Abortion

apple0154 said:
Dogma? A woman who has birthed 3 children trying to explain the definition of birth to a grown man. An ignorant, belligerent one, no less.

The final straw was when I heard him ranting about a partial birth abortion and a toe getting caught. Rather than being a smart-ass it was evident he was an ignorant, dumb-ass buffoon. In those types of rare procedures the fetus is delivered feet first so it is impossible for the entire body of the fetus to be outside the woman except for a toe. I think he realized he made a jack-ass of himself as if you watch the video he doesn't look too happy when he finally sits down.

Maybe Ms. Boxer should have gone with the stork story. :D
Click to expand...

So you are ok with a child being birthed except for the head, a vacuum being jammend into the back of the skull, and sucking out the brain, then delivering the rest of the child so they can say it died inside the woman. If so can you explain how that saved the mothers life, and what specific medical emergancy that saved her from. Because that is the most barbaric thing I have ever heard of.
 
apple0154 said:
Armed up? Bags packed?

Do you mean like this?
(1:00 to 1:08)


Or do you mean like this? He's more conciliatory than a freshly spanked child. :lol:




What is wrong with you Right-wingers? Did you all take a batch of bad acid. Are you all in-bred? What the hell is the problem? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I love your post. I love what they are saying, but not recognizing. He is clearly a Fox News junkie.

It's not a bad acid trip. It's not in-bred. It's Fox News brainwash http://truth-out.org/news/item/1964:fourteen-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-to-brainwash-americans
 
apple0154 said:
Science. Science doesn't even know why 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort. Science has been shown to deny a mother possession of her own children. In another case science has been used to deny a mother food for her children claiming the children were not hers. In yet another case a social worker actually stood in the delivery room to witness a woman give birth because science "proved" she was merely a surrogate.

I suggest you come up with something better than that. Science does not know if the resulting conception, the cell, has the necessary material to be a human being. Science does not know if that particular cell has the necessary genetic material to become a human being. And don't tell me they all do because science does not know. And considering 50% spontaneously abort it's not only plausible half of the cells do not have the necessary material to become a human being it's quite possible they do not. So, you and science have proved nothing and as for science it's been used by overzealous, wanna-make-a-name-for-themselves authorities to destroy people's lives.

Try again.
Click to expand...
Still no actual argument. Science has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that an unborn is a human being from conception. I've yet to see you provide any evidence to support the ridiculous claim that the offspring of two human beings is something other than a human being at any point of development.
 
007 said:
The point was fascists like you attempted to murder his child , whose umbilical cord had been cut 2 days earlier.
Kennedy , a Fox News employee defended what he thought was his child from the two screeching union banshees who intended to abort the unborn.
He fought them off after they pushed him and the non existent child down the stairs.

Then after the assault on Kennedy and the non existent child, Kennedy was arrested and later indicted for child endangerment.

How could Kennedy endanger a child that does not exist?

How could the screeching banshee nurses be concerned for the well being of a child that foes not exist?

Why did the police arrest Kennedy for endangering a non existent child?
Why did the prosecutor press charges for the endangerment of a child that did not exist ?

Come on liberal liar?

Stop sidestepping.
Liberal unionized nurses .
Liberal unionised cops .
Liberal prosecutor.

All pushing the case!!!
But according to liberal bosses the child didnt exist ?

Now answer the fucking question!!!

How can YOU liberals charge someone with child endangerment when YOU liberals say that child does not exist?

Why are you afraid to answer the question?
Click to expand...

Obviously Liberals did believe a child existed. It's also obvious you are unable to understand Ms. Boxer's comments. That's two misunderstandings on your part. I'm disappointed in your performance. :(
 
007 said:
Liberals here and now, shown to be tyrants , liars and cowards!!

I fucking hate liberal tyrants, cowards and liars!!
This case, shows their inconsistent illogical dogma!
Thry attacked Kennedy because he worked for fox!
Click to expand...

Have you considered setting up a web site? Maybe "Nutters anonymous"?
 
patriot66 said:
I didn't say I was for abortion in any case, my daughter had anecephaly (look it up) which means she had no chance of life outside the womb, my wife had a chance of miscarriage, and death due to a certain heart condition and infection, our Pastor recomended an early induction of labor, and delivery, we agreed and the day of the induction they made my wife sign a paper saying what she was doing was an abortion even though life and death was already settled, while in the recovery room a young college student who had a drunken one night stand had just had an abortion, and was already talking about going out that night,and partying, yes the same night she murdered a life, again my wife was devestated, see we wanted our child,and here this little tramp couldn't wait to go out and do it again.
Click to expand...

My condolences on your wife's health.

That said, calling a young girl a tramp is not becoming. I'm sure she never intended on becoming pregnant and partying does not necessarily mean pregnancy.
 
patriot66 said:
So you are ok with a child being birthed except for the head, a vacuum being jammend into the back of the skull, and sucking out the brain, then delivering the rest of the child so they can say it died inside the woman. If so can you explain how that saved the mothers life, and what specific medical emergancy that saved her from. Because that is the most barbaric thing I have ever heard of.
Click to expand...

As I said before I would recommend euthanizing the fetus first. As far as the procdure is concerned it's done for a serious reason. There are laws governing the length of pregnancy vis-a-vis abortions so I would need to know the reason before offering an informed opinion. You might do well to do the same.
 
007 said:
Nothing apple?
Hypocrisy lies, and lack of logic got you bogged down???
Click to expand...

Actually I had a lazy day yesterday. I think I might be coming down with a cold but the meds I take alter the symptoms. None of the usual headache, runny nose, congestion. Just extremely tired. I slept a total of 13 hours out of 24. But thank-you for your concern. :)
 
Anti-Party said:
I love your post. I love what they are saying, but not recognizing. He is clearly a Fox News junkie.

It's not a bad acid trip. It's not in-bred. It's Fox News brainwash http://truth-out.org/news/item/1964:fourteen-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-to-brainwash-americans
Click to expand...

Excellent article! (Excerpt) In considering these tactics and their possible effects on American public discourse, it is important to note that historically, those who've genuinely accessed truth have never berated those who did not. You don't get honored by history when you beat up your opponent: look at Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln. These men did not find the need to engage in othering, ad homeinum attacks, guilt by association or bullying. This is because when a person has accessed a truth, they are not threatened by the opposing views of others. This reality reveals the righteous indignation of people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as a symptom of untruth. These individuals are hostile and angry precisely because they don't feel confident in their own veracity. And in general, the more someone is losing their temper in a debate and the more intolerant they are of listening to others, the more you can be certain they do not know what they're talking about. (End)

That couldn't be more obvious than seeing some of the right wing posts/posters here. It's a virtual meltdown. And that Yeager guy.....no wonder they took his carry permit. If he thinks government is intrusive he can bet he's being watched now. All doubt has been removed.
 
apple0154 said:
I understood you to be saying unique DNA unequivocally proves the existence of a human being. Therefore, there are only two possible conclusions one can draw. One is the woman in question must be two human beings or you're full of sh!t.
Click to expand...

????...you mean the third possible explanation isn't as obvious to you as it is to all of our readers?......not only does DNA unique from her mother's prove that this woman was unequivocally proven to be a human being prior to birth, but the fact that she has two distinct DNA types in her system proves both that the deceased twin from which she received it was also unique from both her and her mother and that this surviving sibling is very unique, being one of only thirty know cases in the entire world.......thus, I am not full of shit and her unique DNA still proves she is a human being........a third possibility......
 
So the Kennedy child existed even though it wasn't born?

According to Boxers statement about when life begins.
You said she told a story, she did not, you are lying.

Unless you can show, in the video WHERE she told this story and offer a transcript?

You can't?

Liar!!

Her statement was that life begins " when the child is born, when it gets home, then it belongs to its family"!!!

Who does the child belong to before it gets home and is recognized as a life?
Just a nice logical answer!
You clearly agree with your liberal leaders on this!
 
WoLong said:
Still no actual argument. Science has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that an unborn is a human being from conception. I've yet to see you provide any evidence to support the ridiculous claim that the offspring of two human beings is something other than a human being at any point of development.
Click to expand...

No, science has not proven that. Are you blind to nature? Besides 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously aborting we have babies produced with multiple legs, some missing a major part of the brain, etc. For one to assume every fertilized cell contains the proper ingredients to become a human being they have to ignore reality. It is one thing to say a human being started out as a fertilized cell and quite another to say all fertilized cells are human beings. All doctors started out in Grade One but not everyone in Grade One will become a doctor. And after all the mistakes that have been made regarding just what DNA can and can not determine, as I listed in a previous post, it's nothing but outrageous to offer up DNA as a reason to interfere in the most private aspects of a woman's life.

As for my claiming the offspring of human beings is not a human being I never said nor inplied that. What I have said/implied is not all fertilized cells are offspring. They are human material. Not little boys and girls. That's why two fertilized cells can combine forming ONE offspring resulting in a baby with two differing DNAs. To imply one human being somehow swallowed or melded another human being into themselves is science fiction, not science. It was the combining of human material, not human beings. Good grief.
 
WoLong said:
No they don't. Please reference where we're guaranteed this 'right' to do as we wish with our bodies.
Click to expand...

It is a right whether or not it's written in law. Just as not being a slave is right whether or not it's written in law. Ones choice of religion and practice is a right even though it's not lawful everywhere in the world.

There is a difference between what's a right and what's lawful.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????...you mean the third possible explanation isn't as obvious to you as it is to all of our readers?......not only does DNA unique from her mother's prove that this woman was unequivocally proven to be a human being prior to birth, but the fact that she has two distinct DNA types in her system proves both that the deceased twin from which she received it was also unique from both her and her mother and that this surviving sibling is very unique, being one of only thirty know cases in the entire world.......thus, I am not full of shit and her unique DNA still proves she is a human being........a third possibility......
Click to expand...

Of course. One twin ate the other twin. Well, not actually "ate". Sort of fused themselves together. What could be more human than fusing? Maybe that's what the Bible meant by husband and wife becoming one. Maybe if two people really, really, really pushed the matter, in a way of speaking, they would merge into one. Who knows, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top