(10-11-2017 10:50 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 04:00 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 03:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 03:38 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Exactly right.

First, they point the "you're racist" finger at conservatives while their core beliefs and actions are steeped in racism.

Second, conservatives are aware that by drastically decreasing the number of abortions more Democrats will end up on voter roles. But that's OK because we're more concerned about the value of human life than how Americans lean in polls.

I see you're still acting under the false impression that any liberal wants abortions to occur. We don't. What we don't want is the government telling women what to do with their bodies. Period.

We don't care about the woman's body. We care about the baby's body. Why is that so hard to understand.

I get totally that you care for it. I just wish you all cared for it as much as you do once it left the womb. You know, like where's all your outrage at trump and the R's for not renewing CHIP?

And yes, I care for it too. The problem is that I don't get to make choices for it and neither should the government.

Sweeping generalizations. Nice strategy that means absolutely nothing.

Curious... do you know the demographic breakdown of people who adopt? Do you happen to know the breakdown of who runs homes for children?

You really don't think hospital staff simply place unwanted babies out on the loading dock once they're able to leave the hospital, do ya?


BTW, my sister and her husband (Christians, btw) have adopted two children. My wife and I took in her two young nephews, brothers, whose parents were basically worthless. Dad went to prison when the youngest one was 6 months old. Mom was a druggie and satanist. Her two boys were in and out of foster care in upstate NY for years. When we finally tracked the down, we talked to her and asked her to do what was best for the boys.


Generic talking points don't fly with me.

Again with the moronic and ridiculous questions. Just. Stop!

I want less abortions, less unplanned pregnancies, and more adoptions. If you're going to continually make these posts, at least make an attempt to understand what I've said on this subject for years now.

(10-11-2017 11:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 10:50 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 04:00 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 03:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I see you're still acting under the false impression that any liberal wants abortions to occur. We don't. What we don't want is the government telling women what to do with their bodies. Period.

We don't care about the woman's body. We care about the baby's body. Why is that so hard to understand.

I get totally that you care for it. I just wish you all cared for it as much as you do once it left the womb. You know, like where's all your outrage at trump and the R's for not renewing CHIP?

And yes, I care for it too. The problem is that I don't get to make choices for it and neither should the government.

Sweeping generalizations. Nice strategy that means absolutely nothing.

Curious... do you know the demographic breakdown of people who adopt? Do you happen to know the breakdown of who runs homes for children?

You really don't think hospital staff simply place unwanted babies out on the loading dock once they're able to leave the hospital, do ya?


BTW, my sister and her husband (Christians, btw) have adopted two children. My wife and I took in her two young nephews, brothers, whose parents were basically worthless. Dad went to prison when the youngest one was 6 months old. Mom was a druggie and satanist. Her two boys were in and out of foster care in upstate NY for years. When we finally tracked the down, we talked to her and asked her to do what was best for the boys.


Generic talking points don't fly with me.

Again with the moronic and ridiculous questions. Just. Stop!

I want less abortions, less unplanned pregnancies, and more adoptions. If you're going to continually make these posts, at least make an attempt to understand what I've said on this subject for years now.

My stint in this forum doesn't span "years". I've only frequented for "months". So sorry I don't know where you stand on every issue. I'll definitely pay attention, though. I mean, you've spoken so I guess I have to comply.

(10-11-2017 12:01 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 11:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 10:50 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 04:00 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  We don't care about the woman's body. We care about the baby's body. Why is that so hard to understand.

I get totally that you care for it. I just wish you all cared for it as much as you do once it left the womb. You know, like where's all your outrage at trump and the R's for not renewing CHIP?

And yes, I care for it too. The problem is that I don't get to make choices for it and neither should the government.

Sweeping generalizations. Nice strategy that means absolutely nothing.

Curious... do you know the demographic breakdown of people who adopt? Do you happen to know the breakdown of who runs homes for children?

You really don't think hospital staff simply place unwanted babies out on the loading dock once they're able to leave the hospital, do ya?


BTW, my sister and her husband (Christians, btw) have adopted two children. My wife and I took in her two young nephews, brothers, whose parents were basically worthless. Dad went to prison when the youngest one was 6 months old. Mom was a druggie and satanist. Her two boys were in and out of foster care in upstate NY for years. When we finally tracked the down, we talked to her and asked her to do what was best for the boys.


Generic talking points don't fly with me.

Again with the moronic and ridiculous questions. Just. Stop!

I want less abortions, less unplanned pregnancies, and more adoptions. If you're going to continually make these posts, at least make an attempt to understand what I've said on this subject for years now.

My stint in this forum doesn't span "years". I've only frequented for "months". So sorry I don't know where you stand on every issue. I'll definitely pay attention, though. I mean, you've spoken so I guess I have to comply.

Apologies.

It says you've been here since 2003 and other times I've raised this issue with other posters that claim they were still reading this forum for years but just not posting.

Anyway, there's a handy search in the Features drop down at the top and you can likely find my many comments on abortion over the years.

(10-11-2017 01:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:01 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 11:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 10:50 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I get totally that you care for it. I just wish you all cared for it as much as you do once it left the womb. You know, like where's all your outrage at trump and the R's for not renewing CHIP?

And yes, I care for it too. The problem is that I don't get to make choices for it and neither should the government.

Sweeping generalizations. Nice strategy that means absolutely nothing.

Curious... do you know the demographic breakdown of people who adopt? Do you happen to know the breakdown of who runs homes for children?

You really don't think hospital staff simply place unwanted babies out on the loading dock once they're able to leave the hospital, do ya?


BTW, my sister and her husband (Christians, btw) have adopted two children. My wife and I took in her two young nephews, brothers, whose parents were basically worthless. Dad went to prison when the youngest one was 6 months old. Mom was a druggie and satanist. Her two boys were in and out of foster care in upstate NY for years. When we finally tracked the down, we talked to her and asked her to do what was best for the boys.


Generic talking points don't fly with me.

Again with the moronic and ridiculous questions. Just. Stop!

I want less abortions, less unplanned pregnancies, and more adoptions. If you're going to continually make these posts, at least make an attempt to understand what I've said on this subject for years now.

My stint in this forum doesn't span "years". I've only frequented for "months". So sorry I don't know where you stand on every issue. I'll definitely pay attention, though. I mean, you've spoken so I guess I have to comply.

Apologies.

It says you've been here since 2003 and other times I've raised this issue with other posters that claim they were still reading this forum for years but just not posting.

Anyway, there's a handy search in the Features drop down at the top and you can likely find my many comments on abortion over the years.

I have been a member of csnbbs for that long. I always kept to the Tiger's various forums.

We had our own religious/political board over there. It eventually got, uh, out of hand so GTS herded us over here.

I've used the search feature plenty of times. But not to look up your post history. No offense.

(10-10-2017 03:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 02:50 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 02:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 01:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 01:47 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The abortion industry/ PP is disgusting. However they are aborting, the vast majority, future Dem voters and criminals.

Right...rich white women don't get abortions.

85% are unmarried, Black women 4 times more likely, and hispanics 2 times more likely than WW to have an abortion. Hell 38% of all pregnancies in NYC end in abortion.
There are more aborted black babies in NYC than love births. Most abortions are women with wages under the poverty line.

Margaret Sanger was a firm believer in eugenics -- master race. That was the reason behind placing abortionists in specific neighborhoods.

Interesting read: The Real Margaret Sanger

No, it isn't/wasn't. Read a little more...and from a source not as biased as the FRC is.

Quote:But on to the truth about Margaret Sanger.

Sanger was pro-birth control and anti-abortion. This may surprise you, considering that Planned Parenthood opponents frequently accuse Sanger of erecting abortion clinics in Black neighborhoods, a practice they claim the organization continues to this day.

But this is simply not true.

Sanger opposed abortion. She believed it to be a barbaric practice. In her own words, “[a]lthough abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.” Her views are, ironically, in keeping with the views of many of the anti-choicers who malign and distort her legacy.

In fact, Planned Parenthood did not even begin performing abortions until after 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade legalized the practice. Margaret Sanger had been dead for four years by then. And currently, less than 4 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics that offer abortion services are located in communities where more than one-third of the population is Black, according to a recent analysis conducted by Planned Parenthood that Alencia Johnson, assistant director of constituency communications at Planned Parenthood, shared with me via email. A broader analysis conducted by the Guttmacher Institute in 2011 based on data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that fewer than one in ten abortion providers overall are located in neighborhoods where more than half of residents are Black. It is simply false that Planned Parenthood is targeting Black women by setting up clinics primarily in Black neighborhoods.

How False Narratives of Margaret Sanger Are Being Used to Shame Black Women

FFS, Tom you call Fox New biased then you post some crap like this from a site nobody's ever heard of.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-11-2017 10:50 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 04:00 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 03:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 03:38 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Exactly right.

First, they point the "you're racist" finger at conservatives while their core beliefs and actions are steeped in racism.

Second, conservatives are aware that by drastically decreasing the number of abortions more Democrats will end up on voter roles. But that's OK because we're more concerned about the value of human life than how Americans lean in polls.

I see you're still acting under the false impression that any liberal wants abortions to occur. We don't. What we don't want is the government telling women what to do with their bodies. Period.

We don't care about the woman's body. We care about the baby's body. Why is that so hard to understand.

I get totally that you care for it. I just wish you all cared for it as much as you do once it left the womb. You know, like where's all your outrage at trump and the R's for not renewing CHIP?

And yes, I care for it too. The problem is that I don't get to make choices for it and neither should the government.

Sweeping generalizations. Nice strategy that means absolutely nothing.

Curious... do you know the demographic breakdown of people who adopt? Do you happen to know the breakdown of who runs homes for children?

You really don't think hospital staff simply place unwanted babies out on the loading dock once they're able to leave the hospital, do ya?


BTW, my sister and her husband (Christians, btw) have adopted two children. My wife and I took in her two young nephews, brothers, whose parents were basically worthless. Dad went to prison when the youngest one was 6 months old. Mom was a druggie and satanist. Her two boys were in and out of foster care in upstate NY for years. When we finally tracked the down, we talked to her and asked her to do what was best for the boys.


Generic talking points don't fly with me.

There is actually a shortage of newborns compared to the number of people who want to adopt in this country. Its part of the reason so many Americans adopt overseas. Older children do have some difficulty getting adopted, but healthy newborns do not.

(10-11-2017 05:57 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 03:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 02:50 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 02:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 01:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Right...rich white women don't get abortions.

85% are unmarried, Black women 4 times more likely, and hispanics 2 times more likely than WW to have an abortion. Hell 38% of all pregnancies in NYC end in abortion.
There are more aborted black babies in NYC than love births. Most abortions are women with wages under the poverty line.

Margaret Sanger was a firm believer in eugenics -- master race. That was the reason behind placing abortionists in specific neighborhoods.

Interesting read: The Real Margaret Sanger

No, it isn't/wasn't. Read a little more...and from a source not as biased as the FRC is.

Quote:But on to the truth about Margaret Sanger.

Sanger was pro-birth control and anti-abortion. This may surprise you, considering that Planned Parenthood opponents frequently accuse Sanger of erecting abortion clinics in Black neighborhoods, a practice they claim the organization continues to this day.

But this is simply not true.

Sanger opposed abortion. She believed it to be a barbaric practice. In her own words, “[a]lthough abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.” Her views are, ironically, in keeping with the views of many of the anti-choicers who malign and distort her legacy.

In fact, Planned Parenthood did not even begin performing abortions until after 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade legalized the practice. Margaret Sanger had been dead for four years by then. And currently, less than 4 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics that offer abortion services are located in communities where more than one-third of the population is Black, according to a recent analysis conducted by Planned Parenthood that Alencia Johnson, assistant director of constituency communications at Planned Parenthood, shared with me via email. A broader analysis conducted by the Guttmacher Institute in 2011 based on data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that fewer than one in ten abortion providers overall are located in neighborhoods where more than half of residents are Black. It is simply false that Planned Parenthood is targeting Black women by setting up clinics primarily in Black neighborhoods.

How False Narratives of Margaret Sanger Are Being Used to Shame Black Women

FFS, Tom you call Fox New biased then you post some crap like this from a site nobody's ever heard of.

So that makes it biased? Sorry, but that does not compute.

But feel free to tell me what the article I posted got wrong.

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webe...238254.xml

Quote:Society is divided into three groups. Those intelligent and wealthy members of the upper classes who have obtained knowledge of Birth Control and exercise it in regulating the size of their families. They have already benefited by this knowledge, and are today considered the most respectable and moral members of the community. They have only children when they desire and all society points to them as types that should perpetuate their kind.

The second group is equally intelligent and responsible. They desire to control the size of their families, but are unable to obtain knowledge or to put such available knowledge into practice.

The third are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequence of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased ,feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent entirely upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped. (Applause.) For if they are not able to support and care for themselves, they should certainly not be allowed to bring offspring into this world for others to look after. (Applause.) We do not believe that filling the earth with misery, poverty and disease is moral. And it is our desire and intention to carry on our crusade until the perpetuation of such conditions has ceased.

We desire to stop at its source the disease, poverty and feeble-mindedness and insanity which exist today, for these lower the standards of civilization and make for race deterioration. We know that the masses of people are growing wiser and are using their own minds to decide their individual conduct. The more people of this kind we have, the less immorality shall exist. For the more responsible people grow, the higher do they and shall they attain real morality. (Applause.)

Birth Control <> Abortion. Try again.

(10-12-2017 09:18 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Birth Control <> Abortion. Try again.

You're sick. Clearly her thoughts are revealed there and you write it off with this. Pathetic but not shocking. Fake.

(10-12-2017 09:36 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 09:18 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Birth Control <> Abortion. Try again.

You're sick. Clearly her thoughts are revealed there and you write it off with this. Pathetic but not shocking. Fake.

Right...her thoughts on education and birth control methods so as to prevent unwanted pregnancies in poor areas. And no, she was not a saint and did not appear to value poor and/or African Americans all that much, however...

Her words are crystal clear about how she felt about abortion and they've been previously provided.

Lastly, would you please leave out the emotional personal attacks? They do nothing to further the debate or bolster your opinions and beliefs. Thanks.

(10-12-2017 09:18 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Birth Control <> Abortion. Try again.

That depends. When you say "birth control" are you specifically thinking of medicine?

If so, are you talking specifically about contraceptives or do you include abortifacients as well?

But you are aware that abortion is primarily used as a method of birth control rather than as a medical necessity (protect the life of the mother) or in response to rape. In fact, it's not even close.

From National Right to Life using Guttmacher Institute and the CDC:

Why do women have abortions?

Hard Cases

• 4% - Mother's health
• 3% - Baby may have health problem
• <0.5% - Rape
  

Social Reasons

• 25% - Not ready for responsibility
• 23% - Can't afford baby
• 19% - Don't want any more children
• 8% - Single mother
• 7% - Not mature enough
• 4% - Interferes with education/work
• >1% - Parents want abortion
• >6.5% - Other reasons
  

The Consequences of Roe v. Wade
59,115,995
Total abortions since 1973

More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Abortion is legal killing of babies.

Depending upon the various categories that make up the gun death stats I would assume those that are not justified actually represent the illegal killing of people.


I answered your question. Please answer mine.

Quote:That depends. When you say "birth control" are you specifically thinking of medicine?

If so, are you talking specifically about contraceptives or do you include abortifacients as well?

But you are aware that abortion is primarily used as a method of birth control

(10-12-2017 12:06 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Abortion is legal killing of babies.

Depending upon the various categories that make up the gun death stats I would assume those that are not justified actually represent the illegal killing of people.

Not to mention the pesky Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Can't recall which Amendment it is that grants people the right to infantcide.

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Idiotic post.

(10-12-2017 12:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 12:06 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Abortion is legal killing of babies.

Depending upon the various categories that make up the gun death stats I would assume those that are not justified actually represent the illegal killing of people.

Not to mention the pesky Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Can't recall which Amendment it is that grants people the right to infantcide.

You seriously posted that? Newsflash dude, the Supreme Court is not in the Bill or Rights or any subsequent amendments.

(10-12-2017 12:24 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Idiotic post.

It's called sarcasm dumb***.

(10-12-2017 12:06 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Abortion is legal killing of babies.

Depending upon the various categories that make up the gun death stats I would assume those that are not justified actually represent the illegal killing of people.


I answered your question. Please answer mine.

Quote:That depends. When you say "birth control" are you specifically thinking of medicine?

If so, are you talking specifically about contraceptives or do you include abortifacients as well?

But you are aware that abortion is primarily used as a method of birth control

I already answered these questions above by once again telling you my position on abortions. And as I said, I'm not going to answer all these moronic hypothetical questions.

I said birth control and I meant birth control. If I meant abortions I would have said so.

(10-12-2017 01:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 12:06 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:22 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  More babies have been killed in the United States by abortion than all U.S. military deaths combined from all U.S. wars in history.

So, using your logic, we should ban guns then too?

More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined

Abortion is legal killing of babies.

Depending upon the various categories that make up the gun death stats I would assume those that are not justified actually represent the illegal killing of people.


I answered your question. Please answer mine.

Quote:That depends. When you say "birth control" are you specifically thinking of medicine?

If so, are you talking specifically about contraceptives or do you include abortifacients as well?

But you are aware that abortion is primarily used as a method of birth control

I already answered these questions above by once again telling you my position on abortions. And as I said, I'm not going to answer all these moronic hypothetical questions.

I said birth control and I meant birth control. If I meant abortions I would have said so.

The intent of my question was to ask you to clarify what you mean by "birth control."

Do you mean any practices which prevents a child from being born?

You said:

Quote:Birth Control <> Abortion

Abortion is a subset of birth control. Agree?