- Status
M
mapleoak
Guest
Just another beautiful example of how good things are brought about when like minded people gather together to fight for the cause of the unborn. One person is bent on promoting her pro-choice agenda, yet in the process over the course of many of these threads, people have expressed either a change from pro-choice positions to pro-life ones, or it helped solidy their pro-life positions where they were shaky or unsure before. And now people are praying for the long lost souls aborted many years ago. Amen!
A
allhers
Guest
Another good reason to pray daily for this intention:
“For those who have no one to pray for them.”
M
marietta
Guest
I continue to adhere to my convictions regarding choice, regardless of what occurred in my life forty years ago. I have no call, no incentive, no business attempting to convince any woman that her choice to terminate or not is wrong.
With this in mind, it is only appropriate that I ask you all to discontinue the prayers for me and this little lost soul. Whoever s/he may have been for 13 weeks, s/he’s seen more of the face of God than I will ever see, so please,* please* just let it go.
God knows the drill. He can figure it out without your attempts to intervene, however kindly you offer them.
marietta
With this in mind, it is only appropriate that I ask you all to discontinue the prayers for me and this little lost soul. Whoever s/he may have been for 13 weeks, s/he’s seen more of the face of God than I will ever see, so please,* please* just let it go.
God knows the drill. He can figure it out without your attempts to intervene, however kindly you offer them.
marietta
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
I see someone devoted to the old standard falsehoods and fear-mongering used by the abortion advocates to try to use emotions to keep people from looking at contradictory facts.
Fact #1: Roe’s attorneys in Roe v Wade used the evidence that most abortions were done in safe surroundings by medical professionals as part of their argument that it should be legalized to thus allow the states to appropriately regulate the abortion industry.
Fact #1.1. The overall number of abortion related deaths increased after Roe v. Wade.
Fact #1.1.1 Abortion advocates seem to pretend to not be aware of this, and even when made aware, habitually refuse to explain how returning to the pre-Roe situation would increase deaths again when it is obvious statistically that increasing the legal availability of abortion itself led to more women dying.
Fact #1.2 (Mentioned since this is relevant to the credibility of the emotional appeals used by abortion advocates) There were no reported instances of a coat hanger being used to self-attempt an abortion until after the National Abortion Rights Action League started their bloody coat-hanger publicity campaign in the protests leading up to Roe v. Wade
Fact #2. The abortion industry is repeatedly on record as being opposed to any regulations that mandate safety measures for the mother that increase expenses or require the mothers be fully informed about the procedure and the status of the child tehy are aborting.
Fact #3 The primary organizations in the abortion industry have been proven to habitually violate statutory requirements that they report cases where they have reason to believe an abortion is being procured to cover the tracks of a child predator.
Observation #4. Somehow it is only abortion supporters claiming to have seen “some posters” of whatever forum they are in endorsing the prosecution of women who have been taken advantage of by the abortion industry.
Observation #4.1 The people making that claim usually expose themselves as man-haters as part of their rant.
Observation #4.2 When challenged to produce citations to posts of other encouraging prosecution of the women procuring abortion, they either refuse or only come up with cases where other abortion advocates made the same unsubstantiated claim.
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
But… but… but… abortion is different, don’t you get it? You are not allowed to use normal logic here, the media says so.
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
You seem to be deliberately putting on blinders to the reasons for taking the photographs. Of course taking the photographs would not stop abortions “that day”, and no one but you was even implying it should. However, photographs proving that the clinic management was** again** operating illegally would serve as evidence to file a regulatory complaint (which any citizen can and is encouraged to do) that could easily lead to the permanent closer of a clinic that repeatedly put its clients at risk. There is your legitimate purpose, unless you are going to reinforce the perception that the most ardent defenders of the abortion industry are opposed to any sort of public pressure against that industry for it to adhere to such basic safety regulations as requiring that abortions only be performed by a licensed doctor…
C
Calliso
Guest
I can deal with that cause it;s not intrusive and I pretend it;s not happening.Did you know that you are being video taped every time you fill your car up with gas?
E
estesbob
Guest
The fact that the doctor got upset shows how effective the pictures are. After all who wants their neighbors to know they dismember babies for a living?
M
marietta
Guest
I’ll wait right here for you to go dive into all that research and corroboration to convince anyone reading your previous post that the offending photographer in this case actually filed a regulatory complaint that could lead to the permanent closure of the clinic in question. No evidence found? Why, then, what might his motive been?
marietta
M
mapleoak
Guest
Does it really matter?
Hmm, wonder what the motive of the doctor might be to figure he can take the law into his own hands if he thought the photographer was breaking the law? Perhaps he is ashamed and embarrased of his profession?
M
mapleoak
Guest
Oh! Ya!, silly me. What was I thinking?But… but… but… abortion is different, don’t you get it? You are not allowed to use normal logic here, the media says so.
E
estesbob
Guest
His motive was to take a picture of the “Dr” and make sure he licensed by the State. I am also sure he wanted to nonviolently harrass the Dr -a very noble thing to do given the Dr was on his way in to dismember some children.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Disgusting! It doesn’t surprise me that an abortionist would do this. After all, their lives are committed to violence against the unborn so why would they not be prone to violence against the born as well?
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
There is not a state in the country where repeatedly violating licensing regulations or providing medical services in and illegal or inherently unsafe manner could not lead to a facility being closed down. It appears you have indeed chosen to reinforce the perception that the most ardent defenders of the abortion industry are willing to take ridiculous position in order to oppose pressuring that industry to adhere to basic safety regulations.
Now, I did try to use more precise words to spell out what the photographer stated as his intents since it initially looked like you couldn’t follow the broad strokes, but the detail of your responses to stating things more clearly makes it clear that there is no way you are really as dense as you are trying to pretend to be. Still, please continue the act you have going, as the more you say on this thread the more impossible its going to be for better trained pro-abort apologist to try to rescue the position if someone steps in trying to do damage control. I will admit that it is slightly humorous that in your little world, you can make up multiple possibilities presuming the worst possible motives (that are also inconsistent with his stated reasons, which happen to be all the “evidence” there is) with no evidence but your say-so, but require others provide “research and corroboration” for stating the obvious. That kind of double-standard in establishing the facts represents one of the most tempting to lampoon presentations of pro-abortion logic that I’ve seen in years.
M
marietta
Guest
Ray_Scheel:
No, I don’t follow the broad strokes - I think that’s dangerous. I always try to see the detail, and since you cannot or will not provide any further detail as to the authentic motive of the photographer, it leads me to believe that this young man was behaving badly to 1) simply harass the doctor, or 2) try to bring some sort of accolades onto himself without having any intention of taking his efforts further in an attempt to close down the hospital. It’s called self-seeking, and it’s pretty ugly.
I didn’t ask you to agree with me. I didn’t even ask you to agree to disagree. But there’s no reason for you to try to demean me. Why attack the person when it’s the idea you dislike? Or do you get off hating the sinner and not the sin?
marietta
No, I don’t follow the broad strokes - I think that’s dangerous. I always try to see the detail, and since you cannot or will not provide any further detail as to the authentic motive of the photographer, it leads me to believe that this young man was behaving badly to 1) simply harass the doctor, or 2) try to bring some sort of accolades onto himself without having any intention of taking his efforts further in an attempt to close down the hospital. It’s called self-seeking, and it’s pretty ugly.
I didn’t ask you to agree with me. I didn’t even ask you to agree to disagree. But there’s no reason for you to try to demean me. Why attack the person when it’s the idea you dislike? Or do you get off hating the sinner and not the sin?
marietta
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
…unless the detail (like the photographers stated intent and the clinic’s history of hiring suspended doctors and the owner posing as a doctor) contradicts the alternate you propose. In this case you are clearly putting blinders on to the details as well as the broad strokes, and that is obviously more “dangerous” when used as a starting point.
Oopsie, there goes the double standard of yours again. You haven’t provided any “research and corroboration” for initially dismissing the photographer’s stated intents, which by your own stated standard is something you’d have to do first if you are going to insist on that level of support from anyone countering your dismissal of known details…
If you consider it an attack for others to point out where your conclusions reject known details without justification, or consider it demeaning to be called out when trying to foist off a double standard, the responsibility for your discomfort is yours alone. To put it quite simply, if you wish to avoid that discomfort in the future, try not be so blatant about how you are “cheating” to try to stack the deck in your favor. If you can’t make you “argument” without resorting to those tactics, anyone with logical training is going to be able to point out those errors just as I have.
As far as my attitude, I will admit that I have no patience for advocates for abortion on demand who talk about how restricting abortion on demand will put women at risk out of one side of their mouth, while out of the other side of their moth go about making it clear that they will come up with any excuse possible for to oppose actions to scrutinize a clinic already proven to repeatedly put thier profitability above the safety of the mother’s coming to that clinic for abortions.
M
marietta
Guest
Ray Scheel:
Here is the only quote that I find in the article which began this thread referring to “the photographer’s stated intents”:
*“Nissen and other pro-lifers were concerned that unlicensed or suspended doctors may be working in the clinic.” * You can consider this my research and corroboration. These are the known details, sir.
Did you read something else in the article that specifically details what the photographer was going to do with the pictures? If he’s a sidewalk counselor, should he not have been counseling rather than harassing the doctor?
If you believe the photographer was shooting with the intention of eventually bringing down the clinic in question, where do you get that idea from? That brings me back to: what were his motives? Or was he just trying to cop a little press for himself?
Discomfort because of your critique? Hardly. Cheating? How so? Because my opinion differs from yours, that makes me a cheater? Tough audience!
To my eyes, it appears that the photographer and the doctor both acted like jerks. And nothing will ever come out of it unless your little photo friend has the cajones to follow through on his “mission”. The buzzer just went off on his 15 minutes of fame, however; he’s gonna have to really up his game if he’s gonna be effective in any way.
marietta
Here is the only quote that I find in the article which began this thread referring to “the photographer’s stated intents”:
*“Nissen and other pro-lifers were concerned that unlicensed or suspended doctors may be working in the clinic.” * You can consider this my research and corroboration. These are the known details, sir.
Did you read something else in the article that specifically details what the photographer was going to do with the pictures? If he’s a sidewalk counselor, should he not have been counseling rather than harassing the doctor?
If you believe the photographer was shooting with the intention of eventually bringing down the clinic in question, where do you get that idea from? That brings me back to: what were his motives? Or was he just trying to cop a little press for himself?
Discomfort because of your critique? Hardly. Cheating? How so? Because my opinion differs from yours, that makes me a cheater? Tough audience!
To my eyes, it appears that the photographer and the doctor both acted like jerks. And nothing will ever come out of it unless your little photo friend has the cajones to follow through on his “mission”. The buzzer just went off on his 15 minutes of fame, however; he’s gonna have to really up his game if he’s gonna be effective in any way.
marietta
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
You have still not provided any “research or corroboration” (the standard you introduced yourself) to prove that the photographers intents were not related to documenting the presence of an unlicensed or suspended doctor. By your own declarations earlier, that failure means there is no reason to doubt that stated intent. QED
E
estesbob
Guest
One “jerk” was taking pictures. The other was gettng ready to dismember children. I guess we have different defintions of “jerk”
- Status