Supreme Court rules in favor of Abortion Protestors

[xrayzebra]

I was reading about an incident in the early nineties where women protestors stormed St. Patrik's Cathedral in Manhattan while mass was going on, yelling pro life chants and throwing used tampons on the floor. They even desecrated the tabernacle.

Yes, protest on the left and the right can get violent.

And neither side is correct when they do that sort of thing. But people
on either side have the right to protest, but not shout down or physically
threaten anyone.

[Mr. Peabody]

I agree with the protestors' right to protest; however , because you have the right to do something does not necessarily mean you should do it. A good example is the protests at the funerals of our military men and women. These are in very poor taste and should not take place, even though people do have the right. I feel the same way about harassing women going into an abortion clinic. I am sure the state of mind they are in is tough enough without somebody screaming at them and calling them a murderer.

[xrayzebra]

But you don't agree with anyone wanting to protect our borders, even tho all they
are doing is reporting what they see to the USBP. Especially the elected
representatives, who may be Hispanic, who you call coconuts. Obviously you
don't like Anglos either. Since you insult them by comparing them to an Anglo.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Southern Baptists?

They ain't Methodists.

[Mr. Peabody]

But you don't agree with anyone wanting to protect our borders, even tho all they are doing is reporting what they see to the USBP. Especially the elected representatives, who may be Hispanic, who you call coconuts. Obviously you don't like Anglos either. Since you insult them by comparing them to an Anglo.

No, I don't agree with an armed militia "protecting the homeland" as they put it. Why is it so wrong for me to disagree with that?

Also, calling Cuellar a "coconut" does not mean that I dislike white people. It means that I dislike Chicanos that act like white people.

[xrayzebra]

^^Read what you posted. I dislike Chicanos, what is a Chicano, who act like
white people. And who act white people. What's wrong with white people? How
bout they act like American's. You know like the the so called "white people".
Do you know where the so called white people came from?

Back to the original post. They were not armed. Get your damn story correct if
you are going to tell it.

[Mr. Peabody]

^^Read what you posted. I dislike Chicanos, what is a Chicano, who act like
white people. And who act white people. What's wrong with white people? How
bout they act like American's. You know like the the so called "white people".
Do you know where the so called white people came from?

I almost feel bad that you take some of the I post so seriously.

[Mr. Peabody]

^^Back to the original post. They were not armed. Get your damn story correct if
you are going to tell it.

From the article --

Last October, U.S. Congressman Henry Cuellar -- a so-called Democrat from Laredo, Texas -- sponsored a bill called the "Border Law Enforcement Act of 2005" that would essentially deputize members of the Minutemen militia by giving them new les, badges and guns.

[xrayzebra]

I almost feel bad that you take some of the I post so seriously.

You posted it, not me. I saw no humor in your posting. Now it is suppose
to be funny. I don't believe you for a little bit. You are a typical liberal,
get caught and now well, it's all your fault. Go suck a lemon.

[Mr. Peabody]

Back to the issue

I agree with the protestors' right to protest; however , because you have the right to do something does not necessarily mean you should do it. A good example is the protests at the funerals of our military men and women. These are in very poor taste and should not take place, even though people do have the right. I feel the same way about harassing women going into an abortion clinic. I am sure the state of mind they are in is tough enough without somebody screaming at them and calling them a murderer.

[jochhejaam]

Yes, protest on the left and the right can get violent.

If you think the protests are violent you ought to see the violence taking place inside the womb during an abortion.

]

[jochhejaam]

Back to the issue

I agree with the protestors' right to protest; however , because you have the right to do something does not necessarily mean you should do it. A good example is the protests at the funerals of our military men and women. These are in very poor taste and should not take place, even though people do have the right. I feel the same way about harassing women going into an abortion clinic. I am sure the state of mind they are in is tough enough without somebody screaming at them and calling them a murderer.

Oh that the baby about to be aborted should only face only a tongue lashing.

[Spurminator]

I say protest away.

The more spiteful assholes pretending to care about babies in front of abortion clinics, the more reason the general public has to consider the rights of the mother.

Boiled down, the Abortion battle is really about Nutjob Fundamentalists vs. Abrasive Feminist Lawyers and who can piss off the level-headed public more.

Go Nutjobs!

[jochhejaam]

I say protest away.

The more spiteful assholes pretending to care about babies in front of abortion clinics, the more reason the general public has to consider the rights of the mother.

Do ent them being pretenders or be just another voice in the wind wrecklessly and aimlessly throwing around callous and unfounded rhetoric. (I think we'll find you are entrenched with the latter).


And just how the hel does more people protesting the monstrosity known as abortion equate to more reasons for the general public to consider the right of the mother to destroy the baby? The majority of the general public is against abortion except if the life of the mother is in danger which does not include those going to abortion clinics.
I can't wait to hear your rationale for this one.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Do ent them being pretenders or be just another voice in the wind wrecklessly and aimlessly throwing around callous and unfounded rhetoric. (I think we'll find you are entrenched with the latter).


And just how the hel does more people protesting the monstrosity known as abortion equate to more reasons for the general public to consider the right of the mother to destroy the baby? The majority of the general public is against abortion except if the life of the mother is in danger which does not include those going to abortion clinics.
I can't wait to hear your rationale for this one.

wow, I'd like to see where you got that fact from. ( and please don't bring another one of those pseudo scientific articles that you got from a RELIGIOUS website, bring a scientific source please)

[jochhejaam]

wow, I'd like to see where you got that fact from. ( and please don't bring another one of those pseudo scientific articles that you got from a RELIGIOUS website, bring a scientific source please)

In other words you only want a scientific poll spun, skewed, twisted and served up on a platter by none other than the left-wing media...<sigh>
Would you prefer this "scientific" poll come from the liars at CBS, the liars at the NYTimes or the lunatic left at MoveOn.org.?

[scott]

Do ent them being pretenders

Did I really just read this?

[jochhejaam]

Did I really just read this?

I just scrolled back up for ya scott and you sure did.

[Mr. Peabody]

The majority of the general public is against abortion except if the life of the mother is in danger which does not include those going to abortion clinics.

He's correct on this point and you can count me in that majority. I am not "for" abortion. However, I am pro-choice and many people in the "majority" are the same way.

[Yonivore]

Any idea how Ruth Bader "Snoozeberg" feels about this?

[Spurminator]

Do ent them being pretenders or be just another voice in the wind wrecklessly and aimlessly throwing around callous and unfounded rhetoric. (I think we'll find you are entrenched with the latter).


And just how the hel does more people protesting the monstrosity known as abortion equate to more reasons for the general public to consider the right of the mother to destroy the baby? The majority of the general public is against abortion except if the life of the mother is in danger which does not include those going to abortion clinics.
I can't wait to hear your rationale for this one.

Uh, yeah maybe I'll quote that study where people admit to not really caring about the babies.

Or I could just use logic.

The real issue for Pro-Lifers is sex. You're afraid kids are going to have sex before marriage and you think that consequences (like pregnancy) discourage premarital sex.

You don't care about the feti, but you convince yourself that you do. I'm not saying you're intentionally deceptive or apathetic, you're just confused. Your intentions are decent, but you're not considering all sides and you never will.

There's nothing wrong with being against abortion, obviously. But those of you who demonize and humiliate people on their way to the clinics do not help your case in the eyes of the general public. Most of us, including those who may be morally opposed to abortion, think you're assholes who should mind your own business.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

Uh, yeah maybe I'll quote that study where people admit to not really caring about the babies.

You have nothing to back up what you said? You don't, just your hate driven subjectivity to back up your ridiculous assertion that those that protest abortion are only pretending to care about babies.

The real issue for Pro-Lifers is sex. You're afraid kids are going to have sex before marriage and you think that consequences (like pregnancy) discourage premarital sex

.
Wow, spurminator unplugged! This opinion's every bit the equal in absurdity as the "pretender" post.

You don't care about the feti, but you convince yourself that you do. I'm not saying you're intentionally deceptive or apathetic, you're just confused. Your intentions are decent, but you're not considering all sides and you never will.

Spurminator, what are you a wannabe psycologist? Two sides are a woman's right to destroy the living, growing child within her vs the child's right to live. I have a very clear understanding of both sides and yes I'll remain steadfastly on the right of the child to live every time.

There's nothing wrong with being against abortion, obviously. But those of you who demonize and humiliate people on their way to the clinics do not help your case in the eyes of the general public. Most of us, including those who may be morally opposed to abortion, think you're assholes who should mind your own business.

I've never protested at an abortion clinic but I understand the high regard for the sanc y of human life of those that do and I support them 100%. I'll bet you have nothing to support this last nonsensical charge? You're demonizing those that care about the unborn a position that we both know God supports so why should anyone care about your opinion that they're assholes for voicing their concern?
Let's see, who do I postion myself behind on this issue, God or Spurminator...

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you came to birth I consecrated you.”
Jeremiah 1:5

“God called me when I was in the womb,
Before my birth he had pronounced my name.”
Isaiah 49:1

“Children are a gift from the Lord,
A blessing, the fruit of the womb.”
Ps 127:3

[SA210]

^^^ So does the Bible only apply to abortions or war too, which = killing as well?

[Spurminator]

You have nothing to back up what you said? You don't, just your hate driven subjectivity to back up your ridiculous assertion that those that protest abortion are only pretending to care about babies.

There's not a study or Bible verse for every logical assertion. Perhaps you could point to a study that shows Pro Lifers DO only care about the lives of the feti? You can't? Why Not?

Duherahuhr...

Wow, spurminator unplugged! This opinion's every bit the equal in absurdity as the "pretender" post.

Convincing argument.

Spurminator, what are you a wannabe psycologist? Two sides are a woman's right to destroy the living, growing child within her vs the child's right to live. I have a very clear understanding of both sides and yes I'll remain steadfastly on the right of the child to live every time.

Yeah sounds like you've carefully considered both sides of the argument to me... You're obviously very simpathetic and compassionate towards women in these situations. I'm sure it pains you to tell them how hot is going to be for them.

I've never protested at an abortion clinic but I understand the high regard for the sanc y of human life of those that do and I support them 100%. I'll bet you have nothing to support this last nonsensical charge? You're demonizing those that care about the unborn a position that we both know God supports so why should anyone care about your opinion that they're assholes for voicing their concern? Let's see, who do I postion myself behind on this issue, God or Spurminator...

Your response has no relevance or relation to my comment which you quoted. And frankly I don't have the patience right now to explain how confused you clearly are. I encourage you to read more carefully before beginning your canned responses.

Final thought, I love how you pick and choose Bible verses that seem to support whatever argument you're making... For example, you quote the above verses in opposition to abortion, yet in another thread less than a week ago, you quote this verse to argue that drug use is wrong because governing authorities (established by God) have deemed it so.

Romans 13:1-7 states: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has ins uted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Guess a Law is only established by God if you agree with it.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

There's not a study or Bible verse for every logical assertion. Perhaps you could point to a study that shows Pro Lifers DO only care about the lives of the feti? You can't? Why Not?

You deflected the question because your charge is baseless and without merit, I accept your indirect non-answer as substantiating my assertion that they were unwarranted.

Yeah sounds like you've carefully considered both sides of the argument to me... You're obviously very simpathetic and compassionate towards women in these situations. I'm sure it pains you to tell them how hot is going to be for them.

More unfounded wild accusations on your part, it's becoming the norm in your posts.

Your response has no relevance or relation to my comment which you quoted.

Spurminator: "those of you who demonize and humiliate people on their way to the clinics"
jochhejaam:"I've never protested at an abortion clinic..."

No relevance or relation? OOOOOOOOkay

And frankly I don't have the patience right now to explain how confused you clearly are.

Paraphrasing this comment of yours: 'I'm so lost and confused in this arguement I really don't know which way is up'

Final thought, I love how you pick and choose Bible verses that seem to support whatever argument you're making... For example, you quote the above verses in opposition to abortion, yet in another thread less than a week ago, you quote this verse to argue that drug use is wrong because governing authorities (established by God) have deemed it so.
Guess a Law is only established by God if you agree with it.

You conveniently left out the qualifier I added to the verses that laws that would call for egregious sin are not to be followed which makes the point you tried to make null and void.
The whole sum of the Ten Commandments can be condensed into four words "Thou shall not sin"! Do you believe otherwise?