Landlord turns tables on abortion protesters

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Taiden wrote: No man has the right to regulate what a woman wants to do with/to/around/for her uterus.

But the Congresses who have written every law at every level of government in the history of this country are grossly predominantly composed of men, therefore men DO regulate this.

Which is why the regulations need to allow options for individual decisions. If abortions remain legal, those who disapprove may always choose to not have one, while those who decide it is the right choice for them can obtain one safely. In BOTH cases, legality leaves the choice in the hands of the woman, pro or con. And I will say, while I am pro-choice, I am anti- abortion, particularly late-term. I would always rather see other options pursued - but I will never agree that the option to terminate should be denied.

I agree with leaving legally the choice in the hands of the parents, SOMETIMES.

However, in the case of late term abortions, there is a truly huge legal sticking point.

These are often viable children. They are also people who would receive Constitutional protections in other situations. For example, if someone attacks a pregnant woman who looses a late term baby, the attacker can often be charged with murder or the child.

I believe that the laws of the land should remain giving the right to choose. However, this is not license to procrastinate and never make a decision until the last minute, because doing so has horrific consequences to someone else (the baby).

We can't offer the Constitutional protection of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to children only if their parents want them. We have a higher obligation.

Plus, most late term procedures do not use any form of anesthetic that would be effective to the child. There is plenty of evidence to show that they feel pain. Dismembering a child without any pain medication is beyond barbaric.

I am very supportive of women's rights. But failure to make a decision should not leave the opportunity to do so open forever.

And failure to give women proper information to make good choices, or failure to give them proper follow up care and treatment is not in the best interest of the health of women.

Our policy appears to be "Let's do everything we can to make the "problem" go away. We'll just pretend it didn't happen." I'd rather actually care about the women and their children who are so deeply affected.

I've seen this topic turn into an E92 M3-storm (faster than an E36 M3-storm) on other boards. I'm surprised. I just skimmed the thread, but it doesn't look like anyone's being a flaming douchebag.

Keep it civil.

Yes, thankfully it's remaining a respectful exchange of opinions.

Alan Cesar wrote: I've seen this topic turn into an E92 M3-storm (faster than an E36 M3-storm) on other boards. I'm surprised. I just skimmed the thread, but it doesn't look like anyone's being a flaming douchebag. Keep it civil.

This is why i like this board!

Fit_Is_Slo wrote:

Alan Cesar wrote: I've seen this topic turn into an E92 M3-storm (faster than an E36 M3-storm) on other boards. I'm surprised. I just skimmed the thread, but it doesn't look like anyone's being a flaming douchebag. Keep it civil.

This is why i like this board!

+1

mad_machine wrote: Somebody brought up Westboro.. maybe all the families they protested against should go there and protest them?

The Foo Fighters did a good a job here

SVreX wrote: Our policy appears to be "Let's do everything we can to make the "problem" go away. We'll just pretend it didn't happen." I'd rather actually care about the women and their children who are so deeply affected.

I agree, and I support making adoption easier for potential parents already qualified, and further legitimizing homosexual couples as adoptive parents. To bear more children into neglectful, unwelcoming households is not doing the children much of a service.

In reply to Mitchell:

Now there's a can of worms!

I don't necessarily disagree (and I'm gonna avoid the flounder of the flounder), but I don't think it addresses the problem.

How would easier adoption equate to fewer abortions? I don't see the correlation.

Are we assuming that abortive parents are neglectful, unwelcoming households? I don't see that correlation either. Last time I checked, abortive parents are generally in some crisis situation that prevents them from seeing how they can parent well at this time. That certainly does not mean they would be neglectful and unwelcoming if they made the decision to not abort. It means they will step up to the challenge, or offer their child for adoption (which would not be a neglectful, unwelcoming household either).

What's the connection?

Just a data point here on the adoption thing.

Whites get adopted, there is a surplus of everybody else.

Just an FYI

Continue saying things that will change no one's mind

In reply to FlightService:

Not trying to change anyone's mind. Trying to learn a little.

Again, what's the correlation? Are you saying that if we had more homosexual adoptions they'd adopt more minorities? That minority households are neglectful and white ones are not?

I see no connection between making adoptions easier and lowering numbers of abortions.

Data point- While I think you are probably right on the number of minority adoptions, hte numbers are changing rapidly. In my circles it is not true. My church has seen more than 30 adoptions in the last couple of years. I can't think of any white kids. Same with the homeschoolers I know. Just an FYI.

SVreX wrote: In reply to FlightService: Not trying to change anyone's mind. Trying to learn a little. Again, what's the correlation? Are you saying that if we had more homosexual adoptions they'd adopt more minorities? That minority households are neglectful and white ones are not? I see no connection between making adoptions easier and lowering numbers of abortions. Data point- While I think you are probably right on the number of minority adoptions, hte numbers are changing rapidly. In my circles it is not true. My church has seen more than 30 adoptions in the last couple of years. I can't think of any white kids. Same with the homeschoolers I know. Just an FYI.

My understanding is that it's much harder to adopt a white child.

In reply to rotard:

My understanding is the same. I'm still trying to understand the point as it relates to number of abortions. Pardon me if I am being dense.

Every variation of logic I try to apply comes up with a truly awful racist perspective.

It almost sounds like people are advocating minority abortions since "only white kids are wanted". That's horrible.

I'm not saying that easier adoptions will result in fewer abortions. I'm saying that if there are more restrictions placed upon abortion, there will be more children born into challenging households.

I'll also go into a topic that I was hesitant to bring up earlier.

I look at a generalized conservative ideology, and how it seems to make reproduction into some gotcha-toldyaso moral punishment: Ban abortion, keep the pill expensive, and complicate or restrict access to Plan B. Okay, fine, punish the mistakes and let's have more babies. Meanwhile, I look at the supposed conservative fiscal ideology. Cut welfare, keep healthcare private with consumer costs more or less unregulated, and restrict gay marriage/civil union/whatever. More kids will result in more payout of public assistance, and potentially more children will come up for adoption without increasing the pool of adoptive parents.

wasn't a point for or against, correlation or not.

Just a data point. White children get adopted, others don't.

Wasn't saying to anyone in particular since this post has went waaaaayyyy off topic of the OP intent.

Everything that has been said, in this post, has changed no ones mind, and will continue to change no ones mind.

The abortion industry was built around murdering minority children, SVreX. Saying "Oh, well, we got better and we now murder everyone regardless of their race, but we still set up shop only in minority communities" doesn't make it any different.

Mitchell wrote: I'm saying that if there are more restrictions placed upon abortion, there will be more children born into challenging households.

Yep, you're right.

There would also be more children born into loving homes, and more put into loving adoptive homes.

None of us know what the ratios would be like.

There would be more wage earners (to pay taxes, and support Federal programs), more smart people, more dumb people, more brilliant leaders, more prison inmates, in fact, there would be more of every subcategory possible.

There would be fewer women living with guilt, fewer casualties of botched abortions, and fewer dead babies. Plus, perhaps if children were viewed as a blessing instead of a curse, we might even be able to raise the standard overall and build a better society where people did a better job overall of caring. Maybe that's too optimistic.

If we want fewer children in challenged households, I guess we could club them like baby seals. Then we could be sure we got the ones who were in challenged households, instead of the scientists, musicians, and engineers. Who gets to be on the committee to decide what the definition of "challenged household" is?

I'm not trying to be snarky, but these really are the consequences of the logic.

Wow, I clicked on this topic expecting to write a quick note about civility and lock it, but everyone seems to be getting along. As Alan said, keep it nice, everybody. Kudos for not being trolls.

Alan Cesar wrote: ...an E92 M3-storm (faster than an E36 M3-storm)...

Nothing to add to the thread, other than that is some funny stuff right there Alan!

In reply to SVreX:

I was merely commenting on the adoption thing. Quit treating everything as if it's a personal attack on you and your viewpoint. Your logic is also tainted by your views: you believe so strongly that you only see what you want to see.

rotard wrote: ... you believe so strongly that you only see what you want to see.

I think that you are describing everyone who has ever existed.

friedgreencorrado wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: I'm pro-choice until I have to pay for it. Landlord is just awesome.

You pay for a lot of abortions.

Cheaper than paying for a lot of unwanted kids.. http://www.welfareinfo.org/

Absolutetly, and the pro-lifers don't seem to be fans of welfare...

curtis73 wrote: I just don't see how its any of my business. I don't walk around telling random parents on the street how to raise their kids, and I certainly have no problems with abortions. For that matter, I don't have a problem with many things that society considers "evil." I can't make abortion a moral issue because my morals are different from the billions of other humans on the planet, and I can't make it a legal issue because, well, its not illegal... and I'm not law enforcement anyway. This stands true for anyone who opposes someone else's actions based on their OWN morals. Chill out. You take care of you, let everyone else take care of themselves. Isn't that part of the whole "judge not lest ye be judged" kinda thing, or the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" Now if a woman came and asked me my opinion on whether or not she *personally* should get an abortion, I would help her talk through the pros and cons as a friend and counselor, but I don't go around picketing my own personal morals in an attempt to guilt-trip people into doing it my way. Most of those people are shallow, unenlightened, and scared because they've let the world's fear creep in on them. They've forgotten how to love themselves and others, so they try to make others in the image of themselves. That way they have like-minded people surrounding them without having to look truth in the face, or look at their own flaws. They just try to make everyone else like them, and when they fail at that task they blame those heathenly others for what's wrong in the world. That's just simple Psychology of Society 101. If its not your child, its not your choice. Period.

Very well-put.

friedgreencorrado wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: I'm pro-choice until I have to pay for it. Landlord is just awesome.

You pay for a lot of abortions.

Cheaper than paying for a lot of unwanted kids.. http://www.welfareinfo.org/

Sure, if you think human life is devoid of value.

SVreX wrote: Every variation of logic I try to apply comes up with a truly awful racist perspective.

For reference, read up on Margaret Sanger and Eugenics.

Note: I'm very pro-life. Yesterday I participated in a pro-life prayer rally outside an abortion clinic. (It's kind of ironic that it's closed on Sunday.) I think abortion should be illegal. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised of some people on here think Santorum and I will turn the US into a theocracy.

Keep that in mind.

I do have to agree that harassing both the doctor and the landowner like that is wrong. While I appreciate their intentions, you cannot commit evil to try to eradicate evil. That is, the ends do not justify the means. Open discourse, sure. Harassment, no. Legal action, yes. Threats, no.

BTW, that also means that I think the counter-harassment is wrong too.

Edited:

The abortion debate often bring contraception (something that keeps bad decision from creating bad people) and Plan-B (something that stops cells from developing no differently than many naturally aborted fetuses) tin a debate about late-term abortions that kill a child that could live outside the womb.