Obama wants to use your tax dollars for elective abortions

[epicSocialism4tw]

The swindlecare push is about to slam into the Catholic Church.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091120/D9C39JS81.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/cartoon-bachmann-sex-clinics1.gif

[epicSocialism4tw]

This is what you are advocating.

You will line up and view gory movies like Saving Private Ryan or "Saw", but stuff like this is too hard for you to look at. Why? Because you know that its horrible.

YOU are advocating this in our country.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uCfcGNDxeVc/R8rLG3tHBPI/AAAAAAAAAN8/nLuvk20nllU/s400/partial+birth+abortion.bmp

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Shall we post an assortment of photos of mutilated and dead Iraqi children to illustrate what McDramaQueen is advocating?

Nah - that's different, right?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You will line up and view gory movies like Saving Private Ryan or "Saw"....

Never have.

Never will.

But have fun knocking down all those kooky straw men.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Never have.

Never will.

But have fun knocking down all those kooky straw men.

You advocate abortion.

You have culpability in this. You are guilty.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I advocated Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq..

I have culpability in this. I am guilty.

Fixed. :thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Republicans Are Not So Funny After All
<!-- begin content -->
by William Rivers Pitt (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/user/william_rivers_pitt) | November 20, 2009 - 11:11am <hr><script>reddit_title=Republicans Are Not So Funny After All</script> <script language="javascript" src="http://reddit.com/button.js?t=1"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> digg_skin='compact'; </script> <script src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script>function fbs_click() {u=location.href;t=document.title;window.open('htt p://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(u)+'&t='+encodeURIComponent(t),'sharer','toolbar=0,stat us=0,width=626,height=436');return false;}</script><style> html .fb_share_button { display: -moz-inline-block; display:inline-block; padding:1px 20px 0 5px; height:15px; border:1px solid #d8dfea; background:url(http://b.static.ak.fbcdn.net/images/share/facebook_share_icon.gif?7:26981) no-repeat top right; } html .fb_share_button:hover { color:#fff; border-color:#295582; background:#3b5998 url(http://b.static.ak.fbcdn.net/images/share/facebook_share_icon.gif?7:26981) no-repeat top right; text-decoration:none; } </style> <!-- <script type="text/javascript"> tweetmeme_style = 'compact'; </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://tweetmeme.com/i/scripts/button.js"></script> --><hr>
I've been writing roughly once a week for months now about the insane circus that is today's Republican Party, mostly to make fun of them. It's difficult to do otherwise; how does one write seriously about people like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and GOP Chairman Michael Steele? Try it sometime: failure is all but guaranteed.
Our most recent example of this phenomenon: Sarah Palin, again. The former Alaska governor and terminal dead weight around Campaign McCain went on with Barbara Walters to push her new book and covered herself in whatever the opposite of glory is. One topic she addressed was the recent cover of Newsweek (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/17/art.newsweek.gi.jpg) featuring her wearing a tight red shirt and short-shorts that showed lots of leg. "I found it a wee bit degrading," she said of the cover, which makes you wonder why she chose to pose for it looking like something out of a James Bond scuba-diving scene. You'd also wonder why she had more trouble with the picture than with the giant block-lettered headline that read, "HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE SARAH? SHE'S BAD NEWS FOR THE GOP - AND FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, TOO," but then you'd remember that logic does not apply on Planet Teabag, and move on down the road.

See what I mean? Making fun of these people is like shooting very large fish in a very small barrel. You just can't miss.

The problem, however, is that people like Palin stopped being funny a while ago. The prominence they enjoy in our political discourse is so far out of whack with their abilities and intentions that it vastly exaggerates their influence over a variety of very serious matters that affect each and every one of us. The British have the Monster Raving Loony Party, who are a joke and exert no real influence, and we have the Republican Party, filled with monster raving loonies who exert a tremendous amount of influence because the news media thinks we are a nation of people who like to look at car accidents on the highway, which, by and large, we are. We've been well-trained by 20 years of shock television to mistake clowns and jesters for serious people, and because of that mistake, these people's deranged opinions and deformed ideas get taken seriously.
The recent victories in Virginia and New Jersey cannot mask the fact that the Republican Party is in deep distress. The so-called "Teabaggers," organized by the likes of Glenn Beck around spurious claims that Obama is a noncitizen socialist who wants to kill your grandmother - and really, that's it for them, in a nutshell ... plus, he's black, but don't tell them that, because it gets them upset - are now the most muscular and active bloc of the GOP. They just made a run at the NY-23 House seat and managed to derail a Republican candidate they deemed too liberal. They are preparing to make a run (http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/16/frum.gop.florida.crist.rubio.battle/index.html) at Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's 2010 Senate campaign, because he accepted Obama's stimulus money to keep his state from sliding into the sea, and has been tagged by the 'Baggers as not being enough of a true conservative. Smart money says the 'Baggers won't limit themselves to Florida and New York, either; they smell blood in the water, and are swimming straight for it.

In the short run, this kind of intra-party warfare does nothing but help the Democrats in 2010, especially if the 'Baggers keep knocking off viable Republicans in the primaries and handing victories to Democrats, which is precisely what happened in the NY-23 race. But then what happens? If the far right manages to completely take over the GOP, then the lunatics will finally be in complete control of the asylum. They will get coverage on every major news network, and they will be mistaken for serious people who should be listened to because, well, they're on television, right?

Internet society, as it grew, spawned something that came to be known as Godwin's Law (http://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html). Basically, the Law dictates that the longer a discussion grows, the more likely it is that someone will make some sort of comparison or association to Hitler, the Nazis and fascism. It also states that whoever uses these to buttress an argument automatically loses that argument. Ergo, caution must be taken when discussing the Teabagger phenomenon, because they absolutely beg to be compared to Brownshirts and angry, brainwashed crowds with arms extended in grainy pre-war film footage. We aren't there yet, not by a long chalk, but there are far too many examples in history of groups once considered comical becoming powerful over time, and the results have never been pretty. We are not even a year removed from two presidential terms where these exact people represented the ideological core of the government, and the damage they wreaked will take generations to undo.
As digby recently noted (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-if-they-dont-by-digby-everyone.html) on the excellent Hullabaloo blog, "I'm not saying that we should panic. These people are politically weak in their own right. But when I see the liberal gasbags on TV blithely dismissing this as if it's impossible that Americans could ever fall for such lunacy, I feel a little frisson of alarm. I've read too many accounts of people who, 80 or so years ago, complacently made the same assumption. And the whole world found out that under the right circumstances even the most civilized nations can throw in with the crazies."

These people have been dangerous before, all too often, and have the capacity to be dangerous again. If any additional evidence of this is required, look no further than the rally in Washington, DC, being planned by Gary Cass of something called the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission against the new legislation President Obama recently signed to bolster anti-gay hate crime laws. The rally organizers intend to (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/will-cass-call-violence-protest-hate-crimes-protections) denounce the new law, and then protest it ... by inciting the crowd to commit hate crimes against gay people.

Beyond that are the bumper stickers (http://shop.cafepress.com/pray-for-obama) that have become all the rage, pardon the pun, on the Teabagger circuit. They seem harmless enough; a two-tiered message reads "Pray for Obama" on top, with "Psalm 109:8" below.

Psalm 109:8 reads:
May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.
Psalm 109:9 reads:
May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.

No, not so funny after all.

[Florida_Bronco]

Another swing and a miss for the DramaLlama

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Another swing and a miss for the DramaLlama

No wonder he's still playing for Team Sarah - that's the only team that will have him. Ha!

[Florida_Bronco]

No wonder he's still playing for Team Sarah - that's the only team that will have him. Ha!

How sad is that?

Really...think about that for a second. It's pathetic. It almost makes me feel bad for the poor guy.

....almost.

:approve:

[JJJ]

You guys kill yourselves as the self-posted smilies attest to.

And typically you avoided his challenge that you are cupable by redirecting the challenge to some other non-related issue.

But I would guess he has no problem signing up for responsibility for Iraq. Our actions have and will save lots of lives there. Unlike Hillary and many other Democrats who voted to start the war but didn't have the guts to finish it I think he can see more lives will be saved in the long run than have been lost in Iraq.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You guys kill yourselves as the self-posted smilies attest to.

No need - we have folks like you and your girl Sarah to do it for us. Ha!

And typically you avoided his challenge that you are cupable by redirecting the challenge to some other non-related issue.

"Challenge?"

If, by "challenge," you mean "trying to convince a fundamentalist loon that abortion isn't inherently wrong (or right) independent of the circumstances and that such matters should be between a woman and her doctor," then I guess you got me on that one. :laugh:

But I would guess he has no problem signing up for responsibility for Iraq. Our actions have and will save lots of lives there.

:crazy:

Now that's some scary Orwellian double-speak.

In reality, our action in Iraq have resulted in the deaths of ~a million Iraqis, transformed the country into a cauldron of violence, and reduced the infrastructure to shambles.


Unlike Hillary and many other Democrats who voted to start the war but didn't have the guts to finish it...

Hillary and those Dems didn't "vote to start the war" - they voted to give the court-appointed pinhead the authorization to use force in apprehending the people who supposedly attacked us on 9/11.


I think he can see more lives will be saved in the long run than have been lost in Iraq.

In the "long run?"

That would have to be an extremely distant future you're talking about.

In any event, it's funny to watch right-wingers and their idols Bush, Cheney, et al, constantly change their rationale for invading and occupying a country that didn't attack us and was not a threat to us. :laugh:

[JJJ]

In reality, our action in Iraq have resulted in the deaths of ~a million Iraqis, transformed the country into a cauldron of violence, and reduced the infrastructure to shambles.



Hillary and those Dems didn't "vote to start the war" - they voted to give the court-appointed pinhead the authorization to use force in apprehending the people who supposedly attacked us on 9/11.

:


Now I know just how delusional you really are.

News flash, Iraq was quite a violent place before we got there.

And you are totally 100% wrong on the vote part. There was a vote to clearly authorize the use of force specifically in Iraq and Hillary voted for it. Biden too.

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

[epicSocialism4tw]

You guys kill yourselves as the self-posted smilies attest to.

And typically you avoided his challenge that you are cupable by redirecting the challenge to some other non-related issue.

But I would guess he has no problem signing up for responsibility for Iraq. Our actions have and will save lots of lives there. Unlike Hillary and many other Democrats who voted to start the war but didn't have the guts to finish it I think he can see more lives will be saved in the long run than have been lost in Iraq.

Oh, its inevitable that cowards like Florida Bronco and the local communist propagandist LABF avoid an issue that they know they have no chance at even presenting a sound apololgy against.

They are dead in the water on this issue on all counts and they know it, and so...more spin and more diversion. Sorry, Democrat shills. Diversion doesnt do it for you anymore. Your party is under the microscope...and they more than deserve to be.

Does any American really want their tax dollars to pay for abortion? Even many of the ethically and morally bankrupt individuals that think abortion is somehow socially and legally acceptable cannot come up with a good argument for why Joe Citizen should pay the bill for such atrocities.

In a time when people's purse strings are getting tighter and tighter, Obama wants to reach in and pull your money away from you so that someone can elect to have an abortion?

Abortion is a purely elective procedure. It is only in rare cases that the mother is in physical jeopardy by these circumstances. Most abortions are performed by election, as a non-necessary elective procedure. In a similar, but more even vain way to something like plastic surgery or permanent makeup.

Secondly, I would argue that simply requiring a morally opposed individual to contribute tax money to such a thing is violating the first amendment, as it prevents a person from practicing their religion by forcing them to commit an act (paying for the murder of a child) that could separate them from God within the framework of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

[cutthemdown]

Well abortions are probably cheaper then a bunch of welfare babies so it's not about, IMO, what is more expensive.

It's about tax money being used for something people are against. I imagine it makes religious conservatives as angry and when liberals tax money goes for wars they don't believe in.

It's a 2 way street and the liberals have a right to push there agenda. Whether or not Americans fall in love with these policies is the real question.

Fortunately we have some elections coming up. Americans will either say we love the direction the liberals are going, or they will say maybe the dems have too much power and you will see some repubs gain some seats.

Really though isn't this why we love to follow politics? It's not about really what happens, but how it happens that is so interesting.

I mean they basically gave the Senator from LA a ton of money to vote for the bill, LOL!!!. I mean in any other biz that would be bribery!!!! It's quite a system we have built, very fun to watch unfold IMO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Now I know just how delusional you really are.

News flash, Iraq was quite a violent place before we got there.

And you are totally 100% wrong on the vote part. There was a vote to clearly authorize the use of force specifically in Iraq and Hillary voted for it. Biden too.

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

I think you missed my point, i.e., that they voted under the pretext (provided by BushCo's trumped-up "intelligence") that Iraq had WMD, (remember "mushroom clouds," anyone?) was a threat to national security, had ties to al Qaeda, 9/11, etc.

And please don't try that same old neocon canard about the Congress having access to the same intel as the president, etc.

[atomicbloke]

Secondly, I would argue that simply requiring a morally opposed individual to contribute tax money to such a thing is violating the first amendment, as it prevents a person from practicing their religion by forcing them to commit an act (paying for the murder of a child) that could separate them from God within the framework of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Jesus Christ dude... you are getting loonier by the minute....

By your logic I can argue that spending my tax dollars to kill civilians in Iraq is violating my first amendment...

I also find your moral compass very intriguing.... killing civilians residing in countries that are our political enemies is a sign of patriotism, but a woman choosing what to do with her own body is a murderous crime on humanity??

You guys always talk about how the government should stay out of people's lives but it is fine for the government to tell a woman what she should do with her body?....

I have never understood why America is the only first world country in the world where abortion is suddenly an issue? When the hell did we become the shining light of moral enlightenment for humanity?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh, its inevitable that cowards like Florida Bronco and the local communist propagandist LABF....

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

Still the ostrich who files all inconvenient truths under "propaganda," eh?


....avoid an issue that they know they have no chance at even presenting a sound apololgy against.


ROFL!

I know sixth graders who can spot the flaws in your absolutist "apologies" for outlawing abortion.

But that's what makes you one of the finest minds of the 12th century. Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Jesus Christ dude... you are getting loonier by the minute....



:yep: Ha!

For his next act, he'll explain how ACORN stole the election.

[atomicbloke]

:yep: Ha!

For his next act, he'll explain how ACORN stole the election.

I am waiting for the moment when he will claim that the whole body of scientific knowledge is an elaborate global conspiracy to discredit the bible...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I am waiting for the moment when he will claim that the whole body of scientific knowledge is an elaborate global conspiracy to discredit the bible...

Global socialist conspiracy. ;)

[cutthemdown]

Who even cares about Iraq anymore? Is it even a big issue? We are pulling out for the most part right?

The issues now are
1-Afghanistan stay or leave?
2-Healthcare public option or not?
3-Cap and trade-will they still try to pass the energy bill
4-Strength of dollar- How much spending before it crushes it
5-Unemployment- When will it start to go down

With states eating through stimulus money to pay unemployment what happens when that runs out? Will Obama let unemployment skyrocket? Or will he spend more and let dollar fall.

If he does end up bringing home troops and decides to not police world as much, do we keep rank and file numbers so high? Or do you cut enlistment adding to even more unemployment.

Obama has some tough things to figure out.

[cutthemdown]

Jesus Christ dude... you are getting loonier by the minute....

By your logic I can argue that spending my tax dollars to kill civilians in Iraq is violating my first amendment...

I also find your moral compass very intriguing.... killing civilians residing in countries that are our political enemies is a sign of patriotism, but a woman choosing what to do with her own body is a murderous crime on humanity??

You guys always talk about how the government should stay out of people's lives but it is fine for the government to tell a woman what she should do with her body?....

I have never understood why America is the only first world country in the world where abortion is suddenly an issue? When the hell did we become the shining light of moral enlightenment for humanity?

You think its not an issue in Brazil, Italy, other catholic majority countries?

[cutthemdown]

I agree though with the left. Making abortions illegal would just add to more uncared for babies and crappy parents. It creates an underground abortion world that frankly I am unwilling to stomach.

I do agree though that if a woman has more then 1 abortion, then maybe to get it paid for she has to sign a waiver that she also gets her tubes tied or something. Not forced. Just you either agree to that, or you pay for it yourself etc.

I think anyone can agree that 1 abortion because you made a mistake, not ready for a kid, whatever should be made available to women. You can't force a women to carry a child and raise it. But when they come in for 2, 3 that is just not right and those women should no longer be allowed to carry children.

I also don't have a problem with dead beat dads being fixed as well. If you can't pay for the ones you have, how can we support them having more. It's simple you say either you go to prison for being a deadbeat dad, or you can have probation and a snip snip.

[cutthemdown]

I can say for sure abortion a huge issue with Italian women. I know from experience. So this just isn't an American issue like some have pointed out.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who even cares about Iraq anymore?

Um, those of us who have friends and/or family members serving there?

[baja]

Who even cares about Iraq anymore? Is it even a big issue? We are pulling out for the most part right?



I thought you told us we sacrificed American lives and a trillion dollars because we cared, we were liberators you said. Now we don't care? What changed?

[atomicbloke]

I can say for sure abortion a huge issue with Italian women. I know from experience. So this just isn't an American issue like some have pointed out.

What I meant is that its not a huge political issue....

It might be an important secondary issue, but a politician's career cannot be made or broken by his stance on abortion.... like in America...

[Mr.Meanie]

I agree though with the left. Making abortions illegal would just add to more uncared for babies and crappy parents. It creates an underground abortion world that frankly I am unwilling to stomach.

I do agree though that if a woman has more then 1 abortion, then maybe to get it paid for she has to sign a waiver that she also gets her tubes tied or something. Not forced. Just you either agree to that, or you pay for it yourself etc.

I think anyone can agree that 1 abortion because you made a mistake, not ready for a kid, whatever should be made available to women. You can't force a women to carry a child and raise it. But when they come in for 2, 3 that is just not right and those women should no longer be allowed to carry children.

I also don't have a problem with dead beat dads being fixed as well. If you can't pay for the ones you have, how can we support them having more. It's simple you say either you go to prison for being a deadbeat dad, or you can have probation and a snip snip.

Very reasonable. It's nice to see at least a few remaining people who won't allow ideology to blot out any shred of reasonability.

[Dukes]

I fully support abortions of liberal parents. The fewer little lefties we have running around the better.

[rastaman]

This is what you are advocating.

You will line up and view gory movies like Saving Private Ryan or "Saw", but stuff like this is too hard for you to look at. Why? Because you know that its horrible.

YOU are advocating this in our country.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uCfcGNDxeVc/R8rLG3tHBPI/AAAAAAAAAN8/nLuvk20nllU/s400/partial+birth+abortion.bmp

Gee McSkillet, I wonder how many pictures there are out there of all the Iragi infants and young children killed by U.S. bombs manufactured by our Military Industrialized Complex and enabled by America's Corporate Defense Contractors of Death and Destructions!

You aren't guilty of foolishly believing that there's a difference of death btwn aborted fetuses and infants and children killed by American smart bombs and imperialism!

Last time I checked.....death is death. Seems like the warmongers in America who advocate for the need of a tax rip of to pay $600-800 billion (that we know of) to justify the existence of the Merchant of Death Arms industry......sure have alot of blood on their hands!

Yet for some reason we hear no complaints from you and your ilk! Why is this so????

[atomicbloke]

Last time I checked.....death is death. Seems like the warmongers in America who advocate for the need of a tax rip of to pay $600-800 billion (that we know of) to justify the existence of the Merchant of Death Arms industry......sure have alot of blood on their hands!

Yet for some reason we hear no complaints from you and your ilk! Why is this so????

Because that's called being patriotic....

[Dukes]

Gee McSkillet, I wonder how many pictures there are out there of all the Iragi infants and young children killed by U.S. bombs manufactured by our Military Industrialized Complex and enabled by America's Corporate Defense Contractors of Death and Destructions!

You aren't guilty of foolishly believing that there's a difference of death btwn aborted fetuses and infants and children killed by American smart bombs and imperialism!

Last time I checked.....death is death. Seems like the warmongers in America who advocate for the need of a tax rip of to pay $600-800 billion (that we know of) to justify the existence of the Merchant of Death Arms industry......sure have alot of blood on their hands!

Yet for some reason we hear no complaints from you and your ilk! Why is this so????

I wouldn't expect someone like you to see the difference between collateral damage and killing out of inconvienence.

[SJ Bronco]

This is what you are advocating.

You will line up and view gory movies like Saving Private Ryan or "Saw", but stuff like this is too hard for you to look at. Why? Because you know that its horrible.

YOU are advocating this in our country.


You crossed the line here...just so you know

[SJ Bronco]

I wouldn't expect someone like you to see the difference between collateral damage and killing out of inconvienence.

"Collateral damage" is just a way to excuse murder..

[Dukes]

"Collateral damage" is just a way to excuse murder..

IMO you still can't compare the two.

[atomicbloke]

I wouldn't expect someone like you to see the difference between collateral damage and killing out of inconvienence.

If you truly believe abortion is killing, then by your logic even masturbating is murder....

[SJ Bronco]

IMO you still can't compare the two.

In my opinion they are one in the same. You killed an innocent life for your own selfish gain. Your saying that a dead Iraq citizen is worth less than an unborn American baby?

[Dukes]

If you truly believe abortion is killing, then by your logic even masturbating is murder....

What is abortion to you then if it's not killing?

[rastaman]

I wouldn't expect someone like you to see the difference between collateral damage and killing out of inconvienence.

Dukes nothing surprising coming from a "Cherry Picking" irrationalist such as yourself! Attempting to cherry pick what justifies death is absolutely down right hilarious if not sad.

[rastaman]

What is abortion to you then if it's not killing?

Why is it so difficult for anti-abortionist such as you and your ilk to come to a full understanding that nothing in life is promised! Fetuses are aborted b/c they are not wanted!

I don't see all the anti-abortionist lining up to adopt all those un-wanted fetuses before they are aborted. Why is that? Shouldn't all the anti-abortionist adopt all those fetuses they claim to love and care about?????

Oh the irony???8')

[atomicbloke]

What is abortion to you then if it's not killing?

You can kill something only after it is born...

No amount of your bible thumping is going to change it....

By your logic, even taking morning after emergency pills would be killing....

[Dukes]

You can kill something only after it is born...

No amount of your bible thumping is going to change it....

By your logic, even taking morning after emergency pills would be killing....

A fetus that can survive outiside the womb is not alive, therefore cannot be killed. Got it.

[Dukes]

Fetuses are aborted b/c they are not wanted!

Hilarious! Only you could treat a human being like a used peice of trash.

[rastaman]

A fetus that can survive outiside the womb is not alive, therefore cannot be killed. Got it.

Pleeeez get off your Anti-Abortionist treadmill of futility you are are really wasting your time.....it all comes down to freedom of choice. Just be thankful you weren't aborted and move on.:sunshine:

[atomicbloke]

A fetus that can survive outiside the womb is not alive, therefore cannot be killed. Got it.

Fetuses can survive only in precision controlled environments....

By that logic, even sperms can survive through artificial insemination... so as I said earlier, even masturbating should be considered killing and immoral...

[rastaman]

Hilarious! Only you could treat a human being like a used peice of trash.

Too bad smart bombs and collateral damage don't know what they're doing to the human race!:wiggle:

But those Republican funding-voting individuals who have careers within the Military Industrialize Complex & Weapons Procurements Industry sure enjoy treating human beings like pieces of trash just so long as their political agendas and stock profits reign supreme!!!:thumbsup:

[Hogan11]

If you truly believe abortion is killing, then by your logic even masturbating is murder....

Just think....whole civilizations get rubbed out into tissues everyday.

[rastaman]

Just think....whole civilizations get rubbed out into tissues everyday.

Don't forget shaking up DIET Coke-A-Cola in bottles to go after and destroy all those little unwanted pesky sperm-a-zoids before they penetrated the egg!!!Hilarious!

Whoever would have "Thunked" that Pepsi and Coke were/used for snuffing out unwanted pregnancies!!!:~ohyah!:

Will the Anti-Abortionist try and outlaw Coca-Cola......next!:giggle:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Jesus Christ dude... you are getting loonier by the minute....

By your logic I can argue that spending my tax dollars to kill civilians in Iraq is violating my first amendment...

I also find your moral compass very intriguing.... killing civilians residing in countries that are our political enemies is a sign of patriotism, but a woman choosing what to do with her own body is a murderous crime on humanity??

You guys always talk about how the government should stay out of people's lives but it is fine for the government to tell a woman what she should do with her body?....

I have never understood why America is the only first world country in the world where abortion is suddenly an issue? When the hell did we become the shining light of moral enlightenment for humanity?

You are philosophically blind, deaf, and dumb.

Your problem is that you dont understand in the least the real issue at hand. You attribute the controversy to some nebulus movement bereft of cause, and it boils down to the liberal simpleton's misunderstanding of womens' rights.

Ironically, the individuals that constitute the pro-life movement arent stupid enough to have been duped into believing the idea that liberals have propagated...that a human isnt a human until it passes from the uterus into the environment, which is an absolutely ludicrous, nonsensical, illogical, non-scientific idea.

The pro-life argument IS A PRO-HUMAN RIGHTS ARGUMENT!

Wake up to the reality. Pull your head out.

[atomicbloke]

You are philosophically blind, deaf, and dumb.

Your problem is that you dont understand in the least the real issue at hand. You attribute the controversy to some nebulus movement bereft of cause, and it boils down to the liberal simpleton's misunderstanding of womens' rights.

Ironically, the individuals that constitute the pro-life movement arent stupid enough to have been duped into believing the idea that liberals have propagated...that a human isnt a human until it passes from the uterus into the environment, which is an absolutely ludicrous, nonsensical, illogical, non-scientific idea.

The pro-life argument IS A PRO-HUMAN RIGHTS ARGUMENT!

Wake up to the reality. Pull your head out.

You are without doubt one of the looniest posters on the mane... sad to say.

You talk about being scientific, yet offer no explanation as to why an unborn fetus is considered a human, and by that logic why aren't sperms considered humans too.

You speak of real issues, yet you haven't shown even a basic understanding of any logic or facts in this post....

All you are trying to be is the internet stud debater by making crazy illogical and ideological rants...

At least many other conservative posters can make sound and logical posts on the Mane.... I don't agree with the politics of cutthemdown and his ilk, but at least I can respect their posts since they have some rational analysis and well thought out arguements....

Unfortunately, unless it comes to soccer, I have not noticed any such well constructed and well thought out analysis in any of your posts.... which leads me to think you are either trolling for fun and deliberately making lunatic statements to get a reaction from people.... or you should be in an institution....

You are following TexanBob and broncofan7 in to my ignore list.... I'll only read your posts in a soccer thread....

hope you rejoice in your joke or in your sense of enlightenment, whichever it is....

[mhgaffney]

McSkillet,

Opinions are as common as A-holes. Every one has one.

The fact is that the soul does not enter the fetus until the third trimester. Ergo - despite what the Catholic Church says -- abortion in the first trimester is NOT murder.

The fetus is not a human being until the soul enters.

As I showed in my book about Gnostic Christianity -- the Catholic Church abandoned the teaching of Jesus regarding the nature of the soul. Jesus - like Plato - taught that the soul is immortal. The Church went a different way - claimed that the soul is created along with the body at conception. Total BS.

In fact the church's cockamamy theory of the soul has absolutely zero scriptural support.

The Church is the problem. You don't strengthen your case by citing Church doctrine. That doctrine is dubious.
MHG

www.gnosticsecrets.com

[epicSocialism4tw]

You are without doubt one of the looniest posters on the mane... sad to say.

You talk about being scientific, yet offer no explanation as to why an unborn fetus is considered a human, and by that logic why aren't sperms considered humans too.

You speak of real issues, yet you haven't shown even a basic understanding of any logic or facts in this post....

All you are trying to be is the internet stud debater by making crazy illogical and ideological rants...

At least many other conservative posters can make sound and logical posts on the Mane.... I don't agree with the politics of cutthemdown and his ilk, but at least I can respect their posts since they have some rational analysis and well thought out arguements....

Unfortunately, unless it comes to soccer, I have not noticed any such well constructed and well thought out analysis in any of your posts.... which leads me to think you are either trolling for fun and deliberately making lunatic statements to get a reaction from people.... or you should be in an institution....

You are following TexanBob and broncofan7 in to my ignore list.... I'll only read your posts in a soccer thread....

hope you rejoice in your joke or in your sense of enlightenment, whichever it is....

LOL

Its not my job to educate you on the issues.

I have extensive argumentation on this website regarding this issue. There's a search feature if you like, or if you would like to become more familiar with the issue you could refer to modern ethical philosophy and epistemology with a strong dose of basic developmental biology.

You have as much faith in your presupposition that an unborn child is not a human (which borders on insane), as I have in my idea that an unborn child is in fact a human. Being human in this country ascribes to you certain unalienable rights implicit in the charter document of this country.

Prove to me that a child in utero is not human. Lets see it.

[mhgaffney]

As I stated -- the fetus is not a human being until the soul enters. That happens in the third trimester.

[Mr.Meanie]

This thread is heading toward that predictible messageboard abortion argument circus. I predict 30 pages of insults, trying to prove when life begins, meltdowns, references to Hitler, some more insults, and then everyone abandons this thread with their previous views even more firmly entrenched.

[SJ Bronco]

This thread is heading toward that predictible messageboard abortion argument circus. I predict 30 pages of insults, trying to prove when life begins, meltdowns, references to Hitler, some more insults, and then everyone abandons this thread with their previous views even more firmly entrenched.

You just described every thread on this and every message board about anything from abortion to Jay Cutler...;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You talk about being scientific, yet offer no explanation as to why an unborn fetus is considered a human, and by that logic why aren't sperms considered humans too.


^ This.

By AngryDramaQueen's Kool-Aid-tainted logic, I'm committing murder every time I choke my chicken. :D

[epicSocialism4tw]

This thread is heading toward that predictible messageboard abortion argument circus. I predict 30 pages of insults, trying to prove when life begins, meltdowns, references to Hitler, some more insults, and then everyone abandons this thread with their previous views even more firmly entrenched.

:rofl:

[epicSocialism4tw]

You just described every thread on this and every message board about anything from abortion to Jay Cutler...;D

:rofl:

That's probably the most truth revealed on this thread. :thumbs:

[Rohirrim]

^ This.

By AngryDramaQueen's Kool-Aid-tainted logic, I'm committing murder every time I choke my chicken. :D

You'll go blind.

[gyldenlove]

Nothing positive will come of this.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The silence of the llamas...

RNC health insurance plan covers abortions <hr style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> By CHRISTINE SIMMONS (AP) – Nov 12, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Republican National Committee's health insurance plan covers elective abortions for its employees, an option Republicans strongly oppose in health overhaul legislation that Democrats are trying to push through Congress.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele learned of the policy's abortion coverage Thursday through a news report and immediately instructed staff to inform the insurance carrier that the RNC wanted to opt out of elective abortion coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Gitcho said the policy has been in effect since 1991.

A memo earlier from RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay to the organization's members said Steele was taking the issue very seriously and "has been engaged by phone on this issue."

The GOP platform traditionally includes strong anti-abortion language. All House Republicans, except one, voted for an amendment imposing restrictions of coverage for abortions in the health care bill that passed the House last Saturday. Inclusion of the abortion restrictions prompted an angry backlash from liberal House Democrats, and some are now threatening to vote against a final bill if the curbs stay in.

The memo said the RNC received a phone call from a reporter on Wednesday asking whether the RNC's health care policy, through Cigna, covered elective abortions for employees. On Thursday, Politico.com published a report citing two sales agents for Cigna who said the RNC's policy covered elective abortion.

The Cigna employees said the RNC didn't choose to opt out of abortion coverage when given the opportunity, Politico.com reported.

"Upon learning of this story, at the chairman's direction, we immediately contacted the Executive Committee," the RNC memo said. "We will be scheduling a call with the Executive Committee in the immediate future to discuss this matter more fully."

The memo said the RNC health insurance policy has been in review for some time.

"Chairman Steele had already called for an official review of our health insurance policy along with a number of other operational items," the memo said.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...qLYRwD9BUE6V00 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkWWFIEXgAtpUcUXCugfHS1qLYRwD9BUE6V00)

[SleepingTiger]

If you truly believe abortion is killing, then by your logic even masturbating is murder....

LOL... are u serious? since when does a sperm by itself develope and become a human?

[Bronx33]

Nothing positive will come of this.


This should have been obamas campaign slogan.

[Dukes]

This should have been obamas campaign slogan.

See. He wasn't lying with his "change" campaign

[barryr]

The left are so pathetic with their desire for abortions left and right and belief that a baby isn't a human being until it comes out.

Why they are the sick bastards who ok partial birth abortions since they convince themselves it's not murder if they keep the head in the womb and make it be born feet first so they can suck the brains out while the head is in the womb so technically can say it hasn't been born yet since the head never came out until it was dead, so it's not murder. Sick ****ers!

[cutthemdown]

You can kill something only after it is born...

No amount of your bible thumping is going to change it....

By your logic, even taking morning after emergency pills would be killing....

If that is true then how come you can get charged for murder if you kill an unborn child? There are people in prison right now for murder where the mom lived but her unborn baby died. You do agree that if you kick a women in the stomach and she loses her baby you are guilty of murder don't you?

Or maybe you don't. In your opinion whatever goo came out from the kick would be no different then my nose bleeding after getting socked in it right?

[SJ Bronco]

This should have been obamas campaign slogan.

Damn that hurts...but there is a whole lotta truth here

[JJJ]

If that is true then how come you can get charged for murder if you kill an unborn child? There are people in prison right now for murder where the mom lived but her unborn baby died. You do agree that if you kick a women in the stomach and she loses her baby you are guilty of murder don't you?

Or maybe you don't. In your opinion whatever goo came out from the kick would be no different then my nose bleeding after getting socked in it right?

And this is exactly the point. When precisely a fetus becomes a human is a senseless debate. The fact remains unless you take actions to stop it will naturally evolve into a baby. We need to protect that future human's right to exist six months from now. Just because you forgot your birth control that night does not give you the right to end another's right to exist.

Rape or incest I view differently. But otherwise the right to choose was is the choice to have the sex or not and you must live with the consequences.

[Fedaykin]

It's not a matter of when something becomes human. A fetus is human, but so is any other biological entity with human DNA. Skin cells, sperm, cancer cells ...all human.

Neither is it about when life begins. Life does not begin at conception, it began on this planet a couple of billions of years ago and despite some of the universe's best efforts it hasn't stopped yet. And again, by any reasonable definition skin cells, sperm and cancer cells are all alive.

Thankfully, no one tries to prevent people from killing cancer cells.

No, the important question about this topic is when does a fetus become a person.

[SleepingTiger]

It's not a matter of when something becomes human. A fetus is human, but so is any other biological entity with human DNA. Skin cells, sperm, cancer cells ...all human.

Neither is it about when life begins. Life does not begin at conception, it began on this planet a couple of billions of years ago and despite some of the universe's best efforts it hasn't stopped yet. And again, by any reasonable definition skin cells, sperm and cancer cells are all alive.

Thankfully, no one tries to prevent people from killing cancer cells.

No, the important question about this topic is when does a fetus become a person.

huh? person or human, you know what they are trying to get at.

[Rohirrim]

The abortion debate has no other purpose than to torpedo health care reform. The Right whips is out (along with flag burning and immigration) whenever they want to kill something. ibid. Pavlov.

[Dukes]

The abortion debate has no other purpose than to torpedo health care reform. The Right whips is out (along with flag burning and immigration) whenever they want to kill something. ibid. Pavlov.

I agree about the abortion thing, but you can't deny Immigration needs to be seriously addressed.

[SJ Bronco]

I agree about the abortion thing, but you can't deny Immigration needs to be seriously addressed.

Yes and no...do i care that there are illegals...no...but they can't have a drivers license (yes that was on the ballot), they can't have health care, they can't use emergency services Ect...cause they don't pay taxes. If they register and pay taxes...I could give a fat rats ass what they do.

[Garcia Bronco]

LOL... are u serious? since when does a sperm by itself develope and become a human?

I know, right. It's not even a logically sound argument. It's like people don't understand fertilization.

[atomicbloke]

I know, right. It's not even a logically sound argument. It's like people don't understand fertilization.

ever heard of the term "reading things in context"?

Like looking at the post, in which a direct question was posted, and a answer was given to that direct question?

[SleepingTiger]

The abortion debate has no other purpose than to torpedo health care reform. The Right whips is out (along with flag burning and immigration) whenever they want to kill something. ibid. Pavlov.

I could care less if the health care program is passed or not. I do care if the federal gov. is using my tax dollar to pay for abortion.

[atomicbloke]

I know, right. It's not even a logically sound argument. It's like people don't understand fertilization.

A guy who believes the moon is made of solid ice and might fracture from some mining, talking about making logical arguments. the Irony....

[SleepingTiger]

ever heard of the term "reading things in context"?

Like looking at the post, in which a direct question was posted, and a answer was given to that direct question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukes
I wouldn't expect someone like you to see the difference between collateral damage and killing out of inconvienence.

If you truly believe abortion is killing, then by your logic even masturbating is murder....

what is the context that i am missing here? what does collateral damage (which happens in war when you enemy knowlingly places his military targets in a urban enviorment to endanger innocent civilians) have to do anything with a masturbation?

[Garcia Bronco]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukes
I wouldn't expect someone like you to see the difference between collateral damage and killing out of inconvienence.

If you truly believe abortion is killing, then by your logic even masturbating is murder....

what is the context that i am missing here? what does collateral damage (which happens in war when you enemy knowlingly places his military targets in a urban enviorment to endanger innocent civilians) have to do anything with a masturbation?

It doesn't, and he knows it.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's not a matter of when something becomes human. A fetus is human, but so is any other biological entity with human DNA. Skin cells, sperm, cancer cells ...all human.

Neither is it about when life begins. Life does not begin at conception, it began on this planet a couple of billions of years ago and despite some of the universe's best efforts it hasn't stopped yet. And again, by any reasonable definition skin cells, sperm and cancer cells are all alive.

Thankfully, no one tries to prevent people from killing cancer cells.

No, the important question about this topic is when does a fetus become a person.

Its not that something is human, its that that something is a unique human.

In the case of partial birth late term abortion, the child is capable of surviving ex utero. In the case of first or second trimester abortions, the child has a unique set of genes and is in varied state of life within the womb. This isnt a case of even metamorphosis where a larva or some other intermediary state of existence occurs and then a gene-driven reorganization causes the thing to change into something similar. This is a case of growth.

There is no scientific argument that approaches the issue of abortion with anything other than wild guesses and presuppositions. It is an ethical and moral debate. In the case of the united states, we have another debate attached to that one. The constitution applies rights to every human. Murders (see Peterson, Scott) have been ascribed to individuals who kill mothers with children, or even just children in utero. It doesnt take a genius to see that inherent contradiction. What that contradiction reveals to those who look at it with any sort of honesty and conviction, is that we have a problem. The only time that some people value children is when the mother values them. That's a problem. Once that child is conceived, it has value. According to the philosophy that is morally superior to the confused and dishonest one that our courts hold in place and that some people with nefarious agendas espouse, the child that exists is endowed by its creator with certain unalienable rights and should be treated accordingly.

[Garcia Bronco]

It's not a matter of when something becomes human. A fetus is human, but so is any other biological entity with human DNA. Skin cells, sperm, cancer cells ...all human.

Neither is it about when life begins. Life does not begin at conception, it began on this planet a couple of billions of years ago and despite some of the universe's best efforts it hasn't stopped yet. And again, by any reasonable definition skin cells, sperm and cancer cells are all alive.

Thankfully, no one tries to prevent people from killing cancer cells.

No, the important question about this topic is when does a fetus become a person.

Anyway....Human life begins at conception. It's very easy to determine. Before conception...there is no human life about to begin. After conception there is.

[Garcia Bronco]

A guy who believes the moon is made of solid ice and might fracture from some mining, talking about making logical arguments. the Irony....

If you find a post where I said the moon is made of solid ice, I'll be impressed.

[epicSocialism4tw]

A guy who believes the moon is made of solid ice and might fracture from some mining, talking about making logical arguments. the Irony....

Logic and belief are two different things. One is used, the other is held.

I think that this is a huge problem with the modern public scientific community. It is rare that a person employed in the sciences have any sort of real understanding of philosophy. Its why when you see someone like Dennet, Hitchens, or Dawkins enter into any sort of debate when criticized by a philosopher, that they cannot stand on their own two feet. They rarely understand the debate. They only see their little corner of the world, and have deluded themselves into thinking that their little corner is the only corner.

With the world growing smaller, an understanding of basic philosophy is more important than ever.

[SleepingTiger]

If you find a post where I said the moon is made of solid ice, I'll be impressed.

i had to read and re read to try to figure out what bloke was trying to say. good thing you replied or i would of thought you're a complete looney, or maybe just taken out of "context". lol

[Garcia Bronco]

i had to read and re read to try to figure out what bloke was trying to say. good thing you replied or i would of thought you're a complete looney, or maybe just taken out of "context". lol

It was a topic about finding ice on the moon, and my philoshopy is to not **** with the moon as it could **** up our planet. To which the group replied that we can't **** up the moon. Which I still disagree with generally, but the physics suports their stance.

[atomicbloke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukes
I wouldn't expect someone like you to see the difference between collateral damage and killing out of inconvienence.

If you truly believe abortion is killing, then by your logic even masturbating is murder....

what is the context that i am missing here? what does collateral damage (which happens in war when you enemy knowlingly places his military targets in a urban enviorment to endanger innocent civilians) have to do anything with a masturbation?

A fetus that can survive outiside the womb is not alive, therefore cannot be killed. Got it.

Fetuses can survive only in precision controlled environments....

By that logic, even sperms can survive through artificial insemination... so as I said earlier, even masturbating should be considered killing and immoral...

This is what I was referring to.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This is what I was referring to.

With all due respect, a sperm is clearly not a unique human being. It is a reproductive cell. Unique, yes....but not a unique human. If you have testicles (two), you create somewhere around 170 million sperm in a day. Each of these has its own arrangement of half of your genome.

None of these sperm ever become a unique human being unless they are released into a capable environment and are able to reach and penetrate an egg.

[Mr.Meanie]

Anyway....Human life begins at conception. It's very easy to determine. Before conception...there is no human life about to begin. After conception there is.

In other words, life begins at conception because life begins at conception. Nicely done! :rofl:

[atomicbloke]

Its not that something is human, its that that something is a unique human.

In the case of partial birth late term abortion, the child is capable of surviving ex utero. In the case of first or second trimester abortions, the child has a unique set of genes and is in varied state of life within the womb. This isnt a case of even metamorphosis where a larva or some other intermediary state of existence occurs and then a gene-driven reorganization causes the thing to change into something similar. This is a case of growth.

There is no scientific argument that approaches the issue of abortion with anything other than wild guesses and presuppositions. It is an ethical and moral debate. In the case of the united states, we have another debate attached to that one. The constitution applies rights to every human. Murders (see Peterson, Scott) have been ascribed to individuals who kill mothers with children, or even just children in utero. It doesnt take a genius to see that inherent contradiction. What that contradiction reveals to those who look at it with any sort of honesty and conviction, is that we have a problem. The only time that some people value children is when the mother values them. That's a problem. Once that child is conceived, it has value. According to the philosophy that is morally superior to the confused and dishonest one that our courts hold in place and that some people with nefarious agendas espouse, the child that exists is endowed by its creator with certain unalienable rights and should be treated accordingly.

So you are saying the issue of abortion is a completely subjective one?

If it so, just what standard of subjectiveness do you ascribe as your proverbial "measuring stick" in this case?

And just how is this "measuring stick" configured that it renders abortion as murder and a crime, and killing civilians in a war, as just the small inconvenience of collateral damage?

I bring up this comparison, solely because it was commented on extensively earlier in the thread.

[atomicbloke]

With all due respect, a sperm is clearly not a unique human being. It is a reproductive cell. Unique, yes....but not a unique human. If you have testicles (two), you create somewhere around 170 million sperm in a day. Each of these has its own arrangement of half of your genome.

None of these sperm ever become a unique human being unless they are released into a capable environment and are able to reach and penetrate an egg.

But a sperm is alive right?

You said the criterion is one of being "alive", not one of "uniqueness"... didnt you?

[atomicbloke]

Anyway....Human life begins at conception. It's very easy to determine. Before conception...there is no human life about to begin. After conception there is.

Wow.... I am speechless.....

This statement should be included as an example of irrefutable logic in every science and math textbook in the country....

[atomicbloke]

With all due respect, a sperm is clearly not a unique human being. It is a reproductive cell. Unique, yes....but not a unique human. If you have testicles (two), you create somewhere around 170 million sperm in a day. Each of these has its own arrangement of half of your genome.

None of these sperm ever become a unique human being unless they are released into a capable environment and are able to reach and penetrate an egg.

And following your line of reasoning, what about morning after pills?

They are taken after the sperm has been released in to a capable environment, and are able to reach and penetrate en egg... right?

So morning after pills should at the very least be manslaughter, shouldn't it?

[epicSocialism4tw]

So you are saying the issue of abortion is a completely subjective one?

If it so, just what standard of subjectiveness do you ascribe as your proverbial "measuring stick" in this case?

And just how is this "measuring stick" configured that it renders abortion as murder and a crime, and killing civilians in a war, as just the small inconvenience of collateral damage?

I bring up this comparison, solely because it was commented on extensively earlier in the thread.

The United States of America is a unique sovereign nation with its own laws and culture. The abortion debate handled within this country is subjected to the laws, standards, and values of the people of this country.

In the United States, we have a charter document that his held in very high regard by citizens here. This charter document serves to establish legal protections for its citizens. Therefore, a citizen of the United States is protected under its constitution from the deprivation of any of those rights ascribed to its citizens. The United States is not governed by the United Nations except in issues that it has agreed to cooperate with. The United States are a country that can and will protect the interests of its citizens with war.

A country at war with the United States clearly does not contain a majority of US citizens, and those citizens of another country are not protected under the constitution. They are subject to military law.

[epicSocialism4tw]

And following your line of reasoning, what about morning after pills?

They are taken after the sperm has been released in to a capable environment, and are able to reach and penetrate en egg... right?

So morning after pills should at the very least be manslaughter, shouldn't it?

A unique existence begins at the cortical reaction, so if you err on the side of caution and the respect of human life, than you err towards deciding that the cortical reaction is the beginning of life. Very soon after the cortical reaction, the genes combine.

[atomicbloke]

The United States of America is a unique sovereign nation with its own laws and culture. The abortion debate handled within this country is subjected to the laws, standards, and values of the people of this country.

In the United States, we have a charter document that his held in very high regard by citizens here. This charter document serves to establish legal protections for its citizens. Therefore, a citizen of the United States is protected under its constitution from the deprivation of any of those rights ascribed to its citizens. The United States is not governed by the United Nations except in issues that it has agreed to cooperate with. The United States are a country that can and will protect the interests of its citizens with war.

A country at war with the United States clearly does not contain a majority of US citizens, and those citizens of another country are not protected under the constitution. They are subject to military law.

So in other words, the whole interpretation is completely subjective...

An unborn fetus is an United States citizen, just because many people feel that way... right?

[atomicbloke]

A unique existence begins at the cortical reaction, so if you err on the side of caution and the respect of human life, than you err towards deciding that the cortical reaction is the beginning of life. Very soon after the cortical reaction, the genes combine.

So? even before the cortical reaction, the sperm has satisfied the condition of uniqueness, hasn't it? Since it is the only one among 170 million that is now in a position for combination....

so now, it satisfies both your conditions of being alive and being unique....

Again this is not my reasoning, I am just extending your own flow of logic....

[Garcia Bronco]

In other words, life begins at conception because life begins at conception. Nicely done! :rofl:

What is conception?


You know the answer. Would you prefer the term "Fertilization"?

Thank you.

[atomicbloke]

The United States of America is a unique sovereign nation with its own laws and culture. The abortion debate handled within this country is subjected to the laws, standards, and values of the people of this country.

In the United States, we have a charter document that his held in very high regard by citizens here. This charter document serves to establish legal protections for its citizens. Therefore, a citizen of the United States is protected under its constitution from the deprivation of any of those rights ascribed to its citizens. The United States is not governed by the United Nations except in issues that it has agreed to cooperate with. The United States are a country that can and will protect the interests of its citizens with war.

A country at war with the United States clearly does not contain a majority of US citizens, and those citizens of another country are not protected under the constitution. They are subject to military law.

And now you are talking about the constitution.... I thought you meant that we should apply science to this topic, because it is a philosophical debate, and philosophy deals with issues at a much super-planar level than science....

How then you bring up something as mundane as the constitution... something completely man made.... in something so super=planar as philosophy....

Again, for the thought challenged... I am diminishing the constitution, just implying it's importance in the grand philosophical framework that LLama was alluding to earlier in the thread.....

[Garcia Bronco]

Wow.... I am speechless.....

This statement should be included as an example of irrefutable logic in every science and math textbook in the country....

And somehow at the sametime you know it's correct. Quit playing stupid just so you can rationalize killing babies.

[epicSocialism4tw]

So in other words, the whole interpretation is completely subjective...

An unborn fetus is an United States citizen, just because many people feel that way... right?

No. I think that you are simplifying the issue to the point to where the argument contains effectively meaningless propositions.

A baby in utero is a living thing. We know that much through years and years of people having babies and through modern developmental biology that shows us much about the growth and development of that child. It does not show us everything, because everything is not known. This is where you get into the "soul" debate...which is one that has not been solved by some of the greatest minds ever to think thoughts in our world and still stands today as a problem with no solution. Now, one may forumulate their own opinion on such an issue, but one cannot say honestly and with certainty that they have sufficient evidence to discard every other theory in that line of metaphysical or materialistic philosophy.

What we do know is that the baby closes itself off from the extracellular environment with the cortical reaction and begins its own unique journey where it harvests food matter from its environment, converts those foodstuffs into cellular material, and continues a path of continued, coonsistent, exponential growth that does not cease until the body expires.

So the arguement is not necessarily only subjective, but science can only take it so far. So know we are left with the contraposed ideas: should we err on the side of caution, or should we just suppose that the child is not a child until some abstract marker is established that we dont really understand? I think that the answer is clear, and that anyone who comes to this issue with an open mind and a set of either humanistic or spiritual moral values will come away having decided that it is better to err on the side of caution.

[atomicbloke]

And somehow at the sametime you know it's correct. Quit playing stupid just so you can rationalize killing babies.

What is correct? A complete hash of an argument you make?

I never advocated killing babies.

It is you who is rationalizing that abortion is killing babies.

[Garcia Bronco]

What is correct? A complete hash of an argument you make?

I never advocated killing babies.

It is you who is rationalizing that abortion is killing babies.


If you have an abortion you are killing a baby. There is no way around that. It shouldn't be allowed unless the life of the mother is at risk, or due to rape and/or incest. No one has ever gotten pregnant on accident. It's a choice 99 percent of the time.

[atomicbloke]

No. I think that you are simplifying the issue to the point to where the argument contains effectively meaningless propositions.

A baby in utero is a living thing. We know that much through years and years of people having babies and through modern developmental biology that shows us much about the growth and development of that child. It does not show us everything, because everything is not known. This is where you get into the "soul" debate...which is one that has not been solved by some of the greatest minds ever to think thoughts in our world and still stands today as a problem with no solution. Now, one may forumulate their own opinion on such an issue, but one cannot say honestly and with certainty that they have sufficient evidence to discard every other theory in that line of metaphysical or materialistic philosophy.

What we do know is that the baby closes itself off from the extracellular environment with the cortical reaction and begins its own unique journey where it harvests food matter from its environment, converts those foodstuffs into cellular material, and continues a path of continued, coonsistent, exponential growth that does not cease until the body expires.

So the arguement is not necessarily only subjective, but science can only take it so far. So know we are left with the contraposed ideas: should we err on the side of caution, or should we just suppose that the child is not a child until some abstract marker is established that we dont really understand? I think that the answer is clear, and that anyone who comes to this issue with an open mind and a set of either humanistic or spiritual moral values will come away having decided that it is better to err on the side of caution.

I didn't simplify anything

I extended your own flow of logic.

You fail to see that your argument fails under the conditions you yourself set up...

And you keep bringing up the metaphysical and philosophical angle, but fail to see that you have now made the debate completely subjective.... set up a "measuring stick" for that subjectivity, ... but your own argument fails under the measuring stick of subjectivity.....

[atomicbloke]

If you have an abortion you are killing a baby. There is no way around that. It shouldn't be allowed unless the life of the mother is at risk, or due to rape and/or incest. No one has ever gotten pregnant on accident. It's a choice 99 percent of the time.

And that is completely your opinion.

Not backed by any scientific fact.

[epicSocialism4tw]

So? even before the cortical reaction, the sperm has satisfied the condition of uniqueness, hasn't it? Since it is the only one among 170 million that is now in a position for combination....

so now, it satisfies both your conditions of being alive and being unique....

Again this is not my reasoning, I am just extending your own flow of logic....

Yes. A sperm is clearly a living cell unless it has died.

and

Yes. A sperm is unique among its peers, and so is theoretically unique among all of human sperm in existence during its life, and thus is a unique cell among all living things since we do not equate a sperm with an endothelial cell or with a progenitor cell or with a myocardial cell or with a cnidocyte or any other known cell in the tree of life.

and

No. A sperm is not uniquely human, which is the standard that I had established earlier. Being uniquely human requires a diploid set of human genes.

[SleepingTiger]

So you are saying the issue of abortion is a completely subjective one?

If it so, just what standard of subjectiveness do you ascribe as your proverbial "measuring stick" in this case?

And just how is this "measuring stick" configured that it renders abortion as murder and a crime, and killing civilians in a war, as just the small inconvenience of collateral damage?

I bring up this comparison, solely because it was commented on extensively earlier in the thread.

i don't think anyone wants collateral damage and its not a "small inconvenience". let me ask you this. during the Vietnam war, the vietcong would place SAM sites in villages to avoid the US from destroying them. What do you suggest the US generals do?

1. send in a task force to destroy the sites behind enemy lines, basically a suicide mission
2. ignore them and let our jets get shot down
3. destroy them and take the collateral damage as a consequence of war.

you compare something like collateral damage of which is unavoidable to something like abortion of which is completely avoidable and only done because the adult is irresposible and doing it out of their own selfishness. The two can't even be put in the same sentence.

not only that, its not like the US government is out looking for civilians and babies to bomb. its because the ruthlessness of the acting goverment placing these high military targets to where the civilians could be in danger.

[Garcia Bronco]

And that is completely your opinion.

Not backed by any scientific fact.

Except the fact that once conception occurs life begins, unless you argument is that a human life begins without conception. I have only heard one reported case of this. You can find in the bible.

I can use the word fertilization if that helps you understand.

[atomicbloke]

Yes. A sperm is clearly a living cell unless it has died.

and

Yes. A sperm is unique among its peers, and so is theoretically unique among all of human sperm in existence during its life, and thus is a unique cell among all living things since we do not equate a sperm with an endothelial cell or with a progenitor cell or with a myocardial cell or with a cnidocyte or any other known cell in the tree of life.

and

No. A sperm is not uniquely human, which is the standard that I had established earlier. Being uniquely human requires a diploid set of human genes.

You realize that in this single post, you have completely destroyed your own argument completely?

[SleepingTiger]

Except the fact that once conception occurs life begins, unless you argument is that a human life begins without conception. I have only heard one reported case of this. You can find in the bible.

I can use the word fertilization if that helps you understand.

some liberals do think that Obama was coceived through errr... nevermind.

but that person from the bible you refer too, wasn't that the Immaculate Conception right?

[epicSocialism4tw]

You realize that in this single post, you have completely destroyed your own argument completely?

I think that I have clarified your premise there, but go ahead and lay out your case for why you think that is true.

[atomicbloke]

Except the fact that once conception occurs life begins, unless you argument is that a human life begins without conception. I have only heard one reported case of this. You can find in the bible.

I can use the word fertilization if that helps you understand.

Life of exactly what?

And under what set of guidelines should I call "it" human life, but not include mere sperms under that same umbrella?

[Garcia Bronco]

some liberals do think that Obama was coceived through errr... nevermind.

but that person from the bible you refer too, wasn't that the Immaculate Conception right?

It is indeed.

[Garcia Bronco]

Life of exactly what?

And under what set of guidelines should I call "it" human life, but not include mere sperms under that same umbrella?

Because to one degree or another Humans mated to create conception or fertilization. Sperm do not fertilize themselves. We are not asexual reporductive beings. Fertilization is required.