Yes, realize she's largely gone and irrelevant but that kinda derp cannot go by without mention.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that the GOP, even the so-called moderates, are anything but moderate on this issue.

They've dialed the derp up to 11.

Let's see if anyone noticed.

Be Well.

The gop and its scare lying tactics for votes from people they don't represent is getting a little more difficult because the people are wising up.

So far, there is nothing honest, nothing honest at all about the republican party and the gop followers.

The republican party needs to make amends to the american people and clean house.

I say this all the time here, but Bachmann really SHOULD just say DUH and save us all the time.

Personhood USA is best known as the group whose pledge requires that signors "defend all innocent human life,"

.....I wonder if that includes Iranian, Iraqi, and Afghan civilians..??......

And THIS is my #1 concern about Ron Paul. Will his libertarian values take priority over the obvious misogyny of the GOP? IDK. If I thought it wouldn't I'd write in Gary Johnson - though I do hope he wins the nomination, he would be better than Obama who is against the constitution.

Personhood USA is best known as the group whose pledge requires that signors "defend all innocent human life,"

Yeah, that's why they are also against the death penalty and all wars.

Oh wait, they aren't?

Face it, these groups don't actually give a fuck about abortion.

They are all about repressing women, denying them their autonomy and slut shaming.

If they really gave a shiat about reducing abortions they would be promoting sexual education and birth control access.

But they don't so that makes them just a pack of control freaks, assholes and hypocrites.

Be Well.

" that makes them just a pack of control freaks, assholes and hypocrites."

Not to mention the kings of cognitive dissonance. They believe government power is the problem, and them want to empower the government to investigate every menstrual period as a possible murder scene.

The real party showing contempt for women is the democrat party. The fact they have to scream it out at the top of their lungs .... look at us, the democrat party, have women all over is a testament that they really don't practice what they preach.

Taking stands on abortion isn't about how a party confirms standing for women and it is sad that someone would try and use this as a wedge to reflect such a thing.

obortion is about rights, and it will NEVER go away and the sooner people figure this out the better politics will get because it will have one less sticking point issue to deal with.

The gop and its scare lying tactics for votes from people they don't represent is getting a little more difficult because the people are wising up.

#2 | Posted by moneywar at

bullshit....gop has MILES to go to compete with goddamn dems and thier scare tactics..I was out of pocket when it came out

BUT POLITIFACT came out with TOP LIE OF THE YEAR..
and it was the bullshit ad about the woman in the wheelchair being pushed off ledge by PAUL RYAN Lookalike...

so the gop are pikers and hacks when compared to scaring voters by goddamn dems...

HELL...this thread UTSELF is little more than a ploy to scare women from the gop..

nuff said

thread over..

Okay. Now let's discuss the Democrats' contempt for white males, especially straight Christian ones.

All the wars in American history haven't stacked up the corpses even close to 30 plus years of abortion on demand. So whether it's the Soviet Socialists, the Chicomms, the National Socialists in Germany, or the hard lefties here stateside, nobody has more tens of millions of innocent lives snuffed out at their hands. You douchebags worship death.

RisR is Wrong again, but seems to be the first to parrot the Biggest Lie Of Them All, the fetal rights mantra that terminating a pregnancy takes a life. It doesn't. NOT terminating a pregnancy sometimes does. herm

Yeah Herm. All those women who suffer a miscarriage and bitch and moan about it are just crazy. I'll pass your sentiments along. It's just a bundle of cells, you know? Here! Have a beer! Cheer up, for god's sake!

Dumbass.

I hope that Dumbass is RisR's new signature. herm

, the fetal rights mantra that terminating a pregnancy takes a life. It doesn't.

you know herm, there are a number of pro-choice liberals on this site who stay away from you think and have some reasoning abilities.

statements like that are why.

they believe in a woman's right to choose and that abortion is just sometimes the only real alternative.

But most of them agree that it's taking a life.

BTW, have you ever managed to look your grandson in the eye and tell him you wanted him to be aborted?

"GOP Candidates Confirm Contempt For Women."

Yes they do. They play soundbites of Democrats.

And kanrei

"Bachmann really SHOULD just say DUH and save us all the time."
#3 | Posted by kanrei

And dethspud

"denying them their autonomy and slut shaming."
#6 | Posted by dethspud

Ron Paul also has signed but did not attend.

Gotta love them small government states' rights libertarians.

Right, Paulites?

All the wars in American history haven't stacked up the corpses even close to 30 plus years of abortion on demand. So whether it's the Soviet Socialists, the Chicomms, the National Socialists in Germany, or the hard lefties here stateside, nobody has more tens of millions of innocent lives snuffed out at their hands.

And yet, I keep hearing how America is a Christian nation...

It's all about third party protection and addressing incoherence in the laws. Only sociopaths argue that a fetus does not deserve *any* third party protection under any circumstance.

Glad to see that RIGHTISDUMBASS was available today to post his usual non sequitur. Cheers!

"But most of them agree that it's taking a life."

They do? Where? Who? Speak up, Pro-Choice DR Denizens! Hands up, those pro-choicers who think that aborting a fetus is taking a life!

And I just lost respect for Ron Paul. He shouldn't play these fucking games. He's supposed to be above that sort of thing. Kudos to Huntsman and Romney for not signing a stupid pledge.

Even for those who have bought all-in to the politics of so-called "choice", the idea that delivering an alive baby head-only, just so the "doctor" can plunge a pair of scissors into the base of his skull, so as to make an opening for a vacuum to hooverize the contents of his brain while still technically inside the "mother", is so heinous that only the Herms of the world could possibly go for it.

But they do. Not only that, they love it. I know there are a lot of atheists on this board. But there are also a good number of liberals who believe in God. At least they say so. Tell me. Do you think that God has the same insouciant view of that that you do?

For your sake, I hope so. Somehow I doubt it.

I deliberately didn't qualify my statement/question, RiR. You appear to be talking about late-term/partial-birth abortions, which are indeed heinous. On that we can agree.

Let's see which "liberals" answer first, the ones I asked or the ones you asked. Maybe some of them damned libbies are in both camps!
+++++

And Dean, I must both thank and curse you for fetal Scooby.

Gotta love them small government states' rights libertarians.

Right, Paulites?

"protect fetal personhood legislatively and constitutionally "

Which could simply mean vetoing any legislation that applies laws relating to this at a federal level.

I don't agree with this, but this is so far down the totem pole it barely merits a mention. Those who are basing their vote on stupid wedge issues in this time of crisis are easily manipulated fools.

I'm not going to agree with everything that Ron Paul does or says. I can live with that.

For your sake, I hope so. Somehow I doubt it.

#23 | Posted by rightisright

If this personhood stuff failed in Mississippi. It's going no place anywhere else.

Your Republican candidates in Iowa like to get on board with meaningless issues such as this so they can act mean. Cause Republicans like people who act mean. They just do.

But any Republican with enough money is going to reserve abortion to themselves as a private right, no matter how the laws turn. They'll just assume they can square it with God later.

The GOP is against abortion...a women right to choose....
The GOP is against health care once your born.
The GOP is against the gays in the military right to get married.

Gee Wiz ...The GOP is against freedom who would have guessed?

^I'll bet the GOP won't oppose your right to die.

#22 | Posted by pragmatist at 2011-12-29 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hate filled skid mark. What a sickening person.

What does the Bible say about personhood?

*googles*

15 Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.

So basically no recognition of personhood until 1 month after they are born?

Sure about that?

22 Those that were numbered of them, according to the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, even those that were numbered of them were seven thousand and five hundred.

So, chicks are not persons worthy of being counted then?

28 In the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, were eight thousand and six hundred, keeping the charge of the sanctuary.

Cos that seems a little harsh, really, if you think about it.

39 All that were numbered of the Levites, which Moses and Aaron numbered at the commandment of the LORD, throughout their families, all the males from a month old and upward, were twenty and two thousand.

Oh, the LORD sed to do it that way?

Why didn't he just say that at the beginning?

A'ight. Thread over. Everybody go home.

Be Well.

/Yeah, Numbers aka 4th book of Moses.

Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry oh and Ron Paul....Isnt that five candidates?

They forgot to add Paul. lol

LOL,

Reminds me of Obama's three letters: J-O=B-S :)

#31 | Posted by dethspud at 2011-12-29 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since you quote the bible, not a single reference you provided references in any way what you claim. Try the reference below, then research the references to 'womb'.

Exodus 21:22-25

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm to the children, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

@#27 | Posted by Zed at 2011-12-29 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag

So opposition to abortion is mean? But killing innocent life is not? Strange times...

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm to the children, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Sounds like the guy is getting paid because his property was damaged not because the woman was a person.

And again they are talking about "harm to the children" in that only after the kid is born can they be assessed for damage which only contributes to Spud's theory about personhood.

Time to face facts, western society has moved well beyond the moral understandings of our 2000 plus year old sheep-herder ancestors. Defining personhood in the womb is a stupid political stunt that is as unnecessary as it is unenforcable and people who support it should be ashamed of themselves.

Be Well.

#22

Sorry Prag. Didn't mean to assign a position that you don't have. I guess you had a heart and considered a 3 or 4 month old fetus with a beating heart, fingernails, and other developed organs as a life.

My bad. Stick with herm then if you feel you need to.

#27

Right zed. Nobody is prolife. Nobody. Everybody is a hypocrite on the issue. Everyone

Defining personhood in the womb is a stupid political stunt that is as unnecessary as it is unenforcable and people who support it should be ashamed of themselves.

How bout we just count them as 3/5 a person?

@#36 | Posted by dethspud at 2011-12-29 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

3,500 years ago it was understood by some that killing an unborn child was wrong. Today it is understood by some that killing an unborn child is wrong. Those that play situational morality behind the veil of intellectual superiority are still the same as they were 3,500 years ago. They do what is conventient at the time.

What does the Bible say about personhood?
*googles*

So basically no recognition of personhood until 1 month after they are born?
#31 | Posted by dethspud at 2011-12-29 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag

There is a reason why I pass by your posts.
For some googling is the limit of their knowledge.

Jeremiah 1:5
King James Version (KJV)
The Call of Jeremiah
The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

rwd

"Ron Paul also has signed but did not attend. "
OMFG, FUCK THAT SUCKS!. That post-note changed my opinion of him. Fuck him and FUCK THE GOP.

Libertarian OR misogynist? possibly racist too? FUCK. The USA needs a good candidate to elect or we can expect economic collapse with gestapo NAZIS/COMMIES rounding up people into the FEMA camps. RP may comprehend the truth but THAT's evidence he's not fully living it.

Him not clearly articulating libertarian values over and avove his personal anti-abortion misogyny is over the top for me - and now with this fucking pledge to kill women. OMFG we're fucked again.

That does it for him IMOH. No fucking "mainstream" candidate is respectable - they're mysoginsts, killers, commies, nazies. Its a fucking mess.

It answers my remaining Ron Paul concerns - I'm voting for Gary Jonson.

--- could rant on... FUCK RP! BETRAYAL FEELINGS! Mysoginist asshole like the rest of the GOP with their fucking pledges to disrespect the constitution and millions of people across the USA - just to pander to the $ and the idiots who have it. That's not good enough since those same wealthy assholes are actively killing us. ... ok rant off.

Jeremiah 1:5
King James Version (KJV)
The Call of Jeremiah
The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

rwd

#41 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2011-12-29 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

That doesn't mention abortion. Pointing to it as though it does is a fucking lie. GOD knows the sperms and eggs too, and all the zygotes that don't attach, and the people killed by the misogynist assholes too - assholes like RWD who want to CONTROL a woman's inalianable rights to achieve enslavement of everyone on earth - fucking evil bullshit (false teaching).

The bible doesn't mention grand theft auto or driving without a license either.

#43 | Posted by reitze at 2011-12-29 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a hate filled uninformed fool.

You hate me!

#46 | Posted by reitze at 2011-12-29 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

I hate your stupidity.

The GOP are just religious control freaks!

There control and freedom doesn't mix...

That doesn't mention abortion. Pointing to it as though it does is a fucking lie.

#43 | Posted by reitze at 2011-12-29 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some people need to have to be told so they can validate their existance. You are one of them.

rwd

If God was really against abortion you'd think he mighta mentioned it once or twice in the bible or maybe added an extra commandment but nope, nothing. People around at that time were most likely using herbal methods of inducing abortion and religious authorities were likely aware of it.

Fact is the only proven way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is to provide age-appropriate sexual education in conjunction with a liberal policy regarding dispensing birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, day-after pills, abortion pills like RU486 (not the same thing as day-after pills) and the like.

But the people who call themselves Pro-life don't want that ergo it's not about reducing abortion for them so much as it about punishing women for having sex and putting them back into their traditional role as societal brood mares without true autonomy.

[donotwant.png]

Some of these walking shit-stains are now saying that they are against abortion in all cases including ectopic pregnancies. The GOP have basically become a threat to the health of every female in America of breeding age.

Good luck with that.

Be Well.

God is the flip of a coin, it gives one shit about you or your life.

God is just evil as it is good.

@#50 | Posted by dethspud at 2011-12-29 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If God was really against abortion you'd think he mighta mentioned it once or twice in the bible or maybe added an extra commandment but nope, nothing."

If you believe the OT and NT are the revelation of God to man, then you just need to read and you will see "it" very clearly. If you reject the revelation part, you will say he never mentioned "it".

God is just evil as it is good.

~Rex

Don't you know there ain't no Devil, that's just God when he's drunk.

~Tom Waits.

Be Well.

But the people who call themselves Pro-life don't want that ergo it's not about reducing abortion for them so much as it about punishing women for having sex and putting them back into their traditional role as societal brood mares without true autonomy.

#50 | Posted by dethspud at 2011-12-29 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

So "true autonomy" is when the women can be a fuck toy for irresponsible men who then can say "take this" and it will go away.

Sounds like the plans of mental midgets.

Good luck with that.

If God is all powerful, you must assign both the negative as well as the positive.

The devil is god.

God is neutral, both pain and pleasure, good and evil.

#55 | Posted by RexZeitgeist at 2011-12-29 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Everyone agrees you are a wierd dumbass. You can stop proving it. Ok?

God is neutral, both pain and pleasure, good and evil.

party on, dude

Youhateme, name one other poster you speak for.

Only sociopaths argue that a fetus does not deserve *any* third party protection under any circumstance.

On the other side of the coin there are psychopaths who'd prevent abortion of a non-viable fetus, even if childbirth is sure to end the life of the mother.

Christians argued about this in the Old Days. I believe it was Thomas Aquinas who reasoned G-d does not imbue the fetus with a soul until the quickening; roughly the start of the second trimester. With the conclusion being abortion before that isn't murder as there's no soul to send to the Afterlife.

So basically, Roe v. Wade more or less reinstates the way it's always been. All these restriction on early-term abortion in America, the ones that Roe v. Wade overturned, were in fact an attempt to abort the women's suffrage movement and the women's rights movement in general.

It took about a century, but eventually the Court asserted a woman's Federal right to choose. A right that was widespread when this country was founded, but later restricted by the States for political purposes.

Youhateme, name one other poster you speak for.

#58 | Posted by RexZeitgeist at 2011-12-29 11:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Everyone.

So "true autonomy" is when the women can be a fuck toy for irresponsible men who then can say "take this" and it will go away.

No true autonomy is when a woman is solely responsible for determining when and if she becomes a mother.

True autonomy is not having to fear that an ectopic pregnancy will lead to a woman's death due to certain narrow minded morally regressive neanderfucks like yerself or the GOP candidiots this thread is about making stupid and cruel laws.

Your ignorance and lack of morality.

GL w/ that.

Be Wel.

Well said spud.

If you believe the OT and NT are the revelation of God to man, then you just need to read and you will see "it" very clearly. If you reject the revelation part, you will say he never mentioned "it".
#52 | Posted by veritatis at 2011-12-29 11:17 PM | Reply | Flag: IDOLITRY

If you worship that book - that's idolitry. It's just a book. If you read it like fiction you get a clue about why the world is the way it is... and Jesus restores hope to humans who are loosing the war of good vs evil.

#62 so yea that's a nuance of expressing faith with "agnostic respect" for the whole truth that man cannot yet know.

I live as though the Jesus story is 100% true and put my hopes in that (as an sinner of course - but at least one with hope). I also recognize INTELLECTUALLY there's inadequate proof to prove that to anyone, especially anyone without "paranormal experiences" and a resulting analyitical truth-quest via reading (mine took me over 500 books BEFORE reading the bible. The 50 books after that confirm for me what I percieve).

Roe v Wade.

Did the Supreme Court claim that abortion was a right?

If you think it is absolute, you haven't read the decision of the court.

If people really are against abortion, they should read Roe v Wade.

The Supreme Court allowed for abortion so long as it involved the medical judgment of the woman's physician.

The alleyway abortions were horrible. It put the woman's life at risk.

So, the Supreme Court was correct in placing the burden on the physician who is best to know what is in the woman's best medical interest.

However, when it comes to medical judgment I believe the doctors overstepped and the executive has failed.

"I can't afford a child."
"I'm too young."
"I'm too old."
"I'll be ostracized."
"I don't even know who the father is."
"It's not convenient now."
"I've already got fourteen children. That's my limit."
"It makes me look fat."
"It puts a real damper on finding boyfriends."
"It puts my life in danger."

The Supreme Court drew the line on the States by placing medical judgment as an overriding factor. These excuses, except the last one, is medical judgment.

IMO, the executive branch should enforce the laws of murder with these abortions when medical judgment does not exist.

We all don't like Supreme Court decisions, and Roe v Wade was one of them. But I make a lot of Christians mad at me by supporting Roe v Wade. RvW actually made sense. To me, medical judgment is a good basis for abortion - but a doctor has to use that judgment for the good of the patient.

It's my own problem that I can't draw a line from medical judgment to "I don't want to have a child" as the reason.

If a bank account can be a person, then why not actual people?

GOP candidiots this thread is about making stupid and cruel laws.

#61 | Posted by dethspud

Being sucked apart by a vacuum, isn't cruel?

You fools believe the fetus incapable of terror, pain, or love. What will you all say when science proves these things?

What will you all say when science proves these things?

#67 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-30 08:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

They will say "oops... oh well."

Like former slave owners, abortionists will someday silently all slink away.

They'll have to.

Now that may not be right, but it is right. The truth of my words is self-evident.

Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman have not signed.

Everytime GOP crazy speak, one name stays sane. What the fuck is wrong with the GOP?

#71 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-30 09:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, what the hell is wrong with people... distinguishing human beings from animals or random lumps of cells...

Fucking morons!

(Sarcasm)

Yeah, what the hell is wrong with people... distinguishing human beings from animals or random lumps of cells...

Fucking morons!

(Sarcasm)

#72 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2011-12-30 09:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Alright, the second phrase (in bold) may be true, as if they were not that, they would not be having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

they would not be having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place

Yeah, the Virgin Mary was a fucking moron!

Yeah, the Virgin Mary was a fucking moron!

#74 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-30 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Really? The term "virgin" kind of contradicts that aspect.

Secondly, you must be some kind of Buddhist, Jewish seer in order to know that she did not want to be pregnant.

Really? The term "virgin" kind of contradicts that aspect.

Not when you combine "pregnant." The mere fact she was a virgin kind of shows she did not want to get pregnant. As you said, a "fucking moron" is someone with "an unwanted pregnancy in the first place."

Therefore, the Virgin Mary was a fucking moron per your use of the term.

Don't like the outcome? Don't pass the judgement.

Not when you combine "pregnant." The mere fact she was a virgin kind of shows she did not want to get pregnant. As you said, a "fucking moron" is someone with "an unwanted pregnancy in the first place."

Therefore, the Virgin Mary was a fucking moron per your use of the term.

#76 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-30 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong.

How I used it was a play on the phrase "fucking moron".

Rather than just meaning an idiot, I meant, morons that "fuck", thus "fucking morons".

If the people who were "fucking" were not morons, they would not have unwanted pregnancy.

Seeing as the alleged virgin Mary was an alleged virgin, that means she was not "fucking". Thus whether she was a moron or not, or had an unwanted pregnancy or not, does not mean that she is a "fucking moron" (in the sense intended) who ends up with an unwanted pregnancy.

Also of note, just because someone is not actually pregnant or actually involved in sexual activity, does not necessitate that they do not want to be pregnant.

How? Well they may want or desire to be pregnant, be ready to be pregnant, however do not engage in sexual activity because they think sexual activity should wait until marriage. If they don't have an adequate marriage candidate, they may want a pregnancy but not be able to access it. Now if they were to become pregnant without sexual activity, they would have a pregnancy that they wanted without sexual activity.

Don't like the outcome? Don't pass the judgement.

#77 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-30 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree, unfortunately your Buddhist, Jewish seer skills are faulty today. Failing to understand how the phrase "fucking moron" was being used, how it then does not apply to the virgin Mary, and how just because someone is a virgin does not necessitate that they do not want to be pregnant.

Wrong.

How I used it was a play on the phrase "fucking moron".

Rather than just meaning an idiot, I meant, morons that "fuck", thus "fucking morons".

LOL! "How I used it?" ROFLMAO! MOre Exp wiggle room.

Only the word virgin was intended to be bold in #79. I closed the bold but accidentally placed the cursor between the word virgin and the close bold command, thus placing the rest of my post inside the bold prompt.

Funny...in 75 you try to score points off me by saying I can't read Mary's mind, but then expect me to read your lack of one to know exactly how you intended to use fucking in that sentence. LOL! Few are more pathetic or dim-witted here than you. Glad to not be one of them.

"I can't afford a child."
"I'm too young."
"I'm too old."
"I'll be ostracized."
"I don't even know who the father is."
"It's not convenient now."
"I've already got fourteen children. That's my limit."
"It makes me look fat."
"It puts a real damper on finding boyfriends."
"It puts my life in danger."

I don't know why abortion apologists don't just stick to those reasons being "good enough" and leave the rest alone. Because when you boil it down, those reasons are good enough legally.

how just because someone is a virgin does not necessitate that they do not want to be pregnant.

Yeah, it does. See, if she wanted to become pregnant, she would engage in the activity that makes her pregnant and would not be a virgin.

Given you buy the whole "Virgin Birth" crap, I don't expect you to understand simple logic or basic science.

LOL! "How I used it?" ROFLMAO! MOre Exp wiggle room.

#80 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-30 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's not wiggle room. It is how it was used. It's alright that you missed it (how I am not sure).

#72 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2011-12-30 09:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Alright, the second phrase (in bold) may be true, as if they were not that, they would not be having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

#73 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2011-12-30 09:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

What is stated is "if they were not 'that' (fucking morons: morons that are fucking), they would not be having unwanted pregnancy (fucking is necessary for most normal pregnancies) in the first place.

You missed it, and now you want to pretend it wasn't intended. Hilarious.

Few are more pathetic or dim-witted here than you. Glad to not be one of them.

#82 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-30 10:04 AM | Reply | Flag: Ironic

"how just because someone is a virgin does not necessitate that they do not want to be pregnant."

Yeah, it does. See, if she wanted to become pregnant, she would engage in the activity that makes her pregnant and would not be a virgin.

Given you buy the whole "Virgin Birth" crap, I don't expect you to understand simple logic or basic science.

#84 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-30 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Funny stuff. So someone cannot be a virgin and still want to be pregnant?

Are you really that stupid? Or is it that you don't think some people have convictions that even if they wanted to be pregnant they would not simply go and have sex to become pregnant because they had convictions that precluded them from doing that?

True autonomy is not having to fear that an ectopic pregnancy will lead to a woman's death due to certain narrow minded morally regressive neanderfucks like yerself or the GOP candidiots this thread is about making stupid and cruel laws.

#61 | Posted by dethspud at 2011-12-29 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ah, the argument turns to the .001% case. Only idiots support the continuation of a pregnancy if the women's health is at risk.

What is in question is the tax payer funding of a life style that is willing to terminate a pregnancy out of convenience.

Strange that you would call me a neanderfucks, yet you are for the taking of an innocent life just for convenience. Does that put you in the pre neanderfuck, crawling on your belly category ?

Yur a slimey one.

Given you buy the whole "Virgin Birth" crap, I don't expect you to understand simple logic or basic science.

Have you ever seen Expsretardation try to use logic or discuss science?

Consider, for a moment, the fact that scientific illiteracy is a prerequisite for his beliefs.

terminate a pregnancy out of convenience

Nothing wrong with that.

That is, unless you harbor a delusional, superstitious worldview that equates "humanity" with a wad of tissue less functional than a tomato.

Every day, people pull the plug on ventilated vegetables that are far more "human" than any aborted fetus.

#89 | Posted by Dr_Icepick at 2011-12-30 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

This one is sick.

#88 | Posted by Dr_Icepick at 2011-12-30 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

This one really is high on it's intellect. Really thinks it has "things" figured out scientifically.

i'm all for roe vs wade just as long as fetuses are given the equal right to abort unwanted mothers.

just as long as fetuses are given the equal right to abort unwanted mothers

They do. Mother died during childbirth?

the first miracle christ performed-- coming out of the holy womb, baby jesus dilated mary's cervix only to find himself blocked from the outside world by the hymen. this discovery directly led to his second miracle...

Joseph's walking around going, 'Yeah, you had better be the son of God, I'll tell you that. You had BETTER be him, little mister. And you better be the ONLY son of God.'"
-Sam Kinisen

Joseph's walking around going, 'Yeah, you had better be the son of God, I'll tell you that. You had BETTER be him, little mister. And you better be the ONLY son of God.'"
-Sam Kinison

#95 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-30 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

FTFY

If you are going to reference "Sam" the least you can do is spell his last name correctly. I would hate for him to return from the grave in a fit of screaming fury akin to that which Rodney Dangerfield was exposed to in "Back to School".

If you are going to reference "Sam" the least you can do is spell his last name correctly.

Sieg Heil Mine Spelling Fuhrer.

Like I said yesterday: FTFY is the calling card of a coward moron pussy.

Sieg Heil Mine Spelling Fuhrer.

Like I said yesterday: FTFY is the calling card of a coward moron pussy.

#97 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-30 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Funny stuff. You must be the post etiquette Fuhrer. You sure are a strange one.

Given you buy the whole "Virgin Birth" crap, I don't expect you to understand simple logic or basic science.

#88 | Posted by Dr_Icepick

How is spontaneous life possible, even likely according to many, but a virgin birth impossible?

Because there are many other examples of "virgin" births in the animal kingdom, and we know that life can simply be created spontaneously anyhow, then a human virgin birth simply has to be possible.

According to basic logic and simple science, that is.

Maybe they could write a scientific paper proving the equivalency of fetuses and Corporations.

I'm just sayin' a virgin birth falls within the standard distribution for what is possible.

So does the possible existence of God. He also falls within the standard distribution for what is possible.

He's the god-possibility-data-point, sort of like the spontaneous-creation-data point; only different.

I like my view, it removes all ideology.

The only thing pertinent is: when does human life begin? Because once a human life begins then they are an individual 'person' and entitled to equal protection. That's a scientific question with an unequivocal answer. You would think that the left, which claims a superior reverence for science, would want to get the answer.

Our bioethics standards have fallen and people would rather blindly serve their selfish conveniences than scientifically find the answer and withstand the consequences.

"You would think that the left, which claims a superior reverence for science, would want to get the answer."

Then tell us the answer.

Has there been any research?

"Has there been any research?"

Huh? What's YOUR answer?

After I get my doctorate in biology I'll get back to you. :)

Conception?
Quickening?
Viability?
Birth?

My point is, these folks want "conception". Do you really want to empower the cops to investigate every menstrual period? To haul you in because you flushed a tampon, thereby destroying evidence and possibly being an accessory after the fact to a murder?

Lamar Smith, Hollywood's favorite Republican, is an anti-abortion zealot.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance.

"Hollywood's favorite Republican. The TV, movie, and music industries are the top donors to his 2012 campaign committee, and he's been feted by music and movie industry lobbyists at dinners and concerts. "

"Because once a human life begins then they are an individual 'person' and entitled to equal protection."

Some states have established "viability" as the point at which the "fteus" is entitled to equal protection.

"WASHINGTON (AP) â€" Two out-of-state doctors who traveled to Maryland to perform late-term abortions have been arrested and charged with multiple counts of murder under the state's viable fetus law, authorities said...

The investigation began in August 2010 after a botched procedure at Brigham's Elkton clinic. An 18-year-old woman who was 21 weeks pregnant had her uterus ruptured and her bowel injured, and rather than call 911, Brigham and Riley drove her to a nearby hospital, where both were uncooperative and Brigham refused to give his name, authorities said...

A search of the clinic after the botched abortion revealed a freezer with 35 late-term fetuses inside, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks, authorities said...

Maryland is one of 38 states with a law that allows murder charges against someone accused of killing a viable fetus."

Dan,
It isn't that I want any particular outcome. I just think that we should scientifically define when human life begins. The best scientific arguments against life beginning at conception is basically the argument of ignorance. "We don't know when life begins". Well if you don't know when life begins how do you know that you are not murdering? You don't.

"The best scientific arguments against life beginning at conception is basically the argument of ignorance."

Okay.

Now, as a "small government type", do you want to empower the government to be able to declare a woman's vagina a possible murder scene every 28 days?

"Well if you don't know when life begins how do you know that you are not murdering? You don't."

Danfart probably DOES know...he skipped sixth grade, you know.

I'm guessing that you may be referring to an implant device that won't prevent conception but prevents attachment.

If we were willing to withstand the implications then I'm sure reasonable accommodations could be worked out. A consensus could be found. But nobody is really trying to answer the most basic question.

"They do? Where? Who? Speak up, Pro-Choice DR Denizens! Hands up, those pro-choicers who think that aborting a fetus is taking a life!
#22 | Posted by pragmatist"

I do. I am pretty strongly anti-abortion, but I am pro-choice.

"he skipped sixth grade, you know."

Jealousy: the old man's only arrow in his quiver.

Similarly, I am anti-heroin and anti-meth, but I don't think they should be illegal.

Now, as a "small government type", do you want to empower the government to be able to declare a woman's vagina a possible murder scene every 28 days?

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2011-12-30 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Convenience over truth? Is that really your stance?

For most it is not about the police making "a woman's vagina a possible murder scene", rather a real desire to answer the question of "when does human life begin".

Similarly, I am anti-heroin and anti-meth, but I don't think they should be illegal.

#119 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2011-12-30 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is true. One can be against something in principle and still not make the decision for everyone else.

Something that is found to be objectively wrong is important to know, even if people will still be free to choose to do it.

That is what is at hand here. Some people want to know the objective answer, whether they will subjectively take some sort of action or not.

"Because once a human life begins then they are an individual 'person' and entitled to equal protection."

Some states have established "viability" as the point at which the "fteus" is entitled to equal protection.

"WASHINGTON (AP) â€" Two out-of-state doctors who traveled to Maryland to perform late-term abortions have been arrested and charged with multiple counts of murder under the state's viable fetus law, authorities said...

The investigation began in August 2010 after a botched procedure at Brigham's Elkton clinic. An 18-year-old woman who was 21 weeks pregnant had her uterus ruptured and her bowel injured, and rather than call 911, Brigham and Riley drove her to a nearby hospital, where both were uncooperative and Brigham refused to give his name, authorities said...

A search of the clinic after the botched abortion revealed a freezer with 35 late-term fetuses inside, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks, authorities said...

Maryland is one of 38 states with a law that allows murder charges against someone accused of killing a viable fetus."

news.yahoo.com

#112 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Human life begins with an emotion.

Huh? What's YOUR answer?

#107 | Posted by Danforth

Dan, human life begins with an emotion.

"For most it is not about the police making "a woman's vagina a possible murder scene", rather a real desire to answer the question of "when does human life begin""

If personhood begins at conception, and the willing destruction is murder, you're empowering the government like never before.

"Convenience over truth? Is that really your stance? "

Truth?!? Feel free to explain how, under personhood at conception, a tampon could never be treated as a murder scene.

When does the fetus first emote?

Unlike Reitze, my IQ has never been tested.

"For most it is not about the police making "a woman's vagina a possible murder scene", rather a real desire to answer the question of "when does human life begin"."

This whole "legal abotion" thing was born out of desire to escape personal responsiblity back in the "do your own thing" days. I'm NOT a pro-life zealot and I do believe that women have a "right to choose" whether to abort or not in certain cases. I'm just disgusted so many abortions are performed merely for convenience and that the laws in many cases are totally out-to-lunch for the purpose of getting women's votes.

Truth?!? Feel free to explain how, under personhood at conception, a tampon could never be treated as a murder scene.

#124 | Posted by Danforth at 2011-12-30 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't say that it couldn't. However, that does not change that fact that if it is found that life does begin at conception, life begins at conception.

If you decline to find that answer simply because it will cause some inconvenience for you or some others... that is pretty sad.

You can still have abortion and what not, it is simply that the person having the abortion, taking the pill, etc... would have to live with the knowledge that they killed a living being. That is all.

"...a tampon could never be treated as a murder scene."

A tampon is a "scene?" I bet you think sanitary napkins are matresses for mice too.

This debate would be ended so quickly if science was on the side of the abortionists.

"if it is found that life does begin at conception"

Even your Bible talks of the quickening. What, didn't choose that dish in the cafeteria?

Even your Bible talks of the quickening. What, didn't choose that dish in the cafeteria?

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2011-12-30 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

I see you are still trying to avoid the situation.

When does life human life begin? It is am important question. We should continue to look for the answer.

It is kind of foolish to be taking courses of action that may possibly be killing actual human life, simply because you are ignorant of whether that is the case or not.

Danforth, would you prefer to know when human life actually begins, or would you rather live in the "ignorance is bliss" world?

When does life human life begin? It is am important question. We should continue to look for the answer.

It is kind of foolish to be taking courses of action that may possibly be killing actual human life, simply because you are ignorant of whether that is the case or not.

Danforth, would you prefer to know when human life actually begins, or would you rather live in the "ignorance is bliss" world?

#132 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

All human life begins with an emotion. From that point forward, it's human by definition.

All human life begins with an emotion. From that point forward, it's human by definition.

#133 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-30 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's fantastic... I figured it was the DNA that signifies a being as human.

"I see you are still trying to avoid the situation. "

Fat talk from someone refusing to go on the record whether a vagina should be treated like a crime scene every 4 weeks.

Fat talk from someone refusing to go on the record whether a vagina should be treated like a crime scene every 4 weeks.

#135 | Posted by Danforth at 2011-12-30 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I already mentioned that people can still have their abortions and take their pills... they would just be aware that they were killing a living human being, whether legal or not.

I don't see why that is so hard for you.

Again, would you prefer to know the truth, or would you prefer to live in "ignorance is bliss" setting?

I don't think that potential disruption of convenience overrides truth, however, you seem to.

Fat talk from someone refusing to go on the record whether a vagina should be treated like a crime scene every 4 weeks.

#135 | Posted by Danforth at 2011-12-30 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I also find it funny that you jump so quickly to the slippery slope argument... when you refuse to allow such arguments in other contexts.

"would you prefer to know when human life actually begins, or would you rather live in the "ignorance is bliss" world?"

I'll leave that world to you. Meanwhile, you can't even define life. Isn't a sperm a living organism? And why won't you comment on the quickening referred to in the Bible?

That's fantastic... I figured it was the DNA that signifies a being as human.

#134 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Morgues are plumb full of DNA. Life begins, and ends, with an emotion.

117--That's one! Excellent. (Now maybe you can explain your stance to the staunch pro-lifers. I get it.)

"I also find it funny that you jump so quickly to the slippery slope argument..."

Are the "personhood" people empowering the government to treat a woman's vagina as a murder scene, or not?

"I don't think that potential disruption of convenience overrides truth, however, you seem to."

You always turn stupid when you pretend to speak for me. Don't.

This whole "legal abotion" thing was born out of desire to escape personal responsiblity back in the "do your own thing" days.

No, it's reclaiming a right that people had at the time of the Founders, but was later taken away by the States as a way to control and subjugate women. Laws against abortion coincide with the dawn of the women's rights movement.

Dude,
It's not a question of doing with ones own body. I'm not saying that Muslims shouldn't blow themselves up. Just that they shouldn't harm other people in the process. Really, the onus is on the pro-abort crowd to show that they are *not* taking the life of a 'person'.

When does life begin? Half the Jews say at birth. The other half upon completion of medical school.

When does life begin? In about 1980 theologians debated that in Geneva. Adjourned without deciding.

When does life begin? I don't know, you don't know, Pope Benny doesn't know. Surely DR fetal rights pushers (suffrage for the unconceived!) don't. Nor do Republicans pandering to the lowest forms of life to get a presidential nomination. But they pretend anyway. herm

Really, the onus is on the pro-abort crowd to show that they are *not* taking the life of a 'person'.

I disagree. The default state is one of freedom. You want to restrict what I put in or take out of my body, the onus is on you to show why that takes precedence over my right to do as I please.

For once that bone smuggler snooty is right.

That's fantastic... I figured it was the DNA that signifies a being as human.

#134 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

sperm has DNA..Eggs have DNA. They are "potential" humans. When they meet they are still Potential Humans. A fetus cannot survive on its own and doesn't have all its major structures developed. I would define the fetus as a person when it can survive on its own without special life support technology.

Time to grow up now GOPers

@145
You missed it. It's not what you do to your own body that is at issue. It is what you do to the body of someone else. A baby is not part of a woman's body. The baby is entirely separate from the woman.

In certain aspects of the law the fetus is already recognized as a person. In others the fetus is not and it is incoherent. It's all about defining personhood and third party protection.

I might not like certain tenants that I have but I just can't go kick them out of their apartment without giving them due process even though it's *my* property.

@147
Since being a fetus is intrinsic to being a human being your line in the sand is arbitrary.

You missed it. It's not what you do to your own body that is at issue. It is what you do to the body of someone else.

You seem to be deliberately overlooking the part where the fetus is not yet a person, and the part where the fetus is utterly dependent upon the mother for its continued existence. To simply say a fetus is a person and must be protected subjugates every pregnant woman into state-mandated slavery, at least for the duration of pregnancy.

A baby is not part of a woman's body. The baby is entirely separate from the woman.

We're talking about fetuses, not babies, and they're attached to the mother by a cord. They aren't babies until after they're born. Get your language in order if you want to be taken seriously.

I might not like certain tenants that I have but I just can't go kick them out of their apartment without giving them due process even though it's *my* property.

But you can kick them out of your own apartment.

And were someone to say they wanted to live inside you, you could say no.

Nevermind.

@147
Since being a fetus is intrinsic to being a human being your line in the sand is arbitrary.

#149 | Posted by Huguenot

and a sperm or egg is intrinsic to being a human too.

Everyone's line is "arbitrary"... if you have to draw a line somewhere my line is less arbitrary than say Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry's or anyone else who signs onto this garbage.

I might not like certain tenants...

A fetus in a woman is not comparable to a "tenant" in an apartment.

Can an apartment die from complications from having a tenant?

I would define the fetus as a person when it can survive on its own without special life support technology.

Time to grow up now GOPers

#147 | Posted by donnerboy

That's a pretty high standard. We can't even survive on our own without special life support technology.

Can an apartment die from complications from having a tenant?

#153 | Posted by donnerboy

You might wish it dead.

If the fetus is capable of human emotion, then it's human.

Machines don't get scared.

So I ask again, when does a fetus first emote?

With the very first emotion, the fetus becomes endowed with alienable human rights.

Or so the SCOTUS will find, at some future date in time.

Huguenot I am not going to tell you that a fetus isn't a human life. Quite obviously it is. And I can appreciate the sincerity with which some advocate the rights of the unborn as a human rights issue. But the notion of fetal rights, as it finds purchase in the political discourse, exists solely to obliterate and obfuscate abortion rights.

Think about it. Let's say it's time to decide how we're gonna make a fetus a person in the eyes of the law.

"Don't count your chickens before they hatch" pretty much sums up the problems you'll run into counting fetuses as people. For starters, each year millions of women will declare they're pregnant and then spontaneously miscarry for the dependent tax credit... that's just one tiny example of the hilarious unintended consequences that will come.

Let's face it, a fetal personhood complete with 14th Amendment rights is a legal impossibility. And if not, well... Certainly a lot of computer programs are going to have to be patched to accept a negative age. Or perhaps our birthdays will be estimated to nine months before birth... your first cake will have no candles on it... but I digress.

Huguenot, I hope it's clear that this right-wing squawk about fetal personhood isn't really about fetal personhood. It's about women's rights.

Look. Even if fetuses are people, they don't vote, and they sure as hell don't call and write letters. Politicians don't spend much time worrying about what the fetuses think.

But some of them want you to think that do. I wouldn't be surprised if Rick Santorum leads prayer circles for the aborted fetuses who never even had a chance to know Jesus. ;(

And then a whole bunch of lefties will be seeking do-overs.

Look. Even if fetuses are people, they don't vote, and they sure as hell don't call and write letters. Politicians don't spend much time worrying about what the fetuses think.

#159 | Posted by snoofy

You're a damn modern day slaver!

Look. Even if miggers are people, they don't vote, and they sure as hell don't call and write letters. Politicians don't spend much time worrying about what the niggers think.

~slave owner explaining his position on blacks

Today abortionists will be some of the futures most despised people.

Freeing blacks represented one helluva inconvenience for slave owners too. Probably prevented quite a few young southern women from affording college, and stuff.

The inconvenience to those living will never be a good enough reason to suck apart a living human, one fully capable of fear, pain, and love.

If you really knew their fear, you'd be crying for them even now.

Fetus is the N-word for the unborn.

Yes, you can quote me.

We can thank Margaret Sanger and her idea of the elimination of the black populace for women's right to "abortion". I am sure that the pro abortion idiots on here thank God that their mother's did not take that path.

Those that are pro choice should view exactly what happens to a "fetus" or a viable baby before you make your view known.

or a viable baby

Nothing.
Aborting a viable fetus is illegal.
Lie some more.
Laughing at you is mildly entertaining.

You're a damn modern day slaver!

I'm actually a modern day abolitionist.

I stand in opposition to you, who'd make pregnancy a nine-month period of servitude.

I am sure that the pro abortion idiots on here thank God that their mother's did not take that path.

I'm glad she had the option to flush me out if she wasn't ready for a child. (To be fair I'm not even sure if she had that right, but she should have.)

I stand in opposition to you, who'd make pregnancy a nine-month period of servitude.

#168 | Posted by snoofy

It's happened before, but you're confusing me with God.

And it's not 9 months dork. Try about 27 years.

With the world's population now over 7 billion we sure do need more abortions... There isn't enough to go around now!

The GOP america christian taliban,end a women right to choose.
Religious control freaks...

The GOP america christian taliban,end a women right to choose.
Religious control freaks...

#172 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2011-12-30 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Most people aren't asking that women lose the right to choose. They are asking to further our knowledge so that the women choosing know the state of affairs is that they are actually choosing, namely whether they are or are not taking the life of a human being.

Most people aren't asking that women lose the right to choose. They are asking to further our knowledge so that the women choosing know the state of affairs is that they are actually choosing, namely whether they are or are not taking the life of a human being.

Do you think women are getting abortions because they mistakenly believe they were going to give birth to a chicken or turtle? Of course they know that getting an abortion means not having a baby.

Women "choosing" know full well the "state of affairs."

Of course they know that getting an abortion means not having a baby.

Just like drowning a 2 year old in bath tub means not having to raise a teenager.

Just shut the fuck up.

There's nothing more disgusting than an inferior intellect attempting to justify human butchery.

At least be honest enough to admit that you're perfectly willing to systematically kill inconvenient classes of innocent human beings as a means to a more "progressive" society. Otherwise, you remain a disgusting piece of shit that lacks the fucking balls and integrity required to both believe in and defend your position.

#175 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2011-12-31 01:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your opinion is not valid. You can not discern any difference between a human being and an animal. I'm sure you think I am mistaken, but using your criteria on what constitutes a human being, tell us the difference between a human being and an animal.

When you find you can't answer, STFU moron.

Simple isn't it.

;-)

Do you think women are getting abortions because they mistakenly believe they were going to give birth to a chicken or turtle?

#174 | Posted by snoofy

That's why they give the unborn a demeaning name like fetus; so it can be thought in terms of aborting a chicken or turtle.

Then, aborting a fetus is just a rational decision to terminate something that's not even believed to be, really human.

Let me ask you something serious. How will you react when you hear the story of the fetus able to control a video screen, and other stuff, using only her brainwaves?

It's going to happen. So prepare yourself now.

tell us the difference between a human being and an animal.

When you find you can't answer, STFU moron.

#176 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

700 billion people - 24 billion chickens = 676 billion.

The answer is 676 billion.

The GOP america christian taliban,end a women right to choose.
Religious control freaks...

#172 | Posted by truthteller101

The same Taliban that so easily murders those considered non-worthy as humans?

Abortionists also kill life considered non-worthy of being human.

That sir, is a much more accurate and apt comparison.

How will you react when you hear the story of the fetus able to control a video screen, and other stuff, using only her brainwaves?

It's going to happen. So prepare yourself now.

#177 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

A brain is necessary for such futeristic activities. Idiots like yourself want personhood for a group of cells that have no brains.

A brain is necessary for such futeristic activities. Idiots like yourself want personhood for a group of cells that have no brains.

#180 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I didn't make the rules.

Life begins with the very first human emotion.

Deal with it.

The answer is 676 billion.

#178 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess you can't read. The question was...what is the difference beteween a human and an animal using your criteria of what constitutes a human being.

Your answer was that of an idiot. Prove my case again please.

;-)

Bob, when does a fetus first emote?

If you can answer that, then you will know for a fact when human life begins.

Your answer was that of an idiot. Prove my case again please.

;-)

#182 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Your question stands alone by answering itself. I was just poking fun at it.

Life begins with the very first human emotion.

Deal with it.

#181 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

You need a brain for emotions. Idiots like yourself want personhood for a group of cells that have no brains.

You need a brain for emotions. Idiots like yourself want personhood for a group of cells that have no brains.

#185 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

You need a heart, actually.

Your question stands alone by answering itself. I was just poking fun at it.

#184 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Since you can't tell the difference between an animal and a human being, I suggest that most would think you were the idiot, idiot.

You need a heart, actually.

#186 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Emotions come from the brain. The heart simply pumps blood. Nothing more. Idiots like yourself want personhood for a group of cells that have no heart.

I guess you can't read. The question was...what is the difference beteween a human and an animal using your criteria of what constitutes a human being.

Your answer was that of an idiot. Prove my case again please.

;-)

#182 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I understand the argument from the Left, Bob, but you are becoming too passionate about it. How do you not come off looking like a cold baby killer?

Sometimes you need to step back and realize that you are talking about a person.

I don't get into this subject with anyone face-to-face because I do believe that it's a personal choice that should remain an individual freedom, but at the same time, I can't get passed the fact that it's also killing, i.e., murder.

Give up Bob. There is no way to win an argument against such obvious truths.

It is my view that human life begins with first human emotion, and that mostly requires a human heart.

You sort of just know, I have to be right too. Don't you?

I understand the argument from the Left, Bob, but you are becoming too passionate about it. How do you not come off looking like a cold baby killer?

You understand nothing of the left. Baby killing is illegal. Always have been. No country---no relition--no science---no civilization has ever considered a fetus to be a human being. How do you come off not looking like an idiot?

Sometimes you need to step back and realize that you are talking about a person.

Same question to you. Tell us the difference---using your criteria---between a person and an animal. Can't do it? That's because you don't know the difference.

I don't get into this subject with anyone face-to-face because I do believe that it's a personal choice that should remain an individual freedom, but at the same time, I can't get passed the fact that it's also killing, i.e., murder.

Killing is not murder. Only an idiot would say such a thing. See a common thread going through here idiot?

#189 | Posted by Eddie at 2011-12-31 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

I would not be calling me an idiot, so easily Bob.

#190 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

I know you are an idiot who doesn't know the difference between an animal and a human being. I know you deny the entire history of humanity that says a zygote is not a human being. I know you can't stand to logic. That's why you can't answer the simple question.

Tell the difference between a human being and an animal.

Your "human being" has no heart--no brain--no liver--no lungs--no thought--no emotions--no legs--no arms--no blood---no skin---no bones---no awareness---no eyes---no fingers---no toe nails--no spleen---no spinal column.

Waiting on your answer---tell us the difference between an animal and a human being using your criteria.

Bob's over-conviction belies his under-thinking. I have not written a single word, that is not true.

I would not be calling me an idiot, so easily Bob.

#192 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

It seems easy to me. When you make idiotic statements, expect to be called an idiot.

Simple isn't it.

;-)

#194 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:42 AM | Reply | Fl

Even a child can tell the difference betweern an animal and a human being---what's your problem Super Genius?

Waiting on that piece of brilliance from you

;-)

Your "human being" has no heart--no brain--no liver--no lungs--no thought--no emotions--no legs--no arms--no blood---no skin---no bones---no awareness---no eyes---no fingers---no toe nails--no spleen---no spinal column.

#193 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

So a fetus is sort of like an engineering schematic?

Bob is like the Coho I caught last month.

Fought well, but was ultimately stupid, so I reeled it in real slow.

I release you now. You are free to swim away from me Bob.

So a fetus is sort of like an engineering schematic?

#197 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:46 AM | Reply |

Do you think I was describing a fetus? You ARE an idiot, idiot.

You were either describing a fetus or describing your hangover. I'm uncertain which is the case.

You're stupid. Get away from me.

I release you now. You are free to swim away from me Bob.

#199 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag

You are even too stupid to know when you've been humiliated. You see, the one who doesn't answer the question is the loser. That's you, little mind.

The question was---using your criteria, tell the difference between a human being and an animal.

A first grader could answer such a simple question.

Maybe you should ask one.

;-)

You were either describing a fetus or describing your hangover. I'm uncertain which is the case.

#201 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

A fetus has all those things you simple minded twit. I was describing a zygote---the entity you want to give human being status to.

I never stated such a thing.

You assumed so, idiot.

I never stated such a thing.

#205 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

So when does the zygote become a citizen?

I want to give human status to life which experiences human emotion. Science will someday tell us when that happens during fetal development.

Do you have a specific issue with either of those 2 sentences above?

If not, great. Because those are the only 2 positions I've taken on this subject.

When the immediate life of the mother isn't a concern, when is it too late to abort the unborn according to you Bob?

You must have your own cut-off line? How did you arrive at yours? Based on what criteria?

I want to give human status to life which experiences human emotion. Science will someday tell us when that happens during fetal development.

#208 | Posted by BloodSacrafice

Science will never go there. Can't go there. I'd have to provide you with an entire education to explain why, but you wouldn't sit for that and I don't have the time.

#208 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

You seemed to be saying that if there was a heartbeat, there was a human being.

Give up Bob. There is no way to win an argument against such obvious truths.

It is my view that human life begins with first human emotion, and that mostly requires a human heart.

Of course you can make your position clear be merely stating your position clearly. When should abortions be allowed, if ever.

Science will never go there. Can't go there. I'd have to provide you with an entire education to explain why, but you wouldn't sit for that and I don't have the time.

#210 | Posted by Zed

Science won't have to. The first observation will occur when the fetus say's hello to us.

An unplanned, unexpected event that happens during related mind-heart studies.

You must have your own cut-off line? How did you arrive at yours? Based on what criteria?

#209 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm fine with the laws as they stand. I use as my criteria the history of humanity--the history of all civilizations---the history of all societies.

Now--answer your own question.

You must have your own cut-off line? How did you arrive at yours? Based on what criteria?

Of course you can make your position clear be merely stating your position clearly. When should abortions be allowed, if ever.

#211 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Up to the moment emotional propensity. And you?

Science won't have to. The first observation will occur when the fetus say's hello to us.

#212 | Posted by BloodSacrafice

You can't argue with this level of stupid. It's more than just inspired. It's brilliant.

My computer just informed me I had an Exploit blocked from this site. That's the first time I can recall this happening to me since I started coming here.

If I had to guess, science will likely discover the moment of human emotional awareness to occur just a few short weeks or months after conception.

This is why this debate always goes round and round. You are asking the wrong question.

It's not a question of when life starts, which is philosophical and the reason for the roundy-round, but a question of rights.

When do Unalienable Rights start? That is the proper question.

Let's ask that legal question instead, then it doesn't matter when life starts.

It is my contention that Unalienable Rights start at the moment of human emotional awareness, the truth of which, is self-evident.

When do you believe Rights are bestowed on the unborn, Bob? Never?

If I had to guess, science will likely discover the moment of human emotional awareness to occur just a few short weeks or months after conception.

217 | Posted by BloodSacrafice

As long as it's your guess, we can safely ignore it. At this moment, a few weeks after conceptiuon a fetus hasn't the neurological structure to do what you say it's going to do.

The pregnant woman is dead, he fetus still living.

Should it be unlawful for you to stomp on the dead women's stomach Bob?

If so, why?

Who's rights would you be violating by stomping, Bob?

As long as it's your guess, we can safely ignore it. At this moment, a few weeks after conceptiuon a fetus hasn't the neurological structure to do what you say it's going to do.

#218 | Posted by Zed

Fair enough. I don't claim to know the development time, I do suspect it's earlier rather than later though.

Who's rights would you be violating by stomping, Bob?

#220 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at

Property rights, I would imagine. Are you a lawyer?

It is my contention that Unalienable Rights start at the moment of human emotional awareness, the truth of which, is self-evident.

There is no such thing asd an Unalienable Right except in your imagination. When was your moment of emotional awareness?

When do you believe Rights are bestowed on the unborn, Bob? Never?

Pay attention. Read. I have already stated that I am fine with the laws as they stand. That means fetal protection after 24 weeks. Your criteria is non existent at this point, but at which point do you currently support as the restrictive time for abortion? Can you make a statement or is your criteria some nebulous attribute than has never been measured?

#217 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, but there must be a reason you'll need one if you stomp on a dead, pregnant women's stomach.

Why though? Why care? You ain't done jack shit to a living person!

Should it be unlawful for you to stomp on the dead women's stomach Bob?

If so, why?

#219 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is unlawful---abuse of a corpse. What's your point, ghoul? Make sense.

When the human sperm meets the egg has any other animal or any other life form besides a human ever been produced?

That is all I will need to know.

rwd

And 24 weeks might prove to be the right answer.

I don't know. I don't care.

For me, this is a human rights issue. You seem to agree those legal human rights begin at 24 weeks.

I think it's a whole lot sooner.

Do you really think there is no blood, brains, eyes, ears, heart, or mind prior to 6 months? And incapable of pain or fear until then?

You are one cruel jackass if that's the case. Don't you know that being aborted can really, really fucking hurt like hell?

That is all I will need to know.

rwd

#226 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2011-12-31 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's more than I thought you knew.

It's just a baby, you big fucking meany.

For me, this is a human rights issue.

#227 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:46 AM | Reply

Again, you are mistaken. I stand for human rights. You stand for fetal rights. At least get the facts of your position clear.

#226 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2011-12-31 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's more than I thought you knew.

#228 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2011-12-31 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

So. No answer. Thought so.

rwd

#227 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag: idiot

So you were conscious in the womb?
Lie some more you stupid fuck, I'm laughing my ass off.

Lie some more you stupid fuck, I'm laughing my ass off.

#232 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2011-12-31 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thinks a slap on the ass is a jump start.

What a stupid fuck you are.

rwd

It is unlawful---abuse of a corpse. What's your point, ghoul? Make sense.

#225 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

lol...try manslaughter.

So you were conscious in the womb?

#232 | Posted by Zatoichi

Yes, very. I'm not at all surprised to learn you weren't though.

Do you really think there is no blood, brains, eyes, ears, heart, or mind prior to 6 months? And incapable of pain or fear until then?

The position of these candidates is that they want to confer human being status on the stage of human developement where none of those things are present. Again. Pay attention.

You are one cruel jackass if that's the case. Don't you know that being aborted can really, really fucking hurt like hell?

At what stage does the spinal column connect to the brain? Then tell when most abortions occur.

#227 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thank God that the left has this on-demand wedge issue to distract the people of this great nation from the worst Presidency in modern times. That some refuse to accept that abortion is the taking of a life is to show how deep one wishes to believe their poltical BS and the extents they take to do so.

For those of us that see this as gov sanctioned murder there is no changing our view; for those that see abortion in the same vein as removing a wart ... the same can be said. To hear the "oppression of women ..." horse crap year after year is nauseating.

Again, you are mistaken. I stand for human rights. You stand for fetal rights. At least get the facts of your position clear.

#230 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

You said 24 weeks Bob. You stand for fetal, human-at-24-weeks, rights too.

Or don't you?

lol...try manslaughter.

#234 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

That law was only recently put on the books by far right whackos in certain areas. Even so---show me one link where a person was put in prison for killing a fetus only.

Waiting on you.

;-)

That law was only recently put on the books by far right whackos in certain areas. Even so---show me one link where a person was put in prison for killing a fetus only.

Waiting on you.

;-)

#239 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

2 Abortion Doctors Face Murder Charges In Cecil County:

You said 24 weeks Bob. You stand for fetal, human-at-24-weeks, rights too.

Or don't you?

#238 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

I stand for limited fetal rights after 24 weeks. I stand for human rights at all stages. The fetus is still not considered to be a human being after 24 weeks. A fetus must be born to be considered a human being------then it isn't considered a fetus any more. You really don't pay attention very well.

Even so---show me one link where a person was put in prison for killing a fetus only.
#239 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2011-12-31 11:56 AM |

Nice to see Bob is as stupid and lazy on Jan 1st as he is on Dec 31st...

Arizona Father Convicted of Killing Fetus Sentenced

Updated: Monday, 20 Jun 2011, 3:02 PM MST
Published : Monday, 20 Jun 2011, 3:02 PM MST

FORT DEFIANCE, Ariz. - An eastern Arizona man has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for killing his unborn child.

28-year-old Fernando Woody of Fort Defiance, Ariz. will spend 10 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release.

Earlier this year, Woody pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. He admitted that he kicked the mother of his child in the stomach while wearing boots. She was pregnant and the unborn child suffered a skull fracture, causing the child to die in-utero.

Fetus is Bob's N-word for the unborn.

It must really piss Bob off to discover that I'm so fucking smart. Next time he'll know though.

I wonder if Scott Peterson would like to get in on this conversation since he's been sentenced to death for a double homicide as a result of killing his pregnant wife.

#240 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Let me know when they go to prison. You really don't pay attention very well.

#245 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2011-12-31 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

GEEZ another moron who can't read. Read post #239 and see if you can figure out why others think you are an idiot.

Let me know when they go to prison. You really don't pay attention very well.

#246 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2011-12-31 12:03 PM

Almost as though #242 was erased from Bob's memory and computer.

#242 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2011-12-31 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the skull could be fractured, the fetus was already protected. It was definitely after 24 weeks, and close to being born. So, you found one instance. It still means you are an idiot. Had a doctor killed this fetus in an abortion without good reason, he would have been put in prison also.

I stand for limited fetal rights after 24 weeks. I stand for human rights at all stages. The fetus is still not considered to be a human being after 24 weeks. A fetus must be born to be considered a human being------then it isn't considered a fetus any more.

#241 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

That's sort of how the N-word works too.

"Read post #239"

Nawww...I skipped over it when I saw you listed as the poster, Boob. I started doing that long ago at the time you were calling the moon landing fake and collecting car antennas for use as weapons that are superior to firearms.

Bob's stupid. And I feel bad for being mean to him.

Sorry Bob. You've been a real sport though, you know that?

#248 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2011-12-31 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

When do you see a citizen in the womb?

"Almost as though #242 was erased from Bob's memory..."

You're giving B0ob too much credit here. In order to have a memory, one must have a modicum of functioning grey matter. BOob belongs to some village somewhere in search of its idiot.

#252 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-31 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

You've had your punk ass handed to you and you claim victory? LOL
You can't even make a statement as to when life begins. According to you it could be anytime before the age of 35.

On your way out the door, tell us again the difference between a human being and an animal using your criteria.

;-)

#254 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2011-12-31 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Quiet, or I'll let them know where you are.

When do you see a citizen in the womb?

#253 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2011-12-31 12:14 PM

I don't. I only see some dolt too stupid and lazy to do a search before opening his yap and proving his worth. Here see for yourself what an idiot you were:

"Even so---show me one link where a person was put in prison for killing a fetus only."

If stupidity was a snowflake, B0ob would be a walking blizzard. I HOPE nobody is expecting intelligent discourse from our DR fool. He IS pretty good entertainment though.

I don't.

#257 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2011-12-31 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then STFU little mind.

#258 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2011-12-31 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL---coming from a turd brain such as yourself. You can't compete on any subject. All you have are 7th grade insults. Tell us how effective a gun you can't get to is again little mind. Amuse us before you dance away.

;-)

Well, I gotta go, but if those of you seeking to be amused can get B0ob involved with his car antenna weapons spiel you'll be laughing your asses off...trust me.

LOL---coming from a turd brain such as yourself ... All you have are 7th grade insults.

#260 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

You are slow Bob. I used turd brain all the time as early as 2nd grade.

Zat, are you still out there?

Please come kick my ass so Bob don't look so bad. I won't mind, you're capable, and he needs help!?

Where is the DR left support squad?

ZAT!? You out there!??

Then STFU little mind.

#259 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2011-12-31 12:27 PM

So, do you want more links showing someone convicted of killing a fetus only? Or have you been rendered stupid enough by the first link?

Bob must be one of us, acting like he's not.

Human's simply don't come this stupid. Do they?

And if they do. I guess we shouldn't make fun of them. ZAT has a plan on what to do with them instead.

>A fetus must be born to be considered a human being

link?

>There are various definitions for a human being.

not according to bob - it's fairly simple.

>Biologically, they are classified as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, which are a primate species of mammal with a highly developed brain.

does not rely on being born...

>Humans have the highest brain to body mass ratio of all large animals.

does not rely on being born...

>They have a life expectancy approaching 80 years old in wealthy nations, walk on two feet and have opposable thumbs.

does, not rely on being born...

>Skin color ranges from almost back to pale pinkish-white.

does not rely on being born...

>Height and weight varies, depending on locality, historical factors, environmental, and cultural factors such as diet.

does not rely on being born...

>Human beings are characterized by the ability to speak. They have a high capacity for abstract thinking and are commonly thought to possess a spirit or soul which transcends the physical body.

does not rely on being born...

so bob, what else ya got?

#267 | Posted by happyending at 2011-12-31 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag

Other than the history of humanity since the beginning of time? Other than the view of all civilizations since the beginning of time? The view of all religions ever to exist on the face of the earth? The same old point---no heart--no brain--no liver--no lungs--no thought--no emotions--no legs--no arms--no blood---no skin---no bones---no awareness---no eyes---no fingers---no toe nails--no spleen---no spinal column=NO HUMAN BEING.

What else do YOU have?

;-)

Human beings are characterized by the ability to speak.

#267 | Posted by happyending at 2011-12-31 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

How do zygotes speak with no lips/tongue/throat/lungs?
Ever talked to a fetus?

You funny.

;-)

So, do you want more links showing someone convicted of killing a fetus only? Or have you been rendered stupid enough by the first link?

#264 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2011-12-31 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I will have to amend my challege to showing someone put in prison for killing a fetus that is less than 24 weeks old. I support jail time for killing a fetus already protected by law. So---link?

Human beings are characterized by the ability to speak.

There's a Helen Keller joke in there somewhere.

Dan, human life begins with an emotion.
#123 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2011-12-30 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

A friend was denied an abortion for being 4 mo's (her periods skipped anyway so she was unsure then too late). Then as time went on the more angry she got and by 7 mo's she was punching herself in the stomach regularly. A week after a mutual friend called - she was in the hospital from a "fall" and lost the fetus.

For me it was clear as day from her POV. She was semi-raped by a couch-surfer and he wanted the kid - she didn't nor did she want him. Anyway like the coat-hanger women - it sucks when the services are denied and the emotions dictate its of critical importance, INALIENABLE RIGHTS to control her OWN BODY - with or without medical help - even if it risked her own death.

FORT DEFIANCE, Ariz. - An eastern Arizona man has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for killing his unborn child.
28-year-old Fernando Woody of Fort Defiance, Ariz. will spend 10 years in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release.
Earlier this year, Woody pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. He admitted that he kicked the mother of his child in the stomach while wearing boots. She was pregnant and the unborn child suffered a skull fracture, causing the child to die in-utero.
#242 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2011-12-31 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag: wrong-law right result.

Like assault w/ armed robbery - the motive was $ (future spt pmnts which he won't be paying).

Killing is not murder. Only an idiot would say such a thing. See a common thread going through here idiot?

#191 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Did you just say "Killing is not murder?"

I love winning arguments with one post.

LOL!!!

How do zygotes speak with no lips/tongue/throat/lungs?
Ever talked to a fetus?

You funny.

;-)

#269 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

If a zygote spoke, it would likely say, "leave me the fuck alone, you dipshit".

Probably using sign language though, zygotes ain't got lips as you pointed out.

It would be nice to hear the fetal personhood proponents describe how they plan to deal with some questions that arise if they get their way.

Things like how we count fetus-people in the Census, are fetus-people eligible dependents for tax purposes (side question, can only the mother claim them, or can the father also?) and do they have standing to sue the person in whose womb they resided if for example the mother drank or smoked and harmed the fetus-person.

Let's say a foreign couple visits America on their honeymoon and gets pregnant; does that fetus-person have the same citizenship birthright as an anchor baby?

There are just so many unanswered questions about how this will play out. Frankly I can't even take the fetus-person proponents seriously until they attempt to address the implications of their proposal.

GOP = Its time you women obey! Just Obey,the GOP own's you,you are the GOP slave. You have no right to choose,you have no right to health care....We are the GOP and we control you...we will tell you what and how to think.

Freedom and GOP does not match!

After all the GOP is "God's Ordained Politicians" religious freaks

The hate runs deep in truthteller.

Almost a racist. I wonder if Truthteller hates white people thinking that the GOP is all white.

There are just so many unanswered questions about how this will play out. Frankly I can't even take the fetus-person proponents seriously until they attempt to address the implications of their proposal.

#277 | Posted by snoofy

I felt the same way about Obamacare. And I'm still waiting for the implications to be addressed.

If lawyers can find a way to make a bank account a person, then making real people into people, should be a snap.

Did you just say "Killing is not murder?"

I love winning arguments with one post.

LOL!!!

#274 | Posted by Eddie at 2011-12-31 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes---KILLING IS NOT MURDER. There is lots of killing going on and murder is never a consideration. Even restricting the deaths to humans---do soldiers murder the enemy? Is a car accident murder? Is killing is self defense murder? Are you and idiot?

Answers---No---No---No---Yes.

Eddie is so fucking stupid even bufalobOob beats on her.