Dumb@$$ NY Lib claims pro-lifers are "out to kill women"

[travelinman67]

Great philosophy. People torturing and killing their dogs for shits a giggles doesn't directly affect you either. You seem to have strong feelings about that.

Sure I do....dogs have never disturbed my dinner or movie....

My dog begs at the table and constantly interrupts me to let him out while I watch TV or write at night. Guess I shoulda killed him as a pup.

[travelinman67]

I don't believe a fetus is equal to a live human being until it is able to live outside the womb, so to me you can say those situaitons are equal 1000X and it's not going to be true.

And I noticed you ignored the other part of the equation...you want to force (make illegal) births on people who do not want to have a baby, yet you don't give two shvts about what happens to that baby after it is born.

Odd.

Hen's, along with the rest of social darwinist conks here, entire political philosophy is a result of a shared hatred of poor women with too many children. Especially black women.

"Step right up folks! Check your sanity at the door! Welcome to my, Dee-One-Be's, house of illusions! Enter and lose your mind!!"

[YoUDeeMan]

it's nice and easy when it's laid out all nice and neat. life, however... rarely works that way. should a rape victim have give birth to the child that results from that crime? should a daughter who was a victim of incest? in your black and white world where "it's just murder" where do those gray areas fit? or is it just "tough shit" because 89Hen says so?

just wondering how far you'd like to extend your tidy little notion.

Yeah, my tidy little notion of protecting babys.

Every time a pro-choicer starts to see that they are putting themselves in a bad spot, they'll whip out either the rape/incest discussion, or talk about war and the death penalty.

Well, you are the one who made your decision that a baby is a person as soon as it is conceived.

So, what is your answer to the rape/incest question? Do you force the mother to carry the person until birth?

[YoUDeeMan]

Viability is not a great way to draw a line in the sand because it moves. Full term is 37 weeks. It wasn't that long ago that viability was not much lower than that, now it's around 22 weeks. Imagine what it may be in 10, 20, 30 years. Furthermore, no baby can survive outside the womb without assistance.

As for your last comment... WTF? You might want to check that at the door.

Whose assistance? Yours?

I apologize if you are one of the few folks that actually donates all of their excess money to the care of all unwanted abbies around the globe. If not, then you are the cheerleader who yells, "Push" to the mother forced to carry her baby, and then as soon as the baby pops out, you exit the scene....even if that baby will die a painful, miserable death within minutes/days/months/years. Not your problem.

However, viability will soon be down to two cells and clones. Fun. That wil take the "mother" right out of the equation.

[89Hen]

Well, you are the one who made your decision that a baby is a person as soon as it is conceived.

So, what is your answer to the rape/incest question? Do you force the mother to carry the person until birth?

Not true. The problem is I don't know when it becomes a person. I can't draw a line in the sand and say at 167 it's OK to abort but at 168 it becomes a person so it's not OK. Can you? If we both agree that at some point it's not OK, why is OK the day before? What about the day before that? What about in 1950 when viability was a LOT further down term?

Why are you rushing to the second question if we haven't answered the first?

[89Hen]

Viability is not a great way to draw a line in the sand because it moves. Full term is 37 weeks. It wasn't that long ago that viability was not much lower than that, now it's around 22 weeks. Imagine what it may be in 10, 20, 30 years. Furthermore, no baby can survive outside the womb without assistance.

As for your last comment... WTF? You might want to check that at the door.

Whose assistance? Yours?

I apologize if you are one of the few folks that actually donates all of their excess money to the care of all unwanted abbies around the globe. If not, then you are the cheerleader who yells, "Push" to the mother forced to carry her baby, and then as soon as the baby pops out, you exit the scene....even if that baby will die a painful, miserable death within minutes/days/months/years. Not your problem.

However, viability will soon be down to two cells and clones. Fun. That wil take the "mother" right out of the equation.

I do give all my excess money to charity. Unfortunately, I don't have a whold lot of excess. I just did my taxes last night and I can tell you that I gave more to charity last year than Joe Biden did. But since you've already judged my charity and outlook on children, not sure we have much left to discuss.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Well, you are the one who made your decision that a baby is a person as soon as it is conceived.

So, what is your answer to the rape/incest question? Do you force the mother to carry the person until birth?

Not true. The problem is I don't know when it becomes a person. I can't draw a line in the sand and say at 167 it's OK to abort but at 168 it becomes a person so it's not OK. Can you? If we both agree that at some point it's not OK, why is OK the day before? What about the day before that? What about in 1950 when viability was a LOT further down term?

Why are you rushing to the second question if we haven't answered the first?

because for some of us, life begins at intent. I don't like it, it's not tidy, nor is it convenient. But it reflects a grasp of the situation as it exists in reality.

ideally, we wouldn't have to make such determinations - as we wouldn't have any unwanted pregnancies... but again, the real world doesn't allow for ideals, so we make do with what we've got.

[89Hen]

because for some of us, life begins at intent. I don't like it, it's not tidy, nor is it convenient. But it reflects a grasp of the situation as it exists in reality.

I can't agree with that in any way, but at least you have a definition. Intent. I need to think about that one for a while. Seems like a very dangerous proposition. If I didn't intend to get my girlfriend pregnant, can I whack her in the uterus to have her miscarry and only get charged with assault instead of murder? What about a woman who intends to get pregnant to con her boyfriend to marry her and then when he runs away she wants to abort? Strange concept.

[Appaholic]

Sure I do....dogs have never disturbed my dinner or movie....

My dog begs at the table and constantly interrupts me to let him out while I watch TV or write at night. Guess I shoulda killed him as a pup.

Hey, it's your property...do whatever you want....it's not like it's a kid....more like a fetus....

[Appaholic]

Every time a pro-choicer starts to see that they are putting themselves in a bad spot, they'll whip out either the rape/incest discussion, or talk about war and the death penalty.

Maybe that's because in all these years, no pro-life true believer has ever been able to provide a coherent, consistent resolution to that argument....well, except the one's who also are against war, the death penalty, etc....those are few & far between...

[89Hen]

Every time a pro-choicer starts to see that they are putting themselves in a bad spot, they'll whip out either the rape/incest discussion, or talk about war and the death penalty.

Maybe that's because in all these years, no pro-life true believer has ever been able to provide a coherent, consistent resolution to that argument....well, except the one's who also are against war, the death penalty, etc....those are few & far between...

Holic, I can make the same case against a majority of pro-choicers. Most are anti-war, anti-capital punshment and pro-abortion. I don't go there because they are not completely related. BTW, there are MANY pro-lifers who are anti-war and anti-capital punishment. Believe it or not, my position on capital punshment has definitely changed as I get older (and hopefully wiser). I used to be 100% for it... not so much any more.

Edit: shouldn't have said vast, majority is good enough.

[Appaholic]

Maybe that's because in all these years, no pro-life true believer has ever been able to provide a coherent, consistent resolution to that argument....well, except the one's who also are against war, the death penalty, etc....those are few & far between...

Holic, I can make the same case against a vast majority of pro-choicers. Most are anti-war, anti-capital punshment and pro-abortion. I don't go there because they are not completely related. BTW, there are MANY pro-lifers who are anti-war and anti-capital punishment. Believe it or not, my position on capital punshment has definitely changed as I get older (and hopefully wiser). I used to be 100% for it... not so much any more.

I agree you can....and they are just as hypocritical as the pro-lifers I was referring to....and the pro-lifers who are also anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc are about the only one's with any credibility left in this national argument.

With regard to death penalty, same here. Not that I don't think people deserve to die for certain acts, just don't think the same entity running the local DMV office should be making that determination....

[89Hen]

the pro-lifers who are also anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc are about the only one's with any credibility left in this national argument.

And I'm halfway there, so looks like I'm close to credible.

[Appaholic]

the pro-lifers who are also anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc are about the only one's with any credibility left in this national argument.

And I'm halfway there, so looks like I'm close to credible.

Gettin' there, Hen. Irregardless of whether I agree with someone's opinion on this matter, I certainly respect their opinion as long as it's consistent....and I'm sure that's what all Pro-Lifer's are seekeing....and endorsement from Appaholic..

[YoUDeeMan]

Well, you are the one who made your decision that a baby is a person as soon as it is conceived.

So, what is your answer to the rape/incest question? Do you force the mother to carry the person until birth?

Not true. The problem is I don't know when it becomes a person. I can't draw a line in the sand and say at 167 it's OK to abort but at 168 it becomes a person so it's not OK. Can you? If we both agree that at some point it's not OK, why is OK the day before? What about the day before that? What about in 1950 when viability was a LOT further down term?

Why are you rushing to the second question if we haven't answered the first?

I didn't rush to the second question. I said I am OK with some ambiguity with the first question.

Innocent people get killed all the time...collateral damage seems to be accepted in all facets of life. Only the whack job lunatics are suggesting the pilots who killed the civilians in Libya need to be arrested and brought up on charges of murder...and I don't see the vast majority of Christian pro-lifers rallying to end the war or bombing Air Force recruiting offices.

So, yeah, I'm OK with a grey area of when it is determined that a child can live outside the womb. You aren't. C'est la vie.

So, how about the second question...rapes and incest? You would force a woman ot carry the baby until birth?

[YoUDeeMan]

I do give all my excess money to charity. Unfortunately, I don't have a whold lot of excess. I just did my taxes last night and I can tell you that I gave more to charity last year than Joe Biden did. But since you've already judged my charity and outlook on children, not sure we have much left to discuss.

Joe Biden's cheapness...a point almost any sane person can agree upon!


But 89, let's be honest...you could do more to help the innocent unborn...but life's conveniences are too enticing. Hen season tickets? Sports activity fees for your children? Cell phones? TVs? Computers? Larger than average house? Dinners out? Cars? Retirement income?

Fluff. But it would make your life a little bit inconvenient to give that stuff up, so you've drawn a line in the sand to where you will help others. Not a bad thing at all. We all make those choices.

But you are asking (forcing, if you had your way) every pregnant woman to give up every living moment of their life for at least 9 months...more if you think she should care for the child. If it is a woman in your income bracket, she won't get a lot of financial assistance, so she will have to allocate a lot of money to care for her unborn child...and how much care afterwards?

And yet you won't give up football tickets because it is more important that supporting needy children and mothers?

[89Hen]

I didn't rush to the second question. I said I am OK with some ambiguity with the first question.

So, yeah, I'm OK with a grey area of when it is determined that a child can live outside the womb. You aren't. C'est la vie.

So, how about the second question...rapes and incest? You would force a woman ot carry the baby until birth?

Can't say. It's a grey area.

[89Hen]

But you are asking (forcing, if you had your way) every pregnant woman to give up every living moment of their life for at least 9 months...more if you think she should care for the child. If it is a woman in your income bracket, she won't get a lot of financial assistance, so she will have to allocate a lot of money to care for her unborn child...and how much care afterwards?

What about a person who is texting while driving and kills a person walking on the side of the road. You are asking them to give up 5-10 years for vehicular manslaughter and there wasn't even any intent. You might say they did sometthing wrecklessly... didn't the woman?

[Skjellyfetti]

89 has said he would like people that perform abortions or received abortions to be charged with murder. So, he's consistent there at least.

Would you approve of the death penalty for abortion doctors or patients?

[YoUDeeMan]

But you are asking (forcing, if you had your way) every pregnant woman to give up every living moment of their life for at least 9 months...more if you think she should care for the child. If it is a woman in your income bracket, she won't get a lot of financial assistance, so she will have to allocate a lot of money to care for her unborn child...and how much care afterwards?

What about a person who is texting while driving and kills a person walking on the side of the road. You are asking them to give up 5-10 years for vehicular manslaughter and there wasn't even any intent. You might say they did sometthing wrecklessly... didn't the woman?

I wasn't the one talking about intent...I am more of a results guy.

And yes, I think the guy should do time...texting while driving is wreckless...and foolish. if you play the odds and lose, then there are consequences.

So, if you allow someone to put his penis on your playland, then there can be consequences. Abstinance (c'mon, are you serious?) is the only true way to beat the odds, and even then God can play a joke and get you pregnant just to make a point.

But the guy who serves time for manslaughter can get out early for good behavior. He'l have to live with the consequences, but he doesn't have to serve his whole time. I'm all for letting a woman abort so that she can get out early for good behavior...she'll just have to live with the consequences.

[YoUDeeMan]

I didn't rush to the second question. I said I am OK with some ambiguity with the first question.

So, yeah, I'm OK with a grey area of when it is determined that a child can live outside the womb. You aren't. C'est la vie.

So, how about the second question...rapes and incest? You would force a woman ot carry the baby until birth?

Can't say. It's a grey area.

[89Hen]

89 has said he would like people that perform abortions or received abortions to be charged with murder. So, he's consistent there at least.

Would you approve of the death penalty for abortion doctors or patients?

No. I said a few posts ago, my position on capital punishment has changed.

[89Hen]

if you play the odds and lose, then there are consequences.

You're inconsistent in applying that.

[YoUDeeMan]

if you play the odds and lose, then there are consequences.

You're inconsistent in applying that.

Nope.

But the guy who serves time for manslaughter can get out early for good behavior. He'l have to live with the consequences, but he doesn't have to serve his whole time. I'm all for letting a woman abort so that she can get out early for good behavior...she'll just have to live with the consequences.

To me, the penalty for getting pregnant and having an abortion is the fact that the woman will have to live with the consequences.

[D1B]

You're inconsistent in applying that.

Nope.

But the guy who serves time for manslaughter can get out early for good behavior. He'l have to live with the consequences, but he doesn't have to serve his whole time. I'm all for letting a woman abort so that she can get out early for good behavior...she'll just have to live with the consequences.

To me, the penalty for getting pregnant and having an abortion is the fact that the woman will have to live with the consequences.

Some of which are:

High likelyhood of escaping poverty and having a higher quality of life.
Not having an asshole piece of shit father in her life.
The ability to have a child when she's ready, thus making both lives better
Avoiding death if there's a medical issue for the mother
Avoiding bringing a child with a horrendous disease or worse yet - poverty, into a cruel world filled with social darwinists like Baldy, Alphagriz, AZ, Tbag and Hen - who ultimately don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves and their best customers.
Better physical, social and emotional health