Comments
218,661 - 218,680 of 221,375 Comments Last updated Wednesday Aug 13

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229433
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe that your right to a medical procedure should transcend the right of another human being to live?
In the instance of abortion, YES.
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
What does being legal have anything to do with your argument?
"Murder" is a legal term. It means 'illegal killing'. Abortion is legal, therefore, it is not 'murder'. It is killing, which has been legalized. Just like the death penalty, killing in war, and killing for self defense.
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you flip-flop every time the law changes?
Should the law change to define abortion as illegal, I will still believe it is often necessary.
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that self-defense is not justifiable. You continue to use this argument even when it involves only a small section of actual abortions.
I frankly don't care how small the 'section' of abortions done to save lives is - if safe and medically regulated abortion is criminalized, women who need it to save our lives will lose access to it, just like every other woman in the country, and women will die for the sake of the 'convenience' and 'conscience' of fetus worshipers such as yourself. Pardon me if I don't find that palatable.
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
So we can probably drop this part of the discussion and focus on the real reasons for abortion, which are mainly as a means of birth control, and other various selfish reasons like being able to go on vacations, or not having to carry a stroller and baby at the same time. I didnít make these up, these are actual reasons given here.
Given where?
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Just what are you comparing the size of the fetus in the video to?
To the actual size of a comparably developed fetus. Facts are cool - embrace them.
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you think that King Kong in the movie was really 40 feet tall? Iíve been waiting, and will probably continue waiting for a long time for anybody to show me any evidence.
You don't want evidence. You want agreement. You want warm fuzzies. You want to involve yourself in an issue which will never personally affect you, and receive kudos from strangers for your 'stance'. You want women to die, so that you don't have to obsess about abortion anymore. You want to pat yourself on the back, and be able to tell yourself that no matter how much of a miserable bastard you may otherwise be, you've been redeemed by your attitude about abortion.

You won't be getting any of that from me.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229434
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Angel1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you think that not being able to have children is an inconvenience also? I sure do. I know a lot of women who want to have children and can't.
I think not being able to have children is a circumstance. There are remedies for it, which are often expensive, and some women move heaven and earth to take advantage of them anyway. I assuredly DON'T think it is the responsibility of the fertile, to gestate for the infertile.
There are hundreds of thousands of born kids available for adoption. Find one, adopt him or her, and get on with your life.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229436
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

6

Angel1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to have a hysterectomy three years ago
So, because you "had" to have one, you believe EVERY woman should "have" to have one, if she doesn't presently want children? Here's a clue: hysterectomy is not an elective procedure.

Angel1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
and they took everything out and I have no health issues from that at all
You really are some kinda freakin' anomaly - or a pathological liar.

Angel1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
and I have never heard of any woman having issues because of it either.
If the surgeon who performed this major surgery on you, failed to educate you as to the possible, and probable, side effects of having had a total hysterectomy, that surgeon is guilty of malpractice, and you have grounds for a very lucrative lawsuit.

Below, is a link to a website which details just a few of the complications and side-effects which are documented in many women following the complete removal of their reproductive systems.

http://www.health.ny.gov/community/adults/wom...

I seriously doubt you've had this procedure performed on you.
I'm going with 'pathological liar'.

You're busted, babe.

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229437
Apr 19, 2013
 
Busted.... that's funny!

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229438
Apr 19, 2013
 
LupyLu wrote:
Busted.... that's funny!
What's 'funny' is a woman in America, who has undergone a total hysterectomy without benefit of information on what the procedure entails, or its risks, and has "never heard" of any other woman having had complications or side effects from it.

Funny as in 'strange and unbelievable'
Not funny ha-ha.

Funny ha-ha, is her belief that no one would call her on blatantly lying about it, or that the rest of us don't have access to actual information about total hysterectomy, and its desired and undesired results.

Now THAT's funny.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229439
Apr 19, 2013
 
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
The hormones being a big issue...I remember my mother in law after her hysterectomy...if I wasn't scared of her before then I was certainly even more terrified after she left the operating room!
Agreed. My mother has hers in her 40s. Wasn't a good time in our family as my mother entered early menopause.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229440
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Angel1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to have a hysterectomy three years ago and they took everything out and I have no health issues from that at all and I have never heard of any woman having issues because of it either.
A. Once again, I don't believe you.

B. So you had a hysterectomy and didn't experience menopause which is EVERY female body's reaction to no longer having estrogen? Hmm...further illustrates why nothing you say is very believable.

C. As you say, you "had" to have a hysterectomy. That's why they're performed because women HAVE to have them. If you think they're a response to not wanting to get pregnant, you apparently have a lot to learn in this life.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229441
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think Angel cares much about that sort of 'inconvenience' either....
I'm not buying anything this girl says from FAS to having a hysterectomy. Definition of troll and liar to boot.

Since: Jul 10

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229442
Apr 19, 2013
 
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never had to HAVE an abortion, since I was lucky that my form of BC has never failed me. However, other women have not been so lucky, and YOU don't decide what "isn't right" for anyone but yourself. Additionally, a hysterectomy is only done for a compelling medical reason, so your last statement is rather absurd.
Bottom line; NO woman has to punish herself with lifetime celibacy because she doesn't want any (or more) children. I'm DONE with the whole procreation thing, I'm certainly not done having sex. Don't like it? Too bad.
or does not dare have anymore. and is unable to use any form of birth control.
.
and being celibate in a marriage punishes the spouse of the one who has to go thru it for medical reasons.
.
like she could be allergic to the spermacide used on condoms. or if she had cancer due to a pregnancy. things like birth control that uses estrogen can not be used.
.
and many other reasons.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229443
Apr 19, 2013
 
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not buying anything this girl says from FAS to having a hysterectomy. Definition of troll and liar to boot.
Yep.

Transparently so.

Since: Jul 10

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229444
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no. I'm not undergoing an invasive and expensive surgical procedure that btw is also NOT 100% EFFECTIVE.
Don't offer conjecture on things you do not know about. You don't know what most people do or don't do. You're speculating. I became pregnant twice while using birth control. And while I regret becoming pregnant despite the precautions I took, I am not and will never have my tubes tied.
having one's tubes tied does NOT mean that you will not get pregnant again.
.
heck, my brother's wife had her tubes tied after their second kid was born. but twelve years later, she found herself pregnant again. seems the egg found it's way thru one of the many holes that were left in her tubes.
.
same thing in a different way after some males have had the big V. because it was not done properly. they found themselves being daddies.
.
medical science is NOT a exact science. since everyone it is being done on is different.
Angel1976

Rockford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229445
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not buying anything this girl says from FAS to having a hysterectomy. Definition of troll and liar to boot.
You can believe your lies but God knows the truth because he created me to bring glory to Him. I could have been aborted God protected me so that other's will know the truth. The fact that I am what I am today in spite of my FAS proves God exists. So remember that when you face Him later.

Since: Jul 10

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229447
Apr 19, 2013
 
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
For a long time, they were. I do believe the Nazis sterilized people who were afflicted with learning disorders and I think they even did it in this country as well for a very long time. So miss Angel here very well could've fallen into those categories of forced sterilization.
there were laws on the books for sterilization of folks they did not consider able to take care of themselves. this included many on the autism spectrum.
.
now, about the links. any words right after the links, is from the site the link is to.
.
http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/ American eugenics refers inter alia to compulsory sterilization laws adopted by over 30 states that led to more than 60,000 sterilizations of disabled individuals. Many of these individuals were sterilized because of a disability: they were mentally disabled or ill, or belonged to socially disadvantaged groups living on the margins of society. American eugenic laws and practices implemented in the first decades of the twentieth century influenced the much larger National Socialist compulsory sterilization program, which between 1934 and 1945 led to approximately 350,000 compulsory sterilizations and was a stepping stone to the Holocaust. Even after the details of the Nazi sterilization program (as well as its role as a precursor to the "Euthanasia" murders) became more widely known after World War II (and which the New York Times had reported on extensively and in great detail even before its implementation in 1934), sterilizations in some American states did not stop. Some states continued to sterilize residents into the 1970s.
.
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/... Indiana enacted the first law allowing sterilization on eugenic grounds in 1907, with Connecticut following soon after. Despite these early statutes, sterilization did not gain widespread popular approval until the late 1920s.
.
in fact one set of the sterilization cases in America came to light when a Native American lady told folks about the forced abortions and sterilizations against the Native Americans in South Dakota.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229448
Apr 19, 2013
 
Angel1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can believe your lies but God knows the truth because he created me to bring glory to Him. I could have been aborted God protected me so that other's will know the truth. The fact that I am what I am today in spite of my FAS proves God exists. So remember that when you face Him later.
Utter bullshit.

This blather about God existing, and your FAS, and your hysterectomy, and your lack of Ella-ness....all bullshit.

Crawl back under whatever slimy rock you emerged from, troll.

“IMAGINE no religion!”

Since: Feb 09

usa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229449
Apr 19, 2013
 
Angel1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to have a hysterectomy three years ago and they took everything out and I have no health issues from that at all and I have never heard of any woman having issues because of it either.
oh dense one........just because you seem to be the exception to all the rules **rolls eyes**

doesn't mean it will be so for everyone else.

some women have no problems at all after having a total/partial hysterectomy. other women do.

as i stated yesterday.......i gave birth NATURALLY to an 11 lb baby.

other women can have a 6 lb baby and lots of complications. it just depends on the individual.
Angel1976

Rockford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229450
Apr 19, 2013
 
http://mlsp.co/cccyx For those of you who sat we can't guess what WE CAN!!!!!!

Since: Jul 10

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229452
Apr 19, 2013
 
Rick ln Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion worked for your mother.
my mom never had a abortion.
.
though she did end up with miscarrying one time in 1962
.
I'm the oldest of three born to my mom. and the oldest of two who managed to survive infancy. my brother died of SIDS in 1963. he was the second born of us.
.
abortions were not legal during the area of time when my mom was pregnant. I was 11 when the Roe vs Wade trial was given it's judgement.
LightForce

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229453
Apr 19, 2013
 
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't using my premise.
You are using YOURS.
Understand the difference. I do NOT advocate killing a human being outside the womb.
You, apparently, do.
That's YOUR premise.
What I mean is that morality is not a subjective opinion, which is what your premise was/is. Morality is always based on the moral rights of the person that you are inflicting your opinion upon. To put it another way, it may be my opinion that rape is OK, but the moral rights of the one being raped should take precedence over my opinion.

I do know your opinion regarding the rights of born children because youíve already pointed it out to me. But not surprisingly, it seems that now you are stating a different opinion than the one you gave earlier. Youíre about as flip-floppy as Sister Flippy.
LightForce

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229454
Apr 19, 2013
 
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it not understood. Our society takes away the right to life all the time. We are a nation with the death penalty and you're going to sit there and honestly tell me that our society upholds the right to life in every circumstance? It doesn't. We regard a right to life in certain circumstances. For example, you have the right to life IF you do not commit a crime that takes someone else's life. Then, you may no longer have the right to life.
Another example: you have the right to life IF you have a good job and great insurance. Otherwise, you may not have as much of a right to life over someone else who the health care industry or hospital deems more worthy than you.
There are many examples of how we negotiate the right to life. It is not inherent and we as a society choose which lives have rights. Same thing as abortion.
The fact that abortion adds quite a bit of validity to my argument. Your argument is that our society upholds the right to life. Our laws say otherwise.
This is incredible. Youíre arguing almost the exact same points that I was going to bring up. What you are saying is that a personís own rights should be limited when they infringe on the rights of somebody else. Yes. Life is the right that we hold as the most valuable, and protecting that right could at times involve limiting the rights of others. This is what we can also call self-defense.

Legal rights donít trump moral rights. It is always wrong to deny a personís moral rights whether it is legal to do so or not.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229455
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

27

26

25

Angel1976 wrote:
You can believe your lies but God knows the truth because he created me to bring glory to Him. I could have been aborted God protected me so that other's will know the truth. The fact that I am what I am today in spite of my FAS proves God exists. So remember that when you face Him later.
Oh PLEASE. You can believe whatever NONSENSE you want, but don't expect everyone else to go along. I'm not buying what you're trying to sell, and many others don't buy it either.

Motherhood is still OPTIONAL, not required, even if a pregnancy happens due to birth control failure. Basically, that means a woman can reject motherhood for ANY reason, whether you like that or not.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••