patrick.net

socal2 says

I am confident that most pro-Abortion folks will be deeply ashamed of their ignorance.

Yeah for sure something is definately out of whack.

I know damn well, that if the Right didn't have a religious tone for being opponents of abortions, and "family planning" was their idea.

The Left would be all over them accuseing them of trying to breed out minorities or prohibit them from reproducing. And they would be calling abortions the murder that they can be. Depending on the view you want to take.

If you reckon your self a trendy hipster that knows every damn thing, then abortions are perfectly fine, and it's the rest of the world that has a problem with it. If you look at people as people, then it is what is. Murdering another human being.

I actually turned 45 and 9 months on my last birthday, not 45.
That has a lot to do with it. If we identified people's age according to conception, abortion would be a cut and dry MURDER wrap.

socal2 says

You and Leo really think you've made a clever point?

Not really just an obvious one.

socal2 says

So folks who are against the Iraq and Afghan wars need to start bombing the Pentagon or they are the "scum of the earth" for letting all that murder to take place?

You are comparing apples to oranges. Disagreeing with if we should be at war or not is not analogous to the legalized wholesale slaughter of young children.

How about this old question:

"You are exiting a burning hospital just before it collapses into a pile of rubble killing everyone left inside. Before you is a crying newborn baby in it's hospital bassinet. Next to the baby is a container with 100 live embryos slated for implantation into women. You can only carry one. Do you save the 100 embryos or the baby?"

socal2 says

I am confident that most pro-Abortion folks will be deeply ashamed of their ignorance.

You mean they will be almost as ashamed as the anti-choice people are in their willingness to sit on the sidelines when they see a holocaust killing tens of millions of babies in progress.

socal2 says

Virtually every European country limits abortion to 13-15 weeks...

And you think that this is reasonable?

socal2 says

...but the moral monsters (or scientifically illiterate) folks who make up the bulk of the Democrat party are hell bent on the ability to destroy their unborn babies at any time on demand.

No one, and certainly not "the bulk of the Democrat[s]", is arguing that abortion should be "at any time on demand."

leo707 says

How about this old question:

"You are exiting a burning hospital just before it collapses into a pile of
rubble killing everyone left inside. Before you is a crying newborn baby in it's
hospital bassinet. Next to the baby is a container with 100 live embryos slated
for implantation into women. You can only carry one. Do you save the 100 embryos
or the baby?"

Yet another stupid hypothetical. The pro-abortion crowd is running out of material. Better to stick to the "war on women" meme.

Of course you take the live baby as the other embroyos can't feel pain or nearly as developed as the live baby. The live baby also presumably has living parents who procreated and sacrificed to bring that baby to full term.

leo707 says

No one, and certainly not "the bulk of the Democrat[s]", is arguing that
abortion should be "at any
time on demand."

Didn't the Democrats just try to filibuster limiting abortions to 20 weeks in Texas a few weeks ago? That law had exceptions for the health of the mother and baby. But even that common sense restriction is too much for the party of death that wants to use abortion as a form of contraception up through the 3rd trimester.

Our President voted against the born alive bill in the Illinois Senate that would have protected viable babies who survived abortion attempts.

As I said earlier, I sure as shit am not going to take any moral scolding from the Democrat party who still hold onto caveman beliefs that unborn babies are nothing more significant than a tumor.

socal2 says

Yet another stupid hypothetical.

OK, but it demonstrates that you would save 1 life over 100 lives.

socal2 says

Of course you take the live baby as the other embroyos can't feel pain or nearly as developed as the live baby.

Hmmm...what makes you think embryos can feel as much pain? Isn't a lot of your augment based on the idea that embryos feel pain?

So if there were 3 newborns that you could pile up in their arms vs. one 6 year-old; you would leave the new borns and save the one "more developed" 6 year-old?

socal2 says

The live baby also presumably has living parents who procreated and sacrificed to bring that baby to full term.

?

The embryos would have living parents who procreated and sacrificed to give them life. Are you saying that there is a difference between a full-term baby and an embryo, such that the embryo's life is worth less? Worth less than 1/100th of the life of a newborn?

What if it were 1,000 embryo's, are they still worth less than 1 newborn? 1,000,000 embryo's? How many embryo's would you need to save for it to be worth more than 1 newborn?

You wail and gnash your teeth at the though of 55,000,000 "babies" being murdered. You should put an asterisk next to that number that indicates the real value you put on all those lives is somewhere less than one living newborn baby.

socal2 says

Didn't the Democrats just try to filibuster limiting abortions to 20 weeks in Texas a few weeks ago?

OK, but this is not only a far cry from your claim that Democrats want "any time on demand" abortions.

socal2 says

But even that common sense restriction is too much for the party of death that wants to use abortion as a form of contraception up through the 3rd trimester.

Citation?

socal2 says

As I said earlier, I sure as shit am not going to take any moral scolding from the Democrat party who still hold onto caveman beliefs that unborn babies are nothing more significant than a tumor.

So, you feel you get the moral high-ground because you believe that unborn babies are slightly more significant than a tumor, but far...far less significant than an actual baby.

Funny...

leo707 says

Hmmm...what makes you think embryos can feel as much pain? Isn't a lot of your
augment based on the idea that embryos feel pain?

There are plenty of studies establishing when unborn babies can feel pain and their viability. That is how I make my determination in your goofy hypothetical.

Did you read any of the gruesome testimony of the Gosnell case where witnesses saw and heard babies crying during the partial birth abortions?

Do you favor any restrictions on abortion? Can a woman abort her baby a day before her due date? If not, why not?

leo707 says

What if it were 1,000 embryo's, are they still worth less than 1 newborn? 1,000,000 embryo's? How many embryo's would you need to save for it to be worth more than 1 newborn?

Please get back to me on this so we can crunch the numbers and see if you should recant your rantings and start fighting for the pro-choice camp.

Because -- as I am sure you know -- live birth is far more dangerous than legal abortion. By letting people have abortions you are reducing the number of people that die from child birth/pregnancy. If you can figure out how many embryos' death is worth saving one born live human then we can see if abortion should be morally justifies in your somewhat morally plastic view of the world.

leo707 says

Citation?

Why do you need a citation?

The national Democrat party are against ANY restrictions on our current abortion laws.

WTF do you think the whole "War on Women" meme is about?

God forbid the US be a bit more like those civilized Europeans and limit murdering our unborn babies once they reach viability.

leo707 says

Because -- as I am sure you know -- live birth is far more dangerous than legal
abortion.

Not for the baby. Nor is late term abortion safer for the Mother than giving birth, look at the Gosnell case and the women he killed.

You are simply incapable of even considering that there is another life at stake.

What are the major biological difference between a baby at 25 weeks in the womb and 36 weeks outside of the womb? Both babies are viable outside the womb but will need massive life nurturing assistance from the mother or State to survive.

I guess you can just rely on the out of sight out of mind defense and stay ignorant of human biology and development.

socal2 says

Do you favor any restrictions on abortion? Can a woman abort her baby a day before her due date? If not, why not?

Of course I do support restrictions on abortion, as do 99% of people.

As for the rest of your questions I think that Dan covers it pretty well in his abortion thread:
http://patrick.net/?p=1218980&page=1#comments

socal2 says

The national Democrat party are against ANY restrictions on our current abortion laws.

Assuming that this is true it is still a far cry from "on demand" abortions at any time.

socal2 says

Not for the baby.

The baby that you have admitted is worth to you some where less than 1/100th of a born living human.

I am curious how many embryos you would sacrifice to save one living born human.

Then we can quibble about when abortion is OK.

socal2 says

Nor is late term abortion safer for the Mother than giving birth, look at the Gosnell case and the women he killed.

Sure women die during abortions, but statistically far more women die during child birth. It is much more risky...

I eagerly await your answer on how many embryos you would let die to save a living born person.

leo707 says

Of course I do support restrictions on abortion, as do 99% of people.

Why do you support restrictions?

What's is your rational?

When do you draw the line?

socal2 says

leo707 says

Of course I do support restrictions on abortion, as do 99% of people.

Why do you support restrictions?

What's is your rational?

When do you draw the line?

leo707 says

As for the rest of your questions I think that Dan covers it pretty well in his abortion thread:

http://patrick.net/?p=1218980&page=1#comments

I eagerly await your answer on how many embryos you would let die to save a living born person.

I said it before and I will say it again. The best way to avoid having to make a "choice" is not to end up in this predicament in the first place. Use protection or better yet ahem finish up outside....

There are many problems with the whole abortion issue. Yes, abortion is technically murder and it is coldblooded to believe otherwise. However, the conservatives believe that we should teach people abstinence before marrage which is rather naive. Additionally, however many babies were aborted after rowe vs wade - we can clearly conclude that their parents didn't want them - what kind of life would they have had to be born to such callous parents? Also, crime and child abandonment would have obviously skyrocketed. Also, our economy is struggling as it is, could we have really cared for and provided for additional citizens via economic growth? Also, as horrific as abortion is, what stalin did was much much worse - murdered 20 millions soviet citizens - I know that some believe that it was him simply murdering political enemies because he was paranoid, but I believe that it was for more nefarious purposes - to send slave labor via gulags and remove surplus population from having to be fed.

As I said, the best thing to do is not to end up in this predicament. Use protection or finish up "outside." The DINKS who never had abortion are the true heroes, god bless them.

Dan8267 says

Republicans lie about science in order to confuse the public into believing that well-established scientific facts are still being openly debated. The purpose of these lies is to keep the government from solving urgent problem the Republicans don't want solved. As long as the illusion of debate persists, people are willing to postpone much needed action.

CaptainShuddup says

It must really suck that republicans keeps LIberal lies at bay enough to expose them as the fraud they are.

Climate change...

Thank you for demonstrating the point of the original post better than anyone could ask.

Dan, please watch this and respond. It is really long, but pretty cool.

http://www.kdlYP4svUAM&list=WL25B106E99C4BFA5D

leo707 says

Why do you support restrictions?

What's is your rational?

When do you draw the line?

leo707
says

As for the rest of your questions I think that Dan covers it pretty well in
his abortion thread:

Sorry Leo - can't be bothered to troll through another thread to get an answer from you.

Seriously, can you help me out and answer these questions?

Why do you support restrictions?

What's is your rational?

When do you draw the line?

dublin hillz says

There are many problems with the whole abortion issue. Yes, abortion is
technically murder and it is coldblooded to believe otherwise. However, the
conservatives believe that we should teach people abstinence before marrage
which is rather naive. Additionally, however many babies were aborted after rowe
vs wade - we can clearly conclude that their parents didn't want them - what
kind of life would they have had to be born to such callous parents?

Come on, the majority of Conservatives are not against contraception. Some have issues in forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraception with Obamacare or having taxpayers provide it for free, but you will be hard pressed to find many Republicans who only support abstinence.

And what is wrong with adoption? There are millions of US families looking to adopt young American babies. I personally know 3 different families who had to go to Eastern Europe and China to adopt a young child. Yes - I know there are older kids in foster care who no one wants, but young healthy infants get piced up quick and is a great alternative to abortion - IMO.

socal2 says

Sorry Leo - can't be bothered to troll through another thread to get an answer from you.

Seriously, can you help me out and answer these questions?

When you can't be bothered to answer my simple question from this thread?

leo707 says

I eagerly await your answer on how many embryos you would let die to save a living born person.

We already have determined that you don't put the same value on the life of an unborn child as you put on a born living "more advanced" -- as you put -- human.

OK, I will make it simpler for you...

What would you drag out of a fire; 9091 embryos or a -- living, breathing, eating, talking, pleading for help -- live human?

socal2 says

Come on, the majority of Conservatives are not against contraception.

True, they are just against the idea that hormone driven, horny teenagers are taught that contraception exists.

socal2 says

And what is wrong with adoption?

Nothing.

Well...*er* that depends...

There can be a lot wrong with adoptions. Especially this kind-->

socal2 says

I personally know 3 different families who had to go to Eastern Europe and China to adopt a young child.

You may want to do a little research on what happens when wealthy foreigners bring a $40k stack of cash into a country where people slave away to make dollars a day, and they announce that they want to spend their cash to buy a healthy baby. The supply never meets that demand. I know...I know...it is hard to believe, but even poor people want to keep their healthy babies.

I suggest you start your research in Guatemala, once the most popular adoption destination for Americans.

Anyway...

socal2 says

Yes - I know there are older kids in foster care who no one wants, but young healthy infants get piced up quick and is a great alternative to abortion - IMO.

Yeah, we agree that adoption is a great alternative to abortion. If more Americans had otherwise healthy but unwanted kids (how many people are standing in like to adopt the child of a drug addicted prostitute) then that would mean that fewer Americans are out buying kidnapped babies on the international market.

There are some great kids in our shitty foster system, and if I was going to adopt I would foster-to-adopt. You can even do that with infants. Yes, there are some fucked up kids in our foster system, but any more fucked up than a Romanian kid who has lived years without leaving a crib or being touched by an adult?

I do think though that carrying a baby to term is no simple task, and for a myriad of reasons woman should be able to make that decision for themselves.

leo707 says

When you can't be bothered to answer my simple question from this thread?

Dude - I already answered your goofy burning building hypothetical. I admit that 20 week old VIABLE baby should have more legal protections than frozen embroyos or whatever. A baby at that stage can already feel pain and has a greater chance of survial. In a perfect world, I would want to save all of them. It's a no brainer.

I'll throw the same hypothetical back at you. If you are a supreme leader of an island responsible for maintaining a population, work and security and you could only save one person from a burning building, would you save a physically fit 20 year old who could provide you labor to support the island or save 2 year old child who will be a drain on your resources?

You earlier claimed that you favor restrictions on abortion. I really wonder why?

leo707 says

socal2 says

Come on, the majority of Conservatives are not against contraception.

True, they are just against the idea that hormone driven, horny teenagers are taught that contraception exists.

Sex education, contraception and abortion are more available now than at any time in our country's history. Agree?

Yet the out of wedlock birth rate has skyrocketed just in the last 30 years. Over 90% of black babies are born to single mothers and a near guaranteed poverty and a life of crime. The Hispanic community is over 50%.

Is the solution just to abort more black and hispanic babies? Should we teach 2nd graders how to put on condoms? Should we provide the pills in vending machines?

Maybe, just maybe our culture and sex-ed classes should teach our young hormone driven kids to be more careful and try to abstain from sex in addition to contraception?

The statistics don't lie. Increasing the availability of abortion, contraception and sex-ed has not put a dent into the illegitimate birth rate and the poverty and social dysfunction that follows. If anything it has increased reckless behavior.

We can thank Libs from the last few decades telling our culture that a single mother with help from the State and extended family is every bit as good as a 2 parent home.

Bap33 says

Dan, please watch this and respond. It is really long, but pretty cool.

The first 30 seconds of this video tell me all I need to know about it. Complete bullshit.

Dan8267 says

The first 30 seconds of this video tell me all I need to know about it. Complete bullshit.

I give it a lot more credence than the crap you linked.

indigenous says

I give it a lot more credence than the crap you linked.

Yes, I especially like the slide he puts up a slide with this line on it:

"reptilian entities here possess nefilim (?) bloodlines" (4:27)

He's definitely someone I'd follow.

tatupu70 says

Yes, I especially like the slide he puts up with this line on it:

"reptilian entities here possess nefilim (?) bloodlines" (4:27)

He's definitely someone I'd follow.

I know bat shit crazy right? Cept that is exactly how wars get started and endless other conflicts. You and your ilk against the monetarists, 2 sides of same coin.

The nefilim thing is another subject.

But compared to pedestrian BS that Dan8267 links it has more validity.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

The first 30 seconds of this video tell me all I need to know about it. Complete bullshit.

I give it a lot more credence than the crap you linked.

Which says more about you than me.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

Dan, please watch this and respond. It is really long, but pretty cool.

The first 30 seconds of this video tell me all I need to know about it. Complete bullshit.

oh, come on man, give it some time.

If you want me to sit through this dribble, you are going to have to tell me exactly what you want me to write about it.

Dan8267 says

If you want me to sit through this dribble, you are going to have to tell me exactly what you want me to write about it.

fair enough. The connection between world domination leaders, sodomy, and satanic ritual. He says Bush was one. It is near midway if I recall.
I dont follow this guy, I just found his dot-to-dot stuff interesting.

Dan8267 says

If you want me to sit through this dribble, you are going to have to tell me exactly what you want me to write about it.

Exactly what I asked you, but no answer.

Bap33 says

The connection between world domination leaders, sodomy, and satanic ritual.

There is none. The connection between high government officials is one of nepotism and money. That's all. Sex and satanism have nothing to do with it. It's all about greed, family, and small collations of men screwing over other men -- well, I guess you could call that a form of sodomy.

lol .... he goes off on sodomites and satanists ... calling daddy Bush the worst of the bunch