Democrats vs Pregnant Women (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

ljmac -> Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 1:04:45 AM)

...and their babies

Pro-lifers like me are repeatedly accused of caring only about changing laws, as if legally protecting human beings was a bad thing. You must wait for hearts and minds to change. You only want to condemn people. You don't care about troubled women. Blah, blah, blah...

As someone who is very much in touch with Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), I know that Democrats are the opponents of these organizations that try to help women give birth to a live child. In NY, former govenor Elliot Spitzer (D) led the way. Now that they're in power in Congress, abortion loving Democrats (Are there any others?) are attempting to use the same thankfully failed strategy to put CPCs out of business.

NJ Democrat Robert Menendez is the (bloody) point man.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3833.html



SonInMe1 -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 8:11:52 AM)

Thing is....like gays wanting marriage rights, there already is a law on the books concerning abortion. Its called...murder.

We don't need more laws...we need people to know...its a baby and if you want to kill a baby, then I would suggest some serious mental examinations.



WhiteRoseBlessings -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 8:16:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

Now that they're in power in Congress, abortion-loving Democrats (Are there any others?) . . .
Yes, actually, there are Democrats who are not "abortion-loving".


Please do not generalize.


I'm not a registered Democrat, but I know people who are and who, like me, are very much pro-life and very much anti-abortion.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 9:25:25 AM)

Is there any way we can institute some sort of rule limiting new abortion threads (or any thread on a certain subject) to two per poster per week and have the mods delete all other new threads on that topic by that person?



rcjames -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 10:04:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

Is there any way we can institute some sort of rule limiting new abortion threads (or any thread on a certain subject) to two per poster per week and have the mods delete all other new threads on that topic by that person?


Why, does free speech, or trying to save the innocent lives of choldren bother you?

Thanks
RC



rcjames -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 10:06:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteRoseBlessings

Yes, actually, there are Democrats who are not "abortion-loving".

Please do not generalize.

I'm not a registered Democrat, but I know people who are and who, like me, are very much pro-life and very much anti-abortion.


And are these folks going to vote for Obama or Clinton for president?

That does just not compute.

Thanks
RC



WhiteRoseBlessings -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 10:23:45 AM)

RC, I frankly don't know who they're going to vote for.

Additionally, just because someone is a registered voter of a specific party doesn't mean that they automatically adhere to or agree with all of that party's' philosophies or ideologies. THAT was my point. The OP asked, whether seriously or facetiousely, if there were any other kind of democrats other than those who are "abortion-loving". My post was in reply to that.



Random -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 11:40:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

Is there any way we can institute some sort of rule limiting new abortion threads (or any thread on a certain subject) to two per poster per week and have the mods delete all other new threads on that topic by that person?


Why, does free speech, or trying to save the innocent lives of choldren bother you?

Thanks
RC


I don't know what bothers who, but we do have rules about duplicate threads. If there are multiple threads on the same topic, some of them will get locked.



ljmac -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 11:58:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Random

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

Is there any way we can institute some sort of rule limiting new abortion threads (or any thread on a certain subject) to two per poster per week and have the mods delete all other new threads on that topic by that person?


Why, does free speech, or trying to save the innocent lives of choldren bother you?

Thanks
RC


I don't know what bothers who, but we do have rules about duplicate threads. If there are multiple threads on the same topic, some of them will get locked.


There is no other thread about the efforts of Democrats in Congress to put CPCs out of business. If there was, I would have put this in it.



ljmac -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 12:04:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteRoseBlessings

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

Now that they're in power in Congress, abortion-loving Democrats (Are there any others?) . . .
Yes, actually, there are Democrats who are not "abortion-loving".


Please do not generalize.


I'm not a registered Democrat, but I know people who are and who, like me, are very much pro-life and very much anti-abortion.


You mean I shouldn't say things like, "typical white people?"

CPCs are charity and compassion on exhibit. That Democrats want to put them out of business is a disgusting display of their persistent war on the unborn. 50 million dead and they're not satisfied.



Marcus. -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 2:19:12 PM)

Why is there no public voice of Dems who are pro-life? The national committee seems to ignore them.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 4:37:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

Why, does free speech, or trying to save the innocent lives of choldren bother you?

Thanks
RC

No, but redundancy does. Can we reach some sort of agreement where ljmac agrees to start only two abortion threads per week in the Current Events forums. I really don't think he's accomplishing much more by posting five per week and honestly, I'm interested in real debates- not someone constantly trying to pick a fight with libruls.



StephK -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 5:57:17 PM)

This is a specific issue that I was unaware of so I'm glad that it was brought up. Where are the vocal pro-life dems? I know they are out there but they don't really have a voice on the issue within their party. Also this topic is cyclical. It's actually been a while since it was discussed this much.

I've been a member of crosswalk for years and this is what I do, ignore topics that don't interest me and if someone really gets under my skin, I slap the little red hand at the bottom of their post and move on. [;)]



Random -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 7:18:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

There is no other thread about the efforts of Democrats in Congress to put CPCs out of business. If there was, I would have put this in it.


You will note that this thread was not locked, so I was not saying it was redundant. I was responding to rcjames, who wondered why we would limit the number of threads on a topic. It is not about free speech, it is about not littering the boards with redundant threads.



Random -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/11/2008 7:22:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

No, but redundancy does. Can we reach some sort of agreement where ljmac agrees to start only two abortion threads per week in the Current Events forums. I really don't think he's accomplishing much more by posting five per week and honestly, I'm interested in real debates- not someone constantly trying to pick a fight with libruls.


TOS 19 states:
19. Salem Web Network reserves the right to:
- move any discussion in community areas to a different folder or room for any reason at our sole discretion
- edit any discussion, post, or chat room title for any reason at our sole discretion

Under Moderator Functions it states:
Moderators have the ability to do the following functions.
1. Close Thread. Prevents further replies to a topic or thread. This is done if the thread is a duplicate, if there is nothing constructive to be said on the current subject, or if a thread has been moved to another forum. As an example, threads that are trolling for people to respond will most likely be closed.

So, an additional rule is not needed, one already exists. If you think a thread is redundant to an existing thread, please click the "report post" link on the thread, and tell us. If possible provide a link to the existing thread, please.



ljmac -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/12/2008 1:42:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Random

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

There is no other thread about the efforts of Democrats in Congress to put CPCs out of business. If there was, I would have put this in it.


You will note that this thread was not locked, so I was not saying it was redundant. I was responding to rcjames, who wondered why we would limit the number of threads on a topic. It is not about free speech, it is about not littering the boards with redundant threads.


Yes, I noticed. I wasn't arguing or contesting anything you had to say. I was pointing out for all that if a thread of the same topic existed I would have put this there.



ljmac -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/12/2008 2:44:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

Why, does free speech, or trying to save the innocent lives of choldren bother you?

Thanks
RC

No, but redundancy does. Can we reach some sort of agreement where ljmac agrees to start only two abortion threads per week in the Current Events forums. I really don't think he's accomplishing much more by posting five per week and honestly, I'm interested in real debates- not someone constantly trying to pick a fight with libruls.


First make an agreement to not to misrepresent my posts. As far as I can tell I've started two threads this month. One, this one, was related to abortion, but is primarily about legisation of abortion alternatives. If you want something "honestly," then hold yourself to that standard and don't make outlandish claims that I start "five (abortion threads) per week." But if I did, would those five abortion threads disturb you more than 25,000 abortions done in the same time?

That someone is trying to put CPCs out of business is disgusting. It is not my fault that these are the causes that Democrats ("liburls") have embraced.



rlj -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/12/2008 7:54:36 AM)

Ironically LJ the headline of the article and your spin on it puts "democrats against abortion" and not about 1)The deceptive practises of some pro-life clinics and 2)how the message from the rest is so distorted.

Then again, why should I use the word ironic on this thread except if this was about the issue at hand not some spin. [8|]



Marcus. -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/12/2008 1:10:02 PM)

And NARAL and PP don't twist the truth of what is growing in women's womb when they go in a clinic? Deception is their stock in trade. Deny it's a child. Deny it's a baby. Deny it's human. Deny it's a separate entity. Call it a tumor-like growth. Call it a lump of flesh. Satan has a strong hold on the folks working for these groups.



Marcus. -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/12/2008 1:25:56 PM)

Why is it legal to kill someone because of privacy laws when they are in the womb but not some sorry career criminal for example? Why isn't that protected by privacy laws? If the government is supposed to be officially atheist, according to the atheists, why wouldn't they allow in the interests of public safety? Since they use no moral values to make laws?

Maybe we do use moral values, some folks just don't want to admit it.



rlj -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/12/2008 2:43:12 PM)

quote:

And NARAL and PP don't twist the truth of what is growing in women's womb when they go in a clinic? Deception is their stock in trade. Deny it's a child. Deny it's a baby. Deny it's human. Deny it's a separate entity. Call it a tumor-like growth. Call it a lump of flesh. Satan has a strong hold on the folks working for these groups.


Legally under the laws of the United States that is often correct. Should we as christians twist the truth and stoop ourselves to their level? The truth being that some of these places aren't "clinics" and their purpose sometimes (but not always) isn't to help the women but to preach to them. Now that isn't neccessarily a bad thing and it's probably a good thing - however sometimes it is done wrongly. It is dishonest to put yourself in the phone book or claim you are a "clinic" when you are not. I guess since this is abortion then we can do whatever we want. Since we disregard doing things better than the world does them the world is now making a case to get some of these shut down. Had some of these clinics not disregarded the truth (and I say some not all, not even a majority, or half but a few) there wouldn't be much of a case for this legislation.

In the last 20 years I've seen the rights of pro-lifers whittle away as I've seen the movement compromise the very same scriptural principals it claims to uphold. Is there a correlation?



StephK -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/12/2008 3:02:10 PM)

Have you been reading the PP propaganda? [8|]

I just looked up some pro-choice sites whining about the wording used to "deceive" young girls and them showing pictures of actual abortions etc. to confuse the poor girls. Anyone with a half a brain cell who sees the outcome of an abortion knows without a doubt that it was a baby even in the first trimester. I think all agencies should show them the truth in stark reality because it is a lifelong choice they are making. If they are old enough to make a baby then they are old enough to see all of the options available including just what an abortion is. abortiontv.com is a good site to see just what the procedures are and it is graphic, bloody and heart breaking. What is deceptive is the lie that women have been told over the years that there aren't any negative consequences when you get an abortion.



Marcus. -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/12/2008 3:02:38 PM)

I posted what I did because NARAL and their cronies love tossing that out there as if they don't, as if they are morally superior. They have all the morality of a serial killer. They will pay with their souls for what they do.

In regards to crisis pregnancy centers, I don't see how being a 'clinic' makes them appear to be a baby killing factory like NARAL/PP. From what I've read NARAL instigated the legislation to try to close all non-abortion pregnancy centers.



rlj -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/12/2008 3:44:53 PM)

quote:

Have you been reading the PP propaganda?


Read some from both sides actually. I can get more accurate assessments of the Iraq war from John Murtha then I can get from either PP or the Pro-Life side on abortion anymore. While I expect that from the PP side why should I expect it from the Pro-Life side?

The dishonesty isn't about what you said most of it I agree with. There is an awful lot of dishonesty when the Pro-Choice side misrepresents these clinics. It doesn't change the fact though that there are some clinics and some people on the pro-life side who do distort the facts.

quote:

In regards to crisis pregnancy centers, I don't see how being a 'clinic' makes them appear to be a baby killing factory like NARAL/PP.


Then what is a clinic? The implication to me of a clinic is a facility where some kind of medical service is rendered.



Marcus. -> RE: Democrats vs Pregnant Women (4/12/2008 4:03:50 PM)

The only misrepresentation I could think of is the one where the mom thinks she can get an abortion just because the name says crisis pregnancy center.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI