who supports right to choose

[ELENATION 0]

Sorta specifically left out "calling from God" - rather left it as a calling because of your correct assessment above. Not all of the Pro Life movement is religious affiliated, it is however a "perception" of the majority. I've mentioned previously - you see bibles held up to block a planned parenthood - not a science book....So those on the Pro Choice side, see that image - and it's a perception of your belief / "calling" that you want to "inform"/preach/impose" yours views onto others.

Again totally my view on why many vote the way they do - and don't share here on this thread...Got fog brain (cedar fever allergies) so I may not be all there in my thoughts...:cursing:

I'm sorry about your allergies, that sucks! and I hope you get better soon!

Your thought are all there, I understand what you mean, I agree that it's definitely a perception and now I can see what you meant about "calling":thumbup:

[gadgetlady 4]

Someone pointed that particular point out above when they referenced my argument that TommyO wasn't being personally insulting. (I didn't deny that his post was hard-edged.)

I think that people felt so disgusted and insulted by TommyO's first post because they identify with the kind of person that TommyO used to make his point. He wasn't naming names, or pointing fingers at any one person in particular.

BJean, I don't know if you're playing dumb or if you truly don't get this. TommyO was talking to ME, responding to ME, and discussing MY beliefs. He has SPECIFICALLY mentioned ME and MY beliefs, and THIS PARTICULAR belief about Intelligent Design / Creation Science in the past. Even if you didn't know about his past posts, the fact that I was the only one talking on the pro-life side at the time should have been a clue.

Nor is it productive to choose to argue about personalities or to point out grammatical or spelling errors.

Just as now, you are talking about ME. You know darn well that it was ME who pointed out grammatical and spelling errors. I have said that I shouldn't have done it and doing it was petty, but it doesn't change the fact that neither you nor TommyO can be so obviously "vague" about the person to whom you are directing your comments and then turn around and claim it was a generic comment.

[luluc 6]

luluc, I"m afraid you have one more example why people don't share their own stories here. I understood your analogy.

Onof my pet peeves is that sometimes people with differing views jump on a post and take it off in a different direction and run with it, just to make their own point. It may not accurately reflect the original poster's intent.

Someone pointed that particular point out above when they referenced my argument that TommyO wasn't being personally insulting. (I didn't deny that his post was hard-edged.)

I think that people felt so disgusted and insulted by TommyO's first post because they identify with the kind of person that TommyO used to make his point. He wasn't naming names, or pointing fingers at any one person in particular. He was making a generalized statement that you can choose to understand as his way of making a point, or you can choose to take it as a finger poked in your own eye. We all have those choices when we read the posts here.

Nor is it productive to choose to argue about personalities or to point out grammatical or spelling errors. That only comes across as trying to discredit someone because you don't agree with their post.

But ces't la vie. Differences are what make the world go 'round. And they also makes for pretty firey debates here! Whoo-hoo!! :cursing:

I read Tommy O's statements - he speaks very much like my husband & we have very challenging conversations most days, but if he were like me 24/7 I'd be bored and long gone by now. He's a man a few words - but those few are zingers . I have a pet peeve when someone corrects my grammer too - when I"m loaded up on allergy meds...LOL getting loopy now sorry.

I think a lot would join the debate as well if tolerance of opinion of "this" subject...didn't take us down a long history road of other "issues".

BTW - I'm in the minority of friends & family on this subject, but we have such great conversations w/out so much name calling or hurt feelings. I think this debate is far suited over a cup of coffee / or wine (my preference) that over the net where typed words can have the ability to be misconstrued. Did I spell that right???

[luluc 6]

I'm sorry about your allergies, that sucks! and I hope you get better soon!

Your thought are all there, I understand what you mean, I agree that it's definitely a perception and now I can see what you meant about "calling":thumbup:

You'd think 15yrs in TX I'd get this crud under control in the Spring....:cursing:

[BJean 16]

poor luluc. sorry you're having allergies. At least it isn't that awful flu that's been going around!!

[BJean 16]

Oh but gadget, you were not the only person who was participating on the thread who was anti-choice. There had been several others at the time. However he may well have been directing his comments to you specifically. I'm not ignorant of that fact. However I do think that for any of us, getting all defensive and accusatory in response to a post is counter-productive and only serves to incite friction and bad feelings.

But thanks a lot for working so hard to always keep me straightened out. Sometimes it actually works.

[gadgetlady 4]

I have a pet peeve when someone corrects my grammer too

Nobody likes to be corrected. Whenever someone's posting style or grammar is challenged, the sense is that the bigger issue is being ignored. My posting style was challenged just a few days ago, actually . . .

[BJean 16]

And by the way, I prefer to keep names and personalties out of my posts if at all possible. That's why I don't use quoted material all the time above my responses. I try very hard to keep the topic in mind and my own beliefs at the forefront of my posts. luluc's point about the written word is so true.

But what we're talking about here is the differences in style that you and I and others have, gadget. And that's okay, isn't it? I also don't like to provide links to stuff. I have no problem with someone who does, it just isn't my style. It isn't what I find to be important and beneficial to me.

If I mention someone by name, I mean my post to be directed specifically to them and I hope for a response from them. If I do not mention someone by name, I am trying to keep it as impersonal as possible and make my point based on what I am feeling and what I believe and what I have read. At that point, I'm not interested in whether a certain one person may choose to respond to me in a direct, personal way and lodge an opposing viewpoint. I read everyone's posts and if they disagree with me, I try to focus on the debate, not the person. We really don't know each other personally here at LBT.

Now I know that everyone must be sick to death of this little friction that has gone on here and who can blame them? I would like to put all of this behind us and frankly, if it is someone's style to get personal, get accusatory and/or become defensive, I will go back to using my own style, doing my best to not take it personally and I will do my best to stay on topic. :cursing: As Sammy Davis sang, "I gotta be me..."

[luluc 6]

Nobody likes to be corrected. Whenever someone's posting style or grammar is challenged, the sense is that the bigger issue is being ignored. My posting style was challenged just a few days ago, actually . . .

:cursing: sorry, PMS & hubby not around to catch the wrath. I still hate the reposting quotes - and answers underneath..I sometimes type as I speak, and I don't requote to get a point out live time. Long previous life of working from the hip - My dialogue is just that way (most days)...Just a personal preference. Again sorry

[gadgetlady 4]

And by the way, I prefer to keep names and personalties out of my posts if at all possible. That's why I don't use quoted material all the time above my responses. I try very hard to keep the topic in mind and my own beliefs at the forefront of my posts. luluc's point about the written word is so true.

I agree that personalities should be kept out of the mix. The problem arises when the personality is indicted but the name is left out, making the person who posted appear to be neutral when they are in fact being anything but.

But what we're talking about here is the differences in style that you and I and others have, gadget. And that's okay, isn't it?

It is ABSOLUTELY ok. Style is style and shouldn't interfere with the actual valid points of an argument. I think it's just funny that no one jumped to my defense when I was recently challenged on my posting style, yet several have jumped to TommyO's defense.

Anyway, it's neither here nor there at this juncture. I think we've all made our points and should move on.

[StephieNana 0]

My only question is, what does this have to do with LapBand????

My answer would be: I don't think any man has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Men have never been pregnant by their rapists, which by the way, can include family members...therefore, abortion is sometimes a necessary evil.

Would I ever have an abortion? No....I would either keep the baby or put it up for adoption...but I am not God and I have no right to make the decision for another woman.

If we make abortion illegal again, there will be more illegal abortions which can not only kill the child, but also the mother...who may be very young herself. There will also be more babies just dropped off at hospitals, or thrown away in garbage cans....

Okay...I'm done..you got me going now!!! :cursing:

[gadgetlady 4]

abortion is sometimes a necessary evil.

Would I ever have an abortion? No

Why is abortion "evil" and why would you never have one?

[Wheetsin 714]

My only question is, what does this have to do with LapBand????

Nothing. That's the beauty of this forum. It's our OFF TOPIC area. It doesn't have to have anything to o with the lap-band! Woo hoo!!!! :cursing:

[TommyO 5]

Gadget, just to clarify my original post was not directed to you specifically it was directed at anyone who takes the bible as a literal document. So although I can understand that you may have been offended but you are wrong when you say that it was directed specifically towards you. It's interesting how you speak in absolutes on things that you could not possibley know for a certainty. You have said that you know precisely why I post in the manner I do and you have also said that it was certain that I was addressing you. In both cases you are wrong but I gather that you don't play well in the grey, it may be a little scary for you.

My hypothosis would be that you need to know the answers and the idea that things are not always black or white is hard for you to deal with.

Here is a little test, I believe that there is no such thing as God but I know that I cannot prove that. That being said I am willing to admit that there could be a God and I have no problem making such a statement. Are you able to admit that there is a possibility that God does not exist or would the fear of admiting that be to much for you.

Oh and by the way this post is directed at you and for the first time you can now make a definitive statement on that.

I will now take my leave for a week of golf.

TommyO

[gadgetlady 4]

I will now take my leave for a week of golf.

Have a great trip. Hope you can extend your stay for some extra time.