Nice try to weasel out of it, but I'm asking you how you MEANT it.

Let me know, if you have the cajones and the honesty to answer the simple question.
What did you mean by those remarks, as you phrased them?


Observer, I wouldn't talk about "truth" if I were you.
The last time you tried to talk about the "facts" regarding this issue, you got your ass handed to you and the LIES of the anti-abortion crowd were exposed.

Whenever you're ready for round II, let me know.

Again, your choice of believing truth....or not...comes through.

No. "Responsible" is making sure before conception occurs that it doesn't happen. They showed abject irresponsibility in not preventing the conception before it happened. Obviously, you've never heard the old saying, "It's better to make sure the barn door is shut than to have the animals get out." See the reason behind that? Make sense to you? Or would you like to argue how it doesn't hurt anything for the animals to get out? Like "maybe they wanted out", perhaps?

If they weren't married, without support, why were they having sex? They don't know the possible consequences of sex, protected or otherwise? That's responsibility.

If they are giving their child up for a caring couple, yes, that is responsible...and a true mother.

What (or who) you are defending here, foundit, are people who were not resonsible. Number one: Sex is for people who have decided to take the responsibility of caring for another person and their potential offspring. Number two: If a decision is made to have sex in spite of the absence of the above, then utmost prevention should be taken. Good grief! I'm not suggesting they pay daycare for the whole community! I'm simply saying they should take a "time out" and count to ten (or a hundred) before indulging in pleasures they aren't really entitled to.

You're right! I've always had a problem with killing the innocent. I'm so sorry you can't see it.

If they didn't want a pregnancy, why didn't they have protected sex?

If a couple wants to have sex but don't want to conceive a child, they should use protection. If they want to have sex, but don't have protection, they should ABSTAIN until they have protection. See how easy? Prevents a multitude of problems...not to mention saving a life.


You're right. I don't like how they deal with the situation. They should have considered the consequences before they had sex. Deciding on an abortion is INconsideration of the life of their unborn child. We're not talking about a choice of day-care here. We're talking about whether or not someone gets a chance at life. Like you did. Like all of us did.

Besides, foundit, why do you care?

It doesn't matter to you how I meant it. You will believe what you wish.


In your opinon, they were lies. Actually, what I presented IS the truth and you made it amply clear that you don't believe anything but what you WANT to believe!

Some of the quotes I posted came from the website you, yourself posted, but glossed over it when I pointed it out. Your own sources made statements that agreed with mine, but you preferred to ignore it. Foundit66!! can find it IF he wants to. I have better things to do with my time than argue with one who believes that truth is found on a buffet to be picked and chosen at will. If he likes it, he accepts it. If not, it's rejected.

Actually, it does. Or I wouldn't keep asking.
Why don't you answer my simple question?
What did you mean by those remarks, as you phrased them?


Oh get off yourself Observer. They WERE lies.
The web-site I quoted DEMONSTRATED HOW the religious right was quoting a source that WAS NOT what it claimed.
They claimed they had EEG results WHICH DO NOT EXIST.

Your side LIED.
Why can't you just admit it?


I quoted a variety of sources PROVING that the "brain-wave" analysis claims of your web-sites were false, and have never found what your site claimed.
It's not an issue of "not believing".
It's an issue of the religious right saying one thing, and then NUMEROUS medical resources point out the claim is b.s.

And you can't cope with that, so all you do is obfuscate the issue by pretending it's about me.

But tell you what Observer. Why not just put this beyond you and I...
Why not just repeat our statements for the WHOLE WORLD to judge for themselves? Anybody who reads our stuff can judge for themselves.

Are you as confident as I that people who read the things I quote will realize that your side is full of sh!t on the stuff it makes up?


WHAT WEB-SITE was that???
Or is this another question you're going to refuse to answer...

I remember you taking ONE of the statements from my web-site and pretending it said something IT WAS NOT saying, but that's about it.
You took a quote about the cardio-vascular system STARTING TO FORM, and pretended that it was a demonstration that it WAS COMPLETE.

But then again, that's the type of deceit your side is renowned for...


And there we have it.
Observer is going to quit the "facts about abortion" field.
He's going to make sweeping allegations that it's just an issue of me not believing, and say that he's not going to debate the issue because of that.

Which is foolish.
Observer, there isn't a doubt in my mind that you are intellectually incapable of honest reflection of the facts and an honest analysis of what your side is doing.
But I debate it anyways.
You know why?

Because OTHER PEOPLE can read our arguments and judge for themselves.
Ergo, the cop-out that I won't agree with you is just a lame excuse.
And that is why I will continue to debate issues when I know the other side is incapable of admitting the truth...

Whatever you want them to mean, my dear.

You believe that website. Why? Simple. Because it suits your purposes.

Again, according to your opinion. You claim you "proved" it, but you didn't. All you did is post a website that favors your opinion.


You quoted a variety of sources that lean to your opinion.
.

And a question of believing man over God.

You're the one who makes it about you when you insist that your sources are correct because you want (or need) to believe those sources.

I'm quite sure they will judge for themselves. And in the end, will they have the truth? or the truth as they see it, as you do?
I realize that the majority reject the truth for lies they wish to believe. In the end, they, as you, will know I am right.


I re-quoted it for you. Did you not see it?

You don't have to remember. It should still be there ....unless you deleted it.


People can judge for themselves until the world burns up, but if they don't have The Source of all truth, they are still deceived....as you are.

Seriously.
Do you think anybody else is confused by this lame cop-out of yours?
You could clear any doubt in anybody's mind by just ANSWERING the question and explaining what you meant.

But you refuse to do that.
To add on another question which I have no doubts that you will avoid, can you explain why you are refusing to answer what you meant by your specific comment?


No. That's why YOU believe the web-sites you post.
I believe a web-site if it offers INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE substantiation of its claims. Reputation and impartiality are pluses.

Have you quoted from ANY web-site that wasn't JUST anti-abortion?


Once again, you attempt to neutralize scientific proof by trivializing it.
You try to diminish what I am quoting and posting, by claiming it is the equivalent of what YOU are doing.

The web-site is quoting OBJECTIVE RESEARCH that was conducted.
Yours makes false claims about non-existent research.

The two situations are nowhere near similar.


Considering God has never made any claims about when the embryo's cardio-vascular system is developed, or when the embryo develops brain-wave patterns, your claim is false.
I believe the research of man over a "non-statement" by God.

And quite frankly, I find it disturbing that people believe in millenia old statements by men who claimed to speak to God, over modern research disproving irrational claims.


Actually, no. I don't.
You keep EXTERNALIZING your issues and your problems onto me, but I am not approaching this in the way you are. I am not approaching this in the way you claim.

I DO NOT CARE when the embryo develops a heart-beat. I DO NOT CARE when the embryo develops brain-wave patterns.
Those are issues YOUR SIDE brought up, with false claims.
All I did was use INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE sources to prove those claims as false.

So you see, when I looked up to see if your claims were accurate, it wouldn't have mattered to me if I had found they were accurate. I would have still believed the INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE sources saying something that agreed with you.

YOU are the one who is doubting based on inconvenience.
Not me sunshine...


Seriously Observer.
The guy who claims unicorns used to exist?
You think they're going to side with you?

Do you get out much?
Do you ever talk to other people in real life about your claims?


Did I already respond to it?
If by "re-quoted it" you mean weeks ago, then I believe I have already "seen" it and responded to it.
If you mean recently, then no.

If you mean weeks ago, I repeated my response recently. I pointed out that YOUR attempted quote demonstrated a STARTING TO FORM time-period, and was NOT the FINISHED FORMING time-period you claimed.
Did you see my response?


How could I possibly delete what YOU RESPONDED with???
I can't delete your posts...


You're trying to equate your religion with science.
Your God never made any claims as to when a baby has a brain-wave pattern.
He never made any claims as to when the baby's heartbeat begins.

That was you.
You are not god...

Your problem pure and simple is that you refuse the truth. We both know the reason why you refuse it. Don't try to place blame on me for my comments about a lifestyle are you obviously proud of...or try to be. What exactly was the comment I made? I've forgotten already as has everyone else...but you. You want to be offended. So....be offended.

You keep talking about "the truth", but you refuse to acknowledge REALITY.
Doctors and research PROVE YOU WRONG regarding your claims on the baby's brain-wave patterns and the heart-beat.

I ask the viewing audience. Don't you find it odd that while I am giving SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of how the experts disagree with Observer, all he does is sit back and claim I don't accept "truth"???

He CANNOT EVEN SAY PRECISELY what he thinks that "truth" is...

Meanwhile, I explain PRECISELY where what he is saying is blatantly false.


ROFLMAO!
And that's another thing.
People can SEE what you wrote.
The fact that you REFUSE to elaborate on your own claims speaks VOLUMES for your willingness to avoid the truth.
You refuse to discuss it because you know you can't. You can't excuse your own statements as anything but what they obviously were.

So keep trying to put that on me.
It's good for a laugh.


You said: "And why should we pay for your hospital care and expensive drugs when you're found with AIDS?"

I simply stated that I was disease free.
I asked why you phrased it "you're found with AIDS"? With NO "if"?

I asked if you were showing prejudice and stereo-typing by assuming that since I was gay, that I was going to get AIDS.
Funny thing is, you never denied it...
And you're fooling yourself if you don't realize that speaks volumes...


"everyone else"?
How many people do you think actually read your crap?
I think you lost even the anti-abortion side when you started talking about how you believed unicorns were real...


It's not an issue of "offense".
To be "offended", I would have to give a crap about your opinion, which I don't.
I'm just showing others what type of person you REALLY are...
THAT is the point of me pointing it out...

Question, how does anyone feel about rape and conception of a child through it?

I have very deep thoughts, but won't give them till I see how others perceive it.