Dumb@$$ NY Lib claims pro-lifers are "out to kill women"

[Vidav]

Every one of you are a bunch of crybaby fvckoff idiots.

Abortion = killing a fetus

Discuss "fetus".

(Note that I didn't say killing a fetus is wrong... I like them in my omelettes, quite frankly. High in protein.)

No, you!!!!!

[SuperHornet]

Doesn't matter, TTBF. The government is funding an organization that regularly counsels women to murder their unborn babies. The mere detail that the funding is supposedly segregated from an outside pool of funds that is used for such is not only irrelevant, it's also extremely naive. It's easy to launder that government money.

It's also hypocritical given that libs whine and cry about the government supporting faith-based anti-drug and abstinence programs that are MANY times more effective than non-faith-based programs.

Since you are being such a stickler for details about government funding and killing (thou shall not "kill" - it doesn't specify "murder"), the US government funds our armed forces...and our armed forces kill people. Hey, one of our airstikes killed a bunch of Libyan good guys last week.

Have a nice day.

You're thinking King James, Cluck. The Hebrew behind Ex 20:13 actually means "Do not murder." More modern translations pick that up.

[SuperHornet]

How do you get THAT drivel out of a guy who wants a female running the White House?

Women should be making equal pay for equal work (which they are in some sectors, but come woefully short in others). Women are VERY capable when in charge. But how does disallowing murder equate to turning them into breeding stock? That's a HUGE stretch.

You're just saying that because your wife can see your monitor.

I know this may just make it worse in your mind, but I've never been married. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

[YoUDeeMan]

You're thinking King James, Cluck. The Hebrew behind Ex 20:13 actually means "Do not murder." More modern translations pick that up.

Define murder.

[89Hen]

Abortion = killing a fetus

Discuss "fetus".

A discussion not many pro-choicers will have.

[YoUDeeMan]

Abortion = killing a fetus

Discuss "fetus".

A discussion not many pro-choicers will have.

I don't have an issue with killing a fetus as long as it is in the early stages. I'm not worried about what 4 cells are thinking...or not thinking.

[travelinman67]

Fungible has many interpretations. It also means that non-specific grant funds/donations, which might otherwise be used to help fund admin/overhead/education, can now be wholly diverted to abortion-related activity as the federal grants completely cover the admin/overhead/education cost of operations.

Ya' think?

Sure can, but that's just a lame excuse for moral tyrant mysoginists like you to deny federal funding for vital family planning services provided by PP. This also aint quite what CitGroin said.

Fed dollars, IME, can be and are typically restricted to very specific activities. Bottom line - none of the government's money is allocated to abortion RA's. PP has to prove it every year with precision PP is one of the best run and most important NFP's and it's in the government's best interest to support it's non-abortion related activities. I'm sure you would agree, Tman.

No, I wouldn't agree.

Asserting that two rights makes a wrong is moronic. One could argue that uniting Eurasia into a cohesive trading block facilitated global growth, but barbarically slaughtering 40 million people to accomplish that goal vanquishes any "good" achieved by Genghis Khan. Same is true for Planned Parenthood.
So long as PP advocates, funds, or provides clinics to murder unborn children, any other "good" they achieve is worthless.
D, I realize you do not value life, but every person's life has equal value when they're born. Who's to say the life taken by PP isn't the next Linus Pauling, Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi? It's hard for pro-lifers to fathom how any human can envision a life as a "ball and chain" or economic burden rather than a blessing to humanity.
You may not be able to comprehend this concept, but every human life, even the "bad apples", contribute to humanity's evolution and progress: A point missed by eugenicists, like PP's founder Margaret Sanger, most of whom are themselves " Bad Apples".

[Appaholic]

Sure can, but that's just a lame excuse for moral tyrant mysoginists like you to deny federal funding for vital family planning services provided by PP. This also aint quite what CitGroin said.

Fed dollars, IME, can be and are typically restricted to very specific activities. Bottom line - none of the government's money is allocated to abortion RA's. PP has to prove it every year with precision PP is one of the best run and most important NFP's and it's in the government's best interest to support it's non-abortion related activities. I'm sure you would agree, Tman.

No, I wouldn't agree.

Asserting that two rights makes a wrong is moronic. One could argue that uniting Eurasia into a cohesive trading block facilitated global growth, but barbarically slaughtering 40 million people to accomplish that goal vanquishes any "good" achieved by Genghis Khan. Same is true for Planned Parenthood.
So long as PP advocates, funds, or provides clinics to murder unborn children, any other "good" they achieve is worthless.

...or the same could be said for our country circa 1945. How dare we stop a world war by dropping an atomic bomb...no, wait, 2 ATOMIC bombs on civilian population....because, you know, any other "good" the US achieved is worthless....who knows, maybe ther was a Japanese doctor in the Nagasaki area who would have eventually cured cancer? We'll never know....

[travelinman67]

No, I wouldn't agree.

Asserting that two rights makes a wrong is moronic. One could argue that uniting Eurasia into a cohesive trading block facilitated global growth, but barbarically slaughtering 40 million people to accomplish that goal vanquishes any "good" achieved by Genghis Khan. Same is true for Planned Parenthood.
So long as PP advocates, funds, or provides clinics to murder unborn children, any other "good" they achieve is worthless.

...or the same could be said for our country circa 1945. How dare we stop a world war by dropping an atomic bomb...no, wait, 2 ATOMIC bombs on civilian population....because, you know, any other "good" the US achieved is worthless....who knows, maybe ther was a Japanese doctor in the Nagasaki area who would have eventually cured cancer? We'll never know....

Point well made...


...so, are you proposing a SALT treaty to defund and disband Planned Parenthood?

[CitadelGrad]

No, I wouldn't agree.

Asserting that two rights makes a wrong is moronic. One could argue that uniting Eurasia into a cohesive trading block facilitated global growth, but barbarically slaughtering 40 million people to accomplish that goal vanquishes any "good" achieved by Genghis Khan. Same is true for Planned Parenthood.
So long as PP advocates, funds, or provides clinics to murder unborn children, any other "good" they achieve is worthless.

...or the same could be said for our country circa 1945. How dare we stop a world war by dropping an atomic bomb...no, wait, 2 ATOMIC bombs on civilian population....because, you know, any other "good" the US achieved is worthless....who knows, maybe ther was a Japanese doctor in the Nagasaki area who would have eventually cured cancer? We'll never know....

If those bombs hadn't been dropped, many more Japanese civilians and possibly American civilians would have died. Not many are aware, but Japan was only weeks from producing a smaller and cruder atomic weapon that they planned to drop on L.A. from a plane launched by a submarine. Their target date for attacking L.A. was November, 1945. Coincidentally, that was the same month that the invasion of the Japanese mainland was to have begun.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

...or the same could be said for our country circa 1945. How dare we stop a world war by dropping an atomic bomb...no, wait, 2 ATOMIC bombs on civilian population....because, you know, any other "good" the US achieved is worthless....who knows, maybe ther was a Japanese doctor in the Nagasaki area who would have eventually cured cancer? We'll never know....

If those bombs hadn't been dropped, many more Japanese civilians and possibly American civilians would have died. Not many are aware, but Japan was only weeks from producing a smaller and cruder atomic weapon that they planned to drop on L.A. from a plane launched by a submarine. Their target date for attacking L.A. was November, 1945. Coincidentally, that was the same month that the invasion of the Japanese mainland was to have begun.

moreover - the firebombings killed FAR MORE than atomic weaponry did... modern history doesn't do a good job of laying out the options facing Harry Truman. Personally, I think the man made the only choice possible - and was surprisingly humane about it - we could have dropped it on tokyo and wiped out vastly larger populations...

[YoUDeeMan]

You're thinking King James, Cluck. The Hebrew behind Ex 20:13 actually means "Do not murder." More modern translations pick that up.

Define murder.

Yoo-hoo? Anyone home?

[89Hen]

I don't have an issue with killing a fetus as long as it is in the early stages. I'm not worried about what 4 cells are thinking...or not thinking.

Interesting. So at what day is not OK?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Define murder.

Yoo-hoo? Anyone home?

what you do to threads just by being you.

[YoUDeeMan]

If those bombs hadn't been dropped, many more Japanese civilians and possibly American civilians would have died. Not many are aware, but Japan was only weeks from producing a smaller and cruder atomic weapon that they planned to drop on L.A. from a plane launched by a submarine. Their target date for attacking L.A. was November, 1945. Coincidentally, that was the same month that the invasion of the Japanese mainland was to have begun.

Well, there was another option...don't fight back.

We could have easily turned the other cheek instead of fighting back. Imagine all of the lives, many innocent, which could have been saved. We could have let God handle it....after all, those Japs weren't going to Heaven...so all the Christians could have had the last laugh. Win-win!

But that's not what believers do, is it? Situational ethics...kill when it is deemed convenient. Of course, convenience is really tough to nail down. Go on Crusades; play advisers to whack job kings and queens who were mostly a bunch of in-laws squabbling while their minions got slaughtered in the name of...what? Wipe out the Indians or convert them...savages. Save Libyan civilians...ignore tens of thousands of deaths elsewhere.

The inconsistency is mind-boggling.

[YoUDeeMan]

I don't have an issue with killing a fetus as long as it is in the early stages. I'm not worried about what 4 cells are thinking...or not thinking.

Interesting. So at what day is not OK?

I'd think somewhere around when a baby can survive outside the womb (without taking that to extreme) is about right.

The decision should be the mother's...she is the one carrying the child and without whom it can't survive.

I am OK with a grey area...I really don't have to play God and decide when it is correct to kill and not to kill.

[SuperHornet]

You're thinking King James, Cluck. The Hebrew behind Ex 20:13 actually means "Do not murder." More modern translations pick that up.

Define murder.

Abortion = killing a fetus

Discuss "fetus".

A discussion not many pro-choicers will have.

No dice, Cluck. You know EXACTLY what murder is. Murder is the intentional unlawful taking of a human life. The sticking point, as 89 so aptly pointed out, is the viability of the foetus, or when the foetus becomes a true human. Pro-life advocates define humanity as beginning at conception. Pro-aborts hide behind the term "foetus," as if it's just a mass of cells with no shred of humanity until it comes out of the birth canal, thereby eliminating the ugly idea of murder. But any look at a blinking ultrasound will show the shapes of the body parts, the beating of the heart, the pumping of blood, etc.

Pro-aborts are blinding themselves to the facts. Abortion is murder, pure and simple. Does that mean we should bomb abortion clinics? Heck, no. Two wrongs don't make a right. But we COULD put them out of business LEGALLY. There's a HUGE difference. And the issue isn't one of "enslaving" girls. For MOST girls, the true "choice" begins with the choice to hop in the sack. Some pro-lifers make an exception for victims of rape. The problem with the "to save the life of the mother" is the definition of "life." This has morphed over the years from a concern that the mother might die to one of the fear that the baby might inconvenience her lifestyle or destroy her rep. That's not a sufficient reason to snuff out the life of a helpless child. In fact, the number of abortions done to truly save a woman's life is TINY compared to the number done for her personal convenience.

[YoUDeeMan]

Yoo-hoo? Anyone home?

what you do to threads just by being you.

I'm sorry, give me a few minutes to look up a response on MSNBC. I'll get back to you.

[89Hen]

I'd think somewhere around when a baby can survive outside the womb (without taking that to extreme) is about right.

The decision should be the mother's...she is the one carrying the child and without whom it can't survive.

I am OK with a grey area...I really don't have to play God and decide when it is correct to kill and not to kill.

So like most pro-choicers... you really don't a have an opinion.

[89Hen]

Pro-life advocates define humanity as beginning at conception.

This is the part most pro-choicers get hung up on. The reason I think it has to go back to conception is that I can't come up with a day when it is/isn't OK, who can?

[89Hen]

The decision should be the mother's...she is the one carrying the child

BTW, interesting choice of words.

[Chizzang]

I'd think somewhere around when a baby can survive outside the womb (without taking that to extreme) is about right.

The decision should be the mother's...she is the one carrying the child and without whom it can't survive.

I am OK with a grey area...I really don't have to play God and decide when it is correct to kill and not to kill.

So like most pro-choicers... you really don't a have an opinion.

No 89Hen
you just think your opinion is the only one that is valid
and yours is an opinion (just in case you weren't sure what an opinion was)

[YoUDeeMan]

No dice, Cluck. You know EXACTLY what murder is. Murder is the intentional unlawful taking of a human life.

Laws change locally all the time...and differ greatly all over the world.

Shouldn't be hard to put it in writing if you say I should know EXACTLY what murder is. So, please provide examples of when killing is OK and when is it not. I'm sure we'll have at least a few things we can agree upon and then work from there.

[89Hen]

No 89Hen
you just think your opinion is the only one that is valid
and yours is an opinion (just in case you weren't sure what an opinion was)

Of course mine is an opinion. Where did I imply otherwise?

[Chizzang]

No 89Hen
you just think your opinion is the only one that is valid
and yours is an opinion (just in case you weren't sure what an opinion was)

Of course mine is an opinion. Where did I imply otherwise?

You imply that others opinions that are different than yours don't qualify as opinions...
and that's not an implication that's your own words