emaa wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:24 PM:
" Also:
1) The "partial-birth" abortion ban does NOT ban performing abortions; it only sets the standard for performing the procedure (a first for politicians dictating the medical standard of care). It bans intact delivery and mandates dismemberment of the fetus before delivery.
2) "Life begins at conception" only if sperm and egg are dead tissue. Also, fertilization forms a bunch of totipotent cells, each of each might eventually, if proper conditions are met, develop into an individual. Oh, and have I mentioned that the fertilized egg contains the precursor tissue for the placenta?
3) Hospitals/doctors/etc. are monopolies. You try operating a hospital or practicing medicine without a license granted by the State and see what happens. Second, taking ECP to prevent a pregnancy is the medical standard of care. Medicine is practiced according to the [scientific] standard of care not personal belief. "
emaa wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:20 PM:
" Fox is right. Publishing propaganda, even as an ad, jeopardizes any paper's credibility.
ECP (Plan B) is NOT a "powerful, high dose of steroids." It's only one hormone, levonorgestrel (a progestin).
No evidence ECP "can cause chemical abortions". Established ECP mechanism of action is prevention of ovulation. No evidence for prevention of fertilization, but cannot r/o. No evidence for prevention of implantation [and no way to tell if fertilized egg floating about is aborted naturally (as the majority of fertilized eggs are), or if ECP played a role.]
ECP does NOT cause "deadly blood clots." No known major side effects, like DVTs, are associated with ECP use. In fact, patients who are contraindicated for Pill use can use ECP.
Just because it's an ad doesn't mean it's OK to lie about medical facts. Actually, it's never OK to lie about medical facts.
"
notme wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:58 PM:
" I wonder if the paper will run our ad advocating for a day of silent protest.
We are organizing a day whereby the students will be encouraged to come to class wearing an empty holster on their hip as a silent protest sending the message that all rights, including the right to bear arms, are equally important.
Feel free to contact us at support.the.2nd@gmail.com
"
Katie wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:19 PM:
" Prolife Across America spreading B.S about birth control! Can you imagine that?! "
concern wrote on Mar 15, 2008 5:07 PM:
" A local paper accused of censoring a message? Can you imagine that! "
tax justice wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:26 AM:
" UW-L does not run ads for bars or to promote alcohol. It was a highly debated decision based on the horrific consequences of alcohol abuse. In addition, the Racquet has also had many, many articles on the connection between the overuse of alcohol and ways to pro actively prevent the tragic consequences of alcohol misuse, including rape and pregnancy. If anything, the paper has taken a stand against one of single greatest reasons that people end up in situations where emergency contraception is used. If Pro-Live Wisconsin ever read the Racquet they would understand that the best defense against the use of contraception is prevention. What shred of evidence is there that indicates that these negative ads stop more women from taking emergency contraception than being turned off and disgusted by the ads, therefore choosing to take contraception? Please provide scientific, peer review evidence that your ads work. "
Anna Banana wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:34 PM:
" You do NOT have to be an assault victim to have access to this pill. Funny but your post almost sounded like you don't believe they are actually being assaulted.....how typical. And one last point, my mother IS pro-choice but not because she would have ever made the choice to have an abortion but she also did not want to be the one to make the choice for others. I am pro-choice also and have two wonderful children. Being pro-choice does not mean you are choosing to have an abortion - it means you are choosing to respect other's rights to make decisions for themselves. "
Anna Banana wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:25 PM:
" If you believe that life begins at conception then your comments against the morning after pill are flawed because what is does is PREVENT conception. That is the point of it and why it is the best option for those who have been sexually assaulted. Many of them are struggling with deep feelings of guilt - which they should not be but that is human nature. This pill provides them the opportunity concentrate on their physical and emotional recovery without having to add one more thing to their struggle. Where is your compassion for these women? "
ezzee wrote on Mar 14, 2008 5:58 PM:
" How many other "truths" of the Constitution are not revealed? Let's think about this for a moment? No where does it say that the USA is a democracy, but everyone says it is. No where int he constitution does it say that we have the right to vote, but everyone thinks we do. It says we have the right to free speech, but do we really? It says that any power not given to the federal government or prohibited by the states are given to the states, but are they really? So many "truths," but so little reality. "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 4:34 PM:
" Half Full, you are technically correct. You didn't really call anyone a name so I should have written that you used vituperation in your language when you wrote, "screw over children by cutting programs for the poor." Regardless, your comments where neither constructive nor correct. Why are you so angry at the prospect of having the truth of the Constitution being revealed? "...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." "
Half Full wrote on Mar 14, 2008 4:28 PM:
" mullman71- First I didn't call anyone any names. You and MK are certainly entitled to your opinions. But really after 35 years you think a law is going to be overturned? I will believe it right after prohibition comes back. Got go have a beer! See ya. "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 4:10 PM:
" Half Full, you are wrong. First, name calling doesn't advance your cause. It cheapens it. Second, abortion will not be legal forever. Eventually judges will be appointed who will see the errors in today's precedence and Roe v. Wade will be overturned in an effort to bring out the truth in the Constitution: "...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." "
Half Full wrote on Mar 14, 2008 4:03 PM:
" MK-"just because something is legal doesn't make it right or us who are against abortion wrong". Nice line. You are wrong, it doesn't matter what your you think. Abortion has been legal for 35 years and will be forever. Get over it. I love how Pro Life people vote for a Pro Life candidate. What good does it do? Nothing changed with the abortion laws for 35 years. Plus the Pro Life candidate does everything they can to screw over children by cutting programs for the poor. They care about the kids before they are born but after they are born they are on their own. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 4:02 PM:
" mullman71: You are more than welcome, and I look forward to the next time we can meet online to exchange thoughts and opinions once again. "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:55 PM:
" Casual Observer, my pleasure. I wish more people would learn to disagree in a respectful way. Expressing our opinions doesn't have to mean vitriol and name calling and I thank you for the good exchange. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:49 PM:
" mullman71: And I can agree with your point. As I stated, I am merely playing the "devil's advocate" in regards to this discussion, as I could not personally choose to have an abortion. I don't look down upon or judge those who would choose to do so, as that is their choice (at least for now) but it is not the decision I would make for myself. THANK YOU (seriously) for the exchange of ideas/viewpoints/etc in a friendly and non-judgemental manner. All too often, discussions like this can assume a very nasty and personal note. "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:42 PM:
" Casual Observer, I see your point but I disagree. I believe the Founding Fathers used the word posterity because it does not place the kinds of limits that you seek. It is designed to be an open ended inclusion for all Americans until the nation ends or the Constitution is amended to sunset our rights (I pray that neither occurs). I believe they wanted to ensure that liberty would exist forever. Frankly, it saddens me that anyone would choose to limit liberty in such a way that you suggest. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:30 PM:
" mullman71: I guess what I'm trying to say is the concept of "posterity" is very gray. For me (just playing devil's advocate, ok?) there is no difference between the unfertilized eggs I carry as a woman and a group of non-independently viable cells. Neither are "future Americans" in my eyes, therefore it is not possible for me to deny them the constitutional right to the pursuit of Liberty. A viable fetus, child, adolescent (etc, you get the picture I'm sure)is the embodiment of "posterity." That's the distinction I'm attempting to make, but I'm not sure if it's working. "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:21 PM:
" Casual Observer, correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you are trying to put a specific time line around when posterity begins. The problem is that none exists and that is why I keep stating the irrelevance of the question. My main point, as I stated before, is that anyone who chooses abortion is denying the blessings of liberty to a future American and that is un-Constitutional. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:05 PM:
" mullman71: I think, at this point, I will just let it go. It seems I cannot clarify what I am trying to say in a manner that's understandable in relation to this issue (I mean no insult by that statement). I see your point, and only wish I could state mine a little more clearly. PICKLESPLEASE: I'm sorry. I didn't realize there was a limit to the number of posts you are allowed in order to have a discussion here. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:00 PM:
" MULLMAN AND CASUAL OBSERVER! sheesh, sorry to interrupt but it does not take 20 posts to make a valid argument. enough already. we heard you! "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:56 PM:
" Casual Observer, I think you're missing the point. Life is not relevant to the wording in the Constitution. To be included in "our posterity" does not require an individual to be living. It covers all future Americans regardless of their life status. Again, anyone who chooses abortion is willfully denying the blessings of liberty to a future American. That is un-Constitutional according to the language that is written in the current document. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:51 PM:
" mullman71: But at what point does the developing group of cells attain the status of "future American?" That is what I am trying to distinguish. The theory of l"ife begins at conception" would state that the status is attained at the moment of conception. The theory of "life begins at the point of viability" would indicate that termination prior to that point in time does not deny the right to liberty, as the status of "future american" has not been attained yet. "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:45 PM:
" Casual Observer, anyone who chooses abortion is willfully denying a future American the blessings of liberty. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:38 PM:
" mullman71: OK, I'll agree with that. If, for the sake of argument, my personal ideological beliefs tell me that life does not "begin" until a fetus is viable (and like I said, this is simply for the sake of argument), why does that make my decision (should I make that, as an individual)to terminate my pregnancy prior to that point unconstitutional and un-American? There is no distinction found within that document stating at what point of fetal development the developing fetus is considered "alive," and therefore guaranteed the right to the pursuit of liberty under the constitution. (Please keep in mind I am asking these questions in the hopes of engaging in an intelligent, meaningful discussion/debate/examination of facts vs personal feelings/beliefs. It is not my intent to offend, but rather to encourage open-minded discussion of a highly volatile topic) "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:31 PM:
" Casual Observer, no, I don't think remaining childless is a violation of the Constitution. I would be extremely surprised if anyone felt that way. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:20 PM:
" mullman71: And just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that life does begin at birth. That verdict is still out. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:14 PM:
" mullman71: Please answer me this, then. If I choose to abstain from having children, is that not the same thing as terminating a pregnancy before the fetus is viable? Either way, I am denying "future generations" the pursuit of Liberty, am I not? "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:09 PM:
" PicklesPlease, you don't believe the words in the Constitution? How sad, but, you're free to remain wrong. God Bless America. "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:07 PM:
" Casual Observer, after re-reading your post I can't help but get the feeling that you are attempting to water down or even re-define the word posterity. When life begins is totally irrelevant when you understand that the word means ALL future generations. Even if life begins at birth as you suggest, our posterity includes all future Americans even if they are born 1000 years from now. The definition of posterity does not limit the time frame. It is all future generations. In the context of the U.S. Constitution that means all future Americans from now until either the end of our nation or an amendment of the Constitution to eliminate the word posterity. Either way, when life begins is irrelevant. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:07 PM:
" mullman71, the irony is that, although I personally disbelive everything in your post, I respect your right to belive it and live your life according to such (legal) beliefs. God Bless America and our rights! "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:00 PM:
" Casual Observer, you have just illuminated the brilliance of the Founding Fathers. When they worded our Constitution to grant our posterity with the blessings of liberty they knew exactly what they were doing. They were guaranteeing the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to all future Americans whether they are alive today, tomorrow, a decade from today, or a century from today. They wanted all Americans to live free. So, until America is no more or the Constitution is amended to clarify when posterity ends, we must follow the law as it is currently written which means that every future American from now until eternity is guaranteed those rights. Or, do you support a sunset of those rights? "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:52 PM:
" ezzee, I disagree. I believe the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was inaccurate and totally ignored the wording of the Constitution in order to promote a certain agenda. Eventually, judges will be appointed who will see the truth of what is written in the Constitution and the fallacy of the precedent that has been set and Roe v. Wade will be overturned as a result. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:49 PM:
" mullman71: I apologize for my misconception. And I do think that my "questioning" about when life begins is legitimate and actually applies to your arguement of Constitutional Right to liberty. In order to "guarantee" liberty to all future generations, I would think that the first step would be to determine "when" exactly that future generation is deemed to exist? I have found nothing in the Constitution that states specifically what our forefathers considered to be the threshold of "life." "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:45 PM:
" Forgot the word not in my second to last post "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:43 PM:
" Many late term abortions were still occurring until just recently when President Bush signed the partial birth abortion bill. Are these pictures made up? No they are a sad reality of how two faced Americans have become. We claim to be humanitarians when it comes to helping the Hmong (view the posts on that story if you haven't already)yet look the other way when millions of unborn defenseless children are killed each year. The last statistic I read was that America was at about 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. We find the genocide that took place during WWII tragic (which it was) yet we have aloud the killing of more people than all of Nazi Germany combined. "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:37 PM:
" PicklesPlease-so you weren't a person when you too were that same pea sized glob of flesh as you so elegantly state it? The only nut jobs around here are people who are stupid enough to assume that those pea size globs of flesh are humans in the process of development. Where is the love folks? Are your hearts so harden that you have convinced yourselves these "globs" aren't human? It makes me weak in the knees to read such commentary. "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:32 PM:
" Get Real-just because something is legal doesn't make it right or us who are against abortion wrong. I suppose than the Indian Removal Act adopted by President Jackson was right because it was law, or in Germany laws instituted by Hitler and his regime limiting the rights of people based on their ethnicity was right because it was law. Use your brain before you say such stupid things. "
ezzee wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:30 PM:
" Mullman, while you are corrent in what you are saying, the Supreme Court, which is set up to interpret laws and decide upon constitutionality has ruled in the fact that abortion does not violate the constitution, so your argument is moot. "
ezzee wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:28 PM:
" Let me first start by saying that I am pro-life. However, just because I am pro-life does not mean that it is the governments or any other persons right to tell a person what to do in this instance. As a true conservative, not a neo-con or religious conservative, I believe that government has no right to tell us what to do, and in this case, I believe that the government should not be telling us what is right or wrong. The issue of when life begins has not been proven, unless you argue that all cells are alive, which means that you are performing abortion/murder any time you masturbate as a male or go through a cycle without becoming impregnated as a female. Scientist do say that cells are alive, but that doesn't mean they are a human. "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:23 PM:
" Casual Observer, your assumption is wrong. My point is that the wording of the Constitution states that future Americans are supposed to be guaranteed the same rights that we have today. It is irrelevant when a future American is conceived because the Constitution is written to grant ALL future Americans (posterity) the "blessings of liberty." It is my opinion that your argument about when life begins is a straw man that is being used to deflect attention away from the un-Constitutional nature of the pro-choice movement. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:50 PM:
" mk, by your comments 'Earl why do the photos concern you so much? They are just showing the realities of abortion?' I would have to assume that you truly no very little about the abortion process. Graphic mutilated babies are not the reality at all. Almost all abortions done in a clinic setting are done between the 6th and 8th week of pregnancy via the removal of a pea sized glob of cells, despite what the nut jobs told you. Some people think the blob is a person. THAT is for you to decide for yourself but fact is, you will NEVER decide it for me. "
PicklesPlease wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:44 PM:
" pfrancis, do you realize that there are far more deaths during pregnancy/labor than there are deaths caused by birth control methods. Yes, mother nature indeed. "
Get Real wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:17 PM:
" Pro-lifers you are wrong about abortion. The law of our country says it is legal. No matter what you or I believe the Supreme Court ruled it is legal. Obviously the ruling which is says:
"The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb". So it doesn't matter what anyone thinks until the law changes and I won't hold my breath on that one. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:51 AM:
" mullman71: Your point, I'm assuming, is based on the idea that life begins at conception, correct? "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:42 AM:
" mk: Just because I am alive does not necessarily mean my "life" began at the moment of conception. This debate in itself is so wrapped up religious ideology vs science that I highly doubt that a consensus will ever be reached. For those that do not adhere to your particular religious ideology, does that make their belief of when life "begins" any less valid? Not as far as I can tell. So until we can remove religion from this debate entirely, there will never be an "answer" to that question. "
mullman71 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:39 AM:
" Quoted from the Constitution: "...and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." For those who may not be aware, "posterity" is all future generations. Now, given this wording, it is UN-constitutional for anyone to deny the blessings of liberty to future generations of Americans. That includes the future Americans who may be growing in the womb. Pro-Choice is un-American and un-Constitutional. "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:39 AM:
" I'm sorry for the name calling but look at what you're saying. Do you honestly need scientists to verify the obvious for you. You would not be alive had you not been conceived. "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:35 AM:
" Mr. Miagi-I have often thought how I would react if my wife or daughter was raped. It would be a tragedy beyond description. But I am a firm believer that two wrongs never make a right. How does killing a baby relieve anyone of the tragedy of the rape itself? Will taking this pill comfort the friends, family, and most importantly the woman who suffered from the rape? Yes I know you'll shoot back that the child will be a constant reminder of the event. I beg to differ. Children are a gift from God that bring challenges into a persons life (believe me I'm a father of 2) but most importantly highlight what love is all about. . "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:28 AM:
" mk: I beg your pardon, but is name calling necessary? Not once have I stooped to that level, and I would ask the same of you in return. Simply because I asked for scientific documentation to support a statement that is highly ambiguous as well as highly debatable does not make me an "idiot." "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:26 AM:
" mk: While I do agree that the option should be available, I also agree with you in respect to the fact that certain hospitals are founded on religious principles that directly contradict this mandate. Perhaps if some sort of "alternative" could be offered by these hospitals (reference to a different hospital or provider that will prescribe/dispense said drug)this issue could be resolved, or at least a compromise could be reached? I'm just suggesting alternative actions for those hospitals whose doctrines are based upon religious beliefs, as I support their "system" just as I support a "non-religious" hospital "system." "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:26 AM:
" Casual Observer-you must be an idiot. I suppose you supported Bill Clinton when he questioned what the definition of is is. Life begins at conception, when else would it? When we start to knit pick and dissect easy to answer questions we begin to confuse ourselves even more. For many who ponder the question of when does life begin the answers change from time to time to satisfy what the questioner wants to hear. A common argument pro-choicers use is that its not living because it can't survive on its own. Just because a fetus cannot survive on its own from 1 month to lets say 6 months doesn't make it less human. Could a 1 year old survive without the love and care of its parents. "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:17 AM:
" Drael-what you fail to understand is that under newly signed Wisconsin law all hospitals have to provide this service whether they want to or not. Hospitals are private enterprises. Taking the morning after pill is not a life or death issue. We supposedly live in a free market economy where as consumers we are able to choose where we want to spend our money. Aren't businesses then given the same rights to provide their would be customers with the goods and services they wish. Franciscan Skemp is a Catholic hospital founded by religious and under its bi-laws are supposed to adhere to Catholic Doctrine. Why should it be illegal for them to say no to a woman asking for the pill? What's stopping them from hopping in their car and going to a competitor if they so wish? "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:15 AM:
" Another typo, sorry. Meant to say "substantiate" this claim. "
Teiresias wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:11 AM:
" Fishing stops a beating heart. "
Teiresias wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:10 AM:
" Fishing stops a beathing heart/ "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 11:04 AM:
" mommydearest: Please provide me with resources that I can peruse that will sustantiate this claim. To my knowledge, no cut-and-dried definition of "when life begins" has ever been established. There are biological events that occur at the time of fertilization, but I'm unaware of any research/studies that have proven that at that moment, life "begins." This is where the whole debate begins. "
Drael wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:56 AM:
" I don't understand why mention of birth control or emergency contraception always turns into a big abortion debate. Contraception isn't abortion-it prevents the need for abortion if the child isn't wanted. As for hospitals providing E.C.-yes, it is something that needs to be available. MK-hospitals are there to provide medical services. If a woman needs protection, it's the medical duty of a hospital to provide it, regardless of personal moral issues. "
racquetalum wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:51 AM:
" Did Pro-Life Wisconsin truly want to bring an important message to students before they leave for spring break? If so, maybe they should have listened to the newspaper's concern about the factual innacuracy contained in the ad (emergency contraception doesn't contain steroids, they contain hormones, other claims are debatable) They could have edited their ad and still reached their target audience before spring break. Instead they chose to issue press releases about censorship. The Racquet has not said they will not run the ad, but the pre-spring break window is now closed. Timely reminders about the consequences of lapses in judgement might help students. Shouting censorship under these circumstances causes me to question Pro-Life Wisconsin's motives. "
mommydearest wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:15 AM:
" Life begins at conception. When a sperm joins an egg the conception takes place and the cells start to divide forming a human fetus, that is when life begins. So, life begins at conception. If the conception does not take place then there is no life. You can split hairs all you want and say, well it is not a recognizable form of life. If you follow that argument, then I guess you can justify about anything. Again, I say, I am glad that OUR mothers were pro-life because if they were not, you and I would not be having this debate. We would have been in the medical waste bin a long time ago! "
mr. miagi wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:13 AM:
" For the people on here that are pro-life, hypotheticaly speaking, if your daughter or someone close to you was the victim of a sexual assault, would you feel the same way? It is not a black and white issue, there are grey areas when it comes to different situations. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:50 AM:
" I beg to differ....when DOES life begin? At conception? At birth? When an unborn child is at a developmental stage where they would be able to survive outside the womb? I'm not misrepresenting anything, and I'm fully aware of the "horrors" of abortion. Since science and the law cannot reach a consensus regarding when life "begins," it does indeed come down to "beliefs," whether we want to admit that or not. "
mommydearest wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:39 AM:
" When life begins is NOT a belief, it is a scientific fact. Hmmm, lets misrepresent so we can feel comfortable and justify our belief. Why do you have to misrepresent? Why do you have to hide the horrors of abortion? Yes, you have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. Aren't we both glad that our mothers were pro-life? "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:30 AM:
" Murder is murder, yes, but in all actuality, this debate boils down to when life "begins." And THAT is an individual belief. You honestly expect me to believe that pro-choicers are the only ones who feel this debate is about "beliefs"? Then why do I see just as animated protests from pro-lifers? Because of their "beliefs." "
advocate wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:27 AM:
" Does this surpise anyone? These types of college publications can become propoganda wagons subject to the whims of the incumbant editor and staff. These are people that probably dream of working for the Times or the Post day. At lesat those other pubs aren't funded by tax dollars--yet. "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:25 AM:
" This issue is not about what you believe. All of us typing here are lucky that we had loving mothers willing to deliver us. I'm not forcing my beliefs done anyones throat. Thats the problem with people who support abortion. They think its about beliefs, they think that people like me are forcing our beliefs on them. As a society we have laws that say murder is illegal. Are these babies any less human than you or I. If you say yes it is your thinking that is backwards not mine. Murder is murder anyway you hash it. "
mommydearest wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:22 AM:
" You know it's funny, most abortion advocates are against the death sentence for convicted murderers. I guess it just says all the way around that pro-abortion people are for murder. Or, they would rather kill babies than adults who kill.
Yes, it's graphic, but you ARE killing babies. If the truth hurts, oh well. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:53 AM:
" Ooops-typo, sorry. Meant to say "make that decision for others." My apologies. "
Casual Observer wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:52 AM:
" While personally, I could not choose to have an abortion, it is not my right to make that decision for hours. Whether you believe life begins at conception or birth is your choice, but regardless, please don't attempt to force your beliefs and morals down my throat. I do not tell you how to live your life, so please do not "assume" the right to tell me, or any other woman, how to live theirs. Should the prospective father (non-rape pregnancies, of course) have a say? Yes. But that opens up a whole different debate. And as for the "graphic pictures" shown by Pro-Life folks at rallies? I deal with medical emergencies all the time-it doesn't "bother me" so to speak, but I sure as hell don't want my nieces and nephews seeing images like that when we're out and about spending time together. "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:44 AM:
" Does it sicken you to see Holocaust and Genocide pictures from World War II? I sure hope it does. Just because the reality exists does that mean we avoid it at all costs and turn our backs to it because it makes us slightly ill? Imagine if we had the same attitude your exhibiting in the 1940's? Jews, Catholics, and Slavic people would no longer exist. "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:38 AM:
" Earl why do the photos concern you so much? They are just showing the realities of abortion? Does it sicken you to see the crimes being made against humanity? "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:37 AM:
" I would be very interested to find out just how many women or girls you take this morning after pill were truly sexually assaulted. Will the police be notified by hospitals that a crime took place, so an investigation can be conducted, and an arrest made? Or will some women come in claiming a sexual assault when it was really consensual and the would be father is left out in the cold regarding this decision? Oh yeah thats right the father has no say in matters like this do they, you "left wing nut jobs" "
Earl wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:28 AM:
" Congrats to publications with standards high enough to keep these fanatics out of print. We need to shut these people down. They are the same freaks that stand on the side of the road with graphic photos trying to scare us into relating to their philosophy. These people need to get a life and let me live mine. They truly are idiots with a cause. "
mk wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:20 AM:
" Excuse us "religious right wing nut jobs" for standing up for the rights of those who can't stand up for themselves, the Unborn. The bill signed by Gov. Doyle yesterday is as unconstitutional as a law can be. Making hospitals (which happen to be private businesses) provide the morning after pill even if it is clearly against their moral standings is against the law. How many of you would be screaming bloody murder if our state passed a bill requiring your own business to do something that it clearly stands against. Its sad how anti-life Americans have become, we cringe at the sight of Holocaust pictures yet permit the daily murder of thousands of children as if nothing happens. "
mr. miagi wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:47 AM:
" All of you right wing nut jobs need to open your eyes! If your daughter had been sexually assaulted, you would not want her to have the option to not have that child?! Get off of your religious high horse and look at the big picture. "
Pfrancis wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:40 AM:
" Anything that is anti-life is EVIL and will eventually harm the person...birth control pills are in that category...
Throw common sense out the window and Mother Nature will bite you everytime...
"
Drael wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:25 AM:
" shoot it cut me off. Going off of what I quoted below, I would like to know where the people who created this ad got their "facts". Emergency contraception should always be available for those who need it. Ill-informed scare tactics to try and prevent its usage due to a moral superiority complex-that's absolutley ridiculous. Let people make their own decisions. "
Drael wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:21 AM:
" “emergency contraception is a powerful, high dose of steroids that tricks a woman’s body into thinking it is pregnant” and can cause “chemical abortions and deadly blood clots.” "
Yellow media watch wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:04 AM:
" LOL...the Trib printing a story on censorship..LOL "
Advertisement
