IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

I know all about the procedure thats why I'm so opposed to it. The difference between you and me is that I see the compromise as at least saving some babies from this gruesome fate. If you hold out none will be saved and other babies will be killed by this disgusting act. I am willing to even compromise my principles if it will save lives. Will you?

When we pragmatically speak of the "opposition" to the ban, this includes you, Damo, Super, Care, and all the rest of you who don't have the moral courage to stand up for what is right. You are standing in the corner with the abortion lobby, and those who view a living human fetus as a proprietary clump of cells belonging solely to the woman and no one else. You are helping them advocate and lobby for loopholes they can exploit, to enable them to continue with the barbaric and uncivilized procedure of partial birth, and supporting their baseless excuses and justifications as well.

This shouldn't be about your political views, it should be about your moral decency, and you should stand up for what you know is right, regardless of whether some idiot pinhead calls you a name! Too many people view this like you do, and that IS the problem! You have accepted that we can't do anything to change things, so we may as well compromise and make exceptions, it's better than nothing, we must do this incrementally! That is just cowardly bullshit and you all know it! You are part of the problem, you are afraid to take a firm stand because you don't want to be perceived as radical or extreme, and the left has convinced you that this is the label that will be applied to you if you stand in defiance against this.
 
The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall.

Read it! Think about it! You are sitting here telling me, there should be some exception made in the law to allow this to happen when there is no medical reason for it!

Read it again! You are telling me, we should accept some abortion rights argument that has no basis in fact, and actually contradicts their own point about the woman's health, so as to allow this to happen behind closed doors under certain caveats and conditions the doctor determines.

Read it again! You are refuting the word of a former Surgeon General and hundreds of expert physicians who have told you in plain English as clearly and concisely as they know how, that this procedure is NEVER a medical necessity, and actually poses MORE risk to a woman's health and life.

Read it again! How can you people sleep at night knowing that another human being will have this procedure performed on them before you wake?
 
When we pragmatically speak of the "opposition" to the ban, this includes you, Damo, Super, Care, and all the rest of you who don't have the moral courage to stand up for what is right.

Dixie that is a low statement. I can certainly return the favor and lambast you for sacrificing lives for principle but I'll say no more. We have a difference in opinion about the best way to save lives. It doesn't take one iota of courage to express an opinion on an internet message board.

I thought we were having a good reasoned discussion but if you want to call me a coward then I'll be on my way.

Nah fuck it let me say this. You criticize us as enablers? You are the enabler. A true pro-life person supports the protection of life at all costs. Even if it means compromising our beliefs, even it it means being a coward. Fine I'll be a fucking cowering coward if it means I can save one life. You can continue being morally superior and in the end you can stand on a pile of babies skulls that were punctured with their brains sucked out while you were waiting it out for a better deal and say it was well worth it.

And you tell me I am afraid to appear radical. I am not afraid to say that I oppose any abortion even ones that aren't partial birth even in the case of rape or incest. You won't because you don't want to be called a misogynist.

Good night sir we can continue when you refrain from impugning my courage. I mean after all typing anonymously on a message board takes real brass ones.
 
Read it again! How can you people sleep at night knowing that another human being will have this procedure performed on them before you wake?

Real quick before I go. The politicians who held your viewpoint have at least some responsibility for this procedure being done because they wouldn't do all they can to limit it including compromising their beliefs. Instead of cutting it down a percentage you have decided to be stubborn and allowed for the full 100% to be slaughtered. Good job.
 
IH8 you are mistaken. You are standing in the corner with the abortion lobby, claiming that Republicans are causing more deaths because they won't cave on principle. The facts show, Republicans had bipartisan support to pass a ban on partial birth three times... THREE TIMES... no caveats, no exceptions! Twice, the bill was vetoed by a president who was elected largely with the support of the abortion lobby you are standing with now. Bush signed the bill into law, again, with bipartisan Congressional support, no caveats, no exceptions, and the liberals immediately litigated it into the courts, where it remains tied up until the Supremes will eventually have to rule on it. So, who is preventing the practice from being banned? It seems to me, Republicans have done about all they can to pass it and implement it, while the Democrats have done all they can to thwart it and hold it up.

...But then, that wasn't in the koolaid you drank, was it?
 
Dixie said:
Uhmm.. I hate to break this to ya, but the law WAS passed, and signed by President Bush...without the health/life provision. It is currently tied up in the courts.
Click to expand...
It is tied up in the courts becaue it will be found unconstitutional without the life of mother clause. Once again, without the fricking caveat it is simply a gesture. I will say it again. Congratulations on your great fricking work on a law that will never see the road to implementation.

When the law will be overturned in the courts and they know it, it becomes another simple gesture to appease the religious right rather than a step in the right direction. Much like that law in South Dakota.

Even if the two new Justices rule your way, you will find the SCOTUS still rules in that way when the vote is 5 to 4...
 
Dixie said:
IH8 you are mistaken. You are standing in the corner with the abortion lobby, claiming that Republicans are causing more deaths because they won't cave on principle. The facts show, Republicans had bipartisan support to pass a ban on partial birth three times... THREE TIMES... no caveats, no exceptions! Twice, the bill was vetoed by a president who was elected largely with the support of the abortion lobby you are standing with now. Bush signed the bill into law, again, with bipartisan Congressional support, no caveats, no exceptions, and the liberals immediately litigated it into the courts, where it remains tied up until the Supremes will eventually have to rule on it. So, who is preventing the practice from being banned? It seems to me, Republicans have done about all they can to pass it and implement it, while the Democrats have done all they can to thwart it and hold it up.

...But then, that wasn't in the koolaid you drank, was it?
Click to expand...
If they had simply added the caveat then worked to remove it later with evidence of improper action of doctors it would stand the ruling of the court, but as long as you use prognostication as your only evidence this will be overturned by the courts with the stipulation to add the caveat as they have in the past.
 
It is tied up in the courts becaue it will be found unconstitutional without the life of mother clause.
Click to expand...

You don't know this, and that wasn't your argument. You claimed it was Republicans refusing to budge, and it's not, it's liberals refusing to allow the legislation to stand. Our elected representatives held hearings, made informed decisions, and passed the bill. According to our Constitution, it should be the law, and not subject to judicial review, but that is the course it took, not because Republicans did it, but because liberals and people with their heads up their ass like you, didn't want it.

There is no reason for the provision, this has been established. You insisting on a provision there is no reason for, is nothing more than obfuscating for political reasons. Ya don't like Repub's and you'll absolutely defend the indefensible and refute common sense and logic, rather than support Republicans, even when they are 100% absolutely right about this issue.

If they had simply added the caveat then worked to remove it later...

WHY???? Why the hell should a fricking BIPARTISAN MAJORITY of Congress go along with some ridiculous argument that has no basis or premise for accepting? There is NO REASON to allow this procedure under ANY circumstance, there is NEVER a reason to use this procedure to save the life or protect the health of the mother, that is a red herring! Should we have allowed this exception, it would have actually had the opposite effect, it endangers MORE women! It puts MORE women's lives at risk! You are okay with that, as long as your pinhead friends don't call you a right-wing extremist! That's what your position is based on... flawed logic, baseless points of argument, irrelevant excuses, and bitter hatred for the right wing.

Well Congrats Damo! You have all the pinhead liberals slobbering all over you for being such a "big man" and standing up to the right-wing-religious-radicals! That's GREAT! I'm proud of you! It must feel really good to be liked! I hope this was worth it to ya!
 
Dixie said:
You don't know this, and that wasn't your argument. You claimed it was Republicans refusing to budge, and it's not, it's liberals refusing to allow the legislation to stand. Our elected representatives held hearings, made informed decisions, and passed the bill. According to our Constitution, it should be the law, and not subject to judicial review, but that is the course it took, not because Republicans did it, but because liberals and people with their heads up their ass like you, didn't want it.

There is no reason for the provision, this has been established. You insisting on a provision there is no reason for, is nothing more than obfuscating for political reasons. Ya don't like Repub's and you'll absolutely defend the indefensible and refute common sense and logic, rather than support Republicans, even when they are 100% absolutely right about this issue.

If they had simply added the caveat then worked to remove it later...

WHY???? Why the hell should a fricking BIPARTISAN MAJORITY of Congress go along with some ridiculous argument that has no basis or premise for accepting? There is NO REASON to allow this procedure under ANY circumstance, there is NEVER a reason to use this procedure to save the life or protect the health of the mother, that is a red herring! Should we have allowed this exception, it would have actually had the opposite effect, it endangers MORE women! It puts MORE women's lives at risk! You are okay with that, as long as your pinhead friends don't call you a right-wing extremist! That's what your position is based on... flawed logic, baseless points of argument, irrelevant excuses, and bitter hatred for the right wing.

Well Congrats Damo! You have all the pinhead liberals slobbering all over you for being such a "big man" and standing up to the right-wing-religious-radicals! That's GREAT! I'm proud of you! It must feel really good to be liked! I hope this was worth it to ya!
Click to expand...
Okay...

My argument is, all evidence that I have seen from the R party supports having the cause rather than working on any solution.

I have worked towards getting something passed that would pass the constitutional muster so that something can be in place rather than nothing in my argument. Instead you have attempted to say that all doctors who perform such distasteful actions would simply pretend that every person had a life threatening illness in order to do these anyway. I disagree.

Get passed what can do something rather than sit on "principle" and get nothing done. I prefer a step forward to insisting we not move unless we reach the destination NOW!
 
My argument is, all evidence that I have seen from the R party supports having the cause rather than working on any solution.

yeah, that's why they pushed for the legislation, held extensive hearings, and passed the bill three times! They just wanted the "casue" not a solution! That makes perfect sense!

I have worked towards getting something passed that would pass the constitutional muster so that something can be in place rather than nothing in my argument

No, you've worked against those who passed the legislation three times, because you don't want to be seen as supporting Republicans. This has nothing to do with "constitutional muster" because as I've demonstrated, banning the procedure is not in violation of the mother's constitutional rights, although it certainly IS a violation of the infant's rights.

Get passed what can do something

THEY DID... THREE TIMES! You want to add some irrelevant caveat that has no place in the bill, and would allow a huge loophole for those who wish to ingore the legislation. In effect, you are alright with passing a "We Frown Upon Partial Birth Bill" and saying you did your part, and moving on. I want the hideous practice banned.
 
Dixie said:
My argument is, all evidence that I have seen from the R party supports having the cause rather than working on any solution.

yeah, that's why they pushed for the legislation, held extensive hearings, and passed the bill three times! They just wanted the "casue" not a solution! That makes perfect sense!

I have worked towards getting something passed that would pass the constitutional muster so that something can be in place rather than nothing in my argument

No, you've worked against those who passed the legislation three times, because you don't want to be seen as supporting Republicans. This has nothing to do with "constitutional muster" because as I've demonstrated, banning the procedure is not in violation of the mother's constitutional rights, although it certainly IS a violation of the infant's rights.

Get passed what can do something

THEY DID... THREE TIMES! You want to add some irrelevant caveat that has no place in the bill, and would allow a huge loophole for those who wish to ingore the legislation. In effect, you are alright with passing a "We Frown Upon Partial Birth Bill" and saying you did your part, and moving on. I want the hideous practice banned.
Click to expand...
I've never worked against those who want to pass such legislation. I have said that a "bird in the hand beats two in the bush", that a "step toward the destination" is far better than insisting we be there now. I have said that it is better to have the law restricting it, and then work toward fixing the law later.

You have said and insisted that nothing other than the destination will do, you have insisted that we must pass the law regardless of whether the current courts would reject it. You have insisted that the only option is to be you or wrong.

I haven't said you were wrong, except in approach and gave advice to somebody that working towards something often comes in steps. You have attempted to bring the conversation down to a level of berating each other with "pinhead" etc.

So, Dixie. I will ask it one more time.

If you pass a law that you know will be rejected by the current makeup of the SCOTUS and therefore no law at all is enforced what progress have you made towards your goal?

(I gave my answer: none... so what is yours?)

Would you prefer a law that stopped almost all of these heinous abortions, or would you prefer no law at all?

(I gave my answer: yes, I'd prefer a law to no law at all... so what is yours?)

Would you rather prognosticate on the actions of doctors or see some actual progress?

(I gave my answer: progress... so what is yours?)



I am a result oriented person, so far the results show what I have stated. That the R party is more interested in the issue than in any resolution. I prefer resolution to the issue.

This takes and drives a stake right into the heart of the Religious Right who are also very upset at the lack of progress on their agenda.... That you are happy with it doesn't change the fact that the party moves away from them. Giuliani continues to be the number 1 choice of the party for a reason....
 
I've never worked against those who want to pass such legislation. I have said that a "bird in the hand beats two in the bush", that a "step toward the destination" is far better than insisting we be there now. I have said that it is better to have the law restricting it, and then work toward fixing the law later.

No, it's better having a law that bans the practice. We passed a law that bans the practice. Three times! With bipartisan support from both sides. Without a caveat! We had three birds in the hand and none in the bush, Clinton killed two of them, and the remaining one has been thrown back in the bush by the liberals who hate Bush!

You have said and insisted that nothing other than the destination will do, you have insisted that we must pass the law regardless of whether the current courts would reject it. You have insisted that the only option is to be you or wrong.

I have said correctly, that our Congress, who represents us all, has passed the legislation three times, without any caveats or exceptions. Courts do not take precidence over the people, sorry! It doesn't matter what the court might or might not uphold, and if they don't uphold this bill because it doesn't contain a pointless and irrelevant caveat, they are stupid.

I haven't said you were wrong, except in approach and gave advice to somebody that working towards something often comes in steps.

I have no problem with "steps" I just want us stepping forward and not backward. Again, we passed the legislation with bipartisan support three times, without the exclusion, without a caveat. Why the hell would I endorse going backward and including something that doesn't need to be there? That makes no sense to me whatsoever, and you've not given me any good reason to do this, other than you perceive it as some kind of compromise for compromise sake.

If you pass a law that you know will be rejected by the current makeup of the SCOTUS and therefore no law at all is enforced what progress have you made towards your goal?

Again, the bill was passed by our elected representatives three times with no caveats and bipartisan support. Why should I give two shits about the court? The Supreme Court doesn't make the laws, WE do! You are saying, why bother when we know what the court will do... well hell, why bother passing any laws at all? Let's just turn Congressional powers over to the SCOTUS and let them tell us what to do!

I am a result oriented person, so far the results show what I have stated. That the R party is more interested in the issue than in any resolution. I prefer resolution to the issue.

You can lay blame off on Republicans all you like, you sound like Prissy and Ornut now! The republicans didn't do anything by themselves here! The Congress passed a bill without a provision for the mother's life or health because they found, through extensive deliberation and testimony, the provision was unnecessary. As soon as it was passed, liberal abortion rights advocates filed motions to prevent the law from being enacted and it has been in litigation since. This wasn't the Republicans fault!


This takes and drives a stake right into the heart of the Religious Right who are also very upset at the lack of progress on their agenda.... That you are happy with it doesn't change the fact that the party moves away from them. Giuliani continues to be the number 1 choice of the party for a reason....

I could care less about the religious right, or Rudy being number one! This is not a political issue for me, it is a moral and ethical issue. This procedure is legalized infanticide! It should be banned, and there should NEVER be ANY caveat or exception to that BAN! There is no necessity for a 'health/life' exception clause, it was always a red herring, it was the idea and brainchild of the abortion rights lobby and liberals who don't want to see their precious abortion touched in any way shape or form! And you are gulping down their koolaid faster than they can serve it up! ...Anything to keep them from perceiving you as supporting of the right wing! For you, this is ALL about politics! You don't give a damn about women's health or life, you don't give a damn about stopping the heinous practice, you just don't want to be seen as a right-winger! They have so stigmatized the right, that you can't stand the thought of people thinking you have anything to do with the right, and so, you will gladly take the left's position here, no matter how utterly stupid it is!

Listen to yourself! You are arguing with me, that even though we passed the bill three times with no caveats, and with a bipartisan majority, we should go back and re-write the law, to include a provision that has been established, isn't needed and would actually endanger more women, and give a loophole to the abortionists. I've never heard you argue for something so fucking ridiculous!
 
I am not arguing with you about what laws passed. I am arguing with you about what will be implemented. You miss my point deliberately.

Once again. It is better to have something working than nothing at all. Your plan nets us nothing for years on end. As I said, thanks. But your results suck...

I simply suggest a different strategy with the same goal and you take it as a direct attack enough that you will defend it to the death.

Every journey begins with the first step, few of them end with that same step.
 
Damo, I see no reason why or how the courts could justify a finding of unconstitutionality. You keep saying this as if you own some crystal ball and know how they will rule, and you seem to be saying we should only pass laws based on our perceptions of the current court, or your perception of the court, via your crystal ball. I don't get that!

It also sounds like you are saying, the will of the people and our elected representatives don't count, that what matters is the lobbyists who will always litigate something like this, and if there is a threat of that, we should just go ahead and capitulate without hesitation and let them dictate our laws! I don't understand that either!

You have unreasonably concluded that this is all the republicans fault, because they didn't completely disregard the testimony made to them in the hearings, and vote to include a provision that simply isn't needed, just because the abortion lobby wanted them to! IF there were some reason for the provision, IF it had been demonstrated that this provision could possibly save a life under some circumstance, IF any of the volumes of testimony over the course of 6 sessions of Congress had indicated that such a provision might be necessary, I would agree that we should have included it! That is NOT the case!

Apparently, you have convinced yourself that the testimony was bogus, or that Republicans just ignored it and did what they wanted to do, or that the informed decision they made to not include the caveat was wrong. For some reason you are not comprehending that the provision in question was considered, was deliberated on, and was found to not be needed. Not by republicans, but by a bipartisan majority of Congress! THREE TIMES! Still, you insist, they should have added something to the bill that only the abortion lobbyists wanted, or argued was needed! THAT really makes no sense to me!
 
I simply suggest a different strategy with the same goal

No, you suggest a stupid and ignorant strategy that disregards the facts in the case and kisses the ass of the abortion lobby and liberal pinheads. My goal is to BAN the practice completely because it is barbaric and uncivilized! If we were debating this procedure with regard to dogs or cats, people would be outraged at the inhumanity of it, but for some reason, it's just a meaningless clump of cells we are talking about here, and so it's perfectly okay to write in all these justifiable excuses to keep shoving scissors in their skulls! I don't get your position, it's ignorant of the facts, Damo! I hate to say that to you, because you've always seemed so reasonable about things, but you are way out in left field on this one (pardon the pun).

What does this say for the bigger issue of abortion? If people like yourself and Super are so willing to compromise principles and kiss up to the abortion lobby, on something so profoundly barbaric as this procedure, there is no way in hell we will EVER see ANY restriction on abortion! We simply don't have the numbers or the power to have to drag your ass up this hill all the way kicking and screaming, it ain't gonna happen! You suggest some 'incremental' approach of taking two steps back for each step forward, and I've got news for you, we'll never accomplish a damn thing that way.

The way I see it, the bill passed, three times it passed, with bipartisan support from both sides, and no caveats. If the supremes don't uphold it, we'll pass a goddamn amendment to the constitution, we won't give up! The will of the people is how we establish laws in this country, and I'll be damned if I allow a bunch of immoral left-wing lobbyists dictate what those laws say! It's just the principle of the matter here, and I will never understand your spineless position on this.
 
Damocles said:
I am not arguing with you about what laws passed. I am arguing with you about what will be implemented. You miss my point deliberately.

Once again. It is better to have something working than nothing at all. Your plan nets us nothing for years on end. As I said, thanks. But your results suck...

I simply suggest a different strategy with the same goal and you take it as a direct attack enough that you will defend it to the death.

Every journey begins with the first step, few of them end with that same step.
Click to expand...

You're a Wise man!
 
And Dixie, you're a Fool.

You just don't give two-shits about reducing abortions....it is more important to you and your ilk to win your political battle.... and quite frankly, THIS is the reason you are losing the battle and the war.

If you can not recognize the fact that more of the viable unborn have been killed because of this dogmatic stance of refusing to put in a Health exception, then you are not only a fool, but an idiot.

If you REALLY DO CARE about the unborn, you would change your stance of "my way or the highway" and allow the mother's health risk as an exception to get this bill out there and WORKING for the most part...

Encourage your ILK to back down off of this stubborn stance, it will save lives.

Baby steps....are the beginning of every stride.

care
 
Because 5 of the 9 have already voted on measures of this against their constitutionality. There is a record of their votes. So, we can look back and see the record and know what they'll do later. Now one of the two new Justices replaced one of the six that used to vote this way, of course we know that past performance on choosing Justices shows that Rs tend to pick the liberal ones...

So enjoy the myth of your sudden victory on a SCOTUS on this issue, there isn't enough votes from 9 for a victory.

You however simply guess at the actions of doctors in regard to the law as it hasn't passed it isn't based on past performance, you assume the worst because that is what helps to perpetuate the issue and not let common sense take over.

Again I will ask you the three questions, since you entirely refuse to answer them:

1. Which do you prefer, an imperfect law that blocks most of this heinous act, or no law at all?

My answer: I prefer to pass a law that will pass constitutional muster now and work to repair it in the future, because no protection at all for these children simply to retain a stand on principal is a travesty and an outrage.

I feel outraged, sickened and dirty, that nobody in the R party would be willing to compromise for a time and work to repair the law so that there can be some protection for those burgeoning human beings. I must associate with people who prefer no protection at all for those innocents to an admittedly imperfect law.

2. If you pass a law that you know will be rejected by the current makeup of the SCOTUS and therefore no law at all is enforced what progress have you made towards your goal?

My answer: If you go by results, the R party has done actually nothing at all on this issue. And I am a results oriented person.... As I stated above. Being a republican it makes me feel dirty to associate with people who would prefer to have no protection for these young lives, admittedly one that needs to be fixed, but something. So you can keep convincing yourselves you are well-served by this stand on principal, but the ones who are victimized the most still have no protection at all. Thanks again.

3. Would you rather prognosticate on the actions of doctors or see some actual progress?

My answer: I prefer something to nothing. Especially when the nothing contains only guesswork on the motives of others, write a bill, put it in one hand, guess into the other and see which one gets full faster.
 
And Dixie, you're a Fool.

Why? Because I believe the former Surgeon General and countless women's health professionals, who said the procedure is not ever a medical necessity, or because I agree with a bipartisan majority of Congress who agreed after objectively listening to the experts?

No, I think you are the fool and an idiot to boot. None of you have presented any logical justification for your knee-jerk liberal emotionalism, you just keep ignoring the facts and insisting on something that is just patently false. You keep insisting that we ignore these facts and do something contrary, which would endanger more women and put more women at risk, because you are too stubbornly tied to your personal politics, and want to see the right lose. Not only are you idiots and fools, you are immoral idiots and fools as well.
 
Damo, the Supreme Court has never voted on whether a health/life provision should be included in the ban of partial birth abortions passed by Congress. They might have voted on similar measures with different circumstances, and they might have had some valid reason to do so, but this bill has not been debated by the SCOTUS as of now, so we simply don't know how they will vote. Justices are not robots or computers who always respond the same way, and I bet I could find a few instances where their votes completely contradicted previous rulings they made.

Again, this is not a political issue to me, it's a moral and ethical issue. I really don't concern myself with how the SCOTUS might or might not vote on something, that doesn't determine what I support. It's sad to know that so many of you are willing to do that, instead of standing up for principle and what is right. I suppose a lot of people thought the SCOTUS might overturn Abolition when it was passed as well, after all, they had previously ruled black people were property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top