BBL: "Do I owe every single person a response to every post? Honestly? I'll try and keep up, but I can't do this forever. Some people on here are so desperate to shut me up, they've taken to making fun of me for giving them a compliment and sharing PM's"

Why, exactly, did you put that little tantrum on a response to my post? You were complaining that no one was taking the topic seriously and posting with respect, so I reminded you of a civil exchange we had earlier in the week. If you are serious about a productive discussion, please discern between those who want to throw insults and those trying to actually discuss the topic as adults.

BBL: "This is all getting a little sad."

Take a look around these forums. The internet not only allows people to be immature and anonymous, it's become the fashion in most places. Twitter, Facebook, and all the other major social media are like feral vermin at times, going after anyone whose opinion is not aligned with the groupthink God forbid someone have independent thought, let alone express a few examples of critical thinking!

We all resort to jibes and insults at times. Some of that is venting, some of that is an in-kind response to the trolls to see if they can understand they are hypocrites, and some of that is to see how poorly trolls handle being on the receiving end of their own style of discourse. But there are good discussions to be had, genuine adults with interesting perspectives and insight on many of these issues. I'd recommend ignoring the noise from those who can do no better than scream in print, and seek out the worthwhile posts for your consideration.

Here's a hint those posts tend to use better grammatical structure, and do not sound like a transcript from the Kavanaugh hearings.

Good luck!

[ some earlier parts redacted to make the thing readable ]

Me: abortion is killing... every abortion kills a living being, a being which if allowed to live would be human.

BBL: Not all fetuses are viable, but your point mostly stands.

Me: this is a life decision and those are emotionally powerful for people affected by the decision.

BBL: Once again, no one is arguing with you.

Me: actually, you are. I'm not talking about fetuses before, say, 6 weeks, but living organisms with brain activity and a heartbeat. It's frankly dishonest to pretend that 'fetus' is not human. This is what sets off a lot of pro-life people; the impression that pro-abortion people refuse to acknowledge the moral content of the decision.

***

Me: Why is it OK to let facilities perform surgeries without a single certified surgeon on the premises?

BBL: All abortions are not the same. The morning after pill is different from a late-term abortion.

Me: I'm not talking about pills and self-applied actions, but what happens in clinics. In states like New York, laws protect clinics from liability for most accidental harm caused to patients as a result of the abortion.

BBL: That's fine that you can talk about that. But once again, you're arguing a point no one is making on here.

Me: It's a valid point the pro-choice people ignore. Look, there's a reason I go to a full-on DDS for bridge work and not just his assistant. An abortion IS a serious medical procedure, and ignoring risk to the woman more than slightly makes hypocrites of people claiming they only care about the 'health of the woman'.

***

Me: Seriously, we all expect pharmaceutical companies to be candid about possible complications from a medicine, but it's fine for abortion providers to conceal the possible complications of an abortion?

BBL:I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but I was talking more about access to contraception than an abortion.

Me: For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to abortion itself. I find it dishonest to protect clinics from liability for their actions, especially in the possible physical and emotional consequences of having an abortion.

BBL:Yeah, I don't know how I feel about that. I really don't. But once again, you're arguing a point no one is trying to make.

Me: You keep saying that, but it's a valid part of the discussion. Abortion clinics make money off the procedures, and people really do get hurt by mistakes, so why wouldn't we expect real accountability? Abortion clinics do not earn a moral pass from their moral obligations to the patient. I respect that you have mixed feelings, but I am frankly appalled that anyone would be OK with a clinic stripping a woman of her rights, just because the procedure is an abortion.

***

Me: Finally, I can agree that having an abortion is ultimately the choice of the pregnant woman. But to deny the father any rights in the matter is obscenely unjust.

BBL:I think this is a little squishy..Can you imagine a scenario where you would allow a 3rd party to force you to do something so intimate with your body and it would work out?

Me: As I said, I'm not throwing out an answer here, but denying the father any say is abhorrent and unjust. A father is not merely a "third party private citizen", and should never be so insulted. Part of the problem, from where I sit, is men not taking responsibility for the children they bring into this world, so we should not punish the ones who are trying to be responsible.


BBL: Yeah, once again, I don't know how I feel about that. I don't think a father's stake in the matter is absolute.

Me: I never said 'absolute', I protested that right now men have ZERO legal standing in the decision. At the very least, state legislatures owe that some serious thought and discussion.

***

BBL: How would you even enforce that? Honest question.

Me: Enforcement should always be protection of rights, to save lives, and to protect the public welfare. Rights considered should be the mother, the child, and the father. Not in equal measure, but any decision which ignores rights from one party is immoral. Discussion is needed, but not yelling, insults or one-dimensional caricatures which don't even describe the real condition, much less offer a functional solution.

BBL: I guess this gets back to "yeah well whose life is more important?"

Me: I respect that the discussion is difficult. I just do not accept that people should avoid the discussion for that reason.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BBL: "Do I owe every single person a response to every post? Honestly? I'll try and keep up, but I can't do this forever. Some people on here are so desperate to shut me up, they've taken to making fun of me for giving them a compliment and sharing PM's"

Why, exactly, did you put that little tantrum on a response to my post? You were complaining that no one was taking the topic seriously and posting with respect, so I reminded you of a civil exchange we had earlier in the week. If you are serious about a productive discussion, please discern between those who want to throw insults and those trying to actually discuss the topic as adults.

BBL: "This is all getting a little sad."

Take a look around these forums. The internet not only allows people to be immature and anonymous, it's become the fashion in most places. Twitter, Facebook, and all the other major social media are like feral vermin at times, going after anyone whose opinion is not aligned with the groupthink God forbid someone have independent thought, let alone express a few examples of critical thinking!

We all resort to jibes and insults at times. Some of that is venting, some of that is an in-kind response to the trolls to see if they can understand they are hypocrites, and some of that is to see how poorly trolls handle being on the receiving end of their own style of discourse. But there are good discussions to be had, genuine adults with interesting perspectives and insight on many of these issues. I'd recommend ignoring the noise from those who can do no better than scream in print, and seek out the worthwhile posts for your consideration.

Here's a hint those posts tend to use better grammatical structure, and do not sound like a transcript from the Kavanaugh hearings.

Good luck!

---

No, I complained that some were not taking it seriously. Honestly, I even reached out via PM to thank someone who seemed to be. Then he turned around and said I was crying about being bullied (or whatever). I literally thanked him for being nice because I was losing hope. He betrayed that to score some weird internet point.

That's a legit gripe about what is objectively a dick-move. And all this all is a little bit much to take from people who try to pretend they have the moral high-ground. Hopefully, you can see where I'm coming from. I'm not expecting the world to change, I'm just calling it out where I see it.

I choose to be either hot or cold, for if I am lukewarm, I shall be spewed from the good Lord's mouth.

But you make good points about not expecting much. I tend to disagree. There are good people on here. People that we agree with on MUCH more than we disagree. We're all Baylor Bears, after all.

I could just stay away from the Politics board, and usually do. But I like to speak up from time to time if only to remind some on here that they're in an echo-chamber, and not everyone agrees with them. And disagreeing doesn't mean you're stupid or wrong.

** sigh **

I'm thinking you might seriously want to take a step back, BBL.

Oldbear83 said:

---

[ some earlier parts redacted to make the thing readable ]

Me: abortion is killing... every abortion kills a living being, a being which if allowed to live would be human.

BBL: Not all fetuses are viable, but your point mostly stands.

Me: this is a life decision and those are emotionally powerful for people affected by the decision.

BBL: Once again, no one is arguing with you.

Me: actually, you are. I'm not talking about fetuses before, say, 6 weeks, but living organisms with brain activity and a heartbeat. It's frankly dishonest to pretend that 'fetus' is not human. This is what sets off a lot of pro-life people; the impression that pro-abortion people refuse to acknowledge the moral content of the decision.

I think it's a fair point to refer to a fetus. At what point does a fetus have a soul and become a "human" as opposed to just the potential to be a human? I ask, because we know there are HUGE implications based on your answer.
***

Me: Why is it OK to let facilities perform surgeries without a single certified surgeon on the premises?

BBL: All abortions are not the same. The morning after pill is different from a late-term abortion.

Me: I'm not talking about pills and self-applied actions, but what happens in clinics. In states like New York, laws protect clinics from liability for most accidental harm caused to patients as a result of the abortion.

BBL: That's fine that you can talk about that. But once again, you're arguing a point no one is making on here.

Me: It's a valid point the pro-choice people ignore. Look, there's a reason I go to a full-on DDS for bridge work and not just his assistant. An abortion IS a serious medical procedure, and ignoring risk to the woman more than slightly makes hypocrites of people claiming they only care about the 'health of the woman'.

I feel I've made the point. SOME abortions are serious medical procedures. Most are not. Most do NOT have anything more than some minor local anasthetic and very few -if any- require a mother to be put under.

There are medical procedures and there are medical procedures. Do you really think there's a cabal of doctors trying to do things unsafely... for... reasons? Once again, I am against abortion. But this is just about facts.

***

Me: Seriously, we all expect pharmaceutical companies to be candid about possible complications from a medicine, but it's fine for abortion providers to conceal the possible complications of an abortion?

BBL:I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but I was talking more about access to contraception than an abortion.

Me: For this thread, I'd prefer we stick to abortion itself. I find it dishonest to protect clinics from liability for their actions, especially in the possible physical and emotional consequences of having an abortion.

BBL:Yeah, I don't know how I feel about that. I really don't. But once again, you're arguing a point no one is trying to make.

Me: You keep saying that, but it's a valid part of the discussion. Abortion clinics make money off the procedures, and people really do get hurt by mistakes, so why wouldn't we expect real accountability? Abortion clinics do not earn a moral pass from their moral obligations to the patient. I respect that you have mixed feelings, but I am frankly appalled that anyone would be OK with a clinic stripping a woman of her rights, just because the procedure is an abortion.

What are you talking about? What rights do think I'm arguing should be stripped away?

***

Me: Finally, I can agree that having an abortion is ultimately the choice of the pregnant woman. But to deny the father any rights in the matter is obscenely unjust.

BBL:I think this is a little squishy..Can you imagine a scenario where you would allow a 3rd party to force you to do something so intimate with your body and it would work out?

Me: As I said, I'm not throwing out an answer here, but denying the father any say is abhorrent and unjust. A father is not merely a "third party private citizen", and should never be so insulted. Part of the problem, from where I sit, is men not taking responsibility for the children they bring into this world, so we should not punish the ones who are trying to be responsible.

I don't think we really disagree on the principle. Fathers should be encouraged to be involved in every way. I just don't think a father 1) owns another life (child's or mother's) and 2) I don't like the idea of a man being able to force a woman to do something for 9 months.

If there's a way to do this while assuring that a rapist won't be able to force a woman to carry his child to term, then I'm open, however.


BBL: Yeah, once again, I don't know how I feel about that. I don't think a father's stake in the matter is absolute.

Me: I never said 'absolute', I protested that right now men have ZERO legal standing in the decision. At the very least, state legislatures owe that some serious thought and discussion.

Once again, I'm not sure if I ever said they had "zero" standing. If I did, you've sufficiently changed my mind. I can imagine a scenario where a man would have standing.

***

BBL: How would you even enforce that? Honest question.

Me: Enforcement should always be protection of rights, to save lives, and to protect the public welfare. Rights considered should be the mother, the child, and the father. Not in equal measure, but any decision which ignores rights from one party is immoral. Discussion is needed, but not yelling, insults or one-dimensional caricatures which don't even describe the real condition, much less offer a functional solution.

BBL: I guess this gets back to "yeah well whose life is more important?"

Me: I respect that the discussion is difficult. I just do not accept that people should avoid the discussion for that reason.

By people "avoiding the discussion" what do you mean? I'm asking that honestly.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Take a look at your last paragraph again, please.

---

The one about baby-killing? Because I've been called a baby-killer by people on this board.

---

Yep "baby killer". They have no shame.

Sperm donors should live the same standard that you demand of women. You tell women " keep your legs shut." So tell men when to keep their pants zipped. They are as responsible. But they lose their rights when it becomes only the woman's business as to her body. It's none of theirs or yours. It ain't anybody's business.

Waco1947 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Take a look at your last paragraph again, please.

---

The one about baby-killing? Because I've been called a baby-killer by people on this board.

---

Yep "baby killer". They have no shame.

---

Almost as bad as calling fetus-killing "reproductive health"

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Take a look at your last paragraph again, please.

---

The one about baby-killing? Because I've been called a baby-killer by people on this board.

---

Yep "baby killer". They have no shame.

---

Almost as bad as calling fetus-killing "reproductive health"

---

I repeat so called pro lifers have no shame.
If I were to call them "women killers" because of the death by diy abortions they would howl in protest and blame the victim for being a ****.

'No shame' from people advocating the murder of infants.

Please.

Oldbear83 said:

---

'No shame' from people advocating the murder of infants.

Please.

---

Glad to see we're still trying to debate this calmly.

Do you think I'm a baby-killer?

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

It's not "petty" to be frustrated with someone who refuses to pay attention. You're not listening. You're just waiting for your chance to call someone a baby killer.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

---

BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.

When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

---

BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.

When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.

---

You're trying hard to defend your intellectually dishonest point. This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!

That's not based in any sort of fact.

You have your very strange, weirdly unfeeling, obstinant point of view. I get it.

But the late-term abortion clause was clearly put into place to allow for medically needed abortions in the case that Roe v Wade is overturned. There's been unbelievable transparency on that. You can try to insert some sort of evil Trojan-horse motivations, and it's clear that no evidence will divert you from your thoughts. And I think that's sad.

Medically needed abortions are the only ones I think should be legal. Probably cases of rape and incest, though the thought makes me sick.

Every single abortion is a tragedy, regardless of the contexts.

I'm done with this conversation for a while.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

It's not "petty" to be frustrated with someone who refuses to pay attention. You're not listening. You're just waiting for your chance to call someone a baby killer.

---

The reason the question is reasonable, is that to accomplish anything, people need to be able to state clear positions. Some will evade clarity, such as Waco. Others take a clear position, but refuse to consider any other as valid, like Golem. Some, like quash, are simply dishonest and hope you never find out.

I like to provoke discussion. The problem in this issue is not that someone uses contraception, or wants babies to live, but that there are people and groups which manipulate opinion for power and money.

Planned Parenthood, for example, is a ghoulish mercenary organization which kills more than the Marlboro company did, yet presents a lie in its very name.

The Governor of Virginia actually defended killing a child after its birth, but he's only in trouble with liberals because he wore blackface and possibly dressed as a KKK member in a school photo.

There was a time when religious groups shamed women who had abortions, but that was decades ago. Now, the only shaming is by hypocrites who refuse to acknowledge the fetus feels its death, let alone that the fetus is human.

President Clinton made a popular statement that he believed abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. Since that statement, many liberals have abandoned the last two parts of that statement, and I find that appalling for any nation which claims to have sound moral foundations.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

It's not "petty" to be frustrated with someone who refuses to pay attention. You're not listening. You're just waiting for your chance to call someone a baby killer.

---

The reason the question is reasonable, is that to accomplish anything, people need to be able to state clear positions. Some will evade clarity, such as Waco. Others take a clear position, but refuse to consider any other as valid, like Golem. Some, like quash, are simply dishonest and hope you never find out.

I like to provoke discussion. The problem in this issue is not that someone uses contraception, or wants babies to live, but that there are people and groups which manipulate opinion for power and money.

Planned Parenthood, for example, is a ghoulish mercenary organization which kills more than the Marlboro company did, yet presents a lie in its very name.

The Governor of Virginia actually defended killing a child after its birth, but he's only in trouble with liberals because he wore blackface and possibly dressed as a KKK member in a school photo.

There was a time when religious groups shamed women who had abortions, but that was decades ago. Now, the only shaming is by hypocrites who refuse to acknowledge the fetus feels its death, let alone that the fetus is human.

President Clinton made a popular statement that he believed abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. Since that statement, many liberals have abandoned the last two parts of that statement, and I find that appalling for any nation which claims to have sound moral foundations.

---

I've used the phrase "legal, safe, and rare" in this exact thread. You're acting like...

You really haven't listened to a thing I've said.

Wow. Just.... wow.

Keep up with your judgements and assessments of others. I'm going to bow out. It's not like you've bothered to listen to anything I've said anyway. God bless. Sincerely. God bless.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

---

That would be unconstitutional if it were true.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

---

This is incorrect. You're quoting what the law used to be. The new law changed from life of mother to health of mother. This has been pointed out numerous times.

It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

It's not "petty" to be frustrated with someone who refuses to pay attention. You're not listening. You're just waiting for your chance to call someone a baby killer.

---

The reason the question is reasonable, is that to accomplish anything, people need to be able to state clear positions. Some will evade clarity, such as Waco. Others take a clear position, but refuse to consider any other as valid, like Golem. Some, like quash, are simply dishonest and hope you never find out.

I like to provoke discussion. The problem in this issue is not that someone uses contraception, or wants babies to live, but that there are people and groups which manipulate opinion for power and money.

Planned Parenthood, for example, is a ghoulish mercenary organization which kills more than the Marlboro company did, yet presents a lie in its very name.

The Governor of Virginia actually defended killing a child after its birth, but he's only in trouble with liberals because he wore blackface and possibly dressed as a KKK member in a school photo.

There was a time when religious groups shamed women who had abortions, but that was decades ago. Now, the only shaming is by hypocrites who refuse to acknowledge the fetus feels its death, let alone that the fetus is human.

President Clinton made a popular statement that he believed abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. Since that statement, many liberals have abandoned the last two parts of that statement, and I find that appalling for any nation which claims to have sound moral foundations.

---

I've used the phrase "legal, safe, and rare" in this exact thread. You're acting like...

You really haven't listened to a thing I've said.

Wow. Just.... wow.

Keep up with your judgements and assessments of others. I'm going to bow out. It's not like you've bothered to listen to anything I've said anyway. God bless. Sincerely. God bless.

---

So much whine in your posts, BBL. I have always been clear, and Waco is extremely dishonest on matters of abortion, which is why I rebuke him on his lies.

I never called you a 'baby killer'. But when you lined up with Waco, I asked for clarification to help you make clear your difference with one who does support killing all the way to labor (and possibly after birth), and you exploded into an emotional rant which is, as I said, unfortunate in the context of your former posts.

You seem to love playing a victim here. That's not a good look for you, BBL.

There are a range of opinions on abortion, from some on one end who oppose contraception as immoral to some on the other end who quite literally support killing an infant. Well over 98% of us stand somewhere in between those poles, and it's not a straight-line spectrum anyway, because of real-life considerations and conditions which never fit neatly into theoretical constructions.

The reason so many people end up unhappy, is that the law applies hypothetical decisions to real-life conditions. As a result, changes in the law meant to protect women who suffered rape or incest or whose lives were endangered, a very few, have been abused to allow killing for convenience. Reasonable changes, like requiring clinics to have at least one credentialed surgeon on premises in case something goes wrong, or protection for a child once they are born, are opposed by partisans who see only political posturing.

I am really sorry for you, BBL, if you cannot see this dimension of the matter.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

---

BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.

When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.

---

This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!

---

One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?

Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned Rare. It was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned recently. You're moving the goal posts. And it was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

---

Waco still lying. Weakly and bitterly.

Stop murdering babies Waco.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned recently. You're moving the goal posts. And it was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

---

Waco still lying. Weakly and bitterly.

Stop murdering babies Waco.

---

It was the Supreme Court. Not liberals. They ruled it's none of your business and that ticks you off.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned recently. You're moving the goal posts. And it was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

---

Waco still lying. Weakly and bitterly.

Stop murdering babies Waco.

---

It was the Supreme Court. Not liberals. They ruled it's none of your business and that ticks you off.

---

Nope. SCOTUS made it legal. Liberals made it mass murder.

You have a bloody soul, Waco.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned recently. You're moving the goal posts. And it was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

---

Waco still lying. Weakly and bitterly.

Stop murdering babies Waco.

---

It was the Supreme Court. Not liberals. They ruled it's none of your business and that ticks you off.

---

Nope. SCOTUS made it legal. Liberals made it mass murder.

You have a bloody soul, Waco.
And you are a liar.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned recently. You're moving the goal posts. And it was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

---

Waco still lying. Weakly and bitterly.

Stop murdering babies Waco.

---

It was the Supreme Court. Not liberals. They ruled it's none of your business and that ticks you off.

---

Nope. SCOTUS made it legal. Liberals made it mass murder.

You have a bloody soul, Waco.
And you are a liar.

---

---

So you don't have a soul?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I don't know any liberal who has abandoned safe, rare, legal. Apparently you don't mind lying to make a point

---

"rare" was abandoned by liberals in 1973. As soon as clinics stopped requiring doctors to even be present, the liberals abandoned "safe".

Your latest post is a weak lie even by your standards, Waco.

---

You said liberals abandoned recently. You're moving the goal posts. And it was not liberals but the Supreme Court. The court determined it was none of your business.

---

Waco still lying. Weakly and bitterly.

Stop murdering babies Waco.

---

It was the Supreme Court. Not liberals. They ruled it's none of your business and that ticks you off.

---

Nope. SCOTUS made it legal. Liberals made it mass murder.

You have a bloody soul, Waco.
And you are a liar.

---

---

So you don't have a soul?

---

Think 'Voldemort' when discussing Waco's soul.