PDA

View Full Version : APP - Pro-choicer kills anti-abortionist



Pages : [1] 2

tinfoil
09-12-2009, 09:35 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/index.html

Tolerance wins again!

meme
09-12-2009, 09:44 PM
yep, there was hardly a word of this happening...but don't forget, it is the right-wing who is VIOLENT..

uscitizen
09-12-2009, 09:47 PM
Psychos exist on both sides.

The right just has more of them.

Mott the Hoople
09-13-2009, 05:52 AM
They should give him a fair trial and hang him.

The reason there is less violence by left wing radicals and more violence by right wing radicals is that there isn't a vast network of left wing propaganda organizations which encourage extremism and violence as there is with the right wing propaganda media outlets.

PostmodernProphet
09-13-2009, 06:36 AM
They should give him a fair trial and hang him.

The reason there is less violence by left wing radicals and more violence by right wing radicals is that there isn't a vast network of left wing propaganda organizations which encourage extremism and violence as there is with the right wing propaganda media outlets.

you're both joking right?.....you think there is LESS violence on the part of left wingers?....have you seen the demonstrations at the WTO meetings?.....

FUCK THE POLICE
09-13-2009, 03:26 PM
hang him.


:mad:

Hang death penalty supporters.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-13-2009, 03:27 PM
The killing was unrelated to the person anti-choice views.

tinfoil
09-13-2009, 04:19 PM
The killing was unrelated to the person anti-choice views.

From the article:
Authorities have charged an Owosso, Michigan, man with two counts of first-degree premeditated murder in the Friday shooting deaths of an anti-abortion activist and another man, a prosecutor's office said.
Activist Jim Pouillon was shot and killed Friday while protesting outside Owosso High School.

Activist Jim Pouillon was shot and killed Friday while protesting outside Owosso High School.

Authorities say the suspect, Harlan James Drake, was offended by anti-abortion material that the activist had displayed across from the school all week.

charver
09-13-2009, 04:28 PM
From the article:
Authorities have charged an Owosso, Michigan, man with two counts of first-degree premeditated murder in the Friday shooting deaths of an anti-abortion activist and another man, a prosecutor's office said.
Activist Jim Pouillon was shot and killed Friday while protesting outside Owosso High School.

Activist Jim Pouillon was shot and killed Friday while protesting outside Owosso High School.

Authorities say the suspect, Harlan James Drake, was offended by anti-abortion material that the activist had displayed across from the school all week.

Is that why he killed the other bloke as well?

tinfoil
09-13-2009, 05:04 PM
Is that why he killed the other bloke as well?

That's what's implied in the article. Do I have to read it aloud for you?

meme
09-13-2009, 05:50 PM
this is no big deal cause the guy was white and against the choice to kill your child..

now if this had been the other way around, they would be calling for the guy head..

pretty sad state of affairs..

DamnYankee
09-13-2009, 06:03 PM
I'm curious as to what the apparent support of Obama, the Baby Killer.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/art.jim.pouillon.courtesy.jpg

uscitizen
09-13-2009, 06:50 PM
They should give him a fair trial and hang him.

The reason there is less violence by left wing radicals and more violence by right wing radicals is that there isn't a vast network of left wing propaganda organizations which encourage extremism and violence as there is with the right wing propaganda media outlets.

We liberals do not have nearly as many preachers telling us we should assisinate leaders of other nations and such.

Canceled1
09-13-2009, 06:50 PM
Psychos exist on both sides.

The right just has more of them.

Lame excuse.

uscitizen
09-13-2009, 06:51 PM
Are protests allowed near schools?

I thought not.

Canceled1
09-13-2009, 06:51 PM
We liberals do not have nearly as many preachers telling us we should assisinate leaders of other nations and such.

Yeah, they just blow things up on our own soil like your good friend Bill Ayers did, eh?

uscitizen
09-13-2009, 06:53 PM
Yeah, they just blow things up on our own soil like your good friend Bill Ayers did, eh?

Who is Bill Ayers? I think I would know if he was my good friend.

You must be as stupit as the 911 guy.

charver
09-14-2009, 02:50 AM
That's what's implied in the article. Do I have to read it aloud for you?

For a supposed arch-sceptic you're not very good at this shit are you?

Canceled2
09-14-2009, 06:00 PM
Are protests allowed near schools?

I thought not.

Are you justifying the fanatical murder of a peaceful protester?

FUCK THE POLICE
09-14-2009, 06:02 PM
For a supposed arch-sceptic you're not very good at this shit are you?

Hoaxers aren't skeptics.

Minister of Truth
09-14-2009, 08:17 PM
Psychos exist on both sides.

The right just has more of them.

Isn't mass murder violence?

Hermes Thoth
09-18-2009, 07:33 AM
you're both joking right?.....you think there is LESS violence on the part of left wingers?....have you seen the demonstrations at the WTO meetings?.....

Those are not leftists, they are populist freedom fighters.

tinfoil
09-18-2009, 07:49 AM
man another lame ass thread. You liberals are the biggest hypocrites

charver
09-18-2009, 07:54 AM
http://www.examiner.com/x-18527-Broward-County-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m9d14-Antiabortion-shooter-Harlan-Drakes-cime-of-hate-not-hate-crime

It must be true 'cos they said so in teh article.

tinfoil
09-18-2009, 08:05 AM
http://www.examiner.com/x-18527-Broward-County-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m9d14-Antiabortion-shooter-Harlan-Drakes-cime-of-hate-not-hate-crime

It must be true 'cos they said so in teh article.

So he didn't like the messages and that's not hate?
Either way he's a crazy fucking liberal

charver
09-18-2009, 08:09 AM
So he didn't like the messages and that's not hate?
Either way he's a crazy fucking liberal

Well it contradicts the article you posted. It also suggests that the other man he killed (you know the one i asked about) had nothing to do with abortion at all.

Personally, i prefer to see what evidence is presented in a court of law rather than relying on speculative newspaper reports.

uscitizen
09-18-2009, 08:13 AM
Isn't mass murder violence?

Someone was killed in a Catholic church service?

christiefan915
09-18-2009, 08:15 AM
We liberals do not have nearly as many preachers telling us we should assisinate leaders of other nations and such.

Speaking of the "reverend" Steve Anderson...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq9G44tomKY&feature=related"

tinfoil
09-18-2009, 08:39 AM
Well it contradicts the article you posted. It also suggests that the other man he killed (you know the one i asked about) had nothing to do with abortion at all.

Personally, i prefer to see what evidence is presented in a court of law rather than relying on speculative newspaper reports.

I didn't write the fucking article. Go brush your teeth

charver
09-18-2009, 08:43 AM
I didn't write the fucking article. Go brush your teeth

No you just posted it as truth.

Gullible much?

apple0154
09-18-2009, 08:49 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/index.html

Tolerance wins again!

That's certainly a different spin on the usual happenings of anti-abortionists killing pro-choicers.

Minister of Truth
09-18-2009, 07:34 PM
That's certainly a different spin on the usual happenings of anti-abortionists killing pro-choicers.

Pro-choicers have taken millions of innocent lives. They occasionally take one they are not entitled too. But on the light side there are always going to be John Brown's running around.

Taichiliberal
09-18-2009, 10:40 PM
I caught this on Air America, CNN and local broadcast news.

Well, after many years of aggressive demonization, intimidation, threats,violence and the occasional murder or attempted murder of pro-choice advocates and medical practitioners, the neocon parrots can now squawk with glee that some jackass murdered an anti-abortionist. In their warped little brains, this ONE act justifies and excuses any and all blatherings and actions by their like minded bretheren.

They put the chip on their shoulders, now they got their wish. A shame, because a life is lost...and it's just as valuable as the abortion medical folk that have been killed.

Canceled2
09-18-2009, 11:17 PM
Pro-choicers have taken millions of innocent lives. They occasionally take one they are not entitled too. But on the light side there are always going to be John Brown's running around.

40 million and counting...:(

DamnYankee
09-19-2009, 04:37 AM
I caught this on Air America, CNN and local broadcast news.

Well, after many years of aggressive demonization, intimidation, threats,violence and the occasional murder or attempted murder of pro-choice advocates and medical practitioners, the neocon parrots can now squawk with glee that some jackass murdered an anti-abortionist. In their warped little brains, this ONE act justifies and excuses any and all blatherings and actions by their like minded bretheren.

They put the chip on their shoulders, now they got their wish. A shame, because a life is lost...and it's just as valuable as the abortion medical folk that have been killed.Thanks for admitting that you let the media form your perspectives.

apple0154
09-19-2009, 08:12 AM
How anyone (anti-abortionists) can justify forcing someone to bring a child into the world when hundreds of children are dying every day from a lack of basic care defies logic and common sense.

Hermes Thoth
09-19-2009, 08:49 AM
How anyone (anti-abortionists) can justify forcing someone to bring a child into the world when hundreds of children are dying every day from a lack of basic care defies logic and common sense.

Yes. The collective is best served by infanticide and euthanasia.

apple0154
09-19-2009, 09:21 AM
Yes. The collective is best served by infanticide and euthanasia.

Abortion is not infanticide. There is no "infant". No baby. Babies have to be born.

Ever heard that old expression, "Don't count your chickens until the eggs hatch."

Hermes Thoth
09-19-2009, 09:22 AM
Abortion is not infanticide. There is no "infant". No baby. Babies have to be born.

Ever heard that old expression, "Don't count your chickens until the eggs hatch."

It's an in utero baby.

apple0154
09-19-2009, 10:05 AM
It's an in utero baby.

In utero baby? I've always found that and similar expressions such as "unborn baby" to be rather amusing. It's like referring to a living individual as an "undead corpse".

Just as the word "corpse" refers to a dead human being the word "baby" refers to a born human being.

That's what's peculiar about anti-abortion language. It's like one pointing to a pile of lumber on a lot and exclaiming, "There's an "unbuilt" house."

It's unfortunate the anti-abortionist has to twist or mangle language in order to advance their argument. The average person spots that and that's one of the reasons why the majority are pro-choice and why abortion is legal.

On that note it's lunch time here. I'm going to have a bacon and tomato sandwich. Butcher bacon. Thick, meaty slices and a fresh tomato from my garden. Fruit juice to drink and home made chocolates for dessert. (My sweety just purchased a tempering machine.)

Top that all off with a recorded episode of The Outer Limits.

Life is good. :D

uscitizen
09-19-2009, 11:01 AM
It's an in utero baby.

Real men drink chicken embryos and booze.

PostmodernProphet
09-19-2009, 01:52 PM
In utero baby? I've always found that and similar expressions such as "unborn baby" to be rather amusing. It's like referring to a living individual as an "undead corpse".

Just as the word "corpse" refers to a dead human being the word "baby" refers to a born human being.

That's what's peculiar about anti-abortion language. It's like one pointing to a pile of lumber on a lot and exclaiming, "There's an "unbuilt" house."

It's unfortunate the anti-abortionist has to twist or mangle language in order to advance their argument. The average person spots that and that's one of the reasons why the majority are pro-choice and why abortion is legal.

On that note it's lunch time here. I'm going to have a bacon and tomato sandwich. Butcher bacon. Thick, meaty slices and a fresh tomato from my garden. Fruit juice to drink and home made chocolates for dessert. (My sweety just purchased a tempering machine.)

Top that all off with a recorded episode of The Outer Limits.

Life is good. :D

you're going to piss Hallmark off....they have all those cards copyrighted....

http://www.babyinfant365.com/uploaded_images/baby-shower-701919.jpg

Taichiliberal
09-19-2009, 03:04 PM
Thanks for admitting that you let the media form your perspectives.

The statement was made that the "media" was ignoring this incident. I gave JUST two news sources where I heard the story....so the statement was not true.

Nothing I wrote supports what you say here. Your opinion is based upon your own well documented prejudices.

Hermes Thoth
09-19-2009, 03:05 PM
In utero baby? I've always found that and similar expressions such as "unborn baby" to be rather amusing. It's like referring to a living individual as an "undead corpse".

Just as the word "corpse" refers to a dead human being the word "baby" refers to a born human being.

That's what's peculiar about anti-abortion language. It's like one pointing to a pile of lumber on a lot and exclaiming, "There's an "unbuilt" house."



It's unfortunate the anti-abortionist has to twist or mangle language in order to advance their argument. The average person spots that and that's one of the reasons why the majority are pro-choice and why abortion is legal.

On that note it's lunch time here. I'm going to have a bacon and tomato sandwich. Butcher bacon. Thick, meaty slices and a fresh tomato from my garden. Fruit juice to drink and home made chocolates for dessert. (My sweety just purchased a tempering machine.)

Top that all off with a recorded episode of The Outer Limits.

Life is good. :D

Lumber is an unbuilt house.

Canceled2
09-19-2009, 04:16 PM
Yes. The collective is best served by infanticide and euthanasia.

Only in Alice's rabbit hole where liberals dwell.

apple0154
09-19-2009, 04:36 PM
Lumber is an unbuilt house.

Unless it's used for a fence or shed or deck or simply scrap for burning. It won't be a house until/unless it is a house.

Hermes Thoth
09-19-2009, 04:39 PM
Unless it's used for a fence or shed or deck or simply scrap for burning. It won't be a house until/unless it is a house.

But tiny inutero babies are always still babies when they come out.

apple0154
09-19-2009, 04:47 PM
But tiny inutero babies are always still babies when they come out.

Ahhh, when they come out. "When" is the operative word here. Just like a house is a house when it's built.

Cancel10
09-19-2009, 04:52 PM
They should give him a fair trial and hang him.

The reason there is less violence by left wing radicals and more violence by right wing radicals is that there isn't a vast network of left wing propaganda organizations which encourage extremism and violence as there is with the right wing propaganda media outlets.

Communists and Fascists killed 150,000,000 people in the 20th century, and millions of others have been beaten, raped, and imprisoned at the hands of marxist or fascist regimes. Fact is, leftists have killed more people than any other ideological group in the history of the world.

Hermes Thoth
09-19-2009, 04:55 PM
Ahhh, when they come out. "When" is the operative word here. Just like a house is a house when it's built.

a Baby is fully built when it's still "in". It's a baby inside, its baby outside. Your false differentiation regarding in and out means nothing.

apple0154
09-19-2009, 05:05 PM
a Baby is fully built when it's still "in". It's a baby inside, its baby outside. Your false differentiation regarding in and out means nothing.

There's nothing false about it. Read up on the differences. Check out what happens after birth such as blood flow changing direction and veins changing from carrying blood to becoming "cords" which hold organs in place.

The more you research it the more you'll realize the differences.

Canceled2
09-19-2009, 05:50 PM
There's nothing false about it. Read up on the differences. Check out what happens after birth such as blood flow changing direction and veins changing from carrying blood to becoming "cords" which hold organs in place.

The more you research it the more you'll realize the differences.

Developemental stages of a human being are only proof that we have different stages. An infant can't use speech or walk or feed itself, a child has no pubic hair, and is often lacking in persoanl developement to be able to care for itself, a teenager's brain does not work the same way an adults does, etc etc etc.

Canceled2
09-19-2009, 05:52 PM
Communists and Fascists killed 150,000,000 people in the 20th century, and millions of others have been beaten, raped, and imprisoned at the hands of marxist or fascist regimes. Fact is, leftists have killed more people than any other ideological group in the history of the world.

Can you hear that sound of silence??? It's the libreal's who have had their mouths shut and have not thought of a rejoinder.

charver
09-19-2009, 06:01 PM
Can you hear that sound of silence??? It's the libreal's who have had their mouths shut and have not thought of a rejoinder.

Silence? On an internets message board which functions entirely on typed speech?

Unexpected.

Taichiliberal
09-19-2009, 06:03 PM
Originally Posted by Tabasco
Communists and Fascists killed 150,000,000 people in the 20th century, and millions of others have been beaten, raped, and imprisoned at the hands of marxist or fascist regimes. Fact is, leftists have killed more people than any other ideological group in the history of the world.


Can you hear that sound of silence??? It's the libreal's who have had their mouths shut and have not thought of a rejoinder.

People are silent because you two dummies don't know the differences between fascism, communisim, marxism, socialism, capitalism. You're proud ignorance and the statements that spring from it stuns most people into silence.

Hermes Thoth
09-19-2009, 06:08 PM
People are silent because you two dummies don't know the differences between fascism, communisim, marxism, socialism, capitalism. You're proud ignorance and the statements that spring from it stuns most people into silence.

Still no defense of lefty murderousness.... how suprising. not.

Hermes Thoth
09-19-2009, 06:11 PM
There's nothing false about it. Read up on the differences. Check out what happens after birth such as blood flow changing direction and veins changing from carrying blood to becoming "cords" which hold organs in place.

The more you research it the more you'll realize the differences.

So changes happen. It's still a baby. *shrug*

Canceled2
09-19-2009, 06:54 PM
Silence? On an internets message board which functions entirely on typed speech?

Unexpected.

DUH dorkman :gives:

charver
09-19-2009, 07:01 PM
DUH dorkman :gives:

May i suggest a course in remedial English?

http://www.iep.ucr.edu/learn_english_IEP3.html

uscitizen
09-19-2009, 07:04 PM
Communists and Fascists killed 150,000,000 people in the 20th century, and millions of others have been beaten, raped, and imprisoned at the hands of marxist or fascist regimes. Fact is, leftists have killed more people than any other ideological group in the history of the world.


Leftists tend to kill in the name of religion?
I sort of thought it was the right who killed the islamofascists and such?

Canceled2
09-19-2009, 07:21 PM
May i suggest a course in remedial English?

http://www.iep.ucr.edu/learn_english_IEP3.html

You can suggest whatever you want Charver. You are still a smug lil' asshole who seems to have a hollow pipe...poor chap.

christiefan915
09-19-2009, 08:15 PM
Leftists tend to kill in the name of religion?
I sort of thought it was the right who killed the islamofascists and such?

You mean like forcing peace and democracy on the ME by bombing the living daylights out of them? :eek:

apple0154
09-19-2009, 08:47 PM
Developemental stages of a human being are only proof that we have different stages. An infant can't use speech or walk or feed itself, a child has no pubic hair, and is often lacking in persoanl developement to be able to care for itself, a teenager's brain does not work the same way an adults does, etc etc etc.

If an infant never changed, if it could never feed itself or walk, it could still live. The same as a teenager. The same as all the other changes you mentioned. That is not the case with the changes I mentioned.

Doctors check to ensure a valve does close and the blood flow changes direction or the infant would die. There are other changes which must take place in order for it to live.

A fetus is not the same as a baby.

Minister of Truth
09-19-2009, 08:58 PM
If an infant never changed, if it could never feed itself or walk, it could still live. The same as a teenager. The same as all the other changes you mentioned. That is not the case with the changes I mentioned.

Doctors check to ensure a valve does close and the blood flow changes direction or the infant would die. There are other changes which must take place in order for it to live.

A fetus is not the same as a baby.

I was under the impression that you died if you stopped eating or drinking. Did we suddenly evolve without anyone telling me?

USFREEDOM911
09-19-2009, 09:01 PM
If an infant never changed, if it could never feed itself or walk, it could still live. The same as a teenager. The same as all the other changes you mentioned. That is not the case with the changes I mentioned.

Doctors check to ensure a valve does close and the blood flow changes direction or the infant would die. There are other changes which must take place in order for it to live.

A fetus is not the same as a baby.

So if your wife was pregnant and someone punched her in the stomoch, which caused the fetus to die, then it would just be a simple assault.

PostmodernProphet
09-19-2009, 09:19 PM
Leftists tend to kill in the name of religion?
I sort of thought it was the right who killed the islamofascists and such?

you see.....you make all kinds of mistakes like that when you are a liberal.....

PostmodernProphet
09-19-2009, 09:21 PM
So if your wife was pregnant and someone punched her in the stomoch, which caused the fetus to die, then it would just be a simple assault.

liberals always believe the unborn are babies unless 1) they want to kill it, or 2) they want to argue abortion rights on internet boards......

USFREEDOM911
09-19-2009, 09:27 PM
liberals always believe the unborn are babies unless 1) they want to kill it, or 2) they want to argue abortion rights on internet boards......

It makes them feel better, in their justification.

Odd how babies aren't babies; but liberals want everyone to believe that animals have rights (peta).

Canceled2
09-20-2009, 12:36 AM
If an infant never changed, if it could never feed itself or walk, it could still live. The same as a teenager. The same as all the other changes you mentioned. That is not the case with the changes I mentioned.

Doctors check to ensure a valve does close and the blood flow changes direction or the infant would die. There are other changes which must take place in order for it to live.

A fetus is not the same as a baby.

The only way an infant can live is if someone else cares for it around the clock. Even a young child left alone will die. This is why parents who do not care for their children are charged with neglect.

It's only the hidden babe within that offers itself as disposable unto death with the lame excuse that its not a human being.

apple0154
09-20-2009, 02:42 AM
I was under the impression that you died if you stopped eating or drinking. Did we suddenly evolve without anyone telling me?

Your post was time-stamped 10:58 PM. I assume you were tired. If you'll notice I wrote,
If an infant never changed, if it could never feed itself or walk, it could still live.

The key work here is "itself". If it could not feed "itself"......

apple0154
09-20-2009, 02:49 AM
So if your wife was pregnant and someone punched her in the stomoch, which caused the fetus to die, then it would just be a simple assault.

Well, I'm not sure I appreciate the adjective "simple", however, I do not believe it is a murder. When it's legal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy but if someone else terminates the pregnancy it's considered a murder is ludicrous.

apple0154
09-20-2009, 02:56 AM
liberals always believe the unborn are babies unless 1) they want to kill it, or 2) they want to argue abortion rights on internet boards......

No, I do not believe the unborn are babies just as I don't subscribe to the idea an egg is a chicken nor an acorn an oak tree nor addressing little Johnny in kindergarten as doctor even though he may very well become a doctor later on.

apple0154
09-20-2009, 03:02 AM
It makes them feel better, in their justification.

Odd how babies aren't babies; but liberals want everyone to believe that animals have rights (peta).

Nothing odd about it. Babies are babies. Fetuses are fetuses. Embryos are embryos. Zygotes are zygotes.

apple0154
09-20-2009, 03:29 AM
The only way an infant can live is if someone else cares for it around the clock. Even a young child left alone will die. This is why parents who do not care for their children are charged with neglect.

It's only the hidden babe within that offers itself as disposable unto death with the lame excuse that its not a human being.

The most basic tenet our society is based upon is everyone is an individual. From abolishing slavery to putting an end to "wife ownership" no one is entitled to another person's body. The entire concept that one human being has claims on another human being's body (fetus to pregnant woman) not only goes against everything our society is built on but sets a very dangerous precedent.

If the "hidden babe within" is a human being then it must have the same rights as any other human being including the right not to be murdered just because the woman carrying it has a defective body.

If your wife or sister or daughter contracts uncontrolled high blood pressure or diabetes while pregnant due to them having a defective body would you be willing to stand by and watch them deteriorate and possibly die due to being refused an abortion? Should a human being with a defective body be permitted to murder a healthy human being?

And who can say with 100% certainty what damage may result? Should one be permitted to murder another human being as a precaution?

History has definitely taught us what happens when we have two classes of human beings and classifying a fetus as a human being but allowing a defective human being to kill it certainly qualifies as that.

Does one believe we'll arrive at a different destination by going down the same road?

PostmodernProphet
09-20-2009, 05:54 AM
No, I do not believe the unborn are babies just as I don't subscribe to the idea an egg is a chicken nor an acorn an oak tree nor addressing little Johnny in kindergarten as doctor even though he may very well become a doctor later on.

I don't know if your man or woman, married or single, got kids or not.....but, if you've ever had children, I'm willing to bet that your spouse didn't come to you one day and say "Honey, I have good news!...the doctor called this morning and the test was positive..... we've got a fetus!"........

apple0154
09-20-2009, 06:46 AM
I don't know if your man or woman, married or single, got kids or not.....but, if you've ever had children, I'm willing to bet that your spouse didn't come to you one day and say "Honey, I have good news!...the doctor called this morning and the test was positive..... we've got a fetus!"........

No, she said, "I'm pregnant".

Hermes Thoth
09-20-2009, 07:09 AM
No, she said, "I'm pregnant".

pregnant = having a baby inside you..

Hermes Thoth
09-20-2009, 07:09 AM
Murderers love to use language to dehumanize their victims.

apple0154
09-20-2009, 07:17 AM
pregnant = having a baby inside you..

No, it means a process, an event, has started which may or may not lead to a baby being born.

TuTu Monroe
09-20-2009, 07:20 AM
It makes them feel better, in their justification.

Odd how babies aren't babies; but liberals want everyone to believe that animals have rights (peta).

Cass R. Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar suggested in his 2004 book that animals ought to be able to bring suit with private citizens acting as their representatives to insure that animals are not treated in a way that violates current law. In a 2007 speech he called for banning hunting in the US.

Do you see the pattern here in this whacky administration? God help us.

Hermes Thoth
09-20-2009, 07:25 AM
Cass R. Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar suggested in his 2004 book that animals ought to be able to bring suit with private citizens acting as their representatives to insure that animals are not treated in a way that violates current law. In a 2007 speech he called for banning hunting in the US.

Do you see the pattern here in this whacky administration? God help us.







What a gift to trial lawyers. totally insane.

Canceled2
09-20-2009, 10:02 AM
Cass R. Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar suggested in his 2004 book that animals ought to be able to bring suit with private citizens acting as their representatives to insure that animals are not treated in a way that violates current law. In a 2007 speech he called for banning hunting in the US.

Do you see the pattern here in this whacky administration? God help us.







Two of my brothers and 3 others formed a partnership to develop a sub-division on the CA coast. They hired engineers and began to develop. There was an enviro nut neighbor, a greedy DA, and liberal paper that set their caps against them. Long story short my brother as the development leader was harassed and eventually sued on behalf of a small fish. Animals already have representation.

The story has a lot more of the ridiculous to it, but suffice it to say, once the judge and the assistant DA got the complete story they threw out the case and levied a small fine.

TuTu Monroe
09-20-2009, 10:26 AM
Two of my brothers and 3 others formed a partnership to develop a sub-division on the CA coast. They hired engineers and began to develop. There was an enviro nut neighbor, a greedy DA, and liberal paper that set their caps against them. Long story short my brother as the development leader was harassed and eventually sued on behalf of a small fish. Animals already have representation.

The story has a lot more of the ridiculous to it, but suffice it to say, once the judge and the assistant DA got the complete story they through out the case and levied a small fine.

I can certainly understand that. The crazy enviro nuts have their noses all over this state.

PostmodernProphet
09-20-2009, 10:28 AM
No, she said, "I'm pregnant".

are you sure?.....maybe she said "I've got a parasite".....

Canceled2
09-20-2009, 10:35 AM
I can certainly understand that. The crazy enviro nuts have their noses all over this state.

The real pisser was that when the plans for the run-off into the creek that dumps into the Pacific were submitted, they told my brother that the plans from the engineer he had hired would create too much silt into the creek. They made him hire and pay for their, the counties, engineer to design the ditch for run off. So he did, and it was their engineer's design that caused the problem...

USFREEDOM911
09-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Well, I'm not sure I appreciate the adjective "simple", however, I do not believe it is a murder. When it's legal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy but if someone else terminates the pregnancy it's considered a murder is ludicrous.

Your response didn't answer the question.

Here; let me help you, seeing as how you have a tendency to go off track.
I asked:
"So if your wife was pregnant and someone punched her in the stomach, which caused the fetus to die, then it would just be a simple assault."

A simple YES or a NO will suffice.

USFREEDOM911
09-20-2009, 10:53 AM
Cass R. Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar suggested in his 2004 book that animals ought to be able to bring suit with private citizens acting as their representatives to insure that animals are not treated in a way that violates current law. In a 2007 speech he called for banning hunting in the US.

Do you see the pattern here in this whacky administration? God help us.







But we're their "caretakers", if you believe what some of the wacko's want to put forth.

Minister of Truth
09-20-2009, 01:56 PM
No, it means a process, an event, has started which may or may not lead to a baby being born.

Processes are boring, let's end it already!!!

DamnYankee
09-20-2009, 07:19 PM
How anyone (anti-abortionists) can justify forcing someone to bring a child into the world when hundreds of children are dying every day from a lack of basic care defies logic and common sense.You anti-life folks need to take responsibility for your actions.

apple0154
09-20-2009, 07:45 PM
Your response didn't answer the question.

Here; let me help you, seeing as how you have a tendency to go off track.
I asked:
"So if your wife was pregnant and someone punched her in the stomach, which caused the fetus to die, then it would just be a simple assault."

A simple YES or a NO will suffice.

Define "simple assault"? Is there a legal definition? A person can be verbally assaulted as well as physically assaulted. One can push another or beat the hell out of them. Are all those considered a "simple assault"?

apple0154
09-20-2009, 07:50 PM
You anti-life folks need to take responsibility for your actions.

That's precisely what we do. A person thinks through the implications of bearing a child. Will they take the time to raise it properly? Do they have sufficient resources? Just to name two.

USFREEDOM911
09-20-2009, 09:50 PM
Define "simple assault"? Is there a legal definition? A person can be verbally assaulted as well as physically assaulted. One can push another or beat the hell out of them. Are all those considered a "simple assault"?

I guess you overlooked the part where I said "punched in the stomach".

You're really failing here apple.

I'm still waiting for a YES or NO answer, to the question.

Minister of Truth
09-20-2009, 11:57 PM
That's precisely what we do. A person thinks through the implications of bearing a child. Will they take the time to raise it properly? Do they have sufficient resources? Just to name two.

Yes, killing someone is taking responsibility for your own actions. Well said.

PostmodernProphet
09-21-2009, 04:18 AM
Yes, killing someone is taking responsibility for your own actions. Well said.

of course....as apple said, people think through the implications.....like the convenience store robber, who upon realizing that the clerk may be able to testify against them in court, blows them away.....so too, realizing they may have to crimp their style if a child is born, they take responsibility by blowing the kid away.....

DamnYankee
09-21-2009, 06:35 AM
That's precisely what we do. A person thinks through the implications of bearing a child. Will they take the time to raise it properly? Do they have sufficient resources? Just to name two.It must be a nice option to kill another person when they become inconvenient to your lifestyle.

apple0154
09-21-2009, 07:28 AM
I guess you overlooked the part where I said "punched in the stomach".

You're really failing here apple.

I'm still waiting for a YES or NO answer, to the question.

Obviously I have to go through this a bit slower for you.

A guy can be punched in the stomach, double over for a few moments, then walk away slightly crooked and the next day he's back at work. Another guy can be punched in the stomach with such force he suffers damage to his gall bladder or pancreas or has internal hemorrhaging.

Do you consider both scenarios a "simple assault"? A "Yes" or "No" answer is all that's required from you.

apple0154
09-21-2009, 07:56 AM
It must be a nice option to kill another person when they become inconvenient to your lifestyle.

Ahh, but there is no person. People do not hatch, they do not arrive on storks and people do not live inside other people's bodies. A person has to be born. That's why we're referred to as "individuals"; apart from each other.

Responsible, mature, compassionate people do not bring individuals into the world if they feel they can not properly look after them.

In the past people bore children counting on their children to look after them in their old age. They bore excessive numbers of children expecting some of them to die or otherwise not be able to care for them. We see that, today, in impoverished countries. There was nothing and is nothing altruistic about bearing a child.

Similarly, governments preventing abortion did not do so out of some religious or moral conscience. Take, for example, France’s Napoleon III. In 1869 he went wheeling and dealing with Pope Pius IX. France's population had declined over the previous 60 years and France, always up to a good war, needed more young men they could send to the slaughter.

Anyway, the back room deal was in exchange for France’s Napoleon III acknowledging papal infallibility Pope Pius IX forbade all abortions. In simple terms Napoleon would say the Pope was never wrong and in exchange the Pope would tell his flock to churn out little soldiers. Truly a deal made in Hell.

Canceled1
09-21-2009, 08:04 AM
Define "simple assault"? Is there a legal definition? A person can be verbally assaulted as well as physically assaulted. One can push another or beat the hell out of them. Are all those considered a "simple assault"?


Being obtuse lost it's luster with you back on the WOT, Apple.

You chose your screenname well. The fruit that would jump-start the "process" of the demise of mankind, in the Biblical sense...

DamnYankee
09-21-2009, 08:11 AM
Ahh, but there is no person. People do not hatch, they do not arrive on storks and people do not live inside other people's bodies. A person has to be born. That's why we're referred to as "individuals"; apart from each other..... After the baby is born it's still dependent on others- can't be apart from others. I guess it's OK to kill them then too.

PostmodernProphet
09-21-2009, 08:14 AM
Responsible, mature, compassionate people do not bring individuals into the world if they feel they can not properly look after them.


are you saying that responsible, mature, compassionate people should kill them instead?.....


A person has to be born. That's why we're referred to as "individuals"; apart from each other.
a person needs to be conceived before she can be born....and the moment of conception is when we can be scientifically identified, by means of DNA analysis, as an individual.....different from father, different from mother, different from any other human individual......

apple0154
09-21-2009, 09:12 AM
Being obtuse lost it's luster with you back on the WOT, Apple.

You chose your screenname well. The fruit that would jump-start the "process" of the demise of mankind, in the Biblical sense...

When it comes to the Bible let's remember Exodus, chapter 21:

"22": If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"23": And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

"24": Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

The concern was for the woman's health, not her "fruit". They didn't have the technology to determine if any damage occurred to the premmie. Nerve damage, lack of oxygen, internal damage resulting in a weak arm or leg or blindness.......because they couldn't access damage to the premmie the punishment refers to damage to the woman.

As for being obtuse, my apologies, however I do not know the legal definition of "simple assault" which is why I recently requested clarification.

apple0154
09-21-2009, 09:19 AM
After the baby is born it's still dependent on others- can't be apart from others. I guess it's OK to kill them then too.

Yes, dependent on others but not dependent on one specific individual. We are all dependent on others; from the local grocer to the person who adjusts the traffic lights.

No one is obliged to give their body to someone else to use. That is the basis on which our society functions.

apple0154
09-21-2009, 09:28 AM
are you saying that responsible, mature, compassionate people should kill them instead?.....

There's no killing. It's "born...die". Not "conceived...die".


a person needs to be conceived before she can be born....and the moment of conception is when we can be scientifically identified, by means of DNA analysis, as an individual.....different from father, different from mother, different from any other human individual......

Scientific definitions/identification is just one way to describe something. We come back to the chicken/egg or acorn/oak tree.

If a grocer advertised tomatoes at a dollar/dozen and handed out tomato seeds he'd be fined for false advertising. Why? According to DNA they are the same thing so should he be allowed to do that?

DamnYankee
09-21-2009, 11:44 AM
Yes, dependent on others but not dependent on one specific individual. We are all dependent on others; from the local grocer to the person who adjusts the traffic lights.

No one is obliged to give their body to someone else to use. That is the basis on which our society functions. The captain of a boat can therefore toss his passengers overboard since they all rely completely on him for their lives while on board.

apple0154
09-21-2009, 12:22 PM
The captain of a boat can therefore toss his passengers overboard since they all rely completely on him for their lives while on board.

Sure, if the passengers were living inside the captain.

DamnYankee
09-21-2009, 12:38 PM
Sure, if the passengers were living inside the captain. A premature baby can live outside the mother's womb. Kill it if can't live outside of an incubator.

PostmodernProphet
09-21-2009, 12:59 PM
There's no killing. It's "born...die". Not "conceived...die".

of course there is killing......there is "alive" followed by "dead"....you can't deny that the unborn are alive......



Scientific definitions/identification is just one way to describe something. We come back to the chicken/egg or acorn/oak tree.
false comparisons....we have zygote/egg as well.....and both an acorn and a tree are oak, just at different stages of development....as are a fetus and an octogenarian....



If a grocer advertised tomatoes at a dollar/dozen and handed out tomato seeds he'd be fined for false advertising. Why? According to DNA they are the same thing so should he be allowed to do that?

and if he handed out pumpkin seeds instead, would they still be tomato seeds?.......will a human fetus ever change into a wildebeast?......

apple0154
09-21-2009, 02:55 PM
A premature baby can live outside the mother's womb. Kill it if can't live outside of an incubator.

Women seeking an abortion are seeking to have the fetus removed and considering the bodies belong to the women in question that is their right.

DamnYankee
09-21-2009, 03:00 PM
Women seeking an abortion are seeking to have the fetus removed and considering the bodies belong to the women in question that is their right. That's your bottom line right there: a baby is simply a possession, and can be bought, sold or disposed off at the whim of its owner.

apple0154
09-21-2009, 03:28 PM
of course there is killing......there is "alive" followed by "dead"....you can't deny that the unborn are alive......

false comparisons....we have zygote/egg as well.....and both an acorn and a tree are oak, just at different stages of development....as are a fetus and an octogenarian....

and if he handed out pumpkin seeds instead, would they still be tomato seeds?.......will a human fetus ever change into a wildebeast?......

While a zygote is alive it is not a human being. As for different stages of development that's the whole point. Developing ---> becoming. Not "is".

And let's not forget over 50% of fertilized eggs , so-called human beings, spontaneously abort. There is less than a 50% chance the egg will become a human being. And when eggs and zygoes and embryos spontaneously abort, when a so-called human being dies, what do we do?

Is there an investigation? Do we interrogate the woman? Or do we just say, "Oh well. Maybe next time."

And when a woman has a defective body do we try to save the healthy so-called human being or does the woman's health and life automatically come first?

I suggest those who are gung-ho on granting person-hood to something that isn't a person realize the same approach can be taken with a bonafide human being.

If a woman can kill what is considered a human being, her offspring, then what is to stop her from killing that offspring after birth? If a woman with a defective body can kill her offspring to save her own life then let's extrapolate that reasoning.

Let's say a mother and her 10 year old son are standing on the balcony of an old, burning building waiting for the fire department. The balcony can not support the weight of both human beings. It should follow she has the right to push her son off the balcony to his certain death.

In both cases, pregnancy and the balcony, her offspring is doing nothing wrong but by killing her son she has a good chance of saving her own life.

By classifying a zygote/embryo/fetus as a human being while allowing a woman with a defective body to kill it can we possibly further cheapen what it means to be a human being?

Over 50% of human beings die before birth which garners little more than a footnote on a medical file and a person with a defective body is permitted to kill healthy human beings.

Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

PostmodernProphet
09-21-2009, 04:51 PM
While a zygote is alive it is not a human being. As for different stages of development that's the whole point. Developing ---> becoming. Not "is".
it isn't developing into a "human being" it's developing into an adult....


And let's not forget over 50% of fertilized eggs , so-called human beings, spontaneously abort. There is less than a 50% chance the egg will become a human being. And when eggs and zygoes and embryos spontaneously abort, when a so-called human being dies, what do we do?
those that I have known who have gone through miscarriages have mourned....



And when a woman has a defective body do we try to save the healthy so-called human being or does the woman's health and life automatically come first?

obviously you would go with the mother...that doesn't mean what's lost is something less....




If a woman can kill what is considered a human being, her offspring, then what is to stop her from killing that offspring after birth? If a woman with a defective body can kill her offspring to save her own life then let's extrapolate that reasoning.

Let's say a mother and her 10 year old son are standing on the balcony of an old, burning building waiting for the fire department. The balcony can not support the weight of both human beings. It should follow she has the right to push her son off the balcony to his certain death.

In both cases, pregnancy and the balcony, her offspring is doing nothing wrong but by killing her son she has a good chance of saving her own life.

By classifying a zygote/embryo/fetus as a human being while allowing a woman with a defective body to kill it can we possibly further cheapen what it means to be a human being?

I don't think you can further cheapen what it means to be a human being than by denying that a human being IS a human being....



Over 50% of human beings die before birth which garners little more than a footnote on a medical file and a person with a defective body is permitted to kill healthy human beings.

Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
so you think that is worse than a society in which a perfectly healthy woman is permitted to kill an perfectly healthy unborn child?......you already live in a society worse than that you propose in your argument......

apple0154
09-21-2009, 06:19 PM
obviously you would go with the mother...that doesn't mean what's lost is something less....

What is obvious about classifying something as a human being, a healthy one no less, and then killing it because another human being has a defective body?


I don't think you can further cheapen what it means to be a human being than by denying that a human being IS a human being......

If that were the case but some people believe we can designate something which is not a human being as a human being and then designate the group to which it belongs as second class citizens.

Second class citizens. A little less human? A little less important? Equal but different. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?


so you think that is worse than a society in which a perfectly healthy woman is permitted to kill an perfectly healthy unborn child?......you already live in a society worse than that you propose in your argument......

Not quite. We have lived in the type of society you propose. A society where certain human beings were considered a little less human. Where one group was more important. Different. Whose life was worth more. The result was a civil war and a world war. We know all about having two classes of human beings.

As you stated at the beginning obviously we would side with the life of the woman. The reason it's obvious is because the other is not a human being. It is a fetus. That argument alone tells us those who propose classifying a fetus as a human either never thought it through or have such disregard for human life it's barely comprehensible.

Simply stated the life of a human being belonging to a group known as "mothers" is always, unquestionably understood to be worth more than a human being belonging to a group known as "fetuses".

The most charitable thing I can say is folks who propose such an idea have a poor grasp of history.

Don Quixote
09-21-2009, 07:00 PM
it is past for our nuts to start killing your nuts

fanatics killing fanatics is evolution in action

the problem is that your fanatics kill useful people while our fanatics kill useless people

Hermes Thoth
09-21-2009, 07:10 PM
Fetus = tiny human being.

uscitizen
09-21-2009, 07:12 PM
Fetus = tiny human being.

Fetus perhaps, but zygot no.

I have no porblem with early abortions. Later ones now are another matter.
But then I do not have to make that decision now do I? And I do not feel it is right for me to make that decision for others either.

Nuff said on abortion.

Don Quixote
09-21-2009, 07:38 PM
Fetus = tiny human being.

fetus = ahz brain :rolleyes:

however, it seems that no words or even actions will change anyone's mind on this subject

PostmodernProphet
09-21-2009, 07:40 PM
What is obvious about classifying something as a human being, a healthy one no less, and then killing it because another human being has a defective body?

???....so you would kill the mother?.....



If that were the case but some people believe we can designate something which is not a human being as a human being and then designate the group to which it belongs as second class citizens.

Second class citizens. A little less human? A little less important? Equal but different. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?


I don't understand, why would you assume that all aborted children would have been liberals?....



Not quite. We have lived in the type of society you propose. A society where certain human beings were considered a little less human. Where one group was more important. Different. Whose life was worth more. The result was a civil war and a world war. We know all about having two classes of human beings.
I know of one class of human beings....what is the second class you are proposing....right now I know we live in a society where you feel free to kill any unborn child you wish.....regardless of anyone's health....



As you stated at the beginning obviously we would side with the life of the woman. The reason it's obvious is because the other is not a human being. It is a fetus. That argument alone tells us those who propose classifying a fetus as a human either never thought it through or have such disregard for human life it's barely comprehensible.
no, that argument tells us you are a fool....the reason is obvious because the mother is an adult, a wife, perhaps a mother with other children depending on her...

now....we've played your little game...let's be honest....you don't give a fuck whether the mother is sick or not.....you want her to be able to kill her unborn child anyway, correct?......

uscitizen
09-21-2009, 07:40 PM
fetus = ahz brain :rolleyes:

however, it seems that no words or even actions will change anyone's mind on this subject

You got that right.

Even preventing conception is a mortal sin to many.

PostmodernProphet
09-21-2009, 07:42 PM
Fetus perhaps, but zygot no.

I have no porblem with early abortions.

so you are content just aborting zygotes?....Fine with me....that gives you a five day window of opportunity.....

uscitizen
09-21-2009, 07:44 PM
so you are content just aborting zygotes?....Fine with me....that gives you a five day window of opportunity.....

Naah I figure about 60 days at least.

But anyway, so you support the morning after abortion pill?

PostmodernProphet
09-21-2009, 07:56 PM
Naah I figure about 60 days at least.


sorry, zygotes aren't zygotes in 60 days.....

uscitizen
09-21-2009, 08:04 PM
sorry, zygotes aren't zygotes in 60 days.....

they are in no way formed with lungs, etc to in anyway live outside the human body. Or are you saying the are thinking humans at 60 days?

USFREEDOM911
09-21-2009, 09:25 PM
Obviously I have to go through this a bit slower for you.

A guy can be punched in the stomach, double over for a few moments, then walk away slightly crooked and the next day he's back at work. Another guy can be punched in the stomach with such force he suffers damage to his gall bladder or pancreas or has internal hemorrhaging.

Do you consider both scenarios a "simple assault"? A "Yes" or "No" answer is all that's required from you.

I never said your wife would suffer from damage to her gall bladder or panchreas or have internal hemorrhaging.
So why not stick with the scenario suggested.

YES or NO??

Minister of Truth
09-21-2009, 10:03 PM
they are in no way formed with lungs, etc to in anyway live outside the human body. Or are you saying the are thinking humans at 60 days?

Oddly enough, a born infant can't live outside the body either.

PostmodernProphet
09-22-2009, 05:46 AM
they are in no way formed with lungs, etc to in anyway live outside the human body. Or are you saying the are thinking humans at 60 days?

/shrugs....if we can kill them just because they aren't thinking, you're dead meat.....

you said you would accept abortions for zygotes, once they attach to the wall of the womb they are no longer zygotes.....that happens in under five days.....

apple0154
09-22-2009, 06:57 AM
???....so you would kill the mother?......

I wouldn't kill any human being. Why are you so fixated on killing human beings?


I don't understand, why would you assume that all aborted children would have been liberals?......

If it could be shown all aborted fetuses would have eventually become Liberals I'd be your strongest anti-abortionist advocate.


I know of one class of human beings....what is the second class you are proposing....right now I know we live in a society where you feel free to kill any unborn child you wish.....regardless of anyone's health......

You have continually asserted the mother's life is worth more than that of the fetus yet you advocate classifying fetuses as human beings. Why do you want to have two classes or values of human beings?


no, that argument tells us you are a fool....the reason is obvious because the mother is an adult, a wife, perhaps a mother with other children depending on her.....

Thank-you for confirming what I have been saying all along. You want to classify embryos and zygotes and fetuses as human beings with the stipulation the mother's life is always worth more. You want two classes of human beings. You want to designate the life of human beings known as "mothers" to be always and unquestionably deemed more important than the life of human beings known as "fetuses".


now....we've played your little game...let's be honest....you don't give a fuck whether the mother is sick or not.....you want her to be able to kill her unborn child anyway, correct?......

Oh, but I do care if the mother is sick. I care more about the mother than you or any other anti-abortionist does. I care more about all human beings than you and all the other anti-abortionists do which is evidenced by my not supporting the abhorrent idea that something that is not a human being, a zygote or embryo or fetus, is a human being but can be killed if another human being has a defective body.

While on the surface it may appear one is raising the value of an embryo or zygote or fetus by claiming it's a human being but the reality is one is lowering the value of all human beings. That is accomplished by the unjustly and sinister plot to classify embryos and zygotes and fetuses as human beings while maintaining they can be killed for no other reason than to lengthen the life of a defective human being.

What's your game? Why do you want to set a precedent whereby a healthy human being may be killed in order to prolong the life of another human being with a defective body?

apple0154
09-22-2009, 07:04 AM
so you are content just aborting zygotes?....Fine with me....that gives you a five day window of opportunity.....

Good grief. One more example of your cavalier attitude towards human beings. Now it's perfectly acceptable to take the life of a five day old so-called human being.

Kill them to allow a human being with a defective body to live and if they're young enough it's fine to just kill them for no reason whatsoever.

You're definitely post-modern, Prophet.

apple0154
09-22-2009, 07:07 AM
I never said your wife would suffer from damage to her gall bladder or panchreas or have internal hemorrhaging.
So why not stick with the scenario suggested.

YES or NO??

I'm gave two scenarios and asked if both are considered "simple assaults". Why are you unable or unwilling to answer the question?

PostmodernProphet
09-22-2009, 08:05 AM
I wouldn't kill any human being. Why are you so fixated on killing human beings?

I'm devoted to STOPPING people who are fixated on killing humans...



You have continually asserted the mother's life is worth more than that of the fetus yet you advocate classifying fetuses as human beings. Why do you want to have two classes or values of human beings?

Thank-you for confirming what I have been saying all along. You want to classify embryos and zygotes and fetuses as human beings with the stipulation the mother's life is always worth more. You want two classes of human beings. You want to designate the life of human beings known as "mothers" to be always and unquestionably deemed more important than the life of human beings known as "fetuses".


??...it doesn't impose two classes of human beings....it simply acknowledges a choice is being made between two individuals.....the same thing happens every day in our court system.....one party wins a case, another party loses a case, depending upon the application of justice.....does that create two classes of human beings?...the winners and the losers?....



Oh, but I do care if the mother is sick.

then a straightforward answer is necessary....will you concede a ban on all abortions when the mother is healthy?.....if not, my point stands....

PostmodernProphet
09-22-2009, 08:06 AM
You're definitely post-modern, Prophet.

a side note, but obviously then you have no understanding of what that means....

apple0154
09-22-2009, 09:11 AM
??...it doesn't impose two classes of human beings....it simply acknowledges a choice is being made between two individuals.....the same thing happens every day in our court system.....one party wins a case, another party loses a case, depending upon the application of justice.....does that create two classes of human beings?...the winners and the losers?....

So, what are you getting at? Are you saying there will be times when the mother's health and/or life will be sacrificed for the sake of the fetus?


then a straightforward answer is necessary....will you concede a ban on all abortions when the mother is healthy?.....if not, my point stands....

No, I would never concede that because of the reason I mentioned. It sets the stage for two classes of human beings. If a fetus is a human being then it is entitled to all the rights and privileges of every other human being. Certainly the right not to be killed because of another human being's defective body.

Either one is prepared to accept the possibility of seeing a female family member become ill and possibly die or classifying a fetus as a human being is disingenuous, at best.

If a woman has uncontrolled high blood pressure or diabetes surely one does not condone the killing of an innocent human being. That being the case maybe the woman will end up less a kidney or have a stroke and be partially paralyzed or having to be institutionalized for life.

People rant and rave about government trying to take over medicine. Imagine their reaction when the government denies their wife or daughter an abortion and tragedy strikes. On the other hand do we kill an innocent human being because a woman might have complications? Is the loss of one kidney worth a human life? Is the possibility of partial loss of memory due to a stroke worth a human being's life? Who decides?

Then we can contemplate the possibilities of couples who have split up. Is there a panel who decides if an abortion is a medical necessary? Let's say the woman's doctor feels she should have a abortion and the estranged husband offers to produce a doctor who has a conflicting opinion. Will the fate of the woman be based on who can afford the best doctors to testify?

And why wouldn't the estranged husband have a say? He is fighting for his son's/daughter's life. He doesn't give a damn about your daughter or sister who dumped him just because he liked to beat the hell out of her.

Even consider those scenarios?

The problem is people think the law can be changed and things will go back to pre-Roe vs Wade. The world has changed in the last 35 years. Now people want to know what the definition of "is" is.

In any case are you prepared to have a family member go through any of the scenarios I mentioned? Are you prepared to have the government determine the level of threat/injury to a family member verses the life of a fetus?

USFREEDOM911
09-22-2009, 09:59 AM
I'm gave two scenarios and asked if both are considered "simple assaults". Why are you unable or unwilling to answer the question?

Why can't you just answer?

If the only harm that is suffered, is the loss of the fetus, then you would have no problem with the person being charged with an assault.

YES or NO.

It's beginning to look like you've finally realized the flaw in your presentation and are just trying to weasel out of making a choice.

Time to show some backbone, apple, instead of trying to spin the conversation to something that's more agreeable to you.

PostmodernProphet
09-22-2009, 12:00 PM
So, what are you getting at? Are you saying there will be times when the mother's health and/or life will be sacrificed for the sake of the fetus?

what I am getting at is this whole train of thought makes no difference in determining whether someone is a human being or not.......in either event a determination has to be made, if both can't survive, which is going to be terminated....in any event, since you are prepared to kill the unborn child even if the mother is healthy and going through birth would cause her no injury, your whole issue is meaningless.....



No, I would never concede that because of the reason I mentioned. It sets the stage for two classes of human beings. If a fetus is a human being then it is entitled to all the rights and privileges of every other human being.

we made that same choice for hundreds of years before Roe v Wade, there weren't two classes of human beings then.....the same considerations are still in play now....the only time it becomes an issue is when a healthy woman wants to kill her healthy unborn child.....



People rant and rave about government trying to take over medicine. Imagine their reaction when the government denies their wife or daughter an abortion and tragedy strikes.
you realize of course that the law before Roe v Wade had always permitted abortion to save the life of the mother......there is zero reason for this to become an issue now....this whole line of argument has no value whatsoever....

apple0154
09-22-2009, 04:32 PM
Why can't you just answer?

If the only harm that is suffered, is the loss of the fetus, then you would have no problem with the person being charged with an assault.

YES or NO.

It's beginning to look like you've finally realized the flaw in your presentation and are just trying to weasel out of making a choice.

Time to show some backbone, apple, instead of trying to spin the conversation to something that's more agreeable to you.

I have no problem with the person being charged with assault but we come back to the same place. What do you mean by "simple assault"?

For example, was the placenta torn from the uterus and hemorrhaging occur? Did the placenta not fully pass? Etc, etc, etc.

That's why I asked what constitutes a "simple assault". I gave you an example of what could happen regarding a punch in the stomach. A stomach punch can result in anything from minor discomfort to a lengthy hospital stay to death depending on the severity and treatment. A ruptured intestine will cause infection and death if not treated in a timely manner.

There's assault, assault and battery, assault with intent, aggravated assault.....

Now do you understand why I asked for clarification? Is the perp spending 30 days or five years in prison?

apple0154
09-22-2009, 05:23 PM
what I am getting at is this whole train of thought makes no difference in determining whether someone is a human being or not.......in either event a determination has to be made, if both can't survive, which is going to be terminated....in any event, since you are prepared to kill the unborn child even if the mother is healthy and going through birth would cause her no injury, your whole issue is meaningless.....

It's not meaningless. How do we determine anything? Hopefully, we think things through. If a fetus is a human being then the defective woman's health/life is not automatically a priority over and above the fetus. Are we prepared, as a society, to watch a family member deteriorate and possibly die due to government restrictions on abortion?


we made that same choice for hundreds of years before Roe v Wade, there weren't two classes of human beings then.....the same considerations are still in play now....the only time it becomes an issue is when a healthy woman wants to kill her healthy unborn child.....

So how are the risks to the women determined and by whom? Is she permitted to get various opinions? Is the father of the fetus permitted to insist his choice of doctor examine the woman? If not, why not? Surely he has a stake in this. And if his doctor's opinion is the risk to the woman is not sufficient who finally decides? Can decisions be appealed?


you realize of course that the law before Roe v Wade had always permitted abortion to save the life of the mother......there is zero reason for this to become an issue now....this whole line of argument has no value whatsoever....

See above questions.

This is not 1959 or 1969. It's 2009. When Roe vs Wade was in effect husbands controlled women and few women had the resources to stage a legal fight. Plus, the number of single women has dramatically increased.

Simply put, they will not tolerate such a vile intrusion into their lives. If you think the tea-baggers put on a show ya ain't seen nothin' yet.

Taichiliberal
09-22-2009, 06:37 PM
Okay people, let's cut the crap.

For years, the anti-abortion rights folk were not only against abortion for any reason, but against any sex education in our public schools. The mantra use to be that sex education promotes promiscuity....which was just fucking dumb, given that the whole abortion issue came about because a whole lot of teens were getting knocked up BEFORE sex ed was ever an issue. And the kicker was/is that the same anti-abortion folk wail like banshees about any form of social welfare, or legalization of contraceptives for teens of driving age.

So the anti-abortion folk just don't give a damn about real people....just as long as their personal ideology and religious beliefs are not disturbed when they open the morning paper or watch/listen to the news.

uscitizen
09-22-2009, 07:10 PM
But we are makiing progress. Condom commercials are on more sat/cable channels now.

the old teabaggers will die off and thigs will loosen up.

PostmodernProphet
09-22-2009, 09:41 PM
Are we prepared, as a society, to watch a family member deteriorate and possibly die due to government restrictions on abortion?

of course you are....you've watched 47 million family members die since 1972.....




Simply put, they will not tolerate such a vile intrusion into their lives. If you think the tea-baggers put on a show ya ain't seen nothin' yet.
/shrugs....you can't expect to be able to kill your children forever...folks used to argue that Jews and blacks weren't human as well.....someday we will look back on abortion the way we currently look at slavery and the Holocaust.....

PostmodernProphet
09-22-2009, 09:43 PM
Okay people, let's cut the crap.

For years, the anti-abortion rights folk were not only against abortion for any reason, but against any sex education in our public schools. The mantra use to be that sex education promotes promiscuity....which was just fucking dumb, given that the whole abortion issue came about because a whole lot of teens were getting knocked up BEFORE sex ed was ever an issue. And the kicker was/is that the same anti-abortion folk wail like banshees about any form of social welfare, or legalization of contraceptives for teens of driving age.

So the anti-abortion folk just don't give a damn about real people....just as long as their personal ideology and religious beliefs are not disturbed when they open the morning paper or watch/listen to the news.

I can't find anything true in your post.....why is that?....

USFREEDOM911
09-22-2009, 11:05 PM
I have no problem with the person being charged with assault but we come back to the same place. What do you mean by "simple assault"?

For example, was the placenta torn from the uterus and hemorrhaging occur? Did the placenta not fully pass? Etc, etc, etc.

That's why I asked what constitutes a "simple assault". I gave you an example of what could happen regarding a punch in the stomach. A stomach punch can result in anything from minor discomfort to a lengthy hospital stay to death depending on the severity and treatment. A ruptured intestine will cause infection and death if not treated in a timely manner.

There's assault, assault and battery, assault with intent, aggravated assault.....

Now do you understand why I asked for clarification? Is the perp spending 30 days or five years in prison?

So if she was 8 months and 2 weeks along and the punch resulted in the fetus in being something no longer viable, you would have no problem with him just being charged with punching your wife.
As long as she didn't suffer any other injuries.

DamnYankee
09-23-2009, 06:39 AM
Okay people, let's cut the crap.

For years, the anti-abortion rights folk were not only against abortion for any reason, but against any sex education in our public schools. The mantra use to be that sex education promotes promiscuity....which was just fucking dumb, given that the whole abortion issue came about because a whole lot of teens were getting knocked up BEFORE sex ed was ever an issue. And the kicker was/is that the same anti-abortion folk wail like banshees about any form of social welfare, or legalization of contraceptives for teens of driving age.

So the anti-abortion folk just don't give a damn about real people....just as long as their personal ideology and religious beliefs are not disturbed when they open the morning paper or watch/listen to the news. Babies aren't real people?

apple0154
09-23-2009, 10:14 AM
.you can't expect to be able to kill your children forever...folks used to argue that Jews and blacks weren't human as well.....someday we will look back on abortion the way we currently look at slavery and the Holocaust.....

We'll look back on abortion as the intermediate step between a society that improved on almost everything but left reproduction to chance/fate/a roll of the dice and a society that brought forth healthy, planned offspring.

We'll look back on the opponents of abortion like we look back on those who imprisoned scientists and astronomers. We'll look back on those who knowingly brought forth genetically damaged offspring the same way we view those who believed illness and disease were caused by an upset deity.

We'll look back on abortion as the threshold entering a new age. Maybe the impetus that results in the development of new birth control drugs/vaccines. Imagine a vaccine that prevents pregnancy. The need for abortions would be greatly reduced. (I think they currently have something similar. Birth control injections.)

Maybe the in vitro process will become common place. Fertilized eggs screened for genetic defects. Just imagine the suffering that will be prevented, the suffering that currently takes place in hospitals specially designed for the care of genetically damaged children.

Legal and accepted abortions is just a step to a better society. Slowly, there will be a paradigm shift. Rather than pull out our hair trying to stop abortions, trying to change nature and young people's urges, we will take a completely different approach.

As a society we can encourage proper reproduction. To paraphrase Tabasco, "Young people copulate."

apple0154
09-23-2009, 10:25 AM
So if she was 8 months and 2 weeks along and the punch resulted in the fetus in being something no longer viable, you would have no problem with him just being charged with punching your wife.
As long as she didn't suffer any other injuries.

The law could be adjusted to compensate for how far along the woman was.

We have assault and we have hate crimes. Both are assault but there is a difference in sentencing. Obviously a person would know a woman was pregnant if she was 8 months along. Perhaps not so if she was three months.

Consideration also has to be given to "intent". Assault with intent to....is not simple assault. Again, we come back to why I asked you the definition of "assault".

apple0154
09-23-2009, 10:28 AM
Babies aren't real people?

No, they are not. Just like a tomato seed is not a real tomato and an acorn will not provide a hell of a lot of shade on a hot summer's day. :)

DamnYankee
09-23-2009, 10:56 AM
No, they are not. Just like a tomato seed is not a real tomato and an acorn will not provide a hell of a lot of shade on a hot summer's day. :) So we should be allowed to kill anyone who doesn't carry their weight in society when they become inconvenient to the people who support them.

PostmodernProphet
09-23-2009, 12:13 PM
We'll look back on abortion as the threshold entering a new age.

progress through death....put's a whole new meaning on "Progressive" doesn't it.....nothing personal, apple, but I consider you a sickfuck.....

Minister of Truth
09-23-2009, 07:21 PM
We sure as hell don't look back positively on any other crimes against humanity. This too shall pass, although I fear scores of millions more will perish at the hands of liberals first.

apple0154
09-23-2009, 07:29 PM
So we should be allowed to kill anyone who doesn't carry their weight in society when they become inconvenient to the people who support them.

I don't see the relevance of that remark considering fetuses are not in society.

DamnYankee
09-23-2009, 07:29 PM
Yeah but they are the children of liberals, and since they would probably have grown up to be like their whiny parents, the world is better off. I have therefore decided to support abortion.

DamnYankee
09-23-2009, 07:30 PM
I don't see the relevance of that remark considering fetuses are not in society. That's like saying your brains are not in society.

There's a joke in there somewhere but it eludes me...

apple0154
09-23-2009, 07:35 PM
progress through death....put's a whole new meaning on "Progressive" doesn't it.....nothing personal, apple, but I consider you a sickfuck.....

Awww, Pre-modern. It's OK. There have always been folks like you down through history. Crucifying those who didn't believe the earth was flat. Burning those who said the stars weren't LEDs poking through a canvas roof.

As for progress through death it's ironic you mention that. Imagine if people never died. We'd probably still have leaders believing the aforementioned.

apple0154
09-23-2009, 07:39 PM
Yeah but they are the children of liberals, and since they would probably have grown up to be like their whiny parents, the world is better off. I have therefore decided to support abortion.

ALRIGHT !!!!!! You're a gentleman and a scholar.

apple0154
09-23-2009, 07:41 PM
That's like saying your brains are not in society.

There's a joke in there somewhere but it eludes me...

Not to worry, SM. I'm sure many folks have a good laugh at your posts. :D

DamnYankee
09-23-2009, 07:44 PM
ALRIGHT !!!!!! You're a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you. Hey I have a great idea- let's starting killing kids after they start showing liberal tendencies as well. Any kid who cries too much, or insists on his mother picking up after him. We'll drill holes in their skulls and suck their little brains out. And of course, no anesthesia, because they won't remember the pain. We'll all pretend the wailing is screams of joy. :)

apple0154
09-23-2009, 08:10 PM
Thank you. Hey I have a great idea- let's starting killing kids after they start showing liberal tendencies as well. Any kid who cries too much, or insists on his mother picking up after him. We'll drill holes in their skulls and suck their little brains out. And of course, no anesthesia, because they won't remember the pain. We'll all pretend the wailing is screams of joy. :)

But it's the ones who show Liberal tendencies who will grow up and change the world. That's what's needed.

It's unfortunate the 60s were so short a decade. People rising up and confronting their government saying they refuse to go to war! Unheard of in the annals of history. Nothing less than a paradigm shift.

The start of equality among colors and sexes and the commencement to kick the government out of the bedrooms of the nation.

Truly a great time to live and experience.

PostmodernProphet
09-23-2009, 08:10 PM
Awww, Pre-modern. It's OK. There have always been folks like you down through history. Crucifying those who didn't believe the earth was flat. Burning those who said the stars weren't LEDs poking through a canvas roof.


shucks, you want to kill them just because you want to....at least they had reasons....anyone that thinks killing at will is opening a "new age" is a sick fuck.....

DamnYankee
09-23-2009, 08:18 PM
But it's the ones who show Liberal tendencies who will grow up and change the world. That's what's needed.

It's unfortunate the 60s were so short a decade. People rising up and confronting their government saying they refuse to go to war! Unheard of in the annals of history. Nothing less than a paradigm shift.

The start of quality among colors and sexes and the commencement to kick the government out of the bedrooms of the nation.

Truly a great time to live and experience. You want to change the world? Better to do it the old fashioned way: war. It's also responsible for more freedom than any decade long sit-in. That's why the WW2 generation will always be called "The Greatest Generation": because they killed fascists like Obama aspires to.

apple0154
09-23-2009, 08:30 PM
shucks, you want to kill them just because you want to....at least they had reasons....anyone that thinks killing at will is opening a "new age" is a sick fuck.....

Actually the sick fuck is he/she who knowingly supports/brings a severely defective child into the world to endure a lifetime of suffering. Or brings a child into the world knowing the child will be neglected and the resultant poor education which leads to a life of poverty and/or prison. Irresponsibility, bordering on the criminal, IMO.

apple0154
09-23-2009, 08:46 PM
You want to change the world? Better to do it the old fashioned way: war. It's also responsible for more freedom than any decade long sit-in. That's why the WW2 generation will always be called "The Greatest Generation": because they killed fascists like Obama aspires to.

I always had the impression conservatives, if not being overly religious, prescribed to Biblical principals such as not being loud and aggressive and their wanting to help others. When Obama tries to bring civility to government or attempts to make medical services available to all the Conservatives fight against it to the point of yelling "Liar" and talk about fascism and communism.

It's most peculiar and definately an eye-opener. Maybe it's all good. Maybe it's time to see what the Conservative really stands for.

USFREEDOM911
09-23-2009, 08:49 PM
The law could be adjusted to compensate for how far along the woman was.

We have assault and we have hate crimes. Both are assault but there is a difference in sentencing. Obviously a person would know a woman was pregnant if she was 8 months along. Perhaps not so if she was three months.

Consideration also has to be given to "intent". Assault with intent to....is not simple assault. Again, we come back to why I asked you the definition of "assault".

But why would a low have to be adjusted to compensate for a fetus; ie. a mass of cells??

What would make the difference if she was 3 months or 8 months, as long as she didn't suffer from being struck??

Why would "Intent" be considered??
Mabye the intent was to rid the woman of the "fetus".

Since you've danced around this, for so long; it appears that you and your wife would just move on, with no sadness.

Minister of Truth
09-24-2009, 01:20 AM
Awww, Pre-modern. It's OK. There have always been folks like you down through history. Crucifying those who didn't believe the earth was flat. Burning those who said the stars weren't LEDs poking through a canvas roof.

As for progress through death it's ironic you mention that. Imagine if people never died. We'd probably still have leaders believing the aforementioned.

Hey, if you are modern (1800-1950), then you have some serious catching up of your own to do there!!!

apple0154
09-24-2009, 04:15 AM
But why would a low have to be adjusted to compensate for a fetus; ie. a mass of cells??

What would make the difference if she was 3 months or 8 months, as long as she didn't suffer from being struck??.

As I mentioned the "victim impact" would be completely different for a woman at 8 months who is looking forward to having a baby as compared to someone who had an abortion scheduled the following week.


Why would "Intent" be considered??
Mabye the intent was to rid the woman of the "fetus"..

Precisely! Remember Tonya Harding hiring someone to assault her competitor so she could win the figure skating competition? I see a difference between assaulting someone in anger and assaulting someone for a purpose.


Since you've danced around this, for so long; it appears that you and your wife would just move on, with no sadness.

Of course there would be sadness but it's not a murder. That's the point.

Hermes Thoth
09-24-2009, 05:16 AM
As I mentioned the "victim impact" would be completely different for a woman at 8 months who is looking forward to having a baby as compared to someone who had an abortion scheduled the following week.



Precisely! Remember Tonya Harding hiring someone to assault her competitor so she could win the figure skating competition? I see a difference between assaulting someone in anger and assaulting someone for a purpose.



Of course there would be sadness but it's not a murder. That's the point.

Why would there be sadness?

Hermes Thoth
09-24-2009, 05:19 AM
Why is apple so committed to baby killing? Because of the new world order and being cool?

Murder isn't cool, apple.

PostmodernProphet
09-24-2009, 05:40 AM
Actually the sick fuck is he/she who knowingly supports/brings a severely defective child into the world to endure a lifetime of suffering. Or brings a child into the world knowing the child will be neglected and the resultant poor education which leads to a life of poverty and/or prison. Irresponsibility, bordering on the criminal, IMO.

straw-fucking-man.....I suppose your claim is that the 47 million killed since 1972 were all severely defective?......would have all led a life of poverty and imprisonment?.....

PostmodernProphet
09-24-2009, 05:50 AM
Precisely! Remember Tonya Harding hiring someone to assault her competitor so she could win the figure skating competition? I see a difference between assaulting someone in anger and assaulting someone for a purpose.



the law has always distinguished criminal activity based upon the intent of the criminal....it is something new to suggest distinguishing criminal activity based upon the intent of the victim.....

PostmodernProphet
09-24-2009, 05:52 AM
Why would there be sadness?

because, as always, the way the left views the value of a fetus depends simply on whether they want it to live or they want it to die.....they mourn the loss of an unborn child if they wanted it to live, they rejoice in the exercise of their rights when the unborn child they did not want is killed.....the unborn child has no value except in their own minds.....

Minister of Truth
09-24-2009, 08:58 AM
Apple just pissed off every caregiver of special needs children that I can think of. How sweet is that?

Hermes Thoth
09-24-2009, 09:17 AM
because, as always, the way the left views the value of a fetus depends simply on whether they want it to live or they want it to die.....they mourn the loss of an unborn child if they wanted it to live, they rejoice in the exercise of their rights when the unborn child they did not want is killed.....the unborn child has no value except in their own minds.....

Exactly. A humans value is dictated by the collective. this is the sinister 'utilitarian view' of human life that's so popular in elite circles these days.

apple0154
09-24-2009, 09:56 AM
straw-fucking-man.....I suppose your claim is that the 47 million killed since 1972 were all severely defective?......would have all led a life of poverty and imprisonment?.....

It's not a straw man at all and that's what you can't grasp. Either one classifies a fetus as a human being with ALL the rights and privileges of a human being or they don't classify it as a human being. There is no 1/2 way measure. There is no killing an innocent human being because of the defective body of another human being (problem pregnancy). There is no killing a human being even if genetic testing shows the fetus is so malformed or severely damaged it will never leave an institution and will suffer painful medical procedures and be left alone rather than have it's mother to hold and feed it.

Try and wrap your mind around the reality and stop the nonsense of "well, this case is different" or "in that case the mother's health comes first" or some other exception.

There are no exceptions when it comes to human beings. Either fetuses, once classified as human beings, will have the same rights as everyone else or we go back on the path society has taken too many times before.

What are you having a problem with? Have you ever read a history book? Once exceptions are made for a group of human beings, in this case fetuses, all hell breaks loose.

For the love of God educate yourself. If you can't understand the imminent danger in what you propose, classifying fetuses as human beings while suggesting the defective mother's life ALWAYS comes first, you set a precedent. A very dangerous precedent that has been used concerning other human beings down through history. Nothing good ever came of it. In fact, it always turned out bad. Very bad.

I suggest you start by a visit to a hospital for sick children. Go there. Soak up the cries and screams. Immerse yourself in the suffering brought on by those who didn't believe in abortion.

You have no idea what you're talking about or proposing or the inevitable consequences. Talk about a sick fuck.

USFREEDOM911
09-24-2009, 10:00 AM
As I mentioned the "victim impact" would be completely different for a woman at 8 months who is looking forward to having a baby as compared to someone who had an abortion scheduled the following week.



Precisely! Remember Tonya Harding hiring someone to assault her competitor so she could win the figure skating competition? I see a difference between assaulting someone in anger and assaulting someone for a purpose.



Of course there would be sadness but it's not a murder. That's the point.

What "victim impact"?? Accordiong to you, it's just a mass of cells.
An assault is an assault. Even anger has a purpose and how can you assault someone if you're not angry?

Why would there be sadness?? According to you, it's just a mass of cells. You're wife should just suck it up and move on. It's not like she lost anything, according to you.

USFREEDOM911
09-24-2009, 10:03 AM
Exactly. A humans value is dictated by the collective. this is the sinister 'utilitarian view' of human life that's so popular in elite circles these days.

I wonder if the next movement, will be to barge into hospitals and unplug all the life support devices and incubaters.
Seeing as how they're not viable.

And then, there's all those nursing homes that have those suffering from dementia and mental wards of those that will never leave.

apple0154
09-24-2009, 10:04 AM
Exactly. A humans value is dictated by the collective. this is the sinister 'utilitarian view' of human life that's so popular in elite circles these days.

Why don't you pack a lunch and join Prophet for a day at a hospital for sick children. I'm willing to bet you've never been to one. Have you? Go and see what an anti-abortionist has put another human being through and let me know what you would have done if you had a choice. Deal?

USFREEDOM911
09-24-2009, 10:09 AM
It's not a straw man at all and that's what you can't grasp. Either one classifies a fetus as a human being with ALL the rights and privileges of a human being or they don't classify it as a human being. There is no 1/2 way measure. There is no killing an innocent human being because of the defective body of another human being (problem pregnancy). There is no killing a human being even if genetic testing shows the fetus is so malformed or severely damaged it will never leave an institution and will suffer painful medical procedures and be left alone rather than have it's mother to hold and feed it.

Try and wrap your mind around the reality and stop the nonsense of "well, this case is different" or "in that case the mother's health comes first" or some other exception.

There are no exceptions when it comes to human beings. Either fetuses, once classified as human beings, will have the same rights as everyone else or we go back on the path society has taken too many times before.

What are you having a problem with? Have you ever read a history book? Once exceptions are made for a group of human beings, in this case fetuses, all hell breaks loose.

For the love of God educate yourself. If you can't understand the imminent danger in what you propose, classifying fetuses as human beings while suggesting the defective mother's life ALWAYS comes first, you set a precedent. A very dangerous precedent that has been used concerning other human beings down through history. Nothing good ever came of it. In fact, it always turned out bad. Very bad.

I suggest you start by a visit to a hospital for sick children. Go there. Soak up the cries and screams. Immerse yourself in the suffering brought on by those who didn't believe in abortion.

You have no idea what you're talking about or proposing or the inevitable consequences. Talk about a sick fuck.

Since you're so big on absolutes and refuse to see anything past those, answer me this.

Someone breaks into your home, has your entire family at gunpoint, tells you to choose who's going to die, your wife or your child, and if you don't choose, he's gong to kill everyone.

Who do you choose??

No BS spins, no asking for clarifications, no straw men arguments, WHO DO YOU CHOOSE??

PostmodernProphet
09-24-2009, 10:10 AM
I There is no killing an innocent human being because of the defective body of another human being (problem pregnancy).

yes there is....and there has been....for hundreds of years...society has never had difficulty dealing with this conflict before and there is no reason to have trouble dealing with it in the future....

PostmodernProphet
09-24-2009, 10:12 AM
Why don't you pack a lunch and join Prophet for a day at a hospital for sick children. I'm willing to bet you've never been to one. Have you? Go and see what an anti-abortionist has put another human being through and let me know what you would have done if you had a choice. Deal?
another fucking straw man.....the 47 million children killed in the US since 1972 weren't sick and wouldn't have ended up in a hospital for sick children.....why won't you deal honestly with this issue.....

USFREEDOM911
09-24-2009, 10:16 AM
another fucking straw man.....the 47 million children killed in the US since 1972 weren't sick and wouldn't have ended up in a hospital for sick children.....why won't you deal honestly with this issue.....

But it makes them feel better, when they just put them all under one blanket statement like that.

That way they can come back and tell someone else to prove how many of them WEREN'T "defective".

It stops them from questioning themselves.

Hermes Thoth
09-24-2009, 10:20 AM
Why don't you pack a lunch and join Prophet for a day at a hospital for sick children. I'm willing to bet you've never been to one. Have you? Go and see what an anti-abortionist has put another human being through and let me know what you would have done if you had a choice. Deal?

What's that have to do with collectivists determining human value based on usefullness to the collective?

Canceled1
09-24-2009, 11:42 AM
But it makes them feel better, when they just put them all under one blanket statement like that.

That way they can come back and tell someone else to prove how many of them WEREN'T "defective".

It stops them from questioning themselves.

Oh shoot Free! You know Apple. The only thing he's really interested in is the act that makes the baby. The actual infant is just collateral damage.

apple0154
09-24-2009, 02:03 PM
Since you're so big on absolutes and refuse to see anything past those, answer me this.

Someone breaks into your home, has your entire family at gunpoint, tells you to choose who's going to die, your wife or your child, and if you don't choose, he's gong to kill everyone.

Who do you choose??

No BS spins, no asking for clarifications, no straw men arguments, WHO DO YOU CHOOSE??

I do not choose. Why would I trust a nut case to honor their word? They are just as likely to kill the one I didn't choose.

DamnYankee
09-24-2009, 02:39 PM
I always had the impression conservatives, if not being overly religious, prescribed to Biblical principals such as not being loud and aggressive and their wanting to help others. When Obama tries to bring civility to government or attempts to make medical services available to all the Conservatives fight against it to the point of yelling "Liar" and talk about fascism and communism.

It's most peculiar and definately an eye-opener. Maybe it's all good. Maybe it's time to see what the Conservative really stands for. Thanks for admitting that you don't have a clue what real Americans are like.

apple0154
09-24-2009, 02:41 PM
yes there is....and there has been....for hundreds of years...society has never had difficulty dealing with this conflict before and there is no reason to have trouble dealing with it in the future....

"Before" is the key word. Why? Because for thousands of years people were sheep. They simply obeyed authority, regardless.

But times have changed. Fewer and fewer people are swayed by deals like the one between Napoleon III and Pope Pius IX, circa 1869. People, well, most folks, demand logic and equality and all those little nuisance things that get in the way of politicians trying to cram garbage down people's throats.

People are more educated. They question laws. They think things through and when something comes along like saying a fetus is a human being they think through what that means. The consequences. How does that play out? Then they realize it doesn't play out, at all.

It involves taking one of the most basic rights away from a woman, those involving her body. Then it involves automatically taking the most basic right away from another human being (assuming a fetus is designated as such) by saying their life is always inferior to that of a woman.

Can it be anymore twisted? Convoluted? Completely illogical? Crazy?

That's why abortion is legal in most developed countries. Canada, USA, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia.........

We can't turn back the clock. People have become aware, either directly or indirectly, that claiming a fetus is a human being doesn't play out. It doesn't work. It doesn't fit.

apple0154
09-24-2009, 03:06 PM
another fucking straw man.....the 47 million children killed in the US since 1972 weren't sick and wouldn't have ended up in a hospital for sick children.....why won't you deal honestly with this issue.....

I'm dealing honestly with the issue. I and most everyone else wish there were less abortions for a number of reasons but the solution is not to classify fetuses as human beings and then start twisting things so they fit in. That's the problem.

Proposing the lives of members one group of human beings (mothers) is always superior to the lives of another group of human beings (fetuses) is hardly a straw man. It goes against everything our society and culture stand for which is equality.

If exceptions can be made for one group of human beings then they can be made for other groups. What is about that statement you are having difficulty understanding?

History has taught us, over and over, exceptions are very, very bad. Do you not know that? Do you not believe that? Do you not care? Let's deal honestly with this issue.

apple0154
09-24-2009, 03:11 PM
What's that have to do with collectivists determining human value based on usefullness to the collective?

I never said anything about the collective.

Hermes Thoth
09-24-2009, 03:13 PM
I never said anything about the collective.

The collective is talking shit about you.

apple0154
09-24-2009, 03:19 PM
Oh shoot Free! You know Apple. The only thing he's really interested in is the act that makes the baby. The actual infant is just collateral damage.

Now that's not true. I've engaged in serious pillow talk after the act with questions like, "Got anything good in the fridge to eat?" to "What did you say your name was?"

apple0154
09-24-2009, 03:26 PM
The collective is talking shit about you.

It won't be the first time the collective has been grossly misinformed.

USFREEDOM911
09-24-2009, 05:08 PM
I do not choose. Why would I trust a nut case to honor their word? They are just as likely to kill the one I didn't choose.

Congratulations, you just condemned your entire family to death.
How liberal of you.

PostmodernProphet
09-24-2009, 05:36 PM
We can't turn back the clock.

we turned back the clock in 1972....people used to sacrifice their first born children in the bronze age

PostmodernProphet
09-24-2009, 05:46 PM
History has taught us, over and over, exceptions are very, very bad. Do you not know that? Do you not believe that? Do you not care? Let's deal honestly with this issue.

History has shown us that humanity has dealt successfully with this issue......your argument is illegitimate and I am done repeating myself....

apple0154
09-24-2009, 07:03 PM
Congratulations, you just condemned your entire family to death.
How liberal of you.

Eh, it's called equality. :)

apple0154
09-24-2009, 07:16 PM
History has shown us that humanity has dealt successfully with this issue....

Yes, most of humanity has dealt successfully with it. Recently, that is. The one who bears the child and is primarily responsible for it is the most qualified to determine if they should bear a child.

Seems like plain, old common sense to me but as they say, "Common sense is not all that common."

Hermes Thoth
09-24-2009, 07:41 PM
Yes, most of humanity has dealt successfully with it. Recently, that is. The one who bears the child and is primarily responsible for it is the most qualified to determine if they should bear a child.

Seems like plain, old common sense to me but as they say, "Common sense is not all that common."

But dehumanizing babies isn't the answer. It just doesn't fit.

apple0154
09-24-2009, 07:45 PM
But dehumanizing babies isn't the answer. It just doesn't fit.

I agree. Babies are human beings and fetuses are not.

Hermes Thoth
09-24-2009, 07:52 PM
I agree. Babies are human beings and fetuses are not.

But fetuses are babies in utero.

Taichiliberal
09-24-2009, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Okay people, let's cut the crap.

For years, the anti-abortion rights folk were not only against abortion for any reason, but against any sex education in our public schools. The mantra use to be that sex education promotes promiscuity....which was just fucking dumb, given that the whole abortion issue came about because a whole lot of teens were getting knocked up BEFORE sex ed was ever an issue. And the kicker was/is that the same anti-abortion folk wail like banshees about any form of social welfare, or legalization of contraceptives for teens of driving age.

So the anti-abortion folk just don't give a damn about real people....just as long as their personal ideology and religious beliefs are not disturbed when they open the morning paper or watch/listen to the news.


Babies aren't real people?

Yes they are, and a cluster bomb or "surgical strike" doesn't discriminate. Babies are real people, not "collateral damage".

My point is that if all the anti-abortion wailers were SO serious about perserving life, then the vast majority of them WOULD NOT have so whole heartedly supported a bogus war....the vast majority of them would NOT whole heartedly fight against welfare programs that help children born out of wedlock SURVIVE...nor would they fight to maintain a health insurance system that values the $$ bottom line over life in many instances.

Let me be clear, given the medical advancements in my lifetime, there should never be another abortion in America unless the life of the mother is endanger or the impregnation is due to rape and it's her decision to abort. But because of moronic adherence to religious dogma and antiquated social stigmas, our society is preventing comprehensive, realistic sex education and access to birth control for who need it. So until this country gets it's head out of it's idealogical ass, abortion is a needed.

apple0154
09-24-2009, 07:55 PM
But fetuses are babies in utero.

And living persons are undead corpses.

DamnYankee
09-24-2009, 08:07 PM
And living persons are undead corpses. Kill all the undead who are inconvenient to you then? Why draw the line at the unborn?

Hermes Thoth
09-24-2009, 08:08 PM
And living persons are undead corpses.

Yes, they are.

DamnYankee
09-24-2009, 08:10 PM
Yes they are, and a cluster bomb or "surgical strike" doesn't discriminate. Babies are real people, not "collateral damage".

My point is that if all the anti-abortion wailers were SO serious about perserving life, then the vast majority of them WOULD NOT have so whole heartedly supported a bogus war....the vast majority of them would NOT whole heartedly fight against welfare programs that help children born out of wedlock SURVIVE...nor would they fight to maintain a health insurance system that values the $$ bottom line over life in many instances.

Let me be clear, given the medical advancements in my lifetime, there should never be another abortion in America unless the life of the mother is endanger or the impregnation is due to rape and it's her decision to abort. But because of moronic adherence to religious dogma and antiquated social stigmas, our society is preventing comprehensive, realistic sex education and access to birth control for who need it. So until this country gets it's head out of it's idealogical ass, abortion is a needed.

Wow we're talking about abortion and you bring up war. I'm surprised you didn't bring up another irrelevant topic like health care.

You liberals are F-U-C-K-E-D up. :)

apple0154
09-24-2009, 08:26 PM
Yes, they are.

I suppose, in a way, it's fun playing anti-abortionist word games. In utero babies. Unborn persons. Undead corpses.

Of course, we all know there is no such thing as an undead corpse by virtue of the fact "corpse" means dead. Its like saying an undead, dead person.

Similarly, when speaking of a person it is understood they have been born. Therefore, an unborn person translates to an unborn, born person.

Is it any wonder why anti-abortionist's arguments don't quite convince the masses?

Taichiliberal
09-24-2009, 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yes they are, and a cluster bomb or "surgical strike" doesn't discriminate. Babies are real people, not "collateral damage".

My point is that if all the anti-abortion wailers were SO serious about perserving life, then the vast majority of them WOULD NOT have so whole heartedly supported a bogus war....the vast majority of them would NOT whole heartedly fight against welfare programs that help children born out of wedlock SURVIVE...nor would they fight to maintain a health insurance system that values the $$ bottom line over life in many instances.

Let me be clear, given the medical advancements in my lifetime, there should never be another abortion in America unless the life of the mother is endanger or the impregnation is due to rape and it's her decision to abort. But because of moronic adherence to religious dogma and antiquated social stigmas, our society is preventing comprehensive, realistic sex education and access to birth control for who need it. So until this country gets it's head out of it's idealogical ass, abortion is a needed.


Wow we're talking about abortion and you bring up war. I'm surprised you didn't bring up another irrelevant topic like health care. Ahhh, I forgot that you're not smart enought to connect the dots here, or read carefully and comprehensively.....that coupled with your unwillingness and inability to discuss the points and conclusions of others post. Go ask an adult you trust to explain it too you.
You liberals are F-U-C-K-E-D up. :)

That's about the limit of your understanding.....insult only. I pity you sometimes.

tinfoil
09-24-2009, 09:39 PM
I suppose, in a way, it's fun playing anti-abortionist word games. In utero babies. Unborn persons. Undead corpses.

Of course, we all know there is no such thing as an undead corpse by virtue of the fact "corpse" means dead. Its like saying an undead, dead person.

Similarly, when speaking of a person it is understood they have been born. Therefore, an unborn person translates to an unborn, born person.

Is it any wonder why anti-abortionist's arguments don't quite convince the masses?

You forgot about the simple one. Life. When is the process of life ALIVE? When can we call it life? And how do you not see it as taking a life when you abort something that is alive?

Hermes Thoth
09-25-2009, 04:47 AM
I suppose, in a way, it's fun playing anti-abortionist word games. In utero babies. Unborn persons. Undead corpses.

Of course, we all know there is no such thing as an undead corpse by virtue of the fact "corpse" means dead. Its like saying an undead, dead person.

Similarly, when speaking of a person it is understood they have been born. Therefore, an unborn person translates to an unborn, born person.

Is it any wonder why anti-abortionist's arguments don't quite convince the masses?


But fetuses are in utero babies. Would you call a toddler stupid for saying his pregnant mother has a new baby inside here? Would you scold him for his imprecision and stupidity? You probably would.

Hermes Thoth
09-25-2009, 04:49 AM
Really, things are what they are, regardless of the words used. You insist on on your clinical language, your dehumanization, so you can murder with a clean conscience. You are ill.

DamnYankee
09-25-2009, 06:33 AM
That's about the limit of your understanding.....insult only. I pity you sometimes. Delicious irony. :)

PostmodernProphet
09-25-2009, 07:22 AM
I agree. Babies are human beings and fetuses are not.

there were those who denied blacks and Jews were human beings once as well......

apple0154
09-25-2009, 01:32 PM
=tinfoil;526204]You forgot about the simple one. Life. When is the process of life ALIVE? When can we call it life?

When it can live without using the metabolism of another life. Our organs are "alive". Cancer cells are either dead or alive but I don't feel they can be considered a "life".


And how do you not see it as taking a life when you abort something that is alive?

Again, it may be alive but it is not a "life". It requires the use of organs and the metabolism belonging to another life.

Claiming something is a human being and has the right to use the body of another human being is anti-everything we stand for. That is the crux of the problem.

As I mentioned before if two people claim ownership of one body where will it end? Shall a pregnant woman be allowed to go skiing? Would we strap a baby on our back and head down a ski hill? What if she works on a construction site being subjected to dust and possible injury? What if some disgruntled boyfriend decides to petition the courts to stop her from taking a vacation claiming the country to which she plans to visit is known to be dangerous? Should a woman being three months pregnant be permitted to vacation in Puerto Vallarta, visiting a country where drug wars, kidnappings and other assorted crimes are common place?

What if she's not maintaining a proper diet? Surely the biological father of the human being living inside her has not only a right but an obligation to ensure his child is properly looked after. If she has elevated blood sugar and is observed at a Dairy Queen what do we do with her? She is deliberately risking the health of another human being, assuming the fetus is a human being. Do we fine her? Imprison her? Or simply turn a blind eye to child endangerment?

Where is the plan, the protocols, the rule book? Why aren't the answers to those questions clearly laid out by anti-abortionists?

What degree of damage or risk to a woman's life will be necessary before an abortion is permitted? Or is the plan to play it by ear? Will it depend on the financial resources available to buy the most credible medical witnesses?

Do anti-abortionists even give a damn about those questions?

Hermes Thoth
09-25-2009, 01:34 PM
So I guess someone who needs regular blood dialysis or kidney dialysis isn't "alive"?

apple0154
09-25-2009, 01:41 PM
But fetuses are in utero babies. Would you call a toddler stupid for saying his pregnant mother has a new baby inside here? Would you scold him for his imprecision and stupidity? You probably would.

There are people walking around carrying miniature dogs and refer to them as their children. It's an expression, AssHat. As for scolding the child I suggest we look at the person who taught the child to say that.

apple0154
09-25-2009, 01:43 PM
So I guess someone who needs regular blood dialysis or kidney dialysis isn't "alive"?

I wasn't aware those treatments required being inside another human being's body.

apple0154
09-25-2009, 01:47 PM
there were those who denied blacks and Jews were human beings once as well......

That's right. It looks like the pendulum has swung to the other extreme, from not including human beings to classifying everything as a human being.

Hermes Thoth
09-25-2009, 01:51 PM
That's right. It looks like the pendulum has swung to the other extreme, from not including human beings to classifying everything as a human being.

Oh yeah. The outrage of declaring babies to be human!!!! WOW.

apple0154
09-25-2009, 02:32 PM
Oh yeah. The outrage of declaring babies to be human!!!! WOW.

Exactly!

Just wait until we hear the answers to the questions I posed. Then we'll see the true lunacy of it all.

Hermes Thoth
09-25-2009, 03:16 PM
I wasn't aware those treatments required being inside another human being's body.

You're missing the point. You claimed that dependancy on something outside the babies body made it nonhuman. Why isn't that true with someone who depends on blood dialysis machines?

apple0154
09-25-2009, 04:56 PM
You're missing the point. You claimed that dependancy on something outside the babies body made it nonhuman. Why isn't that true with someone who depends on blood dialysis machines?

I'm afraid it's you who is missing the point. A fetus doesn't have the necessary parts. That's why it uses the mother's body. The parts slowly come into existence assuming all goes well.

Picture a car on the assembly line. Let's say we start off with the frame. Is that a car? No, not yet. Then we add the body. Is that a car? By adding an engine do we say that's a car? What about adding a transmission?

There's no seats or dash or tires or differential or doors. Do we say that's a car? Or do we wait until it finally rolls off the assembly line?

Some folks will consider a car without a motor as a car. Some will consider it a car with just the frame and body. Where do we draw the line?

If over 50% of the cars with just frames and bodies never ended up being a car would we even consider them cars at that point?

Fifty years pass and someone decides to restore it as an antique. They remove the engine and transmission and doors and even take the body off the frame. (Off-frame restoration.) Even when completely apart it's considered a car because all the parts are there, it was a car before and it will be a car again.

Classifying a fertilized cell as a human being just because it has unique DNA and giving it relevance equal to a woman is saying a woman is no more important than something that has less than a 50% of becoming a born human being.

Surely you can see the absurdity not to mention the injustice and the degrading position assigned to the woman.

Taichiliberal
09-25-2009, 04:56 PM
Delicious irony. :)

You throw the first stone, and then get pissed when someone retaliates and bests you at it. Then you lie.

The recorded post prove me right on this...so you can delude yourself with your lies all you want. My statements and reasoning stand valid...that is what you cannot refute, and subsequently frustrates you to no end.

DamnYankee
09-25-2009, 05:26 PM
You throw the first stone, and then get pissed when someone retaliates and bests you at it. Then you lie.

The recorded post prove me right on this...so you can delude yourself with your lies all you want. My statements and reasoning stand valid...that is what you cannot refute, and subsequently frustrates you to no end. Don't get all hissy now that you've been shown to be a stupid fool, fag liberal.

Minister of Truth
09-25-2009, 06:19 PM
Why don't you pack a lunch and join Prophet for a day at a hospital for sick children. I'm willing to bet you've never been to one. Have you? Go and see what an anti-abortionist has put another human being through and let me know what you would have done if you had a choice. Deal?

So you think we should euthanize all disabled infants?

PostmodernProphet
09-25-2009, 06:38 PM
A fetus doesn't have the necessary parts.

ah, which are the "human being" parts and which are the "fetus" parts....and how is it they grow so quickly that they appear at the moment of birth.....

Lowaicue
09-25-2009, 06:39 PM
So you think we should euthanize all disabled infants?

Do you mean 'kill'?

PostmodernProphet
09-25-2009, 06:41 PM
something that has less than a 50% of becoming a born human being.


disingenuous claim....the 50% survival rate is the chance that a fertilized egg will become a zygote....that statistic becomes meaningless before a woman even knows she is pregnant.....

PostmodernProphet
09-25-2009, 06:42 PM
Do you mean 'kill'?

that is what the word means, yes....

PostmodernProphet
09-25-2009, 06:44 PM
You throw the first stone, and then get pissed when someone retaliates and bests you at it. Then you lie.

The recorded post prove me right on this...so you can delude yourself with your lies all you want. My statements and reasoning stand valid...that is what you cannot refute, and subsequently frustrates you to no end.

there is no record that has ever existed, nor has it ever been contemplated, that you have been right on anything.....

Taichiliberal
09-25-2009, 06:52 PM
Don't get all hissy now that you've been shown to be a stupid fool, fag liberal.

You're really pathetic, Southie. Do you readily deteriorate to a frustrated high school freshman like this in your real life public/private interactions with people who prove you wrong on a point? So much more to pity you.

My statements remain valid, and you remain a miserable excuse for an adult. I'm done with you here.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/reputation.php?p=526183

apple0154
09-25-2009, 07:20 PM
So you think we should euthanize all disabled infants?

I think that when a fetus is diagnosed as severely damaged the pregnancy should be terminated.

apple0154
09-25-2009, 07:24 PM
ah, which are the "human being" parts and which are the "fetus" parts....and how is it they grow so quickly that they appear at the moment of birth.....

Refer to the car analogy. Birth would be what rolling off the assembly line is to a car.

apple0154
09-25-2009, 07:31 PM
disingenuous claim....the 50% survival rate is the chance that a fertilized egg will become a zygote....that statistic becomes meaningless before a woman even knows she is pregnant.....

The statistic isn't meaningless. If one is going to assert a human being comes into existence at the time of conception then it is central to their argument which, as you acknowledge in a round about way, means their argument is meaningless. Not the statistic.

USFREEDOM911
09-25-2009, 09:13 PM
ah, which are the "human being" parts and which are the "fetus" parts....and how is it they grow so quickly that they appear at the moment of birth.....

It's the magic baby fairy dust that the doctor sprinkles on the fetus, at the moment the fetus first appears in this world.

uscitizen
09-25-2009, 09:15 PM
You fools should know to never install a bearing withought greasing it first.

USFREEDOM911
09-25-2009, 09:15 PM
The statistic isn't meaningless. If one is going to assert a human being comes into existence at the time of conception then it is central to their argument which, as you acknowledge in a round about way, means their argument is meaningless. Not the statistic.

But you'ld let your entire family die, just because you're to scared to make a choike.

apple0154
09-25-2009, 09:21 PM
It's the magic baby fairy dust that the doctor sprinkles on the fetus, at the moment the fetus first appears in this world.

Similar to the contractor who sprinkles a handful of sawdust on a vacate lot and, lo and behold, nine months later there is a two-story, 3500 sq. ft. house with electricity and running water. Truly a miracle!

apple0154
09-25-2009, 09:23 PM
But you'ld let your entire family die, just because you're to scared to make a choike.

You have me confused with someone who isn't pro-choice.

USFREEDOM911
09-25-2009, 09:33 PM
Similar to the contractor who sprinkles a handful of sawdust on a vacate lot and, lo and behold, nine months later there is a two-story, 3500 sq. ft. house with electricity and running water. Truly a miracle!

Just another one of your strawmen, road apple.

USFREEDOM911
09-25-2009, 09:34 PM
You have me confused with someone who isn't pro-choice.

No confusion. You've already said you would choose and thereby you would rather they all die.

Just another road apple, from you.

apple0154
09-25-2009, 09:47 PM
No confusion. You've already said you would choose and thereby you would rather they all die.

Just another road apple, from you.

Actually, I said I would not choose but if you hurry you can edit out your mistake. :)

USFREEDOM911
09-25-2009, 09:49 PM
Actually, I said I would not choose but if you hurry you can edit out your mistake. :)

No need for me to take the liberal way and edit anything.

When you fail to make a choice, you have still made one. :cof1:

apple0154
09-25-2009, 10:18 PM
No need for me to take the liberal way and edit anything.

When you fail to make a choice, you have still made one. :cof1:

As I mentioned before I do like anti-abortionist word games/double speak.

I was looking forward to such by raising the questions I did in msg 208 but, alas, once more disappoint befalls me.

USFREEDOM911
09-25-2009, 10:26 PM
As I mentioned before I do like anti-abortionist word games/double speak.

I was looking forward to such by raising the questions I did in msg 208 but, alas, once more disappoint befalls me.


Your posting is just another roadapple.

DamnYankee
09-26-2009, 06:14 AM
You're really pathetic, Southie. Do you readily deteriorate to a frustrated high school freshman like this in your real life public/private interactions with people who prove you wrong on a point? So much more to pity you.

My statements remain valid, and you remain a miserable excuse for an adult. I'm done with you here.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/reputation.php?p=526183

What are you doing, trolling for rep? You dummy, you linked to your rep again. What's up with that?

Here's a summary of our exchange (removing the vast bulk of your hissy-fit rants):


You: "...anti-abortion folk just don't give a damn about real people."
Me: "Babies aren't real people?"
You: "Yes they are, and a cluster bomb or "surgical strike" doesn't discriminate."
Me: "...we're talking about abortion and you bring up war. ... You liberals are F-U-C-K-E-D up."
You: "Ahhh, I forgot that you're not smart enought[sic] to connect the dots here, or read carefully and comprehensively.....that coupled with your unwillingness and inability to discuss the points and conclusions of others post. Go ask an adult you trust to explain it too you. ... That's about the limit of your understanding.....insult only. I pity you sometimes.
Me: "Delicious irony."
You: "You throw the first stone, and then get pissed when someone retaliates and bests you at it. Then you lie."
Me: "Don't get all hissy now that you've been shown to be a stupid fool, fag liberal."
You: "My statements remain valid, and you remain a miserable excuse for an adult. I'm done with you here."


Let the record show that:

TaichiLiberal brought up the Red Herring; then
The Southern Man called him on it; and
TaichiLiberal accused The Southern Man of stupidity and "insults only"; then
The Southern Man pointed out the irony in TaichiLiberal's very post; then
TaichiLiberal claims victory then accuses The Southern Man of lying; then
The Southern Man calls it likes he sees it; then
TaichiLiberal claims he is correct, and states finality.


The Southern Man points out the pattern in TaichiLiberal's posts:

Committing logical fallacies in debate;
accusing his opponent of the very act that he himself commits;
claiming false victory, along with 'the record shows this';
stating finality when we all know there won't be.

PostmodernProphet
09-26-2009, 06:36 AM
Refer to the car analogy. Birth would be what rolling off the assembly line is to a car.
except that what is on the assembly line the moment BEFORE it rolls off is still a car, not a horse......and the unborn is still a human being before the umbilical cord is cut.....

PostmodernProphet
09-26-2009, 06:38 AM
The statistic isn't meaningless. If one is going to assert a human being comes into existence at the time of conception then it is central to their argument which, as you acknowledge in a round about way, means their argument is meaningless. Not the statistic.

it is meaningless.....100% of human beings die....that doesn't mean it is okay to kill them at will......

PostmodernProphet
09-26-2009, 06:40 AM
Similar to the contractor who sprinkles a handful of sawdust on a vacate lot and, lo and behold, nine months later there is a two-story, 3500 sq. ft. house with electricity and running water. Truly a miracle!

but, it isn't a house until somebody inserts a key in the door?....before that, it's just lumber and drywall?.....

egordon0315
09-26-2009, 06:45 AM
I think women should stop getting pregnant. Really. Then this controversy would stop. As will the human race. Global warming would stop. As will the death of whales. All disease would be cured. Liberals and Conservatives would cease being relevant.

Kangaroos would hop through Central Park.

(Anyone care to guess the movie I've just been watching?)


Do you mean 'kill'?

apple0154
09-26-2009, 07:11 AM
Your posting is just another roadapple.

Still no answers, huh? Suggestions? Ideas?

It would be nice to see if you gave any thought to your position.

DamnYankee
09-26-2009, 07:22 AM
I think women should stop getting pregnant. Really. Then this controversy would stop. As will the human race. Global warming would stop. As will the death of whales. All disease would be cured. Liberals and Conservatives would cease being relevant.

Kangaroos would hop through Central Park.

....

That's the liberals ultimate dream. It won't stop global warming though.

egordon0315
09-26-2009, 07:32 AM
Bingo!


That's the liberals ultimate dream. It won't stop global warming though.

apple0154
09-26-2009, 08:14 AM
except that what is on the assembly line the moment BEFORE it rolls off is still a car, not a horse......and the unborn is still a human being before the umbilical cord is cut.....


As I explained with the car analogy it depends where one draws the line but as with everything else a line has to be drawn, otherwise chaos results. An example was your comment regarding the death statistics and you countering that a woman doesn't know if a cell has been fertilized. Are we to discount what some refer to as a human life because the woman is not aware of it?

Most women are not aware of being pregnant until they miss a period. Shall we say life begins at the first missed period? See where such an approach is chaotic, at best.

There are compelling reasons to say birth is the start of life. Moving from a liquid environment to one of gas (air), going from the interior of a human being to the exterior, referring to Biblical passages alluding to breath as being life, etc.

In order for society to function properly there has to be uniformity. Laws have to be applied the same across the board. When we talk about life beginning at conception one day we say there is a human being and the next day we say there isn't (the egg is absorbed into the female body) but no one knows what happened to that human being. How can society function under such a bizarre belief system or concept?

Are we going to make the cutting of the umbilical cord the deciding line or the moment the head appears out of the woman's body or when the cell attaches to the wall of the uterus even though no one will be aware or......?

It's the same thing with drawing a line regarding what damage or threat to a woman's life is acceptable. Millions of pregnant woman. Tens of thousands of doctors each with an opinion. Can you not see the absurdity, the madness, to the whole thing?

Since 1972 there would have been 47 million decisions to be made. 47 million opinions. Can anyone put a number on how many women may have been injured or died? Surely no one can believe all 47 million opinions would have been correct so the question is how many women would have been injured or killed?

It's amazing how Conservatives go on and on about the government taking over their lives through the proposed medical changes and taxes and gun control and other proposed programs/changes but want the government to control abortion.

As I previously mentioned Conservatives must suffer from extreme Cognitive Dissonance: The tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time.

And it's not just with abortion. There's the professing of the sanctity of life while beating the war drums. Contend they believe in charity and helping others while fighting against any proposed government program to help the poor.

May God bless their mixed up minds.

Hermes Thoth
09-26-2009, 09:55 AM
Life never ends. the living sperm and egg combine to form a living in utero baby.

There is no line.

USFREEDOM911
09-26-2009, 11:16 AM
except that what is on the assembly line the moment BEFORE it rolls off is still a car, not a horse......and the unborn is still a human being before the umbilical cord is cut.....

Don't forget that it could be when the cord is tied off; because it wouldn't be able to survive if it wasn't tied.