Fanatical religious terrorist incident Colorado Springs.

[IndyDave1776]

Stop Dave, just stop!!!

Is this what you're looking for?

 

[cobber]

While we are on this tangent, 'viability' tends to be the favorite talking point. How many newborns are self-sufficient? Five year olds? The same reasoning would seem to justify the liquidation of any child not capable of making his or her own way in the world.

View attachment 43259

Look viable to you?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

While I am not actually advocating the idea, my point is to draw attention to the fact that it is frighteningly common for people to advocate and/or tolerate things done to others that they would certainly not accept being done to themselves. Given that this subset of the population has taken the position of telling us first, that a baby is NOT a life until it passes through the birth canal, then that it is an infringement on supposed rights found in the blank spaces between the lines of the Constitution to pass legislation against killing a child in the process of being born, that is it not acceptable to legislate protections for children born alive after failure to abort prior to live delivery, and in all cases perfectly acceptable to part them out, my challenge to them is to provide me with a reasonable explanation of why they should be exempt from the same treatment that they not only issue, but claim a right more solid than that of enumerated natural rights found in the Constitution to issue to others.

While we are on this tangent, 'viability' tends to be the favorite talking point. How many newborns are self-sufficient? Five year olds? The same reasoning would seem to justify the liquidation of any child not capable of making his or her own way in the world.

In the end, my question is why anyone should expect to be afforded different treatment that he would endorse for others.

Back earlier in the 20th century, there were many that believed if your burden on society was greater than your worth, if you could not state your case as to why you're worth keeping around, you should be allowed to die. These were the same people that believed certain groups of people were inferior and if we could control their populations, society would be better. They got that second part actualized, probably mostly because it was aimed at minorities. That first part though, that one hit a little too close to home for the majority, I'm thinking.

 

[Denny347]

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's easy.
As long as it's behavior or rhetoric that is unattractive, it is defined as "conservative," even when liberals and far leftists are the ones who behave that way or use that rhetoric.

Like (speaking generally): being pro-life, religious, opposing big government, having family based values, and having a strong sense of nationalism? I don't consider any of those unattractive, in and of themselves. However, it is the degree one is willing to take those beliefs that can, like anything, make it unattractive.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You have a point.

I appreciate the fairness in thought. Tried to rep, but couldn't.

 

[chipbennett]

Like (speaking generally): being pro-life, religious, opposing big government, having family based values, and having a strong sense of nationalism? I don't consider any of those unattractive, in and of themselves. However, it is the degree one is willing to take those beliefs that can, like anything, make it unattractive.

Even speaking generally (i.e. not about this particular murderer): being religious, opposing big government, having family based values, and having a strong sense of nationalism are not monopolized by the right. Being pro-life essentially is; well, to be more precise: the right tend to be anti-baby-murder and pro-death-penalty, while the left tend to be pro-baby-murder and anti-death-penalty. There is crossover among those who support both, as well as among those who oppose both.

 

[PaulF]

While I am not actually advocating the idea, my point is to draw attention to the fact that it is frighteningly common for people to advocate and/or tolerate things done to others that they would certainly not accept being done to themselves. Given that this subset of the population has taken the position of telling us first, that a baby is NOT a life until it passes through the birth canal, then that it is an infringement on supposed rights found in the blank spaces between the lines of the Constitution to pass legislation against killing a child in the process of being born, that is it not acceptable to legislate protections for children born alive after failure to abort prior to live delivery, and in all cases perfectly acceptable to part them out, my challenge to them is to provide me with a reasonable explanation of why they should be exempt from the same treatment that they not only issue, but claim a right more solid than that of enumerated natural rights found in the Constitution to issue to others.

While we are on this tangent, 'viability' tends to be the favorite talking point. How many newborns are self-sufficient? Five year olds? The same reasoning would seem to justify the liquidation of any child not capable of making his or her own way in the world.

In the end, my question is why anyone should expect to be afforded different treatment that he would endorse for others.

You seek to use government to force other people, primarily women, to live against their conscience to appease your own sense of morality. Think that over for a minute.

The anti-choice side of this argument is objectively not pro-life....they are merely pro-birth. These people want to use pregnancy as a bludgeon to force women to behave in ways that conform to beliefs that run counter to that woman's own beliefs. By equating abortion to murder, they hope to shame women into abstaining from sex (except in circumstances beneficial for people other than the woman), they hope to keep women servile and complacent. Limiting access to abortion is not about "saving lives", it is about controlling women...Let's face it, we have been here before. Prior to Roe V Wade abortion was illegal in the US. Oddly enough, there were no shortages of abortions and abortion attempts. Wealthy women have the option to go overseas, or to hire "discrete" medical services, while women of lesser means were often faced with a real dilemma...carry a baby they don't want, or cannot care for, or are simply not ready for...or hurt themselves in an attempt to abort. Prior to RvW it was a relatively common occurrence for women to lose their reproductive abilities or even their lives in botched abortion attempts. Obviously, the unborn died as well. Illegal abortion does not "save babies"...it kills pregnant women.

You and your ilk want to go back to these days...how very pro-life of you...?

Dave, I am a pragmatist, not an idealist.

What goes on inside a woman's body is the business of that woman...not you, not me, not the government.

As a religious person, don't you take solice in knowing that the woman will face "judgement" by your god for her decisions? If she is willing to face those risks, what difference does it make to you? Why do you need to enforce your will over her in this life? Won't your god do that for all of eternity?

I love how people on this forum are all laissez-faire until it comes to what happens inside someone else's body...then they want control.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You seek to use government to force other people, primarily women, to live against their conscience to appease your own sense of morality. Think that over for a minute.

The anti-choice side of this argument is objectively not pro-life....they are merely pro-birth. These people want to use pregnancy as a bludgeon to force women to behave in ways that conform to beliefs that run counter to that woman's own beliefs. By equating abortion to murder, they hope to shame women into abstaining from sex (except in circumstances beneficial for people other than the woman), they hope to keep women servile and complacent. Limiting access to abortion is not about "saving lives", it is about controlling women...Let's face it, we have been here before. Prior to Roe V Wade abortion was illegal in the US. Oddly enough, there were no shortages of abortions and abortion attempts. Wealthy women have the option to go overseas, or to hire "discrete" medical services, while women of lesser means were often faced with a real dilemma...carry a baby they don't want, or cannot care for, or are simply not ready for...or hurt themselves in an attempt to abort. Prior to RvW it was a relatively common occurrence for women to lose their reproductive abilities or even their lives in botched abortion attempts. Obviously, the unborn died as well. Illegal abortion does not "save babies"...it kills pregnant women.

You and your ilk want to go back to these days...how very pro-life of you...?

Dave, I am a pragmatist, not an idealist.

What goes on inside a woman's body is the business of that woman...not you, not me, not the government.

As a religious person, don't you take solice in knowing that the woman will face "judgement" by your god for her decisions? If she is willing to face those risks, what difference does it make to you? Why do you need to enforce your will over her in this life? Won't your god do that for all of eternity?

I love how people on this forum are all laissez-faire until it comes to what happens inside someone else's body...then they want control.

The crux of the problem is people that believe like me believe the unborn child is a human life. It is a human life that is entitled to the same rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as any other person. No matter what conditions the mother finds herself in, it is in no way the fault of the child. The child is the innocent of innocents and should not pay for others' problems with its life.

Whereas people that believe as you do believe one person's life, liberty, and PoH is more valuable than others.

Unless and until we can come to an agreement that the unborn child is a human life, entitled to the same rights as any other person, this debate cannot be settled. I am heartened to see that the tide appears to be turning in America.

 

[chipbennett]

You seek to use government to force other people, primarily women, to live against their conscience to appease your own sense of morality. Think that over for a minute.

The anti-choice side of this argument is objectively not pro-life....they are merely pro-birth. These people want to use pregnancy as a bludgeon to force women to behave in ways that conform to beliefs that run counter to that woman's own beliefs. By equating abortion to murder, they hope to shame women into abstaining from sex (except in circumstances beneficial for people other than the woman), they hope to keep women servile and complacent. Limiting access to abortion is not about "saving lives", it is about controlling women...Let's face it, we have been here before. Prior to Roe V Wade abortion was illegal in the US. Oddly enough, there were no shortages of abortions and abortion attempts. Wealthy women have the option to go overseas, or to hire "discrete" medical services, while women of lesser means were often faced with a real dilemma...carry a baby they don't want, or cannot care for, or are simply not ready for...or hurt themselves in an attempt to abort. Prior to RvW it was a relatively common occurrence for women to lose their reproductive abilities or even their lives in botched abortion attempts. Obviously, the unborn died as well. Illegal abortion does not "save babies"...it kills pregnant women.

You and your ilk want to go back to these days...how very pro-life of you...?

Dave, I am a pragmatist, not an idealist.

What goes on inside a woman's body is the business of that woman...not you, not me, not the government.

As a religious person, don't you take solice in knowing that the woman will face "judgement" by your god for her decisions? If she is willing to face those risks, what difference does it make to you? Why do you need to enforce your will over her in this life? Won't your god do that for all of eternity?

I love how people on this forum are all laissez-faire until it comes to what happens inside someone else's body...then they want control.

Was this post really necessary? All it serves to do is to attempt to inflame a discussion thread that was not inflamed. This thread has had nothing to do with the morality of abortion, and having it devolve into that debate at this point would serve no useful purpose.

Please don't attempt to derail the discussion with non sequitur and ad hominem.

 

[PaulF]

The crux of the problem is people that believe like me believe the unborn child is a human life. It is a human life that is entitled to the same rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as any other person. No matter what conditions the mother finds herself in, it is in no way the fault of the child. The child is the innocent of innocents and should not pay for others' problems with its life.

Whereas people that believe as you do believe one person's life, liberty, and PoH is more valuable than others.

Unless and until we can come to an agreement that the unborn child is a human life, entitled to the same rights as any other person, this debate cannot be settled. I am heartened to see that the tide appears to be turning in America.

With all due respect sir, you likely think "the tide is turning" for the same reasons you thought Romney would win by a landslide...you live within an echo chamber.

Legal abortion isn't going anywhere in the US.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

With all due respect sir, you likely think "the tide is turning" for the same reasons you thought Romney would win by a landslide...you live within an echo chamber.

Legal abortion isn't going anywhere in the US.

No. Polls are showing Americans are increasingly less sympathic towards abortion. If we can ever get real, Constitutional--original intent, oriented judges appointed to the SC, ones that would over turn follies such as RvW, Kelo, ObamaCare I and II, I think you'd see many states outlaw abortion. There'd be some that would keep it, so you're right -- but this is a state issue anyway.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Was this post really necessary? All it serves to do is to attempt to inflame a discussion thread that was not inflamed. This thread has had nothing to do with the morality of abortion, and having it devolve into that debate at this point would serve no useful purpose.

Please don't attempt to derail the discussion with non sequitur and ad hominem.

Good point, Chip. And I rose to the bait. I'm done with this portion of the discussion.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[PaulF]

Was this post really necessary? All it serves to do is to attempt to inflame a discussion thread that was not inflamed. This thread has had nothing to do with the morality of abortion, and having it devolve into that debate at this point would serve no useful purpose.

Please don't attempt to derail the discussion with non sequitur and ad hominem.

LOL...kettle, meet pot.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Hey he had his first court hearing yesterday.

Robert Lewis Dear, accused Planned Parenthood shooter, makes first court appearance - CBS News
Planned Parenthood shooting suspect appears in court in front of relatives of victims

President speaking right now about this, continues the "This just doesn't happen in other countries" nonsense. Says Govt has the power to prevent gun homicides. Then said "I'm confident in the wisdom of the American people" to not elect a Republican to succeed him. Also just said Planned Parenthood is the only women's health outlet for the poor (Lie). Calls for national conversation on abortion. And says groups like Planned Parenthood are important.

http://www.msnbc.com/shift/watch/live-pres-obama-holds-paris-press-conf-577058883922?cid=sm_tw_msnbc

 

[IndyDave1776]

You seek to use government to force other people, primarily women, to live against their conscience to appease your own sense of morality. Think that over for a minute.

The anti-choice side of this argument is objectively not pro-life....they are merely pro-birth. These people want to use pregnancy as a bludgeon to force women to behave in ways that conform to beliefs that run counter to that woman's own beliefs. By equating abortion to murder, they hope to shame women into abstaining from sex (except in circumstances beneficial for people other than the woman), they hope to keep women servile and complacent. Limiting access to abortion is not about "saving lives", it is about controlling women...Let's face it, we have been here before. Prior to Roe V Wade abortion was illegal in the US. Oddly enough, there were no shortages of abortions and abortion attempts. Wealthy women have the option to go overseas, or to hire "discrete" medical services, while women of lesser means were often faced with a real dilemma...carry a baby they don't want, or cannot care for, or are simply not ready for...or hurt themselves in an attempt to abort. Prior to RvW it was a relatively common occurrence for women to lose their reproductive abilities or even their lives in botched abortion attempts. Obviously, the unborn died as well. Illegal abortion does not "save babies"...it kills pregnant women.

You and your ilk want to go back to these days...how very pro-life of you...?

Dave, I am a pragmatist, not an idealist.

What goes on inside a woman's body is the business of that woman...not you, not me, not the government.

As a religious person, don't you take solice in knowing that the woman will face "judgement" by your god for her decisions? If she is willing to face those risks, what difference does it make to you? Why do you need to enforce your will over her in this life? Won't your god do that for all of eternity?

I love how people on this forum are all laissez-faire until it comes to what happens inside someone else's body...then they want control.

Paul, you have to understand that your position is predicated on the notion that an unborn child is NOT a human being. If one believes that an unborn child is a human being, then that makes abortion nothing more than a contentious subset of premeditated murder.

It would make my life much simpler politically and philosophically if I could honestly believe that life starts at launch rather than conception, but I simply can't for a variety of reasons.

At the political level, I consider the argument to be severely twisted. The talking point is that it is all about controlling a woman and/or denying her the right to make her own choices. My problem with this is that we are discussing not what a woman does to her own body but rather the killing of a separate and distinct second person. Again, if I were to subscribe to the arguments used to justify it, I could just as easily justify killing any already born child not capable of making his own way independent of parental support.

While I understand that this is not relevant to your evaluation of the matter, I would also point out that the often abused passage of scripture referring to an 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' is limited to the event of a causing an unborn child to be either injured or killed. While the passage is narrowly focused, it stands in evidence so far as I can discern, that an unborn child is a life and is valued by its Creator. That said, accepting abortion as right and proper would also require abandoning my system of faith.

In the end, abortion is not a matter of a woman's right over her own body but rather over her right to kill another individual who had no choice in his or her procreation and had no choice in the decision that he or she be killed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You seek to use government to force other people, primarily women, to live against their conscience to appease your own sense of morality. Think that over for a minute.

The anti-choice side of this argument is objectively not pro-life....they are merely pro-birth. These people want to use pregnancy as a bludgeon to force women to behave in ways that conform to beliefs that run counter to that woman's own beliefs. By equating abortion to murder, they hope to shame women into abstaining from sex (except in circumstances beneficial for people other than the woman), they hope to keep women servile and complacent. Limiting access to abortion is not about "saving lives", it is about controlling women...Let's face it, we have been here before. Prior to Roe V Wade abortion was illegal in the US. Oddly enough, there were no shortages of abortions and abortion attempts. Wealthy women have the option to go overseas, or to hire "discrete" medical services, while women of lesser means were often faced with a real dilemma...carry a baby they don't want, or cannot care for, or are simply not ready for...or hurt themselves in an attempt to abort. Prior to RvW it was a relatively common occurrence for women to lose their reproductive abilities or even their lives in botched abortion attempts. Obviously, the unborn died as well. Illegal abortion does not "save babies"...it kills pregnant women.

You and your ilk want to go back to these days...how very pro-life of you...?

Dave, I am a pragmatist, not an idealist.

What goes on inside a woman's body is the business of that woman...not you, not me, not the government.

As a religious person, don't you take solice in knowing that the woman will face "judgement" by your god for her decisions? If she is willing to face those risks, what difference does it make to you? Why do you need to enforce your will over her in this life? Won't your god do that for all of eternity?

I love how people on this forum are all laissez-faire until it comes to what happens inside someone else's body...then they want control.

Excellent post

 

[Kutnupe14]

Even speaking generally (i.e. not about this particular murderer): being religious, opposing big government, having family based values, and having a strong sense of nationalism are not monopolized by the right. Being pro-life essentially is; well, to be more precise: the right tend to be anti-baby-murder and pro-death-penalty, while the left tend to be pro-baby-murder and anti-death-penalty. There is crossover among those who support both, as well as among those who oppose both.

Just like conservatives don't have a monopoly on pro-gun beliefs; yet anyone who is anti-gun is most often considered liberal. No one person can be pigeonholed in to accepting all the beliefs from the ideology they identify with.

 

[hoosierdoc]

You seek to use government to force other people, primarily women, to live against their conscience to appease your own sense of morality. Think that over for a minute.

The anti-choice side of this argument is objectively not pro-life....they are merely pro-birth. These people want to use pregnancy as a bludgeon to force women to behave in ways that conform to beliefs that run counter to that woman's own beliefs. By equating abortion to murder, they hope to shame women into abstaining from sex (except in circumstances beneficial for people other than the woman), they hope to keep women servile and complacent. Limiting access to abortion is not about "saving lives", it is about controlling women...Let's face it, we have been here before. Prior to Roe V Wade abortion was illegal in the US. Oddly enough, there were no shortages of abortions and abortion attempts. Wealthy women have the option to go overseas, or to hire "discrete" medical services, while women of lesser means were often faced with a real dilemma...carry a baby they don't want, or cannot care for, or are simply not ready for...or hurt themselves in an attempt to abort. Prior to RvW it was a relatively common occurrence for women to lose their reproductive abilities or even their lives in botched abortion attempts. Obviously, the unborn died as well. Illegal abortion does not "save babies"...it kills pregnant women.

PaulF, for a moderator you can be one of the most inflammatory posters on this forum. This post is off topic, extremely inflammatory, personally vindictive, and just plain wrong.

When the the mods post crap like this it's time to lock the thread.