"Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child"

[higgybaby]

As qouted from Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments by Carol Everett:

When President Ronald Reagan stated in 1984 that during an abortion "the fetus feels pain which is long and agonizing, " it set off a furious reaction by prochoice advocates. They did not want to believe this, nor did they want the public to believe it. But twenty-six medical authorities, including two past presidents of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stepped forward with a letter documenting that the unborn does in fact feel pain during an abortion. Their letter says in part:


Mr. President, in drawing attention to the capability of the human fetus to feel pain, you stand on firmly established ground.. That the unborn, the prematurely born, and the new-born of the human species is a highly complex, sentient, fucntioning, individual organism is established scientific fact. ... Over the last eighteenyears, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG(electrocardiogram) and the fetal EEG(electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch and sound. Pioneer fetologist Albert Liley, of the University of Auckland, says that by the fifty-sixth day after conception, the baby's spinal reflexes are sufficiently developed to feel pain. He adds, "When doctors first began invading the sanctuary of the womb, they did not know that the unborn baby would react to pain in the same fashion as a child would. But they soon learned he did"

The fact that anestheisia is routinely used on preborn children during fetal surgery is an obvious commentary on the unborn's capacity to feel pain. Despite the prochoice rhetoric, it is clear that for one person, at least, no abortion is ever easy or painless.

[jsarno]

WOW! 56 days???? I had no idea.
I find that puzzling though, since the pain receptors can only be read by the brain, and the brain isn't fully functional until the 3rd trimester.

I don't know...this is why I am asking...but don't most abortions happen in the first trimester? ( I know that 3rd trimester abortions are illegal,at least I thought they were).

Like I said in the other thread, I really don't agree with abortion unless it is as a result of rape or insest, or endangering the mother's life.

[higgybaby]

also from the same book: By early in the second trimester the baby moves his hands to shield his eyes to bright light coming in through his mother's body. "The fetus also responds to sounds in frequencies so high or low that they cannot be heard by the human adult ear." He hears loud music and may even cover his ears at loud noises from the outside world. At seventeen weeks, when abortions are still commonly performed, the child experiences Rapid Eye Movement(REM) sleep, indicating that he is not only sleeping but dreaming. Can we say that someone capable of dreaming is incapable of thinking?
There is no doubt whatsoever that later abortions kill a sentient, thinking human being. By the end of the second and the start of the third trimester (twenty-four weeks) the "brains neural circuits are as advanced as a newborns." It seems unthinkable that anyone aware of the facts could favor the current legality of abortions in the second and third trimesters. That such abortions are adamantly defended by prochoice advocates should cause us to ask whether their position is based on facts at all or merely personal preference or wishful thinking.
But are earlier abortions any better than later ones? Since there is a functioning brain with measurable waves at forty days of development. who are we to say that these tiny brains cannot do what brains do--think? Yet virtually all abortions legal in America occur after forty days. And even if an abortion is made available that takes the life before there is the capacity for thought , does this destroy the life in a way that is any less real or significant? Does it change the fact that a child who would have had a name and a family and a life will now have none of these?

[IowaSkinsFan]

This is powerful information. Maybe the Pro Choice contingent of America should consider this when they use the "My body, My choice". I would part by saying to them, the last 2 things you are going to do to your unborn child is first to cause it pain and then kill it.

How would you like to know that was your last 2 contributions to a life in this world?

[higgybaby]

I think it would be interesting to take a poll of those who are prochoice, to see if after becoming aware of this information their over all opinion changes or not.

[Ford]

I'm not even going to touch this subject .. I can't ever even make up my own mind as to what I believe in here.

[BigCountry]

I'm pro choice and I didn't give it a second thought for a split second.

[Spence]

Originally posted by BigCountry
I'm pro choice and I didn't give it a second thought for a split second. Ditto.

[higgybaby]

I only have one question, why would these facts' not have you reconsider your view? I am seriously inquiring about this, honestly not in an attempt to "convert you" but only in an attempt to understand what kind of person could know that they were painfully killing something that is aware of its pain and not give it a second thought?

[Spence]

Lots of medical procedures will seem grotesque if someone with an axe to grind goes out of his or her way to emphasize the graphic awfulness of it.

It comes down to this for me. Having a child is the most personal decision in the world. The decision on whether or not to have one or to have an abortion is best made by the mother [and if possible, the father] after consultation with her conscience and her physician. The anti-choice crowd [who usually refer to themselves as opponents of big government] think the decision should be made by government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. or a state capitol, rather than the woman. In other words, they think this most personal of decisions should not be made by the person who is the most informed about her situation [the woman], but instead by people who have never met her, never will meet her, and have no idea what her life is like.

It's hard to imagine a policy that makes less sense than that.

[BigCountry]

If you think it's wrong Higgy, advise your partnet against it. Every situation is differant and niether of us has a right to make this decision for a woman. My question is this. What kind of person thinks he has the right to make a decision of such proportion for a woman?

[roberro]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spence
[B]Lots of medical procedures will seem grotesque if someone with an axe to grind goes out of his or her way to emphasize the graphic awfulness of it.

And, today, Bush signed a bill prohibiting, "late term abortions", which the Anti-choice people would have us believe involves allowing the baby's head to be delivered, and then crushing the skull and sucking out the brains. Folks, I just retired from a 20 year career as a Registered Nurse and I can tell you, without reservation, there isn't a doctor or nurse in this country who would participate in such a procedure. If anyone can cite responsible references to refute me, please do.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by roberro
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spence
[B]Lots of medical procedures will seem grotesque if someone with an axe to grind goes out of his or her way to emphasize the graphic awfulness of it.

And, today, Bush signed a bill prohibiting, "late term abortions", which the Anti-choice people would have us believe involves allowing the baby's head to be delivered, and then crushing the skull and sucking out the brains. Folks, I just retired from a 20 year career as a Registered Nurse and I can tell you, without reservation, there isn't a doctor or nurse in this country who would participate in such a procedure. If anyone can cite responsible references to refute me, please do.

Alright, every news group in the country defines it by saying in Most cases, Oh and the Skull collapses AFTER the brain is removed.

From Yahoo News
The bill outlaws a procedure generally performed in the second or third trimester in which a fetus is partially delivered before being killed, usually by having its skull punctured.
Story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031106/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_abortion_31)


From Fox News
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 makes it illegal for doctors to take overt action to abort a late-term fetus — one in its second or third trimester — by bringing the baby's body out of the birth canal, then puncturing the skull and sucking out the brainStory (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102244,00.html)


From PriestsForLife.org
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 makes it illegal for doctors to take overt action to abort a late-term fetus — one in its second or third trimester — by bringing the baby's body out of the birth canal, then puncturing the skull and sucking out the brainIMAGES OF PROCEDURE (http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html)



From About.com
Partial Birth Abortion: In the partial birth abortion procedure, a physician delivers a baby to the point where only the head remains inside the womb but then punctures the back of the skull and removes the brain before completing delivery. Partial birth abortion makes up only 1% of all abortions performedStory (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/partialbirth/a/partialbirthabo.htm)

How many more would you like?

[roberro]

As usual, the Anti-choice camp uses incorrect and misleading terminology to try to make it's case. The term, "partial birth" is just such an example. It would lead one to visualize a woman in labor and in the process of a live birth undergoing such a procedure. That just doesn't happen. Your reference in which Dr Haskell explains the procedure does not use this term, but rather, it's correct name of Dilitation and Extraction. It has nothing to do with a "birth", partial or otherwise. Furtermore, any writing that refers to the surgeon as, "the abortionist" is automatically suspect and is therefore rejected as a responsible reference. Catholic dogma is not going to convince me on this subject.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by roberro
As usual, the Anti-choice camp uses incorrect and misleading terminology to try to make it's case. The term, "partial birth" is just such an example. It would lead one to visualize a woman in labor and in the process of a live birth undergoing such a procedure. That just doesn't happen. Your reference in which Dr Haskell explains the procedure does not use this term, but rather, it's correct name of Dilitation and Extraction. It has nothing to do with a "birth", partial or otherwise. Furtermore, any writing that refers to the surgeon as, "the abortionist" is automatically suspect and is therefore rejected as a responsible reference. Catholic dogma is not going to convince me on this subject.

In other words, you want to look the other way and not believe the obvious fact based on a couple of words. Makes sense. Oh, and here is the definition of birth.

birth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bûrth)
n. The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.

So partial-birth fits partial emergence pretty well.
As for the Catholic dogma crap, say what you want about that, I'm not catholic so I couldn't care less about catholocism, but how can you sit here and look at all these news groups and websites that say the exact same thing and go. They are not a responsible reference? You want me to find a damn doctor that comes to your house and shows you a demonstration? COMEON!!!

Here's a site, but it has the word religion in it so
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm#procedure

OH And here, read a DOCTOR's DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEDURE.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/prochoice/haskell1.htm
It was written by Dr. Martin Haskell. That is a doctor explaining to others in the Abortion Federation HOW THE PROCEDURE IS DONE. Is that irresposible? Oh wait, it's probably doctored isn't it. It's fake right? He really doesn't do what it says he does.

[roberro]

First, I regret getting imbroiled in this explosive topic. I must have had too much to drink. This will be my last communication on this subject; however, let me answer the latest bombast from jporterweb. Regarding your definition of birth; the definition, which you highlighted, says, "emergence", which connotates, a spontaneous birth, while the procedure explained by Dr. Haskill is an "extraction" of a non-viable fetus. Lastly, I have allready acknowledged,( twice now) that I read Dr. Haskell's description of the procedure, and stand by my original post. Despite Bush's right wing posturing, and the rhetoric of the anti-abortion cabal, and you, by extension, the procedure that they are trying to portray as Barbarian, is an accepted and well documented means of terminating a pregnancy in the second trimester. The fact that Haskell cites cases of Dr's performing the procedure in early third trimester patients, does not justify your misrepresentations of the procedure. If you people would only stop using sensationalism to make your point, I think you would gain more acceptance, but I don't hold out much hope for that. Incidently, I am TOTALLY against abortion as a means of birth control. I have a daughter who aborted a pregnancy before we even knew she was gravid. We found out when she was admitted to the hospital in septic shock after a,"cheapy" abortion. I, and my wife would have willingly accepted and supported a child from this pregnancy. However, our daughter was an adult and free to make her own choice. We felt she made the wrong one, but it was her choice to make. My wife is a devout Cahtolic, (Catholic Woman Of The Year, etc). Even she wonders why the extreme right wing continues to misrepresent this procedure. This is Robbie, signing out.

[jporterweb]

Here's my problem. I have given you example after example of EXACTLY how the procedure is done. This is what you asked to be proven.

would have us believe involves allowing the baby's head to be delivered, and then crushing the skull and sucking out the brains. Folks, I just retired from a 20 year career as a Registered Nurse and I can tell you, without reservation, there isn't a doctor or nurse in this country who would participate in such a procedure.

I have given you MANY instances INCLUDING a doctor that performs the procedure, and he says that he pulls out the lower body. Inserts a pair of scissors into the base of the skull and suctions out the brains. You asked me to show that that is the procedure. That is what I have done. Whether you agree that the baby is alive inside the womb or not is not the issue here, I have proven that what you claim, without reservation, does happen in this country. How you can insist that it's not how the procedure is done is beyond me.

The left continually hides behind terminology and interpretation. Just like Oral Sex is not Sex, the left can never see the truth in things. They are to worried about the damn ant on the sidewalk being stepped on. I see people sitting here and complaining about our murdering president, but more babies are aborted a year then we will ever lose in IRAQ. Most of them perfectly healthy and some of them would be able to survive outside the womb with a little help when they are aborted. Don't tell me the baby is not alive. After a few weeks of conception there is already brain waves and a hearbeat. Now, I don't know what the definition of life to you is, but I think that someone with brain waves and a heartbeat on a respirator is still consider alive even though they can't breathe or eat on their own. What is different with a baby? Nothing, but I'm sure you'll widely interpret it much different then that.

[higgybaby]

quote:
Lots of medical procedures will seem grotesque if someone with an axe to grind goes out of his or her way to emphasize the graphic awfulness of it.

In my thread I never mentioned anything about any medical procedures.... what were you reading... why don't you address my thread specifically!

My thread was about the preborns ability to feel pain.. try reading it before you respond this time.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by higgybaby
what kind of person could know that they were painfully killing something that is aware of its pain and not give it a second thought?

Couldn't this same analogy be used for every person that has willingly enlisted in the military and fought in wars?

[higgybaby]

no

[rskinsfan10]

Uh, yes it can. Maybe not by you, but it can.

Is shooting someone (enemy) during combat not be considered killing something that is aware of pain? Do soldiers not "hurt" when they are wounded by enemy fire? Surely you wouldn't say that they don't feel pain, would you?

[RedskinsDave]

They use pain free bullets. I thought everyone knew that. They only hurt when you don't die right away.

[higgybaby]

yeah, when you see a bunch of unborn children marching with m-16's on their shoulders, I guess then maybe it would be a good analogy.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by higgybaby
yeah, when you see a bunch of unborn children marching with m-16's on their shoulders, I guess then maybe it would be a good analogy.

A life is a life, correct? Isn't that what the pro-life clique preach? You don't mind sending our boys and girls off to war in Iraq where they are dying in droves, because their lives aren't really that important I guess.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
A life is a life, correct? Isn't that what the pro-life clique preach? You don't mind sending our boys and girls off to war in Iraq where they are dying in droves, because their lives aren't really that important I guess.

WOW, I can't believe what you've turned this one into. There is a huge difference between killing a defenseless child, and an individual who has volunteered and is willing to give their life for the American way of life. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

And you know what F**K every damn person who says that the right doesn't care about our people dying in Iraq. You form you opinion, but don't call me a careless, insensitive bastard. That's basically what you are saying. I'm sick and tired of hearing that i just don't care. Everyday I get tears in my eyes when I hear about someone dying over there. It sucks, YES. but's It's what needed to be done. Life sucks, you could be in a car accident tomorrow and die for no reason. They are going out there knowing full well they are putting their lives on the line. And the majority of them are willing. They are not dying in Vain.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by jporterweb
WOW, I can't believe what you've turned this one into. There is a huge difference between killing a defenseless child, and an individual who has volunteered and is willing to give their life for the American way of life. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

And you know what F**K every damn person who says that the right doesn't care about our people dying in Iraq. You form you opinion, but don't call me a careless, insensitive bastard. That's basically what you are saying. I'm sick and tired of hearing that i just don't care. Everyday I get tears in my eyes when I hear about someone dying over there. It sucks, YES. but's It's what needed to be done. Life sucks, you could be in a car accident tomorrow and die for no reason. They are going out there knowing full well they are putting their lives on the line. And the majority of them are willing. They are not dying in Vain.

Hmm, let me say this as nicely as I can. I could care less that you used astericks to cover up the obsenity. If you can't be a bit calmer about expressing your point, then simply don't respond to this thread any longer. I don't recall anyone here terming you as a careless, insensitive bastard. You are sick and tired of hearing that you don't care? That's really too bad. You folks (from the right) tell us lefties that we don't care about alot of things, and I have not seen anyone here that disagrees with your politics tell you to F**K off. The point is I was making use of the analogy. Just because you may disagree, that doesn't make you right, nor does it make me right. My point is the analogy could be used in such a way.

Clean up the rhetoric or else.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
Hmm, let me say this as nicely as I can. I could care less that you used astericks to cover up the obsenity. If you can't be a bit calmer about expressing your point, then simply don't respond to this thread any longer. I don't recall anyone here terming you as a careless, insensitive bastard. You are sick and tired of hearing that you don't care? That's really too bad. You folks (from the right) tell us lefties that we don't care about alot of things, and I have not seen anyone here that disagrees with your politics tell you to F**K off. The point is I was making use of the analogy. Just because you may disagree, that doesn't make you right, nor does it make me right. My point is the analogy could be used in such a way.

Clean up the rhetoric or else.

I appologize that you don't like my use of language. I'm not the only one that does that but OK, single me out because I said it to you.

Now, onto the subject at hand. You say no one has called me a careless insensitive bastard. True not in those words, but let me quote what you said that means the same thing to me.

You don't mind sending our boys and girls off to war in Iraq where they are dying in droves

As for the obscenity used, it was an expression of my complete disgust as being labeled as such a person. We don't enjoy the fact that men are dying over there. But it's what we feel has to be done.

Anyways, do what you must do, I know we haven't really gotten along before on other subjects so, I really don't care anymore. Maybe I should just go sit down in a corner and talk about the Redskins in the Redskins forum and not speak my opinion and not express myself. Cause you know I thought that that was the point of making this seperate board was for discussions like this because of what they became. And that way people that would be offended by stuff easily wouldn't have to see it. I'm sorry that I am a very passionate about my views. I'm sorry that I don't appreciate people that label me as something that I'm not. That's fine, I won't post in this board anymore. It's not like I was going out and singling you out and saying F**K you. I was saying F**K a broad type of people. I'm sorry if you felt I was saying that directly to you. I'll stick with the Redskins. Peace.

[rskinsfan10]

Look everyone, another oppressed soul. I could care less if you and I haven't agreed on certain things. That is not the basis of you being reprimanded here. I have agreed with you on topics, and I have pointed out those times of agreement. As a matter of fact, outside of your political beliefs I find myself agreeing with you more often then not, so please don't act as if I have some axe to grind with you.

The fact is this. You were out of line. It has nothing to do with whether your words were meant solely for me. If I shared your political views, I still would be coming down on you about what you said. There has been much discussion internally within the admins as to whether or not we should keep these political threads going, and it's instances like yours that lead to that discussion. Everyone knows that politics and race are powder kegs waiting to explode if emotions aren't kept in check. I nor any of the other admins will not allow you send this forum into a frenzy because you are tired of what people that oppose your views have to say about those views. Like I said, if you can't get your point across in a manner different then what you did previously, then stay out of the political forum. If you decide that because you can't stand that we are cleaning things up a bit around here that you don't feel that hR is the place for you any longer, then have fun wherever else you may choose to post. You said it, I didn't.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
Uh, yes it can. Maybe not by you, but it can.

Is shooting someone (enemy) during combat not be considered killing something that is aware of pain? Do soldiers not "hurt" when they are wounded by enemy fire? Surely you wouldn't say that they don't feel pain, would you?

Are you saying that because Humans kill Humans in war and combat, that abortion should be legal?

The why is murder by a civilian illegal?

I don't get the reference of war and combat. It does not validate the abortion argument.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Any woman who gets pregnant through voluntary sexual activity has given up the privelege of having rights, IMO. They should be held accountable for their actions and not be allowed to kill a human being just because being a mother doesn't fit into their schedule. When you engage in the act of procreation, you give up certain things, and one of those things is the right to be frivolous.

Now I know I am going to ruffle some feathers here and to let you know, I am less firm on this issue when it comes to incest or rape, but I stand fast on women who regret one night stands and don't want a 24 hour a day reminder of the event.

Sorry to all of those I have offended, but these are just my opinions.

[Keino]

Originally posted by robert11273
Any woman who gets pregnant through voluntary sexual activity has given up the privelege of having rights, IMO. They should be held accountable for their actions and not be allowed to kill a human being just because being a mother doesn't fit into their schedule. When you engage in the act of procreation, you give up certain things, and one of those things is the right to be frivolous.

Now I know I am going to ruffle some feathers here and to let you know, I am less firm on this issue when it comes to incest or rape, but I stand fast on women who regret one night stands and don't want a 24 hour a day reminder of the event.

Sorry to all of those I have offended, but these are just my opinions.

Robert I can certainly understand that stance, but what about the Father's responsibility? Too often, the men in the situation skirt their responsibilities and leave the Mother to be both Mother and Father. Afterall it does take Two to Tango as they say.
If the Father won't be there can you understand how a Woman would not want to see the pregnancy through?

For the record, my own personal stance is that abortion is wrong. However, I am Pro-Choice for a number of reasons.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by robert11273
Are you saying that because Humans kill Humans in war and combat, that abortion should be legal?

The why is murder by a civilian illegal?

I don't get the reference of war and combat. It does not validate the abortion argument.

What I said was that the analogy that higgybaby used as far as going through with an abortion with the knowledge that the fetus/life could feel the pain could be used as well when saying that a combat soldier has knowledge that his actions will cause death and pain to his enemy.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
Look everyone, another oppressed soul. I could care less if you and I haven't agreed on certain things. That is not the basis of you being reprimanded here. I have agreed with you on topics, and I have pointed out those times of agreement. As a matter of fact, outside of your political beliefs I find myself agreeing with you more often then not, so please don't act as if I have some axe to grind with you.

The fact is this. You were out of line. It has nothing to do with whether your words were meant solely for me. If I shared your political views, I still would be coming down on you about what you said. There has been much discussion internally within the admins as to whether or not we should keep these political threads going, and it's instances like yours that lead to that discussion. Everyone knows that politics and race are powder kegs waiting to explode if emotions aren't kept in check. I nor any of the other admins will not allow you send this forum into a frenzy because you are tired of what people that oppose your views have to say about those views. Like I said, if you can't get your point across in a manner different then what you did previously, then stay out of the political forum. If you decide that because you can't stand that we are cleaning things up a bit around here that you don't feel that hR is the place for you any longer, then have fun wherever else you may choose to post. You said it, I didn't.

You know, fine. My only thing is that I don't want to be the only one who is singled out. I said that. You singled me out. I've seen MANY instances where people post like that. Yet, I only see them being debated with. No one yells at them for the use of the language. It's a form of expression. I seem to remember you posting a comment from DL Hughley that said something about if a "motherf**ker" and that seems to be alright? I don't understand the difference. A cussword is a cussword. If no one is allowed to use them then that is fine with me. but I don't understand why I was singled out. If you would like I will spend mucho time and go through each and every post and show you how many times people have done that and not gotten reprimanded for it. We have butted heads before in the political forum because you mistook what I said. You did it again this time, and I feel you are singling me out because you didn't like that I was saying it to you. I'm not trying to start a fight or a war with you. I just don't like being singled out, never have and never will. And threatening me in public does not seem fair either. Why not send me an IM? Tell me you don't think it's appropriate. but to say clean it up or else is just like saying I don't like you. How is it htat way? Because no one else is being told to clean it up or else.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
What I said was that the analogy that higgybaby used as far as going through with an abortion with the knowledge that the fetus/life could feel the pain could be used as well when saying that a combat soldier has knowledge that his actions will cause death and pain to his enemy.

I talked to my father about this, who is a verteran, and I side with him. My feeling about the taking of a human life when it comes to combat is that enlistment in the armed forces is a voluntary choice, and it is done so knowing that combat/war and fatalities are a very real consequence. So the point I was trying to make is that it is not "apples to apples" to equate the killing of a soldier who voluntarily took up arms in the first place and the killing of a defenseless, unarmed life who's only "sin" was being conceived by parents who don't want the inconvenience of having a child.

*This does not apply to cases of incest and rape.*

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Keino
Robert I can certainly understand that stance, but what about the Father's responsibility? Too often, the men in the situation skirt their responsibilities and leave the Mother to be both Mother and Father. Afterall it does take Two to Tango as they say.
If the Father won't be there can you understand how a Woman would not want to see the pregnancy through?

For the record, my own personal stance is that abortion is wrong. However, I am Pro-Choice for a number of reasons.

Again, if a woman wants to take on adult roles, then she must be prepared for the responsibilities that go along with them. If she is not sure that the man in question wants to be a father or would stick around to raise a family, then don't go between the sheets. If we apply your scenario above to my home situation, I would not know my step son. His dad ran off and left the mother and unborn child. I am personally glad he was not aborted.

There are endless possibilities to the scenario you described above, and I hate to think that the only solution to it is to kill an unborn baby because the father didn't bother. There is a difference between and father and a parent, and you don't need to be biological to make a difference in a life.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by jporterweb
You know, fine. My only thing is that I don't want to be the only one who is singled out. I said that. You singled me out. I've seen MANY instances where people post like that. Yet, I only see them being debated with. No one yells at them for the use of the language. It's a form of expression. I seem to remember you posting a comment from DL Hughley that said something about if a "motherf**ker" and that seems to be alright? I don't understand the difference. A cussword is a cussword. If no one is allowed to use them then that is fine with me. but I don't understand why I was singled out. If you would like I will spend mucho time and go through each and every post and show you how many times people have done that and not gotten reprimanded for it. We have butted heads before in the political forum because you mistook what I said. You did it again this time, and I feel you are singling me out because you didn't like that I was saying it to you. I'm not trying to start a fight or a war with you. I just don't like being singled out, never have and never will. And threatening me in public does not seem fair either. Why not send me an IM? Tell me you don't think it's appropriate. but to say clean it up or else is just like saying I don't like you. How is it htat way? Because no one else is being told to clean it up or else.

You were singled out because you attacked those that disagreed with you. The DL Hughley comment, which BC quoted, was meant as a joke. He didn't attack anyone with differing opinions with that statement. I didn't send you an IM because of the nature of your attack. It was done to serve notice to any and everyone that is going to participate in these discussions that we will not tolerate that type of rhetoric simply because you are tired of whatever it is that you are tired of. Clean it up or else means that if you don't, you will not be allowed to continue to participate in these discussions. It's that simple. I didn't see Skinz, higgybaby nor robert resort to that type of language in responding to those with different views. If you don't like being singled out, then don't put yourself in a position where it needs to happen. You and only you caused this situation. Sorry that you are having such a hard time understanding that. That is all that needs to be said about the subject.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by robert11273
I talked to my father about this, who is a verteran, and I side with him. My feeling about the taking of a human life when it comes to combat is that enlistment in the armed forces is a voluntary choice, and it is done so knowing that combat/war and fatalities are a very real consequence. So the point I was trying to make is that it is not "apples to apples" to equate the killing of a soldier who voluntarily took up arms in the first place and the killing of a defenseless, unarmed life who's only "sin" was being conceived by parents who don't want the inconvenience of having a child.

*This does not apply to cases of incest and rape.*

I can respect and understand his and yours opinion on my analogy. I still stand by thoughts on the matter however.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by rskinsfan10
You were singled out because you attacked those that disagreed with you.

I didn't attack anyone here personally. And if that's why I was singled out, then Politcal Air Out should go away, because it's full of Republicans attacking Dems, and Dems attacking Repubs. or Left attacking Right and Right attacking Left. I just don't understand why in all other cases of profanity on this site they are ignored, or the admin simply goes in and edits what they deem in apropriate all of the sudden I get told all that after I make a comment to a quote of yours. I know it seems that I am dragging this on and on, but it just doesn't make sense. I know that my comment is what started this. I'm not blaming anyone else for what I said. What I am saying is that it happens all over the site and it is never handled by attacking the person who did it in such a manner. It's always handled by a slight edit and warning. Oh well, I guess my opinion doesn't matter about the way it was handled cause you are the boss. I'll drop it now. Forget I was here.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by jporterweb

And you know what F**K every damn person who says that the right doesn't care about our people dying in Iraq. You form you opinion, but don't call me a careless, insensitive bastard. That's basically what you are saying.

You seem to have a problem understanding the issue at hand here. To say/type the words that I just quoted that are attributed to you is an attack. Plain and simple.

You claim that the profanity wasn't aimed at me nor anyone else here, but you then tie it into "That's basically what you are saying." Seems as though you were talking to me, and all of this came within a post of mine that you quoted with your response. No where in my rebuke did I say that you are the only one on this site that has uttered a curse word. You will not be allowed to do what you did the way you did it. Period. If you want to run around believing that you were unfairly singled out, then fine do so. If that is what it takes to get you to not do what you did again, then that works for me.

[rskinsfan10]

And for the record, every post isn't edited and a warning sent via PM when something of this nature occurs. If you have some free time, check out every single thread here and you will find many where Mods/Admins chose to handle the situation publicly. As I said before, it was done this way to show that we mean what we say about keeping things civil here at hR.