Every Lie Starts With A Grain Of Truth

That IS humorous.

I deny that her sentiment is "right wing"
in that there is no evidence that the Founders of this Republic
were anti-abortion.

I am right wing and I fully support un-limited freedom
of abortion, the same as getting a haircut.





David

LOL this sounds more like THE MATRIX

I am also right wing and a catholic and a doctor, but over all i support freedom of decision. And if a woman wants to abort is completely her choice over her body (whilst is been performed before the 12 week).

You are conflating "right wing" with "conservative". Anti-abortion is clearly a right wing position in the US. I read your claim to be that it is not "conservative" using your definition.

If u wish to assert a distinction,
then please tell us what it IS.





David

You wrote,

I don't see the "grain of truth" in this statement.

Well, it is alleged that aborted foetuses are included in hospital waste burned in an incinerator for rubbish, which generates electricity from the heat produced. There cannot be very many foetuses in the waste from hospitals, let alone as a proportion of all the waste (these plants are only economical if many tons of material are burned daily) yet the story is headlined that babies are "used" to generate power which probably makes the dumbasses who consume Fox News think that babies are being used to generate electricity like coal, oil or natural gas.

Gees. Baby power.

R u going to tell us
what u claim the difference to BE ???





David

Oh! That took a bit more imagination than I'm capable of.

One of my facebook friends has pointed out that all medical waste is disposed of by incineration, being the safest method and wonders if this lady thinks that aborted feutses have little funerals

That's clever.

You have claimed that "conservative" means being like the founders, hewing to their original intent. That is clearly different than "right wing" which today represents a mixture of Christian activists and "family values" groups, anti tax "Tea Party" groups and civil libertarians.

YES




U appear not to be informed of the relevant etymology.
When King Louis 16th needed to raise taxes beyond his Royal Authority,
he found it financially necessary to convoke The Estates General of France.
The conservatives (who supported the Capetian Monarchy) sat on the RIGHT
of the president of that convention. Less loyal members, who had different ideas,
sat on the president's left; i.e. right wing is synonymous with conservative.
That word means ORTHODOX; adhering rigidly to a given rule, not swayed by emotion
nor by distraction, like a perfectly accurate accountant.

Within the realm of American law and ideology,
the subject matter of the conservation is the Supreme Law of the Land.
As ice is constituted of water, so government in America
is constituted of the Constitution; deviation therefrom is liberal.

Something is rightist or conservative IF
it remains in keeping with the Founding Principles
that are set forth in that Constitution.

No one (e.g., Pat Robertson) can call himself right wing
nor conservative unless he can demonstrate that his filosofy
is perfectly grounded in the said Founding Principles.
The Founders were not theocrats. Pat Robertson is a theocrat;
ergo, Pat is a liberal, deviating from Originalist secularism. OK, Engineer ?





David

i'm guessing the grain here might be grain alcohol

As viewed from the President's table of the French National Assembly (the successor to the Estates General), those on his right were constitutional monarchists, those on his left were republicans. The terms conservative and liberal were not even yet invented to describe political positions. Those terms did not appear in the English language until the 1830s. As usual, David lards over his "historical" narrative with his personally preferred, partisan polemic.

Interestingly, you don't seem to be distinguishing whether you think it's untrue or you think it might be true but doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what the practical options would be about what to do with them. The real issue is the abortions themselves.

What do these people want? That we should import our fetuses from Saudi Arabia? We used to be a net exporter of fetuses, and now we rely on Canadian fetuses for our energy needs! If elected, I promise complete fetus-energy independence by 2020!

Don't be silly Brandon, of course I am distinguishing between the two. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted the original "news" article. I put new in quotation marks because Fox is the source, but I thought posting Fox as the source might lend some sort of legitimacy in the mind of the moronic woman who posted the blog article that sprung from it. Here's the thing Brandon, if I thought it had never happened my headline probably wouldn't have specified that the lie had a grain of truth to it. And btw, to answer your question does it matter if there was dead fetal tissue mixed in with the other dead remains of humans or human tissue being burned? Not in the slightest unless the burning of human waste poses a public health danger. Dead is dead and for myself I would specify in my will to incinerate my body to generate electricity after it had been harvested for organs and put to whatever practical purpose it could be. I'm a full cadaver donor. Of course in order for me to do that I'd need to live somewhere where public hysteria over the disposal of fetal tissue didn't exist and the way things are going I'd have to leave the country to find such a place and I can't afford to.