60K Raised for Planned Parenthood.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I think it's good when nazis get punched.

I worry about the person that punches them though. Sometimes that little stubby Hitler moustache is coarse and the puncher's hand might become abrased.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

PJPOWER

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Always great to see leftists respecting another's right to protest...
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/pro-life-display-destroyed-at-texas-state-universi/

At what point does protesting go too far?

If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?

I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.

At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".

Sure.

He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.

Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.

Hey, I get it, but the road goes both ways is all I'm saying and the only point I'm trying to make. You cannot be intolerant when a group you don't agree with exercises their right to peacefully protest and expect that group to be tolerant of yours. Punching someone in the face or breaking their signs only invites the same behavior towards you.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Always great to see leftists respecting another's right to protest...
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/pro-life-display-destroyed-at-texas-state-universi/

At what point does protesting go too far?

If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?

I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.

At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".

Sure.

He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.

Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.

Hey, I get it, but the road goes both ways is all I'm saying and the only point I'm trying to make. You cannot be intolerant when a group you don't agree with exercises their right to peacefully protest and expect that group to be tolerant of yours. Punching someone in the face or breaking their signs only invites the same behavior towards you.

That behaviour has exhibited itself from the other side of the fence many times, friend (abortion clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, etc.).

And I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding the guy's 'peaceful protest'. His insistence and repeated behaviour was passive aggressive if it wasn't overtly aggressive.

He was getting in people's faces.

PJPOWER

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Always great to see leftists respecting another's right to protest...
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/pro-life-display-destroyed-at-texas-state-universi/

At what point does protesting go too far?

If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?

I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.

At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".

Sure.

He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.

Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.

Hey, I get it, but the road goes both ways is all I'm saying and the only point I'm trying to make. You cannot be intolerant when a group you don't agree with exercises their right to peacefully protest and expect that group to be tolerant of yours. Punching someone in the face or breaking their signs only invites the same behavior towards you.

That behaviour has exhibited itself from the other side of the fence many times, friend (abortion clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, etc.).

And I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding the guy's 'peaceful protest'. His insistence and repeated behaviour was passive aggressive if it wasn't overtly aggressive.

He was getting in people's faces.

I'm trying to understand your logic. So are you saying that the person smashing his shit was justified? So when a group starts waving dildos to protest guns, wound it be justified for someone to become aggressive and start breaking their shit and smash their tables and what not because they found it "too in your face"? Seems awefully hypocritical if not...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

No, I'm not saying it was justified.

You said that 'the road goes both ways' to which I commented on- it certainly does and let's be honest... the pro life side of this debate has the advantage in the 'acting poorly' department. Smashing signs doesn't balance the scales when the oppositional weight is dead doctors and blown up medical facilities.

What I am saying is it was inevitable that someone was going to get agitated with track pants man and respond aggressively given his persistence. It's human nature. If people get pissed off and angry because somebody never signalled to enter the lane in front of them... someone was going to get agitated that some dork was flaunting their holiness and values when such might contradict their own.

The guy who took exception to track pants man's heightened efforts to convince people abortion is wrong should be held accountable for his actions, but I get where he was coming from.

PJPOWER

Well, at least this looks promising! I bet a lot of men and women would be on board with this less invasive form of birth control. Wonder if 60k could be raised to further this technology!
http://www.sciencealert.com/new-type-of-male-contraceptive-not-only-prevents-babies-it-s-completely-reversible

CM189191

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Always great to see leftists respecting another's right to protest...
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/pro-life-display-destroyed-at-texas-state-universi/

At what point does protesting go too far?

If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?

I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.

At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".

Sure.

He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.

Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.

Hey, I get it, but the road goes both ways is all I'm saying and the only point I'm trying to make. You cannot be intolerant when a group you don't agree with exercises their right to peacefully protest and expect that group to be tolerant of yours. Punching someone in the face or breaking their signs only invites the same behavior towards you.

That behaviour has exhibited itself from the other side of the fence many times, friend (abortion clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, etc.).

And I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding the guy's 'peaceful protest'. His insistence and repeated behaviour was passive aggressive if it wasn't overtly aggressive.

He was getting in people's faces.

I'm trying to understand your logic. So are you saying that the person smashing his shit was justified? So when a group starts waving dildos to protest guns, wound it be justified for someone to become aggressive and start breaking their shit and smash their tables and what not because they found it "too in your face"? Seems awefully hypocritical if not...

Justified: yes
Legal: no
That's not necessarily hypocritical

PJPOWER

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Always great to see leftists respecting another's right to protest...
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/pro-life-display-destroyed-at-texas-state-universi/

At what point does protesting go too far?

If those signs become a fixed part of the landscape (there every day like the piece suggested)... is that taking things too far?

I could handle those signs... I don't think I could handle the goofball in the track suit spouting stuff as I walked to class on a daily basis. It would get to me.

At least he is not blocking anyone getting from A to B. If you want free speech, you cannot limit that to only speech that you align with. The protester was legal and peaceful unlike some others that we have been told we should "support because they are exercise their right to protest".

Sure.

He's not physically blocking anyone from getting from A to B. But he's obnoxiously flaunting his values on a daily basis to people who would rather walk to their classes without being annoyed. It's the same thing as people wearing excessive perfume in confined spaces: people have a right to wear perfume, but it can't come at the price of people's senses being overwhelmed.

Show up one day and protest abortions? Sure. Show up every day and expect people to be tolerant? No way.

Hey, I get it, but the road goes both ways is all I'm saying and the only point I'm trying to make. You cannot be intolerant when a group you don't agree with exercises their right to peacefully protest and expect that group to be tolerant of yours. Punching someone in the face or breaking their signs only invites the same behavior towards you.

That behaviour has exhibited itself from the other side of the fence many times, friend (abortion clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, etc.).

And I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding the guy's 'peaceful protest'. His insistence and repeated behaviour was passive aggressive if it wasn't overtly aggressive.

He was getting in people's faces.

I'm trying to understand your logic. So are you saying that the person smashing his shit was justified? So when a group starts waving dildos to protest guns, wound it be justified for someone to become aggressive and start breaking their shit and smash their tables and what not because they found it "too in your face"? Seems awefully hypocritical if not...

Justified: yes
Legal: no
That's not necessarily hypocritical

Whether or not it was socially justified is a matter of opinion, which are like assholes...you know the rest. But I guess you could say he was not "legally justified" in his actions.

drakeheuer14

https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf

So, if I am reading this correctly, it's murder, or a double homicide if a woman was pregnant (no matter the stage of development) unless dealing with abortion..? That makes a lot of sense. At this point its more the consistency of the issue im questioning.

I am tired right now, so if I read it wrong or I am misinterpreting, my bad. Will revisit it later.

PJPOWER

I wonder if parents could opt to have this done to their children until they turned 18 (or whenever the adult chooses to have it reversed). This could be the best form of birth control ever created! Could prevent tons of abortions!
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-type-of-male-contraceptive-not-only-prevents-babies-it-s-completely-reversible

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

I wonder if parents could opt to have this done to their children until they turned 18 (or whenever the adult chooses to have it reversed). This could be the best form of birth control ever created!
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-type-of-male-contraceptive-not-only-prevents-babies-it-s-completely-reversible

I kind of like that idea, can we make it mandatory for all males until 25 years of age? LOL

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

I wonder if parents could opt to have this done to their children until they turned 18 (or whenever the adult chooses to have it reversed). This could be the best form of birth control ever created!
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-type-of-male-contraceptive-not-only-prevents-babies-it-s-completely-reversible

I kind of like that idea, can we make it mandatory for all males until 25 years of age? LOL

That's how long you have to keep the children on your insurance these days, so I don't see why not! Maybe a clause where if they get married or something...Wonder if big pharma will ever let this get through all of the hoops to become publicly available...may be a great investment opportunity.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Require an invasive medical procedure for all males until they reach a certain age?

I'm not so sure of that.

I say education is the best thing we have outside of stronger parenting (making parental decisions that keep kids from situations where boredom and freedom are two contexts they exist in... coupled with ensuring responsible dating happens).

rgambs

I was only joking of course.

PJPOWER

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Require an invasive medical procedure for all males until they reach a certain age?

I'm not so sure of that.

I say education is the best thing we have outside of stronger parenting (making parental decisions that keep kids from situations where boredom and freedom are two contexts they exist in... coupled with ensuring responsible dating happens).

Maybe not require, but give parents the ability to choose to have the procedure done as they are the medical conservator and insurance payer. This could be the least invasive and most reversible and cost effective option out there. You could still encourage condoms and such to prevent STDs. Truth is, though, horny teenagers are going to have sex regardless of how hard you try to "ensure responsible dating".

oftenreading

It is really ethically dicey to make decisions about someone else's reproductive status. If this method eventually becomes commercially available I would hope that teens are given the opportunity to choose it, but no one should be forced to have it, by their parent or anyone else.

And while it looks like it has some promise, keep in mind it's at a very early stage of development. A small animal trial on 16 monkeys is proof of concept but not proof of efficacy and safety in humans. If it doesn't become a reality it almost certainly isn't because "big pharma" is preventing it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Require an invasive medical procedure for all males until they reach a certain age?

I'm not so sure of that.

I say education is the best thing we have outside of stronger parenting (making parental decisions that keep kids from situations where boredom and freedom are two contexts they exist in... coupled with ensuring responsible dating happens).

Maybe not require, but give parents the ability to choose to have the procedure done as they are the medical conservator and insurance payer. This could be the least invasive and most reversible and cost effective option out there. You could still encourage condoms and such to prevent STDs. Truth is, though, horny teenagers are going to have sex regardless of how hard you try to "ensure responsible dating".

They are. I know this. I was one too.

And in the event they should make a mistake, I feel the pregnant teen should be free to make a personal choice whether or not they want to come to full term or terminate the pregnancy.

PJPOWER

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Require an invasive medical procedure for all males until they reach a certain age?

I'm not so sure of that.

I say education is the best thing we have outside of stronger parenting (making parental decisions that keep kids from situations where boredom and freedom are two contexts they exist in... coupled with ensuring responsible dating happens).

Maybe not require, but give parents the ability to choose to have the procedure done as they are the medical conservator and insurance payer. This could be the least invasive and most reversible and cost effective option out there. You could still encourage condoms and such to prevent STDs. Truth is, though, horny teenagers are going to have sex regardless of how hard you try to "ensure responsible dating".

They are. I know this. I was one too.

And in the event they should make a mistake, I feel the pregnant teen should be free to make a personal choice whether or not they want to come to full term or terminate the pregnancy.

Isn't that kind of opposite the point of children having guardians and with it technically being illegal for children under a certain age to have sex to begin with. It does border a lot of ethical/legal guidelines as to the ability for children to make responsible decisions based on their health. I guess the definitions of statutory rape vary depending on jurisdiction, so it would probably be a state matter in the context of law.

oftenreading

I wasn't sure quite where to put this nugget but this thread will work.

Oklahoma proudly calls abortion "murder". Apparently this is nothing new for the state, which already has a law on the books (though it can't be enforced) calling for jail time for women seeking an abortion.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/05/11/oklahoma_s_resolution_calling_abortion_murder_is_an_insult_to_parents_and.html

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oftenreading said:

I wasn't sure quite where to put this nugget but this thread will work.

Oklahoma proudly calls abortion "murder". Apparently this is nothing new for the state, which already has a law on the books (though it can't be enforced) calling for jail time for women seeking an abortion.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/05/11/oklahoma_s_resolution_calling_abortion_murder_is_an_insult_to_parents_and.html

“I understand that they feel like that is their body,” he said of pregnant women. “I feel like it is a separate—what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant.”

Idiotic.