Kansas Abortion Foes Set to Renew Fig...

Kansas Abortion Foes Set to Renew Fight for New Restrictions

There are 628 comments on the Fox4KC story from Jan 2, 2010, titled Kansas Abortion Foes Set to Renew Fight for New Restrictions. In it, Fox4KC reports that:

Anti- abortion legislators in Kansas are pushing again this year to rewrite state restrictions on late-term procedures and for other initiatives, despite the murder of Dr.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox4KC.

First Prev
of 32
Next Last

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#654 Mar 1, 2010
itsME wrote:
rdg1234,
It's obvious you had trouble comprehending that my original post, you took extreme exception with, was written facetiously.
One has *absolutely no way of knowing tone of voice* online; remember, if you claim to know that others have "character flaws," your own logic *HERE* throws that into grave question.

Nonetheless, I accept this with goodwill because there were moments that you were making me laugh.
itsME wrote:
I wrote it facetiously because I saw your hypocrisy with every word you wrote.
Look up the word "hypocrisy." You have misused it upwards of five times now.

Moreover, you are *seriously* manipulating words and concepts in a pretense of making me look "inconsistent." And there's something else, still worse, so hold onto your seat.

Inconsistency in argument is *SEMANTIC* and *PEDANTIC*. It doesn't matter. I *bet a million bucks* you will continue to think it does, but in case you haven't noticed, I've shown how *YOU* are also inconsistent several times. It's simply that *I* know human beings are, and you seem to act as if you've discovered some buried treasure every time you find a real or manipulated instance that someone else is.
itsME wrote:
You sersiouly think too highly of yourself!
I am smiling/laughing. I'd *LOVE* to know how you know this if I am a *complete stranger on a message board*. You WANT to draw this conclusion. That's the REAL truth here.
itsME wrote:
You have an agenda and are uncompromising as evidenced by your words: "I certainly am standing on a moral base which won't be budged in a trillion, billion, zillion years."
By your logic,*every* person's *every* conviction betrays an agenda; BOOM, that means YOU have one.

For my lack of compromise, you can go shake hands with -- and thank -- the anti-abortion people.
itsME wrote:
Another comment of yours: "I am not one, ever, to back down where I have a *deep moral conviction* that I am right."
That's wonderful! You have deep convictions but MORAL they are not.
As according to you. Then again, we could review your posts and I could find a *host* of behaviors I would consider *HIGHLY* immoral. Shall we really play this game?

Is this what America is reduced to? A bunch of damn dumbasses who play "holier-than-thou" all the time? I don't give a *shit* what you think of my "morality" because I don't value *your opinion* on these matters. Am I clear?

WOW.
itsME wrote:
Does it matter to you that I and others also say, "I am not one, ever, to back down where I have a *deep moral conviction* that I am right?"
Oh, no, the conviction's not the problem.

The shootings of doctors are the problem.

The screaming and the name-calling are the problem.

The continued, daily, hysterical, obsessive attempts to devalue your fellow human beings are the problem.

The inability to leave others alone is the problem.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#655 Mar 1, 2010
itsME wrote:
Do you discount the position of many when they say, "I certainly am standing on a moral base which won't be budged in a trillion, billion, zillion years?"
See above. Conviction's not the problem. I wouldn't be standing on a base *that will never be budged* if it were; I would *admire the anti-abortion people*.
itsME wrote:
You say there is a "culture war," because the anti-abortion side is trying to tell others how to live.
You may see it that way, but that is not why there is a culture war.
Well, no. Let's be fanatically, savagely blunt. You do not speak for me, and you never will. I know you know this already. However, let's do hear *YOUR OPINION* as to the cause of the culture war. I will now proceed to read it.
itsME wrote:
Until Roe V Wade became law - BY JUDICIAL FIAT - and not through the legislative process, there were not many abortions. They were illegal.
After Roe V Wade, 1,500,000 babies (the pro-abortion side says fetuses), were killed every year.
I think you should go back in just this thread and look at what side has an IN-YOUR-FACE attitude concerning any abortion conversation or debate.
There are two points of view, and yours is but one. Freedom permits the other point of view to be voiced and hopefully heard.
Oh, absolutely. That's not the problem. That was never the problem.
itsME wrote:
The culture war you refer to is caused by very deep fundamental differences about life.
HERE, AND HERE ALONE, you *DO* word it fairly, and you word it "more fairly," so to speak, than I did.
itsME wrote:
One side says "LIFE" begins at conception and is valuable and is not to be terminated based on someone's whim or convenience factor.
The other side says "MY LIFE" is valuable, not all, and it is not to be terminated or inconvenienced due to some bombastic loud-mouthed Holy-rollers.
I did laugh, but you are manipulatively misrepresenting that "OTHER SIDE" ... which you knew. Full well. You hope to convince me, you hope to have a chance in hell of convincing me that everyone who supports a woman's right to abortion *is some self-involved floozy who cares about nothing but herself*? You have a long, long life ahead of you if you think you'll convince me of that. It's not even *what's at issue* here. WOW.
itsME wrote:
The Pro-life side says the baby is a seperate and distinct living creature being nurtured inside the mothers womb, as it has been since the beginning of time.
It is not the mothers property, and has 23 chromosomes from both the woman and the man. The combination of the total 46 chromosomes makes the babies DNA seperate and distinct from that of the mother or father.
The pro-abortion side says the fetus is just a leach or parasite which is connected to the host and the host has the right to dispose of it if the host wishes. The pro-abortion side also says there is no life at conception but rather not until the fetus takes it's first breath.
That's what your culture war is about!
Actually, no. It's not in the slightest. Any goodwill you might have fostered has been seriously compromised by your *consummate inability* to speak for both sides fairly. Your characterization of those for abortion is ridiculous.

To say the least. I am omitting from my characterization of *your* characterization a number of colorful adjectives and phrases.
itsME wrote:
One side, selflessly, is concerned about the life of the baby regardless of what stage it is in.
The other side, selfeshly, doesn't even wish to admit it's a baby, and calls it everything but, until a woman decides to give birth to "HER" baby.
Uh ... you are a great illustration of the problem, not the solution.

You're helping those *for* abortion, though, because you will probably never choose to realize that.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#656 Mar 1, 2010
itsME wrote:
When that occurs, VOILA, suddenly she is naming the baby six months before delivery. The woman is talking about her baby (not fetus) and how her baby (not fetus) kicked so much last night she barely got a wink.
By the way, how does something not living, KICK?
Seriously, you're not convincing me, but it's for a *host of reasons*, not just having to do with this one issue.
itsME wrote:
And then, guess what? Pro-abortion friends are arranging a BABY (not fetus) shower for the pro-abortion woman who decided to let her baby live.
I have never seen ONE (1) card inviting people to a FETUS shower.
And yet, while the fetus even at 8 months is "NOT A LIFE," the woman (the host of the parasite) is buying FETUS furniture, buying FETUS clothes, all prematurely. How very silly.
Oh, so abortion is legal at eight months? Who knew?

You see, your problem is that you mix some great logic with some *manipulative illogic*.
itsME wrote:
The couple enthusiastically goes to Border's to buy a book of 300 Fetus names.
They've got books of fetus names for every nationality.
German fetuses, Irish fetuses, Italian fetuses, Jewish fetuses, and on and on and on.
I think this approach is just not effective. There are *reasons* I think so. But you're good at pushing matters and being really, really ****ing pushy, so keep pushing and eventually they may come to light.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#657 Mar 1, 2010
itsME wrote:
rdg1234,
Can I see you, in response to my comments, write even once , "I'M BEING OPPOSED" and I accept that two views differ," as you have suggested those who disagree with you should?
You have omitted or mistaken a *subtext* which went along with that statement. You have done so repeatedly, but that's not your fault/problem; I never mentioned it until now. It's that you keep *niggling and digging* with that, and that's often *REALLY, REALLY BAD* to do with me, not because I will like, "rain thunder down on your head" (I would probably provide snacks and your favorite beverage, instead) but because if you keep pushing a matter, something may come to light which you *DON'T* want coming to light.

Now is that time. Ready?

When I spoke of people acknowledging and accepting that they were being opposed, and the context of my original statement *may well make this clear*, I was talking about people who *ATTEMPT TO FORCE OTHERS* to live as they see fit. Rather than simply accept that those others are obviously opposing them and wanting to live as *they* see fit, the people keep trying to force *others* to live in a certain way. They never accept that their being opposed; they keep trying to *force* their "morality" upon others.

And yes, that really, really is what I meant; I should know, as I am quite particular in the way that I express myself. As you've noticed. SINCE YOU HAVE CALLED IT TO OUR MUTUAL ATTENTION on several occasions, no?
itsME wrote:
How bout't it?
Can you follow your own advice?
But I'm not an anti-abortion person trying to force someone else to do anything.
itsME wrote:
I betcha can't!
I know I am opposed, and I accept that two views differ.
Wait. REALLY?

YOU are seriously doing this, and simply *morally* opposing them? If so, YOU ARE CORRECT. Perhaps I assumed you were literally trying to *force* your views on others. If you are not, you are absolutely right.
itsME wrote:
So, how bout it?
From *you*, I would accept this. But not from the people trying to *FORCE* others through law to live in a certain way.
itsME wrote:
I think I have YOU in a corner, based on your written words, for ALL to see.
I had to chuckle. I'm sure you'd love to believe so; see above. You must first *truthfully state on this board that you do not try to interfere* in women's abortions.
itsME wrote:
You MUST write that statement. In fact, I demand it.
If you don't you will have lost all CREDIBILITY. lol
LOLOL! SEE ABOVE.
itsME wrote:
Does your credibility mean anything to you?
Not with someone who's misstating pro-abortion arguments, no. Because the *usual response* from such people is that *only adherence to their views* is good enough.
itsME wrote:
I will continue to repost all of your comments over the last two days and my response to them.
You see, you don't want to mess with me. I am a man.
You are the weaker sex.
Please, understand your place, and write what I demand you write. LOL
Betcha won't.-:)
I AM LAUGHING. At the very least, you achieved something by getting me to laugh. See above. What's key is *how you deal with this issue*, but feel free (seriously; saying this politely, for your sake) NOT to respond to that. I respect entirely when people don't want *any* details of their private lives on the internet, so don't feel obligated. I was simply making a point.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#658 Mar 1, 2010
"itsme," perhaps you *do* have the good humor and proper touch to handle a sensitive issue in a way that brings people together. I have no idea and am making no such judgment; I am simply being polite to *you*, because you seem to be more polite than I first realized.
Ink

Swedesboro, NJ

#659 Mar 1, 2010
cpeter1313 wrote:
What are you? Twelve?
That is what CONSERVATIVES said their movement was all about, not me. I grew up in a conservative enclave and goldwater was always the focus of the party (until the younger turks wanted a piece of the action). Minimal government intrusion, states rights, etc. The whole package. It wasn't until later that the neocons took over the GOP and pandered to the religious right.
You should actually learn something about history before yapping like an incontinent schnauzer.
"Left leaning" is a meaningless statement, as are most of your other quotes. Left of WHAT? Center? Rightists? Fascists? That's why you use the administration that appointed them--presidents don't appoint SCOTUS justices who are going to be against their own philosophy.
BTW--what was the source of your listings?
<quoted text>
If the Supreme Court was actually conservative they would have left it as a State's right and left it to the people of the states to decide.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#660 Mar 1, 2010
Not if the "states right" conflicts with the rights under the federal constitution. The doctor/patient relationship is not a states right; it is recognized equally in all states because it is based on the federal right to privacy.

BTW--the conservatives weren't all that hot on state referendums either.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If the Supreme Court was actually conservative they would have left it as a State's right and left it to the people of the states to decide.
Lisa

Madison, WI

#662 Nov 28, 2011
That is why I posted what I posted, freedom of speach & my thoughts. I get things, to itsME in
Overland Park, KS And I do agree that we shouldnt all pay for abortions. I agree that this should also NOT be used as birth control. Maybe I should have jotted down a book of thoughts. Things happen, rape happens, young people make poor choices and when some of these things happen is why it should then be the right of that person.
Dont judge others by their thoughts or actions!!
Each to their own thoughts & they will reap the karma they deserve one day.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 32
Next Last

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.

Kansas Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News No A/C for Prisoners: Cruel & Unusual Punishment? (Aug '11) Feb '17 Adrian lawton 25
News Judge orders voter suppressor Kris Kobach to ex... (Sep '16) Sep '16 Joyce 1
News How racism came to be called a mental illness a... (Jun '16) Sep '16 BLM 15
News Judge to monitor Kansas' actions on gay marriag... (Jul '16) Jul '16 Gremlin 28
News Kansas presidential caucuses could be rocky soi... (Mar '16) Mar '16 levs4660 5
News Democrats see close race in Kansas between Hill... (Mar '16) Mar '16 ClintonTricks 1
News Kansas among several states looking to ban sanc... (Feb '16) Feb '16 Cliff 6
More from around the web