Why are pro abortion people anti death penalty?

[avatar4321]

I could never understand how someone could be for abortion and against the death penalty. How can you be for killing an innocent child and against killing a guilty killer?

Being against both or for both I could see. Those positions are consistant. Even being against abortion and for the death penalty. That's consistant to because protecting innocents is much different than justice for the guilty.

But Ive always struggled for this. But I just had an epipheny on the matter. Pro abortionists who are against the death penalty are against it because they know in their hearts that they are wrong about abortion. If they advocated the death penalty for serial murders, they themselves would be guilty of it and they cant stand that.

[LiberalNation]

I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

Why is it that so many pro-life people are in favor of war, knowing that innocents will be killed in it.

[Guernicaa]

justice for the guilty.
Supposedly guilty.
Like all criminal justice systems, ours isn't perfect.

[Guernicaa]

I could never understand how someone could be for abortion and against the death penalty. How can you be for killing an innocent child and against killing a guilty killer?

Its not an "innocent child". Thats the right-wing frame on what the thing really is. It's a fetus, growing inside the mothers body, and it is totally reliant on her just like a tumor would be reliant.

Now I'm not saying that when a girl gets fucked and then her boyfriend dumps her she should just go have an abortion because she doesn't feel like raising it. There are far too many scenarios when the current life situations that the woman is in just cannot take the responsibilities of raising a child.

Abortion should not be up to a minority of Christian theocrats to decide. Polls have shown that the majority of Americans are pro-choice and do not believe the government should be making these decisions for women:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

One of my favorite quotes that I always use when discussing abortion comes from Kate Michelman (former president of NARAL):

"An America that is genuinely and deeply pro-choice will be one that reaffirms its most basic democratic ideals – that the private lives of citizens are not the province of the state, that there are parts of our lives and our souls and beliefs that government may not touch, that we respect the individual as unique and autonomous and free. This is the essence of the question that has for so many years, defined this issue for me: Who decides? "

-Kate Michelman in Protecting the Right to Choose

[Guernicaa]

Along with LN’s question, why is it that people who are pro-life don’t want there to be abortions but also don’t want kids and teenagers to forgo intense sex education to help them make better decisions thus lowering the number of abortions to a minimum?

Why do they want to get rid of abortions and at the same time deny women access to birth control which would again, lower the amount of abortions????

[manu1959]

I could never understand how someone could be for abortion and against the death penalty. How can you be for killing an innocent child and against killing a guilty killer?

Being against both or for both I could see. Those positions are consistant. Even being against abortion and for the death penalty. That's consistant to because protecting innocents is much different than justice for the guilty.

But Ive always struggled for this. But I just had an epipheny on the matter. Pro abortionists who are against the death penalty are against it because they know in their hearts that they are wrong about abortion. If they advocated the death penalty for serial murders, they themselves would be guilty of it and they cant stand that.

i know several that are not.....they also don't call it pro choice....

[glockmail]

....

Why is it that so many pro-life people are in favor of war, knowing that innocents will be killed in it. Because evil will triumph when good men do nothing.

[glockmail]

I could never understand how someone could be for abortion and against the death penalty. ..... Both positions lead towards the breakdown of civilization. This simple test explains all of what libs support.

[Gunny]

I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

Why is it that so many pro-life people are in favor of war, knowing that innocents will be killed in it.

Why is it so many pro-choice people are against war when it's just innocents being aborted from living?

[LiberalNation]

I don't know, I'm not against war. Tho this stupid one we are fighting now which we didn't have to get into in the first place I might be.

[nevadamedic]

I don't know, I'm not against war. Tho this stupid one we are fighting now which we didn't have to get into in the first place I might be.

The Hell we didn't!

[Black Lance]

Its not an "innocent child". Thats the right-wing frame on what the thing really is. It's a fetus, growing inside the mothers body, and it is totally reliant on her just like a tumor would be reliant.

Now I'm not saying that when a girl gets fucked and then her boyfriend dumps her she should just go have an abortion because she doesn't feel like raising it. There are far too many scenarios when the current life situations that the woman is in just cannot take the responsibilities of raising a child.


Pause and think about the content of these two paragraphs for a moment Obama. If the fetus is "just a clump of cells", and its interests have no moral weight, why isn't the author saying that girls should just go have an abortion because they don't feel like raising a child?

[glockmail]

Why is it so many pro-choice people are against war when it's just innocents being aborted from living?


I don't know, I'm not against war. Tho this stupid one we are fighting now which we didn't have to get into in the first place I might be.

Again the simple test. Saddam was breaking down civilization in the middle east so liberals would be against kicking his ass out of there.

[red states rule]

Libs are a strange group. The call memebrs of the US militray "baby killers" but think it is fine for women to suck thier baby into a sin, and call it a constitutionally protected right.

[LiberalNation]

Saddam was breaking down civilization in the middle east so liberals would be against kicking his ass out of there.

I actually civilization has been broken down worse since we kicked out Saddam. He maintained order and the balance of power between the suni/shia arab states brutal tyrant or no.

[red states rule]

I actually civilization has been broken down worse since we kicked out Saddam. He maintained order and the balance of power between the suni/shia arab states brutal tyrant or no.

Hitler maintained order in Berlin in the 1930's - was that a good thing as well?

[glockmail]

I actually civilization has been broken down worse since we kicked out Saddam. He maintained order and the balance of power between the suni/shia arab states brutal tyrant or no. Yes LN I am fully aware of another liberal tactic: changing the definition of words to suit their agenda. So your definition of civilization is a ruthless dictator who murdered several hunders thousand of his citizens who disagreed with his policies, and who's sons maintained rape rooms and killed people for pleasure? :pee:

[glockmail]

Hitler maintained order in Berlin in the 1930's - was that a good thing as well? In order to be consistant her answer will have to be "yes". Prepare yourself for some spin.

[red states rule]

Yes LN I am fully aware of another liberal tactic: changing the definition of words to suit their agenda. So your definition of civilization is a ruthless dictator who murdered several hunders thousand of his citizens who disagreed with his policies, and who's sons maintained rape rooms and killed people for pleasure? :pee:

Funny how the left backed Clinton when he TALKED about taking Saddam out - but opposed Pres Bush when he actually did take Saddam out

[Guernicaa]

Libs are a strange group. The call memebrs of the US militray "baby killers" but think it is fine for women to suck thier baby into a sin, and call it a constitutionally protected right.
You must be reffering to Matt Sanchez AKA "Rod Majors"????

Sanchez lived in Quebec in the 1990s, working in the adult entertainment industry both there and in Los Angeles, after which he moved to Germany. Sanchez worked as a performer in adult films which were mainly targeted towards the gay market. Starring in videos for Catalina Video, Bijou Video, and Falcon Studios, Sanchez spoke several languages and appeared in Call of the Wild (1992) and Montreal Men (1992) as "Pierre LaBranche,"[5] and Idol Country (released in 1994), as "Rod Majors."[6] Other films included Man to Men and Jawbreaker.[1] Scenes from some films have been re-released as part of compilations which is common in the porn industry. The compilation Touched by an Anal was released in 1997; a more recent release was in 2006, Mansex Meltdown.[6] Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."[7] Though he has appeared in gay and bisexual porn films, Sanchez identifies as heterosexual and has stated that he has had no homosexual contact since joining the Corps in 2003.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Sanchez
In other words, conservatives were using this man as a right-wing mouthpiece to try and denounce liberals, but the liberal blogosphere fired back when it was discovered that Sanchez himself is a gay porn star voicing talking points for a "movement that exploits homophobia for political gain" (-Max Blumenthal)

[Guernicaa]

Pause and think about the content of these two paragraphs for a moment Obama. If the fetus is "just a clump of cells", and its interests have no moral weight, why isn't the author saying that girls should just go have an abortion because they don't feel like raising a child?
Because the line is drawn in our minds depending on the situation.
As a specified, women who just "dont feel like raising it" should be able to make the choice to have an abortion, but should be heavily questioned to discover her motive and to persuade her otherwise if she "just doesn't feel like it". Women need to have access to a variety of tools INCLUDING BIRTH CONTROL.

[glockmail]

Funny how the left backed Clinton when he TALKED about taking Saddam out - but opposed Pres Bush when he actually did take Saddam out They backed him because they knew he was simply puffing out his chest and wouldn't do anything serious.

[JohnDoe]

They backed him because they knew he was simply puffing out his chest and wouldn't do anything serious.Democrats in General believe as Ronald Reagan did, you carry the BIG STICK...but you don't use it..... so yes, they supported Clinton because he was huffing and puffing :D

[truthmatters]

I will answer your question even though you will refuse the answer.

When a person is impregnated they do not cease to be a complete person.

They are a person with free will to deside for themselves what they want from their life.

You can try to place a moral burden on them to keep the child to make YOU feel better but in reality you cannot Force them to carry the child to full term.

This has been tried in history and the reason we have the laws that we do now is this fact became apparent.

By providing safe and legal early term abortions you prevent losing both the mother and fetus to botched illegal abortions.

When a person is carrying a zygote that zygote is a part of them because it inhabits their body and without this body which belongs to someone else they cannot exsist.

The person has a right to deside what and who is in their body.

If you would die without a part of my body it is not my duty to give it to you even if It is the ONLY way you can continue to live.

IT is my choice and my choice only!

end of story.

[PostmodernProphet]

They are a person with free will to deside for themselves what they want from their life.

it is a rare situation where your exercise of free will and reaching for what you want in life extends so far as the ability to take away the life of another.......

abortion extends that ability too far in my estimation.....

[truthmatters]

No human being or zygote has the right to any part of your body without your consent.

Its as simple as that !

If I needed a Liver transplant and you were the only person on the face of the earth who could save me with a piece of your liver would it be fair for the law to force you to give it to me?

[JohnDoe]

it is a rare situation where your exercise of free will and reaching for what you want in life extends so far as the ability to take away the life of another.......

abortion extends that ability too far in my estimation..... I agree but what about killling innocent people that have God given lives established as parents or children of other human beings that are killed by OUR HANDS in warring, in letting people die of starvation, or letting people die in a genocide like in the Sudan?

This is what is hard to justify I believe, from an athiests or pro choicer's view point... perhaps?

And the other issue, from all the years of being on message boards, is how can you force these women to have their babies while taking away the gvt support they need to give this child that you saved a better life, than a life of pure poverty filled with hardships? While criticising all welfare moms, making them feel like the scum of the earth....while they CHOSE to have the children they got pregnant with and CHOSE NOT to Abort them.....in other words, they did the RIGHT THING according to us pro-lifers?

Maybe it is "society" that makes these girls feel that they HAVE to abort, or else wear the Scarlet letter of W for welfare moocher, the rest of their lives?

And I realize the answer to all of this imo, is for men to keep their zippers zipped until they marry the girl...but it seems to be going in the exact opposite direction! The "sin" that is spoken of throughout the Bible that causes the sin of abortion is fornication, having sex outside of marriage....first comes sex, THEN AND ONLY THEN, comes baby....so our focus should be on the restriction of sex until marriage....

But from a girls point of view, there ain't no way on Earth, men will ever take on this responsibility and will of God's.

Anyway....didn't mean to change the topic of this thread!!! (but YOU instigated it!!!!) hahahaha!

jd

[LiberalNation]

Yes LN I am fully aware of another liberal tactic: changing the definition of words to suit their agenda. So your definition of civilization is a ruthless dictator who murdered several hunders thousand of his citizens who disagreed with his policies, and who's sons maintained rape rooms and killed people for pleasure? :pee:

Even that for "us" is better than chaos. We now have to stay and take care of these people. Gaining about nothing ourselves and spending a bunch of money in the bargain. This war has increased teorrism and anti-American feeling the ME.

[glockmail]

Democrats in General believe as Ronald Reagan did, you carry the BIG STICK...but you don't use it..... so yes, they supported Clinton because he was huffing and puffing :D LOL Regan was fully prepared to use his big stick, which is why the USSR was in such a panic to keep up.

[glockmail]

Even that for "us" is better than chaos. We now have to stay and take care of these people. Gaining about nothing ourselves and spending a bunch of money in the bargain. This war has increased teorrism and anti-American feeling the ME.


So you have no problem with Saddam's killings of Kurds and his son's rape and torture rooms. That appears to be your position and I want it to be clear for all here.

[LiberalNation]

No I don't care enough to have a war an long accupation over it in a country where many of the people hate our guts.

[JohnDoe]

LOL Regan was fully prepared to use his big stick, which is why the USSR was in such a panic to keep up.
YES! Very TRUE! (But he didn't use it) Reagan gets boocoos of credit when it comes to this imo, his acting came to help him, in a way! They did believe he would use his BIG STICK, which lead us to NOT having to use it.

HE managed the Big Stick quite well! :)

[Black Lance]

Because the line is drawn in our minds depending on the situation.
As a specified, women who just "dont feel like raising it" should be able to make the choice to have an abortion, but should be heavily questioned to discover her motive and to persuade her otherwise if she "just doesn't feel like it". Women need to have access to a variety of tools INCLUDING BIRTH CONTROL.

You're missing the point Obama. Why should anyone question her motive, or try to persuade her not to have an abortion, even if her sole motive she "just doesn't feel like it"? Why is her using abortion as a form of birth control a bad thing if the fetus is just a clump of cells with no moral significance?

[PostmodernProphet]

No human being or zygote has the right to any part of your body without your consent.

I would certainly think you could do more than simply imply consent, when the party in question participated in the decision for that human being/zygote to be IN the person's body.....

[truthmatters]

I would certainly think you could do more than simply imply consent, when the party in question participated in the decision for that human being/zygote to be IN the person's body.....

Some do and some dont.

[truthmatters]

No human being or zygote has the right to any part of your body without your consent.

Its as simple as that !

If I needed a Liver transplant and you were the only person on the face of the earth who could save me with a piece of your liver would it be fair for the law to force you to give it to me?


You forgot the rest of my quote.

[PostmodernProphet]

I agree but what about killling innocent people that have God given lives established as parents or children of other human beings that are killed by OUR HANDS in warring, in letting people die of starvation, or letting people die in a genocide like in the Sudan?

I would agree.....it is wrong for the terrorists to be killing innocent people in Iraq, it is wrong for the terrorists to be engaging in genocide in Sudan, and it is wrong to let people die of starvation.....

I also think it is wrong to say that the US is actively engaging in any of those wrongs.....

[JohnDoe]

So you have no problem with Saddam's killings of Kurds and his son's rape and torture rooms. That appears to be your position and I want it to be clear for all here.

It is unconstitutional for us to be Nation Builders Glock.

Thousands of innocent people dead and their lives worse off because of the way we removed Saddam from Power and the Occupation mess ups there forward, was not the right thing to do imo.... I know you diagree with me and I with you.

WAR should ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, be a last resort and should always be declared by 2/3's vote of congress in a declaration of war as our Constitution states imo. This holds congress responsible to the people....and prevents us from sending our men and women off to be killed in a war that was unnecessary BECAUSE the enemy WAS NOT an imminent threat.

I am a declared Dove, not a Hawk, and I realize that our world probably needs a little bit of both, to make it go round smoothly, but War is a serious thing and sending soldiers to die is a serious thing and it should ONLY BE USED as the absolute last resort, and ONLY be used to PROTECT ourselves from an imminent Danger....again in my Dove opinion!

And I am not talking abourt skirmishes....I am talking about full fledge WAR, as it is in Iraq.

If America cared about the people in Iraq when they WERE BEING SLAUGHTERED BY SADDAM, America would have come to their rescue at that time.... coming to rescue them 10-20 years after the genocides that took place is NOT HONORABLE imo.

[PostmodernProphet]

And the other issue, from all the years of being on message boards, is how can you force these women to have their babies while taking away the gvt support they need to give this child that you saved a better life, than a life of pure poverty filled with hardships?

hasn't happened in this country....not sure where YOU live....

[manu1959]

It is unconstitutional for us to be Nation Builders Glock.



odd ...... the US rebuilt germany japan and italy.....seems there is precedence

[PostmodernProphet]

You forgot the rest of my quote.

not at all, just realized it was irrelevant.....nobody is asking a birth mother to surrender her liver, nor did anyone force her to get pregnant.....

[JohnDoe]

odd ...... the US rebuilt germany japan and italy.....seems there is precedence
There is NO declared war by 2/3's of Congress here...for Iraq.

Iraq DID NOT attack us, Iraq DID NOT declare war against us...Iraq was NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT to us....Glock implies we went to war against Iraq to help the Iraqi people....NOT because they were any kind of imminent threat to our well being.

Germany declared war against us, before we went to warring against them...and Congress Declared war with 2/3's of both the House and the Senate voting yay, against the Japanese for attacking us and against Germany to retaliate their declaration of war against us.

Once in war a declared war and once the war is over, we have obligations according to the rules of war, to help the country that we destroyed... is my understanding....?

jd

[GW in Ohio]

I'm pro choice and I'm okay with the death penalty.

Just make sure the guy really is guilty before you throw the switch or give him the needle that brings on the Big Sleep.

[truthmatters]

not at all, just realized it was irrelevant.....nobody is asking a birth mother to surrender her liver, nor did anyone force her to get pregnant.....

What is rape?

what is incest?

Why do you assume?

YOU dont get to deside why the person doesnt want to be pregnant and that is why the law is in exsistance.

[JohnDoe]

hasn't happened in this country....not sure where YOU live....You have not witnessed many on the Right mouthing off about Welfare recipiants, and them being losers cuz they are on welfare? You have not seen the actions from those on the right in power trying to reduce the spending we do on welfare recipiants and hear the echo of WELFARE REFORM? You do not see that republicans in power want to reduce the size of every government program that might help the children of these moms while funding the killing of innocent people via Warring without thought or question as trillions of our money evaporates while making no ones life any better but the Military industrial complex?

Putting it as YOU did to me....I don't know where YOU live, but it surely isn't here!!!! ;) j/k u on that!

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

What is rape? what is incest?

okay, I will waive objection to the 1% of abortions that involve rape and incest......will you agree to banning the other 99%?

[manu1959]

There is NO declared war by 2/3's of Congress here...for Iraq.

Iraq DID NOT attack us, Iraq DID NOT declare war against us...Iraq was NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT to us....Glock implies we went to war against Iraq to help the Iraqi people....NOT because they were any kind of imminent threat to our well being.

Germany declared war against us, before we went to warring against them...and Congress Declared war with 2/3's of both the House and the Senate voting yay, against the Japanese for attacking us and against Germany to retaliate their declaration of war against us.

Once in war a declared war and once the war is over, we have obligations according to the rules of war, to help the country that we destroyed... is my understanding....?

jd

no declared war in korea and we rebuilt south korea.....

so declared war or not is not the obligation the same.....break it fix it....

[JohnDoe]

What is rape?

what is incest?

Why do you assume?

YOU dont get to deside why the person doesnt want to be pregnant and that is why the law is in exsistance.

Less than 1% of all abortions are because of Rape or Incest, 99% are NOT because of rape or incest.... just an fyi!

[PostmodernProphet]

YOU dont get to deside why the person doesnt want to be pregnant and that is why the law is in exsistance.

and SHE shouldn't get to decide if the child lives or dies simply because she doesn't want to be pregnant....and that is why the law needs to be changed.....

[PostmodernProphet]

You have not witnessed many on the Right mouthing off about Welfare recipiants, and them being losers cuz they are on welfare? You have not seen the actions from those on the right in power trying to reduce the spending we do on welfare recipiants and hear the echo of WELFARE REFORM? You do not see that republicans in power want to reduce the size of every government program that might help the children of these moms while funding the killing of innocent people via Warring without thought or question as trillions of our money evaporates while making no ones life any better but the Military industrial complex?

you right....I haven't seen that.....all I have seen are liberals pretending that massive increases in spending are cuts in disguise........

[JohnDoe]

no declared war in korea and we rebuilt south korea.....

so declared war or not is not the obligation the same.....break it fix it....Yes, I would imagine so...

And this IS WHY we need to fix what we did break, in Iraq...

I just differ with the Hawks on here how the fixin' should be done.

What we have been doing the last 4 years is not working well and there should be more diplomatic solutions being focused on or we will be there baby sitting this civil war thing, forever...

And we are NOT IN ANY WAY making things better for the Iraqis, we need to firgure out how to get this accomplished, with water and electricity to everyone, as THEY ONCE HAD.....without this, they are destined to be in shambles forever imo...

But 4 years and a half a trillion dollars later and they have LESS ELCTRICITY and LESS fresh water than they had when saddam was in power...?

[truthmatters]

How do they get those numbers?

How many people dont tell the reason because they dont want anyone to know?

You see this is not your decision to make and that is the way it should be and is.

People can not be forced to share their body with anyone for any reason.

History has proven that making abortion illegal does not stop abortion.

We are a country of laws NOT your religion.

[PostmodernProphet]

We are a country of laws NOT your religion.

so you are in favor of killing children simply because a religion is against it?......do you have no concern for science or humanism?.....humanism should tell you that all human beings have a right to life, and science can easily show you that what is killed in an abortion is human life.....

yet, you can permit it because it is part of your war against 'religion'......

what a sad day for secular humanism.....

[manu1959]

so you are in favor of killing children simply because a religion is against it?......do you have no concern for science or humanism?.....humanism should tell you that all human beings have a right to life, and science can easily show you that what is killed in an abortion is human life.....

yet, you can permit it because it is part of your war against 'religion'......

what a sad day for secular humanism.....

that same argument can be made for the death penalty.......

[JohnDoe]

you right....I haven't seen that.....all I have seen are liberals pretending that massive increases in spending are cuts in disguise........
maybe you are not looking hard enough Prophet, cuz it has been happening since Gingrich's congress... it is completely contradictory to believing the child's life is important and it is a scarlet letter for anyone being on welfare because they CHOSE to have their child, instead of the holding them up for the tremendous courage it took for these women to have their babies that they conceived out of wedlock....more women would probably have their babies if they knew they could make it financially....are you willing to give these girls that are facing the choice of an abortion this security?

I seriously doubt your Party would agree to this, though you might very well....

I guess I must digress....unless the guy keeps his zipper zipped, or else be willing to marry anyone he got pregnant, then abortion will continue at the same rate, imo.

No guy on this board has come out and said that they should STOP COMPLETELY having sex outside of marriage...so I guess we will be stuck with abortions taking place....from a female's perspective....

jd

[JohnDoe]

How do they get those numbers?

How many people dont tell the reason because they dont want anyone to know?

You see this is not your decision to make and that is the way it should be and is.

People can not be forced to share their body with anyone for any reason.

History has proven that making abortion illegal does not stop abortion.

We are a country of laws NOT your religion.

It is definately a Secular source:

http://www.guttmacher.org/

[glockmail]

No I don't care enough to have a war an long accupation over it in a country where many of the people hate our guts. This is more confirmation of your apparent position: "you have no problem with Saddam's killings of Kurds and his son's rape and torture rooms". You're just too much of a pansy to admit it directly.:slap:

[truthmatters]

so you are in favor of killing children simply because a religion is against it?......do you have no concern for science or humanism?.....humanism should tell you that all human beings have a right to life, and science can easily show you that what is killed in an abortion is human life.....

yet, you can permit it because it is part of your war against 'religion'......

what a sad day for secular humanism.....

I am in favor of NOT telling people what they have to have inside their own bodies.

It is not your decision what they do with their bodies any more than forcing people to keep other people alive with organs and organ parts.

You cannot force people to want to carry a zygote to term and you cannot force people to donate blood or anything else because of YOUR religious beliefs.

Your religious beliefs is what makes you feel this way, you believe that the fetus has more rights than the person carrying it ,I do not.

[glockmail]

[1]It is unconstitutional for us to be Nation Builders Glock.

[2]Thousands of innocent people dead and their lives worse off because of the way we removed Saddam from Power and the Occupation mess ups there forward, was not the right thing to do imo.... I know you diagree with me and I with you.

…..

[3]If America cared about the people in Iraq when they WERE BEING SLAUGHTERED BY SADDAM, America would have come to their rescue at that time.... coming to rescue them 10-20 years after the genocides that took place is NOT HONORABLE imo.

1. If the nation-building is part of our plan for national security, which it is, then it certainly is Constitutional.
2. Tell that to the Kurds an others who’s relatives were raped, tortured and murdered by Saddam’s regime.
3. It appears that you are complaining about what happened on Clinton’s watch. Unfortunately in this country we have a political party called Democrats who occasionally come to power and don’t act against these tyrants when provoked.

[truthmatters]

1. If the nation-building is part of our plan for national security, which it is, then it certainly is Constitutional.


site the part in the constitution where it talks about attacking countries which dont attack us?

[glockmail]

1. If the nation-building is part of our plan for national security, which it is, then it certainly is Constitutional.


site the part in the constitution where it talks about attacking countries which dont attack us?


Learn how to use the quote button and then I'll respond. It's really very simple.

[JohnDoe]

1. If the nation-building is part of our plan for national security, which it is, then it certainly is Constitutional.
2. Tell that to the Kurds an others who’s relatives were raped, tortured and murdered by Saddam’s regime.
3. It appears that you are complaining about what happened on Clinton’s watch. Unfortunately in this country we have a political party called Democrats who occasionally come to power and don’t act against these tyrants when provoked.

Clinton's watch? hahaha! nice try glock, but try Reagan's and Bush 1's watch.....this is when the genocides took place by saddam.

kurds...shiites, all slaughtered decades ago....while we sat by because he was the enemy of our enemy, Iran, we turned a blind eye....and also while we retreated from gulf war 1, while the slaughtering took place, we sat by Glock, there is NO denying this, as far as history shows imo...

[truthmatters]

Learn how to use the quote button and then I'll respond. It's really very simple.


Translation : I cant.

[glockmail]

Clinton's watch? hahaha! nice try glock, but try Reagan's and Bush 1's watch.....this is when the genocides took place by saddam.

kurds...shiites, all slaughtered decades ago....while we sat by because he was the enemy of our enemy, Iran, we turned a blind eye....and also while we retreated from gulf war 1, while the slaughtering took place, we sat by Glock, there is NO denying this, as far as history shows imo... Yes Regan looked the other way while he was cleaning up after Carter's major screw up in Iran. But, as I recall Bush 41 kicked Saddam's ass pretty good. He just failed to finish the bugger off.

:laugh2:

BTW JD I'm enjoying our conversations lately. Keep up good work! :popcorn::beer:

[glockmail]

Translation : I cant.
Article 1, Section 8, paragraphs 10 and 11. :slap:

[Gaffer]

Does the constitution permit pre-emptive strikes against another country? Yes. It gives the president the power to wage war as necessary to the defense of the country. If a pre-emtive strike is necessary than it can be done and is totally constitutional.

Reagan did not do anything concerning iraq as he was busy facing down the soviets. iraq at the time were getting their weapons and WMD's from the soviets. Any arms shipments we made to the area such as to the saudis was to offset the soviet shipments. During the iraq iran war we supply saddam with intel about the location of iranian troops. But never gave him arms or WMD's.

Bush 1 kissed ass all over the world to bring together his coalition to take back kuwait. His big mistake was letting the arab countries and others make him agree not to go to baghdad. Limiting the war to liberating kuwait and not taking out saddam. The massacres that occurred with the kurds and shea after they revolted against saddam were also on Bush 1's watch. And continued into clinton's.

clinton kept the no fly zones operating, so saddam had to send his troops in to kill people on foot. But the slaughter continued. The un inspectors were denied access to certain areas and eventually kicked out of the country by saddam. The embargos were a joke as our "allies" france, germany and russia were all doing business as usual with saddam through the back door. The oil for food program was the biggest con job of the century.

saddam continued trying to exterminate the kurds and shea and anyone else that got in his way. He supported hama and hezzbollah and harbored known terrorists in his country.

clinton said saddam was a threat to the world and to this country and that he had WMD's and it was going to be necessary to take him out eventually. He even ordered the bombing of sites thought to contain WMD's. Not to mention all the strikes following anti-aircraft attacks on our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone that went on throughout the clinton administrations eight years.

In all that time the un was busy making resolution after resolution against saddam with the threat that action would be taken. Bush finally decided it was past time to take action.

Following the fall of saddam iraq was thrown into chaos. No government, no laws. Only tribal and religious affiliations. So the US had to start from scratch. To build a country. That's a job that will not be accomplished in a few years. It will take a generation. Under saddam the country was a secular state with tribal and religious factions on the sidelines. Now those factions have become the power base. And they are all jockeying for position.

Establishing the government was the first step. Securing that government and the region from fanatics is the second step. We are still in that processes. The third step will be pulling back and letting the government take over the security and run the infrastructure. Which will probably happen in the next year or so. This is the course it will have to follow no matter who is president.

[JohnDoe]

Does the constitution permit pre-emptive strikes against another country? Yes. It gives the president the power to wage war as necessary to the defense of the country. If a pre-emtive strike is necessary than it can be done and is totally constitutional.

Reagan did not do anything concerning iraq as he was busy facing down the soviets. iraq at the time were getting their weapons and WMD's from the soviets. Any arms shipments we made to the area such as to the saudis was to offset the soviet shipments. During the iraq iran war we supply saddam with intel about the location of iranian troops. But never gave him arms or WMD's.

Bush 1 kissed ass all over the world to bring together his coalition to take back kuwait. His big mistake was letting the arab countries and others make him agree not to go to baghdad. Limiting the war to liberating kuwait and not taking out saddam. The massacres that occurred with the kurds and shea after they revolted against saddam were also on Bush 1's watch. And continued into clinton's.

clinton kept the no fly zones operating, so saddam had to send his troops in to kill people on foot. But the slaughter continued. The un inspectors were denied access to certain areas and eventually kicked out of the country by saddam. The embargos were a joke as our "allies" france, germany and russia were all doing business as usual with saddam through the back door. The oil for food program was the biggest con job of the century.

saddam continued trying to exterminate the kurds and shea and anyone else that got in his way. He supported hama and hezzbollah and harbored known terrorists in his country.

clinton said saddam was a threat to the world and to this country and that he had WMD's and it was going to be necessary to take him out eventually. He even ordered the bombing of sites thought to contain WMD's. Not to mention all the strikes following anti-aircraft attacks on our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone that went on throughout the clinton administrations eight years.

In all that time the un was busy making resolution after resolution against saddam with the threat that action would be taken. Bush finally decided it was past time to take action.

Following the fall of saddam iraq was thrown into chaos. No government, no laws. Only tribal and religious affiliations. So the US had to start from scratch. To build a country. That's a job that will not be accomplished in a few years. It will take a generation. Under saddam the country was a secular state with tribal and religious factions on the sidelines. Now those factions have become the power base. And they are all jockeying for position.

Establishing the government was the first step. Securing that government and the region from fanatics is the second step. We are still in that processes. The third step will be pulling back and letting the government take over the security and run the infrastructure. Which will probably happen in the next year or so. This is the course it will have to follow no matter who is president.

i'm sorry gaffer, couldn't get past your first paragraph without calling BULLSHIT! ;)

IT IS NOT the president's job to wage war.... the ONLY responsibility a president has when it comes to a declared war by congress is to manage the warriors, as commander in chief....

all other WAR RESPONSIBILITIES are delegated to Congress, ACCORDING to our constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE president has absolutely no jurisdiction of any sort, over waging war!!!!!

preemptive war is A NEW BUSH policy.... it means you can send our soldiers to their death in a war that was not necessary to wage...that was not a last resort and that was NOT an imminent threat situation and that was NOT in any kind of self defense.....IT IS IMMORAL imo and many, many, many other's opinion and is not in any way constitutional, or ethical and moral....it is UNJUST WAR, not JUST WAR.

[5stringJeff]

Its not an "innocent child". Thats the right-wing frame on what the thing really is. It's a fetus, growing inside the mothers body, and it is totally reliant on her just like a tumor would be reliant.

Since you are still in high school, I know you wouldn't have any firsthand experience with this, but children are still 100% reliant on their mothers even after birth. My 20-month-old is still reliant upon people to change his diapers, get him food/water, provide shelter, clothe him, etc. So to use reliance on other humans - or even the mother - as an indication of life would be to call all infants non-living.

Maybe someday, when you see the ultrasound of your three-month-along baby, complete with arms, legs, organs, a beating heart, etc., you'll realize that a baby is a baby, regardless of gestation time or development.

[5stringJeff]

I will answer your question even though you will refuse the answer.

When a person is impregnated they do not cease to be a complete person.

They are a person with free will to deside for themselves what they want from their life.

You can try to place a moral burden on them to keep the child to make YOU feel better but in reality you cannot Force them to carry the child to full term.

This has been tried in history and the reason we have the laws that we do now is this fact became apparent.

By providing safe and legal early term abortions you prevent losing both the mother and fetus to botched illegal abortions.

When a person is carrying a zygote that zygote is a part of them because it inhabits their body and without this body which belongs to someone else they cannot exsist.

The person has a right to deside what and who is in their body.

If you would die without a part of my body it is not my duty to give it to you even if It is the ONLY way you can continue to live.

IT is my choice and my choice only!

end of story.

TM, I am quite the libertarian, and I believe in maximizing personal freedoms, probably as much or more than you. However, with rights come responsibilities. For example, I have the right to own a gun; I do not have the right to shoot my gun at random directions in public - I am responsible for how my gun is used. I have the right to live where I'd like to; I do not have the right to, for example, build bonfires on my suburban front lawn next to my neighbor's tree in the middle of a dry summer - I am responsible for how my property is used. In the same way, I am free to have sex with whomever I wish (provided it's consensual, with someone over 16/17/18, depending on the state). With that freedom, though, comes the responsibility to live with the consequences of that action, including the chance of getting someone pregnant. Likewise, the female has the right to have sex with whomever, whenever, but also has the responsibility to live with the consequences of those actions. A woman could freely choose to have sex, and then end up unintentionally pregnant; she then has the responsibility to that new life to carry it to term.

[Pale Rider]

Democrats in General believe as Ronald Reagan did, you carry the BIG STICK...but you don't use it..... so yes, they supported Clinton because he was huffing and puffing :D

Suuuuure they do.... that must be why slick willie closed a couple hundred military bases while he was President... he wanted that BIG STICK.... riiiiight. We were bombed, hit, attacked and generally MOLESTED for EIGHT YEARS during the bubba clinton years, and all he had the rocks to do was lob an occasional cruise missile here and there. Big stick... get real jd. You liberals HATE the military. You'd rather stick up for sick little lezbo girls that think burning the American flag is funny and cute than stick up for red blooded American military veterans that find it offensive.

[truthmatters]

Why dont you tell us what you b elieve instead of making up lies about what others believe?

[glockmail]

Why dont you tell us what you b elieve instead of making up lies about what others believe?Back to the same old I see. Is this your reply to post 65?

[truthmatters]

Build strawmen and hack away at them if you like.

It does no one any good and makes you look foolish.

[truthmatters]

I did not see anything about preemptive war?

[Gaffer]

I did not see anything about preemptive war?

You didn't read my post then.

[glockmail]

Build strawmen and hack away at them if you like.

It does no one any good and makes you look foolish.I think we all see the fool here.:pee:

[truthmatters]

You didn't read my post then.


This was the first part of your post


"Does the constitution permit pre-emptive strikes against another country? Yes.It gives the president the power to wage war as necessary to the defense of the country. If a pre-emtive strike is necessary than it can be done and is totally constitutional ."


The president does not have the power to declare war under the constitution.

I stop reading after that for obvious reasons.

[Gaffer]

This was the first part of your post


"Does the constitution permit pre-emptive strikes against another country? Yes.It gives the president the power to wage war as necessary to the defense of the country. If a pre-emtive strike is necessary than it can be done and is totally constitutional ."


The president does not have the power to declare war under the constitution.

I stop reading after that for obvious reasons.

You didn't even read that part correctly. I didn't say he had the power to DECLARE war. I said he has the power to WAGE war. He can attack a country that is a threat to us and then go to congress for approval or declaration if he choses to do so.

Selective reading will gain you nothing on this forum.

[truthmatters]

To wage war you must Declare war.

[Gaffer]

To wage war you must Declare war.

Negative. There has not been a declared war by this country since WW2. A president can wage war at any time. The congress can approve or disapprove it through funding. But the act of waging war is purely the presidents purgative, only the congress can declare war.

[truthmatters]

Madison: “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

[Gunny]

Clinton's watch? hahaha! nice try glock, but try Reagan's and Bush 1's watch.....this is when the genocides took place by saddam.

kurds...shiites, all slaughtered decades ago....while we sat by because he was the enemy of our enemy, Iran, we turned a blind eye....and also while we retreated from gulf war 1, while the slaughtering took place, we sat by Glock, there is NO denying this, as far as history shows imo...

Where'd you learn YOUR history? Berkeley? It's EASY to deny this crap.

We didn't retreat from the First Gulf War. We accomplished exactly what we set out to do, and Bush agreed to in order to have unrestricted use of Arab airspace, preposition our troops in Saudi Arabia, and an air base in Saudi Arabia. For that he had to agree to only remove Saddam from Kuwait, and not pursue him beyond the Iraq border.

Saddam's slaughtering was HIS fault. Nothing we did made him do it. That's bullshit. If I give you a gun, or you have a gun and I don't watch you with it, that sure as Hell doesn't make it MY fault when you go pop somebody. That line of thinking is backwards-assed and absurd.

[truthmatters]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I


heres what Cheney thought at the time.

[Gunny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I


heres what Cheney thought at the time.

Who cares? Cheney wasn't President. The Constitution, and legal precedent state the President alone is the representative of the US in all foreign policy matters.

[Gaffer]

Madison: “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

Once again I don't know who your post was directed at. As for your quote I'm just guessing that your quoting James Madison? Again, its up to congress to declare war and to fund war. The president wages the war. The president has the option to wage war without congressional approval if he deems it necessary in the national defense. He has a time frame to present to the congress his reasons for the actions. Granada is an example of such action. Reagan acted and then went to congress for approval. In iraq Bush went to congress first and got approval then took action.

By the way President Madison was in office when the British attacked and burned Washington in 1812 and was commanding an artillery battery during the battle after fleeing the whitehouse. The only president to lead troops in battle while in office.

[truthmatters]

Well I believe many Americans would care if they heard it.

[Gunny]

Well I believe many Americans would care if they heard it.

I don't. And you certainly restrict your audience here by not posting a written transcript. You are one of the laziest posters I have ever seen. You don't name who you are addressing, and you just post a youtube assuming everyone has speakers hooked up. And we already went round and round on USMB about your refusal to adhere to copyright law when posting articles.

As far as your comment itself goes, I feel quite safe in saying that if you believe it is important, it more than likely is not.

[truthmatters]

Copyright Infringement - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources, please refrain from posting articles in their entirety. The first paragraph or 2 would be fine with a link to the rest of the article. This is acceptable under the fair use doctrine but copying of entire articles will likely result in copyright infringement, and your post may be removed and/or edited to protect the community.


I dont see where I broke the rules?

[Gunny]

Copyright Infringement - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources, please refrain from posting articles in their entirety. The first paragraph or 2 would be fine with a link to the rest of the article. This is acceptable under the fair use doctrine but copying of entire articles will likely result in copyright infringement, and your post may be removed and/or edited to protect the community.


I dont see where I broke the rules?

I just ran into one of your infamous posting nothing but a link in first post, then making commenet in your second post. I've explained why to not do it that way ad nauseum. You're just a lazy poster.

It's like gee, everyone else does it this way, so I think I'll do it a different way that doesn't require as much effort.

[5stringJeff]

Madison: “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

So I take it that you are/were opposed to the US military actions in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait (1991), Bosnia, and Kosovo?

[JohnDoe]

I just ran into one of your infamous posting nothing but a link in first post, then making commenet in your second post. I've explained why to not do it that way ad nauseum. You're just a lazy poster.

It's like gee, everyone else does it this way, so I think I'll do it a different way that doesn't require as much effort.Are you some kind of board Nazi for Board Correctness? I have posted with TM for quite a while and this is how TM has always done it....whether it conforms to your way or not, TM is not doing this just to be different or to aggravate you purposefully gunny, this is the way TM has always done it....just an fyi.

[Gunny]

Are you some kind of board Nazi for Board Correctness? I have posted with TM for quite a while and this is how TM has always done it....whether it conforms to your way or not, TM is not doing this just to be different or to aggravate you purposefully gunny, this is the way TM has always done it....just an fyi.

SO? TM has always voted democrat too. Doesn't make it right.

You trying to restrict my free speech, lib .... or what?

[JohnDoe]

Where'd you learn YOUR history? Berkeley? It's EASY to deny this crap.

We didn't retreat from the First Gulf War. We accomplished exactly what we set out to do, and Bush agreed to in order to have unrestricted use of Arab airspace, preposition our troops in Saudi Arabia, and an air base in Saudi Arabia. For that he had to agree to only remove Saddam from Kuwait, and not pursue him beyond the Iraq border.

Saddam's slaughtering was HIS fault. Nothing we did made him do it. That's bullshit. If I give you a gun, or you have a gun and I don't watch you with it, that sure as Hell doesn't make it MY fault when you go pop somebody. That line of thinking is backwards-assed and absurd.You know, sometimes I wonder about your mental health Gunny....

I did not say it was our fault anywhere in my post with Glock. My point was about waiting decades to do something about the actual genocides that took place under his reign...and mainly because he was the enemy of our enemy, at the time, I would presume.

But if you want to get in to "fault".... ;)


...with Bush 1 we encouraged the revolt against saddam with the shiite after our win, at least from what I have read, then when they needed our help, we were unable or unwilling to go in and help them.

Dick Cheney explained very clearly at the time of why we could not take saddam out...all the valid reasons why we probably should not have done it this time either....

however, if we did encourage the shiite to rebel against saddam and we did not help them when they were in dire need, I do believe the ethical thing to do would have been to help them.

you can see a video of Cheneys words on youtube if you want to hear him speak about it back then....who knows why he did a complete 180 since then....?

[Gunny]

You know, sometimes I wonder about your mental health Gunny....

I did not say it was our fault anywhere in my post with Glock. My point was about waiting decades to do something about the actual genocides that took place under his reign...and mainly because he was the enemy of our enemy, at the time, I would presume.

But if you want to get in to "fault".... ;)


...with Bush 1 we encouraged the revolt against saddam with the shiite after our win, at least from what I have read, then when they needed our help, we were unable or unwilling to go in and help them.

Dick Cheney explained very clearly at the time of why we could not take saddam out...all the valid reasons why we probably should not have done it this time either....

however, if we did encourage the shiite to rebel against saddam and we did not help them when they were in dire need, I do believe the ethical thing to do would have been to help them.

you can see a video of Cheneys words on youtube if you want to hear him speak about it back then....who knows why he did a complete 180 since then....?

I don't need to see his video on youtube. I'm quite sure I'm far more educated on the topic than you wish to play yourself off as. If you were smart enough to do your homeowrk, you will find where I have said the very same things all over this board for years.

So you don't need to concern yourself so much with my mental health as you do your talking out your ass without a clue.

[JohnDoe]

SO? TM has always voted democrat too. Doesn't make it right.

You trying to restrict my free speech, lib .... or what?nahhhhh, just want to make sure YOU don't try to restrict TM's, like you seem to be set on doing!!!! :slap:

[JohnDoe]

I don't need to see his video on youtube. I'm quite sure I'm far more educated on the topic than you wish to play yourself off as. If you were smart enough to do your homeowrk, you will find where I have said the very same things all over this board for years.

So you don't need to concern yourself so much with my mental health as you do your talking out your ass without a clue.i haven't been on this site for years? and certainly don't have time to look up what posters here have said for 'years' before i got here! I'm pretty dedicated to this site, but NOT THAT dedicated!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Clinton's watch? hahaha! nice try glock, but try Reagan's and Bush 1's watch.....this is when the genocides took place by saddam.

kurds...shiites, all slaughtered decades ago....while we sat by because he was the enemy of our enemy, Iran, we turned a blind eye....and also while we retreated from gulf war 1, while the slaughtering took place, we sat by Glock, there is NO denying this, as far as history shows imo...

Al Gore does have a memory problem. Today, Al is bashing Pres Bush over the war in Iraq - but look what Gore said in 1992

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVFYcxLiRGk

[Stoner]

My buddy has a t-shirt that has this funny looking baby giving the thumbs-up sign. It says, "Now that I'm safe I'm pro-choice."

Shirt cracks me up. I've got some wild ones too.

[red states rule]

My buddy has a t-shirt that has this funny looking baby giving the thumbs-up sign. It says, "Now that I'm safe I'm pro-choice."

Shirt cracks me up. I've got some wild ones too.

another shirt says "I survived roe V wade"

[diuretic]

I could never understand how someone could be for abortion and against the death penalty. How can you be for killing an innocent child and against killing a guilty killer?

Being against both or for both I could see. Those positions are consistant. Even being against abortion and for the death penalty. That's consistant to because protecting innocents is much different than justice for the guilty.

But Ive always struggled for this. But I just had an epipheny on the matter. Pro abortionists who are against the death penalty are against it because they know in their hearts that they are wrong about abortion. If they advocated the death penalty for serial murders, they themselves would be guilty of it and they cant stand that.

What do you have against the letters "e" and "a" being used in the correct places?

Do you know what that was? No, it wasn't a snipe at your spelling, it was a non sequitur. Do you know what your post was? Yes, that's right, a non sequitur.

If you can construct a valid argument it would be good to discuss it.

[red states rule]

Libs are a strange bunch. they have no problem killing an innocent unborn baby, but will defend and oppose the death of a convicted killer

The same way they have no problem tossing blood on a fur coat to protest fur, but if anyone stands outside outside an abortion clinic, they're extremists!

[diuretic]

*In my best Sir David Livingstone voice*

"The non sequitur is no vanishing breed. Here in the jungles of DebatePolicy it is positively thriving. It is doing extremely well on a diet of cant and bullshit and it ensures it has regular injections of propaganda every few hours. There are fears that it's rampant reproductive behaviour will see it overtake the whole DP universe in a few weeks which, if one considers that DP like any other forum, requires a balance of the opinion ecology to survive, is not a fine augury for the site at all. There is hope though that the rangers, I believe they call them "moderators" will begin to hunt down and dispose of this most unwelcome growth" :laugh2:

[red states rule]

*In my best Sir David Livingstone voice*

"The non sequitur is no vanishing breed. Here in the jungles of DebatePolicy it is positively thriving. It is doing extremely well on a diet of cant and bullshit and it ensures it has regular injections of propaganda every few hours. There are fears that it's rampant reproductive behaviour will see it overtake the whole DP universe in a few weeks which, if one considers that DP like any other forum, requires a balance of the opinion ecology to survive, is not a fine augury for the site at all. There is hope though that the rangers, I believe they call them "moderators" will begin to hunt down and dispose of this most unwelcome growth" :laugh2:

:lame2:

[diuretic]

Now you know why the Right can't do successful political comedy on tv :laugh2:

If it's not a frothing-at-the-mouth right wing nutter shockjock they don't get it :salute::laugh2:

[red states rule]

Now you know why the Right can't do successful political comedy on tv :laugh2:

If it's not a frothing-at-the-mouth right wing nutter shockjock they don't get it :salute::laugh2:

more like the media is run by libs

[diuretic]

more like the media is run by libs

Nah, I don't think so. That's a fond piece of right wing propaganda that wilts under the most benign scrutiny.

[red states rule]

Nah, I don't think so. That's a fond piece of right wing propaganda that wilts under the most benign scrutiny.

you must be missing all the stories coming out about the liberal media bias in the news rooms

It is a fact the entertainment part of the networks are run by libs

[glockmail]

Now you know why the Right can't do successful political comedy on tv :laugh2:

If it's not a frothing-at-the-mouth right wing nutter shockjock they don't get it :salute::laugh2:
TV's too damn slow for humor in my book.

Who's frothing at the mouth?

[red states rule]

TV's too damn slow for humor in my book.

Who's frothing at the mouth?

anyone who points out the idiocy and double standards of liberals

[Hagbard Celine]

I could never understand how someone could be for abortion and against the death penalty. How can you be for killing an innocent child and against killing a guilty killer?

Being against both or for both I could see. Those positions are consistant. Even being against abortion and for the death penalty. That's consistant to because protecting innocents is much different than justice for the guilty.

But Ive always struggled for this. But I just had an epipheny on the matter. Pro abortionists who are against the death penalty are against it because they know in their hearts that they are wrong about abortion. If they advocated the death penalty for serial murders, they themselves would be guilty of it and they cant stand that.

It isn't that deep dude. Personally, I think abortion is wrong. But I recognize that it differs from the death penalty because it involves personal freedom--the freedom of the mother to make the decision to terminate her own pregnancy. Look at it this way: When a killer is executed, the state is taking their life--basically, the state, which represents you and me is taking life in our name. When a mother aborts her pregnancy, it's between her and her doctor (and her god depending on what you believe.) The fetus doesn't belong to you or me or society, it belongs to the mother--especially when it is still connected to her body. If a father decides he wants to have the baby, he can sue the mother to protect the baby until it is able to be born. Ultimately though, I don't think it's the state's business to be forcing unwanted pregnancies into fruition against people's will.

I don't know why conservatives push for this sort of thing anyway. Isn't it considered "socialist" to force blanket social-engineering laws onto the whole of society? That's why I think this is a wedge issue designed by politicians to trick gullibles into giving them their votes. It's a non-issue issue used to divide the populace.

[red states rule]

It isn't that deep dude. Personally, I think abortion is wrong. But I recognize that it differs from the death penalty because it involves personal freedom--the freedom of the mother to make the decision to terminate her own pregnancy. Look at it this way: When a killer is executed, the state is taking their life--basically, the state, which represents you and me is taking life in our name. When a mother aborts her pregnancy, it's between her and her doctor (and her god depending on what you believe.) The fetus doesn't belong to you or me or society, it belongs to the mother--especially when it is still connected to her body. If a father decides he wants to have the baby, he can sue the mother to protect the baby until it is able to be born. Ultimately though, I don't think it's the state's business to be forcing unwanted pregnancies into fruition against people's will.

so kill the innocent child and coddle the convicted murderer?

BTW it is not a fetus - it is a baby

[-Cp]

No human being or zygote has the right to any part of your body without your consent.

Its as simple as that !

If I needed a Liver transplant and you were the only person on the face of the earth who could save me with a piece of your liver would it be fair for the law to force you to give it to me?

Umm.. consent was given as soon as the chick had sex......

[Hagbard Celine]

Umm.. consent was given as soon as the chick had sex......

Consent for the government to make decisions regarding her body? I think not. This much government involvement in personal life goes way against what conservatism stands for. You may want to reevaluate your thinking on this issue -Cp.

[-Cp]

Its not an "innocent child". Thats the right-wing frame on what the thing really is. It's a fetus, growing inside the mothers body, and it is totally reliant on her just like a tumor would be reliant.

Now I'm not saying that when a girl gets fucked and then her boyfriend dumps her she should just go have an abortion because she doesn't feel like raising it. There are far too many scenarios when the current life situations that the woman is in just cannot take the responsibilities of raising a child.

Abortion should not be up to a minority of Christian theocrats to decide. Polls have shown that the majority of Americans are pro-choice and do not believe the government should be making these decisions for women:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

One of my favorite quotes that I always use when discussing abortion comes from Kate Michelman (former president of NARAL):

"An America that is genuinely and deeply pro-choice will be one that reaffirms its most basic democratic ideals – that the private lives of citizens are not the province of the state, that there are parts of our lives and our souls and beliefs that government may not touch, that we respect the individual as unique and autonomous and free. This is the essence of the question that has for so many years, defined this issue for me: Who decides? "

-Kate Michelman in Protecting the Right to Choose


A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. (http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm)

[Hagbard Celine]

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. (http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm)

Stinks of government involvement in my personal life. Not buyin' it. Not my kid--don't care.

[red states rule]

I want to see any lib look at these pictures and keep saying it is not a baby but a mass of protoplasma


http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/ultrasounds/l/bl3dusindex.htm


Stinks of government involvement in my personal life. Not buyin' it. Not my kid--don't care.

Yea, liberals usually have that reaction to facts and logic when it blows their arguments out of the water

[-Cp]

Yea, liberals usually have that reaction to facts and logic when it blows their arguments out of the water

Yeah.. ain't it jacked up how libs want the government to control our guns, speach and health care.... but when it comes to stopping them from murdering another human life... they want the ability to do that....

No wonder it's been said that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"...

[red states rule]

Yeah.. ain't it jacked up how libs want the government to control our guns, speach and health care.... but when it comes to stopping them from murdering another human life... they want the ability to do that....

No wonder it's been said that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"...

Those 3D Ultarsound pictures clearly show they are babies and not a "fetus" to be disposed of in the trash cans

[Hagbard Celine]

Yeah.. ain't it jacked up how libs want the government to control our guns, speach and health care.... but when it comes to stopping them from murdering another human life... they want the ability to do that....

No wonder it's been said that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"...

Obviously you don't understand personal responsibility or freedom of choice. You talk about how great conservatism is because it calls for less involvement in our lives by the government, yet you fervently want the government poking its dirty fingers around in the most personal aspect of our lives that there is. You're insane man.

Registering firearms and firearms owners and doing background checks for gun buyers is the least we as a society could do to curb gun violence. Just because a gun is registered and we make someone wait three days to get one no more amounts to "government control" of our firearms than shoving feathers up your butt makes you a chicken. And government healthcare is a great idea. It would lessen the burden on employers to pay pensions and healthcare costs--as it has all through Europe and Asia and it would be cheaper for all Americans if they didn't have to pay premiums to insurance companies that may or may not reimburse them after they get sick!

[red states rule]

Obviously you don't understand personal responsibility or freedom of choice. You talk about how great conservatism is because it calls for less involvement in our lives by the government, yet you fervently want the government poking its dirty fingers around in the most personal aspect of our lives that there is. You're insane man.

Registering firearms and firearms owners and doing background checks for gun buyers is the least we as a society could do to curb gun violence. Just because a gun is registered and we make someone wait three days to get one no more amounts to "government control" of our firearms than shoving feathers up your but makes you a chicken. And government healthcare is a great idea. It would lessen the burden on employers to pay pensions and healthcare costs--as it has all through Europe and Asia and it would be cheaper for all Americans if they didn't have to pay premiums to insurance companies that may or may not reimburse them after they get sick!

To bad for you, liberal guns policies have accomplished nne of the things you claim they have

DC has many gun laws, and they rank near the top for gun violence in the US

No comment on the pictures of the babies?

[darin]

Those 3D Ultarsound pictures clearly show they are babies and not a "fetus" to be disposed of in the trash cans

Fetus is a name for a young human - like Adolescent or OldFart.

[red states rule]

Fetus is a name for a young human - like Adolescent or OldFart.

But the photos do cause the libs to run for cover - which is a good thing

[-Cp]

Obviously you don't understand personal responsibility or freedom of choice. You talk about how great conservatism is because it calls for less involvement in our lives by the government, yet you fervently want the government poking its dirty fingers around in the most personal aspect of our lives that there is. You're insane man.

Registering firearms and firearms owners and doing background checks for gun buyers is the least we as a society could do to curb gun violence. Just because a gun is registered and we make someone wait three days to get one no more amounts to "government control" of our firearms than shoving feathers up your butt makes you a chicken. And government healthcare is a great idea. It would lessen the burden on employers to pay pensions and healthcare costs--as it has all through Europe and Asia and it would be cheaper for all Americans if they didn't have to pay premiums to insurance companies that may or may not reimburse them after they get sick!

And you cleary are mistaken when you equate abortion and the ensuing life inside of the woman as a "Woman's Body" - sorry.. but the Babies' body is NOT the Woman's...

My wanting the Government making Abortion Illegal is NOT the same as it prying its business in how many guns I own as it's protecting HUMAN LIFE - INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE in fact...

Actually - maybe you're right here - maybe I should reconsider my position on Abortion... perhaps it's actually doing us all a HUGE favor by snuffing out the "dee dee dee" - as only libs would consider murdering the innocent - I guess in an odd way, they're helping weed themselves out... :P

[Hagbard Celine]

And you cleary are mistaken when you equate abortion and the ensuing life inside of the woman as a "Woman's Body" - sorry.. but the Babies' body is NOT the Woman's...

My wanting the Government making Abortion Illegal is NOT the same as it prying its business in how many guns I own as it's protecting HUMAN LIFE - INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE in fact...

Actually - maybe you're right here - maybe I should reconsider my position on Abortion... perhaps it's actually doing us all a HUGE favor by snuffing out the "dee dee dee" - as only libs would consider murdering the innocent - I guess in an odd way, they're helping weed themselves out... :P

Hardy har. Not likely. Most unwanted pregnancies happen in low-income and minority households in urban areas. Most of these women probably don't even vote and could care less about politics.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/08/health/main524681.shtml
You whine all the time about smaller government this and "I despise the poor" that because they have so many kids and then have the gall to go on foodstamps but legal abortion is one answer to both of these problems. Your problem is that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker the religious right's version of what your party should stand for. And now you find yourself preaching smaller government while also yelling from the rooftops that government should be sticking its nose inside women's uteruses to protect mainly poor, minority kids no less. I can see now why so many conservatives are angry all the time--it must be very conflicting to believe so fervently in two things at once. Personally I'd go crosseyed. :laugh2:

[-Cp]

They are pro abortion, because most religious belief forbids it - life is a gift from God, and taking an innocent life is murder. They are doing what people who oppose God always do - going against His command to not kill.
They are anti-death penalty, because the religious view that life is precious is enforced by the fact that "if you take life, it will be taken from you". Again - taking roots...from faith.

[Hagbard Celine]

They are pro abortion, because most religious belief forbids it - life is a gift from God, and taking an innocent life is murder. They are doing what people who oppose God always do - going against His command to not kill.
They are anti-death penalty, because the religious view that life is precious is enforced by the fact that "if you take life, it will be taken from you". Again - taking roots...from faith.

So your take is that pro-abortion, anti-corporal punishment people take their positions because they are anti-religious? Seriously, it's not that deep dude. Regardless of what you or your preacher have convinced you of, secular society is not out to get your religion.

[-Cp]

Since they are low life, they are against the death penalty because they might be the ones awaiting the death penality someday for their misdeeds.

[Hagbard Celine]

Since they are low life, they are against the death penalty because they might be the ones awaiting the death penality someday for their misdeeds.

So your stance is that anti-death penalty advocates are low-lifes and deserve the death penalty because the only reason they would be against it is because they have committed "misdeeds?" :wtf:? o-kay. Been hittin' the sauce a little hard lately -Cp?

[JohnDoe]

And you cleary are mistaken when you equate abortion and the ensuing life inside of the woman as a "Woman's Body" - sorry.. but the Babies' body is NOT the Woman's...

My wanting the Government making Abortion Illegal is NOT the same as it prying its business in how many guns I own as it's protecting HUMAN LIFE - INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE in fact...

Actually - maybe you're right here - maybe I should reconsider my position on Abortion... perhaps it's actually doing us all a HUGE favor by snuffing out the "dee dee dee" - as only libs would consider murdering the innocent - I guess in an odd way, they're helping weed themselves out... :PWill making abortions illegal by the government stop abortions? If NOT, then what is your purpose?

Also, do you think abortions legallity or illegality should be made by the Federal government and not the decision by the individual states?

If there were a burning building and there were 5 living entities in the building, and yoou could rescue only one, who would you reason to rescue?

1. A 30 year old, healthy man.
2. A 90 year old, frail woman
3. A 5 year old, healthy boy
4. A container with frozen embryos
5. A 35 year old woman, 2 months pregnant.