Say Anything Blog

It’s the liberal media thats pushing Rudy down our throats while ignoring the act that no way will a thrice-married, abortion supporting, adulterer get enough Southern votes to win the GOP nomination.

I respect ALL bodies by being pro-life.

On abortion:  by the way, good episone on “House” last night on “abortion”...fetus vs. baby....  glad to see it finally presented as truth.

Communism is evil

Did it ever occur to any of you that the Democrat Party and Liberalism generally represents a real and terrible culture of death in America. Abortion on demand terminates the lives of over 1 million innocent human beings every year, that alone to me seems like a culture of death.

Which party, which political ideology in the Judiciary and the Congress has sponsored and promoted abortion on demand for at least six decades? Yep, Democrats and Liberals.

Which party, which political ideology in the Judiciary and the Congress has sponsored and promoted active euthamsia for those they determine no longer have a quality of life worth sustaining?Yep, Democrats and Liberals.

Which party, which political ideology in the Judiciary and the Congress has sponsored and promoted goverment subsidized physician assisted suicide for those people choosing to end their own lives. Yep, Democrats and Liberals.

Which party and political ideology existed at Waco when an impatient attorney general approved a full military assault on the Branch Davidian Compound, wherein many innocent children burned to death? Yep, Democrats and Liberals. Yes that crud David Koresh brought about the crisis and I do not support his religious extremism, but there was surely no rush to go in with heavy armored vehicles.

Which party and political ideology ruled this country and which attorney general was in power when Elian Gonzales, whose mother gave her life to bring her child to freedom, was forced to go back to Cuba and a life of poverty? Yep, Democrats and Liberals!

My, point is, I am astonished how the Democrat Party and Liberals always seem to be on the side of death approved and financially supported by federal law. It seems to me, although you may think I am insane, that the Democrat Party and Liberalism is caught up in a culture of death which may one day threaten us all.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

who I am absolutely not voting for now under any circumstances

Are you just talking about the primaries?  Or would you refuse to vote for a Guliani/* ticket over a Clinton/Obama ticket?

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

If Giulliani continues to promote abortion on demand paid for by the government, even though he admits there is no constitutional basis for that so-called right; and if he continues to insist that private gun ownership is a matter for the states or even cities to decide, in defiance of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, doesn’t it worry anyone to have to vote for a person holding such utter contempt for the only document that protects our rights as citizens?

I hope after the primary a decision between Rudy and some Leftist will not be my only choice; because I would have a hard time voting for someone with no respect for our Constitution and may be forced to sit out the general election.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I firmly believe it is your responsiblity to vote for the “best” option on the table, but like you I hope Rudy is not that option when it comes to the GOP primary…

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

Though I am not a big fan of RUSH, Geddy Lee says it best.  “if you choose not to decide,you still have made a choice”.  Neiman, if you do not vote, those who vote for the GREATER of 2 evils trumps you. In other words, you allow others to make the decisions that you will have to live with.
On the issue of abortion, leftists have convinced, deluded are rationalized themselves into a ridiculous position.  Killing her baby is a mothers right.  It happens everyday, in many different ways.
Feingold approves of abortion up to and including after delivery.  If the woman and her doctor make that decision.  It’s absurd.  How anyone could know this about Feingold and others, and still support them is beyond my comprehension.
Like I said delusion, and rationalization.  And so it goes.

Neiman, liberals/Democrats are illogical demogogues.

Just imagine for 1 moment, WACO, happened under George W. Bush’s admin.

Clinton was tough on radical churches and little boys from Cuba, but not so tough on TERRORISM.

By the way, did the U.N. approve of those missiles Clinton sent into Afghanistan??  I mean wouldn’t that be a war crime to libs??

I guess if I had to vote for either Rudy or Hillary I am not going to vote for Hillary. I would never vote for that woman, however, I am not sure Rudy has earned the right to be called a republican either.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Au contrare goon.  Rudy Giuliani IS a Republican, so is Arlen Specter, and Hagle.
Conservative and Republican are not necessarily one and the same.
On the other side, find a Democrat that isn’t a lib.
If you can.
Hillary Clinton does not, will not, has not, and is not going to SERVE anyone, but her HUGE EGO.
I’d sooner vote for Ted Kennedy than that angry mean witch.

I just cringe when I see Rudy and republican in the same sentence. I like to use the word rino next to Rudy’s name. I am not sure there are many true Republicans in the presidential race. I think Bill Richardson who is a democrat is more conservative than Rudy. I don’t know I am already getting depressed thinking about our chances of getting a true conservative elected to office. Gun control and Abortion are not winning issues in the GOP. I don’t care what the Moderates tell me.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

This is no small point:

There isn’t one, because none of the amendments to the Constitution were intended to make that sort of activity a right.

There is a simple constitutional truth that is not well respected anymore:

Constitutional RIGHTS are OF the people, they are ratified BY the people, FOR the people.  There are no other “constitutional rights” outside the consent of the governed.

It’s hard to imagine that there is a constitutional right to abortion considering that not today, not 30 years ago, not 100 years ago, not EVER in the history of this nation could “We The People” have ratified such a thing.

All else is illegitimate at best, and tyranny masquerading as “truth” at worst.  If we didn’t ratify it, it isn’t a “right”. 

If the constitution needs to be updated, that’s another question altogether.  But let’s not pretend that asking the people is too much trouble these days… It’s not like we need Paul Revere on horseback to take a poll anymore…

[Feet make good soup!]

Are you just talking about the primaries?  Or would you refuse to vote for a Guliani/* ticket over a Clinton/Obama ticket?

If I could find a third-party candidate I liked (unlikely) I’d vote for him/her.  Otherwise, I’d write in The Whistler.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Goon, and Marty, GOD BLESS YOU.
I’m a very vociferous man on the side of VIRTUE.
I just turned 46. I’m very well educated.  Undergrad Poli Sci, MBA and a side Sous chef college diploma.
I’m a life long Democrat from the JFK wing.
My history is working for George McGovern door to door as a “LIT DROP” (useful idiot) in 72.  I turned 11 in ‘72.  My older brother and I, were VERY AWARE, politically for reasons.  Father died, Mom seemed to need a legacy. I worked for Mr Carters campaign in ‘76 as a 15 year old.  My bro and I busted our aces, and GOT NOTICED.  I met MR CARTER and later Mr MONDALE.  I believed in them, in my CHILDISH HERO WORSHIP position. Because I was 15 and VERY INDOCTRINATED, I was photogenic and USED.  I got (still have) engraved invitations to the 1977 CARTER INAUGURATION, and all the associated parties/balls/dances.  It was a LIFE EXPERIENCE.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Mr Carter was WRONG, WEAK, INEFFECTUAL, NAIVE, WEAK (did I mention WEAK), and the JACKALS of THE REAL WORLD................FEASTED, have FEASTED, are FEASTING, will FEAST, and very likely WILL FEAST TOMORROW, on the NAIVETTE/WEAKNESS and wishful thinking of THOSE WHO continue not to LEARN THE LESSONS of HISTORY.
I found some hand written notes of my own, AS REGARDS Mr Bush, just Prior to the 2000 November election.  I was wrong.  I was naive.  I was in complete denial.
9/11 happened. 

God bless George W. Bush. 

I mean that.

Rob,

Whether one agrees that abortion is a right or not it seems to me that the emphasis shouldn’t be on what specific rights that we have but on what discrete powers the government has.  Indeed, that seems to be much of the point behind the ninth amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Surely you’re not trying to tell me that the Government doesn’t have the power to protect living human beings from murder without due process?

Because that’s what abortion is.

I’d remind you, sir, of the 10th amendment which delegated all things not covered by the Constitution to the various states...and to the people.

Whether you’re pro-abortion or not, you should at least agree that it’s a matter to be left up to the various states.  The founders weren’t dummies.  They were aware of sticky social issues like abortion.  Which is the purpose behind the 10th amendment.

But the 10th amendment doesn’t work when judges on the Supreme Court can just declare anything they want a right.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

off topic, but is there any reason that has you confused with a science fiction writer Rob?

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Blogs_accuse_CNN_reporter_of_disrupting_0404.html

is there any reason Raw Story I meant to say

Graeme. Could you get yourself on record as saying.

Abortion isn’t killing a child???

Could ya Graeme??

Graeme - they’re fools.

If the group of cells is able to live without the mother, then I think it should be illegal for an abortion (unless of course if the women’s health was in danger). If she wants have an abortion in the first few weeks of a pregnancy, I have no problem with that. I don’t think that is any of the state’s business. I don’t believe that that is a fully formed child. I don’t believe in a “soul” or anything of that nature.

If the group of cells is able to live without the mother

Graeme: You are a group of cells, presumably able to live without your mother (albeit a larger group of cells...)
I have always been fascinated by the euphemisms and sophistry and the medieval “angels dancing on a pinhead” terminology employed by otherwise normal individuals when describing unborn humans!
BTW, Graeme....your mother was a group of cells!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

It’s generally thought to be a little tough for any “group of cells” to survive with a needle stuck in the back of the head while the brain tissue is being sucked out into a syringe.

That includes the sanctimonious groups of cells writing here.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

If the group of cells is able to live without the mother, then I think it should be illegal for an abortion

Well that’s a rather asinine position… A “group of cells” is not able to survive without his/her mother or other parental figure for years and years.  Just because my 2 year old would die in 24 hours without supervision does not mean he has the right to live.

And before formula, it was difficult for a baby to survive at all if his mother died because of the lack of breast milk.  Does that child have a lesser ability to live?

And who decides when a child is able to survive outside th womb?  At 24 weeks of pregnancy, 50% or so of babies can live and the others can’t, so do we just draw a line at 22 and call it good?

Your position is so full of logical holes it’s absurd to even say it out loud.

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

Lacking any constitutional knowledge or scholarship on the matter of the Constitution does not seem to inhibit any one from giving a less than well-found opinion; I shall enter into the fray.  The right to an abortion is found in the 9th and 10th amendments that reserve the rights to the people that are not taken by the government.  The 4th grants the right to privacy, Secure in persons and paper against government intrusion.  The reason that the government does not give us all a gun is that the 2nd amendment has not been incorporated as a right for the people, same as the 7th the right to a jury trial for civil matters has not been incorporated. But the question is about abortion and strikes me as odd that we as men feel that it is easy to accuse a woman of being immoral by sleeping around, but never accusing the ourselves of equally lacking moral standards.  Proof you are right we are just a group of cells, but we are an autonomous group of cells and do not require biological support from anther group of cells to live.  Some one group is not the same as another.  Just some thoughts from a godless, liberal, good school wanting fair wage, fair trade seeking attorney.

Neiman,

Did it ever occur to any of you that the Democrat Party and Liberalism generally represents a real and terrible culture of death in America.

Well… yeah!  I kinda want to say “Duh”, but don’t want to seem rude.

I can’t support Rudy after that statement… That is like a kick in the face to all pro life people.

Eljefe,

Lacking any constitutional knowledge ...I shall enter into the fray.

It appears that you were correct.  The Constitution is a fairly easy read… I’d recommend the “Federalist Papers” to get a good idea of what the framers intended with each word.

The right to an abortion is found in the 9th and 10th amendments that reserve the rights to the people that are not taken by the government.

Wrong, The 9th and 10th do not provide the right to an Abortion.  The life inside the mother is a human with the same rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  When the mother made the choice to create that life, she gave up the right to take it. 

In my mind, if she did not make the choice to create the life then there is an argument or dispute that needs adjudication by the STATE, since the US Constitution doesn’t enumerate a course of action in this dispute.

The 4th grants the right to privacy, Secure in persons and paper against government intrusion.

But this has nothing to do with the dispute between Mother and Baby… The Mother should petition the court of the state to resolve the dispute.  The 4th doesn’t apply.

The reason that the government does not give us all a gun is that the 2nd amendment has not been incorporated as a right for the people

Utter BS!!!!!  The Government is under no obligation to provide us with ANYTHING other than the protection of our liberty.  We provide ourselves with EVERYTHING, including guns.

, same as the 7th the right to a jury trial for civil matters has not been incorporated.

Again, BS, you can ask for a jury trial for any Civil cases… You have the right… it’s not often exercised, however.

But the question is about abortion and strikes me as odd that we as men feel that it is easy to accuse a woman of being immoral by sleeping around, but never accusing the ourselves of equally lacking moral standards.

Are you sane?  Men are complicit in the creation of a child, but Women are the gate keepers.  Add to this:  If a Man wants a Woman to have an abortion and she declines, he’d be arrested for forcing her to… If she wants one, but he doesn’t she’s left alone if she does it.

Proof you are right we are just a group of cells, but we are an autonomous group of cells and do not require biological support from anther group of cells to live.

What about Plants and Meat that we use to sustain ourselves?  Your arguments are completely inadequate!

Some one group is not the same as another.  Just some thoughts from a godless, liberal, good school wanting fair wage, fair trade seeking attorney.

The rule of LAW says differently.  Why does a woman have the same rights as a Man if some group of cells is not the same as another?  Where do you draw the line about which group is superior to another group.

You’re a lawyer who doesn’t know the constitution?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  AUGHGHGHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHG God help us!!!

The reason that the government does not give us all a gun is that the 2nd amendment has not been incorporated as a right for the people, same as the 7th the right to a jury trial for civil matters has not been incorporated.

Jefe,

It’s a good thing you prefaced your entry “into the fray” as you did.  Rawls at his most inchoate would not have come up with this specious nonsense.

My constitutional right “to keep and bear arms” does not in any way obligate my neighbor or my government to provide me with the means to do so… a point worth bearing in mind for those who regard abortion as sacrosanct, complete with federal or state financing to all.  It is one thing to say these are areas into which government may not intrude or activities which government is disallowed from restricting.  It is quite another thing, however, for government to actively encourage, promote, and financially support those same areas or activities.

The purpose of the first ten amendments is to limit the scope of government toward the people.  Period.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The “group of cells” is, in the case of a human fetus, the repository of a complete and unique human DNA profile, and is therefore a human being.  When you take its life, you are taking the life of a human being.  Trying to deny the humanity of a human fetus as a justification for summarily executing it is a very weak argument.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

It is one thing to say these are areas into which government may not intrude or activities which government is disallowed from restricting.  It is quite another thing, however, for government to actively encourage, promote, and financially support those same areas or activities.

IMO, the Antonym to this is far too prevalent in today’s thinking.

I don’t want to be apart of assisting anyone’s abortion! ... It is one thing for abortion to be legal and quite another for government to insist upon everyone pitching in to pay for it.  That is such a kick in the face!

Rob:

Surely you’re not trying to tell me that the Government doesn’t have the power to protect living human beings from murder without due process?

Those who believe that the constitution protects fetuses are just as wrong as those who believe the constitution contains a right to abortion. The issue should be left up to the states.

Seth Yanyiss My reference to lacking the knowledge was to the cementers not my self, I have actually taken many academic and practical courses regarding the constitution, the reading and the interpretations of it, it is required to sit for the Bar Exam. The Ninth reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The tenth read The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The fourth amendment gives weight that despite no language of privacy, the framers recognized that there was a sphere of privacy that each person has around them that the government cannot pierce, with cause.  Take these three together make more that a mere suggestion that privacy and dominion over your own body is exclusive and no government can interfere with it, with out an overriding governmental concern. My point about the second amendment is that Rob wonder out load why the government is not buying him a gun if it is right to bear one, my pint is that the second is not a right posed by the people. The Second Amendment does not create an individual right to bear arms, but applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia. U.S. v. Napier
233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 21 Nov. 2000). Not a very liberal Circuit held this.  For the 7th my point as tat in civil case in state courts there is no requirement to grant a jury trial, you can ask for one but it does not need to be given.  My argument certainly lacks in articulation and the lack of time and space does affect my ability to make a clear point, so allow me to give it the old college try, my point is that people in general find it easy to restrict someone else because we believe that we hold the superior moral ground without attempting to determine what it is that cause them to make that particular decision.  I could go on and start to pose questions as to why we should make moral determinations for other and so on and so forth.  The choice to abort is one that men and women have very different prospective on, and historical the reason that anti-abortion laws were enacted was because men were in fact forcing women to have abortions.  My point about “group of cells” was again not well articulated.  I do not equate a group of cells (a fetus, unborn child, insert your own word here) to be the equal of a born human being.  As such, there are no rights inherent to that “group of cells.” I did not intend my words to draw a distinction between men and women as that group of cells.  I meant by not requiring the other biological support to be that I do not require my wife to breathing air into my lungs, to pump the blood through my veins, or to eat my food so that I may survive.  Eating plants and animals was not what I meant, but nice try.  This is still an incomplete argument for the right to privacy, but it will have to do in this case.  By the way I cannot thing of any federal agency that actually gives money to women to have abortions, I can only find state agencies that do, but in the most tangentional of connections, it may just me my state.

ZAS ZAS I agree, I hate that fact that my tax dollars are used in ways I find abhorrent, but I benefit from them in general and it is a part of the social contract that we as citizens are a party to. So I must take the good with the bad.

Oh by the way before you cite Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 4 March 2007) bare in mind that there are a number of issues at bar in this case most significantly is the fact that DC is not a State.  This opinion is not necessarily regarded as a minority opinion, but it is subject to review by the Supreme Court

Eljefe,

The second doesn’t apply to just to militias.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You need to think about these things a little.

Your entire post is riddled with mistakes and errors.  I wonder if it was intentional or not… but clearly, you have not thought through the reasoning for the amendments that you claim to have studied.

IF abortion is truly a CHOICE? It is NOT my choice. I understand there are certain times a woman can have ectopic or tubal pregnancies that will not result in giving birth and endangers the life of the mother. In such cases the mother will bleed to death & the baby has no chance. MOST abortions however are nothing less than birth control. Not contraception BUT birth control… The thing is, tax payers should NOT have to foot the funds for careless pregancies.

I have sited a case with a holding, not my opinion, I could also cite other cases.  Your have given me your opinion based on your particular reading of the second.  If you would like to turn this into a second amendment discussion you may, but the weight or authority is on my side.

You may not agree with the logcal conclusions, but greater, wiser men than I have made these determinations and findings.  What I have written is based on what legal minds and writters have determined and I augmented some with my own ideas and opinions.

Jefe,

Your comment above is more than a bit disingenuous.  In the first place, the US Supreme Court has not visited the question of the Second Amendment and its applicability to federal and state law since 1939 (US v. Miller).  There have been several appeals recently which the Court has declined to hear, but those involved peripheral challenges, mostly to possession statutes such as Title 18, Section 922 or similar state laws restricting firearms possession by convicted felons or those under restraining orders vis a vis spouses or underage children.

Both US v. Napier, a 6th Circuit ruling, and US v. Emerson, a 5th Circuit ruling a year later, were just such cases.  Neither ruling has national precedential value.

Interestingly, the 5th Circuit had this to say in Emerson,

(The Second Amendment) protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training….

Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear private arms as historically understood in this country.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

As to the comment about voting for the lessor of two evils. While I have done so in the past and considering the Democrat candidate may considering doing so in the future, but as a Christian I don’t like the idea of voting for any evils, large or small and so on that ground, if I felt unable to vote for either candidate because I felt they represented rather equal evil, I would not feel any guilt for withholding my vote entirely.

Just a group of cells that are not viable outside the womb can be aborted without facing any moral dilemma? To call that logic, to make any sense of that position and to avoid blatant hypocrisy, tell me why is it that if a person harms a woman that is pregnant even early in the First Trimester and she loses the child that act is either murder or manslaughter of a human being?  Why is it that if a business having permitted an unsafe environment harms a woman that is pregnant even early in the First Trimester and she loses the child that act is liable under law either as the manslaughter of a human being? They can be held responsible criminally and sued under civil law for the death of a human being? Why in these cases are these so called unviable cells actually human beings and if a woman wants to abort it, these cells are no different than a tumor? What is the difference?

A man should be held legally and financially responsible for impregnating a woman that delivers her/his child to full term; and yet if she chooses to kill that fetus, he has no rights whatsoever? That is insanity. I am not suggesting the father can force the woman to have an abortion, but he should have a say under law in whether that child lives or dies.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman...No man could tell me to abort my child...You aren’t saying that the father could say you need to get an abortion are you?

Zsa Zsa: No! I certainly would never agree that any man has a right to tell a woman or compel a woman to get an abortion; just that if the woman has chosen abortion, I believe his feelings about the matter should have some importance and weight, just as important as it would be if she decides to go to term and demands he take full resposibility. I don’t want either party choosing to terminate the life of an innocent child Zsa Zsa, I was badly trying to suggest his feelings if and when she decides to abort should have some value, as it is his child too.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

rob108:

Trying to deny the humanity of a human fetus as a justification for summarily executing it is a very weak argument.

Trying to grant the personhood of a human fetus is an even weaker one.

This from the guy that humanizes Chickens…

::: Sigh :::

Proof you are right we are just a group of cells, but we are an autonomous group of cells and do not require biological support from anther group of cells to live.

The point I was trying to make, is that to say that human beings are “groups of cells” is 100% true and 100% meaningless in discussion of when life begins.
If I shoot my next door neighbor, am I merely eliminating a ”product of conception “, or is there another, perhaps moral dimension to be discussed?
The weaker one’s moral and logical position, the greater the need to cloud the discussion with euphemisms and imprecise terms.

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

I just want one of the pro-abortion crowd to answer my question about how the same group of cells can be human in one scenario and nothing more than a tumor in another!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

9 weeks a heart beat can be heard. Those who claim it is not human need to get educated.

Seth:

This from the guy that humanizes Chickens…

You can’t “humanize a chicken” because it doesn’t have human DNA.  On the other hand, a human fetus does contain a complete human DNA profile, and is therefore “human”.  Your entire denial here, Dave, is based on your parsing the definition of “person”.  You want to kill a human who doesn’t fit your definition of a “person”, as if that makes any real difference.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Dave,

Sorry… I meant “personify”, specifically the definition of the word where human characteristics or traits are applied to animals or inanimate objects.

I meant “personify”, specifically the definition of the word where human characteristics or traits are applied to animals or inanimate objects.

Like when we personify Dave’s “girlfriends”!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

SY/Proof: I think we’re talking anthropomorphism here.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Saying “pro-choice” or “Pro-life” is an ignorant statement. Everyone is pro-choice and pro-life, it’s for or against abortion that is the argument.

I feel it is wrong to force a woman to have a child she does not want. I doubt the baby would get the love it needs. Besides, if a woman can’t control herself sexually then she does not need to be raising a child.

Teejay...That is what contraception is for!  Contraception is NOT abortion.

First off, can I just say you’re an idiot Teejay?  Now that we have the obvious out of the way…

I feel it is wrong to force a woman to have a child she does not want. I doubt the baby would get the love it needs.

Forcing me to live with an ex-wife I don’t want is what I feel is wrong.  I should also be allowed to abort my 5th grader because he’s a screwup and I don’t think I love him any more.  If he doesn’t have my love, he should just be aborted for his sake.  [/sarcasm]

Besides, if a woman can’t control herself sexually then she does not need to be raising a child.

If she can’t control herself, she can give the child to someone who wants it (there are plenty of us out there).  Killing the child is not the best course of action for the mother OR child.

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

Tee Jay: So, because the woman is immature and unable to control her sexual urges then the innocent human being inside her womb deserves the death penalty? Rather than allow other loving human beings the chance to raise and love that child, it is better in your world to kill it? So much for liberal compassion, heh?

You are right about one thing, I hate the labels in this national debate, people either favor the cold blooded murder (abortion) of an innocent human being in the womb, or they favor giving that innocent human being every chance possible for a happy and productive life. It is life or death!

Those mostly on the Left favor death, not just abortion, but euthansia, assisted suicide and other means. Those mostly on the right favor the sanctity of human life.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.