# "War on Women"



## leoanne (Feb 7, 2011)

You are very brave. My daughter was in medical school in Boston and upset her classmates because she refused to march in a parade re: a woman's "right to choose" (i.e. abortion).She and I believe in the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. Needless to say, she was in the minority but still holds to those beliefs.


----------



## advocate (Oct 12, 2013)

Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
Pattie Hunt


----------



## Kyba (Oct 12, 2011)

Oh Misery. Another holier than thou. Please go back to your knitting. You aren't as moral as you think yourself. This is insulting.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Kyba said:


> Oh Misery. Another holier than thou. Please go back to your knitting. You aren't as moral as you think yourself. This is insulting.


I agree. Harsh invective and hateful words like "slut" are not going to win any converts to the pro-life movement.


----------



## Patforster (Jan 13, 2013)

My sentiments exactly. This section is designed to voice our opinions about ANYTHING. I cannot understand how anyone can kill a child.


----------



## yorkie1 (Sep 5, 2011)

knitting, crocheting, all other crafts, ladies, PLEASE!!!


----------



## qramadolly (Sep 22, 2012)

I agree with joeysmom, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I may not agree with what you say but i respect your right to say it.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 25, 2011)

Thank you JoeySomma....I agree with you 100 percent.


----------



## advocate (Oct 12, 2013)

You people need to stay out of our Doctor's offices, out of our bedrooms and out of our politics.
Bye Pattie


----------



## jzx330 (Oct 11, 2013)

I resent a bunch of MEN in congress telling me what to do with my body and that who make most the laws. I AM PRO CHOICE AND ALWAYS BE. Lets stick to yarn subjects and a good recipee now and then.


----------



## RosieC (Feb 14, 2012)

sometimes in the chat section, things take a serious turn. we all know it's not always about crafts. no one forces us to come here and no one chooses which posts to read - that's up to us.


----------



## Grannie Sandy (Jan 13, 2014)

As a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, I know one of the reasons I was not promoted to Major was because I refused to participate in abortions--so I lost a career because of my religious beliefs--unlimited abortion is wrong. I do not believe you have a right to call any woman a slut because she does not totally agree with you. I think health care plans should provide nearly free sterilization proceedures to men and women who do not want children or who are abusers of children. People who do not want to be parents should not be condemed by those who want to make everyone fit a certain profile. Not every woman can or will be a good or adequate mother. Let's not force these women into a role they are do not want. Unfortunately the Republican party has a group of "one role fits all women" in their midst. That group wants to limit the freedom of people who do not agree with them. The proper spacing of children allows a woman to recover from pregnancy and spend more time with the infant she has before preparing for any subsequent children. Societies that prevent family planning have higher poverty and illiteracy rates than those that promote it. Every child should be born into a family that wants it. The Beethoven argement is stupid because it implies that less gifted children are a booby prize rather than a joy for themselves. We should encourage more adoptions because we still have so many children in orphanages and foster care. Let me say that we could all knit or crochet some items of clothing for a child in an orphanage or foster care. It means a lot to that child. We should NEVER CONDEM a mother who has chosen life rather than abortion. We should never call a child "ILLEGITIMATE or BASTARD." The parents acted outside the laws of matrimony not the child. Please let us RESPECT others right to their beliefs without condeming them.


----------



## Kathie (Mar 29, 2011)

Here we go again. KP has been quiet and pleasant for awhile and now this has been introduced to stir up controversy. I know we can post on any subjects here but why would you want to start a fight again. We are so lucky to be able to voice our opinions in this country but we don't change anyone's minds with postings like this. Please lets be kind and gentle with each other. We all need to be kind whatever our opinions are.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I agree. Harsh invective and hateful words like "slut" are not going to win any converts to the pro-life movement.


If you read the post it was liberal groups promoting the term "slut pride", not conservatives.
No one wants anyone to raise a child that they don't want, but there are other alternatives. The fact is that the child being aborted will NEVER be. No one will know that person, ever. Every human is so unique that I shudder to think who has been aborted (killed).


----------



## Grannie Sandy (Jan 13, 2014)

Please stick around Pattie Hunt. Not voting will not win an election. You have a right to speak yea or nay as you believe. Please don't go away. Thank you.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> If you read the post it was liberal groups promoting the term "slut pride", not conservatives.
> No one wants anyone to raise a child that they don't want, but there are other alternatives. The fact is that the child being aborted will NEVER be. No one will know that person, ever. Every human is so unique that I shudder to think who has been aborted (killed).


Actually, you're right. The "slut parades" are protests organized by liberals--but they appear to have nothing to do with abortion, either for or against. This from Ask.com:

SlutWalk is a transnational movement of protest marches which began on April 3, 2011, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, with subsequent rallies occurring globally. Participants protest against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman's appearance, and call for an end to rape culture. The rallies began when Constable Michael Sanguinetti, a Toronto Police officer, suggested that to remain safe, "women should avoid dressing like sluts." The protest takes the form of a march, mainly by young women, where some dress as "sluts" in revealing attire. In the various Slutwalks around the world, it is usual to find speaker meetings and workshops, live music, sign-making sessions, leafleting, open microphones, chanting, dances, martial arts, and receptions or after-parties with refreshments. In many of the rallies and online, women speak publicly for the first time about their rapes, and many organizers are rape survivors themselves. Critics say that this approach is an example of women defining their sexuality on male terms,and "the pornification of protest."


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

While I am against abortion in general I would never blame a woman for a rape. Nothing gives the man a right to rape a woman. Period. I am glad we can discuss this in a mature way and not start name calling or being disrespectful. 
I may not agree with your beliefs but I will defend your right to voice it.


----------



## SKRB (Nov 14, 2013)

Joeysmma,
What is the purpose of posting such a subject on a fiber arts site? Posting an article written in such a way that it promotes contention and name calling? While you have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. When you post something like this, it is akin to setting the fire just to see who can be burned. Yes, this section is a general chat section, and this subject is not prohibited, but what is the purpose?


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Kathie said:


> Here we go again. KP has been quiet and pleasant for awhile and now this has been introduced to stir up controversy. I know we can post on any subjects here but why would you want to start a fight again. We are so lucky to be able to voice our opinions in this country but we don't change anyone's minds with postings like this. Please lets be kind and gentle with each other. We all need to be kind whatever our opinions are.


Well said, thank you

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I know this is a controversial subject and I will be called all sorts of names by the liberals and progressives. I found this article this morning and it needed to be shared. If this will save the life of one baby, all the name calling will be worth it.


It's fine for you to bring it up; it's a subject that's very important to you, and I can understand your wanting to prove your point by any legitimate means possible.

However, using the phrase "The Left believes" - as if "the Left" has only one opinion on this or any other subject - not only is illegitimate but spreads disinformation and propaganda. If you want a real discussion, don't _tell_ us what we "believe"; ask us what we believe and what we know. You'll find a lot of variation, a lot of thought, and a lot of sense. Have you ever asked anyone why she felt she needed to terminate her pregnancy? Give me a quote from her, and I'll participate in your discussion. But as it is now, I'll unwatch.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SKRB said:


> Joeysmma,
> What is the purpose of posting such a subject on a fiber arts site? Posting an article written in such a way that it promotes contention and name calling? While you have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. When you post something like this, it is akin to setting the fire just to see who can be burned. Yes, this section is a general chat section, and this subject is not prohibited, but what is the purpose?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## mojave (Oct 14, 2011)

Members of a local anti-abortion group are told to spread their message via every possible venue: letters to the editor, billboards, flyers, messages in every accessible forum, mommy meet-ups, cocktail/dinner parties, children's playdates, everywhere. They are told the message is more important than choosing an appropriate venue; being offensive is good. 
If the original poster follows this philosophy, expect more posts from her in this vein.


----------



## yorkie1 (Sep 5, 2011)

BYE!! ME TOO:-(


----------



## Daisybel (Nov 27, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I have seen and heard many stories of how glad their mother chose life for them, when the mother was encouraged to have an abortion. I have not heard of one who wished their mother would have chosen abortion.


I was born with depression and wish fervently that I had never been born. So now you have heard of someone! Living with depression is miserable torture.


----------



## mojave (Oct 14, 2011)

Daisybel said:


> I was born with depression and wish fervently that I had never been born. So now you have heard of someone! Living with depression is miserable torture.


I sincerely hope you find a course of treatment which moderates your depression enough for you to personally experience happiness. Managing the side effects of today's anti-depression pharmacopeia can be daunting. One of my friends does research in this area and she is enthusiastic about some new drugs now in testing phases. She said the side effects are much milder for most people.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Patforster said:


> My sentiments exactly. This section is designed to voice our opinions about ANYTHING. I cannot understand how anyone can kill a child.


People kill children and let them go hungry and homeless and hated every day, oh, you meant that bit of matter that cannot support itself outside the womb? BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz


----------



## Grannie Sandy (Jan 13, 2014)

I am sorry for your distress with depression. I am struggling right now too. I take comfort in that I have helped save some lives and helped some people. Looking for ways you have helped others may help you find a reason to go on living your best life possible. I hope you are able to find an active support group. That helped me a lot when I did. May the Good Lord bless your effort to go on living.


----------



## Grannie Sandy (Jan 13, 2014)

Killing the unwanted?? That sounds like the Nazi Himmel.


----------



## Daisybel (Nov 27, 2012)

mojave said:


> I sincerely hope you find a course of treatment which moderates your depression enough for you to personally experience happiness. Managing the side effects of today's anti-depression pharmacopeia can be daunting. One of my friends does research in this area and she is enthusiastic about some new drugs now in testing phases. She said the side effects are much milder for most people.


Thank you so much! I found, oddly, that the depression lessened slightly when I had chemotherapy and so far (five years later) it has stayed slightly less strong, thankfully. I shall look forward to the new treatments being tested now. I am very grateful indeed for your concern and I hope you will never find out for yourself what depression is like!


----------



## Daisybel (Nov 27, 2012)

Grannie Sandy said:


> I am sorry for your distress with depression. I am struggling right now too. I take comfort in that I have helped save some lives and helped some people. Looking for ways you have helped others may help you find a reason to go on living your best life possible. I hope you are able to find an active support group. That helped me a lot when I did. May the Good Lord bless your effort to go on living.


Thank you! I keep going because I have relatives who would be very upset if I didn't. Also I couldn't let my cats down. My work is in human rights field so that helps too. I'm sorry you are struggling too and do please send me a PM anytime if you want to talk!


----------



## wickedangel (Sep 9, 2012)

There are some subjects that simply should be avoided on this site, in the intrests of freindship. Apparently, this is one of them. this site is not for the airing of politics or propaganda for any side of the argument, nor for making accusations. it is for fellowship, sharing, fun, freindship.
In the words of Orry Maine...."If we are to be freinds George, there are some things we can never talk about".


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

advocate said:


> Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
> Pattie Hunt


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

advocate said:


> Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
> Pattie Hunt


Joey you are right. All you wanted to do is to discuss your point of view with people that may or may not agree with your stand on abortion, and the left comes in to ruin it using their classic plays from the 'playbook'. Like the quote above, the vile language used against people or groups they disagree with begins immediately. Then the name calling starts. Don't forget the passive aggressive whining about how this is a knitting site, knowing that the subject of 'War on Women' has nothing to do with learning cables, but they had to comment instead of just closing the tab. Quickly the men haters come around to stir the pot. Then the saber swingers come out about the raping of women.

Wonder how many of the tens of millions of aborted children were the product of rape? Then I wonder from that small subgroup of children what impact they could have made on the world as advocates for women and children of rape and abuse. Since I believe that a majority of abortions are done for convenience and not to save the life of the mother, shouldn't the man that participated in that tango have a choice in the abortion decision?

For a group of people that advocate 'choice' they certainly condemn anyone that chooses to think differently than they do. Wonder how many that are pro fetal murder are against the death penalty?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Daisybel said:


> I was born with depression and wish fervently that I had never been born. So now you have heard of someone! Living with depression is miserable torture.


I have suffered deep depression in the past and can only say I hope that something out there can help you. Hugs!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

wickedangel said:


> "If we are to be freinds George, there are some things we can never talk about".


I love that quote! I have a really good friend and there are some things we don't talk about. We are completely different when it come to politics and we decided from the beginning not to discuss politics.


----------



## kiwiannie (Jul 30, 2011)

No politics here thankyou,this is a nice careing forum that is world wideand NOT a place for US politics. :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:


----------



## kiwiannie (Jul 30, 2011)

THIS IS A KNITTING FORUM NOT A CHURCH PALPIT IF YOU WANT RELIGION THIS THE WRONG PLACE<AND OUR MEMBERS DONT LIKE BEING PREACHED TOO<GET A LIFE. :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:


----------



## kiwiannie (Jul 30, 2011)

THIS IS A KNITTING FORUM NOT A CHURCH PALPIT IF YOU WANT RELIGION THIS THE WRONG PLACE<AND OUR MEMBERS DONT LIKE BEING PREACHED TOO<GET A LIFE. :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:


----------



## missylam (Aug 27, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Joey you are right. All you wanted to do is to discuss your point of view with people that may or may not agree with your stand on abortion, and the left comes in to ruin it using their classic plays from the 'playbook'. Like the quote above, the vile language used against people or groups they disagree with begins immediately. Then the name calling starts. Don't forget the passive aggressive whining about how this is a knitting site, knowing that the subject of 'War on Women' has nothing to do with learning cables, but they had to comment instead of just closing the tab. Quickly the men haters come around to stir the pot. Then the saber swingers come out about the raping of women.
> 
> Wonder how many of the tens of millions of aborted children were the product of rape? Then I wonder from that small subgroup of children what impact they could have made on the world as advocates for women and children of rape and abuse. Since I believe that a majority of abortions are done for convenience and not to save the life of the mother, shouldn't the man that participated in that tango have a choice in the abortion decision?
> 
> For a group of people that advocate 'choice' they certainly condemn anyone that chooses to think differently than they do. Wonder how many that are pro fetal murder are against the death penalty?


Well said.


----------



## emuears (Oct 13, 2012)

SKRB said:


> Joeysmma,
> What is the purpose of posting such a subject on a fiber arts site? Posting an article written in such a way that it promotes contention and name calling? While you have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. When you post something like this, it is akin to setting the fire just to see who can be burned. Yes, this section is a general chat section, and this subject is not prohibited, but what is the purpose?


Thank you for saying this, I agree with you One hundred percent :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

I think the article was being a little simplistic in characterizing the "War on Women" as being _only_ about abortion. It is _so_ much more.

The Abortion issue is targeted against Planned Parenthood, who chose an unfortunate name that the right is taking advantage of. Planned Parenthood provides _complete_ health care to women all over the US that could not otherwise afford it. The attack against abortion has closed a lot of PP locations, depriving many women of _any_ health care! This idea is reinforced when you consider that the same people who are "anti abortion" are also against affordable health care, and they're against SNAP to feed babies and children of poor parents along with welfare in general, which you can't get unless you are low income _with children._

Those same people are part of the group that has been shipping our jobs overseas, and has now refused to extend the unemployment benefits, which will leave even more babies and children in addition to humans in general without the means to get food and shelter. They are also working to lower the amount of help available to homeless families. Being homeless is horrible. I can tell you that from experience. And being homeless with children is a horror that I couldn't have imagined if I hadn't seen it while I was homeless. They're also the same group that is supporting the bankers who have set up a situation where they're taking away families' homes _en masse!_

They are also part of a group that, now that they've failed to stop the Affordable Care Act, are trying to make sure that health care is not available as part of health insurance that covers any part of a human that is not possessed by a man.

If you look at the bigger picture, it paints an overall program that is set up to _kill_ the maximum number of US citizens, not just women, although they're aiming at women and children because they feel that these individuals are the most helpless.

I wanted to see this whole mindset as something being done by some people who are well-meaning, but misguided. I have examined it over and over again, and can only come to the conclusion that they are _deliberately_ setting up things to kill the maximum number of people.

This is not _just_ a war on women. Look at the big picture. The abortion issue is only a tiny part of what _should_ be called the war against American citizens, not just women!


----------



## Grandma M (Nov 18, 2011)

I'm with you on this issue


----------



## evesch (Apr 3, 2011)

advocate said:


> Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
> Pattie Hunt


This section IS for ANYTHING NOT knitting related. It is for OFF topic political, religious or anything else, jokes, etc, that someone wants to share. She has a right to her view and to share it. You have the right to click away from here to another subject if YOU do not LIKE it or AGREE with it! Get a LIFE,,,,literally and really abortion kills. And the feminist movement really did not help women as much as it hurt humanity.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Abortion is murder...there is a heartbeat at 18 days. 18 DAYS!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lostarts said:


> I think the article was being a little simplistic in characterizing the "War on Women" as being _only_ about abortion. It is _so_ much more.
> 
> The Abortion issue is targeted against Planned Parenthood, who chose an unfortunate name that the right is taking advantage of. Planned Parenthood provides _complete_ health care to women all over the US that could not otherwise afford it. The attack against abortion has closed a lot of PP locations, depriving many women of _any_ health care! This idea is reinforced when you consider that the same people who are "anti abortion" are also against affordable health care, and they're against SNAP to feed babies and children of poor parents along with welfare in general, which you can't get unless you are low income _with children._
> 
> ...


Thanks, you have presented a truly comprehensive view of who promotes a war on women.


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

I feel I should add something to my earlier post.

I do not mean to disagree with anyone or argue. If you feel insulted by what I wrote, please understand that I wrote what I have observed for myself, and what I believe to be true.

You are totally allowed to disagree with me, and you needn't feel that you have to notify me that you disagree.

But I would like to ask you to do one thing for me, please.

Understand that no matter how misguided you may think I am, it's _my_ opinion. You don't have to _agree_ with me. But if you don't agree, please keep your eyes open to what's happening around you. Watch and listen to what people are saying. And don't just listen, but understand what they're saying and think about the consequences of what they're saying.

If you really _think_ about what the conservatives, right, "pro-life," etc is saying, and the laws they're enacting not just as laws, but consider the ramifications for real people, I think you'll start to see that almost all of it will (sooner or later) kill some portion of the population.

Keep paying attention and thinking about it and try to prove me wrong to _yourself. You're_ the only person whose opinion really matters to you. Use your brain, carry things to their logical conclusion and prove me wrong to yourself! That will carry much more weight than telling me I'm wrong.

And, when you come to an intelligent, reasoned decision, don't forget to vote for what you believe in! Whether you agree with me or not.


----------



## Connie W (Aug 3, 2011)

Things been too pleasant on this site for you lately, Joeysomma? Take your hate elsewhere.


----------



## LittleRedHen (May 18, 2012)

Are you are willing to adopt the children these women don't want? If not, then perhaps it should be left to some one else to decide. And just so you know, I adopted 2 wonderful boys ages 3 & 6, there mothers could not or would not keep. But I still think it is her business not mine to make the choice right for her. I hope it was the right choice for her but it was definitely the right one for me.


----------



## gigi 722 (Oct 25, 2011)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Daisybel (Nov 27, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I'm so sorry to hear you have depression. I am hoping you can find treatment both medically and with support groups. Were there some happy times in your life? Please find someone to help you. I will pray that you find someone.


Thanks, but I get on OK from day to day. I had a happy childhood except for thinking I was mad. One of my happiest adult days was when I was 40 and found out I was depressed - at last I had a name for what was wrong and it wasn't my fault! I was able to stop feeling guilty and learn to cope with it. That helped a lot. Also, no one can make me live forever. If I'm still here aged 80 I'll take up camel racing or parachuting or something to try and sort things out that way.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

LittleRedHen said:


> Are you are willing to adopt the children these women don't want? If not, then perhaps it should be left to some one else to decide. And just so you know, I adopted 2 wonderful boys ages 3 & 6, there mothers could not or would not keep. But I still think it is her business not mine to make the choice right for her. I hope it was the right choice for her but it was definitely the right one for me.


I so agree with you, LittleRedHen. I personally feel that abortion is the wrong choice for me, but I can't make that decision for other women.


----------



## gigi 722 (Oct 25, 2011)

missylam said:


> Well said.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## hijakes (May 24, 2011)

I think it's very unfortunate that we can't seem to keep this site free of hate filled rhetoric. This forum usually gives a lift to my day and I'm saddened when it's polluted by the kind of messages I'm reading here. Regardless of one's political beliefs, I wish they would be shared on a more appropriate site.


----------



## flohel (Jan 24, 2011)

My main concern is that it is mostly MEN who are making the laws. I believe in pro choice and one has to deal with our maker. I really do not want to start an argument but sadly all the laws are in place before the child is born. How many precious children are murdered tortured after birth. Being Pro choice is not that one supports abortion.


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Abortion is murder...there is a heartbeat at 18 days. 18 DAYS!


I was pregnant at one point, and was horribly, _horribly_ sick. Doctors went around in circles about the whole problem, shuffled their feet, shrugged their shoulders and mumbled "I don't know." at me.

I got an abortion because I _could_, and because I could tell there was something terribly, terribly _wrong!_

Eventually, the doctors came to the conclusion that there was _nothing_ about it that was going to allow me to produce a live child. But, if I tried, it would kill me, too. By the time they figured this out, an abortion would have been much more dangerous.

So, I chose to save myself. I chose to let my daughter grow up with a mom instead of deserting her. I chose to be a productive member of society. I chose to be able to do lots of constructive things that never would have happened if I'd just stood around and let myself die. I have helped other people, and done lots of good for others. None of that would have been possible without that choice.

And I was thankful to have a choice.

I don't think any woman makes a choice like that without careful consideration.

But consider this: "pro-life" people are against abortions for women and children who were raped, the product of incest, and a lot of other extenuating circumstances. Rape is a crime of _violence!_ Those same "pro-life" people feel that the rapist (who has already proved that he's into abuse of those weaker than himself) should be able to sue to have custody of the child produced by their abuse!

Nothing is black and white. There are groups that have been formed to help women who are single and expecting. This is a laudable undertaking. But there are cases of women who are drug addicts getting pregnant and then showing up at these places because they know that cutting them off from drugs will abort the child. They get pregnant specifically so that they can have seven months of drugs and a clean, safe place to live for 7 months or so until after the baby's born. That means the baby is born underweight, sick, damaged, with a nervous system that doesn't function properly to the point where they'll probably _never_ be able to live an independent or productive life. The woman has the baby, which is too sick to take home, the woman leaves, and never comes back for her child. She just goes out and has another one so she'll be taken care of an can have drugs given to her.

This is a case of people doing something that should be one of the most wonderful things you can do, but causing great harm by encouraging women (no matter how much they didn't mean to) to have sick babies just to get drugs.

_Nothing_ is 100% good or 100% bad! There are no absolutes!

Each situation is different and has to be evaluated on it's own merits. "Pro-life" won't allow that to happen.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

This is not a brave missive here--it is blatant propaganda. There is not one true statement in this post by joeysomma. I am not opposed to controversial topics, but I am totally disgusted at lies that get promoted as facts. The problem with the right wing fundamentalists and the GOP is that they never let facts get in the way of reaching their totalitarian goals.

Without getting onto a lengthy soapbox, let me simply say that these holier-than-thou right to lifers, never bother to address the loss of life that exists due to policies that cause job loss thereby enforcing a growing level of poverty. They never bother to address the loss of life to racist laws like Stand Your Ground that are clearly designed to protect white people from killing people of color. They never get on their soap box about 1.5 million lives lost in Iraq because of corporate greed and goals of hegemonic control of the world. They don't show up at to support the right to life of people who already exist but are railroaded because of their class or color or ethnic origin. 

I will sum up by saying the right to life campaign is based on lies, manipulation of women based on bigotry and ignorance and emotional hyperbole. The self-righteousness of that movement is used as a tactic to keep all working people from joining together to protect us from the real goals of the powers that be that foist this agenda on people--divide and conquer. What I do in my bedroom or with my body in no one else's business unless they plan on paying my bills in life and ensuring the high level of education for my children. However, whether we have enough well paying jobs for all people is something everyone should be concerned with and should be working in coalition to create. Instead people like joeysomma will spew self-righteous judgement on things that have absolutely no consequence on the well being of the public.


----------



## mperrone (Mar 14, 2013)

If you don't like what's written here, do as I did - STOP reading it and hit the back button. Problem solved.


----------



## hcontario (Jan 18, 2013)

The Roe vs Wade ruling by the Supreme Court was made 40 years old.
Name calling has not changed that and has not changed peoples' opinions. 
I respect individual right to choose.


----------



## karchy (Nov 28, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> I so agree with you, LittleRedHen. I personally feel that abortion is the wrong choice for me, but I can't make that decision for other women.


couldn't agree more with you both. I don't agree "personally" but that does NOT give me the right to dictate to another woman that she can't have an abortion, it's entirely up to * that individual * to judge her own personal circumstances and wading in with extremist views is not going to help the argument one way or another. What would you rather happen? back street abortions in illegal "clinics" where countless women die due to poor hygenic practices or a safe legal environment for these women to go to? 
There will always be women who want an abortion for whatever reason and even tho i don't agree with it for me, i would rather those that choose this option are able to do so in a safe and caring environment.

Too often in the news we hear stories of children being beaten, starved and abused and imho these are the types of things we should be, as a society looking to eradicate.

I am all for free speech, heck my ancestors fought in 2 world wars to ensure that we have freedom to make choices and freedom to talk about emotive subjects such as this one, but there is a right and wrong way to go about it and as someone else said, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is NOT imho the right way to go about it. 
mags


----------



## inishowen (May 28, 2011)

I wouldn't have opened this topic if I'd known what it was about. I come to this site to enjoy knitting and friendship.


----------



## Abi_marsden (Aug 5, 2012)

Let me get this right people are saying abortion is wrong.well what about women who get raped,girls who get pregnant and ruin there lives becourse they were made to have an baby.surely that's wrong to.how can abortion be so wrong when it could save life's and not ruin them.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

mperrone said:


> If you don't like what's written here, do as I did - STOP reading it and hit the back button. Problem solved.


Do you really think that we should just not look at what we don't like?
If that were the case nobody would step in on a bullying situation, child abuse, spousal abuse... 
People would not speak out against situations like fracking; which needs to be discussed, doesn't it? 
Learning and making decisions is rarely pretty when it is about complicated issues. 
Education is the only way to inform.


----------



## Abi_marsden (Aug 5, 2012)

No one has the right to say what's right or wrong for someone else.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

inishowen said:


> I wouldn't have opened this topic if I'd known what it was about. I come to this site to enjoy knitting and friendship.


OK, I'll bite. 
What did you think the "war on women" was about?
Wages, maybe?
The glass ceiling?
That was what I was thinking.


----------



## inishowen (May 28, 2011)

War on Women could have been about anything. I opened it to find out.


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

Trouble with most right to lifers is they are pro fetus not pro child. That might be the reason there are so many homeless and hungry children in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The pro life politicians are the same one cutting school lunch programs and SNAP benefits


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Lost art and Tamarque, well said. There is so much misinformation in the original post that I didn't know where to begin. When I was in high school, back before Roe v. Wade was decided, I had a friend staying at my house because her family threw her out because she was pregnant. I lived with her while she got the back alley abortion that prevented her from ever having children in later life. Until those who would take away financial, educational and health care assistance explain exactly how those who have no resources are supposed to care for their children, no matter the circumstances of their conception, we must provide contraception and abortion services...or at least keep those things legal. 

And, the heart that beats at 18 days cannot live outside the uterus! That is not a "person" in my book!


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

Daisybel said:


> Thanks, but I get on OK from day to day. I had a happy childhood except for thinking I was mad. One of my happiest adult days was when I was 40 and found out I was depressed - at last I had a name for what was wrong and it wasn't my fault! I was able to stop feeling guilty and learn to cope with it. That helped a lot. Also, no one can make me live forever. If I'm still here aged 80 I'll take up camel racing or parachuting or something to try and sort things out that way.


I know how you feel. I have severe allergies, and they have bizarre symptoms.

BTW, if you have really strange symptoms and your doctors are trying to diplomatically, or not so diplomatically, tell you that you're crazy, you just might have allergies. Allergies can cause any symptom of any contagious disease, plus a lot more. Which means they can generate symptoms that don't go together to make any diagnostic picture that your doctor can recognize.

Anyway, I remember the day the doctor told me I had allergies. I was so relieved, and even happy to have a diagnosis.

The doctor said "I just told you you're sick, and you're _happy_ about it?"

My answer was, "You didn't tell me I was sick. I already _knew_ I was sick! It is abundantly clear to me that I'm sick. What you _told_ me is that I have something that can be treated, and that, while I might not ever be rid of it, I can certainly feel much better than I do. And you also told me that I _don't_ have terminal cancer or any one of a dozen horrible, _horrible_ things I've been imagining I _might_ have! Not to mention that you told me I'm _not_ crazy, as some other doctors have told me!"

I'm not saying that depression isn't a real thing, but I think that a lot of doctors hand out that diagnosis rather than actually bothering to find out what's wrong with someone. I got that diagnosis because I have Paget's disease of the bone in my skull, which causes headaches that make migraines look like _nothing._ I also have migraines, cluster headaches, allergy headaches and every kind of headache it's possible to have. But the doctor thought it was easier to tell me I was depressed than find out what was wrong. This was at a point where I'd had a headache that _never_ stopped for over 7 years. Long term pain patients eventually hit a point where all they can do is cry, and that's what was wrong with me. I no longer even recognized that I was in pain. I just couldn't stop crying.

I went to the doctor before I found out I had allergies, and all I could do was cry and couldn't stop. The doctor yelled at me! He said I had a really _bad_ case of flu! He said he had people coming in who had flu, but were not half as sick as I was, and they were complaining that they were dying! He said I was crying because I was _sick,_ and that I needed to go home, rest, drink plenty of fluids, and take care of myself, and keep reminding myself that it was flu, and that I was going to feel better soon!

You may really have depression. I don't know. I'm not a doctor. But I would strongly advise that, if your insurance covers it, you get a good check-up if you didn't get one before the depression diagnosis. I'm saying it's not _impossible_ that you could have something physically wrong with you that could be fixed or treated, and that _might_ help you feel better. I feel a complete check-up is in order for anyone before a diagnosis of depression is given.


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

Ahirsch601 said:


> Trouble with most right to lifers is they are pro fetus not pro child. That might be the reason there are so many homeless and hungry children in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The pro life politicians are the same one cutting school lunch programs and SNAP benefits


The "pro-life" group lost me when they started bombing abortion clinics and killing people.

Anybody who would plant a bomb and set it off where there are people around is _not_ pro-life!


----------



## lisabethadolan (Dec 22, 2013)

We are all entitled to our own beliefs and they should be respected . For me that is a difficult article to read, not because of words like slut...because of the murder of baby's . Left or right it's hard to digest. I guess in my 55 years I've been on both sides. I've come to realize every women I know who's had an abortion regrets it and doesn't want anyone to know. I think that speaks volumes. I don't understand a society that protects animals but not our unborn baby's . Both are innocent and have no voice. The real war on women is the division politics has put between us.


----------



## mperrone (Mar 14, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Do you really think that we should just not look at what we don't like?
> If that were the case nobody would step in on a bullying situation, child abuse, spousal abuse...
> People would not speak out against situations like fracking; which needs to be discussed, doesn't it?
> Learning and making decisions is rarely pretty when it is about complicated issues.
> Education is the only way to inform.


You missed my point. Once I read a little of this and realized the tone of it, I felt it wasn't worth reading anymore. I've voiced my opinion on this subject where it's needed -- in the voting booth. Arguing this on a forum like this is non-productive in my opinion. I've been very active my entire life educating people on hot topics. You probably shouldn't criticise someone you don't know.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lisabethadolan said:


> We are all entitled to our own beliefs and they should be respected . For me that is a difficult article to read, not because of words like slut...because of the murder of baby's . Left or right it's hard to digest. I guess in my 55 years I've been on both sides. I've come to realize every women I know who's had an abortion regrets it and doesn't want anyone to know. I think that speaks volumes. I don't understand a society that protects animals but not our unborn baby's . Both are innocent and have no voice. The real war on women is the division politics has put between us.


I am just guessing that you don't know which women you know have had an abortion; you cannot know why they don't share that information if they have had one. Maybe for the same reason they don't share that they had most other medical procedures? It's boring; and then there is the judgmental attitude of so-called prolifers who are not truly pro-life. 
Abortions occur prior to a fetus being viable. They are not babies, they are biological material. 
I don't understand a society that doesn't protect children. Can you explain that to me? I see that as the war on families.


----------



## brucew (May 7, 2012)

lostarts said:


> I think the article was being a little simplistic in characterizing the "War on Women" as being _only_ about abortion. It is _so_ much more.
> 
> The Abortion issue is targeted against Planned Parenthood, who chose an unfortunate name that the right is taking advantage of. Planned Parenthood provides _complete_ health care to women all over the US that could not otherwise afford it. The attack against abortion has closed a lot of PP locations, depriving many women of _any_ health care! This idea is reinforced when you consider that the same people who are "anti abortion" are also against affordable health care, and they're against SNAP to feed babies and children of poor parents along with welfare in general, which you can't get unless you are low income _with children._
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

mperrone said:


> If you don't like what's written here, do as I did - STOP reading it and hit the back button. Problem solved.


yes, if people find political discussion not to their liking, they do not have to read. do you read every forum discussion on KP? I certainly do not.

however, when people put out propaganda based on lies, it seems more than appropriate to respond. i am not one to try and silence others, as some people here do. and i actually enjoy engaging. but let there be truth and accuracy in what people put out.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Excellent article, and you are courageous to post it, Joeysomma. My hat's off to you. Thank you for supporting these innocent babies and their mothers.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

I think a woman should have the right to care for her body as she sees fit, whether I agree with her choices or not. I think the politicizing of women's health issues is disgusting. 

I would not have an abortion, but it is not my place to tell another woman that her choice to do so is a crime or a sin. And she should have access to the best health care available to have the procedure without stone throwers agitating for their way or no way.

I think what consenting adults do together is also nobody else's business. It is some of these prurient minded old men who stick their noses in other people's business who are really creepy.

They want it both ways, no access to birth control and no support when they have unwanted children. I truly think there should be sex education available so people could make informed choices regarding reproduction. It seems too many people do not have families that take the time or trouble to educate their children about responsible sexual behavior. 

I would not want the responsibility of deciding who should be able to choose or not to choose their health care options. These people who play G-d with other people's lives need to delve into their true motives.


----------



## lisabethadolan (Dec 22, 2013)

You should re read my post...it clearly says the women I know.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

SKRB said:


> Joeysmma,
> What is the purpose of posting such a subject on a fiber arts site? Posting an article written in such a way that it promotes contention and name calling? While you have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. When you post something like this, it is akin to setting the fire just to see who can be burned. Yes, this section is a general chat section, and this subject is not prohibited, but what is the purpose?


She posted this on the thread specifically named Chit-Chat (Non-knitting talk). That's one reason why she posted it here. Maybe she wanted to support the pro-life position. Maybe she wanted to alert people to the huge number of human beings who have been legally killed under Roe v. Wade. Maybe she wanted to show and garner support for the pro-life movement. Maybe she wanted to stand up for saving the lives of innocent babies.

I, for one, am glad she did.


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

mperrone said:


> You missed my point. Once I read a little of this and realized the tone of it, I felt it wasn't worth reading anymore. I've voiced my opinion on this subject where it's needed -- in the voting booth. Arguing this on a forum like this is non-productive in my opinion. I've been very active my entire life educating people on hot topics. You probably shouldn't criticise someone you don't know.


An open discussion may help others see a side to the problem that they missed, and it may change their minds.

This is all complicated, and there's no one answer. Roe vs. Wade lets people make the right choice in the situation they're in. Not what others want them to do, even if it's harmful to the whole situation.

The original article was inflammatory, inaccurate, and only concentrated on one small fascet of a complex topic that covers much more than what was mentioned in the article. It was propaganda, intended to do nothing but upset you and convince you to think the way the writer wanted you to think.

I've been watching people I know post things on Facebook that they would never even consider if they really stopped to think about it. I'm getting a book on propaganda and reading it to see how people I know to be intelligent can be swallowing stuff that they'd never believe if they stopped to think about it for one minute.

Maybe I'll have more to contribute on forming opinions after I've read it.

BTW, don't _ever_ believe anything I tell you just because I tell you. Check it out from different sources and form your own opinion. But _please_ make sure you think it through, whatever "it" happens to be at the time.


----------



## Shautzie (Jun 9, 2013)

Wow! What controversy this has caused. I am shocked at the judgmental responses to this post. I do not believe in abortion, and I am also a conservative Republican. I do not just "talk the talk." I also "walk the walk." I have adopted three children, the last of whom was going to be aborted.


----------



## brucew (May 7, 2012)

flohel said:


> My main concern is that it is mostly MEN who are making the laws. I believe in pro choice and one has to deal with our maker. I really do not want to start an argument but sadly all the laws are in place before the child is born. How many precious children are murdered tortured after birth. Being Pro choice is not that one supports abortion.


As a man, I think this is not an issue that men can decide on.
As for my views on the subject I do wish that instead of abortion the women would opt for adoption if they decide they do not want a child. But then being a man I have no say in what the woman who is making the decision is going through or has gone through. I personally do not agree with abortion but I believe in the right of the woman thinking about it to make the decision to decide for herself. I would hate it if somebody else thought they could tell me what to do with my life and body so I give others the same respect.
Bruce


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

brucew said:


> As a man, I think this is not an issue that men can decide on.
> As for my views on the subject I do wish that instead of abortion the women would opt for adoption if they decide they do not want a child. But then being a man I have no say in what the woman who is making the decision is going through or has gone through. I personally do not agree with abortion but I believe in the right of the woman thinking about it to make the decision to decide for herself. I would hate it if somebody else thought they could tell me what to do with my life and body so I give others the same respect.
> 
> Bruce


Thank you Bruce!!!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Shautzie said:


> Wow! What controversy this has caused. I am shocked at the judgmental responses to this post. I do not believe in abortion, and I am also a conservative Republican. I do not just "talk the talk." I also "walk the walk." I have adopted three children, the last of whom was going to be aborted.


Your adoption is a very loving and generous human act. But don't project your choices onto other people. We all have different abilities, energies, finances, etc. And we do have the right to those differences when they are free choices to make. It is not a generous thing to judge other people by your own personal choices.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Joey you are right. All you wanted to do is to discuss your point of view with people that may or may not agree with your stand on abortion, and the left comes in to ruin it using their classic plays from the 'playbook'. Like the quote above, the vile language used against people or groups they disagree with begins immediately. Then the name calling starts. Don't forget the passive aggressive whining about how this is a knitting site, knowing that the subject of 'War on Women' has nothing to do with learning cables, but they had to comment instead of just closing the tab. Quickly the men haters come around to stir the pot. Then the saber swingers come out about the raping of women.
> 
> Wonder how many of the tens of millions of aborted children were the product of rape? Then I wonder from that small subgroup of children what impact they could have made on the world as advocates for women and children of rape and abuse. Since I believe that a majority of abortions are done for convenience and not to save the life of the mother, shouldn't the man that participated in that tango have a choice in the abortion decision?
> 
> For a group of people that advocate 'choice' they certainly condemn anyone that chooses to think differently than they do. Wonder how many that are pro fetal murder are against the death penalty?


My dear girl: if you hadn't noticed, the name-calling began in the post. If liberals and conservatives are ever to find common ground on anything, this kind of post and the person who would post this name-calling, stereotypical garbage should step back and take a look at her/him/self. This post itself is a wonderful example of vitriolic rhetoric that will only serve to solidify beliefs.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lisabethadolan said:


> You should re read my post...it clearly says the women I know.


The point was that you don't know if or why people have had abortions or why they do or do not talk about it. 
All of that supposition is in your head and heart not theirs. 
Since you said the women you know, naturally, that was the group I was addressing. 
BTW, do you suppose that the men you know who have helped to pay for abortions don't mention that because they regret those abortions?


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Thanks, you have presented a truly comprehensive view of who promotes a war on women.


I'm sure I missed something and it's _not_ comprehensive.

And I haven't even mentioned _who_ is behind this.

But I hope I have broadened your viewpoint of the scope of the problem, and most of all, I hope you'll really _read_ (or listen to) the discussions advanced by others, weigh the info in your own mind, with intelligence, and carry things to their logical conclusion and make a decision, or decisions, for yourself rather than swallowing anything anybody tells you without any thought at all.

Almost nothing is simple these days.


----------



## Linda6885 (Feb 13, 2011)

You are brave to write something soooo ludicrous !


----------



## ddonnelly (Mar 7, 2011)

As a progressive feminist Christian I ask you what value does the woman's life have? And if a woman cannot part with a baby and keeps it, the government ( read conservatives here) desert her and the child once born and puts them into adjunct poverty.

I have never had an abortion myself, however I know women, both unmarked and married that have chosen to abort.

I had a nurse friend find out on her ultrasound that her baby had no skull and would not live more than a few minutes past birth. How would you feel carrying that pregnancy to term.

Abortion IS the case that allows BOTH men and women to chose how to plan their families.

As a nurse I assisted in abortions and defended abortion clinics all the while having old men spit in my face.

There is no scientific method to determine when human life begins. Every animal starts out with the same cells. It's only been VERY recent that the Catholic church condemned abortion. It always considered life beginning at Quickening (movement that mom can feel).

Conservatives want government out of their lives. Then get out of my womb and bedroom.

Enough said and this is NOT the place to discuss this topic.


----------



## ELareau (Nov 4, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I have seen and heard many stories of how glad their mother chose life for them, when the mother was encouraged to have an abortion. I have not heard of one who wished their mother would have chosen abortion.


then you have not been in any number of psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor's offices. Many "throwaway" children wish they had never been born. Where are the conservatives then? Oh, yeah, they're cutting funding for mental health benefits for the poor. How many conservatives have adopted children? Not many. How many conservatives have taken pregnant teen girls into their homes when the girls' parents have kicked them out of the house? Not many.


----------



## davidw1226 (Jan 29, 2011)

This is a KNITTING forum, not a political rant forum. Your demonizing of "liberals" is simple minded at best. Why is it that so many pro-life advocates favor capital punishment? If life is sacred, it is sacred from beginning to its natural conclusion. But, I am now in danger of my own political rant. 
P.S. I am in favor of gay marriage!


----------



## Woodstockgranny (Feb 6, 2013)

advocate said:


> Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
> Pattie Hunt


I'm with Pattie!


----------



## Woodstockgranny (Feb 6, 2013)

davidw1226 said:


> This is a KNITTING forum, not a political rant forum. Your demonizing of "liberals" is simple minded at best. Why is it that so many pro-life advocates favor capital punishment? If life is sacred, it is sacred from beginning to its natural conclusion. But, I am now in danger of my own political rant.
> P.S. I am in favor of gay marriage!


Go David!


----------



## ELareau (Nov 4, 2012)

Woodstockgranny said:


> I'm with Pattie!


The solution is to not come into the non-knitting chat forum.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

davidw1226 said:


> This is a KNITTING forum, not a political rant forum. Your demonizing of "liberals" is simple minded at best. Why is it that so many pro-life advocates favor capital punishment? If life is sacred, it is sacred from beginning to its natural conclusion. But, I am now in danger of my own political rant.
> P.S. I am in favor of gay marriage!


Yay!! You go David!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Yarn bulldog (Aug 10, 2012)

Really? I mean really??? I look forward to reading KP every morning. I could join the band wagon with my opinions but it would just add to the mess. It is easy to misconstrue what people mean when it is in writing. Talking face to face or on the phone is a better way to talk about such a vo
volatile subject


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Abortion has profound implications for many other things in our culture...here are just a few:
Most important is genetic testing used to determine gender and/or health implications of the unborn child. Will we end up with what is known as eugenics or 'survival of the genetically fittest? In many countries we're already aborting girls in favor of producing a son. 
Medically sanctioned starvation and death-inducing dehydration are now passed off as a "peaceful death" for the terminally ill or elderly. This has only become acceptable since Roe v. Wade. 
President Obama could not bring himself to vote, as an Illinois State Senator, to protect infants born alive after an abortion (they were simply left to die - which was what their mothers wanted after all, eh?)
And now we have the case for "AFTER BIRTH ABORTIONS". Princeton's ethicist, Peter Singer, claims that infants, while human, are not "self-aware" therefore they are not "persons". If they are not persons, then they have no independent moral status, no automatic right to life, and no claim to the protections of law. This is in regard to a BORN...LIVING...INFANT!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

davidw1226 said:


> This is a KNITTING forum, not a political rant forum. Your demonizing of "liberals" is simple minded at best. Why is it that so many pro-life advocates favor capital punishment? If life is sacred, it is sacred from beginning to its natural conclusion. But, I am now in danger of my own political rant.
> P.S. I am in favor of gay marriage!


The difference is that capital punishment is the taking of the life of a person found GUILTY of a heinous crime...abortion is the taking of an INNOCENT life!


----------



## LaKrett (Jul 1, 2012)

I'm so SICK of this Political BS.


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

Linda6885 said:


> You are brave to write something soooo ludicrous !


To whom were you addressing this, and about which post?


----------



## loubroy (Feb 15, 2013)

advocate said:


> You people need to stay out of our Doctor's offices, out of our bedrooms and out of our politics.
> Bye Pattie


I am not sure what your mean "stay out of our politics". I notice that joeysomma is from Wisconsin. The last time I check that was a part of the United States so that makes it her politics as well. That is the problem, the liberals seem to think only they have the right to an opinion. Sorry to disallusion you, but the Right has as much right to their opinions as the liberal left.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lostarts said:


> I'm sure I missed something and it's _not_ comprehensive.
> 
> And I haven't even mentioned _who_ is behind this.
> 
> ...


Didingenuous, I would say.

You really don't think that you identified who is behind the war on women when you said this?

The Abortion issue is targeted against Planned Parenthood, who chose an unfortunate name that the right is taking advantage of. Planned Parenthood provides complete health care to women all over the US that could not otherwise afford it. The attack against abortion has closed a lot of PP locations, depriving many women of any health care! This idea is reinforced when you consider that the same people who are "anti abortion" are also against affordable health care, and they're against SNAP to feed babies and children of poor parents along with welfare in general, which you can't get unless you are low income with children.

Those same people are part of the group that has been shipping our jobs overseas, and has now refused to extend the unemployment benefits, which will leave even more babies and children in addition to humans in general without the means to get food and shelter. They are also working to lower the amount of help available to homeless families. Being homeless is horrible. I can tell you that from experience. And being homeless with children is a horror that I couldn't have imagined if I hadn't seen it while I was homeless. They're also the same group that is supporting the bankers who have set up a situation where they're taking away families' homes en masse!

Who is targeting Planned Parenthood? You know, anyone who pays attention to politics knows. 
Who is pulling support from homeless families? 
<Shrug>, rather than lecturing me you would do well to read your own writings.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

I love the way pro-life people just confound issues all the time and do so with a totalitarian attitude--one size fits all and they know the only way to do life!

One thing that pro-life people support is the destruction of sex education. Now why would they do that? The reality is that with sex education the abortion rate has gone down significantly in the US. It amazes me the bodaciousness of some people to claim they know that even the potential of new life is sacrosanct.

In Europe when unions were coming into being, the Catholic Church supported unions and decent wages. Their logic was that if Catholics were to have all these children they needed the means to support them. They did not take that position in the US. Today that church has a pope that at least recognizes economic justice as an issue. He is considered a radical!!!

How many pro-life people on on the economic justice line in the US today? How many of you who are opposed to abortion or family planning are railing against your GOP leaders for outsourcing jobs and defunding education, meaningful job training, attacking housing support for low income and working people, etc. 

To repeat:: this whole argument is phony. It is diversionary from the real issues that actually affect our lives in today's economic decline.


----------



## LydiaKay (Apr 15, 2012)

Whatever your political or religious views I would like to point out of couple of things regarding this thread. First, the title of the thread is "The War On Women." If you only want to read posts about crafting, don't open it. Second, the poster did not call anyone sluts, the author of the article did. If you don't think many women wear the term slut as a badge of honor, you are mistaken. Just do a quick Google search for the phrase. In fact Etsy has a "Slut Pride" store.


----------



## olcagran (Oct 2, 2013)

You are soooooo right! The war on women is certainly not being waged by the conservatives! Liberals are responsible for keeping women on welfare and food stamps with their "giveaway" programs instead of putting the whole country on the path to prosperity. The liberal left promotes promiscuity which is why there are so many abortions in our country. I am saddened to see the loss of morality! I appreciate your post! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Charlotte80 (Jan 24, 2011)

mperrone said:


> If you don't like what's written here, do as I did - STOP reading it and hit the back button. Problem solved.


I did too.

I have learned in my 83 years that it is mostly not possible to change another person's mind about things they feel strongly about, so why even try.


----------



## headlemk (Feb 16, 2011)

yorkie1 said:


> knitting, crocheting, all other crafts, ladies, PLEASE!!!


This is the chat section. You don't have to read it. This section is for things OTHER than knitting and other crafts.


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Didingenuous, I would say.
> 
> You really don't think that you identified who is behind the war on women when you said this?
> 
> ...


Sorry. I'm sure a lot of my personal opinions crept in there, but I tried to keep them out.

I did not _say_ who is doing what. But you're right that anybody who follows politics can figure out who is is since they voice their opinions loudly.

What I was and am _trying_ to accomplish is to get people to think calmly and intelligently about the whole, complicated situation and form their own opinions. I see too many people who seem to have been handed opinions, ready-made, and who seem to have accepted those opinions without any evaluation whatsoever. _That_ unthinking acceptance of someone else's opinion, adopted as your own is what drives me nuts!

I can appreciate and respect any opinion you have that is sincere, intelligent, and that you believe in. I am trying to make people _think_ about the implications of the situation and make real, meaningful decisions for themselves. I don't think naming groups or mudslinging help.

But the people who are against abortion do seem to be the same people who want to cut SNAP, welfare, school lunch programs and do anything else that will make it harder for those children they saved to grow up to be healthy, adults with enough knowledge gained to be productive adults. Make of that what you will.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

A new CNN national poll of Americans finds results that are almost identical to a Gallup survey earlier this year, and it shows 62% of Americans want all or most abortions made illegal. That breaks down to 63% men and 61% women. Looks like most of us don't see a war on women.


----------



## Linda6885 (Feb 13, 2011)

This is the kind of thing that separates us as a people and only, spreads anger, and hate. Shame on you.


----------



## MATYCHY (Nov 26, 2012)

I don't agree with this either. I believe we should have a choice. I can guarantee you these women who get birth control or abortions are not getting pregnant by themselves. The men in these circumstances are never mentioned. I came to tell you that this is a good site. You do not have to read anything other than your knitting stuff


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

RosieC said:


> sometimes in the chat section, things take a serious turn. we all know it's not always about crafts. no one forces us to come here and no one chooses which posts to read - that's up to us.


I agree with this..


----------



## MartiG (Jan 21, 2012)

Thank goodness for "advocate", "jzx330",Susanmos2000,Kyba......being on this website. To Joeymama.....are you willing to adopt and care for the thousands of babies who are born to abusive, ill-equipped mothers, so they don't live a life of misery? It must be a really hard decision for someone to decide to abort and it should be respected that they know they will not give a precious child the life they deserve. Would you like to go backwards in time to when desperate women risked their own lives with illegal abortions? There will always be desperate women who cannot, should not be pregnant. Since men don't ever find themselves in this situation how dare they legislate what women should do. I love this constant portrayal of "liberals" this and "liberals" that. Go turn on FOX bs channel and enjoy your day.


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

olcagran said:


> You are soooooo right! The war on women is certainly not being waged by the conservatives! Liberals are responsible for keeping women on welfare and food stamps with their "giveaway" programs instead of putting the whole country on the path to prosperity. The liberal left promotes promiscuity which is why there are so many abortions in our country. I am saddened to see the loss of morality! I appreciate your post! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


But the conservatives _do_ support keeping the minimum wage low enough that you _can't_ support a child or children on it.

Do you realize that you just said that although the conservatives are making life impossible for people, they're not responsible for that impossible life? You're saying the people who helped citizens who can't make enough money to survive on minimum wage because of conservatives should be left to die rather than be helped to survive by liberals?

Do you realize that if you live in the US, and have not been pushed into poverty by conservatives _yet_, you will be soon? Do you want liberals to deny you food and shelter when that happens? Would you rather die than accept help because you think accepting help _caused_ you to not be able to take care of yourself in the first place? You should have no problem understanding quantum theory.

No matter how I try to step around this, conservatives, and the laws they are pushing through are _killing_ people!

The liberals who you say are "causing" this have rules for their handouts. If businesses were paying wages that people could live on, they would not be _allowed_ to collect these benefits. The liberals are coming along _after_ the problem has been created and trying to fix it. If conservatives weren't causing it, they would raise the minimum wage, and then nobody would be left who was eligible for liberal handouts.


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

I agree. I like to think I would not have chosen the abortion path but I never had to make that choice but refuse to judge others. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and will remain so. Those who don't agree with abortion shouldn't get one. It is a private and very personal decision made for a variety of reasons and the rest of us should just mind our own business.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Please document the advantages of sex education. Has the number of STD's in teenagers been reduced? Has the number of teen pregnancies decreased? These things were almost unheard of before sex education was introduced in the schools. The lower the grade for the introduction of sex education, it seems the younger kids are to get pregnant or have STD's. It seems the sex ed that is taught is "if it feels right do it."
> You made the statement that the number of abortions has decreased. How do you know that is true? Planned Parenthood and other similar organizations have such a good record of reporting what is legally required!


C'mon, Joey, you have been presented with that information more times than I can count. 
There is no standardized sex education. 
We all know from anecdotal (life experience) evidence that saying that sex is a no no doesn't work. It hasn't worked since the beginning of time. 
The only way to see what works is to present the different programs in similar communities and do a study for years. 
To tell young people appropriate means to use to avoid pregnancy and STDs is NOT saying if it feels good do it. 
Nobody needs to tell kids that, they have all kinds of reasons for having sex.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

olcagran said:


> You are soooooo right! The war on women is certainly not being waged by the conservatives! Liberals are responsible for keeping women on welfare and food stamps with their "giveaway" programs instead of putting the whole country on the path to prosperity. The liberal left promotes promiscuity which is why there are so many abortions in our country. I am saddened to see the loss of morality! I appreciate your post! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


And where are your statistics to back up these foolish, judgemental statements?

I guess you don't need your social security or public education or minimum wage floor that props up public wages. Or maybe you have no one that uses Medicare or ever needed disability. It was all your 'hated' liberals that promoted these humanistic, public programs. Or maybe you live on a mountain top and are so self-sufficient that you dont even use public roads paid for by the public, collective coffers!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Slavery was the law of the land too. "I own these people and I have property rights. So mind your own business!"

Really?


----------



## Dlclose (Jun 26, 2011)

lostarts said:


> I feel I should add something to my earlier post.
> 
> I do not mean to disagree with anyone or argue. If you feel insulted by what I wrote, please understand that I wrote what I have observed for myself, and what I believe to be true.
> 
> ...


I see that you have believed the lies! So sorry for you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I am not willing to lose the benefits of this forum, however I am deeply offended by this diatribe.



advocate said:


> Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
> Pattie Hunt


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

Me Too!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Kyba said:


> Oh Misery. Another holier than thou. Please go back to your knitting. You aren't as moral as you think yourself. This is insulting.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Connie W said:


> Things been too pleasant on this site for you lately, Joeysomma? Take your hate elsewhere.


This was a total unnecessary response. If you don't agree with what is posted then state your case.

I would assume you do not want to state it just attack. If that is true why not go else where. You have shown what you are by your words.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> I agree. Harsh invective and hateful words like "slut" are not going to win any converts to the pro-life movement.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> It's fine for you to bring it up; it's a subject that's very important to you, and I can understand your wanting to prove your point by any legitimate means possible.
> 
> However, using the phrase "The Left believes" - as if "the Left" has only one opinion on this or any other subject - not only is illegitimate but spreads disinformation and propaganda. If you want a real discussion, don't _tell_ us what we "believe"; ask us what we believe and what we know. You'll find a lot of variation, a lot of thought, and a lot of sense. Have you ever asked anyone why she felt she needed to terminate her pregnancy? Give me a quote from her, and I'll participate in your discussion. But as it is now, I'll unwatch.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## janis blondel (May 20, 2011)

Kathie said:


> Here we go again. KP has been quiet and pleasant for awhile and now this has been introduced to stir up controversy. I know we can post on any subjects here but why would you want to start a fight again. We are so lucky to be able to voice our opinions in this country but we don't change anyone's minds with postings like this. Please lets be kind and gentle with each other. We all need to be kind whatever our opinions are.


I'm with you Kathy just when everyone was getting along again. I know this is for general chat but this subject is very personal to each individual. The question of right or wrong will never be answered and certain people will be hurt/upset by certain replies. Lets just respect each others opinions and live and let live.


----------



## MzBarnz (Aug 15, 2011)

Yep, exactly, mperrone!


mperrone said:


> If you don't like what's written here, do as I did - STOP reading it and hit the back button. Problem solved.


----------



## nevadalynn (Apr 27, 2011)

qramadolly said:


> I agree with joeysmom, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I may not agree with what you say but i respect your right to say it.


 I agree - but this is not the venue - politics are everywhere - can't this be the place we can unified in our love for knitting and forget all the debating and bitching?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Did you even bother to read my message? No, why should you?

It's on the second page of this thread.



lovethelake said:


> Joey you are right. All you wanted to do is to discuss your point of view with people that may or may not agree with your stand on abortion, and the left comes in to ruin it using their classic plays from the 'playbook'. Like the quote above, the vile language used against people or groups they disagree with begins immediately. Then the name calling starts. Don't forget the passive aggressive whining about how this is a knitting site, knowing that the subject of 'War on Women' has nothing to do with learning cables, but they had to comment instead of just closing the tab. Quickly the men haters come around to stir the pot. Then the saber swingers come out about the raping of women.
> 
> Wonder how many of the tens of millions of aborted children were the product of rape? Then I wonder from that small subgroup of children what impact they could have made on the world as advocates for women and children of rape and abuse. Since I believe that a majority of abortions are done for convenience and not to save the life of the mother, shouldn't the man that participated in that tango have a choice in the abortion decision?
> 
> For a group of people that advocate 'choice' they certainly condemn anyone that chooses to think differently than they do. Wonder how many that are pro fetal murder are against the death penalty?


----------



## LoisDC (Apr 28, 2011)

Obviously, no one is going to change their mind based on this forum, so why, why, why, do we have to have these posts started? As the saying goes, "I knit, so that I don't kill people".


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

I ask you the same thing: please read my message on page 2.


joeysomma said:


> I stated in my first post, that I would be called all sorts of names. They have not disappointed. I hope this thread may change the mind of just one person and one baby's life may be saved.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

lostarts said:


> I feel I should add something to my earlier post.
> 
> I do not mean to disagree with anyone or argue. If you feel insulted by what I wrote, please understand that I wrote what I have observed for myself, and what I believe to be true.
> 
> ...


I may not agree with you but you stated how you felt and that to me is what should be done.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I stated in my first post, that I would be called all sorts of names. They have not disappointed. I hope this thread may change the mind of just one person and one baby's life may be saved.


Really? Could you list the names you have been called?

Most of the women who post here are well beyond childbearing age, and most are well able to take care of any baby's in their lives. 
Oh, you meant save a non-viable fetus? Posting other people's thoughts that include calling women who have sex sluts probably won't do that.


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

I think general chat should exclude religion or politics.If someone posts an infallible, inflammatory statement people of the opposite view will feel compelled to disagree. None of it is helpful and it doesn't change minds.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet - Your message is too long; they're not going to read it. That's how they maintain "(im)plausible deniability."


Janet Cooke said:


> Didingenuous, I would say.
> 
> You really don't think that you identified who is behind the war on women when you said this?
> 
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> I think a woman should have the right to care for her body as she sees fit, whether I agree with her choices or not. I think the politicizing of women's health issues is disgusting.
> 
> I would not have an abortion, but it is not my place to tell another woman that her choice to do so is a crime or a sin. And she should have access to the best health care available to have the procedure without stone throwers agitating for their way or no way.
> 
> ...


I understand what you're saying, and I also believe I generally have NO right to interfere in anyone else's decisions. But in this case, I do have strong feelings because there's a life involved.

We don't say it's not our place when it comes to to preventing spousal or child abuse or stealing or murder. We step right in to protect potential victims of crime. I'm not trying to tell a woman what to do with her body. I'm trying to prevent the killing of a unique and innocent human being. So in that case, as in other cases of violence, I think society has a right to try to prevent it.

I don't do this out of a political stance or even an emotional one, although I do have strong feelings about it. I do it out of a sense of right and wrong. Just as in the death penalty - I believe it's wrong. Even though sometimes we really want to put a vicious criminal to death, I believe that we don't have that right. If we don't have the right to take the life of a vicious criminal, then how can we claim the right to take the life of an innocent unborn child.

Just my opinion. I don't mean to offend, and I know that others don't agree with me.

It's pretty hard to change anyone's mind on this. I think that eventually science will make it clearer, and maybe we can find some agreement.


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

Right on target!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Reading all the messages would indicate an open mind ready to discuss issues. This is just another organized effort to obscure the facts with emotional misstatements. Which is more your style?



Poor Purl said:


> Did you even bother to read my message? No, why should you?
> 
> It's on the second page of this thread.


----------



## Hazel Blumberg - McKee (Sep 9, 2011)

I accidentally clicked on this. When I saw what it was about, I immediately decided not to read it.

I wish that, even in the Chitchat section, we would NOT get into politics.

Let's face it: No one is going to change anyone else's opinion vis a vis controversial topics.

Let's stick to friendlier topics of conversation, shall we?

Hazel


----------



## nevadalynn (Apr 27, 2011)

LoisDC said:


> Obviously, no one is going to change their mind based on this forum, so why, why, why, do we have to have these posts started? As the saying goes, "I knit, so that I don't kill people".


 Seriously, this is the best response EVER regarding these posts.....THANK YOU!


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

olcagran said:


> You are soooooo right! The war on women is certainly not being waged by the conservatives! Liberals are responsible for keeping women on welfare and food stamps with their "giveaway" programs instead of putting the whole country on the path to prosperity. The liberal left promotes promiscuity which is why there are so many abortions in our country. I am saddened to see the loss of morality! I appreciate your post! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


You talk like you think that people are quitting jobs where they can make a decent living (enough to be comfortable), in order to get benefits without working.

I happen to get SNAP benefits (what used to be called food stamps--if you're going to talk about benefits, learn what they're called).

Do you know how much I get? I get the same amount as every other poor single person who lives in my county gets.

I get a _WHOLE_ $15 per month to supplement my food purchases! The amount just changed, and others in my county who have children get either an additional $3 or $4 for each child. It used to be $4, but laws pushed through Congress by _CONSERVATIVES_ cut SNAP for a single person from $16 to $15, so the additional person amount may have gone down, too. I'm not sure.

Do you seriously think that anybody in their right mind who actually _has_ a job that pays enough to live on is going to quit it just for that? Or take a job at lower wages to get it?

No. That's there to help people on minimum wage who have incomes below the poverty line. I happen to have an income from Social Security, but most of the people who get SNAP and other benefits are people who have full time jobs, sometimes _two_ jobs, and are still below the poverty line because _CONSERVATIVES_ have been holding down the minimum wage!

Right before I got to the age where I could collect Social Security, I was working _three_ jobs, and was still below the poverty line. I had one job that was full time for two weeks, then two weeks off. I worked evenings (when the full time part was happening), and days other times, and sometimes long hours at another job, and worked as (essentially) a janitor on a third job on weekends! And I was _still_ below the poverty level! And guess what? The liberals that "encouraged" me to do that didn't help _at all!_

Not long after I was on Social Security, still struggling, it got so bad that my car was taken away from me. Since then, I haven't been _able_ to physically travel to any job I might get, and would feel guilty taking a job away from someone else who needs it more than me.

I'm not poor because I won't work, or to get that "free" $15 per month in SNAP! I'm poor because conservatives have trashed the economy, and there _aren't_ many, if any jobs that pay enough to get out of poverty!

You're really lucky to be in a situation where you can take care of yourself well enough to not know that. But brace yourself, because the conservatives are making more and more of the middle class into the poor. Soon, they'll come for you, too, and you'll be thankful for SNAP!

I'm sorry I lost my temper, but everything I said is true.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

The reason "these things" were almost unheard of is that teenagers who got pregnant or had STDs were expelled from school and sent to live elsewhere so nobody in town would find out. That does _not_ mean that "these things" didn't happen.


joeysomma said:


> Please document the advantages of sex education. Has the number of STD's in teenagers been reduced? Has the number of teen pregnancies decreased? These things were almost unheard of before sex education was introduced in the schools. The lower the grade for the introduction of sex education, it seems the younger kids are to get pregnant or have STD's. It seems the sex ed that is taught is "if it feels right do it."
> You made the statement that the number of abortions has decreased. How do you know that is true? Planned Parenthood and other similar organizations have such a good record of reporting what is legally required!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MartiG said:


> Thank goodness for "advocate", "jzx330",Susanmos2000,Kyba......being on this website. To Joeymama.....are you willing to adopt and care for the thousands of babies who are born to abusive, ill-equipped mothers, so they don't live a life of misery? It must be a really hard decision for someone to decide to abort and it should be respected that they know they will not give a precious child the life they deserve. Would you like to go backwards in time to when desperate women risked their own lives with illegal abortions? There will always be desperate women who cannot, should not be pregnant. Since men don't ever find themselves in this situation how dare they legislate what women should do. I love this constant portrayal of "liberals" this and "liberals" that. Go turn on FOX bs channel and enjoy your day.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I ask you the same thing: please read my message on page 2.


Joeysomma, pay no attention to name-callers. Your intentions were good, and you harmed no one. Again, I appreciate your posts. In fact, I came on here precisely to offer you my support - this is a cause I believe in.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lostarts said:


> You talk like you think that people are quitting jobs where they can make a decent living (enough to be comfortable), in order to get benefits without working.
> 
> I happen to get SNAP benefits (what used to be called food stamps--if you're going to talk about benefits, learn what they're called).
> 
> ...


I think that you must be correct about the small amount of benefit, I seem to remember Donnie K citing a similar tiny amount in benefit. I hope that you have a food pantry nearby or Meals on Wheels to help. I think it used to be that payment for MoWs was voluntary. (hoping it still is)


----------



## Jean Keith (Feb 17, 2011)

Yes, this is a knitting forum but it is also a Chat section unrelated to knitting and doesn't stipulate chat unrelated to the birds and the bees. I've often thought about the governmental minds that choose to get behind the bedroom doors and handle everything to their own satisfaction when they know zilch about what occurred. This is a private matter and there are many situations involved in it. Many women are raped or have suffered physical abuse from their mates; mothers worry about feeding, caring for another child when Daddy isn't interested in his family's welfare.

Bringing another child into the world that will suffer the injustice of cuts to foodstamps, medical care, unemployment insurance compensation. A mother knows best what the situation was and how she will have to care for this child, probably alone with no assistance. I've been there.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

People, beware. We are being divided along many lines: race, income, religion, and just today they're trying to stir up animosity between working women and stay-at-home mothers. Someone or some group is trying to rip this country apart. We have our differences of opinion, but we're all in this together. Let's not be enemies. Let's work together to find out the truth about things that divide us, to look at that truth and find some common ground. There's no need to hate people who don't agree with us.

The key is - let's support one another. We all know that our country is dreadfully divided. I think this is fueled by media who want to ramp up the emotions to gain viewers. We mustn't give in to this.

We have differences, yes. But we have much more in common. We all want to live safe and satisfying lives and to help our children do the same. Let's not fight amongst ourselves.

United we stand, divided we fall.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> The difference is that capital punishment is the taking of the life of a person found GUILTY of a heinous crime...abortion is the taking of an INNOCENT life!


Okay, I can see that you're not pro-all life but only the lives you choose. I've even known liberals who favor the death penalty. But how do you justify sending young men and women to be killed in wars? Or are you a pacifist?


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Kyba said:


> Oh Misery. Another holier than thou. Please go back to your knitting. You aren't as moral as you think yourself. This is insulting.


Morally, your reply is essentially the same as the one whose you are condemning.


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

Dlclose said:


> I see that you have believed the lies! So sorry for you.


You should meet my ex-husband.

His motto is: "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind's made up!" And, to him, it's not a joke. He means it.

I didn't believe any lies. I stated what I can see around me. The message I meant to convey was that I was hoping that you would pay attention to what's happening around you and evaluate it with an open mind instead of not thinking.

Your glib reply tells me that your mind is either closed or you're too lazy to bother to think. So my request for you to think was not heard.

Basically, my message was to advise you to dump any preconceived notions and observe, then think and make up your mind. Saying I've believed the lies is just a lazy way to get out of bothering to think.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Jean Keith said:


> Yes, this is a knitting forum but it is also a Chat section unrelated to knitting and doesn't stipulate chat unrelated to the birds and the bees. I've often thought about the governmental minds that choose to get behind the bedroom doors and handle everything to their own satisfaction when they know zilch about what occurred. This is a private matter and there are many situations involved in it. Many women are raped or have suffered physical abuse from their mates; mothers worry about feeding, caring for another child when Daddy isn't interested in his family's welfare.
> 
> Bringing another child into the world that will suffer the injustice of cuts to foodstamps, medical care, unemployment insurance compensation. A mother knows best what the situation was and how she will have to care for this child, probably alone with no assistance. I've been there.


I'd say we're not doing a good enough job helping people who are in the same situation you were in. It seems we haven't been able to give the right kind of help to rid this world of poverty. But people are always trying. We have to keep trying.

I think it's a huge tragedy that a woman would feel it was better for her child not to live than to be born into what she, the mother, could provide. I hope someday we can prevent that. No woman should ever have to make that decision.

Something is very wrong with a society where singers, athletes, and movie stars have more money than they could ever spend while others have so little that a mother feels she can't even have her baby.

Maybe that's our common ground - that our society's priorities are really screwed up.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Pattie,
Just out of curiosity, what did you expect to learn about knitting when you opened a link in the *"Non-knitting " section* with the title "War on Women?"!!!



advocate said:


> Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
> Pattie Hunt


----------



## Ronique (Jan 5, 2013)

advocate said:


> Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
> Pattie Hunt


Hi. This is more than 'conservative bullshit' it is something that many of us feel very strongly about, and it is a moral, not political 'thing' for most of us.
There are so many posts about interesting things to do with knitting and crocheting, one doesn't have to 'react' to other subjects posted unless one is interested in a 'good debate'. 
How about we see some of your work, or hints that you can share with us, and get a discussion going that way?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So true. Do you see some similarities to what was happening in Germany in the 1930's?


Say what? The Nazi card?

The Nazis didn't abort babies; they simply held them by the feet and slammed the babies' heads against brick walls, while the mothers looked on. Show me pictures of that going on in this country today, and maybe I'll take you seriously.


----------



## gypsie (May 28, 2011)

LoisDC said:


> Obviously, no one is going to change their mind based on this forum, so why, why, why, do we have to have these posts started? As the saying goes, "I knit, so that I don't kill people".


Just reading here,,,,but have to say your post is the best yet!


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Once I read the first sentence and saw who was posting, I didn't bother to read the rest of it. It's always the same thing. You spew your hateful crap, get a lot of push back, then whine about being attacked by nasty liberals. Poor , poor, pitiful you!


----------



## MATYCHY (Nov 26, 2012)

Amen to that Thank you, lostarts


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

alcameron said:


> My dear girl: if you hadn't noticed, the name-calling began in the post. If liberals and conservatives are ever to find common ground on anything, this kind of post and the person who would post this name-calling, stereotypical garbage should step back and take a look at her/him/self. This post itself is a wonderful example of vitriolic rhetoric that will only serve to solidify beliefs.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Okay, I can see that you're not pro-all life but only the lives you choose. I've even known liberals who favor the death penalty. But how do you justify sending young men and women to be killed in wars? Or are you a pacifist?


Evil exists...sometimes going to war is necessary to fight a greater evil. I am not a pacifist but it doesn't mean I like war.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Say what? The Nazi card?
> 
> The Nazis didn't abort babies; they simply held them by the feet and slammed the babies' heads against brick walls, while the mothers looked on. Show me pictures of that going on in this country today, and maybe I'll take you seriously.


Oh, please. Do you really want to see pictures? Because they're out there. Babies are dismembered alive in the womb. If their body is born, the skull will be crushed or the spinal cord cut as the arms and legs thrash in the newly felt air. Science has documented that babies feel pain at twenty weeks. It's happening every day. It's happening right now as you sit at your computer, sipping coffee and reading this.

I would not post such disturbing pictures on here. If you want pictures, just google "abortion pictures." Make sure you're sitting down and haven't eaten recently.


----------



## Razzle (Jul 25, 2011)

Political jokes are OK and I enjoy them, but let's keep KP fun and interesting and leave the preaching to the pulpit.


----------



## RosieC (Feb 14, 2012)

I CANNOT FOR THE LIFE OF ME, BELIEVE THAT THIS POST IS STILL ON KP . STOP IT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE ! 

CAN'T SOMEONE REPORT THIS AND GET THIS SLOP OFF OF THIS FORUM ????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Okay, I can see that you're not pro-all life but only the lives you choose. I've even known liberals who favor the death penalty. But how do you justify sending young men and women to be killed in wars? Or are you a pacifist?


How do you reconcile opposition to the death penalty for the guilty with approval of abortion of the innocent?


----------



## sparrefankerl (Feb 9, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> While I am against abortion in general I would never blame a woman for a rape. Nothing gives the man a right to rape a woman. Period. I am glad we can discuss this in a mature way and not start name calling or being disrespectful.
> I may not agree with your beliefs but I will defend your right to voice it.


Very accurate and right deduction and to the point with using very few words. I like your way of thinking.


----------



## jzx330 (Oct 11, 2013)

ENOUGH


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lostarts said:


> I was pregnant at one point, and was horribly, _horribly_ sick. Doctors went around in circles about the whole problem, shuffled their feet, shrugged their shoulders and mumbled "I don't know." at me.
> I got an abortion because I _could_, and because I could tell there was something terribly, terribly _wrong!_
> <snip>
> _Nothing_ is 100% good or 100% bad! There are no absolutes!
> ...


Lostarts, thank you for your openness and your thoughtfulness.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> People, beware. We are being divided along many lines: race, income, religion, and just today they're trying to stir up animosity between working women and stay-at-home mothers. Someone or some group is trying to rip this country apart. We have our differences of opinion, but we're all in this together. Let's not be enemies. Let's work together to find out the truth about things that divide us, to look at that truth and find some common ground. There's no need to hate people who don't agree with us.
> 
> The key is - let's support one another. We all know that our country is dreadfully divided. I think this is fueled by media who want to ramp up the emotions to gain viewers. We mustn't give in to this.
> 
> ...


You are so right lady. Comman ground is sometimes hard to find unless we look for it.


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

These posts are probably going to get me involved in the pro choice groups!


----------



## justinjared (May 31, 2012)

it is the womens right to choose and I don't need a sermon on Monday morning!!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

advocate said:


> Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
> Pattie Hunt


Way to go!! I totally agree.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Ever heard of Photoshop? Do you really believe even liberal doctors are so inhuman as to do what you claim they do?


bonbf3 said:


> Oh, please. Do you really want to see pictures? Because they're out there. Babies are dismembered alive in the womb. If their body is born, the skull will be crushed or the spinal cord cut as the arms and legs thrash in the newly felt air. Science has documented that babies feel pain at twenty weeks. It's happening every day. It's happening right now as you sit at your computer, sipping coffee and reading this.
> 
> I would not post such disturbing pictures on here. If you want pictures, just google "abortion pictures." Make sure you're sitting down and haven't eaten recently.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> You are so right lady. Comman ground is sometimes hard to find unless we look for it.


I agree.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

RosieC said:


> I CANNOT FOR THE LIFE OF ME, BELIEVE THAT THIS POST IS STILL ON KP . STOP IT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE !
> 
> CAN'T SOMEONE REPORT THIS AND GET THIS SLOP OFF OF THIS FORUM ????????????????????????????????????????


Rosie, Which part are you calling slop--comments that favor abortions or those that oppose them?

Then, there is the fact that the owners and administrators of this site provide for *non-knitting* comments. No one made you open a link in that section titled War on Women.

Your comment comes across as extremely judgmental.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Ever heard of Photoshop? Do you really believe even liberal doctors are so inhuman as to do what you claim they do?


Purl, I don't think Gosnell would have been convicted with photoshopped photos.


----------



## Grannie Sandy (Jan 13, 2014)

You brought up some good points. Not every doctor is great. They have to have a B average in order to pass. BUT a B at Harvard is not the same as a B at the U of the Carribbean (a home study program to become a doctor of medicine.) That's why it is important to find out where your doctor graduated and IF they keep up to date. Check the credentials of specialists too. Low priced doctors may not be as well trained as the high priced ones. I would not want plastic or any surgery from an unqualified doctor.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Lostarts, thank you for your openness and your thoughtfulness.


I'm pro-life and Catholic. Even the Pope says, "Who am I to judge," I know that goes for me, too. I have not judged and do not judge women who have abortions - some situations are beyond difficult.

Some people don't believe in God, but I do. And I believe that God knows why we make our choices, what is in our hearts. I don't know that, and it's not my place to judge another person. I have compassion for anyone who has lost a baby by any means.

However, I can make judgments about laws and policies. I believe that abortion is not our right. I believe it's the taking of an innocent life, and I feel a moral obligation to try to change that, just as pro-choice people made the change that legalized abortion.

I think the other choices, keeping the baby, adoption, are good choices.

I'm also against capital punishment. I don't think we have the right to take a human life for punishment either.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lostarts said:


> You talk like you think that people are quitting jobs where they can make a decent living (enough to be comfortable), in order to get benefits without working.
> 
> I happen to get SNAP benefits (what used to be called food stamps--if you're going to talk about benefits, learn what they're called).
> 
> ...


Thank you for posting your personal experience. I'll never understand how conservatives want to "save innocents" but don't give a darn about the people who are already here living in poverty. I guess it's not OK to abort a fetus but it's OK to let children starve because government programs are cut.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> How do you reconcile opposition to the death penalty for the guilty with approval of abortion of the innocent?


How do you reconcile opposition to reasoned choices about abortions to approval of the killing of a living, viable human being?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> How do you reconcile opposition to the death penalty for the guilty with approval of abortion of the innocent?


I don't. I believe that no woman should be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that she is unable to tolerate, usually for a good physical or emotional reason.

An idea: Why don't you anti-choice people set up a fund for research into keeping fetuses alive after removal from the womb? (If there is such research, it hasn't borne fruit yet, as far as I know.) It could be supported by donations from the billionaires that support all your other causes, like preventing medical care for poor children or taking food off their table.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> How do you reconcile opposition to reasoned choices about abortions to approval of the killing of a living, viable human being?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## cspaen34 (Jan 28, 2011)

LoisDC said:


> Obviously, no one is going to change their mind based on this forum, so why, why, why, do we have to have these posts started? As the saying goes, "I knit, so that I don't kill people".


I just quickly scaned thriugh and caught this post. So true. Hate seeing these political rantings get started here on KP. It is out of place here, whether one reads it or not.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Thank you for posting your personal experience. I'll never understand how conservatives want to "save innocents" but don't give a darn about the people who are already here living in poverty. I guess it's not OK to abort a fetus but it's OK to let children starve because government programs are cut.


Why do you think conservatives want to let people starve? Do you really believe that? Have you ever met a conservative who actually wanted people to starve?

Politicians are making a lot of stupid decisions - liberals and conservatives alike. Power corrupts.


----------



## Grannie Sandy (Jan 13, 2014)

Thank you for remembering Margaret Sanger, a registered nurse who worked in the New York tennements. She took action for planned parenthood because she found mothers of multiple children were committing suicide by inhaling gas from their stoves because they were pregnant again. We have pregnancy prevention because of brave people like her. She actually was jailed for giving out birth control information.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> I'm pro-life and Catholic. Even the Pope says, "Who am I to judge," I know that goes for me, too. I have not judged and do not judge women who have abortions - some situations are beyond difficult.
> 
> Some people don't believe in God, but I do. And I believe that God knows why we make our choices, what is in our hearts. I don't know that, and it's not my place to judge another person. I have compassion for anyone who has lost a baby by any means.
> 
> ...


Thank you for being open-minded and consistent. I may have been unfair to you in other messages, and I apologize. (Though I still don't believe that the monstrous things you describe are being done, at least by anyone who's sane.)


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I don't. I believe that no woman should be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that she is unable to tolerate, usually for a good physical or emotional reason.
> 
> An idea: Why don't you anti-choice people set up a fund for research into keeping fetuses alive after removal from the womb? (If there is such research, it hasn't borne fruit yet, as far as I know.) It could be supported by donations from the billionaires that support all your other causes, like preventing medical care for poor children or taking food off their table.


They are constantly studying ways to keep premature babies alive. Premature - meaning born before their due date. Of course, if they're aborted, the process could have damaged them beyond repair.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> I'm pro-life and Catholic. Even the Pope says, "Who am I to judge," I know that goes for me, too. I have not judged and do not judge women who have abortions - some situations are beyond difficult.
> 
> Some people don't believe in God, but I do. And I believe that God knows why we make our choices, what is in our hearts. I don't know that, and it's not my place to judge another person. I have compassion for anyone who has lost a baby by any means.
> 
> ...


That is interesting rhetoric, however, the woman who brought the case that caused the ruling called Roe vs Wade is not a liberal. She needed an abortion, period. 
The SCOTUS determined that we have a constitutional right to privacy and to abortions in consultation with our doctors. 
Anyone who disapproves of abortions should not have one.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Thank you for being open-minded and consistent. I may have been unfair to you in other messages, and I apologize. (Though I still don't believe that the monstrous things you describe are being done, at least by anyone who's sane.)


I appreciate your apology, although I haven't felt unfairly treated. If you do an internet search, you will see and read about how abortions are done. I'm sorry to say it's very hard to read, but that's the way they do it. I promise you, I am not making this up or exaggerating. Look up abortion and partial-birth abortion.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Purl, I don't think Gosnell would have been convicted with photoshopped photos.


Elyse, you're right about him, but he's hardly representative of doctors as a group. He's kind of extreme, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Maryhm (Oct 11, 2012)

I understand this is a very sensitive issue but the nasty replies aren't necessary. If you don't agree, move on. You don't have to spew such negativity. If you want to voice your opinion on this issue, go ahead but do it with some respect.


----------



## lfitzie (Apr 4, 2011)

You're over reacting, Patti. That is a very leftish tactic. Don't debate, just name call and over react. Why does someone else's opinion bother you so greatly? Aren't you up for any new thoughts?


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Grannie Sandy said:


> Thank you for remembering Margaret Sanger, a registered nurse who worked in the New York tennements. She took action for planned parenthood because she found mothers of multiple children were committing suicide by inhaling gas from their stoves because they were pregnant again. We have pregnancy prevention because of brave people like her. She actually was jailed for giving out birth control information.


She also was afraid that the "less-favoured races" (Darwin's term) were overtaking the white race. That is why most if not all of her clinics were started in black neighborhoods and she hired black ministers to preach sermons approving of them.

Margaret has more blood on her head than any one of most of the dictators in the 20th century.

I won't take the time or space to include quotes and references but what I have posted is well documented.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> I appreciate your apology, although I haven't felt unfairly treated. If you do an internet search, you will see and read about how abortions are done. I'm sorry to say it's very hard to read, but that's the way they do it. I promise you, I am not making this up or exaggerating. Look up abortion and partial-birth abortion.


Partial birth abortions are and have been illegal for a long, long time. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

States have been controlling the time period for legal abortions for much longer than that. It is a state's responsibility to order the particulars of abortion law within certain guidelines set by the federal gov't.


----------



## lfitzie (Apr 4, 2011)

Thanks, Joeysomma. Here's your hat...what's your hurry, Patti?


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

A good forty percent of people who receive SNAP benefits are the working poor. Many work for wealthy companies like Walmart who don't pay a living wage of adequate benefits. They are the same companies who heavily support politicians who enable huge corporate profits, support cuts to the life lines of the ever growing poor, many of whom are children.It goes on and on and on.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Elyse, you're right about him, but he's hardly representative of doctors as a group. He's kind of extreme, wouldn't you say?


Yes, he is/was extreme. My point is that while there surely is at least exaggeration on both sides, there are also documented cases of horrific practices going on the in the name of a woman's choice.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> People, beware. We are being divided along many lines: race, income, religion, and just today they're trying to stir up animosity between working women and stay-at-home mothers. Someone or some group is trying to rip this country apart. We have our differences of opinion, but we're all in this together. Let's not be enemies. Let's work together to find out the truth about things that divide us, to look at that truth and find some common ground. There's no need to hate people who don't agree with us.
> 
> The key is - let's support one another. We all know that our country is dreadfully divided. I think this is fueled by media who want to ramp up the emotions to gain viewers. We mustn't give in to this.
> 
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree with this. There's more than just the media instigating disagreement, but they certainly play a great part.

I'd be happy to fight alongside you.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

yorkie1 said:


> knitting, crocheting, all other crafts, ladies, PLEASE!!!


Then, the General Chit Chat sub topic would need to be removed. I suggest you just don't read General Chit Chat. That should solve your problem. Some people like General Chit Chat topics and like to share thoughts and stories not related to crafts.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Alcameron wrote:


> I'll never understand how conservatives want to "save innocents" but don't give a darn about the people who are already here living in poverty. I guess it's not OK to abort a fetus but it's OK to let children starve because government programs are cut.


I'm not looking for an argument, but please show me the statistics of any child who has died because supplemental food stamps were cut by a few dollars.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> That is interesting rhetoric, however, the woman who brought the case that caused the ruling called Roe vs Wade is not a liberal. She needed an abortion, period.
> The SCOTUS determined that we have a constitutional right to privacy and to abortions in consultation with our doctors.
> Anyone who disapproves of abortions should not have one.


I don't know if she was a liberal or a conservative - or interested in politics at all. She actually did not get the abortion because she was too far along in her pregnancy when the case was decided. She is now a fervent pro-life advocate. Look her up on the internet - Jane Roe. (Not her real name, but it'll get you there.)


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

advocate said:


> You people need to stay out of our Doctor's offices, out of our bedrooms and out of our politics.
> Bye Pattie


I agree. Let's keep the government out if all those places. Sharing ideas/positions doesn't put conservatives in you bedroom.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with this. There's more than just the media instigating disagreement, but they certainly play a great part.
> 
> I'd be happy to fight alongside you.


Thank you very much.


----------



## LanaG (Feb 15, 2011)

Oh, so very true! Life is sacred, not an inconvenience.


----------



## Maryhm (Oct 11, 2012)

lfitzie said:


> You're over reacting, Patti. That is a very leftish tactic. Don't debate, just name call and over react. Why does someone else's opinion bother you so greatly? Aren't you up for any new thoughts?


 :thumbup:


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

jzx330 said:


> I resent a bunch of MEN in congress telling me what to do with my body and that who make most the laws. I AM PRO CHOICE AND ALWAYS BE. Lets stick to yarn subjects and a good recipee now and then.


Men are half the equation. Keep them out if your body/bedroom and you won't have a problem.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

RosieC said:


> sometimes in the chat section, things take a serious turn. we all know it's not always about crafts. no one forces us to come here and no one chooses which posts to read - that's up to us.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> I appreciate your apology, although I haven't felt unfairly treated. If you do an internet search, you will see and read about how abortions are done. I'm sorry to say it's very hard to read, but that's the way they do it. I promise you, I am not making this up or exaggerating. Look up abortion and partial-birth abortion.


"Partial-birth" abortion is so rare that it doesn't bear discussing. It's certainly horrifying, but is not what pro-choice people are asking for. (Though if I had to choose between the life of a late-term fetus and the life of a mother who has other children, I would choose the living children and their mother.)


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

Joey - keep your nose out of my vagina which neither leans to the right or the left!


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

My side of this no I do not beleive in abortion. I have a friend who had an abortion, I understand why she did, but I myself would never do it. I do not condem her in the least. 

I had a miscarriage at six weeks my heart broke I will always wonder what that child could have been and I will not understand it until I die. 

Maybe that is why I can not judge my friend for her chossing the way she felt and what she did. She has always felt shame, and I feel shame that I could not keep this baby. We are both suffering not in the same way. I am not her judge and she is not mine.

That is what is called common ground.

I am an independant voter. I do not want to be condem because I do not beleive as liberal's do nor do I want to condem another women who chooses abortion. 

So please stop the I want only people who do not believe as I do to suffer in any way. I am really tired of being called names for what I believe.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Partial birth abortions are and have been illegal for a long, long time.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
> 
> States have been controlling the time period for legal abortions for much longer than that. It is a state's responsibility to order the particulars of abortion law within certain guidelines set by the federal gov't.


Partial birth abortion was banned in 2003 with bipartisan support and signed by George W. Bush.


----------



## Grannie Sandy (Jan 13, 2014)

Just because "It" wasn't talked about or heard of doesn't mean "It" didn't exist. Burying your head in the sand doesn't change things. I grew up in that era. "It" happened. Your argument is not justified. You shound like Queen Victoria. Talking about only "nice" things does not mean the "other" things are not going on--it just means you are not dealing with them. You are not helping to make things better. Providing young people with correct information will help them make better decisions. Think about the computer lingo GIGO. Garbage in equals garbage out. Please help people make informed decisions. I think you really do care about this topic but you have not taken the time to analyze the information you have been fed. Access the source of your information and reconsider your thoughts. You were born with a good mind and a caring heart. I think you are able to form your opinions without using the programing some others have fed you. Please remember that Christ said "The truth shall make you free." You can still be a Godful woman and do your own thinking.


----------



## blavell (Mar 18, 2011)

Spoken like a true Republican and, as usual, you're way off base when describing the views of the Left. Even though I don't agree with you, I respect your right to your views - just don't try to push them onto those of us who are on this site to talk about knitting. That's all I have to say & I will not be watching this topic any further. 
BTW - FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERING LEAVING THIS SITE BECAUSE OF THIS POST - ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS NOT CHECK THE "WATCH THIS TOPIC" BOX & YOU WON'T HAVE TO READ ANYMORE OF THIS.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SQM said:


> Joey - keep your nose out of my vagina which neither leans to the right or the left!


Hi, SQM. Yours is a very graphic message. Be thankful that Joey lives so far away; who knows how long a nose she has?

Is there still much snow in your part of the city?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> "Partial-birth" abortion is so rare that it doesn't bear discussing. It's certainly horrifying, but is not what pro-choice people are asking for. (Though if I had to choose between the life of a late-term fetus and the life of a mother who has other children, I would choose the living children and their mother.)


Partial birth abortion is now banned by federal law in this country, thank goodness. It is estimated that 2200 were performed each year until the ban.


----------



## Judithlynn (May 13, 2012)

hcontario said:


> The Roe vs Wade ruling by the Supreme Court was made 40 years old.
> Name calling has not changed that and has not changed peoples' opinions.
> I respect individual right to choose.


When does the baby get a right to choose?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Partial birth abortions are and have been illegal for a long, long time.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
> 
> States have been controlling the time period for legal abortions for much longer than that. It is a state's responsibility to order the particulars of abortion law within certain guidelines set by the federal gov't.


Many states still allow abortion after 20 weeks, even though science has determined that the baby can feel pain at 20 weeks.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Judithlynn said:


> When does the baby get a right to choose?


Excellent question. And if she's a baby girl, isn't that its own "war on women?"


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

blavell said:


> Spoken like a true Republican and, as usual, you're way off base when describing the views of the Left. Even though I don't agree with you, I respect your right to your views - just don't try to push them onto those of us who are on this site to talk about knitting. That's all I have to say & I will not be watching this topic any further.
> BTW - FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERING LEAVING THIS SITE BECAUSE OF THIS POST - ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS NOT CHECK THE "WATCH THIS TOPIC" BOX & YOU WON'T HAVE TO READ ANYMORE OF THIS.


Actually, reminders keep coming. The box to check (or link to click on) is the "unwatch" at the top left of the messages.

Even though you're on your way out, I want to second what you say about how the right is always telling us what we think.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> How do you reconcile opposition to reasoned choices about abortions to approval of the killing of a living, viable human being?


I don't. One of the reasoned choices right now is the killing of a living viable human being. I think that wrong - I don't reconcile that with anything.


----------



## Judithlynn (May 13, 2012)

Abi_marsden said:


> Let me get this right people are saying abortion is wrong.well what about women who get raped,girls who get pregnant and ruin there lives becourse they were made to have an baby.surely that's wrong to.how can abortion be so wrong when it could save life's and not ruin them.


My GD got pregnant at the age of15. Our GGS is now 2 yrs old. He has been a joy to the whole family. He has not nor ever will ruin anyone's life. My GD is a senior in high school making As and Bs. She is going to college next year to become a vet.

Any child you don't want can be adopted out. I know personally of numerous people who would jump at adopting.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

If you leave this site because someone spoke their mind it is your problem not hers. Everyone has a right to their opinion. And the statement of spoken like a true republican is just as much garbage as the stuff I read that supposedly conservatives believe. You see lumping all together is not only not wise for conservatives but for liberals also.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Grannie Sandy said:


> Just because "It" wasn't talked about or heard of doesn't mean "It" didn't exist. Burying your head in the sand doesn't change things. I grew up in that era. "It" happened. Your argument is not justified. You shound like Queen Victoria. Talking about only "nice" things does not mean the "other" things are not going on--it just means you are not dealing with them. You are not helping to make things better. Providing young people with correct information will help them make better decisions. Think about the computer lingo GIGO. Garbage in equals garbage out. Please help people make informed decisions. I think you really do care about this topic but you have not taken the time to analyze the information you have been fed. Access the source of your information and reconsider your thoughts. You were born with a good mind and a caring heart. I think you are able to form your opinions without using the programing some others have fed you. Please remember that Christ said "The truth shall make you free." You can still be a Godful woman and do your own thinking.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> I don't know if she was a liberal or a conservative - or interested in politics at all. She actually did not get the abortion because she was too far along in her pregnancy when the case was decided. She is now a fervent pro-life advocate. Look her up on the internet - Jane Roe. (Not her real name, but it'll get you there.)


I have seen her speak. 
I have been aware of her for several years. I would say that she is more pro-Norma McCorvey than anything else. She seems to lack any convictions. that is just my opinion, of course. 
YOU said that it was liberals who got Roe vs Wade passed. When it is pointed out that she was not a liberal you change your position. 
Didn't I just read you getting all upset about another poster changing their position and bring up different points during a thread?


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Judithlynn said:


> When does the baby get a right to choose?


I guess when they reach age 7, the age of reason!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Ever heard of Photoshop? Do you really believe even liberal doctors are so inhuman as to do what you claim they do?


Well, I hadn't thought of that. I've seen pictures that weren't photoshopped. At least I don't think they were. I know I've seen pictures before there was photoshopping.

However, without pictures, you can still read what the procedures involve. Try to find an objective source for the description of the procedure. A medical source - maybe an ob/gyn source.

You're right - it's hard to believe anything we read or see any more. Especially with photoshop.


----------



## Judithlynn (May 13, 2012)

And, the heart that beats at 18 days cannot live outside the uterus! That is not a "person" in my book![/quote]

So does your reasoning also apply to the person on life support that can't live without it? Does that make him not a "person", too? I see little difference.


----------



## Judithlynn (May 13, 2012)

tamarque said:


> I guess when they reach age 7, the age of reason!


Oh, so I can "abort" any child up to the age of 7? Sounds like what you are saying.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Judithlynn said:


> And, the heart that beats at 18 days cannot live outside the uterus! That is not a "person" in my book!


So does your reasoning also apply to the person on life support that can't live without it? Does that make him not a "person", too? I see little difference.[/quote]

Makes him or her dead, IMHO.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Judithlynn said:


> Oh, so I can "abort" any child up to the age of 7? Sounds like what you are saying.


We used to say

"ask a stupid question...".


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Purl, I don't think Gosnell would have been convicted with photoshopped photos.


No, I don't think so either. But there's a reason he's now languishing behind bars--that chamber of horrors he was running was highly illegal and not at all representative of clinics and facilities that provide abortions.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

I want to add something here with all this talk of one's right to their opinion. I see very little opinion being presented. This post began with matter of fact statements about the author's understanding of the world around him/her. This was not an opinion piece at all. The KP poster, under the pretext of being polite and reasonable, posted a very judgemental filled with vituperative hyperbole against liberals and lauded the right wing position of right to life as these people define it.

I am a right-to-lifer, too. I believe in the right to life for all people and living beings. I believe in the right to ongoing life of the environment and the universe. I also believe in opinions being based on factual experiences, not emotional assaults by politicians and corporate heads who have much to gain by sewing misinformation and fear mongering. 

I have had some of my best conversations with fundamentalist right wing people. What worked is that we were respectful to each other and did not resort to judgemental and disrespectful assertions about others experiences. One thing I don't hear in discussion by the anti-abortion side is anything that even remotely sounds like personal experience on a large scale level or anything that looks like a fact.

Opinions are fine when stated appropriately as opinions and then backed up with something real.


----------



## 59891 (Apr 18, 2012)

I agree with joeysomma!

It sure does get everyone's knickers in a twist, doesn't it?


----------



## khmullins (Apr 11, 2011)

If you are insulted, you should not have read it. Your views are insulting to others. We should show respect for other views whether we agree or not.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

2E said:


> I agree with joeysomma!
> 
> It sure does get everyone's knickers in a twist, doesn't it?


Only the lies do that.


----------



## calisuzi (Apr 1, 2013)

We do not all hold to your beliefs religious or political and the War on Women goes far beyond abortion. If there is so concern about abortion why is the far right religious faction trying to deprive women of access to contraception. I for one am not willing to see any of my rights taken from me by any man. Some are even saying our voting rights should be taken from us.


----------



## calisuzi (Apr 1, 2013)

We do not all hold to your beliefs religious or political and the War on Women goes far beyond abortion. If there is so concern about abortion why is the far right religious faction trying to deprive women of access to contraception. I for one am not willing to see any of my rights taken from me by any man. Some are even saying our voting rights should be taken from us.


----------



## calisuzi (Apr 1, 2013)

Sorry but I have.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

calisuzi said:


> We do not all hold to your beliefs religious or political and the War on Women goes far beyond abortion. If there is so concern about abortion why is the far right religious faction trying to deprive women of access to contraception. I for one am not willing to see any of my rights taken from me by any man. Some are even saying our voting rights should be taken from us.


To what are you referring when you say that some are trying to deprive women to access to contraception? Each of us is free to go into any drug store or pharmacy and purchase any number of contraceptive items.

The idea of "I have the right to someone else paying for my birth control pills" (which is essentially what the Sandra Fluke brough-ha-ha was all about) is NOT the same as denying access to contraception.


----------



## jennifer1954 (Nov 8, 2011)

When abortion is legal it is safer, when it is illegal people do unsafe things to terminate a pregnancy. People should not have to get the approval of employers to have birth control prescriptions, or tell them why they need any medicine. Privacy is important because prospective employers may have opinions about part of your life that you don't want to share.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Judithlynn said:


> Oh, so I can "abort" any child up to the age of 7? Sounds like what you are saying.


My father used to say it was self-awareness. Then he changed his mind and became pro-life. You never know.


----------



## jennifer1954 (Nov 8, 2011)

Sandra Fluke had a friend that needed to control a uterine problem that needs the same medicine as birthcontrol but she could not get it and had to use an inferior choice that led to her requiring surgery. It had nothing to do with preventing pregnancy.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

jennifer1954 said:


> When abortion is legal it is safer, when it is illegal people do unsafe things to terminate a pregnancy. People should not have to get the approval of employers to have birth control prescriptions, or tell them why they need any medicine. Privacy is important because prospective employers may have opinions about part of your life that you don't want to share.


Doctors treating pregnant women consider themselves as having two patients - mother and baby. Abortion is never safe for the baby. It's the goal of abortion that one of every two people involved dies.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

jennifer1954 said:


> Sandra Fluke had a friend that needed to control a uterine problem that needs the same medicine as birthcontrol but she could not get it and had to use an inferior choice that led to her requiring surgery. It had nothing to do with preventing pregnancy.


That's different then.


----------



## Becca (Jan 26, 2011)

How interesting that pro-lifers don't wear the shoes of those who have abortions because mother nature herself decides to abort the fetus and the doctor has to finish the job. Not all miscarriages (abortions) are spontaneous. Some last months.


----------



## momforthree (Nov 10, 2011)

One thing I know: your HOME supposed to be the safest place on the Earth for you & your fam. Right? You can even protect your home with a gun. It is yours! How is possible then, that the womb, which is the fetus' home, is not safe for that innocent tinny life. How to kill only because it is inconvenient? What justifies a murder? I worked for over 3 years in as RN in Ob-Gy, but I could never touch a baby's life! The Dr I worked with, understood and respected my position.

NOBODY wants to deprive women of contraception, but they don't want to pay for it!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

calisuzi said:


> We do not all hold to your beliefs religious or political and the War on Women goes far beyond abortion. If there is so concern about abortion why is the far right religious faction trying to deprive women of access to contraception. I for one am not willing to see any of my rights taken from me by any man. Some are even saying our voting rights should be taken from us.


They're not trying to deprive women of contraception. They just don't want to pay for it. If my daughter came to me and asked me to pay for her contraceptives, I'd laugh in disbelief. Adults pay for their own contraceptives.

If you can't manage to buy your own contraceptives, then you probably are not ready to be sexually active.

Good grief, ladies, nobody paid for my mother's contraceptives!

What's next? I'd like you to please pay for my toothpaste. I HAVE to have it. And I need three kinds, please: sensitive teeth, tartar control, whitening, and regular.

Oh - and my dermatologist told me to use only Dove soap. So please - pay up.

And the shoe inserts. I'm sorry I bought so many. The first ones didn't fit, the second ones hurt my feet, and the third ones were just right!

Bras. Where do I begin? I need strapless, halter, regular, underwire, and plain. I need each of those types in white, black, and nude. I'll pay for the tiger-striped ones myself. It would be just silly for me to ask you to!

And one last thing for now. It's been cold,and snow is predicted for the first time in years in my area. I need a long winter coat, a warmer hat, and boots. I'll pick them out - you just pick up the tab. And thanks heaps.    :shock:


----------



## KnitPicker (Jan 19, 2011)

We do have to remember that this site (overall) is not a place to further our political, religious, or other causes. It is a discussion group. If someone doesn't want to discuss something in a civilized manner without calling names or using vulgar language, then they should pass without remarking about the subject.

The "Chat Line" is the place for ALL subjects, even those some of us may feel are very controversial. We don't have to click on them, or add our remarks. We are supposed to be adults, therefore, our tempers and feelings need to be checked when writing on this site and in this category. It is necessary for all of us to be nice to each other, no matter the subject. If we can't be nice, then we need to move on to another category within KP.

Every woman has the right - the God-given right - to choose for herself whether to terminate the pregnancy or not. That choice begins with having sex or not. And each step of the way to full term birth has a choice.

There is a caveat with this: We have the right to choose our actions, but we don't have control over the consequences. That goes for this subject, and any subject that may come up on KP. Let's be nice out there, everyone. We need each other.


----------



## KnitPicker (Jan 19, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> They're not trying to deprive women of contraception. They just don't want to pay for it. If my daughter came to me and asked me to pay for her contraceptives, I'd laugh in disbelief. Adults pay for their own contraceptives.
> 
> If you can't manage to buy your own contraceptives, then you probably are not ready to be sexually active.
> 
> ...


LOVE IT! Right on.


----------



## momforthree (Nov 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> They're not trying to deprive women of contraception. They just don't want to pay for it. If my daughter came to me and asked me to pay for her contraceptives, I'd laugh in disbelief. Adults pay for their own contraceptives.
> 
> If you can't manage to buy your own contraceptives, then you probably are not ready to be sexually active.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## marosa9-1-8 (Dec 3, 2011)

i don't think you should lump or stereotype pepole in catagories such as left or right. nothing is simply black or white: there are many shades of gray in between.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Now you're being facetious. If your daughter were a 13-year-old getting a lot of peer pressure to have sex, would you laugh?

If insurance won't pay for contraceptive medications (which have uses in addition to preventing pregnancy), should it continue paying for meds like Viagra? Should it continue to pay for my synthroid? Should it pay at all for "overactive bladder" meds? None of these is a life-and-death type of med.; are they also like bras?

And if you ever listened to Rick Santorum, he finds contraception objectionable and would like to outlaw it, as would quite a few others on the right, including the former corrupt governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell.


bonbf3 said:


> They're not trying to deprive women of contraception. They just don't want to pay for it. If my daughter came to me and asked me to pay for her contraceptives, I'd laugh in disbelief. Adults pay for their own contraceptives.
> 
> If you can't manage to buy your own contraceptives, then you probably are not ready to be sexually active.
> 
> ...


----------



## bettymagu (Sep 27, 2011)

then you should not have read this thread. In my experience the more "holier than thou" attitude hides an inborn hypocrisy.


----------



## bettymagu (Sep 27, 2011)

the problem here is that they make adoptions so rigid and heartless, a great many people adopt outside the country, i.e. China and the eastern European countries.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

KnitPicker said:


> We do have to remember that this site (overall) is not a place to further our political, religious, or other causes. It is a discussion group. If someone doesn't want to discuss something in a civilized manner without calling names or using vulgar language, then they should pass without remarking about the subject.
> 
> The "Chat Line" is the place for ALL subjects, even those some of us may feel are very controversial. We don't have to click on them, or add our remarks. We are supposed to be adults, therefore, our tempers and feelings need to be checked when writing on this site and in this category. It is necessary for all of us to be nice to each other, no matter the subject. If we can't be nice, then we need to move on to another category within KP.
> 
> ...


I hope you don't mind if I respectfully disagree. I don't think the right to terminate a pregnancy is a God-given right. I don't think God has given us the right to terminate any human being. Just my opinion. I know that many do not agree with me.

You and I are in agreement that we should be nice, no matter what our opinions.


----------



## bettymagu (Sep 27, 2011)

I am from Pennsylvania and Santorum is a complete idiot


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bettymagu said:


> I am from Pennsylvania and Santorum is a complete idiot


And I am from New York and he's still a complete idiot. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But that bitch-slapping kitten in your avatar is completely adorable.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Now you're being facetious. If your daughter were a 13-year-old getting a lot of peer pressure to have sex, would you laugh?
> 
> If insurance won't pay for contraceptive medications (which have uses in addition to preventing pregnancy), should it continue paying for meds like Viagra? Should it continue to pay for my synthroid? Should it pay at all for "overactive bladder" meds? None of these is a life-and-death type of med.; are they also like bras?
> 
> And if you ever listened to Rick Santorum, he finds contraception objectionable and would like to outlaw it, as would quite a few others on the right, including the former corrupt governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell.


Thank you for taking my post as it was intended and not being offended.

If my 13-year old daughter (or real 17-year old granddaughter) were being pressured into having sex, I would tell a lot of things:
13 is too young to have sex.
Choose your friends wisely.
Remember that even good kids sometimes do the wrong thing - don't follow them.
Remind her that she shouldn't have sex unless she's ready and able to have and support a child because there is no 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy.
Remind her that having sex outside of marriage is something we don't do in our family. (Advice I read and found very helpful and useful - sort of pride in your family type thing.)
Tell her firmly that she is not allowed to have sex, and since she's 13, she must obey her parents.
Ask her how she would respond in certain situations so she won't be caught off-guard. (Also good advice from - I think it was a policeman visiting school - or a counselor.)

I'd also find out who was pressuring her and make sure she found other people to hang around with. 13? After I picked myself up off the floor, I'd be watching her like a hawk. If a 13-year old is thinking about having sex, I'd consider it a very serious situation and there would be a LOT of talking, a LOT of reassuring, a LOT of parental support. And still watching like a hawk.

I have to say I wrote these things off the cuff. If I were really in that situation, I'd give it a whole lot more thought. This is just judging from the way I raised my own children.

I was a pretty lenient parent, but there were lines that could not be crossed. My children knew that, and they managed to have a great time without crossing those lines. I was lucky.

I know people slip. Kids have sex. Girls get pregnant. It happened to friends of mine. But that doesn't make it good. Parents have to be the grown-ups and set the standards.  If the child doesn't meet the standard, love and support. But set the standard first - he/she may just live up to it.

I think the govt should NOT pay for Viagra. Why should they pay for it? Or, more to the point, why shouldn't I pay for it myself?

It's one thing for a person who needs medication for an illness and can't afford to pay for it to have it paid for by the govt. (meaning the taxpayers). It's another thing to have a Harvard grad student claim that she can't afford her birth control pills which she said she wanted for birth control, not endometriosis. Why doesn't she ask her parents? They have more of an interest in her sex life than the general taxpayer.

Having sex is not an illness for which medication is required. I'm sorry - I just think it's irresponsible. If you can't pay for your birth control, then you probably aren't ready to be sexual active.

My posts are too long. Sorry. I'll try to do better.


----------



## Tourmaline (Nov 6, 2013)

I read Knitting Paradise to learn what others are creating. I do not think
this is the right forum for political and/or religiou views. PLEASE
do not use this forum to promote your views.


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

SKRB said:


> Joeysmma,
> What is the purpose of posting such a subject on a fiber arts site? Posting an article written in such a way that it promotes contention and name calling? While you have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. When you post something like this, it is akin to setting the fire just to see who can be burned. Yes, this section is a general chat section, and this subject is not prohibited, but what is the purpose?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: 
Joysomma, I agree with some of what you said and I disagree with some of what you said. I will not say which is which because i do not want to indulge in more controversy. I would simply like to ask why you chose to post something that is obviously designed to start one of KPs famous arguments.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Thank you for taking my post as it was intended. I think the govt should NOT pay for Viagra. Why should they pay for it? Or, more to the point, why shouldn't I pay for it myself?
> 
> It's one thing for a person who needs medication for an illness and can't afford to pay for it to have it paid for by the govt. (meaning the taxpayers). It's another thing to have a Harvard grad student claim that she can't afford her birth control pills which she said she wanted for birth control, not endometriosis. Having sex is not an illness for which medication is required. I'm sorry - I just think it's irresponsible. If you can't pay for your birth control, then you probably aren't ready to be sexual active.


Alas the most effective birth control methods (pills and IUDs) are high maintenance and costly--just getting the prescription or having the device inserted isn't the end of it. It's easy to imagine a woman using either of these methods for years suddenly losing her job and no longer being able to pay. What are her options then? Rely on drugstore methods that have a fairly significant failure rate? Tell her DH "hands off" and move into the guest room? Or (worst of all) ration out the pills to make them last as long as possible, or fail to have her IUD checked and/or replaced at regular intervals and risk devastating consequences?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

bettymagu said:


> I am from Pennsylvania and Santorum is a complete idiot


Nice. Right. Like this one.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> And I am from New York and he's still a complete idiot. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> But that bitch-slapping kitten in your avatar is completely adorable.


Another nice one.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Tourmaline said:


> I read Knitting Paradise to learn what others are creating. I do not think
> this is the right forum for political and/or religiou views. PLEASE
> do not use this forum to promote your views.


Tourmaline,
It was abundantly clear from the title to the post that it was about politics. If you prefer to avoid such posts that is your decision. Others of us may decided to participate in a political discussion.

PLEASE do not use your opinion to limit the ability for me to discuss mine.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Alas the most effective birth control methods (pills and IUDs) are high maintenance and costly--just getting the prescription or having the device inserted isn't the end of it. It's easy to imagine a woman on the pill for years suddenly losing her job and no longer being able to pay. What are her options then? Rely on drugstore methods that have a fairly significant failure rate? Tell her DH "hands off" and move into the guest room? Or (worst of all) fail to have her IUD checked and/or replaced at regular intervals and risk devastating consequences?


Seriously? I can't imagine anyone not being able to figure out something. And even if they can't put their heads together and come up with something, does that mean the government should pay so they can have sex? Somehow that just doesn't make sense to me. The government doesn't pay for me to have filet mignon. Can't we do without for a little while? We do without the BMW. We do without the big screen tv. Can't we play Parcheesi in the evening for a while?

I don't know. I did not come from poor OR a rich family. I can't imagine my parents ever even considering asking the govt to pay for such a thing. Recreational sex is not a necessity of life. Grown-ups can do without it for a while.

I don't know - maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see the sense in it. Maybe I'm too old.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Sorry for the double post. Told ya I'm too old!


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

bettymagu said:


> I am from Pennsylvania and Santorum is a complete idiot


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :XD:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Seriously? I can't imagine anyone not being able to figure out something. And even if they can't put their heads together and come up with something, does that mean the government should pay so they can have sex? Somehow that just doesn't make sense to me. The government doesn't pay for me to have filet mignon. Can't we do without for a little while? We do without the BMW. We do without the big screen tv. Can't we play Parcheesi in the evening for a while?
> 
> I don't know. I did not come from poor OR a rich family. I can't imagine my parents ever even considering asking the govt to pay for such a thing. Recreational sex is not a necessity of life. Grown-ups can do without it for a while.
> 
> I don't know - maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see the sense in it. Maybe I'm too old.


It's in the government's, society's, and a woman's best interests not to get pregnant if she's unable to support and care for a child. I'm aware that you're firmly opposed to abortion--surely you're willing to pay a little extra to ensure that there are fewer--and maybe someday, no--unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Seriously? I can't imagine anyone not being able to figure out something. And even if they can't put their heads together and come up with something, does that mean the government should pay so they can have sex? Somehow that just doesn't make sense to me. The government doesn't pay for me to have filet mignon. Can't we do without for a little while? We do without the BMW. We do without the big screen tv. Can't we play Parcheesi in the evening for a while?
> 
> I don't know. I did not come from poor OR a rich family. I can't imagine my parents ever even considering asking the govt to pay for such a thing. Recreational sex is not a necessity of life. Grown-ups can do without it for a while.


Not really. Women with regular sex lives enjoy better health, on average, than those who give it up for whatever reason.

From WebMD:

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health


----------



## sibergirl (May 4, 2011)

Please, keep these personal topics to yourself and people you know. I come here for the knitting. If I want to engage in political/religious debate, I will go to the proper place.


----------



## yorkie1 (Sep 5, 2011)

Women with regular sex lives enjoy better health, on average, than those who give it up for whatever reason.

This is a bunch of crap, At 80 I'm living proof of otherwise!!!


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

Yay!!!


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

sibergirl said:


> Please, keep these personal topics to yourself and people you know. I come here for the knitting. If I want to engage in political/religious debate, I will go to the proper place.


This IS the proper place--the NON-KNITTING section. It is fine for you if you don't want to come here but don't try to take away my opportunity to do so.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

sibergirl said:


> Please, keep these personal topics to yourself and people you know. I come here for the knitting. If I want to engage in political/religious debate, I will go to the proper place.


I suggest then that you hit the "unwatch" button. This is the General ChitChat section.


----------



## Cade's G'ma (Mar 30, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> She posted this on the thread specifically named Chit-Chat (Non-knitting talk). That's one reason why she posted it here. Maybe she wanted to support the pro-life position. Maybe she wanted to alert people to the huge number of human beings who have been legally killed under Roe v. Wade. Maybe she wanted to show and garner support for the pro-life movement. Maybe she wanted to stand up for saving the lives of innocent babies.
> 
> I, for one, am glad she did.


I am too!


----------



## IndigoSpinner (Jul 9, 2011)

Dlclose said:


> I see that you have believed the lies! So sorry for you.


I see that I have failed in my intent.

What I hoped to do was get some people to _think._ I don't care if you are thinking and paying attention with the intent to prove me wrong. I wanted people to get a better grasp of how complicated and all-encompassing the war on women really is, and to look at the consequences of what various groups are doing.

"I see that you have believed the lies!" tells me that you're going to blame me rather than think for yourself.

I see so many people who would rather do _anything_ than assemble data, put it together, and draw their own conclusions.

Look at the whole situation over again with fresh eyes, even if it's only to disprove me to yourself. That's all I really was hoping for: to get someone to _think!_

"I see that you have believed the lies!" without any correction or clue what you think are lies also gives me no opportunity to change my mind, and makes me wonder if you are able to state your position coherently or if you've just been told what to believe and have no idea why you're believing it.

Look around, pay attention to who is saying what and what the logical conclusion of their words and actions would be. What are people _saying?_ What are people _doing?_ And _who_ are the people who are saying and doing these things? And what will be the consequences of these words and actions? Once you can answer these questions, you'll know for yourself what's happening and who's doing it.

And then it won't matter what I think.


----------



## sparrefankerl (Feb 9, 2011)

ddonnelly said:


> As a progressive feminist Christian I ask you what value does the woman's life have? And if a woman cannot part with a baby and keeps it, the government ( read conservatives here) desert her and the child once born and puts them into adjunct poverty.
> 
> I have never had an abortion myself, however I know women, both unmarked and married that have chosen to abort.
> 
> ...


In what recent years did the Catholics condemn abortion?


----------



## Janiee (Dec 17, 2013)

Let's agree to disagree. I respect your view and feel no one should send you hateful comments regarding this highly charged and very serious subject.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

We also have to take some of the realities of human biology into consideration. Hormones run wild during the most productive reproductive years and can overwhelm a person's good sense.

That said, we have to start educating our children at an early age about appropriate behavior and consequences in a rational way, not using scare tactics. The same politicians who denounce paying for contraception and abortions are the ones who denounce sex education. 

Many parents are not emotionally or intellectually capable of teaching their children. 

When I was a child (last century, folks) there was a tutorial about menstruation available from one of the sanitary pad companies. Parents had to sign a consent form for daughters to see the film. It was presented as a matter of fact normal process in human growth treating us 5th and 6th graders as young people learning to take charge of our bodily functions. As unemotional as could be. 

And while the girls were participating in the program, the boys' gym teacher was making a presentation, also factual, about being a responsible man and trying to dispel the nervous tee hee factor. 

In retrospect it was tastefully done and was a service especially to those children whose parents had hang ups about the general topic.

When people understand their anatomy, learn to respect people of the opposite sex, and learn to control their bodies there will be fewer people indulging in experimental and sometimes disastrous sexual activities.

But we can't just feed kids platitudes. Of make sex dirty or frightening. In a committed relationship between mature people, it can be an enriching part of one's life. We have to learn self control just the way we needed to be potty trained as small children or learned to eat with utensils and not with our fists. 

And we surely don't want to glorify those public figures who live profligate lives. Too much fuss is made of actors and singers and politicians who are promiscuous and sometimes sanctimonious hypocrites.


----------



## MindyT (Apr 29, 2011)

Thanks for the RNC's talking points. I won't call you names, I'll just say you are woefully misinformed.


----------



## brendurham (Dec 14, 2012)

I chose not to follow this topic.....as is my right.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

sparrefankerl said:


> In what recent years did the Catholics condemn abortion?


Interesting topic within a topic. This from Ask.com:

It was commonly held, even by Christians, that a human being did not come into existence as such immediately on conception, but only some weeks later. Saint Anselm of Canterbury (10331109) said that "no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception". Abortion was viewed as a sin, but not as murder, until the embryo was animated by a human soul. A few decades after Anselm's death, Catholic canon law, in the Decretum Gratiani, stated that "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body." This Aristotelian view of delayed ensoulment was abandoned by the 17th century, when the conviction prevailed that the soul was present from the moment of conception, and the scientific proof in 1827 of the existence of the female ovum and in 1875 of the involvement of the union of a gamete from each parent in conception reduced speculation about a delayed substantial change.


----------



## Janiee (Dec 17, 2013)

I totally agree. I just received a very nasty post when I merely said "let's agree to disagree" and that no one should send her nasty comments. Also, that we should all be respectful of one another. This woman immediately responded with hate.

Unbelievable.

I am new to this site.

If we don't have pleasant chit chat, I'm gone.


----------



## easyonly (Nov 10, 2011)

Why or why didn't ADMIN delete this post immediately!!!


----------



## guen12 (Jul 28, 2011)

I do not go along with any kind of abortions for birth control. I mean by that 1. Women KEEP YOUR LEGS together. 2. Men KEEP YOUR PANTS zipped. 3. Women when it's party time carry some form of protection. This can help with birth control as well as protection from STDs. If not this, have a supply of the morning after pill. 

Every time I come across this kind of discussion I often wish the mothers of rapists, child molesters and perpatraters (sp) of incest would have aborted there fetuses. On the other side of that I feel very strongly about the women who have affairs, outside of a committed relationship, if they are in one. Along with that if a man can't seem to keep safe sex supplies with him GET A 
VASECTOMY. Then women wouldn't always have to be making this decision. And say what you want but in 99% of the cases the woman has to make the decision. Just think how different the world might have been if Hitler's mom would have aborted him. Maybe Ted Bundy wouldn't have been around to KILL all those girls, on and on it goes. I am not the least bit upset at this topic. People make choices. What they decide today they will have to deal with tomorrow. This is reality. It is to bad it seems to fall on the woman's shoulders and the man is totally in the clear. I don't like our boys going off to war. But it happens and will continue to happen. 
MY


----------



## Daisybel (Nov 27, 2012)

lostarts said:


> I know how you feel. I have severe allergies, and they have bizarre symptoms.
> 
> BTW, if you have really strange symptoms and your doctors are trying to diplomatically, or not so diplomatically, tell you that you're crazy, you just might have allergies. Allergies can cause any symptom of any contagious disease, plus a lot more. Which means they can generate symptoms that don't go together to make any diagnostic picture that your doctor can recognize.
> 
> ...


I do have allergies but they are manageable now. I had years of constant headaches before finding out that I was lactose intolerant. Now I know to avoid anything which makes me ill, I don't get the sickness and headaches any more. I can cope with the depression - other people have it far worse than I do, so in that way I'm lucky. I have very thorough check ups every year as I had cancer a few years ago and now they check everything for any abnormal signs. They don't expect that cancer to come back, luckily.

I am so surprised and grateful for everyone's concern!


----------



## Dawne27 (Sep 10, 2013)

If there are discussions like this it should be in a special section called the "Soap Box" or whatever. It does not belong here. You and I each have a right to our opinion and it could be on the "Soap Box".


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

annacovasa said:


> One thing I know: your HOME supposed to be the safest place on the Earth for you & your fam. Right? You can even protect your home with a gun. It is yours! How is possible then, that the womb, which is the fetus' home, is not safe for that innocent tinny life. How to kill only because it is inconvenient? What justifies a murder? I worked for over 3 years in as RN in Ob-Gy, but I could never touch a baby's life! The Dr I worked with, understood and respected my position.
> 
> NOBODY wants to deprive women of contraception, but they don't want to pay for it!


If one gets free care to have a baby, and men get free care to "make" babies, why do women have to pay to prevent babies?


----------



## cspaen34 (Jan 28, 2011)

easyonly said:


> Why or why didn't ADMIN delete this post immediately!!!


Agree, I don't think this is what they invisioned when they set up "Chit Chat" and maybe need to readdress it. If we were sitting together knitting and chit chatting would this be part of the atmoshere? :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Thank you for taking my post as it was intended and not being offended.
> 
> If my 13-year old daughter (or real 17-year old granddaughter) were being pressured into having sex, I would tell a lot of things:
> 13 is too young to have sex.
> ...


Other than the relatively few people on Medicaid who would be asking the government to pay for any Medication, even in research the gov't is only involved in the very early and general phase.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

cspaen34 said:


> Agree, I don't think this is what they invisioned when they set up "Chit Chat" and maybe need to readdress it. If we were sitting together knitting and chit chatting would this be part of the atmoshere? :thumbup:


Admin specifically and purposefully changed their position from NO posting about politics and religion to YES. 
So I think that this is exactly what they envisioned and decided to allow.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> So who's really waging a war on women? The answer is written in blood. [/I]


First of all the article misstates and mischaracterizes what the left believes. So, the whole premise of the article is grossly faulty. And when a premise is this faulty, that taints the whole argument and makes it invalid.

But to answer the question, it's most DEFINITELY conservatives that wage the War on Women. And you're right, when speaking of Liberal's "War on Women" that you put it in quotes.

But, I notice that within the mischaraterization of the liberals, that it mentions that women are "sluts". And that's exactly why the Right hates women. They call them sluts if they're sexually active.

It's very interesting to me, that it's perfectly understood that sexual activity is a VERY important aspect of being a human being... as long as they're men. Therefore, erectile disfunction is a medical issue that needs to be addressed. Everyone seems to acknowledge that men SHOULD be sexual beings, that it's a part of BEING human.

But, when women are sexual beings... they're SLUTS. They're not ALLOWED to have a high "libido", or they're sluts.

And I say this as a woman who didn't lose her virginity until my mid-20's and can count my "lovers" in my lifetime on one hand and have been faithfully married for over two decades --- ANY woman (_ahem "joeysomma"_) who would come in here and post an article that calls women sluts for wanting or needing to be sexually active, a misogynist and chauvinist. A woman who would post something like that is a self-loathing female.

Anyone who calls a woman a slut for being a sexual human being is the one DENYING her humanity and instead reducing a woman down to "lady parts", not the other way around.

And BTW. to say "_a woman's choice to be a mother is equally as important as pursuing a career_" is ignorant. It's not a "choice" if it's automatically equally important. Being a mother MAY be just as important to some women, more important to others, and less important to others. To unilaterally state that it's equally important is to tell women it "SHOULD" be as, if not more important.

And there's no 55 million body count, that's a hyperbolic lie Zygotes etc are not bodies.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Thank you for taking my post as it was intended and not being offended.
> 
> If my 13-year old daughter (or real 17-year old granddaughter) were being pressured into having sex, I would tell a lot of things:
> 13 is too young to have sex.
> ...


I suspect that you were a good parent and are being a good grandparent as well, and I truly hope that my hypothetical situation doesn't came to pass.

But about the meds: I had in mind private insurance companies, not the government, that were covering meds as well as health care. I don't know what Harvard grad student you're writing about. Sandra Fluke was a Georgetown student who became active because her university, a Catholic institution, would not allow coverage for birth control medication even though the funds would not be coming from the univ. In fact, your employer - or school - should never be in a position to decide what (legal) drugs you can take, as long as they don't interfere with functioning.

Insurance companies have always considered the possibility of becoming pregnant as a disease. That's why they were able to charge women higher premiums than men. Having sex carries with it that possibility, so in effect it was long treated as an illness.

I, too, am talking too much. I'd better go and see to my other activities. I'm glad to have met you, even though we disagree on some basic things.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> It's in the government's, society's, and a woman's best interests not to get pregnant if she's unable to support and care for a child. I'm aware that you're firmly opposed to abortion--surely you're willing to pay a little extra to ensure that there are fewer--and maybe someday, no--unwanted pregnancies.


You know, you're right. I wouldn't mind paying a little more to help someone in need. But it's the principle of the thing. I just don't think anyone else should pay for my birth control. It's like asking someone else to wash your clothes. It's the person's responsibility. If someone really can't pay and it's a necessity of life, I should help. Like I said, maybe I'm just too old to understand how a person's private birth control is the responsibility of the rest of us.

And as for it being in my best interests for women not to get pregnant if they can't pay for it, well, that's the way I grew up. It was in everyone's best interest, especially mine, to not get pregnant. I knew, even as a teenager, if I got pregnant, it would be my responsibility and my problem. So I waited to have sex until I was married. It worked pretty well - waited - two-parent family - studies show that's a good beginning. And I just can't wrap my head around the idea that this is anything the government should take care of. It's sort of like asking the government to pay for cigarettes or pot. Recreational sex, recreational smokes, gas, babysitters so we can go out - up to us, I think.

People say, "Stay out of my v*****" when it comes to laws, which are the responsibility of the government. Then, they welcome those folks right in when it comes to paying for their birth control, which isn't the responsibility of the government, in my view.

Maybe I'm dense. Maybe I have a mental block. It just doesn't seem appropriate. But I appreciate your patience in trying to explain it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> If one gets free care to have a baby, and men get free care to "make" babies, why do women have to pay to prevent babies?


A really good question.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> A really good question.


They don't have to. Their partners can get a vasectomy or use a more temporary form of birth control.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

cspaen34 said:


> Agree, I don't think this is what they invisioned when they set up "Chit Chat" and maybe need to readdress it. If we were sitting together knitting and chit chatting would this be part of the atmoshere? :thumbup:


I think it's exactly what they envisioned. There have been many disagreements on KP before this one, and they've been allowed to continue - in fact, they seem to increase and multiply.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> First of all the article misstates and mischaracterizes what the left believes. So, the whole premise of the article is grossly faulty. And when a premise is this faulty, that taints the whole argument and makes it invalid.
> 
> But to answer the question, it's most DEFINITELY conservatives that wage the War on Women. And you're right, when speaking of Liberal's "War on Women" that you put it in quotes.
> 
> ...


It has human DNA. In fact, it has all its DNA - all human. So - what species is it?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Not really. Women with regular sex lives enjoy better health, on average, than those who give it up for whatever reason.
> 
> From WebMD:
> 
> http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health


Thank you, thank you.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Well, this has been great fun and a nice intellectual challenge. And now, I must get down to more mundane pastimes. Folding laundry (dull) and putting it away (duller).

To all who have kept your tempers and been respectful, I sure appreciate your posts.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

Why can't we discuss something other than dishcloths and needles here? As long as people do not descend into meanness and name calling, I think it is interesting.

While I am here, for all the abortion foes, women will get abortions whether or not it is legal or illegal. And it is the law of the land.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

SQM said:


> Why can't we discuss something other than dishcloths and needles here? As long as people do not descend into meanness and name calling, I think it is interesting.
> 
> While I am here, for all the abortion foes, women will get abortions whether or not it is legal or illegal. And it is the law of the land.


Sadly, that doesn't make it morally right.


----------



## susan heierman (Sep 13, 2012)

Oh, dear. :-(


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> They don't have to. Their partners can get a vasectomy or use a more temporary form of birth control.


You're assuming the partner cares. He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to, but the woman has no choice.


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

SQM said:


> Why can't we discuss something other than dishcloths and needles here? As long as people do not descend into meanness and name calling, I think it is interesting.
> 
> While I am here, for all the abortion foes, women will get abortions whether or not it is legal or illegal. And it is the law of the land.


I don't personally like abortion, but by golly, i will protect your right to make your own decision as to what is right for you.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

Morality is a relative term. An unwanted and abused or neglected child is a moral wrong in my book, not aborting a non-viable potential.


----------



## cspaen34 (Jan 28, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I think it's exactly what they envisioned. There have been many disagreements on KP before this one, and they've been allowed to continue - in fact, they seem to increase and multiply.


OK, have fun. Not into fighting, bully groups; off to joys of knitting in stress free atmospher! Admin might need to reconsider.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> You're assuming the partner cares. He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to, but the woman has no choice.


Then maybe she should dump him?


----------



## Oggie (Apr 22, 2013)

All you ladies who are so opposed to the War on Women post, this was posted in the General Chit-Chat (non-knitting talk) section. If you don't care to read anything except crafting/knitting/crocheting posts why did you bother reading it?! We do have freedom of speech in this country (at least for now). Maybe a little kindness to those who wish to express their opinions, huh?


----------



## BrendaGaines (Feb 26, 2013)

I have been a long time supporter of women's rights and a woman's right to choose. The decision to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, is an intensely difficult personal decision that can be only made by an individual woman and her spouse, companion, minister, physician, or whatever counsel she chooses, after considering all the available options.

In the best of worlds, no one should ever be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. In reality, of course, there are unwanted and unintended pregnancies &#8209; far too many. I support comprehensive sex education initiated by local school districts with community participation and family planning programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I have joined with my friends in supporting increases to family planning funding levels. And I have supported legislation to improve access to reliable and affordable birth control. I applauded President Obama's decision to require health insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage at no cost to millions of American women as a part of the Affordable Care Act.


----------



## notwen (May 22, 2012)

I suffer from clinical depression - have been a depressive all my life. Often think of ending it all but as I have children would never do so. However the older I get the worse it seems & now at my age no help from NHS ( or very little) took up knitting for therapy, but am useless at it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

misellen said:


> I don't personally like abortion, but by golly, i will protect your right to make your own decision as to what is right for you.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

SQM said:


> Morality is a relative term. An unwanted and abused or neglected child is a moral wrong in my book, not aborting a non-viable potential.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## senior gal (Oct 8, 2011)

I am a political junkie, but I do not come to KP to air my views.Respect the peace and dignity we always shown each other here on KP. Please ,leave your politics, religion
Since a few years ago, we are not even safe in churchs, they
have taken to include politics in their sermons.
Read your newspapers, watch television listen to radio and voice your opinions on other forums, not KP.
Thank you.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> We used to say
> 
> "ask a stupid question...".


Saying 7 was stupid. If you can kill a child in the womb by your standard you could beat a child under 7 or rape them or kill them. Is that what you want? Who are you to set such a standard or timetable. Killing is killing. Everyone has the right to self-defense. If your life isn't threatened, you shouldn't be able to do it. If a doctor says you will die without an abortion, then abortion is an answer. But, if you've just made a mistake and want the living, breathing result of that mistake not to bother you any longer, you should consider giving the child up for adoption. Someone will want it if you don't.

If you made this mistake, fix it, but don't commit a bigger mistake and kill it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Nice to know you.



BrendaGaines said:


> I have been a long time supporter of women's rights and a woman's right to choose. The decision to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, is an intensely difficult personal decision that can be only made by an individual woman and her spouse, companion, minister, physician, or whatever counsel she chooses, after considering all the available options.
> 
> In the best of worlds, no one should ever be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. In reality, of course, there are unwanted and unintended pregnancies ‑ far too many. I support comprehensive sex education initiated by local school districts with community participation and family planning programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I have joined with my friends in supporting increases to family planning funding levels. And I have supported legislation to improve access to reliable and affordable birth control. I applauded President Obama's decision to require health insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage at no cost to millions of American women as a part of the Affordable Care Act.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Oh my dear, you've found friends at KP. I think we all share physical challenges and mental fears. Knitting gives peace to many of us. Many are very talented. Others of us only trying as hard as we can.

Please send me a PM (Private Message ) any time you want to talk. Take care.



notwen said:


> I suffer from clinical depression - have been a depressive all my life. Often think of ending it all but as I have children would never do so. However the older I get the worse it seems & now at my age no help from NHS ( or very little) took up knitting for therapy, but am useless at it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Then maybe she should dump him?


Shoulda, woulda, coulda, as some people say. We don't always do what we should (except maybe you), but carrying an unplanned-for child in one's body for nine months and then having all the fun of labor and childbirth may be an excessive penalty for not realizing early enough that her partner is a rick.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrendaGaines said:


> I have been a long time supporter of women's rights and a woman's right to choose. The decision to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, is an intensely difficult personal decision that can be only made by an individual woman and her spouse, companion, minister, physician, or whatever counsel she chooses, after considering all the available options.
> 
> In the best of worlds, no one should ever be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. In reality, of course, there are unwanted and unintended pregnancies ‑ far too many. I support comprehensive sex education initiated by local school districts with community participation and family planning programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I have joined with my friends in supporting increases to family planning funding levels. And I have supported legislation to improve access to reliable and affordable birth control. I applauded President Obama's decision to require health insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage at no cost to millions of American women as a part of the Affordable Care Act.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

notwen said:


> I suffer from clinical depression - have been a depressive all my life. Often think of ending it all but as I have children would never do so. However the older I get the worse it seems & now at my age no help from NHS ( or very little) took up knitting for therapy, but am useless at it.


Please don't beat yourself up for not being a champion knitter. How sad that you've been unhappy for so long. Children do tend to keep us sticking around, and maybe that's a good thing.

What will the NHS not do because of your age? It might be a good idea to look for a group you could join and either knit together or cry together or both. If it's a knitting group, you'll learn a lot from other women, and then you won't be "useless at it." There are a lot of knitters here from the UK, so someone may be able to supply information.

And if you just want to unburden yourself of your misery, don't hesitate to do it here. I imagine you've seen the responses to other people suffering with depression. People here are amazingly empathetic.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Kathie said:


> Here we go again. KP has been quiet and pleasant for awhile and now this has been introduced to stir up controversy. I know we can post on any subjects here but why would you want to start a fight again. We are so lucky to be able to voice our opinions in this country but we don't change anyone's minds with postings like this. Please lets be kind and gentle with each other. We all need to be kind whatever our opinions are.


your right, if you don't agree with the views of the post state "I disagree" then get off it and unwatch it. everyone has a right to an opinion whether you agree or not. you don't need to start name calling and arguing,no one is going to change their mind on the subject because you argue.you can disagree in a civil way if you want to, but there are so many on here that just want to stir the pot so that get their little 2 minutes of fame.


----------



## sharinana (Dec 11, 2012)

I am a liberal Christian and I have no idea where you picked up that load of garbage that you just entered on this web site but I have never been so offended by such a pile of vitriolic lies in my entire life! How do you know what the "left" believes? Have you ever actually sat down and talked to a born again Christian woman who believes that God gave each of us the brains to make such an intensly personal decision without someone else shouting obsenities, judgements and condemnation in their face? I was not a "slut" when I found myself with an unplanned pregnancy and felt that the decision I made was the only one that was open to me at that time. No matter why or when this happened in my life I am fairly confident that someone who thinks and speaks the way you do would never understand the pain and shame a woman goes through when she finds herself caught up in a nightmare that leads to having an abortion. The God I know and love has shown me a heart of compassion and forgiveness. This is what Jesus preached throughout His whole life and it is the vicious far right that has painted the entire Christian community as a bunch of closed minded, loud mouthed, hate mongers. You should be ashamed of yourself. Jesus walked in my shoes, you need to give it a try before you continue being so mean spirited. No one chooses abortion as the easy way out, no one!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

sharinana said:


> I am a liberal Christian and I have no idea where you picked up that load of garbage that you just entered on this web site but I have never been so offended by such a pile of vitriolic lies in my entire life! How do you know what the "left" believes? Have you ever actually sat down and talked to a born again Christian woman who believes that God gave each of us the brains to make such an intensly personal decision without someone else shouting obsenities, judgements and condemnation in their face? I was not a "slut" when I found myself with an unplanned pregnancy and felt that the decision I made was the only one that was open to me at that time. No matter why or when this happened in my life I am fairly confident that someone who thinks and speaks the way you do would never understand the pain and shame a woman goes through when she finds herself caught up in a nightmare that leads to having an abortion. The God I know and love has shown me a heart of compassion and forgiveness. This is what Jesus preached throughout His whole life and it is the vicious far right that has painted the entire Christian community as a bunch of closed minded, loud mouthed, hate mongers. You should be ashamed of yourself. Jesus walked in my shoes, you need to give it a try before you continue being so mean spirited. No one chooses abortion as the easy way out, no one!


Thank you. I think you know more than most people posting here, and way lots more than the piece that started this thread. I'm glad you stopped by.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## yorkie1 (Sep 5, 2011)

Me too!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

cspaen34 said:


> Agree, I don't think this is what they invisioned when they set up "Chit Chat" and maybe need to readdress it. If we were sitting together knitting and chit chatting would this be part of the atmoshere? :thumbup:


You are in General Chit Chat for non-knitting subjects, so nothing wrong with this thread. If you are upset or insulted by the subject why are you reading a thread with the title "War on Women"?!?


----------



## Suzeluvs2stix (Jun 11, 2011)

Correction to date: It is 41 years.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I think it's exactly what they envisioned. There have been many disagreements on KP before this one, and they've been allowed to continue - in fact, they seem to increase and multiply.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> They don't have to. Their partners can get a vasectomy or use a more temporary form of birth control.


What people have to do is not the question. Men are provided with Viagra in order to be sexually active. 
You raise an equally good point about "permanent" birth control. 
Both vasectomy and tubal ligation (or whatever the more modern term may be) are covered by health insurance. 
So we are already paying for the most expensive form of birth control. 
Yet, people don't want to pay for oral meds. 
Why?


----------



## Bleeshea (Jul 12, 2013)

advocate said:


> Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
> Pattie Hunt


Than don't read general chit chat


----------



## Suzeluvs2stix (Jun 11, 2011)

How many of you participating in this thread have actually stood outside of an abortion clinic as a counselor to provide an alternative to death ? I do.


----------



## Bleeshea (Jul 12, 2013)

yorkie1 said:


> knitting, crocheting, all other crafts, ladies, PLEASE!!!


Than don't read general chit chat


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

I agree. This is not chit chat - this is just someone - usually the same ones - looking to stir up folks. Over the years I've know two women that had abortions and they were deeply torn over their decision. But it was something they felt they had to do based on their life circumstances and it isn't anybody elses business.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

Suzeluvs2stix said:


> How many of you participating in this thread have actually stood outside of an abortion clinic as a counselor to provide an alternative to death ? I do.


Thanks for making a hard and sad decision more miserable.


----------



## Bleeshea (Jul 12, 2013)

If you only want knitting and crocheting stuff don't read this section!
Everyone can voice their opinions but don't say don't post. Voice how you feel or just stay quiet BUT it is posted in the correct place. I find a lot of things I am not interested in reading but don't feel I have the right to tell people not to post. If this site did not have this area than I would agree with all of you.


----------



## NYBev (Aug 23, 2011)

Why do people continually get so bent out of shape! There will be no changing of minds by all of the insults, etc. Just go to another section of KP! Simple. That is what I am doing right now.


----------



## Suzeluvs2stix (Jun 11, 2011)

Grannie Sandy said:


> Thank you for remembering Margaret Sanger, a registered nurse who worked in the New York tennements. She took action for planned parenthood because she found mothers of multiple children were committing suicide by inhaling gas from their stoves because they were pregnant again. We have pregnancy prevention because of brave people like her. She actually was jailed for giving out birth control information.


Sanger is the "mother" (sorry to use that word) of ethnic cleansing. Hitler adopted many of her ideas. Watch MAAfA21 and learn all about her.


----------



## Bleeshea (Jul 12, 2013)

cbethea said:


> I agree. This is not chit chat - this is just someone - usually the same ones - looking to stir up folks. Over the years I've know two women that had abortions and they were deeply torn over their decision. But it was something they felt they had to do based on their life circumstances and it isn't anybody elses business.


Then the person succeeded. If everyone who feels this way ignored the post than it would have died a quiet death without the pot being stirred. Why let people rile you up? Ignore and they go away.


----------



## pardoquilts (Aug 23, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Alcameron wrote:
> 
> I'm not looking for an argument, but please show me the statistics of any child who has died because supplemental food stamps were cut by a few dollars.


A friend had her individual SNAP benefits cut by $11 a month. Will she die from that? No. But, that outs her benefits at $187 a month. Can you feed yourself in a healthy fashion on that amount of money? For a family of four the benefit was cut by $36 or $37. Hunger is real and has a huge impact on the lives of children. Whatever happened to compassion and empathy?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Bleeshea said:


> Then the person succeeded. If everyone who feels this way ignored the post than it would have died a quiet death without the pot being stirred. Why let people rile you up? Ignore and they go away.


Sorry, I just don't see people getting all riled up. 
Is it a waste of effort to discuss the same old thing year in and year out? Could be. 
But who is riled?


----------



## sparrefankerl (Feb 9, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Interesting topic within a topic. This from Ask.com:
> 
> It was commonly held, even by Christians, that a human being did not come into existence as such immediately on conception, but only some weeks later. Saint Anselm of Canterbury (10331109) said that "no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception". Abortion was viewed as a sin, but not as murder, until the embryo was animated by a human soul. A few decades after Anselm's death, Catholic canon law, in the Decretum Gratiani, stated that "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body." This Aristotelian view of delayed ensoulment was abandoned by the 17th century, when the conviction prevailed that the soul was present from the moment of conception, and the scientific proof in 1827 of the existence of the female ovum and in 1875 of the involvement of the union of a gamete from each parent in conception reduced speculation about a delayed substantial change.


Thank you so much for clearing that up for me. I never knew that and would have argued that. That's why I always like to ask questions first before a disagreement. That's very interesting.


----------



## sparrefankerl (Feb 9, 2011)

Janiee said:


> I totally agree. I just received a very nasty post when I merely said "let's agree to disagree" and that no one should send her nasty comments. Also, that we should all be respectful of one another. This woman immediately responded with hate.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> ...


I'm so sorry you had a bad experience on the chit chat. Don't be gone. The good experiences way out way the bad experiences here. Pleas don't let one person take away all the positive things about knitting paradise. Oh forgot, welcome.


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

Very well said! My sentiments exactly


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I am just guessing that you don't know which women you know have had an abortion; you cannot know why they don't share that information if they have had one. Maybe for the same reason they don't share that they had most other medical procedures? It's boring; and then there is the judgmental attitude of so-called prolifers who are not truly pro-life.
> Abortions occur prior to a fetus being viable. They are not babies, they are biological material.
> I don't understand a society that doesn't protect children. Can you explain that to me? I see that as the war on families.


So when someone tells you they are pregnant do you ask when is the biological material due? Have you picked out a name for your biological material yet? Is your biological material a boy or a girl? Twins, lucky you, double the biological material double the fun


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> The difference is that capital punishment is the taking of the life of a person found GUILTY of a heinous crime...abortion is the taking of an INNOCENT life!


And now we find that many convictions are being reversed s I gues pro death penalty people need to rethink their stand.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

SQM said:


> Morality is a relative term. An unwanted and abused or neglected child is a moral wrong in my book, not aborting a non-viable potential.


Wow that is a new one........a fetus is now a non-viable potential. What does that mean? Does it mean that this non-viable potential can become a polar bear? Did it arrive on a meteor? If it has potential why destroy it?


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

senior gal said:


> I am a political junkie, but I do not come to KP to air my views.Respect the peace and dignity we always shown each other here on KP. Please ,leave your politics, religion
> Since a few years ago, we are not even safe in churchs, they
> have taken to include politics in their sermons.
> Read your newspapers, watch television listen to radio and voice your opinions on other forums, not KP.
> Thank you.


Politics have been discussed in churches for ages. Many Christian preachers supported slavery and advocated it in their sermons, Same for votes for women and prohibition.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Wow that is a new one........a fetus is now a non-viable potential. What does that mean? Does it mean that this non-viable potential can become a polar bear? Did it arrive on a meteor? If it has potential why destroy it?


It means that one does not know if it will be born alive or manage to live for long. 
I thought that you were educated.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Wow that is a new one........a fetus is now a non-viable potential. What does that mean? Does it mean that this non-viable potential can become a polar bear? Did it arrive on a meteor? If it has potential why destroy it?


It means that an early first term abortion is removing pretty much a missed period and whatever that constitutes. It is not a fetus - it is an embryo - much earlier stage of development. It is fine to be against abortion - don't have one but let the rest of us be allowed to follow the law of the land.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

peacegoddess said:


> Politics have been discussed in churches for ages. Many Christian preachers supported slavery and advocated it in their sermons, Same for votes for women and prohibition.


Good reason to finally strip their tax exempt status.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

BrendaGaines said:


> I have been a long time supporter of women's rights and a woman's right to choose. The decision to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, is an intensely difficult personal decision that can be only made by an individual woman and her spouse, companion, minister, physician, or whatever counsel she chooses, after considering all the available options.
> 
> In the best of worlds, no one should ever be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. In reality, of course, there are unwanted and unintended pregnancies ‑ far too many. I support comprehensive sex education initiated by local school districts with community participation and family planning programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I have joined with my friends in supporting increases to family planning funding levels. And I have supported legislation to improve access to reliable and affordable birth control. I applauded President Obama's decision to require health insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage at no cost to millions of American women as a part of the Affordable Care Act.


You know, we don't really want to face anything unwanted. But life sometimes takes twists we don't like. There are certainly worse things than an unwanted pregnancy. How about loss of a spouse or a child, devastating injury, catastrophic disease. Surely an unplanned child is not the worst that people have endured. Most people are able to rise above these difficult circumstances. I'm surprised that paying for one's own birth control or even getting pregnant at an inconvenient time is considered devastating. Sometimes, yes. Most of the time - I doubt it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> So when someone tells you they are pregnant do you ask when is the biological material due? Have you picked out a name for your biological material yet? Is your biological material a boy or a girl? Twins, lucky you, double the biological material double the fun


Nah, I tell them to use my cell and call someone who cares.


----------



## Bleeshea (Jul 12, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Sorry, I just don't see people getting all riled up.
> Is it a waste of effort to discuss the same old thing year in and year out? Could be.
> But who is riled?


Read the second post on this subject. I consider that being riled up. 
I like to read people's opinions on different subjects. There is no need for them to get nasty. I feel we can learn a lot if we just listen to each other. I don't have to agree or disagree to learn. It is interesting to know how people think.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Bleeshea said:


> Read the second post on this subject. I consider that being riled up.
> I like to read people's opinions on different subjects. There is no need for them to get nasty. I feel we can learn a lot if we just listen to each other. I don't have to agree or disagree to learn. It is interesting to know how people think.


I am not sure you can post "hello" on this forum without getting one nasty response.


----------



## sharinana (Dec 11, 2012)

Thank you, and I love your kitty, she/he looks so soft and cuddly!


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

sharinana said:


> I am a liberal Christian and I have no idea where you picked up that load of garbage that you just entered on this web site but I have never been so offended by such a pile of vitriolic lies in my entire life! How do you know what the "left" believes? Have you ever actually sat down and talked to a born again Christian woman who believes that God gave each of us the brains to make such an intensly personal decision without someone else shouting obsenities, judgements and condemnation in their face? I was not a "slut" when I found myself with an unplanned pregnancy and felt that the decision I made was the only one that was open to me at that time. No matter why or when this happened in my life I am fairly confident that someone who thinks and speaks the way you do would never understand the pain and shame a woman goes through when she finds herself caught up in a nightmare that leads to having an abortion. The God I know and love has shown me a heart of compassion and forgiveness. This is what Jesus preached throughout His whole life and it is the vicious far right that has painted the entire Christian community as a bunch of closed minded, loud mouthed, hate mongers. You should be ashamed of yourself. Jesus walked in my shoes, you need to give it a try before you continue being so mean spirited. No one chooses abortion as the easy way out, no one!


Bravo, well said !!!!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## olcagran (Oct 2, 2013)

The rest of us are paying for this "no cost contraceptive care". NOTHING IS FREE!!!


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Your right about that! If some of these churches are going to be nothing more than an extention of a political party, then they should lose their tax exemption.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke wrote about judgemental attitudes as if she has none. You I and everyone judge people everyday. It is part of the human condition. How else do you suppose you choose your friends? How do you know you don't want to be a part of this or that organization or club? You think about what your values are and you JUDGE it. Some are judged favorably, some not so much. Janet judged right to lifers as people she doesn't want to associate with because of her idea of who they are. I think what she meant to say is they shouldn't judge harshly, because if they had judge favorably she wouldn't have had a problem with it. I judge people who say that the existing children need to be taken care of by people who are pro-life. I say that people should take personal responsibility for their actions. In this day and age I think birth control is a personal choice and if you don;t want another child, don't have one. But to use abortion as birth control is wrong. Period. No arguments about me taking care of unwanted children, that doesn't fly. I didn't get with child when I didn't want to (well I did but that is another story), the mother and father did. It is up to them to make the right choices and deal with it. Life isn't a game that we can fool around and not have to deal with consequences. There are prices to be paid fopr everything. Be an adult and deal with it. It probably won't be as big of a deal as you thought.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

The rest of us are also paying for wars that kill kids and call it collateral damage. I am much happier paying for contraceptives with my tax money. Cheaper in the long run.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

SQM said:


> Thanks for making a hard and sad decision more miserable.


Thanks for pointing that out to the "counselor."


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It means that one does not know if it will be born alive or manage to live for long.
> I thought that you were educated.


She seems to think abortion is funny, and tries to make jokes about it. I'm beginning to question whether she was born alive.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Janet Cooke wrote about judgemental attitudes as if she has none. You I and everyone judge people everyday. It is part of the human condition. How else do you suppose you choose your friends? How do you know you don't want to be a part of this or that organization or club? You think about what your values are and you JUDGE it. Some are judged favorably, some not so much. Janet judged right to lifers as people she doesn't want to associate with because of her idea of who they are. I think what she meant to say is they shouldn't judge harshly, because if they had judge favorably she wouldn't have had a problem with it. I judge people who say that the existing children need to be taken care of by people who are pro-life. I say that people should take personal responsibility for their actions. In this day and age I think birth control is a personal choice and if you don;t want another child, don't have one. But to use abortion as birth control is wrong. Period. No arguments about me taking care of unwanted children, that doesn't fly. I didn't get with child when I didn't want to (well I did but that is another story), the mother and father did. It is up to them to make the right choices and deal with it. Life isn't a game that we can fool around and not have to deal with consequences. There are prices to be paid fopr everything. Be an adult and deal with it. It probably won't be as big of a deal as you thought.


I don't know where you get that I imply that I have no judgmental attitudes. 
Just because I think it is wrong doesn't mean that I don't recognize that I both have them and try to squelch them. It is just like prejudice, those of us who are honest enough to admit that we have prejudices don't just accept it we work against those prejudices, most of us do anyway. It appears that some happily go along enjoying looking down on others. 
OOPS, another judgment passed. See? 
But, you are wrong. I have never knowingly spent time with people who have values that are wildly divergent from my own. Why would I?


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I don't know where you get that I imply that I have no judgmental attitudes.
> Just because I think it is wrong doesn't mean that I don't recognize that I both have them and try to squelch them. It is just like prejudice, those of us who are honest enough to admit that we have prejudices don't just accept it we work against those prejudices, most of us do anyway. It appears that some happily go along enjoying looking down on others.
> OOPS, another judgment passed. See?
> But, you are wrong. I have never knowingly spent time with people who have values that are wildly divergent from my own. Why would I?


I never said that you spent time with people who have values that are wildly divergent from your own. 
I don't squelch my judgements but they are based on the person you are and nothing else. And you don't either. Maybe you need to read my post again. I said that we all judge and it is there for a reason, so you can make the choices in life you need to make. There is nothing wrong with judging people except when you make it a put down when you do.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> I never said that you spent time with people who have values that are wildly divergent from your own.
> I don't squelch my judgements but they are based on the person you are and nothing else. And you don't either. Maybe you need to read my post again. I said that we all judge and it is there for a reason, so you can make the choices in life you need to make. There is nothing wrong with judging people except when you make it a put down when you do.


Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

Suzeluvs2stix said:


> Sanger is the "mother" (sorry to use that word) of ethnic cleansing. Hitler adopted many of her ideas. Watch MAAfA21 and learn all about her.


Quite right. Sanger and President Wilson believed in eugenics, the belief that society should prevent the intellectually deficient and economic drains on society from reproducing through sterilization and abortion. Both were Progressives. Neither were nice people. Hitler put those ideas into action in a big way. Sanger just did her dirty work in the homes of the poor.


----------



## mdgallogly (Jan 22, 2014)

Hurray for you! It's OK when a liberal wants to voice their opinion? But when a conservative does, the hatred comes out of the woodwork. We do need to stand up and be heard. I applaud your courage.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

mdgallogly said:


> Hurray for you! It's OK when a liberal wants to voice their opinion? But when a conservative does, the hatred comes out of the woodwork. We do need to stand up and be heard. I applaud your courage.


LOL, look at how long this thread is and then talk to us about conservatives not expressing their opinions, please. 
And the closest thing to hatred so far has been posts like this where suppositions are expressed when it appears that the poster has not even read more than the original post. 
Just as a note, this was not Joeysomma's opinion,it is another person's that Joey thought was worth sharing.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

For Janet Cooke,

What does your avatar say? I love vintage but cannot read it.


----------



## kneonknitter (Feb 10, 2011)

Kathie said:


> Here we go again. KP has been quiet and pleasant for awhile and now this has been introduced to stir up controversy. I know we can post on any subjects here but why would you want to start a fight again. We are so lucky to be able to voice our opinions in this country but we don't change anyone's minds with postings like this. Please lets be kind and gentle with each other. We all need to be kind whatever our opinions are.


Hear! Hear! Well said. My philosophy in life is this...I have my opinion, you have yours. I make my choices, you make yours. Don't preach to me, I won't preach to you. 
This section is general chit chat so if anyone wants to avoid conflict, don't read what bothers you or unwatch the thread & move on to what you do enjoy.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I don't know where you get that I imply that I have no judgmental attitudes.
> Just because I think it is wrong doesn't mean that I don't recognize that I both have them and try to squelch them. It is just like prejudice, those of us who are honest enough to admit that we have prejudices don't just accept it we work against those prejudices, most of us do anyway. It appears that some happily go along enjoying looking down on others.
> OOPS, another judgment passed. See?
> But, you are wrong. I have never knowingly spent time with people who have values that are wildly divergent from my own. Why would I?


Wow what bible are you reading really name please.

Also why are you bringing religon into this topic? You do not believe in the bible so why do you put up there what you want others to believe as the truth? when you know it is a lie? Then again you do feel the need to change the subject matter when it does not suit what you want.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You are so wrong. She did not want an abortion, she did not have an abortion. She had a healthy baby. She was conned by a group of progressives who needed a fall guy. Today she is very pro- life.


Norma McCorvey
The Woman Who Was Jane Roe

By Linda Napikoski
Ads:

Roe V Wade
Pro Life Abortion
Abortion
How to Have an Abortion
The Story

Ads

How to End a Separation.www.marriagemax.com/7-Secrets-Free"I suggest you read this..." 7 Secrets to Ending Your Separation

Flirty Plus-Size Outfitszulily.comShop Flirty Plus-Size Outfits on Sale up to 70% Off. Shop Now!

Scroll saw patternslocal.comFind Scroll saw patterns Near You With Local.com!
See More About

roe v. wade
abortion history

Ads

Free Quilting Classeswww.craftsy.com/classes/quiltingCheck out these free mini-classes taught by pro quilt designers!

How Big Is Your Prostate?medixselect.comFind Out If You Are Suffering From An Enlarged Prostate. See Photo.

Identity

In 1970, Norma McCorvey was a young, pregnant woman in Texas without the means or funds to access an abortion. She became the plaintiff "Jane Roe" in Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions of the 20th century.

Norma McCorvey's identity was hidden for another decade but, during the 1980s, the public learned about the plaintiff whose lawsuit struck down most abortion laws in the United States. In 1995, Norma McCorvey made news again when she declared she had changed to a "pro-life" stance, with newfound Christian beliefs.

Who is the woman behind these different personas?

The Roe v. Wade lawsuit

Roe v. Wade was filed in Texas in March 1970 on behalf of the named plaintiff and "all women similarly situated," typical wording for a class-action lawsuit. "Jane Roe" was the lead plaintiff of the class. Because of the time it took for the case to make its way through the courts, the decision did not come in time for Norma McCorvey to have an abortion. She gave birth to her child, whom she put up for adoption.

Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee were the Roe v. Wade plaintiff's lawyers. They were looking for a woman who wanted an abortion, but did not have the means to obtain one. An adoption attorney introduced them to Norma McCorvey. They needed a plaintiff who would remain pregnant without traveling to another state or country where abortion was legal, because they feared that if their plaintiff obtained an abortion outside of Texas, her case could be rendered moot and dropped.

At various times, Norma McCorvey has clarified that she did not consider herself an unwilling participant in the Roe v. Wade lawsuit. However, she felt that feminist activists treated her with disdain because she was a poor, blue-collar, drug-abusing woman instead of a polished, educated feminist.

Troubled Background

Norma Nelson was a high-school drop-out. She had run away from home and been sent to reform school. Her parents divorced when she was 13. She suffered abuse. She met and married Elwood McCorvey at age 16, and left Texas for California.

When she returned, pregnant and frightened, her mother took her baby to raise. Norma McCorvey's second child was raised by the father of the baby, with no contact from her. She initially said that her third pregnancy, the one in question at the time of Roe v. Wade, was the result of rape, but years later she said she had invented the rape story in an attempt to make a stronger case for an abortion. The rape story was of little consequence to her lawyers, because they wanted to establish a right to abortion for all women, not just those who had been raped.

Activist Work

After Norma McCorvey revealed that she was Jane Roe, she encountered harassment and violence. People in Texas yelled at her in grocery stores and shot at her house. She aligned herself with the pro-choice movement, even speaking at the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C. She worked at several clinics where abortions were provided. In 1994, she wrote a book, with a ghostwriter, called I am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice.

The Conversion

In 1995, Norma McCorvey was working at a clinic in Dallas when Operation Rescue moved in next door. She allegedly struck up a friendship over cigarettes with Operation Rescue preacher Philip "Flip" Benham, who incorporates his Christian belief with his stance against abortion.

Norma McCorvey said that Flip Benham talked to her and was kind to her. She became friends with him, attended church and was baptized. She surprised the world by going on national television to say that she now believed abortion was wrong.

Norma McCorvey had been in a lesbian relationship for years, but she eventually denounced lesbianism as well after her conversion to Christianity. Within a few years of her first book, Norma McCorvey had written a second book, Won By Love: Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, Speaks Out for the Unborn as She Shares Her New Conviction for Life.

Citizen McCorvey's Story

Norma McCorvey has referred to writing books as a kind of therapy, something that everyone should do. She has also stated that she feels used by crusaders on both sides of the movement. She disappointed anti-abortion activists when - despite her conversion - she at first maintained her belief that a woman should be able to have an abortion during the first trimester.

Many of those who oppose all abortions call the Roe v. Wade lawyers immoral for taking advantage of Norma McCorvey. In fact, if she had not been Roe, someone else would likely have been the plaintiff. Feminists across the nation were working for abortion rights.

Perhaps something Norma McCorvey herself said in a 1989 New York Times article can be illuminating: "'More and more, I'm the issue,' she said. 'I don't know if I should be the issue. Abortion is the issue. I never even had an abortion.'"


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

Suzeluvs2stix said:


> How many of you participating in this thread have actually stood outside of an abortion clinic as a counselor to provide an alternative to death ? I do.


Women who've had to make a hard decision don't need people harassing them, calling them names, or haranguing them.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You are so wrong. She did not want an abortion, she did not have an abortion. She had a healthy baby. She was conned by a group of progressives who needed a fall guy. Today she is very pro- life.


As I said she is very self involved. 
Of course she wanted an abortion, this fetus was getting in the way of her drugging and her free love style. 
She is quite honest about it in her stories.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Wow what bible are you reading really name please.
> 
> Also why are you bringing religon into this topic? You do not believe in the bible so why do you put up there what you want others to believe as the truth? when you know it is a lie? Then again you do feel the need to change the subject matter when it does not suit what you want.


Some of those quotes do not deal with killing children, others do. King James bible.

She didn't "bring religion" into the topic, it had already been introduced by others.Others that think everyone should adhere to _their_ beliefs.


----------



## oakmont (Jan 27, 2014)

Thank you joeysomma for standing up for the unborn women in this world. You are an inspiration to me.


----------



## GeeSueC (Jan 7, 2014)

It's unfortunate that you appear to be a single issue voter, who ignores the 16 million children living in poverty and who supports those in Congress who choose not to promote full employment; are cutting food stamps and unemployment benefits, and would seemingly prefer to deny health care to our poor.
I sincerely hope you will not spoil the next two years by pushing more of your lies. (I bet you shop at Hobby Lobby too, figures)


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> Some of those quotes do not deal with killing children, others do. King James bible.
> 
> She didn't "bring religion" into the topic, it had already been introduced by others.Others that think everyone should adhere to _their_ beliefs.


Yes, I was just saying that some of those, (one of the Matthew verses, I think) could mean a child I suppose upsetting the convert along with any other human being, were quite a stretch. Like Joeysomma I didn't produce it, I just copied it. 
So I guess if Joey isn't responsible for the slut phrase, I can plead innocent to the stretches. 
One of those JUDGMENT calls :roll: .


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SQM said:


> For Janet Cooke,
> 
> What does your avatar say? I love vintage but cannot read it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

oakmont said:


> Thank you joeysomma for standing up for the unborn women in this world. You are an inspiration to me.


Are you saying that it's okay to abort male babies? Shame on you.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Wow that is a new one........a fetus is now a non-viable potential. What does that mean? Does it mean that this non-viable potential can become a polar bear? Did it arrive on a meteor? If it has potential why destroy it?


If it's not alive, why kill it?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It means that one does not know if it will be born alive or manage to live for long.
> I thought that you were educated.


Left alone, it will be born alive and live.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Nah, I tell them to use my cell and call someone who cares.


Not surprising.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Are you saying that it's okay to abort male babies? Shame on you.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Janet Cooke wrote about judgemental attitudes as if she has none. You I and everyone judge people everyday. It is part of the human condition. How else do you suppose you choose your friends? How do you know you don't want to be a part of this or that organization or club? You think about what your values are and you JUDGE it. Some are judged favorably, some not so much. Janet judged right to lifers as people she doesn't want to associate with because of her idea of who they are. I think what she meant to say is they shouldn't judge harshly, because if they had judge favorably she wouldn't have had a problem with it. I judge people who say that the existing children need to be taken care of by people who are pro-life. I say that people should take personal responsibility for their actions. In this day and age I think birth control is a personal choice and if you don;t want another child, don't have one. But to use abortion as birth control is wrong. Period. No arguments about me taking care of unwanted children, that doesn't fly. I didn't get with child when I didn't want to (well I did but that is another story), the mother and father did. It is up to them to make the right choices and deal with it. Life isn't a game that we can fool around and not have to deal with consequences. There are prices to be paid fopr everything. Be an adult and deal with it. It probably won't be as big of a deal as you thought.


You said that much better than I did.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Left alone, it will be born alive and live.


Luckily, for thinking women who are aware that they can make their own decisions, abortion is legal in the US and enough people agree with that and donate money to the abortion clinics that even poor women are able to rid themselves of that mistake.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I don't know where you get that I imply that I have no judgmental attitudes.
> Just because I think it is wrong doesn't mean that I don't recognize that I both have them and try to squelch them. It is just like prejudice, those of us who are honest enough to admit that we have prejudices don't just accept it we work against those prejudices, most of us do anyway. It appears that some happily go along enjoying looking down on others.
> OOPS, another judgment passed. See?
> But, you are wrong. I have never knowingly spent time with people who have values that are wildly divergent from my own. Why would I?


I don't know what your point is in posting the chart, but no thank you. You can do that to your children. I'll pass.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You are so wrong. She did not want an abortion, she did not have an abortion. She had a healthy baby. She was conned by a group of progressives who needed a fall guy. Today she is very pro- life.


That's exactly right.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

While I would not choose to have an abortion, I am not walking in the shoes of someone who feels that is a choice THEY must make. And I will back up a woman's choice of what is happening with her own body, regardless of what any politician or preacher says. Or maybe some of you think that I can tell you what to do with YOUR body. You just can't have it both ways.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

bonbf3 said:


> If it's not alive, why kill it?


It's not "killed" it's removed.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> It's not "killed" it's removed.


It is alive until it is killed.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

bonbf3 said:


> Left alone, it will be born alive and live.


If a cell is left alone it will evolve and become alive. But it's not alive.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Weak premise. Ignored.



bonbf3 said:


> You said that much better than I did.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> It's not "killed" it's removed.


It is alive until it is killed. You might want to stop telling yourself happy stories so you don't have to see what happens during an abortion. This is a human being with its own unique human DNA. A living human.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Cindy S said:


> While I would not choose to have an abortion, I am not walking in the shoes of someone who feels that is a choice THEY must make. And I will back up a woman's choice of what is happening with her own body, regardless of what any politician or preacher says. Or maybe some of you think that I can tell you what to do with YOUR body. You just can't have it both ways.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

bonbf3 said:


> It is alive until it is killed.


It's not a life human being or otherwise.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> It's not "killed" it's removed.


I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but "it" is alive and growing until "it" is killed. You might want to stop telling yourself happy stories so you don't have to see what happens during an abortion. This is a human being with its own unique human DNA. A living human.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> I don't know what your point is in posting the chart, but no thank you. You can do that to your children. I'll pass.


I don't use the Bible as a Guide, it seems that many Christians don't either. 
The point was to show what the men who wrote the Bible claim that God wanted done to children. 
My children, and my grandchildren, are quite safe from any suggestions made in a Christian book. Thanks.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Such ridiculous debate. No one is changing anyone's mind on this.



bonbf3 said:


> It is alive until it is killed.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> If a cell is left alone it will evolve and become alive. But it's not alive.


This is not just a cell. This is the product of the mingling of the DNA in two cells, one sperm and one egg. It begins immediately to grow into a human being.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

peacegoddess said:


> And now we find that many convictions are being reversed s I gues pro death penalty people need to rethink their stand.


Isn't that how it goes, Peace? It's okay to massacre children with guns, kill them in wars, and let them die of horrible diseases and starvation when they are living.
IMHO, it is the mother's choice on whether to terminate her pregnancy or not to. I personally wish there were less abortions, but those Tea Party women haters in Congress know what is best for a woman (tongue in cheek). God forbid they get birth control covered on their insurance! 
Abortion is not just a means of birth control. There is a lot of gray on this topic. If you are against abortion, don't have one.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

damemary said:


> Such ridiculous debate. No one is changing anyone's mind on this.


You're right, Damemary. We don't change minds, do we. Maybe we just do this to affirm our own opinions. And maybe, once in a great while, someone thinks a little more about one opinion or the other.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

bonbf3 said:


> I don't know what your point is in posting the chart, but no thank you. You can do that to your children. I'll pass.


Unfortunately, there's lots of people in the world who SHOULD'VE passed on having children, and many of their children likely wish they were born to someone better qualified as parents.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The fetus is unable to survive on its own. It is the law of the land that abortion may be chosen. If you think it's wrong, don't choose it for you. Your choice ends with your life. Don't step over the line.IMHO



VocalLisa said:


> If a cell is left alone it will evolve and become alive. But it's not alive.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

bonbf3 said:


> This is not just a cell. This is the product of the mingling of the DNA in two cells, one sperm and one egg. It begins immediately to grow into a human being.


Still not a human life. It's just the mingling of two DNA cells.


----------



## kneonknitter (Feb 10, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> While I would not choose to have an abortion, I am not walking in the shoes of someone who feels that is a choice THEY must make. And I will back up a woman's choice of what is happening with her own body, regardless of what any politician or preacher says. Or maybe some of you think that I can tell you what to do with YOUR body. You just can't have it both ways.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

kneonknitter said:


> :thumbup:


I love your avatar!!!!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

bonbf3 said:


> You're right, Damemary. We don't change minds, do we. Maybe we just do this to affirm our own opinions. And maybe, once in a great while, someone thinks a little more about one opinion or the other.


I have different thoughts on this than you, but I'm not trying to prevent you from living by your thoughts, beliefs and opinions.

However, you advocate for laws that would do so to other women who may disagree with you.

That's the difference between you and me, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you even though I think there's a good argument for criminalizing procreation by ignorant people.


----------



## oakmont (Jan 27, 2014)

give me a break!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but "it" is alive and growing until "it" is killed. You might want to stop telling yourself happy stories so you don't have to see what happens during an abortion. This is a human being with its own unique human DNA. A living human.


Actually, it is the removal that kills it. You see, it cannot survive on it's own. It is not a baby it is a grouping of cells. 
Most women I know have not mentioned being pregnant prior to 16 weeks or so because they are concerned about then having to explain a miscarriage. Most abortions are accomplished prior to that period.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

Ms. Cooke, Thanks for enlarging your avatar. I totally love it and will add it to my verbal repertoire.


----------



## oakmont (Jan 27, 2014)

what does hobby lobby have to do with anything?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SQM said:


> Ms. Cooke, Thanks for enlarging your avatar. I totally love it and will add it to my verbal repertoire.


Cute, eh? I wish I were clever enough to come up with these things.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Ditto.



VocalLisa said:


> I have different thoughts on this than you, but I'm not trying to prevent you from living by your thoughts, beliefs and opinions.
> 
> However, you advocate for laws that would do so to other women who may disagree with you.
> 
> That's the difference between you and me, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you even though I think there's a good argument for criminalizing procreation by ignorant people.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

SKRB said:


> Joeysmma,
> What is the purpose of posting such a subject on a fiber arts site? Posting an article written in such a way that it promotes contention and name calling? While you have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. When you post something like this, it is akin to setting the fire just to see who can be burned. Yes, this section is a general chat section, and this subject is not prohibited, but what is the purpose?


I am prompted to ask the same question.
BTW, I am Pro-Life (but only to the core).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> How do two DNA cells mingle? The sperm and egg join and become one cell, One DNA, the same DNA that will be in every cell of the BABY, a human being.


You put your right foot in, you pull your right foot out, you put your right foot in and ya shake it all about... you do the hoochie coochie ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Do you have as much devotion to the child who is born into a home without resources? No father. Mother working at minimum wage.



joeysomma said:


> Then when does it become a human being? And it is not human the day before or the day before that? How about the week before?
> 
> You don't have an answer since it is human from the moment of conception. There may be different name for different stages of development, but it is still a baby.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

notwen said:


> I suffer from clinical depression - have been a depressive all my life. Often think of ending it all but as I have children would never do so. However the older I get the worse it seems & now at my age no help from NHS ( or very little) took up knitting for therapy, but am useless at it.


I'm so sorry - it is a difficult illness. I hope you can find some help - maybe your church?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Isn't that how it goes, Peace? It's okay to massacre children with guns, kill them in wars, and let them die of horrible diseases and starvation when they are living.
> IMHO, it is the mother's choice on whether to terminate her pregnancy or not to. I personally wish there were less abortions, but those Tea Party women haters in Congress know what is best for a woman (tongue in cheek). God forbid they get birth control covered on their insurance!
> Abortion is not just a means of birth control. There is a lot of gray on this topic. If you are against abortion, don't have one.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> Then when does it become a human being? And it is not human the day before or the day before that? How about the week before?
> 
> You don't have an answer since it is human from the moment of conception. There may be different name for different stages of development, but it is still a baby.


I don't think it's a human life until it's viable without medical intervention.

And even at that, if it's between a fetus and a woman, I choose the rights of the woman to choose whether she wants or is able to gestate and give birth. Because ultimately, morals and technicalities aside, this is a personal MEDICAL decision in which even in the best of circumstances is a physically dangerous choice for the woman. EVERY gestation/birth can potentially kill the woman and therefore EVERY decision about this can be a life and death decision for the woman.

I don't think the government should ever have the ability to force any woman into unwanted gestation and childbirth.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

oakmont said:


> what does hobby lobby have to do with anything?


I understand it is a totally Christian store that would not carry any items for Chanukah or any other religion. But I am alright with that. It is their prerogative. I just would not shop in a store that would not want me as a customer.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

oakmont said:


> what does hobby lobby have to do with anything?


In September 2012, Hobby Lobby sued the United States over new regulations requiring health insurance provided by employers to cover emergency contraceptives, stating that, "The Green family's religious beliefs forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices. Hobby Lobby is arguing that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act serve to protect their religious beliefs and accordingly bars the application of the contraceptive mandate to them. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the company's application for an injunction, prompting it to sue the federal government.


----------



## oakmont (Jan 27, 2014)

then the government shouldn't be making every one else pay for the procedure either!


----------



## oakmont (Jan 27, 2014)

that's your choice


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Here is a sad story. Just this past week, in my town, a single mother of an autistic boy who also suffered from seizures, drugged and suffocated her child and then killed herself. She, when learning she was pregnant, probably thought she could raise a child. The child was born with health problems, but she thought she could handle it. I don't know if the behavior regarding the autism was too much to take or she just couldn't see him suffer another seizure. I believe he was nine years old. Something failed her...was it mental health care for herself, was it inefficient aid for the child, was it the expense of the meds? I don't know any of this. I am not suggesting she should have aborted. I am saying that, if children are to come into this world, we all must be vigilant and help....not strip the poor of needed healthcare and aid.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> It's fine for you to bring it up; it's a subject that's very important to you, and I can understand your wanting to prove your point by any legitimate means possible.
> 
> However, using the phrase "The Left believes" - as if "the Left" has only one opinion on this or any other subject - not only is illegitimate but spreads disinformation and propaganda. If you want a real discussion, don't _tell_ us what we "believe"; ask us what we believe and what we know. You'll find a lot of variation, a lot of thought, and a lot of sense. Have you ever asked anyone why she felt she needed to terminate her pregnancy? Give me a quote from her, and I'll participate in your discussion. But as it is now, I'll unwatch.


Accurate assessment. Not all liberals are supporters of abortion.


----------



## MsJackie (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't know where you got these crazy beliefs, I am guess ing FOX news or Rush L. was somehow involved. But you have clearly and completely misquoted and misunderstood the liberal, right to choose philosophy. If you are going to climb on your high horse and call us a bunch of immoral sluts, perhaps you should check your facts. But why should you? The whole republican party has taken to spouting out right lies without any regard to facts. 

I loved knotting paradise, but I stopped reading it about a year ago because of this bull. I just came back and was starting to enjoy it again. What possessed you to post such a mean spirited, hurtful, nasty post?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

oakmont said:


> then the government shouldn't be making every one else pay for the procedure either!


No, the government can make people pay. There are worse things that the government does that I don't personally want to contribute to, but I understand that's the nature of a Representative Democracy ... our taxes don't always go towards what I personally want.

I'd prefer to not have to give tax breaks to so many "families" when so many of them have no business being parents and have put forth children in the world that costs society more than they contribute to it.

But, our society has decided it's more helpful to us all to support families in general, even if many of them are not really worth what we contribute.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

MsJackie said:


> I don't know where you got these crazy beliefs, I am guess ing FOX news or Rush L. was somehow involved. But you have clearly and completely misquoted and misunderstood the liberal, right to choose philosophy. If you are going to climb on your high horse and call us a bunch of immoral sluts, perhaps you should check your facts. But why should you? The whole republican party has taken to spouting out right lies without any regard to facts.
> 
> I loved knotting paradise, but I stopped reading it about a year ago because of this bull. I just came back and was starting to enjoy it again. What possessed you to post such a mean spirited, hurtful, nasty post?


She couldn't stand the peaceful atmosphere that preceded this thread.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Actually, it is the removal that kills it. You see, it cannot survive on it's own. It is not a baby it is a grouping of cells.


Exactly how long can a born baby survive on it's own? The "law of the land" doesn't allow any mother to ignore, kill, or starve her one year old, does it? Why do you believe it is OK to allow a mother to kill that which you state cannot survive at 14 weeks on its own but not apply the same law to a bunch of cells that is 52 weeks old?

Would you go ahead and kill your grandson by removing him from his mother when his is three because you can state the same; he 'cannot survive on his own?"


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Do you have as much devotion to the child who is born into a home without resources? No father. Mother working at minimum wage.


Do you?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> She couldn't stand the peaceful atmosphere that preceded this thread.


She isn't the only one.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> I don't think it's a human life until it's viable without medical intervention.
> 
> And even at that, if it's between a fetus and a woman, I choose the rights of the woman to choose whether she wants or is able to gestate and give birth. Because ultimately, morals and technicalities aside, this is a personal MEDICAL decision in which even in the best of circumstances is a physically dangerous choice for the woman. EVERY gestation/birth can potentially kill the woman and therefore EVERY decision about this can be a life and death decision for the woman.
> 
> I don't think the government should ever have the ability to force any woman into unwanted gestation and childbirth.


I don't think any taxpayer should ever have to be forced to pay for any woman having a child that isn't their own either. That is the law of the land but it is not enforced; taxpayers' money does fund abortions.


----------



## kneonknitter (Feb 10, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> I love your avatar!!!!


And I love yours hahaha.


----------



## ruth Roxanne (Mar 18, 2012)

The statements in the original post are simplistic and incorrect. If you WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE, PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH. Don't believe political rhetoric.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SQM said:


> I understand it is a totally Christian store that would not carry any items for Chanukah or any other religion. But I am alright with that. It is their prerogative. I just would not shop in a store that would not want me as a customer.


Are you alright with the government telling them how they must operate? Because that is what happened to Hobby Lobby.


----------



## Oggie (Apr 22, 2013)

notwen:
Don't ever say you are useless at knitting or anything else for that matter. I'm sure you are being too hard on yourself. I have a difficult time wanting everything to be perfect, especially any kind of crafting. I was told once that if it was perfect it was done by a machine. We have to embrace our imperfections and I get a lot of joy figuring out how to deal with a mistake. Being in a depression can be so draining and I have felt that way at times. You are a joy to people that you may not even know about. You have our support on Knitting Paradise and can come to us whenever you're feeling blue.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Exactly how long can a born baby survive on it's own? The "law of the land" doesn't allow any mother to ignore, kill, or starve her one year old, does it? Why do you believe it is OK to allow a mother to kill that which you state cannot survive at 14 weeks on its own but not apply the same law when to a bunch of cells that is 52 weeks old?
> 
> Would you go ahead and kill your grandson when his is three because you can state the same; he 'cannot survive on his own?"


I am glad that you asked that last question, it helps anyone who is still reading this thread to determine just how nasty you truly are.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Are you alright with the government telling them how they must operate? Because that is what happened to Hobby Lobby.


Are you alright with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I am glad that you asked that last question, it helps anyone who is still reading this thread to determine just how nasty you truly are.


!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Exactly how long can a born baby survive on it's own? The "law of the land" doesn't allow any mother to ignore, kill, or starve her one year old, does it? Why do you believe it is OK to allow a mother to kill that which you state cannot survive at 14 weeks on its own but not apply the same law to a bunch of cells that is 52 weeks old?
> 
> Would you go ahead and kill your grandson when his is three because you can state the same; he 'cannot survive on his own?"


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I am glad that you asked that last question, it helps anyone who is still reading this thread to determine just how nasty you truly are.


So apparently you don't stand behind your own words. Got it.

I didn't say anything nasty or express my opinion; I asked you questions about your personal statements. Who is the nasty one will be determined by those still reading this thread.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Are you alright with the government telling them how they must operate? Because that is what happened to Hobby Lobby.


So why should Hobby Lobby or any other employer have the right to dictate what their employees can or cannot have...?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> That's exactly right. I already told her that, Joeys. People hear what they want to hear. Many pro-choice people refuse to see what abortion really is.


The large piece that Country Bumpkins posted disagrees with both you and Joey. So you're the ones who hear what you want to hear. And I think you're also wrong about being the ones who "know" what abortion "really is." To you it's simple and obvious because you see it from outside, from a distance and probably from a height where you look down on the women involved. Anyone who tries to see it from the point of view of the person needing an abortion would realize how un-simple and how un-obvious it is.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Are you alright with the government telling them how they must operate? Because that is what happened to Hobby Lobby.


So why should Hobby Lobby or any other employer have the right to dictate what their employees can or cannot have...?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Are you alright with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own body?


Nope.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> While I would not choose to have an abortion, I am not walking in the shoes of someone who feels that is a choice THEY must make. And I will back up a woman's choice of what is happening with her own body, regardless of what any politician or preacher says. Or maybe some of you think that I can tell you what to do with YOUR body. You just can't have it both ways.


Well said and clear, but I bet it gets swept aside. <sarcasm warning> Only a few people have a direct line to the truth, and they have no problem telling us that we're wrong.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Daisybel said:


> I was born with depression and wish fervently that I had never been born. So now you have heard of someone! Living with depression is miserable torture.


Severe, profound, debilitating, chronic clinical depression runs in both sides of my family for several generations. Neither I nor any of my many siblings escaped its wrath. I personally know the torture to which you allude. There have been suicides and suicide attempts, and a myriad of other psychiatric pathologies under the umbrella labelled 'depression.'

I also know that the Ultimate Healer is Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, and that it is through His Spirit that medical science has been able to progress as far as it has to the current day in helping those afflicted with depression.

If you have not already done so, I gently encourage you to seek both medical help from a psychiatrist (who just happens to be a full-fledged MD, BTW) and also seek the Lord, by faith and prayer, for His guidance in your life. I'll be on my knees for you.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> So why should Hobby Lobby or any other employer have the right to dictate what their employees can or cannot have...?


Because they founded and own the business. You don't want the govt to dictate what you can do in your home, bedroom or body so why do you want different laws for any employer to pass it onto you (the employee)?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> It is alive until it is killed.


No, it is prevented from dying as long as it's connected to the woman's blood supply; once disconnected, it fails to become a person.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Because they founded and own the business. You don't want the govt to dictate what you can do in your home, bedroom or body so why do you want different laws for any employer to pass it onto you (the employee)?


If I don't want the government to dictate what I can do in my home, bedroom or body, I certainly don't want my employer to do it, either! It wouldn't matter if I founded my own business or not--I still wouldn't and shouldn't have that right.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> No, it is prevented from dying as long as it's connected to the woman's blood supply; once disconnected, it fails to become a person.


What cannot you speak the truth? Once disconnected it dies, or in other words, you killed it.

Cells are biological _living_ organisms that without appropriate nutrients, they die, PERIOD.

Humans have the ability to change or speed up the process.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> It is alive until it is killed. You might want to stop telling yourself happy stories so you don't have to see what happens during an abortion. This is a human being with its own unique human DNA. A living human.


When I blow my nose into a (paper) tissue, there's DNA. Is the tissue a human being?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> So why should Hobby Lobby or any other employer have the right to dictate what their employees can or cannot have...?


Sumpleby, they are basing their decision on their religious beliefs. They don't believe in birth control and will not pay to have it on their insurance coverage. Guess they don't want any "sluts" (as joeysomma's original post would call them) working for them.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but "it" is alive and growing until "it" is killed. You might want to stop telling yourself happy stories so you don't have to see what happens during an abortion. This is a human being with its own unique human DNA. A living human.


Saying it twice doesn't make it any truer.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> When I blow my nose into a (paper) tissue, there's DNA. Is the tissue a human being?


Purl. you killed it when you blew your nose.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> If I don't want the government to dictate what I can do in my home, bedroom or body, I certainly don't want my employer to do it, either! It wouldn't matter if I founded my own business or not--I still wouldn't and shouldn't have that right.


Exactly as I said. If the govt dictates to the employer, and you are not the employer but the employee, your employer will deliver to you the mandate placed upon them telling you what you can or cannot do within your home, bedroom and body.

So, in other words, you do not want employers treated any differently than an individual is treated.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Purl. you killed it when you blew your nose.


Awwww, poor baby.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> This is not just a cell. This is the product of the mingling of the DNA in two cells, one sperm and one egg. It begins immediately to grow into a human being.


It doesn't happen immediately. It needs to be implanted in the womb before that happens. And if egg and sperm mingle on a sheet, is the laundry guilty of killing it?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Who said that they are telling their employees that they cannot have the morning after pill? Their employees can *BUY* any pill they want. No one is stopping them.


I'll bet his viagra is covered though.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> It doesn't happen immediately. It needs to be implanted in the womb before that happens. And if egg and sperm mingle on a sheet, is the laundry guilty of killing it?


Oh God, are we going to get into the whole wasting the seed thing? I don't think I can take a segment on male masturbation.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> It doesn't happen immediately. It needs to be implanted in the womb before that happens. And if egg and sperm mingle on a sheet, is the laundry guilty of killing it?


Try asking intelligent questions. You know if the egg and sperm isn't "connected" as you recently posted in your last failed attempt at humor, it has DNA within it but is not yet "living cells."

Ask a stupid question . get a


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Sumpleby, they are basing their decision on their religious beliefs. They don't believe in birth control and will not pay to have it on their insurance coverage. Guess they don't want any "sluts" (as joeysomma's original post would call them) working for them.


You are wrong as usual. My opinion was not based on my religious beliefs. I do believe in birth control and do pay for it on my insurance coverage.

Speak for yourself and not for me.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> I'll bet his viagra is covered though.


I keep wondering how these people who don't believe in the use of birth control manage to stop at a few children.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Then when does it become a human being? And it is not human the day before or the day before that? How about the week before?
> 
> You don't have an answer since it is human from the moment of conception. There may be different name for different stages of development, but it is still a baby.


Do you remember Zeno's paradox? If you want to get from one end of the room to the other, you first have to get halfway there, then half the remaining distance, then half that remaining distance, .... That's what your day before/day after argument is like.

It becomes a human being when it no longer needs to be connected to the body of another person to stay alive.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Are you alright with the government telling them how they must operate? Because that is what happened to Hobby Lobby.


No I am a bit of an anarchist so I think Hobby Lobby should do what they want. I don't like the government using my playing Angry Birds to get info on me, also. I read that in the news today.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Try asking intelligent questions. You know if the egg and sperm isn't "connected" as you recently posted in your last failed attempt at humor, it has DNA within it but is not yet "living cells."
> 
> Ask a stupid question . get a


.....KPG stupid answer.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

"Since there is no question that human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are alive, some have attempted to claim that human beings are not persons until some threshold is crossed, such as viability, the capacity to feel pain, birth, or even the first year after birth. The merits of such notions could be debated, but it should be clear that they are not based on science but rather on ideology, philosophy, or belief.

As far as observable science is concerned, human life begins at conception."

Source: Condic, Maureen, MD. When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective. The Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person.

Read more: Life in the Womb http://www.whyprolife.com/life-in-the-womb/#ixzz2rfPcZrTP


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> "Since there is no question that human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are alive, some have attempted to claim that human beings are not persons until some threshold is crossed, such as viability, the capacity to feel pain, birth, or even the first year after birth. The merits of such notions could be debated, but it should be clear that they are not based on science but rather on ideology, philosophy, or belief.
> 
> As far as observable science is concerned, human life begins at conception."
> 
> ...


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> The large piece that Country Bumpkins posted disagrees with both you and Joey. So you're the ones who hear what you want to hear. And I think you're also wrong about being the ones who "know" what abortion "really is." To you it's simple and obvious because you see it from outside, from a distance and probably from a height where you look down on the women involved. Anyone who tries to see it from the point of view of the person needing an abortion would realize how un-simple and how un-obvious it is.


Amen to that Purl. No woman knows what she would do in such a situation until she finds herself there. Women have been aborting since day one. This is not a new phenomenon and anyone who believes it is is crazy. The vast majority of abortions are not for "convenience" but out of what is necessary for that woman to exist and go on in whatever the circumstances she has to deal with and only she and her God know the whys and where fores and it is nobody else's business. The Prolife people see everything as black and white and wouldn't it be sweet if life were that simple but it isn't. I was a woman before Roe v Wade and I know first hand all the horrible things that happened to women and I never want women to ever have to go back to life before this important freedom became law. Women are the ones who suffer not men and they will never understand the decisions we have to make and the burden and the joy those decisions give us. Isn't there something about "judge not lest ye be judged". I will never understand women who leave all the important decision making to men. They must not place a very high value on themselves wanting to relegate something this important to a bunch of men to decide for them.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> "Since there is no question that human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are alive, some have attempted to claim that human beings are not persons until some threshold is crossed, such as viability, the capacity to feel pain, birth, or even the first year after birth. The merits of such notions could be debated, but it should be clear that they are not based on science but rather on ideology, philosophy, or belief.
> 
> As far as observable science is concerned, human life begins at conception."
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: Those who state they are pro-choice agree that at every point the cells are "living" and must have sustenance from the mother to remain alive, yet they claim in the same breath they are not killing "it" until pre-determined timing thresholds are met. No logic or reasoning in their argument.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Amen to that Purl. No woman knows what she would do in such a situation until she finds herself there. Women have been aborting since day one. This is not a new phenomenon and anyone who believes it is is crazy. The vast majority of abortions are not for "convenience" but out of what is necessary for that woman to exist and go on in whatever the circumstances she has to deal with and only she and her God know the whys and where fores and it is nobody else's business. The Prolife people see everything as black and white and wouldn't it be sweet if life were that simple but it isn't. I was a woman before Roe v Wade and I know first hand all the horrible things that happened to women and I never want women to ever have to go back to life before this important freedom became law. Women are the ones who suffer not men and they will never understand the decisions we have to make and the burden and the joy those decisions give us. Isn't there something about "judge not lest ye be judged". I will never understand women who leave all the important decision making to men. They must not place a very high value on themselves wanting to relegate something this important to a bunch of men to decide for them.


I do wish that we would stop calling these people "pro-life" which they most certainly are not and call them anti-choice.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Exactly as I said. If the govt dictates to the employer, and you are not the employer but the employee, your employer will deliver to you the mandate placed upon them telling you what you can or cannot do within your home, bedroom and body.
> 
> So, in other words, you do not want employers treated any differently than an individual is treated.


Sorry, no--contrary to what Romny et. al want to believe, companies are not "people." They are corporations, period. And no corporation should be able to say that insurance plans can't cover birth control of any type.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SQM said:


> No I am a bit of an anarchist so I think Hobby Lobby should do what they want. I don't like the government using my playing Angry Birds to get info on me, also. I read that in the news today.


I agree; but the govt won't let them operate as they wish, hence the lawsuit and court procedures presently.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Connie W said:


> Things been too pleasant on this site for you lately, Joeysomma? Take your hate elsewhere.


Speaking only for myself, I truly dislike being 'informed' by someone else what it is I am thinking or feeling. Since no one occupies my head and my heart except myself, how does another person even dare to presume to 'know' what I think or how I feel?? Arrogance of the worst kind, as authority is assumed where none is granted.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I agree; but the govt won't let them operate as they wish, hence the lawsuit and court procedures presently.


I don't want to come across as a fan of Hobby Lobby. They seem to conveniently forget that Jesus celebrated Chanukah and yet they are totally against carrying any Jewish items. Yet even if they are ignorant bigots, they still should be able to call the shots as they see it. Just don't work there if you want humane health coverage.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> How do two DNA cells mingle? The sperm and egg join and become one cell, One DNA, the same DNA that will be in every cell of the BABY, a human being.


I shall repeat myself: repeating yourself over and over doesn't make what you say any more true, just more annoying.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> Sorry, no--contrary to what Romny et. al want to believe, companies are not "people." They are corporations, period. And no corporation should be able to say that insurance plans can't cover birth control of any type.


Ok, I guess you are not a person then. Every single employer, corporation, sole prop, partnership, etc., I've ever encountered hires people NEVER a legal entity. That's just me though, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and the chance to take your direction from a non-human employer.

No private corporation or *any* business entity should be told by the government (BTW I guess you believe the government isn't made up of humans either) what insurance plans to offer.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SQM said:


> I don't want to come across as a fan of Hobby Lobby. They seem to conveniently forget that Jesus celebrated Chanukah and yet they are totally against carrying any Jewish items. Yet even if they are ignorant bigots, they still should be able to call the shots as they see it. Just don't work there if you want humane health coverage.


Not everyone has the luxury of that choice. 
Can you explain why they should call the shots on what the insurance company covers over and above what Hobby Lobby orders from the menu?
Do you know how many Hobby Lobby's are in the states that already required birth control coverage in health insurance coverage?
Or how long it has been that Roman Catholics worried about the sins of other people?


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> actually I am pro-choice. but you won't believe it.
> 
> My choice is that every baby can live to make their own choice in life.


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I do wish that we would stop calling these people "pro-life" which they most certainly are not and call them anti-choice.


I'll just go ahead and call pro-choice people like you murderers then since that is most certainly what you truly are.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I don't think it's a human life until it's viable without medical intervention.
> 
> And even at that, if it's between a fetus and a woman, I choose the rights of the woman to choose whether she wants or is able to gestate and give birth. Because ultimately, morals and technicalities aside, this is a personal MEDICAL decision in which even in the best of circumstances is a physically dangerous choice for the woman. EVERY gestation/birth can potentially kill the woman and therefore EVERY decision about this can be a life and death decision for the woman.
> 
> I don't think the government should ever have the ability to force any woman into unwanted gestation and childbirth.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'll just go ahead and call pro-choice people like you murderers then since that is most certainly what you truly are.


I know that this will be truly difficult for you to believe, I have absolutely no interest in what you think about anything.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'll just go ahead and call pro-choice people like you murderers then since that is most certainly what you truly are.


Oh please. You are being overly dramatic. I have never murdered anyone and because I believe in the women being able to make their own choice does not make me one, or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

oakmont said:


> then the government shouldn't be making every one else pay for the procedure either!


The government *isn't* paying, or expecting anyone else, to pay. It's an insurance company that would be paying. It has nothing to do with you, me, or Hobby Lobby, but they're trying to force their way in.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SQM said:


> I don't want to come across as a fan of Hobby Lobby. They seem to conveniently forget that Jesus celebrated Chanukah and yet they are totally against carrying any Jewish items. Yet even if they are ignorant bigots, they still should be able to call the shots as they see it. Just don't work there if you want humane health coverage.


I thought you just said you don't want anyone telling anyone how to run their lives? Why are you now demanding or judging against HL for not selling the items they (not you) chose to sell?

Cannot you celebrate Chanukah as you wish without buying from Hobby Lobby? If you don't wish to support HL and buy the items they offer, shop elsewhere.

How many "Jewish" stores carry all the Christmas items someone wants available to purchase?

Sounds to me you might be the ignorant bigot.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> "Since there is no question that human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are alive, some have attempted to claim that human beings are not persons until some threshold is crossed, such as viability, the capacity to feel pain, birth, or even the first year after birth. The merits of such notions could be debated, but it should be clear that they are not based on science but rather on ideology, philosophy, or belief.
> 
> As far as observable science is concerned, human life begins at conception."
> 
> ...


And at what point is a fetus able to live and survive outside of it's mother's womb, 28 weeks or more? I do believe there is a limited time in which abortions should be performed and I also believe the majority of people would agree with this. I personally would not favor abortion beyond the 2nd trimester unless it was to save the life of the mother. I don't believe women have abortions frivolously and would certainly not want to continue a pregnancy they had decided to end. There would be no point.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I thought you just said you don't want anyone telling anyone how to run their lives? Why are you now demanding or judging against HL for not selling the items they (not you) choose to sell?
> 
> Cannot you celebrate Chanukah as you wish without buying from Hobby Lobby? If you don't wish to support HL, shop elsewhere.
> 
> ...


Still projecting, KPG?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> Here is a sad story. Just this past week, in my town, a single mother of an autistic boy who also suffered from seizures, drugged and suffocated her child and then killed herself. She, when learning she was pregnant, probably thought she could raise a child. The child was born with health problems, but she thought she could handle it. I don't know if the behavior regarding the autism was too much to take or she just couldn't see him suffer another seizure. I believe he was nine years old. Something failed her...was it mental health care for herself, was it inefficient aid for the child, was it the expense of the meds? I don't know any of this. I am not suggesting she should have aborted. I am saying that, if children are to come into this world, we all must be vigilant and help....not strip the poor of needed healthcare and aid.


What a sad story. And what a moral conclusion you've given it.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Not everyone has the luxury of that choice.
> Can you explain why they should call the shots on what the insurance company covers over and above what Hobby Lobby orders from the menu?
> Do you know how many Hobby Lobby's are in the states that already required birth control coverage in health insurance coverage?
> Or how long it has been that Roman Catholics worried about the sins of other people?


No I cannot answer your questions. In NYC there are no Hobby Lobbies and when I was in the 'burbs of Chicago I saw my first one in a strip mall and was told by my born-again niece that they do not carry Jewish holiday items. That is all I know about the store and all I would ever care to know about them. They are beneath my radar and I dont give a care what they do.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> The government *isn't* paying, or expecting anyone else, to pay. It's an insurance company that would be paying. It has nothing to do with you, me, or Hobby Lobby, but they're trying to force their way in.


How is it that people miss that health insurance companies gladly pay up for contraceptives as that is so much less expensive than childbirth and health care for another human being?
It is a win/win.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I know that this will be truly difficult for you to believe, I have absolutely no interest in what you think about anything.


I have no difficulty understanding your simple posts at all. I suggest you stop responding to and referring to me and my posts. Problem solved for you.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> Accurate assessment. Not all liberals are supporters of abortion.


Or any other single issue, as far as I know. But the person I wrote it to hasn't bothered to read it because she knows what all liberals believe, and doesn't need to ask.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SQM said:


> No I cannot answer your questions. In NYC there are no Hobby Lobbies and when I was in the 'burbs of Chicago I saw my first one in a strip mall and was told by my born-again niece that they do not carry Jewish holiday items. That is all I know about the store and all I would ever care to know about them. They are beneath my radar and I dont give a care what they do.


I will have to carve out some time tomorrow to investigate. 
There is one in Rhode Island. 
I am curious about whether they have been following state law in this.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

BrattyPatty said:


> Still projecting, KPG?


I have repeatedly stated that I support Hobby Lobby in whatever they do. A Jewish store would not carry Christian Items so I am fine with Hobby Lobby doing the same. However, they do not identify themselves as a Christian Store while a Jewish Store would have the word "Judaica" somewhere in the window. That is the difference along with my never shopping in Hobby Lobby. I would not even want to wait in their lobby.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Still projecting, KPG?


Still avoiding me Bratty? You've failed again.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have no difficulty understanding you at all. I suggest you stop responding to and referring to me and my posts. Problem solved for you.


Make all of the suggestions you would like. 
Though you might want to look up oppositional behavior before you do.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> No, the government can make people pay. There are worse things that the government does that I don't personally want to contribute to, but I understand that's the nature of a Representative Democracy ... our taxes don't always go towards what I personally want.
> 
> I'd prefer to not have to give tax breaks to so many "families" when so many of them have no business being parents and have put forth children in the world that costs society more than they contribute to it.
> 
> But, our society has decided it's more helpful to us all to support families in general, even if many of them are not really worth what we contribute.


Oh, Lisa, you have veered from the left-wing rulebook: we're not supposed to tell families what's right; we have to support them no matter what they do.

NOT.

Just another example of how liberals can be all over the map and still support each other.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Exactly how long can a born baby survive on it's own? The "law of the land" doesn't allow any mother to ignore, kill, or starve her one year old, does it? Why do you believe it is OK to allow a mother to kill that which you state cannot survive at 14 weeks on its own but not apply the same law to a bunch of cells that is 52 weeks old?
> 
> Would you go ahead and kill your grandson by removing him from his mother when his is three because you can state the same; he 'cannot survive on his own?"


You realize that what you're saying is silly, don't you. A fetus cannot survive without being connected to it's mother's innards; a 3-year-old can survive very well if it's his mother, his father, his grandparents, or an orphanage who sees that he's fed and otherwise taken care of.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SQM said:


> I have repeatedly stated that I support Hobby Lobby in whatever they do. A Jewish store would not carry Christian Items so I am fine with Hobby Lobby doing the same. However, they do not identify themselves as a Christian Store while a Jewish Store would have the word "Judaica" somewhere in the window. That is the difference along with my never shopping in Hobby Lobby. I would not even want to wait in their lobby.


You just stated you don't care what HL does, yet now you post that you don't like HL's lack of signage telling you they are a Christian based retailer.

It is your responsibility to know from whom you are buying. It is not the responsibility of each shop owner to cater to your or anyone else's desire of words and signs.

Where is the logic in your argument? There is none.

Next you'll tell me that if HL has a cross in the window (indicating they are a Christian retailer) you'd be offended. You've already said you wouldn't buy from them, and HL is beneath you, so why do you continue to judge and condemn them is beyond any intelligent reasoning.

BTW: Jewish folks buy yarn, fabric, and all kinds of craft embellishments too! (Regardless whether the sign is in the window or not). Get some fresh air - it will do wonders for you.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I am glad that you asked that last question, it helps anyone who is still reading this thread to determine just how nasty you truly are.


I didn't even realize who that was when I said she was silly. I saw the long hair, didn't recognize it, and assumed it was someone new. But even so, the silliness was obvious.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I thought you just said you don't want anyone telling anyone how to run their lives? Why are you now demanding or judging against HL for not selling the items they (not you) chose to sell?
> 
> Cannot you celebrate Chanukah as you wish without buying from Hobby Lobby? If you don't wish to support HL and buy the items they offer, shop elsewhere.
> 
> ...


Hello TM. I heard you thought I was someone else out here but it is the same old irrepressible me. I see you are the ignorant, know nothing, boring creature you have always been. How pathetic you are and if that is your hair I am the Queen of Sheba. I have seen that shampoo ad so you aren't fooling anybody. If you have nothing to hide why don't you show your face? Would it terrify children and send them screaming or make them ROFL at your Bozo the clown appearance? You are good for only one thing and that is as a source of amusement. You are not a worthy adversary to anyone on the left. They are just having fun with you. Oh, I feel a happy dance coming on. Move aside now TM and let me show you how it's done. Oh sway those hips, Cheeky!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Make all of the suggestions you would like.
> Though you might want to look up oppositional behavior before you do.


Guess what Janet? I have no reason to accept nor listen to anything you suggest. Thanks for nothing.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I didn't even realize who that was when I said she was silly. I saw the long hair, didn't recognize it, and assumed it was someone new. But even so, the silliness was obvious.


Yes indeed, she is saying anything necessary to provoke a response. 
She is one nasty individual.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> You realize that what you're saying is silly, don't you. A fetus cannot survive without being connected to it's mother's innards; a 3-year-old can survive very well if it's his mother, his father, his grandparents, or an orphanage who sees that he's fed and otherwise taken care of.


You do realize what you are saying is silly, don't you?

Take a fetus away from it's connection to the mother and it will die within hours often within minutes. Take a three year old from it's connection to the mother and it will die, mostly likely within three days.

Easy explanation.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> So why are you repeating yourself? Your repeating does not make what I have said untrue.


 :thumbup: She does so constantly.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> What cannot you speak the truth? Once disconnected it dies, or in other words, you killed it.
> 
> Cells are biological _living_ organisms that without appropriate nutrients, they die, PERIOD.
> 
> Humans have the ability to change or speed up the process.


If it was never alive, it doesn't die. In other words, I couldn't have killed it.

House plants are biological living organisms that without appropriate nutrients, they die, PERIOD, too. Are you telling me a fetus is like a house plant? What cannot you speak the truth?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup: She does so constantly.


Did she learn that from you? You certainly do, as we all do.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Purl. you killed it when you blew your nose.


Ya got me fair and square, copper. I plead guilty.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Yes indeed, she is saying anything necessary to provoke a response.
> She is one nasty individual.


Wasn't it you, Janet, yes, I KNOW it was you Janet, who said if you don't like reading another's words, don't.

Too bad you cannot follow your own advice and have to come across so nasty.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Awwww, poor baby.


It's not a baby!!!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Oh God, are we going to get into the whole wasting the seed thing? I don't think I can take a segment on male masturbation.


Don't look.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> If it was never alive, it doesn't die. In other words, I couldn't have killed it.


If it was never alive, why did you recently post this (your words below): 'cause you know, you cannot prevent "it" from dying (by disconnecting) because "it" wasn't alive to begin with.

You killed it because your *choice* was to kill it. PERIOD.

You don't even know what you, yourself, wrote.



Poor Purl said:


> No, it is prevented from dying as long as it's connected to the woman's blood supply; once disconnected, it fails to become a person.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Don't look.


No worries, it's time for bed.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Guess what Janet? I have no reason to accept nor listen to anything you suggest. Thanks for nothing.


There ya go, oppositional behavior syndrome


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Try asking intelligent questions. You know if the egg and sperm isn't "connected" as you recently posted in your last failed attempt at humor, it has DNA within it but is not yet "living cells."
> 
> Ask a stupid question . get a


I see. You thought I was being serious. It's called sarcasm.

But if you want me to ask a serious question, here's one: what did you mean by the following?

"Exactly as I said. If the govt dictates to the employer, and you are not the employer but the employee, your employer will deliver to you the mandate placed upon them telling you what you can or cannot do within your home, bedroom and body.

So, in other words, you do not want employers treated any differently than an individual is treated."


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> There ya go, oppositional behavior syndrome


There ya go, still responding to my every post.

No self-control. You might want to get _that_ under your control.

Final advice: ignore me as you claimed you would.

Your problem solved.

You're welcome.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I keep wondering how these people who don't believe in the use of birth control manage to stop at a few children.


There's the Bobbitt technique.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Why don't you all calm down? I'm getting the impression that this forum is being exploited by angry individuals who don't get the opportunity to air their nonsense in private life, (no doubt due to the havoc they create). Why don't you all sign off, make a coffee and behave yourselves?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> And you say you have at least 3 college degrees! I wonder!


I don't. I know what she doesn't know. It is evident in her posts.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You do realize what you are saying is silly, don't you?
> 
> Take a fetus away from it's connection to the mother and it will die within hours often within minutes. Take a three year old from it's connection to the mother and it will die, mostly likely within three days.
> 
> Easy explanation.


Too easy, I'm afraid--it's a false analogy. A three year old can survive and even thrive under another's care--a fetus cannot.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I see. You thought I was being serious. It's called sarcasm.
> 
> But if you want me to ask a serious question, here's one: what did you mean by the following?
> 
> ...


Unfortunately you don't "do" sarcasm nor humor well.

I meant exactly what I stated.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> There ya go, still responding to my every post.
> 
> No self-control. You might want to get _that_ under your control.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I will do whatever I feel like doing at the moment. 
New philosophy, live in the moment.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Ok, I guess you are not a person then. Every single employer, corporation, sole prop, partnership, etc., I've ever encountered hires people NEVER a legal entity. That's just me though, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and the chance to take your direction from a non-human employer.
> 
> No private corporation or *any* business entity should be told by the government (BTW I guess you believe the government isn't made up of humans either) what insurance plans to offer.


You are not making any sense. And deliberately misreading what I said.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Too easy, I'm afraid--it's a false analogy. A three year old can survive and even thrive under another's care--a fetus cannot.


False analogy by you. A three year old cannot survive when removed from the mother's care. That is what I compared and as usual, you changed the words.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Amen to that Purl. No woman knows what she would do in such a situation until she finds herself there. Women have been aborting since day one. This is not a new phenomenon and anyone who believes it is is crazy. The vast majority of abortions are not for "convenience" but out of what is necessary for that woman to exist and go on in whatever the circumstances she has to deal with and only she and her God know the whys and where fores and it is nobody else's business. The Prolife people see everything as black and white and wouldn't it be sweet if life were that simple but it isn't. I was a woman before Roe v Wade and I know first hand all the horrible things that happened to women and I never want women to ever have to go back to life before this important freedom became law. Women are the ones who suffer not men and they will never understand the decisions we have to make and the burden and the joy those decisions give us. Isn't there something about "judge not lest ye be judged". I will never understand women who leave all the important decision making to men. They must not place a very high value on themselves wanting to relegate something this important to a bunch of men to decide for them.


I agree with you, Cheeky, but the people who need this pointed out to them tend not to read long messages. Maybe they leave that to the men, too.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup: Those who state they are pro-choice agree that at every point the cells are "living" and must have sustenance from the mother to remain alive, yet they claim in the same breath they are not killing "it" until pre-determined timing thresholds are met. No logic or reasoning in their argument.


I don't think even one of us said the cells are living. Please stop telling us what we think.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

lostarts said:


> The "pro-life" group lost me when they started bombing abortion clinics and killing people.
> 
> Anybody who would plant a bomb and set it off where there are people around is _not_ pro-life!


Agreed.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Hello TM. I heard you thought I was someone else out here but it is the same old irrepressible me. I see you are the ignorant, know nothing, boring creature you have always been. How pathetic you are and if that is your hair I am the Queen of Sheba. I have seen that shampoo ad so you aren't fooling anybody. If you have nothing to hide why don't you show your face? Would it terrify children and send them screaming or make them ROFL at your Bozo the clown appearance? You are good for only one thing and that is as a source of amusement. You are not a worthy adversary to anyone on the left. They are just having fun with you. Oh, I feel a happy dance coming on. Move aside now TM and let me show you how it's done. Oh sway those hips, Cheeky!


Cheeks: This has to be one of the most stupid posts you ever wrote! I'm not certain, though, as most of your posts I ignore.

Check out the file info on my avatar photo and you'll see it is MY personal photo, MY hair taken on MY digital camera. What a complete idiot you are to say the things you do about me.

Besides you claimed you posted a photo of me. Too bad (for you) the two photos don't match and I've shown you to be the liar you are and have always been.

The truth always prevails. Never defame nor speak ill of me again.

BTW: Since you are so truthful and forthright; let's see your face.
It is bound to be more interesting than your checking account info you posted or anything you've said in this post. You've not posted for months, so one of the first things you post is to defame and spread your hate and lies about me. You are one sorry person.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Ahirsch601 said:


> Trouble with most right to lifers is they are pro fetus not pro child. That might be the reason there are so many homeless and hungry children in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The pro life politicians are the same one cutting school lunch programs and SNAP benefits


Stats, please? to back up your assertions. . .


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> You are not making any sense. And deliberately misreading what I said.


I did nothing of the sort. I read and understood what you wrote. You claimed that corporations are not people.

You cannot point out a single corporate employer not formed by humans who outline and carry out their terms of employment for their employees.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> actually I am pro-choice. but you won't believe it.
> 
> My choice is that every baby can live to make their own choice in life.


So you're pro-your own choice, but no one else may have that privilege.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I don't think even one of us said the cells are living. Please stop telling us what we think.


You have and so have other Liberals. Are you now stating that cells are not living organisms? Please define "cells" if you don't agree.

I have not told you what you think; I'm quoting your own words.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So why are you repeating yourself? Your repeating does not make what I have said untrue.


I like repeating it, and you must have liked it yourself because you copied it.

No, I can't make what you say untrue. Only you can do that, by choosing to speak an untruth, which you did.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

For cryin' out loud! Go to bed the lot of you...PLEASE


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You cannot point out a single corporate employer not formed by humans who outlining and carry out the terms of employment to their employees.


What?!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You do realize what you are saying is silly, don't you?
> 
> Take a fetus away from it's connection to the mother and it will die within hours often within minutes. Take a three year old from it's connection to the mother and it will die, mostly likely within three days.
> 
> Easy explanation.


That doesn't even deserve a correction. Millions of 3 year olds have been removed from connection with their mothers and continue to live for years. In fact, my maternal grandmother died when my mother was 3, and my mom made it all the way to 88.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> That doesn't even deserve a correction. Millions of 3 year olds have been removed from connection with their mothers and continue to live for years. In fact, my maternal grandmother died when my mother was 3, and my mom made it all the way to 88.


Stupid argument. No child, including your mom, the age of three survives without assistance or another's care. That was my argument and you changing it to suit your purpose is irrelevant.

My point wasn't based on a specific age of three, as a example, nor a specific person or specific time restraints - we both know it. You lost the argument and cannot admit same.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> If it was never alive, why did you recently post this (your words below): 'cause you know, you cannot prevent "it" from dying (by disconnecting) because "it" wasn't alive to begin with.
> 
> You killed it because your choice was to kill it. PERIOD.
> 
> You don't even know what you, yourself, wrote.


I hope you can understand the distinction between a live person and a potential one. Never mind - the rest of your message shows that you, yourself, don't understand anything I, myself, wrote. And what did I kill? PERIOD. You've killed logic and sense, but that wasn't your choice; you simply didn't know better.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> And you say you have at least 3 college degrees! I wonder!


The language was entirely copied from KPG. Didn't you notice it in her message? Or do you have as much trouble reading her as the rest of us do?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Unfortunately you don't "do" sarcasm nor humor well.
> 
> I meant exactly what I stated.


Neither, you.


----------



## Alberteen (Feb 20, 2013)

I agree this site is not about politics, I have my thoughts on these matters and that is where they stay, my thoughts.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> You are not making any sense. And deliberately misreading what I said.


That's how it usually is with her. But she thinks it does make sense.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Too easy, I'm afraid--it's a false analogy. A three year old can survive and even thrive under another's care--a fetus cannot.


I can't imagine what she means by that. It's so clearly not true that I would expect even _she_ could see it, yet she's said it twice.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You have and so have other Liberals. Are you now stating that cells are not living organisms? Please define "cells" if you don't agree.
> 
> I have not told you what you think; I'm quoting your own words.


By definition, a cell is not an organism unless it's a single-celled organism, like an amoeba. Wikipedia: 'The cell (from Latin cella, meaning "small room") is the basic structural, functional and biological unit of all known living organisms. Cells are the smallest unit of life that can replicate independently, and are often called the "building blocks of life". The study of cells is called cell biology.'...'Organisms can be classified as unicellular (consisting of a single cell; including most bacteria) or multicellular (including plants and animals).' So yes, I'm now stating that cells are not living organisms, since the single-celled ones would never grow to be humans. And anyone who passed high school biology would have known as much.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Stupid argument. No child, including your mom, the age of three survives without assistance or another's care. That was my argument and you changing it to suit your purpose is irrelevant.
> 
> My point wasn't based on a specific age of three, as a example, nor a specific person or specific time restraints - we both know it. You lost the argument and cannot admit same.


I didn't emphasize the age. You said (I use copy and paste) "Take a three year old from it's connection to the mother and it will die, mostly likely within three days." You're the one who insisted on using the word "mother." Not "another" but specifically "the mother." Don't you even notice when you change what you said?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

An embryo, zygote, and fetus are parasites. Here is the definition:

par·a·site noun \ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-\
: an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food or protection from it

: a person or thing that takes something from someone or something else and does not do anything to earn it or deserve it

Full Definition of PARASITE

1
: a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3
: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
 par·a·sit·ic also par·a·sit·i·cal adjective
 par·a·sit·i·cal·ly adverb
See parasite defined for English-language learners »
See parasite defined for kids »

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite

So perhaps we should enact laws that prohibit the removal of any parasite because it is killing a "life". Tapeworm anybody?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> Why don't you all calm down? I'm getting the impression that this forum is being exploited by angry individuals who don't get the opportunity to air their nonsense in private life, (no doubt due to the havoc they create). Why don't you all sign off, make a coffee and behave yourselves?


Wombatnomore,
You don't have to read this if it upsets you. Just hit the unwatch button. The person who started this thread knew that it would be a contentious one. If it's not your cup of tea, find another thread that is.There are much more pleasant ones to read on KP.


----------



## Daisybel (Nov 27, 2012)

notwen said:


> I suffer from clinical depression - have been a depressive all my life. Often think of ending it all but as I have children would never do so. However the older I get the worse it seems & now at my age no help from NHS ( or very little) took up knitting for therapy, but am useless at it.


I feel for you and I hope you will keep on prodding the NHS to DO something to help you. I know it's difficult to get any motivation to do anything but there is help available if you scream loudly enough for long enough. And I bet you're not useless at knitting at all. Have you tried bobbin lace, because I find that takes so much concentration that I forget about the depression for a bit. Also it makes the time go very quickly indeed and you have something beautiful to show for your time and effort. Knitting is good but does leave your mind free to wander. If there is anything at all I can do to help please let me know.


----------



## Daisybel (Nov 27, 2012)

GrannyGoode said:


> Severe, profound, debilitating, chronic clinical depression runs in both sides of my family for several generations. Neither I nor any of my many siblings escaped its wrath. I personally know the torture to which you allude. There have been suicides and suicide attempts, and a myriad of other psychiatric pathologies under the umbrella labelled 'depression.'
> 
> I also know that the Ultimate Healer is Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, and that it is through His Spirit that medical science has been able to progress as far as it has to the current day in helping those afflicted with depression.
> 
> If you have not already done so, I gently encourage you to seek both medical help from a psychiatrist (who just happens to be a full-fledged MD, BTW) and also seek the Lord, by faith and prayer, for His guidance in your life. I'll be on my knees for you.


Thank you! I couldn't carry on without my Christian belief, it has helped me through family deaths, cancer, etc. I'm grateful for any prayers, just as I pray for others all the time.


----------



## inishowen (May 28, 2011)

notwen said:


> I suffer from clinical depression - have been a depressive all my life. Often think of ending it all but as I have children would never do so. However the older I get the worse it seems & now at my age no help from NHS ( or very little) took up knitting for therapy, but am useless at it.


So sorry you are feeling down. Knitting takes time to get the hang of. I've been at it since I was about 7 and I'm still learning at 61. I still don't consider myself "good", just competent. The best thing is to have someone to show you how it's done. I had my mother and grandmother in the past. Now I would look at Youtube or ask a question here if I was stuck. The nicest thing you could do is join a knitting group and perhaps knit for charity. The companionship will be a tonic to you. xxx


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Wombatnomore,
> You don't have to read this if it upsets you. Just hit the unwatch button. The person who started this thread knew that it would be a contentious one. If it's not your cup of tea, find another thread that is.There are much more pleasant ones to read on KP.


I'm not upset, I'm surprised. I've followed this thread with interest and am surprised at the behaviour of a lot of people here. I hope some of you feel remorse because you have embarrassed yourselves irrevocably!


----------



## crochetknit Deb (Sep 18, 2012)

A fetus gets its soul when it takes its first breath. Genesis 2:7. I hope this ends the yelling from the right.


----------



## nissa (Jan 5, 2013)

To just add my two pence, most religions will condemn abortion. Because life is sacred. In my religion it is unless special circumstances, yes rape being one, insest, and also if their is a danger to the mother. In the end the decision lies with the parents, and if it's a horrendous incident then the mother. As for souls not allowed after fourth month, because then the embryo takes human form and is now a baby and has a soul. I've never had an abortion be in an unwanted pregnancy, but thought all happens for a reason and god knows best. In the end it's the decision and circumstances of the individual.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> The government *isn't* paying, or expecting anyone else, to pay. It's an insurance company that would be paying. It has nothing to do with you, me, or Hobby Lobby, but they're trying to force their way in.


Who pays the insurance company? Obamacare forces insurance companies to provide those abortion medications, abortions and birth control.

I pray for and cheer for the Poor Sisters of St. Clare for their victorious fight against Obamacare. May others find the strength to fight for their religious freedom and not be forced to violate their consciences by having to pay for similar services.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Neither, you.


HAHAHAHAAAAAAA


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

nissa said:


> To just add my two pence, most religions will condemn abortion. Because life is sacred. In my religion it is unless special circumstances, yes rape being one, insest, and also if their is a danger to the mother. In the end the decision lies with the parents, and if it's a horrendous incident then the mother. As for souls not allowed after fourth month, because then the embryo takes human form and is now a baby and has a soul. I've never had an abortion be in an unwanted pregnancy, but thought all happens for a reason and god knows best. In the end it's the decision and circumstances of the individual.


You are, of course, absolutely correct. 
I am not telling you anything when I say that is why it is called choice. As with any other edict from a religious organization members have a choice. 
To take a drink of alcohol, to consume caffeine, to avoid certain types of meat... every day is a choice. 
Luckily for those of us who would utilize those choices, religion doesn't get a say in the legal end of determining what is a right.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Who pays the insurance company? Obamacare forces insurance companies to provide those abortion medications, abortions and birth control.
> 
> I pray for and cheer for the Poor Sisters of St. Clare for their victorious fight against Obamacare. May others find the strength to fight for their religious freedom and not be forced to violate their consciences by having to pay for similar services.


They don't have to pay for anything, for one thing, as sad as it is to think of they are a tax exempt organization. 
How they can be classified as tax exempt and go political is beyond me. I wish the IRS would go after that point. 
They are wasting SCOTUS' time with an issue of signing a paper. It hurts them to sign a paper asserting that it would hurt them to provide that coverage. 
It is the most ridiculous waste of tax payers' money in a long, long time. That waste is fine, though, as it helps infringe on the 1st Amendment.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Who pays the insurance company? Obamacare forces insurance companies to provide those abortion medications, abortions and birth control.
> 
> I pray for and cheer for the Poor Sisters of St. Clare for their victorious fight against Obamacare. May others find the strength to fight for their religious freedom and not be forced to violate their consciences by having to pay for similar services.


Hmm...I can't help wondering how Christian Science business owners will fare in all this. They of course believe that sickness is an illusion and sign of spiritual weakness. Translation: no doctors. If one's religion is a valid defense against providing birth control, I can't imagine that they can be forced to provide medical insurance for their employees.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> They don't have to pay for anything, for one thing, as sad as it is to think of they are a tax exempt organization.
> How they can be classified as tax exempt and go political is beyond me. I wish the IRS would go after that point.
> They are wasting SCOTUS' time with an issue of signing a paper. It hurts them to sign a paper asserting that it would hurt them to provide that coverage.
> It is the most ridiculous waste of tax payers' money in a long, long time. That waste is fine, though, as it helps infringe on the 1st Amendment.


Wow talk about a war on women !!!

They are not being political, they are following their religious beliefs. By signing that Obamacare paper is a violation of their religious freedom. That paper says they don't have to pay for abortion services, but they allow a third party to pay for it for them. In the sick world of relativism, that passing of the responsibility onto someone else may be okay and cowardly. But the sisters do not believe in relativism, they believe in the Church's teachings and doctrine. To sign that paper would violate Church doctrine and their religious beliefs, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Wow talk about a war on women !!!
> 
> They are not being political, they are following their religious beliefs. By signing that Obamacare paper is a violation of their religious freedom. That paper says they don't have to pay for abortion services, but they allow a third party to pay for it for them. In the sick world of relativism, that passing of the responsibility onto someone else may be okay and cowardly. But the sisters do not believe in relativism, they believe in the Church's teachings and doctrine. To sign that paper would violate Church doctrine and their religious beliefs, nothing more nothing less.


And the Christian Scientists believe that sickness is an illusion. Should they be allowed to skip providing health insurance for their employees?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> So why should Hobby Lobby or any other employer have the right to dictate what their employees can or cannot have...?


And why should Hobby Lobby or any other employer have to buy birth control for its employees. Do they have to buy the candles and music, too? No. It's our own responsibility to play for our birth control, candles, and music.

And of course I'm not including hormones needed for medical conditions. But being sexually active isn't a medical condition.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Let's save the moral outrage over tax exempt status for the truly worthy...like the National Football League!

Despite having grown over the decades into an estimated $9 BILLION-a-year operation, the NFL retains a non-profit status, just like trade associations and chambers of commerce. 

Let's leave the Poor Clares alone!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> No, it is prevented from dying as long as it's connected to the woman's blood supply; once disconnected, it fails to become a person.


In order to die, it must be alive.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> When I blow my nose into a (paper) tissue, there's DNA. Is the tissue a human being?


No, but it is identifiable as coming from you, it is human DNA. It's a PART of you because it's a secretion. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

I won't shop at Hobby Lobby for a couple of reasons. 

The nearest one to me entails a dangerous trip on poorly designed roadways. I have a Michaels much closer and a lovely LYS I try to support at least as near as HL but a safer trip. I also have an AC Moore which is closer and a safer trip.

Their prices are not as low as Michaels or AC Moore for the same items.

I do not support organizations which are as blatantly prejudiced as the owners of HL. They are open to the public and thus by inference subject to the same anti discrimination laws as any public access organization. If they want to discriminate against groups other than their Christian fundamentalist cohorts, then they can enjoy the custom of fellow believers. I will put my money where I perceive business owners are not blatant bigots. 

That said, they are certainly entitled to their beliefs whether or not I agree with them. I just will not support their beliefs because I see them as bigoted. It is up to government agencies and the courts to decide whether they have broken any laws applicable to businesses which are open to the public.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Wow talk about a war on women !!!
> 
> They are not being political, they are following their religious beliefs. By signing that Obamacare paper is a violation of their religious freedom. That paper says they don't have to pay for abortion services, but they allow a third party to pay for it for them. In the sick world of relativism, that passing of the responsibility onto someone else may be okay and cowardly. But the sisters do not believe in relativism, they believe in the Church's teachings and doctrine. To sign that paper would violate Church doctrine and their religious beliefs, nothing more nothing less.


Good explanation.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I do not believe they have called themselves a "Christian Store." Hobby Lobby is a craft store run on "Christian Principles." I believe some stores do carry Jewish items, probably because of the area they are in. As a person shopping in Hobby Lobby, I have seen very little that would be called religious. It is a craft store.


Again I am not familiar with the store. I am only repeating what my niece told me. Curves exercise place also had Christian anti-abortion principles and they went down the drain when they went public about their anti-abortion stance. They no longer exist in many large cities.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Good explanation.


The problem, though, is trying to accomodate everyone's religious beliefs. Birth control methods such as the Pill might seem like a frivolous expense, but the Buddhists don't believe in sterilization (my SIL and her family won't even get their cats fixed), and the Christian Scientists don't believe in doctors at all.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SQM said:


> Again I am not familiar with the store. I am only repeating what my niece told me. Curves exercise place also had Christian anti-abortion principles and they went down the drain when they went public about their anti-abortion stance. They no longer exist in many large cities.


No Hobby Lobby here, but I admit I'd be curious to duck into one and look around. I wouldn't buy anything, though. Don't like their aggressively Christian stance nor the way they treat their employees.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> I don't think it's a human life until it's viable without medical intervention.
> 
> And even at that, if it's between a fetus and a woman, I choose the rights of the woman to choose whether she wants or is able to gestate and give birth. Because ultimately, morals and technicalities aside, this is a personal MEDICAL decision in which even in the best of circumstances is a physically dangerous choice for the woman. EVERY gestation/birth can potentially kill the woman and therefore EVERY decision about this can be a life and death decision for the woman.
> 
> I don't think the government should ever have the ability to force any woman into unwanted gestation and childbirth.


Certainly not in this day and age.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hobby Lobby owners have also tried to prevent health care insurance for their employees from covering birth control for them.

I will not shop at those stores.



SQM said:


> I understand it is a totally Christian store that would not carry any items for Chanukah or any other religion. But I am alright with that. It is their prerogative. I just would not shop in a store that would not want me as a customer.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

knovice knitter said:


> Here is a sad story. Just this past week, in my town, a single mother of an autistic boy who also suffered from seizures, drugged and suffocated her child and then killed herself. She, when learning she was pregnant, probably thought she could raise a child. The child was born with health problems, but she thought she could handle it. I don't know if the behavior regarding the autism was too much to take or she just couldn't see him suffer another seizure. I believe he was nine years old. Something failed her...was it mental health care for herself, was it inefficient aid for the child, was it the expense of the meds? I don't know any of this. I am not suggesting she should have aborted. I am saying that, if children are to come into this world, we all must be vigilant and help....not strip the poor of needed healthcare and aid.


What a tragic story! A gross failure to support those who needed support desperately.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Some of us are glad to have you back. Don't permit them to make you leave somewhere you enjoy. At the very least, if it's bothering you too much, stay away from General Chit Chat for awhile.



MsJackie said:


> I don't know where you got these crazy beliefs, I am guess ing FOX news or Rush L. was somehow involved. But you have clearly and completely misquoted and misunderstood the liberal, right to choose philosophy. If you are going to climb on your high horse and call us a bunch of immoral sluts, perhaps you should check your facts. But why should you? The whole republican party has taken to spouting out right lies without any regard to facts.
> 
> I loved knotting paradise, but I stopped reading it about a year ago because of this bull. I just came back and was starting to enjoy it again. What possessed you to post such a mean spirited, hurtful, nasty post?


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

You Ladies keep arguing about fetuses when we are really discussing embryos - a different developmental stage altogether.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> No, the government can make people pay. There are worse things that the government does that I don't personally want to contribute to, but I understand that's the nature of a Representative Democracy ... our taxes don't always go towards what I personally want.
> 
> I'd prefer to not have to give tax breaks to so many "families" when so many of them have no business being parents and have put forth children in the world that costs society more than they contribute to it.
> 
> But, our society has decided it's more helpful to us all to support families in general, even if many of them are not really worth what we contribute.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Wow talk about a war on women !!!
> 
> They are not being political, they are following their religious beliefs. By signing that Obamacare paper is a violation of their religious freedom. That paper says they don't have to pay for abortion services, but they allow a third party to pay for it for them. In the sick world of relativism, that passing of the responsibility onto someone else may be okay and cowardly. But the sisters do not believe in relativism, they believe in the Church's teachings and doctrine. To sign that paper would violate Church doctrine and their religious beliefs, nothing more nothing less.


In the infamous words of that nitwit from your side... "you lie". The case is about contraception not abortion.


----------



## carriemae (Aug 28, 2012)

Conservatives don't really care what you do and don't want to stop you or change the laws we just don't believe that our taxes should pay for your choices. Do what you want but be responsible and pay for it yourself.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Yes, I do support causes that provide services to families that need them. You know that. You wouldn't be trying to start a fight, would you?



knitpresentgifts said:


> Do you?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

carriemae said:


> Conservatives don't really care what you do and don't want to stop you or change the laws we just don't believe that our taxes should pay for your choices. Do what you want but be responsible and pay for it yourself.


It has nothing to do with your taxes. Now what excuse do you have to refuse women choice?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> What a tragic story! A gross failure to support those who needed support desperately.


Yes--and even when the parent goes public with his or her struggle, help is not always forthcoming. My sister told me about this woman, and it made me want to cry. The article doesn't mention it, but the women in question even wrote a book about her experiences a few years back.

http://www.examiner.com/article/embattled-michigan-mom-writer-attempts-murder-suicide-with-autistic-daughter


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

She proves her viciousness with no help from anyone else. It truly amazes me.



Janet Cooke said:


> I am glad that you asked that last question, it helps anyone who is still reading this thread to determine just how nasty you truly are.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

We can always count on a lengthy cut and paste from joeysomma supporting the right wing point of view.



joeysomma said:


> Someone asked about Hobby Lobby.
> 
> President Obama Versus Hobby Lobby: So Much for the Right to Choose
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Are you trying to get us to go away and leave you to rant on? Not going to happen.



knitpresentgifts said:


> So apparently you don't stand behind your own words. Got it.
> 
> I didn't say anything nasty or express my opinion; I asked you questions about your personal statements. Who is the nasty one will be determined by those still reading this thread.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SQM said:


> You Ladies keep arguing about fetuses when we are really discussing embryos - a different developmental stage altogether.


Well, to be fair, I have used the term fetus as well. While most induced abortions are done early on, there are those that wait until the fetal stage.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

That's what bothers me. I believe employers pay wages and benefits for labor. They do not own labor body and soul. Lincoln emancipated the slaves many years ago.



sumpleby said:


> So why should Hobby Lobby or any other employer have the right to dictate what their employees can or cannot have...?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> The large piece that Country Bumpkins posted disagrees with both you and Joey. So you're the ones who hear what you want to hear. And I think you're also wrong about being the ones who "know" what abortion "really is." To you it's simple and obvious because you see it from outside, from a distance and probably from a height where you look down on the women involved. Anyone who tries to see it from the point of view of the person needing an abortion would realize how un-simple and how un-obvious it is.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Nope.


 :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Your home is one thing. Your business is quite another.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Because they founded and own the business. You don't want the govt to dictate what you can do in your home, bedroom or body so why do you want different laws for any employer to pass it onto you (the employee)?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Who said that they are telling their employees that they cannot have the morning after pill? Their employees can *BUY* any pill they want. No one is stopping them.


Why should employees pay twice for prescriptions, one from insurance (probably cheaper) and another at full retail price......and all when making minimum wage? Come down from your republican tower and face the real world.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And do not shop there if you disagree with their bigotry.



SQM said:


> I don't want to come across as a fan of Hobby Lobby. They seem to conveniently forget that Jesus celebrated Chanukah and yet they are totally against carrying any Jewish items. Yet even if they are ignorant bigots, they still should be able to call the shots as they see it. Just don't work there if you want humane health coverage.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Why should employees pay twice for prescriptions, one from insurance (probably cheaper) and another at full retail price......and all when making minimum wage? Come down from your republican tower and face the real world.


People seem to forget that health insurance on the job is not a gift. It is part of an employee's wage package. 
Employers are not giving anything, workers earn this.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I thought you just said you don't want anyone telling anyone how to run their lives? Why are you now demanding or judging against HL for not selling the items they (not you) chose to sell?
> 
> Cannot you celebrate Chanukah as you wish without buying from Hobby Lobby? If you don't wish to support HL and buy the items they offer, shop elsewhere.
> 
> ...


knitpresentgift
I see that your ignorant self is back. Enjoy yourself.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> It matters not what stage of development, or the name of that stage. IT IS STILL A BABY!!!


joeysomma
Being educated by one of those ignorant Republican Males I guess.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> There's the Bobbitt technique.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Lorena! Where are you?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Unfortunately you don't "do" sarcasm nor humor well.
> 
> I meant exactly what I stated.


Now I can't let you get away with that particular lie.

Purl is one of the funniest members ever. You couldn't cause a chuckle if you fell on your posterior on the sidewalk. IMHO


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> People seem to forget that health insurance on the job is not a gift. It is part of an employee's wage package.
> Employers are not giving anything, workers earn this.


Janet Cooke
Have always been glad to provide Health Insurance for Employees - a regular business expense benefiting everyone,
Boss, Employees and Customers. And you are correct, it is part of the wage package. High time we get onto the Train of the 21st Century. Until then we are NOT the greatest country on earth. I know, I know, the Trains are missing as well. What a pleasure it would be to cross this country via Train in comfort.
Just another example how short we are falling. The list is fairly extensive.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It matters not what stage of development, or the name of that stage. IT IS STILL A BABY!!!


I honestly don't believe that even the pro-lifers view an eight week-old fetus in quite the same light as an eight-day old child, Joey. I really don't. Remember Susan Smith, the woman who drowned her two sons? People wanted her _ head _ (and rightly so). I've never seen forgiveness extended toward such women--but even the most ardent anti-abortionists are willing to let a woman who had the procedure done off the hook as long as they've repented.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You must understand that you have no power over others. You may leave and go to sleep if you wish.



Wombatnomore said:


> For cryin' out loud! Go to bed the lot of you...PLEASE


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

damemary said:


> Why should employees pay twice for prescriptions, one from insurance (probably cheaper) and another at full retail price......and all when making minimum wage? Come down from your republican tower and face the real world.


damemary
she has been dominated by one of those ignorant Republican Males and the brainwashing is now permanent.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Ever hear of the lost boys of the Sudan? Boys (girls were sold) abandoned by civil war, walked 1,000 miles through the desert to a squalid refugee camp. Life is always more complex than we declare.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Stupid argument. No child, including your mom, the age of three survives without assistance or another's care. That was my argument and you changing it to suit your purpose is irrelevant.
> 
> My point wasn't based on a specific age of three, as a example, nor a specific person or specific time restraints - we both know it. You lost the argument and cannot admit same.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Since you said the issue is about signing a piece of paper, why is Obama wasting taxpayers money insisting they sign it? Why can't he exempt them like he does his friends? The Little Sisters of the Poor were minding their own business of taking care of the elderly, until Obama stuck his nose in. The only one making it political is Obama for trying to take away their Religious freedom.


No one is taking their religious freedom away. Catholics are obliged to pay taxes--and some of that money goes toward financing Death Row and the process of executing its inmates. The Church has spoken out repeatedly against the death penalty--why aren't American Catholics fussing about their tax dollars being spent on that?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> It matters not what stage of development, or the name of that stage. IT IS STILL A BABY!!!


Then don't abort your baby.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The General Chit Chat section permits non-craft thoughts. Avoid it if you wish privacy.



Alberteen said:


> I agree this site is not about politics, I have my thoughts on these matters and that is where they stay, my thoughts.


----------



## Oma and 6 (Aug 30, 2013)

I don't reply to controversial items on KP, a newspaper forum or in an actual conversation. OK, I am here). There are so many sides to everything and someone will get their feathers ruffled. No, my head is not stuck in the sand and I respect every ones opinion, but come on, ladies. Let's keep KP centered on the original purpose for the forum. Knitting, crocheting, etc. Plus the funny jokes and stories that often appear to brighten my computer time. I NEED A FUNNY TODAY. It's soooooo cold here in Green Bay, WI and even an sassy one will do. Love all you ladies and the occasional gent.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Are you forgetting who decides what is in the wage package? Not the employee.


Not in this case, and not when there is a union, and not when there is a state mandate, you don't get to shove your religious beliefs down others' throats yet. 
It's really too bad that these nuns are so stubborn, I do hear from those who attended parochial school that nastiness goes way back with nuns. Many displayed hateful behavior. 
Did you read The Lost Son of Philomena Lee yet? That was a loving group. They certainly followed the teachings of Jesus.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Oma and 6 said:


> I don't reply to controversial items on KP, a newspaper forum or in an actual conversation. OK, I am here). There are so many sides to everything and someone will get their feathers ruffled. No, my head is not stuck in the sand and I respect every ones opinion, but come on, ladies. Let's keep KP centered on the original purpose for the forum. Knitting, crocheting, etc. Plus the funny jokes and stories that often appear to brighten my computer time. I NEED A FUNNY TODAY. It's soooooo cold here in Green Bay, WI and even an sassy one will do. Love all you ladies and the occasional gent.


I feel your pain as far as the cold goes. I am in Minnesota and it seems that we just can't catch a break from the cold. I'm glad I stocked upon yarn, fabric, and books.


----------



## Kathie (Mar 29, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> Here is a sad story. Just this past week, in my town, a single mother of an autistic boy who also suffered from seizures, drugged and suffocated her child and then killed herself. She, when learning she was pregnant, probably thought she could raise a child. The child was born with health problems, but she thought she could handle it. I don't know if the behavior regarding the autism was too much to take or she just couldn't see him suffer another seizure. I believe he was nine years old. Something failed her...was it mental health care for herself, was it inefficient aid for the child, was it the expense of the meds? I don't know any of this. I am not suggesting she should have aborted. I am saying that, if children are to come into this world, we all must be vigilant and help....not strip the poor of needed healthcare and aid.


What! Sanity!! How dare you enter that into this discussion.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Oma and 6 said:


> I don't reply to controversial items on KP, a newspaper forum or in an actual conversation. OK, I am here). There are so many sides to everything and someone will get their feathers ruffled. No, my head is not stuck in the sand and I respect every ones opinion, but come on, ladies. Let's keep KP centered on the original purpose for the forum. Knitting, crocheting, etc. Plus the funny jokes and stories that often appear to brighten my computer time. I NEED A FUNNY TODAY. It's soooooo cold here in Green Bay, WI and even an sassy one will do. Love all you ladies and the occasional gent.


I would definitely stay away from this thread, the humor is mostly dark. 
I am sure I don't have to direct you to ScottishLass or any number of other folks who share cartoons. 
It is a GREAT site, isn't it. 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks for the reminder Huck.



Huckleberry said:


> damemary
> she has been dominated by one of those ignorant Republican Males and the brainwashing is now permanent.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Quite the contrary. It is a contract agreed upon by employer and employee. It is enforceable by law. An employee still has certain rights.



joeysomma said:


> Are you forgetting who decides what is in the wage package? Not the employee.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SQM said:


> You Ladies keep arguing about fetuses when we are really discussing embryos - a different developmental stage altogether.


It matters not what you call it or when; what is being debated is the fact it is living and then killed.

I fully expect the debate on abortion to be "fine tuned" to a timeline now as Roe vs. Wade did not address that issue fully.

Today, there are more anti-abortionists in the USA than when the law passed. Yet, "when" killing the living "thing" now remains to be determined in the public arena in regards to the law.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Quite the contrary. It is a contract agreed upon by employer and employee. It is enforceable by law. An employee still has certain rights.


You make absolutely no sense. Guess who gets to write the contract?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:


I am ever so sorry you still are not capable of following the conversation yet remain able, willing and intentionally choose to post only words of hated from you towards others and nothing of importance.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> In the infamous words of that nitwit from your side... "you lie". The case is about contraception not abortion.


You prove yet again you have no idea of what is going on.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

SQM said:


> Again I am not familiar with the store. I am only repeating what my niece told me. Curves exercise place also had Christian anti-abortion principles and they went down the drain when they went public about their anti-abortion stance. They no longer exist in many large cities.


******************************

Soon we'll have all out civil war. I'm telling you, we are being played by the media and the government. They are trying to divide us by fomenting actual hatred between races, religions, abortion activists pro and con, rich and poor, young and old. Think about it - it's all over the news - dividing us.

Do we really want to to hurt one another's feelings, businesses, livelihood, etc. because we disagree on issues? We are still all part of the human race. We should work together on these things.

Shutting down a business is not going to cause people to change their minds. Shaming people won't either. Calm, even friendly, discussion of issues, looking for understanding, finding common ground - these are what it takes for us all to thrive.

There are solutions. We have to calm down enough to work together to find them.

I'm so worried about our country with all the anger.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> By definition, a cell is not an organism unless it's a single-celled organism, like an amoeba. Wikipedia: 'The cell (from Latin cella, meaning "small room") is the basic structural, functional and biological unit of all known living organisms. Cells are the smallest unit of life that can replicate independently, and are often called the "building blocks of life". The study of cells is called cell biology.'...'Organisms can be classified as unicellular (consisting of a single cell; including most bacteria) or multicellular (including plants and animals).' So yes, I'm now stating that cells are not living organisms, since the single-celled ones would never grow to be humans. And anyone who passed high school biology would have known as much.


I guess I'm sorry you did not pass high school biology. You repeatedly stated the "thing" you are happy to kill is a "living" something and then say you're are only killing same when disconnecting from its sustenance.

Single-cell or multi cells are "living" (in the mother in this topic) so "what difference does it make" when you kill it? The fact is you claim you are willing to kill living things by "disconnecting".

Now you claim a cell is not "living" against all that has been proven and defined by science.

I guess you are only willing to kill dead a fetus, cell or plant.

Perhaps you're a pacifist?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> In order to die, it must be alive.


I didn't say it dies; I simply pointed out that it fails to become a person. It doesn't have to have been alive for that to happen.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> No, but it is identifiable as coming from you, it is human DNA. It's a PART of you because it's a secretion. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.


So?


----------



## Kyba (Oct 12, 2011)

Not to change the subject,,,oh yes I do, look what I just finished!
Women need to support each other, all of us together, we dont need to agree we need to support.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

The zygote is formed from the sperm and the egg. It is unique - with DNA from two people joining to make another person. From the beginning it is a living being.

The process is different from the multiplication of a single cell because it is formed from two separate cells. Mitosis is the reproduction of a single cell by division. Meiosis is the production of a unique cell by the mingling of the DNA of two parent cells. It's quite amazing.

This is a brief video showing meiosis. There might also be one showing mitosis, to show the difference.

http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/animations/content/meiosis.html


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Now I can't let you get away with that particular lie.
> 
> Purl is one of the funniest members ever. You couldn't cause a chuckle if you fell on your posterior on the sidewalk. IMHO


Yes she could.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I didn't say it dies; I simply pointed out that it fails to become a person. It doesn't have to have been alive for that to happen.


How many dead people, fish, bacteria, animals or plants do you know that weren't alive before they were dead?

Here's you saying cells were alive in order to follow saying, as you did, they died:

All of your statements state and/or imply 'something' is alive *as it must be* before it can die.

You are now talking in circles saying biological cells aren't alive or don't have to first be alive before dying. Ridiculous.



Poor Purl said:


> House plants are biological living organisms that without appropriate nutrients, they die, PERIOD, too.
> 
> A fetus cannot survive without being connected to it's mother's innards;
> 
> it is prevented from dying as long as it's connected to the woman's blood supply.


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

Kyba said:


> Not to change the subject,,,oh yes I do, look what I just finished!
> Women need to support each other, all of us together, we dont need to agree we need to support.


Lovely. I am currently knitting lace sample blocks to piece together for an afghan for my daughter.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Ever hear of the lost boys of the Sudan? Boys (girls were sold) abandoned by civil war, walked 1,000 miles through the desert to a squalid refugee camp. Life is always more complex than we declare.


Yes, I've not only heard of them, but also I've met and supported some of them. What is your point?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> So?


The zygote is formed from the sperm and the egg. It is unique - with DNA from two people joining to make another person. From the beginning it is a living being.

The process is different from the multiplication of a single cell because it is formed from two separate cells. Mitosis is the reproduction of a single cell by division. Meiosis is the production of a unique cell by the mingling of the DNA of two parent cells. It's quite amazing.

This is a brief video showing meiosis. There might also be one showing mitosis, to show the difference.

http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/animations/content/meiosis.html


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Kyba said:


> Not to change the subject,,,oh yes I do, look what I just finished!
> Women need to support each other, all of us together, we dont need to agree we need to support.


That's beautiful! The colors are so warm and inviting. Thanks for posting a bright spot in the midst of our mire and muck!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I guess I'm sorry you did not pass high school biology. You repeatedly stated the "thing" you are happy to kill is a "living" something and then say you're are only killing same when disconnecting from its sustenance.
> 
> Single-cell or multi cells are "living" (in the mother in this topic) so "what difference does it make" when you kill it? The fact is you claim you are willing to kill living things by "disconnecting".
> 
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Never mind.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> An embryo, zygote, and fetus are parasites. Here is the definition:
> 
> par·a·site noun \ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-\
> : an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food or protection from it
> ...


Key word "lives." Read on to hear Poor Purl claim a cell and a parasite (I guess) do NOT "live" yet she is willing to kill things that are dead and state she "killed" them. How's that for logic and reason? :shock:

Apparently she'll say anything in order to disagree with someone.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Nice bedspread! Love your choice of colors. I have too many projects started. After getting a call from the homeless shelter I have been working on hats and mittens. Seems that they have more people this year and the weather has been so harsh. So I am hand knitting and looming hats and knitting mittens.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Somehow you've managed to disable quote reply, so I can't provide your words (well, I can, and I did last time, but once is enough). But I'll be big about it and admit you caught me - once. More than anyone could expect from such a Great Person as you.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Who pays the insurance company? Obamacare forces insurance companies to provide those abortion medications, abortions and birth control.
> 
> I pray for and cheer for the Poor Sisters of St. Clare for their victorious fight against Obamacare. May others find the strength to fight for their religious freedom and not be forced to violate their consciences by having to pay for similar services.


 :thumbup: They, like all Americans, have the right to freedom of religion.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> The zygote is formed from the sperm and the egg. It is unique - with DNA from two people joining to make another person. From the beginning it is a living being.
> 
> The process is different from the multiplication of a single cell because it is formed from two separate cells. Mitosis is the reproduction of a single cell by division. Meiosis is the production of a unique cell by the mingling of the DNA of two parent cells. It's quite amazing.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the link, both times. It is amazing. So is watching a healthy living child grow up. That's one reason abortion is such a difficult decision to make. But the woman who agonizes over such a decision and decides to go through with it deserves respect and support, not hatred, bombings, and the supercilious "counseling" of those who think they know better.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Let's save the moral outrage over tax exempt status for the truly worthy...like the National Football League!
> 
> Despite having grown over the decades into an estimated $9 BILLION-a-year operation, the NFL retains a non-profit status, just like trade associations and chambers of commerce.
> 
> Let's leave the Poor Clares alone!


I don't believe you understand the tax status of the NFL or perhaps better said, I don't understand your "moral outrage" about the same. However, I'll refrain from discussing on this thread.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> In order to die, it must be alive.


 :thumbup: I've made that same point, but it falls on her deaf ears.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Yes, I do support causes that provide services to families that need them. You know that. You wouldn't be trying to start a fight, would you?


Yet you refuse to shop at Hobby Lobby. So you *don't support causes that provide services to families that need them*. You only claim you do. That,  I can glean from your words.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> It has nothing to do with your taxes. Now what excuse do you have to refuse women choice?


What is your excuse for not understanding the very impact pro-choice has on all taxpayers?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> What is your excuse for not understanding the very impact pro-choice has on all taxpayers?


knitpresentgifts
Say what? Afraid that your customer base will shrink? Have a good day. Huck


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> People, beware. We are being divided along many lines: race, income, religion, and just today they're trying to stir up animosity between working women and stay-at-home mothers. Someone or some group is trying to rip this country apart. We have our differences of opinion, but we're all in this together. Let's not be enemies. Let's work together to find out the truth about things that divide us, to look at that truth and find some common ground. There's no need to hate people who don't agree with us.
> 
> The key is - let's support one another. We all know that our country is dreadfully divided. I think this is fueled by media who want to ramp up the emotions to gain viewers. We mustn't give in to this.
> 
> ...


Well stated and truthfully spoken.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Thank you for the link, both times. It is amazing. So is watching a healthy living child grow up. That's one reason abortion is such a difficult decision to make. But the woman who agonizes over such a decision and decides to go through with it deserves respect and support, not hatred, bombings, and the supercilious "counseling" of those who think they know better.


Poor Purl
A M E N.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> ******************************
> 
> Soon we'll have all out civil war. I'm telling you, we are being played by the media and the government. They are trying to divide us by fomenting actual hatred between races, religions, abortion activists pro and con, rich and poor, young and old. Think about it - it's all over the news - dividing us.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: Remember what happened with Chick Fil-A? You are correct, and specifically under the present Administration, I see divisiveness as a priority to drive a wedge and produce anger amongst Americans.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Key word "lives." Read on to hear Poor Purl claim a cell and a parasite (I guess) do NOT "live" yet she is willing to kill things that are dead and state she "killed" them. How's that for logic and reason? :shock:
> 
> Apparently she'll say anything in order to disagree with someone.


My quote did not have anything to do with what Poor Purl posted, nor am I commenting on her post. She is in a discussion with you over the true meaning of her post. I am not in that particular discussion, nor have I been. If you quote me please actually respond to my post and not attempt to get me to criticize another person on a topic not related. It won't work.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I don't believe you understand the tax status of the NFL or perhaps better said, I don't understand your "moral outrage" about the same. However, I'll refrain from discussing on this thread.


The analogy was to the wealth of the NFL vs the poverty of the Poor Clares and that the moral outrage over who deserves a tax exempt status surely belongs to the former rather than the later.

But I'll go along with you and refrain from furthering that discussion.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> If you read the post it was liberal groups promoting the term "slut pride", not conservatives.
> No one wants anyone to raise a child that they don't want, but there are other alternatives. The fact is that the child being aborted will NEVER be. No one will know that person, ever. Every human is so unique that I shudder to think who has been aborted (killed).


sometimesaKnitter
I abhore Wars which the Republicans so leisurely enter into - count those killings of innocent people, please. Amazing how easy to kill on such a grand scale over and over again.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And we liberals don't want our taxes to support your wars et al and we don't have a choice either. Suck it up.



carriemae said:


> Conservatives don't really care what you do and don't want to stop you or change the laws we just don't believe that our taxes should pay for your choices. Do what you want but be responsible and pay for it yourself.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> sometimesaKnitter
> I abhore Wars which the Republicans so leisurely enter into - count those killings of innocent people, please. Amazing how easy to kill on such a grand scale over and over again.


What about the killings of innocent babies? It amazes me how easily it is to take an innocent life on such a grand scale. More babies are killed from abortion than gun killing people. Over and over again. But it is all about the war on woman. Sad, sad, sad. Brakes my heart of think of it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Glean all you wish. It's always amusing to see what you can warp. You have a great warped mind.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Yet you refuse to shop at Hobby Lobby. So you *don't support causes that provide services to families that need them*. You only claim you do. That,  I can glean from your words.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Damemary is Hobby Lobby the only place that supports those in need? Last I checked there was a plethora of places, and many more needed, to try to provide the much needed assistance to those in need of it. Oh dear, I think I need to check with these places to make sure that they are associated with Hobby Lobby and are therefore official!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And we get to choose what corporations to patronize. Not many Chick Fil-S's left around here. Have a nice day.



knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup: Remember what happened with Chick Fil-A? You are correct, and specifically under the present Administration, I see divisiveness as a priority to drive a wedge and produce anger amongst Americans.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Yeah, Salvation Army, St. Mary's Food Bank.......never heard HL mention others.



Lkholcomb said:


> Damemary is Hobby Lobby the only place that supports those in need? Last I checked there was a plethora of places, and many more needed, to try to provide the much needed assistance to those in need of it. Oh dear, I think I need to check with these places to make sure that they are associated with Hobby Lobby and are therefore official!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> My quote did not have anything to do with what Poor Purl posted, nor am I commenting on her post. She is in a discussion with you over the true meaning of her post. I am not in that particular discussion, nor have I been. If you quote me please actually respond to my post and not attempt to get me to criticize another person on a topic not related. It won't work.


1) I didn't quote your words. I blocked/copied and referred to the definition you posted about a parasite, fetus, zygote.

2) You posted your definition within the topic being discussed on this thread. So, if it did not apply to what was being discussed why did you bother posting it?

3) I didn't ask you to criticize anyone. I said "read on" to read Purl's definition of a cell.

4) Don't bother lying to me; it won't work, I always will see through anyone's lies, including yours.

5) If your believe your definition had nothing to do with the topic Purl and others are discussing, you haven't understood what you read yet posted something appropriate to the topic. You are, therefore, confused.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> ******************************
> 
> Soon we'll have all out civil war. I'm telling you, we are being played by the media and the government. They are trying to divide us by fomenting actual hatred between races, religions, abortion activists pro and con, rich and poor, young and old. Think about it - it's all over the news - dividing us.
> 
> ...


*B.I.N.G.O.*


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> The analogy was to the wealth of the NFL vs the poverty of the Poor Clares and that the moral outrage over who deserves a tax exempt status surely belongs to the former rather than the later.
> 
> But I'll go along with you and refrain from furthering that discussion.


I'll only say I understood your analogy but not your morale outrage. I understand the tax exempt status differently than you I believe.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> What is your excuse for not understanding the very impact pro-choice has on all taxpayers?





Huckleberry said:


> Say what? Afraid that your customer base will shrink? Have a good day. Huck


Say what Huck? Got Brains? :shock:


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> What about the killings of innocent babies? It amazes me how easily it is to take an innocent life on such a grand scale. More babies are killed from abortion than gun killing people. Over and over again. But it is all about the war on woman. Sad, sad, sad. Brakes my heart of think of it.


Country Bumpkins

Your info. is extremely flawed. You call it"easy"? Telling that you know nothing about the suject matter at all. Check within your Family and you may learn something about it.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Say what Huck? Got Brains? :shock:


KPG
just had the presence of plenty of grey matter verified.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> It matters not what stage of development, or the name of that stage. IT IS STILL A BABY!!!


Hardly. It is a two week missed period, not unlike the clots you used to pass when you had your period.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'll only say I understood your analogy but not your morale outrage. I understand the tax exempt status differently than you I believe.


KPG
somehow KPG you always undestand eveything differently. Wonder why.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> Country Bumpkins
> 
> Your info. is extremely flawed. You call it"easy"? Telling that you know nothing about the suject matter at all. Check within your Family and you may learn something about it.


Murder is murder so what else do I need to know?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> KPG
> just had the presence of plenty of grey matter verified.


Get another doctor then, because they gave you a false positive test result.

Check the petri dish in which you apparently left behind your grey matter.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Huck has brains. KPG does not. IMHO


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Murder is murder so what else do I need to know?


She is beyond intelligent discussion I believe.

I'm staying away .. far away...


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Kyba said:


> Not to change the subject,,,oh yes I do, look what I just finished!
> Women need to support each other, all of us together, we dont need to agree we need to support.


Kyba, your bedspread is beautiful! Those bright colors are just the thing we need for this cold, wintry weather. Think I'll climb inside my 23" monitor and wrap my itty bitty self up in all that warmth. I even asked Santa if he would give me a lump of coal in my Christmas stocking. . . Hey! anything to get warm!!

So. . . whatcha knittin' now????? :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> sometimesaKnitter
> I abhore Wars which the Republicans so leisurely enter into - count those killings of innocent people, please. Amazing how easy to kill on such a grand scale over and over again.


No wars that "the Republicans" _leisurely entered_ into *combined* total any where near the 55 million murdered (aborted) babies over the past ten years in the USA.

You make outrageous statements that have no basis in facts or reason.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'll only say I understood your analogy but not your morale outrage. I understand the tax exempt status differently than you I believe.


This is getting silly! I don't have moral outrage over the status of the NFL...someone else was referring to their moral outrage over the status of the Poor Clares and I simply tried to offer them a better place for their outrage in terms of the wealth/poverty of the two groups.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> This is getting silly! I don't have moral outrage over the status of the NFL...someone else was referring to their moral outrage over the status of the Poor Clares and I simply tried to offer them a better place for their outrage in terms of the wealth/poverty of the two groups.


I have obviously misunderstood your words. I thought you stated _your_ 'outrage' in that the NFL has a tax exempt status. Topic forgotten!


----------



## crochetknit Deb (Sep 18, 2012)

nissa said:


> To just add my two pence, most religions will condemn abortion. Because life is sacred. In my religion it is unless special circumstances, yes rape being one, insest, and also if their is a danger to the mother. In the end the decision lies with the parents, and if it's a horrendous incident then the mother. As for souls not allowed after fourth month, because then the embryo takes human form and is now a baby and has a soul. I've never had an abortion be in an unwanted pregnancy, but thought all happens for a reason and god knows best. In the end it's the decision and circumstances of the individual.


 Read Genesis 2:7 and go have a coffee.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have obviously misunderstood your words. I thought you stated _your_ 'outrage' in that the NFL has a tax exempt status. Topic forgotten!


 :thumbup:


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> 1) I didn't quote your words. I blocked/copied and referred to the definition you posted about a parasite, fetus, zygote.
> 
> 2) You posted your definition within the topic being discussed on this thread. So, if it did not apply to what was being discussed why did you bother posting it?
> 
> ...


(1) Yes, you did quote my words. The very first sentence was my original words. (complete post of mine referenced is on page 38) I'm sorry that was not clear. Perhaps in the future I should state after my comments that it was authored by me.

(2) It did indeed apply to the TOPIC of the post, however it did not refer to Purl's comments alone regarding what is life and what is not life. The topic was abortion and the "life" that was killed. I simply pointed out that pregnancy fits the definition of parasite perfectly. Again, this could have been my fault, I did not specifically state that I was addressing the topic, not others posts.

(3) I must apologize I must have misunderstood your comment in the post



> How's that for logic and reason?


 (full quote below)

after speaking of Purl's post and your suggestion, put so kindly, to read Purl's post as an actual inquiry of my opinion on the logic and reason behind her argument. I do apologize for this misunderstanding. May I humbly suggest that the next time you only want to invite someone to read a post or posts, but not to discuss it, that you not put forward a question asking the person for a critique of it after?

(4) I respectfully ask what lies I told. I do not recall any such lies and can only think it may be a misunderstanding. That was probably my fault as well, and I will be happy to clear my name of any suggestion of untruthfulness on my part.

(5) Again, to clear up any confusion, I posted regarding the topic, but not specifically on Purl's post. Last I checked this thread was 46 pages long and it was not filled alone with your and Purl's interaction. Perhaps I missed the post identifying it as a private debate between the two of you. If you would please point that post out, I will be sure to read it to glean other important knowledge I may have missed.

~ lkholcomb is the author of this post, in her own words, excepting the quotes of others posted (properly reference with credit given to authors)



knitpresentgifts said:


> Key word "lives." Read on to hear Poor Purl claim a cell and a parasite (I guess) do NOT "live" yet she is willing to kill things that are dead and state she "killed" them. How's that for logic and reason? :shock:
> 
> Apparently she'll say anything in order to disagree with someone.


~ page 44


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

sumpleby wrote:
So why should Hobby Lobby or any other employer have the right to dictate what their employees can or cannot have...?

KPG wrote
Because they founded and own the business. You don't want the govt to dictate what you can do in your home, bedroom or body so why do you want different laws for any employer to pass it onto you (the employee)?


Actually, I do want the government to make laws that tell an employer what they can and can't do. Employers would be dumping (more) poison into the earth and water and polluting our air. They could hire children and pay them less than minimum wage. They could demand workers work 100-hr. work weeks and give them no time off. They could take advantage of employees in many ways if it weren't for the laws already in place. Because they founded and own the business does not and should not give employers full rein.


----------



## yorkie1 (Sep 5, 2011)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> ~ page 44


No comment.


----------



## karchy (Nov 28, 2012)

I've been reading this thread with interest. 

Nowhere have I seen anyone mention the fact it takes a MAN and a woman to make a pregnancy start, what about the mans responsibility absolves him of any blame in any unwanted pregnancy? (I do of course apologise if I have missed this point being made).
Very often the sole blame is put onto the woman without a second thought to the man in the relationship wether that be a proper relationship or a one night stand. 
Shouldn't it be the case that the man should also be made responsible and some portion of blame be apportioned. 

I am very thankful that I live in Scotland where our healthcare is free. I am a single parent because my ex husband couldn't keep his pants on and was verbally and emotionally abusive. I would not have stayed in that relationship if someone had offered me all the money in the world and I don't see why other women should be expected to do so. 

The suggestion that was made a few pages back that if someone is in a bad relationship should "just leave them" isn't as cut and dried as anyone wants it to be. It took me many years to pluck up the courage to leave because of the nature of the abuse, many women are also in this situation. Just because they are pregnant they should NOT be forced to continue with the pregnancy if it's not what they want or if they and the resulting child will be victims of an abusive man.Some men simply won't allow their wives to take birth control because they want to keep control of their spouses and keep them Pregnant because in a twisted sense it boosts their sense of virility, this is where the system is failing women both in The UK and lots of other countries in the world. (Not that abortion should be used in this way you understand it's just one example) 

IMHO we should be more compassionate and understanding, just because you don't believe in abortion doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. 
What about those situations where it's found that the baby will be so severely disabled that they wouldn't live for more than a few minutes after birth or be still born? Would you "really" want a woman to go through that agony if they didn't want to? Or the cases where the pregnancy is life threatening for the mother? 
The choice to have an abortion is NEVER taken lightly and those saying it's a case of black and white possibly don't know anyone who has found themselves in a situation where the only way out is to terminate the pregnancy. It is one of the hardest choices a woman can make and takes a great deal of thought and soul searching to come to that conclusion. 

As for the whole birth control issues....
Both my daughters were on birth control from the age of 13 NOT because they were sexually active but because they have had hormonal problems with endometriosis and very heavy painful and irregular periods and I take offence at the suggestion that because they are on birth control they must be sexually active! NOT everyone that has birth control medications are on them because they want to avoid pregnancy. So why shouldn't these medications be covered by your health insurance? As someone else stated Viagra is available on prescription, it just seems a case of double standards to me. 
I have also noticed that in a lot of cases where there is an unwanted pregnancy it's always the woman's fault, never the mans. 

I've rambled on a little more than I wanted to so apologise for that but I am reading this thread with interest and once you're past the few insults being thrown about some very good points are being made, I just wish everyone could talk about such emotive issues as this one without resulting to name calling, it's very childish and doesn't really accomplish anything. 
Mags


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You prove yet again you have no idea of what is going on.


The Supreme Court has ruled a group of Catholic nuns will not have to comply with the contraception mandate in ObamaCare while their lawsuit plays out in court, if they declare their objections in writing.

The court ordered the group, the Little Sisters of the Poor, to inform the Department of Health and Human Services they will not comply with the requirement under the health care law that employers must offer contraceptive coverage.

If the group does so, the court says the injunction allowing them reprieve from the mandate will stand until the case is resolved.

Their nuns' lawyer, Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said they were delighted to hear about the court's decision. "It made no sense for the Little Sisters to be singled out for fines and punishment before they could even finish their suit," he said.

Another of their attorneys, Daniel Blomberg, told Greta Van Susteren on On the Record Friday night the ruling means the Little Sisters are protected. Now theyre protected, at least, so they can have their day in court and go through and argue."

Asked the nuns reaction, Blomberg said, Theyve been so amazing throughout the entire process. They take this very, very seriously. They think this is really, really important and so theyre delighted at this news.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/24/supreme-court-says-group-nuns-can-be-exempt-from-obamacare-mandate-while-case/

Who doesn't know what they are talking about?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Exactly how long can a born baby survive on it's own? .....
> 
> Would you go ahead and kill your grandson by removing him from his mother when his is three because you can state the same; he 'cannot survive on his own?"


Holy God.







"On it's own" means that it's physically viable, not whether it can get forage for it's own food and find shelter.



knitpresentgifts said:


> The "law of the land" doesn't allow any mother to ignore, kill, or starve her one year old, does it? Why do you believe it is OK to allow a mother to kill that which you state cannot survive at 14 weeks on its own but not apply the same law to a bunch of cells that is 52 weeks old?


Unbelievably bogus and false comparison and completely illogical. A born person is not the same thing as un/under-developed cells, zygotes, fetus etc. Insisting on making them the same and basing your entire argument on that is grossly dishonest or hideously obtuse.

This is why it's hard to have an intelligent conversation if people can't even understand a basic premise to an argument.

If someone can't understand the difference between cells that are not fully formed and a birthed one year old, then I doubt they have the intellectual capacity to form INFORMED opinions on the matter.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Do you?


When someone answers a question with another question it's a blatant indicator of guilt, ignorance and/or deception.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

It is wonderful rambling, thanks. I do think that at one point we touched on male responsibility. Fact is, though, we have gone over this subject and related ones so often it could have been left out this time.  
It never hurts to mention that it takes 22Tango.



Magsrobby said:


> I've been reading this thread with interest.
> 
> Nowhere have I seen anyone mention the fact it takes a MAN and a woman to make a pregnancy start, what about the mans responsibility absolves him of any blame in any unwanted pregnancy? (I do of course apologise if I have missed this point being made).
> Very often the sole blame is put onto the woman without a second thought to the man in the relationship wether that be a proper relationship or a one night stand.
> ...


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I don't think any taxpayer should ever have to be forced to pay for any woman having a child that isn't their own either. That is the law of the land but it is not enforced; taxpayers' money does fund abortions.


Again, I don't think any taxpayer should have to fund people, especially stupid ignorant people, engaging in procreation. But, as a Representative Democracy style government, we the people have made the decision that ultimately, it's in our society's best interest to do so.

That's just too bad that you don't believe in helping poor women get the medical care and procedures they need. Thankfully, not everyone in our country is as selfish and judgmental.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SQM said:


> Hardly. It is a two week missed period, not unlike the clots you used to pass when you had your period.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

And very often may have been an embryo.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Are you alright with the government telling them how they must operate? Because that is what happened to Hobby Lobby.


Then Hobby Lobby should become a private CHRISTIAN craft store and not pretend they're of the general public.

But if you want to engage in general commerce, you need to abide by the laws and civil rights protections that help prevent people doing harm to other people be it cloaked in religious rights or not.

Hobby Lobby is able to become a private hobby club, in which people can join the club and buy their items from that club. According to the law, they would THEN be free to discriminate because that's the nature of a private club.

But, if you want to participate in civilized society, you must abide by it's laws and rules. That's the trade off of choosing to engage in general commerce.

Being "Christian" doesn't give you special rights to discriminate against others any more than being a KKK member allows you to own a diner and refuse to serve black people.

If the KKK wants to discriminate, it can have a PRIVATE club where only paying members of the club are allowed to participate in it's restaurant. But if they want to benefit from profiting from general commerce/society, then there are laws they have to abide by. And in their case, they can't choose to refuse service to black people, and they can't choose to not provide the same medical benefits to some employees and not to others.

The same holds true for Hobby Lobby. If they want to be bigots and misogynists, form a private club to do so.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> What about the killings of innocent babies? It amazes me how easily it is to take an innocent life on such a grand scale. More babies are killed from abortion than gun killing people. Over and over again. But it is all about the war on woman. Sad, sad, sad. Brakes my heart of think of it.


They are not babies until they are born, until then they are fetuses. Do not confuse the two. A fetus cannot survive outside the womb a baby can. That is why you continue to use the word "baby" not fetus. Please do not have an abortion, but if someone else has made that decision it is her choice. This decision is not entered into on a whim, it is a difficult choice.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Well, here we go, we may not have to worry about contraceptives or abortions. Monsanto may take care of the whole issue for us. Wanted or unplanned, those little ones may just go.

http://naturalsociety.com/monsantos-bt-toxins-found-kill-human-embryo-cells/

onsantos Bt-Toxins Found to Kill Human Embryo Cells
by Christina Sarich
January 24th, 2014
Updated 01/24/2014 at 1:15 am
25
comment
69
Many individuals have heard it a million times, but for the uninformed, or those just looking to fuel their 2014 fire to finally defeat Monsanto and their cronies, youll be interested to know that Monsantos Bt-toxin is far from safe as the chemical company claimed it would be when filing their papers with the FDA. New research from Canada show that BT toxins are showing up in pregnant women, and low and behold  they are killing human embryo cells. 2014 is the year of the horse, but were not through beating this one to death.

Its called reproductive toxicology, and just like their suicide seeds, these Bt toxins are starting to kill our own unborn children. This is no exaggeration. Hopefully reading further will compel you to take action. It is time to put Monsanto to rest, bankrupt them, and let the world know their secrets near and far.

Bt toxins are prominent in genetically altered crops such as corn, soy, wheat, and others, called Cry1Ab  and they can be lethal. Not only do these cry-toxins target the kidney cells of developing human fetuses, but when Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac are combined with RoundUp, they can delay apoptosis of human cancer cells. Whats worse, glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, also causes necrosis  i.e. the death of human tissue, and this happens even when the substance is found in much smaller amounts than what is currently being used on our agricultural crops. The stuff is still carcinogenic in the parts per trillion range.

Read: 5 Steps for Avoiding and Detoxing the Bt-Toxin

In its rush to remain the agricultural leader of the world, the US government erected defunct regulatory bodies that have no means to truly examine the ramifications of biotechnology on our food. The National Institute of Health (NIH) is a joke and the FDA gave Monsanto an indefinite hall pass to cause mayhem on the food supply.

More people need to file lawsuits against this company until they are without one red cent to continue poisoning the planet and killing our unborn babies. The Organic Seed Growers Association sued Monsanto in 2011, and Idaho wheat growers are suing Monsanto for cross-contamination, but what about parental groups? Mothers Against Drunk Driving was formed when a mom lost her baby to a drunk driver. Perhaps the mothers who face reproductive failure due to Monsantos hand can sue them collectively.

The FDAs internal memos about their concerns surrounding GMO seed crops recently surfaced in one lawsuit, though the public was never meant to see them. GMO foods are not the foods we have always eaten. This is an outright lie.

Any lawyers out there willing to go against the monopoly? Id sign a class action suit today. Would you? In the meantime, utilize these 5 tips for avoiding GMOs while you write your local senator, state representatives, congressman, and president.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

She is a flaming whackadoodle, VocalLisa.



VocalLisa said:


> Unbelievably bogus and false comparison and completely illogical. A born person is not the same thing as un/under-developed cells, zygotes, fetus etc. Insisting on making them the same and basing your entire argument on that is grossly dishonest or hideously obtuse.
> 
> This is why it's hard to have an intelligent conversation if people can't even understand a basic premise to an argument.
> 
> If someone can't understand the difference between cells that are not fully formed and a birthed one year old, then I doubt they have the intellectual capacity to form INFORMED opinions on the matter.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Then don't abort your baby.


I thought according to the left it was not a baby, just biological material


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Murder is murder so what else do I need to know?


That abortion is not murder.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
> 
> And very often may have been an embryo.


You mean baby don't you?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> I thought according to the left it was not a baby, just biological material


What we are talking about is a medical procedure that occurs, for the most part, within 7 weeks of conception. 
She is talking about a baby. She should definitely not abort a baby.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> That abortion is not murder.


Isn't murder a legal term?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> If you read the post it was liberal groups promoting the term "slut pride", not conservatives.


No, it's conservatives claiming that women who have "too much" sex are sluts in order to shame women. Then Liberals take that invective and throw it back at conservative's faces to make the point that they are not going to allow themselves to be shamed by ignorant chauvinist, misogynist conservatives.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Murder is murder so what else do I need to know?


Is it against the "Law"? I don't think so. Therefore it is not murder in the eyes of the United States law. I know that you want it to be considered murder, I don't. 
thank goodness for now, abortion is still legal. Of course maybe you would like to see it made illegal, and then all those women who have to have backroom abortions will die and be punished by you all forgiving G-d. Way to go Christians!!!!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Who doesn't know what they are talking about?


You.

Who is still not ignoring me?

You.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> When someone answers a question with another question it's a blatant indicator of guilt, ignorance and/or deception.


Hmmm. What does it say about you (guilt, ignorance or deception) since you could not comprehend that I didn't answer a question with a question but rather asked someone an initial question?

I assume you are grossly uniformed and without the proper intelligence to answer this posted question also.

So don't bother answering me, Vocal Lisa. You've already done so.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> No, it's conservatives claiming that women who have "too much" sex are sluts in order to shame women. Then Liberals take that invective and throw it back at conservative's faces to make the point that they are not going to allow themselves to be shamed by ignorant chauvinist, misogynist conservatives.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Again, I don't think any taxpayer should have to fund people, especially stupid ignorant people, engaging in procreation. But, as a Representative Democracy style government, we the people have made the decision that ultimately, it's in our society's best interest to do so.
> 
> That's just too bad that you don't believe in helping poor women get the medical care and procedures they need. Thankfully, not everyone in our country is as selfish and judgmental.


It is rather sad, that stupid, ignorant people, are allowed to not only procreate but also vote under the laws of our Constitutional Republic here in the good ole US of America.

Too bad, also, you don't know what the heck you're talking about when it concerns what I believe or do to help my fellow man or woman. Thankfully, not everyone is a selfish and judgmental as you and acts upon their beliefs rather than simply attempting to hurt others with their words.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> If you read the post it was liberal groups promoting the term "slut pride", not conservatives.
> No one wants anyone to raise a child that they don't want, but there are other alternatives. The fact is that the child being aborted will NEVER be. No one will know that person, ever. Every human is so unique that I shudder to think who has been aborted (killed).


It's not just about whether someone wants to raise a child.

It's about whether the government has a right to force a woman into gestation and child birth against her will.

EVERY procedure, be it gestation/child birth or abortion is a potential risk for serious injury, illness and/or death to the pregnant woman. No one else other than she and her doctor should have the right to choose which medical risk she should take with her body, ESPECIALLY a government should not have that right to intrude into that personal decision.

I shudder to think how many serial killers, terrorists, child molesters are in this world because people who should not have had children were put into a situation where they didn't feel they could end a pregnancy if they needed to.

I shudder to think how many women AND men's lives have been ruined because they had children they were not prepared to have.

I shudder to think how much crime happens and how expensive a cost to society unwanted children have been.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> Is it against the "Law"? I don't think so. Therefore it is not murder in the eyes of the United States law. I know that you want it to be considered murder, I don't.
> thank goodness for now, abortion is still legal. Of course maybe you would like to see it made illegal, and then all those women who have to have backroom abortions will die and be punished by you all forgiving G-d. Way to go Christians!!!!


rocky1991
some women already are suffering injuries by having to go to back alley places because Texas closed a number of good establishments. Oh the Gods who care so little or more so not at all.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> It's not just about whether someone wants to raise a child.
> 
> It's about whether the government has a right to force a woman into gestation and child birth against her will.
> 
> ...


VocalLisa
I applaud you. Huck.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Then Hobby Lobby should become a private CHRISTIAN craft store and not pretend they're of the general public.
> 
> But if you want to engage in general commerce, you need to abide by the laws and civil rights protections that help prevent people doing harm to other people be it cloaked in religious rights or not.
> 
> ...


I recommend you take a course in business management since you do not understand the commerce laws of the USA and seem to wish to participate in a civilized society.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> It is rather sad, that stupid, ignorant people, are allowed to not only procreate but also vote under the laws of our Constitutional Republic here in the good ole US of America.


We agree.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Too bad, also, you don't know what the heck you're talking about....


You keep saying that to various people here yet it's your posts that amount to the most consistently misinformed and obtuse posts in this thread.

Again, I'm not the one arguing that the government should force you into doing anything you don't want to do, YOU are the one doing that, so, really, it's quite clear that you've taken the most selfish, judgmental position.

If I judge, at least I don't go so far as to think I should be able to tell you what to do with your body. That's YOUR schtick, not mine.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> She is a flaming whackadoodle, VocalLisa.


Great, not only can you not ignore me, now you keep using a word I was the first on KP that I know of to use the word I did to describe a silly Liberal.

If you're going to copy me, please use the proper context.

Thank you.

Oh, yes, (not that it matters to you in the least).


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I recommend you take a course in business management since you do not understand the commerce laws of the USA and seem to wish to participate in a civilized society.


I have, and everything I said is absolutely correct.

Again, if Hobby Lobby wants to engage in prejudice, it is able to do so. All it needs to do is organize it's business as a private club, and then it can discriminate how it wishes.

Otherwise, if it wants to participate in general commerce, it needs to abide by the same laws and rules as everyone else.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> That abortion is not murder.


You're correct; it is premeditated murder.


----------



## GemsByGranny (Dec 7, 2012)

advocate said:


> Take me off your list immediately. I subscribed to this in hopes of learning and sharing about Knitting, not conservative bullshit.
> Pattie Hunt


She warned you before she wrote. and it's not on the exclusively knitting pages.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> While I am against abortion in general I would never blame a woman for a rape. Nothing gives the man a right to rape a woman. Period.


Wow!! What an enlightened view! How brave of you to take such an unusual stance.



> I am glad we can discuss this in a mature way and not start name calling or being disrespectful.


Of course, you seem to think it's alright for the GOVERNMENT to insert itself into a woman's Whoo-Ha and force her to gestate and give birth ... so I guess rape is OK as long it's the government that's doing it. ... but as long as it's being done "respectfully".



> I may not agree with your beliefs but I will defend your right to voice it.


Kudos!

At least you're not of the "_Shut up and just push the baby out as it's ripping your vagina apart_" variety. You support a woman's right to complain as she's being forced into childbirth.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> You keep saying that to various people here yet it's your posts that amount to the most consistently misinformed and obtuse posts in this thread.
> 
> Again, I'm not the one arguing that the government should force you into doing anything you don't want to do, YOU are the one doing that, so, really, it's quite clear that you've taken the most selfish, judgmental position.
> 
> If I judge, at least I don't go so far as to think I should be able to tell you what to do with your body. That's YOUR schtick, not mine.


We do not live under the govt style you suggest so we do not agree. You don't have even a slight understanding of what you read in my posts, you need an excellent course in reading comprehension and factual debate.

YOU are the one hoping to tell businesses how they may operate, and what I believe, do and how to live my life. That's your gig, and I don't buy anything you say as it is mainly lies, rhetoric and liberal propaganda. No facts, proof or reality.

Good luck, you need it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> I have, and everything I said is absolutely correct.
> 
> Again, if Hobby Lobby wants to engage in prejudice, it is able to do so. All it needs to do is organize it's business as a private club, and then it can discriminate how it wishes.
> 
> Otherwise, if it wants to participate in general commerce, it needs to abide by the same laws and rules as everyone else.


You are a lost soul. Hopefully you haven't owned and lost your business to boot from your lack of knowledge, experience and reality.


----------



## SQM (Jun 22, 2012)

Advocate - please do not leave. Occasionally there are topics like this one that emerge and amuse some of us but certainly most of the site is dedicated to knitting. And Pattie Hunt, you are a good thinker if you are able to use the phrase "conservative BS". So stay, please. We need you to counter the comments of some who cannot face us and only can write vindictive, thoughtless comments.

Also I am glad Vocal Lisa is here. I like what she says! Howdy!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> We don't not live under the govt style you suggest so we do not agree. You don't have even a slight understanding of what you read in my posts, you need an excellent course in reading comprehension and factual debate.
> 
> YOU are the one hoping to tell businesses how they may operate, and what I believe, do and how to live my life. That's your gig and I don't buy anything you say as it is mainly lies, rhetoric and liberal propaganda. No facts, proof or reality.
> 
> Good luck, you need it.


People can't make sense of your posts because you make no sense. You claim that people don't know what they are talking about and then when they show that they do and you don't you just continue to deny. 
And those double negatives and spelling errors? Decompensating?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Magsrobby said:


> I've been reading this thread with interest.
> 
> Nowhere have I seen anyone mention the fact it takes a MAN and a woman to make a pregnancy start, what about the mans responsibility absolves him of any blame in any unwanted pregnancy? (I do of course apologise if I have missed this point being made).
> Very often the sole blame is put onto the woman without a second thought to the man in the relationship wether that be a proper relationship or a one night stand.
> ...


Well said Mags. It certainly does seem that the male is relieved of his responsibility in the creation of an unwanted pregnancy, doesn't it?. The saying "it's a man's world" comes to mind in this instance. The woman gets all the blame and is left to deal with the "problem" herself. One other poster said that regardless of one's views on abortion, women should support one another. I fully agree with this. The reasons for the abortion are the (pregnant) woman's (her partner can be included provided he takes responsibility), and her decision should be respected by others. Women should provide support to other women, not only with the decision but also at the clinic where the abortion will take place.

I know my conservative friends will disagree with me, but I have accompanied 2 women (friends) through their journey to get an abortion. I didn't necessarily agree with their reasons, but I respected their decision to proceed, so provided my support. I will support any woman's right to make the decision.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> She is a flaming whackadoodle, VocalLisa.


Now, evidently she thinks she coined the term "wackadoodle"??

It came from the term somewhere in the 1930's "Wacky". Which is presumed to have evolved from the 18th century "thwack"

William Saffire claims that the "doodle" part came from "Yankee Doodle"... doodle meaning a simpleton.



> The adjective, growing in usage with about 9,000 Google hits, takes its first syllable from wacky  that is, far-out, eccentric, off the wall  possibly from out of whack. The doodle ending has a four-century etymology as simpleton, including the derogatory Yankee Doodle.


But, you've "copied" her. LOL!!!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> But, you've "copied" her. LOL!!!


Yes, she owns the term in more ways that one.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Is it against the "Law"? I don't think so. Therefore it is not murder in the eyes of the United States law. I know that you want it to be considered murder, I don't.
> thank goodness for now, abortion is still legal. Of course maybe you would like to see it made illegal, and then all those women who have to have backroom abortions will die and be punished by you all forgiving G-d. Way to go Christians!!!!


I actually wonder what would happen to all those women who've had abortions in the past 35 years or so if Roe vs Wade was overturned. One would _ think _ that the jubilant anti-abortionists would leave them in peace, but who knows? If abortion is murder, as these folks insist, then I'm sure they feel too that those women belong on Death Row--and so do all the doctors, nurses, and other employees and volunteers who ran those clinics.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are a lost soul. Hopefully you haven't owned and lost your business to boot from your lack of knowledge, experience and reality.


I'm a soul that knows what she'll talking about. And no, I was lucky enough to sell my business at 40 years old to a billion dollar corporation and am living high on the hog in retirement.

But thank you for your concern.


----------



## GemsByGranny (Dec 7, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Kudos!
> 
> At least you're not of the "_Shut up and just push the baby out as it's ripping your vagina apart_" variety. You support a woman's right to complain as she's being forced into childbirth.


Boy, what a lot of unenlightened comments there are here. Ever had a baby?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> YOU are the one hoping to tell businesses how they may operate,


No, business can do what it wants, all I'm saying is that they need to abide by laws like everyone else.

Why? Are you arguing that business should be completely unfettered and shouldn't have to abide by laws?

But again, you are the one who seems to think that government should have control over women's vaginas and uterus. It's hard to get more intrusive and judgmental than that.


----------



## crochetknit Deb (Sep 18, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Again, I don't think any taxpayer should have to fund people, especially stupid ignorant people, engaging in procreation. But, as a Representative Democracy style government, we the people have made the decision that ultimately, it's in our society's best interest to do so.
> 
> That's just too bad that you don't believe in helping poor women get the medical care and procedures they need. Thankfully, not everyone in our country is as selfish and judgmental.


May I use the ...Not everyone in our country is as selfish and judgmental?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

GemsByGranny said:


> Boy, what a lot of unenlightened comments there are here. Ever had a baby?


Yep.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You're correct; it is premeditated murder.


It's sad that you seem to think that putting the word "premeditated" in front of the word murder some how changes the definition.

I think you might benefit from some third grade vocabulary lessons.

It's not murder, premeditated or otherwise.

However, forcing women into dangerous procedures against their will IS more akin to rape and murder (_if the woman dies in the process_).


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> People can't make sense of your posts because you make no sense. You claim that people don't know what they are talking about and then when they show that they do and you don't you just continue to deny.
> And those double negatives and spelling errors? Decompensating?


She can't make sense because she's got inaccurate/incomplete/cherry picked/unscientific information. That's she's got serious issues with her vocabulary and grammar only makes it worse.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> Yes, she owns the term in more ways that one.


THAT'S for sure!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> I know my conservative friends will disagree with me, but I have accompanied 2 women (friends) through their journey to get an abortion. I didn't necessarily agree with their reasons, but I respected their decision to proceed, so provided my support. I will support any woman's right to make the decision.


Hi soloweygirl! As one of your conservative friends, and happy to state same, I will tell you I do not disagree with you for your support and/or other actions taken towards the decisions and abortion procedures of your friends. I simply want you to know this.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> People can't make sense of your posts because you make no sense. You claim that people don't know what they are talking about and then when they show that they do and you don't you just continue to deny.
> And those double negatives and spelling errors? Decompensating?


When I've said people don't know what they are talking about I've justified it if necessary or if I felt the urge to. To date, I frankly don't remember a single Liberal who has proven my words to them inaccurate. They, and you, just continue to deny their lies and inaccurate statements.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> But, you've "copied" her. LOL!!!


See, you proved my point. I never claimed I "coined" the word. You simply cannot comprehend what you read or at least refuse to do so.


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

sharinana said:


> I am a liberal Christian and I have no idea where you picked up that load of garbage that you just entered on this web site but I have never been so offended by such a pile of vitriolic lies in my entire life! How do you know what the "left" believes? Have you ever actually sat down and talked to a born again Christian woman who believes that God gave each of us the brains to make such an intensly personal decision without someone else shouting obsenities, judgements and condemnation in their face? I was not a "slut" when I found myself with an unplanned pregnancy and felt that the decision I made was the only one that was open to me at that time. No matter why or when this happened in my life I am fairly confident that someone who thinks and speaks the way you do would never understand the pain and shame a woman goes through when she finds herself caught up in a nightmare that leads to having an abortion. The God I know and love has shown me a heart of compassion and forgiveness. This is what Jesus preached throughout His whole life and it is the vicious far right that has painted the entire Christian community as a bunch of closed minded, loud mouthed, hate mongers. You should be ashamed of yourself. Jesus walked in my shoes, you need to give it a try before you continue being so mean spirited. No one chooses abortion as the easy way out, no one!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Well Stated!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> I'm a soul that knows what she'll talking about. And no, I was lucky enough to sell my business at 40 years old to a billion dollar corporation and am living high on the hog in retirement.
> 
> But thank you for your concern.


Yep, you certainly are a soul that knows what she'll talk about. Unfortunately, you don't KNOW much about what you talk about.

Your problem, not mine.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Thank you for the link, both times. It is amazing. So is watching a healthy living child grow up. That's one reason abortion is such a difficult decision to make. But the woman who agonizes over such a decision and decides to go through with it deserves respect and support, not hatred, bombings, and the supercilious "counseling" of those who think they know better.


Yes, I agree. Most of the people in the pro-life movement are very sympathetic toward the mothers. Churches have meetings for people who are in pain after abortion, and the pro-life movement in my area reminds us to be respectful and kind to those seeking abortions and to those working in the agencies. 
It doesn't do anyone any good to be hateful.

There are people on the fringe of most movements who do bad things, sometimes terrible things. But usually they're in the minority. Unfortunately, they're often the most visible and give the whole group a bad name.

I'm glad you liked the video.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> No, business can do what it wants, all I'm saying is that they need to abide by laws like everyone else.
> 
> Why? Are you arguing that business should be completely unfettered and shouldn't have to abide by laws?
> 
> But again, you are the one who seems to think that government should have control over women's vaginas and uterus. It's hard to get more intrusive and judgmental than that.


That is not what you said nor do I care to spend my time conversing with you. BTW: Hobby Lobby has been abiding by the laws like everyone else. Now that the govt has decided to step in and tell them what to do in relation to what health insurance and options they must offer their employees, there is a pending lawsuit and the possibility of thousands of people losing their income stream, their health insurance and their homes, assets, etc. that were supported by HL as their employer if HL goes out of business.

Yeah - way to go Government!

Oh, Vocal Lisa, do not attempt or continue to attempt to put your words and ideals on me. I can safely say I don't agree with 90% of what you write and express as your ideals. So get off your high horse and learn to communicate respectfully with others and take me off your attack list.


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Nah, I tell them to use my cell and call someone who cares.


 :thumbup: :lol: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> It's sad that you seem to think that putting the word "premeditated" in front of the word murder some how changes the definition.
> 
> I think you might benefit from some third grade vocabulary lessons.
> 
> ...


Too bad at your age you do not understand all human abortions are planned in advance by a person or God if occurring naturally; hence a "premeditated" form of murder and that is a legally recognized crime in the USA. Most third graders probably can surpass your knowledge of that legality alone I presume.


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

cbethea said:


> Your right about that! If some of these churches are going to be nothing more than an extention of a political party, then they should lose their tax exemption.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Yes, I agree. Most of the people in the pro-life movement are very sympathetic toward the mothers. Churches have meetings for people who are in pain after abortion, and the pro-life movement in my area reminds us to be respectful and kind to those seeking abortions and to those working in the agencies.
> It doesn't do anyone any good to be hateful.


No, it certainly doesn't. I rather admire how the parishioners in my church handle the matter--led by a priest they stand quietly off to one side (well behind the legal limit, of course) and pray the rosary. I'm sure it's more effective than taunts and graphic pictures and certainly far kinder.


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

SQM said:


> For Janet Cooke,
> 
> What does your avatar say? I love vintage but cannot read it.


I've been trying to read it too! LOL


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

damemary said:


> You must understand that you have no power over others. You may leave and go to sleep if you wish.


I did go to sleep 9 hours ago and there you all are, still at it like a pack of old goats! Entertaining to the max!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> No, it certainly doesn't. I rather admire how the parishioners in my church handle the matter--led by a priest they stand quietly off to one side (well behind the legal limit, of course) and pray the rosary. I'm sure it's more effective than taunts and graphic pictures and certainly far kinder.


That's what we do, too.


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

oakmont said:


> what does hobby lobby have to do with anything?


The owner is a Christian who does not sell Jewish items such as a menorah.


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

This has become boring! I am gone.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> If you read the post it was liberal groups promoting the term "slut pride", not conservatives.
> No one wants anyone to raise a child that they don't want, but there are other alternatives. The fact is that the child being aborted will NEVER be. No one will know that person, ever. Every human is so unique that I shudder to think who has been aborted (killed).


I also shudder to think of all the abused children, malnourished children, unloved children etc that are in this world today. I wish more of the people who are so against a woman's right to choose cared as much for those children after they were born. What about children whose families are on food stamps, but will no longer be able to get them because of the cuts? The conservatives are for the cuts, but don't think about the children going hungry.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> See, you proved my point. I never claimed I "coined" the word. You simply cannot comprehend what you read or at least refuse to do so.


We both comprehend perfectly what you implied, more hyperbole. 
You know, like Rush Limbaugh, oozing hate and disdain while spewing things to foul to pass over a tongue.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> See, you proved my point. I never claimed I "coined" the word. You simply cannot comprehend what you read or at least refuse to do so.


Yes, you pretty much did. I wish I could tell you that was a nice try at backpedaling, but I can't. It's pretty sad actually.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> When I've said people don't know what they are talking about I've justified it if necessary or if I felt the urge to. To date, I frankly don't remember a single Liberal who has proven my words to them inaccurate. They, and you, just continue to deny their lies and inaccurate statements.


You haven't justified anything. And of course you can't remember a Liberal has proven your words accurate, because you have selective "hearing". Another reason you think you somehow "introduced" the word "wackadoodle" to the board.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter wrote:
If you read the post it was liberal groups promoting the term "slut pride", not conservatives.
No one wants anyone to raise a child that they don't want, but there are other alternatives. The fact is that the child being aborted will NEVER be. No one will know that person, ever. Every human is so unique that I shudder to think who has been aborted (killed).


Do you suppose that the one person who will never be really matters so much? 
The night that you said "no, I have a headache" or that your husband was too tired might have created a person who will never be. 
A man wearing a condom may have prevented a person who will never be. 
My tubal ligation, Thank you God, prevented people who will never be. 
So what? People who will never be just are not. 
There are plenty around to enjoy and cherish and nudge along a path to greatness.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yep, you certainly are a soul that knows what she'll talk about. Unfortunately, you don't KNOW much about what you talk about.
> 
> Your problem, not mine.


I know a hell of a lot more than you as your posts self-evidently demonstrate.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> That is not what you said nor do I care to spend my time conversing with you. BTW: Hobby Lobby has been abiding by the laws like everyone else.


That is what I said, and I'm not surprised, as you lose arguments that you would run away.

BTW, Hobby Lobby does not want to abide by the law like everyone else, they want a special license to discriminate based on religion.



> knitpresentgifts said:
> 
> 
> > Now that the govt has decided to step in and tell them what to do in relation to what health insurance and options they must offer their employees, .


No, government doesn't want them to discriminate against women by denying them medical coverage. And yes, government has always had a say in how businesses offer insurance to their employees, as they should because you can't count on bigots, like the owners of Hobby Lobby to abide by civil rights laws.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> I agree. Harsh invective and hateful words like "slut" are not going to win any converts to the pro-life movement.


I just went to the blog of the guy who wrote this entry. He is a nut.


----------



## loravaughn (Dec 14, 2013)

You are so right! I am glad you posted this for all to see.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Too bad at your age you do not understand all human abortions are planned in advance by a person or God if occurring naturally; hence a "premeditated" form of murder and that is a legally recognized crime in the USA. Most third graders probably can surpass your knowledge of that legality alone I presume.


Abortion is neither murder nor premeditated murder. It is legal, therefor not murder. Since you are not pro choice but profess to be pro life, why don't you try to educate us pro choice people with actual facts, reason, and science, not fairy tales about G-d, and the damnation of our eternal souls. Calling it murder does not make it so. You have no idea of what women go through in making the decision to terminate a pregnancy. You have no idea of what kind of life they may be bringing this child into. You have no idea of their finances. You do not want government interfering in you life, but it is perfectly okay for government to interfere in the lives of women who do not want to carry a child to term. It's okay for lawmakers to make laws that interfere with abortion rights, such as a vaginal ultrasound, or a 72 hour waiting period, or a blood test taken 30 days before an abortion can be done, or that abortion doctors need to have hospital privileges. However, that blood test would not be accepted by the attending doctor because a 30 day old test is useless. Of course these are laws introduced by lawmakers, not doctors. Is that all right with you, that just plain old men are making healthcare decisions instead of the medical community? The more this topic is discussed the less likely anyone will be any closer to agreeing on anything.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lostarts said:


> You talk like you think that people are quitting jobs where they can make a decent living (enough to be comfortable), in order to get benefits without working.
> 
> I happen to get SNAP benefits (what used to be called food stamps--if you're going to talk about benefits, learn what they're called).
> 
> ...


I understand your situation perfectly and there are many more people in the same situation, but the conservative response to anyone in your situation will be that it is your own fault that you didn't further your education so you would have been able to get a better job. I have heard it from them so many times. Everyone is put into the same group and they have no empathy for others and no consideration at all for each person having a different story and having taken a different path to get where they are. I think that is one thing that is the most hateful by conservatives. It is themselves first and then "those people."


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Judithlynn said:


> My GD got pregnant at the age of15. Our GGS is now 2 yrs old. He has been a joy to the whole family. He has not nor ever will ruin anyone's life. My GD is a senior in high school making As and Bs. She is going to college next year to become a vet.
> 
> Any child you don't want can be adopted out. I know personally of numerous people who would jump at adopting.


Your GD obviously has great family support. Not everyone has that. Some have absolutely no support. Some are kicked out of their home when they become pregnant. Some will have that baby so that they will have someone to love and have someone to love them, not the best reason to have a child. They probably had sex in the first place because they were trying to find someone to love them.


----------



## mdgallogly (Jan 22, 2014)

It's not "killed" it's removed. Really? What about the baby's beating heart? To be alive, there must be a beating heart. One is not declared dead (no longer alive) until the heart ceases to beat. If you're dead when there is no heart beat, then you're alive when there is a beating heart. I must add that we don't know when something said will change someone's mind. When we hear or read something that "clicks" and makes sense to us, we all change our minds. Each and every one of us do it every day.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

calisuzi said:


> We do not all hold to your beliefs religious or political and the War on Women goes far beyond abortion. If there is so concern about abortion why is the far right religious faction trying to deprive women of access to contraception. I for one am not willing to see any of my rights taken from me by any man. Some are even saying our voting rights should be taken from us.


Yes I find it hard to believe that contraception is even being discussed. That was settled long ago. When viagra is no longer paid by insurance, then we can discuss contraception.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> They're not trying to deprive women of contraception. They just don't want to pay for it. If my daughter came to me and asked me to pay for her contraceptives, I'd laugh in disbelief. Adults pay for their own contraceptives.
> 
> If you can't manage to buy your own contraceptives, then you probably are not ready to be sexually active.
> 
> ...


Some of the companies that were not wanting to pay for contraception had been paying for contraception for years and not had a problem with it. Why now all of a sudden did it turn into an issue? Does insurance pay for viagra, penile implants, Vasectomies? Of course it does and conservatives have no problem with that. Whe is the woman the one who should bare the brunt of the responsibility without any help. Oh ya, I forgot, the women are suppose to control their libidos, but you men you go for it.


----------



## Camacho (Feb 3, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> And the Christian Scientists believe that sickness is an illusion. Should they be allowed to skip providing health insurance for their employees?


The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, provides health insurance for its employees. After all, regardless of an individual's religion or church affiliation, each one has a right to whatever sort of care they prefer. If someone visibly needs care, they have to get some sort of care. I prefer Christian Science care, but I don't presume to deny anyone else whatever care they prefer.

A synonym for God in Christian Science (see page 465 of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy) is Life.

Sickness is an illusion, but it is not a sign of spiritual weakness. Even though it is not real because God did not make it, for according to Genesis 1:1, 31, God made everything and everything God made is good, it still needs to be dealt with.

From here on in this post I am speaking as an individual only from my own experience and opinions, and not any official positions of my church. I can do nothing against Life, but other people don't think the same way I do, so when a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy she deserves compassion and not judgment nor condemnation. She is making a very difficult decision that I wish no one ever were in a position to feel necessary. All the policies of our nations should promote life, as in good prenatal care for every woman; three years of [paid] family leave for new additions to the family; living wages for all; food, clothing, shelter; education, transportation, and care in times of need (infancy & childhood, illness, injury, old age,...); communication, companionship, community; love, justice, equity, equality; alignment, balance, symmetry, proportion, chastity, and peace. Until all these other things become apparent, there are going to be some people who feel they need abortions, and I am not the one to judge them or to condemn them, so I support them with my votes for politicians who support humane policies rather than trying to outlaw only one of the direct results of inhumane situations. 
In Romania, under the totalitarian dictatorship, abortion was outlawed. It was one of the first things legalized after the dictatorship was overturned. A mark of totalitarian government is taking away personal decisions from individuals and a mark of fascism is letting the corporations do whatever they want.

BTW, whoever it was who posted about Monsanto on this thread, please PM me if you wish to discuss my family's experience with our daughter's miscarriages and childbirth. I just get the feeling that Monsanto may have had something to do with some of the problems my daughter had.


----------



## felix (Jul 13, 2011)

i had my capital shift key (capitol letters) on when i posted something and you should see how i got stomped on....that was yelling......never heard such knit picking....i didn't know only lower case was allowed !!!!!! calm down please


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Judithlynn wrote:
My GD got pregnant at the age of15. Our GGS is now 2 yrs old. He has been a joy to the whole family. He has not nor ever will ruin anyone's life. My GD is a senior in high school making As and Bs. She is going to college next year to become a vet. 

Any child you don't want can be adopted out. I know personally of numerous people who would jump at adopting.

I certainly hope that things work out for your granddaughter.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Camacho said:


> The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, provides health insurance for its employees. After all, regardless of an individual's religion or church affiliation, each one has a right to whatever sort of care they prefer. If someone visibly needs care, they have to get some sort of care. I prefer Christian Science care, but I don't presume to deny anyone else whatever care they prefer.
> 
> A synonym for God in Christian Science (see page 465 of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy) is Life.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Comacho, for the thoughtful and informative post. I think it's wonderful that Christian Science organizations are willing to provide health insurance coverage for their employees. You seem like a caring and compassionate individual as well--kudos!
:thumbup:


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

NJG said:


> I also shudder to think of all the abused children, malnourished children, unloved children etc that are in this world today. I wish more of the people who are so against a woman's right to choose cared as much for those children after they were born. What about children whose families are on food stamps, but will no longer be able to get them because of the cuts? The conservatives are for the cuts, but don't think about the children going hungry.


It's just not true. Conservatives give more to charitable organizations than liberals do. The Catholic church alone is the largest contributor to charity in the world.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Some of the companies that were not wanting to pay for contraception had been paying for contraception for years and not had a problem with it. Why now all of a sudden did it turn into an issue? Does insurance pay for viagra, penile implants, Vasectomies? Of course it does and conservatives have no problem with that. Whe is the woman the one who should bare the brunt of the responsibility without any help. Oh ya, I forgot, the women are suppose to control their libidos, but you men you go for it.


This is a little old, I believe that more states have required oral contraception since 2008.

http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/pill-bills.html


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Mags, thank you so much for making a positive addition to the conversation going on here. You had a lot of important things to say. It's sad that the anti-choice group seems to think that the decision to terminate a pregnancy takes less thought than the decision to have a tooth filled. And that usually the woman is left on her own trying to come to such a decision. You also brought up the situation where the fetus isn't viable, for whatever reason; to force the mother to carry this pregnancy to term only to lose the child immediately after it's born is simply cruel.


Magsrobby said:


> I've been reading this thread with interest.
> 
> Nowhere have I seen anyone mention the fact it takes a MAN and a woman to make a pregnancy start, what about the mans responsibility absolves him of any blame in any unwanted pregnancy? (I do of course apologise if I have missed this point being made).
> Very often the sole blame is put onto the woman without a second thought to the man in the relationship wether that be a proper relationship or a one night stand.
> ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> It's just not true. Conservatives give more to charitable organizations than liberals do. The Catholic church alone is the largest contributor to charity in the world.


It really is true. As I said before, while people may not want to cut off assistance to the poor there is not comprehension of what the need is.

Can you imagine religious organizations making up for the nutrition programs? School lunches, meals on wheels, school b'fast, SNAP, the surplus food the federal gov't gives away? Oh, and WIC. 
Catholic Charities says 46 million people in the US live in poverty. They helped close to a million people last year. That help was over and above what the US gov't supplied as well as all of the other organizations that assist the poor. 
It is a wonderful thing, but, a drop in the bucket. It would especially be a huge fail if the government pulled back as so many ultraconservatives want to.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Catholic Charities and the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies have made great differences in people's lives, providing a cushion of care and comfort to people in need. It is unfortunate that there will always be needy people, many of whom are poorly equipped to care for themselves due to circumstances beyond their control.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> It's just not true. Conservatives give more to charitable organizations than liberals do. The Catholic church alone is the largest contributor to charity in the world.


The Catholic church is not a Conservative organization. It has made statements against the death penalty and against war, both of which Conservatives favor. The current Pope is certainly not a Conservative.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> The Catholic church is not a Conservative organization. It has made statements against the death penalty and against war, both of which Conservatives favor. The current Pope is certainly not a Conservative.


Good point.


----------



## SometimesaKnitter (Sep 4, 2011)

Camacho wrote- three years of [paid] family leave for new additions to the family. 
Are you willing to pay for this???? I am not, give me a break enough things are paid for through regulation now! When 49 percent of the working are paying for 51 percent on the dole how do you think it will play out?
I wish I could stay home and just visit my friends or have enough time and energy to clean my house. I wasn't raised to take something I haven't earned. And I was raised to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS!!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Great, not only can you not ignore me, now you keep using a word I was the first on KP that I know of to use the word I did to describe a silly Liberal.
> 
> If you're going to copy me, please use the proper context.
> 
> ...


Randi Rhodes was using the word "wackadoodle" on Air America back in 2004. She used it to describe conservatives who were obviously nuts. Unless you used it on KP before 2004, you don't deserve any credit for it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

mdgallogly said:


> It's not "killed" it's removed. Really? What about the baby's beating heart? To be alive, there must be a beating heart. One is not declared dead (no longer alive) until the heart ceases to beat. If you're dead when there is no heart beat, then you're alive when there is a beating heart. I must add that we don't know when something said will change someone's mind. When we hear or read something that "clicks" and makes sense to us, we all change our minds. Each and every one of us do it every day.


Yes, that is why we continue to have these discussions. 
Removal from the "life support" and the resultant death is the definition of not viable, isn't it?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Randi Rhodes was using the word "wackadoodle" on Air America back in 2004. She used it to describe conservatives who were obviously nuts. Unless you used it on KP before 2004, you don't deserve any credit for it.


Oh you know, if she says winter nobody should ever again use that name for a season. 
If she says the sky seems to be blue, she should get credit for that observation.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Camacho said:


> The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, provides health insurance for its employees. After all, regardless of an individual's religion or church affiliation, each one has a right to whatever sort of care they prefer. If someone visibly needs care, they have to get some sort of care. I prefer Christian Science care, but I don't presume to deny anyone else whatever care they prefer.
> 
> A synonym for God in Christian Science (see page 465 of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy) is Life.
> 
> ...


Wonderful proposals, I am not sure how European nations manage to do all that they do for residents there... I can only say "if only".


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> They don't have to. Their partners can get a vasectomy or use a more temporary form of birth control.


And insurance will pay for the vasectomy so why not pay for the contraception. A woman's employer should not be able to decide weather or not insurance pays for her birth control. The employers religion is the employers religion, not the employees, and it should not be forced on her.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

sharinana said:


> I am a liberal Christian and I have no idea where you picked up that load of garbage that you just entered on this web site but I have never been so offended by such a pile of vitriolic lies in my entire life! How do you know what the "left" believes? Have you ever actually sat down and talked to a born again Christian woman who believes that God gave each of us the brains to make such an intensly personal decision without someone else shouting obsenities, judgements and condemnation in their face? I was not a "slut" when I found myself with an unplanned pregnancy and felt that the decision I made was the only one that was open to me at that time. No matter why or when this happened in my life I am fairly confident that someone who thinks and speaks the way you do would never understand the pain and shame a woman goes through when she finds herself caught up in a nightmare that leads to having an abortion. The God I know and love has shown me a heart of compassion and forgiveness. This is what Jesus preached throughout His whole life and it is the vicious far right that has painted the entire Christian community as a bunch of closed minded, loud mouthed, hate mongers. You should be ashamed of yourself. Jesus walked in my shoes, you need to give it a try before you continue being so mean spirited. No one chooses abortion as the easy way out, no one!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Yes, that is why we continue to have these discussions.
> Removal from the "life support" and the resultant death is the definition of not viable, isn't it?


Removal of life support when the brain is dead, is not killing someone, they are already dead.

Removal of a living fetus from the mother is murdering the fetus because the death of the fetus was not a result of nature, but by a decision to end its life.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> And insurance will pay for the vasectomy so why not pay for the contraception. A woman's employer should not be able to decide weather or not insurance pays for her birth control. The employers religion is the employers religion, not the employees, and it should not be forced on her.


What a cavalier attitude. The man should just have an operation? All operations have risks, even those that seem run of the mill. 
Not to mention that we are talking contraception not sterilizing people.

http://men.webmd.com/features/vasectomy-risks-benefits?page=3


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Yes, that is why we continue to have these discussions.
> Removal from the "life support" and the resultant death is the definition of not viable, isn't it?


Actually in cases of removal from life support, often the doctors will go by brain death to be a factor in whether it is viable to continue extreme measures. Technically taking someone off life support, if you go by the definition of many groups of radical anti-abortion folks, is "murder" and choosing to not continue to "fight for life" if you are terminal is suicide. I'm sure plenty if folks will tell me how wrong I am, but remember please that I was raised with groups that were very staunch. In fact I remember a pastor, from the pulpit, encouraging the congregation to support the legal fund for a woman who walked in a clinic and unplugged a machine in the midst of an abortion.

If you look further into quite a few of the very vocal groups you will find that they stem from or strongly associate with those "must always chose life" groups.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Actually in cases of removal from life support, often the doctors will go by brain death to be a factor in whether it is viable to continue extreme measures. Technically taking someone off life support, if you go by the definition of many groups of radical anti-abortion folks, is "murder" and choosing to not continue to "fight for life" if you are terminal is suicide. I'm sure plenty if folks will tell me how wrong I am, but remember please that I was raised with groups that were very staunch. In fact I remember a pastor, from the pulpit, encouraging the congregation to support the legal fund for a woman who walked in a clinic and unplugged a machine in the midst of an abortion.
> 
> If you look further into quite a few of the very vocal groups you will find that they stem from or strongly associate with those "must always chose life" groups.


I guess I should have used a more direct means than quotation marks of indicating that the life support I was talking about was the umbilical cord.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Actually in cases of removal from life support, often the doctors will go by brain death to be a factor in whether it is viable to continue extreme measures. Technically taking someone off life support, if you go by the definition of many groups of radical anti-abortion folks, is "murder" and choosing to not continue to "fight for life" if you are terminal is suicide. I'm sure plenty if folks will tell me how wrong I am, but remember please that I was raised with groups that were very staunch. In fact I remember a pastor, from the pulpit, encouraging the congregation to support the legal fund for a woman who walked in a clinic and unplugged a machine in the midst of an abortion.
> 
> If you look further into quite a few of the very vocal groups you will find that they stem from or strongly associate with those "must always chose life" groups.


Fact is I understand that there are those groups out there, I disagree with them to the utmost. When my mother no longer had any measurable quality of life, we told her she could go when she was ready and she was dead in two days. That is death with dignity in my view. 
It strikes me as odd that so many people who "worship" individualism refuse individuals the right to make their own end of life decisions.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Removal of life support when the brain is dead, is not killing someone, they are already dead.
> 
> Removal of a living fetus from the mother is murdering the fetus because the death of the fetus was not a result of nature, but by a decision to end its life.


So by this definition, if a fetus is developed without a brain is it acceptable to abort as they are "brain dead"? And technically they are not pronounced "dead" in removal of life support until the heart and breathing stops. Depending on which part of the brain was injured it may take a few seconds to a few hours for the body to "die". Brain death simply means that the brain is not having the electrical stimulation. Functions like breathing and heart function are controlled by the brain stem, an "auto pilot" if you will. It doesn't require conscious thought to continue this. That would be why some babies who were born without a brain, but with a brain stem, hung on for a few days.

This has made me curious, and when I have a few moments I will need to check, I wonder if there have been any EEG's done on fetus' in utero. Hmmm, interesting research for later.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I guess I should have used a more direct means than quotation marks of indicating that the life support I was talking about was the umbilical cord.


Perhaps. I figured it out, but I'm not sure it could be so very simplistically gleaned from your post. 

I have heard that crowd though, argue in one hand how sacred all life is, yet when 90 year old grandma has had a very debilitating stroke is all to eager to "pull the plug".


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Fact is I understand that there are those groups out there, I disagree with them to the utmost. When my mother no longer had any measurable quality of life, we told her she could go when she was ready and she was dead in two days. That is death with dignity in my view.
> It strikes me as odd that so many people who "worship" individualism refuse individuals the right to make their own end of life decisions.


 :thumbup:

I have seen to much death without dignity and then have seem death with dignity. I would chose the later. In fact the medical folks in my family (myself, my husband, my mil) are all very, very vocal about what we do or don't want done. My mil in her 70's has decided no CPR. She's a DNR (although she may suspend it temporarily during surgery if necessary). Because we've seen the worst (and sometimes the best) we made those decisions early (I was in my 20's)


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Why do you need the approval of an employer? Are you unable to get a prescription from your doctor and walk into a drug store and PAY to have it filled? There are other types of birth control that you can get without a prescription.


So then should men pay for their viagra and vasectomy? Insurance and employers don't seem to have a problem paying for them. If you have insurance why should you have to pay for your contraception? Isn't that what insurance is for? I know the concept of lack of money is hard for you to grasp Joey, but you want to cut snap and not provide contraception, so for the person short on money and trying to feed a family, would you prefer she have an unwanted pregnancy?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> This is a little old, I believe that more states have required oral contraception since 2008.
> 
> http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/pill-bills.html


It turned into an issue when the govt tried to require the Catholic charities, hospitals, etc. to provide birth control and abortifacients, contrary to their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Fine is (I think) $1000 a day.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It really is true. As I said before, while people may not want to cut off assistance to the poor there is not comprehension of what the need is.
> 
> Can you imagine religious organizations making up for the nutrition programs? School lunches, meals on wheels, school b'fast, SNAP, the surplus food the federal gov't gives away? Oh, and WIC.
> Catholic Charities says 46 million people in the US live in poverty. They helped close to a million people last year. That help was over and above what the US gov't supplied as well as all of the other organizations that assist the poor.
> It is a wonderful thing, but, a drop in the bucket. It would especially be a huge fail if the government pulled back as so many ultraconservatives want to.


I'm not going to debate this. You can find the information for yourself.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> The Catholic church is not a Conservative organization. It has made statements against the death penalty and against war, both of which Conservatives favor. The current Pope is certainly not a Conservative.


The Pope is not a political figure.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

felix said:


> i had my capital shift key (capitol letters) on when i posted something and you should see how i got stomped on....that was yelling......never heard such knit picking....i didn't know only lower case was allowed !!!!!! calm down please


Don't spend a minute worrying about it.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Randi Rhodes was using the word "wackadoodle" on Air America back in 2004. She used it to describe conservatives who were obviously nuts. Unless you used it on KP before 2004, you don't deserve any credit for it.


Wackadoodle is not reserved for liberals or conservatives. It is an equal opportunity adjective.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Randi Rhodes was using the word "wackadoodle" on Air America back in 2004. She used it to describe conservatives who were obviously nuts. Unless you used it on KP before 2004, you don't deserve any credit for it.


Wackadoodle is not reserved for liberals or conservatives. It is an equal opportunity adjective/noun.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

NJG said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Difference: vasectomy is a surgical procedure.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

True, Bonnie. KPG was trying to "coin" the term a few pages back.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I don't think it's a human life until it's viable without medical intervention.
> 
> And even at that, if it's between a fetus and a woman, I choose the rights of the woman to choose whether she wants or is able to gestate and give birth. Because ultimately, morals and technicalities aside, this is a personal MEDICAL decision in which even in the best of circumstances is a physically dangerous choice for the woman. EVERY gestation/birth can potentially kill the woman and therefore EVERY decision about this can be a life and death decision for the woman.
> 
> I don't think the government should ever have the ability to force any woman into unwanted gestation and childbirth.


I agree, less government. Isn't that what the republicans always say, less government? Oh right, except where they want more government.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

NJG said:


> I agree, less government. Isn't that what the republicans always say, less government? Oh right, except where they want more government.


Conservatives want less govt, but we certainly believe that crimes should not be allowed. The govt steps in when people commit murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, etc. Pro-life people believe that since abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, it should not be permitted. Catholics and some people of other faiths or none at all feel the same about capital punishment, except in that case the person is not innocent.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Difference: vasectomy is a surgical procedure.


Do you mean to say that the surgical procedures should be covered, as in a blanket statement? Not to be argumentative, honest I don't, but abortion is also a surgical procedure.

I wonder also though, do the catholic religious institutions refuse to cover vasectomies on the ground of religion? Last I checked their "official" stance, birth control period was discouraged, not to mention other religious institutions like quiverful groups.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> The Pope is not a political figure.


The Pope is a political respresentative of Vatican City, which is its own sovernty.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I keep wondering how these people who don't believe in the use of birth control manage to stop at a few children.


I think they must put the aspirin between their knees.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> The Catholic church is not a Conservative organization. It has made statements against the death penalty and against war, both of which Conservatives favor. The current Pope is certainly not a Conservative.


On the matter of abortion (which is the subject of this thread) the Pope is certainly a Conservative. Indeed!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> The Pope is not a political figure.


And the Catholic church is not a conservative body, which was what you implied.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> It turned into an issue when the govt tried to require the Catholic charities, hospitals, etc. to provide birth control and abortifacients, contrary to their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Fine is (I think) $1000 a day.


IF you would read what data is provided you would see that those organizations are already required in 28 states to provide that coverage. 
Contrary to their religious beliefs, my foot, I have never had a member of LDS come up and grab a cup of coffee out of my hand, or in the old days a Roman Catholic take my meatloaf off the table on a Friday. 
No Muslim has replaced an alcoholic drink I had and given me water. 
People in this nation do not go to those lengths to impose their "religious freedoms" on others. 
Have you cruised the Lovers' Lanes in your city to prevent pre-marital sex? Have you gone into hotels to check the register to make sure that no married persons are meeting to fornicate?
I didn't think so, so please, don't give me any line about denying other people the right to birth control being about practicing religious beliefs. It just doesn't fly.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Do you mean to say that the surgical procedures should be covered, as in a blanket statement? Not to be argumentative, honest I don't, but abortion is also a surgical procedure.
> 
> I wonder also though, do the catholic religious institutions refuse to cover vasectomies on the ground of religion? Last I checked their "official" stance, birth control period was discouraged, not to mention other religious institutions like quiverful groups.


Someone asked why vasectomies are covered by insurance if birth control wouldn't be. I said the difference between vasectomies and birth control is that vasectomy is a surgical procedure. But I would think the Catholic church would not cover them because they are a form of sterilization.

Even though abortion is a surgical procedure, they don't want to cover it because its purpose is to cause the death of a human being.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> On the matter of abortion (which is the subject of this thread) the Pope is certainly a Conservative. Indeed!


I think you mean that he holds at least one opinion that agrees with the view of American Conservatives.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> IF you would read what data is provided you would see that those organizations are already required in 28 states to provide that coverage.
> Contrary to their religious beliefs, my foot, I have never had a member of LDS come up and grab a cup of coffee out of my hand, or in the old days a Roman Catholic take my meatloaf off the table on a Friday.
> No Muslim has replaced an alcoholic drink I had and given me water.
> People in this nation do not go to those lengths to impose their "religious freedoms" on others.
> ...


Does anybody beside me find it actually humorous that the Muslim faith allows for abortions up to a point? Since they are often criticized for being extreme and controlling women by the same certain religious groups (not all of them of course) who preach life begins at conception, I actually was left shaking my head at this.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> People can't make sense of your posts because you make no sense. You claim that people don't know what they are talking about and then when they show that they do and you don't you just continue to deny.
> And those double negatives and spelling errors? Decompensating?


As in "we don't not live under ..."? Neither, I.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Well said Mags. It certainly does seem that the male is relieved of his responsibility in the creation of an unwanted pregnancy, doesn't it?. The saying "it's a man's world" comes to mind in this instance. The woman gets all the blame and is left to deal with the "problem" herself. One other poster said that regardless of one's views on abortion, women should support one another. I fully agree with this. The reasons for the abortion are the (pregnant) woman's (her partner can be included provided he takes responsibility), and her decision should be respected by others. Women should provide support to other women, not only with the decision but also at the clinic where the abortion will take place.
> 
> I know my conservative friends will disagree with me, but I have accompanied 2 women (friends) through their journey to get an abortion. I didn't necessarily agree with their reasons, but I respected their decision to proceed, so provided my support. I will support any woman's right to make the decision.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> IF you would read what data is provided you would see that those organizations are already required in 28 states to provide that coverage.
> Contrary to their religious beliefs, my foot, I have never had a member of LDS come up and grab a cup of coffee out of my hand, or in the old days a Roman Catholic take my meatloaf off the table on a Friday.
> No Muslim has replaced an alcoholic drink I had and given me water.
> People in this nation do not go to those lengths to impose their "religious freedoms" on others.
> ...


Has the govt ever forced an LDS member to drink your coffee or a Catholic to eat meat on Fridays? Has the govt ever forced a Muslim to drink alcohol? No. But they are trying to force the Catholic church to supply abortifacients for its employees. And yes, that IS contrary to the Catholic church's religious beliefs, your foot or not.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Does anybody beside me find it actually humorous that the Muslim faith allows for abortions up to a point? Since they are often criticized for being extreme and controlling women by the same certain religious groups (not all of them of course) who preach life begins at conception, I actually was left shaking my head at this.


There are all kinds of contradictions in all religions, I think. 
Look at the way conservative Christians have to reach back to the "Old Testament" in order to find sanctions against homosexuality and yet for other issues the rules of that same section get a pass. 
Christianity use do be much more lenient about the beginning of life as well. Speaking of things that Jesus was silent on...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> The Pope is a political respresentative of Vatican City, which is its own sovernty.


The Pope is not a politician. The Pope is the head of a church. His authority is in spiritual matters, not secular ones.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I actually wonder what would happen to all those women who've had abortions in the past 35 years or so if Roe vs Wade was overturned. One would _ think _ that the jubilant anti-abortionists would leave them in peace, but who knows? If abortion is murder, as these folks insist, then I'm sure they feel too that those women belong on Death Row--and so do all the doctors, nurses, and other employees and volunteers who ran those clinics.


They've tried to enact that as legislation in some states (maybe not the Death Row part, but certainly arrest and imprisonment), but it doesn't seem to have stuck.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I think you mean that he holds at least one opinion that agrees with the view of American Conservatives.


Pope Francis is very much a Conservative. He expresses strong pro-life views. Besides appearing unexpectedly at the Rome March for Life, he tweeted this:

It is God who gives life. Let us respect and love human life, especially vulnerable life in a mothers womb.

Also, the Pope is vehemently against same-sex marriage, and sees it as regression for humankind.

There is no denying that the Pope, and the Catholic Church, is very Conservative.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Has the govt ever forced an LDS member to drink your coffee or a Catholic to eat meat on Fridays? Has the govt ever forced a Muslim to drink alcohol? No. But they are trying to force the Catholic church to supply abortifacients for its employees. And yes, that IS contrary to the Catholic church's religious beliefs, your foot or not.


The Roman Catholic church is NOT supplying it. That was the whole point of my post. 
Honestly. Please, start over. Health insurance companies are supplying the contraceptives. It is good business sense so they are doing it. 
I don't understand why you are refusing to accept that fact. 
The Roman Catholic Church is exempt. 
It is the money making facets of their holdings that have to provide health insurance that must provide ALL prescriptions. That is per state law, you did not address what the difference is there.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> She can't make sense because she's got inaccurate/incomplete/cherry picked/unscientific information. That's she's got serious issues with her vocabulary and grammar only makes it worse.


Also a logic disability.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Someone asked why vasectomies are covered by insurance if birth control wouldn't be. I said the difference between vasectomies and birth control is that vasectomy is a surgical procedure. But I would think the Catholic church would not cover them because they are a form of sterilization.
> 
> Even though abortion is a surgical procedure, they don't want to cover it because its purpose is to cause the death of a human being.


I still don't quite understand why you think that it is acceptable for some companies to cover vasectomies but not birth control (excluding the catholic church for religious reasons. If a company provides vasectomy coverage it would mean they are not opposed to birth control. But is it still okay for then to deny women birth control if they provide vasectomies? If yes, then why would that be so? Yes, one is a surgical procedure (until they have perfected the medicinal birth control for men that they were trialling), but why would a surgical procedure trump a medicinal one? Speaking from a risk vs benefit standpoint, surgeries often are more expensive and in addition there are the risks associated with infections and other post operative complications.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> They've tried to enact that as legislation in some states (maybe not the Death Row part, but certainly arrest and imprisonment), but it doesn't seem to have stuck.


Many churches provide help for women who have had abortions. Also, the women are not considered criminals. It is understood that they are usually in dire circumstances. However, medical people who are performing abortions are considered to have committed murder of an innocent human being.

I think if women understood how abortions were performed, there would be fewer of them. The procedure is very grisly and terrible. It has been proven that the baby feels pain at 20 weeks. Few people would have the stomach for it if they knew in detail what was happening. Women in desperate circumstances are often exploited by the abortion industry.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> You know, we don't really want to face anything unwanted. But life sometimes takes twists we don't like. There are certainly worse things than an unwanted pregnancy. How about loss of a spouse or a child, devastating injury, catastrophic disease. Surely an unplanned child is not the worst that people have endured. Most people are able to rise above these difficult circumstances. I'm surprised that paying for one's own birth control or even getting pregnant at an inconvenient time is considered devastating. Sometimes, yes. Most of the time - I doubt it.


There are so many families out there living pay check to pay check, that would be devastated if they became pregnant. If they have no insurance, and no money to feed another child it could be devastating. That is one thing that amazes me about people on the right. You have no idea of the issues that many poor people face every day. Just like Mitt Romney was completely out of touch with poor people, that is what I hear from the majority of republicans, and I know you're not all as rich as Mitt was, but it is that same attitude. I just wish you could have some empathy for people less fortunate than yourselves. You just assume people have the extra money to buy contraception, the extra money to pay for child care for another child and to feed another child. I just don't understand how you can be so out of touch.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I still don't quite understand why you think that it is acceptable for some companies to cover vasectomies but not birth control (excluding the catholic church for religious reasons. If a company provides vasectomy coverage it would mean they are not opposed to birth control. But is it still okay for then to deny women birth control if they provide vasectomies? If yes, then why would that be so? Yes, one is a surgical procedure (until they have perfected the medicinal birth control for men that they were trialling), but why would a surgical procedure trump a medicinal one? Speaking from a risk vs benefit standpoint, surgeries often are more expensive and in addition there are the risks associated with infections and other post operative complications.


Wonder if they cover tubal ligation.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I still don't quite understand why you think that it is acceptable for some companies to cover vasectomies but not birth control (excluding the catholic church for religious reasons. If a company provides vasectomy coverage it would mean they are not opposed to birth control. But is it still okay for then to deny women birth control if they provide vasectomies? If yes, then why would that be so? Yes, one is a surgical procedure (until they have perfected the medicinal birth control for men that they were trialling), but why would a surgical procedure trump a medicinal one? Speaking from a risk vs benefit standpoint, surgeries often are more expensive and in addition there are the risks associated with infections and other post operative complications.


The difference I see is that vasectomy is a surgical procedure with risks and costs, whereas other birth control measures are not surgical and don't have the same risks and costs.

I thought insurance was originally intended to protect us from the costs of catastrophic illnesses and long hospitalizations. Now they've added drugs and preventive medicine.

Anyway, the difference I mentioned is the only one I know about except that one is permanent and the other temporary.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

"The Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: How would you describe being poor in the U.S.? The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs. That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.

Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being in poverty by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity.

The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago. In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

If the kids can have an X-box...mom and dad can afford birth control!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Yes, you pretty much did. I wish I could tell you that was a nice try at backpedaling, but I can't. It's pretty sad actually.


This is why it's not worth the time it takes to disagree with her. Whatever she said, when it's shown to be wrong it turns out she said nothing of the kind. If you give her back her own words, either you didn't understand her (great philosophical thinker that she is) or she simply lets it drop.

I think the worst thing is not that she's uninformed, illogical, ungrammatical etc. but that she seems to *believe* she is never wrong, as a matter of faith.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Guess who signs it.



knitpresentgifts said:


> You make absolutely no sense. Guess who gets to write the contract?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Guess who signs it.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Sorry, you are dead wrong.




Gerslay said:


> "The Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: How would you describe being poor in the U.S.? The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs. That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.
> 
> Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being in poverty by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity.
> 
> ...


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Pope Francis is very much a Conservative. He expresses strong pro-life views. Besides appearing unexpectedly at the Rome March for Life, he tweeted this:
> 
> It is God who gives life. Let us respect and love human life, especially vulnerable life in a mothers womb.
> 
> ...


Oh, really? I guess you missed the interview when asked about homosexuality his response was "Who am I to judge?" As Bonnie stated, the Pope is not a political figure.
He is the leader of the Catholic Church. Vatican City is owned by the Catholic Church.
If you think he would be an American conservative, read this:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/carrie-wofford/2013/12/30/pope-francis-popularity-is-a-warning-for-republicans-in-2014


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> The Pope is not a politician. The Pope is the head of a church. His authority is in spiritual matters, not secular ones.


The Holy See is the governing body of the Vatican. As you can below, the members of the Holy See represents the Pope and perform their duties "in his name and with his authority". I have copied the relevant parts below, and referenced them, should anybody which to check it in full context. It is from the official Vatican website. I personally didn't understand the need that so many candidates seemed to have for the Pope's approval until I looked further and realized he is the head of a sovern nation. The pope has been making some waves in trying to change the bureaucracy and appoint new members to the governing bodies.

"THE ROMAN CURIA

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, * perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors." *
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm

"The Secretariat of State is presided over by a Cardinal who assumes the title of Secretary of State. As the Popes first collaborator in the governance of the universal Church, the * Cardinal Secretary of State is the one primarily responsible for the diplomatic and political activity of the Holy See, in some circumstances representing the person of the Supreme Pontiff himself." *
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_12101998_profile_en.html

"The Section for Relations with States

On the basis of Arts. 45-47 of Pastor Bonus, the Section for Relations with States or Second Section * has the specific duty of attending to matters which involve civil governments. It has responsibility for the Holy Sees diplomatic relations with States, including the establishment of Concordats or similar agreements; * for the Holy Sees presence in international organizations and conferences; in special circumstances, by order of the Supreme Pontiff and in consultation with the competent dicasteries of the Curia, provides for appointments to particular Churches, and for their establishment or modification; in close collaboration with the Congregation for Bishops, it attends to the appointment of Bishops in countries which have entered into treaties or agreements with the Holy See in accordance with the norms of international law."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_12101998_profile_en.html


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Sorry, you are dead wrong.


I'm sorry too, Janet, that you cannot accept the fact that the poorest Americans are among the richest people in the world.

"If your family income is $10,000 a year, you are wealthier than 84 percent of the world. If it's $50,000 or more a year, you make more than 99 percent of the world."

That's one of the more oft-cited stats the World Bank, Poke's Global Rich List and various other economists state. They can also back up their numbers!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> The difference I see is that vasectomy is a surgical procedure with risks and costs, whereas other birth control measures are not surgical and don't have the same risks and costs.
> 
> I thought insurance was originally intended to protect us from the costs of catastrophic illnesses and long hospitalizations. Now they've added drugs and preventive medicine.
> 
> Anyway, the difference I mentioned is the only one I know about except that one is permanent and the other temporary.


So then why would insurance companies urge surgical procedures over medical ones? Usually it is the opposite, surgery is to be avoid if possible.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Oh, really? I guess you missed the interview when asked about homosexuality his response was "Who am I to judge?" As Bonnie stated, the Pope is not a political figure.
> 
> If you think he would be an American conservative, read this:
> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/carrie-wofford/2013/12/30/pope-francis-popularity-is-a-warning-for-republicans-in-2014


Of course the Pope doesn't judge...conservatives don't judge the person either...but that doesn't mean the behavior is condoned or accepted.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Of course the Pope doesn't judge...conservatives don't judge the person either...but that doesn't mean the behavior is condoned or accepted.


Do you guys have a manual that you recite? Why would he allow gays to receive Holy Communion if that was the fact?
Surely, homosexuality would be grounds for excommunication in the Catholic Church.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Very pretty, Busy Bee.



Kyba said:


> Not to change the subject,,,oh yes I do, look what I just finished!
> Women need to support each other, all of us together, we dont need to agree we need to support.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You're right. And you are smart and funny too. I can't resist a pratfall.



Poor Purl said:


> Yes she could.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Pope Francis is very much a Conservative. He expresses strong pro-life views. Besides appearing unexpectedly at the Rome March for Life, he tweeted this:
> 
> It is God who gives life. Let us respect and love human life, especially vulnerable life in a mothers womb.
> 
> ...


Yes, there is denying it, but I'm not going to repeat what I've already written.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Oh peacegoddess, I always wanted to try that. Please share pictures for inspiration.



peacegoddess said:


> Lovely. I am currently knitting lace sample blocks to piece together for an afghan for my daughter.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Do you guys have a manual that you recite?


No manual here...I think for myself! As I assume you do too and that you aren't just spewing the talking points that come out of the left. ???


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

That young children can survive without support, which you stated.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Yes, I've not only heard of them, but also I've met and supported some of them. What is your point?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Oh, dame, I love the hair! I can tell that you did not use Kool Aid for high and low lighting like someone else around here did. :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Yes, there is denying it, but I'm not going to repeat what I've already written.


Okay, Poor Purl, I vehemently disagree, but I won't repeat what I've already written either.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> "The Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: How would you describe being poor in the U.S.? The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs. That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.
> 
> Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being in poverty by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity.
> 
> ...


So by this logic if a parent has 4 children and one dies before the age of 5, we should tell them that it's not so bad, 100 years ago many kids didn't survive to 5 years old.

If a person has pneumonia and needs to be hospitalized for antibiotic resistant pneumonia and now has sepsis, they aren't suffering that bad. After all 100 years ago we didn't have nebulizers to help you breathe you would just die, and we have many antibiotics now and if it was 100 years ago and they were resistant to penicillin they were a goner for sure!

That kids need to stop whining about not having a full bed, but just a mattress on the floor to sleep on, because 100 years ago boys went to work with their fathers at 12 in the coal mines and small children went to work for 12 hour days.

Putting forth the argument that it's not so bad because it's not as bad as it was 100 years ago is actually very ludicrous. Society has changed in 100 years, technology has advanced. It's just a shame it's taking so much longer for the social conscience to catch up. But hey, there's hope! After all child labor of 4-5 year old kids didn't vanish overnight!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I exercise my right to choose where I shop. Hobby Lobby would probably slipped under my radar if they hadn't been so out spoken. Their charity support is limited. Other non-profits provide services. I choose to support them.

You got a problem with that?



knitpresentgifts said:


> Yet you refuse to shop at Hobby Lobby. So you *don't support causes that provide services to families that need them*. You only claim you do. That,  I can glean from your words.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Guess who signs it.


Why, Dame. You've changed. Lovely hair. My niece has very similar hair. She bought it last year.

But I miss Princess Grace. I'd much rather see her amazing face than the back of a stranger's head.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> No manual here...I think for myself! As I assume you do too and that you aren't just spewing the talking points that come out of the left. ???


Spewing? Oh my, pull your claws back. Yes, I do think for myself, but I would never dare to try to speak on behalf of what the Pope may or may not think or believe. Nor would I ever tag a political party to him.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> I'm sorry too, Janet, that you cannot accept the fact that the poorest Americans are among the richest people in the world.
> 
> "If your family income is $10,000 a year, you are wealthier than 84 percent of the world. If it's $50,000 or more a year, you make more than 99 percent of the world."
> 
> That's one of the more oft-cited stats the World Bank, Poke's Global Rich List and various other economists state. They can also back up their numbers!


Would you cite for us, please, in conjunction with these assertions what the relative cost of living is?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Lkholcomb said:


> Damemary is Hobby Lobby the only place that supports those in need? Last I checked there was a plethora of places, and many more needed, to try to provide the much needed assistance to those in need of it. Oh dear, I think I need to check with these places to make sure that they are associated with Hobby Lobby and are therefore official!


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> So by this logic if a parent has 4 children and one dies before the age of 5, we should tell them that it's not so bad, 100 years ago many kids didn't survive to 5 years old.
> 
> If a person has pneumonia and needs to be hospitalized for antibiotic resistant pneumonia and now has sepsis, they aren't suffering that bad. After all 100 years ago we didn't have nebulizers to help you breathe you would just die, and we have many antibiotics now and if it was 100 years ago and they were resistant to penicillin they were a goner for sure!
> 
> ...


Your points are well taken. However, my point was simply that if you can afford a color tv, a washer/dryer, a microwave, and an X-Box you can certainly afford birth control.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Spewing? Oh my, pull your claws back. Yes, I do think for myself, but I would never dare to try to speak on behalf of what the Pope may or may not think or believe. Nor would I ever tag a political party to him.


No claws here...honestly. And I didn't speak for the Pope, I quoted him.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I thought you said you were staying far away, but here you are again. Was that a lie or a mistake? Please advise.



knitpresentgifts said:


> No wars that "the Republicans" _leisurely entered_ into *combined* total any where near the 55 million murdered (aborted) babies over the past ten years in the USA.
> 
> You make outrageous statements that have no basis in facts or reason.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> And why should Hobby Lobby or any other employer have to buy birth control for its employees. Do they have to buy the candles and music, too? No. It's our own responsibility to play for our birth control, candles, and music.
> 
> And of course I'm not including hormones needed for medical conditions. But being sexually active isn't a medical condition.


Does Hobby lobby have to pay for viagra and vasectomy's?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

alcameron said:


> sumpleby wrote:
> So why should Hobby Lobby or any other employer have the right to dictate what their employees can or cannot have...?
> 
> KPG wrote
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Hurrah!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

No rebuttal possible or lazy?



knitpresentgifts said:


> No comment.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Would you cite for us, please, in conjunction with these assertions what the relative cost of living is?


Relative to what, Janet?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Dear Mags, Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. They are pertinent and important.



Magsrobby said:


> I've been reading this thread with interest.
> 
> Nowhere have I seen anyone mention the fact it takes a MAN and a woman to make a pregnancy start, what about the mans responsibility absolves him of any blame in any unwanted pregnancy? (I do of course apologise if I have missed this point being made).
> Very often the sole blame is put onto the woman without a second thought to the man in the relationship wether that be a proper relationship or a one night stand.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> When someone answers a question with another question it's a blatant indicator of guilt, ignorance and/or deception.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Good point!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Another problem solved by corporation.



Janet Cooke said:


> Well, here we go, we may not have to worry about contraceptives or abortions. Monsanto may take care of the whole issue for us. Wanted or unplanned, those little ones may just go.
> 
> http://naturalsociety.com/monsantos-bt-toxins-found-kill-human-embryo-cells/
> 
> ...


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> The problem, though, is trying to accomodate everyone's religious beliefs. Birth control methods such as the Pill might seem like a frivolous expense, but the Buddhists don't believe in sterilization (my SIL and her family won't even get their cats fixed), and the Christian Scientists don't believe in doctors at all.


I think employers should not inflict their religious beliefs onto their employees. If you are providing insurance, let them choose what they need and you stay out of their bedroom and out of their reproductive lives. Now for all on the right who will say they can get any prescription they want and pay for it themselves, if they have insurance, they shouldn't have to. The most there should be is a copay.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Its 11:30 in my corner of the world...Goodnight Y'all!


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Even though abortion is a surgical procedure, they don't want to cover it because its purpose is to cause the death of a human being.


The average man releases 200 million sperm in every ejaculation. Over an active sex life... So a vasectomy kills many more.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Bravo for you Lisa! Thanks for the input.



VocalLisa said:


> I'm a soul that knows what she'll talking about. And no, I was lucky enough to sell my business at 40 years old to a billion dollar corporation and am living high on the hog in retirement.
> 
> But thank you for your concern.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Its 11:30 in my corner of the world...Goodnight Y'all!


Night, Gerslay. I can't agree with everything you believe, but thoughtful input is always appreciated here.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Hi soloweygirl! As one of your conservative friends, and happy to state same, I will tell you I do not disagree with you for your support and/or other actions taken towards the decisions and abortion procedures of your friends. I simply want you to know this.


 :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: Beam me up Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And here you are, back again complaining about it.



Wombatnomore said:


> I did go to sleep 9 hours ago and there you all are, still at it like a pack of old goats! Entertaining to the max!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> People seem to forget that health insurance on the job is not a gift. It is part of an employee's wage package.
> Employers are not giving anything, workers earn this.


And they also pay for their insurance.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> No, government doesn't want them to discriminate against women by denying them medical coverage. And yes, government has always had a say in how businesses offer insurance to their employees, as they should because you can't count on bigots, like the owners of Hobby Lobby to abide by civil rights laws.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Well put.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay wrote:
No manual here...I think for myself! As I assume you do too and that you aren't just spewing the talking points that come out of the left. ???


You quite obviously do not think for yourself. The figures you used were ludicrous and not collected by you but supplied by others. 
That 10K that you were fed is $900./month. 
Why not give it a try? 
Let's pick a nice reasonable area of the nation. North Carolina?
Fayetteville, OK?

1 BR apt approx 600 sq ft. 400. 
groceries 130. 
elect. 100.
bus pass 40. 
clothing/toil/ misc. 20.
telephone 30.
rental insurance 15.
FICA, health ins., taxes 30.

That is almost all of it, a bit of savings, an occasional set of sheets... that is no TV, these monthly fees are pretty darned conservative. I can't really see a man getting by on 130. in groceries. 
If you don't think that is poverty living in the US, I can only ask that you do one of those experiments and give a try yourself.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> And they also pay for their insurance.


That too, I was always spoiled, I do know people who pay as much as 50%.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You've just illustrated how misleading labels are.



Poor Purl said:


> The Catholic church is not a Conservative organization. It has made statements against the death penalty and against war, both of which Conservatives favor. The current Pope is certainly not a Conservative.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Relative to what, Janet?


No thanks, I am not playing with any more dishonest people on this site.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> Oh you know, if she says winter nobody should ever again use that name for a season.
> If she says the sky seems to be blue, she should get credit for that observation.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Elvis has left the building.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Another problem solved by corporation.


Sad, isn't it?

It used to be what's good for General Motors is good for America. 
We bring good things to life. 
My favorite... better living through chemicals.

Now we have no money for an abortion no worries. 
We can destroy that embryo pronto.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Interesting view point. Tell us why you think so.



bonbf3 said:


> The Pope is not a political figure.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Are you forgetting who decides what is in the wage package? Not the employee.


The wage package that they are also paying for. It is not totally provided by the employer.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Manipulative and judgmental. Think.



Gerslay said:


> "The Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: How would you describe being poor in the U.S.? The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs. That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.
> 
> Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being in poverty by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I assume you are happy to earn $10,000 per year and live in the USA. I don't think so. SI



Gerslay said:


> I'm sorry too, Janet, that you cannot accept the fact that the poorest Americans are among the richest people in the world.
> 
> "If your family income is $10,000 a year, you are wealthier than 84 percent of the world. If it's $50,000 or more a year, you make more than 99 percent of the world."
> 
> That's one of the more oft-cited stats the World Bank, Poke's Global Rich List and various other economists state. They can also back up their numbers!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Your points are well taken. However, my point was simply that if you can afford a color tv, a washer/dryer, a microwave, and an X-Box you can certainly afford birth control.


I know many, many people who cannot afford any such things. Sometimes they get free tv's and xboxes when those who have money to spare throw out a perfectly functioning tv or gaming system. Thank the gods we now have things like free cycle and Craigslist so that it is easier to find those free things instead of just browsing around on trash day in hopes of finding things. With many of these families that is just what they do. They find out when trash day is it more affluent neighborhoods and, sometimes carpooling to save gas money, they shop the trash. For many people the only reason they have mattresses and furniture are because somebody put it by the side of the road.

As for the washer/dryer I know people who do a few things. Sometimes they use the laundromat (although this becomes expensive and some can't afford it). Some find a friend or family member with these things and are able to use their facilities. But by and large what I have seen happen (outside of those who had bought these items before they had money issues) they again inherit someone else's dryers and washers. Again, Craigslist, trash shopping, ect are a gods sent. Sometimes they even do repair jobs by getting more than one washer and dryer and swapping parts. Same thing es for vacuums, ect.

A microwave is also something that is often discarded and picked up for free, As are stoves, and even refrigerators! You would be downright shocked at the waste of completely functioning items that are discarded for trash.

And before Internet connection is brought up,I know many who use the library connection,if they live close enough, go to free wifi spots, ect. And let's not forget computers! Because computers advance so rapidly there is always a rapid overturn of computers by those with money. And you also can find compatible broken computers to fix.

Carpets, bedding, clothes: carpet shops often sell carpet remnants at greatly discounted prices, and sometimes when people get new carpet and the old is places at the street the old carpet can be cut up with the bad stains cut out so the good part is "patched" in a room. This provides for quite a colorful room, but usually it is not minded, after all they now have carpet! Tiles the same thing, in addition that sometimes when someone has finished a project they throw the extra left over out. These are great because these are new tiles!! Bedding you can very easily pick up in dumpsters, especially at apartment complexes. Bedding seems to stick out attention while. And who cares if there are stains? Clothes are another trash treasure. So many people don't donate clothes but bag and toss them. Also hand me downs are very often used.

Kitchen cutlery, another thing that you can pick up for free, harder to find but there. Dishes are the same, who cares about chips? And when you can't find flatware you can always find cheap plastic cutlery and wash it and reuse it, and just hope it doesn't break.

Dining room table, if there is one, is another that can appear for free, usually on websites.

Bookshelves, bedside stands, even bed sets, all of those can be found by the side of the road or on free websites.

Toys for kids and books for people? Both of these can be picked up by the side of the road in trash. Often pieces are missing or a part is broken, but it gives the kids and people a sense of having something that is "theirs".

Did I miss anything?

You see I grew up with a dad who literally had nothing as a child. Any toys he got he got from the dump and fixed up. His family couldnt afford proper medical care, something that left him partially deaf in his one ear and that has required a few surgeries. He didn't lose those frugal things after he grew up. We learned from him several tricks. To this day my dad will pick things up.

I have also known many people who have been this poor. Many are hoping and praying that money falls into their lap just for next months rent! Never mind those conveniences. Some are faced not only with losing their house but with losing all those things that they searched for to get for free! Can you imagine having kids and having found them free toys only to have it all ripped away because the house is gone and the clothing and bedding took precedence over toys? They are lucky if they even have a car to put it in.

Houses in good repair? By what standard. I know so many people who have lived in substandard housing because it was all they could afford and the landlord doesn't keep it up to code. And they can't call the city on them, because if they do they risk the landlord being forced to fix and when he doesn't who loses? The people who no longer have a roof because the city has told the landlord he can't rent it, or, as what happened to a close friend, the landlord stopped paying his mortgage and the house was repossessed right from under them.

Last I checked birth control usually isn't thrown out in monthly supplies.

I honestly and truly believe that many of the people who state what was stated in the original article have never been in houses like these. I just can't fathom why they could walk through house to house, family to family, and see this and purposefully turn a blind eye to the human suffering, while publishing such propaganda that minimizes the struggles these people face. They can't even take the effort to give them the credit due them for being so darn resourceful as to find these treasures from trash. Instead they use their resourcefulness against them!

I really and truly am holding on to my belief that most of the people who requote and state these articles aren't doing it maliciously but instead have never really been to these homes. Maybe they walked through one home or talked superficially with a family, but I can believe they have had an indepth conversation. The kind of conversation that allows those suffering to tell their story and fears without judgement or having it twisted against them. People don't like to appear helpless, they don't like to lay out how hard they work to be slapped in the face with, "well you can't be that bad off, you have a tv". It's no wonder people try to stay quiet and are ashamed of it.

I just can't let myself believe that all the people who quote this as "true" are purposefully doing this if I did I think I would lose any hope for humanities future.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> So by this logic if a parent has 4 children and one dies before the age of 5, we should tell them that it's not so bad, 100 years ago many kids didn't survive to 5 years old.
> 
> If a person has pneumonia and needs to be hospitalized for antibiotic resistant pneumonia and now has sepsis, they aren't suffering that bad. After all 100 years ago we didn't have nebulizers to help you breathe you would just die, and we have many antibiotics now and if it was 100 years ago and they were resistant to penicillin they were a goner for sure!
> 
> ...


LK, it seems to me she's comparing "our" poor with the poor of other countries, today, not 100 years ago, and in this country the poor are really rich. TV, microwave, refrigerator,....They don't have those in Sudan. In fact, in this country the poor even have flush toilets. So they're not poor at all, and we needn't worry about them.

Spoken like a true Republicon.


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

Damemary, you mentioned your healthcare is free. What is your tax rate? on the order of 50 to 70% of your income?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Just trying mockery as a humor tool. Grace will return. I really identify with her.



Poor Purl said:


> Why, Dame. You've changed. Lovely hair. My niece has very similar hair. She bought it last year.
> 
> But I miss Princess Grace. I'd much rather see her amazing face than the back of a stranger's head.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Its 11:30 in my corner of the world...Goodnight Y'all!


Good night! Sleep well


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I know many, many people who cannot afford any such things. Sometimes they get free tv's and xboxes when those who have money to spare throw out a perfectly functioning tv or gaming system. Thank the gods we now have things like free cycle and Craigslist so that it is easier to find those free things instead of just browsing around on trash day in hopes of finding things. With many of these families that is just what they do. They find out when trash day is it more affluent neighborhoods and, sometimes carpooling to save gas money, they shop the trash. For many people the only reason they have mattresses and furniture are because somebody put it by the side of the road.
> 
> As for the washer/dryer I know people who do a few things. Sometimes they use the laundromat (although this becomes expensive and some can't afford it). Some find a friend or family member with these things and are able to use their facilities. But by and large what I have seen happen (outside of those who had bought these items before they had money issues) they again inherit someone else's dryers and washers. Again, Craigslist, trash shopping, ect are a gods sent. Sometimes they even do repair jobs by getting more than one washer and dryer and swapping parts. Same thing es for vacuums, ect.
> 
> ...


Poor people are supposed to sit in the dark with their children huddled in a corner reading by flashlight. Oh well, no. They cannot afford batteries... 
I don't really think that people are hardhearted either, I think they just don't have any idea of what it is to be poor. And don't want to know, it is so much easier to believe that people are doing well and are lazy whiners.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You are being simple minded and judgmental and you don't seem to realize it. Or is it something else?



Gerslay said:


> Your points are well taken. However, my point was simply that if you can afford a color tv, a washer/dryer, a microwave, and an X-Box you can certainly afford birth control.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Spewing? Oh my, pull your claws back. Yes, I do think for myself, but I would never dare to try to speak on behalf of what the Pope may or may not think or believe. Nor would I ever tag a political party to him.


And you would be right not to do those things.

Empress Patty, now that the spew has begun, I may get out of this thread. I hate when they spew. See you on the other side.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You quoted the Pope selectively and out of context.



Gerslay said:


> No claws here...honestly. And I didn't speak for the Pope, I quoted him.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Would you cite for us, please, in conjunction with these assertions what the relative cost of living is?


Thank you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

She means relative to the Third World Countries the WHO may be comparing. $10,000 per year is different in the Sudan and different from New York City.



Gerslay said:


> Relative to what, Janet?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

nuclearfinz said:


> Damemary, you mentioned your healthcare is free. What is your tax rate? on the order of 50 to 70% of your income?


Good God, what a question.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Thank you.


Not sure for what, Empress, she made sure not to understand.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You are mistaken. I have never said such a thing.



nuclearfinz said:


> Damemary, you mentioned your healthcare is free. What is your tax rate? on the order of 50 to 70% of your income?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: Beam me up Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here.


Don't you understand? If a friend of yours has an abortion, it's murder, but if it's Solo's friend it's - I dunno - 
acceptable murder? Maybe just manslaughter, or babyslaughter? (Did you notice that slaughter is full of laughter?)


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Gerslay wrote:
> No manual here...I think for myself! As I assume you do too and that you aren't just spewing the talking points that come out of the left. ???
> 
> You quite obviously do not think for yourself. The figures you used were ludicrous and not collected by you but supplied by others.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Don't you understand? If a friend of yours has an abortion, it's murder, but if it's Solo's friend it's - I dunno -
> acceptable murder? Maybe just manslaughter, or babyslaughter? (Did you notice that slaughter is full of laughter?)


Thank heavens for Purl.

:XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Don't you understand? If a friend of yours has an abortion, it's murder, but if it's Solo's friend it's - I dunno -
> acceptable murder? Maybe just manslaughter, or babyslaughter? (Did you notice that slaughter is full of laughter?)


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

I know what it is like to be poor. I also know that paying attention is school and working hard are what get you out of that cycle. I joined the military as I couldnt afford to go to college. I learned job in the Navy that translated into a civilian job when I got out. I had children in the Navy. You cant call in sick when the babysitter does. You may have the belief that a mother should stay home with her children but when the mother has to put a roof over her children's head, clothes on their backs and food in their bellies, that mother needs to work. I got where I am by working for it. Nobody handed me anything. I went thru a lot of abuse as a woman in a "man's field " in the Navy. 
What I am really saying is: Yes discrimination against women still exists by both liberals and conservatives. If you dont like your minimum wage job.. Get an education or join the military. Think you cant work because you have kids, get over it, you do what you need to do for your children. I have been there , know what it is like and I also know it could happen again very easily. I may not like what I do anymore but it is providing the crappy medical plan that I need for my husband's health which isnt the best.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> LK, it seems to me she's comparing "our" poor with the poor of other countries, today, not 100 years ago, and in this country the poor are really rich. TV, microwave, refrigerator,....They don't have those in Sudan. In fact, in this country the poor even have flush toilets. So they're not poor at all, and we needn't worry about them.
> 
> Spoken like a true Republicon.


That would have made more sense, but the third paragraph of the article opened with:



> The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.


You know me, all about precise quoting 

But even compared to other countries those arguments still apply. Many children don't live past the age of 5 in third world countries, many don't have access to nebulizers or a variety of antibiotics, ect. It just is always ludicrous to compare one persons suffering to another and then state one is not "valid" when the situations and environment surrounding it are so vastly different.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> And you would be right not to do those things.
> 
> Empress Patty, now that the spew has begun, I may get out of this thread. I hate when they spew. See you on the other side.


Maybe if you put your line of dancing cats in they could block the spew directed at you. After all a moving target is harder to hit :wink: :lol:

My daughter insisted again I show them to her, first thing in the morning, lol.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Magsrobby said:


> I've been reading this thread with interest.
> 
> Nowhere have I seen anyone mention the fact it takes a MAN and a woman to make a pregnancy start, what about the mans responsibility absolves him of any blame in any unwanted pregnancy? (I do of course apologise if I have missed this point being made).
> Very often the sole blame is put onto the woman without a second thought to the man in the relationship wether that be a proper relationship or a one night stand.
> ...


Thank you Mags for your thoughtful and common sense comments. Common sense seems to be lacking in a lot of things posted.


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Good God, what a question.


How so? The reason why European countries have free health care is because their tax rate is so much higher than ours. France just enacted or is planning to enact a tax rate of 70% of a person's income. All you who are retired or have worked or are currently working think about this. Think about what you have to go thru to earn a paycheck. now... think about 50-70% going to the government. What do you get out of it. Free healthcare? if you take care of yourself you shouldnt need to use it. And with free healthcare, there are long waits for elective surgeries. like hip replacements , knee replacements etc..


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

nuclearfinz said:


> I know what it is like to be poor. I also know that paying attention is school and working hard are what get you out of that cycle. I joined the military as I couldnt afford to go to college. I learned job in the Navy that translated into a civilian job when I got out. I had children in the Navy. You cant call in sick when the babysitter does. You may have the belief that a mother should stay home with her children but when the mother has to put a roof over her children's head, clothes on their backs and food in their bellies, that mother needs to work. I got where I am by working for it. Nobody handed me anything. I went thru a lot of abuse as a woman in a "man's field " in the Navy.
> What I am really saying is: Yes discrimination against women still exists by both liberals and conservatives. If you dont like your minimum wage job.. Get an education or join the military. Think you cant work because you have kids, get over it, you do what you need to do for your children. I have been there , know what it is like and I also know it could happen again very easily. I may not like what I do anymore but it is providing the crappy medical plan that I need for my husband's health which isnt the best.


I am not sure what makes you think that a civilian parent can call in sick when the children fall ill. Parents get fired, they go on welfare, then they get a job another child gets chicken pox. you are are out of work, you get fired. Now nobody will hire you because you have a spotty record. 
You have become a queen, how nice. 
Tell me, would you have given up your spot in the military for another, cuz I am just guessing that there were a finite number of slots for pregnant women. Or did the military have some special program going on that we didn't hear about?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

nuclearfinz said:


> I know what it is like to be poor. I also know that paying attention is school and working hard are what get you out of that cycle. I joined the military as I couldnt afford to go to college. I learned job in the Navy that translated into a civilian job when I got out. I had children in the Navy. You cant call in sick when the babysitter does. You may have the belief that a mother should stay home with her children but when the mother has to put a roof over her children's head, clothes on their backs and food in their bellies, that mother needs to work. I got where I am by working for it. Nobody handed me anything. I went thru a lot of abuse as a woman in a "man's field " in the Navy.
> What I am really saying is: Yes discrimination against women still exists by both liberals and conservatives. If you dont like your minimum wage job.. Get an education or join the military. Think you cant work because you have kids, get over it, you do what you need to do for your children. I have been there , know what it is like and I also know it could happen again very easily. I may not like what I do anymore but it is providing the crappy medical plan that I need for my husband's health which isnt the best.


I thought that you needed to pass a physical to join the military, what about those who fail the physical.

I was told you also needed a high school degree or GED to join the military (if that's outdated I'm sorry it's been several years since I last seriously checked). What of those who had to quit school to support their family. I know people who had to drop out to help support the household (no they were not young parents). Every person in the household worked but they still struggled to get by and couldn't without the income. Not all jobs work around school schedules, especially with so many people needing work, they just pass you buy if you don't meet their schedule.

What about those disabled?

It would be lovely if the world was a cut and dry thing. Unfortunately it is not, and I personally, ethically, morally, and religiously can't stand by when people suffer because we are in an imperfect world.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> We both comprehend perfectly what you implied, more hyperbole.
> You know, like Rush Limbaugh, oozing hate and disdain while spewing things to foul to pass over a tongue.


I didn't imply nor overly exaggerate, I definitely stated;



knitpresentgifts said:


> Great, not only can you not ignore me, now you keep using a word I was the first on KP *that I know of *to *use* the word I did to describe a silly Liberal.


I have no idea what is wrong with you that you cannot understand the fact you and some of your Liberal friends use the same uncustomary words I've likely first posted in the threads (to my knowledge as I stated) where I write.

Sidebar: I actually have a running bet with a fellow KPer who pointed out to me months ago that many of the Libs honor me with the highest form of flattery (imitation)(thanks CCC) and repeat and use several of the uncustomary words I first do on KP. That does NOT imply nor say I "coined" or created the word, just that I first used it. She and I now wait to see how many Libs do the same. It is quite comical. 

I don't know much of anything about Rush Limbaugh as I've probably listened to no more than the sum of 50 minutes of his words during my lifetime. Therefore, I'll not comment on him further.

BTW: isn't it about time you ignored me?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

nuclearfinz said:


> How so? The reason why European countries have free health care is because their tax rate is so much higher than ours. France just enacted or is planning to enact a tax rate of 70% of a person's income. All you who are retired or have worked or are currently working think about this. Think about what you have to go thru to earn a paycheck. now... think about 50-70% going to the government. What do you get out of it. Free healthcare? if you take care of yourself you shouldnt need to use it. And with free healthcare, there are long waits for elective surgeries. like hip replacements , knee replacements etc..


They provide a LOT more socially than just free healthcare. Their programs cover a wide variety of issues. Quoting the 70% or higher tax is a manipulation technique that is used by the few in power to convince them that they would only suffer.

Interestingly enough, don't Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie live in France with their kids, as do other high paying celebrities? Oh my, I wonder if they are aware that they are being duped by taxes!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Just trying mockery as a humor tool. Grace will return. I really identify with her.


I knew it was mockery, and a job well done.When the person claimed it was hers, I realized it must be a wig (to cover the bald spots where the original hair was torn out during a psychotic break).

I identify you with Grace, too.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> We both comprehend perfectly what you implied, more hyperbole.
> You know, like Rush Limbaugh, oozing hate and disdain while spewing things to foul to pass over a tongue.


Oh, one more thing; learn the word "too" 'cause, you know, since you like to point out errors in other's spelling and word use I thought it best I followed your lead.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Not sure for what, Empress, she made sure not to understand.


It was the perfect response to having all those numbers thrown at you without any context. But you're right; she made sure not to understand.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Yes, she owns the term in more ways that one.


Boy, you got that right. Wackadoodle is correct!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Yes, you pretty much did. I wish I could tell you that was a nice try at backpedaling, but I can't. It's pretty sad actually.


No, I did not. What is very sad is you trying to make yourself look intelligent and failing miserably.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Thank heavens for Purl.
> 
> :XD: :XD: :XD:


Heaven had nothing to do with it. (paraphrasing Mae West)


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I wonder why so many people think that employees are entitled to whatever they demand from their employer. Actually all they have earned is their wages. (a day's pay for a day's work). Any insurance is considered a fringe benefit, not a requirement.
> 
> In the case of Hobby Lobby. It is a private company wholly owned by the Green Family. They value their employees and pay above minimum wage. They are self insured. Since they are the insurance company they decide the coverage. They do provide birth control. I believe the article said there are only 4 types of pills they will not provide. These are the ones that Obama and HHS are insisting they include.
> 
> No one is telling the employee they are unable to purchase and take these pills. How many insurance companies will have a list of approved and non-approved drugs. Why should this self-insured company be denied the same? I'm sure that any employee that does not like the insurance coverage that Hobby Lobby provides, may turn it down and buy their own.


The health insurance package is part of the wage package. It is a contract that is entered into, not a "fringe benefit". "Fringe benefits" would be like Christmas bonuses, some thing you are gifts but that has not been contracted to. There is a reason they are called "wage packages" and they include the retirement package offerings, health insurance, long term disability, ect. They offer it as part of your compensation for your work.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> You haven't justified anything. And of course you can't remember a Liberal has proven your words accurate, because you have selective "hearing". Another reason you think you somehow "introduced" the word "wackadoodle" to the board.


No, I cannot remember a Lib who has proven my words inaccurate.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> That is what I said, and I'm not surprised, as you lose arguments that you would run away.
> 
> BTW, Hobby Lobby does not want to abide by the law like everyone else, they want a special license to discriminate based on religion.


I never retreat and I've told you I wouldn't suffer fools; you included.

HL wants their constitutional right to freedom of religion. The abide by the law and the govt under the Obama Administration intends to discriminate against them based on the desire to be prejudiced to HL's beliefs.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> People can't make sense of your posts because you make no sense. You claim that people don't know what they are talking about and then when they show that they do and you don't you just continue to deny.
> And those double negatives and spelling errors? Decompensating?


Remember when she said trickle down economics was a democratic plan?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Maybe if you put your line of dancing cats in they could block the spew directed at you. After all a moving target is harder to hit :wink: :lol:
> 
> My daughter insisted again I show them to her, first thing in the morning, lol.


I swear, I was about to attach them to your previous message. Then I read this one and who am I to refuse your daughter? What's her name?
 


Hey, look, they've picked an alpha-cat to lead them!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

mdgallogly said:


> It's not "killed" it's removed. Really? What about the baby's beating heart? To be alive, there must be a beating heart. One is not declared dead (no longer alive) until the heart ceases to beat. If you're dead when there is no heart beat, then you're alive when there is a beating heart. I must add that we don't know when something said will change someone's mind. When we hear or read something that "clicks" and makes sense to us, we all change our minds. Each and every one of us do it every day.


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> It's just not true. Conservatives give more to charitable organizations than liberals do. The Catholic church alone is the largest contributor to charity in the world.


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> The Catholic church is not a Conservative organization. It has made statements against the death penalty and against war, both of which Conservatives favor. The current Pope is certainly not a Conservative.


Boy are you ever in the dark.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SometimesaKnitter said:


> Camacho wrote- three years of paid family leave for new additions to the family.
> --------
> Are you willing to pay for this???? I am not, give me a break enough things are paid for through regulation now! When 49 percent of the working are paying for 51 percent on the dole how do you think it will play out?
> I wish I could stay home and just visit my friends or have enough time and energy to clean my house. I wasn't raised to take something I haven't earned. And I was raised to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS!!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: Something that the majority of the Libs on this thread can simply not accept; personal responsibllity for one's own actions.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Randi Rhodes was using the word "wackadoodle" on Air America back in 2004. She used it to describe conservatives who were obviously nuts. Unless you used it on KP before 2004, you don't deserve any credit for it.


Yawn . who cares. Irrelevant to what I posted. I didn't take nor request credit for it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Oh you know, if she says winter nobody should ever again use that name for a season.
> If she says the sky seems to be blue, she should get credit for that observation.


Yet another example of you ignoring me.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Wackadoodle is not reserved for liberals or conservatives. It is an equal opportunity adjective.


True - but it applies better and more often to the LWNs! :-D

In addition, the Libs prefer vile and swear words while the Conservatives prefer more descriptive or extraordinary words.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> True, Bonnie. KPG was trying to "coin" the term a few pages back.


Another lie of yours; Bonnie knows better than to believe you.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> It's just not true. Conservatives give more to charitable organizations than liberals do. The Catholic church alone is the largest contributor to charity in the world.


Sorry, but I don't buy that. What I have read on here, and what I have seen and heard from republicans in congress, and Fox news proves you wrong. It is easy to write a check and pass that off as compassion, but that doesn't cut it either. Conservatives have no clue how poor people really live and survive. They want to cut snap, repeal Obamacare, cut social security, turn Medicare into a voucher program, cut Medicaid, get rid of the minimum wage, get rid of unions, etc. etc. etc. That shows a real lack of compassion to me. Go ahead and write your check and then sit back and try to feel good about yourself.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Has the govt ever forced an LDS member to drink your coffee or a Catholic to eat meat on Fridays? Has the govt ever forced a Muslim to drink alcohol? No. But they are trying to force the Catholic church to supply abortifacients for its employees. And yes, that IS contrary to the Catholic church's religious beliefs, your foot or not.


That was one of the most foolish posts I've read to date of Janet's crazy opinions.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> There are all kinds of contradictions in all religions, I think.
> Look at the way conservative Christians have to reach back to the "Old Testament" in order to find sanctions against homosexuality and yet for other issues the rules of that same section get a pass.
> Christianity use do be much more lenient about the beginning of life as well. Speaking of things that Jesus was silent on...


You have got to be kidding. Christians BELIEVE the _Bible_, all of it, and use it just like a dictionary by referring and learning from every book, chapter, verse and word. If you don't, so be it, but don't try to pretend you understand that which you do not and force your beliefs upon Christian believers.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Pope Francis is very much a Conservative. He expresses strong pro-life views. Besides appearing unexpectedly at the Rome March for Life, he tweeted this:
> 
> It is God who gives life. Let us respect and love human life, especially vulnerable life in a mothers womb.
> 
> ...


Thank you Gerslay. I'm not a Catholic, but I believe in what you and the Pope have expressed.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Has the govt ever forced an LDS member to drink your coffee or a Catholic to eat meat on Fridays? Has the govt ever forced a Muslim to drink alcohol? No. But they are trying to force the Catholic church to supply abortifacients for its employees. And yes, that IS contrary to the Catholic church's religious beliefs, your foot or not.


 :thumbup: pulllllllllll  yep, pulled her foot out of her mouth for her; it is the least I could do.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> The Roman Catholic church is NOT supplying it. That was the whole point of my post.
> Honestly. Please, start over. Health insurance companies are supplying the contraceptives. It is good business sense so they are doing it.
> I don't understand why you are refusing to accept that fact.
> The Roman Catholic Church is exempt.
> It is the money making facets of their holdings that have to provide health insurance that must provide ALL prescriptions. That is per state law, you did not address what the difference is there.


So you honestly believe that the insurance companies are providing the contraceptives for free. Shaking my head ...

Will you ever learn nearly nothing is free in life? Either the employer, the employee and the taxpayers or a combination of any of the three are the suppliers.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

NJG said:


> Remember when she said trickle down economics was a democratic plan?


And she once called it "triple down economics." But I can show you something from last night, though this thread has been spun too long. I'll put them in chronological order, with a P before my quotes:

Jan 28, 14 00:44:35
knitpresentgifts wrote:
Exactly how long can a born baby survive on it's own? The "law of the land" doesn't allow any mother to ignore, kill, or starve her one year old, does it? Why do you believe it is OK to allow a mother to kill that which you state cannot survive at 14 weeks on its own but not apply the same law to a bunch of cells that is 52 weeks old?

Would you go ahead and kill your grandson by removing him from his mother when his is three because you can state the same; he 'cannot survive on his own?"

P: You realize that what you're saying is silly, don't you. A fetus cannot survive without being connected to it's mother's innards; a 3-year-old can survive very well if it's his mother, his father, his grandparents, or an orphanage who sees that he's fed and otherwise taken care of.

Jan 28, 14 01:39:57
knitpresentgifts wrote:
You do realize what you are saying is silly, don't you?

Take a fetus away from it's connection to the mother and it will die within hours often within minutes. Take a three year old from it's connection to the mother and it will die, mostly likely within three days.

Easy explanation.

P: That doesn't even deserve a correction. Millions of 3 year olds have been removed from connection with their mothers and continue to live for years. In fact, my maternal grandmother died when my mother was 3, and my mom made it all the way to 88.

Jan 28, 14 02:18:26
knitpresentgifts wrote:
Stupid argument. No child, including your mom, the age of three survives without assistance or another's care. That was my argument and you changing it to suit your purpose is irrelevant.

My point wasn't based on a specific age of three, as a example, nor a specific person or specific time restraints - we both know it. You lost the argument and cannot admit same.

P: I didn't emphasize the age. You said (I use copy and paste) "Take a three year old from it's connection to the mother and it will die, mostly likely within three days." You're the one who insisted on using the word "mother." Not "another" but specifically "the mother." Don't you even notice when you change what you said?
***********************************************
There it is: the word "mother" suddenly became "another," and I'm the one who's wrong. Maybe not - she didn't respond to this last msg.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> "The Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: How would you describe being poor in the U.S.? The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs. That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.
> 
> Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being in poverty by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity.
> 
> ...


I've often thought that every American should be mandated to travel to and live within another country for a time to appreciate the true meaning of living in poverty without the freedoms and rights of the US Constitution and without the conveniences that the majority of Americans enjoy. The USA is an exceptional place to live and the land of opportunity that is not acknowledged by many Americans.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> It turned into an issue when the govt tried to require the Catholic charities, hospitals, etc. to provide birth control and abortifacients, contrary to their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Fine is (I think) $1000 a day.


Anyone who does not want to take birth control does not have to, but you do not get to control what I do simply because I am an employee. You do not have that much control over me. You pay part of my insurance and I also pay part of my insurance.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts wrote:
You make absolutely no sense. Guess who gets to write the contract?



damemary said:


> Guess who signs it.





Vocal Lisa said:


> When someone answers a question with another question it's a blatant indicator of guilt, ignorance.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Difference: vasectomy is a surgical procedure.


So why is that different? The man is using it as birth control.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> I'm sorry too, Janet, that you cannot accept the fact that the poorest Americans are among the richest people in the world.
> 
> "If your family income is $10,000 a year, you are wealthier than 84 percent of the world. If it's $50,000 or more a year, you make more than 99 percent of the world."
> 
> That's one of the more oft-cited stats the World Bank, Poke's Global Rich List and various other economists state. They can also back up their numbers!


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Of course the Pope doesn't judge...conservatives don't judge the person either...but that doesn't mean the behavior is condoned or accepted.


 :thumbup: So true.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> That young children can survive without support, which you stated.


Can't you get anything correct? I stated no such thing. I said the complete opposite; that the children CANNOT survive without ...

I spoke about infants, fetuses and babies about to be or were aborted at different times who *cannot* survive without sustenance immediately after being "disconnected" (Poor Purl's word) from the birth mother. (I did mention up to the age of three as an example).

That conversation had nothing to do with the young and teen boys who survived crossing a desert after being forced to flea for their lives.

Get with the program.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Oh, dame, I love the hair! I can tell that you did not use Kool Aid for high and low lighting like someone else around here did. :thumbup: :thumbup:


Unbelievable. Now you, Cheeks and Damemary have hair envy. What is next? :XD: :XD: :XD: :-D :-D :-D :XD: :XD: :XD:

Hilarious!

_We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them._ Charles Caleb Colton


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Unbelievable. Now you and others have hair envy. What is next? :XD: :XD: :XD: :-D :-D :-D :XD: :XD: :XD:
> 
> Hilarious!


Give it up. There is nothing about you that anyone here envies. BTW I hope you didn't have to pay for that hair.
I do have to say in all fairness that is good to cover your face with that mess.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Conservatives want less govt, but we certainly believe that crimes should not be allowed. The govt steps in when people commit murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, etc. Pro-life people believe that since abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, it should not be permitted. Catholics and some people of other faiths or none at all feel the same about capital punishment, except in that case the person is not innocent.


So then they start an unnecessary war, based on lies and 4,487 American soldiers were killed, let alone all the innocent civilians in Iraq. What about them? Republicans still think the war was the right thing to do and are ready in a heart beat to start another one. What makes conservatives so against abortion, but so in favor of war that kills so many. Because of the war in Iraq we had over 32,000 soldiers come home wounded and approximately 30% of our soldiers have come home with mental health problems. Besides all the people, especially children living in poverty in this country and all republicans concentrate on is taking away a woman's rights and trying to keep people from getting insurance. Unbelievable that that is happening in this country.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Spewing? Oh my, pull your claws back. Yes, I do think for myself, but I would never dare to try to speak on behalf of what the Pope may or may not think or believe. Nor would I ever tag a political party to him.


Wait, you mean like you just did twice recently? :-D


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> True - but it applies better and more often to the LWNs! :-D
> 
> In addition, the Libs prefer vile and swear words while the Conservatives prefer more descriptive or extraordinary words.


Keep posting KPG. You are looking more foolish with every post.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> IF you would read what data is provided you would see that those organizations are already required in 28 states to provide that coverage.
> Contrary to their religious beliefs, my foot, I have never had a member of LDS come up and grab a cup of coffee out of my hand, or in the old days a Roman Catholic take my meatloaf off the table on a Friday.
> No Muslim has replaced an alcoholic drink I had and given me water.
> People in this nation do not go to those lengths to impose their "religious freedoms" on others.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Wait, you mean like you just did twice recently? :-D


Really?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Another lie of yours; Bonnie knows better than to believe you.


Are you sure about that? Your ego is taking over your brain again.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> I thought you said you were staying far away, but here you are again. Was that a lie or a mistake? Please advise.


You really are insolent. Read again my words directed to HUCKLEBERRY exclusively.

Advice: ignore me


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I never retreat and I've told you I wouldn't suffer fools; you included.
> 
> HL wants their constitutional right to freedom of religion. The abide by the law and the govt under the Obama Administration intends to discriminate against them based on the desire to be prejudiced to HL's beliefs.


HAHAHA! Who are you trying to fool here? You run and hide for days when you get your butt kicked with facts that you can't contest.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> No rebuttal possible or lazy?


I don't suffer fools.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Keep posting KPG. You are looking more foolish with every post.


Any idea what this was about?

_We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them._ Charles Caleb Colton

When I looked him up in wikipedia, all I needed to know was in the first sentence: "Charles Caleb Colton (17801832) was an English cleric, writer and collector, well known for his eccentricities."


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I don't suffer fools.


No but you certainly suffer from a huge mouth with hot air blowing from it all the time. Is it your time of the month KPG? Try a midol to lose the crankiness. 
And if you don't suffer fools, how can you look in the mirror at yourself?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You really are insolent. Read again my words directed to HUCKLEBERRY exclusively.
> 
> Advice: ignore me


If you don't want responses then quit posting. It's all very simple, Nick.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Any idea what this was about?
> 
> _We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them._ Charles Caleb Colton
> 
> When I looked him up in wikipedia, all I needed to know was in the first sentence: "Charles Caleb Colton (17801832) was an English cleric, writer and collector, well known for his eccentricities."


Yes, it's just KPG being herself. You know, no substance, no knowledge, but an ego the size of Texas. You see she threatens to sue anyone who "libels her" but makes no point in stopping the" libeling" of others.
She is a farce in every sense of the word and people are growing very tired of her and her BS.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> If you don't want responses then quit posting. It's all very simple, Nick.


"You really are insolent." Who the #^%* does she think she is? She sounds like the Wicked Witch of the West, though she's not as pretty.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Just trying mockery as a humor tool. Grace will return. I really identify with her.


You failed but have flattered me with your imitation. After all, Charles told us, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

I don't need to use a photo of someone else's head in my avatar; I prefer to use my own head.

You should try it sometime.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

nuclearfinz said:


> I know what it is like to be poor. I also know that paying attention is school and working hard are what get you out of that cycle. I joined the military as I couldnt afford to go to college. I learned job in the Navy that translated into a civilian job when I got out. I had children in the Navy. You cant call in sick when the babysitter does. You may have the belief that a mother should stay home with her children but when the mother has to put a roof over her children's head, clothes on their backs and food in their bellies, that mother needs to work. I got where I am by working for it. Nobody handed me anything. I went thru a lot of abuse as a woman in a "man's field " in the Navy.
> What I am really saying is: Yes discrimination against women still exists by both liberals and conservatives. If you dont like your minimum wage job.. Get an education or join the military. Think you cant work because you have kids, get over it, you do what you need to do for your children. I have been there , know what it is like and I also know it could happen again very easily. I may not like what I do anymore but it is providing the crappy medical plan that I need for my husband's health which isnt the best.


Good for you and thank you for your service to our Nation.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I wonder why so many people think that employees are entitled to whatever they demand from their employer. Actually all they have earned is their wages. (a day's pay for a day's work). Any insurance is considered a fringe benefit, not a requirement.
> 
> In the case of Hobby Lobby. It is a private company wholly owned by the Green Family. They value their employees and pay above minimum wage. They are self insured. Since they are the insurance company they decide the coverage. They do provide birth control. I believe the article said there are only 4 types of pills they will not provide. These are the ones that Obama and HHS are insisting they include.
> 
> No one is telling the employee they are unable to purchase and take these pills. How many insurance companies will have a list of approved and non-approved drugs. Why should this self-insured company be denied the same? I'm sure that any employee that does not like the insurance coverage that Hobby Lobby provides, may turn it down and buy their own.


As always, a voice of reason and facts.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> "You really are insolent." Who the #^%* does she think she is? She sounds like the Wicked Witch of the West, though she's not as pretty.


Actually the house was dropped on her sister.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> As always, a voice of reason and facts.


Now I understand where the lack of knowledge comes from. She is a follower of joey. :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You failed but have flattered me with your imitation. After all, Charles told us, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
> 
> I don't need to use a photo of someone else's head in my avatar; I prefer to use my own head.
> 
> You should try it sometime.


Uh Huh


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No, I cannot remember a Lib who has proven my words inaccurate.


But she CAN remember 8 to 10 who did.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Wait, you mean like you just did twice recently? :-D


Never happened.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Give it up. There is nothing about you that anyone here envies. BTW I hope you didn't have to pay for that hair.
> I do have to say in all fairness that is good to cover your face with that mess.


Don't you ever get tired of being full of hatred?

The fact that you and your buddies even mention my hair, tells everyone that you are envious and gives me all the more reason to keep it as my avatar simply to please y'all.

Don't worry Kool Aid is cheap and I can swing it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Keep posting KPG. You are looking more foolish with every post.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

*sharinana wrote:*
I am a liberal Christian and I have no idea where you picked up that load of garbage that you just entered on this web site but I have never been so offended by such a pile of vitriolic lies in my entire life! How do you know what the "left" believes? Have you ever actually sat down and talked to a born again Christian woman who believes that God gave each of us the brains to make such an intensly personal decision without someone else shouting obsenities, judgements and condemnation in their face? I was not a "slut" when I found myself with an unplanned pregnancy and felt that the decision I made was the only one that was open to me at that time. No matter why or when this happened in my life I am fairly confident that someone who thinks and speaks the way you do would never understand the pain and shame a woman goes through when she finds herself caught up in a nightmare that leads to having an abortion. The God I know and love has shown me a heart of compassion and forgiveness. This is what Jesus preached throughout His whole life and it is the vicious far right that has painted the entire Christian community as a bunch of closed minded, loud mouthed, hate mongers. You should be ashamed of yourself. Jesus walked in my shoes, you need to give it a try before you continue being so mean spirited. No one chooses abortion as the easy way out, no one!
[blue]Poor Purl wrote:
Thank you for the link, both times. It is amazing. So is watching a healthy living child grow up. That's one reason abortion is such a difficult decision to make. But the woman who agonizes over such a decision and decides to go through with it deserves respect and support, not hatred, bombings, and the supercilious "counseling" of those who think they know better.[/blue]



bonbf3 said:


> Yes, I agree. Most of the people in the pro-life movement are very sympathetic toward the mothers. Churches have meetings for people who are in pain after abortion, and the pro-life movement in my area reminds us to be respectful and kind to those seeking abortions and to those working in the agencies.
> It doesn't do anyone any good to be hateful.
> 
> There are people on the fringe of most movements who do bad things, sometimes terrible things. But usually they're in the minority. Unfortunately, they're often the most visible and give the whole group a bad name.
> ...


Part of the legacy my ancestors bequeathed to me is a strong Quaker background dating back to the 1600s in County Antrim, in Northern Ireland. The influence of my grandfather and great-grandparents (Great-Grandma passed on when I was 20) taught me much regarding compassion for all our brothers and sisters. My only motive for divulging this part of my family history is to let you know that, while my politics are very conservative and old-fashioned, they (my political views) do not distort nor disturb the foundations of my Christian principles. Yes indeed, Quakers are very politically minded. Did you know that?

In the Holy Scriptures we learn, "Charity never faileth." I will assist any and all who suffer, regardless of the circumstances leading up to their agony, and leave all judgment to Almighty God. I personally know many women who made the excruciating decision to terminate their pregnancies. Their suffering was all too tangible, and my heart still bleeds for them after these many years.

Just as I will not hesitate to alleviate the emotional pain of a sister who has made that difficult choice, I will also vote for the repeal of Roe v. Wade should that legislation ever again come before the people for such a vote. And I will vote without rancor, hatred or malevolence toward any person or group of persons.

I will stand my ground on the basis of my religious beliefs IN ALL THINGS, which include extending compassion to those in need AND preserving life in the womb and out of the womb. I care nothing for the world's terminology which would confirm or deny the existence of human life based upon its stage of development in utero or postpartum.

What the world thinks of me means nothing. When it is my turn to face my Maker, He will not care one iota how many college degrees I obtained, how deep my bank accounts were, what social clubs I belonged to, or even what political party (if any) I espoused. He will not be interested in how many hours I spent verbally sparring with others regarding this argument or that one or yet another.

He will, however, ask me a few very important questions that will determine my Eternity, such as: "How did _ treat [my] fellowman?" One example is sufficient; I'll not belabor the point._


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> HAHAHA! Who are you trying to fool here? You run and hide for days when you get your butt kicked with facts that you can't contest.


Really? Check my posts if you must; we all know you will. Unlike you, I am not retired nor do I spend all my free time posting on or reading KP.

Libs are not prone to providing facts; that would be you as well.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Yes, it's just KPG being herself. You know, no substance, no knowledge, but an ego the size of Texas. You see she threatens to sue anyone who "libels her" but makes no point in stopping the" libeling" of others.
> She is a farce in every sense of the word and people are growing very tired of her and her BS.


Prove it - any of it. I'll wait.

On second thought; no I won't. I just remembered why I haven't read nor replied to your posts for the past months. I'll go back to that great activity.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Don't you ever get tired of being full of hatred?
> 
> The fact that you and your buddies even mention my hair, tells everyone that you are envious and give me all the more reason to keep it as my avatar simply to please y'all.
> 
> Don't worry Kool Aid is cheap and I can swing it.


I am not full of hatred. I just stand up to egotistical blowhards. Honestly, I don't care about "your" hair. I don't care about you in any sense. You are just a troll who can't hold her own in any circimstance here. And before you accuse anybody else of being filled with hate, take a good long look at yourself. You are the most hated person on this entire site. Only you can bring that on.
Now don't speak to me anymore. You disgust me.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Prove it - any of it. I'll wait.
> 
> On second thought; no I won't. I just remembered why I haven't read nor replied to your posts for the past months. I'll go back to that great activity.


Good! Then if you could ignore all the other posts made by libs, you could disappear forever and the entire site would be jumping for joy. Once again, KPG, You're not all that...


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

That must not take long :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GrannyGoode said:


> Part of the legacy my ancestors bequeathed to me is a strong Quaker background dating back to the 1600s in County Antrim, in Northern Ireland. The influence of my grandfather and great-grandparents (Great-Grandma passed on when I was 20) taught me much regarding compassion for all our brothers and sisters. My only motive for divulging this part of my family history is to let you know that, while my politics are very conservative and old-fashioned, they (my political views) do not distort nor disturb the foundations of my Christian principles. Yes indeed, Quakers are very politically minded. Did you know that?
> 
> In the Holy Scriptures we learn, "Charity never faileth." I will assist any and all who suffer, regardless of the circumstances leading up to their agony, and leave all judgment to Almighty God. I personally know many women who made the excruciating decision to terminate their pregnancies. Their suffering was all too tangible, and my heart still bleeds for them after these many years.
> 
> ...


Very nicely written. I will offer that _He_ indeed told us to acknowledge and spread _His _ word and not deny same. I believe that is what I've been commanded to do in _His_ name.

May God bless you and keep you.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Very nicely written. I will offer that _He_ indeed told us to acknowledge and spread _His _ word and not deny same. I believe that is what I've been commanded to do in _His_ name.
> 
> May God bless you and keep you.


Oh now the "holy" personality is the room. Who will you be next? You have already expended the demon personality today.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Heaven had nothing to do with it. (paraphrasing Mae West)


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Convenient memory lapse.



knitpresentgifts said:


> No, I cannot remember a Lib who has proven my words inaccurate.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> Remember when she said trickle down economics was a democratic plan?


And 
(Quote from KPG)
"No, I cannot remember a Lib who has proven my words inaccurate."

Convenient memory lapse?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> And she once called it "triple down economics." But I can show you something from last night, though this thread has been spun too long. I'll put them in chronological order, with a P before my quotes:
> 
> Jan 28, 14 00:44:35
> knitpresentgifts wrote:
> ...


I made my comment about the lost boys of Sudan. She questioned what was the point. I explained, and heard no more.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Do you always mix comments when you have been outed? I think so.



knitpresentgifts said:


> knitpresentgifts wrote:
> You make absolutely no sense. Guess who gets to write the contract?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Are you really this dim or just determined to appear correct all the time? Anyone want to jump in with an opinion?



knitpresentgifts said:


> Can't you get anything correct? I stated no such thing. I said the complete opposite; that the children CANNOT survive without ...
> 
> I spoke about infants, fetuses and babies about to be or were aborted at different times who *cannot* survive without sustenance immediately after being "disconnected" (Poor Purl's word) from the birth mother. (I did mention up to the age of three as an example).
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Penis envy?



knitpresentgifts said:


> Unbelievable. Now you, Cheeks and Damemary have hair envy. What is next? :XD: :XD: :XD: :-D :-D :-D :XD: :XD: :XD:
> 
> Hilarious!
> 
> _We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them._ Charles Caleb Colton


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

FLASH: This is a public forum. When you post for 'one' of us, everyone reads it and anyone may comment. Your ego calling names and giving orders makes you a sad, controlling creature. Are you proud of that?



knitpresentgifts said:


> You really are insolent. Read again my words directed to HUCKLEBERRY exclusively.
> 
> Advice: ignore me


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You are a fool. Where does this leave you?



knitpresentgifts said:


> I don't suffer fools.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

At least we know why KPG admires the quote. We pick Einstein, Susan B Anthony etc; KPG picks an obscure eccentric cleric. Makes perfect sense.



Poor Purl said:


> Any idea what this was about?
> 
> _We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them._ Charles Caleb Colton
> 
> When I looked him up in wikipedia, all I needed to know was in the first sentence: "Charles Caleb Colton (17801832) was an English cleric, writer and collector, well known for his eccentricities."


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> "You really are insolent." Who the #^%* does she think she is? She sounds like the Wicked Witch of the West, though she's not as pretty.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## inishowen (May 28, 2011)

So, 66 pages of nasty comments to each other. I wonder does the OP regret starting all this?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Sybil.



BrattyPatty said:


> Oh now the "holy" personality is the room. Who will you be next? You have already expended the demon personality today.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

That's nothing. See Smoking and Obamacare.



inishowen said:


> So, 66 pages of nasty comments to each other. I wonder does the OP regret starting all this?


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

damemary said:


> And here you are, back again complaining about it.


I'm surprised you noticed my reply ye olde Dame! What with your frothing at the mouth, gnashing of your teeth and gyrating in your seat desperately trying to produce the best comeback remark! I'm flattered - thanks!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Actually the house was dropped on her sister.


No wonder she's so angry all the time.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Are you really this dim or just determined to appear correct all the time? Anyone want to jump in with an opinion?


The horrible thing is that she seems to honestly believe she's right no matter how off the mark she is and how many people can see it. I bet she's been like that her entire life, which means nobody has ever been able to teach her anything. Thus, the ignorance.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Penis envy?


Oh, yeah.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I swear, I was about to attach them to your previous message. Then I read this one and who am I to refuse your daughter? What's her name?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, look, they've picked an alpha-cat to lead them!


Hehe, her name is Victoria. I'll tell her te alpha cat is Skippy Jon Jones (a book series she loves about a species confused cat, a transpecies cat, lol)


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> I'm surprised you noticed my reply ye olde Dame! What with your frothing at the mouth, gnashing of your teeth and gyrating in your seat desperately trying to produce the best comeback remark! I'm flattered - thanks!


Overly dramatic, aren't you?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Who said they had a contract? Where is the union? There is none. Unless someone has an individual contract. the employees are "at will." they may have a handbook they are expected to follow, such as a dress code. But it is the employer that sets the rules. They may use some employee input. It can be a quasi contract. That is a promise by the company, if you complete your work, we will add these additional items for your benefit.
> 
> FYI:
> 
> ...


My point was the health insurance was their regular pay.

The contract is when you sign the papers for employment and submit the paperwork for the health insurance. Yes, all employment is at will, but the health insurance contract remains in effect while they work (hence the contract is over after the person quits). You will notice that the employers will have the employees choose whether to remain with their current health insurance when they renegotiate the contract with the HMO yearly.

Health insurance does indeed affect pay. In most, if not all, jobs that offer health insurance if the employee decided not to take that part of the wage package the employee has a small amount of money extra with their paychecks. It's about the price that the company would have contributed into the employees health insurance, but only if the employees job offers health insurance (for instance per diem or seasonal workers don't get it). I am quite familiar with that as, when I was working, we would have to decide who carried the family plan and who got the small money extra.

I would like to mention generally (not specifically to you Joeysmomma) the following:

Pleas don't think that all Christian organizations are creating a stink about this. If I have given the impression that was my thinking, then I apologize. My husband works for a Christian company, with very strong incorporation of Christian principles in its practice. This company now offers 2 plans, the basic one that only meets the minimum (the newer one just started this year) and the one that they have been offering that includes quite a bit more. They are following the law without putting up a big fight. I think that they believe their work in caring for individuals with disabilities and taking good care of their employees to be more important that trying to control others lives.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I will offer that _He_ indeed told us to acknowledge and spread _His _ word and not deny same. I believe that is what I've been commanded to do in _His_ name.


And I will offer that, were you truly in the Lord's service, you would have behaved yourself much better than you have up to this point.

I'll not refer to others who have posted comments, as they have not directly addressed me.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

GrannyGoode said:


> *sharinana wrote:*
> I am a liberal Christian and I have no idea where you picked up that load of garbage that you just entered on this web site but I have never been so offended by such a pile of vitriolic lies in my entire life! How do you know what the "left" believes? Have you ever actually sat down and talked to a born again Christian woman who believes that God gave each of us the brains to make such an intensly personal decision without someone else shouting obsenities, judgements and condemnation in their face? I was not a "slut" when I found myself with an unplanned pregnancy and felt that the decision I made was the only one that was open to me at that time. No matter why or when this happened in my life I am fairly confident that someone who thinks and speaks the way you do would never understand the pain and shame a woman goes through when she finds herself caught up in a nightmare that leads to having an abortion. The God I know and love has shown me a heart of compassion and forgiveness. This is what Jesus preached throughout His whole life and it is the vicious far right that has painted the entire Christian community as a bunch of closed minded, loud mouthed, hate mongers. You should be ashamed of yourself. Jesus walked in my shoes, you need to give it a try before you continue being so mean spirited. No one chooses abortion as the easy way out, no one!
> [blue]Poor Purl wrote:
> Thank you for the link, both times. It is amazing. So is watching a healthy living child grow up. That's one reason abortion is such a difficult decision to make. But the woman who agonizes over such a decision and decides to go through with it deserves respect and support, not hatred, bombings, and the supercilious "counseling" of those who think they know better.[/blue]
> ...


_

Yes, I was aware that Quakers were and are very socially active. My great-great grandmother and my great grandmother were both Quakers. Do I have it right that you are a conservative Christian Quaker? I'm only asking for curiosity sake. It was only within the past few years that I became aware of liberal Quakers and have been hoping to be able to go to a Quaker church around here, but unfortunately can't get out of the house much.

Do be careful though, apparently (as I learned the hard way) Quaker is considered by some here as an insult. I'm still not sure why, the person never told me, but it seemed to set off a firestorm._


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

damemary said:


> I made my comment about the lost boys of Sudan. She questioned what was the point. I explained, and heard no more.


Interesting, I have more than once asked for explanations from her so I could correct the behavior so as to avoid future misunderstanding and the one time I was met with a silence. The other time I was met with a "no comment". I was very polite too, no name calling or the like. Hmmm.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Yes, I was aware that Quakers were and are very socially active. My great-great grandmother and my great grandmother were both Quakers. Do I have it right that you are a conservative Christian Quaker? I'm only asking for curiosity sake. It was only within the past few years that I became aware of liberal Quakers and have been hoping to be able to go to a Quaker church around here, but unfortunately can't get out of the house much.
> 
> Do be careful though, apparently (as I learned the hard way) Quaker is considered by some here as an insult. I'm still not sure why, the person never told me, but it seemed to set off a firestorm.


That's a very good explanation of your beliefs. ( The complete post isn't included in my comment.)I enjoyed reading it.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Hehe, her name is Victoria. I'll tell her te alpha cat is Skippy Jon Jones (a book series she loves about a species confused cat, a transpecies cat, lol)


Not to change the subject, but Skippy Jon Jones books are so funny! Really cute. Victoria has good taste in books.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

inishowen said:


> So, 66 pages of nasty comments to each other. I wonder does the OP regret starting all this?


I'm sure if we REALLY knew each other personally, we would treat each other very differently. I know a couple of people on here - just online - with opposing viewpoints. I can tell you that on a non-controversial basis, they are very nice and would probably do anything for you.

KP is made up of a lot of nice people who tend to get a bit feisty - don't we all? Then feisty sometimes turns to snarky. Me, too.

So let's cool down and cheer up, everybody! Instead of talking about insurance (boring) and babies, let's talk about something all babies like - knitted/crocheted stuff. Let's talk about knitting/crocheting/spinning/ for a while.

I'll start. I don't spin. I haven't crocheted in a while. (How do you pronounce crocheted? Is it kro-shayd? Or krotch-it-id?) I prefer the second pronunciation myself.

I knit a lot - always squares or rectangles - dishcloths, blankets. I must be in a rut. You might call me square. Have to try something new. A vest?

Oh, my - I wanted to talk about knitting and ended up talking about myself. Self-centered. So sorry. Somebody else take over, please?

Please excuse this slightly nutty post. I only slept for two and a half hours. We had an appt at 5 a.m. - medical, of course. Who else asks you to be somewhere at that ungodly hour. Took two hours to postpone - roads are CLOSED in the Deep South.

Sign me,
Tired and it shows.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Yes, I was aware that Quakers were and are very socially active. My great-great grandmother and my great grandmother were both Quakers. Do I have it right that you are a conservative Christian Quaker? I'm only asking for curiosity sake. It was only within the past few years that I became aware of liberal Quakers and have been hoping to be able to go to a Quaker church around here, but unfortunately can't get out of the house much.
> 
> Do be careful though, apparently (as I learned the hard way) Quaker is considered by some here as an insult. I'm still not sure why, the person never told me, but it seemed to set off a firestorm.


My mother's natural father's people were Irish Quakers, name of O'Neall. At the sage age of 14 yrs I was baptized a Latter-day Saint. We are often called Mormons. Earlier, on a different thread, I stated that my Kentucky people were fighters, etc. That is my father's side of the family. Please forgive this lengthy clarification before answering your question. It occurred to me moments ago that perhaps folks remembered the earlier post and maybe I had confused them greatly.

Some of my mother's great-grandfathers were disfellowshipped from the Quaker Church because they chose to fight in the American Revolution and the Civil War. And Grandpa O'Neall registered for the "Old Man's Draft" during WWII.

I am most certainly a Christian, however, the only Latter-day Saint in my family. Best decision I ever made. Wish I could tell you more about the USA's distribution of Quaker population. I'm assuming you live in the USA.

Ah, try this. . . Wikipedia search re: Society of Friends (or) Quaker Church. I recently did quite a lot of research there on this very subject, and came across some statistics as to current demographics, Meetings Schedules, etc. Can't recall much off the top of my head right now, but you're sure to find some real help with a Wiki search.

I'm an historian, as well as a retired medical transcriptionist, constantly cloistered in my Way Back Machine while knitting at my keyboard.

Hope I've been able to assist you in some small way. Good luck to you.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

NJG said:


> There are so many families out there living pay check to pay check, that would be devastated if they became pregnant. If they have no insurance, and no money to feed another child it could be devastating. That is one thing that amazes me about people on the right. You have no idea of the issues that many poor people face every day. Just like Mitt Romney was completely out of touch with poor people, that is what I hear from the majority of republicans, and I know you're not all as rich as Mitt was, but it is that same attitude. I just wish you could have some empathy for people less fortunate than yourselves. You just assume people have the extra money to buy contraception, the extra money to pay for child care for another child and to feed another child. I just don't understand how you can be so out of touch.


I think you're right. It's hard to really understand someone's position unless you've been there. I've seen people in my family struggle and certainly do without some of the basics, but never to the point that they could abort a baby. That's probably because they always knew that in the end they'd have some back-up from family. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. We're retired, fixed income, moderate savings. Still, we're haven't had the hardships you're talking about. Maybe I'm too far removed to truly feel what that would be like. And to tell you the truth, that's why I believe it's not my place to judge people. I don't know what they're really going through. I don't know what has made them make certain decisions. Life isn't easy. I just hope that we can stop choosing abortion as a solution - because in my heart I feel we don't have that right. I've felt that way so long that it's a part of me. And I feel a moral obligation to at least speak up for the unborn babies.

I think that lack of deep understanding is true of most people, not just Republicans. I've heard people say things about conservatives that I know aren't true. We just can't get inside each other's heads. These opinions we have are not just reasoned, they're the result of all our life experience, strongly felt and strongly protected.

Again my post is too long. I'm just trying to say I appreciate what you said and will think about it. I've heard it before, but I think it was the gentle way you put it that made me think about it again - and in a different way - instead of trying to dismiss it. Food for thought, NJG.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Overly dramatic, aren't you?


Don't like looking in the mirror plaine olde purle!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have no idea what is wrong with you that you cannot understand the fact you and some of your Liberal friends use the same uncustomary words I've likely first posted in the threads (to my knowledge as I stated) where I write.
> 
> Sidebar: I actually have a running bet with a fellow KPer who pointed out to me months ago that many of the Libs honor me with the highest form of flattery (imitation)(thanks CCC) and repeat and use several of the uncustomary words I first do on KP. That does NOT imply nor say I "coined" or created the word, just that I first used it. She and I now wait to see how many Libs do the same. It is quite comical.
> 
> ...


I don't know why you don't understand that I, and I am guessing most of the people on KP, just do not pay much attention to the words or phrases that you choose to put in front of us. Sorry, you are just not that important.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> I think you're right. It's hard to really understand someone's position unless you've been there. I've seen people in my family struggle and certainly do without some of the basics, but never to the point that they could abort a baby. That's probably because they always knew that in the end they'd have some back-up from family. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. We're retired, fixed income, moderate savings. Still, we're haven't had the hardships you're talking about. Maybe I'm too far removed to truly feel what that would be like. And to tell you the truth, that's why I believe it's not my place to judge people. I don't know what they're really going through. I don't know what has made them make certain decisions. Life isn't easy. I just hope that we can stop choosing abortion as a solution - because in my heart I feel we don't have that right. I've felt that way so long that it's a part of me. And I feel a moral obligation to at least speak up for the unborn babies.
> 
> I think that lack of deep understanding is true of most people, not just Republicans. I've heard people say things about conservatives that I know aren't true. We just can't get inside each other's heads. These opinions we have are not just reasoned, they're the result of all our life experience, strongly felt and strongly protected.


Hi, this is for you too, NJG (did I get that correctly?)
I appreciate the candor with which you, BonBon (?) and NJG, have shared your tender feelings, and so I feel safe in opening up a bit about my family's poverty. Mom and Dad were divorced for one year. During that time Mom and us kids lived in a chicken coop north of San Francisco, in a very small town called Pt. Reyes Station, in Marin County. I am a native Californian, my father's people are from Kentucky. Daddy stopped drinking and my parents got remarried. He took us out of that dreadful place, back home to Sacramento in the summer of 1958. Four months later he was dead. Then Mom started drinking and was an alcoholic within six months. Tried to take her life several times, and tried to take all five of us with her on three separate occasions, gas from the kitchen stove. So she spent 18 mos or so in a state hospital, we were farmed out again, and then reunited again just as I entered 8th grade. Don't much care about paragraph structure just now, just want to get this down and send it on its not-so-merry way and be done with it. Please, you guys, this is not a pity party. I just want you to understand that my reasons for being a Republican have nothing at all to do with having been born with a silver spoon in my mouth. HA! All my people were blue collar FDR Dems (but only to the core), Union strikers, independent midwestern farmers (Dems back in dem ol' days) [ok to giggle at the pun], and Daddy built bridges in the SF Bay Area after WWII, joined his daddy in that work. Grandpa Goode came to CA from KY in 1908 at the age of 16 riding the rails to get a job, and SF was still rebuilding itself after the 1906 earthquake and fire, so... SF was THE happenin' place and Sacramento became home. Daddy did the high work, he "walked the iron" as they say, afraid of nothing. But when he was called home, we were terrified of everything. Not a one of us overcame the loss of our Daddy. Homeless kid? Been there. Homeless single mom with five kids of my own on my shoulders? Been there. Homeless grandma? Been there, until my children found out and then they jumped down my gullet and pulled together and saved me. Bless their hearts. Now I live in HUD housing with mostly disabled Seniors who have had tougher breaks in life than I have had. Sometimes their own choices put them where they are now. Sometimes health problems not of their own making landed them here. Makes no difference to me if we took the scenic route or the freeway to government subsidized housing, Medicaid and food stamps. Actually, 90% of us in this apt complex have been cut off Medicaid AND food stamps, (Thank you, Mr. Pres), so we are strapped more than ever. You may wonder to yourselves, "Why doesn't she join the liberal set and vote Democrat? Why hang with the Repubs?" Because. . . for all the poverty, homelessness, heartache, ill health (physical, mental, emotional) over an entire lifetime, my core beliefs remain the same as what I was taught by my blue collar family -- you work hard, maintain traditional marriage ONLY, welcome children into your bosom and cherish them and run like hell to keep up with them, and you don't let anybody step on you. Today's Democratic party is not the party of FDR. My people would be happy to know I switched sides so that I could fight for traditional family values, and still be what they taught me to be -- my brother's keeper. Must admit I am frustrated by some Repubs' attitudes that blind them to the real needs of their fellow Americans. If you're still reading this, you are truly kind and I thank you for hearing me out. Just want you to know I'm not a stuffy silver-spooned rich witch. But I am well-bred and well-read, because that's what my people taught me. Ain't gonna edit. Comin' atcha. . .xoxoxo


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> I think you're right. It's hard to really understand someone's position unless you've been there. I've seen people in my family struggle and certainly do without some of the basics, but never to the point that they could abort a baby. That's probably because they always knew that in the end they'd have some back-up from family. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. We're retired, fixed income, moderate savings. Still, we're haven't had the hardships you're talking about. Maybe I'm too far removed to truly feel what that would be like. And to tell you the truth, that's why I believe it's not my place to judge people. I don't know what they're really going through. I don't know what has made them make certain decisions. Life isn't easy. I just hope that we can stop choosing abortion as a solution - because in my heart I feel we don't have that right. I've felt that way so long that it's a part of me. And I feel a moral obligation to at least speak up for the unborn babies.
> 
> I think that lack of deep understanding is true of most people, not just Republicans. I've heard people say things about conservatives that I know aren't true. We just can't get inside each other's heads. These opinions we have are not just reasoned, they're the result of all our life experience, strongly felt and strongly protected.
> 
> Again my post is too long. I'm just trying to say I appreciate what you said and will think about it. I've heard it before, but I think it was the gentle way you put it that made me think about it again - and in a different way - instead of trying to dismiss it. Food for thought, NJG.


Quite honestly, you just don't know whether people who are in your family have been pushed to the point of abortion or not. 
Do you really think that after hearing your position they would share that decision with you?
It is nice to read that you withhold judgment as much as you are able, but I have to tell you, if I were your family member at the time that I was choosing something like that and needed support the most I wouldn't feel that I could go to you.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

inishowen said:


> So, 66 pages of nasty comments to each other. I wonder does the OP regret starting all this?


I am not sure where you get 66 pages of nasty comments. 
Most of the discussion has been quite civil. 
Sorry that you didn't have the chance to read it all.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

GrannyGoode said:


> Hi, this is for you too, NJG (did I get that correctly?)
> I appreciate the candor with which you, BonBon (?) and NJG, have shared your tender feelings, and so I feel safe in opening up a bit about my family's poverty. Mom and Dad were divorced for one year. During that time Mom and us kids lived in a chicken coop north of San Francisco, in a very small town called Pt. Reyes Station, in Marin County. I am a native Californian, my father's people are from Kentucky. Daddy stopped drinking and my parents got remarried. He took us out of that dreadful place, back home to Sacramento in the summer of 1958. Four months later he was dead. Then Mom started drinking and was an alcoholic within six months. Tried to take her life several times, and tried to take all five of us with her on three separate occasions, gas from the kitchen stove. So she spent 18 mos or so in a state hospital, we were farmed out again, and then reunited again just as I entered 8th grade. Don't much care about paragraph structure just now, just want to get this down and send it on its not-so-merry way and be done with it. Please, you guys, this is not a pity party. I just want you to understand that my reasons for being a Republican have nothing at all to do with having been born with a silver spoon in my mouth. HA! All my people were blue collar FDR Dems (but only to the core), Union strikers, independent midwestern farmers (Dems back in dem ol' days) [ok to giggle at the pun], and Daddy built bridges in the SF Bay Area after WWII, joined his daddy in that work. Grandpa Goode came to CA from KY in 1908 at the age of 16 riding the rails to get a job, and SF was still rebuilding itself after the 1906 earthquake and fire, so... SF was THE happenin' place and Sacramento became home. Daddy did the high work, he "walked the iron" as they say, afraid of nothing. But when he was called home, we were terrified of everything. Not a one of us overcame the loss of our Daddy. Homeless kid? Been there. Homeless single mom with five kids of my own on my shoulders? Been there. Homeless grandma? Been there, until my children found out and then they jumped down my gullet and pulled together and saved me. Bless their hearts. Now I live in HUD housing with mostly disabled Seniors who have had tougher breaks in life than I have had. Sometimes their own choices put them where they are now. Sometimes health problems not of their own making landed them here. Makes no difference to me if we took the scenic route or the freeway to government subsidized housing, Medicaid and food stamps. Actually, 90% of us in this apt complex have been cut off Medicaid AND food stamps, (Thank you, Mr. Pres), so we are strapped more than ever. You may wonder to yourselves, "Why doesn't she join the liberal set and vote Democrat? Why hang with the Repubs?" Because. . . for all the poverty, homelessness, heartache, ill health (physical, mental, emotional) over an entire lifetime, my core beliefs remain the same as what I was taught by my blue collar family -- you work hard, maintain traditional marriage ONLY, welcome children into your bosom and cherish them and run like hell to keep up with them, and you don't let anybody step on you. Today's Democratic party is not the party of FDR. My people would be happy to know I switched sides so that I could fight for traditional family values, and still be what they taught me to be -- my brother's keeper. Must admit I am frustrated by some Repubs' attitudes that blind them to the real needs of their fellow Americans. If you're still reading this, you are truly kind and I thank you for hearing me out. Just want you to know I'm not a stuffy silver-spooned rich witch. But I am well-bred and well-read, because that's what my people taught me. Ain't gonna edit. Comin' atcha. . .xoxoxo


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Wombatnomore said:


> I'm surprised you noticed my reply ye olde Dame! What with your frothing at the mouth, gnashing of your teeth and gyrating in your seat desperately trying to produce the best comeback remark! I'm flattered - thanks!


Top of the insult scale to down under. Weak sarcasm 0.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Another habit identified.



Lkholcomb said:


> Interesting, I have more than once asked for explanations from her so I could correct the behavior so as to avoid future misunderstanding and the one time I was met with a silence. The other time I was met with a "no comment". I was very polite too, no name calling or the like. Hmmm.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

My but you're nasty 'today.' Do you wish to have a vindictive tirade of names launched at you? Feeling neglected perhaps. One thing you may not know, most people are insulted by being called 'old' by anyone over 5.



Wombatnomore said:


> Don't like looking in the mirror plaine olde purle!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Another habit identified.


Yes, indeed. 
Perhaps that is the trick, kill 'em with kindness.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

About KPG, the truth is out.



Janet Cooke said:


> I don't know why you don't understand that I, and I am guessing most of the people on KP, just do not pay much attention to the words or phrases that you choose to put in front of us. Sorry, you are just not that important.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Quite honestly, you just don't know whether people who are in your family have been pushed to the point of abortion or not.
> Do you really think that after hearing your position they would share that decision with you?
> It is nice to read that you withhold judgment as much as you are able, but I have to tell you, if I were your family member at the time that I was choosing something like that and needed support the most I wouldn't feel that I could go to you.


We have different opinions in my family. I'm sure that my children haven't had abortions because we are in touch and they are also pro-life, as are their spouses. As for my parents, they died. They were both pro-choice, although it wasn't called that then. I don't know if my mother changed her mind or not. I think her opinion was due to the loss of a baby at 3 months of age. My little sister. I was five. Things weren't done the same way back then, and my mother never saw the baby, who never left the hospital. She had spina bifida and hydrocephalus, both conditions which are not fatal today. My dad went to see her (the baby) every day. When I was an adult and had a child of my own, I finally realized the enormity of their love and loss. My father changed his mind about abortion after he had grandchildren. I asked him about it. He said he "didn't know how someone could do that to a little baby."

I've said before that i believe our opinions are shaped not only by reason, but also by our life experiences. I've known a few people who have had disabled children or siblings and who are pro-choice. I can understand that. They have suffered and watched loved ones suffer. But I, based on my own reasoning and life experience, cannot shrink from the belief that life is sacred, a God-given gift, and that we do not have the right to take it. Even the life of a convicted murderer is something we cannot take away, no matter how much we want to. That's my belief. The reason I speak out is because I feel obligated to speak up for the helpless innocent babies who cannot speak for themselves. I have to do what I think is right. That doesn't mean I don't have compassion for the mothers, the parents, for people in other difficult circumstances. I do. I'm not condemning those who've had abortions. I'm trying to speak out in a small way for a different choice, trying to give hope for something different to someone.

We live in a time when self-sacrifice is considered foolish and dreadful. There are many wonderful families who have disabled children and who love them dearly. Their lives are certainly changed and definitely harder, but it is admirable that people will give up something for the love of another person. I think that we have lost our spirituality to a large extent, and that many people feel that this life is it, there is nothing else. For them, they must feel a great need not to waste this life, to find happiness in every moment and to avoid sacrifice. For those who believe in God, in an afterlife, it is easier to give up some of our present comforts. And please don't say I hate atheists. I was raised by an atheist, one of the kindest people you'd want to know.

My children know me, and I think they would share it with me if they'd had an abortion. I also think they would come to me before that for moral support and comfort in a crisis. I hope so. You disagree with me and are somewhat angry with me. My children aren't, so it would be natural for them to come to me and probably hard for you to imagine that. You think I'd be angry and harsh toward them. I wouldn't. Never! And I wouldn't deliberately be that way toward anyone.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I' m amazed at the number of voters who vote against their own best interests. You may do as you please, of course. But please understand that Medicaid and Food Stamps have nothing to do with the President. They come to you, or don't, from the state.



GrannyGoode said:


> Hi, this is for you too, NJG (did I get that correctly?)
> I appreciate the candor with which you, BonBon (?) and NJG, have shared your tender feelings, and so I feel safe in opening up a bit about my family's poverty. Mom and Dad were divorced for one year. During that time Mom and us kids lived in a chicken coop north of San Francisco, in a very small town called Pt. Reyes Station, in Marin County. I am a native Californian, my father's people are from Kentucky. Daddy stopped drinking and my parents got remarried. He took us out of that dreadful place, back home to Sacramento in the summer of 1958. Four months later he was dead. Then Mom started drinking and was an alcoholic within six months. Tried to take her life several times, and tried to take all five of us with her on three separate occasions, gas from the kitchen stove. So she spent 18 mos or so in a state hospital, we were farmed out again, and then reunited again just as I entered 8th grade. Don't much care about paragraph structure just now, just want to get this down and send it on its not-so-merry way and be done with it. Please, you guys, this is not a pity party. I just want you to understand that my reasons for being a Republican have nothing at all to do with having been born with a silver spoon in my mouth. HA! All my people were blue collar FDR Dems (but only to the core), Union strikers, independent midwestern farmers (Dems back in dem ol' days) [ok to giggle at the pun], and Daddy built bridges in the SF Bay Area after WWII, joined his daddy in that work. Grandpa Goode came to CA from KY in 1908 at the age of 16 riding the rails to get a job, and SF was still rebuilding itself after the 1906 earthquake and fire, so... SF was THE happenin' place and Sacramento became home. Daddy did the high work, he "walked the iron" as they say, afraid of nothing. But when he was called home, we were terrified of everything. Not a one of us overcame the loss of our Daddy. Homeless kid? Been there. Homeless single mom with five kids of my own on my shoulders? Been there. Homeless grandma? Been there, until my children found out and then they jumped down my gullet and pulled together and saved me. Bless their hearts. Now I live in HUD housing with mostly disabled Seniors who have had tougher breaks in life than I have had. Sometimes their own choices put them where they are now. Sometimes health problems not of their own making landed them here. Makes no difference to me if we took the scenic route or the freeway to government subsidized housing, Medicaid and food stamps. Actually, 90% of us in this apt complex have been cut off Medicaid AND food stamps, (Thank you, Mr. Pres), so we are strapped more than ever. You may wonder to yourselves, "Why doesn't she join the liberal set and vote Democrat? Why hang with the Repubs?" Because. . . for all the poverty, homelessness, heartache, ill health (physical, mental, emotional) over an entire lifetime, my core beliefs remain the same as what I was taught by my blue collar family -- you work hard, maintain traditional marriage ONLY, welcome children into your bosom and cherish them and run like hell to keep up with them, and you don't let anybody step on you. Today's Democratic party is not the party of FDR. My people would be happy to know I switched sides so that I could fight for traditional family values, and still be what they taught me to be -- my brother's keeper. Must admit I am frustrated by some Repubs' attitudes that blind them to the real needs of their fellow Americans. If you're still reading this, you are truly kind and I thank you for hearing me out. Just want you to know I'm not a stuffy silver-spooned rich witch. But I am well-bred and well-read, because that's what my people taught me. Ain't gonna edit. Comin' atcha. . .xoxoxo


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Think about it. She's right. You may be pushing your loved ones away just when they need you most.



Janet Cooke said:


> Quite honestly, you just don't know whether people who are in your family have been pushed to the point of abortion or not.
> Do you really think that after hearing your position they would share that decision with you?
> It is nice to read that you withhold judgment as much as you are able, but I have to tell you, if I were your family member at the time that I was choosing something like that and needed support the most I wouldn't feel that I could go to you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You don't miss a trick.



Janet Cooke said:


> Yes, indeed.
> Perhaps that is the trick, kill 'em with kindness.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

damemary said:


> Think about it. She's right. You may be pushing your loved ones away just when they need you most.


Please read my answer. It's above yours, but I just finished it. Too long, but these are complicated situations and I'm too wordy. I can assure you that I'm not pushing anyone away. At least I certainly don't mean to do that.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for sharing your convictions. It gives more understanding than the standard words.



bonbf3 said:


> We have different opinions in my family. I'm sure that my children haven't had abortions because we are in touch and they are also pro-life, as are their spouses. As for my parents, they died. They were both pro-choice, although it wasn't called that then. I don't know if my mother changed her mind or not. I think her opinion was due to the loss of a baby at 3 months of age. My little sister. I was five. Things weren't done the same way back then, and my mother never saw the baby, who never left the hospital. She had spina bifida and hydrocephalus, both conditions which are not fatal today. My dad went to see her (the baby) every day. When I was an adult and had a child of my own, I finally realized the enormity of their love and loss. My father changed his mind about abortion after he had grandchildren. I asked him about it. He said he "didn't know how someone could do that to a little baby."
> 
> I've said before that i believe our opinions are shaped not only by reason, but also by our life experiences. I've known a few people who have had disabled children or siblings and who are pro-choice. I can understand that. They have suffered and watched loved ones suffer. But I, based on my own reasoning and life experience, cannot shrink from the belief that life is sacred, a God-given gift, and that we do not have the right to take it. Even the life of a convicted murderer is something we cannot take away, no matter how much we want to. That's my belief. The reason I speak out is because I feel obligated to speak up for the helpless innocent babies who cannot speak for themselves. I have to do what I think is right. That doesn't mean I don't have compassion for the mothers, the parents, for people in other difficult circumstances. I do. I'm not condemning those who've had abortions. I'm trying to speak out in a small way for a different choice, trying to give hope for something different to someone.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And I have commented. Thanks for sharing.



bonbf3 said:


> Please read my answer. It's above yours, but I just finished it. Too long, but these are complicated situations and I'm too wordy. I can assure you that I'm not pushing anyone away. At least I certainly don't mean to do that.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> I think you're right. It's hard to really understand someone's position unless you've been there. I've seen people in my family struggle and certainly do without some of the basics, but never to the point that they could abort a baby. That's probably because they always knew that in the end they'd have some back-up from family. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. We're retired, fixed income, moderate savings. Still, we're haven't had the hardships you're talking about. Maybe I'm too far removed to truly feel what that would be like. And to tell you the truth, that's why I believe it's not my place to judge people. I don't know what they're really going through. I don't know what has made them make certain decisions. Life isn't easy. I just hope that we can stop choosing abortion as a solution - because in my heart I feel we don't have that right. I've felt that way so long that it's a part of me. And I feel a moral obligation to at least speak up for the unborn babies.


Here's a question, Bonnie--not trying to be snide or snarky, I really am curious.

We've been talking about abortion in regards to American women and their general life circumstances, and the pro-life segment has come out vehemently _ against _, arguing that if a woman doesn't want or can't care for a child there are plenty who can.

In our country that's hard to dispute, particularly if the child in question is white and healthy (sorry to have to say that, but unfortunately it's true. A baby with dark skin and/or physical and mental handicaps will have a much more difficult time).

But what's your view on abortion in struggling third world countries, where contraceptives are scarce or non-existent, adoption as we know it isn't practiced, and life circumstances can be extremely unpleasant? Do you believe that abortion would be any less of a wrong for a woman in a country like Sudan or Liberia as opposed to here?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> We have different opinions in my family. I'm sure that my children haven't had abortions because we are in touch and they are also pro-life, as are their spouses. As for my parents, they died. They were both pro-choice, although it wasn't called that then. I don't know if my mother changed her mind or not. I think her opinion was due to the loss of a baby at 3 months of age. My little sister. I was five. Things weren't done the same way back then, and my mother never saw the baby, who never left the hospital. She had spina bifida and hydrocephalus, both conditions which are not fatal today. My dad went to see her (the baby) every day. When I was an adult and had a child of my own, I finally realized the enormity of their love and loss. My father changed his mind about abortion after he had grandchildren. I asked him about it. He said he "didn't know how someone could do that to a little baby."
> 
> I've said before that i believe our opinions are shaped not only by reason, but also by our life experiences. I've known a few people who have had disabled children or siblings and who are pro-choice. I can understand that. They have suffered and watched loved ones suffer. But I, based on my own reasoning and life experience, cannot shrink from the belief that life is sacred, a God-given gift, and that we do not have the right to take it. Even the life of a convicted murderer is something we cannot take away, no matter how much we want to. That's my belief. The reason I speak out is because I feel obligated to speak up for the helpless innocent babies who cannot speak for themselves. I have to do what I think is right. That doesn't mean I don't have compassion for the mothers, the parents, for people in other difficult circumstances. I do. I'm not condemning those who've had abortions. I'm trying to speak out in a small way for a different choice, trying to give hope for something different to someone.
> 
> ...


I was not thinking of immediate family but of people you know and extended family. I am not angry with you. I appreciate that you are willing to put your thoughts and feelings out there with so many of us. You have really stuck with it when you must have felt yourself to be under a barrage. 
I am sorry about the loss of your sister, those hits never fully stop hurting. There is always a tiny bit of emptiness. As you say, once you have a little one of your own, you truly understand the loss. 
So think of what a horrendous choice it must be for a woman who already has children to decide that it is necessary to choose between those that she already has and that new potential. Who would go into that lightly?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

damemary said:


> I' m amazed at the number of voters who vote against their own best interests. You may do as you please, of course. But please understand that Medicaid and Food Stamps have nothing to do with the President. They come to you, or don't, from the state.[/quote
> 
> Sorry - no response intended.


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I am not sure what makes you think that a civilian parent can call in sick when the children fall ill. Parents get fired, they go on welfare, then they get a job another child gets chicken pox. you are are out of work, you get fired. Now nobody will hire you because you have a spotty record.
> You have become a queen, how nice.
> Tell me, would you have given up your spot in the military for another, cuz I am just guessing that there were a finite number of slots for pregnant women. Or did the military have some special program going on that we didn't hear about?


Do you know anything about the military? I worked up to 4 days until I had the baby the first time, and each time I got 3-4 weeks off after the baby before I went back to work. And I was pointing out that in the military you absolutely can not call in sick. I did the entire enlistment that I signed up for and had 3 children as well. I don't appreciate name calling especially because I will not do it and based on your comment about the military I seriously doubt you were in and thus have nt valid opinion about the military.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

The two of us obviously come to logger-heads in terms of what is best "in my best interests," as well as who is truly culpable for nationwide slashing of Medicaid and food stamps benefits. Frankly, I don't mind being without either Medicaid or food stamps, but I speak only for myself. Doing well without both of them, and THAT is what is in my best interests. You are in no position to instruct me on either subject.



damemary said:


> I' m amazed at the number of voters who vote against their own best interests. You may do as you please, of course. But please understand that Medicaid and Food Stamps have nothing to do with the President. They come to you, or don't, from the state.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> What you do not seem to understand is that the company, Hobby Lobby, is the insurance company. The company, Hobby Lobby, decides what is in the insurance. There is no middle man, unless they have hired a subcontractor, to do the paperwork.
> 
> In no way are they trying to control the health care of their employees. They are free to obtain what ever they want. The only thing is they will not pay for is 4 (I believe) drugs. Why are they not allowed to make that choice. The first amendment states they can. Since Obama took an oath to defend the constitution, why does he think he can take that right away from this company or any other? If he succeeds with this, what is the next freedom he will take away from you?
> 
> ...


Please demonstrate for us where the 1st Amendment states that people can, in the exercise of their religious rights, infringe on the rights of others. 
I have no idea whether HL self insures or not. If they have set themselves up as an insurer they need to act as an insurer and follow laws. Otherwise, they need to outsource the work.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I was not thinking of immediate family but of people you know and extended family. I am not angry with you. I appreciate that you are willing to put your thoughts and feelings out there with so many of us. You have really stuck with it when you must have felt yourself to be under a barrage.
> I am sorry about the loss of your sister, those hits never fully stop hurting. There is always a tiny bit of emptiness. As you say, once you have a little one of your own, you truly understand the loss.
> So think of what a horrendous choice it must be for a woman who already has children to decide that it is necessary to choose between those that she already has and that new potential. Who would go into that lightly?


No, it's not an easy choice. I'm the youngest of four and always wished I had a little brother or sister. Only as an adult did I learn that my wish almost came to pass--when I was seven or eight my mother became pregnant. To say that my father wasn't pleased would be something of an understatement. Abortion was legal by then, and my father said that if my mother went through with the pregnancy he would leave her.

My mother loved children--they were her very life, and she'd always dreamed of having half a dozen. But she was also a homemaker with only a couple of years of college and no marketable skills. Still worse, she was in her mid-30s and suffered from high blood that was relatively unresponsive to medication. I don't believe another pregnancy would have killed her, but she undoubtedly would have spent most of it in bed, possibly hospitalized, and the baby would have suffered all the complications of a extremely premature birth.

I honestly don't know what my mother would have done had she not ultimately suffered a miscarriage. But in her case the usual solutions proffered by the pro-life contingent to "tough it out" "look to family and friends for support" "give the baby up for adoption" have an extremely hollow ring. It's easy to dismiss women who suffer unintended pregnancy as reckless and irresponsible--much harder to do so if you really understand what they're going through.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I was not thinking of immediate family but of people you know and extended family. I am not angry with you. I appreciate that you are willing to put your thoughts and feelings out there with so many of us. You have really stuck with it when you must have felt yourself to be under a barrage.
> I am sorry about the loss of your sister, those hits never fully stop hurting. There is always a tiny bit of emptiness. As you say, once you have a little one of your own, you truly understand the loss.
> So think of what a horrendous choice it must be for a woman who already has children to decide that it is necessary to choose between those that she already has and that new potential. Who would go into that lightly?


Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you're not angry. It was nice of you to post that.

I have thought of that terrible choice. I think losing a child by any means is the worst grief imaginable. I also think there is nothing so precious as the love between parent and child. I would hope that people would be spared the grief of losing a child and would experience the deepest love there is, and that's a motivation for me, too, as far as trying to show a different way. But I do realize that it can't just happen for everyone, some people need help before and after the baby comes.

My extended family - as far as parents of my children-in-law - most are pro-life. Two I don't know - we haven't discussed it, but strangely enough I have talked with her adult daughter about it. She brought it up - and I found out that although she is a true free spirit in the most interesting and positive sense of the word, she is also pro-life.

As for my cousins - we're so scattered that we seldom see each other. Met with one of them a couple of years ago, and we just really reminisced and talked about our families. Didn't get into the abortion issue or anything controversial.

As for my grandchildren, most are young. The older ones are pro-life now, may change as they get older. My children and grandchildren are pretty close and pretty chatty, so we do discuss these things openly. The children are learning from us right now. Time will tell what their views are.

In general, I stay away from controversial issues, especially if I think someone will be offended. Hard to believe, I know.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

nuclearfinz said:


> Do you know anything about the military? I worked up to 4 days until I had the baby the first time, and each time I got 3-4 weeks off after the baby before I went back to work. And I was pointing out that in the military you absolutely can not call in sick. I did the entire enlistment that I signed up for and had 3 children as well. I don't appreciate name calling especially because I will not do it and based on your comment about the military I seriously doubt you were in and thus have nt valid opinion about the military.


Where do you see me addressing anything about the military other than there being limited job openings?
When you point out that you absolutely cannot call out sick you apparently don't realize that you are posting into an environment that has former military members, military families, military parents. To claim that one cannot call is sick is just plain not true. 
My brother was in the military while being treated for months for pancreatitis, he was on sick call more than he worked. 
My older brother was a career officer in the USCG, now I don't know if he ever had an extended period of illness, I am guessing that in 25 years he was sick a time or two. 
So go ahead and try to say that military personnel cannot use sick time. Nobody with any sense will believe you.


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> No, it's not an easy choice. I'm the youngest of four and always wished I had a little brother or sister. Only as an adult did I learn that my wish almost came to pass--when I was seven or eight my mother became pregnant. To say that my father wasn't pleased would be something of an understatement. Abortion was legal by then, and my father said that if my mother went through with the pregnancy he would leave her.
> 
> My mother loved children--they were her very life, and she'd always dreamed of having half a dozen. But she was also a homemaker with only a couple of years of college and no marketable skills. Still worse, she was in her mid-30s and suffered from high blood that was relatively unresponsive to medication. I don't believe another pregnancy would have killed her, but she undoubtedly would have spent most of it in bed, possibly hospitalized, and the baby would have suffered all the complications of a extremely premature birth.
> 
> I honestly don't know what my mother would have done had she not ultimately suffered a miscarriage. But in her case the usual solutions proffered by the pro-life contingent to "tough it out" "look to family and friends for support" "give the baby up for adoption" have an extremely hollow ring. It's easy to dismiss women who suffer unintended pregnancy as reckless and irresponsible--much harder to do so if you really understand what they're going through.


I was touched by your mother's story. I can only imagine what it was like in her shoes. I agree with your sentiment with "pro-life" contingent. Your story does give a different perspective towards unwanted pregnancies that we may not have previously considered.


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Where do you see me addressing anything about the military other than there being limited job openings?
> When you point out that you absolutely cannot call out sick you apparently don't realize that you are posting into an environment that has former military members, military families, military parents. To claim that one cannot call is sick is just plain not true.
> My brother was in the military while being treated for months for pancreatitis, he was on sick call more than he worked.
> My older brother was a career officer in the USCG, now I don't know if he ever had an extended period of illness, I am guessing that in 25 years he was sick a time or two.
> So go ahead and try to say that military personnel cannot use sick time. Nobody with any sense will believe you.


I too was sick when I was in, but I still had to show up to prove I was sick. So, you too, should be aware of your comments.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> Hi, this is for you too, NJG (did I get that correctly?)
> I appreciate the candor with which you, BonBon (?) and NJG, have shared your tender feelings, and so I feel safe in opening up a bit about my family's poverty. Mom and Dad were divorced for one year. During that time Mom and us kids lived in a chicken coop north of San Francisco, in a very small town called Pt. Reyes Station, in Marin County. I am a native Californian, my father's people are from Kentucky. Daddy stopped drinking and my parents got remarried. He took us out of that dreadful place, back home to Sacramento in the summer of 1958. Four months later he was dead. Then Mom started drinking and was an alcoholic within six months. Tried to take her life several times, and tried to take all five of us with her on three separate occasions, gas from the kitchen stove. So she spent 18 mos or so in a state hospital, we were farmed out again, and then reunited again just as I entered 8th grade. Don't much care about paragraph structure just now, just want to get this down and send it on its not-so-merry way and be done with it. Please, you guys, this is not a pity party. I just want you to understand that my reasons for being a Republican have nothing at all to do with having been born with a silver spoon in my mouth. HA! All my people were blue collar FDR Dems (but only to the core), Union strikers, independent midwestern farmers (Dems back in dem ol' days) [ok to giggle at the pun], and Daddy built bridges in the SF Bay Area after WWII, joined his daddy in that work. Grandpa Goode came to CA from KY in 1908 at the age of 16 riding the rails to get a job, and SF was still rebuilding itself after the 1906 earthquake and fire, so... SF was THE happenin' place and Sacramento became home. Daddy did the high work, he "walked the iron" as they say, afraid of nothing. But when he was called home, we were terrified of everything. Not a one of us overcame the loss of our Daddy. Homeless kid? Been there. Homeless single mom with five kids of my own on my shoulders? Been there. Homeless grandma? Been there, until my children found out and then they jumped down my gullet and pulled together and saved me. Bless their hearts. Now I live in HUD housing with mostly disabled Seniors who have had tougher breaks in life than I have had. Sometimes their own choices put them where they are now. Sometimes health problems not of their own making landed them here. Makes no difference to me if we took the scenic route or the freeway to government subsidized housing, Medicaid and food stamps. Actually, 90% of us in this apt complex have been cut off Medicaid AND food stamps, (Thank you, Mr. Pres), so we are strapped more than ever. You may wonder to yourselves, "Why doesn't she join the liberal set and vote Democrat? Why hang with the Repubs?" Because. . . for all the poverty, homelessness, heartache, ill health (physical, mental, emotional) over an entire lifetime, my core beliefs remain the same as what I was taught by my blue collar family -- you work hard, maintain traditional marriage ONLY, welcome children into your bosom and cherish them and run like hell to keep up with them, and you don't let anybody step on you. Today's Democratic party is not the party of FDR. My people would be happy to know I switched sides so that I could fight for traditional family values, and still be what they taught me to be -- my brother's keeper. Must admit I am frustrated by some Repubs' attitudes that blind them to the real needs of their fellow Americans. If you're still reading this, you are truly kind and I thank you for hearing me out. Just want you to know I'm not a stuffy silver-spooned rich witch. But I am well-bred and well-read, because that's what my people taught me. Ain't gonna edit. Comin' atcha. . .xoxoxo


I hardly know what to say. I'm so glad you posted this, and I'd like to keep it as a reminder of what some people endure and - in your case - rise above. No, I have never walked in your shoes and can't imagine how you overcame all those difficulties. You are very strong. I will remember this post for a long time. Thank you, GrannyGoode.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> Hi, this is for you too, NJG (did I get that correctly?)
> I appreciate the candor with which you, BonBon (?) and NJG, have shared your tender feelings, and so I feel safe in opening up a bit about my family's poverty. Mom and Dad were divorced for one year. During that time Mom and us kids lived in a chicken coop north of San Francisco, in a very small town called Pt. Reyes Station, in Marin County. I am a native Californian, my father's people are from Kentucky. Daddy stopped drinking and my parents got remarried. He took us out of that dreadful place, back home to Sacramento in the summer of 1958. Four months later he was dead. Then Mom started drinking and was an alcoholic within six months. Tried to take her life several times, and tried to take all five of us with her on three separate occasions, gas from the kitchen stove. So she spent 18 mos or so in a state hospital, we were farmed out again, and then reunited again just as I entered 8th grade. Don't much care about paragraph structure just now, just want to get this down and send it on its not-so-merry way and be done with it. Please, you guys, this is not a pity party. I just want you to understand that my reasons for being a Republican have nothing at all to do with having been born with a silver spoon in my mouth. HA! All my people were blue collar FDR Dems (but only to the core), Union strikers, independent midwestern farmers (Dems back in dem ol' days) [ok to giggle at the pun], and Daddy built bridges in the SF Bay Area after WWII, joined his daddy in that work. Grandpa Goode came to CA from KY in 1908 at the age of 16 riding the rails to get a job, and SF was still rebuilding itself after the 1906 earthquake and fire, so... SF was THE happenin' place and Sacramento became home. Daddy did the high work, he "walked the iron" as they say, afraid of nothing. But when he was called home, we were terrified of everything. Not a one of us overcame the loss of our Daddy. Homeless kid? Been there. Homeless single mom with five kids of my own on my shoulders? Been there. Homeless grandma? Been there, until my children found out and then they jumped down my gullet and pulled together and saved me. Bless their hearts. Now I live in HUD housing with mostly disabled Seniors who have had tougher breaks in life than I have had. Sometimes their own choices put them where they are now. Sometimes health problems not of their own making landed them here. Makes no difference to me if we took the scenic route or the freeway to government subsidized housing, Medicaid and food stamps. Actually, 90% of us in this apt complex have been cut off Medicaid AND food stamps, (Thank you, Mr. Pres), so we are strapped more than ever. You may wonder to yourselves, "Why doesn't she join the liberal set and vote Democrat? Why hang with the Repubs?" Because. . . for all the poverty, homelessness, heartache, ill health (physical, mental, emotional) over an entire lifetime, my core beliefs remain the same as what I was taught by my blue collar family -- you work hard, maintain traditional marriage ONLY, welcome children into your bosom and cherish them and run like hell to keep up with them, and you don't let anybody step on you. Today's Democratic party is not the party of FDR. My people would be happy to know I switched sides so that I could fight for traditional family values, and still be what they taught me to be -- my brother's keeper. Must admit I am frustrated by some Repubs' attitudes that blind them to the real needs of their fellow Americans. If you're still reading this, you are truly kind and I thank you for hearing me out. Just want you to know I'm not a stuffy silver-spooned rich witch. But I am well-bred and well-read, because that's what my people taught me. Ain't gonna edit. Comin' atcha. . .xoxoxo


Sorry for the double post. Jumpy fingers must have hit the button twice.


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you're not angry. It was nice of you to post that.
> 
> I have thought of that terrible choice. I think losing a child by any means is the worst grief imaginable. I also think there is nothing so precious as the love between parent and child. I would hope that people would be spared the grief of losing a child and would experience the deepest love there is, and that's a motivation for me, too, as far as trying to show a different way. But I do realize that it can't just happen for everyone, some people need help before and after the baby comes.
> 
> ...


Controversial issues are good. It allows me to see other perspectives and there will always be someone who has a new take on a situation. I don't always agree but I always want to hear other opinions. The thing I absolutely can not abide by is name calling. I welcome opposing opinions but only in a respectful manner. Any other way and I just consider the viewpoint to be from an unintelligent person and is not worth my time.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

damemary said:


> Thank you for sharing your convictions. It gives more understanding than the standard words.


Thank you for reading it, damemary.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

We not only get other perspectives but can also see how totally nasty some people can become when their opinions are not bowed down to. 

It is unfortunate that the terms liberal and conservative have digressed so far from their original meanings. Each has been hijacked by radical proponents of the most narrow aspect of their meaning.

I would hope most of us have the intelligence to respect one another as entitled to our opinions, however diverse. I may not agree with you, I may think you are an idiot to have the opinion you do, but I would fight with all my resources to make sure you have the right to express your opinion, to defend it with documentation, and to act upon it within the confines of the law.

Some of the comments on this topic have descended into school yard name calling, and do not reflect positively on the individuals who are snarky at best. I am reading this thread and thinking it is a sociologist's or a psychologist's gold mine for a term paper.

Let us face it, anti abortion people and pro choice people will never agree. Too much religious or secular background to consider, and too much stubbornness in some cases. I do wonder, however, why anti abortion people call themselves pro life. Are the people who bomb women's health clinics pro ONLY their idea of life when they endanger medical personnel and women who are using the clinics for reasons other than abortion, such as for pap smears and mammograms? How pro life were the people who murdered doctors working at such clinics?

Now I am sure you "pro life" folks will attack me for my opinions. Show me how charming and mature you can be.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

nuclearfinz said:


> I was touched by your mother's story. I can only imagine what it was like in her shoes. I agree with your sentiment with "pro-life" contingent. Your story does give a different perspective towards unwanted pregnancies that we may not have previously considered.


Thanks, nuclearfinz. My mother's experiences are why, even though I'm Catholic, I'm also very much in favor of birth control. The best way to avoid gut-wrenching situations like these is for there to be as few unintended pregnancies as possible.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

nuclearfinz said:


> I too was sick when I was in, but I still had to show up to prove I was sick. So, you too, should be aware of your comments.


And in the private sector people need to get physician's notes that they were sick, or as I stated before, just have no sick time at their jobs and end up out of work. So, honestly, what is the difference other than not being fired from the military for being out of work once or twice?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> We not only get other perspectives but can also see how totally nasty some people can become when their opinions are not bowed down to.
> 
> It is unfortunate that the terms liberal and conservative have digressed so far from their original meanings. Each has been hijacked by radical proponents of the most narrow aspect of their meaning.
> 
> ...


LOL, speaking of snark. 
It is an emotionally charged subject. 
The thoughts and feelings just come rolling out. 
I am going to try to remember to start calling anti-abortion folks "anti-choice" you are absolutely correct, that position has nothing to do with being pro-life. 
These same people don't go and stand outside of bars and stop people who have had too much to drink from getting into their cars and possibly killing someone. These same people don't walk teachers or clergy or scout leaders into their daily duties and give lectures about not grooming and abusing the children in their care. 
From here it certainly does not look like life or quality of life that they are interested in but that women (it is never about the men) have had sex, probably enjoyed that sex, and now want to avoid the consequences of what went wrong so that they got pregnant.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Where have they infringed on others rights? Their employees are free to buy anything they want. If you have read any of Hobby Lobby's press statement, you should know they are self-insured. Do you even know what "self-insured" means? What law have they broken? The one in question is not in the ACA. It is an added rule put in by the HHS. What is more important, the Constitution or a rule written by HHS?


The SCOTUS will decide. 
There is no point in talking to you about this.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Here's a question, Bonnie--not trying to be snide or snarky, I really am curious.
> 
> We've been talking about abortion in regards to American women and their general life circumstances, and the pro-life segment has come out vehemently _ against _, arguing that if a woman doesn't want or can't care for a child there are plenty who can.
> 
> ...


I don't think this is a snarky post - and thank you for that.

I believe that every life is sacred regardless of circumstance. I can't think that one baby's life is worth less than another's. I understand your reasoning, but my belief is that God gives us life, that we are each unique and necessary, and that there is much more to all this that we are experiencing than we know or can even comprehend in our present temporary state.

That was a very good question. You are really making me think, Susan.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> We not only get other perspectives but can also see how totally nasty some people can become when their opinions are not bowed down to.
> 
> It is unfortunate that the terms liberal and conservative have digressed so far from their original meanings. Each has been hijacked by radical proponents of the most narrow aspect of their meaning.
> 
> ...


A voice of reason! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> I don't think this is a snarky post - and thank you for that.
> 
> I believe that every life is sacred regardless of circumstance. I can't think that one baby's life is worth less than another's. I understand your reasoning, but my belief is that God gives us life, that we are each unique and necessary, and that there is much more to all this that we are experiencing than we know or can even comprehend in our present temporary state.
> 
> That was a very good question. You are really making me think, Susan.


No problem, Bonnie. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter.


----------



## yvonne m (Dec 6, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Hello TM. I heard you thought I was someone else out here but it is the same old irrepressible me. I see you are the ignorant, know nothing, boring creature you have always been. How pathetic you are and if that is your hair I am the Queen of Sheba. I have seen that shampoo ad so you aren't fooling anybody. If you have nothing to hide why don't you show your face? Would it terrify children and send them screaming or make them ROFL at your Bozo the clown appearance? You are good for only one thing and that is as a source of amusement. You are not a worthy adversary to anyone on the left. They are just having fun with you. Oh, I feel a happy dance coming on. Move aside now TM and let me show you how it's done. Oh sway those hips, Cheeky!


Good grief!! I can't believe how personal and nasty this has become.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> We not only get other perspectives but can also see how totally nasty some people can become when their opinions are not bowed down to.
> 
> It is unfortunate that the terms liberal and conservative have digressed so far from their original meanings. Each has been hijacked by radical proponents of the most narrow aspect of their meaning.
> 
> ...


I will be charming. The people who bomb women's health clinics are not really pro-life. They are troubled people full of anger who grab onto something which they believe justifies their rage. Then - they go a step further - to violence.

These are but one example of fringe elements lurking on the edges of legitimate causes. I might ask the same of many causes that have been contaminated in the same way.

Do you really think that pro-life advocates support such activity? Surely not. Surely any thinking individual can see that this is not the case.

Now that's as charming as I can be - and I'd say a tad bit more charming than you were. You started out that way, but your question is obviously an insult and not a real inquiry. Why did you do that? You might ask yourself.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

yvonne m said:


> Good grief!! I can't believe how personal and nasty this has become.


It's history, yvonne m, shared history. 
We are all embarrassed at one point or another to have other people see how others can get under our skin so.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

yvonne m said:


> Good grief!! I can't believe how personal and nasty this has become.


You're right - that was over the top. It's okay - KPG can take it. It's happened before.

Got your back, KPG.


----------



## inishowen (May 28, 2011)

Ladies you are spoiling the forum with your horrible, nasty words. Stop it please.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

There is a long history involved. It's hard to be factual and logical when threats have been issued. Just observe for awhile before you draw conclusions.



yvonne m said:


> Good grief!! I can't believe how personal and nasty this has become.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

With permission, I will answer a question with a question. If pro-life proponents do not support violence in any way, why don't we hear of them speaking out against it? Did I miss something?



bonbf3 said:


> I will be charming. The people who bomb women's health clinics are not really pro-life. They are troubled people full of anger who grab onto something which they believes justifies their rage. Then - they go a step further - to violence.
> 
> These are but one example of fringe elements lurking on the edges of legitimate causes. I might ask the same of many causes that have been contaminated in the same way.
> 
> ...


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

. 
I am going to try to remember to start calling anti-abortion folks "anti-choice" you are absolutely correct, that position has nothing to do with being pro-life. 


I actually agree with you with this statement. It is one I have long believed in and am joining you in calling it pro choice or anti choice.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> Don't like looking in the mirror plaine olde purle!


What on earth are you talking about, Wombat? You drop in, complain, go away, come back, then start insulting people one after the other. I have no problem with the mirror, but I see no frothing or whatever else you accused the Dame of.

Was there something you were hoping to accomplish by attacking people this way?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Are you unable to answer my questions?


There is no answer to your questions outside of SCOTUS. They will decide.
As you know, Joey, sometimes we can talk and sometimes we just can't do it. 
. This is one of those times that I just can't abide the twists, the turns, the refusal or inability to stick to the subject. 
Another time?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

nuclearfinz said:


> .
> I am going to try to remember to start calling anti-abortion folks "anti-choice" you are absolutely correct, that position has nothing to do with being pro-life.
> 
> I actually agree with you with this statement. It is one I have long believed in and am joining you in calling it pro choice or anti choice.


Whew! I knew I could agree with someone about something this week!


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

damemary said:


> With permission, I will answer a question with a question. If pro-life proponents do not support violence in any way, why don't we hear of them speaking out against it? Did I miss something?


Yes, you missed it. Your news source probably didn't report it. That happens sometimes.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

nuclearfinz said:


> .
> I am going to try to remember to start calling anti-abortion folks "anti-choice" you are absolutely correct, that position has nothing to do with being pro-life.
> 
> I actually agree with you with this statement. It is one I have long believed in and am joining you in calling it pro choice or anti choice.


"Pro-choice and anti-choice" or "pro-life and anti-life." Hmmm....not sure those names convey the right goals of the people behind them. Pro-life people are not anti-choice (implying all choice) just as pro-choice people are not really anti-life (implying all life).

Pro-life and pro-choice are names that cast each group in the best light.

For neutrality, how about pro-abortion and anti-abortion? That states it clearly and correctly. ?

My solution is an accurate representation of the goals of the two groups, not an attempt to cast aspersions on the one that disagrees with me. I'll go with mine.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

No. Unwilling.



joeysomma said:


> Are you unable to answer my questions?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Yes, you missed it. Your news source probably didn't report it. That happens sometimes.


I am sure that when Dr. Tiller was murdered, for example, there were many every day folks who were as appalled as those of us who mourned him. 
Those voices get drowned out by the fringe folk who celebrated. 
I hope that was the case, at least. 
Let's face it, some times our daily lives are too busy for solace when we have the opportunity to say nasty things either to or about people who are "almost real" on the internet.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you. I'll accept your word on this.



bonbf3 said:


> Yes, you missed it. Your news source probably didn't report it. That happens sometimes.


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Are you unable to answer my questions?


I think your question was did hobby lobby break any laws by not wanting to provide contraception. 
I don't believe they did. Not sure with the new minimum health care standards. Not sure what is required. But while I agree that they should not be forced into paying for soemthing that goes against the owners religious convictions , it is a bit short sighted. Bill Gates recently released the annual Gates foundation letter. He mentions in countries where contraception is available few children die before the age of 5 because women dont have as many. In those countries that dont have ready access to contraceptives, women have many children because they know many will die early and they must have many in order to get the number they want. Sad but it is a compelling argument for contraception.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

nuclearfinz said:


> .
> I am going to try to remember to start calling anti-abortion folks "anti-choice" you are absolutely correct, that position has nothing to do with being pro-life.
> 
> I actually agree with you with this statement. It is one I have long believed in and am joining you in calling it pro choice or anti choice.


Anti-choice doesn't fit. Pro-life people aren't opposed to all choice. Let's be accurate when we label and stereotype people


----------



## nuclearfinz (Feb 23, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> "Pro-choice and anti-choice" or "pro-life and anti-life." Hmmm....not sure those names convey the right goals of the people behind them. Pro-life people are not anti-choice (implying all choice) just as pro-choice people are not really anti-life (implying all life).
> 
> How about pro-abortion and anti-abortion? That states it clearly and correctly. ?


Even more specific and probably better.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

damemary said:


> Thank you. I'll accept your word on this.


I appreciate it, damemary.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> "Pro-choice and anti-choice" or "pro-life and anti-life." Hmmm....not sure those names convey the right goals of the people behind them. Pro-life people are not anti-choice (implying all choice) just as pro-choice people are not really anti-life (implying all life).
> 
> Pro-life and pro-choice are names that cast each group in the best light.
> 
> ...


I don't think the single phrase "pro-abortion" is fair to the wide range of feelings on the part of the pro-choice people. We make distinctions, either as a matter of principle or because of the specific situations. Some of us would prefer better contraception (and many women can't afford any but the cheapest and least effective methods) so that the question never comes up. Some think only the victims of rape and incest should be permitted to abort; others want "abortion on demand." So I would not accept "pro-abortion," as it trivializes the thinking.

On the other hand, pro-life is inaccurate, since so many are in favor of war and the death penalty (lately, there have been quite a few stories of people sentenced to death who have subsequently been found not guilty, which means that all of us have been killing innocent people without knowing it). I'd go with anti-abortion and pro-choice.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> No, it's not an easy choice. I'm the youngest of four and always wished I had a little brother or sister. Only as an adult did I learn that my wish almost came to pass--when I was seven or eight my mother became pregnant. To say that my father wasn't pleased would be something of an understatement. Abortion was legal by then, and my father said that if my mother went through with the pregnancy he would leave her.
> 
> My mother loved children--they were her very life, and she'd always dreamed of having half a dozen. But she was also a homemaker with only a couple of years of college and no marketable skills. Still worse, she was in her mid-30s and suffered from high blood that was relatively unresponsive to medication. I don't believe another pregnancy would have killed her, but she undoubtedly would have spent most of it in bed, possibly hospitalized, and the baby would have suffered all the complications of a extremely premature birth.
> 
> I honestly don't know what my mother would have done had she not ultimately suffered a miscarriage. But in her case the usual solutions proffered by the pro-life contingent to "tough it out" "look to family and friends for support" "give the baby up for adoption" have an extremely hollow ring. It's easy to dismiss women who suffer unintended pregnancy as reckless and irresponsible--much harder to do so if you really understand what they're going through.


That's a shame. Your mother sounds like a very loving person. I'm sure your examples of attempts to help do ring hollow. It's so hard to comfort people in a way that really helps. I guess some pain is only comforted in knowing that people are trying.

You're right - it's easy to just use the same phrases over and over without thinking about what they mean. That's why these discussions - when polite - are good for us. They help us to get closer to the human situation and feelings on the opposing side, and they allow us to re-think and refresh our own thinking and opinions. I know that reading some of these posts has really made me think and I hope I'll be more compassionate as a result. It takes time to really put yourself in someone else's shoes.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I don't think the single phrase "pro-abortion" is fair to the wide range of feelings on the part of the pro-choice people. We make distinctions, either as a matter of principle or because of the specific situations. Some of us would prefer better contraception (and many women can't afford any but the cheapest and least effective methods) so that the question never comes up. Some think only the victims of rape and incest should be permitted to abort; others want "abortion on demand." So I would not accept "pro-abortion," as it trivializes the thinking.
> 
> On the other hand, pro-life is inaccurate, since so many are in favor of war and the death penalty (lately, there have been quite a few stories of people sentenced to death who have subsequently been found not guilty, which means that all of us have been killing innocent people without knowing it). I'd go with anti-abortion and pro-choice.


But isn't pro-choice a bit vague? Although by now we all know what both pro-life and pro-choice mean.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> *sharinana wrote:*
> I am a liberal Christian and I have no idea where you picked up that load of garbage that you just entered on this web site but I have never been so offended by such a pile of vitriolic lies in my entire life! How do you know what the "left" believes? Have you ever actually sat down and talked to a born again Christian woman who believes that God gave each of us the brains to make such an intensly personal decision without someone else shouting obsenities, judgements and condemnation in their face? I was not a "slut" when I found myself with an unplanned pregnancy and felt that the decision I made was the only one that was open to me at that time. No matter why or when this happened in my life I am fairly confident that someone who thinks and speaks the way you do would never understand the pain and shame a woman goes through when she finds herself caught up in a nightmare that leads to having an abortion. The God I know and love has shown me a heart of compassion and forgiveness. This is what Jesus preached throughout His whole life and it is the vicious far right that has painted the entire Christian community as a bunch of closed minded, loud mouthed, hate mongers. You should be ashamed of yourself. Jesus walked in my shoes, you need to give it a try before you continue being so mean spirited. No one chooses abortion as the easy way out, no one!
> [blue]Poor Purl wrote:
> Thank you for the link, both times. It is amazing. So is watching a healthy living child grow up. That's one reason abortion is such a difficult decision to make. But the woman who agonizes over such a decision and decides to go through with it deserves respect and support, not hatred, bombings, and the supercilious "counseling" of those who think they know better.[/blue]
> ...


_

Beautiful! :thumbup:_


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> But isn't pro-choice a bit vague? Although by now we all know what both pro-life and pro-choice mean.


Pro-choice means exactly what it's used for: allow the woman in question her choice about what to do - some will go through with abortion, some will choose not to. Pro-life, on the other hand, is definitely inaccurate. I've never known what it meant - it seems to mean "pro-life of the unborn; the living are unimportant."


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Its very simple:
Pro-choice chooses the mother's rights,
Pro-life chooses the child's life.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Do you guys have a manual that you recite? Why would he allow gays to receive Holy Communion if that was the fact?
> Surely, homosexuality would be grounds for excommunication in the Catholic Church.


Why are you so ignorant of the facts?

Being a homosexual is not a sin. Being divorced is not a sin. Why would they not be allowed to receive the Eucharist?

We are children of God. What God judges is our actions. Both the divorced Catholic and the homosexual having sex would be a sin of equal value. Both having sexual relationships outside what the Church defines as marriage is a sin.

So as the Holy Father says, we don't judge the person. But actions are choices. Choices have consequences. If we choose to engage in activities that violate church doctrine, then we have chosen our consequences.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Pro-choice means exactly what it's used for: allow the woman in question her choice about what to do - some will go through with abortion, some will choose not to. Pro-life, on the other hand, is definitely inaccurate. I've never known what it meant - it seems to mean "pro-life of the unborn; the living are unimportant."


That seems to be pretty much what it means. 
My hero, Mother Jones, said "pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living", these folks seem to pray for the potential and say to heck with the living.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Yes, it's just KPG being herself. You know, no substance, no knowledge, but an ego the size of Texas. You see she threatens to sue anyone who "libels her" but makes no point in stopping the" libeling" of others.
> She is a farce in every sense of the word and people are growing very tired of her and her BS.


"You lie." Joe Wilson


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> I made my comment about the lost boys of Sudan. She questioned what was the point. I explained, and heard no more.


What a nit-wit. In your never-ending rush to hurl insults at me, you posted at 34:27 you heard no response from me about the Lost Boys of Sudan. Then at 39:28 * five * minutes later *you * insulted my response on that very topic.

You are not only hard of hearing (your words) you cannot retain that which you read and commented on five minutes prior.

Now, I'll honor my words and not respond to your lies again.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Wombatnomore said:


> I'm surprised you noticed my reply ye olde Dame! What with your frothing at the mouth, gnashing of your teeth and gyrating in your seat desperately trying to produce the best comeback remark! I'm flattered - thanks!


You should be; yet be warned. You'll be told you will be ignored which means she will hang onto your every word and insult you every chance she wishes to take. :lol:

Damemary has honored me with the most sincerest form of flattery by imitating my avatar. I remain flattered.

Best wishes!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Anti-choice doesn't fit. Pro-life people aren't opposed to all choice. Let's be accurate when we label and stereotype people


It fits often enough, the alternate stance makes no sense. 
Something cannot be murder unless you feel sympathy for it. Isn't murder murder?
Killing is killing, medical procedures are medical procedures.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GrannyGoode said:


> And I will offer that, were you truly in the Lord's service, you would have behaved yourself much better than you have up to this point.
> 
> I'll not refer to others who have posted comments, as they have not directly addressed me.


You have the right to offer your opinion of me as you wish.

I retain the ability to recognize a true believer and follower of _Christ_.

I seek forgiveness. John 8:7


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

1. The issue at core is whether a fertilized egg is a human being. If that is true then all living organisms are the same--they are alive and killing those cells is murder. This position is fallacious

2. Sympathy has little to do with murder. It is definition. We live in a culture that says human beings have value and taking their life is murder. The value has nothing to do with sympathy. The 'sympathy' argument that Janet Cooke lists, is exactly what allows people to kill others based on race or ethnicity or religion or gender or species. Due to such prejudices our legal definition of murder does not specify demographics such as age, sex, religion, race, etc. 

3. To repeat, the argument is when something becomes a separate human being or a separate life. And at the moment, the start of being a human being is still just an opinion, a conjecture. If someone feels life begins at conception, that is well and good for them. However, it is not acceptable to project that personal belief onto others. That is what is meant by living in a society with freedom of belief--but it is only for yourself, not for anyone to force those beliefs onto others.

4. To project onto society, it is a democratic principle that all people have a right to exist and live the way they want as long as they don't hurt others or impose their way of life on others. That is what freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness means.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/?utm_source=NDUpdate+Interview&utm_campaign=NDUpdate.com+Email&utm_medium=email

I would like people to read this link. It clearly details all the ways that people are sucked into misinformation. This discussion is an example of the result of many of these tactics.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

yvonne m said:


> Good grief!! I can't believe how personal and nasty this has become.


Yvonne: the post of Cheeky Blighter's you referred to (directed to me) is mild in the words Cheeky Blighter posts publicly and privately to me on KP.

From the first days I began posting on KP, Cheeky Blighter and her group of Liberal friends (the core I have named below) have posted so much hatred and anger you would be duly appalled.

If you have the time and/or interest, read the back posts of CheekyBlighter(ConanO'k), BrattyPatty, Susanmos2000, Alcameron, Huckleberry/Ingried, Jelun2/JanetCooke, MaidinBedlam/SeattleSoul, Damemary, FreedomFries, Rocky1941, Nussa and Peacegoddess to read their unsolicited words to me.

(the reason for the slashes is because many of the posters changed their KP user name and are, in fact, the same person)

I've never encountered such vile, hate-filled, angry, lying people in my life thus far. I regret same.

Today, I have finally realized that many KPers posters have managed to avoid reading the above posters' disgusting words. For that, I am very grateful as their words would be very harmful and difficult to ignore for many gentle souls and the result could be detrimental to many.

The purpose of me listing names is so that you or anyone questioning if I lie, exaggerate or have intended harm to anyone in my posts of response, may decide for herself if I initiated any of what I have called unsolicited and hateful posts to me.

Thank you for listening and your concern of the words of us all.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

The very real war on women.

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working. 
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

Sources:

1. "'Forcible Rape' Language Remains In Bill To Restrict Abortion Funding," The Huffington Post, February 9, 2011 
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206084

"Extreme Abortion Coverage Ban Introduced," Center for American Progress, January 20, 2011 
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205961

2. "Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As 'Accusers,'" The Huffington Post, February 4, 2011 
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206007

3. "South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors," Salon, February 15, 2011 
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/15/south_dakota_abortion_killing_bill

4. "House GOP Proposes Cuts to Scores of Sacred Cows," National Journal, February 9, 2011 
http://nationaljournal.com/house-gop-proposes-cuts-to-scores-of-sacred-cows-20110209

5. "New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion," Talking Points Memo, February 4, 2011 
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205974

6. "Republican Officials Cut Head Start Funding, Saying Women Should be Married and Home with Kids," Think Progress, February 16, 2011 
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/16/gop-women-kids/

7. "Bye Bye, Big Bird. Hello, E. Coli," The New Republic, Feburary 12, 2011 
http://www.tnr.com/blog/83387/house-republican-spending-cuts-pell-education-usda-pbs

8. "House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy," The Hill, February 16, 2011 
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy-

9. "House passes measure stripping Planned Parenthood funding," MSNBC, February 18,2011
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/18/6080756-house-passes-measure-stripping-planned-parenthood-funding

"GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds," Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011 
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/gop-spending-plan-x-ing-out-title-x-family-planning-funds/

10. Ibid.

"Birth Control for Horses, Not for Women," Blog for Choice, February 17, 2011 
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2011/02/birth-control-f.html


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

knitpresentgifts--you have just demonstrated the name calling that you hate. How can you castigate someone with political name calling as you did by writing off some posters as "liberal." Maybe you have no clue as to what liberal means. Maybe I consider some of those people conservative. And maybe I find your use of such language offensive and manipulative.

And maybe I see that all of those who hide themselves in some alleged religion are very narrow minded, unfactual, and to use their standard, very unchristian. 

So while you may think of yourself as being an informer and a decent, why not wear someone else's shoes for some time and see what that feels like.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> I hardly know what to say. I'm so glad you posted this, and I'd like to keep it as a reminder of what some people endure and - in your case - rise above. No, I have never walked in your shoes and can't imagine how you overcame all those difficulties. You are very strong. I will remember this post for a long time. Thank you, GrannyGoode.


I believe we all have great worth and, thus, can contribute much towards improving our own lot in life, whatever our circumstances might have been from the get-go. Not a one of us came from the gutter. Of this I am absolutely certain.

We literally ride on the shoulders of millions who came before us, people of our own ancestry who sacrificed in unimaginable ways for the sakes of their children. Today's 'gimme gimme' mindset is a new method of providing for one's needs at the expense of others' needs, especially when considered against the backdrop of several millennia of human suffering. That understanding, and the tender mercies of the Lord, provide the strength I need to "arise, and [humbly] let my light shine." God gets the credit, not I. Thank you for your kind thoughts.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Janet Cooke said:


> It's history, yvonne m, shared history.
> We are all embarrassed at one point or another to have other people see how others can get under our skin so.


Really? That's what you are going with, It's history? There was absolutely no need for Cheeky to say what she did. NONE WHATSOEVER. She chose just to please herself and get whatever jolly's her rant produced and was looking for the usual favorable response from her BFF's. You certainly didn't disappoint.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

nuclearfinz said:


> Controversial issues are good. It allows me to see other perspectives and there will always be someone who has a new take on a situation. I don't always agree but I always want to hear other opinions. The thing I absolutely can not abide by is name calling. I welcome opposing opinions but only in a respectful manner. Any other way and I just consider the viewpoint to be from an unintelligent person and is not worth my time.


I feel the same way you do. As we talk things over, learning from and about each other, I am constantly amazed at how much we really have in common after all the differences (so called) have been aired and allowed to float away with the next breeze. We always seem to have more in common with each other AFTER the storm, seems to me.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Where have they infringed on others rights? Their employees are free to buy anything they want. If you have read any of Hobby Lobby's press statement, you should know they are self-insured. Do you even know what "self-insured" means? What law have they broken? The one in question is not in the ACA. It is an added rule put in by the HHS. What is more important, the Constitution or a rule written by HHS?


Joey, I believe that HHS has been given a lot of power throughout the ACA. The words "at the discretion of the HHS" appears in many places in the law. So if HHS decides something shall be so, it is basically backed up in the law. I guess it would also mean that if HHS wants to change something, it can be done as well.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Pro-choice means exactly what it's used for: allow the woman in question her choice about what to do - some will go through with abortion, some will choose not to. Pro-life, on the other hand, is definitely inaccurate. I've never known what it meant - it seems to mean "pro-life of the unborn; the living are unimportant."


Pro-life means supporting life from conception to natural death.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> The very real war on women.
> 
> Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women
> 1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.
> ...


OMG, this is scary stuff. Can you imagine this country with a republican controlled congress and a republican president? Having to give 4 responses to the SOTU address makes their party even more fractured than I thought. They are coming apart at the seams.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Why are you so ignorant of the facts?
> 
> Being a homosexual is not a sin. Being divorced is not a sin. Why would they not be allowed to receive the Eucharist?
> 
> ...


 It's tough. It's a high standard, and your explanation was very good.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> That seems to be pretty much what it means.
> My hero, Mother Jones, said "pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living", these folks seem to pray for the potential and say to heck with the living.


No, not the heck wlth the living. Lots of time and money are spent helping people in need. You just don't know about it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Joey, I believe that HHS has been given a lot of power throughout the ACA. The words "at the discretion of the HHS" appears in many places in the law. So if HHS decides something shall be so, it is basically backed up in the law. I guess it would also mean that if HHS wants to change something, it can be done as well.


Departments stuck with the job of implementing laws are known as regulatory agencies for a reason. Legislators get off easy with providing an outline and the people who work at the regulatory agency do the actual work of implementing the law. 
It is pretty much like being a teacher, the Dept. of Ed comes up with a plan driven by a law formulated by the legislators or whatever entity has bought them off. 
That plan filters down through the system and teachers get to do the final implementation.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> We not only get other perspectives but can also see how totally nasty some people can become when their opinions are not bowed down to.
> 
> It is unfortunate that the terms liberal and conservative have digressed so far from their original meanings. Each has been hijacked by radical proponents of the most narrow aspect of their meaning.
> 
> ...


No attack whatsoever coming from this Pro-Lifer. Violence committed against persons who do not share my views is unjustifiable. Period. I say that boldly, unequivocally and without apology because I know what the Holy Scriptures teach us regarding our treatment of our fellow human beings.

I also support capital punishment for capital offenses. How's that for a new can of worms? One example will suffice. . . organized murder taking place outside an abortion clinic is always premeditated murder -- in terms both legal and moral -- and as such, deserves punishment equal to its heinous origins. Come to that, regardless of man's punishment rendered to those guilty, it will be as nothing compared to the punishment the offender will receive from Almighty God.

"So why doesn't she just leave it all in God's hands?" you may ask. My answer is without ambiguity. We humans have a sacred responsibility to protect and defend other humans who are in danger of losing their lives at the evil hands of still other humans whose only desire is to destroy life.

Makes no difference to me if the murdered victim has just finished a full day's work at an abortion clinic or if he/she is about to begin a 10-hr shift at St. Jude's Hospital to care for burns patients.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> No, not the heck wlth the living. Lots of time and money are spent helping people in need. You just don't know about it.


and you seem not to know how little is actually spent helping those who need it. part of the GOP war on women is to insult them as to their ability to know how to work. on one hand they blame single mothers, without any regard to why they are single parents. on the other hand they focus on the children with platitudes and polite statements about helping them. however, children live in families with parents, male/female/both.

joblessness is not something designed by people in need. however, it is designed by the 1% who see people as expendible via war, imprisonment, drugs. all of these routes are big money makers for the 1%. and when there is no more $ to be sucked out of the public coffers over these people, then they can simply die and be done for. harsh statement? well very harsh reality.

abortion is just one single strategy for survival of the family. family planning works a whole lot better so why is the GOP always attacking Planned Parenthood? Simply because it does empower women. In a patriarchal cultures, and ours is one, men seek their power by controlling women. independent women are a threat to the male entitlment. that is the only reason for attacking family planning and abortion. it has nothing to do with morality or valuing life. if those people valued life, they would not be supporting invasive wars and starvation tactics.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> No attack whatsoever coming from this Pro-Lifer. Violence committed against persons who do not share my views is unjustifiable. Period. I say that boldly, unequivocally and without apology because I know what the Holy Scriptures teach us regarding our treatment of our fellow human beings.
> 
> I also support capital punishment for capital offenses. How's that for a new can of worms? One example will suffice. . . organized murder taking place outside an abortion clinic is always premeditated murder -- in terms both legal and moral -- and as such, deserves punishment equal to its heinous origins. Come to that, regardless of man's punishment rendered to those guilty, it will be as nothing compared to the punishment the offender will receive from Almighty God.


Amazing! I believe exactly the opposite. I'm pro-choice and not in favor of the death penalty--not even for those who kill abortion doctors and blow up clinics.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

I love the variation of ideas and the diverse places they come from. Now if people could listen without hostility ad self-righteousness, we would be in a much better place.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You have the right to offer your opinion of me as you wish.
> 
> I retain the ability to recognize a true believer and follower of _Christ_.
> 
> I seek forgiveness. John 8:7


*Everything really is alright, KPG. We are sisters. We have much more in common than we have differences. I would take a bullet for you any day if doing so would save your life. Love you to the moon and back, so help me.*


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Pro-life means supporting life from conception to natural death.


That's certainly what it should mean, but once again (and again) I ask why the death penalty and wars are supported by the so-called pro-lifers? I think anti-abortion is the only position that covers you, the Mormons, Catholics, clinic-bombers, and doctor-murderers, among others.

In any case, this question is moot. We're not going to change these titles, so please let's stop going back and forth about it.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Not to change the subject, but Skippy Jon Jones books are so funny! Really cute. Victoria has good taste in books.


They are awesome! I love how it sneakily teaches Spanish words. The person who wrote those books really knew what they were doing. And the accents you can do are so fun, lol,


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

GrannyGoode said:


> My mother's natural father's people were Irish Quakers, name of O'Neall. At the sage age of 14 yrs I was baptized a Latter-day Saint. We are often called Mormons. Earlier, on a different thread, I stated that my Kentucky people were fighters, etc. That is my father's side of the family. Please forgive this lengthy clarification before answering your question. It occurred to me moments ago that perhaps folks remembered the earlier post and maybe I had confused them greatly.
> 
> Some of my mother's great-grandfathers were disfellowshipped from the Quaker Church because they chose to fight in the American Revolution and the Civil War. And Grandpa O'Neall registered for the "Old Man's Draft" during WWII.
> 
> ...


That is interesting that your some of your family had been disfellowshipped. I remember when we were searching for my grandmother's parents graves we searched a few Quaker cemeteries. There was one that had graves way off of the others and that we're facing the other way. We were told that they had been spouses, who were not Quaker, but had married a Quaker. They could be married in the same cemetery but not with the rest. I had never seen anything like it in a cemetery before.

I am in the USA. I have two different Quaker churches around here (within about an hour from us), but unfortunately haven't been able to get out to them. I was looking online for a liberal Quaker fellowship, but haven't been able to find one. I found a Christian conservative one, but I am neither, lol.

I wish I had could join you in a Way Back Time Machine! That could be fun


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> I think you're right. It's hard to really understand someone's position unless you've been there. I've seen people in my family struggle and certainly do without some of the basics, but never to the point that they could abort a baby. That's probably because they always knew that in the end they'd have some back-up from family. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. We're retired, fixed income, moderate savings. Still, we're haven't had the hardships you're talking about. Maybe I'm too far removed to truly feel what that would be like. And to tell you the truth, that's why I believe it's not my place to judge people. I don't know what they're really going through. I don't know what has made them make certain decisions. Life isn't easy. I just hope that we can stop choosing abortion as a solution - because in my heart I feel we don't have that right. I've felt that way so long that it's a part of me. And I feel a moral obligation to at least speak up for the unborn babies.
> 
> I think that lack of deep understanding is true of most people, not just Republicans. I've heard people say things about conservatives that I know aren't true. We just can't get inside each other's heads. These opinions we have are not just reasoned, they're the result of all our life experience, strongly felt and strongly protected.
> 
> Again my post is too long. I'm just trying to say I appreciate what you said and will think about it. I've heard it before, but I think it was the gentle way you put it that made me think about it again - and in a different way - instead of trying to dismiss it. Food for thought, NJG.


 :thumbup:

I have always had a strong family group between my parents and my in laws. When my mil had issues after my fil died we just did what we could to help. She now lives with us. We have just picked up and helped others. I think it really is hard to fathom people just left by themselves with no help at all. We can all sympathize but not truly empathize.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Pro-life means supporting life from conception to natural death.


Truth. Thank you.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> What you do not seem to understand is that the company, Hobby Lobby, is the insurance company. The company, Hobby Lobby, decides what is in the insurance. There is no middle man, unless they have hired a subcontractor, to do the paperwork.
> 
> In no way are they trying to control the health care of their employees. They are free to obtain what ever they want. The only thing is they will not pay for is 4 (I believe) drugs. Why are they not allowed to make that choice. The first amendment states they can. Since Obama took an oath to defend the constitution, why does he think he can take that right away from this company or any other? If he succeeds with this, what is the next freedom he will take away from you?
> 
> ...


Hmm, I was unaware that Hobby Lobby had its own health insurance company. I knew they covered a lot of crafts in their stores, but wow, they run their own health insurance company. They really do have everything!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Please demonstrate for us where the 1st Amendment states that people can, in the exercise of their religious rights, infringe on the rights of others.
> I have no idea whether HL self insures or not. If they have set themselves up as an insurer they need to act as an insurer and follow laws. Otherwise, they need to outsource the work.


 :thumbup:


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It fits often enough, the alternate stance makes no sense.
> Something cannot be murder unless you feel sympathy for it. Isn't murder murder?
> Killing is killing, medical procedures are medical procedures.


Anti-choice doesn't fit. We are not anti the choices of raising the baby and adoption. We are anti-abortion.

I don't understand your second sentence - do you mean the one who performs the murder must feel sympathy for the victim?

Some medical procedures are also killing.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Hobby Lobby provides contraception except for 4(?) types, what more can you ask for?


The fine, imposed through a civil penalty or excise tax, could be as high as $100 a day for each employee receiving a health insurance plan that fails to comply with federal law.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> That is interesting that your some of your family had been disfellowshipped. I remember when we were searching for my grandmother's parents graves we searched a few Quaker cemeteries. There was one that had graves way off of the others and that we're facing the other way. We were told that they had been spouses, who were not Quaker, but had married a Quaker. They could be married in the same cemetery but not with the rest. I had never seen anything like it in a cemetery before.
> 
> I am in the USA. I have two different Quaker churches around here (within about an hour from us), but unfortunately haven't been able to get out to them. I was looking online for a liberal Quaker fellowship, but haven't been able to find one. I found a Christian conservative one, but I am neither, lol.
> 
> I wish I had could join you in a Way Back Time Machine! That could be fun


Some folks would call it a 'library,' whether on real printed pages or online via the myriad of sources available. Point is, you can have your own Way Back Machine!! And once you're comfortably zoned inside and can push 2014 away for awhile, the world is your oyster, Darlin'. Sometimes folks will ask me how I am, and all I can respond with is, "I'm an historian; I don't even know *when* I am."

It would be a privilege to assist you in any way possible, if you like. Ever the student and never the expert, still and all. . . I've been doing historical research since I was 14 yrs of age, the very day after I was baptized a Latter-day Saint. Send me a PM if you are so disposed. Would very much enjoy helping you.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> No attack whatsoever coming from this Pro-Lifer. Violence committed against persons who do not share my views is unjustifiable. Period. I say that boldly, unequivocally and without apology because I know what the Holy Scriptures teach us regarding our treatment of our fellow human beings.
> 
> I also support capital punishment for capital offenses. How's that for a new can of worms? One example will suffice. . . organized murder taking place outside an abortion clinic is always premeditated murder -- in terms both legal and moral -- and as such, deserves punishment equal to its heinous origins. Come to that, regardless of man's punishment rendered to those guilty, it will be as nothing compared to the punishment the offender will receive from Almighty God.
> 
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

GrannyGoode said:


> Some folks would call it a 'library,' whether on real printed pages or online via the myriad of sources available. Point is, you can have your own Way Back Machine!! And once you're comfortably zoned inside and can push 2014 away for awhile, the world is your oyster, Darlin'. Sometimes folks will ask me how I am, and all I can respond with is, "I'm an historian; I don't even know *when* I am."
> 
> It would be a privilege to assist you in any way possible, if you like. Ever the student and never the expert, still and all. . . I've been doing historical research since I was 14 yrs of age, the very day after I was baptized a Latter-day Saint. Send me a PM if you are so disposed. Would very much enjoy helping you.


Oh we have a huge library at home.  Bookshelves and bookshelves, and that's after we've culled them, lol. We are all big readers. We also have tons of family history things. Some I don't have, it's missing or wasn't researched at all.

I would like a real time machine, like from Back to the Future or the Tardis from Dr. Who (timey wimey wibbley wobbly) lol.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> That's certainly what it should mean, but once again (and again) I ask why the death penalty and wars are supported by the so-called pro-lifers? I think anti-abortion is the only position that covers you, the Mormons, Catholics, clinic-bombers, and doctor-murderers, among others.
> 
> In any case, this question is moot. We're not going to change these titles, so please let's stop going back and forth about it.


You think all pro-life people have the same opinions about everything. Do you and your pro-choice supporters think the same way about everything? We don't. I'm pro-life and oppose the death penalty. Someone else just posted that she is pro-life and supports the death penalty. When you paint a group with a broad brush of one color, you are simplifying and you do not understand the people you're attacking.

In abortion, the dead person in an innocent person.

In capital punishment, the dead person is a convicted criminal who has used and lost many appeals over many years.

In war, the dead people are trying to kill the ones who kill them. It is a kill or be kill situation.

In only one case, is the victim definitely innocent. Pro-life people defend that victim. SOME pro-life people also defend the criminal and the opposing warriors. You don't know which of these I support unless I specifically show you by my actions or tell you by my words. Don't paint me with your brush.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

double


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

triple post - this must be a practical joke! :shock:


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> You think all pro-life people have the same opinions about everything. Do you and your pro-choice supporters think the same way about everything? We don't. I'm pro-life and oppose the death penalty. Someone else just posted that she is pro-life and supports the death penalty. When you paint a group with a broad brush of one color, you are simplifying and you do not understand the people you're attacking.
> 
> In abortion, the dead person in an innocent person.
> 
> ...


Remember that goes both ways. All people who support a woman's right to chose come from many nuanced places in their thinking. And I ask again that people differentiate between opinions and facts. Opinions are often based on belief systems which are simply not facts. That IS the definition of a belief system. Facts on the ground are verifiable.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> You think all pro-life people have the same opinions about everything. Do you and your pro-choice supporters think the same way about everything? We don't. I'm pro-life and oppose the death penalty. Someone else just posted that she is pro-life and supports the death penalty. When you paint a group with a broad brush of one color, you are simplifying and you do not understand the people you're attacking.
> 
> In abortion, the dead person in an innocent person.
> 
> ...


Your reading of my message is exactly opposite to what I wrote, as if you decided not to pay any attention to it (which is fine, but then don't send me a scolding response). I even said outright that there's only *one *issue that all so-called pro-life people agree on: being anti-abortion. I would have thought that's about as narrow a brush as one could use. Anything else you think I said was a gross misunderstanding.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

tamarque said:


> Remember that goes both ways. All people who support a woman's right to chose come from many nuanced places in their thinking. And I ask again that people differentiate between opinions and facts. Opinions are often based on belief systems which are simply not facts. That IS the definition of a belief system. Facts on the ground are verifiable.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> Hi, this is for you too, NJG (did I get that correctly?)
> I appreciate the candor with which you, BonBon (?) and NJG, have shared your tender feelings, and so I feel safe in opening up a bit about my family's poverty. Mom and Dad were divorced for one year. During that time Mom and us kids lived in a chicken coop north of San Francisco, in a very small town called Pt. Reyes Station, in Marin County. I am a native Californian, my father's people are from Kentucky. Daddy stopped drinking and my parents got remarried. He took us out of that dreadful place, back home to Sacramento in the summer of 1958. Four months later he was dead. Then Mom started drinking and was an alcoholic within six months. Tried to take her life several times, and tried to take all five of us with her on three separate occasions, gas from the kitchen stove. So she spent 18 mos or so in a state hospital, we were farmed out again, and then reunited again just as I entered 8th grade. Don't much care about paragraph structure just now, just want to get this down and send it on its not-so-merry way and be done with it. Please, you guys, this is not a pity party. I just want you to understand that my reasons for being a Republican have nothing at all to do with having been born with a silver spoon in my mouth. HA! All my people were blue collar FDR Dems (but only to the core), Union strikers, independent midwestern farmers (Dems back in dem ol' days) [ok to giggle at the pun], and Daddy built bridges in the SF Bay Area after WWII, joined his daddy in that work. Grandpa Goode came to CA from KY in 1908 at the age of 16 riding the rails to get a job, and SF was still rebuilding itself after the 1906 earthquake and fire, so... SF was THE happenin' place and Sacramento became home. Daddy did the high work, he "walked the iron" as they say, afraid of nothing. But when he was called home, we were terrified of everything. Not a one of us overcame the loss of our Daddy. Homeless kid? Been there. Homeless single mom with five kids of my own on my shoulders? Been there. Homeless grandma? Been there, until my children found out and then they jumped down my gullet and pulled together and saved me. Bless their hearts. Now I live in HUD housing with mostly disabled Seniors who have had tougher breaks in life than I have had. Sometimes their own choices put them where they are now. Sometimes health problems not of their own making landed them here. Makes no difference to me if we took the scenic route or the freeway to government subsidized housing, Medicaid and food stamps. Actually, 90% of us in this apt complex have been cut off Medicaid AND food stamps, (Thank you, Mr. Pres), so we are strapped more than ever. You may wonder to yourselves, "Why doesn't she join the liberal set and vote Democrat? Why hang with the Repubs?" Because. . . for all the poverty, homelessness, heartache, ill health (physical, mental, emotional) over an entire lifetime, my core beliefs remain the same as what I was taught by my blue collar family -- you work hard, maintain traditional marriage ONLY, welcome children into your bosom and cherish them and run like hell to keep up with them, and you don't let anybody step on you. Today's Democratic party is not the party of FDR. My people would be happy to know I switched sides so that I could fight for traditional family values, and still be what they taught me to be -- my brother's keeper. Must admit I am frustrated by some Repubs' attitudes that blind them to the real needs of their fellow Americans. If you're still reading this, you are truly kind and I thank you for hearing me out. Just want you to know I'm not a stuffy silver-spooned rich witch. But I am well-bred and well-read, because that's what my people taught me. Ain't gonna edit. Comin' atcha. . .xoxoxo


Read your story and so glad to hear you were able to rise above the things you have experienced, although I believe our experiences help to make us who we are. The first thing that struck me was your statement that 90% of the people in your apt complex have been cut off Medicaid AND food stamps, and then you say thank you, Mr. President. You are blaming the wrong person. It is republicans who are cutting food stamps, so I don't understand how you can blame President Obama and would appreciate if you could explain that to me. 
Democrats also believe in hard work, and believe that we do not have the right to discriminate against anyone that wants to get married. Two men or two women that get married do absolutely no harm to anyone elses marriage. Thankfully the country is beginning to change this attitude. I don't believe the majority should ever be able to vote on or tell the minority what they can and can not do. 
Quote: welcome children into your bosom and cherish them and run like hell to keep up with them, and you don't let anybody step on you. I don't know why you would think we don't feel that way also. If you are thinking of abortion, we do not feel you have the right to tell someone else how to live their life. Weather or not a woman has an abortion is that woman's decision, not yours.
Being your brothers keeper is something you believe in, but it has not been part of the republican platform for quite some time. The cutting of food stamps, cutting medicaid benefits, wanting to turn medicare into a voucher program and privatize social security, voting no to equal pay for men and women for doing the same job, trying to destroy the right to vote for minorities, not willing to raise the minimum wage, but at the same time cutting the snap program so the working poor will be in worse shape than they are now. I lost half of my 401K during the recession, but so glad Bush didn't get to privatize SS or that could be gone too. I could go on and on. 
I hear over and over that raising the minimum wage will cause job loss, but it has been proven wrong over and over. All we heard during the Bush administration was that taxes had to be lowered for the job creators. Well taxes were lowered and we lost how many jobs? There were none created. The tax cuts helped the rich stash more money in their pockets, but didn't create any jobs. 
The top 1% have been making money and doing great, but the rest of the country not so much. That is because all the money is staying at the top. Wages are stagnant for the middle class because the corporations are keeping money at the top. Companies like Costco are paying a living wage to its employees and still making a profit. Could Walmart and McDonalds and other big companies do the same? Of course they could. Does a ceo really need a 4 million dollar bonus? If all the working poor could receive a living wage, all that money would be spent and put back into the economy. But the republicans are not worried about the working poor, they are worried about the 1% and want them to be able to keep more of their money. Well if it weren't for their employees, they wouldn't be making that much money. That is not hard to understand. Republicans would also like to do away with all unions. What would that do for the workers? It would allow the corporations to pay any salary they wanted and the workers would have no one to stand up for them.

I had a great childhood, growing up on a farm in Iowa. I didn't have everything I wanted, but had everything I needed and I raised my girls the same way. My husband died in a car accident when my oldest daughter was two and I was pregnant with my second daughter. I raised them by myself with the help of ss survivors benefits and then going to work when they were both in school. They both have a college degree and both are running their own business now and doing well. We had to struggle as many people do, but we had great family backup and we had everything we needed. This has gone on way too long, but it is truly how I feel. The best part of this all is that I have two beautiful grandchildren. Can't get any better than that.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bonbf3 quote You think all pro-life people have the same opinions about everything. Do you and your pro-choice supporters think the same way about everything? We don't. I'm pro-life and oppose the death penalty. Someone else just posted that she is pro-life and supports the death penalty. When you paint a group with a broad brush of one color, you are simplifying and you do not understand the people you're attacking.


This is something I have said about republicans over and over and over. They have said many times the the people on food stamps don't want to work, are uneducated, and are lazy. I have said many times you can't paint them all with the same brush, because you have no ides how they got to where they are.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

damemary said:


> My but you're nasty 'today.' Do you wish to have a vindictive tirade of names launched at you? Feeling neglected perhaps. One thing you may not know, most people are insulted by being called 'old' by anyone over 5.


Wouldn't expect anything less than vindictive from you olde Dame!

BTW threatening people is not a good look!


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> What on earth are you talking about, Wombat? You drop in, complain, go away, come back, then start insulting people one after the other. I have no problem with the mirror, but I see no frothing or whatever else you accused the Dame of.
> 
> Was there something you were hoping to accomplish by attacking people this way?


My mission is accomplished ye olde purle!!!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> My mission is accomplished ye olde purle!!!


Thank goodness. Goodbye.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Thank goodness. Goodbye.


Not goodbye ole purle - until we meet again!


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> It's tough. It's a high standard, and your explanation was very good.


Thanks. Funny how the truth stopped that conversation about the Church and homosexuals. But the believers of Relativism don't understand having a faith based way of life and living it even if it is difficult. Too many of the cultists of Relativism do not have the guts to live by a religious/spiritual set of core values and would rather use the cop out phase, 'Can't we agree to disagree?" then sit around a campfire singing Kumbaya


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Stupid men, go back to your man caves and leave us women and out libido alone!!!!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> Pro-life means supporting life from conception to natural death.


So, does this mean you are against CPR and mechanical means of keeping a person alive? That is trying to thwart natural death.

What about withdrawal of care? That would not exactly fall into "natural death".

What about death during surgery? That could not be terms "natural" nor could death from cancer treatments (cancer would be a natural death).

I ask not to be a smart aleck, but because it is actually these very issues that can divide those who use your definition of pro-life.

Some believe that you need to do EVERYTHING and anything to keep people alive and never just withdraw care, they see that as murder.

Some believe that people should be able to refuse care is cancer or terminal illness and die earlier, some people call that a suicide.

So you see, using that definition does not fit all pro-life, or even the majority, or pro-life because then you start to fall into end of life issues and that is just a whole other barrel'o fun.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

tamarque said:


> and you seem not to know how little is actually spent helping those who need it. part of the GOP war on women is to insult them as to their ability to know how to work. on one hand they blame single mothers, without any regard to why they are single parents. on the other hand they focus on the children with platitudes and polite statements about helping them. however, children live in families with parents, male/female/both.
> 
> joblessness is not something designed by people in need. however, it is designed by the 1% who see people as expendible via war, imprisonment, drugs. all of these routes are big money makers for the 1%. and when there is no more $ to be sucked out of the public coffers over these people, then they can simply die and be done for. harsh statement? well very harsh reality.
> 
> abortion is just one single strategy for survival of the family. family planning works a whole lot better so why is the GOP always attacking Planned Parenthood? Simply because it does empower women. In a patriarchal cultures, and ours is one, men seek their power by controlling women. independent women are a threat to the male entitlment. that is the only reason for attacking family planning and abortion. it has nothing to do with morality or valuing life. if those people valued life, they would not be supporting invasive wars and starvation tactics.


I don't agree. I'm not a Republican, but I think your view of them is extreme to the point of irrational. When I hear something totally outrageous, I try to remember that if something seems as bad that, there's probably more to the story.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

NJG said:


> bonbf3 quote You think all pro-life people have the same opinions about everything. Do you and your pro-choice supporters think the same way about everything? We don't. I'm pro-life and oppose the death penalty. Someone else just posted that she is pro-life and supports the death penalty. When you paint a group with a broad brush of one color, you are simplifying and you do not understand the people you're attacking.
> 
> This is something I have said about republicans over and over and over. They have said many times the the people on food stamps don't want to work, are uneducated, and are lazy. I have said many times you can't paint them all with the same brush, because you have no ides how they got to where they are.


Apparently people on both sides have gotten their hands on that broad brush. Not surprising, but not too enlightening either. I've noticed that side A accuses B of the same things B accuses A of doing. I think it comes from not really knowing each other.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

GrannyGoode: Your story is very familiar to many. However, what you have done with your experiences politically is a mystery to me. I can only understand it by thinking how you have fallen prey to GOP political propaganda based on emotional hysteria. The GOP is the party that particularly attacked the concept of a collective good. It has worked hard to destroy any sense of community and mutual responsibility. It is the GOP and many right wing fundamentalists who attack, non-stop, the idea that government of, by and for the people means that we collectively take care of the needs of all. 

It is said that a society/country is judged by how it deals with its poorest and most needy. Given the GOP assault on the poor and working people, we live in a dismal State that is totally heartless. Privatization of Social Security has been exposed for the sham it really is: another way to suck more money out of working people for the wealthy. Privatization of almost everything always costs the public more with worsening services. How many know that Publically Controlled utilities has a long history of providing services at 30-50% less cost to the consumer. That privatization of government services in the military has cost us billions of dollars. Think Halliburton in Iraq. How many millions are unaccounted for? That was a Bush debacle--both the war and the privatization of services there.

Not to get too off track here--the whole abortion/pro-choice issue is more of the same rip off of the public. In this case it is a rip off of our attention to meaningful problems. It has been used to create hysteria and divisiveness. Just look at this discussion. It has been an argument created by men in power to rip off any cooperation between people on issues such as jobs, support programs, education, etc; ie, all the real issues that affect the quality of our lives. What happens in my bedroom and the consequences thereof, has absolutely no bearing on anyone else's life and should not be the subject of anyone's discussion except mine with whom I chose to speak.

But in the meantime this story of survival by GrannyGoode who ends up aligning herself with the very people who clearly destroy all means of social and economic support for people getting older and retired is exactly the problem.
It is always the people on the left who have supported collective social policy and demanded equity for workers and better living conditions. Those are facts on the ground--not opinion. GrannyGoode's choices are based on her opinions which are not based on facts. Too bad.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> So, does this mean you are against CPR and mechanical means of keeping a person alive? That is trying to thwart natural death.
> 
> What about withdrawal of care? That would not exactly fall into "natural death".
> 
> ...


I ask not to be a smart aleck, but because it is actually these very issues that can divide those who use your definition of pro-life.

Lkholcomb,
I follow my church's teaching which allows for extraordinary means but does not require them. Just food, water, and pain relief are acceptable - as are life support measures.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Amazing! I believe exactly the opposite. I'm pro-choice and not in favor of the death penalty--not even for those who kill abortion doctors and blow up clinics.


So are you saying you support the killing of unborn babies and do not support the killing of convicted criminals?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Thanks. Funny how the truth stopped that conversation about the Church and homosexuals. But the believers of Relativism don't understand having a faith based way of life and living it even if it is difficult. Too many of the cultists of Relativism do not have the guts to live by a religious/spiritual set of core values and would rather use the cop out phase, 'Can't we agree to disagree?" then sit around a campfire singing Kumbaya


Agreeing to disagree doesn't go against personal spiritual believes unless those person spiritual beliefs involve evangelizing others or ruling others. Plenty of religions and spiritual people do not believe in either.

I personally live my spiritual beliefs, no matter how difficult it may be at times. But I have agreed to "agree to disagree" with people because my spiritual beliefs are just that MINE and personal.

When it comes to politics I will try to change policy, but I realize that I am ultimately only responsible for my actions, not others.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> That's certainly what it should mean, but once again (and again) I ask why the death penalty and wars are supported by the so-called pro-lifers? I think anti-abortion is the only position that covers you, the Mormons, Catholics, clinic-bombers, and doctor-murderers, among others.
> 
> In any case, this question is moot. We're not going to change these titles, so please let's stop going back and forth about it.


And I ask why the killing of innocent babies is condoned by you, but not the killing of soldiers who are aiming at us and criminals who have been tried, convicted, and used many appeals to no avail? That just doesn't make sense. Surely the enemy soldiers and the killers deserve to be killed as much as the unborn babies. ?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> You think all pro-life people have the same opinions about everything. Do you and your pro-choice supporters think the same way about everything? We don't. I'm pro-life and oppose the death penalty. Someone else just posted that she is pro-life and supports the death penalty. When you paint a group with a broad brush of one color, you are simplifying and you do not understand the people you're attacking.
> 
> In abortion, the dead person in an innocent person.
> 
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Your reading of my message is exactly opposite to what I wrote, as if you decided not to pay any attention to it (which is fine, but then don't send me a scolding response). I even said outright that there's only *one *issue that all so-called pro-life people agree on: being anti-abortion. I would have thought that's about as narrow a brush as one could use. Anything else you think I said was a gross misunderstanding.


You're right - I didn't understand that as your meaning. Excuse me. I must have read it too quickly. We are in agreement.


----------



## Bloomers (Oct 11, 2013)

All life is sacred and no person has the right to take another person's life. If you have an unexpected pregnancy that does not give you the right to take that baby's life, no matter what. China is facing a major crisis because of their policy favoring small families. They have no women to marry the men for several generations. When human beings mess with God's plan it always leads to problems. If you are carrying a child that child has the right to life the same as you do. If for whatever reason, you do not wish to raise that child then put it up for adoption. There are MANY people dying to have children and can't. If you are in an unexpected pregnancy there are clinics all over the country with loving people who will help you thru this time, without condemnation. Do the right thing not the selfish thing, please.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Your reading of my message is exactly opposite to what I wrote, as if you decided not to pay any attention to it (which is fine, but then don't send me a scolding response). I even said outright that there's only *one *issue that all so-called pro-life people agree on: being anti-abortion. I would have thought that's about as narrow a brush as one could use. Anything else you think I said was a gross misunderstanding.


Yes, I reread your post and I did misunderstand. It has been stated as fact so many times that pro-life people are for the death penalty and wars that when I read that part, I went on automatic pilot to respond. Sorry about that. I'm glad you cleared it up.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

tamarque said:


> Remember that goes both ways. All people who support a woman's right to chose come from many nuanced places in their thinking. And I ask again that people differentiate between opinions and facts. Opinions are often based on belief systems which are simply not facts. That IS the definition of a belief system. Facts on the ground are verifiable.


Some belief systems do have their basis in historical fact. I'm not about to write a dissertation on that subject. I'm worn out on the pro-life issue.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> All life is sacred and no person has the right to take another person's life. If you have an unexpected pregnancy that does not give you the right to take that baby's life, no matter what. China is facing a major crisis because of their policy favoring small families. They have no women to marry the men for several generations. When human beings mess with God's plan it always leads to problems. If you are carrying a child that child has the right to life the same as you do. If for whatever reason, you do not wish to raise that child then put it up for adoption. There are MANY people dying to have children and can't. If you are in an unexpected pregnancy there are clinics all over the country with loving people who will help you thru this time, without condemnation. Do the right thing not the selfish thing, please.


Thank you for your post.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> I ask not to be a smart aleck, but because it is actually these very issues that can divide those who use your definition of pro-life.
> 
> Lkholcomb,
> I follow my church's teaching which allows for extraordinary means but does not require them. Just food, water, and pain relief are acceptable - as are life support measures.


You do realize though that your believes would put you diametrically opposed to some other "pro-lifers" who * require * any and all means, extraordinary or not, to keep a person "alive".

I think, personally, calling someone who is anti-abortion "pro-life" does not fit for that very reason. Is it not anti-abortion the only thing that really is the true commonality?


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> You do realize though that your believes would put you diametrically opposed to some other "pro-lifers" who * require * any and all means, extraordinary or not, to keep a person "alive".
> 
> I think, personally, calling someone who is anti-abortion "pro-life" does not fit for that very reason. Is it not anti-abortion the only thing that really is the true commonality?


You are entitled to your opinion. As I said before, the pro-life community is made up of individuals who do not walk in lock-step, but who have differing opinions on many subjects along with the SAME opinion on the sanctity of life.

Now, I'm finished explaining and defending my position. I'm tired of answering the same question over and over. It is a question that has as its goal diversion from the sanctity of life issue, from the anti-abortion issue. The questions do not aim to understand but to undermine. I'm not here for that. It is a waste of time.

Have a lovely evening.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Bloomers said:


> All life is sacred and no person has the right to take another person's life. If you have an unexpected pregnancy that does not give you the right to take that baby's life, no matter what. China is facing a major crisis because of their policy favoring small families. They have no women to marry the men for several generations. When human beings mess with God's plan it always leads to problems. If you are carrying a child that child has the right to life the same as you do. If for whatever reason, you do not wish to raise that child then put it up for adoption. There are MANY people dying to have children and can't. If you are in an unexpected pregnancy there are clinics all over the country with loving people who will help you thru this time, without condemnation. Do the right thing not the selfish thing, please.


If there are so many people dying to raise children, why is there still so many children up for adoption waiting for homes?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> You are entitled to your opinion. As I said before, the pro-life community is made up of individuals who do not walk in lock-step, but who have differing opinions on many subjects along with the SAME opinion on the sanctity of life.
> 
> Now, I'm finished explaining and defending my position. I'm tired of answering the same question over and over. It is a question that has as its goal diversion from the sanctity of life issue, from the anti-abortion issue. The questions do not aim to understand but to undermine. I'm not here for that. It is a waste of time.
> 
> Have a lovely evening.


I do apologize, it was not a question meant to cause division.

I personally am not opposed to being grouped in with many different groups of many different believes under the heading "anti-war". I could be grouped in with people who ate pacifists to those who oppose war on financial grounds. But the only thing we all truly agree on, and what brings us together ( * not * that which divides us) is our common belief against war. It by no means implies that we are in "lock step" together. I may indeed be principally opposed to those very same people on different issues. It is actually a way to raise the numbers of people in your group, by including all those convicted of the same thing to join in no matter why.

I apologize if you took away that I was trying to cause division.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Some belief systems do have their basis in historical fact. I'm not about to write a dissertation on that subject. I'm worn out on the pro-life issue.


Maybe I should/could have been a bit clearer. Belief systems based on faith are not based on fact, by definition. And here is the entire problem with this incredibly long discussion. When a fertilized egg becomes a person is still up for grabs. Those who think personhood begins at conception do so on faith based belief only. And some of those people will resort to violence against the living to prove their faulty point.

Many do not agree with that opinion. Many think someone becomes a human being only after a certain stage of development in utero. Others don't acknowledge personhood until birth. The only factual statement is that a new life is recognized once it is born legally. In utero, a fetus cannot sustain life on its own until fairly late in its development, and then only once it is removed from the uterus.

Who gets to control what is the fight. But not seen in this discussion to date is the fact that throughout history women have used abortion to control their lives and the survival of their communities. Abortion is as old as old gets and that goes back to alleged biblical times. And even good Catholics subscribe to abortion when it seems necessary. Nothing is written in stone despite the mythology; life develops individually and collectively. Attitudes change on all issues. I find it more interesting to question how attitudes change and why people cling to old practices when they no longer serve a practical use.


----------



## crochetknit Deb (Sep 18, 2012)

Fundamentalists are only interested in power and control.


----------



## crochetknit Deb (Sep 18, 2012)

Fundamentalists are only interested in power and control.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> And I ask why the killing of innocent babies is condoned by you, but not the killing of soldiers who are aiming at us and criminals who have been tried, convicted, and used many appeals to no avail? That just doesn't make sense. Surely the enemy soldiers and the killers deserve to be killed as much as the unborn babies. ?


They are not "babies" until they are born. All you pro-life people use the word baby, however it does not change the fact that these fetuses are not viable and can not live outside a mother's uterus. By calling them babies, does not make them so.

How many convicted murderers have been proven innocent? How many innocent people have been murdered by the state? Can we always trust prosecutors and juries? Nothing is absolute.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

thank you for posting this article. It helps to know what the trials are, raising a child with disabilities and feeling at wit's end. My neighbors have a son who will be graduating from high school this Spring. I just love him. He will not be going to college, an apartment or even getting a job due to his autism. He has frequent melt-downs but seems more functional than this little girl in the article and the little boy who died in my town last week. These families need help and I don't have the answers.


susanmos2000 said:


> Yes--and even when the parent goes public with his or her struggle, help is not always forthcoming. My sister told me about this woman, and it made me want to cry. The article doesn't mention it, but the women in question even wrote a book about her experiences a few years back.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/embattled-michigan-mom-writer-attempts-murder-suicide-with-autistic-daughter


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yvonne: the post of Cheeky Blighter's you referred to (directed to me) is mild in the words Cheeky Blighter posts publicly and privately to me on KP.
> 
> From the first days I began posting on KP, Cheeky Blighter and her group of Liberal friends (the core I have named below) have posted so much hatred and anger you would be duly appalled.
> 
> ...


When I first started on KP, I was also attacked by Cheeky, then called Conan. It does not stop. If it happens to you, my advice is to ignore those posts.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> And I ask why the killing of innocent babies is condoned by you, but not the killing of soldiers who are aiming at us and criminals who have been tried, convicted, and used many appeals to no avail? That just doesn't make sense. Surely the enemy soldiers and the killers deserve to be killed as much as the unborn babies. ?


You've never asked my opinion about soldiers and criminals; what makes you think you know my opinion? I simply bring them up to prove that "pro-life" is not pro-life but only pro-unborn.

I think the problem is that we see different things. To you, a pregnant woman is two people: a woman and a baby. To me there is only a woman with, for the first few month, a clump of cells attached to her circulatory system that could eventually become a child or may stop developing altogether or be so severely deformed that it has no chance of living without pain, or many other possibilities. To me the question is not whether it's okay to kill that potential baby but whether the mother should be forced to carry it to term. If it were possible to remove it from the mother and connect it to some life-support system or implant it in the uterus of another woman, with the view to having someone adopt it in future, I'd happily choose that above simple abortion.

There is also the fact that babies, being cute and helpless, seem so much more worth saving than any adult. But if I had to choose between a woman, possibly with other children who depend on her, with a job that she may lose if she needs to take time off, with all other adult responsibilities - if it were a choice between that woman and the embryo inside her, with all the hazards of pregnancy, I would choose the real mother rather than the potential baby.

What if somehow it weren't a "baby." First, is there a law that mandates that a parent surrender a kidney if his/her child is going into renal failure? I don't know, but it sounds unlikely. Is there even a law that one must donate blood if one's child needs it? Most people do that willingly, but I don't think they'd be charged with a crime if they didn't. So if a parent isn't responsible for giving up part of his/her body to save an actual living child, why should the female parent have to surrender her body for what may or may not become a child.

I have another argument, but this post has gone on forever, and I'm sorry for that. Maybe some other time.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> They are not "babies" until they are born. All you pro-life people use the word baby, however it does not change the fact that these fetuses are not viable and can not live outside a mother's uterus. By calling them babies, does not make them so.
> 
> How many convicted murderers have been proven innocent? How many innocent people have been murdered by the state? Can we always trust prosecutors and juries? Nothing is absolute.


Not to mention the actual children and babies who end up as collateral damage in wartime.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

tamarque said:


> GrannyGoode: Your story is very familiar to many. However, what you have done with your experiences politically is a mystery to me. I can only understand it by thinking how you have fallen prey to GOP political propaganda based on emotional hysteria. The GOP is the party that particularly attacked the concept of a collective good. It has worked hard to destroy any sense of community and mutual responsibility. It is the GOP and many right wing fundamentalists who attack, non-stop, the idea that government of, by and for the people means that we collectively take care of the needs of all.
> 
> It is said that a society/country is judged by how it deals with its poorest and most needy. Given the GOP assault on the poor and working people, we live in a dismal State that is totally heartless. Privatization of Social Security has been exposed for the sham it really is: another way to suck more money out of working people for the wealthy. Privatization of almost everything always costs the public more with worsening services. How many know that Publically Controlled utilities has a long history of providing services at 30-50% less cost to the consumer. That privatization of government services in the military has cost us billions of dollars. Think Halliburton in Iraq. How many millions are unaccounted for? That was a Bush debacle--both the war and the privatization of services there.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bonbf3 said:


> I don't agree. I'm not a Republican, but I think your view of them is extreme to the point of irrational. When I hear something totally outrageous, I try to remember that if something seems as bad that, there's probably more to the story.


You should look at the Republican Platform from the 2012 national election and then decide what is extreme about that statement.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Now this is an interesting game. Have you ever had this discussion with KPG before? 
Love one another?


Written by bonBF3

knitpresentgifts wrote:
Yvonne: the post of Cheeky Blighter's you referred to (directed to me) is mild in the words Cheeky Blighter posts publicly and privately to me on KP.

From the first days I began posting on KP, Cheeky Blighter and her group of Liberal friends (the core I have named below) have posted so much hatred and anger you would be duly appalled.

If you have the time and/or interest, read the back posts of CheekyBlighter(ConanO'k), BrattyPatty, Susanmos2000, Alcameron, Huckleberry/Ingried, Jelun2/JanetCooke, MaidinBedlam/SeattleSoul, Damemary, FreedomFries, Rocky1941, Nussa and Peacegoddess to read their unsolicited words to me.

(the reason for the slashes is because many of the posters changed their KP user name and are, in fact, the same person)

I've never encountered such vile, hate-filled, angry, lying people in my life thus far. I regret same.

Today, I have finally realized that many KPers posters have managed to avoid reading the above posters' disgusting words. For that, I am very grateful as their words would be very harmful and difficult to ignore for many gentle souls and the result could be detrimental to many. 

The purpose of me listing names is so that you or anyone questioning if I lie, exaggerate or have intended harm to anyone in my posts of response, may decide for herself if I initiated any of what I have called unsolicited and hateful posts to me.

Thank you for listening and your concern of the words of us all.


When I first started on KP, I was also attacked by Cheeky, then called Conan. It does not stop. If it happens to you, my advice is to ignore those posts.

"Love one another."


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Now this is an interesting game. Have you ever had this discussion with KPG before?
> Love one another?


I wasn't on the list. Where have I gone wrong?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I wasn't on the list. Where have I gone wrong?


You could go on a nasty tirade if you really want to join the club. I've been relatively quiet for a month and I've been honored.
And now I must leave to photograph my hair.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Oh we have a huge library at home.  Bookshelves and bookshelves, and that's after we've culled them, lol. We are all big readers. We also have tons of family history things. Some I don't have, it's missing or wasn't researched at all.
> 
> I would like a real time machine, like from Back to the Future or the Tardis from Dr. Who (timey wimey wibbley wobbly) lol.


Hmmm. . . wonder if we could put our entrepreneurial talents together and make it happen? That is the American way, after all. Somebody just "thunk it up" and wouldn't you know?. . . IT came to be! We are a nation of tinkerers, and nobody is ever going to stop us. Nobody.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You are right, they have been given a lot of power. But their power needs to end when they try to deny people their constitutional rights. Sibelius and Obama took the oath to defend the constitution. I wonder if they had their fingers crossed when they took the oath.


What constitutional rights of yours have been taken away, joey?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Now this is an interesting game. Have you ever had this discussion with KPG before?
> Love one another?
> 
> Written by bonBF3
> ...


Is the KPG "poor me" thread again? Ladies I suggest you ignore her and move on. What she is pointing fingers at she has done herself. She fails to mention that 90% of the time she instigates these quarrels. And trust me, it is often, especially when things are peaceful on KP. 
No pity party on this thread.
We have all been attacked one time or another. I think pointing out names is very immature on anyone's part.
If you choose to post in a controversial thread such as this, know that hot tempers will flare and harsh words will be spoken. This is the type of thread this woman craves and will at any cost belittle and attack anyone who does not agree with her.
Now that I have said my 2 cents worth, I will add this.
At this point the thread is more contentious than when it started. As for KPG, I say this, if you run with the wolves you better learn how to howl and not show up peeing like a puppy because you got what little feelings you have hurt.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> triple post - this must be a practical joke! :shock:


It's cool, Bonnie. We're probably all a bit pie-eyed right about now. :XD:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

alcameron said:


> You could go on a nasty tirade if you really want to join the club. I've been relatively quiet for a month and I've been honored.
> And now I must leave to photograph my hair.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Not just mine, but of anyone,
> 
> First Amendment
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances._


Could you explain how that has been accomplished?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Not just mine, but of anyone,
> 
> First Amendment
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances._


So, the point of your your quote was more or less nothing, right? Is anyone telling you that you can't speak your mind? Is anyone telling you that you can't worship the deity of your choice? Is anyone barring you from going to church or reading your Bible? The press has more freedom now than they have ever had. People protest all over the country today. And guess what? They are still protesting.
So I will take your comment as empty and meaningless.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> So, the point of your your quote was more or less nothing, right? Is anyone telling you that you can't speak your mind? Is anyone telling you that you can't worship the deity of your choice? Is anyone barring you from going to church or reading your Bible? The press has more freedom now than they have ever had. People protest all over the country today. And guess what? They are still protesting.
> So I will take your comment as empty and meaningless.


I hope to get an answer to my question, as it stands now it appears that the Green family thinks that they should be able to worship not only for themselves, but for their employees.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

NJG said:


> I had a great childhood, growing up on a farm in Iowa. I didn't have everything I wanted, but had everything I needed and I raised my girls the same way. My husband died in a car accident when my oldest daughter was two and I was pregnant with my second daughter. I raised them by myself with the help of ss survivors benefits and then going to work when they were both in school. They both have a college degree and both are running their own business now and doing well. We had to struggle as many people do, but we had great family backup and we had everything we needed. This has gone on way too long, but it is truly how I feel. The best part of this all is that I have two beautiful grandchildren. Can't get any better than that.


Thank you for honest expression of your true political convictions. I both respect and admire you for your candor, and am equally thankful for your excellent manners. I truly mean that. Please understand, I'm not wussing out on politics right now, I merely choose to take a much needed break while I continue to treat a three-day migraine. Something has to give and, as much as I enjoy -- indeed, thrive on -- political discourse, I must pull back from all things controversial just now. I beg you not take offense, for none is intended.

I cannot let the evening end, however, without expressing my empathy for your own hardship of young widowhood. Having seen my mother go through it at a young age, and she remained in widowhood until her passing at the age of 88, I know by observation how difficult your own situation has been.

I can't help but believe that your daughters must be very proud of their Mom for the wonderful example of endurance they witnessed with their own eyes as you bravely faced each sunrise over the many years. Your daughters are most fortunate to have been placed directly into your loving arms from Heavenly Father's arms. And now you have two wonderful grandchildren, how very lovely!! I am truly happy for your happiness. God bless you and all your darlings.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Her friends here are proud of her too, granny.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> When you answer the questions I have asked you. I will think about it.


My answer was that there is no answer until the SCOTUS acts. I am surprised that you didn't respond in the same way.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> But Hobby Lobby has been told they cannot operate their business using Christian principals, If they lose their freedom of religion, I will loose mine also.


They have been told that they cannot keep their employees from enjoying a job benefit that aligns with THEIR religious principles.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> But Hobby Lobby has been told they cannot operate their business using Christian principals, If they lose their freedom of religion, I will loose mine also.


No, they were not told they could not operate the business. They were told that they had to abide by the ACA rules or pay a fine like everyone else, Jewish, Morman, Muslim, etc.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> They have been told that they cannot keep their employees from enjoying a job benefit that aligns with THEIR religious principles.


So true. In fact it appears that Hobby Lobby is stomping on the Firs Amendment rights of their employees. That was easy


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I asked you these questions:
> 
> "Where have they infringed on others rights? Their employees are free to buy anything they want. If you have read any of Hobby Lobby's press statement, you should know they are self-insured. Do you even know what "self-insured" means? What law have they broken? The one in question is not in the ACA. It is an added rule put in by the HHS. What is more important, the Constitution or a rule written by HHS?"
> 
> When you give me your answer to these we can have a further discussion!


Self insured means that they are operating as a health insurance provider. You seem to forget, I worked for a self insured entity for decades. 
They haven't broken any law yet, as the SCOTUS allowed them to defer implementation, I believe. They sued the government, remember?
Should SCOTUS rule against them, they will have two choices. They can comply while continuing to self insure, they can opt for a private health insurance company to take coverage off their self insured hands, or they can break the law and pay the fines. 
All kinds of options, what is that you folks like to say about people being in the positions they are in because of poor choices. This is Hobby Lobby's chance to make a good choice.

While we are questioning who understands how things work. Please review how government agencies implement law by formulating regulations. 
You claim to be a tax preparer, correct? What agency implements tax code? Why?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Not just mine, but of anyone,
> 
> First Amendment
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances._


joeysomma
Really? You are amazing. Bless you.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> So true. In fact it appears that Hobby Lobby is stomping on the Firs Amendment rights of their employees. That was easy


Bratty Patty
Too bad that some people have no choice but to take a job with employers as Hobby Lobby. Applause to Costco. 
Looks like that Hobby Lobby is not doing too well - wonder why. Good riddance.


----------



## GrannyGoode (Oct 9, 2011)

Tamarque,

I suggest you try and bait some other guppy. You will receive nothing from me in the way of political discourse, or ANY discourse of any kind, actually, because I refuse to waste my precious time on anyone who would try to undermine the validity of my faith as the very backbone for my political views, and one also whose self-vaunted intelligence masks an even deeper pathology of outright contempt for civil, respectful communication, i.e., etiquette, or good manners. 

Your innermost Waterloo, however, is your blatantly faulty powers of logic and reason. At least you are blessed with transparency and, thus, have blessed me with the ability to discern incredible arrogance in your demeanor. I shall never again trouble you with my presence. Be thankful.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Stupid men, go back to your man caves and leave us women and out libido alone!!!!


ute4kp
I second that. The jealousy of Men, while they break down, we function well until the end of life. Huckabee must be very frustrated.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

yvonne m said:


> Good grief!! I can't believe how personal and nasty this has become.


yvonne m
go back and read knitpresentgift's posts and you learn a lot about nasty.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts
Trying to have a hair contest with a Wig? My tresses will put yours to shame. By the way I have a face pleasant to look at and do not need to turn my back to others to get any attention with my hair.


----------



## Camacho (Feb 3, 2013)

All this discussion has inspired me to actually sign up for the Consistent Life newsletter. I consistently vote as far to the left politically as I can find on the ballot because for most issues except this one they appear to be the most life-affirming in their policies. I also am well aware of some circumstances that would lead a woman to feel that she needs an abortion, even though my personal belief as a Christian Scientist is that since God is Life, life is eternal -- it has no end, and also no beginning. But I also feel compassion for the woman I am acquainted with whose baby was growing in her womb with no kidneys, and compassion for the married woman who had shall we say, greeted an old flame with open legs and realized that wait a minute, she was Rh-negative and already had one child whom she cherished. And I have several friends who adopted children after they realized that even though they wanted children, they couldn't have biological children. But they either went to Russia or to China for their children, and in some cases had to wait several years for a healthy child. Another couple I was acquainted with many years ago got mad at me because their adopted child was born at the same place where "my" abortion (insisted upon by my boyfriend at the time) took place, and at the same time my baby would have been born. I had enough trouble dealing with the b.f. at the time because of the sort of abused naif I was then, and fortunately dropped the guy and moved on with my life the following year. Then when after I was married and had a miscarriage (12 weeks) my husband was most unsympathetic as he did not feel ready for us to have children (but he definitely felt ready to have sex, and I was allergic to the stuff you put into the diaphragm, with a reaction that looked like toxic shock syndrome) and when we learned that I was pregnant with what ended up being our first child, he asked me to get an abortion, and I am so glad I stood up to him and told him I wanted a baby for my thirtieth birthday, and this one was due eight days before my thirtieth birthday, so I was happy to run with that and thanked him for the one in the womb as he was hoping to conceive a baby on my thirtieth birthday and I told him that I was asking for a baby, not a roll in the hay. ("Too many slips twixt the cup and the lip.") The woman needs to make the choice for herself. Not the government, and if they disagree, not the male. At the time of the abortion, I had too many memories of my mother objecting to something about the way my sister or I looked that particularly reminded her of our father, and I would not wish that on anyone. (Who else here spent the entire year she was 14 trying not to smile [around Mother anyway] because she had her daddy's smile?) And I am normally a fairly cheerful person. My ninth-grade civics teacher even said in class once that I must be either a Quaker or a Christian Scientist because I was so very very quiet and so very very cheerful. (I was brought up completely outside of organized religion, so while growing up, when asked my religion I always said, rather than Protestant or Catholic or Jewish or Methodist or Episcopalian or whatever, "I am nothing." Daddy was Catholic, but it was unclear what he actually believed.) Our spiritual journeys could be the topic of a completely new and different and highly interesting thread.

On a completely different note, nuclearfins said that in countries with national health systems there are long waits for things like hip replacements. Some years ago, my MIL broke her hip while on a trip to France. She had a new hip and was back on her feet in a trice due to the excellent and speedy care she received in France. So there are not always long waits for those who need care.

Okay good night all. I am grateful that the last few pages [I have just finished reading page 78] have appeared to have a much higher proportion of well thought out posts and the personal hateful stuff appears to be waning somewhat. This is good news. Thank you all!!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You still don't get it. They are self-insured. They provide the insurance for their employees and only their employees!


So do all the other corporations who are complying, including Christian corporations.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

GrannyGoode said:


> Hmmm. . . wonder if we could put our entrepreneurial talents together and make it happen? That is the American way, after all. Somebody just "thunk it up" and wouldn't you know?. . . IT came to be! We are a nation of tinkerers, and nobody is ever going to stop us. Nobody.


 :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Why are you so ignorant of the facts?
> 
> Being a homosexual is not a sin. Being divorced is not a sin. Why would they not be allowed to receive the Eucharist?
> 
> ...


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Self insured means that they are operating as a health insurance provider. You seem to forget, I worked for a self insured entity for decades.
> They haven't broken any law yet, as the SCOTUS allowed them to defer implementation, I believe. They sued the government, remember?
> Should SCOTUS rule against them, they will have two choices. They can comply while continuing to self insure, they can opt for a private health insurance company to take coverage off their self insured hands, or they can break the law and pay the fines.
> All kinds of options, what is that you folks like to say about people being in the positions they are in because of poor choices. This is Hobby Lobby's chance to make a good choice.
> ...


They do have a third choice. They can close the business or sell to someone else. I highly doubt they would take that choice because they would lose a lot of money. Selling it to someone would even not damage the economy because the business would still be providing jobs, just under different management.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Camacho said:


> All this discussion has inspired me to actually sign up for the Consistent Life newsletter. I consistently vote as far to the left politically as I can find on the ballot because for most issues except this one they appear to be the most life-affirming in their policies. I also am well aware of some circumstances that would lead a woman to feel that she needs an abortion, even though my personal belief as a Christian Scientist is that since God is Life, life is eternal -- it has no end, and also no beginning. But I also feel compassion for the woman I am acquainted with whose baby was growing in her womb with no kidneys, and compassion for the married woman who had shall we say, greeted an old flame with open legs and realized that wait a minute, she was Rh-negative and already had one child whom she cherished. And I have several friends who adopted children after they realized that even though they wanted children, they couldn't have biological children. But they either went to Russia or to China for their children, and in some cases had to wait several years for a healthy child. Another couple I was acquainted with many years ago got mad at me because their adopted child was born at the same place where "my" abortion (insisted upon by my boyfriend at the time) took place, and at the same time my baby would have been born. I had enough trouble dealing with the b.f. at the time because of the sort of abused naif I was then, and fortunately dropped the guy and moved on with my life the following year. Then when after I was married and had a miscarriage (12 weeks) my husband was most unsympathetic as he did not feel ready for us to have children (but he definitely felt ready to have sex, and I was allergic to the stuff you put into the diaphragm, with a reaction that looked like toxic shock syndrome) and when we learned that I was pregnant with what ended up being our first child, he asked me to get an abortion, and I am so glad I stood up to him and told him I wanted a baby for my thirtieth birthday, and this one was due eight days before my thirtieth birthday, so I was happy to run with that and thanked him for the one in the womb as he was hoping to conceive a baby on my thirtieth birthday and I told him that I was asking for a baby, not a roll in the hay. ("Too many slips twixt the cup and the lip.") The woman needs to make the choice for herself. Not the government, and if they disagree, not the male. At the time of the abortion, I had too many memories of my mother objecting to something about the way my sister or I looked that particularly reminded her of our father, and I would not wish that on anyone. (Who else here spent the entire year she was 14 trying not to smile [around Mother anyway] because she had her daddy's smile?) And I am normally a fairly cheerful person. My ninth-grade civics teacher even said in class once that I must be either a Quaker or a Christian Scientist because I was so very very quiet and so very very cheerful. (I was brought up completely outside of organized religion, so while growing up, when asked my religion I always said, rather than Protestant or Catholic or Jewish or Methodist or Episcopalian or whatever, "I am nothing." Daddy was Catholic, but it was unclear what he actually believed.) Our spiritual journeys could be the topic of a completely new and different and highly interesting thread.
> 
> On a completely different note, nuclearfins said that in countries with national health systems there are long waits for things like hip replacements. Some years ago, my MIL broke her hip while on a trip to France. She had a new hip and was back on her feet in a trice due to the excellent and speedy care she received in France. So there are not always long waits for those who need care.
> 
> Okay good night all. I am grateful that the last few pages [I have just finished reading page 78] have appeared to have a much higher proportion of well thought out posts and the personal hateful stuff appears to be waning somewhat. This is good news. Thank you all!!


I am so sorry you went through all that.

Your mother's experience with socialized medicine has been the same as the majority of people I know in other countries with socialized medicine as well. There are horror stories of course, but we have just as many if not more here, it's just not publicized.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> One more question you have not answered: " What is more important, the Constitution or a rule written by HHS?"


The US Constitution, of course, the question is does the HHS requirement fall within constitutional perameters? 
We will know when the SCOTUS determines that. 
In the mean time, just as with all the hoopla while those of you who hate everything THIS president does jumped up and down over the tax, there is no breach while the USSC deliberates.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> yvonne m
> go back and read knitpresentgift's posts and you learn a lot about nasty.





Huckleberry said:


> knitpresentgifts
> Trying to have a hair contest with a Wig? My tresses will put yours to shame. By the way I have a face pleasant to look at and do not need to turn my back to others to get any attention with my hair.


Huckleberry, Im happy for you that you like your hair. I like mine too.

Im very grateful that Ive always been blessed with a full head of healthy hair that Ive grown to love myself. (no pun intended)

Presently, I have two beautiful wigs, not mine, you should understand, that need a good home. Ive been searching but havent yet found the appropriate person who would appreciate the gift who has a need.

You see, my sweet Mom passed away from cancer. She had three beautiful, nice quality, fairly expensive wigs that she wore so as not to burden others from being always reminded to look away or remember the trials and tribulations of chemotherapy she was going through. She was an ever thoughtful, gentle, sweet and caring Christian soul who always put herself before others. I loved her to her death and still.

She asked that when in her open casket her family be sure she had a wig on her head so as not to disturb anyone viewing her body if they came to pay their respects. Her wish was granted.

Most people never knew my Mom even wore a wig during her illness.

Now onto me: Ive never worn a wig and my avatar shows a photo I recently took of my own hair which, of course, is the result of that which _God_, through my Father and Mother, granted me. Ill continue to wear my own hair (I keep it groomed as best as I can) while being reminded of my Moms belief and teachings to keep up appearances and to take pride in self.

Oh, I probably should mention my Mom became famous in her struggle to overcome her cancer. She was only the third person in the USA (at the time) to ever have a horrific and extraordinary reaction to Rituxan (one of her chemo drugs) as she did, so she became famous and her case study now resides in Medical Journals (whatever they are called). My Moms only request to her team of doctors was they spell her name correctly.

So, perhaps, you now will understand, why I wear the hair my Mom gave me proudly.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> They do have a third choice. They can close the business or sell to someone else. I highly doubt they would take that choice because they would lose a lot of money. Selling it to someone would even not damage the economy because the business would still be providing jobs, just under different management.


I can't see this man selling, he has turned a supposedly $600. investment into $4 Billion. This is a gold mine.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Some people have wanted to try to claim that the GOP is not anti-woman. 
I did suggest that looking at the planks of their national platform a couple of years ago would be helpful. 
So is this.


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

Amen to that, Janet Cooke. Thanks!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Since the constitution comes first, why is the HHS and Obama trying to push something that even questions constitutionality. He has already exempted churches, why does he not exempt anyone who has the same belief as any one of the churches he has already exempted? Religious belief is personal, No government can tell a person what they can believe. If they can, there is no freedom for anyone.


I disagree with you here, Joey. The death penalty is at odds with basic Catholic beliefs, but I haven't heard any churches, groups, or individuals complaining about their tax dollars going to fund Death Row. They simply can't be allowed to pick and choose.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The Catholic church does not oppose capital punishment in all cases. According to St. Augustine (The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21):

The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.

The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> Tamarque,
> 
> I suggest you try and bait some other guppy. You will receive nothing from me in the way of political discourse, or ANY discourse of any kind, actually, because I refuse to waste my precious time on anyone who would try to undermine the validity of my faith as the very backbone for my political views, and one also whose self-vaunted intelligence masks an even deeper pathology of outright contempt for civil, respectful communication, i.e., etiquette, or good manners.
> 
> Your innermost Waterloo, however, is your blatantly faulty powers of logic and reason. At least you are blessed with transparency and, thus, have blessed me with the ability to discern incredible arrogance in your demeanor. I shall never again trouble you with my presence. Be thankful.


Well said, Granny.


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Huckleberry, Im happy for you that you like your hair. I like mine too.
> 
> Im very grateful that Ive always been blessed with a full head of healthy hair that Ive grown to love myself. (no pun intended)
> 
> ...


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Huckleberry, Im happy for you that you like your hair. I like mine too.
> 
> Im very grateful that Ive always been blessed with a full head of healthy hair that Ive grown to love myself. (no pun intended)
> 
> ...


Very nice, KPG.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> The Catholic church does not oppose capital punishment in all cases. According to St. Augustine (The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21):
> 
> The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.
> 
> The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.


I myself have heard our parish priests speak out against the death penalty, and Pope John II summed up the church's position perfectly:

"In his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995 after four years of consultations with the world's Roman Catholic bishops, John Paul II wrote that execution is only appropriate "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

KPG, it's nice to hear of such a sweet mother and a joy to have a mother like that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> The Catholic church does not oppose capital punishment in all cases. According to St. Augustine (The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21):
> 
> The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.
> 
> The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.


Exactly, because all followers of the Holy Bible pick and choose what to discard or use.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Some people have wanted to try to claim that the GOP is not anti-woman.
> I did suggest that looking at the planks of their national platform a couple of years ago would be helpful.
> So is this.


Janet Cooke
Thank you. We need to get into the habit of showing the GOP's true colors on a constant basis.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Exactly, because all followers of the Holy Bible pick and choose what to discard or use.


Janet Cooke
Oh boy, you got that right "they pick and choose". Look at the pages of their Bibles. Most pages get ever any attention.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Huckleberry, Im happy for you that you like your hair. I like mine too.
> 
> Im very grateful that Ive always been blessed with a full head of healthy hair that Ive grown to love myself. (no pun intended)
> 
> ...


There are number of organizations that will welcome a wig donation. I gave mine to the ACS.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Since the constitution comes first, why is the HHS and Obama trying to push something that even questions constitutionality. He has already exempted churches, why does he not exempt anyone who has the same belief as any one of the churches he has already exempted? Religious belief is personal, No government can tell a person what they can believe. If they can, there is no freedom for anyone.
> 
> As far as the IRS is concerned, I have not seen any violations of the constitution in their actions, as far as the written rules go. The current actions of some employees of the IRS is another matter.


That regulation is not questioning the US Constitution, it is in place in the belief that it is constitutional. 
Mr. Green, in his push to impose his belief on others is questioning the legitimacy of the reg.
The US Constitution, as interpreted by this particular group of justices, will give us the answer to the question. 
Game over.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Exactly, because all followers of the Holy Bible pick and choose what to discard or use.


ALL followers of the Holy Bible do NOT pick and choose what to discard or use. Granted, there are different interpretations made and taken which accounts for the wide variety of Christian denominations. One day we'll all know and understand the truth in its wholeness.

Til then let's not paint everyone with the same brush, eh?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> ALL followers of the Holy Bible do NOT pick and choose what to discard or use. Granted, there are different interpretations made and taken which accounts for the wide variety of Christian denominations. One day we'll all know and understand the truth in its wholeness.
> 
> Til then let's not paint everyone with the same brush, eh?


 :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I wasn't on the list. Where have I gone wrong?


I wasn't on the list either. Where did we go wrong? She certainly has been very very nasty to us too.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

NJG said:


> I wasn't on the list either. Where did we go wrong? She certainly has been very very nasty to us too.


And none of you were nasty right?????

She has a picture of her hair as I know you all read FFDP&P's we where on the subject of hair and we get it we told her to post it.

But then you all have said nothing but nice comments about that????????????????

None of you are to blame with nasty comments, am I to understand that???????????????

To thy own self be true.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

GrannyGoode said:


> Thank you for honest expression of your true political convictions. I both respect and admire you for your candor, and am equally thankful for your excellent manners. I truly mean that. Please understand, I'm not wussing out on politics right now, I merely choose to take a much needed break while I continue to treat a three-day migraine. Something has to give and, as much as I enjoy -- indeed, thrive on -- political discourse, I must pull back from all things controversial just now. I beg you not take offense, for none is intended.
> 
> I cannot let the evening end, however, without expressing my empathy for your own hardship of young widowhood. Having seen my mother go through it at a young age, and she remained in widowhood until her passing at the age of 88, I know by observation how difficult your own situation has been.
> 
> I can't help but believe that your daughters must be very proud of their Mom for the wonderful example of endurance they witnessed with their own eyes as you bravely faced each sunrise over the many years. Your daughters are most fortunate to have been placed directly into your loving arms from Heavenly Father's arms. And now you have two wonderful grandchildren, how very lovely!! I am truly happy for your happiness. God bless you and all your darlings.


Thank you for your kind words. I just have to make one comment. My oldest daughter got very upset one day in school because there was a discussion and some nasty comments made about single mothers, much like the comments some republicans make today about single mothers, starting with Reagan and "welfare queens." It's another case of grouping them all together and painting with the same brush, if you are a single mother, you are automatically bad. You are having babies to be able to stay on welfare. I believe that is one reason republicans in congress want to cut all the programs that help families and children. They are willing to harm the children in order to cut spending on snap and medicaid.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

NJG said:


> ...I believe that is one reason republicans in congress want to cut all the programs that help families and children. They are willing to harm the children in order to cut spending on snap and medicaid.


That is so not true. The Republicans are in favor of supporting the food stamp program as they are in favor of extending the unemployment benefits. What they want is for the Dems to show how we are going to pay for it so that we're not just adding it to the deficit.

Really, that what the difference comes down to..."Yes, we want these programs; now let's determine how to pay for them."

In other words, let's cut waste and badly served programs elsewhere.

The left-leaning media doesn't tell the full truth about that do they? Course not...it doesn't serve their agenda. So much for a free and objective press.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

leoanne said:


> You are very brave. My daughter was in medical school in Boston and upset her classmates because she refused to march in a parade re: a woman's "right to choose" (i.e. abortion).She and I believe in the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. Needless to say, she was in the minority but still holds to those beliefs.


God Bless you both! You have raised a young lady of dignity and your daughter is blessed to have a mother who knows the difference between right and wrong and chose the right path in life. :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> ute4kp
> I second that. The jealousy of Men, while they break down, we function well until the end of life. Huckabee must be very frustrated.


The republican men want to go back to the way it was in the 50's. The little wife should be home pregnant and taking care of the children. She must be told what to do and when cause she isn't smart enough to do it on her own. From legitimate rape, to controlling our libido, republican men need to learn to shut up. One idiot running for governor in Texas said {Clayton Williams} said about rape, As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." Some of them are able to keep their mouths shut and not say it out loud, but the scary part is how many of them believe it even though they don't say it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> The republican men want to go back to the way it was in the 50's. The little wife should be home pregnant and taking care of the children. She must be told what to do and when cause she isn't smart enough to do it on her own. From legitimate rape, to controlling our libido, republican men need to learn to shut up. One idiot running for governor in Texas said {Clayton Williams} said about rape, As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." Some of them are able to keep their mouths shut and not say it out loud, but the scary part is how many of them believe it even though they don't say it.


Thank God there are certain number who do say it. That is the reminder that the GOP as a group do not think that women are smart or able to think for themselves. 
Of course, that doesn't just pertain to women. They are also in total disdain of minorities and the LGBTQ population.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> All life is sacred and no person has the right to take another person's life. If you have an unexpected pregnancy that does not give you the right to take that baby's life, no matter what. China is facing a major crisis because of their policy favoring small families. They have no women to marry the men for several generations. When human beings mess with God's plan it always leads to problems. If you are carrying a child that child has the right to life the same as you do. If for whatever reason, you do not wish to raise that child then put it up for adoption. There are MANY people dying to have children and can't. If you are in an unexpected pregnancy there are clinics all over the country with loving people who will help you thru this time, without condemnation. Do the right thing not the selfish thing, please.


Well stated! Thank you Bloomers, for your impassioned plea for life. God Bless!


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

bonbf3 said:


> Pro-life means supporting life from conception to natural death.


Exactly correct!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :-D


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You should be; yet be warned. You'll be told you will be ignored which means she will hang onto your every word and insult you every chance she wishes to take. :lol:
> 
> Damemary has honored me with the most sincerest form of flattery by imitating my avatar. I remain flattered.
> 
> Best wishes!


 :thumbup: Her avatar looks like someone's hair and back from the 60's


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> It fits often enough, the alternate stance makes no sense.
> Something cannot be murder unless you feel sympathy for it. Isn't murder murder?
> Killing is killing, medical procedures are medical procedures.


 :?: :?: :?: :thumbdown:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> That is so not true. The Republicans are in favor of supporting the food stamp program as they are in favor of extending the unemployment benefits. What they want is for the Dems to show how we are going to pay for it so that we're not just adding it to the deficit.
> 
> Really, that what the difference comes down to..."Yes, we want these programs; now let's determine how to pay for them."
> 
> ...


But republicans only want things to be paid for when a democrat is in the white house. During the 8 years Bush was president, how many things were paid for and how many times did they talk about cutting spending? I don't think I need to list all the things the republicans have done without them being paid for. This president has seen the wrath of the republicans more than any other president ever has, and from day 1 they have been out to make him fail. That is a proven fact and they will use any means to do it. Harming children by cutting programs for families is just one way. If it hurts the president, they will do it regardless, unless it hurts them, like delays in air traffic at the beginning of the sequester. They wanted to fly home, so they fixed that.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> And none of you were nasty right?????
> 
> She has a picture of her hair as I know you all read FFDP&P's we where on the subject of hair and we get it we told her to post it.
> 
> ...


What you haven't noticed is how nasty she has *always* been to us, telling us (wrongly) what we think, calling us stupid or liars or other things. We simply respond to her as she always responds to us.

Of course she's nice to you in FFDP&P's, since the only people who read that regularly are her followers. You are mistaken if you think we "all read" that thread. I've only looked at it twice in my time here, and I know the others don't pay it much attention.

It's nice that you defend her, but you are doing that without seeing her bad side. She keeps saying that she's always truthful, and you seem to believe her.

So please don't lecture us about something you haven't even noticed.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> .


?


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yvonne: the post of Cheeky Blighter's you referred to (directed to me) is mild in the words Cheeky Blighter posts publicly and privately to me on KP.
> 
> From the first days I began posting on KP, Cheeky Blighter and her group of Liberal friends (the core I have named below) have posted so much hatred and anger you would be duly appalled.
> 
> ...


You are correct, KPG. What I've read, of the above persons' posts, is filled with such vitriol, lies and hate, that it is a total turn-off to the further reading any of their posts. Why spoil my day, and waste my precious time by reading their trash. ;-)


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> That is so not true. The Republicans are in favor of supporting the food stamp program as they are in favor of extending the unemployment benefits. What they want is for the Dems to show how we are going to pay for it so that we're not just adding it to the deficit.
> 
> Really, that what the difference comes down to..."Yes, we want these programs; now let's determine how to pay for them."
> 
> ...


If you were right about what the Republicans want, wouldn't we see them working hard to cut subsidies for industries that are already highly profitable?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> ?


I responded to someone I had decided not to discuss issues with.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I responded to someone I had decided not to discuss issues with.


Thanks for explaining. I see your point.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Its very simple:
> Pro-choice chooses the mother's rights,
> Pro-life chooses the child's life.


Right! I will side with the weaker side in this fight! :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> What you haven't noticed is how nasty she has *always* been to us, telling us (wrongly) what we think, calling us stupid or liars or other things. We simply respond to her as she always responds to us.
> 
> Of course she's nice to you in FFDP&P's, since the only people who read that regularly are her followers. You are mistaken if you think we "all read" that thread. I've only looked at it twice in my time here, and I know the others don't pay it much attention.
> 
> ...


No I never go to those other posts anymore and haven't for a long time. I also have to admit I usually only skim her posts on here, unless they are directed at me, which she doesn't do anymore, so I feel pretty lucky.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> Bratty Patty
> Too bad that some people have no choice but to take a job with employers as Hobby Lobby. Applause to Costco.
> Looks like that Hobby Lobby is not doing too well - wonder why. Good riddance.


Huckleberry, do provide your source to show that Hobby Lobby, as a company, is not doing well. I'll wait patiently.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Two responses to victims of online abuse that should stop

Tauriq Moosa talks about the "advice" often given to women dealing with online abuse and why it's unhelpful.

As study after study shows, women receive an enormous amount of abuse for any online activity: whether as journalists, sex writers, performers. Just being a woman (online) is sufficient to receiving unwanted attention, threats and abuse.

Of course this follows from the fact that women in general are targets of everyday sexism: street harassment, their representation in popular media, a culture of rape and victim-blaming, and so on.

Naturally, women respond to such abuse in different ways: from courageously broadcasting the abuse to rightfully ignoring, and everything in-between. When women do respond publicly, there tend to be people (mostly, it seems, men) who are quick to tell women how they should - or that the women are responding incorrectly.

I want to highlight, and hopefully debunk, two popular responses women receive when they speak out about harassment.

1. "Just ignore them!"

Women are often told to ignore the chaotic mess of bad spelling, capital letters and unrelenting fury that gets Tweeted, posted, or written at them. If for no reason than to protect the English language, it might be advisable of course.

However, consider being bombarded daily with messages like you need to get f***** until you die, and another person adds Could I help with that' - or any listed by Caroline Criado-Perez in this speech; or you're told by a man with his full face and name: "if you guys ever gain ground, we will take that ground back with guns. I will make sure there are roving squads in every community going from house to house looking for feminists to kill."

And so on.

These might be idle threats and naturally the proportion of those who follow through isn't 100%.

Yet, we who read this don't get to dictate how the recipient should feel. Ideally, if I received such messages, I'd like to ignore or shrug it off so I could get on with my life; similarly, I'd like my friends and everyone to be able to do the same, so that the trolls aren't winning, aren't obstructing living and we can all operate normally.

But we need to consider such abuse the same way we do car crashes: an ever-present danger that shouldn't stop normal use, which we take precautions against, but which will happen much to our disapproval or opposition. Some people walk away unscathed, some don't, but those unscathed don't dictate that others must feel the same.

First, as always, we must recognise that things aren't equal in the world, between men and women, between different women and between different men. Some are stronger than others, some might have experienced or be experiencing a recent trauma, and so on. 
These might be idle threats and naturally the proportion of those who follow through isn't 100%.

Yet, we who read this don't get to dictate how the recipient should feel. Ideally, if I received such messages, I'd like to ignore or shrug it off so I could get on with my life; similarly, I'd like my friends and everyone to be able to do the same, so that the trolls aren't winning, aren't obstructing living and we can all operate normally.

But we need to consider such abuse the same way we do car crashes: an ever-present danger that shouldn't stop normal use, which we take precautions against, but which will happen much to our disapproval or opposition. Some people walk away unscathed, some don't, but those unscathed don't dictate that others must feel the same.

First, as always, we must recognise that things aren't equal in the world, between men and women, between different women and between different men. Some are stronger than others, some might have experienced or be experiencing a recent trauma, and so on.

Women are treated and regarded as secondary people in numerous ways - both small and large, as I noted above regarding everyday sexism. That attitude bleeds into everything we use and partake in, including online life.

Second, the Internet isn't some magical place existing "out there". For myself and many others, it's where we make our lives and careers. As Jill Filipovic says:

Imagine going to work and every few days having people in the hallway walk up to you and say things like, Die, you dumb c*** and you deserve to be raped and, if youre a woman of color, adding in the n-word and other racial slurs for good measure.

Consider how that would impact your performance and your sense of safety. But you still love your job and your co-workers. Thats how the Internet feels for many of us.

Yet, women are expected to ignore or shut off or walk away. The Internet isnt just for Farmville; its not some toy. Nor are various social media outlets or programs. Indeed, why should the trolls dominate these areas when it is the trolls who are wrong?

Third, the quality and quantity of this abuse isn't equal to what men in general receive. Indeed, even if it was equal, that's entirely irrelevant to what constitutes a proper response. Telling women "I received it too and ignored" or "Men get it, too"is description: it's not a justification for any action.

Again, consider the car crash: Would you tell someone to just walk it off, even if you managed to? Or do we take it on a case-by-case basis, sympathise with the victim, and consider how to avoid or reduce it? (Or perhaps a proper analogy might be being a victim in a car crash caused by a drunk driver.)

People don't get moral immunity in how they respond, though: for example, a person murdering another for a racist Tweet isn't justified because the victim was a racist bully.

Similarly, just because someone is a victim of sexist abuse or thinks something is sexist doesn't give her moral immunity in how she responds (for example, I think Adria Richards public shaming of two men she found offensive was wrong).

But this is a careful distinction, one bundled with telling women to be silent in general, that must be separated so we can do the best we can to create a safe environment. Yet, a proper response - which exists on a kind of policy level - is different to a person's feelings of being targeted, hated and feeling violated.

We can argue for the former but we cant really argue for the latter in many cases: Stop feeling targeted! doesnt undermine feeling targeted.

For more, please continue...
http://www.women24.com/ChatAndWin/Columnists/Two-responses-to-victims-of-online-abuse-that-should-stop-20140124


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Unbelievable---After what Huckabee said about women, he has raised in the poll for GOP presidential candidates.

Following the controversy over his 'Uncle Sugar' speech Mike Huckabee has...taken the lead in the Republican primary race for 2016. He's at 16% to 14% for Jeb Bush, 13% for Chris Christie, 11% for Rand Paul, 8% each for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan, 6% for Scott Walker, and 5% for Bobby Jindal.

That tells me that no matter how hard they try to tell you they don't have a war against women, they are not being honest. Their republican base loves this kind of talk.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/01/huckabee-up-clinton-down.html


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> I disagree with you here, Joey. The death penalty is at odds with basic Catholic beliefs, but I haven't heard any churches, groups, or individuals complaining about their tax dollars going to fund Death Row. They simply can't be allowed to pick and choose.


Bingo! It is also at odds with many other religious beliefs. At this time you cannot be a CO to war by not allowing your tax dollars to pay for it. Although I do know, from his website, that rep John Lewis is supporting a bill that will allow CO to object and their tax dollars not to go to the wars, but to other things (they don't just get to not pay taxes, which is only fair).


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Exactly, because all followers of the Holy Bible pick and choose what to discard or use.


Well to be fair parts of the Bible are all smiting and stoning and such, and part are all loving everybody and giving money to the poor and such. So I could see why people all hold different views and all cite the bible.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

rocky1991 said:


> Abortion is neither murder nor premeditated murder. It is legal, therefor not murder. Since you are not pro choice but profess to be pro life, why don't you try to educate us pro choice people with actual facts, reason, and science, not fairy tales about G-d, and the damnation of our eternal souls. Calling it murder does not make it so. You have no idea of what women go through in making the decision to terminate a pregnancy. You have no idea of what kind of life they may be bringing this child into. You have no idea of their finances. You do not want government interfering in you life, but it is perfectly okay for government to interfere in the lives of women who do not want to carry a child to term. It's okay for lawmakers to make laws that interfere with abortion rights, such as a vaginal ultrasound, or a 72 hour waiting period, or a blood test taken 30 days before an abortion can be done, or that abortion doctors need to have hospital privileges. However, that blood test would not be accepted by the attending doctor because a 30 day old test is useless. Of course these are laws introduced by lawmakers, not doctors. Is that all right with you, that just plain old men are making healthcare decisions instead of the medical community? The more this topic is discussed the less likely anyone will be any closer to agreeing on anything.


Applause. Thank you for bringing reason and intelligence into the discussion.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

mdgallogly said:


> It's not "killed" it's removed. Really? What about the baby's beating heart? To be alive, there must be a beating heart.


No sweetie. That is not the definition of human life.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

felix said:


> i had my capital shift key (capitol letters) on when i posted something and you should see how i got stomped on....that was yelling......never heard such knit picking....i didn't know only lower case was allowed !!!!!! calm down please


Sorry. you've got 103 posts, you've been on the internet long enough to understand that capitalized letters = screaming and so does excessive !!!!!.

You yell, you're likely to get yelled back at.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> Judithlynn wrote:
> My GD got pregnant at the age of15. Our GGS is now 2 yrs old. He has been a joy to the whole family. He has not nor ever will ruin anyone's life. My GD is a senior in high school making As and Bs. She is going to college next year to become a vet.
> 
> Any child you don't want can be adopted out. I know personally of numerous people who would jump at adopting.
> ...


Yup, bottom line is, no one is even talking about preventing her GD from giving birth if that's what she and the family CHOOSES.

That she seems to think that everyone else can or should make the same choice is where the arrogance and ignorance comes into this discussion.

What this woman's family has chosen to do has absolutely no bearing on what another woman and HER family should choose to do. So the the whole anecdote is pointless.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> The Catholic church is not a Conservative organization. It has made statements against the death penalty and against war, both of which Conservatives favor. The current Pope is certainly not a Conservative.


Definition for "small c" catholic:



> catholic
> cath·o·lic
> (kath-uh-lik, kath-lik)
> adjective
> ...


Part of what got them "get in bed" with Conservatives in this country is money.

Lee Atwater, making one of his "death bed" confessions, admitted that they purposely targeted the Catholics in this country by promising them money and conning them into being "one issue" voters in regards to abortion.

He actually said that they encouraged them to forget their goal of helping the poor and focusing on only issues like abortion and homophobia.

Unfortunately, it worked for a little while.

The Catholic church USED to be about helping the less fortunate without judgment, until RW conservatism in the US started to interfering.

Hopefully now, the Church is back on the right path.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Unbelievable---After what Huckabee said about women, he has raised in the poll for GOP presidential candidates.
> 
> Following the controversy over his 'Uncle Sugar' speech Mike Huckabee has...taken the lead in the Republican primary race for 2016. He's at 16% to 14% for Jeb Bush, 13% for Chris Christie, 11% for Rand Paul, 8% each for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan, 6% for Scott Walker, and 5% for Bobby Jindal.
> 
> ...


You don't really find that unbelievable, do you?
I honestly don't know who they find to poll, I don't believe the results at all.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

NJG said:


> *But republicans only want things to be paid for when a democrat is in the white house*. During the 8 years Bush was president, how many things were paid for and how many times did they talk about cutting spending? I don't think I need to list all the things the republicans have done without them being paid for. This president has seen the wrath of the republicans more than any other president ever has, and from day 1 they have been out to make him fail. That is a proven fact and they will use any means to do it. Harming children by cutting programs for families is just one way. If it hurts the president, they will do it regardless, unless it hurts them, like delays in air traffic at the beginning of the sequester. They wanted to fly home, so they fixed that.


And they don't want things paid for by RETURNING tax rates on the rich to what they USED to be or lessening corporate welfare.

They want it to be paid for by gutting services and entitlements for the poor.

Maybe one of the ways of helping to pay for these things would be to make the RED states pay their fair share in federal taxes instead of making the BLUE states support their lazy, fat butts??


----------



## Camacho (Feb 3, 2013)

First, I would like to thank Lkholcomb for her kind response to my post on page 79.

The rest of this post is not directed to anyone in particular.
Now I would like to send everyone to a Hebrew lexicon. When I began to study Hebrew in the late 1970s, I was told that there are four words in the Hebrew Bible that are all commonly translated into English as "kill." Words for slaughtering for food, killing in self-defense, and murder are distinct, and only one of them is forbidden, and there can be some pretty strict restrictions on some of the others, but the word in the Commandment, Lo tirtzá, is better translated as "You shall not murder." My guess is that many of the women who have abortions would tend to regard it as self-defense when put in those terms.
A lot of people try to broaden the commandment against murder by for example, becoming vegetarians or vegans, or pacifists, or by opposing capital punishment, or by opposing abortion. And there are lots of other ways of broadening the commandment against murder as well. I could list several, but that is more fodder for a "spiritual journey" thread than this thread.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Jokim said:


> You are correct, KPG. What I've read, of the above persons' posts, is filled with such vitriol, lies and hate, that it is a total turn-off to the further reading any of their posts. Why spoil my day, and waste my precious time by reading their trash. ;-)


Go back and read her history of posts and you will see that she is no"innocent victim" here.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> And none of you were nasty right?????
> 
> She has a picture of her hair as I know you all read FFDP&P's we where on the subject of hair and we get it we told her to post it.
> 
> ...


Hi Yarnie
Someone (KPG) who calls people stupid, dumb, idiot, etc., and who has made nasty comments about everyone who disagrees with her from day one, should not be scolding people for anything. Also, it takes arrogance (and I'm not sure what else) to post and brag about your own hair. I think good Christian people should display humility as Jesus did, right? I like my hair, too, but why on earth would I post a picture of it? To make people jealous? To show off? What? To show you can grow hair? She is a victim of nothing.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put!



NJG said:


> But republicans only want things to be paid for when a democrat is in the white house. During the 8 years Bush was president, how many things were paid for and how many times did they talk about cutting spending? I don't think I need to list all the things the republicans have done without them being paid for. This president has seen the wrath of the republicans more than any other president ever has, and from day 1 they have been out to make him fail. That is a proven fact and they will use any means to do it. Harming children by cutting programs for families is just one way. If it hurts the president, they will do it regardless, unless it hurts them, like delays in air traffic at the beginning of the sequester. They wanted to fly home, so they fixed that.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Here's a test. Cross her sometimes and see what happens.



Poor Purl said:


> What you haven't noticed is how nasty she has *always* been to us, telling us (wrongly) what we think, calling us stupid or liars or other things. We simply respond to her as she always responds to us.
> 
> Of course she's nice to you in FFDP&P's, since the only people who read that regularly are her followers. You are mistaken if you think we "all read" that thread. I've only looked at it twice in my time here, and I know the others don't pay it much attention.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Aren't you sweet?



Jokim said:


> You are correct, KPG. What I've read, of the above persons' posts, is filled with such vitriol, lies and hate, that it is a total turn-off to the further reading any of their posts. Why spoil my day, and waste my precious time by reading their trash. ;-)


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> That is so not true. The Republicans are in favor of supporting the food stamp program as they are in favor of extending the unemployment benefits. What they want is for the Dems to show how we are going to pay for it so that we're not just adding it to the deficit.
> 
> Really, that what the difference comes down to..."Yes, we want these programs; now let's determine how to pay for them."
> 
> ...


Please, the left-leaning media? Anyone who thinks that about mainstream media is too used to following Fox News or Breittbart or some other right-wing "news." I can hardly wait to see those Teapartiers and conservative repubs demanding extension of unemployment benefits or restoring the food stamp benefits. They have always been against legislating for those less fortunate.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

One would think that would be a no-brainer for those truly interested in closing the deficit. Do you think there may be something else going on? (sarcasm well deserved.)



Poor Purl said:


> If you were right about what the Republicans want, wouldn't we see them working hard to cut subsidies for industries that are already highly profitable?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You can always discuss it with one of us. That won't break your vow.



Janet Cooke said:


> I responded to someone I had decided not to discuss issues with.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> And they don't want things paid for by RETURNING tax rates on the rich to what they USED to be or lessening corporate welfare.
> 
> They want it to be paid for by gutting services and entitlements for the poor.
> 
> Maybe one of the ways of helping to pay for these things would be to make the RED states pay their fair share in federal taxes instead of making the BLUE states support their lazy, fat butts??


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

NJG said:


> But republicans only want things to be paid for when a democrat is in the white house. During the 8 years Bush was president, how many things were paid for and how many times did they talk about cutting spending? I don't think I need to list all the things the republicans have done without them being paid for. This president has seen the wrath of the republicans more than any other president ever has, and from day 1 they have been out to make him fail. That is a proven fact and they will use any means to do it. Harming children by cutting programs for families is just one way. If it hurts the president, they will do it regardless, unless it hurts them, like delays in air traffic at the beginning of the sequester. They wanted to fly home, so they fixed that.


This is the very reason behind the rise of the Tea Party...we got fed up with our RINOs who are weak and ineffective and are trying to return the party to real conservative principles...constitutionally based limited government with reasonable fiscal constraints.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Part of what got them "get in bed" with Conservatives in this country is money.
> 
> Lee Atwater, making one of his "death bed" confessions, admitted that they purposely targeted the Catholics in this country by promising them money and conning them into being "one issue" voters in regards to abortion.
> 
> ...


It seems to be headed there. But you have to give it to the GOP: they know how to wake up the nastiest thoughts in the darkest corners of the mind.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> But republicans only want things to be paid for when a democrat is in the white house. During the 8 years Bush was president, how many things were paid for and how many times did they talk about cutting spending? I don't think I need to list all the things the republicans have done without them being paid for. This president has seen the wrath of the republicans more than any other president ever has, and from day 1 they have been out to make him fail. That is a proven fact and they will use any means to do it. Harming children by cutting programs for families is just one way. If it hurts the president, they will do it regardless, unless it hurts them, like delays in air traffic at the beginning of the sequester. They wanted to fly home, so they fixed that.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Here's a test. Cross her sometimes and see what happens.


I've often thought the same thing.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What does this tell us about the people who think more highly of such an anti-woman politician as Huckabuck?



NJG said:


> Unbelievable---After what Huckabee said about women, he has raised in the poll for GOP presidential candidates.
> 
> Following the controversy over his 'Uncle Sugar' speech Mike Huckabee has...taken the lead in the Republican primary race for 2016. He's at 16% to 14% for Jeb Bush, 13% for Chris Christie, 11% for Rand Paul, 8% each for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan, 6% for Scott Walker, and 5% for Bobby Jindal.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put, as always Rocky. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> One would think that would be a no-brainer for those truly interested in closing the deficit. Do you think there may be something else going on? (sarcasm well deserved.)


You mean like getting campaign money from those industries? Nah.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Pope Francis seems to be guiding the Roman Catholic Church is another direction.



VocalLisa said:


> Part of what got them "get in bed" with Conservatives in this country is money.
> 
> Lee Atwater, making one of his "death bed" confessions, admitted that they purposely targeted the Catholics in this country by promising them money and conning them into being "one issue" voters in regards to abortion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> What does this tell us about the people who think more highly of such an anti-woman politician as Huckabuck?


Um, that they're men? No, that's not fair. That they're Republicon men. There.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

damemary said:


> Pope Francis seems to be guiding the Roman Catholic Church is another direction.


I think Pope Francis is trying to focus the church more on poverty and inclusiveness and away from the constant harping on abortion and same-sex marriage. I see it as a shift in emphasizing more important issues.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The Tea Party is a small group of loud-mouths trying to hijack the entire country. Ain't gonna happen. Aren't you from one of the states that didn't think nicotine was addictive or harmful? Or am I confused again?



Gerslay said:


> This is the very reason behind the rise of the Tea Party...we got fed up with our RINOs who are weak and ineffective and are trying to return the party to real conservative principles...constitutionally based limited government with reasonable fiscal constraints.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

damemary said:


> The Tea Party is a small group of loud-mouths trying to hijack the entire country. Ain't gonna happen. Aren't you from one of the states that didn't think nicotine was addictive or harmful? Or am I confused again?


Once again, you are blinded to the truth by the left-leaning media.

The Tea Party's mission statement is to restore Americas founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets. Period. We take no stance on social issues.

And no, I'm a Bostonian from a proud democratic liberal secular union family who came to her senses and left the northeast for better climes...in more ways than one!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Um, that they're men? No, that's not fair. That they're Republicon men. There.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> What does this tell us about the people who think more highly of such an anti-woman politician as Huckabuck?


Mostly it tells us that they delude themselves into thinking that there is no social agenda in the organizations they believe in and that they think they know the US Constitution better than the SCOTUS.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The left has hoodwinked women (and minorities) into believing that social policies is where the game is at but the only thing that all people should vote is their wallet. Your money is all you really have to give and the only thing that the govt really wants from you. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

The War on Women is just that...smoke and mirrors!


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

alcameron said:


> I like my hair, too, but why on earth would I post a picture of it? To make people jealous? To show off? What? To show you can grow hair? She is a victim of nothing.


I think it might because of fear of what COULD be a nasty misogynist skit at an RNC convention making fun of liberal women's looks (_when they're not visiting strip clubs that is_).

You know, the one where all "Young Republicans" are wolf-whistling at the woman with the beautiful hair when they see her from behind and then she turns around and shows her face and the guys react in horror.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> but the only thing that all people should vote is their wallet. Your money is all you really have to give


Wow, that is soooo sad you think that.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> You don't really find that unbelievable, do you?
> I honestly don't know who they find to poll, I don't believe the results at all.


I think they are polling old white men like the aspirin between the knees guy, can't remember his name. I would believe that republicans like that kind of talk, but thought Huckabee was a thing of the past. But you know, they can go ahead and nominate someone like Huckabee or Santorum and their far far far left ideas and then they will loose again for sure.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Wow, that is soooo sad you think that.


It sounds cynical, but its pure wisdom.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> This is the very reason behind the rise of the Tea Party...we got fed up with our RINOs who are weak and ineffective and are trying to return the party to real conservative principles...constitutionally based limited government with reasonable fiscal constraints.


Yes the tea party wants smaller government and to spend less money, but they want to balance it on the backs of the poor. No raise in the minimum wage so the poor stay poor and give the tax cuts to the top. Now I agree spending needs to be cut, but does big oil need subsidies? The inequality in this country is getting worse every day. If a person works a 40 hour week, shouldn't he/she be able to exist without food stamps? With the unions being pushed out, there is no one left to fight for the worker. The corporations just keep more money for themselves and their million dollar bonuses. The middle class has had stagnant wages for far too long, the the top 1% is doing very well.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Hmmm, let's see...

(R) Ann Romney, Kelly Ayotte, Mary Bono, Sarah Palin, Cathy McMorris, Kimberly Guilfoyle...

(D) Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Barbara Milkulski, Rosa Delauro, Helen Thomas...

I rest my case!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

NJG said:


> Yes the tea party wants smaller government and to spend less money, but they want to balance it on the backs of the poor. No raise in the minimum wage so the poor stay poor and give the tax cuts to the top. Now I agree spending needs to be cut, but does big oil need subsidies? The inequality in this country is getting worse every day. If a person works a 40 hour week, shouldn't he/she be able to exist without food stamps? With the unions being pushed out, there is no one left to fight for the worker. The corporations just keep more money for themselves and their million dollar bonuses. The middle class has had stagnant wages for far too long, the the top 1% is doing very well.


All false allegations...the inequality in this country is due to Obama`s policies.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

There was a school in Utah that took lunches away from kids and threw them away because their lunch account had run out of money. Where do people get the idea that that is ok to do?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/01/school-tossed-kids-lunches-in-trash-over-money-owed/


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Hmmm, let's see...
> 
> (R) Ann Romney, Kelly Ayotte, Mary Bono, Sarah Palin, Cathy McMorris, Kimberly Guilfoyle...
> 
> ...


 And you should; it's a very tired case.

Seriously, I get it. The Democratic women are all bright, hard-working and financially independent.

The Repub women are Kelly Ayotte, governor; Ann Romney, some rich guy's wife; Sarah Palin, ignorant loser of a vice-presidential election and quitter after half a term as governor, and I've never heard of the others. Thank you for making my case for me.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> There is ao way he is imposing his belief on others.
> 
> If there was no question of the constitution there would be no law suit. The justices should not need to interpret the constitution. It says what it says. Period.[/quote
> 
> Shouldn't the Constitution be a Living document? Open to revision and reinterpretation, like the Bill of Rights and other amendments?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> All false allegations...the inequality in this country is due to Obama`s policies.


If you actually believe that, then there's no point talking to you. You are totally ignorant of facts, which can be researched. Good bye.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> That is so not true. The Republicans are in favor of supporting the food stamp program as they are in favor of extending the unemployment benefits. What they want is for the Dems to show how we are going to pay for it so that we're not just adding it to the deficit.
> 
> Really, that what the difference comes down to..."Yes, we want these programs; now let's determine how to pay for them."
> 
> ...


So you are in favor of letting the children starve. And repubs want to cut even more. Gotta love those fundamentalist Christians, living Christ's words.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > There is ao way he is imposing his belief on others.
> ...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

NJG said:


> There was a school in Utah that took lunches away from kids and threw them away because their lunch account had run out of money. Where do people get the idea that that is ok to do?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/01/school-tossed-kids-lunches-in-trash-over-money-owed/


From people who think that money is the only thing that's important.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> And you should; it's a very tired case.
> 
> Seriously, I get it. The Democratic women are all bright, hard-working and financially independent.
> 
> The Repub women are Kelly Ayotte, governor; Ann Romney, some rich guy's wife; Sarah Palin, ignorant loser of a vice-presidential election and quitter after half a term as governor, and I've never heard of the others. Thank you for making my case for me.


Somebody on the left started it by making fun of the looks of gop women (scroll back)...I simply finished it!


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Jokim said:


> Exactly correct!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :-D


And bringing those unfortunate children into this world, when a mother or family can not afford to take care of them and the republicans take away SNAP, What does that do for the children?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

NJG said:


> But republicans only want things to be paid for when a democrat is in the white house. During the 8 years Bush was president, how many things were paid for and how many times did they talk about cutting spending? I don't think I need to list all the things the republicans have done without them being paid for. This president has seen the wrath of the republicans more than any other president ever has, and from day 1 they have been out to make him fail. That is a proven fact and they will use any means to do it. Harming children by cutting programs for families is just one way. If it hurts the president, they will do it regardless, unless it hurts them, like delays in air traffic at the beginning of the sequester. They wanted to fly home, so they fixed that.


That was different, Bush was in power and now we have BHO, you know the one who is different. Now we have the just say NO republicans.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

The progressive movement is over... your blessed Obama has set it back two generations with his policies and most specifically with Obamacare. Its no wonder you're all so angry.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> This is the very reason behind the rise of the Tea Party...we got fed up with our RINOs who are weak and ineffective and are trying to return the party to real conservative principles...constitutionally based limited government with reasonable fiscal constraints.


Really, the Tea Party needs to break away from the GOP and form its own party. I don't agree with their platform, of course, but you're right in that its very very different from that of mainstream Republicans.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Hmmm, let's see...
> 
> (R) Ann Romney, Kelly Ayotte, Mary Bono, Sarah Palin, Cathy McMorris, Kimberly Guilfoyle...
> 
> ...


What does this prove?


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> All false allegations...the inequality in this country is due to Obama`s policies.


That is quite the statement. Obama has only been in office for 5 years, the inequality started at least 30 years ago. Is this something like his birth conspiracy theory?


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

calisuzi said:


> We do not all hold to your beliefs religious or political and the War on Women goes far beyond abortion. If there is so concern about abortion why is the far right religious faction trying to deprive women of access to contraception. I for one am not willing to see any of my rights taken from me by any man. Some are even saying our voting rights should be taken from us.


The far-right fundamentalist religious faction is another kettle of stinking fish. Frightening indeed.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

NJG said:


> There was a school in Utah that took lunches away from kids and threw them away because their lunch account had run out of money. Where do people get the idea that that is ok to do?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/01/school-tossed-kids-lunches-in-trash-over-money-owed/


Read that, so hard to believe that children were punished for something over which they had no control.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> What does this prove?


Scroll up for my reply to Poor Purl


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> That is quite the statement. Obama has only been in office for 5 years, the inequality started at least 30 years ago. Is this something like his birth conspiracy theory?


Not going there...much too tangential


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

BBL...dinner


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> The progressive movement is over... your blessed Obama has set it back two generations with his policies and most specifically with Obamacare. Its no wonder you're all so angry.


We are not angry, but it sure looks like those fingers of yours pointing at us are pointing right back at you.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Scroll up for my reply to Poor Purl


Your response to Purl made no sense.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> BBL...dinner


No need.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> What does this prove?


I think she was looking for gop women that she considers physically attractive and trying to compare them to Dem women that she thinks aren't. Kind of shallow.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> The progressive movement is over... your blessed Obama has set it back two generations with his policies and most specifically with Obamacare. Its no wonder you're all so angry.


Angry? I don't think anger is the right term. Defensive, maybe.
It is Republican governors and congressmen that are trying to set us back 2 generations as far as women's fair pay, health care, and women's rights in general. 2 generations ago the poor were cared for and not condemned for their plight. 
I would suggest you rethink your statement. The Progressive -Lib-Dem party is united. Can't say that for the crumbling Republican party. The Tea Party is the entire reason for it. The nuts have been gradually falling from the Tea Bag tree. IMHO
they are the reason for the division in this country. And they are a complete embarassment for their constituents. Just look at the line up of those who will behind bars in NY alone. Governor Ultrasound is looking at a million in fines and 30 years behind bars. They are nothing to be proud of and are all members of the Tea Party.
I got lucky. My ridiculously insane congresswomen will not run again . She is looking at prison herself for campaign fraud. Give me Obama, Reid, and Pelosi anyday over them.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Your response to Purl made no sense.


Thank you.


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> The progressive movement is over... your blessed Obama has set it back two generations with his policies and most specifically with Obamacare. Its no wonder you're all so angry.


You seem to have given Obama way more power and influence than he ever had. 
:shock:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> No need.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> The left has hoodwinked women (and minorities) into believing that social policies is where the game is at but the only thing that all people should vote is their wallet. Your money is all you really have to give and the only thing that the govt really wants from you. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
> 
> The War on Women is just that...smoke and mirrors!


Keep believing that. One day you will see how wrong that statement is.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

An example of how Conservative businesses work. The company where I worked 26 years was owned by WR Grace for the first 13 I was there. They had a pension plan for hourly workers and a different one for salaried workers. I was hourly for 10 years and my monthly pension is $46.08. I was salaried for 3 years and the pension from that plan is $69.13. Has been the same since I started collecting when I was 62, 13 years ago with no cost of living increase. Management was all salaried, so their pensions were way higher than hourly people.

Once they sold, no more pension from the subsequent owners, we had 401K plans.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Camacho said:


> First, I would like to thank Lkholcomb for her kind response to my post on page 79.
> 
> The rest of this post is not directed to anyone in particular.
> Now I would like to send everyone to a Hebrew lexicon. When I began to study Hebrew in the late 1970s, I was told that there are four words in the Hebrew Bible that are all commonly translated into English as "kill." Words for slaughtering for food, killing in self-defense, and murder are distinct, and only one of them is forbidden, and there can be some pretty strict restrictions on some of the others, but the word in the Commandment, Lo tirtzá, is better translated as "You shall not murder." My guess is that many of the women who have abortions would tend to regard it as self-defense when put in those terms.
> A lot of people try to broaden the commandment against murder by for example, becoming vegetarians or vegans, or pacifists, or by opposing capital punishment, or by opposing abortion. And there are lots of other ways of broadening the commandment against murder as well. I could list several, but that is more fodder for a "spiritual journey" thread than this thread.


I found it very interesting when a person in the Jewish faith explained about the meaning of parts of the old testament. I found out that much of the "strict rules" I had been taught had differing meanings or translations than what was written down. I truly hope one day to learn the Hebrew language and be able to read the Torah in Hebrew because it seems I could learn so much. Its on my million line long bucket list


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > There is ao way he is imposing his belief on others.
> ...


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

rocky1991 said:


> Read that, so hard to believe that children were punished for something over which they had no control.


That is horrible. We have had our kids lunch account go over sometimes. Sometimes we just don't get the notifications that they need more, wether the office didn't send them or they got lost. If it goes over $5 the kids get only a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I honestly feel horrible for the kids who don't have lunches. We have a large population of migrant workers (we live in a very large apple producing county, I believe it is the second largest producer coming in second to Washington state). I just feel for those kids... But then I have a large bleeding heart (and proud of it!)


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Keep believing that. One day you will see how wrong that statement is.


No, she won't. She's bought into all the Tea Party nonsense, and their eyes are shut tight.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Your response to Purl made no sense.


VocalLisa made derogatory remarks about the looks of gop women (see pg 86)...I simply set the record straight.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I think she was looking for gop women that she considers physically attractive and trying to compare them to Dem women that she thinks aren't. Kind of shallow.


Once again, VocalLisa started it and I finished it. Now who is the shallow one?


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> No, she won't. She's bought into all the Tea Party nonsense, and their eyes are shut tight.


My eyes are wide open PP...I hope yours are too.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> If you actually believe that, then there's no point talking to you. You are totally ignorant of facts, which can be researched. Good bye.


Exactly.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> VocalLisa made derogatory remarks about the looks of gop women (see pg 86)...I simply set the record straight.


Actually, you totally missed the point. 
The comment, and VocalLisa is certainly not the first with this observation, is about the misogynist outlook of Republican men. 
You just fell straight into their trap.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> We are not angry, but it sure looks like those fingers of yours pointing at us are pointing right back at you.


Political commentator Mark Shields, possibly the most ardent apologist for Mr. Obama and his presidency, raised the stakes when he acknowledged recently that if they cant fix Obamacare, it will mark the end of the progressive era in America.

Its not just the right saying it...there are many on the left saying it as well.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Once again, VocalLisa started it and I finished it. Now who is the shallow one?


Here's VocalLisa's message, copied and pasted from p. 86:


VocalLisa said:


> I think it might because of fear of what COULD be a nasty misogynist skit at an RNC convention making fun of liberal women's looks (when they're not visiting strip clubs that is).
> 
> You know, the one where all "Young Republicans" are wolf-whistling at the woman with the beautiful hair when they see her from behind and then she turns around and shows her face and the guys react in horror.


Show me where it says anything about GOP _women_. It mentions liberal women, and it mentions Young Republicans, who must be male since they're whistling at a woman.

Would you still like me to tell you who's shallow? Because my vote goes to the person who said "Your money is all you really have to give."


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Actually, you totally missed the point.
> The comment, and VocalLisa is certainly not the first with this observation, is about the misogynist outlook of Republican men.
> You just fell straight into their trap.


You might read between the lines and you'll see her smirking with delight at the whole skit which was meant to be derogatory of not only gop men but also gop women.

Good try Cookie!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Political commentator Mark Shields, possibly the most ardent apologist for Mr. Obama and his presidency, raised the stakes when he acknowledged recently that if they cant fix Obamacare, it will mark the end of the progressive era in America.
> 
> Its not just the right saying it...there are many on the left saying it as well.


Oh honestly, nobody has cared what he has to say for 15 years. Are you kidding me? 
A laundry list is just about what the GOP has to run for 2016.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> You might read between the lines and you'll see her smirking with delight at the whole skit which was meant to be derogatory of not only gop men but also gop women.
> 
> Good try Cookie!


You, naturally, know more about how liberal women think than I. 
If you paid attention you would know that in my family Cookie was a nickname for the males.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Show me where it says anything about GOP _women_. It mentions liberal women, and it mentions Young Republicans, who must be male since they're whistling at a woman.
> 
> Would you still like me to tell you who's shallow? Because my vote goes to the person who said "Your money is all you really have to give."


Okay, me bad...I misread the post and jumped to conclusions.

Mega Mea Culpas!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Show me where it says anything about GOP _women_. It mentions liberal women, and it mentions Young Republicans, who must be male since they're whistling at a woman.
> 
> Would you still like me to tell you who's shallow? Because my vote goes to the person who said "Your money is all you really have to give."


We were doing better, Empress, when we opted not to talk to her. She has no clue about the Tea Party anyway, claiming that there is no social agenda.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> You might read between the lines and you'll see her smirking with delight at the whole skit which was meant to be derogatory of not only gop men but also gop women.
> 
> Good try Cookie!


How? How is that "derogatory of" gop women? Never mind; I wouldn't read your answer if you wrote one.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> The left has hoodwinked women (and minorities) into believing that social policies is where the game is at but the only thing that all people should vote is their wallet. Your money is all you really have to give and the only thing that the govt really wants from you. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
> 
> The War on Women is just that...smoke and mirrors!


I agree, Gerslay, and would add that, if the gov't only wants money from you, meaning your earnings, :arrow: your labor, doesn't that put you in bondage to the state :arrow: the slave of the state :?: :idea:


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Seriously, ladies...I take back the bit about Helen Thomas...she's dead and that wasn't nice. I felt bad about it at the time too!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> We were doing better, Empress, when we opted not to talk to her. She has no clue about the Tea Party anyway, claiming that there is no social agenda.


You're right. In fact, after the message blaming Obama for the financial inequality in this country, I knew there was nothing up there. I don't know why I bothered to write to her - as if I didn't have anything else to do.

I'm shutting my computer - it's taking up too much time, and for what? A Palin wannabe.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

OUCH!

hahaha


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Okay...my work here is done! I have knitting to do!

Nighty night.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I could write for the 'left-leaning media.' I'm way to the left of those guys. I find mission statements a joke in most cases, certainly in this one. I think social issues trump mission statements. Hungry children worry me much more than flags. I can see why Boston wouldn't be a good fit for you. Enjoy the 'warmer' climes.



Gerslay said:


> Once again, you are blinded to the truth by the left-leaning media.
> 
> The Tea Party's mission statement is to restore Americas founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets. Period. We take no stance on social issues.
> 
> And no, I'm a Bostonian from a proud democratic liberal secular union family who came to her senses and left the northeast for better climes...in more ways than one!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

IMO money is important, but it isn't the most important. I'm not hoodwinked by anyone. I examine everything and make my own decisions.



Gerslay said:


> The left has hoodwinked women (and minorities) into believing that social policies is where the game is at but the only thing that all people should vote is their wallet. Your money is all you really have to give and the only thing that the govt really wants from you. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
> 
> The War on Women is just that...smoke and mirrors!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks for the image!



VocalLisa said:


> I think it might because of fear of what COULD be a nasty misogynist skit at an RNC convention making fun of liberal women's looks (_when they're not visiting strip clubs that is_).
> 
> You know, the one where all "Young Republicans" are wolf-whistling at the woman with the beautiful hair when they see her from behind and then she turns around and shows her face and the guys react in horror.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Why do you say so? I'm really asking for your complete thoughts.



Gerslay said:


> It sounds cynical, but its pure wisdom.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Gerslay said:


> Hmmm, let's see...
> 
> (R) Ann Romney, Kelly Ayotte, Mary Bono, Sarah Palin, Cathy McMorris, Kimberly Guilfoyle...
> 
> ...


 :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: What are you talking about?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And the winter weather is his fault, etc. Do you really believe that? Do you want me to believe that you believe that?



Gerslay said:


> All false allegations...the inequality in this country is due to Obama`s policies.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The school district apologized. Wonder if they'll have a free pizza party for the kids. Shame on them.



NJG said:


> There was a school in Utah that took lunches away from kids and threw them away because their lunch account had run out of money. Where do people get the idea that that is ok to do?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/01/school-tossed-kids-lunches-in-trash-over-money-owed/


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> And you should; it's a very tired case.
> 
> Seriously, I get it. The Democratic women are all bright, hard-working and financially independent.
> 
> The Repub women are Kelly Ayotte, governor; Ann Romney, some rich guy's wife; Sarah Palin, ignorant loser of a vice-presidential election and quitter after half a term as governor, and I've never heard of the others. Thank you for making my case for me.


 :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Perhaps someone on the Supreme Court could address the 'is what it is' issue. Simple is as simple does.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



rocky1991 said:


> joeysomma said:
> 
> 
> > There is ao way he is imposing his belief on others.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> So you are in favor of letting the children starve. And repubs want to cut even more. Gotta love those fundamentalist Christians, living Christ's words.


They'd let baby Jesus starve too if he forgot his lunch money.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

We're laughing at the mess the GOP has created by insulting women, minorities, gays...and probably pets too. Self destruct. I love it.



Gerslay said:


> The progressive movement is over... your blessed Obama has set it back two generations with his policies and most specifically with Obamacare. Its no wonder you're all so angry.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

rocky1991 said:


> That is quite the statement. Obama has only been in office for 5 years, the inequality started at least 30 years ago. Is this something like his birth conspiracy theory?


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Is that all the GOP thinks of women? No need to answer.



Poor Purl said:


> I think she was looking for gop women that she considers physically attractive and trying to compare them to Dem women that she thinks aren't. Kind of shallow.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Management has no respect for labor. I hope Union Movement reforms and comes back big time.



MarilynKnits said:


> An example of how Conservative businesses work. The company where I worked 26 years was owned by WR Grace for the first 13 I was there. They had a pension plan for hourly workers and a different one for salaried workers. I was hourly for 10 years and my monthly pension is $46.08. I was salaried for 3 years and the pension from that plan is $69.13. Has been the same since I started collecting when I was 62, 13 years ago with no cost of living increase. Management was all salaried, so their pensions were way higher than hourly people.
> 
> Once they sold, no more pension from the subsequent owners, we had 401K plans.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

KPG won't let you play reindeer games if you apologize. It's a right-wing rule around here.



Gerslay said:


> Okay, me bad...I misread the post and jumped to conclusions.
> 
> Mega Mea Culpas!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Oh, Gerslay, I'd like to know if Tea Party has no social agenda, why have they applied for tax-exempt 501(c)4 status? Social welfare groups must spend most on social issues and less than half on politics. Please explain.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> .


Thomas Paine said a lot, but I don't recall any of them as funny. This quote is.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> I could write for the 'left-leaning media.' I'm way to the left of those guys. I find mission statements a joke in most cases, certainly in this one. I think social issues trump mission statements. Hungry children worry me much more than flags. I can see why Boston wouldn't be a good fit for you. Enjoy the 'warmer' climes.


If you hadn't responded to it, I would never have seen the reference to "Americas founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets." Remember how Jefferson and Madison used to argue about those things? While Ben Franklin made jokes at their expense?

If you needed proof, this shows without a doubt the lunacy of the TP.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> They'd let baby Jesus starve too if he forgot his lunch money.


 :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'd rest my case but they won't let me.



Poor Purl said:


> If you hadn't responded to it, I would never have seen the reference to "Americas founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets." Remember how Jefferson and Madison used to argue about those things? While Ben Franklin made jokes at their expense?
> 
> If you needed proof, this shows without a doubt the lunacy of the TP.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> All false allegations...the inequality in this country is due to Obama`s policies.


My, but Obama is really talented! The wide gap between the 1% and the rest of us began well over 20 years ago--he must have started young in his evil plan for global domination...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> My, but Obama is really talented! The wide gap between the 1% and the rest of us began well over 20 years ago--he must have started young in his evil plan for global domination...


Of course he did. Remember how, when he was just born, he managed to put a birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers even though he was in Kenya (and in a swaddling blanket) at the time? Never let illogic stand in your way.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

damemary said:


> We're laughing at the mess the GOP has created by insulting women, minorities, gays...and probably pets too. Self destruct. I love it.


There is a staunch republican in our family. Very right leaning. After Obama was elected she wrote my mil in an email (I don't think it was the main purpose of the email, mil is her cousin so they were emailing), "How's Lora enjoying socialism?" My mil told me, I rolled my eyes and said, "Tell her I'll let her know when we have it."

But this person, so right leaning, ready to spout her views on everything (not just politics, and she's always right) actually was saying that the Republican party was self destructing. You could have knocked me over with a feather! When she said that I knew for sure they were going down if they'd lost her!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> There is a staunch republican in our family. Very right leaning. After Obama was elected she wrote my mil in an email (I don't think it was the main purpose of the email, mil is her cousin so they were emailing), "How's Lora enjoying socialism?" My mil told me, I rolled my eyes and said, "Tell her I'll let her know when we have it."
> 
> But this person, so right leaning, ready to spout her views on everything (not just politics, and she's always right) actually was saying that the Republican party was self destructing. You could have knocked me over with a feather! When she said that I knew for sure they were going down if they'd lost her!


I have no doubt that even the people on this site, and others, admit that the GOP is no longer grand as they talk amongst themselves. Could self-respecting women accept those rape comments? One in three or four means them or a friend, right? Maybe even all of them.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

It is so shallow to dwell upon people's physical attributes unless they are actors where it seems to matter. I could care less what a politician looks like. I need the rare qualities of honesty, intelligence, impartiality, and empathy that seem to be lacking in most of them, male or female. 

I had the good fortune of being a constituent of the late Millicent Fenwick, who was as high level a statesperson as you could hope for. She set the bar higher than most of today's elected officials can even see.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

sumpleby said:


> My, but Obama is really talented! The wide gap between the 1% and the rest of us began well over 20 years ago--he must have started young in his evil plan for global domination...


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Of course he did. Remember how, when he was just born, he managed to put a birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers even though he was in Kenya (and in a swaddling blanket) at the time? Never let illogic stand in your way.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hip hip hooray! There is hope.



Lkholcomb said:


> There is a staunch republican in our family. Very right leaning. After Obama was elected she wrote my mil in an email (I don't think it was the main purpose of the email, mil is her cousin so they were emailing), "How's Lora enjoying socialism?" My mil told me, I rolled my eyes and said, "Tell her I'll let her know when we have it."
> 
> But this person, so right leaning, ready to spout her views on everything (not just politics, and she's always right) actually was saying that the Republican party was self destructing. You could have knocked me over with a feather! When she said that I knew for sure they were going down if they'd lost her!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> Hip hip hooray! There is hope.


Not quite so sure. Even if the SS Republican is undeniably going down, it's not a given that its cargo of bilge rats has the brains to abandon ship. Too many seem ready to dig their claws into the deck and hang on, even as the ship's bow dips underwater.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> If you hadn't responded to it, I would never have seen the reference to "Americas founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets." Remember how Jefferson and Madison used to argue about those things? While Ben Franklin made jokes at their expense?
> 
> If you needed proof, this shows without a doubt the lunacy of the TP.


Poo Purl
The Tea Party progressed way beyond lunacy. They are in a Universe all of their own.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Political commentator Mark Shields, possibly the most ardent apologist for Mr. Obama and his presidency, raised the stakes when he acknowledged recently that if they cant fix Obamacare, it will mark the end of the progressive era in America.
> 
> Its not just the right saying it...there are many on the left saying it as well.


Gerslay
enjoy your irrational outlook now, Obamacare is here to stay and will be expanded and in the future WE THE PEOPLE would go to War if anyone tried to take Obamacare from us.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> Poo Purl
> The Tea Party progressed way beyond lunacy. They are in a Universe all of their own.


That seems to be true. But Huck, I don't think it's nice to call anyone "Poo," even TPers.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

In the meantime we will just have to laugh at their antics and quit trying to make sense of them. IMO



susanmos2000 said:


> Not quite so sure. Even if the SS Republican is undeniably going down, it's not a given that its cargo of bilge rats has the brains to abandon ship. Too many seem ready to dig their claws into the deck and hang on, even as the ship's bow dips underwater.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Please consider again.



Poor Purl said:


> That seems to be true. But Huck, I don't think it's nice to call anyone "Poo," even TPers.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Please consider again.


Considering that they're TP, maybe "Poo" is okay for them, but Huckleberry used it for me!!!
:evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

alcameron said:


> Someone (KPG) who calls people stupid, dumb, idiot, etc., and who has made nasty comments about everyone who disagrees with her from day one, should not be scolding people for anything.


I began reading your posts, Alcameron, seems hypocrisy prevails:

http://www.knittingparadise.com/user_posts_listing.jsp?usernum=24833&page=1



alcameron said:


> Also, it takes arrogance (and I'm not sure what else) to post and brag about your own hair.


Perhaps you meant to direct to those who bragged, KPG didn't:



Janet Cooke said:


> I can understand people taking pride in a skill like that, frankly I see it as the same as my very nice hair. I did nothing to earn it, it just is. It is not to my credit that I have good hair.





Huckleberry said:


> knitpresentgifts, Trying to have a hair contest with a Wig? My tresses will put yours to shame. By the way I have a face pleasant to look at and do not need to turn my back to others to get any attention with my hair.





alcameron said:


> I think good Christian people should display humility as Jesus did, right?


Correct: consider your signature line: "For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."



alcameron said:


> I like my hair, too, but why on earth would I post a picture of it?


Lots of reasons; here are some along with photos to view within the thread. (KPG had a different reason in another thread as did other KPers in yet more threads.) http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-207535-1.html

Why are you judging me? A good Christian should not. I've sought forgiveness.

John 8:7 _ So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her._


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> You might read between the lines and you'll see her smirking with delight at the whole skit which was meant to be derogatory of not only gop men but also gop women.
> 
> Good try Cookie!


Your mind was reading between the lines. Shows us where you mind is.


----------



## rocky1991 (May 8, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> You might read between the lines and you'll see her smirking with delight at the whole skit which was meant to be derogatory of not only gop men but also gop women.
> 
> Good try Cookie!


Your mind was reading between the lines. Shows us where you mind is.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Hi Yarnie
> Someone (KPG) who calls people stupid, dumb, idiot, etc., and who has made nasty comments about everyone who disagrees with her from day one, should not be scolding people for anything. Also, it takes arrogance (and I'm not sure what else) to post and brag about your own hair. I think good Christian people should display humility as Jesus did, right? I like my hair, too, but why on earth would I post a picture of it? To make people jealous? To show off? What? To show you can grow hair? She is a victim of nothing.


The response to this is written in the third person, either because one of the multiple personalities is writing about another or because of some kind of royalty thing. Hysterical.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

rocky1991 said:


> Your mind was reading between the lines. Shows us where you mind is.


She can't. It's absent.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> All false allegations...the inequality in this country is due to Obama`s policies.


The inequality in this country has been here way longer that Obama has been President. Tell me which policy of his has created inequality?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

NJG said:


> The inequality in this country has been here way longer that Obama has been President. Tell me which policy of his has created inequality?


His policy of acting like a duly elected president. It spoiled everything!
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> The response to this is written in the third person, either because one of the multiple personalities is writing about another or because of some kind of royalty thing. Hysterical.


I used the same acronym the original poster (Alcameron) did to offer consistency and avoid confusion.

I believe all KP readers understand the writer is the one attached to the avatar. I assume many KPers reading have no idea who KPG refers to nor have read most of *my* posts; hence why I used *both* subjective and third person references although mostly I used direct quotes and links.

Obviously, as evidenced by your statement, *you* cannot recognize the difference. If my posts don't please you, your Royal Highness, don't bother reading or critiquing them.

Me, myself and I found no humor, accuracy or relevance in _your_ work.

I bow down to only _one_ and it ain't you.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> And you should; it's a very tired case.
> 
> Seriously, I get it. The Democratic women are all bright, hard-working and financially independent.
> 
> The Repub women are Kelly Ayotte, governor; Ann Romney, some rich guy's wife; Sarah Palin, ignorant loser of a vice-presidential election and quitter after half a term as governor, and I've never heard of the others. Thank you for making my case for me.


 Cathy McMorris, is the republican that was allowed to give the rebuttal speech after the SOTU speech the other night. Had never heard anything about her before, but the republicans trotted her out to make themselves look better, or anyway they thought it would. Kimberly Guilfoyle is a Fox News personality. She use to be an assistant district attorney at the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorney's Offices. She then did trial coverage on tv, then was at GMA and ended up at Fox so a much easier job for her now. She no longer has to be concerned about the truth, just sit there and spew what ever you want.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

NJG said:


> Cathy McMorris, is the republican that was allowed to give the rebuttal speech after the SOTU speech the other night. Had never heard anything about her before, but the republicans trotted her out to make themselves look better, or anyway they thought it would. Kimberly Guilfoyle is a Fox News personality. She use to be an assistant district attorney at the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorney's Offices. She then did trial coverage on tv, then was at GMA and ended up at Fox so a much easier job for her now. She no longer has to be concerned about the truth, just sit there and spew what ever you want.


So they actually exist and are held up to show how pretty Republicans are. But nobody has to move to Fox to be able to lie on the job. They do it all the time in Congress.


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Political commentator Mark Shields, possibly the most ardent apologist for Mr. Obama and his presidency, raised the stakes when he acknowledged recently that if they cant fix Obamacare, it will mark the end of the progressive era in America.
> 
> Its not just the right saying it...there are many on the left saying it as well.


Gerslay

Obama is not a leftie. Actually Democrats are more Republican these days.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> The progressive movement is over... your blessed Obama has set it back two generations with his policies and most specifically with Obamacare. Its no wonder you're all so angry.


I think the republicans in Washington are trying to move on. Maybe you need to try that too. Obamacare is the law of the land and many many people now have insurance that didn't before. They know it would make them look bad if they took it away now, even though that is what they want to do. They really don't give a da__ for all those people that were uninsured. Now you tell me what other policies you are talking about, because the republicans have not allowed any of his policies to pass. It always amazes me when things like his policies are said, because he hasn't been allowed to do anything.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Considering that they're TP, maybe "Poo" is okay for them, but Huckleberry used it for me!!!
> :evil: :evil: :evil:


Poor Purl
I am missing something. what is it? Don't get that "Poo" thing.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> That is horrible. We have had our kids lunch account go over sometimes. Sometimes we just don't get the notifications that they need more, wether the office didn't send them or they got lost. If it goes over $5 the kids get only a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I honestly feel horrible for the kids who don't have lunches. We have a large population of migrant workers (we live in a very large apple producing county, I believe it is the second largest producer coming in second to Washington state). I just feel for those kids... But then I have a large bleeding heart (and proud of it!)


Me too. Think of the poor child, sitting there eating a PB&J and all those around him knowing why. It would be ok if other kids had empathy for him, but that is not the way it would be. Kids can be very nasty, and after some of them listen to their parents talk like some of the right wing on these forums, that poor child will be miserable. So sad.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Political commentator Mark Shields, possibly the most ardent apologist for Mr. Obama and his presidency, raised the stakes when he acknowledged recently that if they cant fix Obamacare, it will mark the end of the progressive era in America.
> 
> Its not just the right saying it...there are many on the left saying it as well.


I have never heard of Mark Schilds, so don't take much account of what he says. Who else on the left has said something. I think there have been many republicans speaking out against their fellow republicans. As an example how many republicans have spoke out against Ted Cruz for the shut down and the funny thing is he still thinks he can run for president and blame someone else for the shutdown. He needs to live in the real world.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Show me where it says anything about GOP _women_. It mentions liberal women, and it mentions Young Republicans, who must be male since they're whistling at a woman.
> 
> Would you still like me to tell you who's shallow? Because my vote goes to the person who said "Your money is all you really have to give."


I think a lot of republicans are just like Fox News personalities. They hear something, and repeat it as they wish it was, not how it really is.


----------



## CalifJane (Jul 28, 2011)

If your only goal is to learn about knitting and crocheting then don't open the "general chit chat' section. I don't mind hearing about different subjects,, sometimes. I don't have to agree with all of them. With the easy availability to birth control it is amazing so many people have to turn to a surgical procedure as a form of birth control. I guess "control" is the watchword.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

damemary said:


> We're laughing at the mess the GOP has created by insulting women, minorities, gays...and probably pets too. Self destruct. I love it.


Yes, just think of the number of gay people who came out years ago as compared to the number there are now. How com the republicans don't realize that? They just continue to offend them and discriminate against them. The same with minorities and the poor. Those rich old white republican men will continue to die off, while the other populations will continue to grow. They are in so much trouble. I think they see it and know they need to change, but just can't say things they don't believe.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Of course he did. Remember how, when he was just born, he managed to put a birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers even though he was in Kenya (and in a swaddling blanket) at the time? Never let illogic stand in your way.


You know if you say it enough times it becomes the truth.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> It sounds cynical, but its pure wisdom.


Only if you think that absolutely no wisdom at all = "pure wisdom".


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> All false allegations...the inequality in this country is due to Obama`s policies.


Now all of a sudden inequality is INVENTED by Obama. There was no inequality until Obama's policies? Is this another example of your "wisdom"?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Hmmm, let's see...
> 
> (R) Ann Romney, Kelly Ayotte, Mary Bono, Sarah Palin, Cathy McMorris, Kimberly Guilfoyle...
> 
> ...


You should really learn how to use the quote feature. Who and what are you responding to?

Or is this just you acknowledging that _some_ women exist in politics?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> I think she was looking for gop women that she considers physically attractive and trying to compare them to Dem women that she thinks aren't. Kind of shallow.


She basically did EXACTLY what I said the GOP does... they call liberal women ugly and then put up their brain dead nutjob mysoginistic females as an example of how they choose "beauty", (which is usually more plastic than anything else) over substance when they choose their female "leaders".

She proved my point for me.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

maysmom said:


> You seem to have given Obama way more power and influence than he ever had.
> :shock:


That's because they're constantly afraid of black men. They attribute to them "super powers" from which the more "civilized" white culture must protect themselves. It's a classic form of Xenophobia. Afraid of what you don't know, and amplifying and distorting the attributes and powers they IMAGINE black people (or any "OTHER") mythically has.

Hence the presumption of the size of black male's penises.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

BrattyPatty said:


> Keep believing that. One day you will see how wrong that statement is.


No she won't. RWer's of this type consistently cut their noses off to spite their face and they never learn.

There have been books written about the Right's tendency to vote against their own best interests.

Lee Attwater, before he died, admitted that their strategey was to target a specific TYPE of person that was easily bamboozled and "bought off". He literally said that they knew that certain religious sectors of the country, (at the time the kind of people who gave large portions of their incomes to televangalists and the like), would be EASY to manipulate.

In short if you get them all flustered up about social issues like homosexuality and abortion, you can get those people to put aside their OWN needs and requirements and stop voting in their own best interest.

Lee Attwater said they were like babies who's attention is easily drawn away by the rattling of shiny keys.

This lot of intellectual Zombies, have now "matured" and essentially "run" the GOP now. They are as stupid as they ever were, but they actually have SOME power.

This is what we're dealing with when we try to talk reason. They simply are not people who are genuinely looking for solutions to problems.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> VocalLisa made derogatory remarks about the looks of gop women (see pg 86)...I simply set the record straight.


I didn't make any derogatory remarks about GOP women.

I said the making fun of women's looks could easily be a skit at a GOP convention.

*And then you went right ahead and proved my point for me and called GOP women pretty and Liberal women ugly.
*
Which is exactly what I said the GOP does.

Thanks for proving my point for me


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Once again, VocalLisa started it and I finished it. Now who is the shallow one?


I didn't start what you think I did.

What I "started" was the notion that GOPers making fun of women's (especially liberal women's) looks --- and then you did exactly what I said GOPers do.

Good job! :thumbup: :lol:


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> My eyes are wide open PP...I hope yours are too.


Being ANYTHING "pro-Tea party" necessitates not only closed eyes, but a closed mind.

So, it's just simply not logistically possible to "defend" the Tea Party and have "eyes wide open".


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Janet Cooke said:


> Actually, you totally missed the point.
> The comment, and VocalLisa is certainly not the first with this observation, is about the misogynist outlook of Republican men.
> You just fell straight into their trap.


LOL!! Exactly right. That knee=jerk "making fun of liberal women's looks" in such a chauvinist manner is exactly what I predicted, and she demonstrated how right I was.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Political commentator Mark Shields, possibly the most ardent apologist for Mr. Obama and his presidency, raised the stakes when he acknowledged recently that if they cant fix Obamacare, it will mark the end of the progressive era in America.
> 
> Its not just the right saying it...there are many on the left saying it as well.


I hate to break it to you sweetie, but the only thing that was "broken" was the launch of the website, not Obamacare itself (_although like any new large program, it can be improved with tweeks_).

The Obamacare WEBSITE" which Mark Shields was speaking of, has been fixed and is working fine.

The only thing wrong with Obamacare are the parts that the Republicans kept from coming to fruition, like a public option, or for that matter, a single payer "Medicare-for-All" system.

And many on the Right are admitting that a single payer (although they're against it) WOULD logistically been better and easier to implement (_which is why they didn't want it, because they were TRYING to sabotage the ACA_)

If there had been a public option, those people who say they couldn't keep the plans they have now .... that wouldn't have happened. That happened SPECIFICALLY because of the GOP refusal to allow a public option.

We must all remember. "Obama/Romney care" was the REPUBLICAN idea of how to handle healthcare in this country in order to oppose a single payer system. It is the REPUBLICAN plan that insists on giving these insurance companies the power they have now.

If it were all up to Obama, we would've at LEAST had a public option, that would create a competition that would keep costs low.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Poor Purl said:


> Show me where it says anything about GOP _women_. It mentions liberal women, and it mentions Young Republicans, who must be male since they're whistling at a woman.
> 
> Would you still like me to tell you who's shallow? Because my vote goes to the person who said "Your money is all you really have to give."


Thank you. You're exactly right.

And lets face it. Someone who thinks our money is all we have to give", is admitting she has nothing else to offer. No intelligence, no talent, and no hard work.

I would agree that's the norm on the Right, so I can understand why the Right, who lacks so much, could have that myopic view, because that's all THEY have to offer.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> You might read between the lines and you'll see her smirking with delight at the whole skit which was meant to be derogatory of not only gop men but also gop women.
> 
> Good try Cookie!


I pointed out how making fun of ALL women, but especially liberal women's looks is something that's runs rampant in the GOP, particually Young Republicans...

And then you went right ahead with your list of supposedly pretty Republican women and less attractive liberal women.

Thereby proving my point about the knee-jerk misogynist bent on the Right.

What you said is EXACTLY what I would expect a misogynist RW to say.

Thanks again for proving my point.

I only posited that a RWer who would show off her hair, being that she's from a political realm where her face would be made fun of ... would be afraid to show it. And that's why the Avatar is restricted to her hair.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I hate to break it to you sweetie, but the only thing that was "broken" was the launch of the website, not Obamacare itself (_although like any new large program, it can be improved with tweeks_).
> 
> The Obamacare WEBSITE" which Mark Shields was speaking of, has been fixed and is working fine.
> 
> ...


The republicans not only wanted to sabotage the ACA, they wanted and still want to sabotage President Obama. I wish the democrats had done the same to Bush, but that is not how democrats operate. They have empathy for this country and the people of this country, republicans have empathy only for those at the top.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> I only posited that a RWer who would show off her hair, being that she's from a political realm where her face would be made fun of ... would be afraid to show it. And that's why the Avatar is restricted to her hair.


The only people who would make fun of anyone's face, is a person from your political realm or persuasion or maintains your lack of character.

Per usual, you have no clue why I do the things I do, what I believe or why I posted my avatar restricted to my hair alone. Are you certain I'm even a RWer?

Too bad you proved your intolerance and bigoted ignorance for all to see. Thanks for your transparency and proving to me what I thought about you.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The only people who would make fun of anyone's face, is a person from your political realm or persuasion or maintains your lack of character.


Right, like Gerslay. Which she proceed to do right away.

And is is exactly why I pointing out Young Republicans as that's exactly their kind of humor.

So, with those types on this board, I don't blame you for only wanting to show the back of your head. No matter how beautiful facially you are, you've got people lake Gerslay, that could very well say something unflattering ... she might compare your looks to someone on her list of ugly Liberals!



knitpresentgifts said:


> Per usual, you have no clue why I do the things I do, what I believe or why I posted my avatar restricted to my hair alone. Are you certain I'm even a RWer?


Oh, you're not as complicated or mysterious as you seem to fancy yourself.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Too bad you proved your intolerance and bigoted ignorance for all to see.


Too bad you and Gerslay have reading comprehension issues. Everyone else seemed to understand what I said in my post.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> Somebody on the left started it by making fun of the looks of gop women (scroll back)...I simply finished it!


Scrolled back. No one did that.

So you've done it all on your own.

Perhaps you made the false presumption you did because that's how you operate and you read into it what you "know". Or as I said, maybe it's simply a reading comprehension issue on your part.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> Poor Purl
> I am missing something. what is it? Don't get that "Poo" thing.


Here's a message from you:

Poo Purl
The Tea Party progressed way beyond lunacy. They are in a Universe all of their own.

Okay, I've been silly about it long enough. All is forgiven.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Gerslay said:


> The progressive movement is over...


Sorry sweetie, as long as people like there are "out there" for all to see, the progressive movement just keeps getting stronger and stronger.

There is a world outside of FoxNews and the "movement" is not what they're telling you it is sweetie.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> Oh, you're not as complicated or mysterious as you seem to fancy yourself.
> 
> I don't blame you for only wanting to show the back of your head.
> 
> ...


I'll repeat: 
Too bad you proved your intolerance *again * along with your bigoted ignorance for all to see. Again, thank you for your transparency which I presume all can comprehend the first time you posted along with recognizing your insolence and lack of integrity and moral character.

_We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them._
-Charles Caleb Colton


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

rocky1991 said:


> That is quite the statement. Obama has only been in office for 5 years, the inequality started at least 30 years ago. Is this something like his birth conspiracy theory?


Yes, the income disparity CLEARLY started soon after Reagan was in office:



It FINALLY started going down in the wake of 8 years of Clinton, then Bush came in, and it shot up again. Since then then the financial meltdown happened and the supreme court has made corporations "people too", making it nearly impossible to fix the problems that cause the income inequality.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

David Wildstein has said Christie knew about the lane closings on the GWB and he has proof. Stepien has also said he would take the 5th and is refusing to turn over his documents, according to his lawyer.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'll repeat:
> Too bad you proved your intolerance *again *


And I'll repeat:

Too bad you've proved you've got reading comprehension problems.

But I do admit to having an intolerance for willful stupidity and bigotry. (_and no, intolerance of bigotry is not bigotry in and of itself although that's a common claim of white supremacist and homophobic groups._)


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

NJG said:


> David Wildstein has said Christie knew about the lane closings on the GWB and he has proof.


This helps explain why Rudy Guiliani went from saying that he was absolutely positive Christie didn't know because he'd be stupid for making those denials the way he did, to saying yesterday there's a 50/50 chance Christie knew.

He KNEW this was coming down the pike. He learned that Christie did indeed know.

Bridge scandal: Chris Christie knew about lane closures, Wildstein's lawyer says



> The attorney representing David Wildstein, a former official at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said today that Gov. Chris Christie knew of the closure of lanes from Fort Lee on to the George Washington Bridge when they occurred in September.
> 
> "Evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference" last month, the attorney, Alan Zegas, said.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> Thank you. You're exactly right.
> 
> And lets face it. Someone who thinks our money is all we have to give", is admitting she has nothing else to offer. No intelligence, no talent, and no hard work.
> 
> I would agree that's the norm on the Right, so I can understand why the Right, who lacks so much, could have that myopic view, because that's all THEY have to offer.


That is exactly how I see it, and her, as well.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Christie was really stupid to deny everything, but I guess there wasn't much else he could do, but deny and hope your buds back you up and take the fall for you. Pretty stupid when he says things like he never had much to do with Wildstein. He gave him a job, but he is a nobody. This is usually what happens in situations like this. Most people will say, if I am going down, it won't be alone. Christie was stupid to expect otherwise.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> Christie was really stupid to deny everything, but I guess there wasn't much else he could do, but deny and hope your buds back you up and take the fall for you. Pretty stupid when he says things like he never had much to do with Wildstein. He gave him a job, but he is a nobody. This is usually what happens in situations like this. Most people will say, if I am going down, it won't be alone. Christie was stupid to expect otherwise.


Hmm...seems to have left himself some wiggle room, however:

He added, "The first I ever heard about the issue was when it was first reported in the press, which * I think * was in the aftermath of the leaking of (Patrick) Foye's email. * I think * that was the first I heard of it, but it was certainly well after the whole thing was over."

I suppose he could still claim that his thinking was wrong--no arguments there. He's finished. What a goof.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

NJG said:


> Christie was really stupid to deny everything, but I guess there wasn't much else he could do, but deny and hope your buds back you up and take the fall for you. Pretty stupid when he says things like he never had much to do with Wildstein. He gave him a job, but he is a nobody. This is usually what happens in situations like this. Most people will say, if I am going down, it won't be alone. Christie was stupid to expect otherwise.


Christie did more than give him a job, he CREATED a job that didn't even exist.

And the notes and emails around the hire show that it had nothing to do with a "need" at the port authority for that kind of position or that Wildsteen had any sort of "expertise" for that particular job. It was a downright "present".

Which BTW, is not uncommon in politics, but you don't "Create" jobs for NON friends. You create jobs for people that you know and/or for whom you know will loyally do your bidding without question.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

susanmos2000 said:


> Hmm...seems to have left himself some wiggle room, however:
> 
> He added, "The first I ever heard about the issue was when it was first reported in the press, which * I think * was in the aftermath of the leaking of (Patrick) Foye's email. * I think * that was the first I heard of it, but it was certainly well after the whole thing was over."
> 
> I suppose he could still claim that his thinking was wrong--no arguments there. He's finished. What a goof.


I'll have to go research, but I'm pretty sure that's already been debunked. That he clearly knew BEFORE Foye's email. It might've been after it began, (_in other words, he didn't give the direct order for THAT specific retribution_) but I think that he was aware of it happening AS IT WAS GOING ON and did nothing to try and stop it.

But I'm pretty sure there's some evidence he at least knew before Foye's email.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

VocalLisa said:


> And I'll repeat:
> 
> Too bad you've proved you've got reading comprehension problems.
> 
> But I do admit to having an intolerance for willful stupidity and bigotry. (_and no, intolerance of bigotry is not bigotry in and of itself although that's a common claim of white supremacist and homophobic groups._)


Well at least you've proven to be a consistent bigot. That's saying something and proving one of your points.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

VocalLisa said:


> I'll have to go research, but I'm pretty sure that's already been debunked. That he clearly knew BEFORE Foye's email. It might've been after it began, (_in other words, he didn't give the direct order for THAT specific retribution_) but I think that he was aware of it happening AS IT WAS GOING ON and did nothing to try and stop it.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure there's some evidence he at least knew before Foye's email.


Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that he knew before, during, and after--I'm sure his flunkies don't dare do a thing without The Don's thumbs-up.

Have to admit that I'm a bit disappointed that Christie's managed to shoot himself in the foot here. He definitely would have added a certain zest to the whole Presidential election process. No way he ever could have won, of course--but what fun it would have been to tune in every night and watch him offend folks left, right, and center. The political cartoonists would have had a field day with the guy.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Christie was really stupid to deny everything, but I guess there wasn't much else he could do, but deny and hope your buds back you up and take the fall for you. Pretty stupid when he says things like he never had much to do with Wildstein. He gave him a job, but he is a nobody. This is usually what happens in situations like this. Most people will say, if I am going down, it won't be alone. Christie was stupid to expect otherwise.


This is different from Obama denying knowledge about the NSA and IRS scandals? The only difference is that Obama's people had his back. I always thought Christie had to know what was going on.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> This is different from Obama denying knowledge about the NSA and IRS scandals? The only difference is that Obama's people had his back. I always thought Christie had to know what was going on.


So we were just told yesterday by a KP Tea Party member from NC that the Tea Party has no interest in social issues, that TP is all about fiscal conservatism. 
Could you explain to us why Tea Party groups have been applying for tax exampt status when the criteria states that they are to spend greater than half of their money concerning social welfare?
I am sure that I am missing something that you can simply explain away.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> This is different from Obama denying knowledge about the NSA and IRS scandals? The only difference is that Obama's people had his back. I always thought Christie had to know what was going on.


Actually, I believe there is a difference. The NSA and IRS are organizations that employee tens of thousands of people--the bridge jammers were Christie's closest staff members, folks he spoke to on a daily basis. And it was such a mean spiteful act. Imagine hindering emergency vehicles and seriously inconveniencing thousands of commuters just to get back at a guy who wouldn't back you politically.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

susanmos2000 said:


> Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that he knew before, during, and after--I'm sure his flunkies don't dare do a thing without The Don's thumbs-up.
> 
> Have to admit that I'm a bit disappointed that Christie's managed to shoot himself in the foot here. He definitely would have added a certain zest to the whole Presidential election process. No way he ever could have won, of course--but what fun it would have been to tune in every night and watch him offend folks left, right, and center. The political cartoonists would have had a field day with the guy.


True, Christie was bound to go down in flames but it would've been fun to watch it play out during the general election.

Let's face it, Christie made it clear he was VERY interested in running as Romney's VP, And Romney seemed VERY interested as well... and then suddenly, their interest magically disappeared overnight. .... and leaks from the Romney campaign said that they found "dirt" on Christie that they weren't willing to deal with.

I think we've only heard the tip of the iceburg. This really IS very Nixonian.

Next will be Christie invoking executive privilege,, like Nixon. Which was of course, the REAL beginning of the end.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

soloweygirl said:


> This is different from Obama denying knowledge about the NSA and IRS scandals? The only difference is that Obama's people had his back. I always thought Christie had to know what was going on.


Of course it's different. Given the size of the NSA and IRS there is no rational reason to believe that Obama would have direct knowledge...

However, with Christie, the people involved probably also performed fellatio on him on a regular basis, that's how close they were.

The two situations are not even CLOSE to comparable.

Especially since the IRS "scandal" turned out to be NOTHING given that they equally looked into political LIBERAL groups using terms like "Occupy".

Especially since they SHOULD be looking into fraud with people pretending to be something OTHER than a political group so they can get tax breaks

The real scandal is why all those teaparty/occupy groups weren't charged with TAX FRAUD.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> Me too. Think of the poor child, sitting there eating a PB&J and all those around him knowing why. It would be ok if other kids had empathy for him, but that is not the way it would be. Kids can be very nasty, and after some of them listen to their parents talk like some of the right wing on these forums, that poor child will be miserable. So sad.


Well, pb&j isn't only for those with no money. It is one of their standard options. So if the kids don't like what is offered or the day then they can choose to have a pb&j instead as a substitute.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Well, pb&j isn't only for those with no money. It is one of their standard options. So if the kids don't like what is offered or the day then they can choose to have a pb&j instead as a substitute.


I'm guessing that it also isn't only kids from families with limited funds who run short.

It is so easy to procrastinate and forget to transfer those funds unless one religiously attends to it on the first of the month or whatever.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NO!!!!! I better look back. I'm missing something. Senior moment.



Poor Purl said:


> Considering that they're TP, maybe "Poo" is okay for them, but Huckleberry used it for me!!!
> :evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Can't prove a negative.



Poor Purl said:


> She can't. It's absent.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It's almost too easy.

Good thoughts, Lisa. Thanks for sharing.



VocalLisa said:


> I didn't make any derogatory remarks about GOP women.
> 
> I said the making fun of women's looks could easily be a skit at a GOP convention.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Being ANYTHING "pro-Tea party" necessitates not only closed eyes, but a closed mind.
> 
> So, it's just simply not logistically possible to "defend" the Tea Party and have "eyes wide open".


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Well put!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Bravo. Excellent summation of Obamacare/Romneycare/ACA/whatever you want to call it.



VocalLisa said:


> I hate to break it to you sweetie, but the only thing that was "broken" was the launch of the website, not Obamacare itself (_although like any new large program, it can be improved with tweeks_).
> 
> The Obamacare WEBSITE" which Mark Shields was speaking of, has been fixed and is working fine.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Thank you. You're exactly right.
> 
> And lets face it. Someone who thinks our money is all we have to give", is admitting she has nothing else to offer. No intelligence, no talent, and no hard work.
> 
> I would agree that's the norm on the Right, so I can understand why the Right, who lacks so much, could have that myopic view, because that's all THEY have to offer.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> I pointed out how making fun of ALL women, but especially liberal women's looks is something that's runs rampant in the GOP, particually Young Republicans...
> 
> And then you went right ahead with your list of supposedly pretty Republican women and less attractive liberal women.
> 
> ...


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: I had to change my avatar from a rear view of hair. I was just being a smartypants. Audrey Hepburn feels like a better fit.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It's true. Who has any idea what KPG believes, why she does the things she does, indeed who she is since she has had so many names?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I'm guessing that it also isn't only kids from families with limited funds who run short.
> 
> It is so easy to procrastinate and forget to transfer those funds unless one religiously attends to it on the first of the month or whatever.


Yes, it is. At my son's school each child has an account and "charges" whatever they want to eat. All the choices are healthy and organic, but since the kids are free to choose as little or as much as they want the tab varies drastically from day to day. I try to remember to check and refill the account at least once a week, but it's a hassle. 
Frankly, I much preferred the system used in his old school. No accounts there--if you wanted your child to have a hot lunch you simply handed them two-fifty in the morning and sent them off to class. Much easier.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Sorry sweetie, as long as people like there are "out there" for all to see, the progressive movement just keeps getting stronger and stronger.
> 
> There is a world outside of FoxNews and the "movement" is not what they're telling you it is sweetie.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: Watch the movement gather steam and roll over the rightie tighties.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Ah, Charles Caleb Colton, excentric cleric, back again although no one wants his presence, much like someone else we know.



knitpresentgifts said:


> I'll repeat:
> Too bad you proved your intolerance *again * along with your bigoted ignorance for all to see. Again, thank you for your transparency which I presume all can comprehend the first time you posted along with recognizing your insolence and lack of integrity and moral character.
> 
> _We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them._
> -Charles Caleb Colton


----------



## maysmom (Sep 22, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> You're right. In fact, after the message blaming Obama for the financial inequality in this country, I knew there was nothing up there. I don't know why I bothered to write to her - as if I didn't have anything else to do.
> 
> I'm shutting my computer - it's taking up too much time, and for what? A Palin wannabe.


Now, whoever in her right mind would be a Palin wannabe?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Happy dance! All together. I love it when your intuition proves true.



NJG said:


> David Wildstein has said Christie knew about the lane closings on the GWB and he has proof. Stepien has also said he would take the 5th and is refusing to turn over his documents, according to his lawyer.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The cartoonists and comedians still will. It's a gold mine.



susanmos2000 said:


> Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that he knew before, during, and after--I'm sure his flunkies don't dare do a thing without The Don's thumbs-up.
> 
> Have to admit that I'm a bit disappointed that Christie's managed to shoot himself in the foot here. He definitely would have added a certain zest to the whole Presidential election process. No way he ever could have won, of course--but what fun it would have been to tune in every night and watch him offend folks left, right, and center. The political cartoonists would have had a field day with the guy.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

So low, nice try claiming foresight.

The difference is that the NSA and IRS 'scandals' we never proven to have any illegal wrongdoing whatsoever. This current Christie debacle does. Watch and see what happens, of course you probably know it all already.



soloweygirl said:


> This is different from Obama denying knowledge about the NSA and IRS scandals? The only difference is that Obama's people had his back. I always thought Christie had to know what was going on.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Funny I've asked the same question of Gerslay but no answer thus far.



Janet Cooke said:


> So we were just told yesterday by a KP Tea Party member from NC that the Tea Party has no interest in social issues, that TP is all about fiscal conservatism.
> Could you explain to us why Tea Party groups have been applying for tax exampt status when the criteria states that they are to spend greater than half of their money concerning social welfare?
> I am sure that I am missing something that you can simply explain away.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

VocalLisa said:


> Of course it's different. Given the size of the NSA and IRS there is no rational reason to believe that Obama would have direct knowledge...
> 
> However, with Christie, the people involved probably also performed fellatio on him on a regular basis, that's how close they were.
> 
> ...


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The 'right mind' part is the only answer.



maysmom said:


> Now, whoever in her right mind would be a Palin wannabe?


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

damemary said:


> The 'right mind' part is the only answer.


Palin is such an embarrassment to all women _of substance & intelligence_.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Well at least you've proven to be a consistent bigot. That's saying something and proving one of your points.


As I said, judgement against bigots is not bigotry in and of itself.

However, that's a consistent argument from the KKK and White Supremacist groups. They often claim they're the true victims of bigotry. So, your response is more revealing that you might've realized.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

susanmos2000 said:


> VocalLisa said:
> 
> 
> > I'll have to go research, but I'm pretty sure that's already been debunked. That he clearly knew BEFORE Foye's email. It might've been after it began, (_in other words, he didn't give the direct order for THAT specific retribution_) but I think that he was aware of it happening AS IT WAS GOING ON and did nothing to try and stop it.
> ...


Christie said that NO ONE in his office knew of this situation until after it was over. However emails reveal that to be a blatant lie.

We do know, via email, that the governor's office was getting calls about the traffic problems from Mayor Sokolich and others _DURING THE CRISIS_ telling the office that First Reponders were unable to get to where they needed to go and that it was a dangerous situation and something needed to be done before a tragedy happened. Christina Renna and Evan Ridley, DIRECT aids to Christi are involved in emails back and forth about the concerns from Ft. Lee along with Wildstein and Anne Kelly.

Why were the Christi aids told to not take any of Sokolich's calls?

There is no way in hell these aids would not have informed Christie of a situation like this. No way in hell.

You CAN NOT tell me, especially on an election year DURING the hightened security concerns on 9/11 that the Governor was not informed about this.

And when he was told... he did NOTHING?

The only reason he'd do nothing, is because he was aware of the political retribution in play and was intent on letting it play out.

Otherwise, he had the power to fix the situation with a literal snap of his fingers.

And BTW, according to Ed Randell, he's always found it very strange, because he says that no Governor would ALLOW that to happen under his watch unless he WANTED it. That any Governor would've gotten on the phone and said, "I want those lanes open in 10 minutes, or people's heads will roll". The Governor had that power whether he thought there was a "traffic study" or not.

The governor always had the power to get that traffic moving again if he wanted. What kind of ridiculous idiot, would even have ALLOWED that kind of traffic study on the anniversary of 9/11 if that's all he thought was going on? What kind of governor wouldn't be scared to death of the ramification of a terrorist situation on 9/11 and wouldn't nix any sort of "traffic study" being done at that time.

UNLESS, your BLIND selfish goal is political retribution.

Why were Gov Christies office staff screening Ft Lee mayors calls?

In the emails Ms. Renna seems to be apologizing for Even Ridley having MISTAKENLY accepted a call from Mayor Sokolich because they tricked Evan by using a different phone number.

In other words, they were told to ignore or screen all calls from Mayor Sokolich's office in the middle of this traffic crisis.

So Ms. Renna felt it was necessary to write an email to get it on the record to explain how Sokolich's call got through by mistake.

Christie Staff Screening Calls From Fort Lee Mayor DURING the Ft. Lee Traffic incident.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race or politics and is intolerant of those who differ (The Free Dictionary - Internet).

Going by the above definition you all qualify as bigots.

Too bad for people who found this thread to be potentially interesting and educational (not being American), only to have it sabotaged by...hmmm...bigots.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I'm guessing that it also isn't only kids from families with limited funds who run short.
> 
> It is so easy to procrastinate and forget to transfer those funds unless one religiously attends to it on the first of the month or whatever.


Yup, we have had a few times when our account went over, but sometimes it's because the kids would get "extras" we didn't know about. But our school district is pretty awesome about it.


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

......

and the next shoe to drop may be this.

Remember Wildstein was told to provide all material RELATED TO THE LANE CLOSINGS. Nothing more and nothing less.

And in the material he provided, he provided information between a meeting between CHRISTIE HIMSELF and David Samson, Chairman of the Port Authority, only DAYS before the lanes were ordered shut down.

There is no reason for Wildstein to have provided that information UNLESS is was part and parcel of how the Lane Closings came to be.

Samson and Christie met, and days later Bridget Anne Kelly is giving the order to Wildstein to close the lanes.

To which he replies "Got it" (_because the plans had already been discussed previously and needed no explanation_.)


----------



## VocalLisa (Jan 4, 2014)

Wombatnomore said:


> Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race or politics and is intolerant of those who differ (The Free Dictionary - Internet).


Semantics

As I said, this is a common argument from white supremacists and other groups like the KKK etc...

Anyone who tries to argue it's the same thing to judge racists and is equivalent to genuine bigotry against blacks, women, homosexuals etc...

... is simply showing their true colors.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

She's an embarrassment to the human race. IMO



VocalLisa said:


> Palin is such an embarrassment to all women _of substance & intelligence_.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Dear Ladies of the Left, (VocalLisa, Huckleberry, DameMary, Poor Purl, Janet Cooke, et al)

I'm not one to get into online arguments but I'm ashamed to say that I fell into this one and I behaved badly.

I'm a very busy woman and I'm very interested in many issues and causes but I've decided to focus my energies on just one issue: abortion. That is the only reason why I began to post to this thread...and I regret that I did.

1) VocalLisa >> I misread your post about the RNC skit and I got angry and I retaliated. I'm not happy with my behavior. I posted an apology but I think you must have missed it because you went on for several pages castigating me for my misplaced retaliation. Poor Purl tried to straighten me out to what you really said and recognizing my mistake my sincere responses were these:

Pg 89 >> Okay, me bad...I misread the post and jumped to conclusions. Mega Mea Culpas!

Pg 89 >> Seriously, ladies...I take back the bit about Helen Thomas...she's dead and that wasn't nice. I felt bad about it at the time too!

(2) Pg 86 >> The left has hoodwinked women (and minorities) into believing that social policies is where the game is at but the only thing that all people should vote is their wallet. Your money is all you really have to give and the only thing that the government really wants from you. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. The War on Women is just that...smoke and mirrors!

I have one other post to comment on and that is the above quote stating that the only thing that people should vote is their wallet. I really believe this. I think that everything else is victimizing minorities about social issues causing them to think that change is accomplished in the voting booth. Change is never accomplished in the voting booth, although it is the tool that finally implements the change, it is the rise of awareness in the people that brings about social change. 

For example: It was a progressive movement (mainly women's suffrage and rural temperance groups) that brought about prohibition. However, it was the resistance of the people and subsequent enforcement problems that undid prohibition. The voting booth did not bring about either; in both instances change was brought about by the rising consciousness of the people.

All a person has to give is their time, talent, and treasure. These three things we give voluntarily by donating of our own free will to our families, churches, schools, communities, etc. Its a very different story with the government. The government mandates what it will take from us and all we can do is comply; we do not give, we allow it to take. And what is the only thing that the government takes from any one person - from all of us? Money! (When the draft is enacted it also takes our young men.) And so the only thing that we should consider when we enter the voting booth is what amount of money does the government want to take...and what does it claim it wants to spend it on...and do we agree or disagree. If you think your vote is about something other than your wallet, you've been blind sided. Smoke and mirrors!

There is no War on Women. Women are doing very well. Obama was wrong about the 77 cents that women earn compared to a man's $1. Job for job, skill set for skill set, hour for hour, the real pay differential for women is closer to 87 cents and rising. The glass ceiling is breaking in all fields, including high political office. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. In this regard, some of us are trying to bring about a consciousness shift in the culture to the harm that is done, not only to the fetus, but to the mother, and to the community at large. Abortion is a slippery slope that has ramifications far beyond the individual woman's right to choose.

For example: Now we have the case for "after birth abortion." Princeton's ethicist, Peter Singer, claims that infants, while human, are not "self-aware" therefore they are not "persons". If they are not persons, then they have no independent moral status, no automatic right to life, and no claim to the protections of law. Therefore, the case is made for killing children after they are born if circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion... that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the cases where abortion would be. 

Surely, ladies of the left, you do not support this atrocity...this choice...this war on our children. 

I'll be unwatching this thread.

Peace!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Dear Gerslay, Thank you for taking time to clarify your position. We disagree intrinsically on many issues. Our opinions are our own. Peace is always a good thing.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Dear Gerslay, Thank you for taking time to clarify your position. We disagree intrinsically on many issues. Our opinions are our own. Peace is always a good thing.


Translation: She had her say and is not interested in facts or rebuttal. Nyah Nyah.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Hey Janet, 

You've shown your true colors. I apologized to you in a PM and you chose to not make amends with me; instead, you continue to be nasty...publically.

FYI > I spend the summer at my cottage on White Island Pond in East Wareham...I grew up in the Bridgewaters and Norton...I know an awful lot about Taunton. 

Wicked pissah, eh? Let's do lunch!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Hey Janet,
> 
> You've shown your true colors. I apologized to you in a PM and you chose to not make amends with me; instead, you continue to be nasty...publically.
> 
> ...


No thanks, I don't spend time with nasty and/or selfish people who cannot answer a civil question. 
Why would I respect anyone who insults in public and apologizes in private? Your PM was not viewed, are you pretending that you could not see that it was unread?
Now we know what to add to the rest of YOUR colors.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> No thanks, I don't spend time with nasty and/or selfish people who cannot answer a civil question.
> Why would I respect anyone who insults in public and apologizes in private? Your PM was not viewed, are you pretending that you could not see that it was unread?
> Now we know what to add to the rest of YOUR colors.


Are you pretending you didn't respond to my PM with your own? You might want to look back on that.

Apparently you don't want to do lunch and so I'm not inviting you over for a sunset cruise. So there!

Lighten up a little, will ya?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Dear Ladies of the Left, (VocalLisa, Huckleberry, DameMary, Poor Purl, Janet Cooke, et al)
> 
> I'm not one to get into online arguments but I'm ashamed to say that I fell into this one and I behaved badly.
> 
> ...


You're a hero in my book. My _God_ Bless you and keep you.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Are you pretending you didn't respond to my PM with your own? You might want to look back on that.
> 
> Apparently you don't want to do lunch and so I'm not inviting you over for a sunset cruise. So there!
> 
> Lighten up a little, will ya?


And the second, I deleted. 
Now, please, go enjoy your little place ... I am NOT interested in joking with you, I don't think you are a nice person.

The reason for my confusion is that the following is hardly an apology. It is an excuse.

Gerslay wrote:
I apologize for a poorly expressed question. When you asked me to compare the relative cost of living I was a little confused. When I said "relative to what", I was just seeking clarity. I didn't know if you meant compared to the $10,000, the $50,000, the poverty level in the US, the poverty level in the rest of the world, etc. I wanted to respond to you but I wanted to better understand your question.

I'm a wordsmith by nature and an editor by profession and sometimes I edit my speech (written and typed) so much that, in choosing to be concise, I don't explain myself enough and I am often misunderstood. This is not the first time this has happened to me.

I'm not going to continue this discussion in public. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of abortion. You choose the mother, I choose the child. Perhaps neither of us is altogether right nor altogether wrong.

Peace!

That has little to do with your choice to avoid the reality that being poor is being poor. Poverty hurts children. You choose niether parent nor child. <shrug>


----------



## Michelle42 (Sep 11, 2013)

The word slut is very hateful and makes me wonder what's bubbling under the surface. And I must admit I've never heard liberals referring to women as merely 'lady parts'! I believe having an abortion is a very sad decision to make,but thankfully I've never been in that position and I'm not about to judge any woman who is. I must admit I was waiting to read in this posting that women who are raped (and there are hundreds of thousands over the world each year) do not fall pregnant,as I'm sure some politician remarked a while ago. But any way it's true we should be able to listen to anyone's opinion even though we don't agree with it,that's Democracy surely. Carry on knitting.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Okay, Janet, you can't say I didn't try! There will be no kidding around this time. Instead I'm going to give you some really good advice. You should stop using your name as your user name here and everywhere else online. Someone can find out everything about you...where you live, who lives with you, the value of your home, whether you have hardwood floors or carpet, where you worked, and a whole lot more...for free! For a few dollars more someone can get into your banking records and your health records, and a whole lot more. You should be grateful that I'm a nice person and take my advice and not a nasty person that you think I am. Ve con Dios!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Okay, Janet, you can't say I didn't try! There will be no kidding around this time. Instead I'm going to give you some really good advice. You should stop using your name as your user name here and everywhere else online. Someone can find out everything about you...where you live, who lives with you, the value of your home, whether you have hardwood floors or carpet, where you worked, and a whole lot more...for free! For a few dollars more someone can get into your banking records and your health records, and a whole lot more. You should be grateful that I'm a nice person and take my advice and not a nasty person that you think I am. Ve con Dios!


Or they could hack my records if I shopped at Target. 
Do you think I care that strangers on the internet know just as much about me as the strangers in my neighborhood?
Charming righties like you have already announced all kinds of things about my private information, haven't you?
And you know, that reflects on you not on me. 
If I cared to I could find out about you as well. I am not that interested.
BTW, check to see how many Janet Cookes there are.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I just start with 'not about to judge any woman.' I agree with that. And I also agree with free speech.

I disagree when those concepts lead to craziness, shootings at abortion clinics etc.



Michelle42 said:


> The word slut is very hateful and makes me wonder what's bubbling under the surface. And I must admit I've never heard liberals referring to women as merely 'lady parts'! I believe having an abortion is a very sad decision to make,but thankfully I've never been in that position and I'm not about to judge any woman who is. I must admit I was waiting to read in this posting that women who are raped (and there are hundreds of thousands over the world each year) do not fall pregnant,as I'm sure some politician remarked a while ago. But any way it's true we should be able to listen to anyone's opinion even though we don't agree with it,that's Democracy surely. Carry on knitting.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Okay, Janet, you can't say I didn't try! There will be no kidding around this time. Instead I'm going to give you some really good advice. You should stop using your name as your user name here and everywhere else online. Someone can find out everything about you...where you live, who lives with you, the value of your home, whether you have hardwood floors or carpet, where you worked, and a whole lot more...for free! For a few dollars more someone can get into your banking records and your health records, and a whole lot more. You should be grateful that I'm a nice person and take my advice and not a nasty person that you think I am. Ve con Dios!


Gerslay
are you knitpresent's Twin? You are some scary, nasty b...........


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> Or they could hack my records if I shopped at Target.
> Do you think I care that strangers on the internet know just as much about me as the strangers in my neighborhood?
> Charming righties like you have already announced all kinds of things about my private information, haven't you?
> And you know, that reflects on you not on me.
> ...


Janet Cooke
too much leisure time because of having no friends sure makes people do weird things. You should see the stuff knitpresentgifts thinks she knows about me. It is a hoot. Some folks are lonely aren't they! Huck


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Hey Janet,
> 
> You've shown your true colors. I apologized to you in a PM and you chose to not make amends with me; instead, you continue to be nasty...publically.
> 
> ...


Oh, and hey? Tell Shaun I said "Hi", will you?


----------



## cynthia627 (Sep 15, 2013)

advocate said:


> You people need to stay out of our Doctor's offices, out of our bedrooms and out of our politics.
> Bye Pattie


Can't agree more!!! Isn't it amazing that Conservs want 'limited' government but can't stop themselves from interfering in the lives of women by enacting law after law invading a woman's privacy and restricting their constitutionally protected right to an abortion??


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

cynthia627 said:


> Can't agree more!!! Isn't it amazing that Conservs want 'limited' government but can't stop themselves from interfering in the lives of women by enacting law after law invading a woman's privacy and restricting their constitutionally protected right to an abortion??


 :thumbup:


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Are you pretending you didn't respond to my PM with your own? You might want to look back on that.
> 
> Apparently you don't want to do lunch and so I'm not inviting you over for a sunset cruise. So there!
> 
> Lighten up a little, will ya?


 People like her sit in her upstairs room staring at a computer all day so she can blast someone with all her pent up anger. Ever notice how much more angry people like her spew VS conservatives? Why is that I wonder?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> People like her sit in her upstairs room staring at a computer all day so she can blast someone with all her pent up anger. Ever notice how much more angry people like her spew VS conservatives? Why is that I wonder?


The only reason you "notice" those things is that you rarely read an entire message, so you never see the reasoning. It must all seem so unreasonable to you that you regard it as anger and "spewing." Frankly you're so nasty it's a wonder she doesn't reach through the screen and strangle you, but she has the self-control not to do it.

Conservatives, because they're so accustomed to lying, to others and to themselves, make a pretense of not being angry. You, however, can't ever keep from being nasty and insulting, which would indicate where the anger lies.

As for "spewing," you really love disgusting mental pictures, don't you?


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Purl, the right lives in a fantasy land of their own creation. Critical thinking has been banned in their realm and only lunacy remains. Listen and you can hear them howl at the moon.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Purl, the right lives in a fantasy land of their own creation. Critical thinking has been banned in their realm and only lunacy remains. Listen and you can hear them howl at the moon.


Isn't that sentiment so darned sad, mainly because it is so true. 
Unless, of course, conservative women have learned the lesson of "Yes, Dear" and are doing whatever they need to do. 
It's very likely.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Purl, the right lives in a fantasy land of their own creation. Critical thinking has been banned in their realm and only lunacy remains. Listen and you can hear them howl at the moon.


Cheeky that cartoon is awesome. I passed that on to my daughter, she will love it. Thanks


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

It's one thing to give up your own rights but to try to take them away from other women is unconscionable.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

NJG said:


> Cheeky that cartoon is awesome. I passed that on to my daughter, she will love it. Thanks


I am sick of all the lies and horror stories about abortion. No one "likes" abortion but I see it as a necessary medical option for all women and no one's business but the woman and her doctor. I remember all to well what it was like in the "good old days". Women have been either self aborting or assisted by others since women have been getting pregnant. It took two to create that life but the woman has been the one to go through all the pain and suffering yet men want to have control over our bodies. Roe vs. Wade must stand or women will once again resort to the old ways and the old ways need to stay where they are, in the past.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Purl, the right lives in a fantasy land of their own creation. Critical thinking has been banned in their realm and only lunacy remains. Listen and you can hear them howl at the moon.


What a great poster! That Norman Rockwell girl, that picture of Hucklebuck, and that caption. All perfect. And the moon-howling is just the right background.

Cheeky, you are an artiste.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Isn't that sentiment so darned sad, mainly because it is so true.
> Unless, of course, conservative women have learned the lesson of "Yes, Dear" and are doing whatever they need to do.
> It's very likely.


It's what they have to do to get the inheritance.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I am sick of all the lies and horror stories about abortion. No one "likes" abortion but I see it as a necessary medical option for all women and no one's business but the woman and her doctor. I remember all to well what it was like in the "good old days". Women have been either self aborting or assisted by others since women have been getting pregnant. It took two to create that life but the woman has been the one to go through all the pain and suffering yet men want to have control over our bodies. Roe vs. Wade must stand or women will once again resort to the old ways and the old ways need to stay where they are, in the past.


From your mouth to Justice Roberts's ear.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> What a great poster! That Norman Rockwell girl, that picture of Hucklebuck, and that caption. All perfect. And the moon-howling is just the right background.
> 
> Cheeky, you are an artiste.


Thanks, Purl. I always wanted to be called an artiste.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> From your mouth to Justice Roberts's ear.


Do you think he reads Chit Chat on KP, Purl? We can hope can't we? Maybe we could write to him. :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Do you think he reads Chit Chat on KP, Purl? We can hope can't we? Maybe we could write to him. :thumbup:


If he does, I wonder what name he uses.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I am sick of all the lies and horror stories about abortion. No one "likes" abortion but I see it as a necessary medical option for all women and no one's business but the woman and her doctor. I remember all to well what it was like in the "good old days". Women have been either self aborting or assisted by others since women have been getting pregnant. It took two to create that life but the woman has been the one to go through all the pain and suffering yet men want to have control over our bodies. Roe vs. Wade must stand or women will once again resort to the old ways and the old ways need to stay where they are, in the past.


You are so right.


----------



## admin (Jan 12, 2011)

This is an automated notice.

This topic was split up because it reached high page count.
Please feel free to continue the conversation in the new topic that was automatically created here:

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-236354-1.html

Sorry for any inconvenience.


----------

