It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Support Abortion? Watch this video and please defend your decisions...

page: 26
8
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Astarfaraway
 



(and for those who counter that abortion is better than bringing an unwanted child into this world, there are so many couples desiring to have a child...Adoption ring a bell?)


You assume all babies are adopted? I posted some studies in this thread earlier. Not only are there a lot of children that are not wanted, who suffer from a load of problems because of this circumstance, but studies show abortion has decreased the amount of unwanted children, giving those who were born MORE of a chance at finding a loving family and being adopted.




posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


How many healthy mothers are aborting healthy babies?
(I would like you to post linkage to support how many women having abortions fall under this category.)

You claim women with medical problems, dealing with issues of incest, or women who have been raped are extreme examples

Could you cite some actual abortion studies that show abortions for such cases are really as infrequent as you claim?



Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

Source

The source cited on the web page was The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online, which Planned Parenthood selected for the internal study.

SO... The largest majority (BY FAR) of pregnancy's terminated in the U.S. are by those using it as an extra form of birth control. Not because of rape, incest, or health issues.
In the case of about 90% of the above abortions, the mother could have avoided the pregnancy by, GASP, not having sex!
This is the problem friend. Why the two sides never meet I guess. Because a majority of Americans support limiting abortion to cases of incest, rape, or medical issues.
(that fact is listed on the same page of the source above)
Because a majority of Americans are becoming aware of two things:
Medical care makes it possible for younger and younger "fetus" survival outside the womb.
Which also means most americans are starting to connect the fact that these "fetus" might actually be more. As in more like a Baby. (again, I use that term because of the overwhelming odds of it becoming a baby if the mother did nothing.)



Can you give tangible evidence that a decent percentage of churches that protest abortion help babies and mothers who decide to carry the pregnancy to term?

Google list of churches that help single mothers (136,000 hits)
Google list of church sponsored help for orphans (68,000 hits)
Church sponsored programs for abandoned babies

Look man, you are killing me. Did you really ask a question that it took me literally 5 seconds to type in and look for? If you altered some of the words, I can't imagine what you would get.
There is no way to collect a database and itemize a list, as church ministries are not organized that way.
But I think that the searches prove the point.


Can you find any that support birth control and sexual education so pregnancy is avoided to begin with?

I again point to the above answer, and repeat my own point; Ministries promote abstinence. It is a lifestyle, that if re-enforced by the mass media and culture in this country, would yield results.
I never once said they did, and I never said they should.
That is a conversation between a child and their guardians. Any argument you make against that statement, is either an opinion or speculation.

Fact; No sex= No pregnancy

Sorry, I had a lot of chores today, and couldn't get back to you.

Edit to fix quote lines

[edit on 28-3-2009 by jasonjnelson]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Oops. Double post!


[edit on 28-3-2009 by jasonjnelson]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I wasn't adopted till very late in my childhood.

Thank God you weren't the one counseling my Mother.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
Hey we do horrible things to Cows and pigs and chickens as well. We do horrible things to calves for veal, and to Ducks and geese for pate. All of that seems inhumane to me, but i dont see you calling for a boycott on these practices....and they are done just for extra flavor while eating!!


That's because you didn't ask. Which battles are you fighting homicide? How much money do you give.

here is one of many I defend

files.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I just wanted to tell you how right on you are in this post.

Too bad most people will pick through it and just take out the pieces they disagree with
and then ignore your more than valid points.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by Astarfaraway
 


Thanks ever so much. Nice to know that you think I should be dead.

That was the choice, either they removed the fetus and I survived or the fetus and I would have both died.

I have a couple of words I'd like to say to you, but I don't feel like getting banned today so .. how about you just mind your own business instead of deciding how other people should live or die.

I'm sorry this happened to you and I am disgusted with the hateful judgments that are being thrown around.

"Rape and medical abortions are rare" should not be used as a free pass to abuse ALL women who may have had abortions. Thats a copout. No women should be abused for their medical choices but to hate on women who have no choice is just low. If they had any integrity they would apologise to you.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by riley]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 



negate the efforts churches put into abstinence programs? does that not count as pregnancy prevention?


You do realize by preventative efforts I meant things that actually work? Abstinence doesn’t work. Those programs are part of the reason for the US having the highest teen pregnancy rate. I meant preventative efforts that focus on the reality of the situation, that offer birth control and sexual education.


[edit on 28-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


This is hysterical! Raps the bat says abstaining from sex doesn't work!
HA HA HA HA. Gee Raps can you tell me why?

No what doesn't work is YOU. Abstaining from sex means you aren't having intercourse and if you are NOT having intercourse YOU WON'T get Pregnant

The rest of your post is fallacious also. Abstaining DOES work but you know why we have such high teen pregnancy rates?

Get out of jail free cards like abortion but if people abstained it would work perfectly. Abstinence hasn't failed because people are disciplined enough to practice it, it is because they LACK the discipline to practice it.

This is as silly as saying seat belts don't save lives.

Nope not when people don't wear them!

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


I seem to think that there have been so many times in this thread when those who are pro-life have expressed certain amounts of support for certain types of abortions.

The number one thing being that I would never attack someone for choosing an abortion, if there was no way to save the baby, and their life was at stake.

Please stop generalizing, as I think this is the only way that all of you can argue with the view of those who are pro-life.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

National Right to Life White Paper:

Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection
of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -– and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion
By Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director
and Susan T. Muskett, J.D., Legislative Counsel
National Right to Life Committee / Federal Legislation Department


202-626-8820
www.nrlc.org...
Legfederal@aol.com

August 28, 2008

Senator Barack Obama and his campaign staff have made many conflicting claims in an attempt to "explain" his opposition in 2001, 2002, and 2003, while an Illinois state senator, to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, legislation to provide legal protection for babies who are born alive during abortions. The language of the Illinois bills was very similar to the language of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), which was first introduced in Congress in 2000 and enacted into law in 2002. This document provides short rebuttals to a number of the often-shifting Obama claims. For much more extensive documentation on the Obama record on this issue, see www.nrlc.org...


More on this about Obama and his lies


Assertion: On many occasions beginning in 2004, and as recently as August 13, 2008, Obama and his official spokespersons said that Obama opposed the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act because it lacked a one-sentence "neutrality clause" that was added to the federal BAIPA before it was enacted, and that he would have voted for the federal bill (if he had been a U.S. senator when it passed) because it contained the "neutrality clause." This "neutrality clause" read as follows: "Nothing in this section [that is, the entire bill] shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section." Obama said that such a clause prevented the federal law from conflicting with Roe v. Wade (a revealing argument, which is explored in detail below). For example, on August 13, 2008, the Chicago Tribune received a "Fact Check" from the Obama campaign that asserted "there are major differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a ‘neutrality clause’."

Response: In the first place, the original federal BAIPA introduced in 2000 was only two sentences long – it merely defined as a legal person any human, "at any stage of development," who achieves "the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" and then shows signs of life (heartbeat, breathing, or "definite movement of voluntary muscles"). This bill, which received initial approval from the U.S. House of Representatives 380-15 in late 2000, said nothing in either direction about the legal status of a human prior to birth. Therefore the "neutrality clause," added in 2001, simply made explicit what had originally been clear if implicit– that this bill dealt only with the rights of babies who had already been born alive. Yet, starting during his 2004 race for the U.S. Senate, Obama himself insisted that the purported lack of a "neutrality clause" in the state BAIPA was all-important.

That is why it was of considerable significance when the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) uncovered, and publicly released on August 11, 2008, three documents that proved that on March 13, 2003, Obama, as chairman of the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, actually presided over a committee meeting at which the original state Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (SB 1082) was revised to make it virtually identical to the federal law – including the addition of exactly the same "neutrality clause." (To see the exact language of the original bill, next to the final language of the bill that Obama killed, refer to the last page of this document.) Yet, immediately after that change was made, Obama voted against the amended bill, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, 6-4. In other words, Obama led the way in killing a bill that was virtually identical to the federal law – the federal law that, since 2004, he has insisted he would have voted for if he’d had the chance.

Despite the proof released by NRLC, the Obama campaign continued to misrepresent these events. For example, on August 13, 2008, the Obama campaign submitted to the Chicago Tribune (among others) a chart that purported to contrast the "2003 Legislation That Obama Opposed" with the "Federal Legislation That Obama Would Have Supported" – and this chart falsely claimed that the "neutrality clause" was a "failed amendment, not included in final [state] legislation." On August 16, 2008, when David Brody of CBN News asked Obama (on camera) about the NRLC charges, Obama said that we were "lying." He repeated his claim that he would have been "fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

On August 25, 2008, the independent group FactCheck.org (www.factcheck.org) issued a review of this question that concluded, "Obama’s claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act. . . . The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082."

Assertion: The BAIPA was unnecessary, because "Illinois law already stated that in the unlikely case that an abortion would cause a live birth, a doctor should ‘provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.’" (August 19, 2008, Obama campaign document)

Response: Obama explained in 2001, and has never recanted, that he opposed the Illinois BAIPA because it declared a "previable fetus" to be a legal person – even though the bill only did so if the baby had achieved "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother." (Obama’s statements are quoted verbatim further on in this white paper.) The old Illinois law in question (720 ILCS 510.6) covered only situations where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb." Humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such "sustained survival" – that is, long-term survival – is likely or possible (which is often called the point of "viability"). The old Illinois law has no bearing on many of the induced-labor abortions about which the nurses testified before the committees in Congress and the Illinois state legislature, because many of them were performed on unborn humans who were capable of being born alive, and who often were born alive, but who were not old enough to have a "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival . . . outside the womb."



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Four times he opposed this and saying if it was more like the federal law he would have supported it. Fact is, it is aLMOST IDENTICAL
See Both bill for yourself

The original Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001-2002

(opposed by state Senator Barack Obama):



SB1095 / SB 1662

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows:

(5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.



The Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act as amended and then voted down at a meeting of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee on March 13, 2003 (Obama voted against this amended bill):





SB 1082

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows:

(5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 



I wasn't adopted till very late in my childhood.

Thank God you weren't the one counseling my Mother.

Stop assuming your experience should define all others, it is very simple minded.

Google list of churches that help single mothers (136,000 hits)
Google list of church sponsored help for orphans (68,000 hits)
Church sponsored programs for abandoned babies

Google hits are not evidence to support your claims. Why not actually produce a church that protests abortion but also helps mothers. Just one, you claim many, many, many exist, so just produce one. I understand if you can not back up all of your bold claims, but then you need to stop running your mouth.

Ministries promote abstinence. It is a lifestyle, that if re-enforced by the mass media and culture in this country, would yield results.
I never once said they did, and I never said they should.
That is a conversation between a child and their guardians. Any argument you make against that statement, is either an opinion or speculation.

I’ve SHOWN YOU studies that PROVE this mentality and practice is incredibly naïve and does not work. What have you given to counter that other than baseless opinions?



as church ministries are not organized that way.


Can you back up this statement with something other than your opinion. Ever think you can't find these churches because you grossly over stated their involvement in these matters?

[edit on 29-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 



Because a majority of Americans support limiting abortion to cases of incest, rape, or medical issues.


It is not a strong majority whatsoever. By the way when did this discussion involve a majority? The majority of people in certain countries blame women for rape. A majority's opinion doesn't mean squat, expecially if you have no idea if they are fully informed.


"Which comes closest to your view on abortion: abortion should always be legal; should be legal most of the time; should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life; or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?"http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm


Always Legal: 25%
Legal Most of the Time: 24%

59% believe abortion should always or manily be legals. Sounds like more of a majority believe in abortion to me, not that majority is relevant, just pointing that out. Many of the "most of the time" opinions stem from people that believe abortion should be legal, but do not believe in it during certain circumstances (like when teen has one without parental consent).

Illegal With a Few Exceptions: 37%
Illegal Without Exceptions: 10%
Unsure: 4%



Edit: to add link





[edit on 29-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I would have to concur that the OP is using propaganda to push their anti-abortion views. You have linked a video that basically shows all the worst aspects of abortions as representing the "truth" behind what abortion means and stands for. I think this is dishonest and unfair.

This video can be compared to one where a person is disembowelled and beheaded after asking to be euthanised. Anti-Euthanasia advocates could then label the process of euthanasia as being unacceptable or indefensible.

PS: Personally, I am rather divided on the whole concept of Abortion. I think a factor that is often overlooked is the potential Father's right to have a say. If a male's sperm was involved in the process of creating the foetus, then his opinion should also be considered - not just the opinion of the potential mother.

[edit on 29/3/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 



If a male's sperm was involved in the process of creating the foetus, then his opinion should also be considered - not just the opinion of the potential mother.


I feel for men in this situation, but I think it is fair to give the woman the choice because ultimately she is the one carrying the child to term. She’s the one who has to take vitamins, go to the OBGYN, watch her diet, deal with possible health risk or chemical imbalances in the brain or body, and give birth to the baby. And what if the man changes his mind after saying he doesn’t want her to abort? What if he abandons her? Sure if she doesn’t give the child up for adoption she can go after him for child support but why should he decide what happens with her body and then be able to walk away from her and leave her with the experience of an unwanted pregnancy?

Then there is also the issue of paternity. You’d have to prove the father is really the baby’s father to give him a say, and I believe they can not determine this before the second trimester. If this is so then in many places the window of time where the woman could have aborted legally would have passed already.



[edit on 29-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Let me get this straight.

I say abortion is wrong.

You say "you christians, blah blah blah, and you never help these mothers"

Well, I said that lots of churches do. Every church I have ever attended went and marched in PRO-LIFE rally's, and every one of them supported young mothers who belonged to the church, and those who came to them for help.

I, personally, built many homes in the Appalachia region to help those mothers.
I did the same in upstate New York.
I did the same in Tennessee.

All of these trips sponsored by the churches I once attended.

Are you calling me a liar?

I am a man, son.
I served my country in the Marine corp., And I have carried my share as a man in this country.

I don't appreciate you, coming on here and telling me that I have to provide something for you, after you were the person making broad claims in the first place.

Unlike you, I have a real life, full of real responsibility.
(I say this, because it is very obvious that you are all for running from the consequences of our actions.)

I don't have the time to go search for things I KNOW exist.

Unless you are calling me a liar?

I bet you appreciate the anonymity of the internet, don't you son?

Otherwise, I want a list of every church that opposes a woman having abortion, and then actively keeps that woman starving and her baby in a prison lifestyle.
I mean, that was what YOU claimed, right?

So if you won't look up the google search, which showed MANY different support programs sponsored by churches, and you won't take my word for the fact that you have been misinformed?

Well, then you are wasting your own time.

I do not care to judge you, or change your mind.

90% of abortions in this country, over 1,000,000 million babies, are because a woman, with the help of a man, made a decision to engage in sex, and not take the consequences.

Murder for convenience.

We are obviously at a different place in our lives.
I respect all life.
You don't.

Edit to remove a section that this little girl might perceive as a threat.




[edit on 29-3-2009 by jasonjnelson]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   


And what if the man changes his mind after saying he doesn’t want her to abort? What if he abandons her? Sure if she doesn’t give the child up for adoption she can go after him for child support but why should he decide what happens with her body and then be able to walk away from her and leave her with the experience of an unwanted pregnancy?


I do not deny that females will endure great physical pain in pre and post pregnancy. In that sense, yes the decision should definitely lie within her interests. But you are completely ignoring and undermining the males role in the situation. It's only that he might "walk away from her" and "desert her" during her time of need if he gets any real say. What about his lifestyle, feelings, emotions, aspirations etc. Do they mean nothing because he does not have to endure the physical issues of pregnancy? What about the changes he will need to make in order to accommodate his partner, the sacrifices he will need to make to help her through the pregnancy.

I know a common feminist answer to this would be along the lines "he should not have had sex with her in the first place" if he didnt want a risk of her getting pregnant. Well, I ask: should this woman have "had sex with him if she knew there was a risk of her falling pregnant?" Just trying to see things from both sides. I'm just saying the fathers should have some say in the matter. But ultimately, the mother does need to consent to either decision.


Then there is also the issue of paternity. You’d have to prove the father is really the baby’s father to give him a say, and I believe they can not determine this before the second trimester. If this is so then in many places the window of time where the woman could have aborted legally would have passed already.


You make some valid points there. Perhaps the laws should be more lenient, as I can think of a great many examples involving the above.

In terms of "prevention" before "conception", it probably would be wise for both parties to outline their views on pregnancy and abortion before they get down to business
. Although, this could lead to some unpleasant consequences, including a passionate political debate which may result in you never sleeping with - nor communicating with - them again...

[edit on 29/3/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 



But you are completely ignoring and undermining the males role in the situation.

How did I do that? I was merely stating why many believe it should be left up to the woman. I agree with the issue you raised in your post which is why I starred it. I was simply trying to give you a perspective on the issues you raised.

In terms of "prevention" before "conception", it probably would be wise for both party's to outline their views on pregnancy and abortion before they get down to business

I agree.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 



Are you calling me a liar?

I’m saying that while your church may have many do not. I’ve researched this, this is why you have trouble finding information on churches that do. Are you calling me a liar? I’m merely pointing out a reality of the situation, you have trouble accepting this reality and for that I am sorry, but don’t blame me because your belief system is based on overindulged assumptions.

I am a man, son.

Lol, son? I’m a woman… or was that your attempt at slang?


I served my country in the Marine corp., And I have carried my share as a man in this country.

What does your sex have to do with this? Or you serving? I know a lot of people who serve and agree with me on these issues, which is neither here nor there. Why are you deflecting the topic by going on personal tangents?

I don't appreciate you, coming on here and telling me that I have to provide something for you, after you were the person making broad claims in the first place.

If you make bold claims you should expect people to ask for your sources. I’ve supported my side of this argument many times over, if you do not wish to then you do not have to reply to me but YOU said you WOULD get me the facts you claimed to have presented during this argument and so far the only facts you did present other than abortions in the US statistics were ones where you misstated the issue and I corrected you. And the US statistics DID NOT fit your first claims.

Unlike you, I have a real life, full of real responsibility.
(I say this, because it is very obvious that you are all for running from the consequences of our actions.)

You know this through one conversation with me on a message board? What are you Doctor Phil? I’ve talked openly on this forum about some of my responsibilities, taking care of a disabled mother being one of them, so I don’t appreciate your pigheaded assumptions.

Otherwise, I want a list of every church that opposes a woman having abortion, and then actively keeps that woman starving and her baby in a prison lifestyle.
I mean, that was what YOU claimed, right?

Please show me where I claimed any church keeps women starving and puts their child in a prison lifestyle? Why are you being so dramatic? Bad day?

I do not care to judge you,

Oh really, this is your own statement in this SAME post: Unlike you, I have a real life, full of real responsibility.
(I say this, because it is very obvious that you are all for running from the consequences of our actions.



I respect all life.
You don't.

Ha-ha, no judging right?


Edit to remove a section that this little girl might perceive as a threat

How very tasteful of you.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I see now why I was warned by multiple people via U2U about you.

I see that your argument is on shifting stand.

You said christians protest abortion, and then abandon the mothers when they have the children.

YOU asked me to prove it when I said your statement was wrong.

Millions upon Millions of christians, with a plethora of various churches, giving to all sorts of charities.

You really think I am going to put together a list for you?

No, the "son" part is because you are a child.

Your manipulative way of arguing has probably led many people down the wrong path.

That is not judging, just like observing, you know.

Now, like many people warned me I should do, I am going to let you keep making rape jokes, (like your name says) and go about your life.

You depress me, not because I can't argue with you.

But because you have such a SICK, twisted mentality. One that has you post to the world your desire for death.

Just an observation.




top topics



 
8
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join