I don't care about the rules on this one, I'm too upset, furious, stunned, whatever.

I don't see this people protesting against poverty, poor/non-existing education, lame health situation, lack of contraceptives, etc..
You know, those are the main causes of abortion, not the silly idea that they are just dumb lazy kids copulating and just dumping their fetuses around...
People paint women who abort as irresponsible and senseless, where in most cases abortion is a big trauma to a woman, it's not a happy situation and no one "wants" to have an abortion, it's not like they wake up and say "hey, I'm bored, let's fool around and have an abortion..."
Until YOU start being a commited citizen and go out and reach these people, try to help them, educate them, fight so they can have a real life with careers and goals beyond just surviving the next day, you are being just a hypocrite, and you are not helping anyone, not yourself, not the women, not the fetuses, you are just tingling your ego.

What this guy appears to have said (because giving a few seconds footage of a long situation is sooooo honest), was in the middle of a heated argument with people that showed up, in a gang, with cameras, calling him a baby murderer.
I would have said worst things to them, I would have painted myself as the next antichrist, just to piss them off...


And Btw, "god" has nothing to do with this, this is people we are talking about, let's not resort to easy non-arguments, please.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

The cause of the problem is that the "law" has decided that certain people are a "lesser class" than others, and not deserving of the basic right to live.

So you consider the life of a woman to be a lesser class than embryos? Because that's essentially what you're saying. The moment a woman gets pregnant her life is over and it's all about the "potential" life she carries? Well that just makes me feel REAL warm and fuzzy to be called an incubator.

Let me know when you've discovered a way to bring a fetus to full term without the help of a woman's body. Until that day arrives fetus and woman have a symbiotic relationship, and the fetus is a part of her body, not a life unto itself. You may not like it but that's a fact.

As for the OP, I think the people on both sides made themselves look like a'holes.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


NO I guess being christian doesn't make you Christ, but that doesn't mean you arent being a little over zealous here. Look, I would like nothing more than to have responsible adults have their kids and rear them well. Im all for that.

Unfortunately reality sets in, I take a look around the world today and think to myself..I don't want no part in it. The reality is that if a woman decides that she cannot take care of a child for whatever reason and opts to abort rather than bring a child in a very unforgiving world that would be stacked against her. I cannot disagree with her reasons for doing such...that doesn't mean I like what she's doing to begin with...it just means that in this world of shat that we live in it's at the very least a selfless act.I wouldn't want to subject children to this world as a unprepared parent either. At the very least again she's being responsible.

Besides abortion is a personal choice that most women have to decide for themselves, a group of ignorant christian hypocrites standing outside a clinic shouldn't be there giving grief. And considering the kind of closet freaks that most Catholics are.....I would think abortion would fair at the bottom of the naughty list compared to what most heathen things christians do in the comfort of their own privacy.

Besides, most women have to live with the guilt and burden of regret after its all said and done. Isn't that punishment enough?

The "facts" as I see them are:

He's a racist twit.

There is no god.

The bible is a lie.

There is excess of 7 billion people on our home.

So culling the herd isn't a bad thing, the folks in the video (the nut racist and the nuts who went a knocking) are AWESOME for post delivery abortions! Let's get 'em before they make more of themselves.

Derek

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

The cause of the problem is that the "law" has decided that certain people are a "lesser class" than others, and not deserving of the basic right to live.

So you consider the life of a woman to be a lesser class than embryos? Because that's essentially what you're saying. The moment a woman gets pregnant her life is over and it's all about the "potential" life she carries? Well that just makes me feel REAL warm and fuzzy to be called an incubator.

Let me know when you've discovered a way to bring a fetus to full term without the help of a woman's body. Until that day arrives fetus and woman have a symbiotic relationship, and the fetus is a part of her body, not a life unto itself. You may not like it but that's a fact.

As for the OP, I think the people on both sides made themselves look like a'holes.

Never said any such nonsense, and you are deliberately trying to muddle the issue. No, a woman's life is NOT over the moment she becomes pregnant. What nonsense! Nor does pregnancy kill in most cases (though legal abortions sometimes do). No, the "fetus" (meaning small person at a certain stage of development) is NOT part of the woman's body. I guess you missed out on a lot of biology classes, and anything having to do with DNA, huh?

Originally posted by Kastogere
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

NO I guess being christian doesn't make you Christ, but that doesn't mean you arent being a little over zealous here. Look, I would like nothing more than to have responsible adults have their kids and rear them well. Im all for that.

Unfortunately reality sets in, I take a look around the world today and think to myself..I don't want no part in it. The reality is that if a woman decides that she cannot take care of a child for whatever reason and opts to abort rather than bring a child in a very unforgiving world that would be stacked against her. I cannot disagree with her reasons for doing such...that doesn't mean I like what she's doing to begin with...it just means that in this world of shat that we live in it's at the very least a selfless act.I wouldn't want to subject children to this world as a unprepared parent either. At the very least again she's being responsible.

Besides abortion is a personal choice that most women have to decide for themselves, a group of ignorant christian hypocrites standing outside a clinic shouldn't be there giving grief. And considering the kind of closet freaks that most Catholics are.....I would think abortion would fair at the bottom of the naughty list compared to what most heathen things christians do in the comfort of their own privacy.

Besides, most women have to live with the guilt and burden of regret after its all said and done. Isn't that punishment enough?

I am not sure it's possible to be too concerned about the slaughter of innocent babies. I do hear what you are saying, too.

However, most women that abort don't do so because they want a child, and simply can't care for one. Most do it because it's not convenient for them to raise a child, and because abortion is an easy way to avoid consequences for their own actions. It's far from a selfless act. As far as "unprepared parents" goes, what parent IS prepared, until they get there? None I know! Sure, you can learn things, but you can't learn it all, and every child is different. I have five, and they can still surprise me.

"Ignorant Christian hypocrites"? Really? Come on, you can debate better than that. Not ignorant, as most that do these protests are VERY well studied on the issues. Some have been on the other side (like the "Roe" in the famous case). Hypocrites? Nope, unless they are out getting abortions, and I have not seen evidence of that. Giving grief? Nope, trying to avoid grief. That burden of guilt and regret that you mention is real. I have heard people talk about it. It's heartrending, and I don't think anyone should have to go through that.

Not Catholic, so I can't really comment on that part of your statement. I do have some information (much from former Catholics) and some opinions on some of the doctrine, but I can't really comment on any closeted tendencies (save among the priesthood, that the news has proven). I can say that no one in my household is doing any "heathen" things at home. No, we are not perfect, but we don't have some nasty little secrets, either.

Appreciate the discussion, in any case. Basically civil.

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

"Cogent beings" as defined by whom? When the class you all into is considered less, will you then protest? The unborn are human beings as well. What, you think they somehow transform magically from something else into human as they pass through the birth canal?

Right, so now we've magically jumped from abortions, to killing toddlers and infants to coming after me and 'my class' whatever that is? Gosh, when did that happen? You should open a scarecrow shop with all these spare strawmen you have lying about the place.

I don't know when they magically become human, nor do I much care. The law says a woman can choose up to a certain point. So lets randomly use that one as the point of cogency.

The point is that the law can decide ANY age is the one before which a murder is legal. No sane person should be comfortable with that. Plus, a lot of the people supporting abortion support euthanasia as well, and not always by choice. No strawmen there. It is a fact that one violation of basic human rights can, and usually does, lead to more. Plus, I would think a "randomly" chosen standard would bother a thinking person. This law is wrong. It should be overturned.

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
So this doctor, who makes racist statements and kills the unborn, claims he was fired because of his origins? Really? Well, gee, boo hoo. How about some unbiased source, some actual PROOF, of these claims of his that you are posting? If that was true, how much worse that he would make such a racist statement??

Well, enough of this for one day. Out of here for a bit.

edit on 8-8-2012 by LadyGreenEyes because: (no reason given)

Yes. Much better to base all our ranting about him based on a 38 second youtube clip. That's much more balanced.

His opinion was stated. No one placed those racist words in his mouth. Guess there isn't any proof for all those claims on his part, eh? Didn't think I would see any here.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by jimmyx
*snip*
i think abortion rights people should have blown-up color pictures of dead women that bled out between their legs, all from botched abortions, standing in front of churches every sunday...big 4 ft by 6 ft color photos.

Then you had better add all of the murdered children's pictures as well. Those cut up, those poisoned by saline, all of them. Nope, that you would call "wrong".

they have been showing those pictures (big color photos) here in stockton for years....look, i don't like abortion, the women getting them do not like to do it.....i give women the credit for having the intellectual and emotional capacity to make that decision. if you do not think this is hard on them, or it is an easy decision, you have never been alone and talked personally with one of them.
those fetuses by the way, that you say were "cut up, and poisoned", also was happening long before roe v wade came along. it was just taking place on a kitchen table by some amatuer abortionist, away from societies ignorant and naive citizens........so you get the law changed and what???? abortion WILL NOT END, you simply will be protected from knowing about it.

I know some places have those images. Personally, I don't approve of them, not on public display like that. For ONE reason; because children, that should not even know of such things, can see them. Available for adults to see is different. If people approve of the practice, they should see what they are approving.

I KNOW it's hard on them, and that is yet another reason to make it illegal. No one should be told they can legally kill their own child. That does something horrible to the soul of a nation. As for the methods, you are wrong. Saline injections are one method used in clinics, and cutting them up (usually referred to as a simple D&C) is another. Then there is partial birth abortion, which no sane person can defend. I will not describe that procedure, but you can look it up. Have something handy to be sick into when you do.

The law must be changed. Sure, a few will go do it anyway, but they will be in the wrong. Before Roe-v-Wade, there were not millions killed on a regular basic by abortion, so claiming nothing would change it abortion was legal isn't realistic. Abortion is bad for everyone involved on the patient end, and only those making the money benefit.

Originally posted by WildWorld

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
So this doctor, who makes racist statements and kills the unborn, claims he was fired because of his origins? Really? Well, gee, boo hoo. How about some unbiased source, some actual PROOF, of these claims of his that you are posting? If that was true, how much worse that he would make such a racist statement??

Well, enough of this for one day. Out of here for a bit.

edit on 8-8-2012 by LadyGreenEyes because: (no reason given)

Because of what he does for work you you are unwilling to try and understand why he made the statements he made to the people he made them to. You have jumped on the killer racist evil doctor bandwagon because of a 38 second video in which he rhetoricaly ASKS a group of white religious people harassing him at his door if THEY would adopt what he presumes THEY would find to be an "ugly black baby". Seriously????

He made the statements because he is a racist. That he wants to pretend to be a victim of racial attitudes smacks of hypocrisy and diversionary tactics.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Would you think it was right to tell others that they should "seek an easy out"? Or force one on them? That is what those people are all about.

Incorrect. You're equating a luxury with a right. It's bizarre.

No, I am equating elitism with evil. Peopel deciding, based on their arbitrary standards, who deserves basic human compassion (of which those making those decisions have none).

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyesAnyone they feel isn't deserving, they believe should be put to death. When dictators do that, we call them evil, but when masses of clinics do, and people push for death for the elderly and disabled, it's "saving resources"? WOW. So Hitler was right, because he wanted the resources for the people he felt were more beneficial?

Look, you're twisting pretty hardcore here. These people are ALREADY going to die. The thought is why should we spend a lot of resources helping out terminally ill, or unproductive people? It makes no damned sense.

It's not about feeling one group is superior to another, or any other belief, really. There's objective data which can be used to assess someone's worth and potential benefit to society.

I am twisting? Wow, denial isn't just a river in Egypt..... Here is a hint for you - EVERYONE is going to die at some point. Under your twisted logic, those that are older (wiser, more experienced, more skilled) are "expendable", and a "waste of resources". The quote you provided below shows how twisted and evil utilitarian bioethics actually is. That you can't see this is rather sad.

Utilitarian bioethics is based on the premise that the distribution of resources is a zero-sum game, and therefore medical decisions should logically be made on the basis of each person's total future productive value and happiness, their chance of survival from the present, and the resources required for treatment.
For those whose cost of medical treatment or maintenance outweighs their total future economic value (because they are terminally ill, are no longer productive, and have no reasonable chance of becoming productive or happy in the foreseeable future), it is economically efficient to free up medical resources by not treating them.
As an example of this logic, every nurse who cares for a terminally ill Alzheimer's or cancer patient, a comatose individual, or an individual in a vegetative state, is one less nurse to take care of a sick baby or a 12-year-old gunshot victim. See opportunity cost.
Therefore, the benefits utilitarian bioethics include increased medical expenditure on other patients with a higher chance of survival and return to a productive and/or happy status. This would ideally lead to an overall net increase in wealth and happiness.
The perceived disadvantage of utilitarian bioethics include: potential justifications for physicians to kill patients, a gravitation towards acceptance of mortality and death, lack of medical progress (as the treatment of severe injuries would not be explored), the uncertainty in measuring 'happiness', and the possibility of classification of many disabled or old people as "nonpersons".

Utilitarian Bioethics

Originally posted by unityemissionsThere ARE only so many doctors, nurses, and high-tech equipment which can be used for people. It makes no damned sense to treat everyone as equal in this sense. We're simply not. I don't care if you really want to feel this way. It's just not reasonable.

NO ONE has been denied care because an elderly person received care. NO ONE has been denied care because some disabled person received care. Well, you made it clear you think some are better than others, so your motivations are clear.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
I agree what this guy said is outrageous and wrong but he was probably pissed about protesters tracking him down at home and terrorizing him? Funny, all of the Christians ran out to show their support for Chick-fil-a's free speech but I don't see any support for his free speech...

ooohhh but he doesn't have the right of free speech but antiabortion advocates do?

The abortion debate has idiots and killers on both sides

One thing I have noticed until recently was that Christian terror attacks in America after 911 have been almost nonexistent until Obama was elected.....

edit on 7-8-2012 by fnpmitchreturns because: add

I support Chik-Fil-A's right to their message because it was said without hate. Can the same be said of the Dr.? Disagreeing with a message, and being disgusted by it are two different things.

Originally posted by headorheart
This is ridiculous. No one can know who a baby is going to become or it's looks before it is born. This is a case of a racist individual, as was the originator of Planned Parenthood something many Democrats don't know.

I think I heard him mention the shootings in Colorado. So, apparently he thinks ugly black babies grow up to be crazy white people.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


My premise is simple, live your life as you see fit as long as it does not bring harm to anyone around you. That should be doen without the cause of another to inflict grief on someone else unless specifically warrented. Im sorry, but gettin hosed over someone elses decision that only effects them is breaking this rule.

Its not your body, not your cause. Living in this jerk of a world things are gonna happen in which you do not agree. That is fine and good until people start pressuring others to live outside of how they see fit. Certain exceptions do apply however.

Religion is a catalyst for bad behavior in that most good christian people use it as a crutch to plug their own insecurity about how their own lives play out. Im not anti-god, I just think that this current model of religion is way far off the mark from what God and Jesus had intended.

And getting all up in someone elses business when you have no right to isn't justified even in the case of abortion. Again if it isn't yours, don't F* with it. If they are wrong for doing such they will more than likely feel the wrath of karma and god on the same pinnacle. They don't need other people to remind them of that.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


So you're saying the fetus can be brought to term outside of a woman's body? I guess I did miss a lot of biology classes then because I've never heard of that happening. I always understood that the fetus needs the mother's body to survive, similar to how a parasite feeds off of another organism. Is there some new science that's been developed that you can point me to? 100% test tube babies or something? If that's the case problem solved. Until then forcing a woman to carry a child is putting her rights second to that of a "potential" life. Until you can survive outside of another person you are not yet a person. Should women be held down and forced to give birth? Is that the world you want? And who's responsible for taking care of all these children you want to forcibly bring into the world? I take it you are a big supporter of social welfare. You'd have to be with that view.

There's a responsibility to bringing a child into the world, a responsibility that never ends. I think the doctor's comments were trying to get at that, though he didn't express himself in the most appropriate way. If you've never been faced with the reality of not being able to take on that commitment then you aren't in a position to judge or to make decisions for others, which is exactly what you are doing.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Exactly! Absolutely.
BTW I sent a couple of days ago a U2U.
Peace

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

He made the statements because he is a racist. That he wants to pretend to be a victim of racial attitudes smacks of hypocrisy and diversionary tactics.

I disagree. I don't think he made the statement because he is racist. I think he made the statement because he believed the white men at his door were racist. Its actualy pretty obvious to me that is what he is doing. Maybe it's because I'm not looking for reasons to make him evil because I disagree with what he does for work like some others around here.
I think Asian babies are ugly. I guess I must be a racist like the doctor. I do think Denzel Washington is way hot though.....So maybe I'm not a racist?? Smh

Originally posted by Kastogere
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

My premise is simple, live your life as you see fit as long as it does not bring harm to anyone around you. That should be doen without the cause of another to inflict grief on someone else unless specifically warrented. Im sorry, but gettin hosed over someone elses decision that only effects them is breaking this rule.

Abortion does bring harm to someone else, every time. It doesn't just affect the mother. That's the point. Someone dies with every abortion.

Originally posted by KastogereIts not your body, not your cause. Living in this jerk of a world things are gonna happen in which you do not agree. That is fine and good until people start pressuring others to live outside of how they see fit. Certain exceptions do apply however.

It isn't their body, either, but that of a child. Murder should never be legal.

Originally posted by KastogereReligion is a catalyst for bad behavior in that most good christian people use it as a crutch to plug their own insecurity about how their own lives play out. Im not anti-god, I just think that this current model of religion is way far off the mark from what God and Jesus had intended.

No, religion isn't a crutch. it's a belief system (no matter what the religion). Every single person alive has a belief system of some sort. Whether based on a deity (or deities) or not, it's still a belief system. Christians don't "use religion" as a crutch. Nor are they all insecure. Nice blanket assessment there..... In fact, the people I know that are Christian (and that's a LOT over the decades) are some of the most well-adjusted, happy, peaceful people I have ever known. Sure, they have their problems, and none are perfect, but they are as a rule happier people.

Originally posted by KastogereAnd getting all up in someone elses business when you have no right to isn't justified even in the case of abortion. Again if it isn't yours, don't F* with it. If they are wrong for doing such they will more than likely feel the wrath of karma and god on the same pinnacle. They don't need other people to remind them of that.

Under that "logic", one could say that "getting up in some else's business" when they murder someone isn't justified, either. Wasn't you they killed, right? Yes, people that kill the unborn will be held accountable by God, but that does not mean we should simply sit back and let the slaughter continue. To ignore the deaths of millions of people is simply wrong.

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

So you're saying the fetus can be brought to term outside of a woman's body? I guess I did miss a lot of biology classes then because I've never heard of that happening.

Nope, never claimed any such thing.

Originally posted by otherpotatoI always understood that the fetus needs the mother's body to survive, similar to how a parasite feeds off of another organism. Is there some new science that's been developed that you can point me to? 100% test tube babies or something? If that's the case problem solved. Until then forcing a woman to carry a child is putting her rights second to that of a "potential" life. Until you can survive outside of another person you are not yet a person. Should women be held down and forced to give birth? Is that the world you want? And who's responsible for taking care of all these children you want to forcibly bring into the world? I take it you are a big supporter of social welfare. You'd have to be with that view.

And yes, you must have missed quite a lot of you believe that an unborn child is some sort of parasite. A parasite is an organism living off a different type of organism, NOT the unborn offspring of the mother. That is, quite frankly, a sick, twisted, and inhuman way to talk about an unborn baby.

Forcing an unborn child to die is putting their right to life second to that of the mother, who doesn't want the "inconvenience" of carrying the life she helped to create.

"Not yet a person"??? BULL. Separate DNA, a heartbeat VERY early (like before most know they are pregnant), and so forth. The ability to survive alone is NOT what makes someone a person. I guess you think parents should be able to kill newborns, too, if they don't want to care for them, right? They can't survive alone. How about severely disabled people? Chronically ill people? The elderly that need help?

You talk about "holding women down" to give birth, "forcing them" to do so, but you have no issues with forcibly terminating the life of a helpless child. Interesting standard.....

Originally posted by otherpotatoThere's a responsibility to bringing a child into the world, a responsibility that never ends. I think the doctor's comments were trying to get at that, though he didn't express himself in the most appropriate way. If you've never been faced with the reality of not being able to take on that commitment then you aren't in a position to judge or to make decisions for others, which is exactly what you are doing.

Yes, there IS a responsibility, and that includes NOT killing your children. Aborting is NO different than those that kill their kids later on. I have five children, and finances have never been great. Always been a struggle, but that does NOT mean I have some "right" to kill my kids, at ANY stage, just because they require extra work and responsibility. There is no justification for murder. Abortion is murder. If people aren't ready to raise a child, they should keep their pants on.

Originally posted by WildWorld

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

He made the statements because he is a racist. That he wants to pretend to be a victim of racial attitudes smacks of hypocrisy and diversionary tactics.

I disagree. I don't think he made the statement because he is racist. I think he made the statement because he believed the white men at his door were racist. Its actualy pretty obvious to me that is what he is doing. Maybe it's because I'm not looking for reasons to make him evil because I disagree with what he does for work like some others around here.
I think Asian babies are ugly. I guess I must be a racist like the doctor. I do think Denzel Washington is way hot though.....So maybe I'm not a racist?? Smh

Well, there is a lot of "caste system" mentality in the Indian people, and it does often have racial overtones. Assuming, if that is what he did, that the people at his door were somehow racists, simply because they are pro-life, or white, is also a racist attitude. I am not looking for reasons to dislike him, either. No need to look, since he flaunted those reasons before the world, in making those comments, and in choosing to kill the unborn.

Denzel is pretty good looking, but I think Shemar Moore is WAY hotter. Criminal Minds actor, is you aren't familiar. I never cared about skin color, beyond aesthetic and identifying factors, but a lot of people still do. I think that doc is one of them.

Don't really think most babies are ugly, though a few (of all colors) have looks only a mother could love. Most are simply adorable.