|
Post by clemiethedog on Feb 7, 2010 15:14:24 GMT
Dopson's group is funding the advertisement, and as a religious outfit, they are rolling in tax-free dough. Dopson is a self-appointed moral arbiter whose goal is to mandate a certain lifestyle by outlawing everything else. He is in the truest sense a tyrant.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 7, 2010 21:38:34 GMT
Dopson's group is funding the advertisement, and as a religious outfit, they are rolling in tax-free dough. Dopson is a self-appointed moral arbiter whose goal is to mandate a certain lifestyle by outlawing everything else. He is in the truest sense a tyrant. hardly. those who follow him do so of their own volition. he doesn't compel ANYONE to follow him
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 7, 2010 22:29:12 GMT
Dopson's group is funding the advertisement, and as a religious outfit, they are rolling in tax-free dough. Dopson is a self-appointed moral arbiter whose goal is to mandate a certain lifestyle by outlawing everything else. He is in the truest sense a tyrant. hardly. those who follow him do so of their own volition. he doesn't compel ANYONE to follow him You don't need followers to be a tyrant so that point is spurious at best.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 7, 2010 23:22:27 GMT
I cannot think that these nutcases would be allowed the ad in this Country. Not too sure if an abortion clinic would be allowed to advertise though.
I think the 'abortion pill' was advertised a few years back for a couple weeks, so I cannot see a problem.
2 million for a 30 second ad? Surely if they are willing to stop abortion, they could spend that money on giving women support to have their baby?
I guess that they could not give a hoot about babies per se, they just want to restrict chioce.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 8, 2010 4:47:48 GMT
Here's the Pro Life Superbowl Ad that got the frenzy going. I feel the opponents of this ad just made themselves look silly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2010 8:26:37 GMT
That could be an advert for medical care! As Random Voice says, you would have thought they could have found better ways of spending their money.
The people I saw being interviewed hadn't seen it, but probably did conclude that the anti-abortion message would be stronger. As both the opponents said, it is great that Pam had the choice to go ahead with her pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 8, 2010 12:25:42 GMT
hardly. those who follow him do so of their own volition. he doesn't compel ANYONE to follow him You don't need followers to be a tyrant so that point is spurious at best. of course you do. you can hardly tyrannize anyone who isn't around to be tyrannized
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 8, 2010 13:59:42 GMT
of course you do. you can hardly tyrannize anyone who isn't around to be tyrannized To be fair though these nutcases want to impose their views on abortion onto the general public. Their ultimate goal is to overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal. That makes them tyrants. BTW they are not 'pro life', they are anti abortion. If they were 'pro life' that 2.5 million quid would be better spent in Haitti or providing free clinics for those without health care etc. Why they gave it to CBS is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 8, 2010 16:07:01 GMT
of course you do. you can hardly tyrannize anyone who isn't around to be tyrannized To be fair though these nutcases want to impose their views on abortion onto the general public. Their ultimate goal is to overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal. That makes them tyrants. BTW they are not 'pro life', they are anti abortion. If they were 'pro life' that 2.5 million quid would be better spent in Haitti or providing free clinics for those without health care etc. Why they gave it to CBS is beyond me. RV. to begin with it's not remotely fair to suggest that anyone who is pro-life supports the murder of abortion clinic staff. Secondly, whether you like it or not pro-life is a perfectly reasonable and respectable label for those who wish to restrict or ban abortion. After all, they ARE in favour of saving the lives of the thousands of aborted infants. Nor is it remotely fair to suggest that people who wish to ban or (like myself) to restrict abortion are nutcases. For what it's worth the Roe of Roe v Wade is now a fierce campaigner for pro life and against abortion. I nearly died giving birth to my son because I chose not to have an abortion (as I was advised to my doctor). Calling me a nutcase is not only personally offensive but totally wrong. I am a moderate, open-minded, tolerant and fair person and I am afraid that I find you lacking in all four of those qualities. You are extreme, bigoted, intolerant and very unfair. I recognise that you have a lot to offer which is why I put up with your extremism, your personal abuse of other members and your generally hysterical and arrogant tone. Even so, I am getting fed up with it and wish you would at least make the effort to tone down HOW you put your opinions forward. Wishing to restrict or even ban abortion does NOT make you a tyrant any more than wishing to punish murderers makes you a tyrant. In the eyes of pro-lifers, abortion IS murder and the only difference between it and infanticide is the timing. You can disagree with me as much as you like, RV, but don't you dare suggest that I am a nutcase who wants to impose my views on the public. I don't actually want to ban all abortions, just to restrict them to cases where the mother's life is in danger or where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Far too many women are using it as a lazy and callous method of birth control and I find that despicable. If you call being angry about the deliberate destruction of human life being a nutcase, well, I'm proud to enrol myself in that particular funny farm.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2010 17:28:04 GMT
According to Jumbo's philosophy, calling those who wish to outlaw abortion "nutjobs" would not be not abuse of any individual poster.... (just thought I'd drop that in!) If timing is the only difference between abortion and infanticide, why kill a foetus conceived of rape? It is just as innocent as any other "child" (though in my view it is not a child in the early stages of its development) and no-one but a monster would kill a baby simply because it was born of rape. And no, Lin, I am not calling you a monster.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 8, 2010 18:32:55 GMT
RV. to begin with it's not remotely fair to suggest that anyone who is pro-life supports the murder of abortion clinic staff. One of the posters on this very board has announced that the killing of a doctor was justified. Secondly, whether you like it or not pro-life is a perfectly reasonable and respectable label for those who wish to restrict or ban abortion. After all, they ARE in favour of saving the lives of the thousands of aborted infants. There are tens of thousands of babies killed every day World Wide. When I see anti abortionists trying to stop them dying and killing the people responsible, then I may concede the point. How many children died yesterday through starvation thanks to crippling loans given to third World Countries? Two and a half million bucks would save a whole lot more than a 30 second ad. People who only campaign against abortion are anti abortion, no more no less. People who campaign against death in every circumstance are pro life. When I see the same people outside army barracks you will have a point. I nearly died giving birth to my son because I chose not to have an abortion (as I was advised to my doctor). Calling me a nutcase is not only personally offensive but totally wrong. I support your right to make that choice and I think you did what was right for you, but that does not grant you the right to decide for others how they should live their lives and make your choices. I am a moderate, open-minded, tolerant and fair person and I am afraid that I find you lacking in all four of those qualities. You are extreme, bigoted, intolerant and very unfair. I recognise that you have a lot to offer which is why I put up with your extremism, your personal abuse of other members and your generally hysterical and arrogant tone. Extreme? Bigoted? Intolerant? Why? What makes you say that? I support your right not to have an abortion, so how is that any of those things? Even so, I am getting fed up with it and wish you would at least make the effort to tone down HOW you put your opinions forward Sorry Lin, I refuse to bow to Political Correctness. I reserve the right to call a spade a spade. If it is good enough for the extreme, intolerant bigots on the board, then it is good enough for a decent bloke like me. Wishing to restrict or even ban abortion does NOT make you a tyrant any more than wishing to punish murderers makes you a tyrant. How can you claim to be ‘pro life’ whilst holding the views about the death penalty that you do? If it is wrong to kill an innocent life then it is wrong to kill and innocent adult. I don't actually want to ban all abortions, just to restrict them You want to impose your beliefs on others, that is wrong in my book. mother's life is in danger or where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Why? Can you explain your logic here? If it is wrong to kill a baby then why is it right to kill a baby who has resulted in rape? The child is innocent of the crime , so why punish the child? What is the difference between a child conceived in a rape and a child conceived in a knee trembler up the swing park? Why is the endangered mother’s life more important than the endangered childs? Far too many women are using it as a lazy and callous method of birth control and I find that despicable. You are perfectly entitled to that point, no problem. I don't actually want to ban all abortions, just to restrict them to cases where the mother's life is in danger or where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Far too many women are using it as a lazy and callous method of birth control and I find that despicable. If you call being angry about the deliberate destruction of human life being a nutcase. As I said, when these people start killing army generals and bankers for the death they cause then I will have sympathy with them.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 8, 2010 23:48:36 GMT
I could argue either side of the abortion issue if on a debate team. Both sides have some good and viable arguments.
All Muslim Jihadists should have an unrestricted right to abortions. Western governments should offer to fund 100 percent of the cost. Any population reduction there would benefit us all. We don't want new little Jihadists growing up to become suicide bombers.
No comparison between abortion and the death penalty. An unborn infant has not proven himself unworthy of continued existence on planet earth. The opposite is true for death row inmates.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 9, 2010 11:31:11 GMT
RV. to begin with it's not remotely fair to suggest that anyone who is pro-life supports the murder of abortion clinic staff. One of the posters on this very board has announced that the killing of a doctor was justified. RV! No one here has said that the killing of the abortion doctor was justified. There is however some "moral confusion" on this issue. I would never kill an abortion doctor or Dr. Mengele himself for that matter. I don't really feel any moral responsibility to protect this particular abortion doctor either.
The wish to not get involved, even as a witness, in gangland killings, armed resistance against occupying invaders and in certain other extraordinary situations is a feeling that many of us have! Thus the moral dilemma!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2010 12:38:41 GMT
Anna, what you said was:
It is reasonable to conclude from that that you thought the killing was justified. It did not read as though your "amnesia" would be through fear of repercussions from the anti-abortion lobby; is that really what you meant?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 9, 2010 12:50:25 GMT
"moral confusion" on this issue. Thus the moral dilemma! What moral confusion and dilemma? This man was killed because he carried out his lawful job. He was a doing a legal job. How can people who claim to be 'pro life' possibly condone or see a moral dilemma here? As I said when the anti abortionists having 'moral confusion' when soldiers get killed, perhaps I will listen. moral responsibility to protect this particular abortion doctor either.
So not really pro life then? Just anti abortionist. Tell me Anna, if someone had killed George W. Bush before he ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent babies, would you have felf any 'moral confusion' then?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2010 14:26:40 GMT
"moral confusion" on this issue. Thus the moral dilemma! What moral confusion and dilemma? This man was killed because he carried out his lawful job. He was a doing a legal job. How can people who claim to be 'pro life' possibly condone or see a moral dilemma here? As I said when the anti abortionists having 'moral confusion' when soldiers get killed, perhaps I will listen. moral responsibility to protect this particular abortion doctor either.
So not really pro life then? Just anti abortionist. Tell me Anna, if someone had killed George W. Bush before he ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent babies, would you have felf any 'moral confusion' then? your hallucinations have no relevance to the question
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 9, 2010 14:47:06 GMT
your hallucinations have no relevance to the question The REALITY is that I have no hallucinations on this or any subject. This man was going about his legal business and was killed by terrorist scum. Americans are DIRECTLY responsible for murdering millions of innocent babies, yet for some reason the 'pro life' people never campaign about that or have 'moral confusion' about the murder's either an no imbecilic charade by and apologist can change this. This is the result of a Chemical attack by the most powerful war machine the planet has ever witnessed. This baby was murdered in the womb of her mother by a pilot who sprayed her with a deadly chemical. Had the said pilot been taken out by a 'pro life' supporter, would there have been any 'moral confusion' at his death? No need to waffle, a simple yes or no should suffice.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 9, 2010 18:41:23 GMT
"moral confusion" on this issue. Thus the moral dilemma! What moral confusion and dilemma? This man was killed because he carried out his lawful job. He was a doing a legal job. How can people who claim to be 'pro life' possibly condone or see a moral dilemma here? As I said when the anti abortionists having 'moral confusion' when soldiers get killed, perhaps I will listen. moral responsibility to protect this particular abortion doctor either.
So not really pro life then? Just anti abortionist. Tell me Anna, if someone had killed George W. Bush before he ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent babies, would you have felf any 'moral confusion' then? RV, PLEASE! A hostile tone is not neccesary! Since you seem totally convinced that global warming will destroy the world maybe you're not too interested in protecting those who you feel are primarily responsible for this. Of course i want to keep the Global Warming debate off this thread! I just want to see if you truly feel obligated to protect every human being equally and unbiasedly?
George Bush never ordered a massacre of children! You're confusing him with King Herod!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 9, 2010 18:54:19 GMT
RV, PLEASE! A hostile tone is not neccesary! Since you seem totally convinced that global warming will destroy the world maybe you're not too interested in protecting those who you feel are primarily responsible for this. Of course i want to keep the Global Warming debate off this thread! I just want to see if you truly feel obligated to protect every human being equally and unbiasedly?
The GW debate is not relevant here. I would never support the killing of those who pollute the planet under any circumstances.
George Bush never ordered a massacre of children! No? Who ordered the bombing of Iraq then? Surely he must have known that wqas going to end in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, many of whom would have been children. Not only that, but the toxic waste that was left lying around would have contributed to the deaths of unborn children, too. Have the anti abortionists campaigned against the murder of thousands of children in Iraq? Are they willing to see American troops die to save the lives of innocent children?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 9, 2010 19:35:50 GMT
RV! No one here is advocating lethal force and that wasn't my question to you! If the last seat on the last life boat of some modern Titanic was to go to Joe Bloke or the Industrialist Mr. Gloobalwarmsen and you could choose who gets that last seat ( and if both of the them get it the life boat sinks ) i think you may discover that you have "certain preferences".
If you were teleported back to Nazi occupied France and witnessed an assaination of a Vichy collorabator would you testify for the Gestapo?
If you're all black and white on moral issues that's OK with me, but many of us see shades of grey between the black and white!
|
|