Posted 2 months, 9 days ago in 
Loading ...
Groups in Colorado and Montana are on a mission from “God” to pass state Constitutional amendments defining “personhood” as beginning with fertilization, granting full rights to a single-celled product of conception.
This utter perversion of the “right to life” will create an irreconcilable conflict between the individual rights of a person and a zygote.
Whose rights will prevail when a woman has a life-threatening pregnancy? Will an embryo’s lawyers argue that a miscarriage violates its right to life? Achievements in family planning will revert to the horse-and-buggy era as many birth control and fertility methods become outlawed.
These fervently religious groups usurp the facts of biology in making their case, but it’s totally irrelevant in terms of rights.
Our Constitutional rights apply only once we are born as separate entities. To quote Ayn Rand, a 20th century writer, “Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”
To gain insight into how barbaric their idea is, “personhood” advocates should live in a dictatorship and experience the loss of freedom of worship.
Meanwhile, those of us who value all of our liberties must zealously fight to preserve them.
GINA LIGGETT
Denver
92 Responses to “Rights are for actual people”
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In addition to what Gina Liggett wrote, it should be pointed out that neural connections do not occur in the developing fetus until sometime during the fourth month. Before that time the fetus is simply a lump of tissue with no capacity to respond to anything except chemical stimuli much like any organ in the body which was stripped of nerves. Abortion is a tragedy under any circumstances but it would be difficult to call a three month old fetus anything except a potential person. Of course any cell in the body is a potential person since all cells except for red blood cells contain all the information needed to creat a whole new person as the process of cloning has taught us.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ms Liggetts position seems to be that it is perfectly acceptable to kill anything that may become an inconvenience at some point in the future.
Prairie dogs are an inconvenience now.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now Willis, I usually agree with you to a point on most things but….I really dont think she is refering to killing anything the may be an inconvenience. I think the point is more that “choices” should be legal and the ramifications of this proposed legislation, could in the future, make those choices illegal.
And for the “Love of God”, will everyone please stop trying to compare these damn prairie dogs with humans!
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jen, if it were truly about ‘choices’ I wouldn’t care.
But it isn’t.
Getting pregnant is an event that can be prevented through the effective use of good judgment and good CHOICES.
If you were to point a firearm at your foot and pull the trigger, that would be poor judgment and a bad CHOICE.
If you were to imbibe mass quantities of adult beverages and drive into a bridge abutment at a high rate of speed, that would be bad judgment and poor CHOICES.
If you perform an act, KNOWN to cause pregnancy, and do not take preventive steps beforehand, that is poor CHOICES and bad judgment.
In any other scenario of poor judgment and bad CHOICES, you are going to be inconvenienced in some manner.
An abortion is killing something that will be an inconvenience at some later time.
If it’s all about “choices” then it should be about choices made in advance of the poor judgment and bad choices that resulted in the pregnancy occurring in the first place.
I know, I’m a guy and I just don’t understand.
Sometimes there occurs a set of circumstances where you just really need to make bad choices, and it’s not your fault because at the time it just felt so much like a really good choice…..
I do agree with abortions in the case of rape and incest.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Okay Willis, my next question was going to be about rape and incest but you already answered it. I agree that sometimes choices are made that arent good, like getting pregnant when it really isnt the time in your life for it. Nor do I think that abortion should be used as a regular means of birth control. If we lived in a perfect world all of the children that arent “wanted” would be put up for adoption. Unfortunatley, we dont live there. I would much rather a woman be given a choice for abortion than to see that child beaten or starved or tortured to death! I think abortion would be a much kinder way to end a potential life. As far as the “guy” thing, yes, SOME of them take the option of walking away, they have that choice. If things like this legislation do pass, then even if a 12 year old child being raped by daddy, gets pregnant, an abortion wont be an option because it will be considered murder.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 4:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I notice you didn’t say one word about the CHOICE the father-to-be makes, or that he always has the CHOICE to just walk away, deny it’s his baby, move, change his name, dodge child support payments, whatever…. The woman is the only one who’s truly stuck, to make that CHOICE, whatever it is. And live with it, for the rest of her life. But she’s the one to have the baby, or get screamed at by sadists and busybodies on her way to Planned Parenthood. The man, in all reality, doesn’t have to make that choice.
He can fight for or against it, of course, and many men lose the fight, or never get to fight at all (which is wrong, too), but let’s face it…women can’t just pretend it’s not their baby, can they?
So, no, Willis, we really don’t understand. And it’s pretty arrogant when we assume we do. What’s my opinion on abortion? It doesn’t matter…I’m never going to have to have be a party to one.
Not in favor of abortions? Fine. Don’t have one. And you have every right to campaign against having your tax dollars subsidize them, if you don’t agree.
One person’s morality does not give them the right to dictate to another.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 5:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Excellent letter, Gina – still hard to believe that it’s 2008 and there are many who attempt to impose their medieval belief system on free-thinking women in Colorado and the rest of the America.
Fortunately our next president, OBAMA, is solidly pro-choice and has a clear record on protecting women’s reproductive freedoms.
Voting Records:
Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Congressional Record on Choice.
2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent
And, here is Sen. McCain’s anti-choice record. He received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Congressional Record on Choice:
2007: 0 percent
2006: 0 percent
2005: 0 percent
2004: 0 percent
2003: 0 percent
2002: 0 percent
2001: Because only one choice-related vote was taken in 2001 – to confirm John Ashcroft as United States Attorney General – no numerical score was given for the year. Sen. McCain voted anti-choice.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 6:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh now Curmudgeon, I covered all this in the original post.
” I notice you didn’t say one word about the CHOICE the father-to-be makes, or that he always has the CHOICE to just walk away, deny it’s his baby, move, change his name, dodge child support payments, whatever…. The woman is the only one who’s truly stuck, to make that CHOICE, whatever it is. And live with it, for the rest of her life. But she’s the one to have the baby, or get screamed at by sadists and busybodies on her way to Planned Parenthood. The man, in all reality, doesn’t have to make that choice. ”
The female has the final choice in the matter.
If she makes the CHOICE to engage in activities with a male (not necessarily a MAN), that she is not certain will be there if a pregnancy occurs, then she made a bad CHOICE.
If she gets pregnant, and the list of possible fathers is several pages long, then she made a lot of BAD CHOICES.
That thing is not a play toy, but if it gets used as a play toy, and it gets broken, then it is because of BAD CHOICES.
If she is certain the donor is really planning on being the father half of a marriage, and he fails to perform to expectations, then a paternity test should provide for ample child support.
So, prior to the abortion issue ever being raised, there has already been a fair exercising of the ‘right to choose’.
The ‘right to choose’ does not extend to the ‘right to kill’ for convenience, because it might cause stress later.
It’s called planning ahead.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 7:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ wrote: “The ‘right to choose’ does not extend to the ‘right to kill’ for convenience, because it might cause stress later”
If I scrape some cells from the lining of my cheek, I can observe under the microscope that they are living breathing human cells. If I then throw them in the trash, have I committed murder? Obviously not. But each of these cells has the full complement of DNA needed to create a new human being and each therefore is a potential person by the process of cloning. These cells are essentially the same as the cells in a 3 month old fetus: potentially, but not actually independent persons. The three month old fetus is a parasitic bit of tissue without nerves or neural connections, no ability to sense pain or any other tactile stimulation from the outside world. You cannot talk about killing a person in the abortion of a 3 month old fetus unless you believe that removing tonsils or a faulty kidney is killing a human being.
Posted May 15th, 2008 at 7:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AH, another created moral dilemma. In the blue corner, we have a male, not an expectant father, who wants to force his idea of morality on some female he doesn’t know. And in the red corner, we have another disinterested male who believes that a human fetus is a haphazard collection of cells. Gentlemen, if it wasn’t caught in your trap, butt out, leave it alone, let the ladies fight this one out. You simply don’t have the equipment to be in this race. And, as any married man can tell you, it doesn’t matter which side you are on, you’re about to lose, big time.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 6:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bravo, american_patriot; you put it a lot more succinctly than I did. A bunch of guys arguing about abortion is pretty silly.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 7:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Some of the things jef says to make us all feel in awe of his mental prowess…
“When I taught general biology at the university level many years ago, it took me about a week of one hour lectures just to present and discuss the basics. In my own education, I probably had a dozen courses at the graduate level in which evolution was the underlying theme or the principal subject for the whole semester.”
” Not in the great universities I attended and taught. ”
And in this column…
” If I scrape some cells from the lining of my cheek, I can observe under the microscope that they are living breathing human cells. If I then throw them in the trash, have I committed murder? Obviously not. But each of these cells has the full complement of DNA needed to create a new human being and each therefore is a potential person by the process of cloning. These cells are essentially the same as the cells in a 3 month old fetus: potentially, but not actually independent persons. The three month old fetus is a parasitic bit of tissue without nerves or neural connections, no ability to sense pain or any other tactile stimulation from the outside world. You cannot talk about killing a person in the abortion of a 3 month old fetus unless you believe that removing tonsils or a faulty kidney is killing a human being. ”
Now, this is just from my own personal observations, and all results may nt be the same however….
Apparently Mr. Fox is the first, and only, person ever to have lived on this planet that, if he does not scrape the inside of his cheek, will shortly, end up with a mouthful of Fetus, Placenta, and Amniotic fluid.
Again from Mr. Fox;
” The university taught me to question assumptions based on nothing but faith and look at the actual documented evidence. ”
Did you actually ‘learn and teach’ this stuff in college?
The scrapings from the inside of your mouth were actually fertilized embryos?
Have you obtained medical help for this problem in the past?
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 7:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No American patriot, not my idea of morality.
I just don’t think it’s quite fair to give the gentler sex the right to kill innocent beings as a matter of convenience without giving us big bad men the same right.
It’s discrimination.
And, it’s not really just a girl thing, but a societal issue, and a destruction of the civilized society I grew up in.
If it’s ok to kill before the birth, when will it become acceptable to kill at any time during the first year? Then the first five years, then at any time, for any reason until they are twenty one?
What if the baby has the wrong color eyes, or the nose isn;t shaped absolutely perfect?
And that thing is not a toy, but an organ in the female body with one specific purpose.
reproduction.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 8:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The answer is simple: If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. It’s your right. What is not your right is to attempt to impose your moral code on society at large.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 8:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis-
How do you stand on Comprehensive Sex Education taught in all schools from Elementary through High School? Are we teaching girls and boys to use their “things” appropriately? Are we sending them into a sex laden culture with the idea that they should abstain from sex until marriage? Under the current administration, children are plunged into a culture dripping with sexuality without the proper resources and information to make the “right” CHOICES.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 8:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“If you perform an act, KNOWN to cause pregnancy, and do not take preventive steps beforehand, that is poor CHOICES and bad judgment.”——————-I don’t believe that an unwanted child should be brought into this world as a result of bad judgement. I also don’t believe that a human being is created at conception. It takes a number of months before the cells develop into anything that can be remotely considered a human being. I am in favor of allowing abortions prior to the point where those cells have formed a neural system that allows the mass of cells to feel pain. I realize that those who believe that life begins at conception disagree with this, in which case I don’t understand why they believe that it is OK to kill a “huiman being” because it was, through no fault of his/her own, a result of rape or incest.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 8:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“I realize that those who believe that life begins at conception disagree with this, in which case I don’t understand why they believe that it is OK to kill a “huiman being” because it was, through no fault of his/her own, a result of rape or incest.” — bullishfrog
That’s an excellent point, bullish, and one I like to think I’d have made, if I’d been smart enough to think of it.
I think most people (on both sides) are pretty reasonable in their beliefs about choices and other people’s rights. It’s just unfortunate that the ones on the extremes of the argument are screaming the loudest, drowning out the voices that are actually trying to find common ground.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 9:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh sugarfoot.
” What is not your right is to attempt to impose your moral code on society at large. ‘
Which is exactly what the liberal wing of the democrat party has been doing for years.
It’s their religion that there be no moral values of any kind.
“legalized abortion” is based on a supreme court decision that “discovered” a ‘right to privacy’ where no such ‘right’ exists.
Liberal legislation from the highest bench in the land.
The liberals in congress could never get it to the floor, so they used the courts to get abortion on demand.
But, I do agree with abortion in certain circumstances, rape, incest, and Mr. Fox scraping the inside of his cheeks on a regular basis.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 9:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lucy, ’sex education’ in the schools is another liberal dream come true.
Their prayers were answered with that issue too.
Whether or not to have sex is a test of moral values and the will power to decided who, when, and how, as well as why.
Just because you can do a certain thing, regardless of its nature, does not equate to ‘you should do it just because you can’.
You can slam your head against the wall, but should you?
You can clean your ears with an ice pick, but should you?
It’s all choices.
All choices carry risk of some nature.
If you choose well, the risks are minimal.
If you choose poorly, the risks are maximized.
You can choose to have sex 200 times and never get pregnant, but it only takes once to collect a lifetime of an incurable sexually transmitted disease.
It’s the ‘freedom to choose’ that you always wanted.
“Sure Bobby, I would love to marry you. Did I mention I have Herpes and had seven abortions?”
Sex education school?
And how many teachers have gone to jail for having sex with students?
What a fertile field of endeavor.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 9:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I understand your point. What I was trying to say, perhaps lamely, was individual morality is individual. I may agree with your right to do something without thinking that it is necessarily the right thing to do. In the end, these are questions that people have to answer for themselves. Both sides of this argument are trying to influence that decision, even to the point of installing their morality by law. As for me, I see this in much the same way that I see well meaning environmentalists attempting to ban prairie dog hunting by law. Yes, I know that there is a difference between prairie dogs and humans, but that is why we have different strokes for different folks.
By the way, my comment was not directed at you personally, or Senator Obama.
I am, however, expecting his rebuttal, momentarily.
PS I have never tried the “scrape your cheek” method of fertilization. I much prefer the old fashioned method. Like I said, different strokes for different folks.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 9:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ wrote: The scrapings from the inside of your mouth were actually fertilized embryos?
If you had kept up at all with science over the last few years, WLJ, you would be aware that it does not take a fertilized embryo to create a new individual. The results of a process called cloning have taught us that just about any cell which contains a full complement of DNA (most of the cells in your body) can be used to create a new individual.
Also the notion that “life begins at conception” does not square up with biology. Life began only once or a very few times on this planet. Since then life is merely passed on from one generation to the next. The sperm is alive and so is the egg. No miraculous life starting event occurs when they fuse to form a zygote; it is simply a continuation of living cells which divide to form more living cells.
And finally you keep accusing me of denigrating those with whom I disagree. What would you call all the insulting and sarcastic comments you make, an example of which is: “Have you obtained medical help for this problem in the past?” Such comments are hardly designed to further a discussion but exist merely to cast scorn on those with whom you disagree. I also recall that you said that I lied when I talked about the tens of thousands of biologists around the world. When I showed you how easy it weas to prove that there were more than ten thousand in the U.S. alone, I heard not another word from you: no mea culpa, no apology for the insult, etc. You need to look at your own conduct on this forum before getting off on others.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 9:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If the “groups” that think they have a right to dictate what is and what isn’t life are intent on making such laws, then I think they should forced to provide the funding to raise each and every one of the children who are a result of their meddling. I do not take a position on abortion, having been lucky enough not to have had to face this decision myself, however, it can be evidenced every day in the abuse cases, the courts and orphanages that some children do not end up with the “happy life” that these “groups” seem to feel is divined by the nature of birth. Having worked with some of these children, I am not sure they would agree with the statement “any kind of life is better than no life”. My opinion.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor jef.
” If you had kept up at all with science over the last few years, WLJ, you would be aware that it does not take a fertilized embryo to create a new individual. The results of a process called cloning have taught us that just about any cell which contains a full complement of DNA (most of the cells in your body) can be used to create a new individual. ‘
He compares the scrapings from inside his cheek to a fertilized embryo, then gets mad because I point out the fallacy of his position by accusing me of not knowing about cloning.
Ok, I’ll play.
If you don’t want to be a daddy again, don’t take your cheek scrapings to the cloning clinic.
You claimed to be the biology teacher, and claim there is no difference between a fertilized egg and cheek scrapings?
AND you want me to love you for your mind?
I have a rusted out garbage can, is that the same as a new Lexus?
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 10:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now Mr. Fox, I don’t want you to get upset or mad, but since you taught biology at the college level, I have a few questions that I would really like to have answered by an expert in the field.
Fair enough?
1. Can a dead sperm cell impregnate a living egg?
2. Will a live sperm cell impregnate a dead egg?
3. It conception (through normal methods) requires a LIVE sperm cell, and a LIVE egg, does that mean that life PRECEDES conception?
Or would the fetus be dead cells until actual delivery?
It’s an actual biological fact that truly interests me a great deal.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: Life does indeed precede conception. A dead sperm cell cannot fertilize an egg under normal conditions-nor vice versa.
Even with cloning, living cells must be used in order to transplant a nucleus from a body cell into an unfertilized egg which has had its nucleus removed but goes on living for a time.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You have no right to tell me what I can do in my bedroom or what I can do with my own body.If I am pregnant it is my business, not yours, so butt out. Suicide is illegal, but have you ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for attempting it? Abortion was illegal in this country at one time but abortions still happened. Certain drugs are illegal but people still use them. There are thousand of people in prison for using a product that grows just about anywhere it’s planted. There is no evidence that this herb has ever killed one person, yet we pay big bucks to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate those that chose to use it. If my behavior causes no harm to you or any other person leave me to hell alone. Keep your nose out of my business you holier than thou busy body. Obviously you have no problems of your own since you are so busy trying to sovle other peoples problems.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The fetus of course consists of living cells much like any other tissue in the body. In the course of normal development at about the fourth month of development it begins to develop fully funtioning nerve and brain cells and begins to make the neural connections which will eventually result in a new entity with seperate personality. I am not a proponent of abortion under any circumstances but I agree with the proposition that it whould be outlawed after the end of the first trimester (the current policy).
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
kemosabe, I’m not telling you ‘what to do in your own bedroom’.
I’m pointing out all the ‘choices’ you are free to make BEFORE you get pregnant.
So the issue is not “freedom of choice”.
Make the proper choices that will not result in pregnancy, and this whole subject is a non issue.
Make poor choices and poof! it’s an issue.
As you can read from Mr. Fox’s posts that the fetus is a living being from conception onward.
Make good decisions that do not result in placing yourself in the position of deciding whether or not to kill your child.
Is that too much to ask of you?
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Okay, it’s Friday and I feel like throwing a wrench into this conversation. Willis, please tell me how you feel about gay couples raising children? No, I’m not a democrat, I’m a registered independant (thought you might wonder). If all of these woman that abuse their “toys” (post #8) keep these pregnancies, then whoever wants a child should be able to adopt, correct? And again, do we as a society, think it is better that a child be beaten, starved or tortured to death rather than an abortion performed. A case in point is the 22 year old woman that left her new born in the closet of her parents house last month.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
jen, I’m sorry that yer not having a good Friday.
The person that left her newborn in a bag in the closet made a whole bunch of really bad CHOICES.
And this discussion is all about CHOICES.
But, for some reason, ALL the choices leading up to pregnancy don’t count but they are the reason for this discussion to ever become an issue.
I do not have a problem with any persons right to make choices in their lives.
In all walks of life, and in all human endeavors, there are always CHOICES.
It makes no difference if you are male or female.
If a person makes choose well, there are rewards.
If a person chooses poorly, there are penalties.
If a person choose to have ’safe sex’, they still run the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, because there are no 100% effective means of preventing it.
If a person chooses to make sure their prospective partner is clean, and willing to hang around if a pregnancy occurs, we could consider that as a possibly good choice.
If a person lets anybody play with her toy with careless disregard for the consequences, we can pretty much consider that as a poor choice.
It’s ALL based on the ‘right to choose’ “what I do with my body”.
Why not CHOOSE to take care of your body, treat it with respect, caring, kindness and love?
It is the only body you are ever going to have, so why set out to ruin it with a string of poor choices, when it’s so easy to make well informed good choices?
Everybody keeps whining about all those ‘unwanted’ babies.
Why not prevent the problem by making good choices, instead of ‘it feels good so I’m gonna do it and damn the consequences’?
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 10:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52 never said the collection of cells was a “living being”. He said “living cells”. The word “being” was not used, and to claim that he was stating such is inaccurate, and downright dishonest.
I find a lot of the “choice” arguments that WLJ is making to be downright misogynistic:
“If she gets pregnant, and the list of possible fathers is several pages long, then she made a lot of BAD CHOICES.”
“That thing is not a play toy, but if it gets used as a play toy, and it gets broken, then it is because of BAD CHOICES.”
“And that thing is not a toy, but an organ in the female body with one specific purpose. reproduction.”
“Sure Bobby, I would love to marry you. Did I mention I have Herpes and had seven abortions?” (Wow, nasty, huh?)
“Make good decisions that do not result in placing yourself in the position of deciding whether or not to kill your child. Is that too much to ask of you?”
– So, basically, the purpose of that “thing” ( I love that he can’t even name it) is procreation, and only procreation, and once cells are fertilized, the woman becomes nothing more than a vessel for the “living being”?
Anyone else seeing that, or is it just me? Could be just me.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 11:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s just you curmie.
” Classof52 never said the collection of cells was a “living being”. He said “living cells”. The word “being” was not used, and to claim that he was stating such is inaccurate, and downright dishonest. ”
No, while Mr. Fox did not use the specific term “being” the fact still remains that, left to its own, natural progression, it will be a human infant on delivery.
To make the claim that it would be something other than that is ” inaccurate, and downright dishonest. ”
” – So, basically, the purpose of that “thing” ( I love that he can’t even name it) is procreation, and only procreation, and once cells are fertilized, the woman becomes nothing more than a vessel for the “living being”? ”
Actually, I can name it, and I never said that its sole purpose was for procreation, nor the woman is nothing more than a vessel for the living being, and to claim I made that statement is ” inaccurate, and downright dishonest. ”
BAD CURMIE!!!
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 11:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ;
“As you can read from Mr. Fox’s posts that the fetus is a living being from conception onward.” — You didn’t say that?
“And that thing is not a toy, but an organ in the female body with one specific purpose. reproduction.” — You didn’t say that?
Then it really is just me.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 11:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks for the sympathy willis, but I AM having a good day, it’s Friday. And I see where Curmudgeon is coming from. So willis, please tell me how you feel about gay couples raising children. I dont think that a “living cell” is a “living being”, they are different in my mind, but that could be just my take on it. You mentioned “Bobby” proposing marriage, well the girl that has herpes and a line of abortions behind her didnt get that way by herself, there was a boy involved somehow.
If one on your grand daughters became pregnant, married or not, but to carry the pregnancy to term would likely kill her, would you look her in the eye and call her a murderer because she “chose” to end the pregnancy rather than die? Yes it is hypothetical, but I am curious.
One more question, since life is all about good choices for you, is the only woman you have ever had sex with you wife? Thank God you have never been in the situation facing alot of women that the “men” dont have to deal with.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 11:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well jen,
The life of the Mother is a different issue than retroactive birth control.
That does not entail a ‘choice’ that caused the risk, but more likely, a health problem as opposed to a poor choice.
” You mentioned “Bobby” proposing marriage, well the girl that has herpes and a line of abortions behind her didnt get that way by herself, there was a boy involved somehow. ”
The statement highlighted the possible scenario following a series of poor choices.
And the subject of poor male behavior is not an issue here.
It’s the ‘choice’ of the female to make the poor ‘choice’ to let the male with no sense of responsibility to any resulting pregnancy.
It’s always her CHOICE, unless it turns into a rape, in which castration would be a fit punishment.
Unless it wasn’t really rape, in which case I really lose my sense of humor.
No, I have been with other women, prior to my marriage.
But they were all good choices with no problems because we acted like grownups and made good decisions.
There were no unplanned pregnancies or STDs.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 11:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s the point I was making, jen; that a lot of the comments WLJ has been making have been pretty nasty in their characterizations…herpes, multiple abortions, long lists of possible fathers, etc….and the whole “playing with a toy” line of reason is demeaning, don’t you think? There seems to be a major issue at play with the expression of female sexuality, especially the progress that’s occurred after “the civilized society” he grew up in…you know, the one that didn’t acknowledge things like back-alley abortions, domestic violence, or date-rape. When a guy who had sex was a stud, but a woman who had sex was a whore.
Good times……
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 11:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “As you can read from Mr. Fox’s posts that the fetus is a living being from conception onward.”
I said no such thing! What kind of game are you playing WLJ?
I said the cells are living, and that they come from living cells-the sperm and the egg. So life precedes conception and is continuous. The fetus does not become an independent being until much later in development.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So Christopher Hitchens was right all along – Religion Poisons Everything.
How difficult is it for you (Mr. HyperPoster) to understand that all life is transmitted? The same analogies are understood by the common squirrel in my backyard – an acorn (or sunflower seed) contains all the necessary ingredients “that, left to its own, natural progression” MIGHT BECOME a flowering plant or big tree “on delivery,” assuming of course, that a whole series of things are optimized along the way. Or, on the other hand - IT MIGHT NOT. Does the hand of God throw some giant switch and POOF, magically, there is a life form?
How do you come to terms with knowing that 10-15% of ALL pregnancies worldwide, every year, year after year end in spontaneous abortion…no doctors, no late night clinics, no hangers necessary. Can you accept that the Creator him/herself really is the world’s greatest abortionist? Or, are you still hopelessly clinging to fairy tales and the year 1455 belief that women exist for only one purpose - procreation?
Why in the world do people put so much energy and passion into such a nonissue as this? Does any of this really matter to any of us? It’s all about personal choice and has no place in the hands of politicians or governments. Oh, but, remember: Religion Poisons Everything.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 12:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, to clarify, Chancho…
WLJ never said women existed specifically for procreation…just “that part” or, as he calls it, “the toy”…which he seems to have a problem with them “playing” with.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 2:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Regarding the “unwanted” babies referenced in #30, a few years ago it was proposed that if the religious right was really serious in its quest to force all unwanted pregnancies to term, the least they could do was to adopt all the products of said unwanted pregnancies and give them loving, Christian homes. The project was a total failure. As usual, the religious right was long on sanctimonious rhetoric and short on compassion and action. Willis - why don’t you and your wife pop down to Mesa County Human Services on Monday and adopt a product of your religious convictions?
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 2:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Please be a little more clear about which groups you are referring to as religious right. As a Christian, I still support the original letter writer as well as the right for a woman to choose, and I do not feel these are in conflict with Christianity.
Not all religions, who may be considered “religious right” support the same agenda. As an example, not all support illegal immigration, and they DO support the laws governing our nation.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 2:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As I said before, I’ve noticed the vast majority who’ve commented on this letter are moderate and reasonable in their beliefs, and a belief in Christ does not necessarily preclude a belief in mercy and understanding of other people’s situations (as a matter of fact, I would think it would include that). So, keep in mind: painting every Christian as a rabid anti-choice zombie is just as bad as painting every Pro-choice advocate a rabid proponent of late-term abortions on demand as casual birth control. I for one have been impressed with how reasonable most people are being, here.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey, I didn’t bring religion into this.
My point is that for the pregnancy to occur, there is a lot of ‘choices’ made, so it’s not a “freedom of choice” issue.
And, all semantics aside, life precedes conception, and upon conception it is alive, and left to natural progression a human baby will emerge.
To kill it at any stage of it’s development is taking the life from the baby.
That’s biological fact, God didn’t say that.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon, I have noticed and I agree. I am glad that he got “lucky” and didnt end up with unplanned kids or STD’s. Not EVERYONE is that lucky, even with planning. I have a 16 year old son to prove the luck isnt always with the Irish. Even with precautions, stuff happens! Had I been younger, not in the financial position, or not had the family support I did have, I would have had an abortion. I was lucky that things did roll my way then, but the biological other half of my son left 17 years ago and hasnt been seen since. He and I both made our “choices” and I am the “richer” of us because of a son.
Now Willis, you said that “its always her CHOICE” in post #35…..Not if people take away the right to a choice, even if you dont agree with it.
The point I was trying to make in regards to one of your grand daughters is that if this kind of legislation passes, then even when there is a risk to the mothers health, regardless of her behavior, it would be murder.
Now Dangit Willis……Do you think gays should be able to raise children?
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - you may not have specifically brought religion into the discussion, but it’s obvious that the core of your comments on the subject are religiously based. That’s the problem with conservative Christians like yourself - you cannot separate your religious beliefs and your political, social attitudes.
Grandmasix - I understand your position. The problem is that the Christian fundmentalist movement (evangelicals, Pentecostals, conservative Catholics, etc.) have effectively hijacked Christianity an the term “Christian.” I use the term “religious right” to mean Christian fundamentalists.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“luck” had nothing to do with it, good choices did.
is the ‘gay’ thing really that important to you jen?
If so, why?
I’m still waiting for the first purely homosexual pregnancy to occur.
’tis gonna be an interesting development for science.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot — is it possible that grandma is a member of one of those churches, but just doesn’t happen to agree with their doctrine on this one subject? And if she is, isn’t it possible she’s not the only one with her own mind?
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alright fella, luck did have something to do with it, because as you stated earlier, no birth control is 100%. How many kids are in this world that got thru the birth control….I have one to prove it!
As far as the “gay” thing…..the only thing that is important to me on this issue is that if children are brought into this world by people that dont “want” them, then adoption would be the next logical step. If there isnt a “loving, hetro” couple to take that child then can gay people that do desperately want children have them? As I said yesterday, I dont live in the perfect world, if a child has to be born because abortion is illegal, then doesnt that same child have the “right” to be wanted. Just a question Willis.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor sugarfoot, makes assumptions based on a fantasy I guess.
” Sugarfoot
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:22 pm PM This User Report this comment
Willis - you may not have specifically brought religion into the discussion, but it’s obvious that the core of your comments on the subject are religiously based. That’s the problem with conservative Christians like yourself - you cannot separate your religious beliefs and your political, social attitudes. ”
Here’s a clue, religion and moral values do not always go hand in hand.
A number of churches in the valley have installed copper roofing on the off chance that I may walk through their doors someday, and God may take a shot at me while I’m on his property.
Making good choices in life is not a religious more, but an intelligent course of action.
To blame organized religion for good behavior is wasted effort.
That would be like saying the only good people are religious nutjobs, and all the bad people are agents of the devil.
So, tell me, why is it that you push so hard for the ability to make poor decisions?
Do you intend to live your life making bad decisions and want to be respected for your failure in life?
Why not try concentrating on making good decisions and becoming a success that others will look up to you in the future?
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ wrote: “To kill it at any stage of it’s development is taking the life from the baby.
That’s biological fact, God didn’t say that.”
With that kind of logic, then killing sperm is tantamount to killing a baby. You can’t kill a “baby” until it actually exists as an independent human being capable of thinking and feeling. Killing cells which have the potential to be a baby (and nearly all do) is not the same.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
jen, you keep coming back to the ‘unwanted’ children.
Why not push people to make an effort to stop making ‘known to be risky’ decisions, and push for people to start trying to improve themselves?
So far, the feeling seems to be that bad decisions are good, and good decisions are bad.
And, in your case, as well as others, sometimes you rely on the honesty of the male involved, only to discover later that maybe he wasn’t quite the person you had hoped for.
Young girls are an easy target for some males, and they take advantage of the fact.
But more and more, it’s a recreational area with anyone welcome to stop by and visit, then go away.
And (just to irritate curmudgeon) when their toy gets broken, they want somebody else to be responsible for it.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You’re not irritating, Willis. You’re just boring, and a distraction from the reasonable discussion we’ve all been trying to have. Everyone is very well aware by now of how you feel about the issue, about everyone who disagrees with you, and about women, especially. Even ones who have been your allies in the past. Mission accomplished.
Now go jack people up on another thread, all right? The grownups are trying to talk, here.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 3:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree that education MUST be an option! Without education then people cant make informed decisions, I think that would be a “push in the right direction”. Unfortunately, some parents are convinced that their children wouldnt have sex until they are married and therefore wont discuss birth control with their kids. Alot of people, I assume you included, dont want it taught in school.
I didnt rely on the honesty of a male, I took control of my own situation, from being on birth control to having a child. Yes some girls do fall prey to men that arent what they seem to be. But not all women (or girls) that get into that situation view their toys as a recreational area. Nor do all women want someone to fix it for them.
Yes, I keep going back to “unwanted” children. If all children were wanted then there wouldnt be any discussions like this because abortion wouldnt exist! And if a womans parts were only for reproductive purposes then God wouldnt have made it feel good.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
jef, ” Killing cells which have the potential to be a baby (and nearly all do) is not the same. ”
We are not talking about your cheek scrapings, but a fertilized egg/embryo.
And you will never have a chance to collect any of my cells, because you would have me cloned so you could abuse me physically.
” With that kind of logic, then killing sperm is tantamount to killing a baby. ‘
Maybe in your mind, but in reality, very few, over the course of many months actually make it to the egg.
Didn’t you say you taught biology at the college level for a while?
You should have known that…
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JEN wrote: “And if a womans parts were only for reproductive purposes then God wouldnt have made it feel good.”
Actually the “feel good” part is undoubtedly linked to the reproductive part. Evolution obviously selected for intense pleasurable feelings to accompany sex so that the practise would be engaged in as often as possible thus leading to a greater chance that the species would be perpetuated. However, knowing that and short circuiting the process allows us to engage in recreational sex without the unwanted side effects, barring acidents.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I know jen, and I have always been very careful of the ‘toys’ I have played with, as well as the provider.
Recreational areas open to the general public was never an option.
The vast majority of young females would fall into the young ladies category, so, in all actuality, we’re only talking about a very small percentage of the population.
Not all young women are promiscuous, and not all young men are total jerks.
It’s just the ‘entertainment’ industry that would like their portrayal to reflect reality, but it doesn’t.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
oh curmie ” The grownups are trying to talk, here. ”
I know, so go away and stop bothering us.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
All of that criticism, well just let it roll of of you like water off of a duck. Most of these guys don’t know nuttin anyway. Although I still do find myself strangely attracted by Crumedgon. I think it might have something to do with the name. But nothin’ could dampen my enthusiasm today. I just received the latest edition of Backwoodsman Magazine. I can’t decide what article to read first. My choices are “Airguns for Survival, The Sling Arrow, The Fire-Piston Project, Why Not Make a War Club, and The 32’s, Not as Popular as They Should Be. See my predicament? I think I’m going to ignore all of the above and go straight to Home Made Root beer. By the way, I tried both of those Prairie Dog Recipes. YUK!! Them little puppies have more fat than a corn fed coon. Guess I shoulda made something else to go with them. How about it, anybody out there got any side dishes to go with prairie dog?
And Willis, I warned you about this subject.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ wrote: “We are not talking about your cheek scrapings, but a fertilized egg/embryo.”
A fertilized egg is not a baby. It is merely a single cell. That statement is easily proved. Take the case of identical twins. We know that the first fertilized egg divides once and the two resulting cells occasionally come apart. Then each may develop ultimately into a new human being. This demonstrates that the first cell was itself not already an individual, merely a potential for an individual. The case of identical triplets and so forth further confirms that the first cells are not already seperate babies.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis……the entertainment industry. Who was talking about porn?
CO52, I do understand the biology of the “feel good”. I actually was seeing who might not think that was appropriate.
Curmudgeon…where are you? Please get this conversation back to where it needs to be, please!!!
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
patriot:
Dunno about sides, but Carlson Vineyards makes an outstanding blush wine to go with the little critters. Whenever I buy a bottle, my son thinks it’s funny to draw crosshairs on the little varmint on the label.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
PRAIRIE DOG SIDE-DISH from the Culinary Institute of America
3 slices bacon, chopped and fried, 1 small onion, chopped, 1 can diced tomatoes, 1 cup chicken broth, 1 cup long grain rice (cooked) 1/4 tsp salt, pepper and Cajun seasoning.
After frying bacon, add onions, cook till clear. Add tomatoes, broth and seasoning. Simmer till done, then add rice, simmer 5 minutes more add 1/2 cup of green onions for color and serve.
I know this is off subject, but a cool down was in order.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, jen, I’ like to bring things back, but as you can read:
–oh curmie ” The grownups are trying to talk, here. ”
I know, so go away and stop bothering us.–
And, as a parent, you know; no one can defend against the dreaded, “I know you are, but what am I?” argument.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American patriot
” And Willis, I warned you about this subject. ”
I thought you wuz issuing a challenge…. kinda like a double dog dare.
I got the rabble roused up all nice and proper.
Even J. Eugene Fox has resorted to playing semantics over his cheek scrapings and making babies with it.
What more could you ask for?
Curmies just here for kicks and grins, he’s just tryin’ to hide it.
Life was good this morning, but it’s positively GRAND right now.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
psssst, gene?
Fertilized eggs grow into babies, biology 101.
Good read, try it sometime.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One.voice,
That sounds good, but what the heck have you got in the rest of those files. Now, I’m starting to worry about the list.
Curmudgeon,
I hope no one else saw that thing about the cross-hairs. I’ll bet one.voice has got some group in his files, already trying to ban “bottle banging”. Any further references to cross-hairs, we should probably refer to as a right wing, religious, Christian symbol. Yeah, that’s the ticket. They will never catch on to that one.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
jewels, jewels, jewels
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, Curmudgeon, Somebody look over my shoulder and see if that was him?
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 4:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curm, I actually prefer the “he hit me back first” argument. BTW, I liked the cross hairs thing.
Willis…..about the porn thing?
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 5:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: Fertilized eggs grow into babies, biology 101.
No, sometimes a single one grows into 2 babies or three or more. And more than 15% get aborted (by God?) as part of natural miscarriages.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - you have become boring and pedantic on this subject as you eventually do about every subject you write on. Be gone, little man!
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 6:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
jen? ” Willis…..about the porn thing? ”
Oh, you mean the ‘entertainment’ industry?
Just about every show has mostly unwed/single mother crawling out of the woodwork, it’s always the guys fault, and they wuz on drugs when they smacked that evil cop that tried to help them out of the ticket for running the redlight.
curm, you started it!!!
DID SO!!!
JEF, ” No, sometimes a single one grows into 2 babies or three or more. And more than 15% get aborted (by God?) as part of natural miscarriages. ”
Slightly more than an ‘unwanted tissue mass’ then?
And the miscarriages thing. Well, sometimes it’s just a thing that causes a woman to not be able to carry a fetus through to delivery, sometimes it’s an illness, sometimes it just happens.
I wouldn’t blame it on “God”, just in case he might take offense and try a shot at me in my house.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon - I’m reasonably certain grandmasix isn’t a member of the religious right, at least not part of the hardcore element. Although she is obviously on the conservative side, she seems to have retained a fair amount of independent thought. On the other hand, Willis is obviously a member - his attitudes and positions have all the hallmarks of severe religious brainwashing. His responses to virtually everything are boring, predictable, paranoid and without intellectual merit. He had his Andy Warthol 15 minutes of fame on the first day of community.com. - by the second day, he was already passe.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 8:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Off stage left: Willis sits watching quietly and patiently.
Calmly ignoring the idle banter of the little children playing on stage.
Idly wondering if it’s possible for one day to go by without some insipid little fool trying to pretend he is capable of serious discussion without resorting to such mundane banter as has become the norm from the “hate Willis at all costs” crowd.
Apparently not he decides.
Not knowing, or caring who, or what a sugarfoot is, except from the old TV western of the fond days of yore when “Sugar foot” was an intelligent, well spoken young man that studied law back East before coming to the West in search of a peaceful place to settle down and possibly raise a family if the right woman appeared.
Not caring a great deal, he logged off and went about his life wondering who lets their undernourished children play on the family computer with out proper instruction in website etiquette.
Posted May 16th, 2008 at 9:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Back to post an interesting little tidbit from the internet that is actually, sorta on topic.
DOES HALLMARK HAVE A CARD TO SOOTHE THE EASILY OFFENDED?
“Hallmark made an irresponsible decision to create this card,” (name removed)
(Cover: two hands holding glasses of wine and the caption,
“Pardon me…”
Inside: “Care for some liquid clothes remover?”) The problem? “The target audience, is young adults,”
Posted May 17th, 2008 at 5:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - People don’t hate you. To be hated, one must possess significance. You’re not hated, just boring and predictable.
Posted May 17th, 2008 at 7:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh well,
” Willis is obviously a member - his attitudes and positions have all the hallmarks of severe religious brainwashing. His responses to virtually everything are boring, predictable, paranoid and without intellectual merit ”
” You’re not hated, just boring and predictable. ”
And your posts are based on your ignorance of my positions and my own personal background and beliefs.
So your personal attacks on me are moronic, boring, predictable, and off topic.
If you have something intelligent to discuss that actually pertains to the subject under discussion, actually related to:
” Rights are for actual people”,
then feel free to do so.
If your aim is to belittle, abuse, demean or criticize another poster, please take it to the forums section and create your very own little minded thread and have at it.
Posted May 17th, 2008 at 8:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot, you’ve been given some sage advice;
–If your aim is to belittle, abuse, demean or criticize another poster, please take it to the forums section and create your very own little minded thread and have at it. — WLJ
He’s right, of course. You could start a forum thread called,
“Why Sugarfoot is wrong on every subject”
or even,
“Why I pick on Conservatives, by Sugarfoot”
..that way, you could have your own little self-aggrandizing thread, and maybe leave the rest of the people to actually discussing the issues.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 8:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmie, he went to CU, he don’t nead no help from reesawnuble folks….
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis-Let’s try an experiment: In 100 words or less, give us a recap of your background and basic political/social beliefs. Come on, you can do it (if you put your mind to it). Remember, 100 words or less (you have a tendency to ramble and meander in your writings).
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 9:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
100 words or less?
Gonna be tough.
” Sugarfoot
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am PM This User Report this comment
Willis-Let’s try an experiment: In 100 words or less, give us a recap of your background and basic political/social beliefs. Come on, you can do it (if you put your mind to it). Remember, 100 words or less (you have a tendency to ramble and meander in your writings). ”
“ramble and meander”?
That statement tells me that mentally, you are not capable of following the thought processes involved in writing coherent sentences.
So, even given 10,000 words and a translator for you, you would never understand.
But, you attended boldur and gave up your ability to think on your own.
I went to CU and RETAINED the ability to think for myself.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 9:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis; You’re dodging the challenge. Do you accept it or not-YES or NO? Yes, I did go to Boulder, but then I went on to Cambridge, Massachusetts. Where did you do your graduate work?
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No ‘dodging’ to it.
I only accept challenges from challenges from people smart enough to defend their positions.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 10:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, ’sugarfoot’?
Will you be able to make the connection from the actual subject of this thread,
” Rights are for actual people ”
To your childish attack on me, as well as your bragging on how smart you are again?
Your choices of schools does not impress me, or very many other users.
Nor does your ‘holier than thou’ attitude of belonging to the “Trader Joe’s Coffee Shop, the meeting place for anyone of importance in Grand Junction. ” group.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ah, Willis - when challenged to “step up to the plate” you elected to remain in the batters box. So pathetic, so predictable, so cowardly!
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And so off topic and childishly moronic. But, you did go to havad.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 10:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I wonder if you really read what you write from the readers prospective. I have 5 year old grandchildren who are capable of sniping at each other on the same level as the above conversation, and I have threatened to wash their mouths out with soap for it. There were some intelligent questions and subjects above your sniping, however, I can now understand why none of you “college educated snipers” care to enter into any “meaningful discussions”.
DID NOT, DID SO, DID NOT, My God People, how old are you?
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Cause I just like pickin’ on him/her/it.
I can quit if you want.
(I’ll pout for a few hours, But! I will get over it.)
I betcha someone at trader joes told him how to spell ‘pathetic’.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Grandmasix-you have a point, but entertainment is the entire basis for this forum. Serious discussion of issues takes place on the Letters to the editor pages where people are required to use their real identities. Community.com is a place where we “seniors” who have too much time on our hands can rant and vent our frustrations to our heart content.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
sugarfoot,
Why can’t you “old coots” who are frustrated just cling to guns and religion and bitterness like everyone else.
By the way, sugarfoot, the above posts were “supposed” to be in response to a letter to the editor, or did you forget, and no one is stopping you from posting your name and getting into a serious discussion about your subject of choice.
Willis,
I love a good joke, or one liner just as much as the next person, so don’t pout.
Posted May 19th, 2008 at 11:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Grandmasix-who says I’m not a contributor to the opinion pages of our local media? Certainly not me! Who am I?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jack…
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.