DescentBB

Gooberman wrote:Yes, not wanting to see people electrocuted or drugged to death, wanting to protect the environment, not wanting to go to war where hundreds of thousands will die, wanting the poor to have health care, wanting better schools in poorer communities, wanting to allow two people who love eachother to get married, etc. etc. Re: the term "bleeding heart liberals" in general.

So Gooberman how about the democrat's who want the to do this.

Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.

The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.

The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.

The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

It takes a bleeding heart to stop a beating heart.

Well Goob, it can only imply that if you believe one side’s views are immoral and the other side’s are not, and I didn’t get that from what he said, based upon the examples he used.

I think his point was how hypocrisy is accepted amongst Democrats, but should be used against Republicans.

flip wrote:Why can't you dumbasses just be Americans? It's all your fault you bunch of double minded duplicate bitches.

EDIT:::: A country divided against itself cannot stand. "Argue now bitches"

ok, that made almost as much sense as a handful of rocks in a washing machine...



Seriously though flip, can you flesh that one out a bit more please?

Heretic wrote:Partial birth abortion.

This argument is really old and really stupid, which I suppose makes it quite worthy of showing up in congress/the house regularly.

Instead of detailing the horrors of some procedure and how you don't want taxes paying for it, perhaps attempting to address the problems in society that lead to people wanting the procedure in the first place would be more productive. The fact that the procedure exists means that demand for the procedure exists. It is cause and effect, but arguing against paying for the procedure is addressing the issue backwards.

Of course few people ever want to address the cause, because that would force them to look at a really ugly side of society which they want to pretend doesn't exist.

Krom wrote:Instead of detailing the horrors of some procedure and how you don't want taxes paying for it, perhaps attempting to address the problems in society that lead to people wanting the procedure in the first place would be more productive. The fact that the procedure exists means that demand for the procedure exists. It is cause and effect, but arguing against paying for the procedure is addressing the issue backwards.

The circumstances leading to unwanted pregnancies certainly SHOULD be addressed, but dealing only with those circumstances while ignoring the abortion itself is just as ridiculous as dealing only with the abortion while ignoring the circumstances that lead people to want them.

To put the exact same argument against an ethically similar crime:
Trying to legislate against spousal abuse, or even trying to stop tax dollars from paying to support people who beat and even kill their spouses is ridiculous, you should be looking at what causes people to want to abuse their spouse.

Which is, obviously, silly.

We should try to prevent the root causes that lead up to a problems like these. But you cant ignore the crime.

.

I may be blind in one eye, but I can still see out of the other…where does Heretic say anything about who pays for partial birth abortion?

Stop channeling, Krom.

Nonsense, Bee, *late*-term abortion is just more obvious. And don't fail to acknowledge the fact that part of women's rights, for liberals (Democrats) is abortion! It is a Democrat position! If there are exceptions, good for them, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a rule. And if it isn't then I am very mistaken. You don't have the luxury of conform your party to your views at a whim.

I don't believe a rape victim should receive an abortion (I don't know about contraceptives). Killing is killing. There are solutions to the emotional problems it creates.

I'm pretty sure we are in agreement Kilarin. I was pointing out that most of the time the argument in question completely ignores the root cause and ONLY speaks of the effect which gets us precisely nowhere. No amount of outlawing explosions will work if you continue to put flames and explosives together.

Where has America put flames and explosives together? The increase in young pregnancy, outside of marriage, and unwanted pregnancy are the result of cultural, not political shifts.

Krom wrote:I was pointing out that most of the time the argument in question completely ignores the root cause and ONLY speaks of the effect which gets us precisely nowhere

Then yes, we certainly agree on the point that both sides of the problem need to be addressed. I'm not certain though that most people who are active in the pro-life crowd ignore the root causes. It may be true that the casual republican voter doesn't care much (I'm not certain) but the people who are really ACTIVE in the pro-life movement are usually also active in promoting adoption and education to reduce teen-pregnancy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: The increase in young pregnancy, outside of marriage, and unwanted pregnancy are the result of cultural, not political shifts.

I think that political shifts have encouraged the cultural shifts. But since politics is obviously shaped by the culture, it's just a big circle anyway. So, yes, I agree, most of the root cause is cultural.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't believe a rape victim should receive an abortion (I don't know about contraceptives). Killing is killing.

Indeed. If the embryo is a child, then it needs to be protected, regardless of the sins of it's father. If it's just a lump of cells, then it's no ones business what the mother does with it, whether it was the result of a rape or not.

This thread has completely derailed, hasn't it...

Bet51987 wrote:

Heretic wrote:It takes a bleeding heart to stop a beating heart.

for rape victims or forcing a raped child to carry to term or treating rape victims as if it was their fault they got raped we wouldn't have to have abortion arguments.

Bee

Why do women have abortions?

74% say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities.
73% say they cannot afford to have a child.
48% say they do not want to be a single parent, or have relationship problems with husband or partner.
Less than 2% say they became pregnant as a result of rape or incest.
Source: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Perspective on Sexual & Reproductive Health, Sept. 2005

So Krom stupid right. Well it's stupid to say

Gooberman wrote:Yes, not wanting to see people electrocuted or drugged to death, wanting to protect the environment, not wanting to go to war where hundreds of thousands will die, wanting the poor to have health care, wanting better schools in poorer communities, wanting to allow two people who love eachother to get married, etc. etc. Re: the term "bleeding heart liberals" in general.

Yet 1.2 million of babies are killed each year in the US without war and now the US is channeling money to do the same in other countries. Pretty stupid stuff if you ask me. It's something the Liberals Democrats are always championing. Let's not go to war because it will kill 100,000 people instead let's kill the ones who can't defend themselves. Hypocritical of them to say the least. Why does it continue because of the mind set it's "Old and Stupid" so why bring it up.

One baby is aborted every 26 seconds

137 babies are aborted every hour

3,304 babies are aborted every day

23,196 babies are aborted every week

100,516 babies are aborted every month

Heretic wrote: One baby is aborted every 26 seconds

137 babies are aborted every hour

3,304 babies are aborted every day

23,196 babies are aborted every week

100,516 babies are aborted every month

That sounds a lot like genocide.

Duper wrote:That sounds a lot like genocide.

Nope to believe it's genocide would mean there is one type human being killed it's more like mass murder. Since it's happening around the world in all nations that allow it, genocide isn't what is happening.

\"Give a hungry man a fish, he has food for one day. Teach him to fish, he has food for rest of his life\"

Which part of this saying does the lefties apply to?
Notice, both solutions is helping the mans hunger. So what we disagree on is HOW TO HELP, which is not understood to day. At least thats the situation here in Europe. If you promote 'to teach him to fish' You get an connotative lable of evil on you. Somthing the lefties exploit to lable themself 'good' and their opponents 'bad'

This 'just give him a fish' is what they in ancient Rome called 'bread and circus', which is a way to achieve popularity from the people. If the politicians start aim for popularity from the people, it will be harder for them to solve problems that actually need an unpopular regulation. The society goes from rule of 'wisdom' to rule of 'whises'

It's ironic that its our wealth that have made this situation possible. Its like a poor man working hard to get rich, and when he hands over his money to his son, first thing he does is to get an porche, crash the car next week, then party all day, sit on fancy cafes and act like hes an important artist and so forth. And when this guy getts an son........theres no money left for him.

@Duper

It makes perfect sense to the self-examiner.

The Unborn don't mean squat as they can't vote....at least from the liberal point of view.

Krom wrote:

Heretic wrote:Partial birth abortion.

Instead of detailing the horrors of some procedure and how you don't want taxes paying for it, perhaps attempting to address the problems in society that lead to people wanting the procedure in the first place would be more productive.

How about we start with the leader of the country not saying it is above his pay grade and actually do something ?

democrat's who want the to do this

When you said, \"democrat's who want the to do this,\" you changed topics. I could take any extreme conservative view and say, \"what about those...\" but it doesn't make the point that \"republicans are immoral.\"

However, to respond to your new topic: very few democrats are in favor of partial birth abortions. The way republicans get democrats to vote against these bans is by refusing to allow language that gives an exception if the Mother's life is in danger.

So Krom stupid right. Well it's stupid to say

Does being in favor of abortion make ones choice to oppose electrocutions and war less of a moral one? Why do you think democrats oppose these things, what is the motivation? People disagree when life starts, most abortions are not late term, no one disagrees that those on death row are alive.

Sign

So one should be in favor of all war? It is a default immoral stance to oppose war?

Gooberman wrote:

So one should be in favor of all war? It is a default immoral stance to oppose war?

So where are all the code pinks, all the anti-war protesters, at now? Let me guess, they never really were against the war, just Bush.

woodchip wrote: So where are all the code pinks, all the anti-war protesters, at now? Let me guess, they never really were against the war, just Bush.

They are still there, they recently interrupted a Karl Rove book signing.

But in seriousness, they are still there. Cindy Shehan has gone after Nancy Pelocy, and threatened to run against her (keep in mind this is San Francisco, so she is a legitimate threat). They are still continuing to protest the war, they don't care that Obama is in the white house -- they think he is conservative. (And you guys wont give it to him, but he really has been pretty conservative on this issue).

It is true that they don't receive as much media attention. I'll give it to you that some of it may be media bias towards Obama, but also, all news stories become stale after 7 years.

Gooberman wrote:Does being in favor of abortion make ones choice to oppose electrocutions and war less of a moral one? Why do you think democrats oppose these things, what is the motivation? People disagree when life starts, most abortions are not late term, no one disagrees that those on death row are alive.

We all have points at which we're inconsistent; whether between words and actions, or between compatible but different cases. I hear the argument about when life starts, but to me it's just a cop-out. It feels inconsistent for "liberals" to be so strongly against death-related things like war, capital punishment, and animal cruelty while not batting an eye at abortion, which strikes me as another life and death issue. The difference that I see between the two is the personal impact involved... abortions largely improve individual convenience while the others usually don't have a large impact about their individual lives.

At the end of the day, it will be something that we agree to disagree on... you say it isn't inconsistent because of definitions, I say that it is because the definitions are inconsistent, too.

I hear the argument about when life starts, but to me it's just a cop-out. It feels inconsistent for \"liberals\" to be so strongly against death-related things like war, capital punishment, and animal cruelty while not batting an eye at abortion.

I think when discussing partial birth abortions, you are correct, it is a cop-out to discuss if life has started at that stage. But in regards to conception, I think the opposite is true, I think it would require someone to be religious on some level to give those cells the same right-to-life as the woman they are inside of.

But I also disagree about, \"not bating an eye.\" It's sort of like how incredibly difficult it is to discuss gun control with someone without them trying to make you defend gun elimination. Most are not \"pro-abortion.\" And its just not true that they \"don't bat an eye.\"

Many would not have an abortion, and even find the act immoral, but don't feel that they have the right, or the government has the right, to tell a woman what to do with her body. Other's believe that such laws would do little to stop abortions, only force them to take place in dark allys or in Mexico.

Not so, Goob. The whole \"woman has a right to do with her body\" argument clearly did not originate from any source other than the proponents of abortion. And this is obviated by the fact that it has no reasonable moral or biological basis. Any doctor knows that he's performing the procedure not on the woman's body, but on an unborn child.

Gooberman wrote:very few democrats are in favor of partial birth abortions. The way republicans get democrats to vote against these bans is by refusing to allow language that gives an exception if the Mother's life is in danger.

I have a really hard time envisioning a medical scenario in which you can breech-deliver the baby 80% of the way and then stop to suck out its brains and crush its skull before finishing the delivery, but couldn't have just delivered the baby alive because it would have endangered the mother.

Let's call it what it is: political grandstanding by both sides. There's no need for a "life of the mother" clause on partial-birth abortion. None whatsoever. There's no reason for Republicans to insist on keeping it out, and there's no reason for Democrats to insist on putting it in.

Bet51987 wrote:Late term abortion is immoral, evil and inhuman and should be banned

So push for it to be banned. Quit getting caught up in Republican-Democrat drama, and quit falling for their grandstanding.

If you want late-term abortion banned, but emergency contraceptives available to rape victims, push for those things from both parties. Stop giving a free pass to your party for their support of the "immoral, evil, and inhuman".

.

Heretic wrote:

slavery still exists, fascism still is around (though not as prevalent), nazi parties can still be found, and communism fell apart on it's own.

cute picture though.

Rewinding a bit here...

LEON wrote:PJTV on Sarah Palin haters.

When I watched that video about and how she revitalized the conservative movement because they thought "at last a candidate that understands my position", it was the first time it made sense to me why so many people stood up saying how great she was. Yes; the mainstream conservative movement really are just a big bunch of Dumb Hicks.

The vast majority of world leaders are highly educated, clever, manipulative, dishonest people and they have a predisposition to dislike America. Yeah, pretty much the embodiment of everything we hate about the extreme left or right. Palin is the political equivalent of the prize fighting rooster, she is youthful, flashy, sparkling, aggressive and there is no dishonesty in her perfectly straight forward attacks. Electing her president would be the same as throwing that chicken into a den full of hungry wolves. The most impressive part of how it would shape global foreign policy would be China vs everyone else fighting over who gets to devour her first...

Is it better to be thrown, or to walk in willingly as we are now?

The difference being if you listen to woodchip; Obama is either a wolf in sheep's clothing, or inedible. So either way we are better off.

no, more like he's a farmer that's throwing US to the wolves.

I’m not a Palin supporter, but after you put it that way Krom, I think I would much rather have some “dumb hick” in the white house, rather than some phony gussied up city slicker, that doesn’t even know the proper way to bow.

And please try not to forget, for every dumb hick drivin around in a pickup truck, with a rebel flag and a huntin dog…there is his equivalent riding around in the big city in a lowered down import with nine hundred & fifty speakers in the trunk.

Guess which ones voted for Obama.

Bet51987 wrote:

Lothar wrote:If you want late-term abortion banned, but emergency contraceptives available to rape victims, push for those things from both parties. Stop giving a free pass to your party for their support of the "immoral, evil, and inhuman".

And how would I do that? How could I change a mindset so tied to the Catholic church that they want to add an ammendment to the constitution banning any and all forms of abortion. We've already gone through this and my only hope is to vote.

Vote for people (R or D) who want to ban late-term abortion but are OK with emergency contraceptives.

Write your representatives about doing both of those things.

Argue and debate for both of those things.

It's hard to change mindsets, regardless of whether or not they're tied to the Catholic church. But it's impossible to change the mindset that leads to what you call "immoral, evil, and inhuman" behavior if you give your party a free pass on it because you're too busy whining about the other party. It's impossible to change the mindset as long as you're so busy blaming the other party that you let your own party get away with things you find reprehensible.

Quit falling for the lie that you can only do it the Republican way or the Democrat way. Push the Republicans to change, and push the Democrats to change, and push for the solution you want rather than accepting the unacceptable for stupid reasons.

Krom wrote:When I watched that video about and how she revitalized the conservative movement because they thought "at last a candidate that understands my position", it was the first time it made sense to me why so many people stood up saying how great she was. Yes; the mainstream conservative movement really are just a big bunch of Dumb Hicks.

A lot of people, even very intelligent and very educated people (*ahem*), liked many of Palin's positions for good reasons. Don't let the fact that she turned out to be whiny, unsophisticated, and unable to handle herself in front of a camera fool you.

Palin resonates with modern conservatives because she's one of the few voices actually calling for a serious reduction in the size of government. I wish we had some more sophisticated conservatives doing the same, but the Republican party establishment has gotten itself tied into the cash cow that is big government. All the first-rate and second-rate Republicans have become fiscally reckless, so we're left with third-rate politicians like Sarah Palin and Ron Paul being the only ones saying what huge swaths of the country believe.

We need fewer "dumb hicks" and "phony city slickers" in politics, and more people who understand economics like Milton Friedman, Steve Forbes, and Warren Buffet.

Lothar wrote: I wish we had some more sophisticated conservatives doing the same

*ahem*, Ron Paul.

Kilarin wrote:

Lothar wrote: I wish we had some more sophisticated conservatives doing the same

*ahem*, Ron Paul. :)

Lothar wrote:we're left with third-rate politicians like Sarah Palin and Ron Paul

Yes I get my political views from actors too

Lothar wrote:we're left with third-rate politicians like Sarah Palin and Ron Paul

It's just that I don't see anything third-rate about Ron Paul. I think he is erudite and eloquent.