Relentlessness, when it doesn't rise to the level of making threats of violence or actual violence, can be a good thing. But it is apparent that you believe the left will do some type of violence if Roe is overturned. Explain why that is a good thing.
I agree, But apparently you believe your brethren will resort to it if Roe is overturned. If that were to happen they could, instead of resorting to violence, introduce bills in the state legislatures to legalize abortion. But I guess the democratic process just isn't the left's way of doing business.
They could, but I don't think violence would be confined to the left. It could come from any corners as abortion is debated state by state.
How? I mean abortion is allowed now. If Roe was overturned any changes would be in states that passed laws banning it. Those that oppose such laws would be the ones facing a change in the status quo.
Tell that to the families of abortion doctors who have been shot and the dozens of instances of violence at abortion clinics.Â
"If Roe was overturned any changes would be in states that passed laws banning it.'
And those states where it's legal could bring out the contingent who want to strongarm state assemblies that are holding out. And they're known to often be indifferent to the death of doctors, bombing of clinics and screaming at 16-year-old girls. All of which, you have been indifferent to.
And those states where it's legal could bring out the contingent who want to strongarm state assemblies that are holding out. And they're known to often be indifferent to the death of doctors, bombing of clinics and screaming at 16-year-old girls. All of which, you have been indifferent to.
"jethro bodine - ( PFID:1de137d6) - 09:41am Dec 22, 2003 PST (# 6336 of 11772) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."
So, Jethro, you DON'T believe in bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors who perform abortions?
Let me put it this way. I wouldn't personally choose to bomb a clinic or kill an abortionist. But to advocate that it shouldn't be done would be to attempt to impose my morality on someone else. I believe bombing abortion clinics and killing abortionist is a personal choice that one has to decide on their own. "
So, Jethro, you DON'T believe in bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors who perform abortions? What do you mean? I believe some bombings happened. I don't believe that they should have.
Let me put it this way. I wouldn't personally choose to bomb a clinic or kill an abortionist. But to advocate that it shouldn't be done would be to attempt to impose my morality on someone else. I believe bombing abortion clinics and killing abortionist is a personal choice that one has to decide on their own." That was written to show the idiocy of that abortion is a personal choice.
"I believe some bombings happened. I don't believe that they should have."
Is it becuse you think it's wrong or just not a good idea?
"That was written to show the idiocy of that abortion is a personal choice."
The difference between an abortion and killing doctors is a persistent inconvenience called the law. If you see it as idiocy, that's a personal choice.
Is it because you think it's wrong or just not a good idea? I think it is wrong but others have a different idea. I really shouldn't be judgmental. It is a personal choice!
"That was written to show the idiocy of that abortion is a personal choice."
The difference between an abortion and killing doctors is a persistent inconvenience called the law. If you see it as idiocy, that's a personal choice. It is idiocy. And people that make the distinction that you made are morally challenged.
Bulletin to Deuchebag:
(posting to yourself, fold?) That you cannot admit that one of your sentences is completely at odds with the alledgedly sarcastic sentence, in the same post, is not surprising. I am sorry that you are unable to shift gears quickly.
Nice try... But as usual, that was an amazingly stupid explanation of your clearly stated belief-system. Because you say that you "Hope" not to be judgemental, yet you demonize everyone who does not believe as YOU do, each and every freaking day, indicates strongly that you don't even seem to understand your own relentlessly-intolerant psyche... in the least. No small wonder you so fervantly desire religiously-activist "Judges", those who seem to be as intolerant and "Judgemental" as you wish you weren't.
fold, you are more intolerant than I could ever be.Â
Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas Medical Center says the report is biased. He said he and other specialists in development of unborn children have shown that babies feel pain before birth as early as 20 weeks into the pregnancy.
Anand said other medical studies conclude that unborn babies are "very likely" to be "extremely sensitive to pain during the gestation of 20 to 30 weeks."
"This is based on multiple lines of evidence," Dr. Anand said. "Not just the lack of descending inhibitory fibers, but also the number of receptors in the skin, the level of expression of various chemicals, neurotransmitters, receptors, and things like that."
Anand explained that later-term abortion procedures, such as a partial-birth abortion "would be likely to cause severe pain."
In a monograph about CRHRP, abortion activist Carol E. Joffe wrote, "What UCSF has done, more so than any other medical institution I can think of, has been to integrate abortion into mainstream medical care."
Which it now seems he won't have to. And neither will the many -- may their tribe increase over time -- who see right through the balderdash that constitutes current abortion law. Â
It’s difficult to imagine a group of intelligent men more in the dark about the consequences of their actions. It only reinforces my conviction that Roe is not only bad law: It’s an embarrassment to American law, which makes the way that Roe has come to dominate our public life especially grotesque.
In nominating Harriet Miers, someone who has been very visible, publicly trying to keep the ABA from endorsing Roe v. Wade, President Bush has obviously decided that the time has come for a public debate. And that’s a healthy thing for the country: Expose how this case has been misinterpreted and misused.
Current liberal thought posits that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" in the words of former president Bill Clinton. Only by stipulating that abortion should remain "rare" can liberal politicians escape popular outrage. Yet these same politicians refuse to answer just why abortion should remain rare. If abortion is a moral good under any circumstances (as abortion-on-demand advocates declare), why should it remain rare? And if keeping abortion rare is a rational goal, why should state governments be barred from taking steps to discourage abortion? Â
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Planned Parenthood has brought back its offensive Choice on Earth Christmas cards, turning a holiday celebrating Jesus' birth into a fundraising opportunity to support abortion.
Oslo, Norway (LifeNews.com) -- Another study has confirmed the fact that women who have abortions suffer from mental anxiety, guilt, shame, and distress years later. Those negative emotional feelings can last as long as five years after the abortion or even longer, the Norwegian study found.
Christchurch, New Zealand (LifeNews.com)--A new study conducted in New Zealand finds women who have abortions are more likely to become severely depressed. The report confirms the results of a comprehensive study in 2004 in the U.S. showing abortion leads to a host of mental health problems.
The New Zealand study found that having an abortion as a young woman raises the risk of developing mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.
no. but the correct result would have been to say that the unborn child was another person. This is just another example of a judge getting things wrong. Getting things wrong is not the same as judicial activism.
The Roe anniversary reminds us pointedly, all the same, why judicial confirmation is one of the huge stories of our time. It's because of the high court's power to do exactly what the court of 33 years ago did -- give a mere policy judgment the status of constitutional law. Not by taking the issue to the people -- oh, no -- but just by deciding to do it.
Roe -- which overturned the abortion enactments of the 50 states and put forth a federal schema for dealing with the question -- is sometimes called a "ukase," meaning a decree by the czar, or a "diktat," the harsh consonants signifying lofty, Prussian-like disdain for insubordination. In fact, the metaphors bear some strong relationship to reality.
Here's this bunch of guys whom no one elected to anything. Some parties to a lawsuit have put before them a disputed notion, and magically, under the justices' hands, that notion -- the right to abortion -- becomes law, governing the way we lesser beings, we non-justices of the Supreme Court, live or perhaps don't live at all.
Relentlessness isn't confined to the left.
It means: Nice crowd you run with, jethro.
Relentlessness, when it doesn't rise to the level of making threats of violence or actual violence, can be a good thing. But it is apparent that you believe the left will do some type of violence if Roe is overturned. Explain why that is a good thing.
It's not a good thing.
what is not a good thing?
Violence.
I agree, But apparently you believe your brethren will resort to it if Roe is overturned. If that were to happen they could, instead of resorting to violence, introduce bills in the state legislatures to legalize abortion. But I guess the democratic process just isn't the left's way of doing business.
"But apparently you believe your brethren will resort to it if Roe is overturned."
They could, but I don't think violence would be confined to the left. It could come from any corners as abortion is debated state by state.
"But I guess the democratic process just isn't the left's way of doing business."
Tell that to the families of abortion doctors who have been shot and the dozens of instances of violence at abortion clinics.
They could, but I don't think violence would be confined to the left. It could come from any corners as abortion is debated state by state.
How? I mean abortion is allowed now. If Roe was overturned any changes would be in states that passed laws banning it. Those that oppose such laws would be the ones facing a change in the status quo.
Tell that to the families of abortion doctors who have been shot and the dozens of instances of violence at abortion clinics.Â
"If Roe was overturned any changes would be in states that passed laws banning it.'
And those states where it's legal could bring out the contingent who want to strongarm state assemblies that are holding out. And they're known to often be indifferent to the death of doctors, bombing of clinics and screaming at 16-year-old girls. All of which, you have been indifferent to.
And those states where it's legal could bring out the contingent who want to strongarm state assemblies that are holding out. And they're known to often be indifferent to the death of doctors, bombing of clinics and screaming at 16-year-old girls. All of which, you have been indifferent to.
"jethro bodine - ( PFID:1de137d6) - 09:41am Dec 22, 2003 PST (# 6336 of 11772)
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."
So, Jethro, you DON'T believe in bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors who perform abortions?
Let me put it this way. I wouldn't personally choose to bomb a clinic or kill an abortionist. But to advocate that it shouldn't be done would be to attempt to impose my morality on someone else. I believe bombing abortion clinics and killing abortionist is a personal choice that one has to decide on their own. "
So, Jethro, you DON'T believe in bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors who perform abortions? What do you mean? I believe some bombings happened. I don't believe that they should have.
Let me put it this way. I wouldn't personally choose to bomb a clinic or kill an abortionist. But to advocate that it shouldn't be done would be to attempt to impose my morality on someone else. I believe bombing abortion clinics and killing abortionist is a personal choice that one has to decide on their own." That was written to show the idiocy of that abortion is a personal choice.
"I believe some bombings happened. I don't believe that they should have."
Is it becuse you think it's wrong or just not a good idea?
"That was written to show the idiocy of that abortion is a personal choice."
The difference between an abortion and killing doctors is a persistent inconvenience called the law. If you see it as idiocy, that's a personal choice.
"I believe some bombings happened."
They just "happened" like Hurricane Katrina? LOL! They didn't just "happen." Somebody planned it in dark corners with malice aforethought and did it.
Grabbin a Lucky 7 Joe.
Is it because you think it's wrong or just not a good idea? I think it is wrong but others have a different idea. I really shouldn't be judgmental. It is a personal choice!
"That was written to show the idiocy of that abortion is a personal choice."
The difference between an abortion and killing doctors is a persistent inconvenience called the law. If you see it as idiocy, that's a personal choice. It is idiocy. And people that make the distinction that you made are morally challenged.
Did Fold really say that?
I really shouldn't be judgmental. It is a personal choice!
Bulletin to fold: the above was sarcasm.
Bulletin to Deuchebag:
(posting to yourself, fold?)
That you cannot admit that one of your sentences is completely at odds with the
alledgedly
sarcastic sentence, in the same post,
is not surprising. I am sorry that you are unable to shift gears quickly.
Nice try... But as usual, that was an amazingly stupid explanation of your clearly stated belief-system. Because you
say
that you "Hope" not to be judgemental, yet you demonize everyone who does not believe as YOU do,
each and every freaking day,
indicates strongly that you don't even seem to understand your own relentlessly-intolerant psyche...
in the least.
No small wonder you so fervantly desire
religiously-activist
"Judges", those who seem to be as intolerant and "Judgemental" as you wish you weren't.
fold, you are more intolerant than I could ever be.Â
Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas Medical Center says the report is biased. He said he and other specialists in development of unborn children have shown that babies feel pain before birth as early as 20 weeks into the pregnancy.
Anand said other medical studies conclude that unborn babies are "very likely" to be "extremely sensitive to pain during the gestation of 20 to 30 weeks."
"This is based on multiple lines of evidence," Dr. Anand said. "Not just the lack of descending inhibitory fibers, but also the number of receptors in the skin, the level of expression of various chemicals, neurotransmitters, receptors, and things like that."
Anand explained that later-term abortion procedures, such as a partial-birth abortion "would be likely to cause severe pain."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1558.html
In a monograph about CRHRP, abortion activist Carol E. Joffe wrote, "What UCSF has done, more so than any other medical institution I can think of, has been to integrate abortion into mainstream medical care."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1562.html
crabs, is a wacko extremist. You appaera to be fowlloing in his footsteps.
you are the wacko extremist, bodine.
you think just like the Taliban, right down to your religious intolerance. You hate the same freedoms America has that they do.
"you think just like the Taliban, right down to your religious intolerance."
jethro might not think like the Taliban. Maybe he's just impressed with what they were able to achieve...for awhile.
They snapped those infidels in line. They wouldn't take the crap people have tolerate in this nuthouse.
[Edited by on Sep 2, 2005 at 01:28pm.]
that's pretty much the entire gist of their beef... they don't like what a liberalcountry we are. Neither does bodine.
[Edited by molegrass on Sep 2, 2005 at 01:38pm.]
that's pretty much the entire gist of their beef... they don't like what a liberalcountry we are. Neither does bodine.
In the eyes of the Taliban we sure are... and it's something you both hate about us.
You are like two peas in a pod.
not to mention the way they thank Allah for everything, just like you do.
[Edited by molegrass on Sep 2, 2005 at 03:26pm.]
Not a chance, Mr. Extremist.
After recent events, we may just be headed towards the Liberal Nation we
once were,...
do you ever leave your fantasy world, fold?
Jethro, if you had a heart and if you had any brains,
you would likely BE a Liberal.
I have a brain that is why I am not a liberal.
Â
OH, ok...
Got it.
Which it now seems he won't have to. And neither will the many -- may their tribe increase over time -- who see right through the balderdash that constitutes current abortion law. Â
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billmurchison/bm20050920.shtml
get your prolife wrist band here: http://www.prolifebands.com/
It’s difficult to imagine a group of intelligent men more in the dark about the consequences of their actions. It only reinforces my conviction that Roe is not only bad law: It’s an embarrassment to American law, which makes the way that Roe has come to dominate our public life especially grotesque.
In nominating Harriet Miers, someone who has been very visible, publicly trying to keep the ABA from endorsing Roe v. Wade, President Bush has obviously decided that the time has come for a public debate. And that’s a healthy thing for the country: Expose how this case has been misinterpreted and misused.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/chuckcolson/2005/10/04/159358.html
the pro abortionist/extremists are at it again: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177099,00.html
Current liberal thought posits that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" in the words of former president Bill Clinton. Only by stipulating that abortion should remain "rare" can liberal politicians escape popular outrage. Yet these same politicians refuse to answer just why abortion should remain rare. If abortion is a moral good under any circumstances (as abortion-on-demand advocates declare), why should it remain rare? And if keeping abortion rare is a rational goal, why should state governments be barred from taking steps to discourage abortion? Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2005/11/30/177147.html
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Planned Parenthood has brought back its offensive Choice on Earth Christmas cards, turning a holiday celebrating Jesus' birth into a fundraising opportunity to support abortion.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1889.html
Oslo, Norway (LifeNews.com) -- Another study has confirmed the fact that women who have abortions suffer from mental anxiety, guilt, shame, and distress years later. Those negative emotional feelings can last as long as five years after the abortion or even longer, the Norwegian study found.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1889.html
Christchurch, New Zealand (LifeNews.com)--A new study conducted in New Zealand finds women who have abortions are more likely to become severely depressed. The report confirms the results of a comprehensive study in 2004 in the U.S. showing abortion leads to a host of mental health problems.
The New Zealand study found that having an abortion as a young woman raises the risk of developing mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1941.html
Maybe a little more mercy by society in New Zealand would help those women.
Maybe it is mercy to try to prevent them from being in that situation.
Is this what they call 'judicial activism?'
"Fetuses do not count as passengers when it comes to determining who may drive in the carpool lane, a judge has ruled."
C'mon your honor. Do it for the children!
Is this what they call 'judicial activism?'
no. but the correct result would have been to say that the unborn child was another person. This is just another example of a judge getting things wrong. Getting things wrong is not the same as judicial activism.
The Roe anniversary reminds us pointedly, all the same, why judicial confirmation is one of the huge stories of our time. It's because of the high court's power to do exactly what the court of 33 years ago did -- give a mere policy judgment the status of constitutional law. Not by taking the issue to the people -- oh, no -- but just by deciding to do it.
Roe -- which overturned the abortion enactments of the 50 states and put forth a federal schema for dealing with the question -- is sometimes called a "ukase," meaning a decree by the czar, or a "diktat," the harsh consonants signifying lofty, Prussian-like disdain for insubordination. In fact, the metaphors bear some strong relationship to reality.
Here's this bunch of guys whom no one elected to anything. Some parties to a lawsuit have put before them a disputed notion, and magically, under the justices' hands, that notion -- the right to abortion -- becomes law, governing the way we lesser beings, we non-justices of the Supreme Court, live or perhaps don't live at all.
http://soapbox.townhall.com/opinion/columns/billmurchison/2006/01/18/182746.html