Doctor ordered to turn in abortion files / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, January 31, 2008

By Roxana Hegeman - Associated Press Writer

January 31, 2008

Wichita — A Sedgwick County judge ruled Wednesday that Dr. George Tiller must begin turning over redacted medical records of about 2,000 women who obtained late-term abortions in the past five years.

Judge Paul Buchanan, who is overseeing a grand jury investigation into Tiller, made his ruling after hearing oral arguments by defense attorneys seeking to quash two citizen grand jury subpoenas - including one that demanded the files of women who ultimately did not get the abortions after going to the clinic.

Buchanan ordered them to use "all deliberate speed" in furnishing the files to the Sedgwick County District Attorney's Office. Those records would be handed over to an independent attorney and physician to review before the grand jury received them.

Defense attorney Lee Thompson said he will immediately ask the Kansas Supreme Court for a stay of the Buchanan's order while he appeals the motion to quash the subpoenas.

Thompson called the subpoenas a "dragnet operation" in their scope.

He was joined in his motion by the Bonnie Scott Jones, an attorney for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, who filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Tiller's patients.

"These patients are terrified their identities will be disclosed," Jones told the judge.

Deputy Sedgwick County District Attorney Ann Swegle countered that the grand jury was convened for 90 days, noting 22 days already have passed. She said getting the records incrementally would be fine.

"We just don't want any foot dragging," Swegle said.

Swegle said the subpoenas were directly related to the charge given to the grand jury.

The subpoenas seek all health care records of patients who aborted a fetus determined to be 22 weeks or older from July 1, 2003, through Jan. 18 at Women's Health Care Services. It also seeks all health care records of each patient who was at least 22 weeks pregnant when she consulted with a physician at the clinic but did not have an abortion.

The grand jury was convened after Kansans for Life gathered nearly 8,000 signatures to force a grand jury investigation into Tiller under a 19th-century state law allowing citizens to invoke grand juries if they feel government officials are not enforcing the law.

"We have an extremist political group generating the grand jury," Thompson told the judge.

David Gittrich, state development director for Kansans for Life, said outside the courtroom that the grand jury is trying to do what it has been commissioned to do.

"We are pleased with the ruling," Gittrich said. "Once again attorneys for Tiller are stonewalling and delaying."

Tiller's lawyers also argued the subpoenas would place an undue burden on the clinic to produce so many medical records.

When former Attorney General Phill Kline subpoenaed 60 redacted medical records from the clinic two years ago, it took two people working full time about one month to comply, the attorneys noted.

Thompson also told the judge it would take 5,000 hours and cost $250,000 in labor costs to comply with the latest subpoenas.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

31 January 2008
at 7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

and the witch hunt and harassment goes on.
31 January 2008
at 8:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm……reminiscent of the Russians being at the gates of Auschwitz but in this case, those who oppose the murder of the unborn are at the gates of Auschwitz On The Plains.

I wonder where they will hold the trial of Kansas' very own Angel Of Death?
31 January 2008
at 8:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

Not like things such as doctor/patient confidentiality would get in the way of a small select group's job of trying to “save souls”.

When this is all said and done, Tiller is going to have a massive lawsuit against the state, and he will win.
31 January 2008
at 8:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

Every little thing that can slow Tiller down is a blessing.

Every subpoena, every grand jury, every investigation, every call from reporters, every dollar he has to pay his disgusting defense attorneys - all are wonderful things.
31 January 2008
at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Dotor/patient confidentiality does not cover the commssion of crimes by a doctor and never has.

Get over it.

Tiller is a mass murderer and will be taken to task for his crimes.

Killing a child in the womb so that he can say that there was no live birth is murder.

An abortion performed on a 14 year-old means that a crime has been committed to get the girl pregnant.

Would you prefer that the age of conset be lowered to, oh, say, ten or so, such that abotions may be performed without legal scrutiny?

Tiller and his lot of mass muderers have long since passed the numbers of the Holocaust; forty million v. six million.

“Choice” is a crime against humanity and should be dealt with as such.
31 January 2008
at 8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Nope, there, scene; just going by the numbers; forty million v. six million.

Which is the larger number?
31 January 2008
at 8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rollcar (Anonymous) says…

“These patients are terrified their identities will be disclosed,” Jones told the judge.

Why exactly are they “terrified” of being exposed if they feel they are doing nothing wrong? Ever wonder why the KKK wore hoods?

31 January 2008
at 8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

gypsynatalie tosses out racial slurs on one site, then comes over here with his “Auschwitz” act.

I'm not fooled by a hypocrite… or an adulteress.
31 January 2008
at 8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…

I guess I don't really have a problem with the reality of the ruling—if Tiller has nothing to hide it shouldn't be a big deal…except for all those hours and dollars to comply concerns me. Regardless, Grand Juries such as this one is entirely legal in the state.

What I do have a big problem with is why the Jury needs to see files of women who didn't have an abortion? What will that accomplish? No abortion, no foul, right? Or am I missing something?
31 January 2008
at 8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

autie (Anonymous) says…

Spend all that time and money to violate constitutional rights? Doens't make mush sense when the parties involved were willful participants and it is not even clear if a crime was ever committed. Auschwitz? Maybe they can get Matthew Harrison Brady to come assist with the prosecution.
31 January 2008
at 8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

As to the case at hand, referenced by this article…

While I'm certainly disheartened by the fact that a violent extremist group can wield judicial process around like some kiind of crucifix-shaped billy club… I have to admit that the *judicial process itself* is much, much better.

On his first request, Judge Buchanan asked for ***_redacted_*** records (for those not familiar, it means records with a patient's name, address, SSN etc. removed or “blacked out”) the first time. This shows that the judge is sensitive to the privacy of the patients, and will only reveal their names if it's absolutely necessary… say, if a patient needs to testify.

This is a complete turnaround from the shoddy excuse for “judicial process” exhibited by Phill Kline. Kline was never in it for “justice”—he was only in it for the media coverage, the fame, the glory. Kline would perform two dozen abortions with his bare hands and a pair of garden tools, if it meant he could be the next “abortion expert” on “The Factor.”

It will be very, very interesting to see how this all turns out—but whatever ending to the story, the privacy of the women is being carefully considered.

And that's only right.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org
31 January 2008
at 8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jhwk2008 (Anonymous) says…

“An abortion performed on a 14 year-old means that a crime has been committed to get the girl pregnant.”

Really? What's that citation in KSA? http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-s…

What if it's a 14 year old boy?
31 January 2008
at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

akt2 (Anonymous) says…

There is a law called HIPPA for short. Health Information Privacy Practices Act. Every one of these patients needs to raise holy hell. They or their guardian most certainly signed a consent for the procedure. If the individual wants to release their confidential medical records for all to see, then fine. Otherwise it is nobody's business.
31 January 2008
at 9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

~~Why exactly are they “terrified” of being exposed if they feel they are doing nothing wrong? Ever wonder why the KKK wore hoods?~~

Probably because of terroristic zealots, like yourself, that think that it is perfectly acceptable to bomb abortion clinics because they don't agree with their “moral code”.

Tiller did nothing wrong. The massive amounts of investigations have only dug up a few minor infractions, which could be found anywhere, even the police department if you look hard enough.

If you don't have things like abortion clinics, then you will either see a ton of deaths from coat hangers, and people going to Mexico where the procedure is legal.
31 January 2008
at 9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

ndmoderate (Anonymous) says:

“I guess I don't really have a problem with the reality of the ruling-if Tiller has nothing to hide it shouldn't be a big deal:except for all those hours and dollars to comply concerns me. Regardless, Grand Juries such as this one is entirely legal in the state.

“What I do have a big problem with is why the Jury needs to see files of women who didn't have an abortion? What will that accomplish? No abortion, no foul, right? Or am I missing something?
_______________________________________________

What it boils down to, ndmoderate, is the ongoing, bumbling ineptitude of extremists, and the politicians and civil servants that bow down to them.

Tiller and his staff have been picketed, harassed, threatened in every way possible… a few years back, a violent extremist even tried to shoot Tiller's arms off. These folks are exclusively driven by hatred, anger, rage, adrenaline… all the most violent, blinding emotions. Because the extremists never take the time to plan… to ponder their actiions, their strategy… to consider the public perception of their actions… each failed attempt only to serves to embolden and empower him even more. “Whatever doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger” could be the “theme” for Tiller's career and practice over the last 20 years or so.

I can only guess that with these latest “grand jury circuses,” the extremists hope to “catch” Tiller in some technical error, or minor oversight. They hope, I suppose, that they can find a “T” that wasn't crossed, or an “i” that wasn't dotted properly… and can leverage that into an excuse for shutting the clinic down.

Sadly, soon-to-be-former Attorney General Paul Morrison actually had the beginnings of a decent case against Tiller. The extremists catterwall, “B-b-b-but those are just *misdemeanors*!!” The truth is, if Six continues the case, and gets even a parking ticket on Tiller or the other doctor he consulted… it will be 100% more successful than Phill Kline will ever be.

I can't deny that there's an outside chance that the extremists will prevail on this—but I don't think it likely. Comparing the actions of the extremists to the actions of Tiller, which is more likely blinded by rage? Which is more likely to think things out, logically and methodically? Who is more careful? Who acts and reacts on impulse and emotion?

Hope that helps somehow, ndmoderate!

31 January 2008
at 9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

For those that have concerns about patient privacy: The judge asked for redacted records.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/redacted

My guess is that a typical redacted record will say something like “Woman, caucasian, age 20, 5'5” 125 lbs., pregnancy terminated approx. 9 weeks gestation. No other medical complications.”
31 January 2008
at 10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

“Choice” is a crime against humanity and should be dealt with as such.

––––––––––––––––––––––––—

Oh really? Apparently that only applies to the abortion debate huh?
31 January 2008
at 10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“How many women miscarry every year? Is that comparable to the Holocaust?”

This presumes that natural death and killing/murder are the same thing. So, who's “offensive, ignorant, and basically just stupid…”?
31 January 2008
at 10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bugmenot (Anonymous) says…

The outrage by these patients isn't that they knew they were doing something wrong, it's that a private medical procedure of theirs is being inspected by a grand jury.

I assume all of you are willing to have your doctors open up your private medical records for inspection by a grand jury. Abortion, like it or not, is still a legal procedure in Kansas. How would you like the results of your colonoscopy open for a grand jury's inspection, or a history of all your yeast infections, STDs, or impotence problems?

Just because you disapprove of the legal procedure being performed doesn't mean everybody who wants to gets a look-see at the medical records.
31 January 2008
at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

“For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open.”

Let it be done according to His will…not ours. You all have not control over this. Never have, never will. Good will always prevail over evil.
31 January 2008
at 10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…

It helps, Agno, and I always appreciate your ability to calmly present coherent thoughts….but….I am still in the dark as to why the Jury needs to see the files of patients who DIDN'T even have an abortion. How do those cases have anything to do with a criminal investigation?
31 January 2008
at 10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Kansas, Home of the Late Term Abortion!!

How about that for a new state slogan? Lets put it on a billboard!!
31 January 2008
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

ndmoderate: I can only speculate that it has something to do with rape, incest, sexual assault etc.

By law, doctors, nurses, clinicians and other health care professionals are required to “report” any suspected cases of the crimes I listed above. For example, if a 12-year-old girl is discovered to be pregnant, that's automatically a case of statutory rape, because the girl is below age 16, the “age of consent” in Kansas; the age of the girl's “boyfriend” (or perpetrator) is irrelevant.

The extremists are hanging their collective hat on the slim possibility that Tiller's clinic failed to report something like this to the authorities. (Does anybody even know anything about the reporting requirements? To whom and/or what agency/office are these reports made? Police? Sheriff? SRS?) They can then make the leap that, “Tiller didn't report a 12-year-old girl's pregnancy—he's aiding and abetting a sexual predator!”

Can't be sure, but I think that's what they're getting at…

31 January 2008
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“.I am still in the dark as to why the Jury needs to see the files of patients who DIDN'T even have an abortion. How do those cases have anything to do with a criminal investigation?”

See Marion's 8:26 posting, first sentence, for the clue. This isn't so much about the 'abortion' as it is the 'underage pregnancy'.

And scenie - I didn't compare the abortion and the Holocaust. Another miss…
31 January 2008
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

scenebooster,

Actually, abortion in America is worse than the Holocaust. Get it straight.
31 January 2008
at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%2…
31 January 2008
at 11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says:

“If you don't have things like abortion clinics, then you will either see a ton of deaths from coat hangers, and people going to Mexico where the procedure is legal.”
_________________________________________

Can't help but wonder…

As porous as the borders are… does that mean in addition to illegal immigrants, drug dealers, drug traffickers, sex slave marketers etc…. we'll have abortion providers from Mexico, sneaking across the border into the Republic of Gilead to ply their trade?

18-wheelers are already used to smuggle illegal immigrants into the USA. Why not a series of “rolling clinics” that move down state highways at night, taking the occasional stop on the side of the road when absolute stability is required for one of the more delicate parts of the procedure?

Better the evil you know… than the evil you don't…

—Ag (perhaps letting his imagination run rampant)
31 January 2008
at 11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says:

scenebooster,

Actually, abortion in America is worse than the Holocaust. Get it straight.
––––––––––––––––––––––—

Oh my God! You can't really be that stupid can you? You should be ashamed for posting something so utterly daft and insulting.
31 January 2008
at 12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

It is worse than the Holocaust. In the case of abortion, each death is a direct result of the mother's decision for her child to die. IIRC, during the Holocaust that was not the case.

Posters should acquaint themselves with the details of late term abortion procedures before announcing that those who object to it are stupid. If you can read what is done to those viable babies and not find it abhorrant perhaps you should hit the yellow brick road to seek out the wizard for a heart.
_________________
Late Term Abortion The procedures
There are three general procedures of late-term abortions and partial birth abortions. The first and most popular is called D&E (Dilation and evacuation). Once the cervix is dilated, the fetus is removed by inserting forceps into the uterus. The Fetus is then separated into pieces. These “pieces” of your baby will be removed one at a time. Vacuum aspiration is then used to ensure no tissue remains in the uterus.

The second procedure is early induction of labor. This is very painful and intense for the woman and is rarely used as an abortion procedure.

The third procedure is called Intact D&X surgery. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[8] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is extracted except for the head. Fourth, the brain of the fetus is evacuated so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus is delivered via the vagina.

Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, scissors are inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening[9], and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.[10]
References follow.
31 January 2008
at 12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

References:
8. Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques American Medical Association. H-5.982 Retrieved April 24, 2007.
9. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ____ (2007). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-19.
10. “Surgical Abortion Procedures” American Pregnancy Association. Accessed April 14, 2006.
Haskell, Martin. “Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion.” Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, September 13, 1992
31 January 2008
at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Posters should also acquaint themselves with the statistics of late term abortion procedures…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-ter…

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrh…

From that second link… couldn't help but chuckle over this…

“Approximately one in five U.S. pregnancies have ended in abortion according to a national sample survey conducted by AGI during 2001—2002 among women having abortions (64). Inconsistent method use of the oral contraceptives (75.9%) or condoms (49.3%) was the most common reason that women became pregnant and obtained abortions (22). Unintended pregnancy is a pervasive public health problem for all population subgroups and women of reproductive age (10,61,67).

Although induced abortions usually are performed for women who have unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception, the approximately 4.6 million women who have had intercourse during the preceding 3 months but were not using contraception might be the most at risk for unintended pregnancy (18). Therefore, a reduction in the number of abortions will require adapting complex strategies aimed at reducing such pregnancies. Insurance coverage of reversible contraception (e.g., vasectomy and tubal ligation) has increased substantially since 1993 (68), although gaps in coverage remain substantial. Education regarding abstinence and contraceptive use, including emergency contraception, combined with access to and education regarding safe, effective contraception and family planning services, might help reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and the number of legal induced abortions in the United States (69,70). ”

The single greatest cause of abortion is the unintended or unwanted pregnancy.

Reduce the number of unintended or unwanted pregnancies, and the number of abortions will go down.

There

Is

No

Other

Way!

—Ag

31 January 2008
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

The first step in the “legal” killing of any group is to dehumanise that group such that the group is not perceived as human beings or “alive”, as the case may be.

By promoting the lie that fetuses are not babies, they can be seen as not alive and there can therefore be no killing or murder involved in the selection or extermination.

Wir mÃ¼ssen die Babies ausrotten!
31 January 2008
at 1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

r_t, some issues make shouldering the title tolerable :)
31 January 2008
at 1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Wir mÃ¼ssen die heuchler der Laecherlichkeit preisgeben!
31 January 2008
at 1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

Can't help you with that, r_t, being a disagreeerer I fit into the “offensive, ignorant, and basically just stupid” catagory :[
31 January 2008
at 2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Wir mÃ¼ssen die Heuchler ausstellen!

Sie werden mit venerischer Krankheit angesteckt!
31 January 2008
at 2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

Agnostick…Your supremacy and ignorance is typical of those as “educated” as you think you are. You frighten me and I'm concerned that you will never know the truth because your self-righteousness has you locked up in your brain. I hope you are not teaching young children, taking care of elderly parents or own any pets.
31 January 2008
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

“:..extremists:.”

hehe. wutev.
––––––––––––––––––––––

Awww…..I've sure missed you R-T. ;)
31 January 2008
at 2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

Definition People:
holocaust
hÅ-lÉ-&*&char114&*&koÌst, &*&char114&*& hÃ¤- also -&*&char114&*&kÃ¤st or &*&char114&*& hoÌ-lÉ-koÌst\
a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide

Fact:
11 Million Died in the hands of Nazis

Fact:
50 Million babies have been killed since abortion was legalized.

The pretty much qualifies as genocide. Extremist? Sure. Call me that if it makes you feel better.

31 January 2008
at 2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Well, lessee here, now…

1) Daughter turns 3 in a couple of months…

2) 2 dogs…

3) Both parents alive, but in their mid-70s, so, getting up in years. Guess I'll have to be dealin' with the “Schiavo Scenario” before long (oh no I won't because they **planned ahead!!!** )

I guess I'm screwed.

Or, does that mean that *you're* screwed?

What “truth” is this you speak of, btw?

Maybe the “truth” spoken of… say… in Matthew 6:1-8…?
31 January 2008
at 2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

Agnostick…you amuse me. Like a cat licking itself.
Matthew 6:1-8? You've never seen me fast, pray or give alms now have you? What ARE you talking about?
31 January 2008
at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

it just keeps getting even more ridiculous here:

Abuse the courts? Tiller abused the entire legal system by creating a lobbying group to stop these “terrorist at Operation Rescue” from exposing the truth that he was not following Kansas law by properly following the law in his practice. Please!

Worst of America? Illegal and unethical? And Tiller should be sainted?

They have NO values? Go away. You are deluded.
31 January 2008
at 3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says:

Definition People:
holocaust
hÅ-lÉ-&*&char114&*&koÌst, &*&char114&*& hÃ¤- also -&*&char114&*&kÃ¤st or &*&char114&*& hoÌ-lÉ-koÌst\
a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide

Fact:
11 Million Died in the hands of Nazis

Fact:
50 Million babies have been killed since abortion was legalized.

The pretty much qualifies as genocide. Extremist? Sure. Call me that if it makes you feel better.
–––––––––––––––––––––––

I don't think your an extremist (yet), but I do think you're a poor debater. You realize your trying to qualify your argument by stating that fetus's are “babies” when you know that position is at the heart of the issue.

You cannot compare the holocaust, the slaughter of 11 million men, women, and children who were actually LIVING at that time, to abortion. I think you need to pick a different analogy.
31 January 2008
at 3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…

Well, I suppose we can un-convene that Grand Jury, since apparently absolutelyridiculous has already pronounced a guilty verdict.

Next!
31 January 2008
at 3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

ThatGril2..you are right. I'm a poor debater. But I can't even imagine NOT calling a fetus a baby because it IS!!!!! A fetus is living tissue that is a man, a woman. It just doesn't get any clearer to me and to argue that it is anything other than a baby…is just insane, deluded and misinformed.

Life is NOT that complex. If you watered a watermelon seed it still is a watermelon when it starts growing now isn't it? It's insane to think of it as a zucchini now isn't it?
31 January 2008
at 3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

roflmao!!!!!!!
31 January 2008
at 3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

I might've been asleep through most of Horticulture 101… but I'm pretty sure that the thing that sprouts out of a watermelon seed is actually a plant.

With proper care, nutrients, watering etc…. the plant then produces a watermelon, a fruit.

roflmao!!!

31 January 2008
at 3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…

the plant doesn't produce a watermelon if you kill it dude.

roflmao 2
31 January 2008
at 3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

A doctor's first duty is to do no harm; therefore abortionists are not doctors. Their trade is taking money to mortally wound a pre born human being and on occasion, even the mother.

Choice is a much bigger word than just killing the innocent who are momentarily inconvenient. Choice also can mean adoption and even an orphanage. Ultimately, choice should mean keeping the child, cared for in a loving family relationship. There is no reason that Tiller the Killer and Planned Barrenhood should continue to sully the word choice.

Is it not extremely hypocritical that every abortion proponent has already been born?
31 January 2008
at 3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Life is NOT that complex. If you watered a watermelon seed it still is a watermelon when it starts growing now isn't it? It's insane to think of it as a zucchini now isn't it?
–––––––––––––––––––––––-

Well, you're actually proving my point. The SEED will grow a watermelon. Just as a FETUS will eventually grow be a BABY. But neither is the same thing at the start which is why we have different words for them. If a watermelon was always watermelon, we wouldn't need the word seed. How is that confusing?

And for the record—life is pretty complex.
31 January 2008
at 3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

STRS says,
“Actually, abortion in America is worse than the Holocaust. Get it straight.”

Unbelievable! Tell that to a holocost survivor!

Incredible! You've just shown how ridiculously out of perspective you are by saying that.
31 January 2008
at 3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

flock,

A pro-life Holocaust survior would agree.
31 January 2008
at 3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

R-T says,
“Who are these 'extremists' in the judicial system, ”

The ones that have (ab)used the grand jury process. That little insurrection raised eyebrows across the nation, mainly among those who are surprised that Kansas can be played that way.
31 January 2008
at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Face it. If men would not ejaculate irresponsibly women would not become pregnant. For we all know…no semen no children.

Yet the focus is always on the women. So when will the emphasis be placed on the men?

It's time to change the discussion in a very big way! Could it be that males need sex education?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birt…
31 January 2008
at 4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says:

flock,

A pro-life Holocaust survior would agree.
––––––––––––––––––––––––—

That's not true. My father in law is pro life, and a holocaust survivor, and he cried reading your post. You are a world class a$$.

31 January 2008
at 4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

absolutelyridiculous says,
“If you watered a watermelon seed it still is a watermelon when it starts growing now isn't it?”

hahahaha! a watermelon seed is not a watermelon. The vine that may come from the seed is not a watermelon. The vine may not bear fruit = still no watermelon. You're lost.
31 January 2008
at 4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

merrill says,
“no semen no children.”

And still no watermelon. Finally, a statement that makes some sense.
31 January 2008
at 4:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

STRS says,
“A pro-life Holocaust survior would agree.”

Now you are pretending to get into the minds of people you don't know and have probably never even met. You are way out on a limb with that argument.

Setting the record slanted?
31 January 2008
at 4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

R_T says,
“that's by the letter of the law-seems there are too many 'extremists' out there”

If that's the case, then why isn't that provision “used” more frequently? That is, if there are so many extremists and this is not merely a way of just attempting to make things so difficult that the other party capitulates.
31 January 2008
at 4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

R_T says,
“If guys would at least pull out *at a minimum* and/or as my brother says 'tarp their load” (he's a truck driver) this could cut the incidence way, way, way down. Simple.”

Hey, now, something we can agree on. But then you would need to expand sex education, which sends the Operation Rescue types into a high-RPM tizzy.
31 January 2008
at 4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sdinges (Anonymous) says…

Can someone please explain how on earth it is justified to ask for the files of women who ultimately did not get an abortion? This is such a violation - of privacy, of rights, and of propriety.

What's the difference between this and these people coming along and demanding my file from my gynecologist just because they have some sense of perverse curiosity? Maybe then they can “accidentally” leak my private information to the public, so that everyone can know the details.

I disagree with these people being able to peruse any woman's private medical files, but demanding the files of women who did not get an abortion is repugnant and unconscionable.
31 January 2008
at 4:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

sdinges: Judge Buchanan has requested redacted records from Tiller. Take a deep breath, pour yourself something to drink, and then go through the original article and the subsequent posts. Or, just look in my posts in this thread. Frustrating, nobody seems to get this.

Redacted records have all personal identifying information removed. “Jane Doe #24” type stuff. If anything looks suspicious, then the grand jury can tell the judge… and the judge can then order Tiller to provide full information for, say, “Jane Doe #26, Jane Doe #33, and Jane Doe #55.”

I think, with Buchanan steering the boat, we can all rest easy that private, personal information will be well-protected.

Now, if somebody like Phill Kline was heading this up? Then you'd have something to worry about…

—Ag
31 January 2008
at 5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

I thought this problem was solved when Phil left and Chester the mollester came in??

Must be those pesky laws getting in the way again.

31 January 2008
at 5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

day (Anonymous) says…

Read the post by Ceallach at 12:21.

I remember the helpless feeling I had holding my crying wife after her miscarriage. I think of the two children I do have and weep while reading the details of this medical procedure.
31 January 2008
at 5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Oh, well; there is nothing to weep about as fetuses are not “alive” according to “Pro-Choice” people.

Fetuses are only blobs of unviable protoplasm, much like an amoebae out of water.

Pull off the legs, suck out the brains, shoot in some acid and let'em rip!

Tiller The Killer; The Kansas Angel Of Death!

Support the selection!

Do not stand in the way of the extermination!

40,000,000 is only a NUMBER!

Just ask Joseph Stalin!

Wir mÃ¼ssen die Babies ausrotten!
31 January 2008
at 6:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Marion, I'm curious how many babies you have adopted?
31 January 2008
at 6:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ThatGirl2:

Nice Red Herring.

I haven't killed any.

How many have you killed?
31 January 2008
at 6:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

None. No red herring, just a question. How many babies have you adopted? You seem passionate about the issue, so just curious. Are you on a waiting list?
31 January 2008
at 6:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ThatGirl2:

Are you suggesting that any baby not adopted or pending adoption should be merely killed in the womb?

Again, a red freaking herring!
31 January 2008
at 6:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…

rollcar (Anonymous) writes:
“Why exactly are they “terrified” of being exposed if they feel they are doing nothing wrong? Ever wonder why the KKK wore hoods?”

rollcar, I wonder the same thing about most of the anonymous posters here on the whole LJW forum ('award-winning' to quote rt), not just this one article and “discussion” (used very loosely). I can only assume it's an accountability issue - not wanting to be responsible for their words.
********
Definition of foetus (Brit spelling) from dictionary.com
“fe*tus /&*&char114&*& fitÉs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled noun, plural -tus*es. Embryology. (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, *in humans after the end of the second month of gestation*.”
(http://dictionary.reference.com/brows…)

So medically an embryo does not become a foetus until after two months. Somebody please explain that to me rationally and without a lot of vitriol.

On another note. We were on a trip to Arkansas and Oklahoma prior to the grand jury being convened. I saw 'sign the petition against Tiller' signs in both states. It even gave the web address — ostensibly owned by someone in KS. The thing I don't understand is if the grand jury was convened in Sedgewick county, should not ALL of the signatures have been from that county? If they weren't, isn't that a violation of the law in and of itself?

Those of you who have *read* my posts know my views on abortion, so I see no need to reiterate them now and add more fodder for the cannons of some of the posters above. Hence, there's no need to flame me on that aspect.

*****************
I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?
31 January 2008
at 7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) writes:
“ThatGirl2:
Are you suggesting that any baby not adopted or pending adoption should be merely killed in the womb?”
*****
Marion, you know TG2 wasn't saying that, so why come back with that comment. I think she had a valid question for you, Would you please answer it?
I adopted a child in case you wish to know. He turned out fine (in spite of my best efforts *grin*) and we're very proud of him.
**************
I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

31 January 2008
at 7:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Uh, Ralph………………I have no “hood of anonymity”.

My “hood of anonymity” was circumcised long ago.

That is exactly what ThatGirl2 is implying; that unwanted babies should be murdered in the womb, so stop trying for the garden path; you ain't that good at spin!
31 January 2008
at 7:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

busymom (Anonymous) says…

Well I was going to get all upset about the privacy issues of the women, however if no names are mentioned then no biggie. I suppose for all those that are advocating pro-life no matter what the circumstances think that women should carry full term after a rape? Or maybe the mom's life is in danger and she will die before the baby is delivered? By no means should abortion be used as an alternative to birth control. For the women who do that, get your tubes tied. We are not the judge/jury people, but thank goodness for freedom of speech or we'd all be in jail ;)
31 January 2008
at 7:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2:

Are you suggesting that any baby not adopted or pending adoption should be merely killed in the womb?

Again, a red freaking herring!
––––––––––––––––––––––

No, I'm not implying anything. Just asking you a question. Why won't you answer it? I think your unwillingness to answer implies something, if I'm being honest.
31 January 2008
at 7:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“No, I'm not implying anything. Just asking you a question. Why won't you answer it? I think your unwillingness to answer implies something, if I'm being honest.”

Marion writes:

Horsesh*t!

Your question is designed such that if I reply. “No, I have not adopted.”, you will use my answer as a justification for the killing of babies in the womb.

Your question is a Red Herring, period.

Whether or not I have adopted is irrelevant.

You are trying to set it up such that if I have not adopted, I have no room to talk about the morality of the killing of babies in the womb and I will not alolow you to do that.

The killing of babies in the womb or otherwise is a crime against humanity and it appears to me that you support such crimes.

Dismembering a baby in the womb and then sucking out its brain and collapsing its skull is wrong.

Period.

The Nazis only killed six milliion.

“Choice” has killed over forty million.

How about THAT for “Karma”?

Abortion by “choice” is murder.

If you believe that it is not, you should campaign for the repeal of laws which allow a murderer who kills a gravid mother to be prosecuted for TWO murders!

Bet you won't do THAT, as you only support the “right” of a “mother” to murder her own baby in the womb!

Ilse Koch has nothing on you, ThatGirl2!
31 January 2008
at 7:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

busymom (Anonymous) says…

Marion, are you speaking from a holocaust survivors point of view? Are you implying that since abortion is murder because it is killing a baby that perhaps all birth control should be outlawed because it prevents the creation of such? (See how ridiculous this entire argument could get and has gotten?)
31 January 2008
at 8:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

busymom:

I am not “implying” a damned thing!

I am stating clearly, rationally and in plain English( English! Do you speak it?) that abortion by “choice” is murder!

You have a comprehension problem?

I'm not talking about “birth control” unless you include the murder of babies in the womb as a method of birth control.

The MURDER of babies in the womb is not “ridiculous”; it is MURDER!

You are very close to the Red Herring, so get off it!

As far as abortion goes, abortion by “choice” is murder.

Get it?

Got it?

Good!
31 January 2008
at 8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

busymom (Anonymous) says…

marion, please read my previous post when I stated that women who use abortion as birth control just need to get their tubes tied thanks. And we don't need to get in a cussing match but comparing abortion to the holocaust is what i was referring to as ridiculous.
And you didn't answer my question if you are speaking as a holocaust survivor? Or would that be the red herring you were referring to.
31 January 2008
at 8:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

busymom wrote:

“comparing abortion to the holocaust is what i was referring to as ridiculous.”

Marion writes:

40,000,000 versus 6.000.000?

Yep; you are correct; the comparison is indeed ridiculous as the Holocaust cannot hold a candle to “Choice”!

31 January 2008
at 8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

busymom (Anonymous) says…

Sigh, agreeing to disagree with Marion at this point even if we both agree on some points anyway.
31 January 2008
at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

With what are you disagreeing with, “Mom”?

The numbers or that the killing of babies in the womb is murder?
31 January 2008
at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“No, I'm not implying anything. Just asking you a question. Why won't you answer it? I think your unwillingness to answer implies something, if I'm being honest.”

Marion writes:

Horsesh*t!

Your question is designed such that if I reply. “No, I have not adopted.”, you will use my answer as a justification for the killing of babies in the womb.

Your question is a Red Herring, period.

Whether or not I have adopted is irrelevant.

You are trying to set it up such that if I have not adopted, I have no room to talk about the morality of the killing of babies in the womb and I will not alolow you to do that.
––––––––––––––––––––––––

You are such a silly man! You seem to think you know an awful lot. Don't you know what happens when you assume, Marion. Speculate all you want–your defensiveness about the issue is far more interesting than any answer I was actually seeking. More amusing too.

Just for giggles, I'll ask again—since I remain genuinely curious given your ferver about babies (or so it seems)—have you adopted?
31 January 2008
at 8:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

Geez, looks like someone is on a bender again
31 January 2008
at 8:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

I am curious too about Marion's passion for children. How many children do you have, Marion? Are any of them adopted?
31 January 2008
at 8:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

busymom (Anonymous) says…

Thatgirl2- Don't bother, Marion doesn't answer questions as I've asked mine twice with no answer.

Marion, I'm disagreeing that abortion is like holocaust. Not disagreeing that when they have to suck out the babies brain that it's murder. Would I ever receive an abortion..nope. Is it up to me to judge those that would? No. Do I have the right to ask those using abortions as a form of birth control to tie their tubes, yep but they don't have to listen. So be agreeing to disagree with you, i choose not to listen to your holocaust comparison.

Have a nice night!
31 January 2008
at 9 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

busymom (Anonymous) says…

thanks ljw for auto taking out some of my caps, I choose. and by not be
31 January 2008
at 9:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Again, adoption is not the issue.

The murder of babies in the womb is the issue.

If you want to start a thread on adoption, feel free to start one over at my community forum or any of the other community forums readily available to you on the internet.

This thread concerns the murder of babies in the womb and nothing else.

The attmepts on your parts to bring in the adoption issue only furthers the idea that “unwanted” children may be and should be dismembered in the womb and cast aside as so much biowaste.

31 January 2008
at 9:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

busymom wrote:

“Marion, I'm disagreeing that abortion is like holocaust. Not disagreeing that when they have to suck out the babies brain that it's murder.”

Marion writes:

If the murder of 40,000,000 human beings is not a “holocaust”, please tell the gentle readers just what the H*ll it is!
31 January 2008
at 9:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sdinges (Anonymous) says…

Agnostick: Thank you for clearing it up. I see where it mentions the files that have been ordered turned over are redacted. Although I don't agree with it, I fully understand what they are looking for in the cases of abortion. But what are they looking for in the cases where no abortion took place? I still don't understand how they justify even asking. They don't seem to be asking for only the files of minors in order to investigate abuse, or am I mistaken?

You are right that Phill Kline has tarnished my trust in this entire process as it relates to this investigation. What exactly do they have to say to get the unredacted information? What needs to be in the file? I feel strongly that these special-interest groups have stepped over the line here and are violating women's privacy. They have shown in the past that they are willing to abuse any information they can get their hands on. Personally if I had visited this clinic for any reason, I'd have hired an attorney by now to protect myself, but I suppose people with the cash to hire an attorney don't visit Planned Parenthood.

I did go through and read your posts, and I understand that my questions may just be rhetorical. I apologize for having not read them more thoroughly, but I admit once the holocaust or Nazis get brought into discussions (it's amazing how frequently that happens!), I don't really bother with the rest.

I think what it comes down to is that it bothers me terribly that these people can claim that they are fighting a “moral” fight even while trampling all over the rights of innocent people, abusing their privacy and violating their most personal information. I maintain that it is unconscionable.
31 January 2008
at 9:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

Again, adoption is not the issue.

The murder of babies in the womb is the issue.

If you want to start a thread on adoption, feel free to start one over at my community forum or any of the other community forums readily available to you on the internet.

This thread concerns the murder of babies in the womb and nothing else.

The attmepts on your parts to bring in the adoption issue only furthers the idea that “unwanted” children may be and should be dismembered in the womb and cast aside as so much biowaste.
––––––––––––––––––––––––—

I never indicated I thought adoption was the issue. I only asked how many children you have adopted out of curiosity. A question which remains unanswered interestingly enough.

Weren't you the one posting question after question about hookah bars and then indicating if no one would answer your question you must be right? I guess by that logic, whatever I am thinking about you right now must be correct.

I have never said anything at all about “unwanted children,”—however, you did—but I'll go ahead and run with it. You seem to support a pro-life postion. Essentially, a position which requires a woman who doesn't want a child to birth that child, and presumably, place that child up for adoption. It's a logical string of thought, whether you like it or not, therefore, I remain on topic (abortion).

The question remains……
31 January 2008
at 9:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Get out the nets!

Red Herrings abound!

The water is thick with them and the murder of babies in the womb continues unabated!
31 January 2008
at 9:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ThatGirl2:

You wanna stay on topic, we can talk.

You wanna play the “What about this?” game; you go talk to your husband. boyfriend or girlfriends who buy into that BS but I am not going to play the game!
31 January 2008
at 9:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2:

You wanna stay on topic, we can talk.

You wanna play the “What about this?” game; you go talk to your husband. boyfriend or girlfriends who buy into that BS but I am not going to play the game!
–––––––––––––––––––––––—

Why not…? It's your game. I already explained the logical explanation of my query to the topic, and if you have an ounce of intelligence, I know you can follow it. I'll ask again—how many children have you adopted?
31 January 2008
at 9:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) writes:
“Uh, Ralph::::::I have no “hood of anonymity”.
My “hood of anonymity” was circumcised long ago.
That is exactly what ThatGirl2 is implying; that unwanted babies should be murdered in the womb, so stop trying for the garden path; you ain't that good at spin!”
*****
Marion, if you read my posts, you'll see I put that statement or similar statements at the bottom of each of my posts. So, it doesn't apply to you, does it? Hence, it shouldn't bother you.
I'm still waiting for an answer to TG2's question as it is now mine also. Are you going to answer the question, or are you going to flame again?
******************
I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?
31 January 2008
at 9:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Dude, I am not “flaming”.

This thread concerns the murder of babies in the womb, NOT adoption and the “questions” regarding “adoption” are only intended to set up a “Well, if you won't, don't or haven't adoopted, why are you against abortion?” game.

I do not play games.

The question is irrelavant to the topic of discussion.

31 January 2008
at 9:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

oops!

typos!
31 January 2008
at 10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

Dude, I am not “flaming”.

This thread concerns the murder of babies in the womb, NOT adoption and the “questions” regarding “adoption” are only intended to set up a “Well, if you won't, don't or haven't adoopted, why are you against abortion?” game.

I do not play games.

The question is irrelavant to the topic of discussion.
–––––––––––––––––––––––-

Actually, you are flaming a little bit. I already explained to you how the question is relevant to the topic of discussion, but let me try again, since you don't seem to “see” (or are unwilling to, because you know it might be detrimental to your position), let me try another tack: assuming abortion is outlawed, and women have babies they do not want, what do you presume be done with said babies? Can you see the connection now??

Your stubbornness proves nothing. Asking a question is your favorite technique, so it seems extremely ironic that you won't answer mine. If you find the question so irrelevant, than why not answer it?

The words you are looking for are: “gotcha.”
31 January 2008
at 10:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Tiller = Mengele.
31 January 2008
at 10:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Adolf Eichmann was anonymous, right up until he wasn't.

So it is with the baby killers and those who advocate for Auschwitz On The Plains!

They also have their “Wansee Conference” with Tiller as group leader!
1 February 2008
at 6:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Dracul (Bill Chapman) says…

I say:
The records not involving pregnant / or abortion patients should not be accessed - this is about abortion/ statutory rape.
Should the records show no fault by Tiller, that Kansans For Life members and the 8,000 signees of the petition be liable for ALL expenses incurred by the court AND Tiller.
Should something prove Tiller at fault, then proceed with a case - post haste!
1 February 2008
at 6:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

It's time for the Legislature to address the civilian grand jury law. Back in the 19th century, they apparently didn't forsee the law being used to repeatedly harass someone for political gain.
1 February 2008
at 9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

workin2hard (Anonymous) says…

Can someone please explain what is moral about abortion.
1 February 2008
at 10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

Tsk, tsk:I leave for a few hours and the whole debate just goes to hell. What AM I going to do with you people.

Who are you behind your real name?

Terrific folks-that's who!!!

If I could sell abortion debateI'd be a freaking kajillionaire!!
–––––––––––––––––––––––-

I don't think the debate went to hell—it just stalled out when Marion refused to answer a simple question because it was either a) “irrevelvant” (in which case, why not answer it, the answer to an irrelevant question doesn't matter), or b) a “red herring” (in which case the question *was* relevant, but he thought it was to throw the discussion off course). He never did actually make up his mind about which it was. Too bad—I think it would have made for an interesting discussion, but alas, some people get intimidated by questions I guess.

1 February 2008
at 10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

workin2hard (Anonymous) says:

“Can someone please explain what is moral about abortion.”
____________________________________________

This may come as a shock, but I don't think it's a black/white issue.

At times, and I admit these are rare, abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.

It's not a question about whether it's “moral” or “immoral”… it's more a question of what place the government has in a medical decision between a doctor and a patient.

If you take a few minutes to dig back into the posting archives of some of the folks that argue against abortion, many of these same folks scream loudly against “government interference” when it comes to things like gun ownership and usage… free speech… tobacco use… food additives, food processing and marketing… religion… and of course, taxes.

These folks are very, very vocal about their disdain for a government presence and/or interference in these issues—but they demand a strong, centralist hand in the doctor's office, and in a woman's body. (Not surprisingly, these folks often have similarly draconian attitudes towards sex, even sex between consenting adults!)

I am not a “baby killer.” I am not “pro-abortion.” I think we have far too many abortions in this world. But I do ***NOT*** think that a wholesale outlawing and criminalization of this sometimes-necessary practice is the solution, any more than I think wholesale outlawing and criminalization of guns will end homicides.

Abortion should be legal. Abortion should be rare. Abortion should be heavily-regulated and supervised by the government.

The #1 cause of abortion is the unwanted or unintended pregnancy. If you reduced the number of unwanted or unintended pregnancies, the number of abortions will automatically be reduced, as well.

Reducing the number of unwanted or unintended pregnancies cannot be achieved by outlawing abortion. Reducing these pregnancies can only be achieved through education, awareness, and better access to birth control.

[It's impossible to completely “eliminate” anything—that's why I say “reduce.”]

The United States has one of the highest, if not *the* highest teen pregnancy rate of industrialized nations. Other nations have much lower rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. These nations pretty much have the same schools, the same school curriculum, the same religious opportunities, they read the same books, they watch the same movies and television shows that we do. Abortion is legal in these countries, yet their abortion rates are lower. Why? Obviously, we here in America have something wrong, something that needs fixing.

—Ag
1 February 2008
at 1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

I have yet to hear an answer on the following question from anyone before. I'm not holding my breath on getting one but I am interested to see if anyone steps up to the plate for it.

For all of those who want abortion outlawed, for whatever reason, what do you plan to do with all the resulting children that need care?
1 February 2008
at 1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

You tell them Eve! I'm tired of women whining about why they “just can't be pregnant now!” It would be more truthful to say they just can't be without irresponsible sex … regardless of the consequences. But then again, they don't pay the consequences, do they? Their child pays.

Has Marion adopted a child? If he has not that wouldn't lessen the fact that there are lists of those waiting to adopt unwanted/unplanned children. As well as those who are waiting to adopt special needs children.

AG, I love it when you talk Bible. There is just something irresistible about an agnostic man quoting scripture :) But ya better be careful … reading too much of it may prove hazardous to your agnosticism.
1 February 2008
at 1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

Katara, the mechanism is in place to accommodate mothers who, for whatever reason, cannot properly care for their child. Families and couples are waiting to adopt them. No one is required to wear a red letter, just sign a paper, others will gladly do the job said parent(s) are unable to do.

Earlier someone was talking about making fathers be more responsible. There is a problem with that, no doubt. However, single fathers have no say in the abortion or adoption of their child. Men are really discriminated against in this regard. If she decides to keep the baby he is required to pay child support … but if she decides to kill his child he has no legal right to require her to deliver his baby and let him raise it.
1 February 2008
at 3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Ceallach (Anonymous) says:

“… single fathers have no say in the abortion or adoption of their child. Men are really discriminated against in this regard. If she decides to keep the baby he is required to pay child support : but if she decides to kill his child he has no legal right to require her to deliver his baby and let him raise it.”
____________________________________________

A very salient point, and one for which I can offer no argument or rebuttal.

Is this, however, an abortion-related issue… or more of a relationship issue?

If a pregnant woman secretly gets an abortion… the man has lost an opportunity to be a father.

If a pregnant woman secretly gives the baby up for adoption… the man has lost an opportunity to be a father.

If the woman, after discovering that she's pregnant, cuts off all contact with the man… moves 2,000 miles away to another state, changes her name, has the baby, raises it and eventually becomes a grandmother… the man has still lost an opportunity to be a father, no?

I think this issue speaks more to the part where we're supposed to be encouraging abstinence and “resistance to temptation”… that if you're going to crawl into the bed or back seat or tent with somebody, you really need to **KNOW** this person… talk about the option of having sex… exploring some of the other “options” that Summers_Eve alluded to earlier.

But again, Ceallach, all this abortion/adoption/pregnancy stuff isn't only about the women, as you point out. It takes two to tango, and many men are left to be wallflowers.

—Ag
1 February 2008
at 4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

enforcer, I thought it might be due to all the posts about — you know what.
1 February 2008
at 6:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Abortion, apportion, absorption, abstention, adoration, absolution, a solution, adoption, a baby, a human, eternally, being.
1 February 2008
at 6:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

Katara, the mechanism is in place to accommodate mothers who, for whatever reason, cannot properly care for their child. Families and couples are waiting to adopt them. No one is required to wear a red letter, just sign a paper, others will gladly do the job said parent(s) are unable to do.

Earlier someone was talking about making fathers be more responsible. There is a problem with that, no doubt. However, single fathers have no say in the abortion or adoption of their child. Men are really discriminated against in this regard. If she decides to keep the baby he is required to pay child support : but if she decides to kill his child he has no legal right to require her to deliver his baby and let him raise it.
______________________
Thank you, Ceallach, for answering my question.

I'm not convinced that there are lines of couples just waiting to adopt all these potential children. If that is the case, why are there so many kids in the foster care system? I'd interested in reading some sources that back up your statement.

As for the fathers, I guess it just boils down to that life is unfair. While I can feel for their situation, they don't have to assume the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.

1 February 2008
at 8:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…

Agnostick (Anonymous) writes:
“This may come as a shock, but I don't think it's a black/white issue.”
*******
I agree, your 1025 was an excellent post. Well said.
1 February 2008
at 9:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Goldring7 (Anonymous) says…

Doctor ordered to turn in abortion files……..
doctor……..no! more like murderer
1 February 2008
at 10:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_t…
1 February 2008
at 10:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

Why are so many American couples going out of the country to adopt, and how does this affect the solution here?
2 February 2008
at 8:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

americorps wrote:

“And a fetus is not a baby.”

Marion writes:

“The sub-human, that biologically seemingly complete creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than an animal… For all that bare a human face are not equal. (Pamphlet published by the Race Settlement Main Office, Germany, 1942)”

“Fetuses, especially those as old as five or six months, elicit our sympathy… because they look disconcertingly like people… But, this sympathy is misplaced… While [it] may, perhaps, possess some flickering of sensation, or some capacity to feel pain, this is equally true… of creatures like fish or insects… a proper respect for the right to life requires that it not be respected where it does not exist.” (Commentary on “Can The Fetus Be An Organ Farm?”)

“killing jews is simply “evacuation”

An official Nazi report of the fate of 15,000 Jewish women and children killed in the area of Serbia in mobile gas vans was discovered. Jews were locked up in the air-tight rear container while exhaust fumes from the truck's engine were fed in to suffocate them. The report simply stated that they had been “evacuated to the East”, just one more in a long list of euphemisms for “killed”.”

“abortion is simply “evacuation”

Between 1970 and 1977, California millionaire-abortionist Dr. Edward Allred was personally responsible for destroying 35,000 human lives before birth, including some 7,000 mid-trimester abortions by salt poisoning. When asked by a reporter what happens in an abortion, Dr. Allred said: “the contents are evacuated.” (Assignment Life, New Liberty Films)”

http://www.abortionfacts.com/literatu…
2 February 2008
at 8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Americorps wrote:

“And a fetus is not a baby.”

The LJW wrote:

“Fetal homicide charge still possible in shooting”

“Lansing - The shooting death of a pregnant woman last week in Lansing would be an ideal case on which to bring charges under the state's new fetal homicide law, said a state legislator who pushed to get “Alexa's Law” on the books in Kansas……”

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/feb…

Marion writes:

I have a headache now.
2 February 2008
at 9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

This sort of mentality goes back to the near-phobic hysteria that surrounded attempts to legalize family planning methods and distribution in 19th-century America. Many people at that time believed contraception, let alone abortion, was wrong not because such methods rivaled murder, but because women were trying to sleaze their way out of the social responsibility that had been thrust upon them by God Almighty - the responsibility to be wives and mothers. If women had a “way out,” they would be flying in the face of divine providence, of everything good and natural.

What a crock.
2 February 2008
at 10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

To quote Ag, who always inserts rationale into this topic:

“Abortion should be legal. Abortion should be rare. Abortion should be heavily-regulated and supervised by the government.

The #1 cause of abortion is the unwanted or unintended pregnancy. If you reduced the number of unwanted or unintended pregnancies, the number of abortions will automatically be reduced, as well.

Reducing the number of unwanted or unintended pregnancies cannot be achieved by outlawing abortion. Reducing these pregnancies can only be achieved through education, awareness, and better access to birth control.

[It's impossible to completely “eliminate” anything-that's why I say “reduce.”]”

____________________________________________
It is easy to holler “baby killer”, but where are your solutions to unwanted pregnancies?

And for the record, Dolly - this is not about me. Abortion would have never been a choice for me, nor were any of my children unwanted or unintended.

2 February 2008
at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

Interesting, warmer - he was not only comparing, he ordered those records be produced.
2 February 2008
at 11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…

Welcome to the Blog of the Kansas Taliban, where so-called conservatives who rail about being “for” freedom, “for” less government intervention, and “for” the Constitution, except when it gets in the way of their being able to impose their religion on everyone else.
2 February 2008
at 11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

“Playing the whoa is me victim card?” Dolly
“Until feminists, athiests, liberals and other assorted United Ilk of America get off the 'it's all about me' train, not a thing will change.” R_T
______________________________________________

I am so sorry you felt slighted, R_T, however, I can only offer you retribution.
2 February 2008
at 1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

JohnBrown summed it correctly. But as usual the RT aka the gigolo doesn't get it. But then he supports W, so his mental disabilities are well established.
2 February 2008
at 1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Be certain to read the Wichita Eagle today for their reporting on this story.

Former AG Kline had demanded records from a Wichita hotel of names, home addresses, home phone numbers, and phone records from the hotel for the women whose medical records he claimed were “private.”

In reality, even when a judge attempted to protect the privacy of the women whose records Kline was rifling through, he was using the power of the AG's office to cross reference the records with hotel records.

Wouldn't it be great to receive a phone call from the AG questioning you about the legal abortion you received? Because it is apparent that is what Phill Kline was after. Not only a woman's private medical records, but her home phone number to boot!
2 February 2008
at 2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

After giving the “Wichita Eagle,” I feel that this is more about a personal failing in a fascist DA, rather than a failing in the legal system.

For now, I'm still going to trust that Buchanan is doing the right thing, in asking for the redacted records. I think there is a very, very small risk that a “plant” on the grand jury, or in the Sedgwick County D.A.'s office, could leak some of those records to Kansans for Life, Phill Kline, or some other extremist, or group of violent extremists.

I think that's a pretty small risk right now. Tiller would do best to bend over backwards to comply with these requests. Because **if** it turns out that there has been no wrongdoing on Tiller's part… the credibility of KFL will go right down the toilet.

Where Kline's credibility now lies.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org
2 February 2008
at 3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Hhhhhmmmmmmmm…

“Dude, I spent the night at Lisa's last night.”
“Was it good?”
“Yeah… after a bit of foreplay, I gave her the ol' 'Wichital Eagle.' We were exhausted, and the best thing with that one, of course, is that you don't have to worry about getting her pregnant!”

[Thanks to Summers_Eve for that inspiration…]

**************************************************************

“We found the leak, boss.”
“Lazzoti?”
“Yeah, just as you suspected.”
“F**k! Fasso, get Johnny Wad on the phone. He needs to know about this.”
“Sure ting, boss.”
“Boss, whaddya wanna do about Lazzoti? Wanna take him for a ride over to the butcher shop in Queens?”
“Nah, that's too easy. He sold us out. I want this one to *hurt*…”
“So… yoo tinkin'…”
“Yeah. Take him out on the boat. Give him a Wichita Eagle. Make sure you're at least five miles off the coast before you drop him over.”
“Okay, boss. Paulie, Sonny… you're with me. Let's go!”
2 February 2008
at 3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

“Hi, Welcome to The Replay. Our drink special tonight is a Wichita Eagle, which is—”

“No, that's cool, we know what we want. Scott and I want Boulevard Wheat on draft, big ones. Karen'll have a Dewer's on the rocks, and Cecily—”

“Wait wait, I wanna hear about the special. What's a 'Wichita Eagle?'”

“It's our jumbo Bloody Maria, made with Absolut Pepper, garnished with a little gold crucifix and an empty casing from a .45 bullet. We even have special napkins, with a map to Dr. Tiller's clinic printed on them.”

“OOoooohhh, I'll have one of those!”

“Me too!”

2 February 2008
at 4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

On a more serious note…

Let me preface by saying that Paul Morrison deeply, irrevocably damaged the trust that Kansas voters placed in him. I am one of those voters. His sexual shenanigans, while not necessarily an indication of legal incompetency in the courtroom, certainly show a gross abuse of trust as a supervisor of other people, including Linda Carter. While he'll eventually be able to eek out a living via private practice, I would never vote for him again.

That being said…

It was reported, when all of this scandal broke, that even in early- and mid-2007, Morrison was pumping Linda Carter for information, related to Kline's handling of the abortion cases.

“Morrison also attempted to glean from her sensitive information about Kline's activities as district attorney, Carter's statement said. That includes Kline's ongoing criminal prosecution of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, an abortion clinic in Johnson County.”

http://cjonline.com/stories/120907/st…

Today, I can't help but wonder if Carter and/or Morrison knew about Kline's attempts to match up hotel registrations and redacted clinic records.

Likely? That's for you to decide.

But I don't think the **possibility** of this can be ignored…

Could Kline's “Match Game '07” also be the reason that he fired those seven attorneys from his office? Because those seven either wouldn't play along, or because Kline didn't think he could trust them to “shut up and do as I say?”

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org
2 February 2008
at 4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

OMG, Ag, that is hilarious.
2 February 2008
at 4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Ag, the attorney for Tiller's clinic very clearly stated she requested and received the document from the office of the attorney general. Absolutely Paul Morrison was aware of Kline's attempts to identify women who had an abortion.

There can be little doubt there is enough evidence of abuse of office at the Memorial Building in Topeka to bury Phill Kline.
2 February 2008
at 5:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

denak (Anonymous) says…

Ok, I am going to take a stab at this question.
_________________________________________________________________________
But what are they looking for in the cases where no abortion took place? I still don't understand how they justify even asking. They don't seem to be asking for only the files of minors in order to investigate abuse, or am I mistaken?
____________________________________________________________________________The only thing I can think of why they are asking for other files is so that they can compare the note taking in the files to see if there are systematic discrepencies. If certain files are mandated that they be done in certain ways and then there are files that seem, for whatever reason to have been done another way, they are going to look to see why there are certain files not in compliance with regulations and why some are. They are going to look to see if the paper is the same. They going to look to see if the ink is the same. You can tell A LOT about when a file was done by the paper it is on. You can tell if something has been erased. Basically, you can tell if something has been tampered with. You can tell when certain people work. So, if they have a file for someone who didn't have an abortion and her file was filled out by Nurse A on a certain date and you look and Nurse A supposedly didn't work that day, or Nurse A's signature is no where else on any files for those who had abortions, you would want to know why there is that discrepency. It could be a matter of Nurse A only does such and such clerical work, or it could be that the forms where Nurse A's name doesn't appear have been re-done. Basically, they want to look for errors that could prove that the clinic is trying to cover up something.

Dena
2 February 2008
at 5:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

denak (Anonymous) says…

If a pregnant woman secretly gives the baby up for adoption: the man has lost an opportunity to be a father.
______________________________________________
No, he hasn't. Depending on which state one lives in, the father has to give permission for his rights to be terminated just as the mother does. She might secretely give the child up for adoption, but if man finds out about the adoption, and trust me, these things always come out, he can contest the adoption and there is a chance he would win if he could show that he wanted the child, that he could care for the child and that he took the appropriate legal steps as soon as he knew about the child. Of course, there is a time limit. He would lose if he found out 10 years later because the standard would shift from him to what is in the “best interest of the child” and the court would find that it is in the child's best interest to stay with the parents that s/he has become attached to. However, since these are equitable laws, he might get visitations. Who knows. He doesn't lose his rights simply because she commit fraud. Unless of course, he lives in a state that doesn't need his consent. Personally, I don't think the mother should have the exclusive right to give the child up for adoption. I do think that, if the father wants to be the father, then he should be the natural choice to take the child. If neither one want the child, then they can place it for adoption.
Of course, there are situations where the father is unknown, or violent or just a bum and his consent would cause an hardship, and in which case, the mother should have the exclusive right but if the father wants to be the father and raise the child, there should be some legal way to “opt -in” and get custody of the child.
______________________________________________
If the woman, after discovering that she's pregnant, cuts off all contact with the man: moves 2,000 miles away to another state, changes her name, has the baby, raises it and eventually becomes a grandmother: the man has still lost an opportunity to be a father, no?
______________________________________________
This is kind of an extreme example, but he still doesn't lose his *right* to be a father. If she goes to that extreme, then I think he should file charges for kidnapping. Not to mention, that he should file for custody since she is clearly not in her right mind. :)

Luckily, most cases aren't this dramatic. And as I said before, I do think states should make make some form of law that states that if the father wants to be a father, then he should be able to take custody of the child. It shouldn't be simply the mother's decision.

Dena
2 February 2008
at 6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

WWJBD What would John Brown Do
2 February 2008
at 7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

denak, they could also be looking at the age of the patient. An underage girl's pregnancy should be investigated whether or not she decided to have an abortion. Too often the father is much older than the girl. In those cases he should be persecuted, er uh, I mean prosecuted.
2 February 2008
at 9:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

americorpse wrote:

“americorps (Anonymous) says:

Marion,

I realize why your brain hurts..you are trying to say that a law that clearly seperates a fetus from a human being means a fetus is a human being.

Your brain must hurt a lot with the known leaps of logic you continually take, but please, you offer me great amusement.”

Marion writes:

You are indeed a compleat idiot.

On one hand we have a court decison which allows murder of a baby in the womb while on the other we have a law which allows prosecution of someone who murders a baby in the womb.

It is clear that you have no respect for life, so your misinterpretation of my comment is quite easily understandable.

But then again, you consider a baby in the womb to be merely life unworthy of life.

I remember some one else who thought that way.

Who was it now?

2 February 2008
at 11:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Do “fetuses” feel pain in the murder process?:

http://www.californiaprolife.org/abor…

From the following cited source:

“An unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain
than commercial livestock.
In a slaughterhouse, a method of slaughter is deemed legally humane only if “all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical,chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted,
thrown, cast, or cut.” (Section 2 of the Humane Slaughter Act, 7 USC 1902).
By contrast, D&E abortions, performed as late as 24 weeks (well after the child begins to feel pain), involve the dismemberment of the unborn child by a pair of sharp metal forceps.(9) Instillation methods of abortion (performed even in the third
trimester) involve the replacement of up to one cup of amniotic fluid with a concentrated salt solution, which the unborn child inhales as the salt burns her skin.

The child lives in this condition for up to an hour. In neither of these techniques is the unborn child provided with any form of anesthesia.(10-13)”

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pa…

From the following citation:

“”I can state my opinion to a degree of medical certainty that all fetuses beyond 20 weeks of gestational age will experience severe pain by the partial-birth abortion procedure,” Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand testified in a New York trial. Anand is director of the Pain Neurobiology Laboratory of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute.”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi…
3 February 2008
at 1:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meanbean101 (Anonymous) says…

Whether it's legal or not, women always will and always have made the choices they want when it comes to their bodies. So if you don't like abortion, then feel free to inform people about why and their alternatives.However, to support taking away a safe way for these women to make that choice is irresponisible. If you're comfortable supporting coathanger abortions resulting in the death of the woman and the child, then continue to support forcing these practices out of business. While abortion is by no means something to be proud of, neither is judging and harrasing people for the views they hold. I don't believe Jesus himself would talk the way some of you are talking. I think we can all do a little better. Marion, maybe you should take a good hard look at yourself before casting the first stone on all those who disagree with you.
3 February 2008
at 8:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

meanbean101 wrote:

“Whether it's legal or not, women always will and always have made the choices they want when it comes to their bodies. So if you don't like abortion, then feel free to inform people about why and their alternatives.'

Marion writes:

Only if they are trained to believe that babies in the womb are merely lumps of senseless protoplasm and if they have no respect for life.

meanbean101 wrote:

“However, to support taking away a safe way for these women to make that choice is irresponisible. If you're comfortable supporting coathanger abortions resulting in the death of the woman and the child, then continue to support forcing these practices out of business.”

Marion writes:

Although you statement is a bit convoluted, I got your point. No one “forces” a woman to kill her child. Such women do so out of irresposibility and lack of respect for life; barring a very serious health threat to the mother, not including such niceties as “having a baby will interfere with my life so I will be mentally ill if I bear it!”

meanbean101 wrote:

” While abortion is by no means something to be proud of, neither is judging and harrasing people for the views they hold.”

Marion writes:

No one is “harrasing”(sic) anyone.

As far as “judging” people; we make judgements about people every day and this namby-pamby biz about how it is not right to judge is crap; purely and simply, especially when it comes to unjustified murder.

meanbean101 wrote:

” I don't believe Jesus himself would talk the way some of you are talking.”

Marion writes:

I don't know WWJD either but since he is the central figure in one of the most brutal, superstitious and stone-age-like religions ever seen on the planet, I suspect that it makes no difference, especially considering that I am not a Christian.

Life is life; the moment a egg is fertilised it becomes capable of celluar divsion; this is called “life”.

The unjustified taking of life is called “murder”.

I am not “casting stones”, to borrow a trite and time-worn phrase from you, which phrase you borrowed from your dirty little religion; I am casting boulders, sharp stones; mountains if you will.

“Choice” is murder; those who support “choice” tacitly support murder and are no better than those who actually perform or recieve the abortion by “choice”; murderers, plain and simple.

Just like those who actually did know about the Holocaust and who did nothing.

The diffference is that the people who did know about the Holocaust lived in a complete police state anad were therefore quite limited in what they could actually do; we in this country do not live in a police state and we can and should take whatever action we can to halt our very own Holocaust.

Abortion by “choice” is murder.

Murder is wrong; even your primitive Bible, if translated properly, tells you that!

You have a nice day, full of “choice”, ya hear?
3 February 2008
at 9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

Marion says,
“That is exactly what ThatGirl2 is implying; that unwanted babies should be murdered in the womb, so stop trying for the garden path; you ain't that good at spin!”

No, the point is that you are perfectly willing to tell a woman what she can (and can't) do in the matter, but you are not willing to bear direct responsibility for the result.

This is why we ask that you mind your own business!
3 February 2008
at 9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

And you, “a_flock” are no better than the camp guards who hurried the life not worthy of life into the gas chambers.
3 February 2008
at 9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Subpoenaed hotel records used to identify women who were patients at a medical facility.

These attempts even though a judge ruled the only way the records were to be reviewed was if the privacy of the individual was 100% secured.

Criminal activity, indeed.

While you continue to rail away about a legal procedure, your champions are breaking the law in your name. Congratulations on your complete disregard for our society and for our legal process. You should all be locked up.
3 February 2008
at 10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fishman (Anonymous) says…

Tourism poster:
Visit kansas!! Home of Fred Phelps, and the late term abortion!!
I'll admit to believing in God to some degree. I am however not religious at all. I for one could never terminate a pregancy if I were a woman. It's just one of those inate things that tells me the difference between right and wrong. No doubt in my mind that if you can hear a heart beating something's going on there. Seems to me if it wasn't alive it wouldn't be moving around in there.
When the mother has her life in danger that is different in my opinion only. Rape is another thing that convolutes things more.
I'm glad they aren't revealing the names on the records. Although if they feel as they've done nothing wrong and are so pro-abortion this would give them all a chance to speak out on pro-abortion from their own experience. I would be more apt to listen to someone that has actually lived it. I'd be interested to see how many regretted it. Ag, any good statistics would be appreiated.
I still think that education and birth control are most likely the best solution to limiting unwanted pregnancies.
I'm glad my mom didn't grab a coat hanger.
3 February 2008
at 10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

Hey, I served my share of guard duty. But that's another story.

If you want to boil me and everyone else down to that, well, it makes you and your argument rather shallow.

3 February 2008
at 1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

Godwin flag on Nick Danger!
3 February 2008
at 1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_chi…
3 February 2008
at 2:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says:

Marion says,
“That is exactly what ThatGirl2 is implying; that unwanted babies should be murdered in the womb, so stop trying for the garden path; you ain't that good at spin!”

No, the point is that you are perfectly willing to tell a woman what she can (and can't) do in the matter, but you are not willing to bear direct responsibility for the result.

This is why we ask that you mind your own business!
––––––––––––––––––––––––

Thakn you SO MUCH for getting my point. At least someone does.

I personally find it interesting that no one had any comments on the YouTube link—which I believe illustrates perfectly what I was talking about—taking a position without following that position to its logical conclusion.

PS: Don't worry about Marion—he doesn't know how to have a conversation. if you disagree with him, you're automatically a target. Much like 2nd grade.
3 February 2008
at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

So……………ThatGirl2…………….are you suggesting that what is really going on here is social blackmail?

Are you saying, “Adopt this baby or we will kill it!”?

Are you suggesting that if you say such and thing and receive no reply that you are then justified in the murder of a baby in the womb?

ThatGirl2 is really telling you:

“Well, I tried to find a home but couldn't and since I am so irresponsible that I don't want my lifestyle buggered up and I don't want it, it's now OK to murder the baby via one of the accepted means; otherwise known as “abortion”.

Don't want'em?

Chop'em up in the womb, burn them to death with saline solution or poke a hole in their heads, suck out their brains and put'em in a biowaste bag!

Yeah.

Go for it!
3 February 2008
at 3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

snap writes:

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.
3 February 2008
at 4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

I wonder if ThatGirl2 has taken a lead from an old National Lampoon cover, which bore the headline:

“If You don't Buy This Magazine We'll Kill This Dog!”

Find the cover here:

http://www.marksverylarge.com/images/…

There was also a similar version using a French hooker which might well have been more apppropriate but after all, children may view this site if there are any left after “Choice”.
3 February 2008
at 4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

So:::::ThatGirl2:::::.are you suggesting that what is really going on here is social blackmail?

Are you saying, “Adopt this baby or we will kill it!”?

Are you suggesting that if you say such and thing and receive no reply that you are then justified in the murder of a baby in the womb?
––––––––––––––––––––––––-

I really hope you're not as ignorant as some of your posts would indicate. I would explain my position to you (actually, I will below) but it is with the forgone conclusion that you won't hear it anyway—you have your blinders on when it comes to this issue: it's your way or the highway—which makes me wonder why you even bother to post if you scurry away from a discussion of the issue.

Regardless, my position has nothing to do with “social blackmail”—it has to do with the pro-life movement thinking their position through to its logical conclusion. Not just the “protect the babies” stance—but all the questions that arise from that position. I believe you have every right to think whatever you want to think. Be pro-life. But I also believe you should be accountable for the end result of your position. That means being willing to answer questions like: what happens to the babies? What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway? When posed those questions you yelled “Red Herring” and ran for the hills. The fact of the matter is it is very simple to say “I don't like abortion.” Yeah, well duh…no one does. It's much harder to stand on that position by answering the tougher questions—as you keep proving.

Now I will sit back and wait for the insulting post, because I know that, rather than an answer, is what is coming…..
3 February 2008
at 5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ThatGirl2 wrote:

” Not just the “protect the babies” stance-but all the questions that arise from that position.”

Marion writes:

You mean the questions which you pose; the desired answers to which are designed to justify your murderous stance?

Those?

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”

Marion writes:

Well, they are certainly not presucted for the murder of the child.

Beyond that, unles the abortion was performed for reasons direct threat to the physical health of the mother, I really don't care; the “mother” is unworthy of the name and has escaped prosecution for the murder of a baby, so in point of fact, I don't care what happens to her.

She is a baby killer.

Next!

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“Be pro-life. But I also believe you should be accountable for the end result of your position”

Marion writes:

And what is that supposed to mean?

That a pro-life person is just that?

“Pro life”

That a baby has not been murdered?

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“Regardless, my position has nothing to do with “social blackmail”-it has to do with the pro-life movement thinking their position through to its logical conclusion.”

Marion writes:

The logical conclusion to “choice” or “abortion” is the murder of a baby.

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“Now I will sit back and wait for the insulting post, because I know that, rather than an answer, is what is coming:..”

Marion writes:

It may well be impossible to “insult” a “pro-choice” person or abotion advocate as they describe themselves perfectly and that description itself is an insult to humanity; they tacitly or openly permit and support the murder of babies in the womb by their “choice” or pro-abortion stance.

Pro-abortion persons are at least honest about their barbarism, blood lust and murderous ways and do not hide behind the arrogant mantle of not being “judgemental”.

“Insult” my Heinie A**!

3 February 2008
at 5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

ThatGirl2 wrote:

” Not just the “protect the babies” stance-but all the questions that arise from that position.”

Marion writes:

You mean the questions which you pose; the desired answers to which are designed to justify your murderous stance?

Those?

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”

Marion writes:

Well, they are certainly not presucted for the murder of the child.

____________________________________________

My questions weren't designed for any purpose. If they make you feel insecure, that was not my intent. They are legitimate questions which arise if abortion is made illegal. To assert differently is beneath you. I'm not trying to pick a fight—just inspire some thought and dialogue. Call me “murderous” if it makes you feel better. I am pro-choice because while I find abortion unsettling and I would never have one, I am unwilling to make those decisions for other women, and I don't have the answers to my own questions…..(which apparently, neither do you).

My question was not what happens to women who have abortion now, my question was this: if you get what you want and abortion is made illegal, what happens to the women who have abortions anyway?
3 February 2008
at 5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ThatGirl2 wrote in a pitiful attempt to spin:

“My question was not what happens to women who have abortion now, my question was this: if you get what you want and abortion is made illegal, what happens to the women who have abortions anyway?”

Marion writes:

Your spin was cute as it went by but that was NOT the question you asked! (Please see above!)

The question you asked was and I quote:

“”What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”

Marion writes:

Two entirely different questions but having answered the first, allow me to retort to the second!

Should the murder of babies by “choice” become illegal in this once great nation, women who have illegal abortions should then be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for premeditated murder.
3 February 2008
at 6:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2 wrote in a pitiful attempt to spin:

“My question was not what happens to women who have abortion now, my question was this: if you get what you want and abortion is made illegal, what happens to the women who have abortions anyway?”

Marion writes:

Your spin was cute as it went by but that was NOT the question you asked! (Please see above!)

The question you asked was and I quote:

“”What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”

Marion writes:

Two entirely different questions but having answered the first, allow me to retort to the second!

Should the murder of babies by “choice” become illegal in this once great nation, women who have illegal abortions should then be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for premeditated murder.
––––––––––––––––––––––––

No spin sweetie, you just didn't understand the question the first time. That's okay—for the future though, it's more credible to admit that than to try and twist it into something else.

In any case—I appreciate your honesty. I think you're a bit nutty, but at least you are willing to take a postion and stand on it. I tend to think most pro-lifers though, wouldn't agree with you. (In terms of prosecuting women, I mean….so that you don't get confused and then blame that on me later.).

You should look at the link I posted earlier.
3 February 2008
at 6:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“No spin sweetie, you just didn't understand the question the first time.”

Marion writes:

Maybe if you say what you mean and mean what you say, we could save some bandwidth!

I understood perfectly the first question as it was written, it's just that you didn't ask the question to which you wanted an answer.

When, after a lot of wasted bandwidth, rationalisation, pseudo-claification and spin on your part, you got around to asking an entirely different question, I answered that one also and quite clearly, I might add!

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“You should look at the link I posted earlier.”

Marion writes:

I saw your link and the people interviewed in it are halfwits.

By the way, I am not a Christian as I have posted many times on this and other forums.

Should the murder of babies in the womb as the result of “choice” become illegal in this once great nation, I would advocate for a violation of that law to be treated as premeditated murder, prosecuted as such and if ound guilty of the crime, punished accordingly.

It will be further noted that I have also repeatedly posted in this forum and others that I oppose the death penalty, so don't EVEN go THERE!
3 February 2008
at 7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

I say let them bleed to death from the coat hanger.
____________________________________________

Precisely why the label “Pro-Life” is an oxymoron.
3 February 2008
at 7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Marion writes:

Maybe if you say what you mean and mean what you say, we could save some bandwidth!

I understood perfectly the first question as it was written, it's just that you didn't ask the question to which you wanted an answer.

When, after a lot of wasted bandwidth, rationalisation, pseudo-claification and spin on your part, you got around to asking an entirely different question, I answered that one also and quite clearly, I might add!

___________________________________________

I'm sorry, I think this is pretty clear:

“But I also believe you should be accountable for the end result of your position. That means being willing to answer questions like: what happens to the babies? What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”

The question asks about the end result—i.e., illegal abortion. So either you misunderstood the question, or understood it and answered the wrong question intentionally—meaning you equally “wasted bandwidth.”

Seems unfortunate that you can't discuss something without trying to jab the other person. Oh well—sometimes that is the only tactic people have.
3 February 2008
at 7:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

I believe the question was asked and answered two fold.

Let then die or rot in prison.
––––––––––––––––––––––––

No one complained about the answers. Feeling guilty about the hypocrasy of your statement? If not, let it go.
3 February 2008
at 7:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”

Marion writes:

ThatGirl2 needs to be more concerned with punctuation and grammar, such that the import and intent of questions which she writes may be more clearly understood!

Examples follow:

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”

Marion writes:

Did you mean; “What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”; as in “Anyway, what happens to …….”

Did you mean, “What happens to women who obtain abortions ANY WAY?”, as in “by any way that they can?”

Did you mean; “What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”, as in “any way, even if in violation of a law?”

Marion writes:

I suggest that you more clearly word and properly punctuate your questions so that you impart to the target of those questions the degree of specificity required for those targets to return to you a reply to the question which you intended to ask!

As I wrote earlier; “Mean what you say and say what you mean!”

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“That means being willing to answer questions like: what happens to the babies?”

Marion writes:

The get adopted by people who want children, that's what!

As long as Americans are going overseas to adopt children when there are children in this country waiting, overseas adoption should be severely limited and adoption requirements should be lessened unless those who support “choice” are willing to impose requirements for couples to become parents as they do in Red China.

I understand that there are children in Thrid World Biosolidsholes without parents but the same is true in this country and we should take care of our own first.

Now, start calling me a “racist”, as I'm sure that you will as you do not know the meaning of the term.

3 February 2008
at 7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

Not at all, it appears though that you do not like the answers given. Those who take a life should be punished either by fate or law. I prefere fate myself though it gives me pleasure to watch it unfold.
––––––––––––––––––––––––

Exactly how does it appear that way? Re-read my comment to Marion. I nbelieve I said I disagree with his position, but appreciate his willingness to admit it. Stop trying to create controversy where there is none.
3 February 2008
at 7:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”

Marion writes:

ThatGirl2 needs to be more concerned with punctuation and grammar, such that the import and intent of questions which she writes may be more clearly understood!

Examples follow:

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”

Marion writes:

Did you mean; “What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”; as in “Anyway, what happens to ::.”

Did you mean, “What happens to women who obtain abortions ANY WAY?”, as in “by any way that they can?”

Did you mean; “What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?”, as in “any way, even if in violation of a law?”

Marion writes:

I suggest that you more clearly word and properly punctuate your questions so that you impart to the target of those questions the degree of specificity required for those targets to return to you a reply to the question which you intended to ask!

As I wrote earlier; “Mean what you say and say what you mean!”

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“That means being willing to answer questions like: what happens to the babies?”

Marion writes:

The get adopted by people who want children, that's what!

As long as Americans are going overseas to adopt children when there are children in this country waiting, overseas adoption should be severely limited and adoption requirements should be lessened unless those who support “choice” are willing to impose requirements for couples to become parents as they do in Red China.

I understand that there are children in Thrid World Biosolidsholes without parents but the same is true in this country and we should take care of our own first.

Now, start calling me a “racist”, as I'm sure that you will as you do not know the meaning of the term.
––––––––––––––––––––––––-

All so boring and predictable. I already had the answer to my question, so I don't really have much more to discuss with you. It's not my problem if you can't follow a simple conversation honey. It's hilarious though how you always accuse people of “red herrings” and then try and turn this into a debate about punctuation for God's sake. Pathetic.
3 February 2008
at 8:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

Agreed marion the controversy is in the presentation of the questioner, nuf said, case closed.
______________________________________________

Oh really? And how was the “questioner” presented Kathy? Before you try and critique grammar, you might want to learn how to use it…..
3 February 2008
at 8:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meanbean101 (Anonymous) says…

By the way Marion, I'm not a Christian. Jesus is also a literary figure, so you basically missed my entire point. You seem to pretty good at that. And ,as always,I will enjoy my day full of choice, as that what our country is supposed to be about.
3 February 2008
at 8:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

Right back at you.
I believe marion pointed out your error.
––––––––––––––––––––––––-

Wrong. Marion misunderstood the question. And then you proved yourself a fool by jumping in and making a comment that doesn't even make sense.

BTW, the topic is abortion, in case you forgot. Are you really *that* bored tonight??
3 February 2008
at 8:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

meanbean101 (Anonymous) wrote:

“And ,as always,I will enjoy my day full of choice, as that what our country is supposed to be about.”

Marion writes:

Nowhere in the history of this great nation is there anything which might indicate that “choice” was ever intended to include the murder of babies in the womb other than a Supreme Court decision which in point of fact, did not reflect on the leaglity of such murder but rather on a manufactured “privacy” issue because that court chose to ignore the real issue.

Now even “Roe” decries the decision and regrets it:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/court/re…

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
3 February 2008
at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“Wrong. Marion misunderstood the question. And then you proved yourself a fool by jumping in and making a comment that doesn't even make sense.”

Marion writes:

Marion did NOT misunderstand the question!

ThatGirl2 did not write a coherent question which properly indicated the information she was seeking!

English!

Do you speak it?
3 February 2008
at 9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meanbean101 (Anonymous) says…

By the way Marion, your hateful tirades don't leave most people thinking “What an intelligent and well thought out argument he made.” You have some very good points, but the irrelevant rude personal attacks completely overshadow them.I don't really know if you care, but why put so much time and good information into something if you're going to attack those people who you're trying to convince?

3 February 2008
at 9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“Wrong. Marion misunderstood the question. And then you proved yourself a fool by jumping in and making a comment that doesn't even make sense.”

Marion writes:

Marion did NOT misunderstand the question!

ThatGirl2 did not write a coherent question which properly indicated the information she was seeking!

English!

Do you speak it?
–––––––––––––––––––––––-

Not only do I speak it, I majored in it. As I stated earlier, not my problem that you can't follow a conversation.

PS: You might want to suggest that your lap dog find another thread to jump in on. She's just embarrassing herself here.
3 February 2008
at 10:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

ThatGirl2 wrote:

“Not only do I speak it, I majored in it. As I stated earlier, not my problem that you can't follow a conversation.”

Marion writes:

I have no difficulty following a conversation when I am given a coherent one to begin with!

If you “majored” in English, you must certainly be the poster child for “No Child Left Behind” because it is more than obvious that proper use of the language has evaded you for some time………………

……….or you often slept through class…………….

Further, I do not have “lap dogs”; you would not want my dogs on your lap and besides, my dogs would not demean themselves by mounting(pun) the lap of someone such as yourself.

LOL!
3 February 2008
at 10:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ThatGirl2 (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

Marion writes:
If you “majored” in English, you must certainly be the poster child for “No Child Left Behind” because it is more than obvious that proper use of the language has evaded you for some time::::::

:::.or you often slept through class:::::.

Further, I do not have “lap dogs”; you would not want my dogs on your lap and besides, my dogs would not demean themselves by mounting(pun) the lap of someone such as yourself.

LOL!
_____________________________________________

Not at all sweetie pie, that's why your lame attempts at insults roll right off me.

And for the record, I'm not talking about your mangey wolf hybrid's—I'm talking about your mangey sidekick. I know—easy to get them confused.
3 February 2008
at 10:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Oh.

Learn also to properly use the apostrophe, will you?

The addition of the apostrophe followed by an “s” has been for hundreds of years used to indicate the possessive but due to the dumbing down of the language, especially amongst those who have “majored” in it, has become almost universal in its misapplication to allude to the plural.

Further, there is no such thing as a “wolf hybrid” as wolves and dogs are the same species so technically, within the original meaning of the word, “hybridisation” is impossible.

You may refer to such superior animals as “wolf/domestic dog crosses” and be correct.

Further, such animals are smarter than most humans.

They rarely kill their own and then only for very good reasons; they do not kill on whims based on a “choice”, which choice is founded in an effort to evade responsibility or a “choice” as a method of birth control.

Verb. Sap.
4 February 2008
at 12:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Anonymous user

americorps (Anonymous) says:

Force them to breed and if not, let them bleed.

Kathy, you are simply the very worst kind of human, there is little difference between you , a terrorist, a child molester or a rapist..
_________________________________________________

“D) All of the above”

http://forums.larryville.com/viewtopi…
4 February 2008
at 1:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

You know who else had breeding programs?

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/origin…
4 February 2008
at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Katara, thanks for the laugh! Kinda puts this one in a whole new light… ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5nw1-…
4 February 2008
at 5:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

Enforcer (Kathy) and Marion,
You two are so utterly pathetic…you even have the nerve to try to tell others what to do when it is apparent that you can't do the right thing yourselves. Unbelievable! So, it's not hard to believe that you can make the Nazi comparison and truly believe it in your own minds.

Meanwhile, there's a world of people that know better. It's wonderful to know that you can't screw with other people's lives without some measure of accountability and to know that your views will never become codified for the rest of us.

4 February 2008
at 6:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

You know who else outlawed abortions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_S…