Your Interview: Andy Stephenson of anti-abortion group Abort67

The Argus: Andy Stephenson of Abort67 Andy Stephenson of Abort67

In The Argus weekly feature your Interview, we give you, our readers, the chance to ask key figures the questions you want answered. This week, Andy Stephenson of Anti-abortion group Abort67 answers your questions.

Jess Owen via email: I’d like to know just who the hell you think you are? What on earth gives you the right to harass women facing a choice that will never confront you in your life? If your God really wants you to behave like that I would want nothing to do with your God.

Andy Stephenson (AS): How can it be wrong to show what Bpas (abortion Clinic) do? It is they who are damaging women. Harass is a legally loaded word. If we were harassing women then why would we invite the police to everything we do publicly? If the police saw us harassing women they would arrest us immediately.

All the bogus allegations of harassment and intimidation were proven false when it came to our court case and not one single witness could be produced who claimed we were harassing them. If people are harassed it is because the simple truth of abortion is harassing. If it is harassing to see, then why do we allow it to happen?

We don’t do what we do to “get at” women; we do it to empower them.

Many women have told us that nothing less shocking than the pictures persuaded them to keep their baby.

We are doing this because we are driven by compassion for the unborn child and their mother.

If we were being cruel or obstreperous then the post abortive women who stand with us would not feel comfortable doing so.

AmboGuy online: Andy, are you a religious man? I ask this as it seems that many pro-life protesters seem to base their anti-abortion beliefs on what they are taught in their religion.

AS: I’m not really sure what that has to do with it, Amboguy. We are against abortion because we think it is wrong to kill human beings.

In the same way I think it morally wrong for someone to kill a two year old I think it morally wrong for someone to kill a child in the womb. Many pro-lifers are “religious” but I am afraid that doesn’t make their arguments invalid.

They are precisely the same arguments that secular pro-lifers make.

John Allman online: Abort 67's website doesn’t have any religious content, and uses only human rights arguments against abortion. Yet I keep reading allegations that Abort 67 is some sort of “religious” group. What is the truth?

AS: Abort67 is supported by people of faith and no faith.

Most however are Christian. Our case that the pre-born are human and alive from conception (therefore abortion ends the life of an innocent human person) is made using scientific evidence. Our argument can be used by religious and non-religious persons.

Is the only way for pro-aborts to defend their position to accuse us of being "just religious", by ad hominem attacks?

It is ironic that they accuse us of being religious when we rely fundamentally on a scientific case, but those who support abortion end up relying solely on metaphysics.

Brightonbatfink online: What led you to found Abort 67? Is it based on your belief system, or a personal experience?

AS: I founded Abort67 to drive a spoke into the wheel of the abortion industry. Yes it is based on my belief system; the belief system that it is wrong to kill human beings. I was stirred to do it shortly after seeing our daughter flailing around on an ultrasound screen at 12 weeks into the pregnancy. Shortly afterwards I saw a picture of an aborted child of the same age.

I couldn’t get the picture out of my head and that was the start of it all.

I am naturally conflict averse so this wasn’t a move I anticipated happening.

Thevoiceoftruth online: As there are already hundreds of thousands of children in the care system, many of whom are unable to even find foster parents, why would you want to bring more unwanted children into the world? Would you like to see a return to back-street abortions and children being abandoned at birth? Or worse, murdered, as happened in the old days where there were many instances of infanticide due to a lack of birth control.

AS: If a woman is pregnant then her child is already in the world. If unwantedness is justification for killing people then we are all at danger at some point in our life.

Regarding the “unwanted” children in the care system; are you saying that it would be okay for them to be killed? I imagine you’ll claim “that is different, those are human being beings”.

But that is our point.

You are assuming the truth of something for which you have the burden to prove; that the unborn, who is brutally killed by Wistons clinic in Brighton, is not also a human being. Even the executive Director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas), Ann Furedi admits that the early embryo is a human life.

Teknonotice online: Andy when I used the clinic you picket outside of (seven years and I still don't regret the decision to abort, I'm sure my daughter is also grateful seeing as I faced death if I went through with my second pregnancy) I saw girls as young as 13 in there. Do you think it is right that your group targets children who are facing a very stressful event? Or women like myself who put the life of the child they already had before the one they are carrying?

AS: We don’t target people; we aren’t commenting on abortion.

We aren’t even protesting against abortion; we are exposing it.

There is plenty on our website about the concern that women need legal abortion to save their life.

For instance a woman could have an abortion pre 1967 if they were going to die but it is not true that what we have now is anything about saving women’s lives.

Your last statement again reveals the need for the work we do. Our pictures prove that abortion is not the “gentle suction to remove the pregnancy” as Bpas advertise on their website and literature, but the violent killing of a child already here in this world.

We announced on the BBC’s Big Question last year that there is a way to stop us.

Merely prove to us that the embryo or foetus is not a human being. The offer remains open to anyone. We will take down our website, hand over our banners and never return.

We also told Bpas directly (and I am happy to make the email exchange public) that we would never return to any one of their clinics if they just offered to show their customers what their “pregnancy” looks like before and after abortion.

In other words, if they fulfilled the NHS guidelines on informed consent. Again, you can guess the response. These people are not interested in women’s wellbeing by any stretch of the imagination.

Mimseycal online: BPAS, who run the Wiston Clinic after your trial which collapsed after the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to proceed stated that "The number of women undergoing abortion treatment at our Brighton clinic has not changed since the protesters first arrived two years ago, but the proportion of abortions taking place at later gestations has increased.

"We know there are some women who simply feel unable to make their way past the line of protesters on the days they are there – these women do not decide against abortion, they simply come back at a later date for treatment at a later gestation.’"

That being the case, your campaigning has resulted not in decreasing the number of abortions. Can you show any proof that your harassment of people seeking to undergo a legitimate medical procedure has had any effect other then feeding your own self righteousness?

AS: Our trial didn’t’ collapse, it concluded with the judge saying we were “not guilty”.

Of course your version makes for a better liberal news story but it just isn’t the case.

We could have cut a day and a half off the trial that was spent by the prosecution convincing the judge that people were upset by our pictures.

Far from there being insufficient evidence, we told the judge we knew that people were likely to be upset by our pictures because abortion is upsetting. The decision of the judge could not have been any clearer. These images are not abusive, threatening or insulting.

They are purely accurate depictions of legal abortion that is more often than not paid for by taxpayer’s money.

We do not embellish the pictures with invective about those who obtain or even support abortion. The decision of the judge has been a huge victory for free speech. These pictures are legal to show.

Artificial online: Are you anti-contraception? If you are why do you oppose giving people control over their fertility to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

AS: We are not anti-contraception or preventing unwanted pregnancies; we are anti ending pregnancy by killing the unborn child at any stage of development.

Barrier methods like the condom do not posses the potential to kill embryos but the IUD for instance does. These are not contraceptives but birth control devices with “abortifacient” qualities.

Kweeta online: Andy, since your goal is to end abortion I assume you help mothers to go through with their pregnancy and then support their child throughout the entirety of its dependency? It wouldn't be a very Christian thing to do if you just, you know, guilt tripped them into keeping a child which they felt they couldn't care for properly or weren't ready for, and then left them to deal with the fallout.

AS: We do as much as we can but our willingness to do so is not what makes abortion wrong.

In the same way slavery was not deemed right or wrong on the basis of the willingness of the abolitionists to hire ex-slaves but because it was intrinsically wrong.

Of course people don’t like the slavery analogy. They don’t want to be compared to those who treated human beings as property and subhuman in order to overpower and exploit them.

I am not saying that women who have abortions are like slave owners but the industry itself is.

Neither am I saying the two are identical, but suitably analogous. Suitable because the unborn child from conception is a complete, unique, living, whole and growing human being.

Even recently on our Facebook page, abortion supporters have said that they would still support abortion even if they knew that the embryo was a human being. And we’re the ones who are morally wrong?

There are hundreds of crisis pregnancy centres working at great cost to themselves offering help. Those who provide abortion however do little or nothing to make other choices feasible. We have met scores of women who tell us they have “no choice”.

When a woman is pregnant she already has a child. Just as it would be morally wrong for her to kill her born child it is morally wrong for Bpas to kill her unborn child.

006 and a third online: Should women have the right to choose when mass rapes are being widely used as a weapon for ethnic cleansing around the world?

AS: A society that commits one evil to mitigate another is far from civilised. Rape victims need care, love and support. Abortion adds further injury and damage to women and kills the other innocent victim in the picture. The answer to the problem you suggest is to deal with the rapists.

For those who bring up rape as a justification for legalised abortion I have to ask - if it was conceded that abortion should be permitted in the case of rape, would you join us in ending abortion for all other reasons? Usually they say no, so why do they bring it up?

Would we permit the killing of other innocent people who remind us of a traumatic event? If we wouldn’t allow that then why do we allow the killing of the unborn for the same reason? The issue then isn’t rape, but is the unborn an innocent human being?

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

The Argus: Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

The Argus: Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments (118)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:38am Sat 23 Feb 13

worthingite says...

Well we have run out of people to interview,next week The Big Interview with B&H Street Drinkers,possibly a bit more interesting than the last five interviewed....zzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Well we have run out of people to interview,next week The Big Interview with B&H Street Drinkers,possibly a bit more interesting than the last five interviewed....zzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz worthingite

11:12am Sat 23 Feb 13

annagibson says...

He completely avoided answering Mimseycal's question...
He completely avoided answering Mimseycal's question... annagibson

12:30pm Sat 23 Feb 13

John Allman says...

annagibson wrote:
He completely avoided answering Mimseycal's question...
He responded to most of the content, but appears to have missed the final "question", "Can you show any proof that your harassment of people seeking to undergo a legitimate medical procedure has had any effect other then feeding your own self righteousness?"

The answer is "yes". For example, in answer to a different question, Andy wrote, "Many women have told us that nothing less shocking than the pictures persuaded them to keep their baby."

The Abort 67 website contains some moving testimonies.

I wish it could become possible to discuss this important moral issue more calmly and rationally. One comment of Andy's summed it up nicely, "It is ironic that they accuse us of being religious when we rely fundamentally on a scientific case, but those who support abortion end up relying solely on metaphysics."
[quote][p][bold]annagibson[/bold] wrote: He completely avoided answering Mimseycal's question...[/p][/quote]He responded to most of the content, but appears to have missed the final "question", "Can you show any proof that your harassment of people seeking to undergo a legitimate medical procedure has had any effect other then feeding your own self righteousness?" The answer is "yes". For example, in answer to a different question, Andy wrote, "Many women have told us that nothing less shocking than the pictures persuaded them to keep their baby." The Abort 67 website contains some moving testimonies. I wish it could become possible to discuss this important moral issue more calmly and rationally. One comment of Andy's summed it up nicely, "It is ironic that they accuse us of being religious when we rely fundamentally on a scientific case, but those who support abortion end up relying solely on metaphysics." John Allman

12:35pm Sat 23 Feb 13

The Real Phil says...

This is the kind of fundamentalist, far right evil which one would expect to find in the USA. What on earth possessed the Argus to give this filth column inches?
This is the kind of fundamentalist, far right evil which one would expect to find in the USA. What on earth possessed the Argus to give this filth column inches? The Real Phil

12:50pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Surely not! says...

These people are so depressing. Why can't they use their energy to make the world a better place rather than standing at the finishing line complaining at the results of the work of their rather callous and evidently incompetent 'God'.
These people are so depressing. Why can't they use their energy to make the world a better place rather than standing at the finishing line complaining at the results of the work of their rather callous and evidently incompetent 'God'. Surely not!

1:16pm Sat 23 Feb 13

mimseycal says...

So nothing but an unsupported claim that women have not gone through with an abortion because they told him so.

I know they harass women as my daughter was one fo those and I witnessed it.
They aren't a charity as that would mean having to publish their financial records, however they were founded by members of the Jubilee Church in Worthing and are funded by the American Center for Bio-Ethical Reform who refer to Andrew Stephenson as their CBR-UK Director .
So nothing but an unsupported claim that women have not gone through with an abortion because they told him so. I know they harass women as my daughter was one fo those and I witnessed it. They aren't a charity as that would mean having to publish their financial records, however they were founded by members of the Jubilee Church in Worthing and are funded by the American Center for Bio-Ethical Reform who refer to Andrew Stephenson as their CBR-UK Director . mimseycal

1:22pm Sat 23 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

What an idiotic man he is. The point I was making in my question is that it does seem to be that whenever religion rears its ugly head in any argument people use it to hide behind. Religion should never be the basis for anyone's argument.

The basic fact is that there are far far more deaths, be it in wars, murders etc, carried out in the name of religion than there are abortions every year.

Maybe we should all be protesting outside churches showing them pictures of people killed because of their religion.
What an idiotic man he is. The point I was making in my question is that it does seem to be that whenever religion rears its ugly head in any argument people use it to hide behind. Religion should never be the basis for anyone's argument. The basic fact is that there are far far more deaths, be it in wars, murders etc, carried out in the name of religion than there are abortions every year. Maybe we should all be protesting outside churches showing them pictures of people killed because of their religion. AmboGuy

2:02pm Sat 23 Feb 13

fredaj says...

Simply a man who wants to control women.

I don't care what he has to say to justify that position because that position is intrinsically wrong.
Simply a man who wants to control women. I don't care what he has to say to justify that position because that position is intrinsically wrong. fredaj

2:03pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on. Plantpot

2:07pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

annagibson wrote:
He completely avoided answering Mimseycal's question...
Really?
[quote][p][bold]annagibson[/bold] wrote: He completely avoided answering Mimseycal's question...[/p][/quote]Really? Plantpot

2:08pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
What an idiotic man he is. The point I was making in my question is that it does seem to be that whenever religion rears its ugly head in any argument people use it to hide behind. Religion should never be the basis for anyone's argument.

The basic fact is that there are far far more deaths, be it in wars, murders etc, carried out in the name of religion than there are abortions every year.

Maybe we should all be protesting outside churches showing them pictures of people killed because of their religion.
But he didn't hide behind religion.....
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: What an idiotic man he is. The point I was making in my question is that it does seem to be that whenever religion rears its ugly head in any argument people use it to hide behind. Religion should never be the basis for anyone's argument. The basic fact is that there are far far more deaths, be it in wars, murders etc, carried out in the name of religion than there are abortions every year. Maybe we should all be protesting outside churches showing them pictures of people killed because of their religion.[/p][/quote]But he didn't hide behind religion..... Plantpot

2:09pm Sat 23 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool. AmboGuy

2:13pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Surely not! says...

Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
'Got owned'?

what a plonker
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]'Got owned'? what a plonker Surely not!

2:17pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

Surely not! wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
'Got owned'?

what a plonker
Lol. Stay classy.
[quote][p][bold]Surely not![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]'Got owned'? what a plonker[/p][/quote]Lol. Stay classy. Plantpot

2:34pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun). Plantpot

2:39pm Sat 23 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).
So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned?

The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned? The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look. AmboGuy

2:51pm Sat 23 Feb 13

John Allman says...

mimseycal wrote:
So nothing but an unsupported claim that women have not gone through with an abortion because they told him so.

I know they harass women as my daughter was one fo those and I witnessed it.
They aren't a charity as that would mean having to publish their financial records, however they were founded by members of the Jubilee Church in Worthing and are funded by the American Center for Bio-Ethical Reform who refer to Andrew Stephenson as their CBR-UK Director .
@ mimseycal

"I know they harass women as my daughter was one of those and I witnessed it."

Abort 67 are adamant that they never harass anybody. If you are an eyewitness that this is not so, please would you be willing to say actually what harassment you witnessed, who did it (Andy or another person), how you recognised that the perpetrator was with Abort 67, and who you are?

Your allegation needs investigating and substantiating. If it can be proved, this will be a great step forward for those who oppose Abort 67.

Abort 67 isn't eligible to register as a charity, because it has a political objective. I dare say it will be possible to obtain audited accounts for the group, if anybody is interested. Email me if you'd like me to get hold of a copy for you, via

JohnAllmanUK.Wordpre
ss.com
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: So nothing but an unsupported claim that women have not gone through with an abortion because they told him so. I know they harass women as my daughter was one fo those and I witnessed it. They aren't a charity as that would mean having to publish their financial records, however they were founded by members of the Jubilee Church in Worthing and are funded by the American Center for Bio-Ethical Reform who refer to Andrew Stephenson as their CBR-UK Director .[/p][/quote]@ mimseycal "I know they harass women as my daughter was one of those and I witnessed it." Abort 67 are adamant that they never harass anybody. If you are an eyewitness that this is not so, please would you be willing to say actually what harassment you witnessed, who did it (Andy or another person), how you recognised that the perpetrator was with Abort 67, and who you are? Your allegation needs investigating and substantiating. If it can be proved, this will be a great step forward for those who oppose Abort 67. Abort 67 isn't eligible to register as a charity, because it has a political objective. I dare say it will be possible to obtain audited accounts for the group, if anybody is interested. Email me if you'd like me to get hold of a copy for you, via JohnAllmanUK.Wordpre ss.com John Allman

3:03pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Lewesroadresident says...

What a fantastically disingenuous interview, full of logical fallacies and distortion of the truth, if not lies.

‘How can it be wrong to show what Bpas do? It is they who are damaging women. Harass is a legally loaded word’

And ‘damaging women’ is not legally loaded? They are not damaging women at all, and even you admit that- an abortion ‘damages’ the foetus/collection of cells.

‘If it is harassing to see, then why do we allow it to happen?’

How many people do you think would willingly look at pictures of open heart surgery? That is traumatic and ‘harassing’, should we ban surgery?

‘We don’t do what we do to “get at” women; we do it to empower them. Many women have told us that nothing less shocking than the pictures persuaded them to keep their baby.‘

So emotional and factual manipulation is capable of influencing people’s decisions? Well who knew! Your pictures are not accurate for a lot of women- your website states at week 10 the foetus is 1 inch long. What about at 4 weeks? Do you show those pictures to women who are pregnant? Or just the ones with the most blood? You are not empowering women; you are manipulating people who are currently vulnerable, like cowards. If you were trying to empower women you would be targeting legislators, not those who are trying to go about their legal business. And ‘empowering’ a women in your eyes means making sure she agrees with you, the opposite of empowerment.

‘Our case that the pre-born are human and alive from conception is made using scientific evidence.’

Oh yeah? Let’s see your ‘evidence’ then. And I mean actual, globally accepted, peer reviewed evidence. Interesting definition of human as well- a collection of cells with no recognisable form- that’s a human is it? In that case I’ve got a tiny human up my bum- although I was told it was piles. You don’t seem to understand the difference between a human and cells.

‘Merely prove to us that the embryo or foetus is not a human being. The offer remains open to anyone. We will take down our website, hand over our banners and never return.’

No- you prove to me that a collection of cells IS a human being. You are in the minority, you are the one who wants the law changed- the burden of proof lies with you. The issue of what constitutes a human is a philosophical issue, so you know full well this can’t happen- currently (and hopefully for ever), more people than you do not think of a foetus as a human. For one thing a human has a personality. Prove that a foetus has a personality. Oh, you can’t- so you must be wrong. Straw man argument.

‘Of course your version makes for a better liberal news story but it just isn’t the case’ ‘They are purely accurate depictions of legal abortion that is more often than not paid for by taxpayer’s money.‘ ‘If we were being cruel or obstreperous then the post abortive women who stand with us would not feel comfortable doing so’

Whoops, revealing some of your real motivation there! So not just a moral crusade- you seem to have a problem with ‘liberals’ and the use of taxpayer money to perform what you consider to be unnecessary procedures. You are aware that those who are members of cults also support wholeheartedly their cult leaders? So the fact that people who you have manipulated into doing what you want stick by you is hardly surprising- otherwise they have to admit the truth- that they allowed themselves to be emotionally blackmailed into a decision they weren’t necessarily comfortable with.

‘Of course people don’t like the slavery analogy.’ ‘I am not saying that women who have abortions are like slave owners but the industry itself is.’ ‘Neither am I saying the two are identical, but suitably analogous. Suitable because the unborn child from conception is a complete, unique, living, whole and growing human being.‘

Right….this bit was amazing. People don’t like the analogy because it is total nonsense. We all know what slavery involved- abortion is clearly not the same thing, don’t be so insulting. And ‘the industry’? You really believe people are deliberately performing abortions just for the money? Has it occurred to you that by the time most women make it to BPAS they have already researched, soul searched, discussed with friends and family and made an informed choice? Or does that not fit with your view that women need to be ‘empowered’? This is an insane argument and really does make you sound like a Deep South conspiracy theorist. The unborn child is not complete from conception, that’s why they take 9 months to come out and premature babies aren’t just small but not developed.

‘A society that commits one evil to mitigate another is far from civilised’

Agreed- that’s why I’m against capital punishment- I wonder if you are?

‘Abortion adds further injury and damage to women’

No it doesn’t, do you have any evidence for this?

‘The answer to the problem you suggest is to deal with the rapists.’

Oh right, thanks for that! All we have to do is make rape illegal and it won’t happen any more. Oh hold on! It is illegal, and rape convictions have a notoriously low success rate. People bring up rape pregnancies because they want to know just how extreme you are. You must know in your heart how despicable your attitude to this is. The baby would have a rapist for a father, and every time the mother looks at their child they are potentially reminded of a horrific incident. The mother had the right to choose to have intercourse and become pregnant torn away from her by the horrific actions of a third party- and you would allow this to alter the course of their entire life? The mother is a human- alive, has a personality, conscious thought, can suffer emotional pain. A cluster of cells at a few weeks old is not in the same category.

Like I said at the beginning, this is full of logical fallacy. Your best defense is that ‘science’ supports you- so let’s see the science. And if that were true, you would be campaigning for a change in legislation- if you actually did have science to back you up many more people would probably support you. As you resort to showing pictures of medical procedures to people in an emotionally vulnerable state, I’ll assume there is no science and you’re simply a coward and a bully.
What a fantastically disingenuous interview, full of logical fallacies and distortion of the truth, if not lies. ‘How can it be wrong to show what Bpas do? It is they who are damaging women. Harass is a legally loaded word’ And ‘damaging women’ is not legally loaded? They are not damaging women at all, and even you admit that- an abortion ‘damages’ the foetus/collection of cells. ‘If it is harassing to see, then why do we allow it to happen?’ How many people do you think would willingly look at pictures of open heart surgery? That is traumatic and ‘harassing’, should we ban surgery? ‘We don’t do what we do to “get at” women; we do it to empower them. Many women have told us that nothing less shocking than the pictures persuaded them to keep their baby.‘ So emotional and factual manipulation is capable of influencing people’s decisions? Well who knew! Your pictures are not accurate for a lot of women- your website states at week 10 the foetus is 1 inch long. What about at 4 weeks? Do you show those pictures to women who are pregnant? Or just the ones with the most blood? You are not empowering women; you are manipulating people who are currently vulnerable, like cowards. If you were trying to empower women you would be targeting legislators, not those who are trying to go about their legal business. And ‘empowering’ a women in your eyes means making sure she agrees with you, the opposite of empowerment. ‘Our case that the pre-born are human and alive from conception is made using scientific evidence.’ Oh yeah? Let’s see your ‘evidence’ then. And I mean actual, globally accepted, peer reviewed evidence. Interesting definition of human as well- a collection of cells with no recognisable form- that’s a human is it? In that case I’ve got a tiny human up my bum- although I was told it was piles. You don’t seem to understand the difference between a human and cells. ‘Merely prove to us that the embryo or foetus is not a human being. The offer remains open to anyone. We will take down our website, hand over our banners and never return.’ No- you prove to me that a collection of cells IS a human being. You are in the minority, you are the one who wants the law changed- the burden of proof lies with you. The issue of what constitutes a human is a philosophical issue, so you know full well this can’t happen- currently (and hopefully for ever), more people than you do not think of a foetus as a human. For one thing a human has a personality. Prove that a foetus has a personality. Oh, you can’t- so you must be wrong. Straw man argument. ‘Of course your version makes for a better liberal news story but it just isn’t the case’ ‘They are purely accurate depictions of legal abortion that is more often than not paid for by taxpayer’s money.‘ ‘If we were being cruel or obstreperous then the post abortive women who stand with us would not feel comfortable doing so’ Whoops, revealing some of your real motivation there! So not just a moral crusade- you seem to have a problem with ‘liberals’ and the use of taxpayer money to perform what you consider to be unnecessary procedures. You are aware that those who are members of cults also support wholeheartedly their cult leaders? So the fact that people who you have manipulated into doing what you want stick by you is hardly surprising- otherwise they have to admit the truth- that they allowed themselves to be emotionally blackmailed into a decision they weren’t necessarily comfortable with. ‘Of course people don’t like the slavery analogy.’ ‘I am not saying that women who have abortions are like slave owners but the industry itself is.’ ‘Neither am I saying the two are identical, but suitably analogous. Suitable because the unborn child from conception is a complete, unique, living, whole and growing human being.‘ Right….this bit was amazing. People don’t like the analogy because it is total nonsense. We all know what slavery involved- abortion is clearly not the same thing, don’t be so insulting. And ‘the industry’? You really believe people are deliberately performing abortions just for the money? Has it occurred to you that by the time most women make it to BPAS they have already researched, soul searched, discussed with friends and family and made an informed choice? Or does that not fit with your view that women need to be ‘empowered’? This is an insane argument and really does make you sound like a Deep South conspiracy theorist. The unborn child is not complete from conception, that’s why they take 9 months to come out and premature babies aren’t just small but not developed. ‘A society that commits one evil to mitigate another is far from civilised’ Agreed- that’s why I’m against capital punishment- I wonder if you are? ‘Abortion adds further injury and damage to women’ No it doesn’t, do you have any evidence for this? ‘The answer to the problem you suggest is to deal with the rapists.’ Oh right, thanks for that! All we have to do is make rape illegal and it won’t happen any more. Oh hold on! It is illegal, and rape convictions have a notoriously low success rate. People bring up rape pregnancies because they want to know just how extreme you are. You must know in your heart how despicable your attitude to this is. The baby would have a rapist for a father, and every time the mother looks at their child they are potentially reminded of a horrific incident. The mother had the right to choose to have intercourse and become pregnant torn away from her by the horrific actions of a third party- and you would allow this to alter the course of their entire life? The mother is a human- alive, has a personality, conscious thought, can suffer emotional pain. A cluster of cells at a few weeks old is not in the same category. Like I said at the beginning, this is full of logical fallacy. Your best defense is that ‘science’ supports you- so let’s see the science. And if that were true, you would be campaigning for a change in legislation- if you actually did have science to back you up many more people would probably support you. As you resort to showing pictures of medical procedures to people in an emotionally vulnerable state, I’ll assume there is no science and you’re simply a coward and a bully. Lewesroadresident

4:10pm Sat 23 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Lewesroadresident

Oh good. Another of these amateur, armchair logicians, who likes to allege "logical fallacy", but hasn't only learnt the phrase, not how this can actually be proved, logically.

"How many people do you think would willingly look at pictures of open heart surgery?"

Quite a lot, I would think. TV shows that film surgery are very popular. I've even watched gender reassignment surgery on British TV. (That WAS a bit gruesome, I have to admit.)

"That is traumatic and ‘harassing’, should we ban surgery?"

No. The analogy between surgery and abortion isn't QUITE as apt as the analogy between slavery and abortion, to which you take such exception.

Abort 67's pictures are no more "harassing" to look at than the clumps of edible cells in a typical butcher's shop window, to somebody in denial of what is being depicted. Do you work yourself up into such a frenzy of rage outside every butcher's shop, when THOSE "clumps of cells" are being displayed, in the flesh, not just photographically? If not, its my turn to cry, "logically fallacy."

There is something different between a human foetus and a pork chop, isn't there? Equally bloody sight, when the human foetus has been butchered, but a vital moral difference. And the Abort 67 pictures show that difference up a treat, for the benefit of the uneducated who get their "science" from the "clump of cells" brigade that rant against Abort 67, or work in BPAS clinics.

You and I have never been pork chops ourselves, have we? And pork chops don't look like us one little bit. Human foetuses look like what they actually are. Deny what they are, and you demolish any reason for finding the pictures any more "harassing" than a butcher's shop window.

"Let's see the science"

Try Wikipedia. Or any text book on human reproductive biology. Or the Abort 67 website for that matter. Just look at the pictures, if reading words isn't one of your better developed skills yet.

I'll leave you with somebody else's quote:

“We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it, it's clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil and we can recognise that it is human life…”



Q.E.D.
@ Lewesroadresident Oh good. Another of these amateur, armchair logicians, who likes to allege "logical fallacy", but hasn't only learnt the phrase, not how this can actually be proved, logically. "How many people do you think would willingly look at pictures of open heart surgery?" Quite a lot, I would think. TV shows that film surgery are very popular. I've even watched gender reassignment surgery on British TV. (That WAS a bit gruesome, I have to admit.) "That is traumatic and ‘harassing’, should we ban surgery?" No. The analogy between surgery and abortion isn't QUITE as apt as the analogy between slavery and abortion, to which you take such exception. Abort 67's pictures are no more "harassing" to look at than the clumps of edible cells in a typical butcher's shop window, to somebody in denial of what is being depicted. Do you work yourself up into such a frenzy of rage outside every butcher's shop, when THOSE "clumps of cells" are being displayed, in the flesh, not just photographically? If not, its my turn to cry, "logically fallacy." There is something different between a human foetus and a pork chop, isn't there? Equally bloody sight, when the human foetus has been butchered, but a vital moral difference. And the Abort 67 pictures show that difference up a treat, for the benefit of the uneducated who get their "science" from the "clump of cells" brigade that rant against Abort 67, or work in BPAS clinics. You and I have never been pork chops ourselves, have we? And pork chops don't look like us one little bit. Human foetuses look like what they actually are. Deny what they are, and you demolish any reason for finding the pictures any more "harassing" than a butcher's shop window. "Let's see the science" Try Wikipedia. Or any text book on human reproductive biology. Or the Abort 67 website for that matter. Just look at the pictures, if reading words isn't one of your better developed skills yet. I'll leave you with somebody else's quote: “We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it, it's clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil and we can recognise that it is human life…” [Ann Furedi, chief executive of BPAS] Q.E.D. John Allman

4:14pm Sat 23 Feb 13

John Allman says...

"“We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it, it's clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil and we can recognise that it is human life…”

That quote was from Anne Furedi, chief executive of BPAS. For some reason, the attribution disappeared from my previous posting.
"“We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it, it's clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil and we can recognise that it is human life…” That quote was from Anne Furedi, chief executive of BPAS. For some reason, the attribution disappeared from my previous posting. John Allman

4:45pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Lewesroadresident says...

John Allman;

How do you know I'm an armchair logician?

'No. The analogy between surgery and abortion isn't QUITE as apt as the analogy between slavery and abortion, to which you take such exception.'

There is no analogy between slavery and abortion, except the one made by the interviewee.

Choosing to watch a programme where you can turn off whenever you like is not the same as someone thrusting pictures chosen for their particularly grim representation of in the face of someone about to have a medical procedure.

Your entire posting about butchers and pork chops is irrelevant- who mentioned a butcher? And if you can't see the difference between people eating another species that they consider inferior and medical surgery then you've sort of already lost this debate in my opinion. At the point of conception there is no foetus because it has not been formed. Don't try and pretend this is a debate about late stage abortion, it isn't.

'Try Wikipedia. Or any text book on human reproductive biology. Or the Abort 67 website for that matter. Just look at the pictures, if reading words isn't one of your better developed skills yet.'

Ooh, petty insults! You must be getting rattled- maybe you're even seeing the holes in your own argument. It's not even a good petty insult- you can tell I can read, I've read and commented on the whole article. Durrr. The website WANTS people to just look at the pictures, that's why they use them. Why have a debate based on facts when pictures will do eh? I'll ignore the website (somehow I doubt it's that unbiased), but from what I recall of human reproductive biology there isn't anything about a sperm and egg immediately merging into a foetus on contact- maybe you can correct me? Facts about human reproduction are not the same as assertions that a collection of cells or even a foetus is identical to a human. So feel like answering my actual question? Don't think you will somehow.

Good quote, unfortunately not relevant again. I can't see the bit where I refused to admit that an embryo is ever a human. Abort67 want all abortion to be stopped, even when there is not yet a foetus. Most people, myself included, are not supportive of abortion right up to natural birth.

So yet another disingenuous post that deliberately seeks to mislead and misquote. It's not going well so far is it? Most people posting above can see how well Andy avoids answering the actual questions- something to hide?
John Allman; How do you know I'm an armchair logician? 'No. The analogy between surgery and abortion isn't QUITE as apt as the analogy between slavery and abortion, to which you take such exception.' There is no analogy between slavery and abortion, except the one made by the interviewee. Choosing to watch a programme where you can turn off whenever you like is not the same as someone thrusting pictures chosen for their particularly grim representation of in the face of someone about to have a medical procedure. Your entire posting about butchers and pork chops is irrelevant- who mentioned a butcher? And if you can't see the difference between people eating another species that they consider inferior and medical surgery then you've sort of already lost this debate in my opinion. At the point of conception there is no foetus because it has not been formed. Don't try and pretend this is a debate about late stage abortion, it isn't. 'Try Wikipedia. Or any text book on human reproductive biology. Or the Abort 67 website for that matter. Just look at the pictures, if reading words isn't one of your better developed skills yet.' Ooh, petty insults! You must be getting rattled- maybe you're even seeing the holes in your own argument. It's not even a good petty insult- you can tell I can read, I've read and commented on the whole article. Durrr. The website WANTS people to just look at the pictures, that's why they use them. Why have a debate based on facts when pictures will do eh? I'll ignore the website (somehow I doubt it's that unbiased), but from what I recall of human reproductive biology there isn't anything about a sperm and egg immediately merging into a foetus on contact- maybe you can correct me? Facts about human reproduction are not the same as assertions that a collection of cells or even a foetus is identical to a human. So feel like answering my actual question? Don't think you will somehow. Good quote, unfortunately not relevant again. I can't see the bit where I refused to admit that an embryo is ever a human. Abort67 want all abortion to be stopped, even when there is not yet a foetus. Most people, myself included, are not supportive of abortion right up to natural birth. So yet another disingenuous post that deliberately seeks to mislead and misquote. It's not going well so far is it? Most people posting above can see how well Andy avoids answering the actual questions- something to hide? Lewesroadresident

5:31pm Sat 23 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Lewesroadresident

The argument about a butcher's shop anticipated your denial that he or she whom an abortion puts to death is human. Since you've conceded that he or she is human, we can move on.

What is the reason why you consider it to be morally acceptable to kill small humans?

Why shouldn't those against abortion use pictures of the victims of abortion to get their point across?
@ Lewesroadresident The argument about a butcher's shop anticipated your denial that he or she whom an abortion puts to death is human. Since you've conceded that he or she is human, we can move on. What is the reason why you consider it to be morally acceptable to kill small humans? Why shouldn't those against abortion use pictures of the victims of abortion to get their point across? John Allman

7:01pm Sat 23 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Morally questionable, unacceptable to so many people, very very offensive and responsible for so many deaths worldwide every single year. Anyway that's enough about religion, lets get back to abortion.

Andy Stephenson never answered the question of whether he'd prefer to see back street abortions carried out by untrained people. People will ALWAYS have abortions whether he likes it or not so I can only assume he'd prefer to see women having foetuses aborted in this manner as that's what will happen if people feel too intimidated to go to a proper clinic.
Morally questionable, unacceptable to so many people, very very offensive and responsible for so many deaths worldwide every single year. Anyway that's enough about religion, lets get back to abortion. Andy Stephenson never answered the question of whether he'd prefer to see back street abortions carried out by untrained people. People will ALWAYS have abortions whether he likes it or not so I can only assume he'd prefer to see women having foetuses aborted in this manner as that's what will happen if people feel too intimidated to go to a proper clinic. AmboGuy

7:25pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Lewesroadresident says...

John Allman wrote:
@ Lewesroadresident

The argument about a butcher's shop anticipated your denial that he or she whom an abortion puts to death is human. Since you've conceded that he or she is human, we can move on.

What is the reason why you consider it to be morally acceptable to kill small humans?

Why shouldn't those against abortion use pictures of the victims of abortion to get their point across?
You didn't anticipate anything, I'd already made my feelings clear in my first post.

Talking about a butchers shop is a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. I wouldn't say you're skilled at debating by any means, but having read your postings (usually about this subject) and your blog, you are skilled at trying to undermine a debate with a constant rephrasing of what others have said. Mind you, it doesn't really take much skill. It does however mean that instead of answering questions or providing evidence, you hide behind a wall of rephrased nonsense designed to undermine a poster's position based on something they never said.

At no point have I accepted or stated that an abortion always results in the death of a human. I have been quite clear about the fact that I think there is a nuanced discussion to be had about at what point a cluster of cells does become a human. You are not interested in this debate, and prefer to talk about pork chops.

Instead of answering your first rhetorical question, why don't I borrow from your tactics and rephrase it? What is the reason you consider it morally unacceptable to remove a collection of cells with no human features whatsoever from it's host body?

Your second question- because that means you have already lost the debate. You are trying to use shock tactics & by this I don't mean the fact that the pictures exist, but the fact that they are thrust at people on the street, out of context, unexpectedly, and when those who are being shown them are in emotional distress. You know very well what a low tactic it is. If science is on your side, as you claim with no evidence whatsoever, why resort to the lowest tactic straight away? Could it be because you have nothing else?

No one has ever made the argument for pro choice (not pro abortion) based on abortion being a really clean procedure with no medical waste. The pictures don't add anything, they are designed purely to guilt trip women. I am against their use because it should be possible to have a rational debate, but you and those you speak up for cannot do this.

Why should a woman not have the right to choose what happens to her body? What role should the state play in the biology of another's life? Why should the life of a possible foetus be placed above the life of an actual human being? If a woman will die in pregnancy, should she be forced to carry full term? Is it ever appropriate for a man to have anything to do with the debate on abortion? A few questions for you there, just how you like to debate.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Lewesroadresident The argument about a butcher's shop anticipated your denial that he or she whom an abortion puts to death is human. Since you've conceded that he or she is human, we can move on. What is the reason why you consider it to be morally acceptable to kill small humans? Why shouldn't those against abortion use pictures of the victims of abortion to get their point across?[/p][/quote]You didn't anticipate anything, I'd already made my feelings clear in my first post. Talking about a butchers shop is a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. I wouldn't say you're skilled at debating by any means, but having read your postings (usually about this subject) and your blog, you are skilled at trying to undermine a debate with a constant rephrasing of what others have said. Mind you, it doesn't really take much skill. It does however mean that instead of answering questions or providing evidence, you hide behind a wall of rephrased nonsense designed to undermine a poster's position based on something they never said. At no point have I accepted or stated that an abortion always results in the death of a human. I have been quite clear about the fact that I think there is a nuanced discussion to be had about at what point a cluster of cells does become a human. You are not interested in this debate, and prefer to talk about pork chops. Instead of answering your first rhetorical question, why don't I borrow from your tactics and rephrase it? What is the reason you consider it morally unacceptable to remove a collection of cells with no human features whatsoever from it's host body? Your second question- because that means you have already lost the debate. You are trying to use shock tactics & by this I don't mean the fact that the pictures exist, but the fact that they are thrust at people on the street, out of context, unexpectedly, and when those who are being shown them are in emotional distress. You know very well what a low tactic it is. If science is on your side, as you claim with no evidence whatsoever, why resort to the lowest tactic straight away? Could it be because you have nothing else? No one has ever made the argument for pro choice (not pro abortion) based on abortion being a really clean procedure with no medical waste. The pictures don't add anything, they are designed purely to guilt trip women. I am against their use because it should be possible to have a rational debate, but you and those you speak up for cannot do this. Why should a woman not have the right to choose what happens to her body? What role should the state play in the biology of another's life? Why should the life of a possible foetus be placed above the life of an actual human being? If a woman will die in pregnancy, should she be forced to carry full term? Is it ever appropriate for a man to have anything to do with the debate on abortion? A few questions for you there, just how you like to debate. Lewesroadresident

8:35pm Sat 23 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

That's John Allman's trick every time he can't answer a question. You're not the first person who's sussed out this dubious tactic.

At the end of the day he's got his own website stating that the government are using mind control on the population and has even been on TV to put this conspiracy theory across. If this level of craziness applies to the average pro life supporter then that explains a lot!
That's John Allman's trick every time he can't answer a question. You're not the first person who's sussed out this dubious tactic. At the end of the day he's got his own website stating that the government are using mind control on the population and has even been on TV to put this conspiracy theory across. If this level of craziness applies to the average pro life supporter then that explains a lot! AmboGuy

8:52pm Sat 23 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Lewesroadresident

"What is the reason you consider it morally unacceptable to remove a collection of cells with no human features whatsoever from it's host body?"

I don't consider that "morally unacceptable".

"The pictures don't add anything, they are designed purely to guilt trip women."

Guilt about WHAT?

"Why should the life of a possible foetus be placed above the life of an actual human being?"

So now we are back to denying that a foetus is a human being? That is where the science comes in. There IS no controversy in science as to who or what a zef is. (Zef = zygote, embryo or foetus.) It's elementary biology that you and I are **** overgrown zefs. Don't make yourself look folish by demanding "proof" of that.

"If a woman will die in pregnancy, should she be forced to carry full term?"

Of course not. Never was before the Abortion Act 1967.

"Is it ever appropriate for a man to have anything to do with the debate on abortion?"

Of course it is. Men are fathers and brothers of foetuses. Men were all zefs themselves once.

"Why should a woman not have the right to choose what happens to her body?"

Because there's somebody else's life at stake.

"What role should the state play in the biology of another's life?"

Criminalising homicide is a good start.
@ Lewesroadresident "What is the reason you consider it morally unacceptable to remove a collection of cells with no human features whatsoever from it's host body?" I don't consider that "morally unacceptable". "The pictures don't add anything, they are designed purely to guilt trip women." Guilt about WHAT? "Why should the life of a possible foetus be placed above the life of an actual human being?" So now we are back to denying that a foetus is a human being? That is where the science comes in. There IS no controversy in science as to who or what a zef is. (Zef = zygote, embryo or foetus.) It's elementary biology that you and I are **** overgrown zefs. Don't make yourself look folish by demanding "proof" of that. "If a woman will die in pregnancy, should she be forced to carry full term?" Of course not. Never was before the Abortion Act 1967. "Is it ever appropriate for a man to have anything to do with the debate on abortion?" Of course it is. Men are fathers and brothers of foetuses. Men were all zefs themselves once. "Why should a woman not have the right to choose what happens to her body?" Because there's somebody else's life at stake. "What role should the state play in the biology of another's life?" Criminalising homicide is a good start. John Allman

11:45pm Sat 23 Feb 13

whereisthe...? says...

Think really all the nutters here have done is prove they are just hysterical when faced with science, fact, and the consequences of their own actions. You lot keep saying you are 'fine' with the idea of abortions - really? Then how come the moment you are faced with the reality of what that means, eg, a photo, you freak out, get hysterical, and cry that you are being harassed?


Take RESPONSIBILITY for your own actions. This involves acknowledging the REALITY and consequences of your own actions. This is not a trip to the shops. It is a LIFE. Accept that, THEN make the choice. Lets see how many can deal with that..


..cue the usual hysterical anti-religious, generalising, stereotyping all men as controlling women, hatred.

Funny, cos plenty of WOMEN are also against abortion, and Im not remotely religious!
Think really all the nutters here have done is prove they are just hysterical when faced with science, fact, and the consequences of their own actions. You lot keep saying you are 'fine' with the idea of abortions - really? Then how come the moment you are faced with the reality of what that means, eg, a photo, you freak out, get hysterical, and cry that you are being harassed? Take RESPONSIBILITY for your own actions. This involves acknowledging the REALITY and consequences of your own actions. This is not a trip to the shops. It is a LIFE. Accept that, THEN make the choice. Lets see how many can deal with that.. ..cue the usual hysterical anti-religious, generalising, stereotyping all men as controlling women, hatred. Funny, cos plenty of WOMEN are also against abortion, and Im not remotely religious! whereisthe...?

12:14am Sun 24 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

whereisthe...? wrote:
Think really all the nutters here have done is prove they are just hysterical when faced with science, fact, and the consequences of their own actions. You lot keep saying you are 'fine' with the idea of abortions - really? Then how come the moment you are faced with the reality of what that means, eg, a photo, you freak out, get hysterical, and cry that you are being harassed?


Take RESPONSIBILITY for your own actions. This involves acknowledging the REALITY and consequences of your own actions. This is not a trip to the shops. It is a LIFE. Accept that, THEN make the choice. Lets see how many can deal with that..


..cue the usual hysterical anti-religious, generalising, stereotyping all men as controlling women, hatred.

Funny, cos plenty of WOMEN are also against abortion, and Im not remotely religious!
I'm surprised by this. You're always on here spouting some ultra left wing rubbish but you support these self righteous pro life nazis.

Wonders will never cease.
[quote][p][bold]whereisthe...?[/bold] wrote: Think really all the nutters here have done is prove they are just hysterical when faced with science, fact, and the consequences of their own actions. You lot keep saying you are 'fine' with the idea of abortions - really? Then how come the moment you are faced with the reality of what that means, eg, a photo, you freak out, get hysterical, and cry that you are being harassed? Take RESPONSIBILITY for your own actions. This involves acknowledging the REALITY and consequences of your own actions. This is not a trip to the shops. It is a LIFE. Accept that, THEN make the choice. Lets see how many can deal with that.. ..cue the usual hysterical anti-religious, generalising, stereotyping all men as controlling women, hatred. Funny, cos plenty of WOMEN are also against abortion, and Im not remotely religious![/p][/quote]I'm surprised by this. You're always on here spouting some ultra left wing rubbish but you support these self righteous pro life nazis. Wonders will never cease. AmboGuy

4:01am Sun 24 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ amboguy

There really isn't anything "right wing" about opposing abortion. Nor is it illogical, insane, evil, bigoted, or tied to a particular worldview either theistic or atheistic.

All that is required, to realise the need to oppose abortion, is knowledge of extremely elementary scientific facts about where babies come from that are known to an average ten-year-old, and the donning of a certain very modern ethical thought-experiment construct, the "veil of ignorance" (q.v.).

Utilitarian ethics aren't my cup of tea, but they appear to be the best that people hostile to theistic ideas have managed to come up with these past few centuries. Biology, Utilitarianism and the veil of ignorance, even if you despise the Lord Jesus Christ and every other guru or deity the ever lived, or was worshiped, will inevitably lead you to the conclusion that Abort 67's cause is just, and that religion or lack of it are irrelevant considerations. Do some homework, and you ought to arrive at the same conclusion yourself, in about half an hour.

Once you get there, we can start to discuss whether Abort 67's tactics are good or bad. But, frankly, that abortion is wrong (generally, not to save a mother's life, obviously) ought to be a done deal by now. No amount of abuse and name-calling is going to change that.

Thanks for the free plug for other issues that I am vocal about, even though they weren't relevant, by the way. And please don't hesitate to visit me at home as you promised you would. I've moved, but my up-to-date address is on my blog.
@ amboguy There really isn't anything "right wing" about opposing abortion. Nor is it illogical, insane, evil, bigoted, or tied to a particular worldview either theistic or atheistic. All that is required, to realise the need to oppose abortion, is knowledge of extremely elementary scientific facts about where babies come from that are known to an average ten-year-old, and the donning of a certain very modern ethical thought-experiment construct, the "veil of ignorance" (q.v.). Utilitarian ethics aren't my cup of tea, but they appear to be the best that people hostile to theistic ideas have managed to come up with these past few centuries. Biology, Utilitarianism and the veil of ignorance, even if you despise the Lord Jesus Christ and every other guru or deity the ever lived, or was worshiped, will inevitably lead you to the conclusion that Abort 67's cause is just, and that religion or lack of it are irrelevant considerations. Do some homework, and you ought to arrive at the same conclusion yourself, in about half an hour. Once you get there, we can start to discuss whether Abort 67's tactics are good or bad. But, frankly, that abortion is wrong (generally, not to save a mother's life, obviously) ought to be a done deal by now. No amount of abuse and name-calling is going to change that. Thanks for the free plug for other issues that I am vocal about, even though they weren't relevant, by the way. And please don't hesitate to visit me at home as you promised you would. I've moved, but my up-to-date address is on my blog. John Allman

11:24am Sun 24 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Well it's quite hard to refrain from name calling and abuse when it comes to pro lifers. The arrogance these people have is outstanding. Why they feel they have the right to harass (and yes they DO harass women as I have seen it with my own eyes) is beyond most people so I feel quite strongly when I see people trying to defend them and their disgusting tactics.

No problem for the free plug. I think there's a name for the condition people suffer from if they hear voices in their heads but ,like you say, it's not relevant so I don't think we need to go there!!!
Well it's quite hard to refrain from name calling and abuse when it comes to pro lifers. The arrogance these people have is outstanding. Why they feel they have the right to harass (and yes they DO harass women as I have seen it with my own eyes) is beyond most people so I feel quite strongly when I see people trying to defend them and their disgusting tactics. No problem for the free plug. I think there's a name for the condition people suffer from if they hear voices in their heads but ,like you say, it's not relevant so I don't think we need to go there!!! AmboGuy

11:27am Sun 24 Feb 13

ourcoalition says...

A man pontificating on a woman's issue - in itself, it's fine to have a view.
But to stand outside with vile posters, and extremist literature - not fine.

It's a womans right to choose - the important word being "choose".
A man pontificating on a woman's issue - in itself, it's fine to have a view. But to stand outside with vile posters, and extremist literature - not fine. It's a womans right to choose - the important word being "choose". ourcoalition

1:43pm Sun 24 Feb 13

ibidi03 says...

An interesting perspective about 'choice': http://the-body-poli
tic.org/2013/02/17/d
oes-the-right-to-cho
ose-automatically-em
power-women-by-aliso
n-davis/
An interesting perspective about 'choice': http://the-body-poli tic.org/2013/02/17/d oes-the-right-to-cho ose-automatically-em power-women-by-aliso n-davis/ ibidi03

2:37pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Lewesroadresident says...

John Allman wrote:
@ Lewesroadresident

"What is the reason you consider it morally unacceptable to remove a collection of cells with no human features whatsoever from it's host body?"

I don't consider that "morally unacceptable".

"The pictures don't add anything, they are designed purely to guilt trip women."

Guilt about WHAT?

"Why should the life of a possible foetus be placed above the life of an actual human being?"

So now we are back to denying that a foetus is a human being? That is where the science comes in. There IS no controversy in science as to who or what a zef is. (Zef = zygote, embryo or foetus.) It's elementary biology that you and I are **** overgrown zefs. Don't make yourself look folish by demanding "proof" of that.

"If a woman will die in pregnancy, should she be forced to carry full term?"

Of course not. Never was before the Abortion Act 1967.

"Is it ever appropriate for a man to have anything to do with the debate on abortion?"

Of course it is. Men are fathers and brothers of foetuses. Men were all zefs themselves once.

"Why should a woman not have the right to choose what happens to her body?"

Because there's somebody else's life at stake.

"What role should the state play in the biology of another's life?"

Criminalising homicide is a good start.
Hooray! So you are happy with abortions taking place then? Because at the instant of conception a collection of cells is all that exists. It is not a foetus immediately, which is the bizarre standpoint of you and abort67.

Here you go again, rephrasing and distorting questions. I didn't say that they needed to feel guilty, I said abort67 was trying to guilt trip them. They do this by creating a false scenario then using pictures that do not necessarily relate to a women's current circumstances to back up that scenario.

We never touched on whether a foetus is a human being. You are against all abortion, I have made it clear I am pro choice but not throughout the entire pregnancy. That's because I understand there is a debate to be had about at what point the cells become human. You do not accept this. There is no science that states a zygote is an actual human being. A zygote is the first stage, it is not the same as a living human being. I don't know if you are even managing to persuade yourself, but if you re-read my post, you'll see that at no point did I demand proof that a zygote can grow into a human. Nice attempt at undermining though- do your tactics usually work for you, or do people stop bothering to discuss things with you because you are so determined to distort, lie, and misrepresent?

Thank you for managing to actually answer some questions for once. I don't agree that being related to something if it becomes a human means you should be able to control women's bodies.

There is not 'somebody's' life at stake if it is not yet a 'body'.

Criminalizing homicide does not affect another's biology, it is dealing with the aftermath of this, carried out by a third party.

All that is required, to realise the need to support a women's right to choose, is a basic understanding of elementary science. See, I can present things as facts too! Using the word 'inevitable', does not make what you are saying true.

If you weren't so determined to make your position the only one available, when most people can see that despite what you say science is not on your side, you might actually convince a few people. As it is, your dogmatic insistence that sperm and egg are the same as a human makes you look absurd.

Nice little dig about abuse and name calling by the way to amboguy. What were you doing when telling me I could look at pictures if I can't read the words?
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Lewesroadresident "What is the reason you consider it morally unacceptable to remove a collection of cells with no human features whatsoever from it's host body?" I don't consider that "morally unacceptable". "The pictures don't add anything, they are designed purely to guilt trip women." Guilt about WHAT? "Why should the life of a possible foetus be placed above the life of an actual human being?" So now we are back to denying that a foetus is a human being? That is where the science comes in. There IS no controversy in science as to who or what a zef is. (Zef = zygote, embryo or foetus.) It's elementary biology that you and I are **** overgrown zefs. Don't make yourself look folish by demanding "proof" of that. "If a woman will die in pregnancy, should she be forced to carry full term?" Of course not. Never was before the Abortion Act 1967. "Is it ever appropriate for a man to have anything to do with the debate on abortion?" Of course it is. Men are fathers and brothers of foetuses. Men were all zefs themselves once. "Why should a woman not have the right to choose what happens to her body?" Because there's somebody else's life at stake. "What role should the state play in the biology of another's life?" Criminalising homicide is a good start.[/p][/quote]Hooray! So you are happy with abortions taking place then? Because at the instant of conception a collection of cells is all that exists. It is not a foetus immediately, which is the bizarre standpoint of you and abort67. Here you go again, rephrasing and distorting questions. I didn't say that they needed to feel guilty, I said abort67 was trying to guilt trip them. They do this by creating a false scenario then using pictures that do not necessarily relate to a women's current circumstances to back up that scenario. We never touched on whether a foetus is a human being. You are against all abortion, I have made it clear I am pro choice but not throughout the entire pregnancy. That's because I understand there is a debate to be had about at what point the cells become human. You do not accept this. There is no science that states a zygote is an actual human being. A zygote is the first stage, it is not the same as a living human being. I don't know if you are even managing to persuade yourself, but if you re-read my post, you'll see that at no point did I demand proof that a zygote can grow into a human. Nice attempt at undermining though- do your tactics usually work for you, or do people stop bothering to discuss things with you because you are so determined to distort, lie, and misrepresent? Thank you for managing to actually answer some questions for once. I don't agree that being related to something if it becomes a human means you should be able to control women's bodies. There is not 'somebody's' life at stake if it is not yet a 'body'. Criminalizing homicide does not affect another's biology, it is dealing with the aftermath of this, carried out by a third party. All that is required, to realise the need to support a women's right to choose, is a basic understanding of elementary science. See, I can present things as facts too! Using the word 'inevitable', does not make what you are saying true. If you weren't so determined to make your position the only one available, when most people can see that despite what you say science is not on your side, you might actually convince a few people. As it is, your dogmatic insistence that sperm and egg are the same as a human makes you look absurd. Nice little dig about abuse and name calling by the way to amboguy. What were you doing when telling me I could look at pictures if I can't read the words? Lewesroadresident

2:42pm Sun 24 Feb 13

John Allman says...

ourcoalition wrote:
A man pontificating on a woman's issue - in itself, it's fine to have a view.
But to stand outside with vile posters, and extremist literature - not fine.

It's a womans right to choose - the important word being "choose".
@ ourcoalition

What is it that you consider to be "vile" about the posters, or "extremist" about the literature?

The law in the UK at present denies women the absolute right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. Ordinarily, it is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment to procure or to conduct an elective abortion. Are you in favour of decriminalising abortion completely. If so, why? If not, why not?

Most important, why is it (you say) "a woman's right to choose"?
[quote][p][bold]ourcoalition[/bold] wrote: A man pontificating on a woman's issue - in itself, it's fine to have a view. But to stand outside with vile posters, and extremist literature - not fine. It's a womans right to choose - the important word being "choose".[/p][/quote]@ ourcoalition What is it that you consider to be "vile" about the posters, or "extremist" about the literature? The law in the UK at present denies women the absolute right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. Ordinarily, it is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment to procure or to conduct an elective abortion. Are you in favour of decriminalising abortion completely. If so, why? If not, why not? Most important, why is it (you say) "a woman's right to choose"? John Allman

2:47pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Lewesroadresident says...

whereisthe...? wrote:
Think really all the nutters here have done is prove they are just hysterical when faced with science, fact, and the consequences of their own actions. You lot keep saying you are 'fine' with the idea of abortions - really? Then how come the moment you are faced with the reality of what that means, eg, a photo, you freak out, get hysterical, and cry that you are being harassed?


Take RESPONSIBILITY for your own actions. This involves acknowledging the REALITY and consequences of your own actions. This is not a trip to the shops. It is a LIFE. Accept that, THEN make the choice. Lets see how many can deal with that..


..cue the usual hysterical anti-religious, generalising, stereotyping all men as controlling women, hatred.

Funny, cos plenty of WOMEN are also against abortion, and Im not remotely religious!
All the nutters? There are two people in addition to you who are on your side, so as the minority view you are the one most likely to be classed as a 'nutter'.

Where's the science and fact? Sperm and egg is an actual human is it? Read the earlier posts for explanation of why using photos is a low trick- it's about context and distortion of the truth.

You know that using capitals doesn't make what you say true right?

I doubt you are a women, because if you were you presumably wouldn't find it so easy to patronize all the millions of women who have had an abortion by assuming they equate it with a trip to the shops and are incapable of thought about their decisions.

There is a lot of anti religious stereotyping in this debate, true- but you have just stereotyped those who choose to have an abortion, and as a large part of those who form the anti abortion movement are from the religious school that believes the earth is 6000 years old (and abort67 members are from a church), it is difficult at times to separate the issues. If someone thinks dinosaurs didn't exist, it is difficult to take anything they say seriously.
[quote][p][bold]whereisthe...?[/bold] wrote: Think really all the nutters here have done is prove they are just hysterical when faced with science, fact, and the consequences of their own actions. You lot keep saying you are 'fine' with the idea of abortions - really? Then how come the moment you are faced with the reality of what that means, eg, a photo, you freak out, get hysterical, and cry that you are being harassed? Take RESPONSIBILITY for your own actions. This involves acknowledging the REALITY and consequences of your own actions. This is not a trip to the shops. It is a LIFE. Accept that, THEN make the choice. Lets see how many can deal with that.. ..cue the usual hysterical anti-religious, generalising, stereotyping all men as controlling women, hatred. Funny, cos plenty of WOMEN are also against abortion, and Im not remotely religious![/p][/quote]All the nutters? There are two people in addition to you who are on your side, so as the minority view you are the one most likely to be classed as a 'nutter'. Where's the science and fact? Sperm and egg is an actual human is it? Read the earlier posts for explanation of why using photos is a low trick- it's about context and distortion of the truth. You know that using capitals doesn't make what you say true right? I doubt you are a women, because if you were you presumably wouldn't find it so easy to patronize all the millions of women who have had an abortion by assuming they equate it with a trip to the shops and are incapable of thought about their decisions. There is a lot of anti religious stereotyping in this debate, true- but you have just stereotyped those who choose to have an abortion, and as a large part of those who form the anti abortion movement are from the religious school that believes the earth is 6000 years old (and abort67 members are from a church), it is difficult at times to separate the issues. If someone thinks dinosaurs didn't exist, it is difficult to take anything they say seriously. Lewesroadresident

3:02pm Sun 24 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Lewesroadresident

"there is a debate to be had about at what point the cells become human. You do not accept this. There is no science that states a zygote is an actual human being. A zygote is the first stage, it is not the same as a living human being."

There is absolutely no debate to be had, about whether a human zygote has "become" human, or is "living". Zygotes don't "become" of whatever species they are, or start living after a certain length of time. There is never a time when they were anything other than what they are. or were inanimate.

You won't find a single paper published in any peer-reviewed biology learned journal on the planet, that challenges this orthodoxy. Even the chief executive of BPAS concedes this point, as you will see above.
@ Lewesroadresident "there is a debate to be had about at what point the cells become human. You do not accept this. There is no science that states a zygote is an actual human being. A zygote is the first stage, it is not the same as a living human being." There is absolutely no debate to be had, about whether a human zygote has "become" human, or is "living". Zygotes don't "become" of whatever species they are, or start living after a certain length of time. There is never a time when they were anything other than what they are. or were inanimate. You won't find a single paper published in any peer-reviewed biology learned journal on the planet, that challenges this orthodoxy. Even the chief executive of BPAS concedes this point, as you will see above. John Allman

5:43pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).
So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned?

The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.
I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned? The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.[/p][/quote]I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer. Plantpot

5:47pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Well it's quite hard to refrain from name calling and abuse when it comes to pro lifers. The arrogance these people have is outstanding. Why they feel they have the right to harass (and yes they DO harass women as I have seen it with my own eyes) is beyond most people so I feel quite strongly when I see people trying to defend them and their disgusting tactics.

No problem for the free plug. I think there's a name for the condition people suffer from if they hear voices in their heads but ,like you say, it's not relevant so I don't think we need to go there!!!
If you've seen it with your own eyes, report it to the Police. Oh wait.....
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Well it's quite hard to refrain from name calling and abuse when it comes to pro lifers. The arrogance these people have is outstanding. Why they feel they have the right to harass (and yes they DO harass women as I have seen it with my own eyes) is beyond most people so I feel quite strongly when I see people trying to defend them and their disgusting tactics. No problem for the free plug. I think there's a name for the condition people suffer from if they hear voices in their heads but ,like you say, it's not relevant so I don't think we need to go there!!![/p][/quote]If you've seen it with your own eyes, report it to the Police. Oh wait..... Plantpot

6:25pm Sun 24 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Lewesroadresident

"Where's the science and fact? Sperm and egg is an actual human is it?"

No. Neither a sperm nor an egg is "an actual human". Both are what are known as gametes, or haploid cells. There are human in the sense that one's bodily fluids, or one's hair, or one's removed appendix, is human (i.e. of human origin). But neither is a living, individual organism of species homo sapiens, i.e. a human being.

I find it hard to believe that anybody nowadays still needs to ask such questions.
@ Lewesroadresident "Where's the science and fact? Sperm and egg is an actual human is it?" No. Neither a sperm nor an egg is "an actual human". Both are what are known as gametes, or haploid cells. There are human in the sense that one's bodily fluids, or one's hair, or one's removed appendix, is human (i.e. of human origin). But neither is a living, individual organism of species homo sapiens, i.e. a human being. I find it hard to believe that anybody nowadays still needs to ask such questions. John Allman

8:32pm Sun 24 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).
So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned?

The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.
I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.
Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you?

What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned? The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.[/p][/quote]I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.[/p][/quote]Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you? What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate. AmboGuy

9:14pm Sun 24 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Amboguy

"What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?"

You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?
@ Amboguy "What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?" You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"? John Allman

5:45am Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

John Allman wrote:
@ Amboguy

"What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?"

You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?
What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic.

Maybe you don't class that as bullying but I do.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Amboguy "What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?" You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?[/p][/quote]What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic. Maybe you don't class that as bullying but I do. AmboGuy

9:22am Mon 25 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).
So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned?

The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.
I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.
Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you?

What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.
You see there you go again with the stereotyping. Despite being told that this is not a religious organisation (albeit both religious and non-religious are members) you try and tar me with that brush because of your own personal prejudices. Let me be clear - I am neither a Christian fundamentalist, nor are these people my buddies. I dislike abortion, however. That's my choice.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned? The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.[/p][/quote]I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.[/p][/quote]Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you? What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.[/p][/quote]You see there you go again with the stereotyping. Despite being told that this is not a religious organisation (albeit both religious and non-religious are members) you try and tar me with that brush because of your own personal prejudices. Let me be clear - I am neither a Christian fundamentalist, nor are these people my buddies. I dislike abortion, however. That's my choice. Plantpot

10:21am Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).
So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned?

The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.
I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.
Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you?

What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.
You see there you go again with the stereotyping. Despite being told that this is not a religious organisation (albeit both religious and non-religious are members) you try and tar me with that brush because of your own personal prejudices. Let me be clear - I am neither a Christian fundamentalist, nor are these people my buddies. I dislike abortion, however. That's my choice.
Jesus this is like getting blood from a stone.....can you give me an actual example of one of the pro choice questioners getting owned by Andy Stephenson?

Just evaluate you keep dodging the question doesn't mean it's gone away.

If you can't answer then just say so.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned? The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.[/p][/quote]I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.[/p][/quote]Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you? What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.[/p][/quote]You see there you go again with the stereotyping. Despite being told that this is not a religious organisation (albeit both religious and non-religious are members) you try and tar me with that brush because of your own personal prejudices. Let me be clear - I am neither a Christian fundamentalist, nor are these people my buddies. I dislike abortion, however. That's my choice.[/p][/quote]Jesus this is like getting blood from a stone.....can you give me an actual example of one of the pro choice questioners getting owned by Andy Stephenson? Just evaluate you keep dodging the question doesn't mean it's gone away. If you can't answer then just say so. AmboGuy

10:22am Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

**** change 'evaluate' to 'because'

Auto correct strikes again!
**** change 'evaluate' to 'because' Auto correct strikes again! AmboGuy

11:18am Mon 25 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).
So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned?

The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.
I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.
Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you?

What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.
You see there you go again with the stereotyping. Despite being told that this is not a religious organisation (albeit both religious and non-religious are members) you try and tar me with that brush because of your own personal prejudices. Let me be clear - I am neither a Christian fundamentalist, nor are these people my buddies. I dislike abortion, however. That's my choice.
Jesus this is like getting blood from a stone.....can you give me an actual example of one of the pro choice questioners getting owned by Andy Stephenson?

Just evaluate you keep dodging the question doesn't mean it's gone away.

If you can't answer then just say so.
Just read the answers to the questions he's been asked. How many times do I have to say?

BTW, your question was swatted away rather easily.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned? The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.[/p][/quote]I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.[/p][/quote]Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you? What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.[/p][/quote]You see there you go again with the stereotyping. Despite being told that this is not a religious organisation (albeit both religious and non-religious are members) you try and tar me with that brush because of your own personal prejudices. Let me be clear - I am neither a Christian fundamentalist, nor are these people my buddies. I dislike abortion, however. That's my choice.[/p][/quote]Jesus this is like getting blood from a stone.....can you give me an actual example of one of the pro choice questioners getting owned by Andy Stephenson? Just evaluate you keep dodging the question doesn't mean it's gone away. If you can't answer then just say so.[/p][/quote]Just read the answers to the questions he's been asked. How many times do I have to say? BTW, your question was swatted away rather easily. Plantpot

12:03pm Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).
So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned?

The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.
I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.
Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you?

What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.
You see there you go again with the stereotyping. Despite being told that this is not a religious organisation (albeit both religious and non-religious are members) you try and tar me with that brush because of your own personal prejudices. Let me be clear - I am neither a Christian fundamentalist, nor are these people my buddies. I dislike abortion, however. That's my choice.
Jesus this is like getting blood from a stone.....can you give me an actual example of one of the pro choice questioners getting owned by Andy Stephenson?

Just evaluate you keep dodging the question doesn't mean it's gone away.

If you can't answer then just say so.
Just read the answers to the questions he's been asked. How many times do I have to say?

BTW, your question was swatted away rather easily.
OK so we'll both that say that no you can't then.

If by my question being 'swatted away rather easily' you mean 'totally ignored' then yes it was.

Well done for getting most of the other forum members turned against you with your extreme anti choice views.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned? The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.[/p][/quote]I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.[/p][/quote]Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you? What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.[/p][/quote]You see there you go again with the stereotyping. Despite being told that this is not a religious organisation (albeit both religious and non-religious are members) you try and tar me with that brush because of your own personal prejudices. Let me be clear - I am neither a Christian fundamentalist, nor are these people my buddies. I dislike abortion, however. That's my choice.[/p][/quote]Jesus this is like getting blood from a stone.....can you give me an actual example of one of the pro choice questioners getting owned by Andy Stephenson? Just evaluate you keep dodging the question doesn't mean it's gone away. If you can't answer then just say so.[/p][/quote]Just read the answers to the questions he's been asked. How many times do I have to say? BTW, your question was swatted away rather easily.[/p][/quote]OK so we'll both that say that no you can't then. If by my question being 'swatted away rather easily' you mean 'totally ignored' then yes it was. Well done for getting most of the other forum members turned against you with your extreme anti choice views. AmboGuy

12:23pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).
So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned?

The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.
I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.
Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you?

What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.
You see there you go again with the stereotyping. Despite being told that this is not a religious organisation (albeit both religious and non-religious are members) you try and tar me with that brush because of your own personal prejudices. Let me be clear - I am neither a Christian fundamentalist, nor are these people my buddies. I dislike abortion, however. That's my choice.
Jesus this is like getting blood from a stone.....can you give me an actual example of one of the pro choice questioners getting owned by Andy Stephenson?

Just evaluate you keep dodging the question doesn't mean it's gone away.

If you can't answer then just say so.
Just read the answers to the questions he's been asked. How many times do I have to say?

BTW, your question was swatted away rather easily.
OK so we'll both that say that no you can't then.

If by my question being 'swatted away rather easily' you mean 'totally ignored' then yes it was.

Well done for getting most of the other forum members turned against you with your extreme anti choice views.
Yawn. Comprehension letting you down? Incapable of reading the whole interview?

Why would I care about the other forum members?

Once again you insinuate about my views without knowing anything about me.

I am not in favour of abortion. I understand there are times that it is done with the best of motives.

Whether you agree with Andy Stephenson or not, he gave a reasoned and balanced answer to all the questions he was asked. An awful lot of the comments here in response to his interview actually show up the posters as bigoted, prejudiced and guilty of stereotyping. That's what I hate. And that's why I'm happy to play a bit of devil's advocate.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]I thought he answered every question very well. Especially yours. You thought you had a killer question didn't you? (Pardon the pun).[/p][/quote]So I'll ask again. Can you give me any examples of any pro abortion questioners getting owned? The more you dodge answering the question the more of an idiot you look.[/p][/quote]I'm not dodging the question at all thanks. Each question was designed to try and catch the guy out, and all failed. His group went through a court case and had no case to answer.[/p][/quote]Ok so then no you can't give an example.You and your Christian fundamentalist pro life (or should that just be 'anti choice') buddies seem to have a problem being truthful don't you? What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed? The Police are there constantly and they know what goes on - that's why members of Abort67 have been arrested in the past. Most respectable people don't get themselves arrested but Abort67 are not a respectable organisation, a good analogy would be the group of bullies waiting at the school gate.[/p][/quote]You see there you go again with the stereotyping. Despite being told that this is not a religious organisation (albeit both religious and non-religious are members) you try and tar me with that brush because of your own personal prejudices. Let me be clear - I am neither a Christian fundamentalist, nor are these people my buddies. I dislike abortion, however. That's my choice.[/p][/quote]Jesus this is like getting blood from a stone.....can you give me an actual example of one of the pro choice questioners getting owned by Andy Stephenson? Just evaluate you keep dodging the question doesn't mean it's gone away. If you can't answer then just say so.[/p][/quote]Just read the answers to the questions he's been asked. How many times do I have to say? BTW, your question was swatted away rather easily.[/p][/quote]OK so we'll both that say that no you can't then. If by my question being 'swatted away rather easily' you mean 'totally ignored' then yes it was. Well done for getting most of the other forum members turned against you with your extreme anti choice views.[/p][/quote]Yawn. Comprehension letting you down? Incapable of reading the whole interview? Why would I care about the other forum members? Once again you insinuate about my views without knowing anything about me. I am not in favour of abortion. I understand there are times that it is done with the best of motives. Whether you agree with Andy Stephenson or not, he gave a reasoned and balanced answer to all the questions he was asked. An awful lot of the comments here in response to his interview actually show up the posters as bigoted, prejudiced and guilty of stereotyping. That's what I hate. And that's why I'm happy to play a bit of devil's advocate. Plantpot

12:56pm Mon 25 Feb 13

John Allman says...

AmboGuy wrote:
John Allman wrote:
@ Amboguy

"What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?"

You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?
What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic.

Maybe you don't class that as bullying but I do.
Who booed? Who said "shame on you"? What happened before hand? Were the police present to witness this? What were YOU doing there?
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Amboguy "What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?" You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?[/p][/quote]What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic. Maybe you don't class that as bullying but I do.[/p][/quote]Who booed? Who said "shame on you"? What happened before hand? Were the police present to witness this? What were YOU doing there? John Allman

1:28pm Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

John Allman wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
John Allman wrote:
@ Amboguy

"What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?"

You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?
What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic.

Maybe you don't class that as bullying but I do.
Who booed? Who said "shame on you"? What happened before hand? Were the police present to witness this? What were YOU doing there?
Who booed? I didn't see as I'd just walked round the corner. It was a woman's voice.

Who said shame on you? See above

What happened before? No idea

Were the Police there? No

What was 'I' doing there? Visiting my now ex girlfriend who lived opposite the clinic in Chatsworth Road. She eventually felt she had to move as she couldn't bear having a constant gaggle of protesters opposite her flat holding pictures of foetuses and harassing women going inside. I don't suppose Abort67 really thought about the impact they'd have on people living nearby did they?

Any more questions? Let me know.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Amboguy "What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?" You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?[/p][/quote]What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic. Maybe you don't class that as bullying but I do.[/p][/quote]Who booed? Who said "shame on you"? What happened before hand? Were the police present to witness this? What were YOU doing there?[/p][/quote]Who booed? I didn't see as I'd just walked round the corner. It was a woman's voice. Who said shame on you? See above What happened before? No idea Were the Police there? No What was 'I' doing there? Visiting my now ex girlfriend who lived opposite the clinic in Chatsworth Road. She eventually felt she had to move as she couldn't bear having a constant gaggle of protesters opposite her flat holding pictures of foetuses and harassing women going inside. I don't suppose Abort67 really thought about the impact they'd have on people living nearby did they? Any more questions? Let me know. AmboGuy

2:06pm Mon 25 Feb 13

springtulip says...

I would be very interested to know how much funding Andy Stephenson receives from the Center for Bioethical Reform in exchange for his campaigning work. He has set himself up as the director of the UK branch of this extremely wealthy US institution. Given that one of his arguments against the charity BPAS is that they are "financially driven", I think it would be relevant to ask how much money comes from the CBR into the pocket of Mr Stephenson, in exchange for him being the UK mouthpiece of this powerful US pressure group.
I would be very interested to know how much funding Andy Stephenson receives from the Center for Bioethical Reform in exchange for his campaigning work. He has set himself up as the director of the UK branch of this extremely wealthy US institution. Given that one of his arguments against the charity BPAS is that they are "financially driven", I think it would be relevant to ask how much money comes from the CBR into the pocket of Mr Stephenson, in exchange for him being the UK mouthpiece of this powerful US pressure group. springtulip

2:10pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

springtulip wrote:
I would be very interested to know how much funding Andy Stephenson receives from the Center for Bioethical Reform in exchange for his campaigning work. He has set himself up as the director of the UK branch of this extremely wealthy US institution. Given that one of his arguments against the charity BPAS is that they are "financially driven", I think it would be relevant to ask how much money comes from the CBR into the pocket of Mr Stephenson, in exchange for him being the UK mouthpiece of this powerful US pressure group.
So let's say he receives bucketfuls of cash. What about it? What bearing does it have on the answers he gave in the interview? Are you suggesting his campaign against abortion is in itself financially driven? Are you suggesting financial impropriety? I don't understand what you're getting at?
[quote][p][bold]springtulip[/bold] wrote: I would be very interested to know how much funding Andy Stephenson receives from the Center for Bioethical Reform in exchange for his campaigning work. He has set himself up as the director of the UK branch of this extremely wealthy US institution. Given that one of his arguments against the charity BPAS is that they are "financially driven", I think it would be relevant to ask how much money comes from the CBR into the pocket of Mr Stephenson, in exchange for him being the UK mouthpiece of this powerful US pressure group.[/p][/quote]So let's say he receives bucketfuls of cash. What about it? What bearing does it have on the answers he gave in the interview? Are you suggesting his campaign against abortion is in itself financially driven? Are you suggesting financial impropriety? I don't understand what you're getting at? Plantpot

2:13pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
John Allman wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
John Allman wrote:
@ Amboguy

"What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?"

You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?
What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic.

Maybe you don't class that as bullying but I do.
Who booed? Who said "shame on you"? What happened before hand? Were the police present to witness this? What were YOU doing there?
Who booed? I didn't see as I'd just walked round the corner. It was a woman's voice.

Who said shame on you? See above

What happened before? No idea

Were the Police there? No

What was 'I' doing there? Visiting my now ex girlfriend who lived opposite the clinic in Chatsworth Road. She eventually felt she had to move as she couldn't bear having a constant gaggle of protesters opposite her flat holding pictures of foetuses and harassing women going inside. I don't suppose Abort67 really thought about the impact they'd have on people living nearby did they?

Any more questions? Let me know.
Just one more. You said in an earlier post:

"What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic. "

You then go on to say:

"Who booed? I didn't see as I'd just walked round the corner."

So what did you actually see? You've just contradicted yourself.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Amboguy "What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?" You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?[/p][/quote]What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic. Maybe you don't class that as bullying but I do.[/p][/quote]Who booed? Who said "shame on you"? What happened before hand? Were the police present to witness this? What were YOU doing there?[/p][/quote]Who booed? I didn't see as I'd just walked round the corner. It was a woman's voice. Who said shame on you? See above What happened before? No idea Were the Police there? No What was 'I' doing there? Visiting my now ex girlfriend who lived opposite the clinic in Chatsworth Road. She eventually felt she had to move as she couldn't bear having a constant gaggle of protesters opposite her flat holding pictures of foetuses and harassing women going inside. I don't suppose Abort67 really thought about the impact they'd have on people living nearby did they? Any more questions? Let me know.[/p][/quote]Just one more. You said in an earlier post: "What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic. " You then go on to say: "Who booed? I didn't see as I'd just walked round the corner." So what did you actually see? You've just contradicted yourself. Plantpot

2:40pm Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
John Allman wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
John Allman wrote:
@ Amboguy

"What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?"

You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?
What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic.

Maybe you don't class that as bullying but I do.
Who booed? Who said "shame on you"? What happened before hand? Were the police present to witness this? What were YOU doing there?
Who booed? I didn't see as I'd just walked round the corner. It was a woman's voice.

Who said shame on you? See above

What happened before? No idea

Were the Police there? No

What was 'I' doing there? Visiting my now ex girlfriend who lived opposite the clinic in Chatsworth Road. She eventually felt she had to move as she couldn't bear having a constant gaggle of protesters opposite her flat holding pictures of foetuses and harassing women going inside. I don't suppose Abort67 really thought about the impact they'd have on people living nearby did they?

Any more questions? Let me know.
Just one more. You said in an earlier post:

"What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic. "

You then go on to say:

"Who booed? I didn't see as I'd just walked round the corner."

So what did you actually see? You've just contradicted yourself.
Oh dear do I need to explain this. I saw the group of protesters standing there as, you see, I'd just walked around the corner. They were in front of me as I was walking - do you understand this? Good.

I did not see who exactly it was who booed or shouted as it came from the group - do you understand this?

It's not really that complicated. If you'd like any more clarification then let me know.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Amboguy "What would be the point of me reporting the harassment I witnessed?" You HAVE reported it, here. What did you actually "witness"?[/p][/quote]What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic. Maybe you don't class that as bullying but I do.[/p][/quote]Who booed? Who said "shame on you"? What happened before hand? Were the police present to witness this? What were YOU doing there?[/p][/quote]Who booed? I didn't see as I'd just walked round the corner. It was a woman's voice. Who said shame on you? See above What happened before? No idea Were the Police there? No What was 'I' doing there? Visiting my now ex girlfriend who lived opposite the clinic in Chatsworth Road. She eventually felt she had to move as she couldn't bear having a constant gaggle of protesters opposite her flat holding pictures of foetuses and harassing women going inside. I don't suppose Abort67 really thought about the impact they'd have on people living nearby did they? Any more questions? Let me know.[/p][/quote]Just one more. You said in an earlier post: "What did I see? Booing and a female protester shouting 'shame on you' at a woman walking into the clinic. " You then go on to say: "Who booed? I didn't see as I'd just walked round the corner." So what did you actually see? You've just contradicted yourself.[/p][/quote]Oh dear do I need to explain this. I saw the group of protesters standing there as, you see, I'd just walked around the corner. They were in front of me as I was walking - do you understand this? Good. I did not see who exactly it was who booed or shouted as it came from the group - do you understand this? It's not really that complicated. If you'd like any more clarification then let me know. AmboGuy

2:48pm Mon 25 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Plantpot

Amboguy's supposed eye witness account of booing, and the words, "shame on you" in a female voice, appears not to have actually involved his eyes, just his ears, after he had gone round the bend (literally).

So he could equally well have heard counter-demonstrator
s booing Abort 67, or abortionists or their clientèle. Judging by the politeness of the anti-abortion crowd so far in online discussion, compared with those who are pro-abortion (i.e. pro-abortion *sometimes* - only when there's a "choice" to carry out an abortion, not pro-forced abortion), not to mention the strict behaviour guidelines with which that Abort 67 trains its volunteer staff, I'd guess that, at best, what Amboguy heard after he'd gone round the bend, was the latter, not the former.

I don't think that these "harassment" allegations deserve any more credence than those that failed in court. Unless Amboguy suddenly and conveniently remembers that it was a religious-sounding and misogynistic-soundin
g female voice he heard, and the actual words used, come to think of it, were, "shame on you, you murderer". LOL!

Abort 67 film themselves, you know, to protect themselves against false allegations of bullying.
@ Plantpot Amboguy's supposed eye witness account of booing, and the words, "shame on you" in a female voice, appears not to have actually involved his eyes, just his ears, after he had gone round the bend (literally). So he could equally well have heard counter-demonstrator s booing Abort 67, or abortionists or their clientèle. Judging by the politeness of the anti-abortion crowd so far in online discussion, compared with those who are pro-abortion (i.e. pro-abortion *sometimes* - only when there's a "choice" to carry out an abortion, not pro-forced abortion), not to mention the strict behaviour guidelines with which that Abort 67 trains its volunteer staff, I'd guess that, at best, what Amboguy heard after he'd gone round the bend, was the latter, not the former. I don't think that these "harassment" allegations deserve any more credence than those that failed in court. Unless Amboguy suddenly and conveniently remembers that it was a religious-sounding and misogynistic-soundin g female voice he heard, and the actual words used, come to think of it, were, "shame on you, you murderer". LOL! Abort 67 film themselves, you know, to protect themselves against false allegations of bullying. John Allman

3:24pm Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
@ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me. AmboGuy

3:36pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?

BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: @ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.[/p][/quote]I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion? BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time. Plantpot

3:57pm Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?

BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.
Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless!

I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself.

Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: @ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.[/p][/quote]I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion? BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.[/p][/quote]Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless! I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself. Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid. AmboGuy

4:39pm Mon 25 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Plantpot

You asked Amboguy, "I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? ... Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?"

He means me, John Allman.

Amboguy has picked up on the fact that I am known for being associated with a single issue group that opposes (inter alia) weapons that manipulate human beings. The European Parliament passed a resolution calling for such weapons to be banned in 1999. In 2009 I gave a paper at the 5th European Symposium on Non-Lethal Weapons, entitled, "Ethical and societal implications of capacity for privacy-invasive remote interrogation and behavioural influence applications." In 2004, I contributed to a documentary on the subject. And so on.

Whether I suffer from a schizophrenia spectrum disorder (and I don't have a diagnosis of one, and Amboguy has never met me) isn't relevant, any more than whether Andy Stephenson attends a particular church in Brighton.

The "fixation" Amboguy has is on ad hominem attacks on opponents of abortion, because of other "facts" about them that he is prepared to make guesses about. He won't stick to the core issue. But are you surprised?
@ Plantpot You asked Amboguy, "I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? ... Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?" He means me, John Allman. Amboguy has picked up on the fact that I am known for being associated with a single issue group that opposes (inter alia) weapons that manipulate human beings. The European Parliament passed a resolution calling for such weapons to be banned in 1999. In 2009 I gave a paper at the 5th European Symposium on Non-Lethal Weapons, entitled, "Ethical and societal implications of capacity for privacy-invasive remote interrogation and behavioural influence applications." In 2004, I contributed to a documentary on the subject. And so on. Whether I suffer from a schizophrenia spectrum disorder (and I don't have a diagnosis of one, and Amboguy has never met me) isn't relevant, any more than whether Andy Stephenson attends a particular church in Brighton. The "fixation" Amboguy has is on ad hominem attacks on opponents of abortion, because of other "facts" about them that he is prepared to make guesses about. He won't stick to the core issue. But are you surprised? John Allman

5:17pm Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

So there you go Plantpot.

There's nothing more really I need to add. So you see it's about privacy invasive interrogation and behavioural influence applications - obvious when you think about it.

I'll leave you and Mr Allman here to carry on your struggle against the legal practice of abortion and John in his solo fight against mind control.

Good luck guys.
So there you go Plantpot. There's nothing more really I need to add. So you see it's about privacy invasive interrogation and behavioural influence applications - obvious when you think about it. I'll leave you and Mr Allman here to carry on your struggle against the legal practice of abortion and John in his solo fight against mind control. Good luck guys. AmboGuy

6:03pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
So there you go Plantpot.

There's nothing more really I need to add. So you see it's about privacy invasive interrogation and behavioural influence applications - obvious when you think about it.

I'll leave you and Mr Allman here to carry on your struggle against the legal practice of abortion and John in his solo fight against mind control.

Good luck guys.
But legal only under very defined circumstances, namely: "To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act which covers UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland, two doctors must give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children. " (Marie Stopes website). Out of interest, do you know how many women in the UK are turned down for abortion in the UK each year because they fail to meet the criteria?
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: So there you go Plantpot. There's nothing more really I need to add. So you see it's about privacy invasive interrogation and behavioural influence applications - obvious when you think about it. I'll leave you and Mr Allman here to carry on your struggle against the legal practice of abortion and John in his solo fight against mind control. Good luck guys.[/p][/quote]But legal only under very defined circumstances, namely: "To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act which covers UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland, two doctors must give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children. " (Marie Stopes website). Out of interest, do you know how many women in the UK are turned down for abortion in the UK each year because they fail to meet the criteria? Plantpot

6:06pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?

BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.
Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless!

I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself.

Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.
I'm rarely one step behind, and as your command of English failed to make it clear who you were referring to, it is unsurprising that I was confused over who you were referring to.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: @ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.[/p][/quote]I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion? BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.[/p][/quote]Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless! I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself. Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.[/p][/quote]I'm rarely one step behind, and as your command of English failed to make it clear who you were referring to, it is unsurprising that I was confused over who you were referring to. Plantpot

6:16pm Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?

BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.
Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless!

I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself.

Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.
I'm rarely one step behind, and as your command of English failed to make it clear who you were referring to, it is unsurprising that I was confused over who you were referring to.
Oh I'm sorry that's right I wrote John Allen instead of John Allman - there's no similarity at all between those two names is there? I can see how you'd think that I could have meant Andy Stephenson instead though as 'John Allen' and 'Andy Stephenson' are both very similar names.

My apologies if you got confused.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: @ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.[/p][/quote]I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion? BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.[/p][/quote]Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless! I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself. Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.[/p][/quote]I'm rarely one step behind, and as your command of English failed to make it clear who you were referring to, it is unsurprising that I was confused over who you were referring to.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm sorry that's right I wrote John Allen instead of John Allman - there's no similarity at all between those two names is there? I can see how you'd think that I could have meant Andy Stephenson instead though as 'John Allen' and 'Andy Stephenson' are both very similar names. My apologies if you got confused. AmboGuy

6:40pm Mon 25 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Plantpot

You asked, "Out of interest, do you know how many women in the UK are turned down for abortion in the UK each year because they fail to meet the criteria?"

98% of "legal" abortions are documented as being under Ground C. In the light of the following startling admission on the part of BPAS, it is debatable whether most of these abortions really ARE legal.

“Ground C is often referred to as ‘the mental health clause’, and is perceived as the way in which doctors certify abortion ‘on request’ or ‘social abortions’… It is not the case that the majority of women seeking abortion are necessarily at risk of damaging their mental health if they continue their pregnancy. But it is significant that, because of the law, women and their doctors have to indicate that this is the case…In general, the national statistics do not, and cannot, reflect the real reasons why abortions are considered necessary. They can only reflect the grounds that are cited to make them lawful.” (Statistics briefing (3): Grounds for abortion, 2 May 2012 BPAS)

People have been hanged on the basis of their confessions less unequivocal than that.
@ Plantpot You asked, "Out of interest, do you know how many women in the UK are turned down for abortion in the UK each year because they fail to meet the criteria?" 98% of "legal" abortions are documented as being under Ground C. In the light of the following startling admission on the part of BPAS, it is debatable whether most of these abortions really ARE legal. “Ground C is often referred to as ‘the mental health clause’, and is perceived as the way in which doctors certify abortion ‘on request’ or ‘social abortions’… It is not the case that the majority of women seeking abortion are necessarily at risk of damaging their mental health if they continue their pregnancy. But it is significant that, because of the law, women and their doctors have to indicate that this is the case…In general, the national statistics do not, and cannot, reflect the real reasons why abortions are considered necessary. They can only reflect the grounds that are cited to make them lawful.” (Statistics briefing (3): Grounds for abortion, 2 May 2012 BPAS) People have been hanged on the basis of their confessions less unequivocal than that. John Allman

8:12pm Mon 25 Feb 13

risingphoenix says...

abort67...

Do we really have to get rid of that many idiots?
abort67... Do we really have to get rid of that many idiots? risingphoenix

9:17pm Mon 25 Feb 13

BN2Guy says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?

BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.
Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless!

I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself.

Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.
Oh my god!!!

I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!!

Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there!

Lol.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: @ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.[/p][/quote]I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion? BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.[/p][/quote]Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless! I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself. Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.[/p][/quote]Oh my god!!! I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!! Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there! Lol. BN2Guy

9:52pm Mon 25 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

BN2Guy wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?

BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.
Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless!

I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself.

Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.
Oh my god!!!

I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!!

Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there!

Lol.
I'm saying nothing....!!
[quote][p][bold]BN2Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: @ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.[/p][/quote]I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion? BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.[/p][/quote]Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless! I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself. Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.[/p][/quote]Oh my god!!! I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!! Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there! Lol.[/p][/quote]I'm saying nothing....!! AmboGuy

10:38pm Mon 25 Feb 13

John Allman says...

springtulip wrote:
I would be very interested to know how much funding Andy Stephenson receives from the Center for Bioethical Reform in exchange for his campaigning work. He has set himself up as the director of the UK branch of this extremely wealthy US institution. Given that one of his arguments against the charity BPAS is that they are "financially driven", I think it would be relevant to ask how much money comes from the CBR into the pocket of Mr Stephenson, in exchange for him being the UK mouthpiece of this powerful US pressure group.
Ask him how much CBR donates to the support of Abort 67. I expect he'll tell you. Then what?
[quote][p][bold]springtulip[/bold] wrote: I would be very interested to know how much funding Andy Stephenson receives from the Center for Bioethical Reform in exchange for his campaigning work. He has set himself up as the director of the UK branch of this extremely wealthy US institution. Given that one of his arguments against the charity BPAS is that they are "financially driven", I think it would be relevant to ask how much money comes from the CBR into the pocket of Mr Stephenson, in exchange for him being the UK mouthpiece of this powerful US pressure group.[/p][/quote]Ask him how much CBR donates to the support of Abort 67. I expect he'll tell you. Then what? John Allman

11:03pm Mon 25 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ BN2Guy

"Wow this guy is a total fruit loop."

So WHAT? If you cannot beat a "total fruit loop" in an argument, what does that say about you?

I am alive. I am human. I used to be a zef in my mummy's belly. There isn't a science-based answer to the question, "At what stage of its existence does a zef become a living being." There ISN'T an answer a science-based answer, because it's a bogus, metaphysical question, not a scientific question.

Since there has never been a time at which I became a living being, subsequent to the moment when I began to exist as a distinct entity, then the conclusion cannot be escaped that I have always been a living being, ever since I started to exist.

Every argument as to why abortion isn't homicide has been demolished. Not on this page, by Plantpot or me, or by Andy Stephenson. But homicide it is. Even BPAS concedes that.

Not every homicide is culpable though, So, what we need is arguments as to under what circumstances the homicide of zefs isn't culpable. Ideally, these circumstances should correspond to the actual circumstances of abortions.

So go on. Give me an argument that works in its own right. "Fruit loops" can think too. you know. Sometimes more clearly than others. Sometimes the fool on the hill watching the sunset, is amongst the first to perceives with his inner vision that the earth is rotating on its axis, rather than the sun going round the earth. (With apologies to the Beatles for the paraphrase.)

Or wimp out, and tell your flat mate that the fruit loop challenged you, but you couldn't think what to say to refute him, and let him laugh some more, since he's so easily amused.
@ BN2Guy "Wow this guy is a total fruit loop." So WHAT? If you cannot beat a "total fruit loop" in an argument, what does that say about you? I am alive. I am human. I used to be a zef in my mummy's belly. There isn't a science-based answer to the question, "At what stage of its existence does a zef become a living being." There ISN'T an answer a science-based answer, because it's a bogus, metaphysical question, not a scientific question. Since there has never been a time at which I became a living being, subsequent to the moment when I began to exist as a distinct entity, then the conclusion cannot be escaped that I have always been a living being, ever since I started to exist. Every argument as to why abortion isn't homicide has been demolished. Not on this page, by Plantpot or me, or by Andy Stephenson. But homicide it is. Even BPAS concedes that. Not every homicide is culpable though, So, what we need is arguments as to under what circumstances the homicide of zefs isn't culpable. Ideally, these circumstances should correspond to the actual circumstances of abortions. So go on. Give me an argument that works in its own right. "Fruit loops" can think too. you know. Sometimes more clearly than others. Sometimes the fool on the hill watching the sunset, is amongst the first to perceives with his inner vision that the earth is rotating on its axis, rather than the sun going round the earth. (With apologies to the Beatles for the paraphrase.) Or wimp out, and tell your flat mate that the fruit loop challenged you, but you couldn't think what to say to refute him, and let him laugh some more, since he's so easily amused. John Allman

11:44am Tue 26 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
BN2Guy wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?

BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.
Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless!

I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself.

Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.
Oh my god!!!

I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!!

Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there!

Lol.
I'm saying nothing....!!
How very true.....
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BN2Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: @ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.[/p][/quote]I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion? BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.[/p][/quote]Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless! I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself. Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.[/p][/quote]Oh my god!!! I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!! Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there! Lol.[/p][/quote]I'm saying nothing....!![/p][/quote]How very true..... Plantpot

5:38pm Tue 26 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
BN2Guy wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?

BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.
Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless!

I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself.

Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.
Oh my god!!!

I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!!

Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there!

Lol.
I'm saying nothing....!!
How very true.....
Ahh so you've decided to rejoin the debate.

I thought you'd sloped off embarrassed after making a fool of yourself earlier.

I guess some people will neer learn.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BN2Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: @ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.[/p][/quote]I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion? BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.[/p][/quote]Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless! I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself. Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.[/p][/quote]Oh my god!!! I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!! Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there! Lol.[/p][/quote]I'm saying nothing....!![/p][/quote]How very true.....[/p][/quote]Ahh so you've decided to rejoin the debate. I thought you'd sloped off embarrassed after making a fool of yourself earlier. I guess some people will neer learn. AmboGuy

8:25am Wed 27 Feb 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
BN2Guy wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?

BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.
Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless!

I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself.

Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.
Oh my god!!!

I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!!

Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there!

Lol.
I'm saying nothing....!!
How very true.....
Ahh so you've decided to rejoin the debate.

I thought you'd sloped off embarrassed after making a fool of yourself earlier.

I guess some people will neer learn.
No reason to feel embarrassed at all. Still chuckling about your "confused" witness statement earlier.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BN2Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: @ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.[/p][/quote]I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion? BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.[/p][/quote]Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless! I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself. Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.[/p][/quote]Oh my god!!! I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!! Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there! Lol.[/p][/quote]I'm saying nothing....!![/p][/quote]How very true.....[/p][/quote]Ahh so you've decided to rejoin the debate. I thought you'd sloped off embarrassed after making a fool of yourself earlier. I guess some people will neer learn.[/p][/quote]No reason to feel embarrassed at all. Still chuckling about your "confused" witness statement earlier. Plantpot

2:11pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Lewesroadresident says...

John Allman wrote:
@ Lewesroadresident "Where's the science and fact? Sperm and egg is an actual human is it?" No. Neither a sperm nor an egg is "an actual human". Both are what are known as gametes, or haploid cells. There are human in the sense that one's bodily fluids, or one's hair, or one's removed appendix, is human (i.e. of human origin). But neither is a living, individual organism of species homo sapiens, i.e. a human being. I find it hard to believe that anybody nowadays still needs to ask such questions.
You just can’t help yourself can you? You are an appallingly manipulative debater- I think it reveals a lot about your personality, and certainly discredits every point you make. Your tactics might work among those who are weak minded, but everyone who reads your questions and has an independent mind can see what you are trying to do. You should be ashamed of yourself because you are incapable of honestly debating. I consider you to be a dishonest person.

You are apparently incapable of understanding when a question is rhetorical, except if you ask one. You know very well what I meant. Throughout our conversation, you have stated that from the point of conception a human exists. I disagree with that stance. Clearly, I understand that ‘things’ from the human body are ‘human’ in that sense. I believe that most people (and I say most because otherwise you would have more support for your cause) do not consider that a human being exists from the instant of conception.

Elsewhere you admit that the question of when a zef ‘becomes’ a human is metaphysical- I have already made this point. We are an advanced society, ‘nature’ is subverted constantly- the debate about abortion is also philosophical. You pretend that you have science on your side to state categorically that a human exists from the instant of conception- this is rubbish, but you can’t admit it. You don’t have to agree with abortion, that is your opinion- why don’t you just admit that? The fact you attempt to shoehorn all kinds of scientific ‘facts’ into your argument makes you look weak and undermines what argument you might have. The science does not prove your point, so pretending it does looks silly.

Abort67 claim BPAS are financially motivated, so of course it’s pertinent to ask about their funding, and the motivations of those behind the funding- it’s doing exactly the same thing as they do, but you don’t seem to like that. I would suggest that transparency is important in protest and lobbying. It has been claimed that Abort67 are not religious. If they are funded by a religious pressure group, that claim looks very unlikely doesn’t it? And it’s relevant because being associated with the ‘earth really was built in a week and dinosaurs never existed’ crowd undermines their argument.

As I have already stated, writing something does not make it true, but you don’t seem to understand this. I guess you operate this way because you have found it an effective way of fooling people into adopting your beliefs. Shame on you.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Lewesroadresident "Where's the science and fact? Sperm and egg is an actual human is it?" No. Neither a sperm nor an egg is "an actual human". Both are what are known as gametes, or haploid cells. There are human in the sense that one's bodily fluids, or one's hair, or one's removed appendix, is human (i.e. of human origin). But neither is a living, individual organism of species homo sapiens, i.e. a human being. I find it hard to believe that anybody nowadays still needs to ask such questions.[/p][/quote]You just can’t help yourself can you? You are an appallingly manipulative debater- I think it reveals a lot about your personality, and certainly discredits every point you make. Your tactics might work among those who are weak minded, but everyone who reads your questions and has an independent mind can see what you are trying to do. You should be ashamed of yourself because you are incapable of honestly debating. I consider you to be a dishonest person. You are apparently incapable of understanding when a question is rhetorical, except if you ask one. You know very well what I meant. Throughout our conversation, you have stated that from the point of conception a human exists. I disagree with that stance. Clearly, I understand that ‘things’ from the human body are ‘human’ in that sense. I believe that most people (and I say most because otherwise you would have more support for your cause) do not consider that a human being exists from the instant of conception. Elsewhere you admit that the question of when a zef ‘becomes’ a human is metaphysical- I have already made this point. We are an advanced society, ‘nature’ is subverted constantly- the debate about abortion is also philosophical. You pretend that you have science on your side to state categorically that a human exists from the instant of conception- this is rubbish, but you can’t admit it. You don’t have to agree with abortion, that is your opinion- why don’t you just admit that? The fact you attempt to shoehorn all kinds of scientific ‘facts’ into your argument makes you look weak and undermines what argument you might have. The science does not prove your point, so pretending it does looks silly. Abort67 claim BPAS are financially motivated, so of course it’s pertinent to ask about their funding, and the motivations of those behind the funding- it’s doing exactly the same thing as they do, but you don’t seem to like that. I would suggest that transparency is important in protest and lobbying. It has been claimed that Abort67 are not religious. If they are funded by a religious pressure group, that claim looks very unlikely doesn’t it? And it’s relevant because being associated with the ‘earth really was built in a week and dinosaurs never existed’ crowd undermines their argument. As I have already stated, writing something does not make it true, but you don’t seem to understand this. I guess you operate this way because you have found it an effective way of fooling people into adopting your beliefs. Shame on you. Lewesroadresident

7:36pm Wed 27 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
BN2Guy wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
@ John Allen

You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really.

At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.
I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion?

BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.
Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless!

I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself.

Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.
Oh my god!!!

I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!!

Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there!

Lol.
I'm saying nothing....!!
How very true.....
Ahh so you've decided to rejoin the debate.

I thought you'd sloped off embarrassed after making a fool of yourself earlier.

I guess some people will neer learn.
No reason to feel embarrassed at all. Still chuckling about your "confused" witness statement earlier.
Confused? Maybe you could explain the bits where I'm confused. It's obvious that you're not chuckling at all as you're getting a bit tetchy now.

Calm down, you gave it a good go on the forum but maybe you're just not cut out to put your feelings into writing without looking a bit foolish.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BN2Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: @ John Allen You can accuse me of lying all you like, I know what I saw and heard. You can deny it all you like but as you weren't there it's a bit hard for you to do that really. At the end of the day whether or not a man who hears voices telling him to do things in his head believes me or not is not a great concern to me.[/p][/quote]I assume you are accusing John Allen of being schizophrenic? or is it Andy Stephenson? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you back to your fixation on religion? BTW, this debate has run its course for me, there are lots of weirdos out there, none of them worth my time.[/p][/quote]Oh no you're always one step behind everyone else aren't you? - bless! I'm not accusing John Allman of anything. In his own website he states that he hears voices in his head and its some kind of mind control by the government conspiracy. Why don't you ask him yourself. Try to keep up and engage your brain before typing as you've just made yourself look even more stupid.[/p][/quote]Oh my god!!! I've just looked at John Allmans website "Christians against mental slavery" and seen his interview! Wow this guy is a total fruit loop. Showed my housemate and he can't believe it either!!!! Well done pro-abortion brigade you've got a great follower there! Lol.[/p][/quote]I'm saying nothing....!![/p][/quote]How very true.....[/p][/quote]Ahh so you've decided to rejoin the debate. I thought you'd sloped off embarrassed after making a fool of yourself earlier. I guess some people will neer learn.[/p][/quote]No reason to feel embarrassed at all. Still chuckling about your "confused" witness statement earlier.[/p][/quote]Confused? Maybe you could explain the bits where I'm confused. It's obvious that you're not chuckling at all as you're getting a bit tetchy now. Calm down, you gave it a good go on the forum but maybe you're just not cut out to put your feelings into writing without looking a bit foolish. AmboGuy

8:32pm Wed 27 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Amboguy

Plantpot's reference to your "witness statement" as "confused", probably results from your eventual admission that you saw nothing, but aare sure you heard a voice, when you were round the bend, but couldn't be sure where it came from.

I understand. I really do.
@ Amboguy Plantpot's reference to your "witness statement" as "confused", probably results from your eventual admission that you saw nothing, but aare sure you heard a voice, when you were round the bend, but couldn't be sure where it came from. I understand. I really do. John Allman

10:33pm Wed 27 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

John Allman wrote:
@ Amboguy

Plantpot's reference to your "witness statement" as "confused", probably results from your eventual admission that you saw nothing, but aare sure you heard a voice, when you were round the bend, but couldn't be sure where it came from.

I understand. I really do.
Oh Jesus Christ - oops no offence.

Do I need to explain it to you too? I heard someone in a group of people holding anti abortion posters booing and shouting. I didn't see exactly who it was as I'd just walked around the corner and so wasn't expected them to start abusing someone. I'm sorry if your All good and Pure church friends aren't the angels you think they are but there you go.

If this is too tricky for you to get then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. Even with your condition you should still be able to understand this very simple account of what happened.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Amboguy Plantpot's reference to your "witness statement" as "confused", probably results from your eventual admission that you saw nothing, but aare sure you heard a voice, when you were round the bend, but couldn't be sure where it came from. I understand. I really do.[/p][/quote]Oh Jesus Christ - oops no offence. Do I need to explain it to you too? I heard someone in a group of people holding anti abortion posters booing and shouting. I didn't see exactly who it was as I'd just walked around the corner and so wasn't expected them to start abusing someone. I'm sorry if your All good and Pure church friends aren't the angels you think they are but there you go. If this is too tricky for you to get then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. Even with your condition you should still be able to understand this very simple account of what happened. AmboGuy

10:36pm Wed 27 Feb 13

mimseycal says...

Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Pro choice! Not pro-abortionists. As for the rest of your post ... maybe I am showing my age but the only individuals that are owned are slaves as far as I know.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Pro choice! Not pro-abortionists. As for the rest of your post ... maybe I am showing my age but the only individuals that are owned are slaves as far as I know. mimseycal

11:21pm Wed 27 Feb 13

mimseycal says...

An embryo/foetus is a human being in potentia. Just like a dictionary is a best seller in potentia.
An embryo/foetus is a human being in potentia. Just like a dictionary is a best seller in potentia. mimseycal

1:04am Thu 28 Feb 13

John Allman says...

mimseycal wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Pro choice! Not pro-abortionists. As for the rest of your post ... maybe I am showing my age but the only individuals that are owned are slaves as far as I know.
If abortion is what pro-choice wants wimmin to be free to choose, then it's hair-splitting to object to that being called pro-abortion. Pro-abortion-choice. Pro-abortion-sometim
es. Pro-abortion-when-ch
osen. All these are, let's face it, a bit of a mouthful.

Personally, all this "pro-life", "pro-choice" euphemism, is ridiculous. When it comes to abortion, I am anti, and others are pro. Why cannot we call a spade a spade for a change?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Pro choice! Not pro-abortionists. As for the rest of your post ... maybe I am showing my age but the only individuals that are owned are slaves as far as I know.[/p][/quote]If abortion is what pro-choice wants wimmin to be free to choose, then it's hair-splitting to object to that being called pro-abortion. Pro-abortion-choice. Pro-abortion-sometim es. Pro-abortion-when-ch osen. All these are, let's face it, a bit of a mouthful. Personally, all this "pro-life", "pro-choice" euphemism, is ridiculous. When it comes to abortion, I am anti, and others are pro. Why cannot we call a spade a spade for a change? John Allman

1:06am Thu 28 Feb 13

John Allman says...

mimseycal wrote:
An embryo/foetus is a human being in potentia. Just like a dictionary is a best seller in potentia.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: An embryo/foetus is a human being in potentia. Just like a dictionary is a best seller in potentia.[/p][/quote][citation needed] John Allman

1:07am Thu 28 Feb 13

John Allman says...

mimseycal wrote:
An embryo/foetus is a human being in potentia. Just like a dictionary is a best seller in potentia.
Citation needed
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: An embryo/foetus is a human being in potentia. Just like a dictionary is a best seller in potentia.[/p][/quote]Citation needed John Allman

1:13am Thu 28 Feb 13

John Allman says...

AmboGuy wrote:
John Allman wrote:
@ Amboguy

Plantpot's reference to your "witness statement" as "confused", probably results from your eventual admission that you saw nothing, but aare sure you heard a voice, when you were round the bend, but couldn't be sure where it came from.

I understand. I really do.
Oh Jesus Christ - oops no offence.

Do I need to explain it to you too? I heard someone in a group of people holding anti abortion posters booing and shouting. I didn't see exactly who it was as I'd just walked around the corner and so wasn't expected them to start abusing someone. I'm sorry if your All good and Pure church friends aren't the angels you think they are but there you go.

If this is too tricky for you to get then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. Even with your condition you should still be able to understand this very simple account of what happened.
Somebody who can see round corners at all, even if not "exactly"! Impressive!
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Amboguy Plantpot's reference to your "witness statement" as "confused", probably results from your eventual admission that you saw nothing, but aare sure you heard a voice, when you were round the bend, but couldn't be sure where it came from. I understand. I really do.[/p][/quote]Oh Jesus Christ - oops no offence. Do I need to explain it to you too? I heard someone in a group of people holding anti abortion posters booing and shouting. I didn't see exactly who it was as I'd just walked around the corner and so wasn't expected them to start abusing someone. I'm sorry if your All good and Pure church friends aren't the angels you think they are but there you go. If this is too tricky for you to get then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. Even with your condition you should still be able to understand this very simple account of what happened.[/p][/quote]Somebody who can see round corners at all, even if not "exactly"! Impressive! John Allman

9:27am Thu 28 Feb 13

Point says...

I actually found this article very compelling, and the fellow answered every question and I have tfound the debate here very interesting also. One thing I did not realise that over 80 abortions a week are happening at Wistons each and every week, Two class room full of infant schools each week, As a Brighton resident I am certainly not happy about that.
I actually found this article very compelling, and the fellow answered every question and I have tfound the debate here very interesting also. One thing I did not realise that over 80 abortions a week are happening at Wistons each and every week, Two class room full of infant schools each week, As a Brighton resident I am certainly not happy about that. Point

10:58am Thu 28 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

John Allman wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
John Allman wrote:
@ Amboguy

Plantpot's reference to your "witness statement" as "confused", probably results from your eventual admission that you saw nothing, but aare sure you heard a voice, when you were round the bend, but couldn't be sure where it came from.

I understand. I really do.
Oh Jesus Christ - oops no offence.

Do I need to explain it to you too? I heard someone in a group of people holding anti abortion posters booing and shouting. I didn't see exactly who it was as I'd just walked around the corner and so wasn't expected them to start abusing someone. I'm sorry if your All good and Pure church friends aren't the angels you think they are but there you go.

If this is too tricky for you to get then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. Even with your condition you should still be able to understand this very simple account of what happened.
Somebody who can see round corners at all, even if not "exactly"! Impressive!
Are you trying to not understand this on purpose? You're right I can't see around corners but I can see a group of pro life loons standing in front of me on the pavement.

Now stop trolling and get back to the debate. The voices in your head will not be happy with you.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Amboguy Plantpot's reference to your "witness statement" as "confused", probably results from your eventual admission that you saw nothing, but aare sure you heard a voice, when you were round the bend, but couldn't be sure where it came from. I understand. I really do.[/p][/quote]Oh Jesus Christ - oops no offence. Do I need to explain it to you too? I heard someone in a group of people holding anti abortion posters booing and shouting. I didn't see exactly who it was as I'd just walked around the corner and so wasn't expected them to start abusing someone. I'm sorry if your All good and Pure church friends aren't the angels you think they are but there you go. If this is too tricky for you to get then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. Even with your condition you should still be able to understand this very simple account of what happened.[/p][/quote]Somebody who can see round corners at all, even if not "exactly"! Impressive![/p][/quote]Are you trying to not understand this on purpose? You're right I can't see around corners but I can see a group of pro life loons standing in front of me on the pavement. Now stop trolling and get back to the debate. The voices in your head will not be happy with you. AmboGuy

2:50pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Lewesroadresident says...

Point wrote:
I actually found this article very compelling, and the fellow answered every question and I have tfound the debate here very interesting also. One thing I did not realise that over 80 abortions a week are happening at Wistons each and every week, Two class room full of infant schools each week, As a Brighton resident I am certainly not happy about that.
Why don't you re-read the interview, and see how many questions were actually answered properly? From my reading he barely answered any direct questions, instead preferring to rephrase them so that he was answering a question that had not been asked, much like his most vocal supporter here, Mr Allman. If you have nothing to hide then answer the actual question. When vigorously challenged it would appear they cannot respond.

What an odd way to look at it. Why are you not happy because you are a Brighton resident? Are you fine with abortion but prefer it to take place elsewhere? Why does location matter? Is the number itself relevant, or is a percentage more relevant? E.g 80 a week is a tiny amount for London, but a lot for a small village. What is your solution? Many more than 80 people are killed every day through traffic accidents, smoking, drinking, etc etc. Do you always frame everything through numbers of infant school classes, or are you learning from Mr Allman and Abort67 to use emotional manipulation wherever possible?

'10 infant school classes worth of people died today when a plane crashed' It's a bit of a weird way to phrase it don't you think?!
[quote][p][bold]Point[/bold] wrote: I actually found this article very compelling, and the fellow answered every question and I have tfound the debate here very interesting also. One thing I did not realise that over 80 abortions a week are happening at Wistons each and every week, Two class room full of infant schools each week, As a Brighton resident I am certainly not happy about that.[/p][/quote]Why don't you re-read the interview, and see how many questions were actually answered properly? From my reading he barely answered any direct questions, instead preferring to rephrase them so that he was answering a question that had not been asked, much like his most vocal supporter here, Mr Allman. If you have nothing to hide then answer the actual question. When vigorously challenged it would appear they cannot respond. What an odd way to look at it. Why are you not happy because you are a Brighton resident? Are you fine with abortion but prefer it to take place elsewhere? Why does location matter? Is the number itself relevant, or is a percentage more relevant? E.g 80 a week is a tiny amount for London, but a lot for a small village. What is your solution? Many more than 80 people are killed every day through traffic accidents, smoking, drinking, etc etc. Do you always frame everything through numbers of infant school classes, or are you learning from Mr Allman and Abort67 to use emotional manipulation wherever possible? '10 infant school classes worth of people died today when a plane crashed' It's a bit of a weird way to phrase it don't you think?! Lewesroadresident

2:59pm Thu 28 Feb 13

John Allman says...

Lewesroadresident wrote:
John Allman wrote:
@ Lewesroadresident "Where's the science and fact? Sperm and egg is an actual human is it?" No. Neither a sperm nor an egg is "an actual human". Both are what are known as gametes, or haploid cells. There are human in the sense that one's bodily fluids, or one's hair, or one's removed appendix, is human (i.e. of human origin). But neither is a living, individual organism of species homo sapiens, i.e. a human being. I find it hard to believe that anybody nowadays still needs to ask such questions.
You just can’t help yourself can you? You are an appallingly manipulative debater- I think it reveals a lot about your personality, and certainly discredits every point you make. Your tactics might work among those who are weak minded, but everyone who reads your questions and has an independent mind can see what you are trying to do. You should be ashamed of yourself because you are incapable of honestly debating. I consider you to be a dishonest person.

You are apparently incapable of understanding when a question is rhetorical, except if you ask one. You know very well what I meant. Throughout our conversation, you have stated that from the point of conception a human exists. I disagree with that stance. Clearly, I understand that ‘things’ from the human body are ‘human’ in that sense. I believe that most people (and I say most because otherwise you would have more support for your cause) do not consider that a human being exists from the instant of conception.

Elsewhere you admit that the question of when a zef ‘becomes’ a human is metaphysical- I have already made this point. We are an advanced society, ‘nature’ is subverted constantly- the debate about abortion is also philosophical. You pretend that you have science on your side to state categorically that a human exists from the instant of conception- this is rubbish, but you can’t admit it. You don’t have to agree with abortion, that is your opinion- why don’t you just admit that? The fact you attempt to shoehorn all kinds of scientific ‘facts’ into your argument makes you look weak and undermines what argument you might have. The science does not prove your point, so pretending it does looks silly.

Abort67 claim BPAS are financially motivated, so of course it’s pertinent to ask about their funding, and the motivations of those behind the funding- it’s doing exactly the same thing as they do, but you don’t seem to like that. I would suggest that transparency is important in protest and lobbying. It has been claimed that Abort67 are not religious. If they are funded by a religious pressure group, that claim looks very unlikely doesn’t it? And it’s relevant because being associated with the ‘earth really was built in a week and dinosaurs never existed’ crowd undermines their argument.

As I have already stated, writing something does not make it true, but you don’t seem to understand this. I guess you operate this way because you have found it an effective way of fooling people into adopting your beliefs. Shame on you.
@ Lewesroadresident

"Throughout our conversation, you have stated that from the point of conception a human exists. I disagree with that stance."

That "stance", as you call it, is based upon modern knowledge of mammalian biology. It is as much the "stance" of the chief executive of BPAS as it is my own. I think it is rather courageous of you to dissent from that unanimity within the scientific community. I am curious as to know your own contrary "stance" is, because you haven't really explained it.

I fully accept that in pre-scientific times, primitive people did indeed express a very wide variety of different beliefs similar to yours. These were often dualistic beliefs. It was supposed that some supernatural process took place, adding something separate called (in some accounts) the "soul", to an until-then inanimate body.

Is that the sort of contrary "stance" you take? It appears to be, but the details are sketchy. To be frank, I don't know what alternative stance it is that you do take, other than that it seems comparable to these earlier beliefs, which I regard as unscientific, and which I thought nobody took seriously nowadays.
[quote][p][bold]Lewesroadresident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Lewesroadresident "Where's the science and fact? Sperm and egg is an actual human is it?" No. Neither a sperm nor an egg is "an actual human". Both are what are known as gametes, or haploid cells. There are human in the sense that one's bodily fluids, or one's hair, or one's removed appendix, is human (i.e. of human origin). But neither is a living, individual organism of species homo sapiens, i.e. a human being. I find it hard to believe that anybody nowadays still needs to ask such questions.[/p][/quote]You just can’t help yourself can you? You are an appallingly manipulative debater- I think it reveals a lot about your personality, and certainly discredits every point you make. Your tactics might work among those who are weak minded, but everyone who reads your questions and has an independent mind can see what you are trying to do. You should be ashamed of yourself because you are incapable of honestly debating. I consider you to be a dishonest person. You are apparently incapable of understanding when a question is rhetorical, except if you ask one. You know very well what I meant. Throughout our conversation, you have stated that from the point of conception a human exists. I disagree with that stance. Clearly, I understand that ‘things’ from the human body are ‘human’ in that sense. I believe that most people (and I say most because otherwise you would have more support for your cause) do not consider that a human being exists from the instant of conception. Elsewhere you admit that the question of when a zef ‘becomes’ a human is metaphysical- I have already made this point. We are an advanced society, ‘nature’ is subverted constantly- the debate about abortion is also philosophical. You pretend that you have science on your side to state categorically that a human exists from the instant of conception- this is rubbish, but you can’t admit it. You don’t have to agree with abortion, that is your opinion- why don’t you just admit that? The fact you attempt to shoehorn all kinds of scientific ‘facts’ into your argument makes you look weak and undermines what argument you might have. The science does not prove your point, so pretending it does looks silly. Abort67 claim BPAS are financially motivated, so of course it’s pertinent to ask about their funding, and the motivations of those behind the funding- it’s doing exactly the same thing as they do, but you don’t seem to like that. I would suggest that transparency is important in protest and lobbying. It has been claimed that Abort67 are not religious. If they are funded by a religious pressure group, that claim looks very unlikely doesn’t it? And it’s relevant because being associated with the ‘earth really was built in a week and dinosaurs never existed’ crowd undermines their argument. As I have already stated, writing something does not make it true, but you don’t seem to understand this. I guess you operate this way because you have found it an effective way of fooling people into adopting your beliefs. Shame on you.[/p][/quote]@ Lewesroadresident "Throughout our conversation, you have stated that from the point of conception a human exists. I disagree with that stance." That "stance", as you call it, is based upon modern knowledge of mammalian biology. It is as much the "stance" of the chief executive of BPAS as it is my own. I think it is rather courageous of you to dissent from that unanimity within the scientific community. I am curious as to know your own contrary "stance" is, because you haven't really explained it. I fully accept that in pre-scientific times, primitive people did indeed express a very wide variety of different beliefs similar to yours. These were often dualistic beliefs. It was supposed that some supernatural process took place, adding something separate called (in some accounts) the "soul", to an until-then inanimate body. Is that the sort of contrary "stance" you take? It appears to be, but the details are sketchy. To be frank, I don't know what alternative stance it is that you do take, other than that it seems comparable to these earlier beliefs, which I regard as unscientific, and which I thought nobody took seriously nowadays. John Allman

3:59pm Thu 28 Feb 13

AmboGuy says...

Highest estimates put the death toll for the Christian Crusades at 3,000,000. That's human lives wiped out in the name of religion - and that's just one religion of many. Every year people are being wiped out in huge numbers in the name of religion.

How many primary school classes worth of people would that be then? Quite a few isn't it?

Put's abortion in perspective really.

How on earth has this evil organisation called 'religion', an organisation that has altered it's own history by editing out the 'bad bits', been allowed to continue for so long? Oh that's right because people have the right to practice what they believe in. They're not breaking any laws, we live in a democracy where we tolerate these things.

It's just a shame the pro lifers don't believe in this too.
Highest estimates put the death toll for the Christian Crusades at 3,000,000. That's human lives wiped out in the name of religion - and that's just one religion of many. Every year people are being wiped out in huge numbers in the name of religion. How many primary school classes worth of people would that be then? Quite a few isn't it? Put's abortion in perspective really. How on earth has this evil organisation called 'religion', an organisation that has altered it's own history by editing out the 'bad bits', been allowed to continue for so long? Oh that's right because people have the right to practice what they believe in. They're not breaking any laws, we live in a democracy where we tolerate these things. It's just a shame the pro lifers don't believe in this too. AmboGuy

7:18pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Thetruth666 says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
So well said.Bravo.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]So well said.Bravo. Thetruth666

7:40pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Thetruth666 says...

Whether you agree with Abortion or not surely the way to display your view isn't to protest right out side a clinic?I find it distasteful that this "man" feels he has the right to preach to women in a vulnerable state.Also the comment "when it came to our court case and not one single witness could be produced who claimed we were harassing them" does he really think anyone who has been through the trauma of an abortion and then bullied by him would want to go to court?!This man is clearly a mentally ill control freak."Voices in his head"?!More like the sound of an echo what with all the space left by where his brain should be.
Whether you agree with Abortion or not surely the way to display your view isn't to protest right out side a clinic?I find it distasteful that this "man" feels he has the right to preach to women in a vulnerable state.Also the comment "when it came to our court case and not one single witness could be produced who claimed we were harassing them" does he really think anyone who has been through the trauma of an abortion and then bullied by him would want to go to court?!This man is clearly a mentally ill control freak."Voices in his head"?!More like the sound of an echo what with all the space left by where his brain should be. Thetruth666

9:17pm Thu 28 Feb 13

John Allman says...

@ Amboguy

There are groups that use religious arguments against abortion. However, Abort 67 is not one of them, so your frequent forays into religion-bashing are simply not relevant.
@ Amboguy There are groups that use religious arguments against abortion. However, Abort 67 is not one of them, so your frequent forays into religion-bashing are simply not relevant. John Allman

9:06am Fri 1 Mar 13

Plantpot says...

AmboGuy wrote:
John Allman wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
John Allman wrote:
@ Amboguy

Plantpot's reference to your "witness statement" as "confused", probably results from your eventual admission that you saw nothing, but aare sure you heard a voice, when you were round the bend, but couldn't be sure where it came from.

I understand. I really do.
Oh Jesus Christ - oops no offence.

Do I need to explain it to you too? I heard someone in a group of people holding anti abortion posters booing and shouting. I didn't see exactly who it was as I'd just walked around the corner and so wasn't expected them to start abusing someone. I'm sorry if your All good and Pure church friends aren't the angels you think they are but there you go.

If this is too tricky for you to get then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. Even with your condition you should still be able to understand this very simple account of what happened.
Somebody who can see round corners at all, even if not "exactly"! Impressive!
Are you trying to not understand this on purpose? You're right I can't see around corners but I can see a group of pro life loons standing in front of me on the pavement.

Now stop trolling and get back to the debate. The voices in your head will not be happy with you.
You're getting more confused by the post. "Pro-life loons". You really said that. Staggering.

Plus, I suppose we're all very lucky that you just so happened to be there to give us your "ear witness" account.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Amboguy Plantpot's reference to your "witness statement" as "confused", probably results from your eventual admission that you saw nothing, but aare sure you heard a voice, when you were round the bend, but couldn't be sure where it came from. I understand. I really do.[/p][/quote]Oh Jesus Christ - oops no offence. Do I need to explain it to you too? I heard someone in a group of people holding anti abortion posters booing and shouting. I didn't see exactly who it was as I'd just walked around the corner and so wasn't expected them to start abusing someone. I'm sorry if your All good and Pure church friends aren't the angels you think they are but there you go. If this is too tricky for you to get then I'm afraid there's no hope for you. Even with your condition you should still be able to understand this very simple account of what happened.[/p][/quote]Somebody who can see round corners at all, even if not "exactly"! Impressive![/p][/quote]Are you trying to not understand this on purpose? You're right I can't see around corners but I can see a group of pro life loons standing in front of me on the pavement. Now stop trolling and get back to the debate. The voices in your head will not be happy with you.[/p][/quote]You're getting more confused by the post. "Pro-life loons". You really said that. Staggering. Plus, I suppose we're all very lucky that you just so happened to be there to give us your "ear witness" account. Plantpot

9:10am Fri 1 Mar 13

Plantpot says...

Thetruth666 wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
So well said.Bravo.
And of course, wrong. Each question was answered pretty well, and addressed the susbstance directly. Of course, you may disagree with the answer, but that's another issue.

The interesting thing for me has been the response of the pro-abortion posters. There's no-one more bigoted than someone who is against bigotry.
[quote][p][bold]Thetruth666[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]So well said.Bravo.[/p][/quote]And of course, wrong. Each question was answered pretty well, and addressed the susbstance directly. Of course, you may disagree with the answer, but that's another issue. The interesting thing for me has been the response of the pro-abortion posters. There's no-one more bigoted than someone who is against bigotry. Plantpot

9:12am Fri 1 Mar 13

Plantpot says...

mimseycal wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Pro choice! Not pro-abortionists. As for the rest of your post ... maybe I am showing my age but the only individuals that are owned are slaves as far as I know.
Great gag. Have you thought of doing stand up?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Pro choice! Not pro-abortionists. As for the rest of your post ... maybe I am showing my age but the only individuals that are owned are slaves as far as I know.[/p][/quote]Great gag. Have you thought of doing stand up? Plantpot

9:14am Fri 1 Mar 13

Plantpot says...

Thetruth666 wrote:
Whether you agree with Abortion or not surely the way to display your view isn't to protest right out side a clinic?I find it distasteful that this "man" feels he has the right to preach to women in a vulnerable state.Also the comment "when it came to our court case and not one single witness could be produced who claimed we were harassing them" does he really think anyone who has been through the trauma of an abortion and then bullied by him would want to go to court?!This man is clearly a mentally ill control freak."Voices in his head"?!More like the sound of an echo what with all the space left by where his brain should be.
Presumably then you have no issue with the women standing outside? Are you suggesting that men shouldn't have a view on abortion? Or just this one individual?
[quote][p][bold]Thetruth666[/bold] wrote: Whether you agree with Abortion or not surely the way to display your view isn't to protest right out side a clinic?I find it distasteful that this "man" feels he has the right to preach to women in a vulnerable state.Also the comment "when it came to our court case and not one single witness could be produced who claimed we were harassing them" does he really think anyone who has been through the trauma of an abortion and then bullied by him would want to go to court?!This man is clearly a mentally ill control freak."Voices in his head"?!More like the sound of an echo what with all the space left by where his brain should be.[/p][/quote]Presumably then you have no issue with the women standing outside? Are you suggesting that men shouldn't have a view on abortion? Or just this one individual? Plantpot

11:24am Fri 1 Mar 13

Spennynash says...

Although I think this man is deluded and meddling in an issue that has nothing to do with him. I find it interesting to hear his perspective. What I found the most interesting was his response to questions regarding religion. Why not be honest and open with regards to the Fundamentalist Christian views that are fuelling his crusade. He did not get owned but if you check out his website you will see what level of crazy you are dealing with. This man and many of his ilk need medication, counselling and a hug.
Although I think this man is deluded and meddling in an issue that has nothing to do with him. I find it interesting to hear his perspective. What I found the most interesting was his response to questions regarding religion. Why not be honest and open with regards to the Fundamentalist Christian views that are fuelling his crusade. He did not get owned but if you check out his website you will see what level of crazy you are dealing with. This man and many of his ilk need medication, counselling and a hug. Spennynash

2:55pm Fri 1 Mar 13

AmboGuy says...

Spennynash wrote:
Although I think this man is deluded and meddling in an issue that has nothing to do with him. I find it interesting to hear his perspective. What I found the most interesting was his response to questions regarding religion. Why not be honest and open with regards to the Fundamentalist Christian views that are fuelling his crusade. He did not get owned but if you check out his website you will see what level of crazy you are dealing with. This man and many of his ilk need medication, counselling and a hug.
Or putting down maybe??

Yes I'm afraid they really are that crazy and bigoted. John Allman thinks that religion has gotnothing to do with this, he's clearly not aware that Abort67 is an offshoot of a Worthing church and so religion has everything to do with it.
[quote][p][bold]Spennynash[/bold] wrote: Although I think this man is deluded and meddling in an issue that has nothing to do with him. I find it interesting to hear his perspective. What I found the most interesting was his response to questions regarding religion. Why not be honest and open with regards to the Fundamentalist Christian views that are fuelling his crusade. He did not get owned but if you check out his website you will see what level of crazy you are dealing with. This man and many of his ilk need medication, counselling and a hug.[/p][/quote]Or putting down maybe?? Yes I'm afraid they really are that crazy and bigoted. John Allman thinks that religion has gotnothing to do with this, he's clearly not aware that Abort67 is an offshoot of a Worthing church and so religion has everything to do with it. AmboGuy

3:08pm Fri 1 Mar 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

Point wrote:
I actually found this article very compelling, and the fellow answered every question and I have tfound the debate here very interesting also. One thing I did not realise that over 80 abortions a week are happening at Wistons each and every week, Two class room full of infant schools each week, As a Brighton resident I am certainly not happy about that.
So you'd rather those 80 women had children they do not want and cannot care for?

Thanks for answering my question with questions, Andy. I would not prefer all those in the care system to be killed, as you put it. However, as a quarter of girls are pregnant at the point they leave the care system, I do not feel this is a good childhood for anyone. In fact, it fills me with horror that a child could have no stability in their life whatsover and go on to have a baby at 16, or even younger.

To not support abortion in cases of rape is just horrendous. So if a 13 year old is brutally raped, you would like her to be forced to have a child? Will she love that child? Is she enotionally ready to look after that child? Of course not, but clearly in your eyes, her right to a life doesn't count for anything.
[quote][p][bold]Point[/bold] wrote: I actually found this article very compelling, and the fellow answered every question and I have tfound the debate here very interesting also. One thing I did not realise that over 80 abortions a week are happening at Wistons each and every week, Two class room full of infant schools each week, As a Brighton resident I am certainly not happy about that.[/p][/quote]So you'd rather those 80 women had children they do not want and cannot care for? Thanks for answering my question with questions, Andy. I would not prefer all those in the care system to be killed, as you put it. However, as a quarter of girls are pregnant at the point they leave the care system, I do not feel this is a good childhood for anyone. In fact, it fills me with horror that a child could have no stability in their life whatsover and go on to have a baby at 16, or even younger. To not support abortion in cases of rape is just horrendous. So if a 13 year old is brutally raped, you would like her to be forced to have a child? Will she love that child? Is she enotionally ready to look after that child? Of course not, but clearly in your eyes, her right to a life doesn't count for anything. thevoiceoftruth

3:11pm Fri 1 Mar 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

emotionally - not enotionally!
emotionally - not enotionally! thevoiceoftruth

10:45pm Fri 1 Mar 13

John Allman says...

Plantpot wrote:
Thetruth666 wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'?

You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.
So well said.Bravo.
And of course, wrong. Each question was answered pretty well, and addressed the susbstance directly. Of course, you may disagree with the answer, but that's another issue.

The interesting thing for me has been the response of the pro-abortion posters. There's no-one more bigoted than someone who is against bigotry.
In fairness, Andy Stephenson DID fail to answer ALL of the following questions. I have inserted my guesses as to the answers he would have given to those missed questions, if only he could have been bothered.

"who the hell you think you are?"

Andrew Stephenson

"What on earth gives you the right to harass women?"

Nothing. We don't have that right. We don't do it though.

"are you a religious man?"

None of your business.

"Would you like to see a return to back-street abortions and children being abandoned at birth? Or worse, murdered ...?"

No thank you.

"Can you show any proof that your harassment of people seeking to undergo a legitimate medical procedure has had any effect other then feeding your own self righteousness?"

We don't harass people, but we can show proof that our campaign has an effect other than feeding our self-righteousness, which isn't one of our goals in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thetruth666[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Could you give an example of any pro abortion questioners getting 'owned'? You must have read a different page to me as all I saw was a religious self important head case avoiding answering any questions directly and making himself look like even more of a fool.[/p][/quote]So well said.Bravo.[/p][/quote]And of course, wrong. Each question was answered pretty well, and addressed the susbstance directly. Of course, you may disagree with the answer, but that's another issue. The interesting thing for me has been the response of the pro-abortion posters. There's no-one more bigoted than someone who is against bigotry.[/p][/quote]In fairness, Andy Stephenson DID fail to answer ALL of the following questions. I have inserted my guesses as to the answers he would have given to those missed questions, if only he could have been bothered. "who the hell you think you are?" Andrew Stephenson "What on earth gives you the right to harass women?" Nothing. We don't have that right. We don't do it though. "are you a religious man?" None of your business. "Would you like to see a return to back-street abortions and children being abandoned at birth? Or worse, murdered ...?" No thank you. "Can you show any proof that your harassment of people seeking to undergo a legitimate medical procedure has had any effect other then feeding your own self righteousness?" We don't harass people, but we can show proof that our campaign has an effect other than feeding our self-righteousness, which isn't one of our goals in the first place. John Allman

10:57pm Fri 1 Mar 13

John Allman says...

@ Plantpot

"your 'ear witness' account"


LOL!

Oh Plantpot, I WISH you hadn't used that obscure slang idiom that I had to look up in Urban Dictionary myself. To "get owned". All the moaning about that expression of yours has wasted SO much time.
@ Plantpot "your 'ear witness' account" [Plantpot to Amboguy] LOL! Oh Plantpot, I WISH you hadn't used that obscure slang idiom that I had to look up in Urban Dictionary myself. To "get owned". All the moaning about that expression of yours has wasted SO much time. John Allman

11:14pm Fri 1 Mar 13

John Allman says...

@ everybody

Can we please talk about the following challenge, laid down by Andy Stephenson above? Is there anybody here who is up to it?

66

We announced on the BBC’s Big Question last year that there is a way to stop us.

Merely prove to us that the embryo or foetus is not a human being. The offer remains open to anyone. We will take down our website, hand over our banners and never return.

99

That seems a very fair offer. The Chief Executive of BPAS, outside whose "clinic" Abort 67 has been gathering for (I think) seven years, has admitted:

66

We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it, it's clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil and we can recognise that it is human life…

99

Who disagrees with her, and wishes instead to deny that the victims of abortion are humans?
@ everybody Can we please talk about the following challenge, laid down by Andy Stephenson above? Is there anybody here who is up to it? 66 We announced on the BBC’s Big Question last year that there is a way to stop us. Merely prove to us that the embryo or foetus is not a human being. The offer remains open to anyone. We will take down our website, hand over our banners and never return. 99 That seems a very fair offer. The Chief Executive of BPAS, outside whose "clinic" Abort 67 has been gathering for (I think) seven years, has admitted: 66 We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it, it's clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil and we can recognise that it is human life… 99 Who disagrees with her, and wishes instead to deny that the victims of abortion are humans? John Allman

12:30am Sat 2 Mar 13

John Allman says...

Spennynash wrote:
Although I think this man is deluded and meddling in an issue that has nothing to do with him. I find it interesting to hear his perspective. What I found the most interesting was his response to questions regarding religion. Why not be honest and open with regards to the Fundamentalist Christian views that are fuelling his crusade. He did not get owned but if you check out his website you will see what level of crazy you are dealing with. This man and many of his ilk need medication, counselling and a hug.
@ Spennynash

"this man is deluded"

What, Andy Stephenson deluded too? Tell me more! How did you manage to get a peek at his psychiatrist's notes?

"meddling in an issue that has nothing to do with him"

I'm afraid to say, I have it on good authority that Stephenson is another ex-foetus himself. He is wearing his "veil of ignorance", that prevents him pulling up the ladder that got him into the loft we're all in.

"Why not be honest and open with regards to the Fundamentalist Christian views that are fuelling his crusade."

There isn't any evidence that Fundamentalist Christian views ARE "fuelling his crusade".

"check out his website you will see what level of crazy you are dealing with. This man and many of his ilk need medication, counselling and a hug."

Citation needed. I've checked out Abort 67's website, and found it very focussed and coherent. What did you find that came across to you as "crazy".

Besides, I've got websites of my own that some people have thought were "crazy". You aren't going to be able to use the Mental Health Act to stop Abort 67, so don't even go there. He's told you what it will take to get rid of him and his "ilk", and put-downs like yours won't work. Answer his challenge, quoted in my posting before this one, and he'll leave everybody alone, and get another job. If you can't - and I bet you can't - you're stuffed.
[quote][p][bold]Spennynash[/bold] wrote: Although I think this man is deluded and meddling in an issue that has nothing to do with him. I find it interesting to hear his perspective. What I found the most interesting was his response to questions regarding religion. Why not be honest and open with regards to the Fundamentalist Christian views that are fuelling his crusade. He did not get owned but if you check out his website you will see what level of crazy you are dealing with. This man and many of his ilk need medication, counselling and a hug.[/p][/quote]@ Spennynash "this man is deluded" What, Andy Stephenson deluded too? Tell me more! How did you manage to get a peek at his psychiatrist's notes? "meddling in an issue that has nothing to do with him" I'm afraid to say, I have it on good authority that Stephenson is another ex-foetus himself. He is wearing his "veil of ignorance", that prevents him pulling up the ladder that got him into the loft we're all in. "Why not be honest and open with regards to the Fundamentalist Christian views that are fuelling his crusade." There isn't any evidence that Fundamentalist Christian views ARE "fuelling his crusade". "check out his website you will see what level of crazy you are dealing with. This man and many of his ilk need medication, counselling and a hug." Citation needed. I've checked out Abort 67's website, and found it very focussed and coherent. What did you find that came across to you as "crazy". Besides, I've got websites of my own that some people have thought were "crazy". You aren't going to be able to use the Mental Health Act to stop Abort 67, so don't even go there. He's told you what it will take to get rid of him and his "ilk", and put-downs like yours won't work. Answer his challenge, quoted in my posting before this one, and he'll leave everybody alone, and get another job. If you can't - and I bet you can't - you're stuffed. John Allman

9:01am Sat 2 Mar 13

AmboGuy says...

Hmmm I'm not really sure that comparing your own website with your particular....ahem..
...views is helping Abort67s case. I think it's more than just 'some' people who believe that you perhaps have a serious problem.

The Westboro Baptist Church in America has its own website but I don't think that people think of it as any more valid because they know how to set up a website.
Hmmm I'm not really sure that comparing your own website with your particular....ahem.. ...views is helping Abort67s case. I think it's more than just 'some' people who believe that you perhaps have a serious problem. The Westboro Baptist Church in America has its own website but I don't think that people think of it as any more valid because they know how to set up a website. AmboGuy

1:18pm Sat 2 Mar 13

John Allman says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Hmmm I'm not really sure that comparing your own website with your particular....ahem..

...views is helping Abort67s case. I think it's more than just 'some' people who believe that you perhaps have a serious problem.

The Westboro Baptist Church in America has its own website but I don't think that people think of it as any more valid because they know how to set up a website.
@ Amboguy

Earlier, you wrote, "Now stop trolling and get back to the debate."

Is the above supposed to be an example of your taking your own advice?

The "serious problem" that I have here and now, is an unwillingness on the part of others to debate the actual topic in hand. There is lot's of name-calling, and diversionary content that is off topic (Westboro Baptist Church representing your own most recent attempt to change the subject), but no debate of the the actually topic we are supposed to be discussing.

Andy Stephenson promised, "there is a way to stop us. Merely prove to us that the embryo or foetus is not a human being. The offer remains open to anyone. We will take down our website, hand over our banners and never return."

Let's talk about that. Not religion, mental health, websites about different topics, a voice you thought you heard when you had already gone round the bend - your "ear witness account", or name-calling. Let's talk about that offer of Andy's.

We can get rid of Abort 67 forever, if only we can only manage to answer that challenge that Andy Stephenson laid down. Why don't you try to do THAT? I wouldn't know where to start, but you might be clever enough to succeed. You'd be hailed as a hero, if you did succeed in proving that the embryo or foetus is not a human.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Hmmm I'm not really sure that comparing your own website with your particular....ahem.. ...views is helping Abort67s case. I think it's more than just 'some' people who believe that you perhaps have a serious problem. The Westboro Baptist Church in America has its own website but I don't think that people think of it as any more valid because they know how to set up a website.[/p][/quote]@ Amboguy Earlier, you wrote, "Now stop trolling and get back to the debate." Is the above supposed to be an example of your taking your own advice? The "serious problem" that I have here and now, is an unwillingness on the part of others to debate the actual topic in hand. There is lot's of name-calling, and diversionary content that is off topic (Westboro Baptist Church representing your own most recent attempt to change the subject), but no debate of the the actually topic we are supposed to be discussing. Andy Stephenson promised, "there is a way to stop us. Merely prove to us that the embryo or foetus is not a human being. The offer remains open to anyone. We will take down our website, hand over our banners and never return." Let's talk about that. Not religion, mental health, websites about different topics, a voice you thought you heard when you had already gone round the bend - your "ear witness account", or name-calling. Let's talk about that offer of Andy's. We can get rid of Abort 67 forever, if only we can only manage to answer that challenge that Andy Stephenson laid down. Why don't you try to do THAT? I wouldn't know where to start, but you might be clever enough to succeed. You'd be hailed as a hero, if you did succeed in proving that the embryo or foetus is not a human. John Allman

10:49am Wed 6 Mar 13

mimseycal says...

John Allman wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
An embryo/foetus is a human being in potentia. Just like a dictionary is a best seller in potentia.
Citation needed
Citation? For what pray? I stated my opinion! Most reasonable people develop their own opinions over a life time of experience and you would be hard pushed to get anyone to cite all the sources for every opinion they hold.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: An embryo/foetus is a human being in potentia. Just like a dictionary is a best seller in potentia.[/p][/quote]Citation needed[/p][/quote]Citation? For what pray? I stated my opinion! Most reasonable people develop their own opinions over a life time of experience and you would be hard pushed to get anyone to cite all the sources for every opinion they hold. mimseycal

11:03am Wed 6 Mar 13

mimseycal says...

John Allman wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.
Pro choice! Not pro-abortionists. As for the rest of your post ... maybe I am showing my age but the only individuals that are owned are slaves as far as I know.
If abortion is what pro-choice wants wimmin to be free to choose, then it's hair-splitting to object to that being called pro-abortion. Pro-abortion-choice. Pro-abortion-sometim

es. Pro-abortion-when-ch

osen. All these are, let's face it, a bit of a mouthful.

Personally, all this "pro-life", "pro-choice" euphemism, is ridiculous. When it comes to abortion, I am anti, and others are pro. Why cannot we call a spade a spade for a change?
There you go again. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I would stand up for the woman who elects to keep the foetus just as readily as I would stand up for the woman who elects to abort the foetus.

The issue is basically that I do not hold it right that any individual, no matter how loftily s/he considers themselves, regardless from what source they claim to be given their (divine) right, have to right to enforce their view on any other living individual.

If you, or anyone else for that matter, feel that strongly about the potential future of a foetus, then go and address the issues that have a bearing on why women elect to abort. The dire circumstances some children are brought up in, the lack of opportunities for many children now being born. Ensure that all women bringing children into this world can do so with the full expectation that that child will have a decent, comfortable and nurturing upbringing. That they will not grow old before their time through the stress of dealing with the harsh realities of bringing children into a world that has nothing to offer but platitudes and lofty ideals.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: The pro-abortion questioners got owned. And still some are coming on here with the same points they were owned on.[/p][/quote]Pro choice! Not pro-abortionists. As for the rest of your post ... maybe I am showing my age but the only individuals that are owned are slaves as far as I know.[/p][/quote]If abortion is what pro-choice wants wimmin to be free to choose, then it's hair-splitting to object to that being called pro-abortion. Pro-abortion-choice. Pro-abortion-sometim es. Pro-abortion-when-ch osen. All these are, let's face it, a bit of a mouthful. Personally, all this "pro-life", "pro-choice" euphemism, is ridiculous. When it comes to abortion, I am anti, and others are pro. Why cannot we call a spade a spade for a change?[/p][/quote]There you go again. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I would stand up for the woman who elects to keep the foetus just as readily as I would stand up for the woman who elects to abort the foetus. The issue is basically that I do not hold it right that any individual, no matter how loftily s/he considers themselves, regardless from what source they claim to be given their (divine) right, have to right to enforce their view on any other living individual. If you, or anyone else for that matter, feel that strongly about the potential future of a foetus, then go and address the issues that have a bearing on why women elect to abort. The dire circumstances some children are brought up in, the lack of opportunities for many children now being born. Ensure that all women bringing children into this world can do so with the full expectation that that child will have a decent, comfortable and nurturing upbringing. That they will not grow old before their time through the stress of dealing with the harsh realities of bringing children into a world that has nothing to offer but platitudes and lofty ideals. mimseycal

6:06pm Wed 6 Mar 13

John Allman says...

@ Mimseycal

"The issue is basically that I do not hold it right that any individual, no matter how loftily s/he considers themselves, regardless from what source they claim to be given their (divine) right, have to right to enforce their view on any other living individual."

That sounds to be precisely why Andy Stephenson is against abortion!
@ Mimseycal "The issue is basically that I do not hold it right that any individual, no matter how loftily s/he considers themselves, regardless from what source they claim to be given their (divine) right, have to right to enforce their view on any other living individual." That sounds to be precisely why Andy Stephenson is against abortion! John Allman

6:50pm Wed 6 Mar 13

AmboGuy says...

Don't bother Mimseycal. Trying to reason with a pro life protester is like trying to explain to a die hard neo nazi why their views are totally unacceptable.

They may be totally different groups of people but the level of ignorance and sheer self righteousness means that they're more similar than they'd like to think!
Don't bother Mimseycal. Trying to reason with a pro life protester is like trying to explain to a die hard neo nazi why their views are totally unacceptable. They may be totally different groups of people but the level of ignorance and sheer self righteousness means that they're more similar than they'd like to think! AmboGuy

8:04pm Wed 6 Mar 13

John Allman says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Don't bother Mimseycal. Trying to reason with a pro life protester is like trying to explain to a die hard neo nazi why their views are totally unacceptable.

They may be totally different groups of people but the level of ignorance and sheer self righteousness means that they're more similar than they'd like to think!
I cannot find anywhere on this page in which you, Amboguy, can justly be said to be "trying to reason" with anybody.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Don't bother Mimseycal. Trying to reason with a pro life protester is like trying to explain to a die hard neo nazi why their views are totally unacceptable. They may be totally different groups of people but the level of ignorance and sheer self righteousness means that they're more similar than they'd like to think![/p][/quote]I cannot find anywhere on this page in which you, Amboguy, can justly be said to be "trying to reason" with anybody. John Allman

9:44pm Wed 6 Mar 13

mimseycal says...

John Allman wrote:
@ Mimseycal

"The issue is basically that I do not hold it right that any individual, no matter how loftily s/he considers themselves, regardless from what source they claim to be given their (divine) right, have to right to enforce their view on any other living individual."

That sounds to be precisely why Andy Stephenson is against abortion!
Well Andy Stephenson is perfectly welcome to take all his (self) righteous indignation and address all those issues that currently mean that some women elect to abort a foetus.

However as long as he and his ilk target highly emotional and distressed women at a very vulnerable time the only brownie points he should be allocated are the ones pooper scoopers were invented for.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Mimseycal "The issue is basically that I do not hold it right that any individual, no matter how loftily s/he considers themselves, regardless from what source they claim to be given their (divine) right, have to right to enforce their view on any other living individual." That sounds to be precisely why Andy Stephenson is against abortion![/p][/quote]Well Andy Stephenson is perfectly welcome to take all his (self) righteous indignation and address all those issues that currently mean that some women elect to abort a foetus. However as long as he and his ilk target highly emotional and distressed women at a very vulnerable time the only brownie points he should be allocated are the ones pooper scoopers were invented for. mimseycal

9:46pm Wed 6 Mar 13

mimseycal says...

John Allman wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Don't bother Mimseycal. Trying to reason with a pro life protester is like trying to explain to a die hard neo nazi why their views are totally unacceptable.

They may be totally different groups of people but the level of ignorance and sheer self righteousness means that they're more similar than they'd like to think!
I cannot find anywhere on this page in which you, Amboguy, can justly be said to be "trying to reason" with anybody.
If that is indeed the case, AmboGuy must be that one in a million who practises precisely what he preaches ;-)
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Don't bother Mimseycal. Trying to reason with a pro life protester is like trying to explain to a die hard neo nazi why their views are totally unacceptable. They may be totally different groups of people but the level of ignorance and sheer self righteousness means that they're more similar than they'd like to think![/p][/quote]I cannot find anywhere on this page in which you, Amboguy, can justly be said to be "trying to reason" with anybody.[/p][/quote]If that is indeed the case, AmboGuy must be that one in a million who practises precisely what he preaches ;-) mimseycal

11:08pm Wed 6 Mar 13

mimseycal says...

BTW ... Can I hereby state that Andy Stephenson is rather selective with his moral judgements and interpretations.

District Judge Nicholson on 17 Sep 2012 at Brighton magistrates’ court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to continue with the trial. The case was therefore dismissed.

Dismissing a case is not the same as concluding a case with a verdict of Not Guilty.
BTW ... Can I hereby state that Andy Stephenson is rather selective with his moral judgements and interpretations. District Judge Nicholson on 17 Sep 2012 at Brighton magistrates’ court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to continue with the trial. The case was therefore dismissed. Dismissing a case is not the same as concluding a case with a verdict of Not Guilty. mimseycal

2:17am Thu 7 Mar 13

John Allman says...

mimseycal wrote:
BTW ... Can I hereby state that Andy Stephenson is rather selective with his moral judgements and interpretations.

District Judge Nicholson on 17 Sep 2012 at Brighton magistrates’ court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to continue with the trial. The case was therefore dismissed.

Dismissing a case is not the same as concluding a case with a verdict of Not Guilty.
Dismissing a criminal law prosecution in a magistrates court, where a judge is sitting alone as a magistrate, is EXACTLY the same as concluding the prosecution with a verdict of Not Guilty.

Duh!

If insufficient evidence had been gathered, after seven years of Abort 67's presence outside the abattoir, with zealots like those who hurl accusations here determined to blacken Abort 67's name, and police presence too, then, in my book, Abort 67 have played a straight wicket. They have been whiter than white.

People who don't like the message are falsely accusing the messenger of improper methods of getting the message across, because they don't like the message. Why not just admit it?

Why not attack the message instead? It's easy. Just invent some sophistry or other that purports to prove that a human foetus isn't human. That would be far less transparent.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: BTW ... Can I hereby state that Andy Stephenson is rather selective with his moral judgements and interpretations. District Judge Nicholson on 17 Sep 2012 at Brighton magistrates’ court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to continue with the trial. The case was therefore dismissed. Dismissing a case is not the same as concluding a case with a verdict of Not Guilty.[/p][/quote]Dismissing a criminal law prosecution in a magistrates court, where a judge is sitting alone as a magistrate, is EXACTLY the same as concluding the prosecution with a verdict of Not Guilty. Duh! If insufficient evidence had been gathered, after seven years of Abort 67's presence outside the abattoir, with zealots like those who hurl accusations here determined to blacken Abort 67's name, and police presence too, then, in my book, Abort 67 have played a straight wicket. They have been whiter than white. People who don't like the message are falsely accusing the messenger of improper methods of getting the message across, because they don't like the message. Why not just admit it? Why not attack the message instead? It's easy. Just invent some sophistry or other that purports to prove that a human foetus isn't human. That would be far less transparent. John Allman

2:21am Thu 7 Mar 13

John Allman says...

mimseycal wrote:
John Allman wrote:
@ Mimseycal

"The issue is basically that I do not hold it right that any individual, no matter how loftily s/he considers themselves, regardless from what source they claim to be given their (divine) right, have to right to enforce their view on any other living individual."

That sounds to be precisely why Andy Stephenson is against abortion!
Well Andy Stephenson is perfectly welcome to take all his (self) righteous indignation and address all those issues that currently mean that some women elect to abort a foetus.

However as long as he and his ilk target highly emotional and distressed women at a very vulnerable time the only brownie points he should be allocated are the ones pooper scoopers were invented for.
"address all those issues that currently mean that some women elect to abort a foetus"

That's not an argument. It's a ransom note.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: @ Mimseycal "The issue is basically that I do not hold it right that any individual, no matter how loftily s/he considers themselves, regardless from what source they claim to be given their (divine) right, have to right to enforce their view on any other living individual." That sounds to be precisely why Andy Stephenson is against abortion![/p][/quote]Well Andy Stephenson is perfectly welcome to take all his (self) righteous indignation and address all those issues that currently mean that some women elect to abort a foetus. However as long as he and his ilk target highly emotional and distressed women at a very vulnerable time the only brownie points he should be allocated are the ones pooper scoopers were invented for.[/p][/quote]"address all those issues that currently mean that some women elect to abort a foetus" That's not an argument. It's a ransom note. John Allman

4:15am Thu 7 Mar 13

mimseycal says...

HA! A ransom note? I wouldn't hold Abort67 to ransom for all the tea in China. I'd have to feed them and organise wash-room facilities while I wait for their paymasters in America, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, to send the money over.
HA! A ransom note? I wouldn't hold Abort67 to ransom for all the tea in China. I'd have to feed them and organise wash-room facilities while I wait for their paymasters in America, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, to send the money over. mimseycal

4:19am Thu 7 Mar 13

mimseycal says...

John Allman wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
BTW ... Can I hereby state that Andy Stephenson is rather selective with his moral judgements and interpretations.

District Judge Nicholson on 17 Sep 2012 at Brighton magistrates’ court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to continue with the trial. The case was therefore dismissed.

Dismissing a case is not the same as concluding a case with a verdict of Not Guilty.
Dismissing a criminal law prosecution in a magistrates court, where a judge is sitting alone as a magistrate, is EXACTLY the same as concluding the prosecution with a verdict of Not Guilty.

Duh!

If insufficient evidence had been gathered, after seven years of Abort 67's presence outside the abattoir, with zealots like those who hurl accusations here determined to blacken Abort 67's name, and police presence too, then, in my book, Abort 67 have played a straight wicket. They have been whiter than white.

People who don't like the message are falsely accusing the messenger of improper methods of getting the message across, because they don't like the message. Why not just admit it?

Why not attack the message instead? It's easy. Just invent some sophistry or other that purports to prove that a human foetus isn't human. That would be far less transparent.
Please note I stated moral judgements and interpretations. He was not found not guilty.

Had he stood his trial and found not guilty then he would have had something to crow about.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: BTW ... Can I hereby state that Andy Stephenson is rather selective with his moral judgements and interpretations. District Judge Nicholson on 17 Sep 2012 at Brighton magistrates’ court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to continue with the trial. The case was therefore dismissed. Dismissing a case is not the same as concluding a case with a verdict of Not Guilty.[/p][/quote]Dismissing a criminal law prosecution in a magistrates court, where a judge is sitting alone as a magistrate, is EXACTLY the same as concluding the prosecution with a verdict of Not Guilty. Duh! If insufficient evidence had been gathered, after seven years of Abort 67's presence outside the abattoir, with zealots like those who hurl accusations here determined to blacken Abort 67's name, and police presence too, then, in my book, Abort 67 have played a straight wicket. They have been whiter than white. People who don't like the message are falsely accusing the messenger of improper methods of getting the message across, because they don't like the message. Why not just admit it? Why not attack the message instead? It's easy. Just invent some sophistry or other that purports to prove that a human foetus isn't human. That would be far less transparent.[/p][/quote]Please note I stated moral judgements and interpretations. He was not found not guilty. Had he stood his trial and found not guilty then he would have had something to crow about. mimseycal

12:52pm Thu 7 Mar 13

John Allman says...

@ mimseycal

You wrote, "Had he stood his trial and found not guilty then he would have had something to crow about."

According to the Guardian, "A district judge sitting at Brighton magistrates court found them not guilty ..."

Anti-abortion protesters cleared of public order offences
The Guardian
17th September 2012
by Sarah Boseley, health editor
Third paragraph, first line
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/2012/sep/17
/anti-abortion-prote
sters-cleared

Please don't tell me that the Guardian is a biassed rag, with a pro-life agenda, which misreported the facts.
@ mimseycal You wrote, "Had he stood his trial and found not guilty then he would have had something to crow about." According to the Guardian, "A district judge sitting at Brighton magistrates court found them not guilty ..." Anti-abortion protesters cleared of public order offences The Guardian 17th September 2012 by Sarah Boseley, health editor Third paragraph, first line http://www.guardian. co.uk/uk/2012/sep/17 /anti-abortion-prote sters-cleared Please don't tell me that the Guardian is a biassed rag, with a pro-life agenda, which misreported the facts. John Allman

3:24pm Thu 7 Mar 13

mimseycal says...

That is according to the Guardian. I can
assure you that I have never written anything for the Guardian. On that basis, I refuse to be held accountable for what is printed in the Guardian. Further ... and please pay very careful attention. I have stated that I hold Andy Stephenson as rather selective with his moral judgements and interpretations.

But that is really not surprising is it. It's very typical of myopic, self righteous fanatics as a rule. His American soul mates and funders, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Come to think of it ... it is very similar to attitudes displayed by the now thankfully largely discredited pre WWII Eugenics campaigners.

http://www.answersin
genesis.org/articles
/arj/v6/n1/german-an
d-american-eugenics?
utm_source=twitterfe
ed&utm_medium=twitte
r&utm_campaign=Feed%
3A+ARJ+(Answers+Rese
arch+Journal)
That is according to the Guardian. I can assure you that I have never written anything for the Guardian. On that basis, I refuse to be held accountable for what is printed in the Guardian. Further ... and please pay very careful attention. I have stated that I hold Andy Stephenson as rather selective with his moral judgements and interpretations. But that is really not surprising is it. It's very typical of myopic, self righteous fanatics as a rule. His American soul mates and funders, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Come to think of it ... it is very similar to attitudes displayed by the now thankfully largely discredited pre WWII Eugenics campaigners. http://www.answersin genesis.org/articles /arj/v6/n1/german-an d-american-eugenics? utm_source=twitterfe ed&utm_medium=twitte r&utm_campaign=Feed% 3A+ARJ+(Answers+Rese arch+Journal) mimseycal

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree