"We keep marrying other species and ethnics " - Fox News Host

Can anyone imagine Walter Cronkite saying "We keep marrying other species and ethnics "?

Only rightwingnuts could prefer FAUX News.
 
Originally Posted by maineman

I am quite certain that those views are shared by many republicans on this site.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Which views are those?
Click to expand...


"Fuck you niggers"
-- July 11, 2009 Tinfoil explaining how conservatives are unfairly labeled as racists

“But purely religious people who oppose interracial marriage on religious grounds, are not necessarily doing so out of a "racist" point of view!”
- – July 16,2009 Dixie explaining why opposing interracial marriage isn’t racist.

TheSouthWillRiseAgain.JPG
 
charver said:
Just out of interest, has he done that?

I want to know because he hasn't called me a bloody genius and i would be very upset if i had been overlooked. Very upset.
Click to expand...

it was figurative speech, iow, he would not insult a liberal POV as he has insulted PMP based not on his intelligence, rather his political POV
 
apple0154 said:
You keep insisting biologically classifying something is the only way to classify something and that's what is debatable. Biologically speaking, an egg is a chicken. But an egg is not a chicken. Biologically speaking, an acorn is an oak tree. But an acorn is not an oak tree in the every day way we classify things.

Perhaps an analogy. We can say a mouse is food and a mouse is, indeed, food for cats but try serving that to human beings. (All I can say is they don't know what they're missing.) :-)

As we mature/evolve as a species we find it necessary to make distinctions. We continue to incorporate logic and the first situation that arises is with problem pregnancies if an embryo/fetus is considered a human being.

If a woman and her 10 year old son are standing on a balcony waiting for the fire truck because the building is on fire and the balcony can not support both their weights is she legally permitted to push her 75 pound son off the ledge to certain death? Her son is just as much a threat to her well being as the majority of problem pregnancies.

If she she allowed to kill an innocent human being, her offspring, in order to save her own life if there be a problem pregnancy then it must follow she is allowed to push her son off the balcony.

If you disagree perhaps you could explain the difference?
Click to expand...

The difference? In what? How you are throwing up straw men to support your ignorance and I am not? How I am totally pwning you in this debate, and you are totally being pwned? Hmm.. let's see... the difference between a chicken and an egg is the same as the difference between a human and the female egg... the difference between an oak tree and an acorn is like the difference between a human and his sperm. Eggs aren't "living" until fertilized, and acorns aren't "living" until they have germinated. The mouse thing is just a silly grasp for an explanation of your idiotic viewpoint.

If a woman and her son are on the ledge of the burning building, does it excuse her for murdering him if she calls him something else besides a person? Maybe we could use that "logic" for anyone who wants to commit murder... we just start calling murder victims "non-human" things that we can kill with a clear conscience! That should really thin out our prison population, and help us to rid society of undesirables. Why don't we just make the distinction that people who believe in abortion are brain-damaged advanced zygotes, who should have been culled before they were born and allowed to spew their insanity, and it's perfectly okay to rid society of this menace? As you said... we mature/evolve as a species we find it necessary to make distinctions.

What you can't construct a straw man or silly argument to refute, is the fact that a fetus or embryo is a human life. A living human being. It is no different than what you and I are, in fact, we ALL began the exact same way. IT is a HE or SHE, IT has distinct DNA, IT will continue to grow and develop until it's life is terminated or it dies naturally, but IT is a HUMAN LIFE!

Since you are into these 'visual' examples, let me present one for ya... Imagine yourself, standing all alone in the middle of a huge field, and as far as your eyes can see in every direction, there are bloody dead baby corpses! You have no idea how many, there must be millions... 47 million to be exact, and you enabled their death. They are all dead because you didn't have the moral clarity to admit what you were allowing. They are dead because you felt it "politically" important to stand up for a "woman's right" to choose, and they chose to kill them. All the while, as they were being killed, you stood by and watched, insisting the babies were something else, not babies... something non-human, something you could justify killing. I can only hope that your personal "hell" will be having to stand in that field and smell the rotting baby corpses for all of eternity. You deserve that!
 
Cypress said:
"Fuck you niggers"
-- July 11, 2009 Tinfoil explaining how conservatives are unfairly labeled as racists

“But purely religious people who oppose interracial marriage on religious grounds, are not necessarily doing so out of a "racist" point of view!”
- – July 16,2009 Dixie explaining why opposing interracial marriage isn’t racist.
Click to expand...

1. His use of the N word, while unfortunate, appears to represent frustration, not racism.
2. The second quote is not racist by itself.
3. Your use of the rebel flag in this context is bigoted.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
perhaps this will help you understand your error.....I know this symantical puzzle is frequently used by pro-baby killers to confuse the argument and I have had to deal with it many times before.....both the acorn and the tree are oaks....true, the acorn is not an oak tree or even an oak sapling, but it is the earliest stage of life of that thing known as an oak......the acorn is not part of the stage of life of a birch or a sequoia....it will only and ever will only, be oak.....
Click to expand...

The fact remains an acorn is not an oak tree. It may never become an oak tree. Just as we don't know if a zygote/embryo/fetus will ever become a human being. If we knew for sure we wouldn't have to deal with miscarriages. Pregnant women wouldn't be getting ultra sounds, etc. A pregnancy would simply continue and every pregnancy would result in a human being. But it doesn't work that way.

For some strange reason anti-abortionists discount "time". Their logic is "what might be, already is." As you correctly wrote, "true, the acorn is not an oak tree." The same applies to embryos/fetuses. An embryo is not a human being. A fetus is not a human being.

There are children presently in kindergarten who will become doctors but there are no doctors in kindergarten. The same applies to students in medical school. Until they become doctors they are not doctors. If we classify those students as doctors what will we be doing? We'll be lowering what it means to be a doctor and that's the fundamental problem with classifying embryos/fetuses as human beings. We would be lowering what it means to be a human being.

An example is when a woman miscarries we do not commence a thorough investigation into the death of a human being as we would in, say, a crib death. Another example is we put the health of the woman above the life of the embryo/fetus. That is not the way to treat human beings.

And we have the scenario I mentioned in msg 549 regarding the burning building. If killing ones offspring is acceptable should their continued existence be a threat to the mother even though the offspring is innocent then it must follow the mother is permitted to push her 10 year old, 75 pound son off the balcony to his certain death.

Classifying an embryo/fetus as a human being while permitting it's murder sets a precedent. It is illogical to say a woman can kill her offspring (embryo/fetus) to prevent possible kidney damage due to uncontrolled high blood pressure but is unable to save her life due to the balcony falling under the weight of said offspring. If anything, she should not be permitted to abort but should be allowed to push the child off the balcony as the falling balcony presents a much greater risk.

It's not a semantical puzzle. It's a case of logic. It's case of thinking things through.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
think this scenario through....I think I have seen it half a dozen times in movies or television shows........imagine a woman who is pregnant.....she wants to have her baby, but she is dying of a disease or has a traumatic injury from an accident......the doctors can save her but only at the expense of her child......usually in the movie the husband is quick to tell the doctors to save his wife and let the child die......the mother heroically denies treatment and wants to save her child......there is a pause for commercials so you can contemplate the angst and get another soda......

okay, what is your gut reaction.....if you are normal you say "your nuts, woman!....you don't give up your life and your husband and your other two kids to save the life of this kid".......

you have that gut reaction because you already know the difference.....
Click to expand...

That's right. We do know the difference.

Let's say the baby has already been born and both are in a remote location and both are gravely ill and there is only enough medication to heal one. What is our gut reaction? Give the mother the medication and let the six month old baby die?

As you wrote, "if you are normal you say "your nuts, woman!....you don't give up your life and your husband and your other two kids to save the life of this kid."

Would that be your gut reaction to that scenario?

Hmmmm.....waiting to hear from you.
 
Just as we don't know if a zygote/embryo/fetus will ever become a human being.
Click to expand...

This is where you are just plain biologically incorrect. We DO most certainly know a human zygote/embryo/fetus can't be any other kind of living organism besides human. It exists in a state of being, therefore, it can only rationally be called a "human being" because that defines what it is. You are in a state of denial, you refuse to accept this FACT that can't be refuted. In your mind, there is still some room for opinion or judgment, but biology is clear on what a human zygote/fetus/embryo is.

If the only way you can justify your viewpoint, is to deny reality, to deny biological facts, what does that tell you about your viewpoint? It tells me, it's wrong. It tells me,you have formed a viewpoint and are too bigoted in it to have an open mind or an intelligent discussion about it. You have not been able to adequately support any argument you've made in this thread, it is completely full of nothing but your opinion, based on a false perception of reality, and a misinterpretation of biology.
 
Dixie said:
This is where you are just plain biologically incorrect. We DO most certainly know a human zygote/embryo/fetus can't be any other kind of living organism besides human. It exists in a state of being, therefore, it can only rationally be called a "human being" because that defines what it is. .
Click to expand...


Shorter version:

Dixie thinks this is a human being, entitled to the full suite of human rights and constitutional protections:


Zygote_1.jpg



Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State. -- Edward Abbey
 
PostmodernProphet said:
apparently that doing two stupid things is better than doing one smart one....how about you don't kill the one and don't let the other's die.....
Click to expand...

How about you simply prevent it from happening? Don't bring a child into the world.

???...were you neglected as a child?.....
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I was well cared for. I had my first car at 13. My brother and the neighbors and I used to have drag races through the neighbor's apple orchard. Motorcycle at 14. Driver's license at 16.

Lived on what is considered today to be a "hobby farm". One year ducks. One year rabbits. Even had a pet duck named Donald. :D He'd always come to see us when we walked out of the house.

Our cat used to chase one of the ducks so one day the cat was sleeping and the duck walked over to it and banged the cat's head with it's beak. The cat never chased the duck again.

My mother was a stay-at-home Mom. My father always had a job. They were married until my dad passed away.

I saw neglected kids and no belief system justifies bringing a child into the world unless it is going to be looked after properly.
 
apple0154 said:
That's right. We do know the difference.

Let's say the baby has already been born and both are in a remote location and both are gravely ill and there is only enough medication to heal one. What is our gut reaction? Give the mother the medication and let the six month old baby die?

As you wrote, "if you are normal you say "your nuts, woman!....you don't give up your life and your husband and your other two kids to save the life of this kid."

Would that be your gut reaction to that scenario?

Hmmmm.....waiting to hear from you.
Click to expand...

it would be identical to my gut reaction regarding the fetus, since I consider the fetus the equal of the six month old....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top