Planned Parenthood to open clinic on University Ave.

Planned Parenthood is moving offices and its lone Minnesota abortion clinic next year to a new $16 million "flagship" building along St. Full Story
Pedro

Saint Paul, MN

#295 May 13, 2010
Stop the murder of babies, and abolish abortion!
bdk

Farmington, MN

#296 May 13, 2010
PastorBobby666 wrote:
<<Still trolling I see, nice work Roberto. >>
Still projecting, pizda?
Are you related to BTK?
SMD!
Are you related to the anitchrist? 666
SMB!
Lux et Veritas

Minneapolis, MN

#302 May 13, 2010
Pedro wrote:
Stop the murder of babies, and abolish abortion!
It's already happening, to the great consternation of the abortion movement's poobahs, and it's happening at the grassroots levels: in state legislatures and in the hearts of myriads of formerly abortion-favoring women and men. The Topix footsoldiers (who doggedly keep fiddling while Rome burns, bless their little Pollyanna hearts) inveigh about religion and encroachments on the invented "constitutional right" to abortion, but the movement's leaders know they're losing in the court of public opinion.

NARAL's Nancy Keenan said on NPR in 2008, "You know, we have to look at what has happened since the passage of Roe. And since 1995 alone, there have been 550 laws [ http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/s... ] on the books that again restrict access to abortion care. That tells us that those people that are elected to office are coming in, waking up every day, either trying to overturn Roe or trying to again take this personal private medical decision away from women."

Strip away Keenan's oxymoronic abortionspeak phrases like "abortion care" (Mengele would be proud of that one) and you've got a Big Abortion acolyte who knows her movement can't possibly gain when women have so much readily accessed truth about their unborn babies [ http://www.health.state.mn.us/wrtk/handbook.h... -- e.g., the Women's Right to Know Handbook] and the devastation wrought by abortion in so many women's lives [ http://www.hopeafterabortion.com/hope.cfm... ].

Big Abortion will continue its decades-old strategy of dissembling about fetal development, showing and telling women as little as possible (even to the point of breaking laws), taking the money and shoving women out the door, and it will continue to lose ground because of its lies and lawbreaking.

Even the moderate voices in the media can't countenance the abortion industry's and abortion apologists' heartless dishonesty:

"...My own view, both pro-life and pro-choice, has been that abortion truthfully presented would eliminate itself, or vastly reduce its numbers. Once a pregnancy is viewed as a human life in formation, rather than a "blob of cells" it is less easy to terminate the contents of one's vessel....

"Anyone considering, say, gall bladder removal will be told each and every detail of what will happen, what is likely to be the result, what consequences might be expected, and so on. Doesn't it make as much sense to provide women with a view of what's going on inside their bodies before they take the leap that can't be undone?...

"In testimony before the Louisiana Senate Health and Welfare Committee, post-abortive women recounted being told they were ridding themselves of "tissue" only to learn later, often during an ultrasound with a subsequent pregnancy, that they had destroyed a fully formed fetus. Based on my own conversations with post-abortive women, this is a common event and is often the point at which formerly pro-choice women switch sides.

"The testimony in Louisiana included the story of one woman who suffered both physical and emotional trauma after an abortion. She didn't see an ultrasound, but did see the remnants of her abortion on a tray beside her and was told "they" had been twins.

"Well, enough of that. We all know what abortion is and, thanks to some of the sign-toting anti-abortion protesters -- who do their cause no good -- we know what abortion looks like. Shouldn't pregnant women also know what their healthy fetus looks like before they hit delete?
"This is a question lacking in sinister intent. What is sinister is the proposition that ignorance is better -- and the implied hope that women won't choose to reconsider."

"Making the abortion decision an informed one" --

http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx...

“....careless whisper.”

Since: May 10

Saint Paul, MN

#303 May 13, 2010
ab absurdo wrote:
<quoted text>
Great point regarding my post, and perhaps "most" would have been more accurate in my allegations of the "pro-life" movement. And you bring up a second good point which is that there is quite a lot of gray area to this issue. As for the compromises you bring up, I believe those are medical decisions for doctors to make with patients. There are far too many variables and differing circumstances to write laws that legislate what doctors "should" do.
You assume I am "pro-choice" and I suppose I end up on that side simply because I don't believe abortion is an issue that should be legislated as much as it is. What puzzles me about the "pro-life" stance, which I assume to mean "all abortion should be illegal" is that it brings religious arguments into a legislative venue. I simply ask, without irony, does the "pro-life" movement wish for the United States to become a theocracy?
Personally as a "pro-choice" person, I am more conservative than many people would assume. As a conservative I believe that the federal government has no business entering into the doctor's office. I don't understand the more "extreme" side of the pro-life movement's desire to make all abortion illegal. If their stance is the morally superior stance, it shouldn't be necessary to legislate this issue, they will win on basis of a stronger argument. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. I think this is due to tactics like picketing with graphic pictures, opening "opposition" clinics that aren't honest about what they do, and other extreme measures. As I've said before, it's perfectly reasonable to bring up issues in this debate, however the tactics of the "pro-life" movement are deplorable.
I agree with you on the Federal government point - I definitely think that this is state law territory... but the Supreme Court took it of that realm.

There are definitely some Christians and pro-lifers who would love to see a Christian theocracy in this country... many of them seem to think that we had something like that in the past. Anywho, yeah - let's go for this Christian nation thing so that we can start a new fight - which flavor of Christianity will be in charge??? Aye carumba!

“....careless whisper.”

Since: May 10

Saint Paul, MN

#304 May 13, 2010
PastorBobby666 wrote:
<<I assume that you are pro-choice,>>
I am pro choice!
<<<so here is a question for you: If it was decided that abortion would only be allowed in the first trimester (unless very specific guidelines were met to make exceptions for the physical health of the mother),>>
Nope! States that regulate late term abortion already have those guidelines in place. Roe provides for the health/life restrictions. Every state law must respect this!
Roe only says states CAN regulate later abortions, not that they MUST regulate them. There are 10 states and DC that do not place any restrictions on abortions.
Abortion is a medical decision that has no business being controlled by the government. They really have no business placing restrictions on whether a woman can get an abortion or not, no matter how far along they are! But women who get LTAs are women who usually want their fetus but medically, something goes wrong that requires that they abort or die. Also, things happen. Medical emergencies, car accidents, shootings, stabbings, birth defects that aren't detectable until the 2nd trimester. All are situations that may necessitate a LTA!
<<but to "balance things out" it was mandated that sexual education, including the teaching of proper birth control methods was taught in public jr. high and high school, would you be okay with that?>>
I'm OK with age appropriate sex education in public schools, starting with elementary school. But it is not contingent on regulating abortions.
<<Not that I would necessarily be entirely okay with either part,>>
Figures!
<< I'm just trying to get a gauge on where people are when it comes to this type of compromise. >>
You are not giving a compromise.
Here is the real compromise:
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. The law cannot compel you to get an abortion if you don't want one. If someone else wants one, MYOB!
It is really that simple!
Figures, huh? Look on the bright side, when I try to have a discussion about these things I try to be direct and straight-forward. The reason I tossed in the little comment about not necessarily agreeing with that compromise myself is because it was true - I was just interested in tossing the thought out there for discussion. I'm not interested in debating the topic - I'm interested in having a discussion. I don't have an endgame for this forum - I'm not trying to build some grand case for my point of view so that I can put all others to shame... I'm just thinking and talking it through. I think we would all be better off if we did more of that rather than act as though we have all of the answers. Just my opinion...
conrad

Albuquerque, NM

#305 May 13, 2010
It is a sad comment on our culture that the university system, started and developed by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, and honored by street names in cities across the nation, should now have that street name defaced by abortuaries like "planned parenthood"-such a grotesque misnomer could not be more cackled about by the flaming devils in hell.
conrad

Albuquerque, NM

#306 May 13, 2010
This forum post defends that beautiful dollop of glistening life maligned over by the dry thighs that attempt to crush the unborn child, like a pilotless haunted ferry crashing into the dock of truth.

Alz

Since: Oct 08

Chicago

#308 May 13, 2010
Read up on the history of Planned Parenthood. It was started to get rid of "imbeciles", blacks, "undesirables", etc. The founder was Margaret Sanger, who was a Eugenicist.

The who organization is gross. As I said, read up on Sanger.
conrad

Albuquerque, NM

#309 May 13, 2010
Abortion Is Good wrote:
Prevents crime, and all you're doing is sucking some gray goo out of the woman, and flushing it neatly down the toilet. No fuss, no muss. Don't believe the protesters, waving their plastic fetus in your face.
And we don't believe that you are in your own superficial way, not trying to roil the waters of truth.

Your attempt is as pathetic as a disturbed puppy yelping while you take yourself into the gunny-sack of truth, and place yourself into those self-same waters.
Minn

Saint Paul, MN

#310 May 13, 2010
People should mind their own business.
Divine intelligence

Minneapolis, MN

#311 May 14, 2010
Eugenics....(selective breeding to breed out the G allele)

Obama backs Planned Parenthood even after they defrauded California.

Margaret sanger - founder of Planned Parenthood... If you watch her Youtubes she sounds like a she-devil witch.
bdk

Farmington, MN

#313 May 14, 2010
PastorBob666 wrote:
<<A preacher in the 1st church of Douchery. >>
Reported for impersonating me, St. Paul sock puppet.....
Now go fix a batch of Summer's Eve. You need it to gargle with, Pizda!
Oh no, pastor Roberto is reporting me!!!! Whatever will I do? Maybe you should register if you don't want people using your hypocritical handle.
MUIM

Thornhill, Canada

#314 May 14, 2010
Alz wrote:
Read up on the history of Planned Parenthood. It was started to get rid of "imbeciles", blacks, "undesirables", etc. The founder was Margaret Sanger, who was a Eugenicist.
The who organization is gross. As I said, read up on Sanger.
Eugenics was a common belief back in Sangers time...it doesn't make it right but you have to understand the times people were living in, some of the common beliefs today may change and be seen as wrong.

Also Sanger did not suppot abortion she advocated for birth control.
Minn

Saint Paul, MN

#317 May 14, 2010
Nick wrote:
God have mercy on the ignorant abortion murderers and atheists...
I'm more worried what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to do to you. He knows how many plates you've had.
PastorBobby666

Silver Spring, MD

#318 May 15, 2010
<<Figures, huh? >>

Yup!

<<<Look on the bright side,>>

I did..... Abortion remains legal!

<<< when I try to have a discussion about these things I try to be direct and straight-forward. >>

Me too! Some would say I'm brutally frank!

<<<The reason I tossed in the little comment about not necessarily agreeing with that compromise myself is because it was true - I was just interested in tossing the thought out there for discussion.>>

And I discussed it with you. If you don't like the facts included in my discussion of the subject, too bad!

<<< I'm not interested in debating the topic - I'm interested in having a discussion.>>

Debate isn't "discussion?" Or do you just want a one sided "discussion?"

If you put out your side of the topic, I am gonna either agree with it or disagree with it. If I disagree with it, I am gonna say why and back it up with something the RTL movement hates: Facts!

<<< I don't have an endgame for this forum - I'm not trying to build some grand case for my point of view so that I can put all others to shame... >>

Said the passive aggressive poster! You must think you are very important if you can "put all others to shame" with your POV.

<<<I'm just thinking and talking it through.>>

Debate IS part of talking "it" through.

<<< I think we would all be better off if we did more of that rather than act as though we have all of the answers. >>

I DO have all the legal and medical answers. That's what I get paid to do.

<<Just my opinion... >>

Unsupported opinions are meaningless. The law says abortion is legal. That is not an opinion. It is a fact!
PastorBobby666

Silver Spring, MD

#319 May 15, 2010
<<I agree with you on the Federal government point - I definitely think that this is state law territory... but the Supreme Court took it of that realm.>>

No they didn't... the states still have some control over regulation of abortions. It is up to the state how far they want to take it. For example, 10 jurisdictions do not have any abortion regulations. Some states have fetal homicide laws and some don't... just remember, any state law, whether regarding abortions or any other subject, must pass constitutional muster. If those state abortion restrictions don't have any exceptions for the life/health of the woman, they will be tossed out.

<<<There are definitely some Christians >>

Christian hypocrites!

<<<and pro-lifers >>

anti choicers, you mean!

<<who would love to see a Christian theocracy in this country... many of them seem to think that we had something like that in the past.>>

We never had a "christian nation." We have always been a secular nation.

<<<Anywho, yeah - let's go for this Christian nation thing so that we can start a new fight - which flavor of Christianity will be in charge??? Aye carumba!>>

This country will become a "christian nation" over my dead body. I swore to uphold and defend the law and I take that oath very seriously.

“....careless whisper.”

Since: May 10

Saint Paul, MN

#320 May 15, 2010
PastorBobby666 wrote:
<<I agree with you on the Federal government point - I definitely think that this is state law territory... but the Supreme Court took it of that realm.>>
No they didn't... the states still have some control over regulation of abortions. It is up to the state how far they want to take it. For example, 10 jurisdictions do not have any abortion regulations. Some states have fetal homicide laws and some don't... just remember, any state law, whether regarding abortions or any other subject, must pass constitutional muster. If those state abortion restrictions don't have any exceptions for the life/health of the woman, they will be tossed out.
<<<There are definitely some Christians >>
Christian hypocrites!
<<<and pro-lifers >>
anti choicers, you mean!
<<who would love to see a Christian theocracy in this country... many of them seem to think that we had something like that in the past.>>
We never had a "christian nation." We have always been a secular nation.
<<<Anywho, yeah - let's go for this Christian nation thing so that we can start a new fight - which flavor of Christianity will be in charge??? Aye carumba!>>
This country will become a "christian nation" over my dead body. I swore to uphold and defend the law and I take that oath very seriously.
On the last point about the Christian nation, you just restated my point - it never was a Christian nation... if it was it would look a whole lot different, a whole lot more forgiveness and service. Christians are supposed to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. Based on your responses I think you might be reading my posts with too many assumptions about what I am trying to say instead of reading what I am actually writing - not an attack, just an observation. This whole thing could be my fault because I am not the best person in the world when it comes to properly expressing myself with my writing.

My comment about being here to discuss not debate meant that I wanted to depart from the tit for tat, gotcha tactics that most people use on these forums - I am not trying to paint anyone into a corner or beat them down. You are correct, debate is definitely a form of discussion, so I just used the wrong terms to try and explain what I meant.

The Supreme Court most certainly did take abortion from the State level to the Federal level - they did not lay out every single point regarding abortion law, but a state cannot currently outlaw abortion and that is directly due to the fact that the court decided that there was some hidden right to privacy in the Constitution... I think it is somewhere near the back. I do find it odd how this right to privacy seemingly does not apply to millions of other things that a person could do in their own home or doctor's office.
PastorBob666

Silver Spring, MD

#323 May 16, 2010
<<<The Supreme Court most certainly did take abortion from the State level to the Federal level - they did not lay out every single point regarding abortion law, but a state cannot currently outlaw abortion>>

Outlawing all abortions would be unconstitutional. The federal law has certain circumstances where it does control what states do. State laws have to be in compliance with the constitution. I can see you are no constitutional scholar. federal law always trumps state laws. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

<<< and that is directly due to the fact that the court decided that there was some hidden right to privacy in the Constitution...>>

The right to privacy is not "hidden" in the constitution. The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.

In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments. In other words, Lawrence vs. Texas stands because Texas anti-sodomy laws were a violation of consenting adult rights to privacy in their bedrooms. Roe stands because people have a right to medical privacy. Griswald stands because people have a right to reproductive privacy. people have reproductive privacy rights. They have a right to birth control and abortion as well as the right to procreate.

If you think there is no right to privacy, then let's ask your doctor to post all your medical records on the internet. How about we get the government to post your SSN number too?

<<<I think it is somewhere near the back. I do find it odd how this right to privacy seemingly does not apply to millions of other things that a person could do in their own home or doctor's office. >>

Like what? Some things are private, like medical decisions. Your mail is private. It is illegal for anyone other than the person to whom the mail is addressed to open and read that mail.

Other things are not private, like rush Limpball's doctor shopping for narcotics. Doctor shopping is illegal for public health and safety reasons. The government has a compelling interest in preventing doctor shopping to stock up on narcotics to feed an addiction.

Inappropriate touching/molestation of patients in a doctor's office is also not private. That is for patient protection.

We have rights, but they are all not absolute. Even the bill of rights has exceptions.

Free Speech? Try shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire!

Freedom of religion? Try practicing a religion that requires you marry under age children. Or practice human sacrifice. See how many absolute rights you have then!
PastorBob666

Silver Spring, MD

#326 May 16, 2010
<<There ya go God. Smote this anti-christ and send him straight to hell. >>

ROFLMFAOPIMPMOY&YG&H!

You god is imaginary and has no jurisdiction over me.

Who is "anti-christ?" Is tat anything like being "anti- santa" or anti "tooth fairy?"

Your christ is imaginary, so why waste time being "antri" something that doesn't exist?

However, your wish that your gods, mr god and mr. christ "smite" me and send me to "hell" (another figment of your imagination) shows exactly what kind of unloving xtian hypocrite you are.

Your jesus wants his followers to love their enemies and bless them.... not wish them to be burned and tortured for eternity in hell!

here:

I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute
you; [Matthew 5:44]

The fact that you don't do as your jesus commands proves you probably think he is imaginary too, otherwise, you would do as he is claimed to have said!
To PastorBobby

Plymouth, MN

#328 May 16, 2010
PastorBob666 wrote:
<<<I hereby volunteer my services to make your stinking, worthless, chit talking, dead body wish come true!>>
You crossed the line with that one, gomer!
Reported for violation of USC Title 18 875(c)
Transmitting internet threats is a federal crime:
875. Interstate communications
(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Enjoy your stay at the gray bar hotel, Pizda!
<<<PS. Please give me your address so as to expidite this ASAP. >>
You can meet me any Saturday at the Post Office at White Flint Mall. I check my PO box around 12-12:30.
Bring your friends. You will need them!
So your claim of "over my dead body" wasn't a threat of physical harm? Obviously I have no intention of hurting anyone, but of the few posts I've read of yours, a theme of verbal, suggestive physical attacks against others appears to be the norm.
What I said was stupid, and for that I apologize. Satirical comedy isn't my style I guess.
And now, if I may, ask you a serious question. Why are your responses filled with so much hate? Did you have a traumatic experience at some point in your life?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The New York City Mayor 9 hr Bobert Ne Nero 7
2 cops dead THANKS LIBERALS! 9 hr CNN Reporter 21
Veteran Freed From MSP VA Dental Dept Phone Abu... 11 hr American_Sons 17
Mall of America Protest 12 hr Icantbreathe 30
Benghazi-Gate OBAMA not allowing access to surv... (Mar '13) 14 hr LIbEralS 330
The Army's findings on Bergdahl NOT to be relea... 14 hr Icantbreathe 17
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 18 hr Earthling-1 33,487
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:59 am PST

NBC Sports11:59AM
Aaron Rodgers "got done what he needed to get done" on Wednesday
NBC Sports 2:34 PM
Rodgers plays Santa for Packers offensive line - NBC Sports
ESPN 2:52 PM
Aaron Claus: QB buys Packers linemen TVs
NBC Sports 3:09 PM
Lions head to house of horrors in Green Bay - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 4:16 PM
Breaking Down Lions Game Plan vs. Packers