Good morning, and Happy Sunday! Here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by at John Deering at GoComics.com…
by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com…
by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
and closing with a liberal’s slant on current events, by Signe Wilkinson at GoComics.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Five is my favorite – the abortion component of it does have a certain amount of irony to it – but I simply enjoy listening to conservatives try to spin themsleves out of the “we hate regulation” knot that they get themselves into – Tillis is just the latest example – saying regulation was bad, and proposing new regulations to show that. Love it.
I’m going to vote for #3, and also note that #1 is a close second for me.
Jdc – we still have Fox and MSNBC.
Ironic how the government can presume to force the vaccination of children but not stop the dismembering of children by abortion.
Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Comedy Central, all fake news, but a segment of the US population looked to them as their news source.
MSNBC – fake news, Obama propaganda machine segment, along with other Leftist, dishonest, non-journalist outlets. MSNBC is also the bastion of racial bigotry, employing the Bigot-in-Chief’s “advisor,” Al “Shakedown” Sharpton, AKA, Al “Freddie’s Fashion Mart” Sharpton, and worse.
FOX News, one of the few honest, real journalist outlets for news which understands that the media is there to be the buffer between the government and the people, to hold government officials’ feet to the fire and report what they are doing and what they are not doing in regard to their duties, the US Constitution, and service to the people.
Abortion – the violent, wanton slaughter of innocent new human beings as a result of the loss of value in human life and the use of false science, fake claims, in order to dehumanize baby and justify her slaughter.
There was a study that showed Fox actually makes people dumber.
Now, I don’t know if maybe dump people are just attracted to Fox – that could be as well.
MSNBC and Fox are the same thing for different audiences. If you like one but not the other, you’re simply biased.
William – I’m talking to you on that last statement.
That would be William, because Jon Stewart etc. actually present more accurate and honest news and information than Fox could ever hope to muster.
There was a study that showed Fox actually makes people dumber. – is that even possible?
Reality –
In all seriousness – my issue with Fox only partially lies with the accuracy in their reporting – they capitalize so much on fear and hatred of EVERYTHING.
I think you could rename it ‘Fox Paranoid News Network” – tag line, “they’re coming to get you”
“Now, I don’t know if maybe dump people are just attracted to Fox”
William, ignoring the trolls until the site bans them is the best idea. They have nothing intelligent to say so they try derailing threads with insults.
are you aware of the irony in your words truthseeker?
#5 is actually encouraging.
The liberal pro-bort spin still continues to insist that abortion is some sort of “healthcare.”
Meanwhile, an increasing number of Americans are no longer being fooled by that line.
I’m not being mean or trolling truth – there’s been multiple studies on it. Here’s a link to one…
http://www.businessinsider.com/extended-exposure-to-fox-news-may-be-detrimental-to-your-intelligence-2010-12
Here’s another – people who don’t watch the news are more informed than people who watch Fox
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/01/30/does_watching_fox_news_make_you_less_informed.html
The liberal pro-bort spin still continues to insist that abortion is some sort of “healthcare.” – no spin, it is an aspect of healthcare.
The liberal pro-abort spin still continues to insist that abortion is some sort of “healthcare.”
Del,
Progressives honestly can’t see how they could survive as healthy individuals without family reduction services. The inescapable truth is that they are mentally incompetent at the time they commit abortion or that they are competent and they do not love their children.
There’s no such thing as ‘family reduction service’.
And that’s not an inescapable truth at all truthseeker. It’s no more than your opinion.
Elective, Induced abortion is NOT health care.
Health care is the service of providing support for a healthful life, which includes prevention of disease, and, when applicable, treatment of disorders and disease.
A living human baby is NOT a disease, or a disorder. A living human being is the result, normally, of a healthy, designed, organic, normal process of human reproduction. Health Care, applied to human reproduction, supports the reproduction of a new human being, prevents the loss of the life of the new human being, and provides health support for the mother during her pregnancy, and also to ensure the health and safety and safe birth of her baby.
Elective, induced abortion is the violent aggression and slaughter of a new human being. It includes dismemberment of the innocent baby, burning her alive with chemicals, stabbing, slicing, chopping her body to pieces, ripping her apart, suctioning her down a suction tube, inducing birth and, while she is exiting the birth canal, while her body is outside the birth canal, puncturing baby’s skull, inserting a suction device, suctioning the contents of her skull, causing the skull to collapse in on itself, and other methods of violent slaughter of a new, innocent human being.
No, abortion is NOT health care, and the fact that anyone would be so cruel, so malicious as the make such a claim betrays a vicious, inhumane mindset, and deep seated malevolence on those who support such a disgusting act, and on those who commit such a violent, despicable, violent act.
Elective, Induced abortion is NOT health care. – that isn’t the case Wiliam. It can save womens lives or prevent serious negative impacts on womens health. It’s safer than full term delivery for a start.
Health care is the service of providing support for a healthful life, which includes prevention of disease, and, when applicable, treatment of disorders and disease. – and abortion is a part of that.
A living human baby….. – and the women? What about them?
A living human baby….. – and the women? What about them?
===========================================
The women also alive. Those who are not exposed to the abortion industry are healthier.
The women also alive. – indeed. I wish more people would remember that.
Those who are not exposed to the abortion industry are healthier. – let’s see you try to support your claim. With facts. Otherwise….
Reality, is abortion still ‘health care’ if the reason for committing the abortion is not a health reason but that the woman doesn’t want to be bothered with a baby?
In some cases at least, certainly.
Which cases?
Why do ‘progressives’ find the English language so hard to understand. They call a group of terrorists the Islamic state but won’t call them Muslim terrorists. 21 Coptic Christians get beheaded and they won’t call them Christians. Abortion is still ‘health care’ even if it is committed for reasons other than health. With a mind that can twist and bend like that you can never be wrong…
The cases where an enforced pregnancy itself, let alone all the possible outcomes beyond that may lead to depression, drug and alcohol abuse and maybe even suicide.
What if a psychiatrist were to say that submitting to having her baby ripped from her womb in bloody pieces may lead to depression, drug and alcohol abuse and maybe even suicide; then that is good enough reason to not allow termination of the baby?
No competent psychiatrist would say that.
What if clinical studies were to show a higher incidence of depression and drug abuse and suicide in women who have been submitted to abortion?
Reality,
Abortion is not healthcare.
“Health care is the service of providing support for a healthful life, which includes prevention of disease, and, when applicable, treatment of disorders and disease. – and abortion is a part of that.”
—-Once again, no it is not. Abortion is the intentional destruction of a human life, not healthcare.
“The women also alive. – indeed. I wish more people would remember that. ”
–There are already plenty of people who remember that. Pro-aborts only care about the woman, since you do not understand basic biology (or you choose to ignore it). Pro-lifers care about both mother and child.
The clinical studies so far undertaken show, if anything, that women with a higher incidence of depression and drug abuse and potential suicide might be more likely to have an abortion to alleviate the stresses.
Yes Lucy, abortion is healthcare. It can alleviate or prevent a variety of negative outcomes up to and including death. I have explained why this is so.
Pro-aborts only care about the woman, – not so. We find that an existent woman warrants higher priority.
since you do not understand basic biology (or you choose to ignore it). – would you care to attempt to explain in what way you think I don’t understand basic biology?
Pro-lifers care about both mother and child. – with priority on the fetus.
Reality 10:47PM
Can you tell us what diseases abortion prevents? What disorders and disease does it treat? Can you provide sources?
Well hello Mary. You will have noted – at least I hope you may have noted – that in response to the statement “Health care is the service of providing support for a healthful life, which includes prevention of disease, and, when applicable, treatment of disorders and disease.” I said “and abortion is a part of that.” I trust you know what “a part” means? Abortion may not play a large part in the prevention of ‘disease’ (depends what you include in that category) but it certainly can in regards to disorders etc. The fact that abortion has a far lower maternal mortality rate than full-term delivery alone tells us that it can be considered preventative healthcare, doesn’t it.
I might be inclined to provide some sources once Del can do so in regards to his originating claim that abortion being a part of healthcare is nothing more than ‘liberal pro-bort spin’. Or perhaps you’d like to help out there? I do rather like the sources you come up with ;-)
This has become kind of a silly argument. I mean, call it what you want – I think what matters are the implications.
If it isn’t healthcare, does that mean that the regulations passed and pursued are completely garbage?
If it is healthcare, does that means that the regulations are fair, but medical facilities should look at abortion differently?
I think you folks could literally argue it all day – as a bystander, I’d be interested to hear why you can what it is called or not called.
Studies show a higher incidence of depression and drug abuse and suicide in women who have been submitted to abortion therefore the medical community should ‘treat’ people afflicted with interest in killing unborn children should be treated for the dangerous psychosis it is.
No truthseeker, you have misinterpreted what the studies have shown. Or you have listened to those who misrepresent what the studies have shown. They did not identify the causes of depression, drug abuse and suicide. They had no data on the before and after status of the women. They did not address other possible causes.
people afflicted with interest in killing unborn children should be treated for the dangerous psychosis it is. – for a start, the ‘affliction’ you describe doesn’t exist. Then there’s the fact that there is nothing, anywhere, which demonstrates that choosing to have an abortion or supporting womens right to choose is a psychosis in any shape or form, let alone dangerous.
Do you deny that a submitting to abortion would be an emotionally traumatic experience?
Well hello Reality,
“Health care is the service of providing support for a healthful life, which includes prevention of disease, and, when applicable, treatment of disorders and disease.” Reality: -and abortion is a part of that.
Abortion may not play a “large” part? Please tell us then how big a part abortion plays in treating disorders. Also, please be specific as to the disorders you mention and how abortion treats them.
Also, whether or not Del gives a source isn’t the issue.
Do you deny that a submitting to abortion would be an emotionally traumatic experience? – depends how you would classify any experience as ‘traumatic’. Is getting married? Is giving birth? How about losing your job? For some it may be and for others not in the least. It’s probably a great relief more often than not.
Abortion may not play a “large” part? – this early in and you’re already doing the partial quoting thing?
Please tell us then how big a part abortion plays in treating disorders. – did you want that in pounds or feet?
Also, please be specific as to the disorders you mention and how abortion treats them. – I already have, please pay attention.
Also, whether or not Del gives a source isn’t the issue. – well actually it is. Del made the comment first. I refuted it. Del should support his claim before you start making demands on me. Go on, help him out. You know you want to.
Reality, you claim it is healthy for people to get stress relief from killing others who they feel are a burden to them. Besides being narcissistic it would also be dangerous to those around you. The real medical care you need is treatment for your psychosis.
Are you unable to differentiate between terminating a gestating fetus and killing walking, talking people? How shallow.
There is no psychosis. You just saying it again changes nothing.
“Are you unable to differentiate between terminating a gestating fetus and killing walking, talking people?
It’s the same narcissistic disorder that causes people to do both.
Reality,
So you can’t tell us what “disorders” abortion prevents even though you say it can play a large part in preventing them.
Also, you have no source to back your claim.
It’s the same narcissistic disorder that causes people to do both. – good job there aren’t too many of them then isn’t it. Not to mention the fact that undertaking preventative healthcare hardly qualifies as narcissistic.
So you can’t tell us what “disorders” abortion prevents even though you say it can play a large part in preventing them. – your inability to recognize or choice to ignore the information provided is not something that I’m responsible for the remediation of.
Also, you have no source to back your claim. – and as I said previously, I might be inclined to provide some sources once Del can do so in regards to his originating claim that abortion being a part of healthcare is nothing more than ‘liberal pro-bort spin’. Why don’t you find something for him? Those ones provided by anti-choicers regarding mental health, drug abuse and suicide could be a starting point.
“It’s the same narcissistic disorder that causes people to do both. – good job there aren’t too many of them then isn’t it”
I’m afraid there are quite a few. They would kill a lot more if they could get away with it with the same kind of impunity they have when killing defenseless unborn babies.
I’m afraid there are quite a few. – “quite a few”? Other than people like Rick Perry?
They would kill a lot more if they could get away with it with the same kind of impunity they have when killing defenseless unborn babies. – good job societies recognize and outlaw murder then isn’t it.
But different societies offer different levels of protection against murder and not all people are protected equally. In some societies a man killing his wife is legal even though the same act would be murder in other societies. In the US you can legally kill unborn children but in Ireland killing unborn children is murder. The US will be a better society and it will be a good job when our society joins other societies in declaring the killing of children in womb to be the murderous act it is.
That’s right, different societies decide for themselves. Glad you see that. And what sort of society is it where a man can most likely get away with killing his wife? Don’t worry, Ireland will catch up. Don’t hold your breath on that last bit.
Reality,
Once again, abortion is not heatthcare. If you think it is, you have a very funny understanding of healthcare and/or a very poor understanding of basic biology (or perhaps you choose to ignore the fact that a human life begins at conception; a fact that you can find in any biology textbook). The intentional killing of a human being in the womb has nothing to do with healthcare.
Oh, and here we go again with the whole “pro-lifers care more about the fetus” myth. If you actually paid any attention, you would realize that we care about the mother and child equally. Pro-aborts, in contrast, place the mother above the child.
Reality, 11:03PM
LOLL. Its such fun to watch you try to weasel your way out of backing up what you say.
Abortion and Depression article:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/zabortdepr.htm
Once again, abortion is not heatthcare. – and once again, you are totally wrong. It can prevent harmful outcomes both physical and mental. It has a lower maternal mortality rate than full-term delivery.
If you think it is, you have a very funny understanding of healthcare – not at all. It is you who is being prejudiciously selective.
and/or a very poor understanding of basic biology (or perhaps you choose to ignore the fact that a human life begins at conception; a fact that you can find in any biology textbook). – I’m not ignoring that fact, never have. At least I now have an idea of why you made your incorrect claim regarding my knowledge of basic biology.
The intentional killing of a human being in the womb has nothing to do with healthcare. – positive healthcare outcomes for women can be achieved where abortion would facilitate such an outcome.
Oh, and here we go again with the whole “pro-lifers care more about the fetus” myth. If you actually paid any attention, you would realize that we care about the mother and child equally. – its my having paid attention which informs me that you do indeed place greater importance on fetuses than women.
Pro-aborts, in contrast, place the mother above the child. – which is what I said. You should try it sometime.
Mary it’s not nearly as much fun as watching you serve up something you purport supports your claim only to find that it does the opposite. Now, since Del made the initial claim I expect you’ll be calling on him to provide something to support it? If not, why not?
LOL. Thank you for helping make my point Reality.
You’re welcome Mary, always a pleasure. Your ‘point’ is quite clear. Never mind.
Reality,
Yes I know the point I make concerning you is very clear. I’m glad we are in agreement.
You think that’s the point? LOL.
“and once again, you are totally wrong. It can prevent harmful outcomes both physical and mental. It has a lower maternal mortality rate than full-term delivery.”
–And once again, you fail to explain how I am “totally wrong”. You completely ignore the fact that a human being dies in every abortion. That places the overall mortality rate far ahead of a full-term delivery. Very few abortions are done for life/health of the mother. The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience. They do not prevent any harmful outcomes. They only HAVE harmful outcomes– the death of a human being. And that doesn’t even address the occasional harmful mental and physical outcomes that can affect the mother (depression, infection, hemorrhage, infertility, death).
“its my having paid attention which informs me that you do indeed place greater importance on fetuses than women. ”
—This statement proves that you have either not been paying attention or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or you are being dishonest.
“Pro-aborts, in contrast, place the mother above the child. – which is what I said. You should try it sometime.”
–No, thank you. Unlike you, I don’t believe that a human being’s inherent value is dependent on his/her age or developmental stage.
And once again, you fail to explain how I am “totally wrong”. – I have quite clearly demonstrated how you are wrong Lucy. If you have failed to read what I have written then it would appear you may be suffering some discombobulation.
You completely ignore the fact that a human being dies in every abortion. – the fact that I have stated “I’m not ignoring that fact, never have” would be further confirmation of your failure to read what I write.
That places the overall mortality rate far ahead of a full-term delivery. – irrelevant. We are talking about womens healthcare.
Very few abortions are done for life/health of the mother. – you cannot make such a claim. If abortion had been prevented who knows how many women may have suffered various negative outcomes to varying extents.
The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience. – what you claim to be convenience others consider necessity. Only they can choose. Only they know. You do not.
They do not prevent any harmful outcomes. – I have explained how they in fact do. Yet another instance of you not reading what I write?
They only HAVE harmful outcomes– the death of a human being. – which demonstrates yet again that you place much more value and priority on fetuses than women.
And that doesn’t even address the occasional harmful mental and physical outcomes that can affect the mother (depression, infection, hemorrhage, infertility, death). – all procedures have risks. Abortion is safer than full-term delivery.
This statement proves that you have either not been paying attention or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or you are being dishonest. – and you are wrong. I have already stated that my observation of anti-choicers shows that fetuses are more valued than women. Your statement “They only HAVE harmful outcomes– the death of a human being.” supports this.
No, thank you. Unlike you, I don’t believe that a human being’s inherent value is dependent on his/her age or developmental stage. – and yet you ignore the benefits and risk reduction abortion offers women in preference to a gestating fetus.
“I have quite clearly demonstrated how you are wrong Lucy. If you have failed to read what I have written then it would appear you may be suffering some discombobulation.”
—No, I’m afraid you have quite utterly failed to do so. Merely stating “you are wrong” is not sufficient. You have to provide satisfactory support for that statement, which you have failed to do. It is more accurate to say that you disagree with me.
“the fact that I have stated “I’m not ignoring that fact, never have” would be further confirmation of your failure to read what I write.”
–Oh, I’m having no difficulty reading what you write. You focus entirely on imaginary “maternal health benefits” while not even mentioning the fact that a child dies in every abortion. So, yes, you have ignored that fact.
” I have already stated that my observation of anti-choicers shows that fetuses are more valued than women. Your statement “They only HAVE harmful outcomes– the death of a human being.” supports this.”
–I’m not sure what “anti-choicers” are and what they have to do with this discussion ;) Your comment really doesn’t make any sense at all. You might want to put a little more thought into what you write in order to communicate clearly.
“Very few abortions are done for life/health of the mother. – you cannot make such a claim. ”
—Actually, you can find that information on the pro-abortion Guttmacher site. Even the more rational pro-aborts have to admit that abortions done for the life/health of the mother are very rare.
“That places the overall mortality rate far ahead of a full-term delivery. – irrelevant. We are talking about womens healthcare.”
—No, it is not irrelevant. We are not talking about women’s healthcare; we are talking about abortion.
“Abortion is safer than full-term delivery.”
–A human being dies in every abortion, making this statement completely false.
“They only HAVE harmful outcomes– the death of a human being. – which demonstrates yet again that you place much more value and priority on fetuses than women.”
–There appears to be a flaw in your reasoning here. How does pointing out that abortion kills a human being equate to caring more about the child than his/her mother.? Answer: It doesn’t.
“and yet you ignore the benefits and risk reduction abortion offers women in preference to a gestating fetus. ”
–How can I ignore something that doesn’t exist?
Here is former governor Giuliani’s take on cartoon #1
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/19/watch-giuliani-destroys-obama-epic-speech-netanyahu-man-who-fights-his-people-unlike-our
When Obama was running for president and they asked him when human life begins he said he didn’t know and that the answer was above his pay grade. But I don’t think Obama believes that unborn babies are human beings; that is unless he believes that dismembering human beings or burning human beings alive is treating them with dignity. The last words of Obama’s speech at the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ summit were that he will work tirelessly for “the opportunity and justice and the dignity of every human being”. The guy is either delusional or a complete fraud and a liar.
I will indulge here and allow myself to dream. Dream that Obama’s position evolved on abortion. Dream that Obama said, “I used to be unsure unsure when life begins but now I have come to understand that even the unborn are human beings and because I believe that all human beings deserve opportunity and justice and dignity, I now believe abortion should be illegal. Unfortunately I don’t believe we can expect any kind of rational honest from a narcissistic progressive like Obama….
truth –
I think you’re correct in that Obama legally doesn’t consider a preborn baby a human – so when he says “opportunity and justice and dignity of every human being” – his definition is different than yours.
That would make Obama the odd exception because even the pro-aborts who have visited this site over the years have ALL agreed that unborn humans are human beings. What else could he possibly think they are if not human?
truth – I said legally – I’m guessing the pro-choicers didn’t believe all rights should be extended legally – or they probably wouldn’t be pro-choice. Who knows if Obama believe they are people or not – but it’s clear that he legally doesn’t extend rights to them.
No, I’m afraid you have quite utterly failed…. – you may claim to find it unsatisfactory yet the fact that I have quite clearly demonstrated that abortion is part of womens healthcare, and given examples, shows you place greater importance on your opinion than facts.
It is more accurate to say that you disagree with me. – what’s really accurate to say is that I agree with facts. It would appear such is not the case for yourself.
Oh, I’m having no difficulty reading what you write. You focus entirely on imaginary “maternal health benefits” – apart from what I have already mentioned, the simple fact that abortion has a significantly lower maternal death rate than full-term delivery removes the concept of ‘imagination’ from the equation.
while not even mentioning the fact that a child dies in every abortion. So, yes, you have ignored that fact. – we are discussing womens healthcare. And here you are, going off on a screed about fetuses – demonstrating once again that they are more important to you than women are.
I’m not sure what “anti-choicers” are and what they have to do with this discussion ;) – antichoicers are those who would preclude the availability of a safe and legal option for how women deal with unwanted or dangerous pregnancies because of their own personal ideologies.
Your comment really doesn’t make any sense at all. You might want to put a little more thought into what you write in order to communicate clearly. – they were your words, are you saying you can’t understand your own words when they are quoted back to you?
Actually, you can find that information on the pro-abortion Guttmacher site. Even the more rational pro-aborts have to admit that abortions done for the life/health of the mother are very rare. – yet they have no idea how much harm may have been triggered if those women had not access to abortion leading to them becoming depressed, drug abusing or even suicidal. I think that ‘not damaged or dead’ is fairly convenient, don’t you.
No, it is not irrelevant. We are not talking about women’s healthcare; we are talking about abortion. – Del’s initial comment was about womens healthcare, as have been my responses. You may have wandered off on some tangent but don’t expect me to automatically join you there.
A human being dies in every abortion, making this statement completely false – not at all. Again, we are discussing womens healthcare.
There appears to be a flaw in your reasoning here. How does pointing out that abortion kills a human being equate to caring more about the child than his/her mother.? Answer: It doesn’t. – your answer is incorrect. As abortion can prevent harm and even death it is womens healthcare. Since you seek to deny access to it you are therefore placing greater value, greater emphasis, on the fetus.
How can I ignore something that doesn’t exist? – your choice to ignore or deny the truth of the matter do not exclude its existence.
And yet he has such nice things to say about you truthseeker.
Ex-RINO, he didn’t qualify or classify human beings legally or otherwise; instead he said EVERY human being deserves dignity. To say that only ‘some’ human beings deserve dignity and ‘some’ other human beings deserve to be dismembered would be seen as an extreme or even a terrorristic position. Self-righteous narcissists can’t be that honest and still claim the moral high ground to pontificate from.
Okay truth.
I’d apply that same statement to those who would execute a prisoner.
Lots of opinions can be thrown around – no shortage of those.
Ex-RINO, Are you making some type of equivocation between killing unborn babies and the death penalty? Explain yourself cause I don’t see the point of your analogy.
In both cases, a declaration is made that there is a life that is not worth living. Their is a deliberate choice to kill something that is living when there are other options available.
OK. I agree with your statement but I don’t think it is a valid analogy to Obama’s statement. Obama said that every human being deserves justice and dignity and nobody would suggest that it would be dignifying the life of the prisoner if we were to kill them by pulling their arms and legs off their bodies. And I don’t think anybody would suggest that the unborn baby is getting any kind of justice.
I’m massively unconcerned with the method of killing somebody – killing is killing – it is one of the issues I have with the graphic sign pushers – they seem to be making the case that we should be ashamed in the methodology of killing babies. Doesn’t matter how they die – that’s not the point.
I actually think that Obama’s statement is probably more honest and logical than a pro-lifer who is pro-death penalty. At least for Obama, he can simply say that he doesn’t believe a pre-born baby is a baby – he’s not including them in the population. A pro-lifer who believes in the death penalty makes a choice to say all life is sacred, but then automatically puts an exception in their argument which renders the statement worthless.
“I’m massively unconcerned with the method of killing somebody”
Isn’t it more humane to kill somebody in a way that doesn’t cause suffering? It wouldn’t cause you any more concern if people convicted to die in the US justice system were burned alive in cages?
Obviously, if death is the only choice, a more humane death is better than a less humane death.
But if a murderer came to me and said “I killed somebody you knew, but at least I was quick and clean about it” – I wouldn’t think they were any less a murderer.
“At least for Obama, he can simply say that he doesn’t believe a pre-born baby is a baby – he’s not including them in the population.”
Sorry but that is ludicrous. People used that same type of segregation to carry out the greatest miscarriages in justice in history.
“Obviously, if death is the only choice, a more humane death is better than a less humane death.”
I am glad to hear you walk back your statement that you were massively unconcerned by the way people were killed.
Sure they do – but we all believe that the pre-born are a different ‘type’ of person – I’ve never heard anybody saying that every single way we treat a 2 year old is how we should treat a pre-born baby – life insurance policies, medical coverage, etc…
Look – I believe Obama is wrong on the abortion stance. But this is the politicians we want. We have a box that all Democrats should fit into, and a box that all Republicans should fit into, and when any of their views stray outside of that box, they’re toast. Did you ever expect, in a political atmosphere where money is king – that Obama would say anything else then he’s ever said when it comes to abortion?
Quite frankly, I don’t think anybody has a clue on what Obama thinks about abortion – but we know for sure the part he’s got to play while he’s in office. They all have to play their various parts – they are all slaves to the money machine.
You have always said that you think the unborn are persons deserving of dignity. Do you also think we should be extending them a more humane death than dismemberment?
I only meant that statement (massively unconcerned) when I felt like you were saying that the death penalty was more okay than abortion because of the method of killing.
Are you for the death penalty?
It sounds like you agree with my initial statement so I don’t know why you chose to parse words on Obama’s behalf. The bottom line is that Obama should not have said he believes every human being deserves opportunity, justice and dignity because unborn babies are human beings and he doesn’t grant them opportunity or justice or dignity.
Not the death penalty being carried out the way it is carried out in our current justice system; but I do believe there are times when killing can be justified. Now are you going to answer the question I asked you at 8:32?
Do you also think we should be extending them a more humane death than dismemberment?
No – they shouldn’t be killed to begin with.
I do hate the graphic signs though because they seem to simply be making the case that the death of the unborn should be more humane. That’s BS.
truth –
Again – you can continue to have whatever opinion you want on Obama’s words. From a legal standpoint, what he has said is logically consistent with how he generally acts – he doesn’t see legal protection to the unborn – doesn’t see them as full human beings in the eyes of the law.
I believe that there are times when killing is justified as well – in war for instance – but not the death penalty.
So are you saying that you agree with the death penalty or not – you seemed to go all politician on me. “It depends on the meaning of the word ‘is”…”
“doesn’t see them as full human beings in the eyes of the law”
So you think Obama was saying that only human beings with rights under the law are human beings at all. It sound like you believe that Obama believes unborn babies in Ireland deserve opportunity,justice and dignity; but unborn babies in the US would not deserve opportunity, justice or dignity because they have no protections given to them under the law?
How do you classify unborn human babies in the US if they are not human beings? Are they some type of subcategory of being that differentiates them from babies in Ireland or Chile? It sounds like you are saying that progressives believe a person gets their categorization as a human being based upon their location or based upon some other persons recognition of their legal status. That is pretty crazy mental gymnastics going on in the progressive mind.
Reality,
You have completely failed to demonstrate that abortion is a part of women’s healthcare. You have yet to back up your claims of “maternal health benefits” with any sources. Your opinions and speculations are not facts.
“demonstrating once again that they are more important to you than women are.”
–Another incorrect statement. It demonstrates that I view mother and child as equally important.
“antichoicers are those who would preclude the availability of a safe and legal option for how women deal with unwanted or dangerous pregnancies because of their own personal ideologies.”
— I don’t know of anybody who opposes adoption. That is a safe and legal way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. I don’t know of anybody who opposes prenatal care, for both uncomplicated and complicated pregnancies. So, basically, “antichoicers” are in your imagination. Thanks for clearing that up.
“they were your words, are you saying you can’t understand your own words when they are quoted back to you?”
–Are you saying that you don’t understand the phrase “your comment”? I was obviously referring to your words, not mine. I didn’t realize that would be such a difficult concept.
“yet they have no idea how much harm may have been triggered if those women had not access to abortion leading to them becoming depressed, drug abusing or even suicidal. I think that ‘not damaged or dead’ is fairly convenient, don’t you.”
–You have yet to provide any proof that abortion has prevented depression, drug abuse, or suicide. However, there have been post-abortive women who have shared stories of becoming depressed, suicidal, and/or addicted to drugs after having their abortions.
“Del’s initial comment was about womens healthcare, as have been my responses. You may have wandered off on some tangent but don’t expect me to automatically join you there.”
–Here is Del’s initial comment. “#5 is actually encouraging.
The liberal pro-bort spin still continues to insist that abortion is some sort of “healthcare.”
Meanwhile, an increasing number of Americans are no longer being fooled by that line.” You might want to look up the definition of the word “tangent”.
“your answer is incorrect. As abortion can prevent harm and even death it is womens healthcare. Since you seek to deny access to it you are therefore placing greater value, greater emphasis, on the fetus”
–Denying access to abortion is not “placing greater emphasis on” the child. It is acknowledging that mother and child are equal. Abortion causes harm and death, certainly to the child and potentially to his/her mother. Once again, abortions performed to save the life of the mother are extremely rare. The vast majority of abortions are performed when the mother’s health is not in any sort of danger.
“your choice to ignore or deny the truth of the matter do not exclude its existence. ”
—You have yet to point out any “truth” that I am denying or ignoring. Your opinions and speculation are not “truth”.
Your ideological opposition to the rights of others, and your belief that you have the right to interfere, does not negate the truth. My former wife was told in no uncertain terms, by a suite of medical specialists, not to fall pregnant again after nearly dying. If she had fallen pregnant again she would have terminated. You would have prevented her form doing so, therefore your claim that I view mother and child as equally important. is invalid. I knew a woman who had four children, all delivered by medically necessary C-sections. She was told that another one would cause a raft of ongoing health problems. If she had fallen pregnant again she would have terminated. Again, you would have placed the fetus first and prevented her.
I don’t know of anybody who opposes adoption. That is a safe and legal way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. I don’t know of anybody who opposes prenatal care, for both uncomplicated and complicated pregnancies. So, basically, “antichoicers” are in your imagination. Thanks for clearing that up. – how quaintly disingenuous of you. Pro-choicers support all available options. You don’t. You seek to limit womens legitimate choices. Therefore you are anti-choice. In both cases outlined above, your anti-choice approach may well have caused death.
Are you saying that you don’t understand the phrase “your comment”? – no, but apparently you are doing so in regards to yourself. Your statement that abortions only HAVE harmful outcomes quite clearly demonstrates how little regard you give to women compared to fetuses.
You might want to look up the definition of the word “tangent”. – that might be a task more appropriate to yourself. Del said abortion isn’t healthcare. I demonstrated how it is in fact healthcare. You, because of your obvious focus on the fetus, only went on about fetuses being terminated rather than the benefits for women.
Denying access to abortion is not “placing greater emphasis on” the fetus. – you would rather a woman faces possible death rather than see a fetus terminated. That says it all.
The vast majority of abortions are performed when the mother’s health is not in any sort of danger – you simply do not know that.
– You have yet to point out any “truth” that I am denying or ignoring. – your denying or ignoring your own ignoring or denying doesn’t improve the situation.
Your opinions and speculation are not “truth”. – and quite obviously you are wrong.
truth – I think you’re looking WAY into it.
When most people see 100 people in a room, and 7 of them are pregnant people – they say there is 100 people in the room.
When Obama said for all people – he means all people on the earth. He obviously doesn’t mean full rights to preborn babies as that would be pretty inconsistent with other things he has said. This shouldn’t surprise you.
I don’t agree with him – I believe that rights she be on all folks, even the unborn.
But I also think it is a joke for those who support the death penalty to consider themselves any better than Obama in this situation – so as a supporter of the death penalty – I see you like you see Obama.
So there you go.
“When Obama said for all people”
Obama did NOT say all people. How can you not get that after it being posted so many times? Obama said he believes in opportunity, justice and dignity of every human being. Unborn babies are human beings. And then you said that only human beings with legal status are really human beings. The progressive mind is a freaky thing where unborn babies in Ireland are human beings and unborn babies in the US are some other sub-category of non-human beings. I think this phenomenon of the progressive mind needs further study.
And in your mind a murderer given the death penalty isn’t a human being, and a similar murderer who isn’t given the death penalty is a human being.
Again, if you’re surprised that Obama has a different classification of ‘human’ as you, that’s more on you man.
Why do you keep saying I support the death penalty? Typical straw man lies and redirect…how progressive of you. You have no shame do you.
Because you said “Not the death penalty being carried out the way it is carried out in our current justice system; but I do believe there are times when killing can be justified.”
Okay fine – you are saying you are anti-death penalty?
I’m not redirecting – I just can’t say 500 times in a row the same thing – I’ve said what I’ve said. Why I keep going to the Death Penalty is you are so massively concerned about Obama’s logic in this – and I thought you were pro-DP – which I believe is the same messed up logic.
Again – if you are now saying you are anti-DP, then disregard my previous statements.
Go ahead and try to change the subject to the death penalty. Have me tell you again that I don;t support the death penalty in it’s current form. Claim, with absolutely NO facts to support it, that I don’t think murderers are human beings. Whatever you can do to try and not answer to the fact that in a progressives mind like Obama’s babies in Ireland are human beings but babies in the US are something other than human. Come on man; just be honest and tell us.
You made up the whole Ireland thing.
My only claim is that when Obama says every human being, he means those that have been born, up until those who have died. This should not be a surprise to you. Nor is it a surprise that you are offended.
You are just trying to BS your way out by trying tofind and point to some other fault you can find in other people. And your analogy doesn’t hold up. Obama’s statement said that all human beings deserve justice. I don’t think you could find too many people who support the death penalty who would try and say that murder’s don;t deserve justice. So quit trying to redirect over and over with straw man analogies and tell us how it is that Obama believes unborn babies in Ireland are human beings but babies in the US are not human beings.
You are the only one talking about Ireland.
For the second time – or maybe the eighth – “My only claim is that when Obama says every human being, he means those that have been born, up until those who have died. This should not be a surprise to you. Nor is it a surprise that you are offended.”
Look at how you have twisted yourself:
1) you tried saying that the reason Obama doesn’t consider unborn babies to be human beings is because he doesn’t extend legal rights to them. You said:
“truth – I said legally-– I’m guessing the pro-choicers didn’t believe all rights should be extended legally – or they probably wouldn’t be pro-choice. Who knows if Obama believe they are people or not – but it’s clear that he legally doesn’t extend rights to them.”
2)Then you tried a straw man approach and you tried justifying that unborn babies are not human beings by trying to form some type of equivocation between abortion and the death penalty when you said
“I actually think that Obama’s statement is probably more honest and logical than a pro-lifer who is pro-death penalty. At least for Obama, he can simply say that he doesn’t believe a pre-born baby is a baby”
3) Now you are saying that your only claim is that Obama does not believe unborn humans are human beings.
“My only claim is that when Obama says every human being, he means those that have been born”
Really Ex-RINO, quit chasing your tail around in circles and tell me if you still stand by previous statement (#1 above) that Obama doesn’t recognize unborn babies as human beings because they are not granted legal status.
Before you deflect or deny you should reread your post from yesterday at 6:51
Reality,
I would certainly hope that if your former wife was at grave risk should she have another pregnancy, that tubal ligation would have been performed and maybe a vasectomy on your part as well.
There are precautions that can be taken in situations like this, including the woman you mentioned having the 4 C-sections, and I consider it highly irresponsible not to.
As an FYI, PL people do not oppose abortions medically necessary to save the woman’s life and if they did so what? State law has permitted them, even prior to R v W.
When a friend’s wife suffered severe postpartum depression after her third child, she had a tubal, as did another friend’s wife who suffered severe second trimester pre eclampsia.
I consider this responsible and sensible.
truth –
I’ve said nothing inconsistent.
Let me say it for the 10th time a different way.
If you were doing a census of the world, you’d count various people. All those people make up the group that Obama is addressing.
“I’ve said nothing inconsistent.”
First you said that in order to be a human being you must have legal rights extended to you. Now you are saying that in your mind and in Obama’s mind in order to be a human being you must be counted on a census somewhere…. Only in a ‘progressive’ mind. Your arguments for what ‘human being’ means are just getting stranger and stranger.
“I’ve said nothing inconsistent.”
Your first argument that all babies granted legal status are human beings is not consistent with your second argument that all human beings are counted on a census. But I guess that doesn’t really matter since neither statement is worth the brain cells it takes to repeat them.
truth –
You have full rights to believe whatever you want.
I will continue to say, regardless of how you interpreted my earlier statements (and let’s be honest, reading comprehension isn’t one of your strong suits) – is that Obama’s statement was about living, breathing people in between birth and death.
And I will continue to say, his statement is more logical than somebody who believes in the death penalty yet still, somehow, against reason, considers themselves “pro-life”.
But seeing that I believe you are now against the death penalty, you probably also agree with that statement.
“Obama’s statement was about living, breathing people in between birth and death.”
Then he incorrectly used the phrase “every human being” because anybody with common sense admits that unborn babies are human beings. Only people without common senses can try and argue otherwise and they just sound stupid when they do. Get it?
If a person lacks the common sense to understand that Obama was wrong when he said he respects the opportunity, justice and dignity of every human being; then what point is there conversing with them about anything since they are obviously incapable of logic?
On your first comment (2:59) – I said many times that I was sure you disagreed with him.
On your second comment (3:07) – I said many times I disagreed with him
Our opinions are different than his.
Took about 30 posts for you to realize that you think differently than Obama. Again, is this a surprise to you?
And who cares anyway – Obama could literally say words that you told him to say, and you’d still hate the guy. So who cares what he said. A couple of years from now, somebody else will be president, and you can fight over what he/she means and what you think they mean.
Your favorite politicians are making people’s lives miserable – and you want to talk about what the meaning of the word “is” is. Crazy.
“you want to talk about what the meaning of the word “is” is.”
Ex-RINO, you are the only one who has brought up anything about meaning of the word “is”. Using a typical ‘progressive’ tactic and deflecting a conversation. In case you are really that delusionally lost I will remind you that the discussion was about Obama’s use of the phrase “human being”.
truth
I believe I’m a heck of a lot more direct in answering questions than you are. A lot more direct. Heck, you can’t even seem to articulate what your death penalty position is!
There’s no other way I can state this again to make it clearer for you – I’ve said my part about 10 times already. You are free to disagree – that’s your right.
“I said many times I disagreed with him”
You said you disagree with him about abortion. But what you still haven’t admitted is that Obama was wrong when he said that he respects the opportunity, justice and dignity of every human being. Admit that and this whole conversation will not be in vain. Don’t admit and you show yourself as lacking the common sense necessary to carry on a conversation.
“When most people see 100 people in a room, and 7 of them are pregnant people – they say there is 100 people in the room.
When Obama said for all people – he means all people on the earth. He obviously doesn’t mean full rights to preborn babies as that would be pretty inconsistent with other things he has said. This shouldn’t surprise you.
I don’t agree with him – I believe that rights should be on all folks, even the unborn.
But I also think it is a joke for those who support the death penalty to consider themselves any better than Obama in this situation – so as a supporter of the death penalty – I see you like you see Obama.”
Why is that so hard for you to admit. I mean it’s not like there are only a handful of human beings that he offers no opportunity, justice or dignity to. There are thousands every day.
“When Obama said for all people – he means all people on the earth”
He didn’t say for all people. He didn’t say what the word ‘is’ is. You keep making up phrases to try and redirect the conversation with strawmen. It is how you roll. He said “every human being”. And each time you ignore that you show what a waste of bytes you are to this blog.
Obama is 100% wrong. When he says whatever you wanted him to say, or whatever he did say, he said it without respect to preborn babies – which I personally believe are humans and deserving of the things that he said, or you want him to say. Obama is 100% wrong.
While he is wrong on this, I furthermore cannot drop the statement that those who believe that the death penalty should be allowed are equally wrong with Mr. Obama – and if somebody believes in the death penalty, yet is throwing stones at Obama – I hope that those same stones bounce back at them.
And also, while he’s 100% wrong, he’s still ten times the leader and person Scott Walker, Ben Carson, or almost any GOP candidate is – he’s smarter and has done a better job running the country than any of them would be.
If that wasn’t direct enough for you truth – please type what you’d like me to type, and then I’ll either repost word for word, or I’ll edit as I see fit and you can see if you take exception to it.
“those who believe that the death penalty should be allowed are equally wrong with Mr. Obama”
You are fixated on a death penalty analogy that is not even a relevant analogy. Obama said he believes every ‘human being’ deserves justice. People who support the death penalty seek justice for condemned human beings. People like Obama do NOT seek justice for unborn ‘human beings’.
Obama didn’t say that – he said
“..the opportunity and justice and the dignity of every human being”
“while he’s 100% wrong”
There is Something we agree on then
No pro-life death penalty person I know would support killing any human being by dismemberment. Only in a progressives mind can dismembering a human being be granting them dignity.
It doesn’t matter on the DP views – you and I are both anti-death penalty it sounds like – so no need to stick up for a viewpoint that you disagree with.
No pro-life death penalty person I know would say that killing unborn human beings is justice to the unborn human being. Only in a progressives mind can dismembering a human being be granting justice to the unborn human being.
“Pro-life people who support the death penalty do not want condemned murderers to have the ‘opportunity’ to murder again.”
Good job. Your analogy works for one of the three…congratulations. I guess if anybody just keeps babbling then the truth might happen to come out 33% of the time.
Did you just quote yourself and say I said that?
Here it is without the quotes. But you can feel free to quote me on it. And I capitalized the NOT for you too.
Pro-life people who support the death penalty do NOT want condemned murderers to have the ‘opportunity’ to murder again.
Good job. Your analogy works for one of the three…congratulations. I guess if anybody just keeps babbling then the truth might happen to come out 33% of the time.
With all due respect, that is one of the stupidest reasonings I’ve heard heard for the Death Penalty – but again, I believe you said you were against the death penalty.
I think this conversation is done – we’ve established that that I disagree with Obama’s statement – and I believe we both agree that those who believe in the death penalty are as illogical as Obama – I believe they are equally illogical – you seem to think they are illogical to a lesser degree.
If you disagree with any of the above, let me know – otherwise, I’m going to unsubscribe and move on – this is getting dull.
“I believe we both agree that those who believe in the death penalty are as illogical as Obama”
The only thing WE agree on is that “Obama is 100% wrong”.
Logic tells us that the unborn are human beings and logic also tells us that sometimes we are justified in killing one person for the safety of others.
That DP argument makes sense in the 1920’s – but in today’s time, we have another option that doesn’t require taking a life. The only reason to take somebody’s life now is some twisted form of vengeance or the backwards thought that it is more convenient to just have the person dead…which, oddly enough is the core of the pro-choice argument.
But again, you seem to be saying you are anti death penalty, I think – so that wouldn’t be your argument…
Tell me again how you rationalize that people who are not on a census are not really human beings.
Tell me how you reconcile calling yourself pro life while supporting the death penalty?
You don’t seem to know the difference between being pro-life and being a pacifist. But that is not surprising since you think people are not human beings unless they get legal rights or they appear in a census. Do you know the difference between a pro-life person and a pacifist? Is it possible, in the progressive mind, to be pro-life and keep a gun in your home to protect your family?
I do know the difference, but i”m not sure how I can ask about the death penalty, and you start talking about gun laws and home invasions.
So I must ask – do you know what the death penalty is? It is when somebody kills somebody (usually – some people want to extend it between murder) – and after spending millions of dollars and years and years of court cases, they tie them down to a table or chair and either shoot them, electrocute them, or give them drugs that kill them – because having them sit in a cell until they die, well, too civilized.
I don’t know how you think defending one’s family is the death penalty?
So you don’t see contradiction in a pro-life person killing an intruder to protect their home and family. Now on to the death penalty. Why do you think it is civilized to expose other less heinous prisoners to psychotic killers? Do you believe it is more humane to lock a person in a cage in solitary confinement with no sunlight and no companionship for decades then it is to kill them?
What size would the cell have to be in order for it to be more humane than killing them? Would a 4’x 8′ cell be enough?
I don’t see a contradiction in that – in the couple of cases a year in which that truly happens.
You are using a false assumption that I’m in favor of mixing psychotic killers with the general population – I’m not.
On your last question – is ‘humane’ part of your argument? I mean, I’ve seen people argue that it would be more humane to allow somebody with terminal cancer to kill themselves than suffer. I’ve seen people argue that it’s more humane to allow an abortion for a baby with severe issues that will die at birth – but pro-lifers in both situations pull the sanctity of life argument over what is or isn’t humane. So you want to go down that path?
OK, so you wouldn’t want o expose anybody else to the psychotic killer; then what size cell would you cage them in forever? Would a 4’x 8? cell be enough?
I think you posted before you saw my ‘humane’ comments…
Feel free to answer my question directly. If you feel as though humanity is an important concept with regard to caging a person in solitary confinement then bring that up as a part of your answer.
I have issues with solitary confinement and cell conditions when people are going to get out of prison – there are issues with making sane people more insane. I feel like a standard supermax cell for a psychotic killer is okay. We certainly want to make the conditions as humane as possible. I find it extremely odd tough to argue that we should kill somebody because we can’t make conditions nice enough. Again, that’s a pro-choice argument 101.
You are ok with with confining people in four windowless, soundproof walls of concrete with meals through a ‘chuck hole’ but you are opposed to killing these people. Why?
Short answer – because we shouldn’t kill people simply because we find it more convenient. Do we need a long answer?
Convenience is not the reason most people who are pro-death penalty. Can you think of any other reasons you are against it?
So here’s the deal – I’m tired of arguing against somebody who is ambiguous in their own views on it – so I’ll give you my long thoughts on the death penalty, but the deal is that you promise to then give you long thoughts on the death penalty.
Deal? Yes or No – If I see some posturing, long post without an answer – I’m unsubscribing and moving on.
Go ahead. Tell me the other reasons you are against it and I will be happy to give you my unambiguous thoughts on the death penalty. And take your time. I won’t threaten to unsubscribe if you need to take a break or think about what you want to say.
Remember. You said you would tell me the reasons you are against the death penalty. No links please.
I think that the death penalty, is it applied by human beings, is so flawed that it cheapens rather than upholds life.
A purist would say that death penalty is the ultimate justice for murdering somebody – and on the surface, there could be some truth to that – but look at how it is actually applied in practice.
Who does and doesn’t get the death penalty is much more about how much money you have (what kind of lawyer you can get) and where you commit the crime rather than actually crossing a line. Gary Ridgeway kills dozens of people and has life in prison without parole – and other murderers kill one person and get the death penalty. How can we say it is about ‘justice’ when almost every murderer doesn’t get the death penalty, and we arbitrarily give it so some people?
It costs too much -it costs millions more to prosecute and carry about a death sentence case compared to giving somebody life.
It gives the murderer too much publicity. A murderer given the death penalty becomes the focus – every time they have an appeal, and once they have their life taken, they are the center of the news. We are much better locking them up and forgetting about them and not given them the focus.
But lastly – because we don’t have to, and if we have the choice of taking a life or preserving a life, we should always choose to preserve the life. The death penalty, like abortion, cheapens life. It says that there are circumstances in which taking a life when no clear and present danger exists – that it is fine taking that life just to prove a point, or simply because we can.
If a person wants to ever use the phrase ‘sanctity of life’, they must reject the death penalty as most denominations have. I see people on this board that say they are pro-death penalty (including Jill) – and I simply don’t see them as being fully pro-life.
K – your turn – and I welcome clarifying questions.
My opposition to the death penalty is really straight-forward. I am against the death penalty because there are too many innocent people convicted of crimes.
Now clarify for me how can you say you are against the death penalty because it is convenient and then in the next post say you are against the death penalty cause it is too complex with appeals and expenses? Which is it?
Clarifying question to you – you earlier said “Not the death penalty being carried out the way it is carried out in our current justice system” – so earlier you seemed to support the death penalty – now against? Can you clarify that earlier statement.
I’ve given about 5 different reasons to be against the death penalty – when I said it was convenient, I was essentially wrapping up a few arguments in one – so it’s both.
“The death penalty, like abortion, cheapens life.”
I can understand how a parent might feel justified in seeking the death penalty to be carried out against somebody kidnapped and tortured their daughter. There is no such rationalization to justify abortion so the abortion analogy does not fit.
“when I said it was convenient, I was essentially wrapping up a few arguments in one – so it’s both”
No it can’t be both. Convenience means the easy way out. Either the death penalty is a complex process of appeals and expense or it is convenient. Logic dictates that it can’t be both so which is it?
I have always said I am against the death penalty and my reasons for being against it have never waivered. It has always been due to the fact that our criminal justice system is too prone to error.
“It gives the murderer too much publicity.”
That is probably the weakest reason I have ever heard for opposing the death penalty but you are entitled to your opinion.
truth –
I think we’re just seeing the word “convenient” differently. I’m saying that there are those in society that say “let’s just get rid of them because we don’t want to deal with them”. It’s like the pro-choice argument of saying that there’s really no purpose served in the death other than us not wanting to deal with the person anymore. Know what I mean?
And on the publicity – I 100% believe it’s a solid argument – look at Timothy McVeigh – go back and look at the publicity he got on his way out. It was sick.
I actually think the weakest argument is the innocence component. Who have we executed that has later been found to be innocent?
If someones daughter were kidnapped and tortured and raped and killed some would say that it brings justice and respect to the sanctity of her life by terminating the life of the desecrater.
“I actually think the weakest argument is the innocence component. Who have we executed that has later been found to be innocent?”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethlopatto/2014/04/29/how-many-innocent-people-are-sentenced-to-death/
Not quite sure how killing somebody brings justice and respect to another life.
On your second post – yes, they have thoughts somebody might, but nobody has ever been able to name a name of somebody who has been executed and then found innocent. Just speculation. Some claim without the DP, a lot of those people would have never had their innocence found.
Colin Campbell Ross was hanged in Melbourne in 1922 for the murder of 12 year-old Alma Tirtschke the previous year in what became known as the Gun Alley Murder. The case was re-examined in the 1990s using modern techniques and Ross was eventually pardoned in 2008.
Jesse Tafero was convicted of murder and executed via electric chair in May 1990 in the state of Florida for the murders of two Florida Highway Patrol officers. The conviction of a co-defendant was overturned in 1992 after a recreation of the crime scene indicated a third person had committed the murders.
Sorry – giving you no extra credit for finding somebody in a different country from a 100 years ago.
Furthermore, I don’t think anybody takes a ton of comfort saying we only gave life in prison for an innocent person compared to the death penalty. What you are suggesting is more of an issue with what convicts people in some cases compared to an issue with the death penalty.
Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed in February 1992 for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In March 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four months earlier. Immediately following the nun’s murder, prosecutors and police were certain the two cases were committed by the same assailant. The flawed case is explored in a 2008 documentary entitled The Last Word.
You’ll find lots of instances of possible innocence…
…but even so, would you take greater comfort in them sitting in prison until they die as an innocent person? Or it’s only bad if they were innocent and died via the death penalty?
You yourself stated in your reasons for being against the death penalty “Who does and doesn’t get the death penalty is much more about how much money you have (what kind of lawyer you can get) and where you commit the crime” And then in a later post you say, “I actually think the weakest argument is the innocence component.” Those are contradictory statements but that is par for the course from you. So I give you evidence of hundreds of people wrongly convicted and sentenced to death only to be exonerated later but that doesn’t concern you either.
To sum it up. You are worried that poor people get unfairly convicted but the ‘innocence component’ in convictions doesn’t trouble you.
I’m not saying poor people are given the DP when they should have been innocent – I’m saying that if we have 100 guilty people of murder, most are getting life, some are getting death, and we are giving death more to people who simply don’t have good lawyers – not because of any level of ‘justice’.
The system is arbitrary – who gets the “ultimate punishment” is a crapshoot.
So your summation is wrong. I take no comfort in saying “oh, that person was innocent, but they only spent their entire life in prison”. That’s a different issue.
“Or it’s only bad if they were innocent and died via the death penalty”
It is bad any time an innocent person is convicted but our conversation is specifically regarding the death penalty. What is relevant to this conversation is whether or not innocent people are getting ‘sentenced to death’. You say that it is a joke to be concerned about that. We disagreee. You are entitled to your opinion however illogical your reasoning may be.
“The system is arbitrary – who gets the “ultimate punishment” is a crapshoot.”
You are showing how very little about the system. Was it a crap-shoot that OJ got off? No, it was the money and resouces used in his defense that got him off. You are entitled to your opinion but I am entitled to point out your ignorance.
The primary reason people support the death penalty is for justice.
If someones daughter were kidnapped and tortured and raped and killed some would say that it brings justice and respect to the sanctity of her life by terminating the life of the desecrater.
truth
On your first of three – again, you have issues with innocents – your issue should be with the system and what people are convicted on. If you are relieved if an innocent person only gets life in prison, then that is an issue. I think you are concentrating on the wrong thing.
On your second post – you don’t get it. And I can’t explain it anymore to you. Seriously – go to google, type in death penalty arbitrary, and you’ll find some information. I guaranteed, 100%, that I know more about this issue than you do – proven by my long, logical response to my stance, and then your, shoot from the hip “what if somebody gets executed that’s innocent…”. Come on man.
Your third post – call it justice if you want – I call it blood thirsty vengeance.
Everything you say is two-faced. First you say, and I quote:
“Who does and doesn’t get the death penalty is much more about how much money you have (what kind of lawyer you can get)”
Then when I say that the poor are more likely to get the death penalty you say, and I quote:
““The system is arbitrary – who gets the “ultimate punishment” is a crapshoot.”
You speak out of both ends and it stinks. Do you even think before you post ideas cause you post you believe one thing and then argue the opposite on your next post.
If you don’t see innocent people getting killed by the government as being worse than innocent people getting jailed by the government then you do not respect the sanctity life.
“Your third post – call it justice if you want – I call it blood thirsty vengeance.”
That is cause you have no spine and no respect for the sanctity of any life. If your daughter were the one killed you would see no injustice with letting the killer live a full life. That is your perogative, I call it having no spine and having no respect for the sanctity of the life that was desecrated and taken away unjustly.
I think you are really pro death penalty.
Come clean lynch mob.
You are the one who doesn’t care about the people wrongly convicted on death row so you call other people the lynch mob. Typical progressive bs. How do you live with no shame while grubering all over people day after day?
“Your ideological opposition to the rights of others”
–Any support for this? You are the one who thinks that innocent children should be killed in the womb for the convenience of others.
“My former wife was told in no uncertain terms, by a suite of medical specialists, not to fall pregnant again after nearly dying. If she had fallen pregnant again she would have terminated.”
–I would hope that she had enough common sense to have a tubal ligation to prevent another pregnancy.
“You would have prevented her form doing so, therefore your claim that I view mother and child as equally important. is invalid.”
— To my knowledge, I do not possess powers of mental telepathy.
“I knew a woman who had four children, all delivered by medically necessary C-sections. She was told that another one would cause a raft of ongoing health problems. If she had fallen pregnant again she would have terminated.”
–Once again, I would hope that she had a tubal ligation and that her husband (or boyfriend) had a vasectomy in order to prevent future pregnancies. I would hope they had enough common sense to do that.
“Again, you would have placed the fetus first and prevented her.”
–Once again, I don’t think I have any powers of mental telepathy. Once again, abortions done for the health/life of the mother are very rare. The vast majority of abortions are done in the case of uncomplicated pregnancies (ie, healthy mothers and healthy babies). As Mary stated in her comment, we pro-lifers do not oppose abortion to save the life of the mother, if there is no way to save both mother and child. However, even the Guttmacher website admits that the percentage of these abortions are very small. The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience. Therefore, I am focusing my discussion on those. Pro-aborts tend to have difficulty justifying those, so you have to focus on the rare “hard cases” instead.
“Pro-choicers support all available options.”
—So you support throwing an unwanted infant into the garbage after birth? If not, then you don’t support “all available options”.
“You don’t. You seek to limit womens legitimate choices.”
–You’ve made another false statement. Pro-lifers support non-violent choices. Killing an innocent child is not a “legitimate” choice.
“Therefore you are anti-choice. In both cases outlined above, your anti-choice approach may well have caused death.”
–There you go with the imaginary “anti-choice” nonsense again.
“no, but apparently you are doing so in regards to yourself. Your statement that abortions only HAVE harmful outcomes quite clearly demonstrates how little regard you give to women compared to fetuses.”
–All abortions end in the death of a human being. I would call that a harmful outcome. The vast majority of abortions do not save the life or health of the mother. Therefore, they have no maternal benefits.
“that might be a task more appropriate to yourself. Del said abortion isn’t healthcare. I demonstrated how it is in fact healthcare. You, because of your obvious focus on the fetus, only went on about fetuses being terminated rather than the benefits for women.”
— No, actually you did not successully demonstrate how it is healthcare. Yes, Del said that abortion is not healthcare, and I agreed with that statement. It really is not that complicated.
“you would rather a woman faces possible death rather than see a fetus terminated. That says it all.”
—What does it say? That your reading comprehension skills are sub-par? I find it interesting that pro-aborts choose to focus on such a tiny proportion of abortions. Perhaps it is because you realize that there is no justification for the vast majority of abortions done for convenience.
“The vast majority of abortions are performed when the mother’s health is not in any sort of danger – you simply do not know that.”
–Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher site has to admit that only a small percentage of abortions are done for the life/health of the mother. The rest are done for convenience.
“your denying or ignoring your own ignoring or denying doesn’t improve the situation.”
—Now this is just amusing.
“Your opinions and speculation are not “truth”. – and quite obviously you are wrong.”
–Any support for that?
Any support for this? – just everything you’ve said. If you were able to you would remove womens right to choose.
I would hope that she had enough common sense to have a tubal ligation to prevent another pregnancy – actually I elected to have a vasectomy. But if she had fallen pregnant you would prefer that she face a high risk of death.
To my knowledge, I do not possess powers of mental telepathy. – is this an attempt at humor? You actively seek to deny access to abortion. You would have given the fetus priority over her life.
Once again, I would hope that she had a tubal ligation and that her husband (or boyfriend) had a vasectomy in order to prevent future pregnancies. I would hope they had enough common sense to do that. – you do realize that vasectomies can fail I hope? And what if, absolute horror, she had been a victim of rape? ‘Fetus first, risk it lady’?
Once again, I don’t think I have any powers of mental telepathy. – once again side-stepping the fact that you actively seek to deny women choice. Therefore placing women at greater risk.
Once again, abortions done for the health/life of the mother are very rare. – you simply cannot make that assumption. What you term ‘convenience’ may turn out to be very important and make all the difference later.
Pro-aborts tend to have difficulty justifying those, so you have to focus on the rare “hard cases” instead. – denial of choice may well turn them into hard cases.
So you support throwing an unwanted infant into the garbage after birth? If not, then you don’t support “all available options”. – I do hope you aren’t contemplating a career in stand-up. Gestate and keep the child, gestate and adopt the child out, terminate the pregnancy. All legal, all valid. You however….are anti-choice.
Killing an innocent child is not a “legitimate” choice. – terminating a fetus has been a legitimate choice throughout history and will remain so. If you don’t consider it legitimate, don’t partake. But there is no a valid reason on earth why you can make such a declaration for others.
There you go with the imaginary “anti-choice” nonsense again. – this is quite straight forward. You would preclude abortion from the list, therefore you are anti-choice.
All abortions end in the death of a human being. I would call that a harmful outcome. – and on behalf of yourself you are free to do so. For others, no.
The vast majority of abortions do not save the life or health of the mother. Therefore, they have no maternal benefits. – and again, that is simply not a judgment call you can make.
No, actually you did not successully demonstrate how it is healthcare. Yes, Del said that abortion is not healthcare, and I agreed with that statement. It really is not that complicated. – your not liking the fact that abortion can save womens lives does not alter the fact that it is part of healthcare. It really is not that complicated.
What does it say? That your reading comprehension skills are sub-par? – quite the opposite I’d say.
The rest are done for convenience – can you define the difference between convenience and necessity? I wouldn’t do so for others.
Now this is just amusing – I hope that it helps you.
Any support for that? – yeah, everything I’ve said. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to follow that path. But as I said, there is no a valid reason on earth why you can make such a declaration for others.
truth
Last time I’m asking – are you pro or against the death penalty?
Reality,
Its fine that you had a vasectomy but I can’t understand why if your wife was at such risk, she wouldn’t have a tubal ligation, especially since they are done in less than an hour on an outpatient basis. A small price to pay to protect one’s life, especially as you say, vasectomies fail.
Since there is always the possibility she would have a relationship with another man, relationships and marriages fail, I would think she would take every precaution to protect her life. Women I know that have been at risk have certainly done so by having tubal ligations.
Ex-RINO, I already told you I am against the death penalty. And if you don’t understand what I am saying you can reread my post from Feb 22nd at 2:25.
Now can you explain to me again how Obama thinks unborn babies in Ireland are human beings but unborn babies in the US are not human beings because he doesn’t grant them any legal rights. And also please clarify why you believe people are not human beings unless they are counted in a census.
It was back in the 1980’s Mary. In those days – at least where we lived – tubal ligation was more invasive, higher risk and took more recovery time than vasectomies did. I asked her what she would prefer and she preferred it the way we went. If she wanted a relationship after our marriage ended she could have had a tubal ligation then. Maybe it would have been as easy as you purport by then.
.
.
.
Obama thinks unborn babies in Ireland are human beings – does he?
According to Ex-RINO, because Obama doesn’t give unborn babies in the US legal status, Obama does not consider them to be human beings. By that criteria in Ireland unborn babies have rights and legal status so they would be human beings.
Gee, I didn’t know Obama was responsible for Irish legislation.
Reality,
Did you live in some third world backwater? In the United States while I was in training, we were doing at least a half dozen or more tubal ligations every Saturday morning in 1980, always done by noon if not sooner. One of my clinical instructors, who was obese and smoked heavily, had it done and went home an hour later. At that time they could be done quickly and efficiently, with minimal invasiveness.
Certainly far preferable to risking one’s life and I must admit I find it very peculiar that she would take any risk at all when this procedure was available.
Obama is not responsible for legislation in Ireland and that is why unborn babies in Ireland are granted legal rights. And according to Ex-RINO legal rights are what makes unborn babies human beings.
Did you live in some third world backwater? – not at all. It wasn’t a conservative controlled state.
In the United States while I was in training….with minimal invasiveness. – or so you say.
I find it very peculiar that she would take any risk at all when this procedure was available. – it was her choice. With testing, the vasectomy was just as effective.
So Obama’s responsible for laws in places like France, the UK and Australia is he truthseeker? And it’s not so much that fetuses are granted legal rights, it’s more the diminution of womens legal rights. That’ll change.
Don’t mis-quote Ex-GOP. He quite clearly explained the colloquial use of the term ‘human being’ in obama’s talking.
As we know, anti-choicers equate ‘human being’ with ‘person’. So it’s quite normal for the terms to be bandied around with different meaning by different people.
Reality,
“It wasn’t a conservative controlled state”. Obviously.
Yes I say Reality. TLs were very routinely and safely done on an outpatient basis over 30 years ago, and still are.
Even you say vasectomies can fail. I wouldn’t trust my life to someone else’s vasectomy. Considering that people have far more serious and major surgeries, like open heart, to protect their lives I can’t imagine someone foregoing a common outpatient procedure to protect their own.
truth –
I don’t believe you – you are still concerned more with the BS argument that ‘sanctity of life’ is upheld through killing somebody. That’s completely contrary to most church teachings and general anti-DP positions.
So Cecil Clayton’s murder is coming up in Missouri – the state will murder Clayton in March – mob ‘justice’ will cheapen life on this earth by saying that we’re okay executing this man.
Agreed?
On your other question – Reality pointed out well that you are misrepresenting what I said.
Obviously. – indeed. Good healthcare was available and there were no TRAP laws.
Yes I say Reality. TLs were very routinely and safely done on an outpatient basis over 30 years ago, and still are. – well that’s a partial response I suppose.
Even you say vasectomies can fail. I wouldn’t trust my life to someone else’s vasectomy. – a quick look at the comparative failure rates doesn’t demonstrate a significant difference. She didn’t trust her life to it, termination was still an option if necessary.
Considering that people have far more serious and major surgeries, like open heart, to protect their lives I can’t imagine someone foregoing a common outpatient procedure to protect their own. – no one else can have heart surgery on your behalf. Vasectomy was less invasive, less risky and required less down time.
Reality,
Good health care was available? Sounds to me like it was in dire need of some updating. What would TRAP laws have to do with getting a TL on an outpatient basis?
Reality, TLs were very routinely performed on an outpatient basis. Is that so difficult for you to comprehend because of the state of health care where you live?
YOU are the one who said they can fail. I agree. Yes she was trusting her life to it, which seems very peculiar to me. An early pregnancy may have been dangerous for her and abortions are not risk free.
I’m aware of that, I’m pointing out that people go through far more serious surgery than TLs when necessary to protect their lives. To say I find your wife’s decision very strange is an understatement.
Good health care was available? – yes.
Sounds to me like it was in dire need of some updating. – not at all.
What would TRAP laws have to do with getting a TL on an outpatient basis? – it meant that if she did fall pregnant she wouldn’t need to run the gauntlet to protect her life.
Reality, TLs were very routinely performed on an outpatient basis. Is that so difficult for you to comprehend because of the state of health care where you live? – still only a partial response.
YOU are the one who said they can fail. I agree. – I did. Tubal ligations can also fail.
Yes she was trusting her life to it, which seems very peculiar to me. – no more than if she’d had a tubal ligation.
An early pregnancy may have been dangerous for her and abortions are not risk free. – what are the comparative risks of a tubal ligation and an abortion, do you know? Tubal ligations can fail, abortions not so much. She still would have been on the safest path.
To say I find your wife’s decision very strange is an understatement. – apparently there is nothing strange about it at all. She was equally protected by either procedure. And it was her CHOICE.
Reality,
“not at all” Would never know that from the way you describe it.
Why would anyone protest her visiting an outpatient clinic or a hospital for a TL?
What more response do you want??
Reality, if she had a TL, she would be taking a necessary step to protect her life. You did mention the risk of sexual assault and vasectomy failure, did you not?? You also said she would have a TL if your marriage ended. Apparently she had some trust in their effectiveness so why not have it to begin with? With you having a vasectomy that would offer her even more protection. There was also hysterectomy. In case you don’t know, these can be done vaginally with minimal invasiveness and the woman is able to go home the next day. From what I read these have been done for centuries(!) and in the early 20th century in the US, as well as in the early 80s, so I’m sure it was also a very fool proof option for your wife.
So there were options for your wife to protect her life. Why she wouldn’t choose either of them is beyond me.
Would never know that from the way you describe it. – you’ve misled yourself or something then. It was and still is an enlightened state with good healthcare.
Why would anyone protest her visiting an outpatient clinic or a hospital for a TL? – I didn’t say they would. I didn’t mention protesters at all. I was saying that because it is/was an enlightened state there are no TRAP laws so if she did happen to fall pregnant her life would be less at risk.
What more response do you want?? – something more accurate and pertinent to the time would be good.
Reality, if she had a TL, she would be taking a necessary step to protect her life. – as was my having a vasectomy.
You did mention the risk of sexual assault and vasectomy failure, did you not?? – I also mentioned the risk of tubal ligation failure. Rape was not exactly likely and abortion was available under such circumstances. In fact even if she were not at risk through pregnancy she would abort if it was due to rape.
You also said she would have a TL if your marriage ended. Apparently she had some trust in their effectiveness so why not have it to begin with? – how many times do I need to tell you. Vasectomy was less invasive, lower risk and entailed less recovery.
There was also hysterectomy. In case you don’t know, these can be done vaginally with minimal invasiveness and the woman is able to go home the next day. – seriously. And the rest of the potential impacts?
From what I read these have been done for centuries(!) and in the early 20th century in the US, as well as in the early 80s, so I’m sure it was also a very fool proof option for your wife. – just like abortion only more risky and with more impacts.
So there were options for your wife to protect her life. – there were. She chose what she considered the best option for her at that time.
Why she wouldn’t choose either of them is beyond me. – because there is nothing wrong with what she chose.
Reality,
Like I said, wouldn’t know that from your description of TLs as performed where you lived at the time.
Reality, even when abortion laws were at their strictest, exceptions have always been made for women who’s lives were judged to truly be endangered by pregnancy. These women could and did obtain legal abortions.
How much more accurate can I get? My experience in a mid size midwestern city. TLs were very common place and routinely done on an outpatient basis. I’m sure we weren’t an isolated exception. I had seen them performed for years in hospitals before they became more routine and less complicated.
Your vasectomy would only protect her..maybe..to the extent she continued in a relationship with you. Having a TL would afford her extra protection.
How many times do I have to say YOU said she would have a TL if your marriage ended. Apparently she saw the need and trusted in the procedure. Why not just have it as an extra and long term precaution?
Potential impacts? Like what? I had it done. Went home the next day, never took a pain pill. Believe me, I saw women go through far more serious abdominal hysterectomies, my cousin included, to protect their lives from pregnancy risks. Vaginal hysterectomy was a very viable option for your wife to protect herself from the risks of any future pregnancies.
Actually what she chose did put her at risk, even you admit that. Face it Reality, she had options to protect herself and negate any need for abortion. For whatever reason she chose to forego or postpone them. Besides, PL people do not object to abortion done to save a woman’s life.
I asked you to explain your reasoning why you believe heinous murderers should be left to live after destroying and desecrating the lives of so many others. Your answers went from ‘its the easy way out’ to ‘it is too complex and expensive’. Then you went from ‘it is stacked against the poor’ to saying that it is a crapshoot who gets convicted’ And then you said that concern for people getting wrongly convicted is a joke and should not be a concern at all. You are all over the place. I still have no clue why think heinous murderers deserve to live even after they take the lives of so many others.
Like I said, wouldn’t know that from your description of TLs as performed where you lived at the time. – like I said, you’ve misled yourself or something then.
Reality, even when abortion laws were at their strictest, exceptions have always been made for women who’s lives were judged to truly be endangered by pregnancy. These women could and did obtain legal abortions. – why should a woman at risk have to jump through hoops to get what she needs.
How much more accurate can I get? My experience in a mid size midwestern city. TLs were very common place and routinely done on an outpatient basis. I’m sure we weren’t an isolated exception. I had seen them performed for years in hospitals before they became more routine and less complicated. – that’s great. But as I said, a vasectomy was less invasive, less risky and required less recovery.
Your vasectomy would only protect her..maybe..to the extent she continued in a relationship with you. Having a TL would afford her extra protection. – she considered and made the best choice for her at that time. The procedures are equally effective.
How many times do I have to say YOU said she would have a TL if your marriage ended. – I didn’t say that.
Apparently she saw the need and trusted in the procedure. Why not just have it as an extra and long term precaution? – she trusted in the vasectomy, it was just as effective.
Potential impacts? Like what? I had it done. Went home the next day, never took a pain pill. Believe me, I saw women go through far more serious abdominal hysterectomies, my cousin included, to protect their lives from pregnancy risks. Vaginal hysterectomy was a very viable option for your wife to protect herself from the risks of any future pregnancies. – hysterectomy is even more high risk than tubal ligation. A vasectomy was quite adequate protection given she could abort in the unlikely case of failure.
Actually what she chose did put her at risk, even you admit that. – any procedure would have put her at risk.
Face it Reality, she had options to protect herself and negate any need for abortion. – yes, a full range of options to choose from.
For whatever reason she chose to forego or postpone them. Besides, PL people do not object to abortion done to save a woman’s life. – they claim that a woman’s life is ever at that great a risk. But as I said, why should she have to jump through hoops to appease the anti-choicers.
TL, V or H, all are valid choices. Yet with the usual anti-choice vigor, here you are trying to say she should have chosen what you consider best. She probably cares less about your opinion of her choice than she does about me being run over by a blazing bus, twelve times, and that’s saying something.
“As we know, anti-choicers equate ‘human being’ with ‘person’.”
Colloquialism..LOL..Put down the kool-aid and step away from the glass. I have heard about the pro-life people promoting the personhood amendment but I have never heard one promote the human being amendment cause people who don’t understand unborn humans are human beings are, frankly, missing a few marbles.
I have heard about the pro-life people promoting the personhood amendment but I have never heard one promote the human being amendment – and that’s why they lose.
cause people who don’t understand unborn humans are human beings are, frankly, missing a few marbles. – you haven’t looked up ‘colloquialism’ in the dictionary yet have you.
Do you also believe unborn babies are not human beings unless they have legal status or they are counted on a census?
They are of the human species, legal rights or not. They are not ‘persons’ with legal rights.
You still not getting a grip on that colloquialism thing?
So Obama does believe unborn babies are human beings? If he does then he shouldn’t lie and say he will fight for their opportunity and justice and dignity.
Don’t you own a dictionary?
Some anti-parents say that a baby’s life doesn’t begin until they are born. Is that also a colloquialism?
Is it a colloquialism to deny that a pregnant woman is a mother?
Reality,
Where do you get this absurd notion that a woman had/has to jump through hoops to get an abortion when her life was in danger? She didn’t.
Let’s just sum this up. I find it very peculiar to say the least that your wife’s doctors, who you described as among the best, did not advise your wife to take all precautions, minimal a TL, to protect her life. Women have had hysterectomies to protect their lives. Women have had TLs and their partners vasectomies as an extra precaution. Whatever, the doctors stressed the importance of the woman protecting herself. Relationships change and her safety cannot be dependent on someone’s vasectomy. Vasectomies can fail and pregnancy cannot be risked. Vaginal hysterectomy was a very viable option when as you say, her life was at serious risk. In fact I can’t understand why it wouldn’t be done.
It just sounds very strange Reality. In fact I’ve never heard of such a thing. When the woman was at risk the need for HER to protect HER life was stressed by physicians. And contrary to what you say, she did not have “a full range of options” when her life was on the line.
I do hope you aren’t contemplating a career in stand-up. Gestate and keep the child, gestate and adopt the child out, terminate the pregnancy.
Why do you dismiss killing the child after birth? The demands of raising a child (or the thought of giving it to someone else) are too much for many women. They fall into depression, drug abuse, and even suicide. Why do you value born children over their mothers?
If [abortion] isn’t healthcare, does that mean that the regulations passed and pursued are completely garbage?
I don’t consider silicon buttocks implants to be healthcare, but I’d still hope they would be closely regulated.
Some anti-parents say that a baby’s life doesn’t begin until they are born. Is that also a colloquialism? – “anti-parents”? What are they? Depends what level of colloquial interpretation you’re applying to both ‘baby’ and ‘life’.
Is it a colloquialism to deny that a pregnant woman is a mother? – no, it’s a colloquialism to say that a pregnant woman is a mother.
Where do you get this absurd notion that a woman had/has to jump through hoops to get an abortion when her life was in danger? She didn’t. – so if it came to pass that women could only have an abortion if their life was at risk you’d accept any womans claim that she was at risk at face value would you? “Hello, my life is at risk, I need an abortion.” – “that’s fine, go right ahead.” Is that how it would play out?
Let’s just sum this up. – yes, let’s. My former wife had options. She listened to the medicos and made the best choice for her. Additional options were still available for later if necessary. The vasectomy placed her at no more risk of pregnancy than a TL would.
Vasectomies can fail and pregnancy cannot be risked. – so do TL’s.
Vaginal hysterectomy was a very viable option when as you say, her life was at serious risk. In fact I can’t understand why it wouldn’t be done. – it’s not really a necessity that you understand other peoples choices.
It just sounds very strange Reality. In fact I’ve never heard of such a thing. – maybe you need to get out more.
When the woman was at risk the need for HER to protect HER life was stressed by physicians. And contrary to what you say, she did not have “a full range of options” when her life was on the line. – well yes she did actually. All of them.
Why do you dismiss killing the child after birth? The demands of raising a child (or the thought of giving it to someone else) are too much for many women. They fall into depression, drug abuse, and even suicide. (I’m glad someone recognizes that!) Why do you value born children over their mothers? – ???? I don’t. Born children can be adopted out. Gestating a fetus cannot be ‘adopted’ out.
Reality,
Prior to Roe state laws made exceptions to protect the woman’s life. This would be determined by her physician. I’m certain there were abuses and a few winks and nods, but the law did protect a woman who’s life was judged to truly be in danger from a pregnancy.
She listened to the medicos? Her life was in danger and they didn’t advise her to have a TL or hysterectomy? They said, hey, another pregnancy will kill you but if your husband has a vasectomy you should be fine?
You see Reality this doesn’t add up. Your wife’s life was supposedly at great risk yet she wouldn’t better safeguard her life with a routine outpatient procedure? Oh she might later on but not now??
Having known women, both personally and professionally, who were at risk that had TLs and hysterectomies so as to protect their lives and health, after being advised by HER physician how to protect HER life and health, I find your account very dubious to say the least. Sorry but something just doesn’t add up here.
Prior to Roe state laws made exceptions to protect the woman’s life. – this wasn’t prior to R v W.
As an aside, would you allow a woman who’s life was at risk but who refused any of the preventative actions you propose to have an abortion if she fell pregnant?
She listened to the medicos? Her life was in danger and they didn’t advise her to have a TL or hysterectomy? They said, hey, another pregnancy will kill you but if your husband has a vasectomy you should be fine? – no, that’s not how it went. You can’t write a new script for what actually happened so that it fits your mindset Mary.
You see Reality this doesn’t add up. Your wife’s life was supposedly at great risk yet she wouldn’t better safeguard her life with a routine outpatient procedure? – “better”? Who are you to determine what was “better” for her? You don’t know everything so that’d be why it may not ‘add up’ for you. You need to get away from this little paradigm that your way is the way it should be for others.
Oh she might later on but not now?? – if circumstances were such that my vasectomy was no longer relevant, yes indeed.
Having known women, both personally and professionally, who were at risk that had TLs and hysterectomies so as to protect their lives and health, after being advised by HER physician how to protect HER life and health, I find your account very dubious to say the least. Sorry but something just doesn’t add up here. – your inability to comprehend that people make choices and decisions other than what you might does not make anything ‘dubious’ or not ‘add up’.
Reality,
Yes it was. Women could obtain abortions if physicians verified it was necessary to save their lives. I remember one of the complaints being that women had to get this verification. Dr. Nathanson pointed out in his book “Aborting America” that physicians got around this very easily and there were more than a few winks and nods about a “miscarrying” woman or a woman who’s life was supposedly in danger. Oh my, I thought she had miscarried already before doing this D&C! Yeah, right. Given lack of ultrasound and the more sophisticated pregnancy tests, this was very easy. BTW, according to Planned Parenthood, 15 years before Roe 90% of illegal abortions were done in doctor’s offices by physicians in good standing in their communities and professions.
If a woman’s life was truly at risk because of a pregnancy, I would support whatever measures were necessary to save her life.
Reality, sorry but I just am NOT buying your story. Too many things don’t add up.
Yes it was. – LOL, my former wife’s situation wasn’t prior to R v W.
If a woman’s life was truly at risk because of a pregnancy, I would support whatever measures were necessary to save her life. – and who gets to determine ‘truly’? What constitutes ‘truly’?
Reality, sorry but I just am NOT buying your story. Too many things don’t add up. – that’s your problem. Not mine. Not my former wife’s either. I’d suggest you take it up with her but I don’t have her address or number. She’d probably give you a withering glare because of your absolute presumptuous gall of inferring she made the wrong choice just because you don’t like it. Apart from which, you’ve demonstrated your inaccurate guessing at how things went and what was said.
Reality,
“LOL, my former wife’s situation wasn’t prior to R v W.” Uh,Reality, I know that.
“Truly” as determined by her physician or physicians.
Well Reality, your wife can glare all she wants but her logic completely escapes me, especially after what you claim the best doctors told her. The women I knew couldn’t get TLs or hysterectomies fast enough. After all, its their lives that were at risk, right? Also you can tell any version of events you choose. You probably don’t realize it but you drop little hints here and there that are red flags for me.
Uh,Reality, I know that. – then why did you say what you did?
“Truly” as determined by her physician or physicians. – Pandora’s box. Good. Although I dare say the anti-choice brigade will try their hardest to make it more difficult and complex than that. Jump through hoops.
Well Reality, your wife can glare all she wants….its their lives that were at risk, right? – my former wife is not you. She doesn’t make the same choices as you. My having a vasectomy protected her as much as a TL would have. She didn’t want a hysterectomy – they are higher risk than you infer – and abortion (safer) was available if necessary.
Also you can tell any version of events you choose. – I have no reason to relate anything other than what actually took place. You haven’t even paid attention to some aspects of it.
You probably don’t realize it but you drop little hints here and there that are red flags for me. – oh really. Do I now. Elucidate for me then. Your inability to critique her choice with nothing other than your opinion is more a red flag that you are peeved because someone won’t do as you would have them do.
Reality,
My apologies, looks like I misread the point you were making about prior to Roe. You were referring to your situation, I thought you were referring to state laws.
No in fact a TL would have been added lifelong protection for your wife, along with your vasectomy. A hysterectomy even better. Given her situation I would think you would take all the precautions possible.
“Elucidate for me”
LOL, and play my hand? Never.
Given her situation I would think you would take all the precautions possible. – My having a vasectomy protected her as much as a TL would have. She didn’t want a hysterectomy – they are higher risk than you infer – and abortion (safer) was available if necessary.
LOL, and play my hand? Never. – makes your claim rather pointless then doesn’t it. Perhaps what you feel is a red flag was really just your failure to follow what I said :-)
No Reality,
A TL would be added lifelong protection for her. Between that and a vasectomy, she’d be even less likely to become pregnant! Given a pregnancy would pose a risk to her life, one would think she would do everything necessary to prevent one. Even added precautions, especially when that added precaution is an outpatient surgical procedure that would be done in a few hours.
Nope, doesn’t make it pointless at all.
She made a choice you don’t like. Get over it.
Claiming there are ‘red flags’ may be convenient for you but to do no more than make the claim is pointless, vacuous. Tells me it isn’t quite the case. Unless they mark where you didn’t pay attention?
Born children can be adopted out.
What if there’s nobody available to adopt the child? Or what if placing the child for adoption is harder on the woman’s mental health?
Gestating a fetus cannot be ‘adopted’ out.
So would you be against abortion if it were possible to transfer fetuses to another woman or an artificial uterus (assuming the procedure is no more invasive or dangerous than abortion itself)? Last time someone suggested that, abortion proponents went berserk.
Reality,
Sorry, but I remain convinced some factors just don’t add up.
We’ll just have to agree to leave it where it is for both of us.
What if there’s nobody available to adopt the child? – just give Madonna or Angelina a call. There isn’t a shortage of people wanting to adopt.
Or what if placing the child for adoption is harder on the woman’s mental health? – place the child in foster care then.
So would you be against abortion if it were possible to transfer fetuses to another woman or an artificial uterus (assuming the procedure is no more invasive or dangerous than abortion itself)? – I would apply additional consideration to my position. You know, the old ‘when the facts change I change my position'(sic) thingie. The details would need to be ironed out though.
Last time someone suggested that, abortion proponents went berserk. – did they? I can understand wariness given the way the anti-choice industry operates.
Sorry, but I remain convinced some factors just don’t add up. – yes, the fact that you have no basis on which to criticize her choice other than your own opinion.
We’ll just have to agree to leave it where it is for both of us. – ‘we’?
Reality,
You can stick to your version of events, and I will continue to find them dubious. Looks like we’ll just have to leave it at that.
You can stick to your version of events – no, I’ll stick to the events which actually took place. Not your imagined version.
and I will continue to find them dubious. – that you don’t personally agree with her decision, and don’t seem to have fully grasped ‘events’, does not make them dubious.
Looks like we’ll just have to leave it at that. – will we?
Reality,
Its your claim about her so called “decision” and the actions surrounding it that I find to be very dubious.
Your not liking her decision does not render it dubious. The fact that there are no grounds for you to criticize or question it other than your opinion isn’t improved by your claim of it being dubious. That’s no more than opinion being ladled onto opinion. You didn’t appear to take note of the actions surrounding it correctly either, now that’s a bit dubious.
Reality,
LOL. I don’t like or dislike her “decision”. I find your whole account very dubious.
It’s quite obvious that you neither like or agree with her decision. You couldn’t establish any valid reason against her choice. It doesn’t fit your paradigm, so you label it dubious.
The fact that you couldn’t accurately reflect what I related is a bit dubious though.
“You couldn’t establish any valid reason against her choice.”
What? So an outpatient TL to protect her life is not a valid reason against her choice?
So an outpatient TL to protect her life is not a valid reason against her choice? – of course not. A vasectomy is as effective as a TL and less invasive and risky.
Hi ts,
So you also see through this dubious story of Reality’s. Glad its not just me. This story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
just give Madonna or Angelina a call. There isn’t a shortage of people wanting to adopt.
Suppose she gives birth in an isolated village in the far north, where there are no abortion providers and there is nobody available to adopt. If she kills or abandons the newborn, has she done something seriously wrong or is she just exercising her reproductive rights?
I would apply additional consideration to my position. You know, the old ‘when the facts change I change my position'(sic) thingie. The details would need to be ironed out though.
Well, keeping an open mind is a virtue.
did they?
Yes.
I can understand wariness given the way the anti-choice industry operates.
Anti-choice industry?!??! Come on now, you’re sounding like Bob Enyart.
So you also see through this dubious story of Reality’s. – LOL, you can’t imagine how funny that is!
Glad its not just me. This story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. – go on then, enunciate one of those swiss cheese holes.
I told you “this is what she chose….” and explained why. You didn’t like it and kept saying “but she should have…” and when you realized you simply couldn’t come up with a valid reason as to why she was ‘wrong’ you suddenly claimed it to be ‘dubious’.
Suppose she gives birth in an isolated village in the far north, where there are no abortion providers and there is nobody available to adopt. If she kills or abandons the newborn, has she done something seriously wrong or is she just exercising her reproductive rights? – extreme situations lead people to do extreme things. If she said “someone adopt this baby or I’ll kill it” I’m confident there would be those who’d come a runnin’.
Well, keeping an open mind is a virtue. – I’m a virtuous person.
Yes – seems to me their main concern is what the state, led by the anti-choice brigade, might force upon women.
Anti-choice industry?!??! Come on now, you’re sounding like Bob Enyart. – yes, it is an industry. Who?
Mary,
It sounds to me like Reality wanted a vasectomy and used his vasectomy to convince his wife that she didn’t need a TL.
If I were in that situation with my wife we would take ‘every’ precaution.
extreme situations lead people to do extreme things.
Sure, but that doesn’t really answer my question. Has she done something seriously wrong, or is she simply exercising her reproductive rights?
If she said “someone adopt this baby or I’ll kill it” I’m confident there would be those who’d come a runnin’.
How far do we have to go? Let’s say she’s in a secluded cabin, and nobody will be able to reach her for weeks due to a severe blizzard.
seems to me their main concern is what the state, led by the anti-choice brigade, might force upon women.
Indeed. We might force them to get an ultrasound or something…
yes, it is an industry.
Does that mean it has lots of good jobs? Because I need one.
Who?
The leader of a Colorado-based personality cult, who tried to sue other pro-life groups (which he refers to as the “pro-life industry”) after he got kicked out of National Right to Life for his various antics. Good coverage here.
“just everything you’ve said. If you were able to you would remove womens right to choose.”
—Right to choose what? Which ice cream flavor they want to eat? I have no intention of removing that ;)
” actually I elected to have a vasectomy. But if she had fallen pregnant you would prefer that she face a high risk of death.”
—You definitely don’t have powers of mental telepathy, or adequate reading comprehension skills, for that matter.
” is this an attempt at humor? You actively seek to deny access to abortion. You would have given the fetus priority over her life.”
—It was half-joking, half-serious. Yes, I do seek to actively deny access to the vast majority of abortions. Your third sentence is erroneous. Sometimes, abortions have to be performed if there is no way to save both mother and child. These are tragic cases, but quite rare. So, the whole “pro-lifers care more about the fetus than the mother” myth is BS.
” you do realize that vasectomies can fail I hope? And what if, absolute horror, she had been a victim of rape? ‘Fetus first, risk it lady’?”
—OF course vasectomies can fail, as can tubal ligations. They should still be done in order to greatly reduce the chance of pregnancy. I have already discussed pregnancies in which the mother’s life is in danger.
” once again side-stepping the fact that you actively seek to deny women choice. Therefore placing women at greater risk.”
—“choice” being a euphemism for killing an innocent child in the womb. Making the vast majority of abortions illegal does not put women at risk, despite what pro-aborts want the rest of us to think.
” you simply cannot make that assumption. What you term ‘convenience’ may turn out to be very important and make all the difference later.”
–Actually, I can. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher website admits that the vast majority of abortions are not done to preserve the health/life of the mother. They are done simply because the child is unwanted. In other words, they are done for convenience.
“denial of choice may well turn them into hard cases.”
–You don’t have any evidence of that.
” I do hope you aren’t contemplating a career in stand-up. Gestate and keep the child, gestate and adopt the child out, terminate the pregnancy. All legal, all valid. You however….are anti-choice.”
—Certainly not. I’m actually completing my residency in Internal Medicine.
Killing the child is legal, yes. So was slavery at one point. It was also legal to deny women the right to vote. “Legal” does not always mean “right” or “moral”.
And here we go again the imaginary “anti-choice” nonsense invented by pro-aborts who are unable to adequately defend their positions.
terminating a fetus has been a legitimate choice throughout history and will remain so. If you don’t consider it legitimate, don’t partake. But there is no a valid reason on earth why you can make such a declaration for others.
—Insert “slavery” for “terminating a fetus”, and you’ll sound just like a Civil War-era slave owner.
” this is quite straight forward. You would preclude abortion from the list, therefore you are anti-choice.”
–No, that actually makes me pro-life or anti-abortion. “Anti-choice” is a silly, inaccurate slur made up by pro-aborts who have trouble defending their position.
“your not liking the fact that abortion can save womens lives does not alter the fact that it is part of healthcare. It really is not that complicated.”
—The vast majority of abortions do not save women’s lives. Abortions done to save the life of the mother are in a very small minority. The vast majority are done for convenience. Therefore, they are not a part of healthcare. Indeed, this is really not that complicated.
“can you define the difference between convenience and necessity? I wouldn’t do so for others.”
–Necessity is when there is no way to save both mother and child. Otherwise, it is merely convenience.
“Now this is just amusing – I hope that it helps you.”
—Indeed. A good laugh always helps me :)
“Any support for that? – yeah, everything I’ve said. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to follow that path. But as I said, there is no a valid reason on earth why you can make such a declaration for others. ”
—So, basically, no support at all? That’s what I thought. The rest of your comment completely ignores the fact that abortion kills an innocent child. Anybody with a conscience and an understanding of basic biology shouldn’t like abortion, and should actively oppose it.
It sounds to me like Reality wanted a vasectomy and used his vasectomy to convince his wife that she didn’t need a TL. – then you’ve been listening to the wrong voices haven’t you. It was her decision and I agreed to it.
If I were in that situation with my wife we would take ‘every’ precaution. – and that would be your and your wife’s choice. We had abortion as an option, you didn’t.
Has she done something seriously wrong, or is she simply exercising her reproductive rights? – depends on your perspective doesn’t it.
How far do we have to go? some of you people have demonstrated the lengths you’re willing to go to.
We might force them to get an ultrasound or something… ….even worse.
Does that mean it has lots of good jobs? – I don’t know about ‘lots’, how many is that. Whether they are ‘good’ depends on how you look at it.
Right to choose what? Which ice cream flavor they want to eat? I have no intention of removing that – that’s almost surprising :-) . You know which right we are discussing. Or have you forgotten?
You definitely don’t have powers of mental telepathy, – I don’t need them.
or adequate reading comprehension skills, for that matter. – no no, your message is quite clear.
Sometimes, abortions have to be performed if there is no way to save both mother and child. – and what if the fetus could be saved but not the woman?
So, the whole “pro-lifers care more about the fetus than the mother” myth is BS. – no, it’s self evident.
OF course vasectomies can fail, as can tubal ligations. They should still be done in order to greatly reduce the chance of pregnancy. – yes. But if they do fail, abortion is an option.
I have already discussed pregnancies in which the mother’s life is in danger. – do you think so?
Making the vast majority of abortions illegal does not put women at risk – you have no basis on which to make that claim.
Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher website admits that the vast majority of abortions are not done to preserve the health/life of the mother – they are only looking at the immediate risks.
Killing the fetus is legal, yes. So was slavery at one point. – no, you’ve got it wrong. It should be “Enforced gestation was legal. So was slavery.”
It was also legal to deny women the right to vote. – it was also legal to deny women autonomy and rights in regards to their own bodies and reproduction.
“Legal” does not always mean “right” or “moral”. – that’s for sure!
And here we go again the imaginary “anti-choice” nonsense invented by pro-aborts who are unable to adequately defend their positions – you are anti-choice. That is undeniable.
Insert “slavery” for “enforced gestation”, and you’ll sound just like a Civil War-era slave owner.
“Anti-choice” is a silly, inaccurate slur made up by pro-aborts who have trouble defending their position. – no, it’s highly accurate. You only say that because you cannot defend your position.
The vast majority of abortions do not save women’s lives. Abortions done to save the life of the mother are in a very small minority. – you simply cannot know that. You are only looking at the immediate.
The vast majority are done for convenience. – what you call convenience others call necessity. Who are you to judge.
Therefore, they are not a part of healthcare. Indeed, this is really not that complicated. – if they are performed to save the life, sanity or trauma of a woman, yes they are indeed.
Necessity is when there is no way to save both mother and child. Otherwise, it is merely convenience. – and if the fetus could be saved but not the woman?
So, basically, no support at all? That’s what I thought. – your thinking is wrong.
Anybody with a conscience and an understanding of basic biology shouldn’t like abortion, and should actively oppose it. – anybody with a conscience would give priority to women, not fetuses. And an understanding of basic biology says there’s nothing wrong with abortion.
“You know which right we are discussing. Or have you forgotten?”
–You mean the right not to be dismembered in the womb? ;)
“and what if the fetus could be saved but not the woman?”
—If the mother cannot be saved, and if it’s too early in the pregnancy for the baby to survive outside the womb, the child will die with her. If the child is developed enough, he/she can be delivered early.
“I have already discussed pregnancies in which the mother’s life is in danger. – do you think so?”
–I know so. If you had actually read and understood my comments, you would realize that.
““Anti-choice” is a silly, inaccurate slur made up by pro-aborts who have trouble defending their position. – no, it’s highly accurate. You only say that because you cannot defend your position.”
–I have been defending my position in every comment I’ve made. I’ve based my arguments on basic biological concepts. It is unfortunate that they have gone over your head, but that is not my fault. Perhaps you should try opening a biology textbook so that you can follow my arguments more easily.
“you are anti-choice. That is undeniable.”
–What is undeniable is the fact that there is no such thing as “anti-choice”. It’s just another myth made up by pro-aborts such as yourself.
What is also undeniable is your poor understanding (or perhaps a purposeful misunderstanding) of the pro-life movement.
“what you call convenience others call necessity. Who are you to judge.”
—When I was a little girl, I probably considered a Barbie doll to be a necessity. That did not make it so.
Who are you to say that innocent children deserve to die for the convenience of others?
“It should be “Enforced gestation was legal. So was slavery.”
–When has it been legal to forcibly impregnate women? That is the only way you can have enforced gestation.
“anybody with a conscience would give priority to women, not fetuses. ”
—No, anybody with a conscience (and basic understanding of biology) would consider them equal. Innocent people do not deserve to die for the convenience of others.
“And an understanding of basic biology says there’s nothing wrong with abortion.”
—Actually, it’s quite the opposite. Basic biology tells us that a human life begins at conception. Pro-aborts seem to have difficulty with that concept, or they choose to ignore it.
You mean the right not to be dismembered in the womb? – no, the right for a woman to avoid death, insanity or trauma by having access to abortion.
I know so – partially.
I have been defending my position in every comment I’ve made. – without success.
I’ve based my arguments on basic biological concepts. – not quite. You keep using the term ‘basic biology’ without actually demonstrating how it supports your argument.
It is unfortunate that they have gone over your head, but that is not my fault. – it is your fault, because as I explain above, all you’ve done is bandy the term about.
Perhaps you should try opening a biology textbook so that you can follow my arguments more easily. – again, what is your argument? Just saying ‘basic biology’ is meaningless.
What is undeniable is the fact that there is no such thing as “anti-choice”. It’s just another myth made up by pro-aborts such as yourself. – that is far from accurate. You seek to deny women a legal and valid choice.
Who are you to say that innocent children deserve to die for the convenience of others? – I don’t.
When has it been legal to forcibly impregnate women? – I didn’t say that.
That is the only way you can have enforced gestation – you are far from correct. The impregnation may not be enforced but denying access to abortion is enforcing gestation.
No, anybody with a conscience (and basic understanding of biology) would consider them equal. – then they need to revisit their conscience and their study.
Actually, it’s quite the opposite. Basic biology tells us that a human life begins at conception. – and?
Pro-aborts seem to have difficulty with that concept, or they choose to ignore it. – not this pro-choicer.
“no, the right for a woman to avoid death, insanity or trauma by having access to abortion.”
—We’ve already discussed abortions done to save the life of the mother. As for avoiding insanity— seriously? Abortion has actually contributed to depression and other psychiatric issues in women. Just look at Silent No More. Abortion does not help women to “avoid insanity”.
“I have been defending my position in every comment I’ve made. – without success.”
—I am not responsible for your inability to understand basic biological concepts.
” not quite. You keep using the term ‘basic biology’ without actually demonstrating how it supports your argument.”
—Oh, yes I have. If you had been paying attention, you would realize that. But, here we go again: basic biology tells us that a human life starts at conception. (Any embryology textbook will tell you that). Therefore, abortion kills a human being.
“it is your fault, because as I explain above, all you’ve done is bandy the term about.”
–So, basically, you’re blaming me for your poor understanding of human development. Take some responsibility and read an embryology textbook. Educate yourself.
“again, what is your argument? Just saying ‘basic biology’ is meaningless.”
—I’m not sure what part of the phrase “basic biology” is giving you difficulty.
“Who are you to say that innocent children deserve to die for the convenience of others? – I don’t.”
—You do if you support legalized abortion.
“You seek to deny women a legal and valid choice.”
—Abortion may be legal, but that does not make it valid. Laws are not always correct.
“The impregnation may not be enforced but denying access to abortion is enforcing gestation.”
—No, it’s not. Denying access to abortion = denying access to a method of killing an innocent child.
“Actually, it’s quite the opposite. Basic biology tells us that a human life begins at conception. – and?”
—and abortion kills a human being. Which is why pro-lifers oppose abortion.
“Pro-aborts seem to have difficulty with that concept, or they choose to ignore it. – not this pro-choicer. ”
—Your comments here suggest otherwise. If you truly understood it, you would not support legalized abortion.