1
   

Bush Appoints AntiAbortion Doc to Head Pregnancy Office

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 04:59 pm
How about the war in Iraq? Costing US taxpayers about five billion every month.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:03 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
How about the war in Iraq? Costing US taxpayers about five billion every month.

It is encouraging to see some of you folks working on ending the state sponsored practice of infant genocide in this country.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:04 pm
Your problem is with the defnition. You need more learn'n in the English language.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:11 pm
Monte Cargo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
How about the war in Iraq? Costing US taxpayers about five billion every month.

It is encouraging to see some of you folks working on ending the state sponsored practice of infant genocide in this country.

It's interesting to note that you use "infant genocide" since the law of the land is an embryo remains an enbryo until there is a live birth' is this simply a matter of your lack of vocabulary or are you and "activist" judge of such matters?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:12 pm
I wish everyone would keep in mind that there is no such thing as an unborn child or baby. Before birth, there is a fetus.

Basically, a fetus has no rights. There is no dependent tax deduction for a fetus and, should there be an abortion, the woman is not charged with anything, much less murder.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:12 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Your problem is with the defnition. You need more learn'n in the English language.

You might want to direct your comment at a post because your post is aimless. Your post is clueless also, in case your post was directed toward me.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:14 pm
Advocate wrote:
I wish everyone would keep in mind that there is no such thing as an unborn child or baby. Before birth, there is a fetus.

Basically, a fetus has no rights. There is no dependent tax deduction for a fetus and, should there be an abortion, the woman is not charged with anything, much less murder.

You are right that the pro-life sector has not been entirely honest with their attitude. If they were, the fetus would be given rights as a human and abortion would be a capital offense, for which the sentence would be either life in prison or even death, according to state statutes.

Your argument may be valid from a legal standpoint, but leaves a grand canyon-sized opportunity for debate from an ethics viewpoint. If a baby can be removed by C section and live, and is aborted after that time, regardless of what the law says, the baby is a human being.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:16 pm
Yes, it was direct at "you." Your defnition of "baby" is just plain wrong.
Show us with evidence where in this country we practice "baby genocide?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:18 pm
You can't redefine words to fit your sick mind and arguments; most Americans will not tolerate it on moral and legal grounds.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:25 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
How about the war in Iraq? Costing US taxpayers about five billion every month.

It is encouraging to see some of you folks working on ending the state sponsored practice of infant genocide in this country.

It's interesting to note that you use "infant genocide" since the law of the land is an embryo remains an enbryo until there is a live birth' is this simply a matter of your lack of vocabulary or are you and "activist" judge of such matters?

Because there is virtually no distinction whatsoever between a newborn baby and the organism living inside the womb that might have to be delivered by a Ceasarian section, your distinction is a symantical one.

A woman can call George Tiller and for $5,000, he'll give a woman an abortion who is five minutes away from childbirth.

To some on the board, a baby who is five minutes away from exiting the birth canal is an embryo.

That's a cop out.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:32 pm
Monte Cargo wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
boomerang wrote:
What do you suggest be done with children born to parents who conceived with happy family stars in their eyes but still find themselves unable to adequately care for their child?

Accepting consequences and being a good parent are two entirely different things.

Sorry but that is one of the typical lib arguments for abortion if I ever heard one.

Gee, let's see, we keep the incoming child if Henry gets the promotion, but we kill the unborn child if the price of oil reaches $75.00/barrel because having a child may cause financial hardship.

Can any proposition be more disgusting than that?


Thank you for that totally unexaggerated and perfectly accurate picture of the average parents discussing their options, Mr. Limbaugh.

It's impossible to set an example that would be exagerated or inaccurate, because to the conditioned mindset, owing to the pro-aborts, such an example simply does not exist.


Yes. Conditioned mindset. Pro-aborts fault. Got it, Mr. Hannity.

It's a sorry concept that your discussion will end after you've run out of the names of conservative commentators.


Right again, Ms. Coulter.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:32 pm
I think I'll head over to Roberta's "Ignorance to Make You Gasp" thread.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:34 pm
Monte Cargo wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
How about the war in Iraq? Costing US taxpayers about five billion every month.

It is encouraging to see some of you folks working on ending the state sponsored practice of infant genocide in this country.

It's interesting to note that you use "infant genocide" since the law of the land is an embryo remains an enbryo until there is a live birth' is this simply a matter of your lack of vocabulary or are you and "activist" judge of such matters?

Because there is virtually no distinction whatsoever between a newborn baby and the organism living inside the womb that might have to be delivered by a Ceasarian section, your distinction is a symantical one.

A woman can call George Tiller and for $5,000, he'll give a woman an abortion who is five minutes away from childbirth.

To some on the board, a baby who is five minutes away from exiting the birth canal is an embryo.

That's a cop out.

There is indeed a distinction and it's defined by law, the wingnuts have had the agenda of changing that law ever since roe v wade and consistenly failed. wingnuts remain wingnuts or as foxfyre would say "the majority should make the rules"
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:49 pm
Monte Cargo wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
How about the war in Iraq? Costing US taxpayers about five billion every month.

It is encouraging to see some of you folks working on ending the state sponsored practice of infant genocide in this country.

It's interesting to note that you use "infant genocide" since the law of the land is an embryo remains an enbryo until there is a live birth' is this simply a matter of your lack of vocabulary or are you and "activist" judge of such matters?

Because there is virtually no distinction whatsoever between a newborn baby and the organism living inside the womb that might have to be delivered by a Ceasarian section, your distinction is a symantical one.

A woman can call George Tiller and for $5,000, he'll give a woman an abortion who is five minutes away from childbirth.

To some on the board, a baby who is five minutes away from exiting the birth canal is an embryo.

That's a cop out.


Too bad Tiller wasn't in business when Babs was pregnant with little george......
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:50 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
How about the war in Iraq? Costing US taxpayers about five billion every month.

It is encouraging to see some of you folks working on ending the state sponsored practice of infant genocide in this country.

It's interesting to note that you use "infant genocide" since the law of the land is an embryo remains an enbryo until there is a live birth' is this simply a matter of your lack of vocabulary or are you and "activist" judge of such matters?

Because there is virtually no distinction whatsoever between a newborn baby and the organism living inside the womb that might have to be delivered by a Ceasarian section, your distinction is a symantical one.

A woman can call George Tiller and for $5,000, he'll give a woman an abortion who is five minutes away from childbirth.

To some on the board, a baby who is five minutes away from exiting the birth canal is an embryo.

That's a cop out.

There is indeed a distinction and it's defined by law, the wingnuts have had the agenda of changing that law ever since roe v wade and consistenly failed. wingnuts remain wingnuts or as foxfyre would say "the majority should make the rules"

They did. They elected George W. Bush, giving Bush an opportunity to appoint pro-lifers instead of pro-aborters to head family planning posts.

The majority elected George W. Bush, giving Bush an opportunity to appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. They elected more conservatives than liberals in Congress (even in the most recent election, since blue dog conservative democrats constitute the democratic gains). That conservative majority allowed for confirmation of those judges.

And the decision Bush made about the new appointee is perfectly in line with why the majority in this country elected him.

Roe v. Wade is not a birthright. With the overturning of Roe V Wade goes your defining argument about nearly born babies being human beings, at least on the level of the government funding abortion and offering federal protections for abortion.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:52 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
How about the war in Iraq? Costing US taxpayers about five billion every month.

It is encouraging to see some of you folks working on ending the state sponsored practice of infant genocide in this country.

It's interesting to note that you use "infant genocide" since the law of the land is an embryo remains an enbryo until there is a live birth' is this simply a matter of your lack of vocabulary or are you and "activist" judge of such matters?

Because there is virtually no distinction whatsoever between a newborn baby and the organism living inside the womb that might have to be delivered by a Ceasarian section, your distinction is a symantical one.

A woman can call George Tiller and for $5,000, he'll give a woman an abortion who is five minutes away from childbirth.

To some on the board, a baby who is five minutes away from exiting the birth canal is an embryo.

That's a cop out.


Too bad Tiller wasn't in business when Babs was pregnant with little george......

You can cry and whine and call names for the next two years and two months. Bush will still be president until then.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 05:55 pm
Monte Cargo wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
How about the war in Iraq? Costing US taxpayers about five billion every month.

It is encouraging to see some of you folks working on ending the state sponsored practice of infant genocide in this country.

It's interesting to note that you use "infant genocide" since the law of the land is an embryo remains an enbryo until there is a live birth' is this simply a matter of your lack of vocabulary or are you and "activist" judge of such matters?

Because there is virtually no distinction whatsoever between a newborn baby and the organism living inside the womb that might have to be delivered by a Ceasarian section, your distinction is a symantical one.

A woman can call George Tiller and for $5,000, he'll give a woman an abortion who is five minutes away from childbirth.

To some on the board, a baby who is five minutes away from exiting the birth canal is an embryo.

That's a cop out.


Too bad Tiller wasn't in business when Babs was pregnant with little george......

You can cry and whine and call names for the next two years and two months. Bush will still be president until then.



more's the pity
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 06:01 pm
"Roe v. Wade is not a birthright. With the overturning of Roe V Wade goes your defining argument about nearly born babies being human beings, at least on the level of the government funding abortion and offering federal protections for abortion."
roe v wade has been overturned? details please. The law reamins as it was in spide of your denial. (btw, there is still no prayer in school either)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 06:02 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Thomas wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Isn't it a fact that thieves still rob but we try to teach them not to?

Yes, but we haven't yet invented a condom for theft. If we had a 10 cent device that lets thieves steal to their hearts' delight without anyone getting stolen from, Phoenix and I would be all for using it. Wouldn't you?

So we just quit teaching thieves not to steal? Just throw in the towel?

In this hypothetical case, I don't see why not. In the real world though, we have no theft condom, so we have no choice but to teach theft abstinence. In the case of sex and pregnancy, we do have a choice between emphasizing abstinence and emphasizing contraception. I opt for emphasizing contraception: Abstinence after sexual maturity goes against an instinct so basic we owe our very existence to it. Slapping on a condom before sex goes against no such insinct.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 06:19 pm
Excuse me, LoneStarMadam, I thought we were having a conversation going back to your post regarding "if someone is old enough to have sex they are old enough to accept the consequences" because that is what gave rise to my question.

I thought that was clear but I suppose it wasn't.


I'm still waiting for an answer to this......

boomerang wrote:
How about a situation like this....

What if, at 47, I found myself pregnant. Because of my age I had genetic testing done to determine the fetus' health and learned that it suffered from a serious birth defect.

My insurance company decides that I am no longer a good client and drops me like a hot potato.

While I have the resources to pay for raising a healthy child, I do not have the resources to pay for an uninsured seriously ill child.

What then O Mighty Moralists?


Sincerely, I think we'd all be better off if people thinking of having a child had to go through what adoptive parents go through --

Strict background checks

Health evaluations

Letters of reference

Home inspections and follow up visits

They should also have to post a $10.000 bond since "if you can't afford the attorney you can't afford to raise the kid".

Abstinence and contraception would be a lot more appealing to young people (and to a lot of adults) if they had to account for their lives.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush Appoints AntiAbortion Doc to Head Pregnancy Office
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 02:35:15
▲ ▼