Liberals confuse me

[DeclinetoState]

Why does it seem that liberals are getting more confusing than ever? I have in the past few hours posted an article from the Washington Post in which a scientist said that global warming was expected (by a major scientific panel) to lead to more snow, hence more ice, in Antarctica; and that teacher in Colorado said that Iraq didn't have WMDs, then, probably only a few seconds later, that it was one of many countries that did them.

Did this start with Kerry's statement about voting for the $87 billion for Iraq before he voted against it, or did it start even before that? And please don't blame Ted Kennedy: any thing he says that's contradictory can be blamed on his level of sobriety at the time he says it. As far as I know, neither Kerry nor the scientists nor the teacher were intoxicated at the time they made their statements.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Liberals will say anything anyone wants to hear if it will further their political aspirations or future. Likewise, liberals will USE anything anyone says and twist it to further their political aspirations or future. They stand on nothing, they stand for nothing, they have no new ideas and would rather cannibalize ideas that do not work in the first place in an effort to break the broken further, and fix the unbroken until it is useless. They are confusing, because they are the party of the confused.

[ooh_child]

After many months of reading your site, I thought this would be a good time to introduce myself. This seemed like the right place to dispell a few stereotypes about us liberals, as well.

Yes, I contribute to FSTDT, along with a few other messages boards. No, I'm not a teenager (those days are long past for me). And yes, I'm a registered Democrat, with liberal & feminist leanings. I also have a family income that puts us in the 35% tax bracket, so I understand the pain of our country's tax burden.

Oh yeah, I'm an atheist. :evilgrin:

Now, let me tell you a little about what I believe.

While I'm not a member of the NRA, I support the right of gun ownership. I have no problems at all with people owning as many guns as they want, with proper background checks for felonies & the like. I don't think we need any more gun control laws, and if a community wants to arm all able bodied citizens, go for it.

I can't stand PETA or any of their antics. I eat meat & own leather goods, and I'd own a mink coat if I could afford it. I'd slap around anyone who'd try to throw any kind of crap on my property, too.

I want abortion rare & legal, and I want the laws of Roe v. Wade to be left alone. I am living proof that every woman has the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies throughout their reproductive years, so I strongly believe in complete education in every birth control method available. But, ultimately, it's every woman's duty & responsibility to educate herself, and only get pregnant when planned. I have no respect for a woman who can't control her own body.

President Bush & the Republican controlled Congress have run up a huge deficit, where once there was a surplus. I'm as angry about this as any Conservative should be. Their inability to grasp how much money the Iraq War & Katrina has cost, & will cost going forward, shows financial incompetence. I agree with you guys, cut the budget & then cut the budget some more!

Okay, so now I've finally come forward to allow all of you Freecers to flame me unmercilessly. Go ahead, ban me, call me all kinds of fecally-oriented names, whatever DoctorDoom deems appropriate for the likes of me.

Maybe some of you may like to speak with me. So if I disappear soon, you know where I can be found!

MHB

Edit for PS-I forgot to add I support the death penalty, too.

[Republican_Legion]

I want abortion rare & legal, and I want the laws of Roe v. Wade to be left alone

Another Big Goverment leftist from FSTDT. :uhh:
Roe Vs Wade is a clear violation of STATES RIGHTS !
Why not keep the goverment out of the Abortion debate and let Roe be reversed since it represents the FEDERAL GOVERMENTS involvement in the issue.

[Biff]

After many months of reading your site, I thought this would be a good time to introduce myself. This seemed like the right place to dispell a few stereotypes about us liberals, as well.


OC, you sound like you have a confusing mish-mash of ideas swimming around in your head. I'm curious, how did you come to such a strange set of beliefs? Are you blown about by the wind, or are you solidly set in what you believe? However you came to them, your confession that you're an atheist suggests that you've decided your own set of morals, and set yourself up as your own god. Am I correct in that? What is your purpose being a liberal democrat unbeliever and posting on this board? From reading your message I just got a sense in my spirit that you're a proud person and want to chart your own course, but don't have any sense of meaning in your life to guide you. I don't know how long you'll last here, but I hope you might catch a glimpse of the meaning and purpose of the life that God gave you during your stay here.

[SkiGuy]

ooh child, we need to talk. So what else makes you a Liberal? As an atheist you must think that the "religious right Neocons" are forcing God on everyone? I'm pretty sure I know what you're going to say as I was an active memeber of DU up until a few months back. ButI'll wait for you to answer before I say anything. I was a leftie Liberal until very recently after I learned what you guys are really about and how UNliberal you really are.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

After many months of reading your site, I thought this would be a good time to introduce myself.

Hello ooh_child, and welcome (finally) to FC. I'm sure you've had a good time perusing the site prior to your decision to post.

This seemed like the right place to dispell a few stereotypes about us liberals, as well.

And hopefully some of us can dispell a few stereotypes about us conservatives for you, as well.

Yes, I contribute to FSTDT, along with a few other messages boards.

I've been aware of that since your registration. Surprised? Probably not.

No, I'm not a teenager (those days are long past for me).

For me as well, I will be 43 my next birthday.

And yes, I'm a registered Democrat,

That can be forgiven (and rectified) :smirky: . (Please note that's sarcasm, and not a jab -- I feel I must point these cases out, as it seems difficult for them to be perceived correctly.)

with liberal & feminist leanings.

I've always considered myself the ultimate feminist -- been there, done that, and came to my senses, hence the conservative leanings. Of course, I would never be accepted in the club today, pro-life and feminist are like oil and water, it seems.

I also have a family income that puts us in the 35% tax bracket, so I understand the pain of our country's tax burden.

You got me beat by that one, as we are a blue-collar working class supported family. Our income is based soley on my husband's job with the local school board and his PT job for the city, as I am currently enjoying my unpaid (in dollars and cents) career as a domestic engineer and multi-grade academic instructor, :smirky: . I hope to be a student myself in the near future, I would like to be an animationist.

Oh yeah, I'm an atheist. :evilgrin:

Never been (fully) one of those, but I know a few.

Now, let me tell you a little about what I believe.

That sounds fair.

While I'm not a member of the NRA, I support the right of gun ownership. I have no problems at all with people owning as many guns as they want, with proper background checks for felonies & the like. I don't think we need any more gun control laws, and if a community wants to arm all able bodied citizens, go for it.

We find ourself in agreement here -- although, we are NRA members. Actually, my son just bought a brand new rifle yesterday, I'll have to post the info on it in the Gun Forum later.

I can't stand PETA or any of their antics. I eat meat & own leather goods, and I'd own a mink coat if I could afford it. I'd slap around anyone who'd try to throw any kind of crap on my property, too.

Sounds familiar, :thumb: . I have a freezer full of venison and pheasant (from my son's recent hunting trips) just waiting to be cooked. As for the mink, it just doesn't get cold enough down here in Flori-duh, but it'd be nice to have if I ever get to visit someplace up north.

I want abortion rare & legal,

I'm afraid those are quite contradictory -- if it's legal, it will never be rare. Think we could ever agree on some reasonable rules, which would at least reduce them? (Parental consent laws; banning partial birth abortion; voluntary sonograms provided prior to aborting, etc.?)

and I want the laws of Roe v. Wade to be left alone.

It's a bad law, plain and simple. It is not constitutional, and when we go around "finding" penumbras, we will eventually erode the entire constitution and the real freedoms contained within. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I am living proof that every woman has the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies throughout their reproductive years, so I strongly believe in complete education in every birth control method
available.

So do I! I bet the only area we differ here is WHO we believe should be providing the information. I do not believe it is a job for the schools, but the parents. This issue requires a moral (note I did not say religious) filter to go with it, and schools are inadequate providers of such. As one of my fellow freecers so correctly pointed out, teaching sex education without moral instruction, is tantamount to giving a child a driver's license without providing them the rules of the road.

But, ultimately, it's every woman's duty & responsibility to educate herself, and only get pregnant when planned. I have no respect for a woman who can't control her own body.

If you don't respect her, why give her the responsibility of deciding the fate of another when she clearly proved isn't responsible for deciding her own?

President Bush & the Republican controlled Congress have run up a huge deficit, where once there was a surplus. I'm as angry about this as any Conservative should be. Their inability to grasp how much money the Iraq War & Katrina has cost, & will cost going forward, shows financial incompetence.

Well, I would say there is more to this issue than can be discussed in this thread. I disagree with your assessment, but I bet we could have a fun time discussing it in another thread, if you'd care to.

I agree with you guys, cut the budget & then cut the budget some more!

Absolutely! Actually, I am a big (probably lone, here at FC :smirky: ) proponent of a "flex-tax" plan which would allow taxpayers (yeah, those we know as "we the people" http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon7.gif ) to decide where their "voluntary contributions" (otherwise known as taxes, http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/smirk.gif ) go. There are way to many frivilous and superfluous programs, positions, and pork -- however, I believe both parties are responsible for this, and as such they both should be held accountable.

Okay, so now I've finally come forward to allow all of you Freecers to flame me unmercilessly. Go ahead, ban me, call me all kinds of fecally-oriented names, whatever DoctorDoom deems appropriate for the likes of me.

What was it you mentioned about stereotypes? :smirky:

Every site has it's share of "colorful" posters/members. Not all members have been around long enough to be considered indicative of the body. We have our fair share of unique individuals here, I'm sure there are the same over there. This is a place we come to discuss with like-minded people, so anyone not of the same bears the understanding that they may not be embraced with open arms if they come across as having a superior attitude, or spouting things they (should) know will only stir people up (not accusing you of that, but I'm sure you've seen this happen over there too).

EVERYONE is guilty of "the extreme." We have a bad day, so we spout off. We are angry about a certain circumstance, so we vent. We get offended, so we go on the defense. It happens, it is reality.

Maybe some of you may like to speak with me.

Yes, that would be agreeable to me. Perhaps you could join in the threads, or start your own. But I would suggest, not everyone is out to get you, nor are we ready to pounce to prove a stereotype. We're just people, here to enjoy a little free time. Things do get heated, feelings do get hurt and people do get offended, that doesn't mean any of it was done on purpose or with an agenda. Understanding is only gained with time, and a it's hard to understand a thing from the outside looking in (occasional lurking through the rose-colored glasses of prejudgment). I would encourage you to give the topics and threads a go. I know I look forward to reading, and responding to, your posts.

Again, welcome to FC, and
Happy Posting,
Hms

Edit for PS-I forgot to add I support the death penalty, too.

Me too. :thumb:

[Maggie_T]

Liberals will say anything anyone wants to hear if it will further their political aspirations or future. Likewise, liberals will USE anything anyone says and twist it to further their political aspirations or future. They stand on nothing, they stand for nothing, they have no new ideas and would rather cannibalize ideas that do not work in the first place in an effort to break the broken further, and fix the unbroken until it is useless. They are confusing, because they are the party of the confused.

Homes, I agree.

Also, I think that their hatred for anything/one conservative, not to mention Christian, has reached such paroxysm (never mind how much they want to deny it) that they don't know, nor care, what they say as long as it sounds like the old politically correct liberal mantra they've all memorized. All they want is to blame everything on conservatives in general, Bush in particular. They don't care if they lie or slander. In fact, since they have nothing serious to bring to the table, all they are left with is lying and slandering and mud-slinging.

Don't take my word for it. We've had innumerable examples of that right here in FC. Come on, how many of you came across the tiresome, insincere "Hi. I'm a liberal. I came here to learn how the other side thinks. I don't want to fight. I want to debate ... blah, blah, blah" ad nauseam. And then, not 5 minutes later, they start calling us stupid, bigots, Nazis, hate-filled (which I find particularly rich, coming from them) and other terms of endearment.

That's why more than confusing (come now, we all know what their intentions are), I find them tiresome and revolting.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Republican_Legion:
Roe Vs Wade is a clear violation of STATES RIGHTS !

:unsmile: So? I don't think abortion should be a states rights issue, anyway. The Federal government should make it illegal in all 50 states.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

ooh_child:
I want abortion rare & legal, and I want the laws of Roe v. Wade to be left alone.

:smirky: You're deluding yourself. As long as abortion is legal, it won't be rare. And Roe vs. Wade isn't a law, or laws, it's a Supreme Court decision.

[Wyatt_Junker]

'Legal and rare' was Clinton's way of whoring into the gullible con vote while not alienating the freak base.

If someone can't see that, not even 24 Hr. Lenses can help them.

L and R makes a great cliche though.

[DesertFox]

Roe vs. Wade isn't a law, or laws, it's a Supreme Court decision.Diktat. It's a Supreme Court diktat.

[Native American]

Oh yeah, I'm an atheist. :evilgrin:

Now, let me tell you a little about what I believe.

President Bush & the Republican controlled Congress have run up a huge deficit, where once there was a surplus.

Then not only are you a follower of the Atheist Faith; you are also a liar. Why do I say that? Because you actually claimed "once there was a surplus" when in reality the federal debt increased every single year Clinton was president. And of course if there had been a "surplus" as you have dishonestly claimed, the federal debt would have decreased.

Please stop lying. If you liberal Atheist Democrats can't tell the truth (and apparently you folks cannot) then your Democrat Party truly deserves to remain out of power.

Liberal Atheists are a dime a dozen, except they're worth far less than even that. We Americans are tired of liberal Atheist frauds and their lies! Unless and until you Atheist Democrats can begin telling the truth, you're just going to continue to come across as almost as stupid and dishonest as did Albert Gore Junior and John Forbe$ Kerry.

[Warlady]

Please treat ooh_child with respect that all newbies deserve here. oo_child you're wrong about the surplus. It was a projected surplus. It was never reality. Did you not hear shortly after Clinton left office that it was discovered that his people cooked the books to make it appear to be a surplus? You need to educate yourself on the facts regarding the economy. You also need to take into account 911 and the war on terror which Clinton pretty much ignored. We were attacked 5 times on his watch. Six if you count 911 which was planned on his watch. How many times have we been attacked since? Zero. But the war on terror is costly. But check out the economy now. We are below 5% unemployment. That is AMAZING. New housing is the highest it's ever been in our history. The economy is soaring. Federal revenue is rising. Bush tax cuts May 2003....Federal revenure-- most revenue in our history 2.15 trillion...2005 (source US Treasury Dept)

[Republican_Legion]

And lets respect FSTDT.com while were at it. :unsmile:

[Rhino]

This seemed like the right place to dispell a few stereotypes about us liberals, as well.You don't exactly fit the "stereotype", so you aren't really dispelling anything, except maybe the fact that there is never a 'true' stereotypical liberal, or conservative for that matter, except when dealing in generalities. Conservatives differ in their individual opinions on some issues, just as liberals do. You are a perfect example, as you do not support many 'stereotypical' liberal beliefs (a generalization).

It was a projected surplus. It was never reality.Yep, and how much of a surplus depended on who was doing the projecting.

[brilliantLiberal]

No, I'm not a teenager (those days are long past for me). And yes, I'm a registered Democrat, with liberal & feminist leanings. I also have a family income that puts us in the 35% tax bracket, so I understand the pain of our country's tax burden.
I'm also a registered Democrat. Welcome to the battlefield. I also understand about that infernal tax bracket. Somehow the leaders of our party seem to thing I'm in the richest 1%, because I did get a tax cut.

Oh yeah, I'm an atheist. :evilgrin:
I'm sorry to hear that, sorrier to see a smiley face attached to a failure of understanding, but that's a topic for another thread.

While I'm not a member of the NRA, I support the right of gun ownership.
I am, and I do.

I have no problems at all with people owning as many guns as they want, with proper background checks for felonies & the like. I don't think we need any more gun control laws, and if a community wants to arm all able bodied citizens, go for it.
I believe we need to start enforcing our existing laws. I do not believe a felon should be allowed gun ownership unless he demonstrates that he has become a good citizen and his rights are restored to him by the state.

I can't stand PETA or any of their antics. I eat meat & own leather goods, and I'd own a mink coat if I could afford it.
PETA people are freaks. Actually, I prefer rabbit fur or wool.

I want abortion rare & legal,
Ditto.

and I want the laws of Roe v. Wade to be left alone.
Roe V Wade is an unconstitutional intrusion on states rights.

I am living proof that every woman has the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies throughout their reproductive years, so I strongly believe in complete education in every birth control method available.
Agreed, and abortion is not birth control. I believe when you yank the federal funding and make the abortion clinics perform their services pro-bono for the poor, you'll see a phenomenal decrease in abortions.

President Bush & the Republican controlled Congress have run up a huge deficit, where once there was a surplus.
There was never a surplus, only a projected surplus. The OMB ADMITTED the economy was intentionally overstated by 20%. Additionally, a recession was under way, but to make it look like boom times, the federal reserve was hiked 6 times during a recession, which locked up the brakes on the economy. Before we could recover, the 9/11 attack hit which cost the economy of America more than the second world war.

Anyone who doesn't take these factors into consideration knows nothing about economics. If not for the economic stimuli, America would have gone into another great depression.

I'm as angry about this as any Conservative should be. Their inability to grasp how much money the Iraq War & Katrina has cost, & will cost going forward, shows financial incompetence.
Only God knew how much Katrina would cost. As for the war, I remember being told that it would be long and costly. Welcome to reality. We are in a major world war that will take DECADES to win.

I agree with you guys, cut the budget & then cut the budget some more!
Better to grow the economy than to concentrate on cuts, especially iin areas that encourage economic growth.

Maybe some of you may like to speak with me. So if I disappear soon, you know where I can be found!
You're better off here. People are at least rational in this forum.

Edit for PS-I forgot to add I support the death penalty, too.
No government should be in the business of killing its citizens.

[Republican_Legion]

Roe V Wade is an unconstitutional intrusion on states rights.

Amen.:claps:

[ooh_child]

First, let me thank Warlady for all of the hard work she has obviously put into this site, and for her quick reinstatement of my membership when it was initially denied. I was remiss in not thanking you, Warlady, in my intro post.

As far as the federal/state question regarding Roe V Wade, I'll let you guys hash that one out on your own.

For everyone else who has welcomed me so far, I'll go ahead and reply to you individually.

MHB

[ooh_child]

OC, you sound like you have a confusing mish-mash of ideas swimming around in your head. I'm curious, how did you come to such a strange set of beliefs? Are you blown about by the wind, or are you solidly set in what you believe? However you came to them, your confession that you're an atheist suggests that you've decided your own set of morals, and set yourself up as your own god. Am I correct in that? What is your purpose being a liberal democrat unbeliever and posting on this board? From reading your message I just got a sense in my spirit that you're a proud person and want to chart your own course, but don't have any sense of meaning in your life to guide you. I don't know how long you'll last here, but I hope you might catch a glimpse of the meaning and purpose of the life that God gave you during your stay here.




[/color]

Biff, if I lack a belief in god(s), how can I set myself up as god? So you're incorrect, my morals are based on rational thinking.

And my purpose posting here is just as I stated in my intro, so don't try to read anything more into than that.

I doubt I'll find the meaning or purpose of life on a message board, but I do look forward to talking with you if you have any other questions, and learning from some of the folks here!

MHB

[ooh_child]

ooh child, we need to talk. So what else makes you a Liberal? As an atheist you must think that the "religious right Neocons" are forcing God on everyone?
Let's just stick to the points I've brought up here for now. If you'd like to start another thread for these subjects, we'll get together over there.

I'm pretty sure I know what you're going to say as I was an active memeber of DU up until a few months back. ButI'll wait for you to answer before I say anything. I was a leftie Liberal until very recently after I learned what you guys are really about and how UNliberal you really are.
Please don't assume you'll know what I'm going to say, & I'll extend the same courtesy to you, 'kay? I don't even spend any time at DU, so I have no clue what you're talking about there.

Let's talk about those other issues in another thread.

Thanks,

MHB

[ooh_child]

Then not only are you a follower of the Atheist Faith; you are also a liar. Why do I say that? Because you actually claimed "once there was a surplus" when in reality the federal debt increased every single year Clinton was president. And of course if there had been a "surplus" as you have dishonestly claimed, the federal debt would have decreased.

Please stop lying. If you liberal Atheist Democrats can't tell the truth (and apparently you folks cannot) then your Democrat Party truly deserves to remain out of power.
Look NA, I don't appreciate that kind of hostility. I'm glad Warlady has already reminded you to play nice with the fresh meat. :licky:

Many folks share my view on the budget situation, so I'll quote just one here:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=ai2iE.j8vxno

"When Bush was elected in 2000, the U.S. fiscal situation was dramatically different than today. The budget was in the black by more than $236 billion and long-term projections predicted surpluses so large that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan fretted over what might happen if there were no more treasuries.
Now the situation is reversed. According to the budget figures released on July 13 from the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. government will run a $333 billion deficit in 2005."


Kevin Hassett, AEI Institute


Liberal Atheists are a dime a dozen,
Doesn't that mean there are a lot of us? I thought atheists were only about 10% of the US population, give or take. Hmm.

except they're worth far less than even that. We Americans are tired of liberal Atheist frauds and their lies! Unless and until you Atheist Democrats can begin telling the truth, you're just going to continue to come across as almost as stupid and dishonest as did Albert Gore Junior and John Forbe$ Kerry.
Not worthy of response. Go away.

MHB

[ooh_child]

Hello ooh_child, and welcome (finally) to FC. I'm sure you've had a good time perusing the site prior to your decision to post.

Thanks for the welcome! Nice to have someone actually use the term. I have enjoyed some of my visits before now, but I'll admit some posters here are quite hostile.



And hopefully some of us can dispell a few stereotypes about us conservatives for you, as well.

I hope so! And don't worry, I can handle sarcasm well, as long as it's well intentioned. :smirky:


Regarding my views on abortion, I'd like to find some common ground most of us can stand upon.

If you agree that contraception education is vital in helping prevent unwanted pregnancies, then that's the area I'd like to focus on. I agree the best place for young people to learn about birth control is in the home. I'm happy for anyone who has parents who will be comfortable educating their children in these matters. But what do we do about folks like me, who's mother was so uncomfortable when we had "The Talk" she could barely use the words "sanitary pad". I had to get my BC info elswhere, & luckily I was confident enough to read books & get the info I needed to take care of my own body. When I started becoming active, I always insisted on a condom. The one time I didn't, I was nervous for three weeks, & I never wanted to go through that again. Later, when I was old enough, I went on the pill.

My problem was, I was naive to think that every young girl was like me & responsible for their own bodies.

For me, education is key. Every young woman must be made to understand that it is her duty to plan her pregnancies, since we have all the tools available to avoid pregnancy.

Fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions. Since Democrats are often accused of never having solutions for problems, I've offered mine here.

And for you nay-sayers who think this is an impossible goal, I say you have little respect for the intellect & resourcefulness of young women. I think they'd get the message, if presented properly.

So Homes, can we agree on some of the above?

Also, check your PMs.

Regards,

MHB

[DeclinetoState]

I want abortion rare & legal, and I want the laws of Roe v. Wade to be left alone.

Problem: Abortion has been "legal" for many years in the U.S. Why isn't it rare yet?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Thanks for the welcome! Nice to have someone actually use the term.

De nada!

I have enjoyed some of my visits before now, but I'll admit some posters here are quite hostile.

Well, this world takes all kinds, I'm afraid, and it also makes them. I would be willing to cast a few dollars down in belief that there are some of those "over there" too, wouldn't you say? And of course, anything taken out of context, certainly if one has but a passing familiarity with the author of the "hostility" that will occur, could be mistrued as such when in fact it was merely a running-funny at the local arena (forum board). Now you're here though (a new freecer), so perhaps proximity will lend a little more to your understanding as well as ours. :thumb:

I hope so! And don't worry, I can handle sarcasm well, as long as it's well intentioned. :smirky:

Oh it wasn't so much for your sake per se, as it was to reduce my chance of being immortalized by immitation elsewhere (if you know what I mean, :smirky: ).

Regarding my views on abortion, I'd like to find some common ground most of us can stand upon.

If you agree that contraception education is vital in helping prevent unwanted pregnancies, then that's the area I'd like to focus on.

Sounds like a plan.

I agree the best place for young people to learn about birth control is in the home.

See -- we ALREADY start off in agreement, :grin:

I'm happy for anyone who has parents who will be comfortable educating their children in these matters. But what do we do about folks like me, who's mother was so uncomfortable when we had "The Talk" she could barely use the words "sanitary pad". I had to get my BC info elswhere, & luckily I was confident enough to read books & get the info I needed to take care of my own body. When I started becoming active, I always insisted on a condom. The one time I didn't, I was nervous for three weeks, & I never wanted to go through that again. Later, when I was old enough, I went on the pill.

Well, you may be surprised to know that I was in a similar boat. My mother never discussed that three letter word with me either! I had to learn on my own as well, and grew up fast after my date rape, surprise pregnancy, abortion, drug and alcohol abuse, physical abuse by a boyfriend and ex-husband, etc.

The thing I think that's not being taken into consideration is that whenever societal morals are relaxed, more of this kind of thing is going to take place (it's already been proven by history from the 60's "free love" era to now) -- it's not going to get better, it will only get worse.

My problem was, I was naive to think that every young girl was like me & responsible for their own bodies.

For me, education is key. Every young woman must be made to understand that it is her duty to plan her pregnancies, since we have all the tools available to avoid pregnancy.

But see, this is like putting a band-aid on a sliced jugular. I will grant you we have to deal with the situation as it is now, but the ultimate goal, actually, should be reversal of trend not just stemming the flow. There are certain facts which schools want left out of sex education programs, or perhaps I should rather say they don't want them stressed or any real importance placed on them.

1) There is no such thing as safe sex -- maybe safER sex, but to insinuate that using condoms or any other method of barrier or birth control will RELIABLY be good enough is just lying to our children.

2) Abstinence works 100% of the time when it is tried.

3) Sex is NOT a game -- it should never be treated as another recreational choice, but that IS the way it is portrayed in the school systems.

I could go on, but I think you know where I'm coming from with this (perhaps we might have to take this to another thread -- I do tend to get a bit wordy, LOL)

Fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions.

Agreed -- but legal doesn't equal rare, regardless if it's safe. And MORE education is not going to result in fewer pregnancies -- only more kids who wouldn't otherwise do so, engaging in sex! You simply have to take into consideration the mindset and human nature.

By giving children too much information, too soon, WITHOUT any type of moral guidance is like sending them out to birdwatch with a loaded gun and telling them not to shoot. And think about the ones actually TEACHING the children about this subject -- we like to belive that every single teacher teaches for the love and best interests of the children, http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/biglaugh.gif, how funny is that? Yes, there are some GREAT teachers out there, and this is in NO WAY meant to disparage them (my husband WORKS for the local school board, I'm not talking out my tushy here). But it's just fact, the farther you get outside the circle surrounding the child, the less it becomes about the child, and the more it becomes about personal interrest.

Think about dropping a pebble in a pool of water -- ripples will go out from the spot where the pebble landed, right? Where are the ripples the highest and most pronounced? (Closer to the pebble) Where are they they least noticeable" (As farther away you go from the pebble).

Now picture the child as the pebble, and that first ripple as the parents -- THEY and they alone have a 100% vested interest in making sure that child thrives and grows physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually (whatever form that takes), academically, and in maturity. Now bring in your scenario of the bad parent -- that STILL doesn't negate the fact that the first line of defense should ALWAYS be the parent, THEY should be the ultimate one responsible. The next ripple is family, after that I would say religious and or friends, and after that authority figures. But remember, that child will go through MULTIPLE teachers in a student-lifetime. Those ripples are getting farther and farther away from the child, and the farther you go, the less effective the ripple. Yes, SOMETIMES we have to settle for the next ripple because of environmental factors or familial situations, but that should NOT be considered the norm. The norm should ALWAYS be the goal (the first ripple). THEN you work on making those ripples farther out stronger and more effective, but you MUST keep in mind they will NEVER be the optimal, only the best in THAT individual bad situation.

Well I could go on, but who'd read it anyway, right? LOL If you want to talk about this more, mosey on down to the Education Forum and throw out a thread, I'll take the bait, :smirky: .

Since Democrats are often accused of never having solutions for problems, I've offered mine here.

I look forward to hearing more.

And for you nay-sayers who think this is an impossible goal, I say you have little respect for the intellect & resourcefulness of young women. I think they'd get the message, if presented properly.

Ahh, and therein lies the mystery -- defining "presented properly," :smirky:

So Homes, can we agree on some of the above?

Don't know if we're there yet, but I'm willing to keep digging if you are -- there's gotta be some golden nuggets in there somewhere http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/smirk.gif .

Also, check your PMs.

Ditto.

Regards,
MHB

Blessings,
Hms

[a republican]

Liberals are just atheists with no morals, who haven't accepted Christ.

[ooh_child]

Well, this world takes all kinds, I'm afraid, and it also makes them. I would be willing to cast a few dollars down in belief that there are some of those "over there" too, wouldn't you say? And of course, anything taken out of context, certainly if one has but a passing familiarity with the author of the "hostility" that will occur, could be mistrued as such when in fact it was merely a running-funny at the local arena (forum board). Now you're here though (a new freecer), so perhaps proximity will lend a little more to your understanding as well as ours. :thumb:

It would be nice if my participation here lends some understanding on both sides. I'm willing to try & play nice, and so far (with one notable exception) you folks have, too!

The thing I think that's not being taken into consideration is that whenever societal morals are relaxed, more of this kind of thing is going to take place (it's already been proven by history from the 60's "free love" era to now) -- it's not going to get better, it will only get worse.
Well, science has given us many more BC options than were available in the 60's. So with proper education of their use, unwanted pregnancies can be reduced. And with proper moral & responsibility teachings at home, our young women will be given the proper tools to make sure they get pregnant only when they are ready for the responsibility of a child.

But see, this is like putting a band-aid on a sliced jugular. I will grant you we have to deal with the situation as it is now, but the ultimate goal, actually, should be reversal of trend not just stemming the flow. There are certain facts which schools want left out of sex education programs, or perhaps I should rather say they don't want them stressed or any real importance placed on them.

1) There is no such thing as safe sex -- maybe safER sex, but to insinuate that using condoms or any other method of barrier or birth control will RELIABLY be good enough is just lying to our children.

2) Abstinence works 100% of the time when it is tried.

3) Sex is NOT a game -- it should never be treated as another recreational choice, but that IS the way it is portrayed in the school systems.

I could go on, but I think you know where I'm coming from with this (perhaps we might have to take this to another thread -- I do tend to get a bit wordy, LOL)

As long as those things are included in a proper sex education class that instructs the use & effectiveness of all forms of BC, the above sounds good to me!

Agreed -- but legal doesn't equal rare, regardless if it's safe. And MORE education is not going to result in fewer pregnancies -- only more kids who wouldn't otherwise do so, engaging in sex! You simply have to take into consideration the mindset and human nature.

Kids are going to have sex when they decide they are ready to have sex. All parents can do is try to instill in them their family's morals & beliefs, and provide a proper sex education.

By giving children too much information, too soon, WITHOUT any type of moral guidance is like sending them out to birdwatch with a loaded gun and telling them not to shoot. And think about the ones actually TEACHING the children about this subject -- we like to belive that every single teacher teaches for the love and best interests of the children, http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/biglaugh.gif, how funny is that? Yes, there are some GREAT teachers out there, and this is in NO WAY meant to disparage them (my husband WORKS for the local school board, I'm not talking out my tushy here). But it's just fact, the farther you get outside the circle surrounding the child, the less it becomes about the child, and the more it becomes about personal interrest.

Think about dropping a pebble in a pool of water -- ripples will go out from the spot where the pebble landed, right? Where are the ripples the highest and most pronounced? (Closer to the pebble) Where are they they least noticeable" (As farther away you go from the pebble).

Now picture the child as the pebble, and that first ripple as the parents -- THEY and they alone have a 100% vested interest in making sure that child thrives and grows physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually (whatever form that takes), academically, and in maturity. Now bring in your scenario of the bad parent -- that STILL doesn't negate the fact that the first line of defense should ALWAYS be the parent, THEY should be the ultimate one responsible. The next ripple is family, after that I would say religious and or friends, and after that authority figures. But remember, that child will go through MULTIPLE teachers in a student-lifetime. Those ripples are getting farther and farther away from the child, and the farther you go, the less effective the ripple. Yes, SOMETIMES we have to settle for the next ripple because of environmental factors or familial situations, but that should NOT be considered the norm. The norm should ALWAYS be the goal (the first ripple). THEN you work on making those ripples farther out stronger and more effective, but you MUST keep in mind they will NEVER be the optimal, only the best in THAT individual bad situation.

Well I could go on, but who'd read it anyway, right? LOL If you want to talk about this more, mosey on down to the Education Forum and throw out a thread, I'll take the bait, :smirky: .

If you think we need to, go ahead & start one up. You know the problems I have with access to this site, so I'll try to read it tomorrow & post back after work.

Don't know if we're there yet, but I'm willing to keep digging if you are -- there's gotta be some golden nuggets in there somewhere http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/smirk.gif .


How are we doing so far?

:question:

Regards,

MHB

[ooh_child]

Liberals are just atheists with no morals, who haven't accepted Christ.

Wow, way to be judgemental, a republican. I'm a liberal Democrat, atheist, and I have plenty of morals. I'll betcha most Liberals aren't atheists, and I know plenty of Republican atheists.

Kinda blows your pronouncement outta the water, don't you think?

MHB

[ooh_child]

Problem: Abortion has been "legal" for many years in the U.S. Why isn't it rare yet?

Please look at my last posts to Homes.

MHB

[DesertFox]

I'm a nonregistered though fully functioning Asshole, but I agree with a good bit of what you posted about your beliefs. I oppose Roe v. Wade, firstly because it was judicial diktat with no Constitutional basis whatever; and secondly because modern sonograms have shown that that "mass of tissue" in there is a human being much sooner than was known in 1973. I have no problem "aborting" something that clearly is a mass of tissue, but have real problems aborting something that clearly is a human being.

Even more than any of that, though, I detest the liars and criminals of Planned Parenthood and others on the Left who oppose showing such sonograms to prospective aborting women. Such women should be given the chance to know all there is to know about the fetus they contemplate killing, in order to minimize subsequent emotional disturbance; but PP and abortion proponents oppose that because they want to keep abortion sacrosanct even when it can be shown, as in partial-birth abortion, that in many cases it's nothing more than murder. People such as that, in my book, are themselves murderers.

[ooh_child]

Hi DesertFox, nice to finally chat with you. I'd like to focus on preventing pregnancy until it's a good time to start a family. That way, most of the objections you posted would be moot. I'd like to eliminate, as much as possible, the need for abortion as BC.

As to the subject of "partial-birth abortion", those are not performed on women who's only reason for an abortion is for birth control. There are always medical reasons for performing this procedure as opposed to a standard D & X, or a C-section. Banning so-called partial-birth abortion will not do away with those other two procedures.

MHB

[Republican_Legion]

Liberals are just atheists with no morals, who haven't accepted Christ.

Hi there, Welcome aboard.

[Biff]

Biff, if I lack a belief in god(s), how can I set myself up as god? So you're incorrect, my morals are based on rational thinking.

Well, "you gotta serve someone", as Bob Dylan once sang. If it's not God, or your personal concept of a god that you serve, then by default you become your own "god". That's spelled with a lower case "g", meaning not the actual God but what is put in place of Him.

And my purpose posting here is just as I stated in my intro, so don't try to read anything more into than that.

Okay. You may be an exception to the rule :)

I doubt I'll find the meaning or purpose of life on a message board, but I do look forward to talking with you if you have any other questions, and learning from some of the folks here!

No, you won't find those things on a messageboard, but you may find clues to light your path towards these things. As an atheist who does not believe in a Creator, how do you find meaning in life?

[ooh_child]

Hi there, Welcome aboard.

R_L, do you think (s)he might be from Liberal, Kansas?

:whistle:

MHB

[ooh_child]

As an atheist who does not believe in a Creator, how do you find meaning in life?

I got a question somewhat like that just awhile ago, so I'll go ahead & repost it here. The woman I was chatting with had lost 2 daughters & couldn't imagine living her life thinking she wouldn't ever see them again:

I can't speak for all atheists since all we really have in common is our lack of belief in god(s). I'll share with you where I have come so far.

What do I have to look forward to, you ask. Well, I look forward to every day & what ever it brings. I'm glad that I have health & home & friends & family, & I look forward to all of the joys those things bring to my life. I believe it is up to each one of us to make heaven here, on Earth, right now-not in some great hereafter.

What about after I die? I imagine it will be just like before I was born. I have no concept of "self" from that time, so I don't believe I'll have any after I die.

What I accomplish on this Earth, the lives I touch & the moments I share with all creatures of the world, that is the spirit I leave behind. And everyone I've loved & lost, their spirits live on in my memories & the actions I take, because of their influence on me.

I honor my family & ancestors by being an ethical, rational woman. My hope is to pass that on to the next generation that lives on this wonderful world.

Your daughters' spirits will never cease to exist as long as you & your family remember them & live your lives to honor them.

That's a little about what I believe.

:butfly:


MHB

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

As to the subject of "partial-birth abortion", those are not performed on women who's only reason for an abortion is for birth control. There are always medical reasons for performing this procedure as opposed to a standard D & X, or a C-section. Banning so-called partial-birth abortion will not do away with those other two procedures.
MHB

Hey ooh (may I call you ooh? ),

Forgive me for interrupting if you don't mind, but I would very much like to continue this particular topic, and to go further most definitely would hijack the thread. With your indulgence, I am going to copy this post of yours, and start a thread in the sub-forum of the Political Forum called America's Culture of Death. I hope you will continue this dialogue with me, because I hate to leave such information as you've posted above unanswered.

See you there!

Partial-Birth Abortion - FreeConservatives (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=392393#post392393)

Many Blessings,
Hms

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

If you think we need to, go ahead & start one up. You know the problems I have with access to this site, so I'll try to read it tomorrow & post back after work.
Regards,
MHB


Okee-doke, then! :thumb:

I'm going to take your answers, with your permission, and start a thread in the Education Forum. I'll post the link here when I've finished.


Sex and the Classroom - continued from Liberals Confuse Me - FreeConservatives (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=392403#post392403)


In the mean time, I do believe we've gotten off to a pretty good start ... don't you agree?

Many Blessings,
Hms

[DoctorDoom]

I want abortion rare & legal, and I want the laws of Roe v. Wade to be left alone.Echoing the comments of others, Roe v Wade was a SCOTUS RULING. Is is NOT a "law". Come back when you learn that the judicial branch of government does NOT legislate, the dearest wishes of liberaloonies notwithstanding.

Okay, so now I've finally come forward to allow all of you Freecers to flame me unmercilessly.Unmercifully. Mercilessly. Pick one.

... whatever DoctorDoom deems appropriate for the likes of me.Despite the fact that I did not post a word in this thread at that point, you chose to single me out for your "poor me" lament. Are you looking for material to copy and paste over at Yahshole's Web cesspool for the amusement of the towering intellects there? If so, I'll oblige you. I consider a week wasted if those idiots don't cite me at least a dozen times.

So if I disappear soon, you know where I can be found!I'm on pumped well water. I have to pay for the showers that are mandatory following any exposure to that site greater than 15 seconds in duration. Ergo I'll pass on it.

BTW, I was an atheist for a quarter of a century. I outgrew that childish rebellion against God. There's hope even for you.

[Republican_Legion]

R_L, do you think (s)he might be from Liberal, Kansas?

:whistle:

MHB

That person got a Nice welcome from me because (S)he is not from FSTDT like you are.

[Rhino]

Okay, so now I've finally come forward to allow all of you Freecers to flame me unmercilessly.If you've really been reading the site for several months, you'll know that not "all" members here will do that.

Welcome, by the way.

[ooh_child]

That person got a Nice welcome from me because (S)he is not from FSTDT like you are.
How do you know where a republican is from? And what does that mean, anyway? I post at various sites, not just FSTDT.

[ooh_child]

Okee-doke, then! :thumb:

I'm going to take your answers, with your permission, and start a thread in the Education Forum. I'll post the link here when I've finished.


Sex and the Classroom - continued from Liberals Confuse Me - FreeConservatives (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=392403#post392403)


In the mean time, I do believe we've gotten off to a pretty good start ... don't you agree?

Many Blessings,
Hms
Yep, I agree. I don't know when I'll get to this one, so be patient. It's so annoying not being able to sign on from my work!

Regards,

MHB

[ooh_child]

If you've really been reading the site for several months, you'll know that not "all" members here will do that.

Welcome, by the way.

Yep, you're right. Thanks for the welcome!

MHB

[ooh_child]

Echoing the comments of others, Roe v Wade was a SCOTUS RULING. Is is NOT a "law". Come back when you learn that the judicial branch of government does NOT legislate, the dearest wishes of liberaloonies notwithstanding.

Unmercifully. Mercilessly. Pick one.

Despite the fact that I did not post a word in this thread at that point, you chose to single me out for your "poor me" lament. Are you looking for material to copy and paste over at Yahshole's Web cesspool for the amusement of the towering intellects there? If so, I'll oblige you. I consider a week wasted if those idiots don't cite me at least a dozen times.

I'm on pumped well water. I have to pay for the showers that are mandatory following any exposure to that site greater than 15 seconds in duration. Ergo I'll pass on it.

BTW, I was an atheist for a quarter of a century. I outgrew that childish rebellion against God. There's hope even for you.

Well, my understanding is that each state has a set of laws concerning abortion, based upon Roe V Wade as a SCOTUS ruling. That's what I meant by "laws of Roe V Wade". Would "state laws based on the SCOTUS ruling Roe V Wade" be better for your comprehension?

BTW, "Is is NOT a law" doesn't make sense.

MHB

PS-I pick "Mercilessly". 'kay?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Yep, I agree. I don't know when I'll get to this one, so be patient. It's so annoying not being able to sign on from my work!
Regards,
MHB

Oh, I'm not going anywhere, :thumb: , neither is the thread. Whenever you can, you can, no rush. My daughter is pretty much on independent study (for the most part, save math, quizzes, tests), so I'm off and on during the day, but I usually get on later in the evening anyway.
See you there, and then,
Blessings,
Hms

[Trevelyan]

Liberals are just atheists with no morals, who haven't accepted Christ.

...............

[freeride172]

OK first of all, Welcome Oh_Child.:claps:

But, I would like to ask you, What defines a Liberal? As I read your first post, I thought it was a moderate conservative talking, NOT a liberal.

Your stands on most things are conservative, not liberal. with a couple of exceptions,.

The reason I ask is that most people do not understand what the Implied meaning of the word "Liberal" by the "Elite" really is. If you do a little history digging , you find that the Democratic party was once the Conservative party, Until the Socialists high jacked it , and the conservatives that thought the Loyalty to the country was more important than to a "Party", went to the Republican side. But, I digress, What they use the word Liberal to cover up is the word Socialist. And from your statements earlier, I take it that you are not for the Socialist Agenda.

Thank you again Oh_Child

P.S. Sorry for the poor grammar, Just a Ole' Country boy pecking at a keyboard.:cowb:

[DoctorDoom]

Well, my understanding is that each state has a set of laws concerning abortion, based upon Roe V Wade as a SCOTUS ruling.Dig deeper. Roe v Wade negated all state laws on abortion, and every attempt by states to pass useful laws re abortion winds up in the courts because the baby-killers don't want any impediments to their trafficking in infanticide.

[ooh_child]

OK first of all, Welcome Oh_Child.:claps:

But, I would like to ask you, What defines a Liberal? As I read your first post, I thought it was a moderate conservative talking, NOT a liberal.

Your stands on most things are conservative, not liberal. with a couple of exceptions,.

The reason I ask is that most people do not understand what the Implied meaning of the word "Liberal" by the "Elite" really is. If you do a little history digging , you find that the Democratic party was once the Conservative party, Until the Socialists high jacked it , and the conservatives that thought the Loyalty to the country was more important than to a "Party", went to the Republican side. But, I digress, What they use the word Liberal to cover up is the word Socialist. And from your statements earlier, I take it that you are not for the Socialist Agenda.

Thank you again Oh_Child

P.S. Sorry for the poor grammar, Just a Ole' Country boy pecking at a keyboard.:cowb:
Thanks, freeride. It's nice when someone starts out with a welcome, instead of a curt message or a non-responsive diatribe!

As to the definition of the word "Liberal", I'm going by how most folks posting here use the term. I consider myself moderate (with liberal leanings), but I live in California so some of my political beliefs put me at odds with the liberals out here. On this board, I seem to be one of the "liberaloonies" to certain folks because I support Roe V Wade, extensive BC education, and I'm a registered Democrat. I don't know how long you've been reading what folks here discuss, but I spent a few months lurking here before I decided to get my feet wet.

What I talked about in my intro post is not all that puts me at odds with the conservatives here. I also support gay marriage laws, for instance. I just wanted to start out with a few topics; some we agree & some we disagree about.

I hope you enjoy your time here at FC! :thumb:

Regards,

MHB

[ooh_child]

Dig deeper. Roe v Wade negated all state laws on abortion, and every attempt by states to pass useful laws re abortion winds up in the courts because the baby-killers don't want any impediments to their trafficking in infanticide.
No kidding, really? Are you telling me that state laws change based on Supreme Court rulings?

:uhh:

Wow, that's really, well, surprising that you felt the need to tell me this. Is this the best you can do? Point out the obvious to someone who already understands how the Supreme Court's rulings change our state laws?

I'd really prefer a more thoughtful response than that, Doc. Oh, and glad to see the good ole avatar is back!

MHB

[Native American]

Originally Posted by Republican_Legion
That person got a Nice welcome from me because (S)he is not from FSTDT like you are.


How do you know where a republican is from?


For that matter, how do we know you are a Republican?

Also, why would someone who claims to be a Republican not know that the first letter of that word is capitalized??

[ooh_child]

NA, your reading comprehension is zilch today. I've said twice now I'm a registered Democrat.

a republican is the name of another user who posted on this thread.

Go get some coffee, dude!

MHB

[Native American]

Originally Posted by DoctorDoom
Dig deeper. Roe v Wade negated all state laws on abortion, and every attempt by states to pass useful laws re abortion winds up in the courts because the baby-killers don't want any impediments to their trafficking in infanticide.


No kidding, really? Are you telling me that state laws change based on Supreme Court rulings?

No, I think he just told you state laws are summarily negated, and by only a couple of black-robed lawyers, even though the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about abortion. So it should be a simple enough matter to simply replace certain of those black-robed lawyers with a new set, and the path will be clear to completely strike down and overturn the earlier Roe v. Wade ruling.

Doc's words seemed clear enough to me.

[Native American]

I've said twice now I'm a registered Democrat.

So what? How does that alter anything I wrote??

[Native American]

Thanks, freeride. It's nice when someone starts out with a welcome, instead of a curt message or a non-responsive diatribe!

It's also nice when one encounters a liberal Democrat who can think clearly and post intelligently.

It rarely happens, however.

[ooh_child]

So what? How does that alter anything I wrote??

You accused me of claiming to be a Republican, which I never have.

MHB

[Native American]

You accused me of claiming to be a Republican, which I

Nope, never accused you of that. Your reading comprehension skills are poor, I see.

You actually imagine only liberals can play the sort of cheap rhetorical question-posing games that you played earlier?:

How do you know where a republican is from?

Think again, Honey. Conservatives can play that game right back atcha, if we want to.

My advice to you? Learn to debate, and learn quickly, else Doc and I will squash you like a bug before your posting career here even gets off the ground.

[ooh_child]

Looking forward to it, NA, but you'd better not speak for Doc!

MHB

[DoctorDoom]

No kidding, really? Are you telling me that state laws change based on Supreme Court rulings?No, child, I told you THIS:

Dig deeper. Roe v Wade negated all state laws on abortion ...They were not CHANGED. They were ANNULLED, declared invalid and unconstitutional (an historic example of the SCOTUS' severe case of craniorectal impaction). Have your mommy explain the difference.

Wow, that's really, well, surprising that you felt the need to tell me this.I apologize if it was beyond your reading comprehension skills, but it's difficult to convert most concepts into the one-syllable words that are compatible with the FSTDT day-care mentality.

Is this the best you can do? Point out the obvious to someone who already understands how the Supreme Court's rulings change our state laws?What is "obvious" is that you're clueless about the effects of Roe v Wade, else you wouldn't have made the following two ignorant statements:

I want abortion rare & legal, and I want the laws of Roe v. Wade to be left alone. ... Well, my understanding is that each state has a set of laws concerning abortion, based upon Roe V Wade as a SCOTUS ruling.That does NOT give me confidence in your "understanding".

I'd really prefer a more thoughtful response than that, Doc.If plain English is beyond your grasp, then you have not demonstrated that you merit a "more thoughtful response". I treat annoying children AS children.

Oh, and glad to see the good ole avatar is back!No doubt. Now you can go back and join the puerile banter about Doom's "brass bra". And be sure to copy and paste stuff from this thread there. That IS your glaringly evident purpose here, and I have to meet my quota.

Looking forward to it, NA, but you'd better not speak for Doc!I'm quite capable of wielding my own cudgels, TYVM. NA was merely "point(ing) out the obvious".

Twit.

[DeclinetoState]

They were not CHANGED. They were ANNULLED, declared invalid and unconstitutional (an historic example of the SCOTUS' severe case of craniorectal impaction).

Laws against abortion may still be on the books in some states (and, of course, S. Dak.), but Roe v. Wade prevents them from being enforced (i.e., Doc's point quoted above). I'm sure that most states have attempted to regulate abortion in some way, which may have required them to pass laws explicitly permitting abortion in the situations covered by Roe. However, I'm not privy to what every state has done, so I'll leave it to others who post here that wish to dig into the matter to tell us who has done what.