Teenager Throws Soda on Anti-Abortion Protester

[ceakins]

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/jun/02/teenager-throws-soda-on-anti-abortion-protester/

SILVERDALE —

A 25-year-old antiabortion protester was soaked with soda following a confrontation with passers-by Sunday, according to Kitsap County Sheriff's Office reports.

Deputies said a group of anti-abortion protesters carrying "graphic signs" were demonstrating at the intersection of Kitsap Mall Boulevard and NW Randall Way. At about 2:15 p.m., another group began arguing with the protesters about the signs. A 17-year-old girl reportedly threw a cup of soda on the 25-year-old protester after the argument became "heated," deputies said.

The groups separated and the protesters got the license plate of the car in which the 17-year-old was riding. Deputies traced the car to a Silverdale address and found the 17-year-old there.

No arrests were made. A report was forwarded to the Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office for review.

[Danke]

Fascinating...

[Brassmouth]

Ha. Fuckers called the cops over soda. How absolutely pathetic do you have to be, to run the State, and have it send armed gunmen after a little girl who threw soda at you because you were trying to bully her.

Ah, the state of the world today...

[Theocrat]

How did that make the news?!

[ceakins]

Was she right for losing her temper and throwing the soda, probably not. However I have sympathy for her. This was at the mall not an abortion clinic, where children come and go. As a parent I've had to deal with these assholes in front of a movie theater showing a Disney movie, and I had to go to a different theater because of them. I confronted some old douche nozzle holding one of the signs. I am normally not a violent person. But it took all of my self control not to bitch slap the stupid cunt, and rip the sign out of her hand and stomp the shit out of it. To all you supporters of this kind of sign waving. Would you show your child porn, I know I wouldn't. This to me is the same kind of level. I'm the parent, it's my choice as to what or not what my child sees. NOT YOURS.

[Unspun]

Must be a slow newsday in Kitsap county.

[ceakins]

Must be a slow newsday in Kitsap county.

It's always a slow news day in my County. Though it was bigger news the other day when we had the OC'rs out in force to protest a stupid gun ban in local county parks, that isn't even enforceable do to state law preemption. Why the cops didn't arrest anyone, they know the law is un-enforceable.

But you should have seen the anti-gun nuts come out of the wood work.

[Dr.3D]

Yep, when words fail, the ignorant usually resort to some sort of violent act.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Ha. Fuckers called the cops over soda. How absolutely pathetic do you have to be, to run the State, and have it send armed gunmen after a little girl who threw soda at you because you were trying to bully her.

Ah, the state of the world today...

And what would have been an appropriate response? Punching the stupid bitch in the face?

[Theocrat]

Was she right for losing her temper and throwing the soda, probably not. However I have sympathy for her. This was at the mall not an abortion clinic, where children come and go. As a parent I've had to deal with these assholes in front of a movie theater showing a Disney movie, and I had to go to a different theater because of them. I confronted some old douche nozzle holding one of the signs. I am normally not a violent person. But it took all of my self control not to bitch slap the stupid cunt, and rip the sign out of her hand and stomp the shit out of it. To all you supporters of this kind of sign waving. Would you show your child porn, I know I wouldn't. This to me is the same kind of level. I'm the parent, it's my choice as to what or not what my child sees. NOT YOURS.

Your problem is the graphic level of the signs shown in public, not the soda which was thrown in response to it. The graphic signs are used to illustrate what abortion truly is because the debate over abortion is always moved to the topic of a person's choice. That is irrelevant when discussing whether abortion should be legal or not, and the graphic signs help remind the public that the controversy is not based on choice, but rather, on what abortion actually is, what it looks like, and the effects of it upon the victim killed in the womb. Does that clear up the reason for why anti-baby killers use graphic signs, ceakins?

[Dr.3D]

And what would have been an appropriate response? Punching the stupid bitch in the face?

Na, then she would have called the state and had armed gunmen come after the one who punched her in the face.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Yep, when words fail, the ignorant usually resort to some sort of violent act.

In my opinion, these kids aren't even using words or thoughts, at least not their own anyway.

It is simply conveyed that it is the politically correct thing in the media and popular culture, and many kids just adopt that.

They wouldn't want to be seen as uncool or anything.

[ceakins]

Your problem is the graphic level of the signs shown in public, not the soda which was thrown in response to it. The graphic signs are used to illustrate what abortion truly is because the debate over abortion is always moved to the topic of a person's choice. That is irrelevant when discussing whether abortion should be legal or not, and the graphic signs help remind the public that the controversy is not based on choice, but rather, on what abortion actually is, what it looks like, and the effects of it upon the victim killed in the womb. Does that clear up the reason for why anti-baby killers use graphic signs, ceakins?

No it doesn't. You take the choice of what my child should see as far as graphic images goes out of my hands the parent. You're not allowed to show images of people in coitus do to community standards, well this is the same for me. I don't show my child either.

[klamath]

Was she right for losing her temper and throwing the soda, probably not. However I have sympathy for her. This was at the mall not an abortion clinic, where children come and go. As a parent I've had to deal with these assholes in front of a movie theater showing a Disney movie, and I had to go to a different theater because of them. I confronted some old douche nozzle holding one of the signs. I am normally not a violent person. But it took all of my self control not to bitch slap the stupid cunt, and rip the sign out of her hand and stomp the shit out of it. To all you supporters of this kind of sign waving. Would you show your child porn, I know I wouldn't. This to me is the same kind of level. I'm the parent, it's my choice as to what or not what my child sees. NOT YOURS.
Yeaw I feel the same way every time I see war protesters posting signs of colaterally damaged children, pictures of torture or other gross images of war. Those picture should never be shown. Takes all my self control not to call up my Airforce buddy and have him firebomb the whole protest. I would never show my children those images or pictures of the flags being destroyed. :rolleyes:

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

No it doesn't. You take the choice of what my child should see as far as graphic images goes out of my hands the parent. You're not allowed to show images of people in coitus do to community standards, well this is the same for me. I don't show my child either.

Yea, cause goddamn, it sucks that people have Free Speech that offends my sensibilities. Do it for the children. They must be protected at all costs, unless they haven't been born yet. Yea, I just loves me some Cognitive Dissonance. :rolleyes:

[sailor]

In my opinion, these kids aren't even using words or thoughts, at least not their own anyway.

It is simply conveyed that it is the politically correct thing in the media and popular culture, and many kids just adopt that.



You`re probably right.

[ceakins]

Yea, cause goddamn, it sucks that people have Free Speech that offends my sensibilities. Do it for the children. They must be protected at all costs, unless they haven't been born yet. Yea, I just loves me some Cognitive Dissonance. :rolleyes:

Can I show sexual acts on a sign? Then STFU.

[jkr]

dats assult YOOOOOOOO

[dr. hfn]

Abortion is murder and makes our society less responsible

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Can I show sexual acts on a sign? Then STFU.

Yea, cause having kids ignorant of what actually happens to produce babies is wrong. Newsflash, kids are already exposed many times to sexual images by the time they're in first grade.

[dannno]

In my opinion, these kids aren't even using words or thoughts, at least not their own anyway.

It is simply conveyed that it is the politically correct thing in the media and popular culture, and many kids just adopt that.

They wouldn't want to be seen as uncool or anything.

Look, I am completely OK with other's beliefs that life starts at conception and we are protecting live children, therefore it is OK to be pro-life and libertarian.. HOWEVER, the opposite argument that the baby is still a part of the mother and part of her body is a completely rational view. You don't know when a fetus gains a soul, it could be when the baby is born. You don't know when the baby becomes really conscious of themselves. Nobody does. The fact is there is a perfectly valid argument for being pro-choice and libertarian as well. Both arguments are valid, and NOBODY knows the real answer. What gives you the right to protect a life that hasn't entered the world yet? What gives you the right to go after women who are doing something to their own body? You claim it is because there is another life in her body, but it could be HER life, it could be HER soul that is imparted into the fetus until birth, and maybe she is killing a part of her soul or maybe she is doing nothing.

I guarantee all the women out there who are saying "it's my body" are acting with their libertarian spirit. It is really unfortunate that some of them cannot apply that to other systems of belief, but the fact remains it is a valid libertarian position to be pro-choice. Both views are rational and valid.

[Brian4Liberty]

I like to watch the Discovery channel while eating dinner. Nothing makes a steak taste better than watching a lion enjoying a tasty gazelle at the same time. :D The little woman freaks out though...then she freaks again when the next channel is surgery where they are removing a 200 lb tumor or an absorbed congenital twin or something. Oh well. Some people have such weak stomachs.

Then she wants to watch Jon & Kate plus 8. Then I get sick... ;)

[ceakins]

Yea, cause having kids ignorant of what actually happens to produce babies is wrong. Newsflash, kids are already exposed many times to sexual images by the time they're in first grade.

Your deflect failed. Answer the question.

[Theocrat]

No it doesn't. You take the choice of what my child should see as far as graphic images goes out of my hands the parent. You're not allowed to show images of people in coitus do to community standards, well this is the same for me. I don't show my child either.

Just like most acts of discretion, the parent can always cover the eyes of his or her child when approaching such pictures. That, however, does not change the truth of what the pictures portray.

We also must stick to intents here. Someone who holds up graphic adult signs of sexuality has to have a civil or moral reason for why such pictures are being portrayed in public. If it is done just because anti-baby killers hold up graphic signs to show the atrocity of abortion, then that is not a rational or legitimate cause. It is generally accepted that sexual acts are private affairs, and therefore, they should be kept in private (unless you're gay, then it's okay).

Personally, I don't see any cogent reason why one would even want to hold up sexual signs, but it makes perfect sense to me why one would hold up a graphic sign of abortion. If the general public and media did a better job of discussing the issue of abortion without the red herrings of woman's right and personal choice, then perhaps the graphic signs would not have to be used as illustrations for why abortion should be illegal and thus, classified as murder.

[ceakins]

Just like most acts of discretion, the parent can always cover the eyes of his or her child when approaching such pictures. That, however, does not change the truth of what the pictures portray.

We also must stick to intents here. Someone who holds up graphic adult signs of sexuality has to have a civil or moral reason for why such pictures are being portrayed in public. If it is done just because anti-baby killers hold up graphic signs to show the atrocity of abortion, then that is not a rational or legitimate cause. It is generally accepted that sexual acts are private affairs, and therefore, they should be kept in private (unless you're gay, then it's okay).

Personally, I don't see any cogent reason why one would even want to hold up sexual signs, but it makes perfect sense to me why one would hold up a graphic sign of abortion. If the general public and media did a better job of discussing the issue of abortion without the red herrings of woman's right and personal choice, then perhaps the graphic signs would not have to be used as illustrations for why abortion should be illegal and thus, classified as murder.

Ya it's so fucking practical to cover the eyes of a kid while your driving down the road, oh and so safe too. This was at a mall on a public street. Abortions are private affairs also. Between a woman and her doctor.

[angelatc]

Ya it's so fucking practical to cover the eyes of a kid while your driving down the road, oh and so safe too. This was at a mall on a public street. Abortions are private affairs also. Between a woman and her doctor.

I was probably 8 when somebody at a state fair handed me a pamphlet with some graphic abortion pictures. It shaped my opinion, but it didn't cause me any harm.

Leave your kids home if the world scares you.

[AuH20]

Ya it's so fucking practical to cover the eyes of a kid while your driving down the road, oh and so safe too. This was at a mall on a public street. Abortions are private affairs also. Between a woman and her doctor.

Not when Planned Parenthood is being propped up by federal tax money. If it's truly private, there shouldn't be any assistance.

[ceakins]

I was probably 8 when somebody at a state fair handed me a pamphlet with some graphic abortion pictures. It shaped my opinion, but it didn't cause me any harm.

Leave your kids home if the world scares you.

Go get bent.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Look, I am completely OK with other's beliefs that life starts at conception and we are protecting live children, therefore it is OK to be pro-life and libertarian.. HOWEVER, the opposite argument that the baby is still a part of the mother and part of her body is a completely rational view. You don't know when a fetus gains a soul, it could be when the baby is born. You don't know when the baby becomes really conscious of themselves. Nobody does. The fact is there is a perfectly valid argument for being pro-choice and libertarian as well. Both arguments are valid, and NOBODY knows the real answer. What gives you the right to protect a life that hasn't entered the world yet? What gives you the right to go after women who are doing something to their own body? You claim it is because there is another life in her body, but it could be HER life, it could be HER soul that is imparted into the fetus until birth, and maybe she is killing a part of her soul or maybe she is doing nothing.

I guarantee all the women out there who are saying "it's my body" are acting with their libertarian spirit. It is really unfortunate that some of them cannot apply that to other systems of belief, but the fact remains it is a valid libertarian position to be pro-choice. Both views are rational and valid.

Everyone can do as they wish, to a certain degree. If someone wanted to shoot their neighbors, that's up to them.

You mention a " soul " and state that no one knows when this soul takes residence in the " fetus " I would venture there are a few who might know.

But regardless of the timing of the soul issue, there is a spirit that wishes to be born in this world. To deny that wish causes a grief that is hard to imagine.

Have you ever seen the spirit of an aborted baby ? Not even having had the time for a proper body to form, they look grotesque, almost cartoonish, not even able to properly voice their anguish. Finally manifesting their bitterness and grief in this world as bombings, atrocities, disasters, etc. This is known as vengeful energy or vengeful spirit.

I am not arguing a right or wrong here, just pointing out a spiritual fact.

People can do as they wish, but there is nothing beyond the dynamic of give and take in this world.

[ceakins]

Not when Planned Parenthood is being propped up by federal tax money.

Really now? I think you're full of shit. I know someone that went in to get a pregnancy test, they didn't even ask for a social number. Besides I don't think fed money should be going to charities.

[AuH20]

Really now? I think you're full of shit. I know someone that went in to get a pregnancy test, they didn't even ask for a social number. Besides I don't think fed money should be going to charities.

Planned Parenthood received 350 million dollars from the federal government last year. If it's a private matter as you say, the government shouldn't be subsidizing it. The government shouldn't be telling what a woman should with her body, but it's certainly okay for Uncle Sam to pay for it?:confused: I know you'd agree with me.

[Freedom 4 all]

How did that make the news?!

That's exactly what I was thinking.

[angelatc]

Go get bent.

You're their role model?

[ceakins]

Planned Parenthood received 350 million dollars from the federal government last year. If it's a private matter as you say, the government shouldn't be subsidizing it. The government shouldn't be telling what a woman should with her body, but it's certainly okay for Uncle Sam to pay for it?:confused: I know you'd agree with me.

I agree that the government shouldn't be paying for it.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

And where does the government get the money to pay for it ?

[AuH20]

I agree that the government shouldn't be paying for it.

Well, sir. I commend you on that stand. I wish there were more people like you out there.

[ceakins]

Do you even know what that means?

Uh ya it's a nicer way of telling you to go get fucked.

[Dr.3D]

And where does the government get the money to pay for it ?

From a great number of people who oppose the practice in the first place.

Indirectly, they are making people who oppose the practice, pay for it.

[ceakins]

From a great number of people who oppose the practice in the first place.

Indirectly, they are making people who oppose the practice, pay for it.

And I agree we or anyone else should pay for you, mine or anyone else's health care. But on the same token, I don't think I should have the choice of what I let my child see taken away from me.

[Theocrat]

Ya it's so fucking practical to cover the eyes of a kid while your driving down the road, oh and so safe too. This was at a mall on a public street. Abortions are private affairs also. Between a woman and her doctor.

I agree that you would not be able to have discretion for your child at all times (such as covering the eyes of your child as you're driving by a graphic abortion sign), but that is when you have to intervene as a parent by educating your child as to the reasons why such graphic signs are used by anti-baby killers (as I explained to you earlier in the thread).

I also agree with you that abortions are private affairs, and that is why they should not be. Abortion is murder, and it should be punished publicly as such, just as all murder is civilly punished. A murder is simply the relationship between a murderer or murderers and his or their victim(s). That does not make it a legitimate private affair by reason of the act itself.

[He Who Pawns]

I really wish religious people would stop trying to impose their religious beliefs about abortion on everyone else through the legal system.

[ceakins]

You're their role model?

And you're a judgmental ass.

[ceakins]

I agree that you would not be able to have discretion for your child at all times (such as covering the eyes of your child as you're driving by a graphic abortion sign), but that is when you have to intervene as a parent by educating your child as to the reasons why such graphic signs are used by anti-baby killers (as I explained to you earlier in the thread).

I also agree with you that abortions are private affairs, and that is why they should not be. Abortion is murder, and it should be punished publicly as such, just as all murder is civilly punished. A murder is simply the relationship between a murderer or murderers and his or their victim(s). That does not make it a legitimate private affair by reason of the act itself.

So basically in a nutshell you are saying, we don't give a shit about showing graphic images to children, and fuck you for wanting to be able to make choices for your child.

A moving vehicle is not the place to have these conversations. You could be turned away dealing with traffic and not see them. You are taking that choice away from me.

[kahless]

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson

Amazing that we have people in a Ron Paul forum that are either for our tax dollars going to fund abortions both here and overseas or are against freedom to protest. I also have a difficult time believing the posts about blocking malls. I have yet to see a protest that was not at near a clinic or in a public park away from businesses. Which is probably because of permit issues and businesses refusal to allow the protest. Sounds like we have people just making shit up to support their stance for abortion.

btw - add our funding of Planned Parenthood overseas as another reason why they hate us. Why the hell are spending money for abortions in other countries. It is just nuts.

[Sean]

Almost all government power grabs are now based on needing to do it for the children. So its ok to kill the children in the womb, but once they are out we can trample on everyones right and use children as the excuse.

[Theocrat]

So basically in a nutshell you are saying, we don't give a shit about showing graphic images to children, and fuck you for wanting to be able to make choices for your child.

A moving vehicle is not the place to have these conversations. You could be turned away dealing with traffic and not see them. You are taking that choice away from me.

No. The choice is still available for the parent who does not want their child to see such images that they not have them look at it, but it is the parent who has the power to enforce that discretion upon the children, not the State.

There are many images in the world which I may not want to behold, so I take the appropriate and responsible measures to not look upon them. However, anti-baby killers have just as much of a choice to show graphic images of crimes committed in order to educate the public, whether some agree with it or not. The only harm done is to deny them the freedom of doing so.

The world does not revolve around you, ceakins. If there are images you don't agree with or like seeing, then you have to take it upon yourself to disregard those images in a respectful and expedient way. Is that not the essence of liberty? Usually the graphic images are not for little children, anyway. Rather, they are for the adults who refuse to see the truth of what happens in an abortion.

[ceakins]

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson

Amazing that we have people in a Ron Paul forum that are either for our tax dollars going to fund abortions both here and overseas or are against freedom to protest. I also have a difficult time believing the posts about blocking malls. I have yet to see a protest that was not at near a clinic or in a public park away from businesses. Which is probably because of permit issues and businesses refusal to allow the protest. Sounds like we have people just making shit up to support their stance for abortion.

btw - add our funding of Planned Parenthood overseas as another reason why they hate us. Why the hell are spending money for abortions in other countries. It is just nuts.

Here's the video straight from the protest group, notice it's in front of Kitsap Mall. Woops I made you look dumb for calling me a liar.

YouTube - Pro-Choice Violence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NODh6OFWHTk)

Also note I've already said three fucking times in this thread, I DON'T SUPPORT GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR THESE CLINICS!

[ceakins]

Rather, they are for the adults who refuse to see the truth of what happens in an abortion.

If that was true, they wouldn't be standing in front of fucking malls, or a goddamn fucking movie theater showing Disney movies, so I call bullshit on you.

[Theocrat]

If that was true, they wouldn't be standing in front of fucking malls, or a goddamn fucking movie theater showing Disney movies, so I call bullshit on you.

Why do you think they would do that?

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's the video straight from the protest group, notice it's in front of Kitsap Mall. Woops I made you look dumb for calling me a liar.


Target provides abortions now? I always figured Walmart would beat them to that, complete with equipment and "doctors" from China... The competition would put American abortion providers out of business. A free market solution!

[ceakins]

Why do you think they would do that?

Because they are evil scum bags. Does it do anything other than piss people off? No it doesn't. People of Kitsap keep voting for neo-liberals. And that's what you don't get, you are helping drive people to vote for candidates that distance themselves from your cause. The typical voter isn't going to sit there and think about the issue when you throw it in their face like this, their going to get pissed off at you because you just showed dead babies to their kid, and vote for the guy that isn't supporting this group.

If you read the thread on the news site, there are people in there saying I'm anti-abortion but I don't appreciate you showing these kinds of images to my children, and ending up with "nut jobs". Is your goal to educate or just turn people off?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Your deflect failed. Answer the question.

You know what I find ironic? Your stance on this 'issue', there is your signature for all to see. Yea, I'm thinking you're a hypocrite.

[ceakins]

Are you against showing sexual images on a sign to protest the various attempts at keeping adults from viewing porn on the internet?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Are you against showing sexual images on a sign to protest the various attempts at keeping adults from viewing porn on the internet?

No.

[ceakins]

No.

You would be the first anti-abortionist I've come across that wasn't hypocritical in this regard.

And now do you think you would arrested if you did such a thing?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

You would be the first anti-abortionist I've come across that wasn't hypocritical in this regard.

I'm not religious.


And now do you think you would arrested if you did such a thing?

I can be arrested for telling a cop to go fuck himself. Arresting someone doesn't mean a crime has been committed.

[ceakins]

I'm not religious.



I can be arrested for telling a cop to go fuck himself. Arresting someone doesn't mean a crime has been committed.

Now who's disconnected. It's either all or nothing. You would be arrested for showing those kinds of images, so if we ban porn on signs, then why is this different?

[LBennett76]

Instead of getting upset at what your child is being exposed to or trying to cover their eyes, why don't you use the opportunity to educate your child about it. Explain your views, not only on abortion, but whether you think what the protesters are doing is appropriate. Everything your kids encounter is a learning experience. Teach them what you feel so they know where you stand and also explain why the people are there and why they stand for what they do. Open up a dialogue. I've explained many things to my son and I always explain both sides. I also mention if I think someone is going too far in my opinion. But I also mention that it is MY opinion.

[dannno]

Instead of getting upset at what your child is being exposed to or trying to cover their eyes, why don't you use the opportunity to educate your child about it. Explain your views, not only on abortion, but whether you think what the protesters are doing is appropriate. Everything your kids encounter is a learning experience. Teach them what you feel so they know where you stand and also explain why the people are there and why they stand for what they do. Open up a dialogue. I've explained many things to my son and I always explain both sides. I also mention if I think someone is going too far in my opinion. But I also mention that it is MY opinion.

That's what I'm talkin about. Well, technically I haven't said anything like that, it's just a figure of speech for "I agree with you" ;)

You're not going to be able to shield them forever. I also think it is important to present both sides to your children so it doesn't confuse them when they encounter the opposing view. Otherwise they may think you were hiding something from them.

[Theocrat]

Because they are evil scum bags. Does it do anything other than piss people off? No it doesn't. People of Kitsap keep voting for neo-liberals. And that's what you don't get, you are helping drive people to vote for candidates that distance themselves from your cause. The typical voter isn't going to sit there and think about the issue when you throw it in their face like this, their going to get pissed off at you because you just showed dead babies to their kid, and vote for the guy that isn't supporting this group.

If you read the thread on the news site, there are people in there saying I'm anti-abortion but I don't appreciate you showing these kinds of images to my children, and ending up with "nut jobs". Is your goal to educate or just turn people off?

No, they protest there because it has a high visibility to the public. Their effort is to educate as many people about the evils of abortion as possible, so naturally, they are going to choose a place which many people will be. No one protests in a back-alley, after all.

[ceakins]

Instead of getting upset at what your child is being exposed to or trying to cover their eyes, why don't you use the opportunity to educate your child about it. Explain your views, not only on abortion, but whether you think what the protesters are doing is appropriate. Everything your kids encounter is a learning experience. Teach them what you feel so they know where you stand and also explain why the people are there and why they stand for what they do. Open up a dialogue. I've explained many things to my son and I always explain both sides. I also mention if I think someone is going too far in my opinion. But I also mention that it is MY opinion.

She's 5, and that's rather hard to do when you driving down the road. As I've said before. There is a hypocritical disconnect. Someone would get arrested for having signs of people having sex on them, yet this is just as offensive if not more so to me. It's hypocritical to be fore banning one set of images when yourself is showing something that's offensive to other people.

[Dr.3D]

She's 5, and that's rather hard to do when you driving down the road. As I've said before. There is a hypocritical disconnect. Someone would get arrested for having signs of people having sex on them, yet this is just as offensive if not more so to me. It's hypocritical to be fore banning one set of images when yourself is showing something that's offensive to other people.

It seems what is offensive is in the eye of the beholder.

Those who are offended are probably the ones who don't want to think about what they would be doing to a baby if they had an abortion.

[ceakins]

It seems what is offensive is in the eye of the beholder.

Those who are offended are probably the ones who don't want to think about what they would be doing to a baby if they had an abortion.

Ya, because clearly I aborted my child. Maybe you need smaller words.

[Dr.3D]

Ya, because clearly I aborted my child. Maybe you need smaller words.

Well, then that would explain it.
I don't know how I can use any simpler smaller words that what I did.

Let's put it this way, perhaps those who are offended, don't want to think about what happens when a baby is aborted.

Is that better?

[LibForestPaul]

So basically in a nutshell you are saying, we don't give a shit about showing graphic images to children, and fuck you for wanting to be able to make choices for your child.

A moving vehicle is not the place to have these conversations. You could be turned away dealing with traffic and not see them. You are taking that choice away from me.

Oh noz, not the signs, anything but the signs, halp me lord, halp me...my eyz, theyz burnin ...

[LibForestPaul]

Thinks of the children, what a lame excuse. Go to a different theater, wow... who would of thunk it...you did! BRAVO!

[dannno]

Well, then that would explain it.


He was being sarcastic.. his kid clearly wasn't aborted because she was with him during the incident.

[dannno]

I think gal bladder removal surgeries should be illegal. What if the gal bladder has a soul??

http://www.surgery.ucsf.edu/eastbaytrauma/images/steinmanpin-gross.jpg


Or should protesting gal bladder surgeries be illegal?



Hmmmmm..

[klamath]

She's 5, and that's rather hard to do when you driving down the road. As I've said before. There is a hypocritical disconnect. Someone would get arrested for having signs of people having sex on them, yet this is just as offensive if not more so to me. It's hypocritical to be fore banning one set of images when yourself is showing something that's offensive to other people.

"These photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib"- Obama
So the torture pictures need to be sensation before they are released?"

So if we establish that showing photos causes harm to the viewer or others they should be banned from public viewing. You're making a good case for not releasing torture pictures:rolleyes:

[Dr.3D]

He was being sarcastic.. his kid clearly wasn't aborted because she was with him during the incident.

Notice I said
if they had an abortion.

This would be pointing toward a possible future event.

No need for sarcasm was there?

[Carole]

Isn't a mall private property? How were they able to protest on private property? Just curious.

[sailor]

Isn't a mall private property? How were they able to protest on private property? Just curious.

Finally a relevant question.

If the owner was fine with it then it is fine. If he wasn`t then it isn`t fine. Really no need for all of this.

[Original_Intent]

Look, I am completely OK with other's beliefs that life starts at conception and we are protecting live children, therefore it is OK to be pro-life and libertarian.. HOWEVER, the opposite argument that the baby is still a part of the mother and part of her body is a completely rational view. You don't know when a fetus gains a soul, it could be when the baby is born. You don't know when the baby becomes really conscious of themselves. Nobody does. The fact is there is a perfectly valid argument for being pro-choice and libertarian as well. Both arguments are valid, and NOBODY knows the real answer. What gives you the right to protect a life that hasn't entered the world yet? What gives you the right to go after women who are doing something to their own body? You claim it is because there is another life in her body, but it could be HER life, it could be HER soul that is imparted into the fetus until birth, and maybe she is killing a part of her soul or maybe she is doing nothing.

I guarantee all the women out there who are saying "it's my body" are acting with their libertarian spirit. It is really unfortunate that some of them cannot apply that to other systems of belief, but the fact remains it is a valid libertarian position to be pro-choice. Both views are rational and valid.

Check the DNA - if it is her DNA, fine, it's her life. If it isn't her DNA, then it is not her body, how could it be her life?

As far as being conscious - if I am in surgery and under anesthesia - I don't have any rights? or comatose? etc etc. the self conscious argument doesn;t seem to be a valid one to my reasoning. Enlighten me.

Third and final point. You say it might be a life it might not, therefore both viewpoints are valid. I disagree, if there is a grey area where something might or might not be a human life (not based on what a bunch of robes say, but based on if scientifically it is in the realm of reasonable possibility) then the only rational choice is to err on the side of caution, again my opinion, but I think based on strong logic.

I will be the first to admit there are all kinds of circumstances that might make abortion, if not right, at least a legitimate choice. But "abortions of convenience" = cold blooded murder. That doesn't mean I condone vigilante retribution killings of abortionists either - I don't.

[Original_Intent]

So basically in a nutshell you are saying, we don't give a shit about showing graphic images to children, and fuck you for wanting to be able to make choices for your child.

A moving vehicle is not the place to have these conversations. You could be turned away dealing with traffic and not see them. You are taking that choice away from me.

Ban the gay parades, public indoctrination of the gay agenda in public schools, etc. and I am so right there with you ceakins!

[Brassmouth]

I just refreshed the page from when I posted this morning. An abortion debate has developed since then. Given the title at this thread, I can't help but laugh.

[Dr.3D]

I think gal bladder removal surgeries should be illegal. What if the gal bladder has a soul??

http://www.surgery.ucsf.edu/eastbaytrauma/images/steinmanpin-gross.jpg


Or should protesting gal bladder surgeries be illegal?



Hmmmmm..

If the gal bladder is one day naturally expelled from the body would it be able to live a life of it's own?

[Brian4Liberty]

Things were so much simpler in the olden times...


As soon as a child was born in Sparta, the mother would wash it with wine, in order to make sure that it was strong. If the child was weak, it would die soon. Later it was brought by his father to the elders, who inspected carefully the newborn infant. If they found that the child was deformed or weakly, they threw it into Kaiada, the so called Apothetae, a chiasm at a cliff, of the mount Taygetos.

http://www.sikyon.com/sparta/agogi_eg.html

[sailor]

Things were so much simpler in the olden times...

As soon as a child was born in Sparta, the mother would wash it with wine, in order to make sure that it was strong. If the child was weak, it would die soon. Later it was brought by his father to the elders, who inspected carefully the newborn infant. If they found that the child was deformed or weakly, they threw it into Kaiada, the so called Apothetae, a chiasm at a cliff, of the mount Taygetos.


Sparta was the first totalitarian state. No wonder they practised eugenics.

[apropos]

Sparta was the first totalitarian state. No wonder they practised eugenics.

Without that totalitarian state, the Western World and all our ideas of liberty would have turned out much differently.

[ceakins]

Isn't a mall private property? How were they able to protest on private property? Just curious.

They were in front of the mall, the road is still public property.

[ceakins]

"These photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib"- Obama
So the torture pictures need to be sensation before they are released?"

So if we establish that showing photos causes harm to the viewer or others they should be banned from public viewing. You're making a good case for not releasing torture pictures:rolleyes:

No I'm arguing that the same dumb shit anti-abortionist extremist wouldn't miss a heart beat and call the cops if you walked across your own property naked, or had anything of a sexual nature on a sign. They are hypocrites. I'm not arguing for or against abortion.

[ceakins]

Notice I said

This would be pointing toward a possible future event.

No need for sarcasm was there?

Except dumb shit, neither me and or my wife believes in having an abortion.

[Dr.3D]

Except dumb shit, neither me and or my wife believes in having an abortion.

Your resorting to name calling isn't called for. I won't stoop that level.

Since you say neither of you believes in having an abortion, it still doesn't excuse you from being offended by pictures of what happens when a baby is aborted.

Obviously, you are offended for some reason. If it isn't because you don't like to think about what happens to a baby when it is aborted, then what is the reason?

And I could give a darned if you walked across my lawn with nothing on. Go ahead, that doesn't offend me in the least.

[kahless]

Here's the video straight from the protest group, notice it's in front of Kitsap Mall.
YouTube - Pro-Choice Violence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NODh6OFWHTk)


They are no where near the entrance to Target. You enter the parking lot not even close to them and from the entrance you cannot even see them. You would have to intentional go out of your way to meet up with the protesters if you were going to Target.

Your claims are bogus.

[kahless]

Isn't a mall private property? How were they able to protest on private property? Just curious.

The claim is bogus it was not on mall property. See video above.

[ceakins]

They are no where near the entrance to Target. You enter the parking lot not even close to them and from the entrance you cannot even see them. You would have to intentional go out of your way to meet up with the protesters if you were going to Target.

You claims are bogus.

Oh look at this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Target+Silverdale,+wa&sll=47.659086,-122.691901&sspn=0.01029,0.027895&ie=UTF8&ll=47.658198,-122.689927&spn=0.005145,0.013947&t=h&z=17

Oh look I made you look like a retard. That corner was Kitsap Mall Blvd and Randall way.

[ceakins]

The claim is bogus it was not on mall property. See video above.

You're a fucking liar, see google maps.

[kahless]

You're a fucking liar, see google maps.

Are you blind, look at the video.

[Original_Intent]

They were in front of the mall, the road is still public property.


The claim is bogus it was not on mall property. See video above.


You're a fucking liar, see google maps.

I don't get this. ceakins says they were on public property. Then kahless says it was NOT mall property, Then ceakins call kahless a ^&*(ing liar.

And to add to the amusement, ceakins is usually reduced to name calling in any discussion, and then brags about how much smarter than everyone he is because he obviously pwned them in the argument.

It's them redneck debating skills ftw.

[ceakins]

I don't get this. ceakins says they were on public property. Then kahless says it was NOT mall property, Then ceakins call kahless a ^&*(ing liar.

And to add to the amusement, ceakins is usually reduced to name calling in any discussion, and then brags about how much smarter than everyone he is because he obviously pwned them in the argument.

It's them redneck debating skills ftw.

Uh he called me liar much earlier in the thread. You missed one. When you act like a troll I'm not willing to debate with you.

[klamath]

No I'm arguing that the same dumb shit anti-abortionist extremist wouldn't miss a heart beat and call the cops if you walked across your own property naked, or had anything of a sexual nature on a sign. They are hypocrites. I'm not arguing for or against abortion.
You made your opinions know about abortion on another thread. Every post you made was against people that believed it was wrong.
I sure wouldn't want to see you naked but sure as hell wouldn't call the police. I sure don't want to see what goes on at a gay pride parade but I sure don't think I should be calling the police. Do you believe gay pride marches should be banned?
As with pictures of war and torture people need to know what our laws and policies are rendering.

[Original_Intent]

Uh he called me liar much earlier in the thread. You missed one. When you act like a troll I'm not willing to debate with you.

Uhm the quote you POSTED of kahless that you call them a *&^%(ing liar, all they saiud was that it was NOT on mall property. You responded "You are a fucking liar. See google maps."

So was it mall property or not? and if it was not, then why quote kahless saying it was not and then calling them a liar?

This is not a matter of debate, and what would be the point anyway, since your highest form of an argument is foul language and name calling. I seriously pity that 5 year old daughter of yours that you are so concerned about if you are the best example of a role model she has to look to.

You've obviously got some rage management issues to address as well, you can't even have a civil discussion about anything as far as I have seen.