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.

 

Gallup first: more Americans now "pro-life" than "pro-choice"

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Annee

Birth control is NOT 100%.


Very true.

I got pregnant on the pill, so after that used 3 contraceptives at once.
And got pregnant again.

Then, due to health issues, a doctor told me I could not take the pill , any hormonal pill, or use an IUD. I tried to manage with the options left to me, but got pregnant a third time. Being only 24 I could not get a tubal ligation; doctors don't like doing them that young. So, as my husband was already mad at me for having 3 children, and definitely didn't want more, I stopped the type of sex that could get me pregnant. So he went off and had affairs and left me.

I didn't have abortions, despite believing in freedom of choice. My maternal instincts are too strong to allow that. Instead I was a single mother then to 3 children, unable to work because two were handicapped, and with no family or support.

So there I was, doing my best for my children in a very difficult situation, and the people who despised me and gave my little family a hard time were the staunch anti-abortionists. They were not interested in how I came to be on my own, they just wanted to throw their judgemental attitudes around at "yet another young unmarried mother with a bunch of kids on welfare."

I learned that anti-abortionists are not pro-life at all. They are pro hate, and make it even harder for a girl to be able to have and raise her children.



Wow, what a story, it covers every objection one can think of and you already have disclaimers for each and every one of them it is so complete I just can't see how you could NOT be pregnant. In fact, I have to say, anyone having the same highly improbable circumstances you have had, is a pregnancy just waiting to happen they are that well thought out.

Which is also why I find your story a torturously construed alibi and an excuse to call all anti abortionists “pro haters” spoken like a seasoned veteran of abortion debates?

Now, I may be wrong about much of that but I kinda doubt it but I know unequivocally that YOU are wrong to say all anti abortionists are for pro hate. It is as irresponsible as someone saying pro-choicer's are all sociopaths with an infanticide fetish.

Ya know, as much as it says about how easily recognizable those with children are who are also on welfare by seeing the tattoo on your fore. or what ever it is that gives you away to be the target of all that hateful hostility, the fact remains, your husband could have got a vasectomy.

Or, is that something the doctor advised against also?









[edit on 17-5-2009 by Con Science]




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Con Science

Wow, what a story, it covers every objection one can think of and you already have disclaimers for each and every one of them it is so complete I just can't see how you could NOT be pregnant. In fact, I have to say, anyone having the same highly improbable circumstances you have had, is a pregnancy just waiting to happen they are that well thought out.

Which is also why I find your story a torturously construed alibi and an excuse to call all anti abortionists “pro haters” spoken like a seasoned veteran of abortion debates?

Your reply reminds me of a video I once saw showing a Republican lady sticking her fingers in her ears and going LALALALALALALA so she wouldn't have to hear what someone was saying.

If you are going to assume someone's lying just because their experiences prove a point you don't want to hear, you might as well lock yourself safely in your bathroom.



Now, I may be wrong about much of that but I kinda doubt it but I know unequivocally that YOU are wrong to say all anti abortionists are for pro hate. It is as irresponsible as someone saying pro-choicer's are all sociopaths with an infanticide fetish.

No, there is nothing irresponsible about pointing out what I have experienced.

And you are doing nothing to improve my impression of anti-abortionists.



Ya know, as much as it says about how easily recognizable those with children are who are also on welfare by seeing the tattoo on your fore. or what ever it is that gives you away to be the target of all that hateful hostility,

School teachers, doctors, nurses, chemists, relatives, businesses to whom you show a concession card, neighbours, people at the church I went to, ... there are multitudes of people who can pick your "single parent on welfare status" without you needing a tattoo. I soon learnt that the ones who went out of their way to try to be hurtful, expressing their disgust with my single parent status, were the same ones who were fervently anti-abortion.



the fact remains, your husband could have got a vasectomy. Or, is that something the doctor advised against also?

You have to stoop pretty low to blame the women who is left "holding the baby", and who took more than reasonable care to prevent pregnancy, for the fact that the man concerned refused to act responsibly.

Last I heard, chopping your hubbies bits off while he slept was considered to be a trifle unfriendly.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
Your reply reminds me of a video I once saw showing a Republican lady sticking her fingers in her ears and going LALALALALALALA so she wouldn't have to hear what someone was saying.


Why does it not surprise me you would mention her political affiliation. If you had not mentioned she was a republican, I might have believed your story also, but alas the la la la story has been told here so many times using everything from republicans to monkeys, I am afraid it just isn't that amusing anymore. Be that as it may, I, unlike the woman you attempt to malign me with, DID read your entire "story" and found it to be highly unlikely and now that you have used my skepticism to further your hatred of anti abortionists, please know that the only point your so called experiences convey is that axiom for "the bigger the lie, the more they will believe it" is a flawed presumptuous conclusion.




If you are going to assume someone's lying just because their experiences prove a point you don't want to hear, you might as well lock yourself safely in your bathroom.


Well seeing that your answer to the vasectomy was responded to with some sardonic sense of humor, thereby avoiding the answer honestly and objectively, it is typical of people using deception to use sarcasm to hide the fact they are not being above board and honest. It is more telling than your humor is funny.



And you are doing nothing to improve my impression of anti-abortionists.


Good thing I am not seeking your approval then eh.




No, there is nothing irresponsible about pointing out what I have experienced.


You don't think calling all pro choicers, homicidal sociopaths with an infanticide fetish is irresponisble? That is what you are doing when you say all anti abortionist are pro hatred.



Ya know, as much as it says about how easily recognizable those with children are who are also on welfare by seeing the tattoo on your fore. or what ever it is that gives you away to be the target of all that hateful hostility,





School teachers, doctors, nurses, chemists, relatives, businesses to whom you show a concession card, neighbours, people at the church I went to, ... there are multitudes of people who can pick your "single parent on welfare status" without you needing a tattoo. I soon learnt that the ones who went out of their way to try to be hurtful, expressing their disgust with my single parent status, were the same ones who were fervently anti-abortion.


Another story I find hard to believe is that your neighbors your PTA or your grocery check out guy have all found it so impetuous to HAVE to mention while bagging your grocery's or watching you walk to the mail box, coming out and saying hurtful things about your welfare situation without even knowing for sure that you are or risking your reprisal to the manager of the store moreover the fact they would ALL mention to you before discarding you like some used dixie cup after a drink from the water cooler, saying: Oh and by the way lady,, I am anti abortion.

Apparently, you are like many I know who have had similar experiences with Christians who for some reason are unlike any I have seen in my life. You know the kind where they are "shoving their religion down some poor reprobates throat" or waterboarding them into Christianity. I never see this in my life. Occasionally like maybe twice a year, a Jehovas witness will come up and knock at my door and when I tell them, Thanks but no thanks, ya know what happens?

They leave without a second thought.

No shoving anything down my throat.

You on the other hand have not only had been apparently contacted with every anti abortion person on the face of the earth to maintain your position for sweeping broad generalizations, but have met the worst most extreme examples too and all of them have just happened to hate single moms on welfare and ALL of them just HAD to mention it. I suppose all of them were republican too?



Last I heard, chopping your hubbies bits off while he slept was considered to be a trifle unfriendly


.


You have to stoop pretty low to blame the women who is left "holding the baby", and who took more than reasonable care to prevent pregnancy, for the fact that the man concerned refused to act responsibly.


Ha ha this is funny, when one considers the fact that you have taken more resonable care to anticipate objections to your situation to the point where it was impossible for you not to get pregnant save for not having intercourse at all. I haven't "blamed" woman and I doubt I would have stayed married to someone who is as incredulous as you seem to be.

Besides that, I cannot really take your side without hearing his also and Ill just bet you that would shed a whole lotta light on the truth because nothing you say,


rings true





.



[edit on 18-5-2009 by Con Science]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Con Science
 

There is absolutely no point in having a conversation with someone whose reply to everything they don't want to hear is, "I don't believe you."

Here is the video you did not believe existed.



Extreme right-wing radio host Janet Parshall says, "I can't hear you!"



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Im curious about how many of the "Pro Lifers" support the death penalty?


While this might sound like splitting hairs, there is a difference between these two things from the Biblical perspective. Capital Punishment is actually allowed in the bible, as it is a punishment imposed for a crime against a society, and the penalty is extracted by the government. With abortion, there is no crime, and the sentience is not decided by an government acting as an impartial third party on behalf of justice. Killing in a lawful war conducted by a just government is similarly not considered a sin Biblically speaking. I believe that the biblical criteria basically comes down to whether it is done for a just reason, and whether it's conducted impartially and not for selfish reasons (not that I am saying all abortions are done for selfish reasons either though. I am just speaking in general terms as to the reasoning behind the criteria).



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   




Crap ... it must suck to be a woman.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
REMINDER

There will be no further posts that attack the poster. Rather, all future posts should focus on the topic and not the poster.

If there is a disagreement, then please use show via links and rhetoric why the disagreement is valid. Any further Off Topic posts will be removed.

Thank you and I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, entitled, "Gallup first: more Americans now "pro-life" than "pro-choice".



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
An aspect that is frequently overlooked in these days of legal abortion is the number of women who, for whatever reason, feel so strongly against having a baby that they will do whatever it takes to terminate the pregnancy.

My mother was one of these. (Cue con science calling me a liar yet again,
)

At 24, run down, miserable and malnourished, she was constantly getting ill and was pregnant for the fifth time to a violent husband whose income was not enough to feed the family. Despite her growing veges and shooting rabbits she could not make ends meet. This was in 1954, and there was no way she could get an abortion legally.

So she tried everything she could to cause an abortion, even starving and mutilating herself until she nearly died.

Many other women in her situation did die.

So I was born to an unhappy woman who hated me for existing. The twists that brought that about would give anyone who heard them nightmares.

No women should have to go through what my mother went through.

No child should have to go through what I went through.

Removing the embryo as early as possible is far preferable.



By the way, my mother was using a different form of birth control each time she got pregnant. I was the loop baby.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Crap ... it must suck to be a woman.


There are times when it sucks to be human, aren't there?


It's only when we want to understand each other's problems and help each other that this world improves.

I believe we are all spirits, playing this game of life, sometimes coming here as males, sometimes females. I hope the present role you are playing brings you happiness and fulfilment.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Data source here



Gallup Poll Daily results are based on telephone interviews with 971 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 12-13, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.- From Gallup

So they are 95 percent confident that there is a 3% error .
971 people would hardly qualify as a basis for a statement about america's opinion on anything.



It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.- From Gallup (same article)

as they generally support everything obama does? This seems way too subjective to be comming from a site that conducts polls. With 971 people interviewed over the phone it would seem to me that they interviewed untill they got the results they wanted.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Mack

So they are 95 percent confident that there is a 3% error .
971 people would hardly qualify as a basis for a statement about america's opinion on anything.


Agreed.

Usually Gallup is a reliable source of polling data (if there even is such a thing), but with only 971 opinions why even release the data? All this poll honestly reflects is that Gallup contacted a few more pro-life advocates than pro-choice advocates in their tiny info-pool.

I also have to comment on the rampant partisanship in this thread. It has nothing to do with left vs. right, as abortion is not a political issue. It is a religious issue for those that see it as an issue, and an matter of personal freedom for everyone else.

I highly doubt anyone is pro-abortion, unless they are eugenicists or radical environmentalists who wish to cull the human population. Rather, people who "support abortion" are pro-choice.

What the issue comes down to is, whether you feel your religious beliefs should be forced on someone else, or whether you feel women should be free to make up their minds on their own. I will not shy away from the subject, I am adamantly pro-choice.

If you are pro-life, then do not get an abortion. But please do not try to force your beliefs upon others who may be facing complicated decisions that you will never understand.

Some women are the victims of rape, and they should not be forced to bear the child of their rapist.

Some women will have their lives, and likely the lives of their potential children, endangered by their pregnancy. They should not be forced to die in order to bear another life into this world.

Sometimes contraception methods fail, and women are in no condition to raise a child, let alone provide for it without a supportive family or financial means. In these cases, an early termination to the pregnancy is preferable to adoption.

Late-term abortions should only be used in situations where the mother's life is in jeopardy, which is currently how the law stands.

If you have a problem with abortion in any of these scenarios, then you can choose to bear the product of rape, or failed contraception. You can choose to die bearing a child that will probably not survive the birth. You can choose whatever you want with your body. It is important, however, that you do not force that choice upon others, as you will never understand what they are going through, or the circumstances leading to them getting an abortion.

That is where the heart of this issue lies, whether you think it is appropriate for women to make their own choices, or whether you believe your opinion should be forced upon others.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


If the Gallup poll, in your opinion, is usually reliable, why question it know?

Is it because it doesn't support your belief?

They may have contacted 971 people, but how were they to know the answer they were going to get from them?

This is the reason I think polls are worthless. Somebody always finds a reason why they don't agree with them. They may agree with them one year and the next disagree with the same poll because they don't like the results.

During the election the Gallup poll is what everyone used as reliable. Now some of those same people are saying that it isn't reliable.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


If the Gallup poll, in your opinion, is usually reliable, why question it know?

Is it because it doesn't support your belief?

They may have contacted 971 people, but how were they to know the answer they were going to get from them?


Notice how I questioned the legitimacy of any poll in my post above. I don't trust any of them.

During the candidacy, Gallup drew from multiple polling sources to reach its conclusions, resulting in many thousands of individual votes being taken into account. They did correctly predict Obama's win, after all. Their approval ratings polls also draw from considerably larger pools than this, including multiple polling sources, which is why 971 seems like an unusually small number of participants for a Gallup poll.

However, as I stated before, it doesn't matter how anyone feels about abortion, the procedure should remain available for women in the situations I described, for whom a pregnancy would be particularly devastating. It doesn't matter if 54% of 971 people think its wrong, that's ~500 people who won't be getting abortions. They should not be allowed to force their opinion on the other ~400, who may find themselves in a life-or-death situation where an abortion is the only reasonable option.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Well according to Gallup they say that now pro-choice is more popular compared to years past. So for the past 8 years we have had a republican president now we have a dem in office and "americas"(971 people) opinion changes. It looks like Gallup just trolls for readers.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I don't think that this is being used to force any opinion on anybody.

I personally dont support abortion unless necessary, but I don't presume to think that my opinion matters to anybody except to myself and my wife(most of the time not even to her).

You called it reliable, but yet you question it. If I misunderstood you its because I think in absolutes. I don't understand thinking that something is reliable and then question it. I either trust something or I don't.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Ill respond to both Mr. Shock and the illustrious stylings of member Kailassa whom I will heretofore call the KOP (Kailassa Original post)
First the KOP,

Here is what you said


Originally posted by Kailassa
There is absolutely no point in having a conversation with someone whose reply to everything they don't want to hear is, "I don't believe you."

Here is the video you did not believe existed.
Referance:www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is what I said:


I might have believed your story also, but alas the la la la story has been told here so many times using everything from republicans to monkeys, I am afraid it just isn't that amusing anymore.
Reference www.abovetKOPsecret.com...



Now the "story" I am referring to is NOT that their is no video of a woman saying la la la as I make mention of my own experience seeing them in various situations just place (name of those you wish to disparage here) and THAT is why I said you have lied, mis represented me, not been honest in your reporting, etc. I wish their were a warm fuzzy name to call it but any one of them is right there in the thesaurus to define just what this poster is attempting to do and NOW it has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Memory Shock said:

if there is a disagreement, then please show via links and rhetoric why the disagreement is valid. Any further Off TOPic posts will be removed.


I take issue with the previous post having been removed when what I had done is proven the above statement about me saying there was no video was not true. You had left the post saying it was so and again it is my defense to impeach the given testimony by this poster exploiting logical fallacy or any other tactic one uses to win such a debate especially when the basis for an argument is fabricated. I will show the tactic the poster is using attempts to cast herself as a be all end all first hand experienced victim, of every form of argument that can possibly be given for reasons to support abortion and having what seems to be no alternative in all of them.

The uncanny situational politics that have thrust this woman into every kind of pregnant woman’s private hell for a no choice but pro choice abortion, are too numerous for anyone to have first hand experience to cover all of them but those she has had the unique genetically designed uterus where no form of contraception would be safe and of course this comes from a Doctor. Of course she is married so that takes care of any promiscuity objections anticipated. She is jilted by her husband who is cast as the cad leaving her with the rest of the children to fend for herself. So nothing we can sink our teeth into where she is anything other than a very unfortunate BUT RESPONSIBLE woman.

Ok, I can understand that but what about the pill?

Now what this "post" attempts to do is what we call "the professional witness" tactic. This is someone, usually in a court of law, an expert in medicine or science etc,. Well their are expert witnesses and their are "professional witnesses" and they are expert witnesses who have been in the same type of debate, in a court room they have memorized all the Opposing arguments and try to . them off establishing their expertise in testimony, as they establish the character they play in the prosecution or defense of another. Almost ALL of it they seem to have a "been there done that" kind of testimony and is what usually gives them away. It is also what gets them black listed from testifying for anyone as an expert witness again. Many making $10,000 an appearance.

I see the same thing being done here and lo and behold, we can't bring up the pill, and why not?

Well as it turns out, this was yet another Option tried and failed where the post indicates it was not only tried but the person in the given example GOT pregnant!

I was going to ask if alternative measures were considered but the post has already anticipated that and to such an extreme that not one, not two, BUT THREE,, count em


I got pregnant on the pill, so after that used 3 contraceptives at once.
And got pregnant again.


THREE AT ONCE!

But there is MORE!
She gets Pregnant AGAIN!

Now how can anyone even suggest this woman didn't try EVERYTHING?

Well, one might ask, what about an IUD?

Nope, been there done that. She said and besides a doctor told her not to use one so don't even ask about applications.

Well I wanted to suggest perhaps diaphragm, NKOPE not going there because why?


a doctor told me I could not take the pill, any hormonal pill, or use an IUD. I tried to manage with the Options left to me, but got pregnant a third time.


Doctors orders again. Mmmmm can't very well go against the doctor now can we. So far what we have here is a perfect case for a woman who has NO choice but abortion as the only alternative for contraception yet we can't even allege this as she is careful to say she is pro choice but DID NOT have an abortion! Thereby constructing an argument that all women who are pro choice are pro abortion is not only NOT true, but again the post suggests this by the writers own personal experience. This is not suggested because anyone made that fallacious claim, but was made INCASE THEY DID.

How can I prove that?

Glad you asked,

For the interested reader:

That's what so many people don't get. Pro choice people are not necessarily pro abortion, they are just aware that sometimes an abortion can be the lesser of two evils.
www.abovetKOPsecret.com...

Lesser of the two evils? What two evils? And why then the contradiction? Am I missing something?

One of the biggest pet peeves seen by circuit court judges is a coached witness who is impervious to criticism or an aggressive cross because they have already been cast as a victim or martyr.


So there I was, doing my best for my children in a very difficult situation, and the people who despised me and gave my little family a hard time were the staunch anti-abortionists. They were not interested in how I came to be on my own; they just wanted to throw their judgmental attitudes around at "yet another young unmarried mother with a bunch of kids on welfare."

I learned that anti-abortionists are not pro-life at all. They are pro hate, and make it even harder for a girl to be able to have and raise her children.


Now we have a perfect angel and a victim of the uncanny set of convoluted circumstances all by the tender age of 24. Been dumped by an insensitive Husband so it isn't her fault but notice,
Interlaced throughout the post is a seething cauldron of angst aggression aimed at those who the post identifies as anti abortion rights people who have done nothing but alienate, castigate and denigrate the poster as a welfare mom sucking off the Governments taxpayers’ nipple for her assumed sexual indiscretion. BUT WAIT! This post has already mentioned a husband but what about him? Oh that.. Well he left her! Not only that but he left her with THREE children and TWO of them are HANDICAPPED! Yet I am expected to believe, that ALL the anti abortion people have done nothing but make disparaging remarks, where no "logical" reason for knowing how she is supported is known to them. Now so far, anyone thinking this poor soul who has done everything right in an everything wrong world, is nothing less than a super Mom on steroids and if you're like most of us, you'd think the same thing.

But Ill bet their is a reason you don't.

Ill bet there is a reason this is looking like what it looks like to me and that is the most torturously construed alibi for abortion I have ever seen and one given where the need to argue against those who influenced her for what ever the real situation in the KOP's story may or may not be, borders on nothing less than obsession. The only argument left is the one about the back alley abortion that woman would mutilate themselves if abortion is not an Option AND the one where what kind of life a child has who is born to someone who doesn't want a child.

Well Guess what,
The KOP guessed it correct and I think anyone who has not figured it out yet that the poster cannot cast herself in this because it just gets too far fetched. So how can we assume one can have the same experience as an unwanted child to give first hand experience of what it is like to grow up that way? Well GOLLY Sergeant! Yep it just so happens that the KOP grew up the daughter of just such an individual and at the same age of 24 this mom just happened to have tried the back alley style self administered abortion but apparently she survived all of that AND had FIVE children NONE of them successfully aborted so she cannot be held accountable and again the mother in this story tried multiple types of contraception’s, for each of them.

Now here is the best part, just help me with the math and tell me what are the odds but yes she too, was married and had a bastard for a husband so it wasn't her fault how she lived.
Reference: www.abovetKOPsecret.com...


We have an almost iron clad argument for pro choice given by someone who has obviously been through all the situations one can argue for getting one, but without getting one and been the child of someone who was much the same way but given any superfluous reasons for and against are also handled by the KOP's very own mother and again, never actually getting an abortion.

Almost Perfect testimony given by an extraordinary person who was born in humble and adversarial conditions but like the trooper her Mom was, so she was and is now a living testimony for those who have every right to castigate, alienate and denigrate, anti abortion people while being too much of a victim of everyone else’s faults and circumstances, a martyr, a sinless pro choice advocate with expert witness testimony for every argument that to even question the KOP is insulting and callous given what the person in the KOP story has been through.

BUT ONE thing the KOP forgot where all the pre-rehearsed perfect answers given to all those anticipated questions and objections, left them reacting emotionally this time and without the benefit of intellect that had the time to anticipate it. Ill explain after this summation.

So what the KOP has done is added her mother to this ongoing cosmic pre-determination to have both her mother and herself become pregnant many times and each time we see the argument where any objection or any alternative is already diffused by her own personal experience. Not only that but she has also made it difficult to attack the testimony without looking like a callous ogre for as we see she has done everything right a woman can do and it was the men in her life and coincidentally her mothers life that were at fault.

So how dare anyone add insult to injury on an already dire set of circumstances being handled by this "courageous" woman who has an answer for everything because she has first hand experience and NONE of it can be challenged without appearing to attack the poster?

The KOP wouldn't say that for that reason you say?

Yes and I deliberately tested it and the words that came back affirming my suspicion are seen below in the writer of whomever wrote it own hand.

SEE Below:

You have to stoop pretty low to blame the women who is left "holding the baby", and who took more than reasonable care to prevent pregnancy, for the fact that the man concerned refused to act responsibly.


You know, some men feel pretty sad having to suffer the loss of their son or daughter because of this woman’s choice only deal and then their are men who do not want children but Oooops someone lied about their birth control and be that as it may that men can get vasectomy's, I remind you this is someone who is having sex under the false assumption she is on the pill when she has never been.

He then has 18 years of his life to pay for the child he didn't want but it is a woman’s choice ONLY.
well I have seen some of the most silly arguments given under the guise of equal rights for things like marriage licenses when that isn't a right it is a privilege but what about equal rights for men in this case. Are we all cads as the KOP makes us out to be? Are all anti abortion proponents to blind to see the extraordinary class and selfless sacrifice for her three children two handicapped, that they couldn't have exalted her as someone with exemplary moral choice and deserving not only of our respect but our help also.

Memory Shock asked in his post, if we had any disagreement to link all references and attack the post not the poster. Talk the topic and not the person. In subject like this one, it is sometimes like saying go swimming but don't get wet.

Anyone puts two and two together, concluding that who ever this poster is,, my pointing out the fact the post is lying, seems a little like an attorney telling the jury the words given by the defendant are lying so why then does the defendant go to jail for what the words did? Memory shock, if this sounds like I am asking, it is because I am at a loss for any other understanding and I am not an idiot.

Example: When someone attacks anyone who believes in God, saying: Belief in God is stupid, that doesn't attack anyone personally, it attacks the belief they say. But when you ask yourself what does that say about the believer, it attacks all of them who believe and tells us, the person suggesting it, thinks believers are all stupid. Now the post or the argument doesn't have an I.Q and doesn't have a mind to even know what the word stupid means much less care. So attacking the post in this way to avoid the accusation of attacking the poster seems a little insulting to ones intelligence. I understand using a direct assault calling someone an expletive or a moron but is there really a genuine way to criticize an argument without the poster feeling the criticism is about them?

I don't think the slogan for attacking the post and not the poster is going to alleviate a terse response especially when someone is being mis-represented. In the same way, it could be argued that even if I was guilty of saying the video didn't exist, it was my post that said that, NOT ME.

You see what I mean shock?

So when someone makes a case for an argument where it is SO obviously given by the poster attaching every personal experience to themselves for every predicament one usually has in one lifetime maybe two and three it starts getting to where you say wait a minute.

Thus giving them a call from the authority that each experience suggest, I think it is only fair to have them substantiate said experience. This is why it is difficult to cross examine a victim of rape who is lying. One has to be very careful not to appear to be badgering the victim and looking callous at the same time you are extrapolating inconsistencies that just don't add up.

Not one time was my doubts given any proof by the KOP but rather were ridiculed by an ad-hom using a video of someone saying la la la. This is indicative of someone using deception and the ONLY thing I can do is either point directly to the lie, OR assume the readers have also noticed I had never said "I didn't believe the video existed" while in the same voice I am being mocked for calling this a lie.

This is EXACTLY the kind of testimony that anyone in a debate or crossing a defendant, attempts to extract and when it shows up, you now have every right to use their testimony against them which I did and was found to be off topic. This to me is no different than O.J. Simpson’s Bloody Bronco not being admitted for evidence because it might prejudice the jury into thinking he was guilty. (I know that is the point lol but it is a true story nevertheless)

So having said that, I will try as I may to use the words in her post to show the very tactic I mention is being used and what I think of her for doing it will remain nobody's business. I just think it is a scandalous bit nebulous how we are to assume the same Opinions I have for the post, are not automatically attached to the one who represents those very same statements.

In the future, I expect the only objection found to be without an already established alibi for this almost iron clad argument from personal experience is when I said this:



the fact remains, your husband could have got a vasectomy. Or, is that something the doctor advised against also?


She couldn't answer that one for any reason for him wanting children for she had already established he was angry for having the three that had already moreover anyone that against having them married to someone as fertile as the KOP describes, has no business objecting to it.

So the only argument the KOP has left is the ad-hom following it up with a straw man about cutting off a mans "bits" while he is asleep not being very nice.

If what the KOP says is true, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

But if you believe anything in the KOP, I got a bridge Ill sell ya







[edit on 19-5-2009 by Con Science]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by The Mack

So they are 95 percent confident that there is a 3% error .
971 people would hardly qualify as a basis for a statement about america's opinion on anything.


Agreed.

Usually Gallup is a reliable source of polling data


I would put it this way. Many sources who in the past seemed reliable - no longer do.

This country/world is changing.

Follow the money.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Im curious about how many of the "Pro Lifers" support the death penalty?


i agree with you. If the sanctity of life is truly sacred, then who are we to decide who lives and who dies?

I'd be curious if the admins of the website would conduct a member poll for this? I realize it's a heated discussion, but hey - so is the 9/11 cover up....and it would certainly make for some interesting discussions.

I'm pro choice, and i can respect those who are "Pro life". The difference is i'm glad they have the option to choose 'pro life', they're angry i have the choice to be 'pro choice'.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join