who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

That wasn't even a long story...it made no sense to shorten it

It made sense to me, which is why I did it. When I first read through it I was getting confused with all of the players, with the drug issue, with the Playstation, etc. Since my point, which was solely that the law in Ohio provides for people to be charged with murder if they kill an unborn baby, didn't need all of that information, I cut it out. But I didn't do so without posting a link, saying I had cut stuff, and putting in the ellipses to notate where I cut it.

Sheesh!

The act was done with Evil intent which is murder...an abortion is not murder...that is why he should be charged...

Wait, are you saying that the intent of the mother who aborts is not to kill the baby?

[rodriguezequal 3]

I mean that the an abortion is done, most of the time, without evil intent. Evil intent would make it murder...If you don't agree with it then that is okay because it makes sense to ME...and that's all that matters right

[rodriguezequal 3]

I never said that you didn't post all of the things saying this isnot all of it. I just said I agree when she said that don't expect us to know the whole story if you don't post all of it.

[gadgetlady 4]

I mean that the an abortion is done, most of the time, without evil intent. Evil intent would make it murder.

Is not the mother's wanting the baby to be dead, "evil intent"? After all, that's all a man who kicks his pregnant girlfriend until she miscarries wants.

If you don't agree with it then that is okay because it makes sense to ME...and that's all that matters right

There's a big difference between cutting words out of a story (while providing the reader full notice of what's being done, a way to get the full story, and notation as to where the story was cut) and cutting a baby out of one's body with the intent to kill him or her.

I know you don't know me from Adam and I've been portrayed over and over as "anti-choice", but I am very much a libertarian. I believe people should have the right to choose many, many, many things that are not currently legal, so long as their choice impacts their life only. The place I draw the line is when one person's choice interferes with another person's rights or life.

[gadgetlady 4]

I never said that you didn't post all of the things saying this isnot all of it. I just said I agree when she said that don't expect us to know the whole story if you don't post all of it.

OK, I'll say this one last time. I'll do bullet points so you get it.

• The point of my story was not the circumstances of the story.
  
• A few pages ago, someone said that someone could only be held accountable for killing an unborn baby if the baby was viable.
  
• I responded saying that at least in California, the mother didn't even need to know she was pregnant for the law to be enforced.
  
• I then found another state where the law doesn't require viability for prosecution
  
• I posted excerpts of a story on the subject to cite the current Ohio law.
  

Get it? I don't know these people and it didn't matter to me one whit whether anyone knew their whole story or not (if they wanted to know, they could do a google search and find out everything available on the players); in fact, I'm sure the editor of the paper cut some stuff out, too! The specific details of their particular story were not the point. The point was that the law in Ohio provides for prosecution of someone who kills an unborn baby (except when that person is the baby's mother).

So no, I don't "expect [you] to know the whole story" and my purpose in posting the story was not that "[you] know the whole story." My purpose was to document, through an outside credible source (since all of you always question my credibility), that this particular scenario was also the law in Ohio.

Edited March 3, 2009 by gadgetlady

[gadgetlady 4]

Oh, and as an aside, the charges might range from involuntary manslaughter to aggravated murder. If you drive drunk and kill someone you can get charged for involuntary manslaughter, too, so it doesn't require any particular "evil intent." All it requires is that one person is irresponsible and ends up killing another person (in this case, an unborn baby). "Evil intent" doesn't have to come into play; it can just be plain, "Oops! I killed someone."

[rodriguezequal 3]

I have not ONCE refered to anyone on here as anti choice. I have said pro choice and pro life. Look I am really tired of this battle of words with you. I have my choice...I am entitled to my choice and my choice is that I am pro choice. I have been pro-choice since I was younger and no one is going to change my mind...if someday I decide to change my mind then it will be my choice. I am not saying that what you are saying is wrong or right or that I'm right and you wrong...there is no right or wrong when it is an opinion. Please, I am tired of feeling like I am in a fight. I am not angry, I am not saying anything out of anger. I am not upset at all. Please can we just calm down and talk, not yell at each other or attack individuals, when the things you said above about anti choice and what not had nothing at all to do with me.

[rodriguezequal 3]

OK, I'll say this one last time. I'll do bullet points so you get it.

• The point of my story was not the circumstances of the story.
  
• A few pages ago, someone said that someone could only be held accountable for killing an unborn baby if the baby was viable.
  
• I responded saying that at least in California, the mother didn't even need to know she was pregnant for the law to be enforced.
  
• I then found another state where the law doesn't require viability for prosecution
  
• I posted excerpts of a story on the subject to cite the current Ohio law.
  

Get it? I don't know these people and it didn't matter to me one whit whether anyone knew their whole story or not (if they wanted to know, they could do a google search and find out everything available on the players); in fact, I'm sure the editor of the paper cut some stuff out, too! The specific details of their particular story were not the point. The point was that the law in Ohio provides for prosecution of someone who kills an unborn baby (except when that person is the baby's mother).

So no, I don't "expect [you] to know the whole story" and my purpose in posting the story was not that "[you] know the whole story." My purpose was to document, through an outside credible source (since all of you always question my credibility), that this particular scenario was also the law in Ohio.

Do not talk to me like I am your child. I am an adult. I am not a moron. I wasn't even the person that said anything about your post in the first place. I just happen to agree with a part of something they said. I did not question your credibility. I don't even know why you are coming at me like this when I have done nothing wrong. I have not intentionally tried to make you angry or frustrated! I am all for having an adult conversation and calmly discussing things, but I am not here to have someone talk down to me like I am a F$%&ing idiot. Please don't do it again. I have never talked to you like that I would like it very much if you would be respectful please.

[gadgetlady 4]

I have not ONCE refered to anyone on here as anti choice.

I never said you did. I said I have been portrayed that way.

there is no right or wrong when it is an opinion.

There is right and wrong when a human life is in the balance.

when the things you said above about anti choice and what not had nothing at all to do with me.

I never said it did. I was clarifying for you that I believe very strongly in personal freedom, probably more strongly than most people here, but that this issue is not about "choice" because this particular "choice" has at least one victim.

[rodriguezequal 3]

If you read the entire article (I only put in excerpts), there was more to it than that. It appears there was malicious intent.

The point of my posting it was to cite the laws in that state as not requiring the baby to be viable before murder charges are sought. While charges have not been brought yet in this particular case, the law as it stands in Ohio doesn't require viability for prosecution.

Well then put in the entire article not just portions of it. How do you expect us to know the WHOLE STORY If you only put in portions of it !!! Can we say SPIN ?

Mindy

I agree!!!

This is what I was responding to. When you said well if you would have read the whole artidle.... then I was saying I agree to when Mindy said well them put the entire article not just portions of it. I did not mean I agree that it was a spin...I was just agreeing that you should have posted the whole article if there was more to it.

[*susan* 1,709]

Okay, folks, it is getting a bit too heated in here. Time for everyone to take a break for the night and calm down. Remember, attack the idea, not the person. It would be a shame to see this thread closed down after all this time.

[gadgetlady 4]

Do not talk to me like I am your child. I am an adult. I am not a moron. I wasn't even the person that said anything about your post in the first place. I just happen to agree with a part of something they said. I did not question your credibility. I don't even know why you are coming at me like this when I have done nothing wrong. I have not intentionally tried to make you angry or frustrated! I am all for having an adult conversation and calmly discussing things, but I am not here to have someone talk down to me like I am a F$%&ing idiot. Please don't do it again. I have never talked to you like that I would like it very much if you would be respectful please.

I never said you personally questioned my credibility. I said "all of you" meaning my credibility has been questioned on here a lot by a variety of people.

I was challenged on not posting the whole story, and was accused of spinning something, which was a ridiculous claim because the point I was making didn't need the whole story's details to be made. You agreed with the first poster.

When I explained myself, you challenged me again, saying I should have posted the whole story because it wasn't very long, and how could I expect everyone to know the whole story if I didn't post the whole story? I reiterated that the point was not the story; the point was that there was a law on the books about killing the unborn, and you challenged me yet again. I figured you needed the bullet points to get what I was saying, because I had said it several times already.

Interestingly, you asked me to read you posts more carefully a few days ago. I would ask the same of you.

[gadgetlady 4]

For the record, Susan, I have not been attacking anyone. I've been explaining the same thing over and over again and finally decided to do it in a way that might make more sense (bullet points). If that was taken as an insult, I'm sorry. I didn't see any other way to get my point across, since I'd tried at least three times already.

[gadgetlady 4]

I was just agreeing that you should have posted the whole article if there was more to it.

There's always "more" to a story. But, to me, there's no reason to post useless details and confuse the issue when those details have nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make.

There was no earthly reason for me to post the whole article because my post had nothing to do with the details of the story!!!! It had to do with the fact that Ohio had a law in place to prosecute people who kill unborn babies. I don't understand what I can say differently to make you see the difference.

[gadgetlady 4]

For the record again, I'm truly sorry I've said something that offended you. I was trying in every possible way I knew to help you see the point I was trying to make, but in so doing I'm sorry you took what I said to be a personal attack. I didn't mean it that way and tried to word my posts very carefully so I wasn't being personal.