn't forcibly convert pagans.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: The Gravekeeper on April 18, 2012, 06:24:20 PM
What irks me about this is that they seem to assume that every woman going in for an abortion is making a rash decision and doesn't know enough about what she's getting into.

Every case is different; I just wish that both sides of the debate would smarten and realize that they're talking about people, not some abstract concept. It seems incredibly disrespectful to paint everyone who's had an abortion with the same brush ("she's just exercising her right to choose!" "she's a slut and should have kept her legs closed!") I mean, hell, if you're American and you know any women, you probably know at least one that's had an abortion.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 18, 2012, 06:33:36 PM
What irks me about this is that they seem to assume that every woman going in for an abortion is making a rash decision and doesn't know enough about what she's getting into.

Every case is different; I just wish that both sides of the debate would smarten and realize that they're talking about people, not some abstract concept. It seems incredibly disrespectful to paint everyone who's had an abortion with the same brush ("she's just exercising her right to choose!" "she's a slut and should have kept her legs closed!") I mean, hell, if you're American and you know any women, you probably know at least one that's had an abortion.

Many people have an axe to grind, and unfortunately for many it consumes them.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: AndyC on April 18, 2012, 07:24:06 PM
I agree with Flick. Abortion is an issue that can never be properly discussed for what it is, because it has gotten so inextricably mixed up with every other fight it's gotten associated with. Liberal vs. conservative, feminist vs. sexist, religious vs. humanist, sex-positive vs. puritan, and so on. I wouldn't dare get into an argument about it unless I could be sure what the other person was really arguing about.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 18, 2012, 08:07:55 PM
I agree with Flick. Abortion is an issue that can never be properly discussed for what it is, because it has gotten so inextricably mixed up with every other fight it's gotten associated with. Liberal vs. conservative, feminist vs. sexist, religious vs. humanist, sex-positive vs. puritan, and so on. I wouldn't dare get into an argument about it unless I could be sure what the other person was really arguing about.

Thanks Andy.

I actually think that's the saddest thing of all. People can't just have opinions of their own anymore. I understand adopting a philosophy/political stance/belief structure. It is actually a very important thing to do. It guides one's morality, one's actions and behaviors. In today's American culture, however, it is as if there are two modes of thinking, and those are our only options. It is so bad that people will adopt positions that if they actually gave it some serious though they would find they disagree with, or at least accept that it may not be the best course of action.

Now, if that ruffles some feathers, so be it. I happen to think that if somebody gets deeply offended by that observation, there's a good chance it hits close to home and it triggers a defense mechanism. This is understandable.

Anyway, as to the topic of the thread, I can see the moral justification for wanting abortion to be illegal. I just can't see the justification for requiring a medical procedure. They don't seem to be a part of the same agenda to me.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 18, 2012, 09:11:06 PM
If it reduces the number of abortions, I'm for it.
This is probably my single biggest issue.  I guess it really hit home for me when my wife was pregnant with our twins.  Under current law, if she had wanted to, she could have gone to a clinic and had them both killed, and legally it would have been completely beyond my power to do a single thing about it.  Not that it was ever going to happen - she hates abortion as much as I do - but the idea that such a thing could legally be done just filled me with unutterable loathing which persists to this day.  It's not a Democrat/Republican thing for me, nor a Christian thing. And I have no issue whatsoever with people wanting to use contraception - we used it for years.   For me this issue goes to the very heart of what Jefferson called our "inalienable rights" - first and foremost of which is the Right to Life.  Roe vs. Wade trampled that right, and it has been hailed as "freedom of choice."

You can wrap it in the flowery language of choice all day long, and it does not alter the fact that at the end of the day you have a tiny, dead child who will never get to laugh, or love, or weep.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 18, 2012, 09:40:26 PM
If it reduces the number of abortions, I'm for it.
This is probably my single biggest issue.  I guess it really hit home for me when my wife was pregnant with our twins.  Under current law, if she had wanted to, she could have gone to a clinic and had them both killed, and legally it would have been completely beyond my power to do a single thing about it.  Not that it was ever going to happen - she hates abortion as much as I do - but the idea that such a thing could legally be done just filled me with unutterable loathing which persists to this day.  It's not a Democrat/Republican thing for me, nor a Christian thing. And I have no issue whatsoever with people wanting to use contraception - we used it for years.   For me this issue goes to the very heart of what Jefferson called our "inalienable rights" - first and foremost of which is the Right to Life.  Roe vs. Wade trampled that right, and it has been hailed as "freedom of choice."

You can wrap it in the flowery language of choice all day long, and it does not alter the fact that at the end of the day you have a tiny, dead child who will never get to laugh, or love, or weep.
Okay, you are dramatic.  But I don't disagree with you.  I too loathe abortion.  I just don't think men have the right to legislate what women do with their bodies. 


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 18, 2012, 10:27:48 PM
That line of thinking is the great fallacy in the debate, IMHO. It's no longer just "their body."  There's a child in there!


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: The Gravekeeper on April 18, 2012, 11:07:05 PM
If it reduces the number of abortions, I'm for it.
This is probably my single biggest issue.  I guess it really hit home for me when my wife was pregnant with our twins.  Under current law, if she had wanted to, she could have gone to a clinic and had them both killed, and legally it would have been completely beyond my power to do a single thing about it.  Not that it was ever going to happen - she hates abortion as much as I do - but the idea that such a thing could legally be done just filled me with unutterable loathing which persists to this day.  It's not a Democrat/Republican thing for me, nor a Christian thing. And I have no issue whatsoever with people wanting to use contraception - we used it for years.   For me this issue goes to the very heart of what Jefferson called our "inalienable rights" - first and foremost of which is the Right to Life.  Roe vs. Wade trampled that right, and it has been hailed as "freedom of choice."

You can wrap it in the flowery language of choice all day long, and it does not alter the fact that at the end of the day you have a tiny, dead child who will never get to laugh, or love, or weep.

I haven't seen any evidence that efforts to dissuade women already at the abortion clinic have much of an effect. Things like mandatory counseling, protests, parental consent for minors...it doesn't seem to work. With regards to the last one, it could just be convincing those girls to go out-of-state for their abortion or look for legal options to bypass having to get their parents' consent.

The only thing that seems to have an effect on the abortion rate is how much access to contraceptives and sex education women have; if you know your options, you're probably going to take preventative measures so you don't end up with an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Unfortunately, lower income women are less likely to have access to both, which puts them at a higher risk for an unwanted pregnancy


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Menard on April 18, 2012, 11:21:14 PM
That line of thinking is the great fallacy in the debate, IMHO. It's no longer just "their body."  There's a child in there!

Wow!

You know I detest these discussions on politics and religion. I mean it's fine for you who enjoy it, and you all generally keep it among yourselves, so I'm the only one to blame for looking.

But I have to take you to task on that, Indy. So if it's no longer 'her body', and let's not mince words referring to women as their and an otherwise collective third party entity, then whose body is it?

The community's?

The government's?

The church's?

It's interesting that someone pointed out earlier, I think Grover...zip code...err...anyway..., about the hypocrisy of those who oppose mandates being all for them when it involves someone else, and more specially someone's, or a group of someones', agenda.

So, if it's not her body but it instead belongs to the collective body...isn't that socialism? And correct me if I'm wrong (bwhahahahaha), but isn't that a conservative jab at Obama and something conservatives swear they are opposed to...until it benefits them?

And here's another thing for the general discussion at hand: it takes two to tango...if you get my drift. All this discussion about women this and women that...seems a little one-sided (I'm generalizing...my apologies to anyone in the discussion who was not one-sided as I have not read every post in this discussion...as I have no interest in dozing off right now).


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: dean on April 19, 2012, 02:01:21 AM

Excuse my ignorance, as I didn't read the article since I'm hard up on time atm, but had to ask: what's the purpose of doing this procedure that a normal transabdominal ultrasound couldn't achieve?


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 19, 2012, 06:30:49 AM
That line of thinking is the great fallacy in the debate, IMHO. It's no longer just "their body."  There's a child in there!

Wow!

You know I detest these discussions on politics and religion. I mean it's fine for you who enjoy it, and you all generally keep it among yourselves, so I'm the only one to blame for looking.

But I have to take you to task on that, Indy. So if it's no longer 'her body', and let's not mince words referring to women as their and an otherwise collective third party entity, then whose body is it?

The community's?

The government's?

The church's?

It's interesting that someone pointed out earlier, I think Grover...zip code...err...anyway..., about the hypocrisy of those who oppose mandates being all for them when it involves someone else, and more specially someone's, or a group of someones', agenda.

So, if it's not her body but it instead belongs to the collective body...isn't that socialism? And correct me if I'm wrong (bwhahahahaha), but isn't that a conservative jab at Obama and something conservatives swear they are opposed to...until it benefits them?

And here's another thing for the general discussion at hand: it takes two to tango...if you get my drift. All this discussion about women this and women that...seems a little one-sided (I'm generalizing...my apologies to anyone in the discussion who was not one-sided as I have not read every post in this discussion...as I have no interest in dozing off right now).

It is a fair question and I'm not offended by it.  The first duty of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, is to protect the LIVES of its citizens.   I simply believe that should include the unborn.
 As to your latter comment, about this as an exclusively women's issue, thank our courts for that.  Their rulings have stripped any and all rights fathers may have had over the fate of their unborn children.  A married woman can get an abortion and legally not even inform her husband.
  And as far as your posting in a political thread . . . welcome to the dark side! :teddyr:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Menard on April 19, 2012, 07:51:36 AM
...I'm not offended by it.

Darndies...I'll try to do better next time. :tongueout: 


As to your latter comment, about this as an exclusively women's issue, thank our courts for that.

I don't recall the courts being involved in this discussion. Don't think anybody here can blame the courts for their attitude toward women.


The first duty of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, is to protect the LIVES of its citizens.   I simply believe that should include the unborn.
 As to your latter comment, about this as an exclusively women's issue, thank our courts for that.  Their rulings have stripped any and all rights fathers may have had over the fate of their unborn children.  A married woman can get an abortion and legally not even inform her husband.

It is her body.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Rev. Powell on April 19, 2012, 08:55:18 AM


It is a fair question and I'm not offended by it.  The first duty of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, is to protect the LIVES of its citizens.   I simply believe that should include the unborn.

This is not an argument for or against abortion. It's just a historical/legal reference point.

Traditionally under common law abortion (before quickening) was a crime, but it was never classified as murder (or even as homicide).  At the time of the Declaration and Bill of Rights no one would have thought to consider fetuses citizens deserving of Constitutional protection. They considered regulation of abortion a matter for the individual states to decide as they saw fit. Considering abortion as murder is a relatively new concept; it was always traditionally considered a crime, but a far lesser crime.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 19, 2012, 09:59:27 AM


It is a fair question and I'm not offended by it.  The first duty of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, is to protect the LIVES of its citizens.   I simply believe that should include the unborn.

This is not an argument for or against abortion. It's just a historical/legal reference point.

Traditionally under common law abortion (before quickening) was a crime, but it was never classified as murder (or even as homicide).  At the time of the Declaration and Bill of Rights no one would have thought to consider fetuses citizens deserving of Constitutional protection. They considered regulation of abortion a matter for the individual states to decide as they saw fit. Considering abortion as murder is a relatively new concept; it was always traditionally considered a crime, but a far lesser crime.

That's really where the real debate lies. The right who want abortion to be illegal seem to believe that the left have somehow made it okay to murder unborn children. It's quite easy to understand why it was never considered murder. The law regarded life from what it could see clearly and easily. Over 200 years ago, science couldn't see as much as it did. Also, while we are to believe that the founders were piously Christian, they certainly didn't care much about the abortion debate. It just wasn't something they thought about, or at least not that we know about. And so, the law as always regarded life in terms of citizenry and rights at the point of delivery. This is why there is a birth certificate given at that point. That's just the way it is.

You simply can't give Constitutional rights to the unborn, or at least not the full set. Think of it. That would mean that my son who was conceived in Italy is an Italian citizen, or at least not an American citizen. Using Constitutional rights is a very tricky way of going about the argument. And don't get me wrong, I fully respect the life of the unborn. I just know that trying to apply Consitutional rights to the unborn is where the right misses the point. I certainly feel that the spirit of the Constituion values life, and life begins in the womb, but it's just not as simple as that. I mean, children do not enjoy the full set of Constitutional rights until they are adults.

Anyway, I am against abortion. I just think the right misses the point when they debate they topic. Unborn life deserves to be protected. Trying to classify abortion as murder, trying to apply Constitutional rights to the unborn, trying to say the the left somehow managed to make murder legal. These are very bad ways to go about it. They are guaranteed to fail.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: AndyC on April 19, 2012, 10:30:42 AM


It is a fair question and I'm not offended by it.  The first duty of government, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, is to protect the LIVES of its citizens.   I simply believe that should include the unborn.

This is not an argument for or against abortion. It's just a historical/legal reference point.

Traditionally under common law abortion (before quickening) was a crime, but it was never classified as murder (or even as homicide).  At the time of the Declaration and Bill of Rights no one would have thought to consider fetuses citizens deserving of Constitutional protection. They considered regulation of abortion a matter for the individual states to decide as they saw fit. Considering abortion as murder is a relatively new concept; it was always traditionally considered a crime, but a far lesser crime.

That's really where the real debate lies. The right who want abortion to be illegal seem to believe that the left have somehow made it okay to murder unborn children. It's quite easy to understand why it was never considered murder. The law regarded life from what it could see clearly and easily. Over 200 years ago, science couldn't see as much as it did. Also, while we are to believe that the founders were piously Christian, they certainly didn't care much about the abortion debate. It just wasn't something they thought about, or at least not that we know about. And so, the law as always regarded life in terms of citizenry and rights at the point of delivery. This is why there is a birth certificate given at that point. That's just the way it is.

You simply can't give Constitutional rights to the unborn, or at least not the full set. Think of it. That would mean that my son who was conceived in Italy is an Italian citizen, or at least not an American citizen. Using Constitutional rights is a very tricky way of going about the argument. And don't get me wrong, I fully respect the life of the unborn. I just know that trying to apply Consitutional rights to the unborn is where the right misses the point. I certainly feel that the spirit of the Constituion values life, and life begins in the womb, but it's just not as simple as that. I mean, children do not enjoy the full set of Constitutional rights until they are adults.

Anyway, I am against abortion. I just think the right misses the point when they debate they topic. Unborn life deserves to be protected. Trying to classify abortion as murder, trying to apply Constitutional rights to the unborn, trying to say the the left somehow managed to make murder legal. These are very bad ways to go about it. They are guaranteed to fail.

In most cases, presenting your argument in the strongest possible terms will not do anything to keep the debate calm and rational. One side says the other wants to murder babies, and they are accused in turn of wanting to enslave women. Very difficult to get an intelligent dialogue going when both sides have tossed out a really insulting straw man argument. But it does become very easy to justify your own tactics once you've painted the other side as monsters. And you don't even have to listen to them at all if you can stick the right label on them. Once you define somebody as a conservative, feminist, fundamentalist, socialist or whatever, you can just assume you know what they think and argue with a generic viewpoint. Much easier than listening to what they say and really trying to understand their position.

Toss out a word like abortion and knees start jerking all over the place.

(I know Menard will make something of that last sentence, but I think I'll leave it as it is) :teddyr:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Menard on April 19, 2012, 11:36:57 AM

Unborn life deserves to be protected.

Toss out a word like abortion and knees start jerking all over the place.

(I know Menard will make something of that last sentence, but I think I'll leave it as it is) :teddyr:

I'm not directing my reply, I'm just replying generically to the statement that unborn life deserves to be protected. I'm leaving Andy's reply solely for the purpose that I love attention and seeing my name invoked...so why not just repeat it. :teddyr:

The issue of protecting unborn life does become primarily and nothing more than classifying a woman as subjective.

The only difference between men and women is that women can give the miracle of life. That...and they have BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS!!! :teddyr:

Ahem...back on the issue.

Through the ages we have been male dominated in society. For someone to say things are equal is simply blind, but we have definitely improved. The thing is, we are socially configured to the idea that men are somehow superior to women, and not the least of which this has been infused into cultures under the excuse of divine providence.

Being that men and women are only different by the measure of birth, it is the only thing that male dominated society can hold over a woman to keep her subordinate...and him superior.

There is nothing which prevents someone from voicing there opinion about abortion and them or others from offering options, but to mandate a woman's body as the province of government and social mores is a step backward.

We quote the constitution and declaration as affording protection to all life, but do we forget that all are created equal applies to one and all born life first, and that is regardless of gender. Yes, the words vary as when it was written it was not inclusive in doctrine of race or gender, but the spirit was there and should move forward as we do and be all inclusive. To apply that to say that all are unborn equal negates equality of gender.

Does it strike anybody that we are being at least a little positioning, if not chauvinist, being a bunch of guys, mostly, presuming it is our place to discuss women as objective and third party, and especially as if our opinions matter? Isn't it a little past time that we left the clubs in the caves that we carried them out of.


Just sayin'


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 19, 2012, 12:03:06 PM
I'm in favor of  Abortion, even retroactive, starting with Journalists.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 19, 2012, 12:16:38 PM
I'm in favor of  Abortion, even retroactive, starting with Journalists.

Frank. I never knew you were a eugenist.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 19, 2012, 12:34:50 PM
I'm in favor of  Abortion, even retroactive, starting with Journalists.

Frank. I never knew you were a eugenist.

I'm not  Spartan, but, I'll make  an exception in the case  of journalists, maybe, we'll get  a  better breed. :teddyr:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: alandhopewell on April 19, 2012, 12:42:12 PM
     What's wrong with requiring a woman to have an ultrasound if she wants an abortion? It's nothing more than providing her with information so as to make an informed choice.
Requiring?  I don't think the government should legislate requirements regarding lots of things, including medical procedures.  Did you read the article? 

       Admittedly,   I skimmed it; here in Texas, we're trying to get a bill passed that would require such.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: alandhopewell on April 19, 2012, 12:50:35 PM
If it reduces the number of abortions, I'm for it.
This is probably my single biggest issue.  I guess it really hit home for me when my wife was pregnant with our twins.  Under current law, if she had wanted to, she could have gone to a clinic and had them both killed, and legally it would have been completely beyond my power to do a single thing about it.  Not that it was ever going to happen - she hates abortion as much as I do - but the idea that such a thing could legally be done just filled me with unutterable loathing which persists to this day.  It's not a Democrat/Republican thing for me, nor a Christian thing. And I have no issue whatsoever with people wanting to use contraception - we used it for years.   For me this issue goes to the very heart of what Jefferson called our "inalienable rights" - first and foremost of which is the Right to Life.  Roe vs. Wade trampled that right, and it has been hailed as "freedom of choice."

You can wrap it in the flowery language of choice all day long, and it does not alter the fact that at the end of the day you have a tiny, dead child who will never get to laugh, or love, or weep.

     That's exactly where Trace and I come down on this. Our Lord proclaimed dreadful consequences upon those who would harm His little ones, and I don't see any way that the desires, wishes, whims, or anything else of man trumps that.


     People complain about the trucks carrying large pictures of aborted children on their sides-if I could, I'd keep 'em in diesel, personally. Let EVERYONE see the result of such a procedure, THEN choose.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: alandhopewell on April 19, 2012, 12:55:30 PM
That line of thinking is the great fallacy in the debate, IMHO. It's no longer just "their body."  There's a child in there!

Wow!

You know I detest these discussions on politics and religion. I mean it's fine for you who enjoy it, and you all generally keep it among yourselves, so I'm the only one to blame for looking.

But I have to take you to task on that, Indy. So if it's no longer 'her body', and let's not mince words referring to women as their and an otherwise collective third party entity, then whose body is it?

The community's?

The government's?

The church's?

It's interesting that someone pointed out earlier, I think Grover...zip code...err...anyway..., about the hypocrisy of those who oppose mandates being all for them when it involves someone else, and more specially someone's, or a group of someones', agenda.

So, if it's not her body but it instead belongs to the collective body...isn't that socialism? And correct me if I'm wrong (bwhahahahaha), but isn't that a conservative jab at Obama and something conservatives swear they are opposed to...until it benefits them?

And here's another thing for the general discussion at hand: it takes two to tango...if you get my drift. All this discussion about women this and women that...seems a little one-sided (I'm generalizing...my apologies to anyone in the discussion who was not one-sided as I have not read every post in this discussion...as I have no interest in dozing off right now).

     The body truly in question is the CHILD'S body; it's going to be ripped to shreds. I'd post you pictures, but my wife begged me not to.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 19, 2012, 01:09:33 PM
Quote
The body truly in question is the CHILD'S body; it's going to be ripped to shreds. I'd post you pictures, but my wife begged me not to.

I really hope you're not saying that the unborn child should take legal precedence over the mother's. If that's the case I can see why people on the left feel it's a war on women. I respect the life of all unborn babies, but I can't go along with the idea that the unborn baby's body takes precedence over the mother's. If, during labor, I had to make a choice between my wife and my unborn child, as difficult a choice as that would be, I would choose my wife. It's insane to me to think that one takes precedence over the other, and while I am against abortion I would hate to think of a world where I would be REQUIRED to let my wife die in order to save the child.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: alandhopewell on April 19, 2012, 01:29:59 PM
Quote
The body truly in question is the CHILD'S body; it's going to be ripped to shreds. I'd post you pictures, but my wife begged me not to.

I really hope you're not saying that the unborn child should take legal precedence over the mother's. If that's the case I can see why people on the left feel it's a war on women. I respect the life of all unborn babies, but I can't go along with the idea that the unborn baby's body takes precedence over the mother's. If, during labor, I had to make a choice between my wife and my unborn child, as difficult a choice as that would be, I would choose my wife. It's insane to me to think that one takes precedence over the other, and while I am against abortion I would hate to think of a world where I would be REQUIRED to let my wife die in order to save the child.

     The instances where it's a choice betwen the child and the mother are so rare as to be almost nonexistent. What we're talking about is the ability to end the life of an individual because such a life is somehow "inconvenient" to someone else.

     Granted, proclaiming all women who desire abortions as "sluts" is certain to cause friction. However, the Scriptures call all sexual activity outside of wedlock sinful, and I'm not going to oppose that to suit anyone. Still, what's wrong with carrying the child to term, then putting him or her up for adoption? There are thousands of couples who want to adopt, who would give that child love, a home, and all that's needed.

     The Hippocratic Oath charges a doctor to make every possible effort to save BOTH child and mother, not to flip a mental ( or ideological) coin and choose who lives or dies.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 19, 2012, 02:12:05 PM
There's nothing wrong with it. Why would you assume that I think there is? Again, Andy is 100% correct. This debate is so freaking polarizing that you must assume that if I take exception to a single thing said, it must mean I a support abortion.

I understand that I was bringing a rare circumstance to bear. I was trying to make a point about favoring one life over another. If somebody says or suggests that an unborn child's life is more important than the mother's life, then I must assume that under my example, the mother must die. It is a litmus test that such debates need to clarify position. Yes, I am against abortion because I recognize that a human life begins at conception, regardless of my religious beliefs or lack thereof. The problem is that human beings are at the mercy of a debate in which the majority of those involved have a religious or political axe to grind. If you truly want to eliminate or reduce the number of unborn deaths, then you will stop all of this axe grinding. But I understand that your religious beliefs put you in a position where you cannot do that. I happen to respect human life, be it the unborn child or the mother, and I think that both are victims of a stupid fight that throws most reason out the window in favor that that FREAKING AXE TO GRIND! "Sluts," "murderers," "nazis," "war on women," these are all just words and terms that bring out the true colors of hatred and, I'm sorry, DISRESPECT for human life that both sides demonstrate.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 19, 2012, 04:16:31 PM
I'm not necessarily advocating a full set of Constitutional rights for the unborn, but simply that one most basic and human right of them all, to continue living.

My wife was born to a 16 year old unwed mother in 1964.  Had she been conceived a decade later, I imagine there are very good odds that her life would have ended in a medical waste container before she ever got to draw her first breath. As it was, she was adopted by a loving family and became the most important person in my life. This is personal for me, I admit.

That being said, lest you mistake me for a total knuckle-dragger -
  I do believe in a freedom of choice.  It is a choice whether or not to engage in sexual activity.  It is a choice whether or not to marry.  It is a choice whether or not to use contraception.  But, when that tiny heart begins to beat, I do believe that choice ends and responsibility begins.

I do, however, believe that married men should have some say in whether or not their child gets to draw its first breath.  Yes, Menard, it is her body.  But it is also his child.  It takes two to produce a child, why should it not take two to bring that child into the world?

I don't want women who get abortions to go to jail.  I don't want doctors who perform abortions to go to jail (except for the grotesque monstrosity known as "partial birth abortion." That is pure infanticide, and I think there is a special chamber in hell reserved for those who perform it.)

I simply want abortion to go the way of slavery - to become a sad footnote in the history books, with future citizens reading about it and wondering: "How could any thinking person ever actually DEFEND this?"


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 19, 2012, 10:10:40 PM
There's nothing wrong with it. Why would you assume that I think there is? Again, Andy is 100% correct. This debate is so freaking polarizing that you must assume that if I take exception to a single thing said, it must mean I a support abortion.

I understand that I was bringing a rare circumstance to bear. I was trying to make a point about favoring one life over another. If somebody says or suggests that an unborn child's life is more important than the mother's life, then I must assume that under my example, the mother must die. It is a litmus test that such debates need to clarify position. Yes, I am against abortion because I recognize that a human life begins at conception, regardless of my religious beliefs or lack thereof. The problem is that human beings are at the mercy of a debate in which the majority of those involved have a religious or political axe to grind. If you truly want to eliminate or reduce the number of unborn deaths, then you will stop all of this axe grinding. But I understand that your religious beliefs put you in a position where you cannot do that. I happen to respect human life, be it the unborn child or the mother, and I think that both are victims of a stupid fight that throws most reason out the window in favor that that FREAKING AXE TO GRIND! "Sluts," "murderers," "nazis," "war on women," these are all just words and terms that bring out the true colors of hatred and, I'm sorry, DISRESPECT for human life that both sides demonstrate.
I suspect you nor I cannot but often find ourselves moderates. 


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 20, 2012, 09:32:05 AM
Quote
I suspect you nor I cannot but often find ourselves moderates.

Yeah. You know, I’ve never really looked at myself in terms of the left/right political spectrum. I try to avoid it. I think that spectrum is an incredibly limited way of thinking. Think of it. It’s literally two-dimensional. It doesn’t leave much room for life. I’ve never really considered myself a moderate, per se, but I guess maybe I am. I’ve noticed a strange shift in culture to where hardline leftist or rightists are the norms of society and people like me are the kooks. I keep being told that I have to pick a side, but it’s like trying to choose between Castro and Pinochet. No, I’ll just stick to my own devices, thank you very much.   


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: AndyC on April 20, 2012, 09:59:21 AM
Quote
I suspect you nor I cannot but often find ourselves moderates.

Yeah. You know, I’ve never really looked at myself in terms of the left/right political spectrum. I try to avoid it. I think that spectrum is an incredibly limited way of thinking. Think of it. It’s literally two-dimensional. It doesn’t leave much room for life. I’ve never really considered myself a moderate, per se, but I guess maybe I am. I’ve noticed a strange shift in culture to where hardline leftist or rightists are the norms of society and people like me are the kooks. I keep being told that I have to pick a side, but it’s like trying to choose between Castro and Pinochet. No, I’ll just stick to my own devices, thank you very much.   

And the notion that you have to be on one side or the other completely ignores the possibility that some situations might benefit more from a "left" approach, while others might require a "right" approach. And some situations might call for a combination or some other compromise. But the prevailing attitude seems to be that one side (whichever you choose) is right all the time, and every situation must be judged according to a blanket philosophy, regardless of circumstances. The moderate approach, meanwhile, is to try and please both by landing somewhere in the middle, which is another position guaranteed to be wrong some of the time - perhaps even more often than the other two, because you get watered-down, ineffective solutions.

Ideology, and even simplistic notions of fairness and "give and take" really need to be set aside, and each situation needs to be considered on its own. But people don't want to take time to think, or form a new, informed opinion for every issue that comes along. Better to push a one-size-fits-all philosophy that lets you use a standard opinion and set of arguments for everything. And then put a bumper sticker on your car, or wear a coloured ribbon, so nobody has to take the time to ask your opinion, and you don't have to tell them.

It's actually quite lazy when you think about it.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Jim H on April 20, 2012, 12:44:32 PM
Quote
I suspect you nor I cannot but often find ourselves moderates.

Yeah. You know, I’ve never really looked at myself in terms of the left/right political spectrum. I try to avoid it. I think that spectrum is an incredibly limited way of thinking. Think of it. It’s literally two-dimensional. It doesn’t leave much room for life. I’ve never really considered myself a moderate, per se, but I guess maybe I am. I’ve noticed a strange shift in culture to where hardline leftist or rightists are the norms of society and people like me are the kooks. I keep being told that I have to pick a side, but it’s like trying to choose between Castro and Pinochet. No, I’ll just stick to my own devices, thank you very much.   

And the notion that you have to be on one side or the other completely ignores the possibility that some situations might benefit more from a "left" approach, while others might require a "right" approach. And some situations might call for a combination or some other compromise. But the prevailing attitude seems to be that one side (whichever you choose) is right all the time, and every situation must be judged according to a blanket philosophy, regardless of circumstances. The moderate approach, meanwhile, is to try and please both by landing somewhere in the middle, which is another position guaranteed to be wrong some of the time - perhaps even more often than the other two, because you get watered-down, ineffective solutions.

Ideology, and even simplistic notions of fairness and "give and take" really need to be set aside, and each situation needs to be considered on its own. But people don't want to take time to think, or form a new, informed opinion for every issue that comes along. Better to push a one-size-fits-all philosophy that lets you use a standard opinion and set of arguments for everything. And then put a bumper sticker on your car, or wear a coloured ribbon, so nobody has to take the time to ask your opinion, and you don't have to tell them.

It's actually quite lazy when you think about it.

Yeah.  The divide makes me pretty angry sometimes actually.  Like when people say they're socially liberal and economically conservative.  I don't blame them for saying this, just don't like this division.  I like to try to figure out what will work best.  This is often difficult, but it seems more productive than the alternatives.  And this appears to divide me from most people in the country when it comes to politics.  Bleh.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: tracy on April 20, 2012, 02:00:15 PM
I am very much against abortion but I am actually not in favor of forcing a woman to go through an uncomfortable medical procedure. Let a man try having one first. Besides...I honestly don't think this will change anyone's mind.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 20, 2012, 03:33:58 PM
I am very much against abortion but I am actually not in favor of forcing a woman to go through an uncomfortable medical procedure. Let a man try having one first. Besides...I honestly don't think this will change anyone's mind.
I think you're right.  At the very worst, inconvenience would be a small price to pay if one wants to be rid of one's responsibility. 


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 20, 2012, 07:41:35 PM
I am not surprised  this thread  is going on and on, however, this 'progressive'  reporter is  suspect in my book and can't be trusted to write anything remotely called objective. Still, I am pretty far to the right, but, I don't think Abortion should be illegal, Gay and Lesbian people should be able to 'marry' a  mate, etc.. My main focus is on military and defense issues, in the end, soneone who is unborn is in my estimation much better off not coming to this planet. If I had a choice, I'd rather  stay with the good lord and/or  oblivion, whatever one believes happens before or after life on hellhole Earth.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 20, 2012, 08:27:23 PM
Your life must have been exceptionally tough.
I LOVE my life.  I teach some really bright and motivated kids, I have two amazing daughters, and my wife and I are still pretty fond of each other after 27 years of marriage.  I'm sure heaven is better, but in the meantime, this isn't bad!

I hope lots of good stuff comes your way soon.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 20, 2012, 09:55:48 PM
Your life must have been exceptionally tough.
I LOVE my life.  I teach some really bright and motivated kids, I have two amazing daughters, and my wife and I are still pretty fond of each other after 27 years of marriage.  I'm sure heaven is better, but in the meantime, this isn't bad!

I hope lots of good stuff comes your way soon.

I had fun as a kid, but, realised later  all the F#@cked up things  done to my family by people  claiming to be  progressive and for order. I  know my late Mama was a beautiful, caring, honest, giving person and had a brutal painful ending at the hands of  our medical 'miracle' makers. I take care of my elderly Dad and contribute my time to childrens charities and work 3 jobs to survive. I'm not telling you this to praise myself, it's all cr@p in the end, I fear, and a waste. But, It's not childrens fault the adults are @$$#*les. My relatives  were slaughtered both paternally and maternally, both sides, but, this F#@k'n planet has done that to the majority of  humanity for thousands of years. I think it's  great people like you have had a better outcome and outlook in life. I even contemplated getting married, but, have pretty much abandoned the idea, even though, for some reason what friends I choose to speak to insist I'm this great guy who should get married and keep fixing me up with people. 

Good Stuff is not coming, this is an evil planet, with a mostly genocidal insane speices. The human race applauds murder and genocide, kills it's children and covers it up with politics,religion and  platitudes. It really deserves to be wiped out along with the whole planet and it'll probably do it. I'm glad I bought no one else into this hellhole,  there is a hell, this is it.  Thanks for the sentiment and hold onto your love, good vibes to you and your family, who knows, maybe, there is a small sliver of a chance things may get better  and I am proven wrong. But, not in my lifetime.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: lester1/2jr on April 21, 2012, 08:30:08 AM
Quote
If it reduces the number of abortions, I'm for it.

bombing abortion clinics on a regular basis would probably reduce the number of abortions.


giving everyone birth control after the age of 12 would also.

Quote
My wife was born to a 16 year old unwed mother in 1964.  Had she been conceived a decade later, I imagine there are very good odds that her life would have ended in a medical waste container before she ever got to draw her first breath.

she might also have never been conceived either do to birth control or having never met the father at wherever they met.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: El Misfit on April 21, 2012, 09:06:14 AM
Here I present to you a song about abortion, and leaves the listener to decide what side he/she is on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-vQ_VsTkn0&feature=plcp&context=C4396feeVDvjVQa1PpcFMUF-sCes_WQueIii5wlEpyW_q-w4AmWME%3D

honestly, it's up to them, but there has to be strict rules to go with it, like say she was raped or the guy who had sex with her poked a hole in his condom without her knowing. see, that I can see, however, the child could go to the family relatives. This debate is so confusing, and asks the question on who's to blame. :tongueout: personally, I think it's the guys fault.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Chainsaw midget on April 21, 2012, 11:02:04 AM
Quote
Still, what's wrong with carrying the child to term, then putting him or her up for adoption?
Nine months of suffering, pain, self pity, hatred, doctors appointments, and medical bills? 

Quote
It is a choice whether or not to engage in sexual activity.  It is a choice whether or not to marry.  It is a choice whether or not to use contraception.
Sometimes the choice of whether to not engage in sexual activity is unfortunately taken out of a person's hands and contraceptives aren't 100% effective all the time. 

 



Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 21, 2012, 01:19:43 PM
Good point.  However, those two choices could eliminate about 90% of all abortions if responsible exercised.

I just never understood the logic of; "I don't want this baby, so I will kill it."

Why is that a valid decision?


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Menard on April 21, 2012, 01:28:45 PM
I just never understood the logic of; "I don't want this baby, so I will kill it."

Why is that a valid decision?

And you've been faced with having to carry a pregnancy to term or not...how many times in you life, Indy?




Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 21, 2012, 02:58:20 PM
Before or after my surgery? :teddyr:

I get it, Menard.
But there is still a tiny heart beating that is being snuffed out forever.
I understand the historical abuse and oppression of women; I believe in equal pay for
equal work, and full civil and social equality.

But snuffing out a child's life is just wrong.  I can never get past that.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 21, 2012, 03:04:26 PM
Indy and Menard,

The two of you have just demonstrated with stark clarity why this debate will likely never be resolved.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 21, 2012, 03:46:42 PM
True that.
But hey - at least we're TALKING! :teddyr:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 21, 2012, 03:51:11 PM
True that.
But hey - at least we're TALKING! :teddyr:

"Trut that?" Did you just say "true that" Indy? My, you are getting hip, aren't you?

 :bouncegiggle:

Come on, kick some freestyle, Indy. I'll bust my beatbox skillz.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Menard on April 21, 2012, 03:53:39 PM
Before or after my surgery? :teddyr:

I get it, Menard.

I seriously doubt that, Indy.

My last reply was after several things I typed and deleted; trying to come up with a civil way to reply to a hugely insensitive comment.


"I don't want this baby, so I will kill it."

Do you honestly think a decision to have an abortion is that simple?

That is a decision as men that none of us will ever have to face, and no decision in life, categorically, will be any tougher than that. As men, we are pussies when it comes to having to face a hard decision in life compared to women, and yet we gather around the fire in our cave and talk tough and denigrate women as though they are something less than us. Yet, I've never met a man tougher than the women I know.

Love ya babe, but hey...that was an insensitive thing to say, and I hope you got some negative karma for that (I won't give negative karma myself as it seems hypocritical since I can't be given any).


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 21, 2012, 10:31:43 PM
I think we unnecessarily complicate things sometimes. 
No, I'm not a woman.  Never have been, never will be.
But just because I was born horned instead of cloven doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion.
Reproductive issues are enormously complicated, but in the end, abortion boils down to the termination of
a human life.  You can attach all kinds of philosophical and gender relational and political and religious significance
to it, but at the end of the day, two beating hearts go into the abortion clinic and one comes out. 

Some people are OK with that, some are ambiguous about it, and some believe it is a wrong that can never be made right, no matter how much rhetoric you wrap it in.

That's where I fall.

I actually respect your position - but I can never agree with it.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: AndyC on April 22, 2012, 08:30:11 AM
The two of you have just demonstrated with stark clarity why this debate will likely never be resolved.

Very hard to settle any debate that won't stay focused. Interesting to watch this thread spontaneously turn into a debate about feminism, religion or politics, even in spite of some admirable efforts to discuss abortion.

Kind of disappointing, too. I'd love to get into the discussion this thread occasionally tries to be. A discussion about the relative value of human lives, the responsible use of a medical procedure, personal accountability, the pros and cons of various approaches, and how to fairly balance the needs of everyone concerned. A discussion that doesn't go off the rails every second post, where opinions can be expressed both respectfully and without hedging or overly qualifying everything. A discussion that actually progresses, rather than restate the same points over and over.

But that just ain't gonna happen.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Menard on April 22, 2012, 11:56:24 AM
The two of you have just demonstrated with stark clarity why this debate will likely never be resolved.

Very hard to settle any debate that won't stay focused. Interesting to watch this thread spontaneously turn into a debate about feminism, religion or politics, even in spite of some admirable efforts to discuss abortion.

And how do you propose to have a discussion about mandating a procedure for women without discussing women's rights? Or being that the right to life side validates their arguments against abortion based on their interpretation of their religious texts, then how do you have the discussion without religion? And being that we are talking about proposed legislation, how do you have the discussion without talking about politics?

And if I remember correctly, weren't you one involved in a discussion in this thread about how moderate you are....and precisely what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

I'll just quote from a book of some of your all's religion: (John 8:7 [RSV])
Quote
Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone...


Just sayin'  :tongueout:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: AndyC on April 22, 2012, 12:26:42 PM
The two of you have just demonstrated with stark clarity why this debate will likely never be resolved.

Very hard to settle any debate that won't stay focused. Interesting to watch this thread spontaneously turn into a debate about feminism, religion or politics, even in spite of some admirable efforts to discuss abortion.

And how do you propose to have a discussion about mandating a procedure for women without discussing women's rights? Or being that the right to life side validates their arguments against abortion based on their interpretation of their religious texts, then how do you have the discussion without religion? And being that we are talking about proposed legislation, how do you have the discussion without talking about politics?


Exactly why this is a futile discussion. People are trying to argue about three or more issues at once, with each person seeing something different as the central issue. Each is saying something that, for him, is the most important thing to consider, in an effort to convince people who think something else is more significant. It's apples and oranges. To me, the only possible way to have any kind of meaningful dialogue is to accept that other people are seeing the issue differently, and that does not necessarily make them wrong. We know all the feminist, religious and political arguments, and they need no repeating. Is it possible to strip all of that away, and see if there isn't some common ground on which to talk? Or even just discuss it from one point of view at a time?

And I never said I was moderate. I said I go both ways (at least politically). To me, a completely moderate position can be as bad or worse than an extreme one.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Menard on April 22, 2012, 12:40:19 PM
Is it possible to strip all of that away, and see if there isn't some common ground on which to talk? Or even just discuss it from one point of view at a time?

There would be no discussion if there were no sides, no issues. If there is common ground, then there is no issue. Literally, where is the common ground in a yes or no, for or against debate?


I said I go both ways

 :wink:


And I never said I was moderate. I said I go both ways (at least politically). To me, a completely moderate position can be as bad or worse than an extreme one.

Talk about apples and oranges. So, you're not a moderate, you just go both way politically? :lookingup:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: AndyC on April 22, 2012, 03:10:16 PM
Talk about apples and oranges. So, you're not a moderate, you just go both way politically? :lookingup:

Big difference. Moderate is right in the middle, not too much one way or the other. I like to base my opinions on what makes the most sense to me in each situation. That could put me on the "left," the "right" or anywhere in between. I don't care to be labelled anything, except maybe open-minded.

As far as there being no discussion if common ground is found, I think there would be discussion. Real discussion, rather than bickering. Or maybe finding common ground would be a worthwhile aim in itself. I don't know. I do know that both sides of this particular issue have managed to simultaneously oversimplify and complicate the hell out of it, which I didn't think was possible. But that's what happens when an issue seems to be black and white, but there are several completely different directions from which people approach it. The fight becomes less about the issue itself than it is about the various ways people view it, with everyone arguing that only one aspect really matters and all other concerns are irrelevant.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Menard on April 22, 2012, 03:34:38 PM
Talk about apples and oranges. So, you're not a moderate, you just go both way politically? :lookingup:

Big difference. Moderate is right in the middle, not too much one way or the other. I like to base my opinions on what makes the most sense to me in each situation. That could put me on the "left," the "right" or anywhere in between. I don't care to be labelled anything, except maybe open-minded.

You can create definitions all you want, but aren't you a little old for playing "I'm different from everybody else because..."

I used to play the rationalization game when I was younger, and yes, we all still get caught up in it; I'm no exception.

But here's the thing I want to ask you about your argument: When the rest of us discuss an issue, and each of us seemingly takes a side, does that define us as to what side we will take in perpetuity?

Where there's debate, there's disagreement. And because I have an opinion that makes me wrong because I'm not open-minded...by your definition?

Just wondering, snookums. :tongueout:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 22, 2012, 06:38:32 PM
Your life must have been exceptionally tough.
I LOVE my life.  I teach some really bright and motivated kids, I have two amazing daughters, and my wife and I are still pretty fond of each other after 27 years of marriage.  I'm sure heaven is better, but in the meantime, this isn't bad!

I hope lots of good stuff comes your way soon.

I had fun as a kid, but, realised later  all the F#@cked up things  done to my family by people  claiming to be  progressive and for order. I  know my late Mama was a beautiful, caring, honest, giving person and had a brutal painful ending at the hands of  our medical 'miracle' makers. I take care of my elderly Dad and contribute my time to childrens charities and work 3 jobs to survive. I'm not telling you this to praise myself, it's all cr@p in the end, I fear, and a waste. But, It's not childrens fault the adults are @$$#*les. My relatives  were slaughtered both paternally and maternally, both sides, but, this F#@k'n planet has done that to the majority of  humanity for thousands of years. I think it's  great people like you have had a better outcome and outlook in life. I even contemplated getting married, but, have pretty much abandoned the idea, even though, for some reason what friends I choose to speak to insist I'm this great guy who should get married and keep fixing me up with people. 

Good Stuff is not coming, this is an evil planet, with a mostly genocidal insane speices. The human race applauds murder and genocide, kills it's children and covers it up with politics,religion and  platitudes. It really deserves to be wiped out along with the whole planet and it'll probably do it. I'm glad I bought no one else into this hellhole,  there is a hell, this is it.  Thanks for the sentiment and hold onto your love, good vibes to you and your family, who knows, maybe, there is a small sliver of a chance things may get better  and I am proven wrong. But, not in my lifetime.


 :bluesad: :buggedout: :question:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: AndyC on April 22, 2012, 08:08:06 PM
Talk about apples and oranges. So, you're not a moderate, you just go both way politically? :lookingup:

Big difference. Moderate is right in the middle, not too much one way or the other. I like to base my opinions on what makes the most sense to me in each situation. That could put me on the "left," the "right" or anywhere in between. I don't care to be labelled anything, except maybe open-minded.

You can create definitions all you want, but aren't you a little old for playing "I'm different from everybody else because..."

I used to play the rationalization game when I was younger, and yes, we all still get caught up in it; I'm no exception.

But here's the thing I want to ask you about your argument: When the rest of us discuss an issue, and each of us seemingly takes a side, does that define us as to what side we will take in perpetuity?

Where there's debate, there's disagreement. And because I have an opinion that makes me wrong because I'm not open-minded...by your definition?

Just wondering, snookums. :tongueout:

Funny, I would say when I was younger, I saw debates like this more as battles to be won. Now, I'm seeing a lot more value in discussion as a means of understanding an issue, and that being right is not the same as being the last man standing.

And yes, I actually do have an opinion on abortion, but since I will never need one, I should keep it to myself. Right? OK, maybe that's a bit facetious. Anyway, I'm finding the discussion of the discussion to be far more interesting, and more likely to lead somewhere.

As to whether taking a particular side in a discussion will dictate future opinions, of course it won't. But there are plenty of people who are very consistent in the sides they take, very dismissive or hostile toward other positions, and often seemingly a knee-jerk response. I don't advocate neutrality, or suggest taking sides is narrow-minded. Always taking the same side, regardless of circumstances and without much thought. That is narrow-minded. Refusing to see things from the other side's perspective is narrow-minded. You can take an opposing position and still find value in what the other person says. Otherwise, there really is no point.

And actually, I don't believe you are wrong about this issue. You are absolutely right... if this is just an issue of women's rights. Indy is right if it's just an issue of protecting children. But both are valid concerns, as are others. Hard for anybody to budge on their position when everyone is right according to their own priorities, and nobody is entirely wrong. So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 23, 2012, 08:34:46 AM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.

This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 23, 2012, 08:31:14 PM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.

This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.

Flick, you surprise me, you didn't think the abortion debate would be  solved  on a  thread  on a badmovies message board? :wink:  It will never  be solved  because their  is no solution like the majority of  human problems they fester, huge war eradicates  populace and/or disease, rinse/repeat.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 24, 2012, 12:57:16 AM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.

This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.

Flick, you surprise me, you didn't think the abortion debate would be  solved  on a  thread  on a badmovies message board? :wink:  It will never  be solved  because their  is no solution like the majority of  human problems they fester, huge war eradicates  populace and/or disease, rinse/repeat.
Your commentary is very often negative and disturbing.  Or violent.  And the word is "there" not "their".   :bluesad:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Doggett on April 24, 2012, 06:16:06 AM
Personally, I believe with our founders that the first duty of government is to defend the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens.  That includes unborn life. 

Shouldn't the US get rid of the death penalty then.  :question:

Im not very good at this baiting thing...


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 24, 2012, 09:05:41 AM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.

This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.

Flick, you surprise me, you didn't think the abortion debate would be  solved  on a  thread  on a badmovies message board? :wink:  It will never  be solved  because their  is no solution like the majority of  human problems they fester, huge war eradicates  populace and/or disease, rinse/repeat.

Wait, WHO festers problems?


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 24, 2012, 11:47:09 AM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.

This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.

Flick, you surprise me, you didn't think the abortion debate would be  solved  on a  thread  on a badmovies message board? :wink:  It will never  be solved  because their  is no solution like the majority of  human problems they fester, huge war eradicates  populace and/or disease, rinse/repeat.
Your commentary is very often negative and disturbing.  Or violent.  And the word is "there" not "their".   :bluesad:

Wlell, we live  in a disturbing world, btw, your spell check is annoying, but, thanks, THERE is  always one on these message boards, makes them feel superior.  I'm not an engish major, but, the 'Or Violent', doesn't sound like a complete sentence? :smile:  I do apologize for not being more entertaining for  you, but, I am not violent, I point out violence and how it will beget more violence. But, I have never killed anyone, not that they didn't deserve it.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 24, 2012, 11:48:06 AM
Personally, I believe with our founders that the first duty of government is to defend the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens.  That includes unborn life. 

Shouldn't the US get rid of the death penalty then.  :question:

Im not very good at this baiting thing...

unborn life is innocent as opposed  to some guy on death row.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 24, 2012, 11:50:08 AM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.

This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.

Flick, you surprise me, you didn't think the abortion debate would be  solved  on a  thread  on a badmovies message board? :wink:  It will never  be solved  because there  is no solution like the majority of  human problems they fester, huge war eradicates  populace and/or disease, rinse/repeat.

Wait, WHO festers problems?

Human beings? 


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 24, 2012, 12:03:34 PM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.

This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.

Flick, you surprise me, you didn't think the abortion debate would be  solved  on a  thread  on a badmovies message board? :wink:  It will never  be solved  because there  is no solution like the majority of  human problems they fester, huge war eradicates  populace and/or disease, rinse/repeat.

Wait, WHO festers problems?

Human beings? 

Snorkels/Oxygen. Lions and tigers and bears? Repeat steps 1 thru 3. Flat Foot Floogie with a floy floy.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 24, 2012, 12:09:04 PM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.

This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.

Flick, you surprise me, you didn't think the abortion debate would be  solved  on a  thread  on a badmovies message board? :wink:  It will never  be solved  because there  is no solution like the majority of  human problems they fester, huge war eradicates  populace and/or disease, rinse/repeat.

Wait, WHO festers problems?

Human beings? 

Snorkels/Oxygen. Lions and tigers and bears? Repeat steps 1 thru 3. Flat Foot Floogie with a floy floy.

Yes, it is rather senseless and pointless in the end.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Chainsaw midget on April 24, 2012, 12:50:43 PM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.

This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.

Flick, you surprise me, you didn't think the abortion debate would be  solved  on a  thread  on a badmovies message board? :wink:  It will never  be solved  because their  is no solution like the majority of  human problems they fester, huge war eradicates  populace and/or disease, rinse/repeat.
Your commentary is very often negative and disturbing.  Or violent.  And the word is "there" not "their".   :bluesad:

Wlell, we live  in a disturbing world, btw, your spell check is annoying, but, thanks, THERE is  always one on these message boards, makes them feel superior.  I'm not an engish major, but, the 'Or Violent', doesn't sound like a complete sentence? :smile:  I do apologize for not being more entertaining for  you, but, I am not violent, I point out violence and how it will beget more violence. But, I have never killed anyone, not that they didn't deserve it.
Well, you're certainly a little bundle of sunshine, aren't you? 

The world isn't a bad place.  You're just focused solely on the negative parts of it. 


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 24, 2012, 12:59:46 PM
Quote
I'm not an engish major

 :bouncegiggle:

Neither am I, nor would I imagine that there are a wealth of them on the boards. However, I'm confused. Do you mean that you are not an English major in the college degree sense, or that you are not a Major in the English Army?


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 24, 2012, 01:00:39 PM
Quote
I'm not an engish major

 :bouncegiggle:

Neither am I, nor would I imagine that there are a wealth of them on the boards. However, I'm confused. Do you mean that you are not an English major in the college degree sense, or that you are not a Major in the English Army?


Both. :teddyr:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: tracy on April 24, 2012, 01:11:32 PM
Personally, I believe with our founders that the first duty of government is to defend the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens.  That includes unborn life. 

Shouldn't the US get rid of the death penalty then.  :question:

Im not very good at this baiting thing...
That's a bit of irony there,my friend....I am very much against abortion but for the Death Penalty. As Frank pointed out,one is innocent life and one has been convicted for a crime and sits on death row. I've had a number of folks call me a hypocrit for this particular stance but I must politely disagree.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 24, 2012, 02:20:31 PM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.
This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.
Flick, you surprise me, you didn't think the abortion debate would be  solved  on a  thread  on a badmovies message board? :wink:  It will never  be solved  because their  is no solution like the majority of  human problems they fester, huge war eradicates  populace and/or disease, rinse/repeat.
Your commentary is very often negative and disturbing.  Or violent.  And the word is "there" not "their".   :bluesad:
Wlell, we live  in a disturbing world, btw, your spell check is annoying, but, thanks, THERE is  always one on these message boards, makes them feel superior.  I'm not an engish major, but, the 'Or Violent', doesn't sound like a complete sentence? :smile:  I do apologize for not being more entertaining for  you, but, I am not violent, I point out violence and how it will beget more violence. But, I have never killed anyone, not that they didn't deserve it.
One therefore would be "him" not "them".   :wink:  "Or violent" would be an ejaculation and not subject to the rules of a sentence.  And I never feel superior; but I will own annoying.   Y'see, you're trying to be clever.  I'm just trying to annoy you.  :teddyr:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 24, 2012, 02:42:21 PM
Quote
So, it becomes a futile exercise of everyone preaching to the choir and making the same arguments over and over again.
This thread has become futile, and played out. Even I know that.
Flick, you surprise me, you didn't think the abortion debate would be  solved  on a  thread  on a badmovies message board? :wink:  It will never  be solved  because their  is no solution like the majority of  human problems they fester, huge war eradicates  populace and/or disease, rinse/repeat.
Your commentary is very often negative and disturbing.  Or violent.  And the word is "there" not "their".   :bluesad:
Wlell, we live  in a disturbing world, btw, your spell check is annoying, but, thanks, THERE is  always one on these message boards, makes them feel superior.  I'm not an engish major, but, the 'Or Violent', doesn't sound like a complete sentence? :smile:  I do apologize for not being more entertaining for  you, but, I am not violent, I point out violence and how it will beget more violence. But, I have never killed anyone, not that they didn't deserve it.
One therefore would be "him" not "them".   :wink:  "Or violent" would be an ejaculation and not subject to the rules of a sentence.  And I never feel superior; but I will own annoying.   Y'see, you're trying to be clever.  I'm just trying to annoy you.  :teddyr:

I thought you were speaking from a group home. :teddyr:  Please, no ejaculations  before dinner. :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 24, 2012, 07:42:28 PM
If I may make one point, in response to what Doggett raised earlier (and stepping over most of the posts since . . .)

My opposition to abortion and my belief in the inherent justice of the death penalty are BOTH rooted in my firm belief in the sanctity of human life.  I realize that may sound absurd on the face of it, so I'll try to explain:

Almost any property can be replaced.  Houses can be rebuilt, gadgets can be repurchased, even my artifact collection that I have spent 35 years finding - if it was stolen tonight, I'd start a new collection tomorrow.
But a human life is irreplaceable.  So for one who wantonly, cruelly takes human lives for no purpose other than their own amusement can only atone for the irreplaceable lives taken by yielding their own in return.  It is the oldest and most universal principle of human jurisprudence.

I do recognize that their are problems and inequities in the way American administers the death penalty (sometimes). I would like to see these issues properly addressed.  But for the most heinous of criminals - for the Gacys and Bundys and bin Ladens of the world - the death penalty remains a balanced and symmetrical act of justice that is the only true atonement for the evil they have done.

In my humble (but correct) opinion, that is.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 24, 2012, 08:22:21 PM
...I thought you were speaking from a group home. :teddyr:  Please, no ejaculations  before dinner. :bouncegiggle:
I knew you'd like it if I used the word "ejaculation". 


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Doggett on April 25, 2012, 05:10:02 AM
Personally, I believe with our founders that the first duty of government is to defend the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens.  That includes unborn life. 

Shouldn't the US get rid of the death penalty then.  :question:

Im not very good at this baiting thing...
That's a bit of irony there,my friend....I am very much against abortion but for the Death Penalty. As Frank pointed out,one is innocent life and one has been convicted for a crime and sits on death row. I've had a number of folks call me a hypocrit for this particular stance but I must politely disagree.

Of course, unless that criminal is a zombie, the person is very much a living human.
Its seems strange that to show people that killing is wrong, the punishment is to kill them.

Oh, the irony...




But a human life is irreplaceable.  So for one who wantonly, cruelly takes human lives for no purpose other than their own amusement can only atone for the irreplaceable lives taken by yielding their own in return.  It is the oldest and most universal principle of human jurisprudence.


All human life is irreplaceable.
Even the nasty ones. I can understand wanting someone dead but when you've caught them and locked them up and they're no longer a danger to society. Why kill?


An eye for an eye isn't really a principle. It just makes us all blind.

That person on death row is still a child to someone. Im not saying like the criminal, or even forgive. Just lock them up and throw away the key.

Just an opinion.
Not on a soapbox or anything.

 :smile:



Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 25, 2012, 06:19:41 AM
It's a legitimiate opinion shared by many - but I respectfully disagree.
A monster like Gacy, who can never be rehabilitated, needs to be put down.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Frank81 on April 25, 2012, 09:54:43 AM
...I thought you were speaking from a group home. :teddyr:  Please, no ejaculations  before dinner. :bouncegiggle:
I knew you'd like it if I used the word "ejaculation". 

It just seems  to fit the answers  I've  been getting to my posts.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: tracy on April 25, 2012, 12:04:23 PM
It's a legitimiate opinion shared by many - but I respectfully disagree.
A monster like Gacy, who can never be rehabilitated, needs to be put down.
My thoughts exactly. :smile:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: alandhopewell on April 25, 2012, 12:29:23 PM
It's a legitimiate opinion shared by many - but I respectfully disagree.
A monster like Gacy, who can never be rehabilitated, needs to be put down.
My thoughts exactly. :smile:

      The Bible says that where innocent blood is shed (murder) then blood is called for.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 25, 2012, 12:30:44 PM
So it's turned into a debate about capital punishment now?

 :lookingup:


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Flick James on April 25, 2012, 12:33:02 PM
As much as I love the ability to have these discussions, and as many stimulating ones I have had with the likes of Indy, I'm beginning to see Andrew's point.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Doggett on April 25, 2012, 02:07:51 PM
So it's turned into a debate about capital punishment now?

 :lookingup:

My fault...

And the bible say a lot of things.

I'm pretty sure the only rules meant for man that came from God were the ten commandments. Thou shall not kill. There were no exceptions to it. God didn't write a PS saying its okay to kill if they're really rotten. I know the bible is full of stories and ideas how man should live so I'm cutting to the chase a bit and saying when all is said and done, really only Gods law is important and as a Christian, I can't see kling as an answer. Only forgiveness.



Typing on iPhone is so hard!!! It's like Jack watching BAywatch. Lol


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: indianasmith on April 25, 2012, 07:50:38 PM
The thing is, the King James "thou shalt not kill" is a very poor rendition of the Hebrew.
The literal translation is "You shall not murder."  The same Mosaic law that begins with the Decalogue also imposes capital punishment for murder.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 25, 2012, 08:56:45 PM
As much as I love the ability to have these discussions, and as many stimulating ones I have had with the likes of Indy, I'm beginning to see Andrew's point.
A coterie has sprung up here, often espousing politics, not all of whom recognize that disturbingly negative remarks are damaging to our little community of friends. 


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: trekgeezer on May 12, 2012, 04:27:02 PM
As much as I love the ability to have these discussions, and as many stimulating ones I have had with the likes of Indy, I'm beginning to see Andrew's point.
A coterie has sprung up here, often espousing politics, not all of whom recognize that disturbingly negative remarks are damaging to our little community of friends. 


Remember that Atmosphere I mentioned when I left the board?   Everyone of these 'discussions' takes it's toll on the the civility of this place

From now on I plan on discussing movies and other forms of entertainment with my friends here and the rest of you can keep shouting  at each other.


Title: Re: Reporter undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound toframe abortion debate
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 12, 2012, 05:55:24 PM
As much as I love the ability to have these discussions, and as many stimulating ones I have had with the likes of Indy, I'm beginning to see Andrew's point.
A coterie has sprung up here, often espousing politics, not all of whom recognize that disturbingly negative remarks are damaging to our little community of friends. 
Remember that Atmosphere I mentioned when I left the board?   Everyone of these 'discussions' takes it's toll on the the civility of this place
From now on I plan on discussing movies and other forms of entertainment with my friends here and the rest of you can keep shouting  at each other.
Okay, but please note it wasn't me doing any shouting over here, just observing.  And the particular person I was referring to has done the same thing you did: closed his account (but he was only registered a few weeks.)