Landlord turns tables on abortion protesters

iadr wrote: Holy berekley what a bunch of unevolved morons we have on this board. Sad.

I only see one.

N Sperlo wrote:

iadr wrote: Holy berekley what a bunch of unevolved morons we have on this board. Sad.

I only see one.

Who was he even calling "enevolved morons" anyway?

Duke wrote: I still don't see any claim whatsoever that this is presented as "journalism". And, frankly, judging from what is accepted as journalism today, if you took the expletives out, it would pass muster.

Blogs pass now-a-days. If there's a story with a soft undertone of truth to it, I think many would consider it journalism expletives or not. You dig?

MG Bryan wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

iadr wrote: Holy berekley what a bunch of unevolved morons we have on this board. Sad.

I only see one.

Who was he even calling "enevolved morons" anyway?

We can only assume. Since he or she left it up to my discretion, I assumed it was anyone with a different opinion than him. If its anyone with a different opinion than him, he is the only unevolved moron in the group.

To me, the protester's actions are on par with that church that protests at soldier's funerals. Whether you're for, or against something, there's a right and a wrong way to use your freedom of speech.

In reply to Lesley:

Westboro Baptist Church. That whole town is so cult-like its scary. The overbearing stance the Catholic Church has on things such as abortion is what originally converted me away from mainstream religion.

I don't care who you are or what you are protesting, if you stalk and harass people, you can't whine when they return the favor and do the same to you.

Guys, didn't mean to start a E36 M3-storm, and for that I apologize. I've asked for this to be taken down.

In reply to Lesley:

I think most of us are not out of line. In fact I support the fact that you put this up here.

No man has the right to regulate what a woman wants to do with/to/around/for her uterus.

Taiden wrote: No man has the right to regulate what a woman wants to do with/to/around/for her uterus.

Which is fine, because I've never heard anyone oppose abortion on interests of a uterus. Killing a child isn't a privacy issue.

I am opposed to late term abortion providers (and their landlords).

However, I find his methods admirable. I appreciate his approach.

The author of the article should take a few lessons from the man she is writing about. Referring to opponents as "shiny happy people", "evil bullies", and commenting that their methods are "incredibly berkeleyed up" is no where near as classy as the man she is writing about.

I would like to see the discussion from both sides as open and civil. Regretfully, the truths coming from one side of the conversation are strongly ignored, which leaves some people with the perspective that their only option to try to save the lives of babies is to resort to making it uncomfortable for people to approach clinics.

Why is it that we can't have a civil discussion about protecting the honor, dignity, and life of late term healthy viable children and their mothers (and fathers)?

Do we understand, for example, that intact dilation and extraction (sometimes called partial birth abortion) is a process that should NEVER be used for the protection of the life of a mother? It can't be used in an emergency situation, because it takes several days. The American Medical Association has confirmed this. The proper response to an emergency condition in a late term pregnancy is an emergency C-section (the way I was born). But let's keep it legal anyway cause we wanna have a choice, even if it is horribly barbaric and cruel.

I would happily discuss it with Mr. Stave, or any of his supporters. Unfortunately, there is really not any willingness to have an open discussion on the subject in this country.

Taiden wrote: No man has the right to regulate what a woman wants to do with/to/around/for her uterus.

But the Congresses who have written every law at every level of government in the history of this country are grossly predominantly composed of men, therefore men DO regulate this.

SVreX wrote:

Taiden wrote: No man has the right to regulate what a woman wants to do with/to/around/for her uterus.

But the Congresses who have written every law at every level of government in the history of this country are grossly predominantly composed of men, therefore men DO regulate this.

And we've reached the problem in this whole argument since it started...that we're a bunch of dudes arguing about an issue we should let the ladies clear up. Face it, we're totally unqualified here.

Twin_Cam wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Taiden wrote: No man has the right to regulate what a woman wants to do with/to/around/for her uterus.

But the Congresses who have written every law at every level of government in the history of this country are grossly predominantly composed of men, therefore men DO regulate this.

And we've reached the problem in this whole argument since it started...that we're a bunch of dudes arguing about an issue we should let the ladies clear up. Face it, we're totally unqualified here.

Yep. Deciding how to proceed about abortion is a woman's job.

Some people believe that ejaculation without attempting contraception is murder. Some people think that late term abortion is not.

In the end, the only person who can make that call is the woman. I can't tell her she's made the right or the wrong decision. It's not my place.

Surprisingly... I don't agree. I think that's a decision that everyone has a right to be part of – it takes one of each of us to make a child. But there are all sorts of different circumstances to each situation. Sometimes it's a situation that was forced upon the woman without her consent – in which case it should be up to the individual. I don't see it as an us/them, men vs women... but something that we as people have to decide for ourselves.

Taiden wrote:

Twin_Cam wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Taiden wrote: No man has the right to regulate what a woman wants to do with/to/around/for her uterus.

But the Congresses who have written every law at every level of government in the history of this country are grossly predominantly composed of men, therefore men DO regulate this.

And we've reached the problem in this whole argument since it started...that we're a bunch of dudes arguing about an issue we should let the ladies clear up. Face it, we're totally unqualified here.

Yep. Deciding how to proceed about abortion is a woman's job. Some people believe that ejaculation without attempting contraception is murder. Some people think that late term abortion is not. In the end, the only person who can make that call is the woman. I can't tell her she's made the right or the wrong decision. It's not my place.

A similar line of reasoning can be applied to anything. It doesn't work though. I'm not sexually attracted to young children, but I absolutely still can tell someone that is that it would be very wrong to act on such an attraction.

Thank you Lesley. On that we thoroughly agree.

Ok, good call, it takes two sexes to make a kid, but can we agree that so far the debate has been sort of one-sided, and not likely to change any time in the near future, and that that's sort of problematic/ridiculous?

Twin_Cam wrote: And we've reached the problem in this whole argument since it started...that we're a bunch of dudes arguing about an issue we should let the ladies clear up. Face it, we're totally unqualified here.

I am not a dude arguing about a woman's issue.

I am a MAN acting responsibly and deeply concerned for both children and women who are enduring untold pain because of being ill-informed and used for political gain.

I am also a MAN who regrets having used abortion as a form of birth control, and would like to help men and women who have had similar struggles find healing and avoid the pain I have endured and inflicted on others.

I am COMPLETELY qualified, and prepared to stand up for what is right, even if it costs me personally, and I resent your implication that I am not.

Man up, dude.

Exactly as Lesley says. It takes two to tango, which IMHO means the father should have a say, BUT: he damn well better be ready to shoulder his responsibilities once that child is born. To say 'she can't have an abortion because I am the dad and I say so' but then welsh on helping raise the kid is just shi++y.

Now, about some random person not directly involved: GTFO. I don't care what your background is: priest, rabbi, Hells Angel, politician, whatever. It's not your situation thus it is not your decision. Run your own damn life. That's where I agree with this guy throwing back at the protestors what they threw at him. If someone is going to throw the first punch in a fight, they should not be surprised when their opponent punches them right back.

I do not like anything about abortion. Having said that, one of the few things I agree with Bill Clinton was the part about abortion being 'safe, legal and rare'. If I have to make a choice about the whole thing, I don't think we should return to the days of 'back alley abortions' where women died.

Hmm...clinic vs vodka and a coat hanger.....

Curmudgeon wrote: Exactly as Lesley says. It takes two to tango, which IMHO means the father should have a say, BUT: he damn well better be ready to shoulder his responsibilities once that child is born. To say 'she can't have an abortion because I am the dad and I say so' but then welsh on helping raise the kid is just shi++y.

I agree.

But we both know it is much more common for a man to pressure a woman and say, "Do the right thing and take care of the problem".

Significantly shi++ier, and vastly more common.

BTW- women still die getting abortions.

Yes they do, and regardless of what 60-year-old politicians might say, there aren't too many of them that will blithely use them as a form of birth control.

In reply to Lesley:

I agree.

There are probably more men who would callously impose abortions on women as a form of birth control then women who would do it blithely.

I'm one, which I deeply regret.