Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ABORTION: Writer fails to see moral issue

Letter by Zoe V. Herron, Olympia on Oct. 18, 2011 at 1:11 pm with 244 Comments »
October 18, 2011 1:11 pm

Re: “Let women control their own bodies” (letter, 10-17).

The writer fails to recognize that abortion is not just a health issue, but also a moral one. She also states that women should be “left alone to control our own bodies.”

I acknowledge that while women should be in control of their bodies, when a woman becomes pregnant, there is a new little body in her. From the moment of conception, her body contains a living human being. If the tiny child within her is indeed alive, and infanticide is considered a horrible crime here in the America and around the world, then she is not being told what to do with her body.

Infanticide is infanticide, within the womb or not. Abortion is not a merely a “health issue”; it is a matter of compassionate morality.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 244
  1. asceptictoo says:

    Still with the pros and cons this is a person’s individual choice and shouldn’t be mandated by the moral majority as this will bring around back room abortions which will cause serious injury and potential death. Than again maybe if we taught are youngsters about safe sex and that if they did get pregnant we would help them with their choice we might not have young adults killing their children after birth because they were hiding it from their family!

  2. Fibonacci says:

    aspectictoo
    I am some place in the middle on ths issue, but I think you fail to realize what the argument is in this letter. It is that, yes a woman has the right to control her body, but that when pregnent another body is involved, not just hers. So, your argument with this letter should not be whether or not a woman has a right to control HER body, but whether or not the baby inside her is a body also.

  3. Soundlife says:

    I am all for abortion as long as it can be made retroactive…

  4. Ms. Herron’s position is based on religious beliefs. It is not her place to tell anyone that we must honor her religious beliefs. We do not even have to accept that the issue is a moral one.
    What she proposes is simple ideological nonsense.
    The letter is a classic example of fundamentalist anti-intellectualism.

  5. redneckbuck says:

    If it is really a choice, then pay for it yourself. Tax dollars are used for abortion.

  6. when a woman becomes pregnant, there is a new little body in her

    No…it’s a zygote

    If it is really a choice, then pay for it yourself. Tax dollars are used for abortion.

    No, They are not.

  7. Great letter Zoe, thank you. Of course you will receive a bunch of flak from both kardnos and publico (you already have) both of which seem to be non-believers either in the truth that there is but one true GOD and that a fetus is a human being, both being the TRUTH. No matter, they have their own opinions, although sad and will hopefully repent before they spend eternity in Hell, which they probably don’t believe in either. And to answer their posts which they will surely type, I am not a religious freak, just a total spiritual person that loves The Lord, knows the truth and no, kard and pub, I am not judging you, I just know the Truth.

  8. Thank you everyone for commenting on my letter, but first I have to say…

    Publico: I’m sorry if my religious background offends you. First of all, you shouln’t have simply assumed my background before asking. Second, I’m sorry that you feel my view is “a classic example of fundamentalist anti-intellectualism”. If you must know, I am sixteen years old and this is my opinion on abortion, straight and simple.

    Darlin: Thank you. I really appreciate that. :)

  9. redneckbuck says:

    Remember ZoeH, liberals feel we are just an advanced form of an animal. We are not capable of controlling our urges. Pregnancy is view as a disease that must be cured. There is only one cure, restraint and self control, two things liberals fail to practice. Oh and remember, liber4als love to bait you into a fight by insulting you, so when this happens as in the post you mention, consider it the white flag! I teach Physics at a local high school and by no means are you a light thinker, we will leave that for the brainwashed Evergreen State college kids.

  10. redneckbuck says:

    Title X funds are spent on abortions, just not at Planned Parenthood.

  11. “when a woman becomes pregnant, there is a new little body in her

    No…it’s a zygote

    KARDNOS
    Oct. 18, 2011 at 2:38 pm”

    So, tell me, when did the twins become human?

  12. All people become human upon birth….regardless of if they are twins or not.

    What would “twins” have to do with the subject? Are you trying to makes something out of nothing?

  13. In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.[1] It is not a permanent law, rather it is a “rider” that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976.

    Please…redneck…get informed.

    Darlin….are you speaking of the God of Muhammed?

  14. So, kardnos, what your saying is that when a women is in the advanced stages of pregnancy, and the fetus is completely formed and has all organs, then it is not in any way “human”?

  15. old_benjamin says:

    Ah yes, “zygote,” that’s just what every pregnant woman calls the life within her. She announces that she is going to have a zygote, picks a name for her zygote, determines her zygote’s sex, and has a zygote shower.

    Isn’t it remarkable to what extremes the pro-death crowd will go to deny the humanity of the unborn. One is reminded of the Nazi dehumanization of its victims in order to justify their extermination.

  16. If government can pass laws that tell women they can not terminate a pregance, government can also pass laws telling women they must produce x number of children, or produce no children at all.

  17. Zoe – I’m glad that a 16 year old is taking her time to become active in something other than Facebook. I commend you.

    Now, a lesson in “opinions”….

    Just because you or I have an “opinion” doesn’t make it absolute truth.

    Seek PROOF, not mythology. There is volumes of science about reproduction and biology so that you can actually learn something and not get caught up in the ideology of one particular brand of religion.

    When you make the mistake of confusing “Faith” with “Truth” you blind yourself from learning. Darlin is proof.

    Take a look at “redneck” and the vile statements about “liberals”, as if there has never been a religious woman that has had to abort. One more example of small mindedness.

    You can be much more than what they contribute.

  18. Zoe…if you have questions about the correct terminology in reference to the unborn, I suggest you use your computer and internet and seek the correct answers. Anything I’d share with you would be from that source, but getting it on your own would be so much more rewarding for you.

  19. Zoe:

    Here is a great place to start your quest for knowledge.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2602/is_0002/ai_2602000272/

    It’s about human gestation.

    According to the source, the proper term is “fetus” until birth.

  20. Zoe….take a lesson from sozo….

    Be as condescending and rude as possible and you’ll never learn a thing.

  21. Zoe…one last thing, unless you request more…

    Late stage abortions are not performed unless something is terribly wrong, medically, with either the mother or fetus. Anyone telling you different is attempting to misinform you for political purposes.

  22. There is nothing that suggests that faith interferes with truth. Many people of great faith were geniuses.

    Kardnos you confuse provable fact and truth. It’s probably not your fault, but it makes some of your arguments embarrassingly shallow.

    Old Ben…manipulating the language to justify and rationalize immoral choices is fundamental. Those who do the manipulating know that malleable minds will fall for it, which they do. Have you read The Giver, originally written for middle-schoolers, it’s now used as text in high schools and even some universities. It’ll take you about an hour or two to read it. Lois Lowry, the author, created the perfect community, and much of it was accomplished via the manipulation of language. It’s creepy how much The Community in her story resembles the community dreamt of by …well, some of the community organizers in our midst.

  23. Sozo: Thank you. That really does mean a lot.

    Kardnos: I appreciate your comments, even if I don’t agree with them. While, yes, I am a religious person, the point of my letter was the abortion is mainly a moral issue, instead of just using my views on faith, I was also saying that there is an immoral issue I see in abortion.
    Also, I would say that internet isn’t exactly the best resource for info..in this day and age anyone can post anything they like on the internet and claim it to be true.

  24. The “proper term” Kardnos? Only for those of you who need it to be the proper term.

  25. Oh my Zoe, you are so way ahead of many posters on these threads. Bravo regarding your internet comment. Stay smart and go on to get a really good job where you have a lot of influence over a lot of people!!

  26. Zoe….do you understand that not everyone shares your religious belief?

    You’ve made my point. Many people do not agree with religious beliefs dictating law, for the very reason that is here…one person’s salt is another’s pepper.

    You have every right in the world to believe as you wish and no one is forcing you to change your mind. Abortion is a choice, not mandatory.

    Practice your faith by never having an abortion. It’s your choice.

  27. Zoe….as to your opinion of the internet….screen your sources. It’s not hard to do.

    Now…I must say that someone who is willing to operated on “faith” and questions the truthfulness of internet sources is being somewhat contradictory.

    People can intepret religion anyway they want. It’s done daily…in the name of God.

  28. Definition of Infant from the medical dictionary: infant /in·fant/ (in´fint) the human young from the time of birth to one . Therefore, infanticide is only possible after a child has been born. The letter writer needs to read the dictionary before using words.

  29. I have one thing to say, Kardnos:

    I know you would like to use the proper medical term in all instances, but I’m sorry but I consider the moving being (or ‘fetus’ as you prefer) inside the mother a BABY.

    Sorry if I am about to get too emotional for you, but I get sad when I think of all the babies that didn’t get a change to experience life, often just for the mother’s conveince. There are so many couples out there that are childless and long for a baby.

  30. sorry sozo….I know that when you remove the emotionalism from an issue, it eliminates the con artist’s ability to sway intended targets.

    As PT Barnum said…..

  31. Also, what I was trying to say earlier is that I was trying to write my letter in a more objective fashion…

    Also you can choose to analyze my opinion on internet sources as you wish, but please, don’t bring my faith into it.

  32. Zoe….very fair.

    So…tell me…where are the parents that are waiting for disabled children, minority children, etc? If there are people waiting…why do we have parentless children that are wards of the state?

    You have a right to be as emotional as you wish. Just don’t confuse your emotions with absolute truth.

    Are you aware that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed long before there is human-looking development in the fetus?

  33. Zoe….regardless of your faith….

    Enjoy an opportunity to learn the biological truth about gestation:

    http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal_development_pictures_slideshow/article.htm

  34. Kardnos: So it all depends on looks to you? If I showed you a tiny plant sprout, would you deny to me that it was living and would someday be a big tree?

    Also, many parents unfortuantely don’t want older children; they want infants. That’s the problem with society today..they want perfection as they see it. It can also be extremely difficult and costly to adopt. But terminating pregnancies out of simple convenience is not the answer to the abortion issue.

  35. Excuse me I meant “adoption issue” in the comment above.

  36. Also you can choose to analyze my opinion on internet sources as you wish, but please, don’t bring my faith into it.

    Zoe…YOU have chosen to bring faith into the conversation.

    The point I’m making is that I find it rather odd for a “person of faith” to object to the validity of internet sources, when such a major portion of their life decisions is based on something without proof.

  37. Zoe…..did you look at the website I provided? Many of your questions should be answered right there

  38. Actually, Kardnos, as I have stated before, I have merely acknowledged my faith, and have my kept arguments on moral issues, instead of using religious evidence as sole proof.

  39. “But terminating pregnancies out of simple convenience is not the answer to the abortion issue.”

    I couldn’t agree more. As a wise man said,”Abortion should be legal and infrequent”.

    Now, that being said…do you want someone making your decisions as to what is “convenient” to you and what is “necessary”? I’m thinking you’d rather have the right to consult a professional – be it a doctor or pastor – for help with your life challenges and to make your decisions based on their counsel and your conclusions.

    Allow others the same rights.

  40. If you read my comment above, I made a spell mistake. I meant the “adoption issue”.

  41. Zoe….moral issues ARE based on your religious training. You are trying to split hairs.

    I have moral determinations that don’t align with yours, but I’m no less moral.

  42. As you wish Kardnos, though I will say it a little sad that one of your morals is “its ok to terminate a developing baby (or fetus or zygote or whatever)”. But what I am saying? I’m just an anti-truth, unintelligent, religiously biased teenager!

  43. Sorry if that last post seemed a little rude. I’ve got a bit of a temper.

  44. Take a look at my previous post and you’ll realize that I don’t find abortion “OK”. It’s a tough choice for anyone to have to make.

    Zoe…I’m going to run and celebrate my grandson’s 16th birthday. Don’t worry about a little rudeness…we all stubb our toes. There are those who will tell you that I’m rude. :)

    I enjoyed talking with you and again commend you on being adult enough to have such a deep conversation. You handled yourself well.

  45. alindasue says:

    xring said, “If government can pass laws that tell women they can not terminate a pregance, government can also pass laws telling women they must produce x number of children, or produce no children at all.”

    xring,
    You are not usually one to sink to the level of hyperbole, so I don’t understand why you are choosing to do so now.

    A woman when she is pregnant is no longer just one person. There is a major difference between taking into account the rights of the woman AND her fetus (baby, zygote, whatever) into account and forcing a woman to produce or not produce children.

    Unless she is raped, a woman has a choice in what she does with her body. Most adult women understand, or should understand, the connection between sex and possible pregnancy. If she and her partner choose to have sex than that is their choice. It’s her life; she can choose. However, if her choice leads to pregnancy (which can happen, even with “protected” sex), then we now have two lives to be concerned with. Even if you do not consider that second life to be a “person” yet, I think you would be hard pressed to argue that it is not another life. That’s when the “it’s my life” argument starts to get a bit murky.

    That’s not “telling women they must produce x number of children”. That’s taking into account the rights of ALL the lives involved. There is a big difference.

    Zoe,
    You have chosen to write a letter about one of the most contentious issues out there. Like you, I am unapologetically pro-life. However, there are people – good people – who appear to hold a much narrower view of what a life is than you and I do. It’s okay to disagree with them.

    Pay attention in school, continue to learn, and try not to get caught up in the jingo-ism and hyperbole coming from either side of the issue. Even if you don’t agree with them, try to understand the point of view of those you are disagreeing with. In doing so, it will continue to be much easier to rationally discuss with them your own beliefs.

    Good luck, and may we see more letters in the future from you.

  46. alindasue…. as to your pro-life stance, I congratulate your consistancy. I see you support health care for all, which is consistent with pro-life in terms of keeping humans alive whenever possible and feasible.

    I can’t agree, however with your narrow view of “responsibility” and what constitutes such directed at women. To say that women become the responsible party if there is no even of rape, doesn’t fit with me, as I believe that the best birth control is a man keeping his pants on. :)

    You are intimating that abortion is used as birth control, but I’d submit that it is rarely used for birth control. Thus becomes the medical challenges and that is between a patient and doctor.

  47. aislander says:

    Publico: I re-read the letter and saw nothing about a religious basis for the writer’s views. But, even if such a basis had been stated, it would be irrelevant to the legitimacy of those views. Our morals are formed by the sum-total of our experiences, and the fact that a person holds moral principles makes them valid for that person, regardless of their evolution.

  48. aislander says:

    So…Frida…you believe there is no infanticide if the murdered child is not yet born?

    You DO know that when a pregnant woman is murdered and her baby dies, too, the perp is charged with two counts of homicide? Don’t you? That would be two individual counts…

  49. Aislander, wow I did not know that about a criminal being charged with two count of homicide. What it says is very powerful. I have learned something new today.:) Thank you!

  50. alindasue says:

    KARDNOS said, “I can’t agree, however with your narrow view of “responsibility” and what constitutes such directed at women. To say that women become the responsible party if there is no even of rape, doesn’t fit with me, as I believe that the best birth control is a man keeping his pants on.”

    I don’t disagree with you about responsibility. If you notice, I consistently say “a woman and her partner” are making the choice to have sex. She is not making the choice alone – and neither is he. The best birth control is for a man and a woman to BOTH keep their pants on.

    “You are intimating that abortion is used as birth control, but I’d submit that it is rarely used for birth control.”

    In the strictest sense of the definition, abortion is “birth control”, whether you approve of it’s use or not. It prevents a birth. However, it is not birth control I disapprove of – just abortion.

    Abortion is generally used to “solve a problem”. Occasionally – extremely rarely – that “problem” is caused by rape. Most often though, the “problem” is caused by two people who chose to have sex. They (she and he) made their choice. With any choice comes responsibility – in this case, the responsibility to that life that they created (intentionally or not).

    The only gray area I see here is in the rare case of rape, where a woman has been denied the chance to choose.

    If the so-called “pro-choice” people would spend half the effort they spend trying to convince the rest of us that a fetus is nothing more than a mass of tissue would join me (and, hopefully, others) in spreading the attitude that there is no sin in being a victim of rape – then maybe more victims would be willing to go for help immediately, when they could be treated for their injuries and Plan B will do them some good…

  51. theglovesRoff says:

    alindasue

    I can neither confirm nor deny that it is someone posting here.

    Some of us might connect the dots, but as much as it pains me, I cannot say anymore (why am I so nice…)

    I will let you do your own research. Maybe others will help you out in your quest.

    Have a good night.

  52. bobcat1a says:

    When people start holding funerals for miscarriages and governments start prosecuting women who smoke and drink women for miscarriages…then maybe I’ll believe people think of a fetus as a person.

  53. aislander says:

    bobcat1a: If you don’t believe that people grieve for miscarriages, you have never been around a couple that went through one…

  54. Alindasue – ‘government law’ –
    Look at China – each couple may have a single child.

    In Hitler’s Germany selected females were sent to special facilities to mate with selected males to produce as many babies as they could.

    In Saudi Arabia – Saudi females may only marry Saudi Males.

    Aislander – intelligent people believe words have specific meanings.

  55. ZoeH says: “I have one thing to say, Kardnos:

    I know you would like to use the proper medical term in all instances, but I’m sorry but I consider the moving being (or ‘fetus’ as you prefer) inside the mother a BABY.”
    When one subverts a definition one falsifies its meaning and thus any attempt at making a logical connection fails. Definitions are the basis for what language is all about. Language is what one uses to form statements that make sense in all respects unless the aim is to not be truthful in the first place.
    If ZoeH is going to be intellectually honest, she must adhere to what can stand the tests of logic. Religious pronunciations always fail.

  56. To Publico: I was not by any means quoting a dictionary meaning, but rather my own opinion as I see logical. I was not in any way claiming it to be the technical meaning. I am also puzzled to why you declared my definition a “religious pronounciation”.

    I was being intellectually as well as philosophically honest as I saw fit. To me, if the fetus has human cells and moves and possibly breaths, then to me it is a alive.

  57. You DO know that when a pregnant woman is murdered and her baby dies, too, the perp is charged with two counts of homicide? Don’t you? That would be two individual counts…

    aislander

    Sometimes true. However, whether or not you are actually guilty under the criminal code is determined by how far along in the pregnancy the victim is. I had a prof who used to say, “The District Attorney can indict a ham sandwich if they wanted, but it’s a long way from a conviction.” Simply put, charged with a crime is no indication you are actually guilty of a crime. It’s been my experience many prosecutors will charge high and settle low.

    As for the letter writer, I appreciate her passion for this subject and willingness to write a letter. I’m glad we are all entitled to our own opinions.

  58. aislander says:

    Intelligent people know there are shades of meaning, but the dictionary follows usage, not vice versa. Until pregnant women everywhere begin announcing that they are nurturing a fetus, Zoe’s usage is the correct one. And, again, there was no mention of religion in her letter-not that it would have mattered if there had been.

    It is said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, but, in this thread, ultra-formalism is…

  59. Thank you aislander…you clarified what I was trying to say. And while, yes, I am a religious person, I tried to write my letter in an objective fashion as often non-religious people will completely dismiss what you have to say the minute any religion is mentioned.

  60. aislander says:

    It makes you wonder whose conscience was being salved by insisting on “fetus.” Certainly it shouldn’t matter to them what WE call an unborn child.

    In any case, kudos for standing up under fire. I don’t know if I could have done as well when I was your age.

  61. aislander says:

    JWD1: I was merely countering an assertion that the legal system doesn’t ever treat an unborn child as a person. The disposition of specific cases is irrelevant to that point…

  62. Aislander: Yes, like someone mentioned above, they try to dehumanize the unborn child by giving it names like “fetus” and “zygote”, just like Hitler used propaganda words to dehumanize the victims of the Holocaust.

  63. Zoe…just like The Army of God calls doctors “murderers” to desensitize the killing of them?

    This has been rather educational….you have a pretty good command of the anti-choice arguments….especially for a 16 year old…

  64. Kardnos…you bring up a valid point, although I do not agree with extremists who will kill for sake of their morals, since it is contradictory of what they are advocating for (pro-life). I prefer to voice my beliefs on abortion in a more constructive (and much less violent) way.

    I’m not completely sure of what you meant by “a pretty good command of the anti-choice agruments”…

  65. Alindasue….you’ve left out a sector of women needing abortions – those whose health might be compromised by carrying to term.

    I’m surprised, to say the least.

  66. Zoe H – You are so refreshing, brilliant and I really do hope that you continue to voice your opinions and to write letters. You and some of the others that disagree with the likes of the pro baby killers state it with such elegance, thank you all. There are a couple of “them” that just love to use their knowledge of the language to put themselves above everyone else and “bully” any one that does not agree with them. Big words do not mean a thing, only good morals and common sense which you are blessed with Zoe. Keep up the good work and GOD BLESS YOU.

  67. alindasue –

    I’ll toss this into the heap:

    The decision to continue your pregnancy or to end it is very personal.

    Each year, nearly 1.2 million American women have an abortion to end a pregnancy.2

    The most common reasons women consider abortion are:

    Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.2
    Inability to support or care for a child.
    To end an unwanted pregnancy.
    To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.
    Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
    Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman’s health if the pregnancy is continued.
    In the United States, 9 out of 10 abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks (first trimester) of pregnancy. Most of these are done within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy.2

    Very few abortions are done after 16 weeks of pregnancy. But some women have to delay abortions because they have trouble with paying for, finding, or traveling to an abortion specialist.

    Out of the six reasons women need an abortion, only 1 is birth control. My comment about men keeping their pants on was half humor, but I do maintain that women cannot get pregnant on their own, thus if men refuse, the whole “unwanted pregnancy” is a mute point.

    We KNOW that the human race will not become asexual, thus there will always be a chance of failed birth control devices. Why would anyone want to force a woman (and partner) to be responsible for the next 18 years because their best attempt at birth control failed? It seems pretty backward to me, when you consider what we know about child abuse and its prevalence in cases where the child was not wanted in the beginning.

    90% of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks. There are few human characteristics in development at this stage, thus the pleading of “human life” is more rhetorical than truthful in terms of reality and science.

    In a perfect world, no one needs an abortion, but we know better. Should we return abortion to the hands of illegal doctors and less than safe circumstances for women?

    While we wring our hands over the “unborn life”, we forget the possible impact on the “already born” woman. Someone asked me -“aren’t you glad your mother didn’t choose abortion”. My answer – Yep….because in 1951 her need for abortion could have resulted in her death. I had two older brothers and two older sisters that needed her. A premature death because of a botched illegal abortion would have been devasting. Luckily, it wasn’t a necessity.

    I respect your viewpoint in the big picture. There is no loss of respect with this issue, but I think your emotions make you overlook all the contibuting issues to a complex situation.

  68. To add to – “90% of abortions in first trimester”

    “Your baby is 3.15 inches long and weighs 1 ounce by the end of the 12th week.”

    Hardly a “human”, in terms of reality.

    Obviously up to the 12th week the size and development were significantly less.

  69. Oh yes, Kardnos, hardly a human…because a moving human fetus is alive…possessing life and human genetics!

  70. Why don’t you give it up Kardnos while you are behind. ZoeH is just way too smart for you.

  71. alindasue says:

    xring said, “Alindasue – ‘government law’ –
    Look at China – each couple may have a single child.”

    In China, abortion is legal and sometimes forced. I’m sorry, the connection is just not there. If I were to postulate anything from the China example, it would be that – contrary to your prior statement – it is the countries that place a lower value on the life of the unborn that are more likely to tell a woman how many children she can have or not.

    KARDNOS, there’s too much in your comment to readily quote…

    Of all the reasons you cited, only two of them aren’t automatically summed up by the line, “To end an unwanted pregnancy” – or as I had phrased it earlier, “to solve a ‘problem’.”

    The case of rape is a grey area that I already discussed earlier. In the case of a medical condition where it’s a choice between the mother’s life and a fetus’s life (a choice no one wants to make), then that would have to be a grey area too given that the fetus is also unlikely to survive if the mother dies. However, those cases are extremely rare and you know it.

    What we are talking about here is the optional medical procedures or “choice” as some are known to phrase it.

    For good or evil, choosing always has its consequences. Some of those consequences, like driving drunk and losing a loved one in the resulting crash, can last a life time. Other choices can lead to being “responsible for the next 18 years” (or at least 9 months).

    No, the human race will not become asexual, but what sets humans above the other animals is our ability to reason and overcome instinctual urges. Yes, there will always be a chance of failed birth control devices. In fact, it’s a given that all birth control devices will fail at some time. There is no form of birth control devise that advertises itself as 100% effective. Choosing to have sex knowing that there is a chance, however remote, that the birth control you are using might fail is the same as choosing to take a chance on becoming pregnant.

    A woman who is so dead set against becoming pregnant that she’d be willing to kill any fetus that develops in her or any woman that knows that she cannot physically handle being pregnant needs to exercise extra caution when making her choices with her partner.

    For those of us who value life, it doesn’t matter what point in pregnancies the majority of abortions are performed. Neither I nor you can point to any actual scientific evidence that says at what point a soul enters a body. Lacking an actual point in time, I choose to err on the side of life.

    You know that I am LDS and that does affect my view on things, I’ll admit. However, my mother – who was 17 when I was born – says that she is sort of “Christian” but doesn’t believe in organized religion. Her parents were an agnostic and an atheist – yet it was from the three of them that I learned the value of life.

  72. tellnolies says:

    “Only for those of you who need it to be the proper term.”

    Oh brother. Yeah, let’s get rid of some words, the one’s that are inconvenient for unsubstansiated opinion…

    We should try to be imprecise in what we say, makes it so much easier to understand the complexities of our existence…

  73. yabetchya says:

    Kardnos says…..
    Just because you or I have an “opinion” doesn’t make it absolute truth.

    PLEASE REMEMBER THAT IN YOUR FUTURE POST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  74. just like Hitler used propaganda words to dehumanize the victims of the Holocaust.

    And there it is….

    This thread over – was as soon as ZoeH and KARDNOS started their back and forth.

    But ZoeH didn’t even do here Godwin infraction in a direct manner – an ad hominem attack upon everyone who doesn’t agree with her beliefs was made to someone who agrees with her.

    btw – referring to a fetus or a zygote is medically correct. The group that is changing the name is the group that insists that the only politically correct name is “unborn baby” or “preborn baby”. Having lost a baby through “god’s abortion” of a miscarriage I fully appreciate the emotional attachment to the baby – but that doesn’t change the reality that the medically correct, rather than politically correct, term is fetus.

  75. redneckbuck says:

    I would like to abort a few of my financial decisions I have made in my life, maybe even a marriage, but then I am an adult and knew there was a risk.

    Wow if I was a liberal that would make perfect sense. Now to figure out how to get others to pay for it.

  76. Redneckbuck….when a Conservative business files bankrupsy….does that automatically turn them Liberal? Is Newt Gingrich liberal for abandoning a marriage or two? How about John McCain? Rush LIMBAUGH???

  77. beerBoy…I’m truly sorry for the time and space spent on the back and forth…probably not for the reasons you think, but I am.

  78. tellnolies – the thing that frustrates the anti-choice people the most is to remove their rhetorical weapons.

    Abortion is not an easy decision for anyone, yet necessary in many cases. Those that seek to eliminate choice attack those very emotions. A quick research of internet sites will provide a wealth of false information and innuendo concerning those faced with this difficult decision. The end goal is to shame and not educate.

    The best information I have seen to counter this is:

    http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/truth_about_photos.html

    They have taken the practice by the anti-choice movement of taking medical waste pictures and demonstrated the false applications, and in some cases, pure manufacture of lies.

  79. LarryFine says:

    Posted on the other thread but worth repeating for the benefit of a few selective memory folks…

    HR358 is just reaffirming
    what Obama promised… that no federal funds could be used for abortion.

    Of course, Mr. Obama does have an affinity to … lie

  80. I made the comment…“Only for those of you who need it to be the proper term” assuming that there were folks here sophisticated enough to understand my point. My mistake.

    I KNOW what the medical terms are, and I know how they are used in abortion scenarios. My point is this….

    Sanitizing language that is disturbing is a method we use to clean up the act. (Thus, Zoe’s example re The Holocaust). For you, Kardnos, to keep hammering on that little zygote/fetus says a great deal about how you, and many others, get around addressing any sense of moral dilemma in the abortion issue.

    Just call the unborn baby something clinical and detached. Say it enough times and eventually you will buy it…and then, in your case Kardnos, attempt to cram it down every throat that dares to open itself in defense of the unborn. A lot of energy went into this sanitization project in order to legalize abortion in the first place. I remember it well.

    Also, please note aislander’s point here that definitions of words change with usage. There is nothing completely permanent about a definition in the dictionary. Follow the etymology of a word if you really want to understand its history.

  81. aislander says:

    …and beerBoy strives to reinstate the dehumanizing ultra-formalism that salves what passes for lefty conscience.

    Who knows what that zygote, embryo, or fetus may become if not destroyed? Why it may be a goldfish, a sloth, an aardvark, or an OWS protestor–we can’t know for sure unless brought to term!

    And if we follow some lefty extremists, such as Peter Singer, we can rid ourselves of inconvenient postpartum fetuses until they are two years old…

  82. We now need to take time to “reaffirm” laws in Congress???

  83. aislander says:

    I had to laugh when I read a comment from sum-one up-thread that abortion is justifiable if the mother is “compromised.” Aside from the obvious fact that she had to be compromised to make the procedure appropriate to her condition, “compromise” can mean anything she and her abortionist WANT it to mean…

  84. “For you, Kardnos, to keep hammering on that little zygote/fetus says a great deal about how you, and many others, get around addressing any sense of moral dilemma in the abortion issue.”

    You’re absolutely half correct, sozo. It says that I will not stand by and watch a game of half truths, lies and rhetorical roulette be used against women facing what could be the most difficult decision of their lives.

    As to your accusation of me not addressing the “moral” issue. See the last paragraph. The problem is that my “morals” don’t come from a great fairy in the sky.

  85. Has anyone else noticed that our Republican leadership has time to “reaffirm” laws that already exist, but can’t seem to come up with a jobs program that they promised up until November 2010?

    Ver reminiscent of defunding Planned Parenthood to save the country’s defict.

  86. “I had to laugh when I read a comment from sum-one up-thread that abortion is justifiable if the mother is “compromised.” Aside from the obvious fact that she had to be compromised to make the procedure appropriate to her condition, “compromise” can mean anything she and her abortionist WANT it to mean…”

    A perfect example of why we need medical decisions left up to doctors and patients. They just provide laughing fodder for those not senstive enough to comprehend the grave nature of such a dilemma.

    I’m certain that aislander’s insensitive statement about the moral implications of such a medical decision will bring sozo to the forefront to remind aislander about the moral implications of laughing at a person’s medical challenges.

  87. LarryFine says:

    When the president is liar… “reaffirming” his promise is warranted.

  88. “A lot of energy went into this sanitization project in order to legalize abortion in the first place”

    Fascinating that sozo would us “sanitization” in reference to abortion. One of the primary reasons for LEGAL abortion access is so that women don’t have to die because of unsanitary conditions.

  89. I would say that a liar is any of a group of Republicans that were elected on a promise of jobs and a better economy and all they have done is to seek to eliminate jobs.

    But…LarryFine would come unglued for letting the thread go “off the rails”

    So we’ll contain the thread to calling Obama “liar, liar pants on fire” and give the Republican Congress another pass for wasting the taxpayer’s money.

  90. aislander says:

    A sure sign of an intelligent person is the ability to discern relationships between seemingly unrelated concepts.

    A sure sign of absence of intelligence is the ability to discern relationships between concepts that are not related in any way…

  91. tellnolies says:

    Abortion is a medical procedure, and as such, precise medical definitions apply…no sanitizing, just keeping it apples to apples.

  92. menopaws says:

    I ask this writer: What morality is it you speak of? I had a dear friend in college who came home from class, and ate her dinner, locked up and went to bed. At 2 am. a man in a ski mask, woke her up, tied her up, and beat and raped her,several times. Then, he left, after posting a note on her front door, with the number 23 in bold letters and the phrase “Catch me if you can”. Needless to say, my friend wasn’t using birth control and wasn’t making any choices in this situation. She was raped and beaten by a serial rapist, who, later was caught, released on bail because, HE WAS A POLICE OFFICER, and he shot and beat a female reporter in the parking lot of the newspaper she worked for…….Arguing about morality in my friend’s situation, and she did indeed get pregnant, is an insult to her. Fortunately, this was prior to such useless discussions and her Dr. determined her need for a DNC and took the situation out of the hands of the moralists and prioritized the physical and emotional needs of a traumatized patient. Your morality is that—yours. My morality applauded this physician and the young rookie cop in St. Louis , Mo. who figured out, by the notes left behind and how they were signed, that it was a police officer…..There are countless stories of young women, drugged and raped by boyfriends, relatives and so-called family friends……..their situations are not casual choices and their morality is not subject to the judgement of those who have no concept of what they have endured. Save your preaching for your church and leave your judgements to that sphere of YOUR life. You are clueless as to the pain and fear that some women endure and have no right to judge. Violence and terror do not justify your concept of morality.

  93. yabetchya says:

    Menopaws.Whew, calm down.

  94. old_benjamin says:

    You can call it a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. To the mother, it’s a baby. There is no point at which the mother decides to mourn or not mourn, “correct medical terminology” not withstanding.

    Medical terminology provides an arbitrary legal cover for killing a baby. If you think legal shenanigans on Wall Street are immoral, think again about legal destruction of human life, by whatever “correct” label you may choose to refer to it.

  95. Save your breath Old B. Ears are stuffed with cotton for some here, and some just don’t have the capacity to understand the power of language and the abuses in manipulating it.

    And menopaws, I doubt, if you scoured the U.S. for someone who would condemn your friend, that you would be able to find one, outside the lunatic fringe who speak only for the demons in their feeble minds.

    Now, if you were to scour the Middle East, you might find more than a handful of people who would override her decision. In fact, I’d venture to say that in some segments of society, women being impregnated against their will by men in power is not at all uncommon…and there are lots of little ones running around the compound as evidence. And, for the record, in those same enclaves, homosexuals are executed, as are sisters whom their brothers deem dishonorable.

    Gee, America isn’t quite the despicable place some are trying to paint her to be after all perhaps.

  96. Menopaws….when you share too much truth, the immature get uncomfortable.

  97. So, you “will not stand by” eh, Kardnos. Really?

    What would the world do if you weren’t here to beat your chest in the name of pseudo-intelligence?

  98. “outside the lunatic fringe who speak only for the demons in their feeble minds.”

    Who weekly protest the Planned Parenthood in Olympia WA.

    No need to scour the United States.

  99. …and beerBoy strives to reinstate the dehumanizing ultra-formalism that salves what passes for lefty conscience.

    aislander – no matter how you phrase it, you are striving to enforce politically correct word policing.

  100. Since the anti-choice movement’s motives are so noble, moral and right…

    Why do they persist in avoiding the correct medical terminology?

    This goes far beyond “zygote” and “fetus”.

    Take “partial birth” as a great example.

    You see their movement is about “do what we think is right for you and if you don’t we’ll shame you”

  101. LarryFine says:

    He lied… even an Evergreen College grad could see how obvious it is…

  102. Since the Bible is moral…and morality is the issue..

    Please tell me were abortion is addressed in The Bible.

  103. LarryFine lied.

    Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for abortion. Abortion is only about 10% of the services Planned Parenthood provides.

    Why do people accuse the President of lying when their accusation is a lie?

  104. Another ill-informed writer commenting about the evil corporation Planned Parenthood providing abortions under the guise of teaching sex education at the Tiger Bay Club. I suppose Mr. Bob Spencer did not realize that this was a sex education class to prevent unwanted pregnancies and preventing sexually transmitted disease.

    Read more: http://www.bradenton.com/2011/10/17/3574491/planned-parenthood-offers-valuable.html#ixzz1bG2ByHRH

  105. With this thought in mind….

    “Now, if you were to scour the Middle East, you might find more than a handful of people who would override her decision. In fact, I’d venture to say that in some segments of society, women being impregnated against their will by men in power is not at all uncommon…and there are lots of little ones running around the compound as evidence. And, for the record, in those same enclaves, homosexuals are executed, as are sisters whom their brothers deem dishonorable.”

    Why is the Right Wing attempting to draw us closer to the practices of those for who they have so much distain?

  106. LarryFine says:

    Let’s be clearLMAO

  107. “So, you “will not stand by” eh, Kardnos. Really?

    What would the world do if you weren’t here to beat your chest in the name of pseudo-intelligence?”

    Nope. I’ve counter picketed the picketers at Planned Parenthood in Olympia. Everytime I see them, I stop and make a donation at PP.

    Nothing “pseudo” going on here. Real stuff.

    How about your pseudo-morality?

  108. aislander says:

    beerBoy: You call unborn babies by the names you prefer and I will do the same. I’d have to go far up-thread or, perhaps, to other discussions to see who first tried to impose his preference, but my sense is that Pub and x, not to mention Voldenos were the first to insist on the “technical” terms…

  109. aislander says:

    LarryFine: Great link. Thank you.

    beerBoy, Pub, x, et al: If we are all SO focused on using “proper” terminology that we must use clinical terms for a baby, so as not to inadvertently mislead, WHY does the pro-death crowd waffle by calling abortionists “reproductive healthcare providers?”

  110. “WHY does the pro-death crowd”

    More misinformation.

    Pro-choice can mean choosing not to abort.

    Reproductive health care providers: Gynecologists provide many health care services other than abortions.

    It’s so simple…when your methods are not to manipulate the facts.

  111. LarryFine says:

    calling abortionists “reproductive healthcare providers”… no kidding. science shows a correlation between abortions and miscarriages… kooky

  112. Kard,
    Abortion as birth control,usually means abortion due to failed birth control.

    The most common reason for late term abortion is birth defects that are often not discovered till the third trimester.

    Alindsue,
    Life in China is cheap and abortion is both legal and forced by law to support the other law that limits a woman’s right to have children.

    Several states have passed, or are trying to pass, Personhood Laws that would effectively ban most birth control methods.

    Redneckbuck,
    How about Wall Street that wanted taxpayers to make up their loses – are they liberal?

    Larry – you lie – science has shown no correlation between abortion and miscarriages.

  113. As long as ZoeH cares to subvert definitions we can call a pig a radish and make all kinds of seemingly logical arguments around that point. When one goes back to the original or beginning premise, language and definitions take over for the sake of truth. Saying that a baby exists while it is still a fetus denies truth and makes the entire following statements false.
    If one does not understand that mechanism, one has no business promoting anything.

  114. aislander says:

    So…Pub gets to decide the terms of his opponent’s argument. Sweet! It’s hard to lose if you get to do that. You must truly be emotionally involved with this issue–but not in a good way…

  115. And – to be clear here – the issue of redefining words is the entire thrust of Zoe’s original letter.

    Infanticide is infanticide, within the womb or not.
    Infanticide or infant homicide is the killing of a human infant. Neonaticide, a killing within 24 hours of a baby’s birth, is most commonly done by the mother

    An infant or baby is the very young offspring of humans
    (definitions from wikipedia)

    An expectant mother may very well term the fetus within her a “baby” but, an “infant”? Hardly.

    Zoe has changed a zygote, a fetus, a “pre-born baby” into an infant in order to claim that abortion is infanticide, in order to claim that a legal medical procedure is a crime.

    To correct her isn’t some sort of “leftist strategy” – it is an attempt to respect language itself.

  116. This isn’t about “changing” definitions, it’s about word-choice. Zoe is free to choose the word that most closely expresses her view. So are those of you who choose to use the scientific terms free to use words that express your view.

    None of this changes the fact that people, and entire governments, have at times CHOSEN to use words that de-humanize people and situations. Ethnic Cleansing comes to mind. Get it? Let’s suggest that our action is one of “cleansing” the society of the unwashed.

    Many well-educated, sophisticated people refer to the unborn (fetus) as a baby, especially those who believe life begins at conception. And of course mommies and daddies who talk to their little zygotes from the moment they are aware of his or her presence safely (?) inside Mother’s womb.

  117. So…sozo…that makes me “free to choose the word that expresses my view” about you????????

    How about my freedom to call all Christians cultists? Does that work?

    I could go on and on, but I’m certain my point is well made.

  118. “And of course mommies and daddies who talk to their little zygotes from the moment they are aware of his or her presence safely (?) inside Mother’s womb”

    Yeah…and there are people who talk to a great fairy in the sky, but that doesn’t make it real.

  119. Since this has all come down to rhetoric, I’m going for “the kill”…

    The strictest use of the English language would stipulate that Christianity is a cult….as demonstrated:

    cult   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt] Show IPA
    noun
    1.a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
    2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitnesscult.
    3.the objectof such devotion.
    4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
    5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a setof rites centering around their sacred symbols.

    Now, the Conservative Christians are the first to label others a “cult” ignoring how their practices qualify…but I digress….

    Most people like me (I’m guess I’m atheistic, but probably don’t really qualify because I admit the possibility of a “supreme being” or “power greater than ourselves”) avoid using the word “cult” directed at Christians….like – “Hey!!! How’s your cult today?”. We do so out of respect for others to have their right to a belief system and as long as we are not invaded, it’s “live and let live”.

    I don’t care of someone refers to the unborn as “baby” if it makes them warm and fuzzy….BUT…when they use said term as a weapon to attempt to force others to accept something that isn’t true, then it becomes time to reign in the lies and keep the issue on pure facts.

    That should clear the air on reproductive rhetoric.

    In other words….MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS…which is NOT, another person’s choice.

  120. Zoe is free to choose the word that most closely expresses her view.

    Not if she intends to utilize language to communicate.

  121. Conservative abortions of language are murder. Murder is murder whether metaphoric or not so therefore, all anti-choice supporters are guilty of murder just like the Nazis and the Holocaust!

    According to sozo, the above statement is completely defensible because I am “free to choose the word(s) that most closely express my view”

  122. I’m guess I’m atheistic, but probably don’t really qualify because I admit the possibility of a “supreme being” or “power greater than ourselves”

    More accurately, that would make you agnostic or a deist. (since this thread is about the accurate choice of words)

    I’m an agnostic Deist cultural Catholic.

  123. aislander says:

    The only reason that pro-abortion-on-demand people are opposed to the use of the traditional word “baby” to describe a child-to-be is that word not only communicates reality, but it carries an emotional charge that harms their side and, perhaps, evokes a little guilt, too…

    Their assertion that their only concern is accuracy of communication would be laughable if the subject were not so serious…

  124. old_benjamin says:

    In the interest of accuracy of communication, I propose the following definition:

    abortion – a man caused disaster.

  125. aislander says:

    old_benjamin writes: “abortion – a man caused disaster.”

    In the interest of accurate communication, I thought that was the definition of the Obama presidency…

  126. old_benjamin says:

    Kardnos, women since time immemorial have referred to the life in their wombs as a baby. It is the pro-abortion mob that has hi-jacked that term to mean something else. That is the “pure fact.” The right to abort it is entirely another matter. By confusing the two, you only succeed in fooling yourself.

  127. There is no “pro-abortion” group, Bennie…

    You’re doing it again…. “pure fact”

  128. It’s no wonder that the Conservatives don’t know what “choice” means.

    They avoid dictionaries in light of rhetoric

  129. aislander…in the strictest sense…according to your defintion…

    The Palin Governorship would have been a “partial life abortion”

  130. aislander says:

    LarryFine: I just broke my lifetime habit of avoiding dictionaries, and looked up the words “baby” and “fetus.”

    A definition of “baby” is a human fetus, but that of “fetus” is “(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind.”

    So, in the abortion debate, which is the more precise word?

  131. LarryFine says:

    Has anyone ever been charged for murder
    of an unborn child ?
    .
    Why, yes they have…
    .
    District Attorney to pursue manslaughter charge in shooting death of unborn baby.
    .
    The Lake City man accused of killing three adults Thursday was charged Friday with the willful killing of the unborn child
    .
    Say it with me… Kooky

  132. “Their assertion that their only concern is accuracy of communication would be laughable if the subject were not so serious…”

    Interesting you should say this aislander. I wanted to laugh when I read the nonsense bBoy posted, but I choked on the laugh.

    bB: Your idea of “communication” is puerile and frankly, ridiculous. Communication is not just an exchange of words as defined in some dictionary.

    Now it’s scaring me that you’re actually a college level teacher.

    As for you, Kardnos, “going for the kill!” ?? Seriously?” Now I AM LOL. Is there anything in your realm bigger than your ego? I doubt it. Feel free to call Christianity a cult if that’s how you see it.
    Your assessment of it is first of all, your own, and second of all, of essentially no value to anyone who uses more than contemporary usage as his guide to diction.

    Who told you you were really smart, your Mother?

  133. How does the Right-to-Life movement stand on parents who decline medical treatment for their children due to religious convections?

  134. sozo – right back at you, if you want to throw mud, so be it.

    I am very happy that you are not in the classroom teaching children that making up their own individual meaning for words is appropriate as I would have to try to deprogram these functional illiterates who think that they can write whatever they want if only they qualify it as “my opinion”.

    Sheesh – you postmodern “conservatives” who complain that there are no more absolutes are oftentimes the first to defend relativism is it suits your purposes.

  135. if it suits your purposes”

  136. LarryFine refuses to acknowledge the very wise comments that stipulated that prosecutors will ask for more than necessary to settle for less.

    Sometimes…in the right political environment..they get more.

    Ask some of the black folks that have been on trial in the South.

    As we all know, “murder” is a state crime, thus you’ll find different interpretations of it from state to state…based on religion in many cases.

    Sorry, Lar….I had to go and get all intellectually honest on ya…

  137. “I just broke my lifetime habit of avoiding dictionaries”

    Now we understand…..

  138. xring….that’s “God’s Will”

    Now as we all know, no one ever consulted God on the subject of abortion…..

    I’m particularly impressed with the lady that killed five kids because “God told her to do it”

  139. I wonder where the “pro-life” people were the night of the debate when there was applause about letting a man without insurance die.

  140. old_benjamin says:

    Of course there is a “pro-abortion group.” It’s called Planned Parenthood.

    “Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the U.S. In 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions, from which it derives about $164,154,000, or 15% of its annual income.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_parenthood

    PPH opposes parental consent and notification laws, ultrasounds prior to abortions, and bans on late-term abortions. It takes more than a willing suspension of disbelief to think PPH is neutral on the issue of abortion, just as it does to think that the preference for the term “zygote” is merely a concern for terminological purity.

  141. aislander says:

    …and NOW, and NARAL, and the Democrat Party, and Move-On, and…

  142. No…Bennie…Planned Parenthood puts forth the overwhelming majority of their efforts directed at PLANNING childbirth.

    The CHOICE of abortion is…..a CHOICE made by the patient.

    If Planned Parenthood was ALL about abortions, why spend 85% of their funding on things that would prevent abortion?

    You’re not a real deep thinker, are you?

  143. NARAL is about PRO-CHOICE also. I don’t see them lobbying for mandatory abortions.

    NOW….well…there is a dastardly organization…National Organization for Women “Taking action for women’s equality since 1966″
    We can’t have THAT happening, can we???

    The other two bleetings don’t deserve an answer…

  144. The trick bBoy is recognizing when expressions of opinion are appropriate and when they are not. Either you are living in a cave out there in Idaho, or you’ve not been paying attention for the last eon as people continue to literally, “come to terms” with how to talk about abortion.

    Mystery abounds in this world. Communication includes the expression of facts and feelings, and it certainly allows for the exploration OF the mysterious, the transcendant.

    That you are bound by dictionary and clinical terms in having dialogue about these very serious life and death conversations is a grave concern.

    Now, by Kard’s brilliant rubrik, I’ve just made several abortion jokes because I used words like life and death and grave. Your wit, as it turns out Kardnos, sparkles with the same luminosity as your general intelligence.

    I wonder, back in the day when abortion was AGAINST the law, would the two of you been so quick to support the law? Of course not. You happen to defend it now because it jives with your established belief system about when life begins. I’ll bet you wouldn’t be so quick to be agitated by opinion if the situation were turned around bBoy AND you were in a position to argue for changing the law.

  145. xring, you would have to ask individuals about their feelings regarding withholding medical treatment. I’m quite sure there is no single person who can speak for all “right-to-life” folks. Just as I am quite sure no single RL person should speak for others regarding the death penalty.

    Surely you are not comparing withholding treatment to intentionally killing an unborn child?

  146. Why does correct uses of language count in the reproductive rights debate?

    There is a movement to legally define life as “conception”. Most birth control works AFTER conception.

    Does it make a difference?

    You Betcha!!!

    Here’s what happens when you allow people to play fast and loose with definitions:

    http://www.prolifealliance.com/Life%20at%20Conception%20Act.htm

  147. Oh yes….”killing the unborn”…..

    Sort of like “life begins at conception”.

    Therefore all women using hormonal birth control will become murderers

  148. http://kentcrockett.com/biblestudies/birth_control.htm

    More meandering around with words…..

  149. aislander says:

    Is it racist to use the term “white noise” when alluding to Voldenos?

  150. Just a reminder: the letter started with the claim that abortion is infanticide and a crime.

    The letter writer then claimed that those who disagree with her word choice are equivalent to Nazis supporting the Holocaust (which sozo passionately agreed with)

    So, aside from your regional condescension sozo (and…..give me a break…I lived in Tacoma, I know Tacoma…..trying impress me with the urban “sophistication” of the Sound is absurd) – your apology for “coming to terms about how to talk about abortion” is more than a little stretched.

    Zoe used inflammatory language that goes far beyond “baby v. fetus”. And, as such, prevents any meaningful communication between those who disagree. You might agree with her but, when you call me a Nazi who supports the Holocaust and infanticide you aren’t likely to be interested in any communication with me.

  151. yabetchya says:

    Kardnos, I’m hoping that you pray for forgiveness after you go out of your way to insult someone. That’s not very Christlike.

  152. “The letter writer then claimed that those who disagree with her word choice are equivalent to Nazis supporting the Holocaust (which sozo passionately agreed with)….”

    I didn’t even address your strange line of logic, and I use the word loosely, when you conjured this up, bBoy. Sorry you persist in posting it. What you’ve said here is not true. Please find the post that demonstrates my passionate support of of any such thing. I did passionately support Zoe’s right to express herself unedited.

    Didn’t mean to sound condescending about Idaho. I often find people outside the urban enclave to be WISER than their city mouse cousins, actually. You took my comment in a way I did not attend it. Or maybe I was trying to be snotty. Not sure. I’ve been irritable about your comments on this thread that’s for sure.

    A lot of conclusionary leaps have occurred on this thread. For instance, one cannot presume that a right-to-life supporter is NOT pro-choice. As it turns out, I am well aware that God built choice into our lives (I’ve said before he was the originator of “pro-choice.” While I long for people to make the choice that permits the unborn to fully develop and be delivered, I recognize that we always have the choice to do otherwise.

    Additionally, I do not favor the death penalty, though I think there is logical support for it, and even biblical support. Personally, I think there remains room for error and I could never witness an execution or act as executioner. Besides, the God of the Bible demonstrates unbelievable patience with us…allowing time for us to repent and change our ways. I’m for giving people every opportunity to set things right with God.

    Know what Kardnos? Jesus does love me, but I doubt that he’s real pleased with the way in which I’ve engaged with you on this thread. I know you think of God as a fairy in the sky, but I do not, and I’m sorry I gave rein to my sarcasm here.

    I believe Jesus loves you too, but I presume from your comments this has little meaning for you.

    Anyway, I make no claims to be perfect, but I normally do try to be civil. I’ve failed in that regard here and my apology is sincere.

    Zoe, if you are still reading these comments, again, I salute you. Be of good courage.

  153. LarryFine says:

    Wondering why the links I provided to reports of people being charged (and some convicted) for murder of the unborn have vanished…

  154. LarryFine says:

    After deliberating for more than two days, a jury in Canton, Ohio, found Bobby Cutts Jr. guilty of murder in the death of Jessie Davis and aggravated murder for the death of her unborn child.

  155. LarryFine says:

    Scott Peterson has been found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his pregnant wife Laci, and second-degree murder in the death of their unborn baby boy.

  156. aislander says:

    Lefties in government have been infantilizing Americans for decades, making infanticide something that concerns us ALL…

  157. old_benjamin says:

    Right Kardnos, PPH does some good stuff, and Hitler built the freeways.

    BTW, you know when you’ve lost the debate when you have to resort to stuff like “You’re not a very deep thinker, are you.” It’s a sure sign that you know your case can’t stand on its own merits.

  158. aislander – you really don’t need any assistance in being “infantilized” – you seem to be able to handle that all by yourself.

    ;-)

    and, really, you complain about “koch-caine” and then give us “infantilizing”! Noting my cheap pun should have prevented your little wordplay for at least a week more.

  159. Ben…when someone thinks that an agency who spends 85% of their revenue on abortion prevention, is “pro-abotion”…..that’s a pretty good sign of lack of deep thinking….

    Sorry I pointed it out.

  160. “Kardnos, I’m hoping that you pray for forgiveness after you go out of your way to insult someone. That’s not very Christlike”

    The nicest part about not being a Christian is I don’t have to play games about “Christlike”.

    I can talk through one side of my mouth at all times.

  161. larryfine’s examples of death of a fetus because someone killed its mother and the subsequent finding of murder for the fetus are not as enlightening as he would have us believe.
    For him to not understand the difference between an abortion performed with the mother’s consent and the murder of her fetus as a result of her own murder points to a diminished level of his mental acuity. For you see in the later case there was no consent.
    The so-called right-to-lifers use the classic right brained appeal to emotion to make their point because the argument is one of non-logic and attempting to apply logic is fruitless. No-logic propaganda is the right’s tried and true methodology for convincing susceptible right-brained individuals. Even if it can be applied, very little of what they say can survive reality-testing uses of logic.

  162. Interesting how none of the Conservatives want to discuss “life begins at conception”……

  163. old_benjamin says:

    Kardnos, if 85 percent of my time is spent with my wife and 15 percent with my grandkids, does that mean I am not pro grandkids? Do some “deep thinking” about that.

  164. Publico…..the difference would require correct usage of English, which the Conservative movement avoids at all costs.

  165. If an oil company spends 85% of their revenue searching for oil, is it correct to say they are pro oil or anti-oil?

    Planned Parenthood spends 85% of their revenue on things to PREVENT abortion.

    If you and your wife spent 85% of your time AVOIDING your grandkids, I might think you are anti-grandkids.

    Again….the use of language stumps the Conservative.

  166. Ben???? Ben??? Where’d you go???

    You were right here in my back pocket a minute ago…

  167. From the letter:

    “when a woman becomes pregnant, there is a new little body in her”

    When a woman ovulates, there is a new little “body” in her.

    Should ovulation stipulate “life”?

  168. Still Publico, the charge against these people is murder which implies the taking of a human life. The argument stands.

  169. aislander says:

    Another (apparently!) new word for beerBoy:

    in·fan·til·ize
       [in-fuhn-tl-ahyz, -tahy-lahyz, in-fan-tl-ahyz] Show IPA
    verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing.
    1.
    to keep in or reduce to an infantile state.
    2.
    to treat or regard as infantile or immature.

  170. old_benjamin says:

    Kardnos, it is more correct to say that PPH spends 85 percent of its revenue preventing conception, not preventing abortion. The latter is simply the ultimate solution, as advocated by Margaret Sanger. Perhaps you’ve heard of her.

    Re your anology, looking for oil: If the oil company spent 15 percent of it’s time setting wells on fire, I would assume it had a psychotic CEO.

  171. “Kardnos, it is more correct to say that PPH spends 85 percent of its revenue preventing conception, not preventing abortion.”

    No conception….no abortion….

    Again….lack of verbal skills….

  172. Hey…Bennie….here is an amazing fact…

    You can’t get drunk if you don’t drink.

    and…

    You can’t abort if you don’t conceive.

  173. What is really sad is that Conservatives think the only way to prevent abortion is with government control and shame tactics.

    They seem to want to stop educational and medical prevention.

  174. We have now seen “Hitler” and “Sanger” in the discussion…..

  175. sozo says: “Still Publico, the charge against these people is murder which implies the taking of a human life. The argument stands.”

    You are incorrect, because you ignore the definition of murder. Murder is unwarranted killing. Your argument fails and I have already had my celebration.
    Abortion is a legal choice for the mother which stems from the fact that the fetus could not live without the mother in the first place. Its dependence is absolute with the only difference between a fetus and a parasite being that the mother and fetus are of the same species.
    This is so easy.

  176. LarryFine says:

    Hey Publico, one time just for you… a few posters here voiced objection to the use of “baby”. My point was 2 fold. To give examples of how the term “baby and unborn baby” are common, mainstream terms… and to stimulate thought (I know, a foreign concept for you)as to how someone could be charged AND even convicted of killing a ‘non-person’.
    .
    Additionally, the House resolution that sparked this letter merely strengthens Obama’s promise that no federal funds would be used for abortion.

    If we weren’t so used to Obama’s lies., this would be truly bizarre.

  177. LarryFine says:

    Hey, can we kill a newborn… because it can’t live on it’s own ? What about invalids ?

  178. LarryFine says:

    What about the parasite protestors occupying wallstreet ?

  179. Since bleeting the same thing over and over wins the argument….

    What is really sad is that Conservatives think the only way to prevent abortion is with government control and shame tactics.

    They seem to want to stop educational and medical prevention.

  180. Quoting or paraphrasing Sanger and applying it to today’s circumstances with no chance to have an updated response from Ms. Sanger is the same as quoting any of the founding fathers and applying their statements from 200+ years ago to today’s situations as though there would be no chance for some change. Context matters too.

  181. Publico….ignorance is the choice to not learn

  182. If 85% of Planned Parenthood’s revenue is focused on preventing pregnancy….why would the Conservatives want to cut their funding?

    There is already a law preventing the use of tax money for abortions.

  183. old_benjamin says:

    Ah, now getting drunk is equivalent to getting pregnant, something to be eschewed to be sure. Hence, PPH’s mission. If any further proof is required that PPH is anti-life and pro-abortion, I’m sure Kardnos will provide it anon, if ever so unwittingly.

    BTW, what is in your pocket is a hole the size of the one in your logic.

  184. old_benjamin says:

    Publico, Sanger died in 1966, not even 50 years ago. JFK died in 1963. Do you suppose he would change “Think what you can do for your country” to “Think what your country can do for you”?

    Your comparison of Sanger with the founding fathers is, well, ludicrous.

    BTW, Kardnos, “he” refers to Kennedy, not Sanger.

  185. LarryFine says:

    Sorry Pup, a newborn still has to be fed, changed, sheltered, etc. … as does an invalid.

  186. aislander says:

    Mainstream lefty philosopher Peter Singer of Princeton University avers that abortion should be an option until the fetus has passed a two-year post-birth probationary period…

  187. aislander says:

    …wouldn’t want to call him a “baby” until she is old enough to longer warrant the appellation…

  188. Hi there everyone! While at this point in time I have decided to abstain from the ongoing conversation, for it getting a bit crazy and a little rude.
    I would also like to say that, YES, I am a real person, and YES, I am really 16. The day before yesterday the News Tribune opinion editor called saying there was a complaint filed that I didn’t “exist” and that my writing was too “mature”.

  189. LarryFine says:

    … probably our resident wallpapering troll ZoeH.

  190. LarryFine says:

    he has a habit of googling letter writers names that he disagrees with and then proceeds to personal attacks of unrelated “stuff” that he garners from the internet.

    Kooky

  191. old_benjamin says:

    I do approve of retroactive abortion for those who murder. I would add another deserving class, the Singers of this world. If Hitler had been aborted after “Mein Kampf,” millions far better than he would have survived and prospered. Singer’s rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of der Fuhrer and equally despicable.

  192. aislander says:

    When the format was changed–and I do appreciate that all posts in a thread appear on one page–I would have appreciated even more the ability to edit my posts.

    I meant to write “…old enough to NO longer warrant the appellation.”

  193. aislander says:

    I think that happens, old_benjamin, when one is more concerned with “the people” than with people; masses of people rather than individuals…

  194. old_benjamin says:

    Yes, aislander, and when someone assumes the authority belonging exclusively to the Creator. Someone once said it would have been better for those who mistreat the little ones if they had been drowned in the depths of the sea. Singer should take note.

  195. Larry, your question regarding the killing of newborns and invalids is actually a very good one, though people will think you are merely being sarcastic.

    I will never understand why human beings cannot see farther than the end of their noses. Why they cannot seem to see how one thing leads to another.

    It is perfectly reasonable to walk this whole subject out into the future and imagine a time when it IS IN FACT permissible and even reasonable to do away with those who are a drain on society and offer nothing productive to it.

    Of course, language will have to be manipulated to make it less egregious. In Lois Lowry’s fictional utopia, The Community elders chose, with great compassion mind you, to “release” the elderly; even had a lovely ceremony in which they led them through backlit double doors…never to be seen again.

  196. Hey Zoe, glad you came back for a few minutes. You continue to show remarkable maturity with regard to your view of this whole situation.
    I can’t believe someone actually attempted to sabotage you, but then…maybe I can. I never doubted for a minute that you were exactly who you said you were.

    Anyway, thanks for kicking off a lively debate! I confess I had to apologize at one point for getting ugly (rude) with a couple of posters. I’m not proud of it; just let my irritabililty take control for a time. As I said before, good luck and God bless you.

  197. old_benjamin says:

    Zoe, you have the perfect name for one of your perspective.

    Here’s to life.

  198. it is more correct to say that PPH spends 85 percent of its revenue preventing conception, not preventing abortion. The latter is simply the ultimate solution, as advocated by Margaret Sanger.

    Just to be clear here: you are claiming that Margaret Sanger advocated abortion as the “ultimate solution” (your covert reference to the “final solution” is a Godwin infraction by wordplay) – Right?

    And you have the citations to demonstrate that – Right?

    So where are they?

    I found this quote by Sanger:

    ““While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”

    Hardly advocating abortion there…..
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/20/margaret-sanger-was-against-abortion/

  199. More succinctly:

    Sanger was pro-contraception.
    Sanger believed that high birth rates in poor and “undesireable groups” led to a cycle of poverty.
    Sanger believed that easy access to contraception and education/propaganda regarding the use of contraception would lead to breaking the poverty cycle.
    Sanger was tainted by beliefs in eugenics but she believed that improvement of the race need to come from within the ethnic group through selective and controlled breeding.

    Sanger did not support nor advocate abortion as a contraceptive method.
    Sanger saw the number of abortions performed in America as a disgrace.

    Anti-Planned Parenthood campaigners would be better off if they demonstrated that, by providing abortions the organization had strayed from their founder’s original intent.

  200. aislander says:

    Nope,beerBoy, Sanger didn’t advocate abortion–in fact she opposed it. But that doesn’t make her a less thoroughgoing racist than she actually was, nor does that cancel out her “Negro Project…”

  201. do approve of retroactive abortion for those who murder. I would add another deserving class, the Singers of this world

    Do you have something against music? or is it sewing machines?

    Or did you mean Sanger? and therefore you have something against contraception? Because – I my posts above demonstrate – Sanger was not a proponent of abortion.

  202. should read “as my posts above demonstrate”

  203. aislander says:

    Since 50% of African-American pregnancies end in abortion, and since Planned Parenthood does a disproportionate share of them, I would have to agree, beerBoy that it has not “strayed from their founder’s original intent…”

  204. aislander says:

    beerBoy: I believe the reference was to Peter Singer, mentioned up-thread…

  205. And….sozo…..old_benjamin’s post demonstrates that – though there are some whose belief in the sanctity of human life extends beyond the womb – there are definitely those whose proclamation of the right to life is rather selective in whom they believe should be given that right.

  206. aislander – if we dismissed the accomplishments of every historical figure based upon his or her racist attitudes there wouldn’t be many monuments in D.C.

    ferinstance: Abraham Lincoln.

  207. I believe the reference was to Peter Singer, mentioned up-thread…

    thanks…..these threads start to get more than a little long and convoluted after awhile.

    Pete Singer deserves “retroactive abortion” because he wrote a book? Sheesh… o_b really doesn’t like philosophers!

  208. aislander says:

    beerBoy: Lots of people were racist (and many probably are), but it is a minority of people who go out of their way to implement those views outside their personal spheres: David Duke, Robert Byrd, William Fulbright, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, He Whose Name May Not Be Mentioned Without Killing the Thread, Margaret Sanger…

  209. I see that we still haven’t addressed “life at conception”….

    Ah, now getting drunk is equivalent to getting pregnant,

    As suggested before….”not a deep thinker, huh?”

  210. YOu say, bB, “there are definitely those whose proclamation of the right to life is rather selective in whom they believe should be given that right.”

    Of course there are. But you USED to call for restraint when it came to broad brushstrokes and giant leaps.

    Real dialogue is never going to be the rule around here unless ALL of us, and I count myself, stop presuming that because a poster believes X, he MUST also believe Y. The Cookie Cutter Syndrome.

    And before you lob a bomb back at me, I am well aware that I occasionally use the term “The Left” which, rhetorically speaking is a legitimate reference to folks whose comments show they hold “most” of the fundamental views of those on the left end of the political spectrum.

    This is also true for “The Right,” and I recognize that I am in this category.

    BUT I would suggest that on the big mysteries and dilemmas of life, you will find all sorts of diversity among us…the question of “a just war” for instance, or the question of when life begins and whether or not the state should take the life of a murderer. These have been debated by far greater minds than ours and will be debated long after we are gone.

  211. sozo said – “Larry, your question regarding the killing of newborns and invalids is actually a very good one, though people will think you are merely being sarcastic.”

    I have to agree with sozo. Since the philosophy is “once you are born, you’re on your own” the thought of killing “newborns” (denying health care because of lack of money would word well) as welll as “invalids” (see last paranthetical phrase) as well.

    I thought that LarryFine was just being sarcastic, but then I took the time to remember the applause at a recent Republican debate.

  212. Zoe H. – I recall your apology to me about “losing your temper” and I think we’d all agree that a “too mature” person wouldn’t do such a thing. After all, this is just philosophical discussion and nothing to take personal.

  213. old_benjamin says:

    bB, I am indeed selective. I heartily approved of the extermination of bin Laden, Al-Awlaki, and Ghadaffi, as did the most liberal Obama.

    As for Singer, he, like Adolf Hitler, just wrote a book.

  214. old_benjamin says:

    Kardnos, you silly ass, it was you that drew the analogy between getting pregant and getting drunk. I’ll have no more dialogue with a fool.

  215. sozo – though I don’t agree with the Catholic Church’s anti-contraceptive teachings (speaking of Margaret Sanger’s work), I have deep respect for their consistent teachings regarding the sanctity of life. I also know that they aren’t the only group that is consistent.

    o_b……seriously….you compare “Mein Kampf” with “Animal Liberation”….. and then you call Obama “the most liberal”!!!

    I would call you a silly ass but that would be derogatory to the donkey.

  216. OB……like I said…no deep thinking…

    no one…and I mean NO ONE could come up with the idea that I was equating “getting drunk” with “getting pregnant”….unless they REALLY wanted to misrepresent the subject.

    The POINT…WAS…..:::::get ready::::::

    YOU CAN’T GET PREGNANT IF YOU DON’T CONCEIVE”

    Get it that time??????

    Here’s another for you….

    You can’t be a liar if you don’t lie.

  217. Now are you going to say I equated lieing with pregnancy?

  218. LarryFine says:

    I challenge you to hold to that O_B.

  219. aislander says:

    Speaking of those who go out their way to implement their racist ideas outside their personal spheres, let us not forget Woodrow Wilson, who RE-segregated our military…

  220. old_benjamin says:

    Uh, bB, singer wrote more than one book, dozens in fact. What I object to is his utilitarianism, reason being that someone has to decide what the greatest good is and what group gets it. Thus, parents of children who don’t measure up to some arbitry standard are subject to being euthanized. This notion should fill everyone with horror. I liken such writings to those of Adolf Hilter, and I don’t care a whit about violating the Whatzit principle. Academics are no more immune to moral blindness than anyone else, as in the Third Reich (Whatzit principle again) and your own sorry case. Better an insult to a donkey than to the human race, eh bB?

  221. Lots of Sanger bashing going on and I suspect few really know who she was. Here is a source for the real side of Ms. Sanger.
    http://www.biography.com/people/margaret-sanger-9471186
    Of course it will not please the extreme right wingers here who are driven by the right side of their brains.

  222. aislander says:

    Sanger wrote a book, too, called The Pivot of Civilization, which is worth reading if one wants a more complete picture of her. In it she wrote, “We want fewer and better children…and we cannot make the social life and the world-peace we are determined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict on us.” She didn’t want a world “swamped by an indiscriminate torrent of progeny.”

    In other words, a typical lefty elitist…

  223. theglovesRoff says:

    KARDNOS
    OCT. 22, 2011 AT 1:07 PM
    Zoe H. – I recall your apology to me about “losing your temper” and I think we’d all agree that a “too mature” person wouldn’t do such a thing. After all, this is just philosophical discussion and nothing to take personal.

    Nice backhanded insult directed towards Zoe.

    And the beat goes on.

    And thanks for helping me finish my bathroom with all the wallpaper on this thread..

  224. roff is now performing a mind reading act…..not very good though…

    if there was any “backhanded insult” it was directed at the queen of insults….sozo.

    Nice try roff…but again….epic failure

  225. Ben….avoid speaking directly to me….only do indirect comments and pretend you are ignoring me.

    If you are not sure of what that means….ask LarryFine

  226. “In other words, a typical lefty elitist…”

    Yes….we are back to limosenes and not welfare again…..

    Note that the Conservatives have all avoided the “life at conception” issue, which is happening TODAY in many states of our country, in lieu of a silly argument about a woman who has been dead for decades.

    The Conservatives don’t want to discuss “life at conception” because it is a low information voter issue that they want to squeeze in very backwards states. Talking about it would educate the public.

  227. Sorry to see you lack the willingnes to accept an apology, Kardnos. I have lost my cool and abandoned civility in conversation with you more than once, and I always regret it. It’s counterproductive, and in your case, it seems only to energize you with regard to sparring.

    Since I am not the only one who has slipped into this with you, I wonder if you would ever consider that there actually IS something about your comments that evokes this sort of thing more than others? And if you can see that this is true, why do you think that is?

    Regards the subject of this thread, I will say again that it’s not going to be resolved here. It is a debate that will remain with us until the end of time I suspect.

  228. Sozo, your posts are the best on this thread and Kard, bb,pub, etc. do love to “stir the pot”. In my opinion they are just immature, liberal, wanna be smart men that have nothing better to do than put down others posts.

  229. Kardnos, I’ll address you–just this once. There are those who do not wish to provide a reason for you to continue your puerile antics. Try growing up. Then you may have more success in authenticating yourself, here and elsewhere.

  230. velmak….I’ll respond just once….pot calling kettle black.

  231. sozo…Why should I accept an apology from someone that continues the same behavior and will, sooner or later, blame me for your behavior?

    Oh….wait…you just did…

    You see…all in one post, you claim an apology but then go on to somehow try to make ME responsible for YOUR behavior. You are like the drunk that blames the spouse for your bad behavior.

    Save if for someone else. I expect the worst from you and will make sure your worst doesn’t go unnoticed.

  232. “Sozo, your posts are the best on this thread and Kard, bb,pub, etc. do love to “stir the pot”. In my opinion they are just immature, liberal, wanna be smart men that have nothing better to do than put down others posts.”

    “Darlin” – you really contributed to the subject of the thread there. I’m sure you DO think that sozo is wonderful…birds of a feather and such….

    How terrible that some of us are “liberal”…huh??????? If you care to check…about half the population is what YOU would call liberal…possibly more.

  233. Now…back to the subject…

    Are the Conservatives done whining so that one of them can address “life at conception” and how that makes most birth control “murder”?

  234. Here is a perfect example of ignorance and/or misinformation:

    Yes, I agree that human life begins at conception, because the minute that a baby is conceived, it grows into what eventually will be a living baby. Just like when a seed is planted and germinates, it grows and grows until it is a plant that produces leaves, fruits or vegetables. When a baby is conceived, it also grows until fully mature, much like a plant. Something that is living, no matter in what stage, is alive and growing. The minute a plant, seed or baby begins to grow, it is a life.

    Now…the truth. Conception takes place but then the zygote has to attach to the uterine wall, nothing further will take place, the female will menstruate and there is nothing left.

    We see here, a flowery attempt to make something out of nothing and the worst part is that it is not even close to biologically correct. This is the kind of crap that the anti-choice people push as “truth” and claim it as a part of “debate”.

  235. is the same as quoting any of the founding fathers and applying their statements from 200+ years ago to today’s situations as though there would be no chance for some change.

    but then, he claims to be an originalist and, on another thread states that he would prefer if suffrage was reduced to the original Constitutional intent…..

  236. I see you as a participant in the problem Kardnos. That you cannot see yourself in that light is both disappointing and revealing.

    I suppose you’re right, I MAY return to my evil ways and lob a dirt clod at you, but I’m going to try really hard to avoid it. The only way I can do that is to scroll past your comments which is what I used to do. I’ll try that again.

    As for accepting my apology, that’s entirely up to you. Perhaps it is within your comfort zone to sustain hostilities with others. That’s too bad.

  237. theglovesRoff says:

    There were 14 new comments today, 10-23, 8 of them came from one individual. It truly is sad…..

  238. Roff….of the two (I guess) you contributed, neither had a thing to do with the topic.

  239. sozo….still blaming me for your shortcomings and inability to control yourself?

    We’ve had about a half dozen of your temper tantrums and subsequent apologies. I’m a smart gambler. I bet sure things.

    I’ll bet that Roff’s next comment will have nothing to do with the subject of a thread. If I’m wrong, I still win.

  240. LarryFine says:

    The comment above has nothing to do with the letter topic.

  241. neener, neener LF….

    Neither does yours

  242. Hey…LF…did you realize you weren’t “Roff” when you posted that?

  243. LarryFine says:

    Since I wasn’t the one whining about off topic comments… Mr. Kettle.

  244. theglovesRoff says:

    And I wasn’t either, Mr. slime (not directed to you, LarryFine).

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0