once again . . the Left/MSM gets played like a CHEAP VIOLIN

Never even saw it. That is one heckuva message.

Yeah, whatever.

PAWNED?

Even more funny now that the ad has aired. What a crock of shit the pro-abortion created over something they didn't even know anything about. You'd think they'd be a bit chagrined, but no doubt they'll keep hollering and spouting their talking points. It certainly could be that the whole thing was orchestrated in order for them to look the fool, which they certainly did. Too funny for words.

The ad seemed like a waste of money to me. The only message it conveyed was that Tim Tebow loves his mom. If it hadn't been for the controversy, I wouldn't have known that was an anti-abortion message.

What a crock of shit the pro-abortion created over something they didn't even know anything about.

The furor was about Focus on the Family's description of the ad. If they had screened the ad in advance, a lot of the controversy never would have happened.

So they got millions in free publicity by being deliberately coy about the ad. Bully for them. Does it change a single mind on the issue of abortion?

Never even saw it. That is one heckuva message.

#2 | Posted by 726

How many plays did you miss while hiding under the bed?

We are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. If you're gonna call us pro-abortion, you have to accept "forced-birth" or "making women do what guys want" as a label.

And it's not PAWNED. It's PWNED. Internet lingo.

"We are pro-choice, not pro-abortion."

Bullshit. At least be a man and own your beliefs.

Bullshit. At least be a man and own your beliefs.

Bullshit. At least be a man and admit you're a hypocrite for forcing a label on someone and rejecting that which is put on you, forced birther.

#10. I haven't rejected anything, dimwit, feel free to take a 3rd grade reading course. Call me anything you want, I don't give a fuck. What's funny is the efforts of people like you trying to defend your belief that it's OK to kill infants at will by trying to create friendly or politically correct terms. Don't be a fucking pussy, own up to it. Repeat after me: "It's OK to vacuum the brains out of an infant."

At least be a man and own your beliefs.

Yay -- let's engage in a pointless argument over the words people use to describe others.

"It's OK to vacuum the brains out of an infant."

#11 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2010-02-08 01:11 PM

Must be. It's legal.

Repeat after me: "It's OK to vacuum the brains out of an infant."

Repeat after me: It's OK for the state to force women to carry every pregnancy from conception to birth.

"The furor was about Focus on the Family's description of the ad. If they had screened the ad in advance, a lot of the controversy never would have happened.

So they got millions in free publicity by being deliberately coy about the ad. Bully for them. Does it change a single mind on the issue of abortion?"

It changed my perception of any person or organization who screeched about the ad before it came out. They aren't pro-choice (like me). They are pro-abortion. And pro-abortion is a pretty disgusting position to have any way you look at it.

#14: It's OK for the state to force women to carry every pregnancy from conception to birth. Within the confines of Roe v. Wade.

Repeat after me: It's OK for the state to force women to carry every pregnancy from conception to birth.#14 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2010-02-08 01:14

It's ok for the state to require women to carry the pregnancies they did nothing to prevent from conception to birth.

Someone with ovaries who calls herself "Jim".

Interesting.

It's ok for the state to require women to carry the pregnancies they did nothing to prevent from conception to birth.

#17 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-02-08 01:20 PM

Read what you typed, Idiot.

Repeat after me: "It's OK to vacuum the brains out of an infant."

Repeat after me: It's OK for the state to force women to carry every pregnancy from third trimester to birth.

Posted by rcade at 2010-02-08 01:14 PM | Reply

mmmmmmmm.....BRAINS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm slowly beginning to think that liberals must be those infants that survived the brain vacuums. Or perhaps had a post-birth vacuuming during their school or adult years. Seems to be the only explanation for their devoted adherence to all things Obama and an almost surreal belief that anything from the NYT or the HuffnPuff Post is real news.

I'm slowly beginning to think that liberals must be those infants that survived the brain vacuums. Or perhaps had a post-birth vacuuming during their school or adult years. Seems to be the only explanation for their devoted adherence to all things Obama and an almost surreal belief that anything from the NYT or the HuffnPuff Post is real news.

#21 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2010-02-08 01:35 PM |

Pathetic.

"Pathetic," said the man who named himself after a fat, fucking cheater of college sports.

You must at least admit that the whole temper tantrum on part of a few organizations against this add does make it appear that their position is more pro abortion than it is pro choice. This add was showing that there was a choice to be made and what the positive outcome of that choice could be.

I don't think there is a positive outcome when someone chooses to have an abortion, there is pain, sorrow, sometimes guilt, and a difficult time moving past it due to emotional stress when you finally do decide to have children.

"Pathetic," said the man who named himself after a fat, fucking cheater of college sports.

#23 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2010-02-08 01:46 PM

They all cheat, Princess.

It's OK for the state to force women to carry every pregnancy from conception to birth. Within the confines of Roe v. Wade.

So you're pro-abortion, then?

"So you're pro-abortion, then?" Never said different, actually. But one must understand the differing issues. I would prefer not to see any abortions, but I'm not so naive to believe that is the best solution, or even possible. Roe v. Wade does, however, hold some promise and a reasonable solution, if people will only just read the damn thing, and follow it's advice. The left wishes to allow wide ranging abortions to anyone at any time, while the right wants to restrict completely a woman's access for any reason. Neither meets the law of Roe or even it's spirit. Neither side knows what the fuck it's talking about. First trimester abortions are pretty much protected. Second trimester abortions can be reasonably restricted, but with limits on the restrictions. (is that a double negative?). Third trimester abortions can be sharply restricted, getting rid of the devilish partial birth abortions, provided the mother's health is protected. The problem is that everyone has their own opinion, each state has it's own desires, and neither side will come to a reasonable compromise with the other.

Bottom line is that abortions are legal.

Doesn't matter if your a liberal whore or a conservative in church three days a week slut.

Bottom line is that abortions are legal.

thanks for the update. and obviously this ad, even an ad with teeth, wouldn't change minds on this issue one bit and yet the left still had to piss their pants over it as though abortion rights were/are being threatened.

"provided the mother's health is protected."

Which is not included in the Right's position, judging merely from their rhetoric and actions...

For example, the late term abortion fight, which had "conservatives" fighting for an outright ban, with no consideration of the mother's health, the opinion of her doctor, or any such commie nonsense. It was curious to see "conservatives" God-button this issue in the furtherance of state control of individual and doctor/patient rights and confidentiality.

#30 - exactly my point of contention with the right. Most state laws restricting abortion are written by conservatives, of course, and they refuse to bend just a little in order for their law to pass muster. Instead of trying to protect the "unborn," they are trying to make a point, thus making bad law. Bad facts make for bad law, and higher courts will not create a precedence on grandstanding by conservatives. With a minor re-write conservatives could easily restrict abortions, they're just being pig-headed about it. To be clear, my position would be to restrict abortions as much as Roe allows. I'm not "pro-abortion," as RCADE asks, but I'm not a rabid righty trying to completely restrict abortions, either.

Read what you typed, Idiot.

#19 | Posted by jerrytarkanian at 2010-02-08 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes and....

After conception they are pregnant. They failed to prevent becoming pregnant at that point. You must have a problem with reading comprehension?

Two words - legs closed. 100% guarenteed to prevent pregnancy and the abortion of life in all cases except rape. In that case of course, keeping ones legs closed does not guarentee they will be not be forced open.

#27--Shit, Jim, that was almost reasonable. Why can't you always do that instead of the inane, inflammatory rhetoric you offered earlier.

And for the record, I am NOT pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. It's not political rhetoric; language matters. I don't believe that abortion is a good thing, but I don't believe that the gov't should make that choice for people. But you're smart enough to know the difference; you were using drama and rhetoric to make your point. I think. (Analogy by question: If I say I'm in favor of the second amendment, does that mean I'm pro-gun and believe everyone should have one?)

And again, if you're forcing a label on me, I get to force one on you. Of course, you went and fucked with my label of choice by going and asserting that you're not pro-abortion. Bastard. : )

(I also don't believe that "the left wishes to allow wide ranging abortions to anyone at any time." There may be those who do, yes, but I think there's a quite wide range of opinions and agendas from those on the left, and probably from those on the right too. Further, and I don't think Jim suggested this, as it's really ElCid's motif, but I just don't buy the "she should just close her legs" argument. Really, all preganancies arise from people not using contraception? Really. Wow.)

"It's ok for the state to require women to carry pregnancies they did nothing to prevent from conception to birth."

Another gilt-edged Cidney lunacy. I imagine that in Cidney's world the pregnancy police will give lie detector tests to every woman seeking to terminate a problem pregnancy. Or maybe ol' Cid would station a pregnancy cop in every bedroom to ascertain if contraceptives were used.

Anyway, once more, folks: Ain't no such thing as "pro-abortionists." Only a few "libs" outraged that the same folks who give abstinence-only sex education and limit access to contraceptives bad-mouthed those who deem abortion an acceptable last resort. herm

As if on cue, there's ElCid. So Mr or Mrs Cid--you never had sex before marriage? You don't know anyone who did so, used protection, and ended up "in trouble"? And what about that rape issue? If life is sacred, why is it less sacred in the case of rape or incest? I still don't understand that one--if life is life at 8 weeks or whatever some of you claim, why does it matter how that life came to be?

yes... focus on the family represents the entire left!

just as sarah palin represents the entire right

please people, your vast generalizations make us ALL sound stupid.

Two words - legs closed.

#33 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-02-08 02:33 PM

Two words: fucking idiot.

You need to come in from the 1950's.

HERMENGELE and the IMPRAGMATIST think that keeping ones legs closed is not a fair way to avoid pregnancy? And libs are supposed to be the intelligent ones?

Problem pregnancy? Once again the doctor of death injects his PC wordsmithing to descensitize the act of murder. HERM not pro-abortion? That is the biggest lie ever told on the DR. I believe it is your goal in life to make sure that every pregnant woman you can get your slimy paws on is escorted to the death clinic.

Acceptable last resort to what? Life? BTW - have you found that painless and dignified way yet? Why not visit one of the clinics you escorted women into - the procedure is supposed to be painless for the victims.

And prag - I said keeping your legs closed may not stop rape - not rape is an excuse for an abortion - try reading the statement again.

You need to come in from the 1950's.

#38 | Posted by jerrytarkanian at 2010-02-08 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

They can't use the pill or a condom either dipshit? It has to do with choice alright - if they use 0 forms of birth control, including keeping their legs closed, then they want to get pregnant. Get it? Come in from the world of no responsibilty. Shithead.

"For example, the late term abortion fight, which had "conservatives" fighting for an outright ban, with no consideration of the mother's health, the opinion of her doctor, or any such commie nonsense. It was curious to see "conservatives" God-button this issue in the furtherance of state control of individual and doctor/patient rights and confidentiality."

You are right in your criticism of one absolute position but I can't help but wonder why you can't see the folly of the other absolute position. The other side of the arguement on late term abortions is just as unthinking and cruel in their absolute position.

Yes, you have people arguing against late term abortion in cases where the mother can die if she tries to deliver the kid. And they are idiots.

The other side argues that late term abortion should be allowed for any old fucking reason at all. And in many of those cases, we're talking about killing a human baby that COULD survive outside the womb. And they hold their position for no other reason than they don't want to acknowledge that abortion can ever be a bad thing in any circumstances- which is moronic.

So which absolute position has the moral high ground?

NEITHER. They're both unthinking and careless.

"HERMENGELE and the IMPRAGMATIST think that keeping ones legs closed is not a fair way to avoid pregnancy?"

why go after just the girls?

eldouchewaffle

why not say keep the penis in the pants?

should we force marriage to make sure the man responsible for the child takes care of the child?

are you saying we should increase socialism to take care of the single mothers if we don't force marriage?

you are just like the taliban.

NEITHER. They're both unthinking and careless

ssshhhhhh Sully, you don't want to attempt to inject sanity into this debate and spoil it for the fantics on both sides.

you'll kill the thread man!!!!!

They can't use the pill or a condom either dipshit? It has to do with choice alright - if they use 0 forms of birth control, including keeping their legs closed, then they want to get pregnant. Get it? Come in from the world of no responsibilty. Shithead.

#40 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-02-08 02:52 PM |

Wow. A bible thumper calling me a "dipshit" and a "Shithead". It kinda sucks when reality is pointed out to you lemmings doesn't it?

"So which absolute position has the moral high ground?"

The law shouldn't be based in morality, it should be based in practicality.

let parents teach their kids morality and leave it out of the law.

The law shouldn't be based in morality, it should be based in practicality.

which is what we have now.

so why all of the paranoia from the left?

So which absolute position has the moral high ground?

The pro-choice position is that abortion is a difficult and personal issue guided by each individual's own morality, so the state has no business making the decision.

The anti-abortion position is that it's so clearly immoral that the state should make the decision for all people.

I think the high ground on the issue isn't hard to find, given those two positions.

I think we need to have abortions be available, but very highly recommended against. We should emphasize the choice, and the more positive choice rather than the more negative choice.

Bring more discussion out there about the choice. If a person still desired to have an abortion, they can have an abortion, however it should be a last resort on all occasions and completely up to them.

What's funny is the efforts of people like you trying to defend your belief that it's OK to kill infants at will by trying to create friendly or politically correct terms. Don't be a fucking pussy, own up to it. Repeat after me: "It's OK to vacuum the brains out of an infant."

Wow you've got some issues going on up there in Spokane.

Oddly enough I agree wholeheartedly with your #32, but if you have to assign me positions so I can fit in your little labeling scheme be my guest.

The anti-abortion position is that it's so clearly immoral that the state should make the decision for all people.

While loudly shouting "keep government out of my life" from the other side of their mouth.

#44 | Posted by jerrytarkanian at 2010-02-08 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Please reference any statements I made regarding religion in this discussion. What, you can't. Another pro-deather who fails.

In reference to the comment about men keeping their pants zipped - absolutely. However, until the man gets to have a say in the decision to abort life, it seems the responsibility for voluntarily getting pregnant rests with the owner of the only womb between the two.

And yes jerry, your a shithead. No, I am not a bible thumper. You assume, and you prove the saying correct.

"The pro-choice position is that abortion is a difficult and personal issue guided by each individual's own morality, so the state has no business making the decision.

The anti-abortion position is that it's so clearly immoral that the state should make the decision for all people.

I think the high ground on the issue isn't hard to find, given those two positions."

Because you only see one side of this.

You would never argue that the state has no business in whether someone can kill their own infant when that infant is outside the womb. Even if that kid were born premature and has been outside the womb for no more than a few seconds you would recognize it as having rights whether or not its parents find it more efficient to do away with it than to take care of it. Killing a baby or any other person is wrong and not an issue of personal morality.

But some of these late term abortions involve killing human children that are more developed than that same premature baby.

So its not a personal decision when more than one person is affected in a life and death way.

Now, I'm not against all abortions and I don't believe a tadpole-like fetus is a person. I don't know where the cutoff should be but I can tell you that some supporters of abortion don't have a cutoff, which means they advocate killing viable children as a choice. And no amount of oversimplification on your part is going to make that stance any less repulsive to me.

The ad seemed like a waste of money to me. The only message it conveyed was that Tim Tebow loves his mom. If it hadn't been for the controversy, I wouldn't have known that was an anti-abortion message.

What a crock of shit the pro-abortion created over something they didn't even know anything about.

The furor was about Focus on the Family's description of the ad. If they had screened the ad in advance, a lot of the controversy never would have happened.

So they got millions in free publicity by being deliberately coy about the ad. Bully for them. Does it change a single mind on the issue of abortion?

#6 | Posted by rcade

We'll never know if it does change any minds, but I do many people who faced the decision of abortion, including my wife who, by the advise of her doctor, set up the procedure early in her pregnacy with our third (and last) child, and then changed her mind, got dressed and walked out! The doctor turned out to be wrong.

My daughter is another Tedbow whether she does anything as significant as he or not. I really don't care!

*Tebow

"We are pro-choice, not pro-abortion."
#8 | Posted by pragmatist

Funny, that is the exact same thing the pro-abortion crowds said right before they bashed this ad.

Now, I'm not against all abortions ...

Then you are in the gray area with most everybody else, including me. I think when something is highly personal and morally difficult, that's a good reason for the state to get out of the way and let people make their own decision.

Now, I'm not against all abortions ...

Then you are in the gray area with most everybody else, including me. I think when something is highly personal and morally difficult, that's a good reason for the state to get out of the way and let people make their own decision.

#55 | Posted by rcade

I agree, but why can't we all agree at what time in the pregnacy it's an abortion and when it's murder?

I don't agree with the Church that all pregnacies should be brought to full-term.

I agree, but why can't we all agree at what time in the pregnacy it's an abortion and when it's murder?

The emerging standard appears to be fetal viability outside the womb. But that also forces women to carry stillborn, unable-to-survive or catastrophically ill fetuses to term if they're not terminated before that point, which is why Dr. Tiller in Kansas continued to provide late-term abortions.

"I don't agree with the Church that all pregnacies should be brought to full-term."

Neither does the Church. Ask them about ectopic pregnancies some day.

Posted by rcade at 2010-02-08 05:26 PM | Reply

Problem with the viability is the definition. Regionally in the US the definition would change drastically. For example, a 2lb baby is pretty viable at Duke's Level 4 Nicu. Just for fun, Canada has zero level 4's so viability in Canada means your ability to get the hell to Chicago, IL, or Durham, NC otherwise a live infant that has been born is considered "still born".

If Dr. Tiller was dispatching of already dead babies, why'd he have to scramble the brains first? Can I get his recipe?

As far as abortions in general - have at it - if you can live with it, your choice.

If Dr. Tiller was dispatching of already dead babies, why'd he have to scramble the brains first?

Any chance we can discuss this without resorting to shock-value junk like that comment? The horror stories you want to tell are matched by the horror stories of the pregnancies that kept Tiller from getting out of late-term abortion services.

Neither does the Church. Ask them about ectopic pregnancies some day.

Ectopics are not viable at any stage, can hardly be regarded as a pregnancy at all. And they aren't aborted, as the life itself never formed. They certainly cannot be brought to term as they are ectopic can cannot survive more than a very short time. Red herring.

"Ectopics are not viable at any stage, can hardly be regarded as a pregnancy at all."

Are those goalposts heavy?

Because you're talking about a fertilized egg, about all that's needed in forced-birth world.

As far as abortions in general - have at it - if you can live with it, your choice.

#60 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD at 2010-02-08 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pro-Choice people are fighting to keep that right.

Our beloved moderator, Rcade, persists in trying to add - well - moderation to this discussion, but it's probably a futile venture. There's no way to make the Ciddish absolutists here moderate. herm

Posted by rcade at 2010-02-08 05:39 PM | Reply

I've got no problem with Tiller doing his thing, nor the women who patronized him doing their thing. It was all concentual and by choice.

Of course, I am very sure that he had the utmost character and moral compass that he would never terminate the life of an otherwise "viable" baby.

The burden of a woman that loses an infant at any stage of pregnancy is remarkable. My grandmother lost at least two (stillborn) and on her deathbed she would talk to them. It is not something that ever goes away or can be forgotten or erased. Your freedom to make the choice does not affect the magnitude of the decision, nor is that magnitude oft explained.

My visuals may be crude (too much taxidermy in my past perhaps), however rcade, that is how you terminate a "non-viable" fetus, don't like it -don't support it. I'm just "tact challenged" sometimes. Forgive me?

Pro-Choice people are fighting to keep that right.

no, douchebags who believe the right is being threatened are....which includes you.

Wow, I am an asshole, aren't I?

There's no way to make the Ciddish absolutists here moderate. herm

nor the paranoid fools who think abortion rights are ever going to be taken away.

The ectopic pregnancy is a lovely case in point. But it's a slippery slope. If you say ectopic pregnancies are not full-fledged human beings that ought to have voting rights, why should fetuses growing inside uteruses (uteri?) be full-fledged human beings deserving of police protection? herm

"nor the paranoid fools who think abortion rights are ever going to be taken away."

Good God, man, do some research. Scalia almost did it a few years back, but O'Connor changed her mind.

pure paranoia danforth.

I'm just "tact challenged" sometimes. Forgive me?

'Salright. Just trying to keep this train on the tracks before we all go careening into the ravine.

The ectopic pregnancy is a lovely case in point. But it's a slippery slope.

#70 | Posted by herm at 2010-02-08 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag: Gets a tingle up his leg just thinking about terminating any kind of pregnancy.

"Because you're talking about a fertilized egg [ectopic pregnancy], about all that's needed in forced-birth world."

I'm not sure if you are confused or ignorant. An ectopic pregnancy cannot survive because it is not growing in the uterus. It never gets past being a simple egg. Usually the egg attaches within the fallopian tubes, which is why it's called "ectopic." It cannot survive, regardless of what church or political ranting maniacs may believe. It cannot be born even if it were to grow, but regardless would never have the ability to receive nutrients from the mother. Ectopics are potentially very deadly very quickly. The consideration of an ectopic pregnancy just does not fit within the realm of the abortion debate. Only fools desperately searching for a deflective argument could possibly create such an argument.

I'm just "tact challenged" sometimes. Forgive me?

'Salright. Just trying to keep this train on the tracks before we all go careening into the ravine.

#73 | Posted by rcade at 2010-02-08 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Phew, I couldn't take another dump (DR ex lax?)...

It's ok for the state to require women to carry the pregnancies they did nothing to prevent from conception to birth.

#17 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 Talibaptist

you are a sad example of a human being Elcid. Have you ever even known a REAL woman who stands up for her rights? Try having a relationship with one sometime instead of those Christian subservient sheeples.

You may learn a thing or two about Life.

Life is way more complicated than "Just say No".

I thought we covered that in the Just Say No era of the 1980s.

Pro-Choice people are fighting to keep that right.

no, douchebags who believe the right is being threatened are....which includes you.

#67 | Posted by eberly

That right would not exist if you and that Talibaptist Elcid were making the rules.

.....two out five pregnancies end in miscarriage......

.....miscarriage is an abortion done by God........

.....since God performs hundreds of millions of abortions a year, it must be that He approves of them.....

.....He is the biggest abortionist of all........

From Twitter:

"pure paranoia danforth."

Pure historical ignorance, Eberly.

You didn't even read the link, did you?

Posted by skizziks at 2010-02-08 08:00 PM | Reply

Curiosity, from your source does it specify what proportion of spontaneous abortions are first trimester?

Repeat after me: It's OK for the state to force women to carry every pregnancy from conception to birth.

#14 | Posted by rcade

Repeat after me:Its immoral to use abortion as a birth control.

rwd

Pure historical ignorance, Eberly.

You didn't even read the link, did you?

really? since Roe V Wade, there has been serious challenges?

bullshit. I read the link. what do you think any of that means?

you are paranoid to think, FOR A SECOND, that abortion rights ARE BEING THREATENED.

That right would not exist if you and that Talibaptist Elcid were making the rules.

more bullshit pussy assignment of position from libtards who can't make an argument otherwise.

I am not advocating any change in the current law. I am simply recognizing the reality that the abortion debate is nothing more than a 100% complete farce on the part of elected leaders in DC (and the supreme court).

There is no abortion debate. Wake up. There is no threat to changing the law.

fucking morons.

all of you.

"I read the link. what do you think any of that means?"

That had Scalia gotten O'Connor to agree, they would have unilaterally changed the law. Judicial Activism, I think it's called.

"There is no threat to changing the law."

I hope you get all that sand out of your ears when your return to upright.

From that link:

"Scalia has repeatedly called upon his colleagues to strike down Roe v. Wade. Scalia hoped to find five votes to strike down Roe in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services..."

What do you think that means?

really? since Roe V Wade, there has been serious challenges?

bullshit.

Seems like every SCOTUS nominee since Robert Bork have been nominated by Republican Presidents primarily on their stance on the 'pro-life' issue. During the Bush administration, even appointees for positions in Iraq were asked their stance on the issue. SCOTUS decided Roe vs Wade, and in light of what I just pointed out, seems to be the venue the GOP gives the best odds for overturning it.

In state after state, Republicans have run on a 'pro-life' stance, and in many states, access or funding have been cut by Republican legislatures after they gained enough seats. Abortion has been the #1 litmus test equal to tax cuts for Republican Presidential candidates until Iraq took over the debate in Presidential races since 2004.

I'd call those 'challenges'. Successful ones in a lot of cases.

'bullshit pussy assignment' - 'from libtards' - fucking morons. all of you.'

"who can't make an argument otherwise."

Bit of a self fulfilling paradox there, Eb.

re: you are paranoid to think, FOR A SECOND, that abortion rights ARE BEING THREATENED.

An interesting statement. I'll leave the legal counter-argument to my betters, but what do you think happens to "abortion rights" when those few doctors still willing to perform abortions see yet another such doctor assasinated?

So the premise of this thread is that the Focus on the Fundy freaks who misrepresented this ad got more publicity than they paid for and thus have "PAWNED" (LOL @ THAT farkup, btw) the so-called LW MSM?

Couple of things here.

First, debate on this issue is obviously useful and this ad while inspiring increased debate does not necessarily sway minds to their side, in fact, quite the opposite in many cases.

Second, when utilizing an internet meme fer effect make sure you got a clue wot yer talking about.

Repeat after me: It's OK for the state to force women to carry every pregnancy from conception to birth.

#14 | Posted by rcade

Is why Spud calls them the "forced birther brigade'.

Repeat after me:Its immoral to use abortion as a birth control.

#82 | Posted by rightwingdon

Women who use abortion as a back up to a failed birth control method are not immoral.

Women who use abortion as a primary form of birth control are not only immoral but morons as well. Luckily fer the human gene pool such types are more likely to lose the ability to give birth completely after too many of those procedures.

And while Spud has no problem sitting in judgement of gals who misuse the legality of abortion Spud also knows enough to realize that that is still no excuse to try making a life altering decision for someone else.

Interesting thread all in all.

Be Well.

"Then you are in the gray area with most everybody else, including me. I think when something is highly personal and morally difficult, that's a good reason for the state to get out of the way and let people make their own decision."

I was talking from a moral standpoint. I don't see pro-choice people who are absolutists as any better than pro-life abosolutists. And the reason I stated is that they advocate abortion as an absolute right even in situations that are basically just killing a kid for the hell of it.

What do you think that means?

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-08 11:25 PM | Reply

nothing, except your paranoia.

In state after state, Republicans have run on a 'pro-life' stance, and in many states, access or funding have been cut by Republican legislatures after they gained enough seats. Abortion has been the #1 litmus test equal to tax cuts for Republican Presidential candidates until Iraq took over the debate in Presidential races since 2004.

excellent post AU. Now answer this question.........name one thing, at the local, state or federal level that has meaningfully restricted access to abortion on demand???? (after all of that stuff you just posted)

you still don't get it do you? it's all for nothing and both sides know it. there is no real debate on abortion.

Let me guess, you and danforth go to professional wrestling events and believe it's real too.

yes?

Bit of a self fulfilling paradox there, Eb.

#88 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-02-08 11:33 PM | Reply

shit, sorry I missed this post.

stick it up your ass AU. I never assigned a position.