Comments
219,501 - 219,520 of 221,373 Comments Last updated 14 hrs ago

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230320
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
James 1:26
"If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless."
Her last post is just laughable. Why on EARTH she'd have any consideration about how far along I was when I had the abortion is beyond me.

And how she thinks she might "prove" that I was "lying" is beyond me.

If she was intelligent enough to look back in the posts, she'd see that I've stated I was six weeks to the day several times.

Unlike her, my posts are consistent.
LightForce

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230321
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

PRO-CHOICE QUIRKY QUOTES
We knew it all along, they just don’t usually come right out and say it.

1. British politician, Colin Brewer, who last year said that disabled children should be killed to save taxpayer money has now compared disabled children to deformed lambs that need to be culled. In an interview with none other than the Disability News Service, Brewer said that perhaps we should be treating disabled children like the runt of a litter of lambs which are often disposed of by smashing them against the wall.‘If they have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it,” he said.“They get rid of it. Bang.”

1. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel who acted as a special health advisor to President Obama, reportedly said in 1996:“Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”

Who judges who is a participant, I wonder? And how much participation is warranted for treatment?

3. New Hampshire’s Martin Harty, a freshman state legislator, resigned from office after saying he wished “defective people” could be exiled and left to die in Siberia.

4. Just a few years ago Supreme Court Justice Ruth Vader Ginsburg told the New York Times that “at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Two questions arise. Who is the “we” and who are those we don’t want to have too many of.

SEE MORE PRO-CHOICE VIEWS HERE:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/14/politician...

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230322
May 14, 2013
 
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
Lemme just cut off this bullshit right here. WHERE are you getting your information from? Is it a reliable source of government documented statistics? An NGO? Is it accredited?
I've been repeating over and over again how the book Freakonomics details that the plunge in crime in New York City was not due to Rudy Giuliani's modifications to the judicial system and the police forth, but rather because Roe vs. Wade drastically reduced the number of unwanted children that could've been born to poor mothers in rough neighbourhoods and grown up to be criminals. That is a book produced from the YEARS of research compounded by two economists.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/aborti...
The site even mentions how, contrary to what you postulate, rates of infanticide actually DROP if abortion is legal.
You, on the other hand, seem to be rather content by pulling out unsubstantiated claims from thin air (or more likely, your ass) because they're more in line with your personal beliefs than the reality that, yes, letting women have control over their OWN reproductive system is a positive thing. Show us WHERE it says that abortion leads to abuse, show us stats, show this through a link , instead of coming out with this bullshit.
Eugenics, huh? nice.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230323
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides managing to rather blatantly include racism in your argument despite the evidence supporting Freakonomics, you never once refute their arguments besides just calling them the product of "rich white men" who apparently wrote the book as an "anti minority" deterrent. Preposterous. Now, since you've failed to actually rebutt them as opposed to just insult them, I'll now go on to evaluate the sources you've chosen:

Besides having chosen from a periodical that is pro choice (haha!), you forget that despite presenting a good argument and alternative to the Donohue - Levitt hypothesis, it does not immediately discount it. Far from it. The infographics in the article show lead concentrations among neighbourhoods back in the day -- guess which ones had the most lead concentration? Poor, inner city areas. Which, of course, were very heavily represented by poor families...often with children, as cited by the article YOU posted. Not very nice to be forced to raise kids in a polluted, dangerous area, amirite?

Secondly, you forget that detractors have failed to even touch Donohue - Levitt;

"All of the decline in crime from 1985-1997 experienced by high abortion states relative to low abortion states is concentrated among the age groups born after Roe v. Wade. For people born before abortion legalization, there is no difference in the crime patterns for high abortion and low abortion states, just as the Donohue-Levitt theory predicts.
When we compare arrest rates of people born in the same state, just before and just after abortion legalization, we once again see the identical pattern of lower arrest rates for those born after legalization than before."

And to see how exactly the lead theory can actually support Donohue - Levitt:

"Let’s say that we are living in a world in which global warming is taking place, but also a world in which El Nino occasionally leads to radical, short run disruptions in normal weather patterns. You wouldn’t argue that global warming is false because for a year or two we had cold winters. You’d want to figure out what effect El Nino has on winter weather and then see whether controlling for El Nino it looks like global warming is taking place"

Don't you just love analogies?
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230324
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

(cont. response to LightForce)

Kudos to using gov't based statistics on this, and yet NO WHERE does ti say that a correlation between higher abortion rates and child abuse has been found. Rather:

" Despite the fact that only a rather gross index of family income was available, and despite a substantial percentage of cases with missing data on this factor, family income was significantly related to incidence rates in nearly every category of maltreatment. Compared to children whose families earned $30,000 per year or more, those in families with annual incomes below $15,000 per year were more than 22 times more likely to experience some form of maltreatment under the Harm Standard and over 25 times more likely to suffer maltreatment of some type using the Endangerment Standard[...]

Perpetrator's Relationship to the Child. The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (78%) were maltreated by their birth parents, and this held true both for children who were abused (62% were maltreated by birth parents) and for those who were neglected (91% experienced neglect by birth parents).

Although the NIS does not address the causes of abuse and neglect, it was striking how often illicit drug use was noted in the narrative descriptions on the NIS data forms. The increase in illicit drug use since the fall of 1986 when the NIS-2 data were collected may have contributed to the rise in incidence observed in the NIS-3. Economics is another factor that may have enlarged the problem. Family income is the strongest correlate of incidence in nearly all categories of abuse and neglect, with the lowest income families evidencing the highest rates of maltreatment. Increases in incidence since 1986 may partially derive from decreased economic resources among the poorer families and the increase in the number of children living in poverty.

Children from the poorest families are at the greatest risk of maltreatment, so these children may warrant increased CPS attention as well. Children in single-parent families also experienced higher rates of maltreatment."

Judging from the glaring contradictions seen in the gov't based stats, I can only infer that you only cherry picked instead of bothering to actually read the entire damn report.
LightForce

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230325
May 14, 2013
 
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
The above has been supported by evidence outlined in Freakonomics. So yeah, I'm pretty sure the citizens of New York were very, VERY happy enjoying their lowered crime rates as a result of less unwanted children growing up to become criminals.
The reduced use of leaded gasoline is the most probable cause of the lowered crime rates. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/0...

“Steaming hunk”

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230326
May 14, 2013
 
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
Even so, you did concede to calling pro choicers "murderers."
And I mention that precisely because pro choice is (almost always) a very liberal stance, a lot of people on these forums (which are like a breeding ground for crazies you only thought existed deep within Unplottable peaks and forests in Appalachia or the Bible Belt) immediately attack pro choicers as "complicit with the Communist agenda/worse than Hitler" so on and so forth. I do think Lightforce was the own that called one of us (either Kathryn or M) a Nazi and started that.
I have never called pro choice individuals murders in real life or on this bulletin board.

Never said you or or anyone are a communist or sympathizer and never said you or any pro choicer is a nazi. I pointed out similarities in ideology as a matter of historical fact.

Dr Wetzel's memo is a matter of historical public record. The nazis were all for abortion regarding anyone who is not aryan. They outlawed abortion for aryans and encourged large families with them.

They killed every enemy of the state that they could, killing homosexuals, intelligencia, anyone who did not fit thier particular paradigm. I don't thing you agree with all that.

Communists under Stalin were possibly even more barbaric, with thier "gulag"s. They would brand anybody a psychotic and banish them to the worst of all possible situations. I don't think you agree with that either.

So, you are not a nazi or a communist. I never said you are either, would not either. I have never called anyone who is pro choice a murderer or anything.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230327
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
The reduced use of leaded gasoline is the most probable cause of the lowered crime rates. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/0...
Here's the deal kiddo; just because it states that it's "the most probable" doesn't automatically cancel out the link between unwanted pregnancy and crime like you are trying to make the more gullible believe. Restating your side without bothering to refute mine is weak debating.

And I see you completely dropped your point about using the NIS stats, considering how they completely contradicted your point.

Write back once you've learned to actually debate.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230328
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never called pro choice individuals murders in real life or on this bulletin board.
Never said you or or anyone are a communist or sympathizer and never said you or any pro choicer is a nazi. I pointed out similarities in ideology as a matter of historical fact.
Dr Wetzel's memo is a matter of historical public record. The nazis were all for abortion regarding anyone who is not aryan. They outlawed abortion for aryans and encourged large families with them.
They killed every enemy of the state that they could, killing homosexuals, intelligencia, anyone who did not fit thier particular paradigm. I don't thing you agree with all that.
Communists under Stalin were possibly even more barbaric, with thier "gulag"s. They would brand anybody a psychotic and banish them to the worst of all possible situations. I don't think you agree with that either.
So, you are not a nazi or a communist. I never said you are either, would not either. I have never called anyone who is pro choice a murderer or anything.
Then why imply something when you say that [the pro choice] ideology is "essentially the same" as Nazis?

Abortion with the Nazis fit in entirely into eugenics and not as an issue for women's rights as the pro choice movement supports. Pro choice means giving the option to women to have complete control over their own reproductive systems and decide when they want to have a baby, or when they DON'T want a child born from rape, incest, or when she's too young to be a mother, cannot afford to be a mother or does not want to risk having a baby that could kill her while pregnant or suffer throughout his/her life because of birth defects.

Does that honestly seem like such a bad thing to you?

“Steaming hunk”

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230329
May 14, 2013
 
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why imply something when you say that [the pro choice] ideology is "essentially the same" as Nazis?
Abortion with the Nazis fit in entirely into eugenics and not as an issue for women's rights as the pro choice movement supports. Pro choice means giving the option to women to have complete control over their own reproductive systems and decide when they want to have a baby, or when they DON'T want a child born from rape, incest, or when she's too young to be a mother, cannot afford to be a mother or does not want to risk having a baby that could kill her while pregnant or suffer throughout his/her life because of birth defects.
Does that honestly seem like such a bad thing to you?
I point out the similarity because Dr Wetzel's memo points out the similarity.

Abortion IS wrong, and I will always state that. However, I do not condemn or judge anyone who disagrees with me or has had an abortion, that isn't right either.
LightForce

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230330
May 14, 2013
 
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides managing to rather blatantly include racism in your argument despite the evidence supporting Freakonomics, you never once refute their arguments besides just calling them the product of "rich white men" who apparently wrote the book as an "anti minority" deterrent. Preposterous. Now, since you've failed to actually rebutt them as opposed to just insult them, I'll now go on to evaluate the sources you've chosen:
Besides having chosen from a periodical that is pro choice (haha!), you forget that despite presenting a good argument and alternative to the Donohue - Levitt hypothesis, it does not immediately discount it. Far from it. The infographics in the article show lead concentrations among neighbourhoods back in the day -- guess which ones had the most lead concentration? Poor, inner city areas. Which, of course, were very heavily represented by poor families...often with children, as cited by the article YOU posted. Not very nice to be forced to raise kids in a polluted, dangerous area, amirite?
Secondly, you forget that detractors have failed to even touch Donohue - Levitt;
"All of the decline in crime from 1985-1997 experienced by high abortion states relative to low abortion states is concentrated among the age groups born after Roe v. Wade. For people born before abortion legalization, there is no difference in the crime patterns for high abortion and low abortion states, just as the Donohue-Levitt theory predicts.
When we compare arrest rates of people born in the same state, just before and just after abortion legalization, we once again see the identical pattern of lower arrest rates for those born after legalization than before."
And to see how exactly the lead theory can actually support Donohue - Levitt:
"Let’s say that we are living in a world in which global warming is taking place, but also a world in which El Nino occasionally leads to radical, short run disruptions in normal weather patterns. You wouldn’t argue that global warming is false because for a year or two we had cold winters. You’d want to figure out what effect El Nino has on winter weather and then see whether controlling for El Nino it looks like global warming is taking place"
Don't you just love analogies?
It sounds like you prefer to target poor/ghetto areas for your population control/eugenics.

As you mentioned, the effects of increased abortion on crime in general would not be realized until the 90’s when the children grew old enough to commit crimes, but since the increase of child abuse and neglect were realized immediately after the legalization of abortion, with both crimes being equal, using this analogy we can also cancel out abortion as the deterrent of overall crime. At the very least, the evidence shows that the crime of child abuse/neglect rose after RvW – even if you turned it upside down and looked at it sideways. By looking at two separate but equal examples rather than singling out just the one, the conclusion seems pretty cut-and-dried.

But regardless of whether or not killing poor people lowers crime or not, this whole argument of yours sounds like trying to legitimize the weeding out of “undesirables” just like the Nazi’s did. Thankfully most of us realize that this is not the best way to do things. We need to try and change society rather than kill children.

You can continue your efforts to find reasons to kill children, but I would say that the fluctuation in crime is more likely from the effects that using leaded gasoline had, and then the effects of removing it from use.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230331
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I point out the similarity because Dr Wetzel's memo points out the similarity.
Abortion IS wrong, and I will always state that. However, I do not condemn or judge anyone who disagrees with me or has had an abortion, that isn't right either.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, just because some disagree doesn't mean it's right for them to hamper the ability of women to procure an abortion.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230332
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LightForce wrote:
PRO-CHOICE QUIRKY QUOTES
We knew it all along, they just don’t usually come right out and say it.
1. British politician, Colin Brewer, who last year said that disabled children should be killed to save taxpayer money has now compared disabled children to deformed lambs that need to be culled. In an interview with none other than the Disability News Service, Brewer said that perhaps we should be treating disabled children like the runt of a litter of lambs which are often disposed of by smashing them against the wall.‘If they have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it,” he said.“They get rid of it. Bang.”
1. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel who acted as a special health advisor to President Obama, reportedly said in 1996:“Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”
Who judges who is a participant, I wonder? And how much participation is warranted for treatment?
3. New Hampshire’s Martin Harty, a freshman state legislator, resigned from office after saying he wished “defective people” could be exiled and left to die in Siberia.
4. Just a few years ago Supreme Court Justice Ruth Vader Ginsburg told the New York Times that “at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Two questions arise. Who is the “we” and who are those we don’t want to have too many of.
SEE MORE PRO-CHOICE VIEWS HERE:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/14/politician...
Yeah, none of that sounds like pro-CHOICE statements. They are instead the other side of YOUR faction. Those who wish to tell women what they MUST do when pregnant, rather than letting us make our OWN choices.
You are also, as always, mixing up wads of goo with born humans who have rights. Goo does not have any rights, babies and children and the women who bear them DO.
LightForce

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230333
May 14, 2013
 
The Advocate wrote:
(cont. response to LightForce)
Kudos to using gov't based statistics on this, and yet NO WHERE does ti say that a correlation between higher abortion rates and child abuse has been found. Rather:
" Despite the fact that only a rather gross index of family income was available, and despite a substantial percentage of cases with missing data on this factor, family income was significantly related to incidence rates in nearly every category of maltreatment. Compared to children whose families earned $30,000 per year or more, those in families with annual incomes below $15,000 per year were more than 22 times more likely to experience some form of maltreatment under the Harm Standard and over 25 times more likely to suffer maltreatment of some type using the Endangerment Standard[...]
Perpetrator's Relationship to the Child. The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (78%) were maltreated by their birth parents, and this held true both for children who were abused (62% were maltreated by birth parents) and for those who were neglected (91% experienced neglect by birth parents).
Although the NIS does not address the causes of abuse and neglect, it was striking how often illicit drug use was noted in the narrative descriptions on the NIS data forms. The increase in illicit drug use since the fall of 1986 when the NIS-2 data were collected may have contributed to the rise in incidence observed in the NIS-3. Economics is another factor that may have enlarged the problem. Family income is the strongest correlate of incidence in nearly all categories of abuse and neglect, with the lowest income families evidencing the highest rates of maltreatment. Increases in incidence since 1986 may partially derive from decreased economic resources among the poorer families and the increase in the number of children living in poverty.
Children from the poorest families are at the greatest risk of maltreatment, so these children may warrant increased CPS attention as well. Children in single-parent families also experienced higher rates of maltreatment."
Judging from the glaring contradictions seen in the gov't based stats, I can only infer that you only cherry picked instead of bothering to actually read the entire damn report.
You’re still trying to legitimize the population control of the poor by focusing on economic reasons for child abuse/neglect.

The fact is that child abuse/neglect actually rose after RvW regardless of whether most of the abusers were rich or poor, black or white, parent or caretaker. This shows that RvW was not a deterring factor.

We should try to change society rather than kill children.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230334
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
You’re still trying to legitimize the population control of the poor by focusing on economic reasons for child abuse/neglect.
The fact is that child abuse/neglect actually rose after RvW regardless of whether most of the abusers were rich or poor, black or white, parent or caretaker. This shows that RvW was not a deterring factor.
We should try to change society rather than kill children.
"Increases in incidence since 1986 may partially derive from decreased economic resources among the poorer families and the increase in the number of children living in poverty."

How about, since we're talking about changing society, rather than 'killing children'....we talk about reducing poverty rates, implementing frank, thorough, and comprehensive sex education AT HOME and in school, increasing public subsidy of contraception, and encouraging growth in well-paid employment opportunities...

And how come we never hear you advocate for any of that, while instead, you favor advising one half of the sexually active folks on the planet to keep our legs closed or pay the consequences???????

Since: Jul 10

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230335
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
You’re still trying to legitimize the population control of the poor by focusing on economic reasons for child abuse/neglect.
The fact is that child abuse/neglect actually rose after RvW regardless of whether most of the abusers were rich or poor, black or white, parent or caretaker. This shows that RvW was not a deterring factor.
We should try to change society rather than kill children.
actually rates never really changed. except that folks started to report it more often.
.
one way of neglect was when America had orphanages. was to throw the unwanteds in those places.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230336
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
Her last post is just laughable. Why on EARTH she'd have any consideration about how far along I was when I had the abortion is beyond me.
And how she thinks she might "prove" that I was "lying" is beyond me.
If she was intelligent enough to look back in the posts, she'd see that I've stated I was six weeks to the day several times.
Unlike her, my posts are consistent.
Liar!! Thats not what you told me on the phone.Unlike me your posts are lies.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230337
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text> Liar!! Thats not what you told me on the phone.Unlike me your posts are lies.
No, that's exactly what I told you on the phone. And I've posted it on line and you didn't ever question or correct it when I used the same phrase "six weeks to the day." I even mentioned how the nurse told the doctor I was just six weeks pregnant so that he would be careful about removing the entire embryo.

Keep trying to discredit me LIPpy. All it does it make you look like the wrinkled old harridan you are, not to mention psychotic and obsessive.
LightForce

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230338
May 15, 2013
 
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who suffered any pain? Certainly not the fetus. They cannot feel anything, so your logic is wrong on that one...as usual.
Your logic also fails in saying anything about being killed to prevent crime. Those kids in particular didn't kill anyone to prevent crime, so...?
But it's a nice attempt at deflection.
At nine weeks more than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones. The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.

At ten weeks all parts of the brain and spinal cord are formed. The heart pumps blood to every part of the body. The whole body is sensitive to touch except for portions of the head. The preborn human makes facial expressions.

Be informed, not just opinionated: http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp

Who decides who might kill who if we’re going to make a predetermination to kill certain individuals in order save the lives of others at a later date? It sounds to me like you would just like to control the population of the current "poor", or "undesirables" in our society.
LightForce

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230339
May 15, 2013
 
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
If your life was threatened by your wife beating on your or trying to harm you with some kind of tool that would cause you serious harm or death, yes, you do have a moral right to hit her.
So now you understand what "moral rights" are.

If she is not endangering my life, would I have any valid reason to beat her? How about if it’s legal to do so?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

417 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 min Le_le 599,043
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Hidingfromyou 720,138
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 min HipGnozizzz 172,251
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min RoSesz 532,396
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 14 min End of Church Ages 32,919
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 27 min HasbhaRAT Trolls Biffers 37,597
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 32 min HasbhaRAT Trolls Biffers 114,973
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 42 min Dr_Zorderz 256,380
Game of Thrones Ebook Download Free [PDF] (Feb '13) 4 hr John 53
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••