response 182 of 526:

Feb 27 20:38 UTC 2006

resp:181 Most people have their 'hot points' or topics that cause the
fury first- then the thinking. This happens to be one for me. ;) I do
think that many of the more vocal pro-lifers do have issues with women,
hatred/fear/jealousy, combinations therein perhaps. 

There also seems to be a trend to dscount scientific information. So
they don't bother to learn anything about it. I also think that the
numbers regarding late-term abortions are inflated by the pro-life side
of things. I know one person who had a late-second trimester abortion.
In that case she was so a- irregular that she didn't know she was
pregnant right away, and b- sure that the fetus was harmed by the
activities that took place before she even knew she was pregnant.

There are also very few women who have no negative feelings regarding an
abortion they've had. If it is as easy as popping a pimple- perhaps they
wouldn't be the best parents in the world anyway...

response 184 of 526:

Feb 27 20:42 UTC 2006

Jep, your limited comprehension skills are slipping further. My example 
about alcohol was a waitron, not a bartender. And the scientology 
reference was based on that religion's frequent and recent public 
statements against the drugs I described, so I fail to see how it is silly 
(BTW, implying Mormons don't believe in prescription drug use is far 
sillier). My point, for those like you who seem unable to grasp what 
others readily see, is that even if you put aside the issue of whether the 
goverment should compel companies to dispense certain drugs, the "get out 
of work free" exemption based on relgious beliefs creates a ridiculous 
burden on employers. It basically says employees can use their religion to 
dictate the terms of their employment. Are you saying you support that? 

Those who claim companies shouldn't be burdened with mandatory dispensing 
laws should also, if they are intellectually honest, recognize that the 
so-called "religious freedom" laws impose burdens at least as great on 
those employers whose rights they claim to support.

response 186 of 526:

Feb 27 21:20 UTC 2006

re #180
 All you have to do is get the Religious pro-lifers to agree that life begins
 when the bible says it does, when the feotus starts producing blood! 
You know that's bullshit, Bruce.
Life begins with the first breath.
Genesis 2:7 "..formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

You get a birth certificate when you are born and breath.  

response 188 of 526:

Feb 27 21:27 UTC 2006

There we go what?  

response 190 of 526:

Feb 27 21:50 UTC 2006

I'd like to see Nathan go to a pro-life rally and talk to some real 
pro-lifers, where he can tell them that he thinks that early term
abortions (which is something like 98% of them) should be considered
legally and morally OK.  Do you think they would label him pro-life?

response 192 of 526:

Feb 27 21:55 UTC 2006

hell, I would like to see him go to a pro-life rally and say that he 
thinks that *birth-control* is ok 

response 194 of 526:

Feb 27 22:03 UTC 2006

I really wonder, am I perceived as a "slut hater"?  I keep addressing 
that accusation (and variations on it), because people keep posting 
about how all anti-abortion advocates are of that mindset.

response 196 of 526:

Feb 27 22:20 UTC 2006

re #189
 Birth certificates have nothing to do with when life begins; you have a birth
 certificate when you are born alive.
Clear as mud, right? Born ALIVE.  That means Living aka LIFE.
Before a birth, the woman gets to decide.  Its that simple.
Live with it.

response 198 of 526:

Feb 27 22:57 UTC 2006

yeah...:(

response 200 of 526:

Feb 27 23:41 UTC 2006

on the other hand i really like sluts, even poor sluts.

POOR SLUTS LIKE SCHOLAR :L:L:>

response 202 of 526:

Feb 28 02:08 UTC 2006

We are such a conflicted society when it comes to sex.  We have church 
leaders trying to make abstinence the only birth control taught to kids 
and yet priests can't abstain from having sex with the kids.  Many see it 
as morally wrong for two people deeply in love to have sex outside of 
marriage and yet feel it's a wife's obligation to have intercourse whether 
she wants to or not.  A father can freak out and refuse to let his 17 year 
old daughter out of the house wearing her low cut jeans, then he wanders 
to his office to watch porno videos of 18 year old girls having it on with 
dildos.  Aren't those 18 year olds someone's daughter?  Impotence drugs 
are so popular that the advertising budgets alone, in the US, was almost 
half a billion dollars last year.  That's a lot of encouragement to get it 
up.  But if that sperm hits a target, and the woman wants to us EC to 
prevent a pregnancy?  Oh, my, that's a problem.  Interesting the line is 
drawn there, with the woman, 1 and not with "if God had wanted you to 
shoot sperm he would have given you a rod."

We love and need sex but it's all wrapped up with power and guilt and 
feeling dirty, and that spills over into our politics.  And not much 
good can come from anything with that much baggage.

response 204 of 526:

Feb 28 03:32 UTC 2006

One thing I've learned about liberalism is its rabid attacks on people
with views opposing theirs, at least when it comes to 2nd amendment
rights and related issues. I'll tell you I have never been flamed as bad
as when I represented a pro-2ndAmendment viewpoint on
democraticunderground.com. It was totally unexpected, and unbelievably
vulgar.

I contrast that to how anti-2ndAmendment visitors to websites such as
MCRGO.org (when they had an open forum) were treated. That was with
respect, dignity and attention to the points that visitor was making. It
was politely refuted, with no flaming. It was really a something to see
because I remember where a school teacher from Ann Arbor, who was an
ardent supporter of gun control, changed her mind after having hearing
the opposing viewpoint. She went on to become an NRA instructor, and
teaches self-defense classes to women, as well as an advocate for
women's rights in abuse cases.

I really wonder how someone like me would be treated at a pro-life rally
versus one for pro-choice. Would the pro-lifers be the nasty bigots you
make them out to be...calling me a baby killer, or saying I'm against
god? Because of all of the pro-lifers I have ever met, not one had such
deep seated hatefull feelings. On the other hand, how would I be treated
at a pro-choice rally? I'm not sure, hopefully much better than some of
the pro-choicers on here have treated me. It would be interesting to
find out, and maybe when a time comes where I'm not so busy, I will.

Here is what I do know. One of my best friends from high school is a
practicing catholic. His mother, also catholic, is very pro-life. The
most magnificant thing was how he told me that her pro-life advocacy was
in the form of counseling and helping women with deep emotional guilt
and depression over abortion. She doesn't judge them, or shun them, or
act as thought they need to be punished. She just helps them. Helps them
find psychological help, and in some cases helps them find shelters. I
think that is the biggest reason why I think most pro-lifers are not
"slut-haters" like some of you people make them out to be. It is also
why I think opposing viewpoints would be more welcome at a pro-life rally.