[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, Lets introduce a bill that says any abortion after a heartbeat can be detected has to be performed with an AR-15… I would love to watch the heads of every democrat explode upon (not) reading the bill. [/quote]
Boy, what a sensible and compassionate thing to say. Maybe I should insert that Jim Carey video to crack up the level of vitriol a notch. It seems a tad low.[/quote]
Sorry, Bill of Rights trumps a washed up actors defamation and slander.
ANyway, honest question:
Why did you vote FOR Obama in 2012? (Note I did NOT say “why did you vote against Romney”.)
Debunked. I don�??�?�¢??t know if you�??�?�¢??re pro-life, but if you are, that�??�?�¢??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]
[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term �?�¢??born alive infant�?�¢?? as �?�¢??any member of the species homo sapiens�?�¢?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits �?�¢??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.�?�¢??
The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, �?�¢??A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.�?�¢??
Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a woman�?�¢??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:
�?�¢??Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we�?�¢??re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.�?�¢??
Notice that Obama referred to �?�¢??previable fetuses,�?�¢?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the mother�?�¢??s body. Obama�?�¢??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]
So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?
Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…
[quote]33. Ridiculed people who competed in the Special Olympics. Could You imagine if Bush did that? Wow.
I agree with you there. If I completely lost faith in everyone I�??�?�¢??ve known that has said something stupid, I would be a very lonely man indeed.
[/quote]
We are talking about the god damn POTUS, not Johnny Hotcakes bartender here. There is an expectation of higher moral standing and maturity that comes with having the most power any man on Earth could imagine in the contemporary era…
Good Christ. That type of comment is so far below the office of the POTUS that he should be ashamed of himself, and not one single person should be comfortable defending that statement in any way…[/quote]
I would expect, now that obama is interested in saving children as he claims, via his intrusive gun control policies, he must be now anti-abortion. Because after all, he cannot take having another child die in a senseless act. Nothing is more senseless than the callous murder of children in abortion. I am so pleased he changed his tune…Or wait, is he really concerned with control, rather than saving children’s lives? And using children as a backdrop to ram his freedom robbing policies down our throat? Certainly, people aren’t that stupid? But alas, yes, they are stupid.
Don’t kill kids with guns, just chop them up with a scalpel and suck them out with a vacuum cleaner. That’s the humane way to murder your children. Shooting them is just wrong. [/quote]
Okay, a couple things:
I see that you have completely jumped over my point that you’re pro-life, and you’re simply criticizing a pro-choice position. That doesn’t create a story or a controversy; that’s just you disagreeing with someone being pro-choice. Again, just because someone takes an opposite policy position than what you hold doesn’t create a controversy. It’s just you disagreeing. You’re pro-life? Great. I’m not. And neither is the President.
[/quote]
Clearly. So he can stop the demagoguery about ‘saving just one child’s life’ with his intrusive gun control measures. He could give a fuck about life, and I am guessing you don’t either.
You cannot separate the reality of a position from the posturing regarding that position. That’s simply a tactic. “Oh, he’s not pro-life so clearly he cannot support legislation that is.” The fact remains, that the position is a bad one and people are dying because of it. By stopping any legislation that fails to defend a life outright is no different than pulling the trigger. There is blood involved.
You cannot separate what a stance is from what it means. That may be both of your political opinions, but these things have consequences and you must look at the work of your hands. Not pretend it’s just some writting on some paper with no real world consequences.
With the stroke of his pen, obama failed to protect the lives of children even in the most obvious of circumstances, when you are looking at a living being that you are going to allow to die.
Uh, a bill having one aspect where a restriction is loosened doesn’t make it a bill that loosens restrictions.
It may have replaced old restrictions, but restrictions they are.
It’s a disagreement with real consequences.
I love tossing around the term ‘previable’ like it has any meaning. ALL fetuses are viable until you take it’s life.
And yes, anybody who holds a pro-abortion stance is clearly deluded. It’s like a comb-over. A complete and total deniability that there is nothing really there. While you play with terminology, to order it in such a way that it does not play with your conscious people are dying because you hold the opinion you hold and you act on them.
While obama is denying children who have survived an attempt on their lives a chance to live, Kermitt Gosnell just got convicted of murder based on those same circumstances. Sounds to me like the law is not entirely clear. Based on the law, he should have walked.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, Lets introduce a bill that says any abortion after a heartbeat can be detected has to be performed with an AR-15… I would love to watch the heads of every democrat explode upon (not) reading the bill. [/quote]
Boy, what a sensible and compassionate thing to say. Maybe I should insert that Jim Carey video to crack up the level of vitriol a notch. It seems a tad low.[/quote]
And chopping it up and sucking it out is sensible and compassionate? For that is what happens.
The point here is to call things what they are not gloss them over with bullshit terms like ‘compassion’. Killing a child is not a compasionate act. It doesn’t matter if you do it with an AR-15, or a drug, the reality of it is the same. One simply illustrates that reality better.
I think many democrats simply function on the premise that if they cannot see it, it’s not really happening. What’s the difference if you kill a baby in utero or out? Seriously, what’s the difference? I have never seen a definition of life be dependent on your proximity to the vagina.
[quote]pat wrote:
I have never seen a definition of life.[/quote]
Pro-choicers will fight tooth and nail to never come up with a definition of life. If they do then it will be murder. Y’all know I have been through this personally and anyone with any sense of right and wrong knows what they are doing. I have beat myself up over that decision for 16 years.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, Lets introduce a bill that says any abortion after a heartbeat can be detected has to be performed with an AR-15… I would love to watch the heads of every democrat explode upon (not) reading the bill. [/quote]
Boy, what a sensible and compassionate thing to say. Maybe I should insert that Jim Carey video to crack up the level of vitriol a notch. It seems a tad low.[/quote]
Also, that video does nothing to address the blatant hypocrisy of the left. How anyone that is “pro-choice” can stand on the graves of murdered Connecticut children and call for the regulation of the rights of law abiding citizens in the name of saving lives is beyond comprehension.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, Lets introduce a bill that says any abortion after a heartbeat can be detected has to be performed with an AR-15… I would love to watch the heads of every democrat explode upon (not) reading the bill. [/quote]
Boy, what a sensible and compassionate thing to say. Maybe I should insert that Jim Carey video to crack up the level of vitriol a notch. It seems a tad low.[/quote]
Sorry, Bill of Rights trumps a washed up actors defamation and slander.
ANyway, honest question:
Why did you vote FOR Obama in 2012? (Note I did NOT say “why did you vote against Romney”.)[/quote]
Foreign policy progress
Success is stopping a economic crisis created by Bush
Will end the wars in the second term
Will hopefully appoint more SC justices and federal judges
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, Lets introduce a bill that says any abortion after a heartbeat can be detected has to be performed with an AR-15… I would love to watch the heads of every democrat explode upon (not) reading the bill. [/quote]
Boy, what a sensible and compassionate thing to say. Maybe I should insert that Jim Carey video to crack up the level of vitriol a notch. It seems a tad low.[/quote]
Sorry, Bill of Rights trumps a washed up actors defamation and slander.
ANyway, honest question:
Why did you vote FOR Obama in 2012? (Note I did NOT say “why did you vote against Romney”.)[/quote]
Foreign policy progress
Success is stopping a economic crisis created by Bush
Will end the wars in the second term
Will hopefully appoint more SC justices and federal judges
Continues to protect the environment
Immigration reform
[/quote]
Everything he said he would do his first term. I guess not getting it done in the second term will just be icing on the cake.
So, expanding the war in Afghanistan, increased drone strikes, murder of American Citizens (without due process) by drone, and following Bush’s timeline in Iraq?
Check.
How so? What has he done at all for this, outside of executive order?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, Lets introduce a bill that says any abortion after a heartbeat can be detected has to be performed with an AR-15… I would love to watch the heads of every democrat explode upon (not) reading the bill. [/quote]
Boy, what a sensible and compassionate thing to say. Maybe I should insert that Jim Carey video to crack up the level of vitriol a notch. It seems a tad low.[/quote]
Sorry, Bill of Rights trumps a washed up actors defamation and slander.
ANyway, honest question:
Why did you vote FOR Obama in 2012? (Note I did NOT say “why did you vote against Romney”.)[/quote]
Foreign policy progress
Success is stopping a economic crisis created by Bush
Will end the wars in the second term
Will hopefully appoint more SC justices and federal judges
Continues to protect the environment
Immigration reform
[/quote]
For a second I thought you were listing Obama sucesses’. I’m glad I re-read the conversation…
NorCal is just another low Information voter who becomes a moral relativist when the progressive, eugenist belief system championed by those he blindly follows is exposed under the light of truth.
Is there any progressive on the planet who can allow their beliefs to stand on their own? The only one I can think of would be Dennis Kucinich, and he’s dead.
Debunked. I don�??�??�??�?�¢??t know if you�??�??�??�?�¢??re pro-life, but if you are, that�??�??�??�?�¢??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]
[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term �??�??�?�¢??born alive infant�??�??�?�¢?? as �??�??�?�¢??any member of the species homo sapiens�??�??�?�¢?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits �??�??�?�¢??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.�??�??�?�¢??
The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, �??�??�?�¢??A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.�??�??�?�¢??
Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a woman�??�??�?�¢??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:
�??�??�?�¢??Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we�??�??�?�¢??re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.�??�??�?�¢??
Notice that Obama referred to �??�??�?�¢??previable fetuses,�??�??�?�¢?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the mother�??�??�?�¢??s body. Obama�??�??�?�¢??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]
So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?
Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…
[quote]33. Ridiculed people who competed in the Special Olympics. Could You imagine if Bush did that? Wow.
I agree with you there. If I completely lost faith in everyone I�??�??�??�?�¢??ve known that has said something stupid, I would be a very lonely man indeed.
[/quote]
We are talking about the god damn POTUS, not Johnny Hotcakes bartender here. There is an expectation of higher moral standing and maturity that comes with having the most power any man on Earth could imagine in the contemporary era…
Good Christ. That type of comment is so far below the office of the POTUS that he should be ashamed of himself, and not one single person should be comfortable defending that statement in any way…[/quote]
I would expect, now that obama is interested in saving children as he claims, via his intrusive gun control policies, he must be now anti-abortion. Because after all, he cannot take having another child die in a senseless act. Nothing is more senseless than the callous murder of children in abortion. I am so pleased he changed his tune…Or wait, is he really concerned with control, rather than saving children’s lives? And using children as a backdrop to ram his freedom robbing policies down our throat? Certainly, people aren’t that stupid? But alas, yes, they are stupid.
Don’t kill kids with guns, just chop them up with a scalpel and suck them out with a vacuum cleaner. That’s the humane way to murder your children. Shooting them is just wrong. [/quote]
Okay, a couple things:
I see that you have completely jumped over my point that you’re pro-life, and you’re simply criticizing a pro-choice position. That doesn’t create a story or a controversy; that’s just you disagreeing with someone being pro-choice. Again, just because someone takes an opposite policy position than what you hold doesn’t create a controversy. It’s just you disagreeing. You’re pro-life? Great. I’m not. And neither is the President.
[/quote]
Clearly. So he can stop the demagoguery about ‘saving just one child’s life’ with his intrusive gun control measures. He could give a fuck about life, and I am guessing you don’t either.
You cannot separate the reality of a position from the posturing regarding that position. That’s simply a tactic. “Oh, he’s not pro-life so clearly he cannot support legislation that is.” The fact remains, that the position is a bad one and people are dying because of it. By stopping any legislation that fails to defend a life outright is no different than pulling the trigger. There is blood involved.
You cannot separate what a stance is from what it means. That may be both of your political opinions, but these things have consequences and you must look at the work of your hands. Not pretend it’s just some writting on some paper with no real world consequences.
With the stroke of his pen, obama failed to protect the lives of children even in the most obvious of circumstances, when you are looking at a living being that you are going to allow to die.
Uh, a bill having one aspect where a restriction is loosened doesn’t make it a bill that loosens restrictions.
It may have replaced old restrictions, but restrictions they are.
It’s a disagreement with real consequences.
I love tossing around the term ‘previable’ like it has any meaning. ALL fetuses are viable until you take it’s life.
And yes, anybody who holds a pro-abortion stance is clearly deluded. It’s like a comb-over. A complete and total deniability that there is nothing really there. While you play with terminology, to order it in such a way that it does not play with your conscious people are dying because you hold the opinion you hold and you act on them.
While obama is denying children who have survived an attempt on their lives a chance to live, Kermitt Gosnell just got convicted of murder based on those same circumstances. Sounds to me like the law is not entirely clear. Based on the law, he should have walked. [/quote]
One: I know who Kermit Gosnell is. And Planned Parenthood made quite an advertising push about him, in response to his conviction, to show that his methods and procedures and the like were exactly the thing which they want to guard against. Kermit Gosnell is a prime example of the quality of care women seeking abortions could likely get when it was still able to be made illegal.
Two: you have in no way demonstrated that somehow, Obama being pro-choice is a scandal or controversy. AGAIN, it’s just you disagreeing with the position. People are pro-choice. If you’re not, that’s fine. But you’re not outlining a controversy; you’re simply in disagreement with those who hold the position of being pro-choice because you disagree with Roe v. Wade’s basis. You can yell as much as you want, and disagree as much as you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re simply in disagreement. I’ve pointed this out over and over to you.
Debunked. I don�??�??�?�¢??t know if you�??�??�?�¢??re pro-life, but if you are, that�??�??�?�¢??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]
[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term �??�?�¢??born alive infant�??�?�¢?? as �??�?�¢??any member of the species homo sapiens�??�?�¢?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits �??�?�¢??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.�??�?�¢??
The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, �??�?�¢??A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.�??�?�¢??
Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a woman�??�?�¢??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:
�??�?�¢??Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we�??�?�¢??re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.�??�?�¢??
Notice that Obama referred to �??�?�¢??previable fetuses,�??�?�¢?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the mother�??�?�¢??s body. Obama�??�?�¢??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]
So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?
Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…
[quote]33. Ridiculed people who competed in the Special Olympics. Could You imagine if Bush did that? Wow.
I agree with you there. If I completely lost faith in everyone I�??�??�?�¢??ve known that has said something stupid, I would be a very lonely man indeed.
[/quote]
We are talking about the god damn POTUS, not Johnny Hotcakes bartender here. There is an expectation of higher moral standing and maturity that comes with having the most power any man on Earth could imagine in the contemporary era…
Good Christ. That type of comment is so far below the office of the POTUS that he should be ashamed of himself, and not one single person should be comfortable defending that statement in any way…[/quote]
I would expect, now that obama is interested in saving children as he claims, via his intrusive gun control policies, he must be now anti-abortion. Because after all, he cannot take having another child die in a senseless act. Nothing is more senseless than the callous murder of children in abortion. I am so pleased he changed his tune…Or wait, is he really concerned with control, rather than saving children’s lives? And using children as a backdrop to ram his freedom robbing policies down our throat? Certainly, people aren’t that stupid? But alas, yes, they are stupid.
Don’t kill kids with guns, just chop them up with a scalpel and suck them out with a vacuum cleaner. That’s the humane way to murder your children. Shooting them is just wrong. [/quote]
Okay, a couple things:
I see that you have completely jumped over my point that you’re pro-life, and you’re simply criticizing a pro-choice position. That doesn’t create a story or a controversy; that’s just you disagreeing with someone being pro-choice. Again, just because someone takes an opposite policy position than what you hold doesn’t create a controversy. It’s just you disagreeing. You’re pro-life? Great. I’m not. And neither is the President.
[/quote]
Clearly. So he can stop the demagoguery about ‘saving just one child’s life’ with his intrusive gun control measures. He could give a fuck about life, and I am guessing you don’t either.
You cannot separate the reality of a position from the posturing regarding that position. That’s simply a tactic. “Oh, he’s not pro-life so clearly he cannot support legislation that is.” The fact remains, that the position is a bad one and people are dying because of it. By stopping any legislation that fails to defend a life outright is no different than pulling the trigger. There is blood involved.
You cannot separate what a stance is from what it means. That may be both of your political opinions, but these things have consequences and you must look at the work of your hands. Not pretend it’s just some writting on some paper with no real world consequences.
With the stroke of his pen, obama failed to protect the lives of children even in the most obvious of circumstances, when you are looking at a living being that you are going to allow to die.
Uh, a bill having one aspect where a restriction is loosened doesn’t make it a bill that loosens restrictions.
It may have replaced old restrictions, but restrictions they are.
It’s a disagreement with real consequences.
I love tossing around the term ‘previable’ like it has any meaning. ALL fetuses are viable until you take it’s life.
And yes, anybody who holds a pro-abortion stance is clearly deluded. It’s like a comb-over. A complete and total deniability that there is nothing really there. While you play with terminology, to order it in such a way that it does not play with your conscious people are dying because you hold the opinion you hold and you act on them.
While obama is denying children who have survived an attempt on their lives a chance to live, Kermitt Gosnell just got convicted of murder based on those same circumstances. Sounds to me like the law is not entirely clear. Based on the law, he should have walked. [/quote]
If that’s your position, that’s your position. And I doubt that me or anyone else could convince you that there’s a difference between choosing to end a pregnancy and choosing to walk into a school and open fire in an effort to simply kill as many people as possible just because.
That’s what’s called a false equivalency. And it convinces no one of anything.
Yeah…uh, no. A new restriction is a new restriction. But if the new restriction is less restrictive than the old restriction, and the point of the restriction has to do with atmospheric pollution, and you name it something like “the clear skies act,” when in reality, it increases pollution, then yeah… yeah, I think I’ve made my point. Bring your ‘A’ game next time. Heck, I’ll settle for your C- game at this rate…
[quote]drunkpig wrote: The only one I can think of would be Dennis Kucinich, and he’s dead.
[/quote]
Stunning. How many American lives would have been spared if we would have listened to Mr. Kucinich and avoided that hell-hole?
[/quote]
Fewer lives were lost in that hell hole than at Planned Parenthood clinics. [/quote]
Ouch… That one has to hurt. [/quote]
Lets elevate the discussion from the gutter. That is a naive an insulting comment. You do know they do more that perform ‘abortions on demand’? Incredible.
[quote]drunkpig wrote: The only one I can think of would be Dennis Kucinich, and he’s dead.
[/quote]
Stunning. How many American lives would have been spared if we would have listened to Mr. Kucinich and avoided that hell-hole?
[/quote]
Fewer lives were lost in that hell hole than at Planned Parenthood clinics. [/quote]
Ouch… That one has to hurt. [/quote]
Lets elevate the discussion from the gutter. That is a naive an insulting comment. You do know they do more that perform ‘abortions on demand’? Incredible.
[/quote]
You do know that 70-80% of their revenue comes from performing ‘abortions on demand’? Incredible.
[quote]drunkpig wrote: The only one I can think of would be Dennis Kucinich, and he’s dead.
[/quote]
Stunning. How many American lives would have been spared if we would have listened to Mr. Kucinich and avoided that hell-hole?
[/quote]
Fewer lives were lost in that hell hole than at Planned Parenthood clinics. [/quote]
Ouch… That one has to hurt. [/quote]
Lets elevate the discussion from the gutter. That is a naive an insulting comment. You do know they do more that perform ‘abortions on demand’? Incredible.
[/quote]
You do know that 70-80% of their revenue comes from performing ‘abortions on demand’? Incredible.[/quote]
Lol.
How is talking about the fact that a government funded program murders babies naïve and insulting anyway?