Ah, finally, the bassist kind of name calling.

I'd rather be a pro-choice whackjob than a extremist anti-choice whackjob. You don't have a problem putting your nose in my business so long as you think you're justified. Whether I agree with your "justifications" is irrelevant.

Hmmm, who do you sound like now? Gasp! The anti-gun whackjobs.

Yes, well, we already agreed on this. You would rather take take the stand of Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, "Chuck" Schumer, Diane Fienstien, Barbara Boxer and Al Gore, all pro abortion wackjobs like yourself.
And I take my stand with Alan Keyes, William Bennett, Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa, Antonin Scalia, and Susan B. Anthony, all of whom you consider, (like Rosie O'Donnel does) pro life "wackjobs".
See, we can find common ground.
Of course, those YOU support also support banning guns, but why should that bother a man with no conscience?

Well, everyone can't be wrong 100% of the time. Look at yourself, Belloc. I suppose maybe you support the 2nd Ammendment because you don't like extremists telling you what to do. Too bad you can't extend the courtesy to women. Or are they just fetus sacks when they aren't cooking and cleaning?

I'll tell you what. We can both go to the Wizard. I'll ask for a conscience and you can ask for a brain.

Belloc
     This was an eloquent statement, so please do not stoop to the name calling of the left. This statement stands on it's own, so just get those that disagree, to refute this statement.

I assure you they will not be able to with out calling names.


Abortion and the English Language
by Joseph Sobran
www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran93.html

In his famous essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell analyzed the corrupting influence of dishonest politics on the way we speak and think. There is no better example than the effect abortion has had on our language.

Though abortion – including the killing of viable infants at the verge of birth – is now a sacrament of the Democratic Party, nobody admits to being "pro-abortion"; they are "pro-choice." This is an obvious lie. The right to choose anything presupposes the right to live. The child, fetus, embryo, or whatever you want to call the entity growing within its mother’s womb has no "choice" about being killed. It will never have a choice about anything.

The pro-abortion side is pro-abortion in the same way that advocates of slavery were pro-slavery. "Oh," they protest, "but we don’t insist that everyone get an abortion; we only want people" – that is, mothers – "to have a choice!" Then nobody was pro-slavery either, since nobody insisted that every white man own a slave; they were "pro-choice." They wanted each white man to be "free" to decide whether to buy slaves; or they wanted every state to decide whether to permit slavery. Of course they overlooked the obvious fact that the slaves themselves had no choice; in their minds this was irrelevant.

The bad conscience of the pro-aborters shows in their studious avoidance of the word kill to describe what abortion is. Why be coy about it? We don’t mind speaking of "killing" when we kill lower life forms. Lawn products kill weeds; mouthwashes kill germs; insecticides kill bugs; mousetraps kill mice. If the human fetus is an insignificant little thing, why shrink from saying an abortion kills it? But the pro-abortion side prefers the evasive euphemism that abortion "terminates a pregnancy."

As Orwell noted, dishonest people instinctively prefer the abstract to the concrete. Abstract language avoids creating unpleasant mental images that might cause horror and shame; concrete language may remind us of what we are really doing. This is why military jargon dehumanizes the targets of bombs and artillery: so that soldiers and pilots won’t vividly imagine the men, women, and children they are killing. Part of the job of military leadership is to anesthetize the consciences of fighting men. And political leaders (who usually start the wars in the first place) do their part by describing the bombing of cities as "defending freedom."

Well, the last part of your name is well earned fuckstick.
A woman HAS a choice. Up until SHE GETS PREGNANT. If she IS UNWILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER ACTIONS, SHE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM HAVING SEX.
As for the rest of your drivel, any man that gets a woman pregnant should be FORCED TO SUPPORT THE CHILD, but not the mother.
I don't see how being poor has ANY effect on pregnancy.
Pleanty of poor women don't sleep around and get pregnant. But the ones who DO are more likely to get pregnant. Sex is the contributing factor, not the presence, or lack of money. Plenty of people WITH money get pregnant.
And the same applies to men. Don't want to have the responsibility of a child, don't have sex.
A child is guilty of NOTHING.
Abortionists are guilty of murder.

If anyone is interested in working for solutions to the abortion debate rather than slinging mud, this is a good website:

http://www.nafcm.org/

People of conscience on both sides work together on the things they can agree on.

Regards,

Legrue

Quoted:
[b]Well, everyone can't be wrong 100% of the time. Look at yourself, Belloc. I suppose maybe you support the 2nd Ammendment[/b]
What I "support" is the recognition that the Second Amendment does not give anyone the right to keep and bear arms. It only constitutionaly recognizes that the right exists. You could take out the Second Amendment and the right still exists. This is what the Founders believed. You agree with Hillary Clinton and are pro-abortion. That is not a right, that is slaughter.

[b]because you don't like extremists telling you what to do. Too bad you can't extend the courtesy to women.[/b]
Too bad 42 million dead children is not enough for you.

[b]Or are they just fetus sacks when they aren't cooking and cleaning?[/b]
Yes, that's it scooter. Mother Teresa, Ronald Reagan and Susan B. Anthony were all pro-life thus they believed a woman should be cooking and cleaning. And of course you know that "fetus" is simply latin for "child".  


[b]I'll tell you what. We can both go to the Wizard. I'll ask for a conscience and you can ask for a brain.[/b]
Anyone who can see that you don't have a conscience has brains aplenty.

I will agree with you on this, Ar10, we desensitize ourselves with language. I will also agree that abortion kills a zygote, fetus, et. al., but not a baby. That is the anti-choice side using language in the same fashion. Seriously, does ANYONE support killing babies? (Oh, I know Belloc thinks I eat them for breakfast). No, I don't. But a week old fetus is NOT a "baby". On it's way, certainly. But not there yet.

On the flip side, we desensitize ourselves to the women. The are "sluts" or "whores" if they get pregnant. Obviously, they deserve no pity, no consideration. We even have been known to call rape victims sluts who "deserved" what they got, if somehow they expressed sexuality that sent some poor man over the edge. So we don't have to show compassion to the "slut". Just to the innocent "baby" that the "slut" is trying to kill.

So you see, your arguement cuts both ways.

Here is a true case. A woman was on birth control pills. (99+ % effective) She got a cold and went to the doctor who prescribed anti-biotics. Said doctor also failed to tell said woman that the antibiotics interfered with the birth control.

Suprise, she got pregnant by her boyfriend. As soon as she found out, she immediately had an abortion. (no 3rd trimester stuff, IMMEDIATELY). I already know what Belloc will say. He doesn't give a damn if it's not a fetus he can worship. Here, I can justify an abortion and possibly a malpractice suit. Now for the woman who can't keep her legs shut and is on her 7th abortion?? (seen one of those too) I think there is a serious moral deficiency to approve of an abortion here. But to allow the first (along with rape, incest, life in danger), I will tolerate the second, at least until the fetus is viable. Then you really are talking about infantacide, since the child now has a REAL shot at life.

I will agree with you on this, Ar10, we desensitize ourselves with language. I will also agree that abortion kills a zygote, fetus, et. al., but not a baby. That is the anti-choice side using language in the same fashion. Seriously, does ANYONE support killing babies? (Oh, I know Belloc thinks I eat them for breakfast). No, I don't. But a week old fetus is NOT a "baby". On it's way, certainly. But not there yet.



On the flip side, we desensitize ourselves to the women. The are "sluts" or "whores" if they get pregnant. Obviously, they deserve no pity, no consideration. We even have been known to call rape victims sluts who "deserved" what they got, if somehow they expressed sexuality that sent some poor man over the edge. So we don't have to show compassion to the "slut". Just to the innocent "baby" that the "slut" is trying to kill.

So you see, your arguement cuts both ways.

Here is a true case. A woman was on birth control pills. (99+ % effective) She got a cold and went to the doctor who prescribed anti-biotics. Said doctor also failed to tell said woman that the antibiotics interfered with the birth control.

Suprise, she got pregnant by her boyfriend. As soon as she found out, she immediately had an abortion. (no 3rd trimester stuff, IMMEDIATELY). I already know what Belloc will say. He doesn't give a damn if it's not a fetus he can worship. Here, I can justify an abortion and possibly a malpractice suit. Now for the woman who can't keep her legs shut and is on her 7th abortion?? (seen one of those too) I think there is a serious moral deficiency to approve of an abortion here. But to allow the first (along with rape, incest, life in danger), I will tolerate the second, at least until the fetus is viable. Then you really are talking about infantacide, since the child now has a REAL shot at life.

[/quote]

What is viable?

[b]Legrue[/b] you have no clue about whom you're speaking so shittily!!

But then on just your SEVENTH post you put down everyone on this forum as being "amatures" and knowing nothing about the law or human relationships.

Now you continue to make sweeping statements about people you don't even know saying they're typical of "thousands" of abortion protesters you've come across.

[b]Legrue[/b], based on your pattern of condescending, subtly-insulting, antagonistic posts you've made here from day one, you're fast beginning to resemble a [:K].

You have no inclination to DISCUSS anything, rather you just spill your uninformed, pinheaded, sweeping generalizations about everyone here like an overflowing toilet.

I don't see much reason or thought in ANYTHING you've written in any of your pointless posts - just you spouting off unsubstantiated opinions on topics you show no understanding of and unfounded assumptions about people here you've never met or spent any time exchanging ideas.


You complain that I come off as aggressive in some of my posts to you. Again, you haven't a clue about me or anything having anything to do with people here.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt, but I just don't see you being a reasonable participant in any dialogue here.


Go play with your guns and leave the discussions to those willing to at least LISTEN before they speak.

Er. Ok, I figured out the insult. Perhaps a writing class would help here. Try this:

"And I must have a brain, since I recognized you for the conscienceless scum you are."

THAT'S how you flame.

"And I must have a brain, since I recognized you for the conscienceless scum you are."

THAT'S how you flame.[/quote]


Good argument!

Now would you please tell me what "viable" is?

Too bad Mac. I thought we made up.

I had assumed Belloc was a big boy and didn't need you to defend him. But I notice you feel it's your job to jump in when you feel that you're toes are being stepped on, especially if the poster disagrees with you. If I somehow insulted you in the previous post, then I'm sorry. As to the other AR15 members, if the felt insulted, they can tell me and I'll appologize to them too. But I don't think they need you to defend their honor.

Ok, I pissed you off, but you are doing much the same here, especially with this "you're a noob here and I'm a resident board troll, so STFU." I'm sorry, but over a thousand posts doesn't impress me. I've got that many on some other sites. The fact is, I came in and expressed an opinion that you don't like. Looking back, I did it respectfully and I stand by my words. Belloc and a few others decided to personally attack me for it and I responded in kind. If the moderators of these boards feel I was out of line, they'll no doubt tell me. Until then, unless you're the designated spanker of new members, please save it for someone else.

If you're going to insult the state of my birth, at least have the decency to get it right! [pissed]

"Kaliban" = The CA politicians and govt. agents who violate the people's rights.
"Kalifornistan" = the state.

AR10,

I don't recall the exact weeks, but I know that it is what alot of medical experts have used and alot of states are adopting into their laws (or trying to).

I got out of this debate awhile ago and haven't got the number at my finger tips anymore.

regards,

legrue

Actually nothing really bothered me until this line by you:

"You don't give a sh*t about the kids after their born..."

That was not just name-calling, it was an indictment of your own sensibility.

Many here started hurling the slop, as I have been known to do on occasion, but that one actually put YOU in a bad light.

I hope you understand what brought me back into this hayfight.

I never turn away a man devoted to RKBA or freedom, even if we differ on abortion (how else can I ever discuss it?).


[beer] if you understand my point.

Mac,

Okies, point well taken and agreed with. Belloc was pushing some buttons, so I stooped and did the same (occassionally I resent being called a klinton loving, baby killer, but most of the time I can blow it off). I'm sure he probably does care, but at that point, the flame war was on.

[beer]

Cheers,

legrue

You guys can flame me all you want for this, but
I really don't think this is a topic for "General Discussion".
Topics such as Abortion, Religion, Racism...these topics
are far from "General". All they do is start insults.
I feel it's disrespectful to post crap that knowingly will hit
people on the most personal level. This is, above all, a
FIREARMS related website.

I know everyone on this site has at least one thing in common,
love of firearms, or you wouldn't be here. I hate to see folks
showing their ass like that.

I don't know, just my 2 cents........

You know, this is a very good point. How in the hell did abortion ever make it to SCOTUS? Was it a First Amendment issue? An Interstate commerce issue? Murder is a state issue, as is the death penalty. One would assume abortion is a similar issue and should be handled at the state level.

It looks to me to simply be another Federal power grab and/or a case of the courts making law instead of ruling on the constitutionality of existing law.

Beware, the liberals own the courts.