Holy cow. Did this really happen?

[NewPhin]

Surely something is being taken out of context here.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme_rightwing.php


Last night, anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley was a guest on The Alan Colmes Show, a FOX News radio program. The topic was an interesting one - whether or not an internet service provider should allow Horsley to post the names of abortion doctors on his website. Horsley does that as a way of targeting them and one doctor has been killed. In the course of the interview, however, Colmes asked Horsley about his background, including a statement that he had admitted to engaging in homosexual and bestiality sex.

At first, Horsley laughed and said, "Just because it's printed in the media, people jump to believe it."

"Is it true?" Colmes asked.

"Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I..."

AC: "You had sex with animals?"

NH: "Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."

AC: "I'm not so sure that that is so."

NH: "You didn't grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?"

AC: "Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?"

NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality... Welcome to domestic life on the farm..."

Colmes said he thought there were a lot of people in the audience who grew up on farms, are living on farms now, raising kids on farms and "and I don't think they are dating Elsie right now. You know what I'm saying?"

Horsley said, "You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You're naive. You know better than that... If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it."

[CHIEF4EVER]

:Lin:

[NewPhin]

And here's another RWNJ with interesting sexual tastes:

http://salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html

As if you haven't yet had your fill of the secret lives of the religious right, there is this week's report in The Nation exposing accusations against Dr. W. David Hager, the Christian anti-abortion activist ob-gyn that George Bush appointed to the FDA's Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in 2002. Hager has made it his mission to prevent emergency contraception from being sold over the counter (and has so far been successful) and has also campaigned to halt distribution of RU-486. He is the author of books like "As Jesus Cared for Women," and is a member of Focus on the Family's Physician Resource Council, and of the Christian Medical and Dental Society. The Nation quotes a passage from "As Jesus Cared for Women," in which Hager writes, "Even though I was trained as a medical specialist, it wasn't until I began to see how Jesus treated women that I understood how I, as a doctor, should treat them."

Actually, according to his ex-wife Linda Davis (formerly Linda Carruth Hager), he treated women in a most un-Jesus-like manner -- by sodomizing them against their will. Davis claims he anally raped her from 1995 to the time of their divorce -- after 32 years of marriage -- in 2002. "I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," David told the Nation. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible."

Davis also told the Nation that Hager had extramarital affairs, pressured her to let him videotape them having sex, and paid her to perform sexual acts she hated, like oral sex and sodomy. When she developed narcolepsy, she said, he began sodomizing her against her will while she slept. "Since [the sodomy] was painful and threatening, I woke up. Sometimes I acquiesced once he had started, just to make it go faster, and sometimes I tried to push him off ... I would [confront] David later, and he would say, 'You asked me to do that,' and I would say, 'No, I never asked for it.'"

In the wake of the Nation exposé, Hager has announced that he will not be seeking another term on the FDA's advisory board when his term ends June 30.

[Mecca]

Wow this is really creepy. In this dudes world its ok to screw animals and anally rape your wife while shes sleeping, and kill abortion doctors.
This dude really has a warped mind and it's very very creepy.

Maybe in his warped mind he justifies what he does by saying things like "you don't need an abortion after anal sex" or "you can't get a mule pregnant".

I think the fact that he actually admitted something like that on the radio shows that he's got some serious issues. Someone needs to lock that guy up quickly.

[Bwana]

Wow, what a whack job. Remind me to stay the hell out of that state.

[memyselfI]

Surely something is being taken out of context here.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme_rightwing.php


Last night, anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley was a guest on The Alan Colmes Show, a FOX News radio program. The topic was an interesting one - whether or not an internet service provider should allow Horsley to post the names of abortion doctors on his website. Horsley does that as a way of targeting them and one doctor has been killed. In the course of the interview, however, Colmes asked Horsley about his background, including a statement that he had admitted to engaging in homosexual and bestiality sex.

At first, Horsley laughed and said, "Just because it's printed in the media, people jump to believe it."

"Is it true?" Colmes asked.

"Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I..."

AC: "You had sex with animals?"

NH: "Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."

AC: "I'm not so sure that that is so."

NH: "You didn't grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?"

AC: "Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?"

NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality... Welcome to domestic life on the farm..."

Colmes said he thought there were a lot of people in the audience who grew up on farms, are living on farms now, raising kids on farms and "and I don't think they are dating Elsie right now. You know what I'm saying?"

Horsley said, "You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You're naive. You know better than that... If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it."

Ah, the morals of the anti-abortion crowd. ROFL

[mlyonsd]

Ah, the morals of the anti-abortion crowd. ROFL

Well, not that I condone it, but banging a mule IMO isn't as immoral killing an innocent child.

[memyselfI]

Well, not that I condone it, but banging a mule IMO isn't as immoral killing an innocent child.

Agreed.

But then to be a child that means they've already been born.

[mlyonsd]

Agreed.

But then to be a child that means they've already been born.

If that's your main argument that allows you to justify in your mind that abortion is ok/normal then you are a simple minded selfish human being.

[Nightfyre]

Ah, the morals of the anti-abortion crowd. ROFL
Yes, posting doctors names online so they can be killed kind of contradicts their argument...

[Nightfyre]

I also like how the majority of people who down abortion as murder supported Bush's war.

[mlyonsd]

Yes, posting doctors names online so they can be killed kind of contradicts their argument...

Very true. They lower themselves to the level of a terrorist.

[Nightfyre]

*Awaits angry flaming*

[mlyonsd]

I also like how the majority of people who down abortion as murder supported Bush's war.

It's Saturday, cartoons are on.

[Nightfyre]

It's Saturday, cartoons are on.
And Foxnews is on all the time. Equally valid in politics!

[Nightfyre]

You guys are no fun!
*continues to stoke the fire*

[mlyonsd]

And Foxnews is on all the time. Equally valid in politics!

Actually I have PBS on. Julia Childs got real scary towards the end of her life. I'm not sure what would make someones back grow a hump like that.

[Nightfyre]

Actually I have PBS on. Julia Childs got real scary towards the end of her life. I'm not sure what would make someones back grow a hump like that.
I understand that you don't want to play my game. And julia childs was a scary lady late in her life! But hey, for food like that, I'd deal with it!

[Bowser]

And here's another RWNJ with interesting sexual tastes:

http://salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html

As if you haven't yet had your fill of the secret lives of the religious right, there is this week's report in The Nation exposing accusations against Dr. W. David Hager, the Christian anti-abortion activist ob-gyn that George Bush appointed to the FDA's Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in 2002. Hager has made it his mission to prevent emergency contraception from being sold over the counter (and has so far been successful) and has also campaigned to halt distribution of RU-486. He is the author of books like "As Jesus Cared for Women," and is a member of Focus on the Family's Physician Resource Council, and of the Christian Medical and Dental Society. The Nation quotes a passage from "As Jesus Cared for Women," in which Hager writes, "Even though I was trained as a medical specialist, it wasn't until I began to see how Jesus treated women that I understood how I, as a doctor, should treat them."

Actually, according to his ex-wife Linda Davis (formerly Linda Carruth Hager), he treated women in a most un-Jesus-like manner -- by sodomizing them against their will. Davis claims he anally raped her from 1995 to the time of their divorce -- after 32 years of marriage -- in 2002. "I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," David told the Nation. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible."

Davis also told the Nation that Hager had extramarital affairs, pressured her to let him videotape them having sex, and paid her to perform sexual acts she hated, like oral sex and sodomy. When she developed narcolepsy, she said, he began sodomizing her against her will while she slept. "Since [the sodomy] was painful and threatening, I woke up. Sometimes I acquiesced once he had started, just to make it go faster, and sometimes I tried to push him off ... I would [confront] David later, and he would say, 'You asked me to do that,' and I would say, 'No, I never asked for it.'"

In the wake of the Nation exposé, Hager has announced that he will not be seeking another term on the FDA's advisory board when his term ends June 30.

This guy is a real piece of shit.

[KCWolfman]

Agreed.

But then to be a child that means they've already been born.
In your world, but not in definitive Earth.

[KCWolfman]

Yes, posting doctors names online so they can be killed kind of contradicts their argument...
Is that why he posts them online? I haven't seen him state such.

Where do you get your information, from de-niseweekly.com?

[KCWolfman]

I also like how the majority of people who down abortion as murder supported Bush's war.
Because people who put up resistance and shoot at you are making a choice to do so?

Give the unborn child a gun then you have a valid point.

[KCWolfman]

This guy is a real piece of shit.
Yup, there are freaks in every crowd that destroy any valid arguments made by the sane.

Personally, I wish neither he nor Horsley represented my major viewpoint on the topic.

[Mr. Kotter]

You guys are no fun!
*continues to stoke the fire*

Why is it that both sides seem intent on painting the other as the caricatured extremes....this guy (and the guy in the other article posted) are kooks. Absolute morons.

Both sides have morons.

[Nightfyre]

Because people who put up resistance and shoot at you are making a choice to do so?

Give the unborn child a gun then you have a valid point.
That is the most incoherent thing I've read today! :thumb:

[Nightfyre]

Why is it that both sides seem intent on painting the other as the caricatured extremes....this guy (and the guy in the other article posted) are kooks. Absolute morons.

Both sides have morons.
Oh, I agree.

[Nightfyre]

Is that why he posts them online? I haven't seen him state such.

Where do you get your information, from de-niseweekly.com?
Hey, we could make a better case for the people who are actually killing the doctors!

[KCWolfman]

Hey, we could make a better case for the people who are actually killing the doctors!
That didn't answer my question.

Again, where did you get your information that Horsley is printing the names in an attempt to have the doctors killed?

[Nightfyre]

That didn't answer my question.

Again, where did you get your information that Horsley is printing the names in an attempt to have the doctors killed?
Umm... maybe the fact that in the article it says he posts them with malicious intent? And that one has been killed and he hasn't taken the names down?

[KCWolfman]

Umm... maybe the fact that in the article it says he posts them with malicious intent? And that one has been killed and he hasn't taken the names down?
So someone writing the article states he posts them with malicious intent and he hasn't taken names down after a single tragedy has occurred?

And that is the crux of your evidence that Horsely is attempting to have doctors murdered?

[KCWolfman]

Umm... maybe the fact that in the article it says he posts them with malicious intent? And that one has been killed and he hasn't taken the names down?
BTW - I can find nothing in the article that states he posts with malicious intent, can you quote your belief from the article?

[Nightfyre]

So someone writing the article states he posts them with malicious intent and he hasn't taken names down after a single tragedy has occurred?

And that is the crux of your evidence that Horsely is attempting to have doctors murdered?
Well, since that is a solid piece of evidence, yes! Maybe you should reread the article! It says he's "targeting" them. :shrug:

[KCWolfman]

Well, since that is a solid piece of evidence, yes! Maybe you should reread the article! It says he's "targeting" them. :shrug:
Ah, he is targeting them for murder. Thanks


Nope, I don't see murder or harm or malicious intent listed at all. Obviously you have a different version of the article than the rest of us.

So when I target a subordinate at work who is failing to meet production, I intend her harm, murder, or malicious intent?

What exactly is your "solid" evidence, happenstance? I am surprised you are not a D.A. and Mr. Horsely isn't in prison for felonious collusion of murder in the first degree.

[Bowser]

So someone writing the article states he posts them with malicious intent and he hasn't taken names down after a single tragedy has occurred?

And that is the crux of your evidence that Horsely is attempting to have doctors murdered?

There will never be any evidence that Horsely is trying to have doctors killed, until some whackjob gets arrested and tells the cops that he got the idea from Horsely and his list he has posted. Even then, they won't be able to prosecute Horsely, he'll just hide behind freedom of information. But there is only one reason, IMHO, that a guy like Horsely, who makes no bones about how he feels on the subject, would post such a list. He is hoping that some whackjobs will see the list and take actions that he himself is too big of a pooosy to do himself. Without knowing much about the guy, I am going to guess that he is not instructing anyone to go and murder anybody, but he would not be upset if any of the dooctors got their houses egged, porches shit on, or any number of things that someone could do to show their displeasure. Horsely needs his ass kicked, as far as I'm concerned.

[Mr. Kotter]

Although, I still believe this guy to be an extremist idiot...

the credibility, motivation, and ideological agenda of the "sources" for the story are NOT irrelevant. This guy is a moron, but of course the story presented is certainly from one perspective.

[KCWolfman]

There will never be any evidence that Horsely is trying to have doctors killed, until some whackjob gets arrested and tells the cops that he got the idea from Horsely and his list he has posted. Even then, they won't be able to prosecute Horsely, he'll just hide behind freedom of information. But there is only one reason, IMHO, that a guy like Horsely, who makes no bones about how he feels on the subject, would post such a list. He is hoping that some whackjobs will see the list and take actions that he himself is too big of a pooosy to do himself. Without knowing much about the guy, I am going to guess that he is not instructing anyone to go and murder anybody, but he would not be upset if any of the dooctors got their houses egged, porches shit on, or any number of things that someone could do to show their displeasure. Horsely needs his ass kicked, as far as I'm concerned.
Take action?

So those who picket their jobs are too big of "pooosy" to do the job and are just hoping someone else will kill the CEO and give them the deal they want?

He is harassing them for their choice of career. With that I agree.

However, if we are holding him culpable for the actions of others because of the information he provided, then let's arrest the fertilizer producers who colluded with Timothy McVeigh and the AFL-CIO who colluded to have Jimmy Hoffa killed as well.

[alanm]

That is the most incoherent thing I've read today! :thumb:
And it's not even noon yet. I gotta say though they must have a different breed of farmers down in Georgia. I guess this doesn't say much for the women either. ROFL

[Bowser]

Take action?

So those who picket their jobs are too big of "pooosy" to do the job and are just hoping someone else will kill the CEO and give them the deal they want?

He is harassing them for their choice of career. With that I agree.

However, if we are holding him culpable for the actions of others because of the information he provided, then let's arrest the fertilizer producers who colluded with Timothy McVeigh and the AFL-CIO who colluded to have Jimmy Hoffa killed as well.

If people were just picketing, I'd give you that.

I get your point with the McVeigh comparison, but you are doing your best Mr. Elastic stretch routine. Consider the source of who is providing the info. I would be willing to bet the owners of the fertilizer company didn't hope that one day their processed cowshit would be made into a weapon of mass destruction.

[KCWolfman]

If people were just picketing, I'd give you that.

I get your point with the McVeigh comparison, but you are doing your best Mr. Elastic stretch routine. Consider the source of who is providing the info. I would be willing to bet the owners of the fertilizer company didn't hope that one day their processed cowshit would be made into a weapon of mass destruction.
And I am betting Mr. Horsely didn't want the physician killed either. There is nothing to lead me to believe he does.

[go bowe]

. . .However, if we are holding him culpable for the actions of others because of the information he provided, then let's arrest the fertilizer producers who colluded with Timothy McVeigh and the AFL-CIO who colluded to have Jimmy Hoffa killed as well.you're right about this case, as i see it...

if the guy's website didn't even advocate violence against the doctors or directly threaten them in any way, he's not criminally responsible for what others do with the information he posts...

even if the common sense understanding of many folks is that is exactly what he is doing, facilitating criminal acts against abortion doctors...

[Logical]

Ah, the morals of the anti-abortion crowd. ROFL

Cmon Denis.e you really defending bestiality?

But you got to admit he did not have to worry about actively participating in the abortion issue. Given farm animals as partners. I wonder if he got their consent?:hmmm:

[go bowe]

depends on how old they were...

[Mr. Kotter]

depends on how old they were...

Eh, no worry....gay incestuous pedophia-beastiality will be legal soon enough. I hear the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth is going to pave the way... ;)

(j/k John....don't go ballistic on me, okay?)

[go bowe]

Eh, no worry....gay incestuous pedophia-beastiality will be legal soon enough. I hear the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth is going to pave the way... ;)

(j/k John....don't go ballistic on me, okay?)no, no, no...

it's the first amendment right to petition the government now...

try to keep up...

[go bowe]

. . .gay incestuous pedophia-beastiality will be legal soon enough. . .pedophila-beastiality?

is that like with very young animals?

[CHIEF4EVER]

Umm... maybe the fact that in the article it says he posts them with malicious intent? And that one has been killed and he hasn't taken the names down?

Oh, I see. The fact that someone has ACCUSED him of wrongdoing automatically makes him a crook. Right? O.K. I am accusing you of being a dicksucker. Because I said it in an article, it automatically makes it so, correct? Pretty fair, wouldn't you say? :rolleyes:

[Nightfyre]

Oh, I see. The fact that someone has ACCUSED him of wrongdoing automatically makes him a crook. Right? O.K. I am accusing you of being a dicksucker. Because I said it in an article, it automatically makes it so, correct? Pretty fair, wouldn't you say? :rolleyes:
The fact that he refused to remove them speaks for itself. It is a malicious act. Someone got hurt because of his actions and he does not have the compassion to remove the list?

[BCD]

I also like how the majority of people who down abortion as murder supported Bush's war.WTF?
:spock:

[Nightfyre]

WTF?
:spock:
See: Republican.

[BCD]

Cmon Denis.e you really defending bestiality?

Of course she is. She's got kids. Someone had to 'do' her...
:Lin:

[CHIEF4EVER]

The fact that he refused to remove them speaks for itself. It is a malicious act. Someone got hurt because of his actions and he does not have the compassion to remove the list?

And your proof of this is ?????????? Hearsay??? Conjecture?????? Wild partisan hypothesis????????

[SBK]

See: Republican.

Republican doesn't like over 40,000,000 babies killed since Roe v Wade.

Nightfyre doesn't like Iraq war, and the 1200? casualties we've had there.

We can all see he has taken the high ground in this one.

[SBK]

Of course she is. She's got kids. Someone had to 'do' her...
:Lin:

Is she Elways mom?

[penchief]

He is harassing them for their choice of career. With that I agree.

However, if we are holding him culpable for the actions of others because of the information he provided, then let's arrest the fertilizer producers who colluded with Timothy McVeigh and the AFL-CIO who colluded to have Jimmy Hoffa killed as well.

No.......... any fair-minded person would not arrest the fertilizer producer because the fertilizer producer is not producing fertilizer for the purpose of enabling right-wing extremists to blow up innocent people.

However, what is the purpose of this RWNJ's listing of abortion doctors?

You said it yourself. To harrass them, of course.

One's intent is important when measuring one's culpability.

I've said it many times before and I believe it wholeheartedly. The right-wing has no sense of degree. Everything is black and white to the right. There are is no grey area,.....only grey matter if you ask me.

Intent is an important element when gauging one's innocence or guilt. Urinating in public is hardly as serious as mass murder. Getting an oval office blow job is hardly as serious as manipulating intelligence to serve a corporately-funded agenda that results in war and the death.

Wolfman, sometimes you represent your point of view well. Other times you seem totally incapable of using reason. Comparing fertilizer producers to this RWNJ is one of those times. You would have been better off comparing this RWNJ to McViegh.

JMHO.

[Baby Lee]

No.......... any fair-minded person would not arrest the fertilizer producer because the fertilizer producer is not producing fertilizer for the purpose of enabling right-wing extremists to blow up innocent people.

However, what is the purpose of this RWNJ's listing of abortion doctors?

You said it yourself. To harrass them, of course.

One's intent is important when measuring one's culpability.

I've said it many times before and I believe it wholeheartedly. The right-wing has no sense of degree. Everything is black and white to the right. There are is no grey area,.....only grey matter if you ask me.

Intent is an important element when gauging one's innocence or guilt. Urinating in public is hardly as serious as mass murder. Getting an oval office blow job is hardly as serious as manipulating intelligence to serve a corporately-funded agenda that results in war and the death.

Wolfman, sometimes you represent your point of view well. Other times you seem totally incapable of using reason. Comparing fertilizer producers to this RWNJ is one of those times. You would have been better off comparing this RWNJ to McViegh.

JMHO.
Are you gonna hold all of us to the same standard if some whacko offs Bartee or King Carl? I mean, our criticism of, and often sheer hatred for, them is here for all to see and take their cues from.

[penchief]

Are you gonna hold all of us to the same standard if some whacko offs Bartee or King Carl? I mean, our criticism of, and often sheer hatred for, them is here for all to see and take their cues from.

Absolutely not. Criticizing abortion serves a differnet purpose than does listing the names of doctors who perform abortions. Wouldn't you agree? Disagreeing with the practice of abortions is much different than exposing individuals who perform them to the contempt and violence of extremists within the "movement."

[Baby Lee]

Absolutely not. Criticizing abortion serves a differnet purpose than does listing the names of doctors who perform abortions. Wouldn't you agree? Disagreeing with the practice of abortions is much different than exposing individuals who perform them to the contempt and violence of extremists within the "movement."
But posters on here go beyond saying "the Chiefs D sucks" to saying "King Carl is the debbil and needs to go."
That exposes him personally to contempt, and it's conceivable it exposes him to violence. Doesn't make it our fault for expressing ourselves.
Fer Chrissakes, I've seen musings on here about how much better the organization will be run when Lamar finally kicks it.

[Nightfyre]

Republican doesn't like over 40,000,000 babies killed since Roe v Wade.

Nightfyre doesn't like Iraq war, and the 1200? casualties we've had there.

We can all see he has taken the high ground in this one.
Blah blah blah... Im sorry, I turned off your typical republican justification. O btw, thanks to todays medical technology, you only have 10000 wounded, not 10000 dead. At any rate, It's your double standard, not mine. I supported the war in Iraq, and I support the right to choose.

[KCWolfman]

The fact that he refused to remove them speaks for itself. It is a malicious act. Someone got hurt because of his actions and he does not have the compassion to remove the list?
So you believe the people from Jenny Jones should be in prison and her show should have been cancelled on March 7, 1995 the day after a homosexual was murdered because he confessed his love on air to another man?

Seems to me to be the exact same situation.

[KCWolfman]

No.......... any fair-minded person would not arrest the fertilizer producer because the fertilizer producer is not producing fertilizer for the purpose of enabling right-wing extremists to blow up innocent people.

However, what is the purpose of this RWNJ's listing of abortion doctors?

You said it yourself. To harrass them, of course.

One's intent is important when measuring one's culpability.

I've said it many times before and I believe it wholeheartedly. The right-wing has no sense of degree. Everything is black and white to the right. There are is no grey area,.....only grey matter if you ask me.

Intent is an important element when gauging one's innocence or guilt. Urinating in public is hardly as serious as mass murder. Getting an oval office blow job is hardly as serious as manipulating intelligence to serve a corporately-funded agenda that results in war and the death.

Wolfman, sometimes you represent your point of view well. Other times you seem totally incapable of using reason. Comparing fertilizer producers to this RWNJ is one of those times. You would have been better off comparing this RWNJ to McViegh.

JMHO.
Guess what, picketeers only purpose is to harass and embarrass, just as Horsely's intent was.

So you want all union picketeers jailed immediately, right? After all, you are a "fair minded person".

[KCWolfman]

Absolutely not. Criticizing abortion serves a differnet purpose than does listing the names of doctors who perform abortions. Wouldn't you agree? Disagreeing with the practice of abortions is much different than exposing individuals who perform them to the contempt and violence of extremists within the "movement."
Again, another extremist who obviously can mentally peruse the mind of Horsely and know his intent is to "exposing individuals who perform them to the contempt and violence of extremists within the "movement".

So what do you base your Kreskin like knowledge upon other than your feely touchy feelings? Any hard evidence of Horsely's intent to have people murdered?

[Bowser]

Read this and tell me these people aren't out of their minds.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week603/cover.html

These people are dangerous, and have convinced theirselves they are righteous because they are enforcing the "will of God". They are full of shit. If they were really so ****ing righteous, why don't they go stand outside the local Hy-Vee or Wal-Mart, and berate the people who buy high fat, high cholesterol foods. Because in essence, those people are killing themselves.

[Cochise]

Ah, the morals of the anti-abortion crowd. ROFL

Don't worry, there's somebody out there who will choose you over the mule. Just keep your head up.

[stevieray]

However, what is the purpose of this RWNJ's listing of abortion doctors?

.

what is the purpose Of LWNJ's performing abortions?

[alanm]

Read this and tell me these people aren't out of their minds.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week603/cover.html

These people are dangerous, and have convinced theirselves they are righteous because they are enforcing the "will of God". They are full of shit. If they were really so ****ing righteous, why don't they go stand outside the local Hy-Vee or Wal-Mart, and berate the people who buy high fat, high cholesterol foods. Because in essence, those people are killing themselves.

Because it's not newsworthy.

[Bowser]

Because it's not newsworthy.

Of course it's not.

[GermtheWorm]

Im new! :drool:

[Nightfyre]

So you believe the people from Jenny Jones should be in prison and her show should have been cancelled on March 7, 1995 the day after a homosexual was murdered because he confessed his love on air to another man?

Seems to me to be the exact same situation.
Its not the exact situation. I think your missing the *VOLUNTARILY* nature of the JJ situation. These doctors are asking for their names to be removed, not begging to confess on national TV.

[Nightfyre]

Guess what, picketeers only purpose is to harass and embarrass, just as Horsely's intent was.

So you want all union picketeers jailed immediately, right? After all, you are a "fair minded person".
Picketeers intent is to seek change through peaceful protest. I dont see how posting abortion doctors names online is in anyway similar to that.

[Fairplay]

The mules testimony won't stand up in court. Unless hes Mr. Ed.

[BCD]

At any rate, It's your double standard, not mine. I supported the war in Iraq, and I support the right to choose.Its not even a double standard. In war, you are not trying to kill the innocent, unfortunately, the innocent die. In abortion, you are killing an innocent being, generally for no good reason. In war, atleast the innocent can try to defend/protect themselves. In abortion, what defense/protection does a fetus have?

[Nightfyre]

Its not even a double standard. In war, you are not trying to kill the innocent, unfortunately, the innocent die. In abortion, you are killing an innocent being, generally for no good reason. In war, atleast the innocent can try to defend/protect themselves. In abortion, what defense/protection does a fetus have?
The point is, people are going to die in wars. Innocents people. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that more people have died in war than their are aborted fetii (sp?).

[BCD]

The point is, people are going to die in wars. Innocents people. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that more people have died in war than their are aborted fetii (sp?).Uh, gee you think? Wars have been fought for centuries. How long have abortions been legal?

[penchief]

Again, another extremist who obviously can mentally peruse the mind of Horsely and know his intent is to "exposing individuals who perform them to the contempt and violence of extremists within the "movement".

So what do you base your Kreskin like knowledge upon other than your feely touchy feelings? Any hard evidence of Horsely's intent to have people murdered?

I'm not saying this man is guilty of anything, yet. I don't know enough about it. At this point, I'm only taking issue with your comparison. I think it was a very poor comparison. The point of my reply to your comparison was not intended to infer guilt on Mr. Horsely. Certainly, I have my opinion about that but the point of my response was to highlight that your comparison omitted the influence one's intent might have on their culpability.

That's all.

[Nightfyre]

Uh, gee you think? Wars have been fought for centuries. How long have abortions been legal?
Abortions happen, legal or not. Or maybe you are unaware of the backalley abortions that caused the legalization?

[Mr. Kotter]

Abortions happen, legal or not. Or maybe you are unaware of the backalley abortions that caused the legalization?

Caused? :hmmm:

Guess I missed that part of the Roe decision....

[Logical]

Caused? :hmmm:

Guess I missed that part of the Roe decision....

Picking nits are we? While it was certainly not in the text of the SC argument, you would have to assume those Justices were extremely ignorant not to have considered the issue as a legitimate concern.

[penchief]

what is the purpose Of LWNJ's performing abortions?

Let's try to answer both questions. Let's do it in an honest way and drop the RWNJ/LWNJ language from the debate.

1. What is the purpose of this gentleman's practice of posting doctors' names on an anti-abortion website?

My Answers:

I suppose that anti-abortionists could picket the doctor's office or use that knowledge to spread the word to others that they should boycotte those doctors.

On the other hand, the possibility exists that Mr. Horsely's intent is to create a harrassing environment for those doctors. If he were to know that even the slightest possibility existed that an abortion-doctor murderer could use that information in a way that resulted in the murder of any of those doctors, then the authorities should question his motives, IMO.

Granted, it would be very difficult to find him culpable unless their were witnesses that could testify to his intent. But his intent is important, IMO. Hiding behind loopholes is the fashion of the day but hopefully at some point we are all held accountable for our intentions.

2. Why would doctor's perform abortions?

Well, the obvious legal answer is because it is legal. But, just like I'm not a lawyer, I'm also not a doctor so I really can't say why doctor's perform abortions. Maybe they have an obligation to their patient?

Personally, I believe that we can drastically reduce the need for abortions without infringing on a person's free will. It seems like that would be something that both sides would welcome. Pro-choice and pro-abortion don't mean the same thing. Contraception and "family planning" would have to become more acceptable to anti-abortion/pro-life advocates.

[Nightfyre]

Caused? :hmmm:

Guess I missed that part of the Roe decision....
Hmm... I think you are shrinking the definition of cause...

[Nightfyre]

what is the purpose Of LWNJ's performing abortions?
The causes of abortion are many. Look up the stats, they should be quite revealing.

[Logical]

Let's try to answer both questions. Let's do it in an honest way and drop the RWNJ/LWNJ language from the debate.

1. What is the purpose of this gentleman's practice of posting doctors' names on an anti-abortion website?

My Answers:

I suppose that anti-abortionists could picket the doctor's office or use that knowledge to spread the word to others that they should boycotte those doctors.

On the other hand, the possibility exists that Mr. Horsely's intent is to create a harrassing environment for those doctors. If he were to know that even the slightest possibility existed that an abortion-doctor murderer could use that information in a way that resulted in the murder of any of those doctors, then the authorities should question his motives, IMO.

Granted, it would be very difficult to find him culpable unless their were witnesses that could testify to his intent. But his intent is important, IMO. Hiding behind loopholes is the fashion of the day but hopefully at some point we are all held accountable for our intentions.

2. Why would doctor's perform abortions?

Well, the obvious legal answer is because it is legal. But, just like I'm not a lawyer, I'm also not a doctor so I really can't say why doctor's perform abortions. Maybe they have an obligation to their patient?

Personally, I believe that we can drastically reduce the need for abortions without infringing on a person's free will. It seems like that would be something that both sides would welcome. Pro-choice and pro-abortion don't mean the same thing. Contraception and "family planning" would have to become more acceptable to anti-abortion/pro-life advocates.

That was a really well thought out post. Rep

[BCD]

Abortions happen, legal or not. Or maybe you are unaware of the backalley abortions that caused the legalization?I'm completely aware, and its the ONLY reason abortions should stay legal. Also, WTF does that have to do with war, anyway?

[Braincase]

I also like how the majority of people who down abortion as murder supported Bush's war.

I support our soldiers over there, but there are aspects of our foreign policy I am uncomfortable with. I also believe that human rights begin at a time when an entity can be scientifically defined as human, and that is well before a child comes to full term.

[stevieray]

The causes of abortion are many. Look up the stats, they should be quite revealing.

the main one being spreading your legs when you don't want a child.

[stevieray]

[QUOTE=penchief] Maybe they have an obligation to their patient?

[/QUOT I don't think so, unless you look at being a pregnant like a disease.

I thought we went to the hospital to get better, because we're sick.

[|Zach|]

I don't think so, unless you look at being a pregnant like a disease.

I thought we went to the hospital to get better, because we're sick.
I know a few OBGYN's and they all consider pregnant ladies coming in for check ups and what not as "patients" and in the case of an abortion...it is a medical procedure. Doctor\patient status in both these cases seems obvious.

[Calcountry]

Well, not that I condone it, but banging a mule IMO isn't as immoral killing an innocent child.They are both unquanitfiably abominable.

[stevieray]

I know a few OBGYN's and they all consider pregnant ladies coming in for check ups and what not as "patients" and in the case of an abortion...it is a medical procedure. Doctor\patient status in both these cases seems obvious.

Is semantics all you have?

abortion doctors do not have any obligation to anything other than money, he would not be putting the girl in medical danger by turning her away. Because she isn't sick. She doesn't NEED his services, she WANTS them.

[Logical]

Maybe they have an obligation to their patient?

I don't think so, unless you look at being a pregnant like a disease.

I thought we went to the hospital to get better, because we're sick.

Pregnancy is a medical condition therefore a doctor has to treat it in accordance with the patient's wishes as long as they are legal. If that Doctor is unwilling to do so then he should get out of the field (in this case treating pregnant women) so that he can follow his moral compass over his medical obligation.

[|Zach|]

Is semantics all you have?

abortion doctors do not have any obligation to anything other than money, he would not be putting the girl in medical danger by turning her away. Because she isn't sick. She doesn't NEED his services, she WANTS them.
Semantics is what you posted about and I replied to that post.

What you wrote above does that change that women going up on routine check ups that are pregnant and doctors that preform abortions on women are considered to have a doctor\patient relationship by both parties.

Medical procedures are done in both cases by doctors.

[Logical]

Is semantics all you have?

abortion doctors do not have any obligation to anything other than money, he would not be putting the girl in medical danger by turning her away. Because she isn't sick. She doesn't NEED his services, she WANTS them.

This is most obnoxious post I have ever seen you make. A doctor who performs abortions is doing a valuable survice when doing so in a clean healthy medical facility. To believe they only do so for money is silly, there is much, much greater money in Plastic Surgery. You also do not know that all women have no danger in delivering a child, that is just total bullshit. Do all women seeking abortion require it to save their life, no, but many, many women do such as a cancer patient. I suppose you would have the baby undergo chemotherapy and radiation to avoid abortion to live their life with all sorts of genetic mutations and birth defects.

[stevieray]

This is most obnoxious post I have ever seen you make. A doctor who performs abortions is doing a valuable survice when doing so in a clean healthy medical facility. To believe they only do so for money is silly, there is much, much greater money in Plastic Surgery. You also do not know that all women have no danger in delivering a child, that is just total bullshit. Do all women seeking abortion require it to save their life, no, but many, many women do such as a cancer patient. I suppose you would have the baby undergo chemotherapy and radiation to avoid abortion to live their life with all sorts of genetic mutations and birth defects.


Since when do women go to the abortion doctor to get a clean bill of health?

Why would someone with Cancer get pregnant? So they could put their own life in danger? or subject thmemselves to an abortion? give their child cancer?

valuable service? that's an ironic thing to say, considering the value of the baby is nonexistant, and needed(baby) to create value for the doctor and mother.


you really think that I would have a baby forego chemo? and you call my post obnoxious?

[stevieray]

for the record, I'm not saying women don't have the right to an abortion, or would I treat someone differently if they had one, i just wish it didn't have to happen, not just for the child's sake.

[|Zach|]

i just wish it didn't have to happen, not just for the child's sake.

Total agreement.

[Logical]

Since when do women go to the abortion doctor to get a clean bill of health?

Why would someone with Cancer get pregnant? So they could put their own life in danger? or subject thmemselves to an abortion? give their child cancer?

valuable service? that's an ironic thing to say, considering the value of the baby is nonexistant, and needed(baby) to create value for the doctor and mother.


you really think that I would have a baby forego chemo? and you call my post obnoxious?

First most doctors that perform abortions are not just abortion doctors, they are from a number of different surgical specialties and gynecologist and they do it as a service to women which is legal. Yes there are a few doctors who specialize in abortion but they are actually kind of rare.

Stevie women get pregnant that do not realize they have cancer, heck they even develop cancer while being pregnant. It is one of the effects of all the hormones on some womens bodies. Similar in nature to birth control pills stimulating cancer growth in women's breasts. I am not suggesting women with cancer go out of their way to get pregnant. I bet there are even a few women that have cancer that accidently become pregnant as birth control is not 100% effective.

[Logical]

for the record, I'm not saying women don't have the right to an abortion, or would I treat someone differently if they had one, i just wish it didn't have to happen, not just for the child's sake.

I don't believe there are many people who feel differently. To those on the other side it is more a neccesary negative.

[KCWolfman]

The point is, people are going to die in wars. Innocents people. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that more people have died in war than their are aborted fetii (sp?).
I bet not.

You realize that more people were killed in war in the 20th century than in all other centuries combined? And that only totals in the 10s of millions?

Approximately 900,000 abortions are performed annually in the US. Since 1973 that is approximately 28,800,000 in the US alone. Also note that the figure only represents LEGAL abortions. The US has approximately 300,000,000 people of the 6,000,000,000 that represent the entire population of the planet - which is about 5%.

Now take the 28,000,000 and increase it by 95% to account for the rest of the world (note that areas like unindustrialized Africa have a great deal less abortions than the US, but places like Russia proper and China have a great deal more - so this is an estimate only) that is 594,000,000 abortions since 1973. I would bet that more than one half a billion people have not been killed in war since the beginning of mankind - and this stat only goes back 33 years.

[KCWolfman]

I'm completely aware, and its the ONLY reason abortions should stay legal. Also, WTF does that have to do with war, anyway?
I disagree.

People rob other people even though it is illegal. Since they commit theft, shouldn't theft be made legal to make it safer for those who commit the crime?

[KCWolfman]

Pregnancy is a medical condition therefore a doctor has to treat it in accordance with the patient's wishes as long as they are legal. If that Doctor is unwilling to do so then he should get out of the field (in this case treating pregnant women) so that he can follow his moral compass over his medical obligation.
Not true.

Using your analogy, one must assume a surgeon should remove a person's lung or eyes if they don't like them or they should get out of the field to follow their moral compass.

[Logical]

Not true.

Using your analogy, one must assume a surgeon should remove a person's lung or eyes if they don't like them or they should get out of the field to follow their moral compass.

I don't know if that is legal, is it?

[Pitt Gorilla]

I bet not.

You realize that more people were killed in war in the 20th century than in all other centuries combined? And that only totals in the 10s of millions?

Approximately 900,000 abortions are performed annually in the US. Since 1973 that is approximately 28,800,000 in the US alone. Also note that the figure only represents LEGAL abortions. The US has approximately 300,000,000 people of the 6,000,000,000 that represent the entire population of the planet - which is about 5%.

Now take the 28,000,000 and increase it by 95% to account for the rest of the world (note that areas like unindustrialized Africa have a great deal less abortions than the US, but places like Russia proper and China have a great deal more - so this is an estimate only) that is 594,000,000 abortions since 1973. I would bet that more than one half a billion people have not been killed in war since the beginning of mankind - and this stat only goes back 33 years.600,000,000 is a lot. I'm personally not a fan of abortion, but what would we do with that many more people? I know, I'm an asshole, but it seems like an interesting question. (no, wolfie, I'm not providing a justification or rationale; don't put those words in my mouth...)

[Amnorix]

Not true.

Using your analogy, one must assume a surgeon should remove a person's lung or eyes if they don't like them or they should get out of the field to follow their moral compass.

The difference lies in the simple fact that there is no reason any sane person would choose to have their lungs or eyes removed. Anyone requesting same (and apparently serious about it) should be referred to a psychiatrist.

That does not hold true for abortions.

[Amnorix]

I don't know if that is legal, is it?

I doubt there's a law regarding it one way or the other. It's insane, so why bother legislating it?

[KCWolfman]

600,000,000 is a lot. I'm personally not a fan of abortion, but what would we do with that many more people? I know, I'm an asshole, but it seems like an interesting question. (no, wolfie, I'm not providing a justification or rationale; don't put those words in my mouth...)
Well, most of those who have abortions are multiple procedure patients, so that would reduce the number drastically.

And you are right, it is an interesting question. However, I am betting that contraception and planning would certainly take precedence over casual unprotected encounters and multiple pregnancies per woman.

[Logical]

600,000,000 is a lot. I'm personally not a fan of abortion, but what would we do with that many more people? I know, I'm an asshole, but it seems like an interesting question. (no, wolfie, I'm not providing a justification or rationale; don't put those words in my mouth...)

All I can say is I was thinking what you put into a post. Now that the threshold has been crossed it even crossed my mind that the world is possibly slightly better off with 6/10ths of a Billion less people inhabiting it.

[Logical]

The difference lies in the simple fact that there is no reason any sane person would choose to have their lungs or eyes removed. Anyone requesting same (and apparently serious about it) should be referred to a psychiatrist.

That does not hold true for abortions.Thanks, I truly was so stunned by the proposition I was at a loss for an answer. I think yours was excellent.

[KCWolfman]

The difference lies in the simple fact that there is no reason any sane person would choose to have their lungs or eyes removed. Anyone requesting same (and apparently serious about it) should be referred to a psychiatrist.

That does not hold true for abortions.
I wasn't looking for a difference, nor does one matter in this point. Jim said that as an OB-Gyn they are obligated to perform abortions or get out of the field. That entire thought process is incorrect.

I went extreme with the example, but here is another to simplify:

Per Jim's analogy an ENT specialist (ears, nose and throat) would be required to provide plastic surgery to reduce ears or pin them back, or give a nose job, or get out of the field and follow "his moral compass".

[Amnorix]

I bet not.

You realize that more people were killed in war in the 20th century than in all other centuries combined? And that only totals in the 10s of millions?

Approximately 900,000 abortions are performed annually in the US. Since 1973 that is approximately 28,800,000 in the US alone. Also note that the figure only represents LEGAL abortions. The US has approximately 300,000,000 people of the 6,000,000,000 that represent the entire population of the planet - which is about 5%.

Now take the 28,000,000 and increase it by 95% to account for the rest of the world (note that areas like unindustrialized Africa have a great deal less abortions than the US, but places like Russia proper and China have a great deal more - so this is an estimate only) that is 594,000,000 abortions since 1973. I would bet that more than one half a billion people have not been killed in war since the beginning of mankind - and this stat only goes back 33 years.

My 5 minutes of internet research tends to back up the conclusion here.

[KCWolfman]

All I can say is I was thinking what you put into a post. Now that the threshold has been crossed it even crossed my mind that the world is possibly slightly better off with 6/10ths of a Billion less people inhabiting it.
Even if one of the killed is one who has an answer to overpopulation, a cure for cancer, or the end to poverty.

[Logical]

I wasn't looking for a difference, nor does one matter in this point. Jim said that as an OB-Gyn they are obligated to perform abortions or get out of the field. That entire thought process is incorrect.

I went extreme with the example, but here is another to simplify:

Per Jim's analogy an ENT specialist (ears, nose and throat) would be required to provide plastic surgery to reduce ears or pin them back, or give a nose job, or get out of the field and follow "his moral compass".Wouldn't your example be for a Plastic Surgeon not an ENT?

Maybe I am just not aware of what procedures the average ENT performs.

[Amnorix]

I wasn't looking for a difference, nor does one matter in this point. Jim said that as an OB-Gyn they are obligated to perform abortions or get out of the field. That entire thought process is incorrect.

I went extreme with the example, but here is another to simplify:

Per Jim's analogy an ENT specialist (ears, nose and throat) would be required to provide plastic surgery to reduce ears or pin them back, or give a nose job, or get out of the field and follow "his moral compass".

I'm in agreement with Jim on this. Medical providers should be obligated to provide the full range of legal and medically permissible options with respect to any given situation.

With respect to actually PERFORMING the procedure in question, all professions frequently refer clients to others within the profession to perform specialty procedures and the like. The only concern here is, for example, where United States military personnel, or their relatives, are unable to get a perfectly legal abortion when stationed on a US military base that's abroad because the federal government refuses to allow its doctors to perform such a procedure. I seem to vaguely recall this being an issue some time back, and find it contemptible that this policy would change with each administration.

[Logical]

Even if one of the killed is one who has an answer to overpopulation, a cure for cancer, or the end to poverty.Better they starve in a third world country or die from parental neglect, does it make a difference? They still had an opportunity to die before making a difference.

[Amnorix]

Even if one of the killed is one who has an answer to overpopulation, a cure for cancer, or the end to poverty.

Yes.

[Amnorix]

Well, most of those who have abortions are multiple procedure patients, so that would reduce the number drastically.

And you are right, it is an interesting question. However, I am betting that contraception and planning would certainly take precedence over casual unprotected encounters and multiple pregnancies per woman.

Merely for the record, I would not oppose sterilization on repeat abortion offenders, especially if they are on welfare.

Civil rights groups and others would go ape**** over this, of course, but just posting my own thoughts on the matter.

[KCWolfman]

I'm in agreement with Jim on this. Medical providers should be obligated to provide the full range of legal and medically permissible options with respect to any given situation.

With respect to actually PERFORMING the procedure in question, all professions frequently refer clients to others within the profession to perform specialty procedures and the like. The only concern here is, for example, where United States military personnel, or their relatives, are unable to get a perfectly legal abortion when stationed on a US military base that's abroad because the federal government refuses to allow its doctors to perform such a procedure. I seem to vaguely recall this being an issue some time back, and find it contemptible that this policy would change with each administration.
Ridiculous.

So as a lawyer, you believe that you cannot turn down a case as long as it is legitimately related to your field or you should find another profession?

As a publisher you should be forced to publish any book if it didn't cause a loss of revenue?

You don't mean "should be obligated", you mean "should be forced against their will".

[KCWolfman]

Better they starve in a third world country or die from parental neglect, does it make a difference? They still had an opportunity to die before making a difference.
Let's see a show of aborted childrens' hands who agree they are better off dead than given a shot.

[Logical]

Let's see a show of aborted childrens' hands who agree they are better off dead than given a shot.

Quite a bizarre image, I just pictured 400 million raised dead fetus hands.

[KCWolfman]

Quite a bizarre image, I just pictured 400 million raised dead fetus hands.
I just find it curious that we have obviously become wise enough to decide who should live or die before they are even born.

[KCWolfman]

I'm in agreement with Jim on this. Medical providers should be obligated to provide the full range of legal and medically permissible options with respect to any given situation.

With respect to actually PERFORMING the procedure in question, all professions frequently refer clients to others within the profession to perform specialty procedures and the like. The only concern here is, for example, where United States military personnel, or their relatives, are unable to get a perfectly legal abortion when stationed on a US military base that's abroad because the federal government refuses to allow its doctors to perform such a procedure. I seem to vaguely recall this being an issue some time back, and find it contemptible that this policy would change with each administration.
Another example. A patient believes they should have an appendectomy even though they have no Family HX of appendicitis or propensity toward any malingering infections. Are you stating a surgeon is obligated to remove the appendix even though it poses no threat?

[Logical]

I just find it curious that we have obviously become wise enough to decide who should live or die before they are even born.

We haven't in most countries, the pregnant woman has.

[KCWolfman]

We haven't in most countries, the pregnant woman has.
Or the pregnant child who isn't even capable of driving.

They obviously contain a wisdom I can't define.

[Logical]

Another example. A patient believes they should have an appendectomy even though they have no Family HX of appendicitis or propensity toward any malingering infections. Are you stating a surgeon is obligated to remove the appendix even though it poses no threat?OK if it will stop you from making ridiculous analogies, Doctors are obligated to perform procedures that are common in the professional specialty they have chosen, or to choose another specialty.

[Logical]

Or the pregnant child who isn't even capable of driving.

They obviously contain a wisdom I can't define.

I won't make a drunken statement reference, I will simply ask you to explain the pregnant child statement. I completely do not understand it.

[KCWolfman]

OK if it will stop you from making ridiculous analogies, Doctors are obligated to perform procedures that are common in the professional specialty they have chosen, or to choose another specialty.
That is what I wanted to see.

An OB-Gyn is not an abortion specialist. Thank you for taking your time but finding the route.

In fact, most OBs don't even perform D&Cs in extreme cases where their patient plans on delivery but suffers horrid complications, they bring in someone else to take the surgery.

So you are correct (in some sense). If your speciality in the OB field is abortion, you should perform legal abortions. However, if you simply deliver children 99% of the time, you most certainly should not be obligated in anyway to do so.

[KCWolfman]

I won't make a drunken statement reference, I will simply ask you to explain the pregnant child statement. I completely do not understand it.
Reference to the 13 year old who wanted an abortion in another thread.

[Logical]

Reference to the 13 year old who wanted an abortion in another thread.

Actually I still don't get it. Sorry.

[Logical]

Actually I still don't get it. Sorry.By the way I remember the thread I am just not relating your reference.

[KCWolfman]

Actually I still don't get it. Sorry.
Just stating we have ran full circle, Jim.

Your statement alludes to the idea that anyone who has an abortion is wise enough to deem whether the unborn child is worthy of life or not. My statement alluded to the concept that there is no way many are even wise enough to discern which cereal is best for them in the morning. Which we have already discussed ad infinitum on the other thread.

[Logical]

Just stating we have ran full circle, Jim.

Your statement alludes to the idea that anyone who has an abortion is wise enough to deem whether the unborn child is worthy of life or not. My statement alluded to the concept that there is no way many are even wise enough to discern which cereal is best for them in the morning. Which we have already discussed ad infinitum on the other thread.OK I get it now, but I did not say any 13 year old, I said the ones the court rules are capable of making an informed decision. I know you do not like my distinction, but there is a big difference versus all 13 year olds.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Merely for the record, I would not oppose sterilization on repeat abortion offenders, especially if they are on welfare.

Civil rights groups and others would go ape**** over this, of course, but just posting my own thoughts on the matter.I think that would be a great compromise; you get an abortion, you get sterilized. You might have more people agree with you than you think.

[KCWolfman]

I think that would be a great compromise; you get an abortion, you get sterilized. You might have more people agree with you than you think.
I dunno. The crux of the argument is when is life life?. If you believe it is not until actual birth or the third trimester, what does it matter if you have 16 abortions as long as they are before the advent of the 6th month? And in converse, for those who believe it is at conception, what does it matter if someone is sterilized after they have killed another person?

Seems to be a horrid compromise from either side of the fence.

[Logical]

I dunno. The crux of the argument is when is life life?. If you believe it is not until actual birth or the third trimester, what does it matter if you have 16 abortions as long as they are before the advent of the 6th month? And in converse, for those who believe it is at conception, what does it matter if someone is sterilized after they have killed another person?

Seems to be a horrid compromise from either side of the fence.


So if you believe a person killed your brother then why lock him up, he has already killed one person? I don't believe that is what you want to be saying. I do not see the after they have killled another person argument you made.

I believe the idea is prevention of multiple abortions at taxpayers expenxe. You get one Government paid ride then you get no more.

Personally I like it because sterilization is reversible in about 90% of the cases, so once someone can afford a reversal and knows they want a child then they undergo the procedure.

I have met very few people that actually would argue that a reduction in multiple abortions per person would be bad, except maybe as a chance to debate for debatings sake.

[KCWolfman]

So if you believe a person killed your brother then why lock him up, he has already killed one person? I don't believe that is what you want to be saying. I do not see the after they have killled another person argument you made.

I believe the idea is prevention of multiple abortions at taxpayers expenxe. You get one Government paid ride then you get no more.

Personally I like it because sterilization is reversible in about 90% of the cases, so once someone can afford a reversal and knows they want a child then they undergo the procedure.

I have met very few people that actually would argue that a reduction in multiple abortions per person would be bad, except maybe as a chance to debate for debatings sake.
I never stated it would be "bad", I stated it does not meet the criteria of anything regarding a pro-life or pro-abortion stance.

Personally, I don't want my tax dollars to foot a single abortion - regardless of the outcome afterward. Unnecessary surgery should not be put upon my expenses. I have to pay for 4 kids at home, why should I have to foot the bill for other kids as well?

[Logical]

I never stated it would be "bad", I stated it does not meet the criteria of anything regarding a pro-life or pro-abortion stance.

Personally, I don't want my tax dollars to foot a single abortion - regardless of the outcome afterward. Unnecessary surgery should not be put upon my expenses. I have to pay for 4 kids at home, why should I have to foot the bill for other kids as well?
We definitely agree on your second paragraph. I am more speculating against the reality of what is. It really is a moot point we are not likely to get rid of abortions for welfare moms and we definitely won't get forced sterilization on those who get them.

[KCWolfman]

We definitely agree on your second paragraph. I am more speculating against the reality of what is. It really is a moot point we are not likely to get rid of abortions for welfare moms and we definitely won't get forced sterilization on those who get them.
Currently the state of Missouri does not pay for abortions under Medicaid. In fact, I don't know of any state that does.

[Logical]

Currently the state of Missouri does not pay for abortions under Medicaid. In fact, I don't know of any state that does.

I may be confused on this, I thought CA did.

[Logical]

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/James%20Reynolds/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/6P8RATUD/272,18,The number of states paying for medically necessary abortions for women on Medicaid has not changed greatly over the past 20 years.

According to the Chart (18 of 19) on this site either 16 or 17 states pay for abortions.

[KCWolfman]

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/James%20Reynolds/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/6P8RATUD/272,18,The number of states paying for medically necessary abortions for women on Medicaid has not changed greatly over the past 20 years.

According to the Chart (18 of 19) on this site either 16 or 17 states pay for abortions.
Medically necessary is a great deal different than opted, Jim.

[Logical]

Medically necessary is a great deal different than opted, Jim.Maybe I am missing your point, because I do not recall saying anything about opted in my post about Welfare women having their abortions paid for.

[KCWolfman]

Maybe I am missing your point, because I do not recall saying anything about opted in my post about Welfare women having their abortions paid for.
So you are saying that women who have a choice to either abort their fetus or die should have their tubes tied if they are on welfare?

You mentioned multiple abortions by women who are on welfare. Women do not have multiple abortions as medically necessary procedures, Jim. They have them as choice.

[Logical]

So you are saying that women who have a choice to either abort their fetus or die should have their tubes tied if they are on welfare?

You mentioned multiple abortions by women who are on welfare. Women do not have multiple abortions as medically necessary procedures, Jim. They have them as choice.If it is their second welfare abortion yes.

By the way California does pay for abortions under Medi-Cal. So I was correct, your technicality on Medi-caid may or may not be true.

"Medi-Cal-funded abortions represent about one-third of all abortions in California,".

[KCWolfman]

If it is their second welfare abortion yes.

By the way California does pay for abortions under Medi-Cal. So I was correct, your technicality on Medi-caid may or may not be true.
Give me a stat on multiple abortions from women who are on welfare that require the abortions to save their own lives. You realize you are discussing the merits of saving money on a minute percentage? In fact, it is so minute, you should have said "multiple medically necessary abortions" in your original statement as it changes the entire outlook of the post.

In fact according to your Medi-Cal stats, the very most it would cover in the state of California alone is only 6,500 patients out of the near 100,000 patients with abortions in 2005.

[Logical]

Give me a stat on multiple abortions from women who are on welfare that require the abortions to save their own lives. You realize you are discussing the merits of saving money on a minute percentage? In fact, it is so minute, you should have said "multiple medically necessary abortions" in your original statement as it changes the entire outlook of the post.

In fact according to your Medi-Cal stats, the very most it would cover in the state of California alone is only 6,500 patients out of the near 100,000 patients with abortions in 2005.

You use some mysterious math. 1/3 of 100,000 is only 6500?

By the way Medi-cal pays for any abortion for finacially qualified women (i.e. poor), not just for those where it protects their life. Like I said it is not medi-caid but it is welfare at least in CA.

[KCWolfman]

You use some mysterious math. 1/3 of 100,000 is only 6500?

By the way Medi-cal pays for any abortion for finacially qualified women (i.e. poor), not just for those where it protects their life. Like I said it is not medi-caid but it is welfare at least in CA.
Where did you get 1/3?

Medi-Cal reports less than 8% have repeated abortions.

Medi-Cal Abortion Stats (http://www.dhs.ca.gov/mcss/PublishedReports/Abortion/95/abt95.pdf)

During 1995, as in previous years, an estimated one percent or less of all FFS Medi-Cal eligible women ages 15-44 had an abortion. About 8 percent of these women had more than one abortion

[Logical]

Where did you get 1/3?

Medical reports less than 8% have repeated abortions.

From the quote in the post you responded to.

Here it is again.

"Medi-Cal-funded abortions represent about one-third of all abortions in California,".

It is from a report on California abortion reporting.

[KCWolfman]

From the quote in the post you responded to.

Here it is again.



It is from a report on California abortion reporting.
1/3 is not repeated abortions, Jim.

You stated that you wanted sterilization for women with multiple abortions who are funded by a government assistance program.

#1. Medicaid programs don't pay unless they are medically necessary
#2. Medi-Cal has less than 8% repeat aborters.

6500 is about 8% of the Medi-Cal abortions in a given year.

[Logical]

Where did you get 1/3?

Medical reports less than 8% have repeated abortions.

I kind of doubt your 100,000 as well since the CDC reported 280K abortions in 1996, it may have dropped but I doubt by a factor of 3.

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that in 1996 there were 280,180 legal abortions in California. According to the federal government, California was second only to New York in the ratio of abortions to live births in 1996. For every 1000 live births, there were 519 abortions. The ratio in New York was 580 abortions for every 1000 live births. The national average for the same year was 314 per 1000.

One other thing I found a stat that says that more than 50% of all abortions are repeat abortions. So either that 8% are having a ton of abortions or the stats do not make sense.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/aboriton_and_the_feminizaion_of_.asp

Women who have had abortions are more likely to become pregnant again and undergo additional abortions. Nearly 50% of all abortions are repeat abortions. These repeat abortions do not represent "satisfied customers." Instead, post-abortion women often seek replacement pregnancies to make up for the aborted child, but find themselves faced with the same social pressures which led to the first abortion. There is also evidence that some women undergo repeat abortions as an act of "self-punishment" or as attempt to "harden" themselves to negative feelings stemming from their first abortion.

[mlyonsd]

I kind of doubt your 100,000 as well since the CDC reported 280K abortions in 1996, it may have dropped but I doubt by a factor of 3.



One other thing I found a stat that says that more than 50% of all abortions are repeat abortions. So either that 8% are having a ton of abortions or the stats do not make sense.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/aboriton_and_the_feminizaion_of_.asp

Any woman that has a "repeat abortion" should be sterilized for humanity's sake.

[KCWolfman]

I kind of doubt your 100,000 as well since the CDC reported 280K abortions in 1996, it may have dropped but I doubt by a factor of 3.



One other thing I found a stat that says that more than 50% of all abortions are repeat abortions. So either that 8% are having a ton of abortions or the stats do not make sense.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/aboriton_and_the_feminizaion_of_.asp
According to your last sentence quoted, I would venture that a few women are having multiple abortions.

[Baby Lee]

If it's her body, why do we care how many abortions she has?
Will we likewise cut people off from pulmonary meds if they continue to smoke?
Will be likewise cut people off from cholesterol meds, if we catch them with a Thickburger in their hands?

[Logical]

Any woman that has a "repeat abortion" should be sterilized for humanity's sake.

See I am not a complete liberal on the issue, because I agree. A woman should get one chance to learn the lesson, short of rape.

[Logical]

If it's her body, why do we care how many abortions she has?
Will we likewise cut people off from pulmonary meds if they continue to smoke?
Will be likewise cut people off from cholesterol meds, if we catch them with a Thickburger in their hands?

If we would change the law to only allow abortion when higher brave function had not started I would agree with you. (those outside extreme circumstance such as rape, incest, etc)

[mlyonsd]

If it's her body, why do we care how many abortions she has?
Will we likewise cut people off from pulmonary meds if they continue to smoke?
Will be likewise cut people off from cholesterol meds, if we catch them with a Thickburger in their hands?

My beliefs on abortion are all based on this premise....conception is life. That being said I don't think abortion should be legal, at any point. But, being a realist I understand that I am probably in the minority. So to compromise I'm willing to let a woman make the choice once and let God or whatever is in the after life sort out the souls. But, since I believe life happens at conception my compromise is the first abortion is free, but let there not be a second. A woman that has two abortions (minus rape) should not be trusted with the gift she has been given.

And no, I'm not religious...not in the normal viewpoint.

[Baby Lee]

My beliefs on abortion are all based on this premise....conception is life. That being said I don't think abortion should be legal, at any point. But, being a realist I understand that I am probably in the minority. So to compromise I'm willing to let a woman make the choice once and let God or whatever is in the after life sort out the souls. But, since I believe life happens at conception my compromise is the first abortion is free, but let there not be a second. A woman that has two abortions (minus rape) should not be trusted with the gift she has been given.

And no, I'm not religious...not in the normal viewpoint.
Pssst, mylon. That question was posed for those who are pro-choice, but get squeemish on the issue of abortions as birth control. ;)

[Baby Lee]

See I am not a complete liberal on the issue, because I agree. A woman should get one chance to learn the lesson, short of rape.
What lesson is she learning? That the first time around it's her body, but after that it's our body?

[mlyonsd]

Pssst, mylon. That question was posed for those who are pro-choice, but get squeemish on the issue of abortions as birth control. ;)

Yea I got it...I'm just stuck in a hotel in Springdale and bored. Sorry for the tirade, I was just trying to provoke a response from the worthless POS's that are pro-choice.

[Logical]

What lesson is she learning? That the first time around it's her body, but after that it's our body?
That the government will accept her inability to practice Birth Control only once.

By the way again this would change in my mind if abortions were limited to only those where higher brain function had not been achieved. To me this is the true standard of life.

[mlyonsd]

That the government will accept her inability to practice Birth Control only once.

By the way again this would change in my mind if abortions were limited to only those where higher brain function had not been achieved. To me this is the true standard of life.

Curious....at what point is "higher brain function" achieved?

I'm asking because IMO this argument will someday be used to overturn Roe vs Wade. At least at some point in the life of a fetus.

[Logical]

Curious....at what point is "higher brain function" achieved?

I'm asking because IMO this argument will someday be used to overturn Roe vs Wade. At least at some point in the life of a fetus.

I wish AustinChief was around he had some great info on this subject. It convinced me.

[Nightfyre]

I'd like to dispel the rumor that abortions can be had at any time for any reason. The abortion laws in place state that an abortion may be had:
1) In the first trimester for any reason.
2) Can be regulated by the state in the second trimester.
3) Can be banned in the third trimester as long as there is an exception allowing endangered women abortions.

[mlyonsd]

I'd like to dispel the rumor that abortions can be had at any time for any reason. The abortion laws in place state that an abortion may be had:
1) In the first trimester for any reason.
2) Can be regulated by the state in the second trimester.
3) Can be banned in the third trimester as long as there is an exception allowing endangered women abortions.

Right, like any of those makes a difference.

[Nightfyre]

Right, like any of those makes a difference.
Well, yes. They do. Speaking of upper-brain function and when it's developed, it does make a difference.

[mlyonsd]

Well, yes. They do. Speaking of upper-brain function and when it's developed, it does make a difference.

I'm happy for you that can judge when a human has an "upper-brain functon" that is developed. For some of us morons we're not so sure when that line has been crossed.

I never imagined I'd face God and call him Nightfyre.

[Nightfyre]

I'm happy for you that can judge when a human has an "upper-brain functon" that is developed. For some of us morons we're not so sure when that line has been crossed.

I never imagined I'd face God and call him Nightfyre.
well, I would say the probability of upperbrain function being achieved later in the pregnancy is greater than early in the pregnancy...

[stevieray]

I'm happy for you that can judge when a human has an "upper-brain functon" that is developed. For some of us morons we're not so sure when that line has been crossed.

I never imagined I'd face God and call him Nightfyre.

you didn't get the memo..? sperm isn't alive.

[mlyonsd]

well, I would say the probability of upperbrain function being achieved later in the pregnancy is greater than early in the pregnancy...

lol like it makes a difference. I'm guessing your argument is that if the fetus doesn't realize when death happens you're off the hook.

I'm glad you can make that judgement because I can't.

[Nightfyre]

you didn't get the memo..? sperm isn't alive.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good
and if a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate...

[stevieray]

lol like it makes a difference. I'm guessing your argument is that if the fetus doesn't realize when death happens you're off the hook.



you didn't get the memo? the umbilical cord doesn't carry nourishment.

[Logical]

I'm happy for you that can judge when a human has an "upper-brain functon" that is developed. For some of us morons we're not so sure when that line has been crossed.

I never imagined I'd face God and call him Nightfyre.

Just so you know there is a test that can be used to determine if a fetus's higher brain function has started. They can measure electrically the brain nerves firing. I remember that much from what AustinChief posted.

[mlyonsd]

you didn't get the memo? the umbilical cord doesn't carry nourishment.

Simple minds think alike. I'm not in any position to know when a life really begins and I'm not ready to accept the consequences of thinkng I know it all.

[mlyonsd]

Just so you know there is a test that can be used to determine if a fetus's higher brain function has started. They can measure electrically the brain nerves firing. I remember that much from what AustinChief posted.

yuh, and in 20 years how much more will they know?

[stevieray]

Simple minds think alike. I'm not in any position to know when a life really begins and I'm not ready to accept the consequences of thinkng I know it all.

it also removes waste.... :hmmm:
people like to throw the term fetus around..but look up fetus... see the reference to embryo..then see the reference from embryo to organism.

[Logical]

yuh, and in 20 years how much more will they know?

I don't know, but my point is why do they need to know more. It is the standard for declaring death, the same standard for declaring life should be used IMO.

[mlyonsd]

I don't know, but my point is why do they need to know more. It is the standard for declaring death, the same standard for declaring life should be used IMO.

Not wanting to know more is sticking your head in the sand...IMO

[Logical]

Not wanting to know more is sticking your head in the sand...IMO

??? Who said I did not want to know more. I said that I do not feel more is needed to be known. Same standard for end of life to determine beginning of life, seems pretty logical.

[Nightfyre]

??? Who said I did not want to know more. I said that I do not feel more is needed to be known. Same standard for end of life to determine beginning of life, seems pretty logical.
Logic has no place in this forum. Get with the program.