Special report: Pro-lifers target Brighton clinic (From The Argus)

Protestors are absolute scum. Selfish, heartless and fundamentally thick.

magoo wrote:
Protestors are absolute scum. Selfish, heartless and fundamentally thick.

And child killers are?

I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Lucas, Mitchel and Mears.....

....I'm scared

Strange how the burdens of an unwanted pregnancy always seem to fall entirely on the woman, while no one ever has a thing to say about the men who have an equal hand in causing them.

Yet another example of the religious right's dogmatic beliefs causing real harm to real vulnerable people. When will we as a society free ourselves of the scourge of religion?

Angryoldman wrote:

magoo wrote:
Protestors are absolute scum. Selfish, heartless and fundamentally thick.

And child killers are?

Who are child killers? A fetus isn't a child.

Hear hear, anyone who follows any religion has automatically ruled themselves out of any reasonable debate nor has any opinion worth listening to. I would have hoped we would have evolved beyond such nonsense by now

OP8 wrote:
Hear hear, anyone who follows any religion has automatically ruled themselves out of any reasonable debate nor has any opinion worth listening to. I would have hoped we would have evolved beyond such nonsense by now

I'm sure I don't know what you mean. Surely an old celibate man, wearing a dress with a big stick and gold pointy hat is all the reasonableness you could ever need. He must be best placed to wade into peoples personal lives and dictate to them on issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

According the the information I've seen, women and girls who're pregnant by rape are supposed to keep the babies because the baby is a gift from God and the rape was a trial.
I'm glad that rapists are actually angels doing God's work and can't wait until they're all released from prison to carry on doing Gods will on Earth. Judges and juries who send rapists to prison should probably be stoned to death or something too, if you follow that logic.

Go back to America where they will listen to you. I am a woman I have my own rights. What if I told these two women if they believed in god they would say yes. Bible bashers hate those that their bible says are wicked. WHy dont they go to the nearest Church and try to tell the priests to stop child abuse in the Church.

Spanners wrote:

OP8 wrote:
Hear hear, anyone who follows any religion has automatically ruled themselves out of any reasonable debate nor has any opinion worth listening to. I would have hoped we would have evolved beyond such nonsense by now

I'm sure I don't know what you mean. Surely an old celibate man, wearing a dress with a big stick and gold pointy hat is all the reasonableness you could ever need. He must be best placed to wade into peoples personal lives and dictate to them on issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

Men who spend the best part of their time worrying about what their imaginary friend is going to think and have no experience of sexy times whatever (not counting fiddling children in their care) are naturally in a far better position to hold an opinionthan women who, you know, have to go through unwanted pregnancy.

sign the petition against Abort67...

http://www.change.or
g/petitions/withdraw
-all-support-of-abor
t67?utm_medium=faceb
ook&utm_source=share
_petition&utm_term=o
wn_wall

withdrawing support for this abonimal group

When did it become OK to bully a vulnerable woman?
And the police sit and watch them intimidate them one after the other. Would the police sit by and watch if people were to decend on these "pro-lifers" and turn some bullying tactics on them???
Scum, every last one of them, as for anyone spouting their religeous views, you're allowed to have your beliefs, what makes you think it's OK to strip others of that same right?

elainepkils wrote:
Go back to America where they will listen to you. I am a woman I have my own rights. What if I told these two women if they believed in god they would say yes. Bible bashers hate those that their bible says are wicked. WHy dont they go to the nearest Church and try to tell the priests to stop child abuse in the Church.

Oh hell no. We have plenty of these moonbats to deal with without imports. In our country, these barkers are usually the same people madly backing the death penalty.

magoo wrote:

Angryoldman wrote:

magoo wrote:
Protestors are absolute scum. Selfish, heartless and fundamentally thick.

And child killers are?

Who are child killers? A fetus isn't a child.

I used to think that abortion was an issue for women to decide for themselves because I did not place any value on the foetus. I now see the creation of the foetus as one of the most remarkable events in the universe and it is central to our life and evolution. It contains all the information for a new life from the instant of fertilisation. I don't belief any of us have the right to take another life and for me this now applies to abortion, but I do recognise the problems resulting from rape. It is a very difficult issue but one that I think needs to be reviewed. I am by the way an atheist.

"I now see the creation of the foetus as one of the most remarkable events in the universe and it is central to our life and evolution."

7 billion instances of "remarkable" and counting.

If you do a little digging on "spontaneous termination", you will find it happens far more often naturally than carrier initiated.....

you may also want to read Freakonimics. It has some fascinating correlations between legalization of abortion in the USA and a drop in the crime rate about 20 years later.

Magoo is an idiot! The women needing a termination aren't "Child killers", they realise the kids life would probably be "Hell on Earth".
These anti choice people and the church in Worthing are spouting gospel at these women, forgetting God gave man FREE WILL!

Why don't these people do something useful and help teenage girls who have chosen to keep their unplanned offspring and are struggling instead of causing distress, anger, hatred.
There is enough of this in the world without this lot adding to it.
Perverts.

If only the members of Abort 67 had been terminated at birth we'd be living in a much nicer world now! I wish there were more powers to remove these scum from outside the clinic gates.

I always drive past these bunch of numpties and i clearly shout to them 'to get a proper job' women have the right to do what they went,stuff those bunch of ugbugs!!!!

I always drive past these bunch of numpties and i clearly shout to them 'to get a proper job' women have the right to do what they want,stuff those bunch of ugbugs!!!!

It's totally immoral to bring an unwanted child into the world and the religious bigots who promote this are sick. Abortion laws are far too strict in the UK due to time limit and need for two doctors to see the woman. And the anti-abortion Health Secretary has ordered additional inspections in an attempt to make life difficult for clinics that provide a valuable service.

Immortal wrote:
Magoo is an idiot! The women needing a termination aren't "Child killers", they realise the kids life would probably be "Hell on Earth".
These anti choice people and the church in Worthing are spouting gospel at these women, forgetting God gave man FREE WILL!

Magoo didn't cal them 'Child Killers'!! Re-read his post again.

1) It is my body & I will do with it what I will
2) no one has the right to force me to do anything with my body that I do not want to do
3) women will always terminate pregnancies & always have, legal, safe or not. We will never be stopped.
4) it is not killing a "child", at the time of termination it is a tiny clump of cells, smaller than a bogey
4) it is NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS
It's bad enough that we have to have 2 doctors give us permission for a termination when any other medical procedure requires our permission. As if women can't make our own decision regarding this issue! It's not even a medical procedure most of the time, it's 2 pills.
If someone doesn't agree that termination procedures should be used, then they are perfectly welcome not to use them.
I'm vegetarian, I don't agree that animals should be killed for food & then eaten; I don't kill animals & eat them but I don't stand outside Sainsburys hassling people who do eat animals. It's their colon & they can do with it what they wish, as it is my uterus & I will do with it what I wish.

Immortal wrote:
Magoo is an idiot! The women needing a termination aren't "Child killers", they realise the kids life would probably be "Hell on Earth".
These anti choice people and the church in Worthing are spouting gospel at these women, forgetting God gave man FREE WILL!

Read it properly...

puddingandpi wrote:
1) It is my body & I will do with it what I will
2) no one has the right to force me to do anything with my body that I do not want to do
3) women will always terminate pregnancies & always have, legal, safe or not. We will never be stopped.
4) it is not killing a "child", at the time of termination it is a tiny clump of cells, smaller than a bogey
4) it is NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS
It's bad enough that we have to have 2 doctors give us permission for a termination when any other medical procedure requires our permission. As if women can't make our own decision regarding this issue! It's not even a medical procedure most of the time, it's 2 pills.
If someone doesn't agree that termination procedures should be used, then they are perfectly welcome not to use them.
I'm vegetarian, I don't agree that animals should be killed for food & then eaten; I don't kill animals & eat them but I don't stand outside Sainsburys hassling people who do eat animals. It's their colon & they can do with it what they wish, as it is my uterus & I will do with it what I wish.

I would just like to point out that you are incorrect in respect to point no.4. that you made.

Perhaps you should Google partial birth awareness. Perhaps then you will be of the opinion that it is not always a clump of cells.

http://www.ewtn.com/
library/issues/partb
irt.txt

I certainly did not want to put down Americans. Have a look on youtube to see reason
y held in washington dc. There is still hope for reason.
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?feature=pla
yer_detailpage&v=PZA
mN0DD7cs

The most "special" thing about this "special report" appears to be its complete and utter one-sidedness. There wasn't even a statement that Abort 67 had declined to comment!

just Schmoozing wrote:

puddingandpi wrote:
1) It is my body & I will do with it what I will
2) no one has the right to force me to do anything with my body that I do not want to do
3) women will always terminate pregnancies & always have, legal, safe or not. We will never be stopped.
4) it is not killing a "child", at the time of termination it is a tiny clump of cells, smaller than a bogey
4) it is NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS
It's bad enough that we have to have 2 doctors give us permission for a termination when any other medical procedure requires our permission. As if women can't make our own decision regarding this issue! It's not even a medical procedure most of the time, it's 2 pills.
If someone doesn't agree that termination procedures should be used, then they are perfectly welcome not to use them.
I'm vegetarian, I don't agree that animals should be killed for food & then eaten; I don't kill animals & eat them but I don't stand outside Sainsburys hassling people who do eat animals. It's their colon & they can do with it what they wish, as it is my uterus & I will do with it what I wish.

I would just like to point out that you are incorrect in respect to point no.4. that you made.

Perhaps you should Google partial birth awareness. Perhaps then you will be of the opinion that it is not always a clump of cells.

http://www.ewtn.com/

library/issues/partb

irt.txt

Nope, It is a clump of cells. I'm sure you've seen pictures of foetuses at various stages of development, if not, have a look. If they were functioning at these early stages of development, they wouldn't need a 9 month gestation, would they?
And so what? It's my body, my business & I will never let anyone bully me.
Women will ALWAYS seek terminations & no-one will stop it. Do a bit of research, find out how many women died before the abortion law was brought in, find out how many still die where abortion is illegal - start here: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Abortion_in
_Nicaragua

If you don't approve of abortion, don't have an abortion. No one else's decision is any of your business, regardless of what your imaginary friend who lives in the sky and tells you what to think says.

Riffler wrote:
If you don't approve of abortion, don't have an abortion. No one else's decision is any of your business, regardless of what your imaginary friend who lives in the sky and tells you what to think says.

Spot on!

puddingandpi wrote:

just Schmoozing wrote:

puddingandpi wrote:
1) It is my body & I will do with it what I will
2) no one has the right to force me to do anything with my body that I do not want to do
3) women will always terminate pregnancies & always have, legal, safe or not. We will never be stopped.
4) it is not killing a "child", at the time of termination it is a tiny clump of cells, smaller than a bogey
4) it is NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS
It's bad enough that we have to have 2 doctors give us permission for a termination when any other medical procedure requires our permission. As if women can't make our own decision regarding this issue! It's not even a medical procedure most of the time, it's 2 pills.
If someone doesn't agree that termination procedures should be used, then they are perfectly welcome not to use them.
I'm vegetarian, I don't agree that animals should be killed for food & then eaten; I don't kill animals & eat them but I don't stand outside Sainsburys hassling people who do eat animals. It's their colon & they can do with it what they wish, as it is my uterus & I will do with it what I wish.

I would just like to point out that you are incorrect in respect to point no.4. that you made.

Perhaps you should Google partial birth awareness. Perhaps then you will be of the opinion that it is not always a clump of cells.

http://www.ewtn.com/


library/issues/partb


irt.txt

Nope, It is a clump of cells. I'm sure you've seen pictures of foetuses at various stages of development, if not, have a look. If they were functioning at these early stages of development, they wouldn't need a 9 month gestation, would they?
And so what? It's my body, my business & I will never let anyone bully me.
Women will ALWAYS seek terminations & no-one will stop it. Do a bit of research, find out how many women died before the abortion law was brought in, find out how many still die where abortion is illegal - start here: http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Abortion_in

_Nicaragua

Agreed. As the late great comedian Bill Hicks said about abortion "They're cells they're not people, you're not a real person until you're in my address book"!!

slinkie wrote:
Yet another example of the religious right's dogmatic beliefs causing real harm to real vulnerable people. When will we as a society free ourselves of the scourge of religion?

This is sod all to do with religion - most churchgoers I know would be appalled at this aggressive protesting.

Morpheus wrote:

magoo wrote:

Angryoldman wrote:

magoo wrote:
Protestors are absolute scum. Selfish, heartless and fundamentally thick.

And child killers are?

Who are child killers? A fetus isn't a child.

I used to think that abortion was an issue for women to decide for themselves because I did not place any value on the foetus. I now see the creation of the foetus as one of the most remarkable events in the universe and it is central to our life and evolution. It contains all the information for a new life from the instant of fertilisation. I don't belief any of us have the right to take another life and for me this now applies to abortion, but I do recognise the problems resulting from rape. It is a very difficult issue but one that I think needs to be reviewed. I am by the way an atheist.

So you haven't actually got anything to say apart from your own personal emotionally-charged opinionated self-centred standpoint.

Some of you might be interested in this from a blog I follow by retired US journalist Steven Pizzo:

Some of you might be interested in this from a blog I follow by retired US journalist Steven Pizzo

TURNABOUT IS ABOUT TIME

If you're like me, every time you see those sanctimonious born-agains harassing women outside family-planning clinics, you want to wade in with a baseball bat.

What can I say? I'm Sicilian and my people annoy badly.

But that would be wrong. And it would be counterproductive, because nothing gets religious nuts going like persecution. They love it. Violence only confirms their paranoia, that there really is a "war on religion."(If only it were so.)

Anyway, here's a better way -- a much better way. In fact even Ghandi and Rev, King could get behind this tactic. It's proof of something we all learn in grade-school; that bullies can't take what they live to hand out.

Here's the story. Pass it on so it catches on.

Steve

Clinic landlord turns the tables on anti-abortion protesters

By Petula Dvorak, Washington Post Blog

Regardless of how you feel about abortion, the way Todd Stave flipped the script on his bullies is pretty dang clever.

Stave is the landlord of a clinic in Germantown that provides abortions. Reproductive Health Services became the focus of antiabortion protesters when it was leased to LeRoy Carhart, one of the few doctors in the nation who acknowledges performing late-term abortions.

There are always protesters outside the office park where the clinic is located, quietly praying or holding vigil, with signs, rosaries, statues of Mary and posters of mangled fetuses.

"Totally appropriate. It's their right," Stave told me this week. "They are protected by the First Amendment. And outside the clinic is probably the most appropriate place for them to express their views."

The abortion conflict has become a way of life for Stave. He's not just a landlord. The clinic was operated by his father, who was a doctor. Then his sister managed it.

"I've been a member of this fight since Roe v. Wade, since I was 5 years old," he said. The office was firebombed when he was a kid, and protesters gathered outside the family home as he was growing up. So he's no stranger to the harassment and bullying of doctors and their families.

It has become routine for protesters to distribute fliers and create Web sites that supply personal information about doctors and encourage others to badger them. Kansas doctor George Tiller was killed in 2009, and the farm of his protege, Carhart, was burned to the ground in 1991.

The tactical decision to focus on a clinic's landlord was a clever move, although Stave could handle it. He's pretty tough after all the years in this fight.

But his tormentors crossed the line last fall when a big group showed up at his daughter's middle school on the first day of classes and again at back-to-school night. They had signs displaying his name and contact information as well as those gory images of the fetuses.

"What parent wants to have that conversation with an 11-year-old on the first day of school?" he fumed.

Soon after that, the harassing calls started coming to his home. By the dozens, at all hours. Friends asked him how they could help. He began to take down the names and phone numbers of people who made unwanted calls. And he gave the information to his friends and asked them to call these folks back.

"In a very calm, very respectful voice, they said that the Stave family thanks you for your prayers," he said. "They cannot terminate the lease, and they do not want to. They support women's rights."

This started with a dozen or so friends, and then it grew. Soon, more than a thousand volunteers were dialing.

If they could find the information, Stave's supporters would ask during the callbacks how the children in the family were doing and mention their names and the names of their schools. "And then," Stave said, "we'd tell them that we bless their home on such and such street," giving the address.

The family of a protester who called Stave's home could get up to 5,000 calls in return.

MuammarQaddafi wrote:
Strange how the burdens of an unwanted pregnancy always seem to fall entirely on the woman, while no one ever has a thing to say about the men who have an equal hand in causing them.

I agree. I think the law needs to be changed, so that the written consent of BOTH parents, both the mother AND the father, are needed, before an abortion can be carried out. Well said, MuammarQaddafi! Good man!

SomeBlokeFrom wrote:
When did it become OK to bully a vulnerable woman?
And the police sit and watch them intimidate them one after the other. Would the police sit by and watch if people were to decend on these "pro-lifers" and turn some bullying tactics on them???
Scum, every last one of them, as for anyone spouting their religeous views, you're allowed to have your beliefs, what makes you think it's OK to strip others of that same right?

I simply don't believe that the Abort 67 people are "bullying" anybody. They are solidly Pro INFORMED Choice. Surely no woman. "vulnerable" or not, with a shred of humaneness about her, would ever choose to abort her child, but for the misleading, self-interested propaganda of the abortion industry that Abort 67 is courageously striving to counter.

they are moonbat fanatics funded by foreign Fanatics.
Who celebrate the murder of a doctor and bombings.
They should be treated like the terrorist supporting scum they are.
TRAITORS TO THIS COUNTRY.
ENEMIES OF REASON AND FREEDOM.

In Ireland the solution was to incarcerate the pregnant woman in Magdalene Laundries for life. Their babies were sold to ... wait for this ... devout Catholics! The Catholic Church found this to be a nice little earner. The pregnant women - some were victims of rape and incest - were called offenders and penitents. A few years back a child was raped and made pregnant and an injunction was granted to the Attorney General to prevent here seeking medical intervention - known as the 'X' case, here the Wiki on this sordid case. http://bit.ly/Hetvkp

The Catholic Church also ran Mother & Baby homes in Ireland where women with unwanted pregnancies had their babies which were sold on to devout Catholics. In just one of these places so pro-life were they that 60 of the babies died in the first year and it's estimated that, over it's lifetime, 2,400 babies died. More here: http://bit.ly/HMW4ba

John Allman wrote:

SomeBlokeFrom wrote:
When did it become OK to bully a vulnerable woman?
And the police sit and watch them intimidate them one after the other. Would the police sit by and watch if people were to decend on these "pro-lifers" and turn some bullying tactics on them???
Scum, every last one of them, as for anyone spouting their religeous views, you're allowed to have your beliefs, what makes you think it's OK to strip others of that same right?

I simply don't believe that the Abort 67 people are "bullying" anybody. They are solidly Pro INFORMED Choice. Surely no woman. "vulnerable" or not, with a shred of humaneness about her, would ever choose to abort her child, but for the misleading, self-interested propaganda of the abortion industry that Abort 67 is courageously striving to counter.

John would you mind if I protested outside your house? It's just that I don't agree with these Pro Life loons so I would just like to try and get my point across to you. I promise I won't bully you or your family at any time.

I saw that film about Magdalane Convent in Ireland . Please watch it and then tell me that their god is a good god and loves children. 20,000 die a day from poverty, Nice god eh!

John Allman wrote:

SomeBlokeFrom wrote: When did it become OK to bully a vulnerable woman? And the police sit and watch them intimidate them one after the other. Would the police sit by and watch if people were to decend on these "pro-lifers" and turn some bullying tactics on them??? Scum, every last one of them, as for anyone spouting their religeous views, you're allowed to have your beliefs, what makes you think it's OK to strip others of that same right?

I simply don't believe that the Abort 67 people are "bullying" anybody. They are solidly Pro INFORMED Choice. Surely no woman. "vulnerable" or not, with a shred of humaneness about her, would ever choose to abort her child, but for the misleading, self-interested propaganda of the abortion industry that Abort 67 is courageously striving to counter.

Then you don't understand the definition of bullying. Look it up and you'll see that coercion is involved. A group of people using images of aborted foetuses in an attempt to force woman seeking an abortion to change their behaviour is most definitely bullying. Photographs of medical procedures are graphic and shocking, but they are not relevant to the debate. Medical pictures are shocking to most of us who aren't surgeons- this isn't an argument against abortion. This group uses such images because they are incapable of having a rational debate.

You undermine any legitimate points you might have by claiming that there is an 'abortion industry', implying they deliberately sow false information to encourage abortion. If you genuinely believe that then you are clearly so deluded there seems little point in further discussion. Abortions took place long before it was legal anywhere- how can that have been down to 'the industry'?

This is not about informed choice, and you know it. Why do groups harrass individual women? Because they are cowards who know they can intimidate emotionally traumatised woman with a barrage of lies and graphic images. That's not promoting informed choice is it?

A foetus is not a child. Most women have multiple miscarriages before giving birth. Often a woman is not even aware she is technically pregnant- do you consider all these to be actual deaths of people?

Your attempt to characterize any woman who has an abortion for any reason as inhumane is despicable. Who are you to lecture anyone on humanity? People are stoned to death in the name of religion, is that humane? It is your democratic right to try and alter the laws of this country through the political process. If you're so convinced that people want to hear your message, use the appropriate channels and stop being such a manipulative coward.

Lewesroadresident wrote:

John Allman wrote:

SomeBlokeFrom wrote: When did it become OK to bully a vulnerable woman? And the police sit and watch them intimidate them one after the other. Would the police sit by and watch if people were to decend on these "pro-lifers" and turn some bullying tactics on them??? Scum, every last one of them, as for anyone spouting their religeous views, you're allowed to have your beliefs, what makes you think it's OK to strip others of that same right?

I simply don't believe that the Abort 67 people are "bullying" anybody. They are solidly Pro INFORMED Choice. Surely no woman. "vulnerable" or not, with a shred of humaneness about her, would ever choose to abort her child, but for the misleading, self-interested propaganda of the abortion industry that Abort 67 is courageously striving to counter.

Then you don't understand the definition of bullying. Look it up and you'll see that coercion is involved. A group of people using images of aborted foetuses in an attempt to force woman seeking an abortion to change their behaviour is most definitely bullying. Photographs of medical procedures are graphic and shocking, but they are not relevant to the debate. Medical pictures are shocking to most of us who aren't surgeons- this isn't an argument against abortion. This group uses such images because they are incapable of having a rational debate.

You undermine any legitimate points you might have by claiming that there is an 'abortion industry', implying they deliberately sow false information to encourage abortion. If you genuinely believe that then you are clearly so deluded there seems little point in further discussion. Abortions took place long before it was legal anywhere- how can that have been down to 'the industry'?

This is not about informed choice, and you know it. Why do groups harrass individual women? Because they are cowards who know they can intimidate emotionally traumatised woman with a barrage of lies and graphic images. That's not promoting informed choice is it?

A foetus is not a child. Most women have multiple miscarriages before giving birth. Often a woman is not even aware she is technically pregnant- do you consider all these to be actual deaths of people?

Your attempt to characterize any woman who has an abortion for any reason as inhumane is despicable. Who are you to lecture anyone on humanity? People are stoned to death in the name of religion, is that humane? It is your democratic right to try and alter the laws of this country through the political process. If you're so convinced that people want to hear your message, use the appropriate channels and stop being such a manipulative coward.

yeah - what he said...

AmboGuy wrote:

John Allman wrote:

SomeBlokeFrom wrote:
When did it become OK to bully a vulnerable woman?
And the police sit and watch them intimidate them one after the other. Would the police sit by and watch if people were to decend on these "pro-lifers" and turn some bullying tactics on them???
Scum, every last one of them, as for anyone spouting their religeous views, you're allowed to have your beliefs, what makes you think it's OK to strip others of that same right?

I simply don't believe that the Abort 67 people are "bullying" anybody. They are solidly Pro INFORMED Choice. Surely no woman. "vulnerable" or not, with a shred of humaneness about her, would ever choose to abort her child, but for the misleading, self-interested propaganda of the abortion industry that Abort 67 is courageously striving to counter.

John would you mind if I protested outside your house? It's just that I don't agree with these Pro Life loons so I would just like to try and get my point across to you. I promise I won't bully you or your family at any time.

It's fine be me, if you want to protest outside my home, against "loons", whatever you mean by that, or about anything else. It's a free country. Do you need my address, or have you found it already, from one or other of the various websites with my address on?

Lewesroadresident wrote:

John Allman wrote:

SomeBlokeFrom wrote: When did it become OK to bully a vulnerable woman? And the police sit and watch them intimidate them one after the other. Would the police sit by and watch if people were to decend on these "pro-lifers" and turn some bullying tactics on them??? Scum, every last one of them, as for anyone spouting their religeous views, you're allowed to have your beliefs, what makes you think it's OK to strip others of that same right?

I simply don't believe that the Abort 67 people are "bullying" anybody. They are solidly Pro INFORMED Choice. Surely no woman. "vulnerable" or not, with a shred of humaneness about her, would ever choose to abort her child, but for the misleading, self-interested propaganda of the abortion industry that Abort 67 is courageously striving to counter.

Then you don't understand the definition of bullying. Look it up and you'll see that coercion is involved. A group of people using images of aborted foetuses in an attempt to force woman seeking an abortion to change their behaviour is most definitely bullying. Photographs of medical procedures are graphic and shocking, but they are not relevant to the debate. Medical pictures are shocking to most of us who aren't surgeons- this isn't an argument against abortion. This group uses such images because they are incapable of having a rational debate.

You undermine any legitimate points you might have by claiming that there is an 'abortion industry', implying they deliberately sow false information to encourage abortion. If you genuinely believe that then you are clearly so deluded there seems little point in further discussion. Abortions took place long before it was legal anywhere- how can that have been down to 'the industry'?

This is not about informed choice, and you know it. Why do groups harrass individual women? Because they are cowards who know they can intimidate emotionally traumatised woman with a barrage of lies and graphic images. That's not promoting informed choice is it?

A foetus is not a child. Most women have multiple miscarriages before giving birth. Often a woman is not even aware she is technically pregnant- do you consider all these to be actual deaths of people?

Your attempt to characterize any woman who has an abortion for any reason as inhumane is despicable. Who are you to lecture anyone on humanity? People are stoned to death in the name of religion, is that humane? It is your democratic right to try and alter the laws of this country through the political process. If you're so convinced that people want to hear your message, use the appropriate channels and stop being such a manipulative coward.

I'll ignore the personal abuse aimed at myself personally, and the irrelevant content, and the invitations to defend extreme opinions I have never expressed in the first place. ..................
I ought not comment on the potentially libellous allegation that Abort 67 uses "coercion" either. I'll leave that to Abort 67's lawyers.
....................
...
That only leaves the following points to make: ....................
.....
(1) If "a foetus is not a child", then why should a picture of a dead foetus be any more "shocking" than the stock on display in any butcher's shop?
....................
...
(2) Abortion businesses do not constitute an "industry", you say? Seven million sounds like a pretty-much industrial-scale death toll to me. ...............
(3) I don't "know" that "this is not about informed choice". Informed choice is exactly what the harmless activities of Abort 67 are aimed at procuring.

John Allman wrote:

Lewesroadresident wrote:

John Allman wrote:

SomeBlokeFrom wrote: When did it become OK to bully a vulnerable woman? And the police sit and watch them intimidate them one after the other. Would the police sit by and watch if people were to decend on these "pro-lifers" and turn some bullying tactics on them??? Scum, every last one of them, as for anyone spouting their religeous views, you're allowed to have your beliefs, what makes you think it's OK to strip others of that same right?

I simply don't believe that the Abort 67 people are "bullying" anybody. They are solidly Pro INFORMED Choice. Surely no woman. "vulnerable" or not, with a shred of humaneness about her, would ever choose to abort her child, but for the misleading, self-interested propaganda of the abortion industry that Abort 67 is courageously striving to counter.

Then you don't understand the definition of bullying. Look it up and you'll see that coercion is involved. A group of people using images of aborted foetuses in an attempt to force woman seeking an abortion to change their behaviour is most definitely bullying. Photographs of medical procedures are graphic and shocking, but they are not relevant to the debate. Medical pictures are shocking to most of us who aren't surgeons- this isn't an argument against abortion. This group uses such images because they are incapable of having a rational debate. You undermine any legitimate points you might have by claiming that there is an 'abortion industry', implying they deliberately sow false information to encourage abortion. If you genuinely believe that then you are clearly so deluded there seems little point in further discussion. Abortions took place long before it was legal anywhere- how can that have been down to 'the industry'? This is not about informed choice, and you know it. Why do groups harrass individual women? Because they are cowards who know they can intimidate emotionally traumatised woman with a barrage of lies and graphic images. That's not promoting informed choice is it? A foetus is not a child. Most women have multiple miscarriages before giving birth. Often a woman is not even aware she is technically pregnant- do you consider all these to be actual deaths of people? Your attempt to characterize any woman who has an abortion for any reason as inhumane is despicable. Who are you to lecture anyone on humanity? People are stoned to death in the name of religion, is that humane? It is your democratic right to try and alter the laws of this country through the political process. If you're so convinced that people want to hear your message, use the appropriate channels and stop being such a manipulative coward.

I'll ignore the personal abuse aimed at myself personally, and the irrelevant content, and the invitations to defend extreme opinions I have never expressed in the first place. .................. I ought not comment on the potentially libellous allegation that Abort 67 uses "coercion" either. I'll leave that to Abort 67's lawyers. .................... ... That only leaves the following points to make: .................... ..... (1) If "a foetus is not a child", then why should a picture of a dead foetus be any more "shocking" than the stock on display in any butcher's shop? .................... ... (2) Abortion businesses do not constitute an "industry", you say? Seven million sounds like a pretty-much industrial-scale death toll to me. ............... (3) I don't "know" that "this is not about informed choice". Informed choice is exactly what the harmless activities of Abort 67 are aimed at procuring.

Well I can see you've no need to look up the meaning of 'disingenuous'! And don't try and intimidate me by bringing lawyers into it- not that we have lawyers in the UK.

'Coersion: the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.' There is no doubt in my mind that the activities of this group are coersive, so I'm happy to stand by my statement.

1) I think most people would find a graphic picture of a dead foetus from any species shocking/unpleasant. I also think most people would find a graphic picture of a tumour shocking/unpleasant- that doesn't make a tumour a child does it?

2) I don't know where your figures come from, but with approxmately 7 billion currently alive 7 million doesn't sound that high. Removing context always makes your argument sound more dramatic.

3) Don't be so pedantic. Abort 67 have nothing to do with informed choice, they have a specific aim, which is to prevent abortions. Abortion providers have no specific aim other than to provide a service if asked- they don't try and force you into an abortion you know. There is plenty of information and advice but you are left to decide for yourself- maybe Abort 67 could try this. And their activities are not harmless- hence the complaints from a traumatised rape victim.

@ Lewesroadresident

I cannot think of any reason, other than his or her obvious humanity, why anybody would find a picture of a dead human foetus "shocking".

Abort 67's activities outside the clinic in Brighton appear to be more-or-less entirely aimed at procuring better-informed choices. Well-informed choices are less likely to be choices to end the lives of perfectly healthy foetuses, so procuring better-informed choices saves lives too.

I am not aware of Abort 67 having "traumatised" anybody. Are you?

My liberal position is aptly summarised in the following quotation, from George Orwell: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Some people are whinging about this. I don't find such intolerance to be admirable.

John Allman wrote:
@ Lewesroadresident

I cannot think of any reason, other than his or her obvious humanity, why anybody would find a picture of a dead human foetus "shocking".

Abort 67's activities outside the clinic in Brighton appear to be more-or-less entirely aimed at procuring better-informed choices. Well-informed choices are less likely to be choices to end the lives of perfectly healthy foetuses, so procuring better-informed choices saves lives too.

I am not aware of Abort 67 having "traumatised" anybody. Are you?

My liberal position is aptly summarised in the following quotation, from George Orwell: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Some people are whinging about this. I don't find such intolerance to be admirable.

I have little problem with people being told what they do not want to hear but first, they should not be bullied and intiminated and second, the information they are being given should be factually accurate.

Clearly, this group are bullying and intimidating customers and staff at the clinic and you would have to be completely inhuman not to consider what is goes on as either reasonable or acceptable.

But more so, I have been reading the abort67 website and a goodly proportion of the information on that site in untrue - plainly and simply.

Given that it is reasonable to assume that this is the exact same "education" being offered to these using the clinic in question, it would seem apparent that they are not being offered information they simply do not want to hear but instead are being force fed propoganda.

Whether you side with "pro-life" or "pro-choice", what is happened here is wrong wrong wrong and I cannot get my head round the idea that anyone could possibly defend it, on any level.

There has to be a compromise to end this amicably. The pro lifers have a point they want to get across and they want to speak to women to save lives. Only thing is the way they are doing it is distressing to some.

So I suggest the clinic offers the group an office where the women if they are having second thoughts can ask them for their view and help. The clinic can also have their contact details (but not lurid leaflets)

That way women can speak to them without being stopped in the street which is inappropriate.

If they want to act responsibly that might result in better results from their point of view unless all they want to do is create headlines.

pte wrote:
There has to be a compromise to end this amicably. The pro lifers have a point they want to get across and they want to speak to women to save lives. Only thing is the way they are doing it is distressing to some.

So I suggest the clinic offers the group an office where the women if they are having second thoughts can ask them for their view and help. The clinic can also have their contact details (but not lurid leaflets)

That way women can speak to them without being stopped in the street which is inappropriate.

If they want to act responsibly that might result in better results from their point of view unless all they want to do is create headlines.

I don't think a pro-life or pro-choice group is appropriate to offer advice to a woman who is unsure what to do - she should seek independent counselling.

It's really easy.
If you don't want to get pregnant,don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want a child with.
Women are in control.Women get to say yes or no.
Unless a woman is raped.In which case there is a different argument.She has a choice whether or not to get pregnant.
If you don't want a baby,don't have sex.It isn't that difficult.There are just too many easy women around who don't want to take responsibility.
Men don't have to,so don't ask them to.Men don't get pregnant.They just get worked and nagged to death.

fredaj wrote:

pte wrote:
There has to be a compromise to end this amicably. The pro lifers have a point they want to get across and they want to speak to women to save lives. Only thing is the way they are doing it is distressing to some.

So I suggest the clinic offers the group an office where the women if they are having second thoughts can ask them for their view and help. The clinic can also have their contact details (but not lurid leaflets)

That way women can speak to them without being stopped in the street which is inappropriate.

If they want to act responsibly that might result in better results from their point of view unless all they want to do is create headlines.

I don't think a pro-life or pro-choice group is appropriate to offer advice to a woman who is unsure what to do - she should seek independent counselling.

Maybe not and the vast majority would not want to visit them in any office provided.

But it calls their bluff and claims they are only on the street to rescue women and save babies and not harry women.

If they want to rescue babies in a responsible way they should take the opportunity.

My own opinion is halfway. As has been said in cases of rape, unviable life because of malformation, or a threat to a womans life abortion is OK if it's done early and early abortion for social reasons.

But abortion at around 26 weeks is nothing more than murder

And the Argus reporter might ask them if the aim is to rescue woman why they don't set up an office where those women can go in a less confrontational setting

These pro life loons are just crazy. They are mainly made up of Christian fundamentalists and believe that they have some 'divine right' to do what they do. You only have to look at the case of Dr George Tiller, a doctor who performed abortions, he was shot dead in 2003 by a Pro Life campaigner as he went to church.
There have been other murders and acts of violence by anti abortion loonys as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Anti-aborti
on_violence
These Pro Lifers are evil and must be stopped.

@Amboguy
I expect the Abort67 people already do offer to meet the people with whom they making first contact outside the clinic, advertising, in a "less confontational" setting. I don't find acceptable Amboguy's intolerance, even hatred, of members a particular faith community, a particular opinion about abortion, and of whatever hated minority he means when using the inflammatory hate word "loonys", usually a word used by bigots who inflict politically incorrect stigma upon people who access mental health services.

@others more reasonable
I have already quoted George Orwell, who said, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

This has resulted in accusations that Abort67 is doing more, and worse, than merely exercising this right, which we all have, whether we call it a "God-given" right we've always had, or merely a Convention right only given to us when the Human Rights Act 1998 was implemented in the year 2000.

It is tediously predicable that abortion enthusiasts, people with guilty consciences, and those who make more money in the abortion industry than they could in honest jobs or on the dole, will coach tame witnesses to say that they found it "intimidating" (etc) to be told what they didn't want to hear.

It has also been alleged that Abort67 provide information that isn't true. That would be a just criticism of Abort67, if the allegation were proven. Has anybody got any examples of false information that Abort67 is providing?

How about this as an example

quote from a67 "If a child isn't wanted, they argue, then it shouldn't be born. The problem, of course, is that the child is already conceived, and the only way to keep said child from being born is to kill it"

For the last time. A foetus is not a child. By law and by scientific convention the world over a foetus of a few weeks is not a child.

Yet then A67 claim that "The first difference is size. Embryos are smaller than foetuses who are smaller (usually) than newborns. The question, then, is this. What does size have to do with rights of personhood? The answer: nothing."

Rubbish, the anwer here is everything. If you seriously are cliaming that an early embryo of a few cells is the same as a fully developed child with fully functioning organs then you need your head looking at. It certainly is not true from any perspective other than organistions peddling extremist views.

If you view mere cells as children then my dandruff is murder

It is always interesting to me that 99.9% of the most vociferous arguments against abortion come from men - alas it's less about protecting the foetus/child but more about men wanting ultimate control over women and their bodies

I'd be more convinced of the argument if certain religious bodies didn't push their anti-contraception dogma on, and actively prevent, women from having access to contraception, in third world countries in particular, therefore forcing women to bring children into a life of poverty, disease, starvation, thirst and pain...

and don't even get me started on the rank hypocrisy of the church protecting paedophile priests...

Hovelady wrote:
It is always interesting to me that 99.9% of the most vociferous arguments against abortion come from men - alas it's less about protecting the foetus/child but more about men wanting ultimate control over women and their bodies I'd be more convinced of the argument if certain religious bodies didn't push their anti-contraception dogma on, and actively prevent, women from having access to contraception, in third world countries in particular, therefore forcing women to bring children into a life of poverty, disease, starvation, thirst and pain... and don't even get me started on the rank hypocrisy of the church protecting paedophile priests...

I agree with you Hovelady....except the bit about the anti-abortion brigade all being men. I see the exact opposite and that includes this lot (see photo for example)

Spanners, I agree with you it being more women when it comes to actively campaigning outside clinics etc, but in my experience when I see/hear abortion being debated in the media, it tends to be men speaking out against it..but again, that's just my experience.

@ Spanners
If, as you say, "a foetus in not a child", then why is showing photographs of dead foetuses any more "intimidating" to those planning to kill foetuses, than the display in a butcher's shop window? They don't look much like "dandruff" to me, any more than the holocaust victims look like the "vermin" mentioned on the Cyclon B containers delivered to Auschwitz, as the target of "extermination" for which that product was marketed.

"A foetus is not a child" is just about the stupidest lie in the armoury of the Pro-Choice militia. Actually, it's this lie is the only weapon they've got for defending the abortion industry, so it's not surprising they don't want the potential customers to see photographs that nail the lie.

pte wrote:

fredaj wrote:

pte wrote:
There has to be a compromise to end this amicably. The pro lifers have a point they want to get across and they want to speak to women to save lives. Only thing is the way they are doing it is distressing to some.

So I suggest the clinic offers the group an office where the women if they are having second thoughts can ask them for their view and help. The clinic can also have their contact details (but not lurid leaflets)

That way women can speak to them without being stopped in the street which is inappropriate.

If they want to act responsibly that might result in better results from their point of view unless all they want to do is create headlines.

I don't think a pro-life or pro-choice group is appropriate to offer advice to a woman who is unsure what to do - she should seek independent counselling.

Maybe not and the vast majority would not want to visit them in any office provided.

But it calls their bluff and claims they are only on the street to rescue women and save babies and not harry women.

If they want to rescue babies in a responsible way they should take the opportunity.

My own opinion is halfway. As has been said in cases of rape, unviable life because of malformation, or a threat to a womans life abortion is OK if it's done early and early abortion for social reasons.

But abortion at around 26 weeks is nothing more than murder

First, I am more interested in the protection of vulnerable woman who are behaving within the law than making a pressure group "happy".

Next, abortions at 26 weeks are incredibly unusual and 75% take place before week 10 so I believe that to be an issue that is completely separate to whether or not abortion should be legal and whether or not women should be harangued when using a BPAS clinic.

John Allman wrote:
@Amboguy
I expect the Abort67 people already do offer to meet the people with whom they making first contact outside the clinic, advertising, in a "less confontational" setting. I don't find acceptable Amboguy's intolerance, even hatred, of members a particular faith community, a particular opinion about abortion, and of whatever hated minority he means when using the inflammatory hate word "loonys", usually a word used by bigots who inflict politically incorrect stigma upon people who access mental health services.

@others more reasonable
I have already quoted George Orwell, who said, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

This has resulted in accusations that Abort67 is doing more, and worse, than merely exercising this right, which we all have, whether we call it a "God-given" right we've always had, or merely a Convention right only given to us when the Human Rights Act 1998 was implemented in the year 2000.

It is tediously predicable that abortion enthusiasts, people with guilty consciences, and those who make more money in the abortion industry than they could in honest jobs or on the dole, will coach tame witnesses to say that they found it "intimidating" (etc) to be told what they didn't want to hear.

It has also been alleged that Abort67 provide information that isn't true. That would be a just criticism of Abort67, if the allegation were proven. Has anybody got any examples of false information that Abort67 is providing?

Quite frankly calling your lot Loons was about the least offensive thing I could think of that describes you. How about evil, manipulative or brain washed? Maybe they all describe you better.
Who the hell do you think you are to tell someone else what to do to their own body? Here's a wake up call for you IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. If someone wants to have an abortion, have sex with someone of the same gender or never go to church then IT'S THEIR CHOICE but these are all things that the religious right think will send people to hell! I do wish the religious fanatics would stop using religion (which by the way is very unimportant to most of Britain now) as an excuse to subject women to their evil campaign and to justify why they do it in the first place.

John Allman wrote:
@ Spanners
If, as you say, "a foetus in not a child", then why is showing photographs of dead foetuses any more "intimidating" to those planning to kill foetuses, than the display in a butcher's shop window? They don't look much like "dandruff" to me, any more than the holocaust victims look like the "vermin" mentioned on the Cyclon B containers delivered to Auschwitz, as the target of "extermination" for which that product was marketed.

"A foetus is not a child" is just about the stupidest lie in the armoury of the Pro-Choice militia. Actually, it's this lie is the only weapon they've got for defending the abortion industry, so it's not surprising they don't want the potential customers to see photographs that nail the lie.

Every egg in every fertile woman's body has the potential to be a child so should all women be forcefully fertilised and then forced to bring that child to term? And then the next egg and then the next egg?

If not, why not?

Each is a baby but for the next step - same as a foetus.

@ Amboguy

I haven't mentioned religion here, or homosexuality, or church, and I am not a member of Abort 67. I haven't manipulated anybody here, or said anything "evil", so far as I can tell.

If people have good reason to believe that abortion is akin to murder, and have facts at their fingertips, and pictures, to prove it, they have a perfect right to try to show those pictures, and tell those facts, to people likely to be contemplating abortion.

If they break the law, or supply false information, it is just to criticise them. But your language is extreme.

Your hate speech against people with mental illnesses is objectionable too.

@ FredaJ

Could you please explain again your argument as to why (you say) "all women be forcefully fertilised and then forced to bring that child to term"?

I don't think you'll find much support for that idea here.

John Allman wrote:
@ Amboguy

I haven't mentioned religion here, or homosexuality, or church, and I am not a member of Abort 67. I haven't manipulated anybody here, or said anything "evil", so far as I can tell.

If people have good reason to believe that abortion is akin to murder, and have facts at their fingertips, and pictures, to prove it, they have a perfect right to try to show those pictures, and tell those facts, to people likely to be contemplating abortion.

If they break the law, or supply false information, it is just to criticise them. But your language is extreme.

Your hate speech against people with mental illnesses is objectionable too.

Yes John but you are a Christian fundamentalist tho aren't you? Religious fundamentalists always seem to be the worst for trying to impose their will on anyone who they don't agree with - that's why I have brought this fact up. I have found a video of you on the internet stating that you believe that the state has been using mind control over the masses and that's how you explain that you've been hearing voices in your head for years now. I'm sorry to hear about your mental illness John but belonging to an organisation called 'Christians against mental slavery' does now put a certain light on your extreme views on abortion.
Here's the link for anyone who's interested:
http://www.slavery.o
rg.uk/TV_interview.h
tm

Keep your hand over your tuppence girls and there won't be a problem.

@AmboGuy

I haven't used any religious-based argument, or expressed any "extreme" view here. I have not described myself as a "fundamentalist", here or anywhere else.

You haven't "heard about" my "mental illness" that you have said you are "sorry" to hear about. But please, make my day, and make an allegation, using your own real name, if you can prove it.

I have nothing to be ashamed of in what I have said here. You have, in my opinion.

John Allman wrote:
@AmboGuy

I haven't used any religious-based argument, or expressed any "extreme" view here. I have not described myself as a "fundamentalist", here or anywhere else.

You haven't "heard about" my "mental illness" that you have said you are "sorry" to hear about. But please, make my day, and make an allegation, using your own real name, if you can prove it.

I have nothing to be ashamed of in what I have said here. You have, in my opinion.

But John you said to look you up on the internet and I did and I have seen your extreme views for myself! You have posted on several pro life forums with some very fundamentalist views.
As for mental illness - no I'm sure you're fine, maybe the government really are sending out mind control gamma waves to you to put the voices in your head.

AmboGuy wrote:

John Allman wrote:
@AmboGuy

I haven't used any religious-based argument, or expressed any "extreme" view here. I have not described myself as a "fundamentalist", here or anywhere else.

You haven't "heard about" my "mental illness" that you have said you are "sorry" to hear about. But please, make my day, and make an allegation, using your own real name, if you can prove it.

I have nothing to be ashamed of in what I have said here. You have, in my opinion.

But John you said to look you up on the internet and I did and I have seen your extreme views for myself! You have posted on several pro life forums with some very fundamentalist views.
As for mental illness - no I'm sure you're fine, maybe the government really are sending out mind control gamma waves to you to put the voices in your head.

You wanted my address, so that you could protest outside my home.

I have never said that the government is sending out mind control gamma waves to put voices into people's heads anywhere.

I don't think I've ever posted anything on a Pro-Life forum, or expressed, on such a forum or elsewhere, about abortion or any other topic, views that are either "extreme" or "fundamentalist".

However, you are right that I don't make any secret of my real identity, my email address, my phone number, and my home address. I don't need to hide who I am behind handles, because I don't libel people. If you carry on your researches into me, however, you may discover that I have been known to sue people who make up things about me for libel, successfully.

Of course, I am not able to conduct researches on the internet into you, "Amboguy".

I'd rather we talked about the issues in this story than about personalities. I expect others here would prefer that too.

Pro-lifers: supporting the desire of rapists to have more and prettier kids everywhere?

Can the 'Rapists Against the Victims Rights to Choose Group' count on the support of a few of the nuts on here?

Do pro-lifers really preach to gang-raped children about how they should spread the other cheek? Sorry, did I mean 'turn'? Ermm...no. That's right people, it appears that their are some that would like to interfere with a victim's choice after someone else has raped them. Would you like to leave a child alone with either of these types?

Pro-life sickos and gang-rapists preying on children just seem to me to have too much they can agree upon...abortion is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Rapists, and the pro-lifers that seemingly support the rapists chosen method of family-planning, need to be locked-up...together
.

@moronslayer &
Retired Loon in Brighton

I don't see in either posting, any logical connection established between "rapists" (or "gang-rapists") and "Pro-life" people, or between "Pro-life" people and "nuts", "sickos", or unwise choices of babysitter.

I would draw the attention of both posters, to the following words on this page, directly after the box for entering new comments and before the SUBMIT button: "Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious."

What is meant by referring to somebody as a "nut" or a "sicko", please? Do these terms by any chance happen to be intended to refer to any minority defined by all and only its members sharing a particular common "protected characteristic" covered the Equality Act, and/or by Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Is a "moron slayer" somebody who practises (or would like to practise) the eugenic genocide of any other such minority, by any chance?

What is a "loon"?

the anti-choice brigade of moonbats.
which is what it is the campign to take choice away from women because they know best.
Women having sex and being in control in fact anybody having sex for any other reason than procreation.
Even then it has to be in the dark prefably through a hole in a sheet.
these moonbats are the same lot of silver ring absetience bunch equally deluded women hating loons

@voiceofthescoombe

The Wikipedia article on the new-to-me word "moonbat" is quite interesting, and so is the link to the 1835 Great Moon Hoax in the etymology.

Have you got anything sensible to say?

John Allman wrote:

AmboGuy wrote:

John Allman wrote:
@AmboGuy

I haven't used any religious-based argument, or expressed any "extreme" view here. I have not described myself as a "fundamentalist", here or anywhere else.

You haven't "heard about" my "mental illness" that you have said you are "sorry" to hear about. But please, make my day, and make an allegation, using your own real name, if you can prove it.

I have nothing to be ashamed of in what I have said here. You have, in my opinion.

But John you said to look you up on the internet and I did and I have seen your extreme views for myself! You have posted on several pro life forums with some very fundamentalist views.
As for mental illness - no I'm sure you're fine, maybe the government really are sending out mind control gamma waves to you to put the voices in your head.

You wanted my address, so that you could protest outside my home.

I have never said that the government is sending out mind control gamma waves to put voices into people's heads anywhere.

I don't think I've ever posted anything on a Pro-Life forum, or expressed, on such a forum or elsewhere, about abortion or any other topic, views that are either "extreme" or "fundamentalist".

However, you are right that I don't make any secret of my real identity, my email address, my phone number, and my home address. I don't need to hide who I am behind handles, because I don't libel people. If you carry on your researches into me, however, you may discover that I have been known to sue people who make up things about me for libel, successfully.

Of course, I am not able to conduct researches on the internet into you, "Amboguy".

I'd rather we talked about the issues in this story than about personalities. I expect others here would prefer that too.

Sorrj John I didn't mean it - it was the government controlling my mind that made me say it. Could you send me the link for your 'Christians Against Mind Control' website please?

Oops sorry that's 'Christians against Mental Slavery'.

AmboGuy wrote:
Oops sorry that's 'Christians against Mental Slavery'.

It's the site you linked to earlier yourself, Amboguy.

Slavery.org.uk

Remember?

Thanks for the plug, but I don't think we should discuss that issue here. Why don't you join the thread about that topic at Metabunk, or any of the other threads at other websites that allow discussion, that gave threads about that topic. Use a search engine. Just don't talk about Abort 67 where its not relevant. It's best to keep discussion focussed.

Or email me, of you have questions.

Sorry John the government signals in my head are getting scrambled.

voiceofthescoombe wrote:
the anti-choice brigade of moonbats.
which is what it is the campign to take choice away from women because they know best.
Women having sex and being in control in fact anybody having sex for any other reason than procreation.
Even then it has to be in the dark prefably through a hole in a sheet.
these moonbats are the same lot of silver ring absetience bunch equally deluded women hating loons

Carefull....John'll sue you!!!!

AmboGuy wrote:
If only the members of Abort 67 had been terminated at birth we'd be living in a much nicer world now! I wish there were more powers to remove these scum from outside the clinic gates.

well said.

hubby wrote:
It's really easy. If you don't want to get pregnant,don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want a child with. Women are in control.Women get to say yes or no. Unless a woman is raped.In which case there is a different argument.She has a choice whether or not to get pregnant. If you don't want a baby,don't have sex.It isn't that difficult.There are just too many easy women around who don't want to take responsibility. Men don't have to,so don't ask them to.Men don't get pregnant.They just get worked and nagged to death.

Idiot!

Angryoldman wrote:

magoo wrote:
Protestors are absolute scum. Selfish, heartless and fundamentally thick.

And child killers are?

Don't be absurd. Do you really think it better to force people to bring children into this world when they are unable to commit themselves, for any number of reasons, to bring a child up with the love, the patience, the financial costs and the day in day out grinding drag on finite resources?

These protesters if they really have a concern for 'Life' should turn their self righteous indignation and excessive zeal to where they can really make a difference. Supporting children in care, becoming mentors to troubled teens or supporting the many parents who are currently struggling to juggle the many conflicting calls on their time.