|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 23, 2008 14:20:10 GMT -5
Did you see that video of Liberal Earth Firsters crying over a dead tree in the woods? LOL I swear, the same people who support the daily killing of more than 4,000 children before they're born are crying their eyes out over a tree that died a natural death. Upside down. Liberal/Progressives are upside down, where wrong is right and right is wrong. I just shake my head... I don't see anything wrong with crying over an ancient tree that lived for centuries and died a natural death. It is a sentimental sight. They're not out there crying over people stepping on acorns. I can understand and empathize with both sides of the abortion debate. My belief is that a woman should have the right to choose abortion during the first trimester of her pregnancy. This gives her plenty of time to make up her mind while the fetus can't yet feel or have any cognitive brain function. In essence, yes, it is a potential human baby but is does not yet have any consciousness or senses and therefore it does not yet "exist" as a human. Every medical study I've seen shows this to be the case. If you have one that shows otherwise please present it. surefire, inmates are fully formed human being with life experience who can feel pain, fear, and a complex array of human emotions. Trees and whales play an important role in our planet's fragile ecosystem. If you can't understand why there would be debate over killing these creatures then you are being intellectually dishonest. Republicans are hypocritical when they say "no abortion should be legal even in the case of incest or rape," yet they supposedly promote personal freedoms and run around complaining about how many kids immigrants are having. Go figure. Life begins at conception. Like it or not. Also, Pro-Choice anti Death Penalty is far more hypocritical. First, abortion kills the future, the Death Penalty does not. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Sept 24, 2008 12:06:59 GMT -5
What fantacist rot. Gov. Palin has zero power to make a law to prohibit anyone from their sacred abortion. Legislatures make law. Leg-is-la-tures. Not V.P."s. Further, a reversal of Roe would allow voters, through their State processes to decide whether, say, parents of 13 yr olds should be at least told of their child's abortion; or whether tax millions should be given to businesses that make millions performing abortions. This one and only elective surgical procedure is "above" all others, in that it is actively promoted & supported by tax money, and has been granted "absolute" rights that surpass any other. The reason Gov. Palin threatens radical feminism is that she has succeeded by following her own, rather than their path, and been remarkably effective doing so. Her mortal sin, however, was not aborting Trig. That is an example that the left in general & feminism in particular cannot allow to become triumphant. Abortion is the sacrament of the left, but it is also a massively profitable business. The footsoldiers in Congress keep the way clear & the money flowing, and the operators rake in obscene profits. This is truly a business that makes men millionaires off the suffering & death of the most helpless among us; fathers, mothers & babies. Take away all the differences of opinion re: abortion, and we're still living with that ugly, shameful fact. It is called a canard. They all know Palin can not change the law, or make abortion illegal. Neither can McCain. When this issue it brought up by them, it is done out of fear and nothing else. Come on bolverk, you know that our next President will appoint at least 1 Supreme Court Justice and that the Roe v. Wade decision is hanging by a thread. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Sept 24, 2008 12:17:11 GMT -5
I don't see anything wrong with crying over an ancient tree that lived for centuries and died a natural death. It is a sentimental sight. They're not out there crying over people stepping on acorns. I can understand and empathize with both sides of the abortion debate. My belief is that a woman should have the right to choose abortion during the first trimester of her pregnancy. This gives her plenty of time to make up her mind while the fetus can't yet feel or have any cognitive brain function. In essence, yes, it is a potential human baby but is does not yet have any consciousness or senses and therefore it does not yet "exist" as a human. Every medical study I've seen shows this to be the case. If you have one that shows otherwise please present it. surefire, inmates are fully formed human being with life experience who can feel pain, fear, and a complex array of human emotions. Trees and whales play an important role in our planet's fragile ecosystem. If you can't understand why there would be debate over killing these creatures then you are being intellectually dishonest. Republicans are hypocritical when they say "no abortion should be legal even in the case of incest or rape," yet they supposedly promote personal freedoms and run around complaining about how many kids immigrants are having. Go figure. Life begins at conception. Like it or not. Also, Pro-Choice anti Death Penalty is far more hypocritical. First, abortion kills the future, the Death Penalty does not. Your statement that life begins at conception is sort of like the "because it's in the Bible" argument that Religious people use. Does it mean you're also against stem cell research? Is that a logical position to take? Your argument that "abortion kills the future, the Death Penalty does not" is a good one assuming all Death Row inmates are actually guilty. Sadly, this is not the case (check out the documentary "After Innocence") and if you valued "every innocent human life" like pro-lifers claim to, you would be anti Death Penalty too. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 24, 2008 12:50:33 GMT -5
It is called a canard. They all know Palin can not change the law, or make abortion illegal. Neither can McCain. When this issue it brought up by them, it is done out of fear and nothing else. Come on bolverk, you know that our next President will appoint at least 1 Supreme Court Justice and that the Roe v. Wade decision is hanging by a thread. Then the Democrat morons who would not allow any floor votes on Bush appointments should have relented. And who in their right mind believes that the Roe vs. Wade decision is hanging by a thread. The only hanging that is being done is the hanging of a non-issue around the necks of candidates. Abortion is not the most important issue of our times. Besides, even with the reduction in abortions, I have no respect for people who waste life when there are so many loving families waiting to adopt. The abortion issue reveals the selfish, self-centered attitude that is possessed by people who support the issue in spite of its rampant, out of control usage for mere birth control. Abortion kills the future. Abortion kills America. I often wonder how many Einsteins have been aborted over the decades, in the 41 million lives that have been cast aside because it was inconvenient to care the child full term and put it up for adoption. It sickens me. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 24, 2008 12:53:15 GMT -5
Life begins at conception. Like it or not. Also, Pro-Choice anti Death Penalty is far more hypocritical. First, abortion kills the future, the Death Penalty does not. Your statement that life begins at conception is sort of like the "because it's in the Bible" argument that Religious people use. Does it mean you're also against stem cell research? Is that a logical position to take? Your argument that "abortion kills the future, the Death Penalty does not" is a good one assuming all Death Row inmates are actually guilty. Sadly, this is not the case (check out the documentary "After Innocence") and if you valued "every innocent human life" like pro-lifers claim to, you would be anti Death Penalty too. Straw man. People on death row get lawyers to fight for them to survive for twenty years. Who advocates for the voiceless little lives that are cast aside, without regard for the fact that there are willing families to raise them. Certainly not the likes of you. Also, I never said I was against stem cell research. Too bad science has made that argument irrelevant though, huh. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Sept 24, 2008 15:22:33 GMT -5
You wanted to see Harriet Meyers on the bench that badly huh?
It's a matter of personal freedoms. Who are you to say what women can or can't do with their own bodies.
Your point here could also be made for NRA members who are in support of having no regulations on gun ownership. America has an out of control gun violence problem and selfish, self-centered gun rights activists want to make automatic weapons available to everyone.
You're out of touch. See what your candidate has to say on the issue:
Are you saying there are more families who want to adopt than children who need adopting? I don't think so. What you're promoting is bringing more mouths to feed into this world that have to be fed and taken care of by the state. If this is the position you're taking, it takes away your right to complain about the taxpayer cost of illegals or welfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Sept 24, 2008 15:35:32 GMT -5
Spare me. Abortion doesn't kill the future or America. In most cases the would be parent simply waits until they are financially and emotionally prepared to bring a child into this world. Then they have the child and give it a proper upbringing, increasing the chance it will become an "Einstein" by establishing a nurturing environment where the child can thrive. My point is that usually there is a baby born (that would otherwise never have existed) at a future date) in place of the one that was aborted . So your point is irrelevant.
I'm not saying abortion should be rampant, it isn't easy for anyone, but, like you pointed out, the number of abortions are on the decline thanks to birth control education (something else the Republicans want to ban) and the fostering an open environment where we can talk about sex with our kids.
Would you rather have our country run a muck with orphans who often lead confused and troubled lives? I believe it is better if these poor souls never existed (keep in mind they have no knowledge of ever existing) than be brought into the world and cared for by the state.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Sept 24, 2008 15:56:23 GMT -5
Who's next?
The "eaters" as Hitler's boys so poetically put it?
The feeble elderly?
Alzheimers patients?
Quadraplegics?
Who the f**k are you to sentence "orphans" to death 'cuz they'll have troubled lives?
And since you're eager to have the state care for all of the "won'ts"(folks who won't work)already; why is Trig Palin exempt from your largesse?
Too much of a "poor soul" to qualify?
Soulless butcher!
And why no comment on the abortion industry I laid out days ago?
You'll repeat my post, but not address it.
Like the babies; if you ignore them long enough, they'll just die.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Sept 24, 2008 15:57:58 GMT -5
The current experience of Western Europe and Canada, with their well documented minimalist birth rates for natives which imperil the future survival of those nationalities, would dispute your assertions. Do I want the government dictating health policy? No, not on abortion or any other issue. But by the same token I don't want the hard left dictating either. The current crisis of birthrate in the western world seems to me, in part, to be driven by the hard left's insistence on disposable fetuses when ever it is inconvenient to allow the fetus to go full term. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Sept 24, 2008 16:15:02 GMT -5
Who's next? The "eaters" as Hitler's boys so poetically put it? The feeble elderly? Alzheimers patients? Quadraplegics? Who the f**k are you to sentence "orphans" to death 'cuz they'll have troubled lives? And since you're eager to have the state care for all of the "won'ts"(folks who won't work)already; why is Trig Palin exempt from your largesse? Too much of a "poor soul" to qualify? Soulless butcher! And why no comment on the abortion industry I laid out days ago? You'll repeat my post, but not address it. Like the babies; if you ignore them long enough, they'll just die. LOL I think you've misunderstood my comments. In no way am I suggesting "sentencing orphans to death." I am simply saying I feel that since an embryo (during the first trimester) feels no pain, has no sense of being, and doesn't "care" weather or not it exists, then it is up to the mother to decide whether or not she is ready to bring a child into the world and care for it. The argument that giving kids up for adoption is better than aborting them early on is debatable. I guess if America is severely lacking in youth population as Bigdog suggests then giving kids up for adoption would be the better option. |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Sept 24, 2008 16:23:39 GMT -5
If aborting them isn't sentencing them to death, what is it? Are we helping them? What about the abortion industry?  ?? Still silent? The reasons are obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Sept 24, 2008 16:24:07 GMT -5
Abortion is the sacrament of the left, but it is also a massively profitable business. The footsoldiers in Congress keep the way clear & the money flowing, and the operators rake in obscene profits. This is truly a business that makes men millionaires off the suffering & death of the most helpless among us; fathers, mothers & babies. You make it sound like the government is forcing people to have abortions. This is not true, it is the the individual's decision. Can you site these "extreme profit" figures? Look, abortions are going to happen anyway. Many women were injured and killed in the past trying to perform unsanitary abortions with coat hangers, etc and a doctor's office makes the procedure more humane (important because women feel pain, have emotions, etc, unlike the embryo). |
|
??