Further, you sickos support murder of innocent humans when you support wars that are unnecessary. And even if you believe they are necessary, you still have the moral dilemma of approving the murder of the innocent.

I am more consistent and more rational on both of these issues than you nut-jobs.

What is a late term abortionist doing in a church anyway?

Which religion is it that gives that practice a pass?

What was his tally of dead babies over his career?

Live by violence, die by violence.

Rob, does the MSM influence the public in any way, yes or no?

According to them “no”.

After the Challenger disaster you should have heard them backpedal from their criticism of NASA being too cautious about launching in cold weather. (Most of the major news magazines had in the weeks leading up to the disaster run front cover stories about Nasa’s ineptitude and “can’t do” attitude).

Of course the media have an influence. Does that sometimes cause problems? Yes.

At the moment it’s pure assumption that O’Reilly is in any way implicated in this. The guys not exactly in my top ten list for favorite commentators, but I’m willing to cut him a bit of slack until I know more of the circumstances around this.

That all said, Hannitized is clearly trying to use a personal tragedy for political gain.

You are trying to hang on to abortion as part of your partisan ideology, while trying to appear sensible and sensitive at the same time. But that compromise is no longer viable. Medical technology and our knowledge of human reproduction and gestation have moved well beyond your archaic compromises with morality.

That’s basically what it breaks down to. The moral “compromise” is that we give up and leave him and his ilk to their murder. There is no more way to “agree to disagree” than there is to agree to disagree on murder or slavery.

All this crying from sanni proves, yet again, that it is morally and mentally inferior. Good job, guys. Keep kicking its teeth in, this is fun to watch.

It’s so odd, and yet odder still in the consistency…

Leftards always pick the wrong side of any argument.

They pick Ho Chi Mihn over freedom.

The Ayatollah over freedom.

Saddam Hussein over freedom.

They pick (in matters of the Constitution) serfdom over freedom.

And in matters, such as this, they side with the death of an unborn innocent over the whims of the mother.

It’s uncanny.

And yet, in their hearts of black hearts, Leftists consider themselves morally superior and more evolved.

(shakes head in disbelief)

Ken,

Notice how Hannitized has to keep qualifying ‘unnecessary’ war here.

As if anyone here is in favor of war just for the fun of it.

There most certainly is a difference between going to war in Afghanistan, and going to war in Iraq. There most certainly was a difference between WWII and Vietnam. This is obvious to those who are not committed to being obtuse.

Hannitized, the Iraq War was necessary in my book, and you and the left do not get the final word on what is and is not an unnecessary war.

I think there is fair room to debate the idea. What was that bat said bout those who fear debating ideas?

You are the one who has repeatedly called for the killing of Negro children,

Really, and how did I do that.

Bat, according to totalitarians like Dino, this is the kind of Reichstag fire excuse they need to round up all of the ‘dangerous’ conservatives and put them in concentration camps.

This is a wet dream for Dino.

For those of us who respect and support the Constitution, this excerpt from the Fifth Amendment sets the standard:

…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

Tiller should have been duly tried for his crimes, and then punished in accordance with the rule of law. Not this way.

Orielly told the truth about the guy.

In reality—which most conservatives are divorced from—Mr. O’Reilly is a well-documented liar. He purposely lied about Dr. Tiller on multiple shows for the sole purpose of inciting his hate-filled audience.

All points of the political spectrum have the ability to exhibit extremism. This is fact. No one side is any more dangerous than another… unless you ask their polar opposites.

If you believe that, why get upset about the memo put out by Homeland Security?

You all got upset about a memo that correctly identified some people that can be are or can be lead into extremism.

This is a wet dream for Dino.

Ken,

Apparently Hannitized is feeling quite a tingle down his pants leg too!

Gang, sanni defends baby killers because it likes the idea of dead babies. Does not want to do it itself! Far too cowardly for that, it gets its sexual titillation from looking at pics of dead babies other leftards have killed.

OK, I guess the whole debating ideas thing was over rated, eh BatOne?

H,

Don’t get your thong athwart, Kid! I have more rewarding pursuits than delivering your weak ass on a silver platter… again!

At issue, as I recall, was the question of what constitutes a human and what constitutes a “glob of goo” to use your vile reference. Your “glob of goo” being that which can be cheerfully disposed of with no pangs of conscience.

First, here’s a quote for you and the other lefties to ponder from Harrison Hickman, with the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League:

Probably nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about the fetus in much different terms than they did 15 years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer on how to cure.

So just what IS the difference?

Between weeks 3 and4 the heart begin beating, pumping its own blood. At week 6 brain waves are detectable. Kicking by the baby is detectable at week 7. By week 11, the baby can turn its head back and forth, and smile or frown. Also by week 11, the baby can grasp objects in its hand and has developed its own unique fingerprints. Between week 12 and 13 the baby’s central nervous system is completed and the baby is able to experience pain. And all of that occurs within the first trimester.

I would offer that all those signs of a growing human life, and not a mere “glob of goo.” Of course the baby is not yet fully formed, but that is also true of a newborn, whose skull is not yet fully formed, nor his/her intellectual development… a characteristic shared with many adult liberals.

Your point of determination for what should or should not be destroyed is, quoting now,

If it looks like a human, it’s a human.

But from someone who purports to favor fact-based discussion this is awfully weak, glib, and bordering on cynical. In the first place, your criteria is highly subjective, not fact-based at all. In the second, I sincerely doubt that Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider is going to provide in vitro camera capability for the mother-to-be to preview the baby whose life she is about to destroy. See again the quote above from NARRAL about technology.

My remark yesterday still stands, unchallenged:

If you cannot make that determination, then the only two “consistent” positions would be to either oppose all abortions, or sanction any abortion right up to the moment of birth. Anything else, including your stated position, is nothing more than sanctimonious quibble.

You’ve tried to split the difference by stating,

I oppose killing babies in late term. That includes infanticide. Which means, if it can be removed from the womb and survive…it’s a human.

But that test ignores third-term medical emergencies, normal premature births, multiple pregnancies such as twins or triplets, and a whole host of other situations where post-natal care, often delicate and highly intensive, is not only required, but most often successful.

You are trying to hang on to abortion as part of your partisan ideology, while trying to appear sensible and sensitive at the same time. But that compromise is no longer viable. Medical technology and our knowledge of human reproduction and gestation have moved well beyond your archaic compromises with morality.

The dividing line separating a human from that “glob of goo” isn’t where you hoped it to be. And that IS a fact.

“fetuses and goo”

That cut and paste meant something in your mind, I am sure. But a profound or intelligent argument, it was not.

I can understand why you might react so emotionally on topics you feel you can exercise your moral superiority. But in a debate on ideas, your personal character assassination attempts are both inappropriate, and unproductive.

Here is an idea worth exploring.

If you removed an embryo at week 4, what would it look like? Would you be looked at strangely if you tried to dress it in clothes and carry it around with you? Of course.

If you removed a fetus at 8 weeks, could you care for it like you could a complete baby? Of course not. It would not live.

The realities may offend you. But in the discussion of ideas your emotions are useless in advancing your debate forward.

the cons have chose to insult me, rather than debate ideas.

Where you are concerned, the former is always a possibility; the latter is not.

Pparets,

Example. Hannitized thinks, if you can call it that, innocent and unintended casualties of war are morally wrong. While at the same time ignoring the morality of defending innocent lives even though there very well may be casualties. He imagines a moral dilemma where there is none because he lacks the moral sense necessary to discern between uninteded consequences of doing the right thing and deliberately and intentionally killing a baby in the mothers womb.

Oh, like you avoided this argument?

I didn’t avoid the argument, I responded with my ideas of what I believe is a complete human. He disagrees, and believes his opinions to be more “factual”, but that is hardly avoiding the argument.

You keep trying to divert the discussion away from the fact that Tiller aborted late term infants. They did not resemble lizards or “goo” or clumps of cells. They resembled babies just inches and seconds away from being born.

In Tiller’s case, you are correct. But I do not condone late term abortion for the sake of convenience. I do understand that the laws in each state may make it difficult if not impossible for a person to obtain an abortion, if the find out late in their term that that are pregnant and a doctor refuses to perform the operation in the fetus’s late stage.

My own personal opinions is where Bat has chosen to start the debate. The challenge then becomes, are we talking the morning after pill, are we talking about someone who can catch pregnancy early in the first trimester, or are we talking after 7 weeks?

I don’t make my decisions based on phony morals the bible belters pretend to adhere to.

Therefore, there is no moral inconsistency.

Rob,

You big ol dip. You have no idea if the murder was more enraged after watching Billow or not.

I am willing to accept the fact that he might have had no influence what-so-ever, but then again, maybe he had.

You like to argue that the MSM is the cause of so much influence in the political world, until it your side that is responsible for outcomes.

That double standard and transparent. Or in other words…..sickening.

It gives you no additional insight to the fact that innocent people are killed by war…

This is inordinately stupid! Warfare is about killing people. And participating in warfare… killing people… gives you a very special insight that no sanctimonious armchair critic can ever hope to comprehend or match.

But that said, I wonder just why we are back to this thread at all. According to what you wrote earlier on another thread, you “wiped” my ass here yesterday. But if that was true (and obviously it isn’t) then why are we back here again? Hmmm?

So, abortion is justified because innocent people are killed in wars? That just may be the most convoluted bit of nonsense posted here in the past month.

If you are arguing from a moral perspective, you can either oppose death of innocent, or you do not.

The right wants it both ways, which is inconsistent.

People like me, who approve the removal of a clump of cells and still oppose abortion in late term is more consistent if I believe humans are being killed.

In war, innocent complete humans are killed, as are infants in late term abortion.

You guys are all over the fucking place……and you know it.

I will be only too happy to “engage” a Democrat like you, again, when I get back here later. At the moment I have an appointment to attend to.

Ok, because it appeared your only attempt to debate ideas was to mischaracterize mine, in order to lift yourself up. I will look forward to your debate on the ideas.

Meanwhile, for your further consideration: It is your position that is inconsistent… unless you can authoritatively determine when that “clump of cells” as you dismissively call it, becomes a human being whose termination you say you oppose.

If it looks like a human, it’s a human. If it looks like a glob of goo….it’s not. This is pretty obvious stuff Bat. I am clear on my position. I oppose killing babies in late term. That includs infanticide. Which means, if it can be removed from the womb and survive…it’s a human.

If you cannot make that determination, then the only two “consistent” positions would be to either oppose all abortions, or sanction any abortion right up to the moment of birth. Anything else, including your stated position, is nothing more than sanctimonious quibble.

So in the “debate of ideas”, it is only your ideas that matter? Not quite, sir. My “idea” of a human is when it looks human. It has a human brain, a human head and limbs and feet and body. A glob of goo has none of those and it is not killing a human, but human tissues that are in a incomplete process of development. I have always been talking about a complete human with consciousness.

Furthermore, I have said nothing to indicate approval of Tiller’s murder. But though murder is always to be regretted, its difficult to mourn Tiller while ignoring the murders he himself committed. Those of us on/in the Right are under no obligation to mourn Tiller.

I don’t “mourn” him either. But I have a consistent principle killing complete humans. You appear not to.

There are thousands and thousands of Americans murdered every year. But not mourning his loss, is not an endorsement of his murder. Nor does it mean that we shouldn’t cheer the fact that his career as a later term abortion provider is over.

Fair enough.

Finally, how about just a little bit of honesty to go with all that self-congratulatory horseshit of yours. It is those of you on the Left who are making the Tiller murder a partisan political issue, first with your comments regarding O’Reilly (who is no less within his rights to offer his commentary on issues than you are.)

Well….it could be an issue. If O’Reilly influenced him…then it’s an issue. If he didn’t', it’s not. It certainly is an “idea”….isn’t it?

The Iraq war has nothing to do with the Tiller murder, and your insistence on inciting this issue by making it more political is merely a sign of the weakness of your position and the speciousness of your arguments thus far.

The idea of innocent people dying for an unnecessary war, is relevant in the debate of ideas. I knew you weren’t up to it.

You have accepted the outright murder of humans for convenience. Then you have the gall to criticize those who support a humanitarian war…because not everyone can be saved.

Kenny has justified his moral inconsistency with a logical explanation that he believes IS moral justification.

He has abandoned moral absolutism for statistical ethics and consequentialism. He may in fact have a logical belief which I may or may not agree, depending on the context. But in the debate of ideas, there is not arguing that you have moral inconsistencies in your position.

For example: I may find many logical reasons or consequences that can be deemed logical to justify abortion. In fact, I do. But they can range from reasonable to absurd, depending on each individuals moral compass.

He has abandoned moral absolutism for statistical ethics and consequentialism. He may in fact have a logical belief which I may or may not agree, depending on the context. But in the debate of ideas, there is not arguing that you have moral inconsistencies in your position.

Your sudden discovery of three-syllable words does nothing to validate the vapid absurdity of your ideas.

“fetuses and goo”

Innocent people were killed when we fought Hitler, but millions of lives were saved, the killing chambers were shut down, the genocide stopped.

That doesn’t change your decision to be so gleefully supporting the Iraq war, nor does it change the moral dilemma.

You can justify it, sure. But you can not ever make the moral argument logical.

You simply have accepted one form of killing human life, over another.

Zig,

That’s interesting! Really. As I recall, the Chinese also regard left, and left-handedness to be strange, or “gwai.” And though the characters are different, the number 7 is also pronounced “gwai” leading to some intricate but delightful puns at the expense of lefties.

Incidentally, I am left-handed!

And notice not ANY of you have had the balls to admit that this pretty much confirmed what the Homeland Security Office said…..about right wing extremists.

Um, say what?

Here is how it works Rob. If Olberman was going around talking how dangerous OReilly was, and that he is all NAZI and all this……and a lib actually killed OReilly……….is it not important to know if the guy was influenced by Olberman yes or no?

Olbermann is doing that, but regardless. There’s an old saying…”The truth is a great defense.” Under the law, partial birth abortion is infanticide. So saying he’s murdering children is both legally and factually true. Not that such things matter to you of course.

rom the KKK to TImothy McVeigh, conservatives on the fringe are always the ones who commit violence when they get frustrated.

KKK=Democrat sponsored organization.

And timothy McVeigh?

Here’s a statement from McVeigh about Iraq:

“The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons (“weapons of mass destruction”) — mainly because they have used them in the past.
Well, if that’s the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) — with respect to Iraq’s (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of “mass destruction” — like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above.
The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Well, he sounds just like you troll.

I find it interesting that you find it so offensive…

“fetuses and goo”

Ah c’mon fellas,

When you think with your dick, which you don’t hesitate to plunge into a herpes-infected Cooder, how deep can your thoughts be?

The only clue sanni has is google.

Do you justify that termination of a baby (human DNA defines you) is negligible?

Also, do you think what Tiller did was correct and right?

Answer yes or no.

SuperToad:

If you believe that, why get upset about the memo put out by Homeland Security?

Why? Because the memo unfairly singles out one facet of political ideology while ignoring all others–the one that just happens to be the polar opposite of those who wrote the memo.

That is BS!!

Homeland Security put out memos on left wing extremists groups as well.

Admit it, you all got your panties in a bunch because of your emotional response to the memo. There was logic and factual evidence to support most of the memo’s concerns.

You are all being politically correct at the cost of the US citizens safety.

Warfare is about killing people.

Abortion is about removing fetuses and globs of goo….and sometimes, babies (unfortunately).

I oppose the latter, and can condone the former.

The thing that makes no logical sense is that you morally oppose abortion, but not warfare where innocent, and complete human beings are killed.

Your moral argument is weakened by your inconsistent principles. But you and I both know that.

I accepted your challenge to a debate about ideas, and now you want to narrow the argument to a specific detail based on what you identify as facts, as to avoid debating ideas. You are changing the terms.

Nonsense! I challenged your assertion of when abortion is acceptable, that is, when that “glob of goo” as you’ve described it, becomes a human. In support f my position I have offered facts regarding human gestation… facts which you have yet to successfully challenge, much less refute. Your cavalier contention that

If it looks like a human, it’s a human.

somehow justifies the

removal of a clump of cells

is what I have objected to all along. But realizing somewhat late that your position is morally and medically indefensible (again, note the NARRAL quote) you once more attempt to quibble your way out by trying to change the subject.

Granted, I may not be a Plato, Descartes, Locke, or Hume, but I am certainly more than intelligent enough to see through your modest attempts at misdirection. If you are uncomfortable trying to defend your own hasty pronouncements about abortion and your nebulous, non-factual assertions regarding that dividing line, why not just acknowledge the fact and then move on?

Handjob:

If removing a glob of goo, fetus or baby is done so to save the womans life, than you must justify that also, or risk being morally inconsistent.

Then goes:

I don’t think any of us want to destroy life.

That is totally contradictory. It’s a living being at the very least. You have to kill it.

Totally inconsistent even on a primitive level.

Pparets,

Theses hannitized types think that they are somehow rational when they dismiss any moral sense from their line of thought. They suppose that reason divorced from any moral sense is somehow the purest form of logic and therefore superior to an argument infused with moral sense.

They ignore the fact that without morality there would be no society, no justice. They think and try to live in the realm of the theoretical. Reality is as they think it, regardless of the facts or the failures of their ideas.

“Consistency”, like “fairness” is a total judgment call. It’s just another straw man for someone who has no reasoning to back up his position; accuse the opponent of “not being consistent”.

Maybe, finally, we will get some restrictions on his type of hate speech. And some liability for sending people out to murder another person. billo might as well of put a contract out on the man.

To me, you know, just using logic, it’s not a complete human.

It’s human; even an ignorant fool like you has to admit that. When someone is severely injured, for a time they can’t survive unassisted, either; do you want to kill them? Your standard is bullshit.

BatOne,

You said:

People on the Left, many of whom are only nominally bright to begin with, are far too accustomed to dismissing ideas with which they disagree by attacking the messenger instead of refuting the ideas themselves. -BatOne

My response to your challenge was:

Bat will not engage a Democrat, like me, on the issue of ideas. He will only slander, as he has done above.

If he truly believed in debating ideas, and he was logical, he would agree it is inconsistent to support unnecessary war and condone deaths of innocents as a result and then also oppose death of clumps of cells.

So you said you would debate me on the ideas…..and you went to avoid debating ideas.

Why don’t you just admit that you lied when you said people on the left cant and wont debate ideas?

You lost!!

You also, for the third time, ignored this:

Since neither your comprehension nor your memory appear to reach the level of your vocabulary, let me repeat myself: It is presumptuous arrogance for you to tell me what I mind or don’t.

Ok, fair enough.

Please explain to me how you feel about bombs dropping on innocent children, women and men, in times we make calculated risk, when we target dictators.

Then, explain to me how you have criticized those actions and spoke of the moral outrage of these decisions.

Finally, explain your idea that the two should have morally different response after correlating the two scenarios of abortion and collateral damage.

Don’t look now kid, but thanks to me, we are now debating ideas.

Why do you refuse to debate ideas?????

“Hannitized” – You support christian domestic terrorism, and you condone the calculated dropping of bombs for wars that are unnecessary…

No, he doesn’t.

Why do you lie?

And you are directly responsible for the deaths of our troops who had to serve three and four tours on an unnecessary war because you support that war and would not serve.

This kind of rhetoric is just plain disgusting, not to mention lying.

What do you really know about life in the universe Liqwid? What you read in a book? What you learned from bible study?

Seriously? Bible study? Uh…whatever man. You do know that I’m an agnostic, right? I guess not. It’s not like that has been hidden information or anything. I guess it’s easier to just assume, eh? I don’t go to any Bible study. It’s not for me.

I look and see a cold universe, with vast spaces of nearly nothing that is constantly expanding by way of inflation. Just in our own very limited solar system, even if there is life on Europa or another rock, life is pretty scarce.

And, just on our own little rock, life has shown to be hardy. It also has been shown, ironically enough, to be pretty fragile. It doesn’t take much before it is destroyed.

What if there were multiple parallel universes where there are 7 exactly similar babies in the wombs of the exact same mother in each universe? What if in one universe the baby survived or was not aborted and lived a complete life?

That you can even pose such a question as an abortion supporter is pretty disgusting. “What if”. Fuck it, let’s abort them because there may be a parallel universe where the little bastard wasn’t aborted.

Seriously?

What do you really know about the universe and life? I submit, less than you think. Don’t pretend to know all.

Wow. You’re a bit of an asshole.

BTW, you answered with my own thoughts in a way. What do you really know about the universe and life? Not much. So why destroy life? Life may or may not be pretty bleak and scarce. Revealing that you know the limits of our own knowledge and understanding about the subject, why would you be there campaigning for the right to destroy life for the most selfish of wants?

Correction…..you have a moral ideology, you just don’t have a consistent one. The harm/care ideology has always been one of my favorites to dismantle.

Why do you refuse to debate ideas?????

Why do you refuse to defend the “ideas” you’ve offered regarding the subject matter, abortion, which I have effortlessly eviscerated like a Benihana chef?

Is it because you can’t defend what you’ve said? Is it because the facts on human gestation I provided, along with that NARRAL quote, demonstrate that your “glob of goo” argument is little more than stupid, self-righteous equivocation, exactly the sort of moral mush both you and your party stand for?

You want a “debate” on Charles Manson, the War in Iraq, or the victimhood of “Howlies” that’s fine. But you will first answer my challenge to your flippant approach to abortion, the original subject matter of this thread, before we change the subject to something less discomforting to you.

Look, if you really are as “good” as you advertise yourself to be, you should have no trouble defending your own remarks, should you? That you are unable to do so, however, that you cannot support your own “if it looks human it is human” argument or that ridiculous “glob of goo” description of yours tells me that beneath all the self-aggrandizing bluster, you really aren’t anywhere near as “good” as advertised.

Let me know when you tire of trying to change the subject to avoid further embarrassment.

Sorta hard to ignore that important fact Rob.

Did O’Reilly pull the trigger?

No.

End of story.

A lot of good blocking does you, potato. You seem to readily read what I post.

Here is how it works Rob. If Olberman was going around talking how dangerous OReilly was, and that he is all NAZI and all this……and a lib actually killed OReilly……….is it not important to know if the guy was influenced by Olberman yes or no?

See, what you are doing is dishonest. You are pretending Billow did not personally go after this guy some 30 episodes.

Sorta hard to ignore that important fact Rob.

They ignore the fact that without morality there would be no society, no justice.

Well said.

Indeed, as technology advances, Man’s ability to wipe himself out increases as our weapons become more and more devastating.

Intelligence, without the guiding hand of wisdom, is very dangerous for humankind.

In reality, what is occurring here is an avoidance of philosophical logic on the part of Bat, yourself and others.

You have all involved your emotions and psychological processes to debate your beliefs, and avoid debating abstractions.

Are you talking about your position on condoning the calculated dropping of bombs on targets in Iraq that kill children????

Which saved children’s lives.

You keep skipping this to pretend the two are equal. They are not.

The fetus, you speak of, or glob of goo….could not survive on its own if it were removed from the womb. To me, you know, just using logic, it’s not a complete human.

Nor could an infant survive on it’s own without an adult. You. Don’t. Have. A. Point. Here.

But I guess those 3yr old kids and 6 year old girls who get blown to bits, don’t trouble you?

This has been addressed, but you’re ignoring it. Just as you’re ignoring facts on child development to claim it is a “glob of goo” in a picture which is clearly NOT a glob of goo. You claim that killing children accidently in war is wrong, but killing them deliberately is right.

Hypocrite.

You are reacting emotionally to what you believe is a complete human, and we disagree….simple as that.

Obviously, Tiller wasn’t a complete human either. Nor are most liberals.

Dehumanizing can go both ways.

Here’s a look at what a piece of filth Tiller was:

http://kgov.com/gallery/abortion/wichita-memorial/memorial.html

You can now own my ideas or determine which of my ideas are factual or not. You do not own this subject matter and you do not own science and you can hardly speak to it intelligently.

This is ironic from a dude who shows a picture of a fetus with a defined head, a spine, a heart, a liver, and the beginnings of arms and legs, and announces it….goo. Ignoring the evidence makes you a fool.

Your own evidence shoots you down, and you say OTHERS cannot debate intelligently on abortion. Eye roll.

You have lost.

The parade horse victory lap! Declare victory once it finally becomes apparent that all is lost, and cover your tracks by trying to change the subject.

Look, if you want me to address your challenge all you have to do is dispose rationally of mine. Something you are apparently incapable of doing.

I don’t know why you’d expect any more success challenging a Vietnam vet about the vagaries or horrors of warfare, when your own personal military experiences consist of little more than a pair of imaginary golf partners, but whatever.

Your “glob of goo” description is offensive and factually incorrect. And your line of demarcation regarding acceptable abortion is nebulous, indistinct, medically insupportable and egregiously glib. And when you have acknowledged as much, I’ll be only too glad to decimate your war equivalence argument.

HG,

If you read back on the origination of this topic, it arose not out of purpose to have a victor and a loser, but rather out of intellectual curiosity.

Bat said people on the left are incapable or intelligent enough to debate ideas, without making insults to those they are challenged by.

I accepted Bat’s challenge and am debating “ideas”. As predicted, the cons have chose to insult me, rather than debate ideas.

Bat, you have lost this argument too many times to count.

The debate of ideas is based on your ideas and my ideas. My ideas is that the above to me is not a human or person that can live on it’s own. It is essentially a glob of goo that has the potential to be a human or person.

Removing this for health reasons or other is a moral decision that you can either agree with nor not agree with.

The idea that is up for debate, and that you refuse to debate, is that if you can not condone the removal of this and you condone the calculated bombing of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 year old children as collateral damage, you are at odds with your own moral beliefs.

This is the idea that I have offered for discussion, and you refuse to debate.

You have lost.

Photo

Yet, in this photo, it is clearly not a glob of goo as it has a defined head, and the beginnings of arms and legs. And the spine is visible.

As even this photo shows, “blob of goo” is indefensible at more than a week, two tops.

I have clearly defined my idea, that the above can not survive on it’s own. Nor does it have any resemblance to a human.

Infants cannot either. This is a subjective and unimportant point. Christopher Reeves, if left to his own would’ve died after the accident. Self sustainability is not a requirement to be human.

No scientific points. All feeling, no fact.

The idea that is up for debate, and that you refuse to debate, is that if you can not condone the removal of this and you condone the calculated bombing of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 year old children as collateral damage, you are at odds with your own moral beliefs.

The fact that you continue to ignore is that the deliberate murder of a child is not morally equivalent to the accidental killing of a child in a liberation attempt that saves other children.

A lot of children’s lives have been saved as a result of the Iraq war. While it is tragic that some died from our bombs, less children died as a result of our attack than if we had done nothing. That makes the war moral.

As the left constantly crows about Darfur: By doing nothing, we are letting people die. But what would happen if we invaded? People would be killed in the invasion. If we sanction them, further more will die from starvation in ADDITION to violence. Iraq was the same, we did nothing about the violence to his people (even though we had a stake in it), and indeed sanctioned him, causing even more death. By invading and deposing him, we have saved lives.

The realities may offend you. But in the discussion of ideas your emotions are useless in advancing your debate forward.

Back at’cha, Yellowstain! Now focus, or at least try to focus on human life approaching 36 weeks.
That’s the reality surrounding the abortions performed by George Tiller.
Try to keep up, Wankertized!

Another right wing extremist I ran into last night:

You know, I tend to be pretty in favor of abortion. It’s hard to call getting rid of a cluster of cells murder. But I mean, this dude, these late term abortions…it’s kinda sick. I find it really hard to feel bad that he’s dead.

Even most pro-abortionists realize that it’s murder at some point. At worst, one extremist killed another…

Even if Tiller’s killer actually was a so-called “rightwing extremist,” so what? Is that illegal? If he was, does that fact indict every other “rightwing extremist” by implication? Or invalidate what those on the right wing have to say?

Whether Tiller’s killer was in any way influenced by O’Reilly is irrelevant. I know freedom isn’t very fashionable under the current Democrat regime. Especially for those of us who disagree with the Left’s neo-Fascist ideology. But we don’t punish people for their beliefs in this country… only for their actions. People on the Left, many of whom are only nominally bright to begin with, are far too accustomed to dismissing ideas with which they disagree by attacking the messenger instead of refuting the ideas themselves.

Obama and his supporters would be far better worrying about the consequences of a nuclear armed North Korea and Iran, than the “consequences” of a TV talking head whose commentary they find discomforting.

Ando,

Do you justify war, and the calculated dropping of bombs on targets that cause collateral damage? Yes, or no?

sanni advocates murdering babies because A, it is too cowardly to kill with its own hands and 2, it gets sexual gratification from fantasizing about killing babies. It is just that simple.

Tell us, sanni, did you find anyone to stick their penis in your mouth this weekend, or are you still all alone?

The thing that makes no logical sense is that you morally oppose abortion, but not warfare where innocent, and complete human beings are killed.

This song and dance is a massive lie. Innocent people were killed when we fought Hitler, but millions of lives were saved, the killing chambers were shut down, the genocide stopped.

If we had objected to the fact that some civilians would die in our liberation, and had stood by and did nothing, Hitler would’ve raped all of Europe. The death count would’ve made WW2 look like nothing.

Those who stand by and “condemn” the killing make no difference. Ask the people in Darfur how useful our indignation is to the dead. Only those who will fight to free the oppressed, and understand that a few will die as a result, will help anyone.

Standard liberal modus operandi.

Blame anyone, anyone, other than the actual perpetrator.

Oh, and buzzed? You are the one who has repeatedly called for the killing of Negro children, does that make you guilty of murder each time a black child is killed?

Saying you oppose killing babies is not hate speech, it is love and compassion for the innocent civilian babies.

Saying this dude is doing it and he needs to be stopped is calling for his murder. billo killed this man and shuld be prosecuted.

Blaming O’Reilly for this (whom I disagree with at least 50% of the time) is ridiculous. If he or any other media figure openly called for the assasination of the guy that would be absolutely wrong and that person would deserve whatever blame came to them. While O’Reilly can be way over top at times, he didn’t do anything that any other media type doesn’t do in pursuing a story and cause he passionately believes in. The fact that some nutcase took it too far or interpreted it in a wrongful way is not O’Reilly’s fault.

The most absurd thing hannitized has ever said…

PP,

In a debate on ideas, you can not argue that my conclusion is not logical.

Instead, what you are left with is rationalizing your double standard and lack of firm moral principle. There may very well be a “reason” to have a double standard, but it is a moral double standard, nonetheless.

I don’t think your mind is able to comprehend this idea. Most conservatives don’t lack the intellectual capital to debate ideas. Bat one has proven this to be the case.

Only a sick and twisted individual can dimiss murder and encouraging anarchy.

There is no difference between this guy and a serial killer (as everyone here acknowledges that late term abortion is murder). As even the pro-abortion Obama supporting leftist I quoted above shows, no one feels sympathy for this piece of filth.

Further, you sickos support murder of innocent humans when you support wars that are unnecessary. And even if you believe they are necessary, you still have the moral dilemma of approving the murder of the innocent.

So the murder of innocent humans in a necessary war is ok? That’s not how it works. It’s the difference between just and unjust wars, and deliberate vs accidental killing.

If you are arguing from a moral perspective, you can either oppose death of innocent, or you do not.

If your neighbor is slaughtering children and you break in to save them (you hear screaming). He starts shooting at you and, in the firefight, one of the children is hit and killed. Is that child’s death your fault? Of course not. The accidental killing of an innocent child is awful. But you were saving the rest and he would’ve killed that child anyways.

So too in war, while still tragic, can the deaths of innocents be forgiven. The Iraq war saved lives. If the Iraq war raised death rates, or turned a peaceful country into a violent one…then the criticism would be valid. But it didn’t happen like that.

By opposing the war, and thereby encouraging the insurgents, the left is complicit in the death toll.

You guys are all over the fucking place……and you know it.

Says the dude who is more concerned with the death of a murderer than with the deaths of children. Hanni mocking anyone on their inconsistancy=comedic gold.

If you believe that, why get upset about the memo put out by Homeland Security?

Why? Because the memo unfairly singles out one facet of political ideology while ignoring all others — the one that just happens to be the polar opposite of those who wrote the memo.

It is so blatantly obvious that it should not have to be spelled out.

sanni, you have had your teeth kicked in yet again. Your defense of baby killing profiteers is not a discussion of ideas, it is you defending baby killing profiteers. You are the moral inferior, you are the intellectual inferior, you are simply inferior. Your mother should have chosen abortion.

This is a cold dark universe where life, even if it is abundant throughout the universe, is few and far between. Viewed from that light, the ultimate evil is to be against life. Why not protect and encourage it? After all, you’re alive. It’s pretty damn hypocritical and evil to want life for yourself but deny it to others, all for the convenience to yourself.

What do you really know about life in the universe Liqwid? What you read in a book? What you learned from bible study?

What if there were multiple parallel universes where there are 7 exactly similar babies in the wombs of the exact same mother in each universe? What if in one universe the baby survived or was not aborted and lived a complete life?

What do you really know about the universe and life? I submit, less than you think. Don’t pretend to know all.

“Really, and how did I do that.” By repeatedly calling for the deaths of Negroes, specifically for the deaths of black males, whom you told us, repeatedly, endlessly, without end, that you hated and wanted to murder. Over and over. Repeatedly. At length. Over and over.

Come on, faggoty assed cocksucker. Show us what a “man” you are. Kill some members of those groups you hate so much. I can’t wait for the youtube video of a bunch of 10 year olds stomping your ass to death, you sadsack, lying, non-Union piece of fucking shit.

People on the Left, many of whom are only nominally bright to begin with, are far too accustomed to dismissing ideas with which they disagree by attacking the messenger instead of refuting the ideas themselves.

Bat will not engage a Democrat, like me, on the issue of ideas. He will only slander, as he has done above.

If he truly believed in debating ideas, and he was logical, he would agree it is inconsistent to support unnecessary war and condone deaths of innocents as a result and then also oppose death of clumps of cells.

He will refuse to stay within those parameters in order to avoid maintaining consistency and logic and will instead change the debate to suit his partisan agenda.

Notice how Hannitized has to keep qualifying ‘unnecessary’ war here.

As if anyone here is in favor of war just for the fun of it.

Hannitized, the Iraq War was necessary in my book, and you and the left do not get the final word on what is and is not an unnecessary war.

Saddam gassed and killed about 8000 people, all Kurds, up near the Iran border. Everyone in the town, Men, Women and Children, dead. How do you think Chemical Ali got his nickname?

In a reaction to a revolution that was encouraged by Bush 1, Saddam did as others do in war, drop bombs to kill their enemies (women and children included). Granted, his bombs were chemical, but the result is the same.

You just made a judgment call on whose war is acceptable, and which whose war isn’t.

Totally inconsistent.

Additionally, that is different than the original claim that he was murdering people daily, before our invasion.

You can either have moral consistencies or you can not. You do not.

You are all over the place, making your judgement calls not from logic, but from your emotional rage.

The ugly truth that Wankertized is trying to ignore (like the damp, yellow stains on his “boardies”), is that Tiller performed abortions on late term infants. Some full term. They definitely did not look like “lizards” or “goo” or “clumps of cells”, they looked like “babies“.
George Tiller performed the barbaric late term abortion procedure known as “partial birth abortion”.
(For the squeamish, you might not want to read the rest of this post.)
In partial birth abortion, the late term infant is delivered breach (feet first) until all but the head has been delivered. Surgical scissors are then stabbed into the back of the infants head (without anesthesia, despite the fact that the infant’s nervous system is fully developed).
The infant’s brains are then suctioned out and then the head is delivered.

This is NOT a procedure that is done when the “health of the mother” is at stake, because it is too time consuming compared to other methods.

Wankertized natters on about details of early pregnancy (which he gets wrong nonetheless) which are irrelevant in discussions of late term abortions.

Yellowstain is either just too freaking ignorant to know the difference or is dishonestly trying to muddy the water.
(Or both)

Supporting the Iraq was is also a demonstration of how cheap the right holds life.

Logic fail, idiot herpitized. Saddam was torturing and killing his own people by the hundreds of thousands. Real torture. With acid and rape and maiming and murder. Mass graves and warehouses full of human remains were discovered. Bush had full authority and support from many senators from both parties. Saddam refused to allow inspections in violation of UN Resolution 1441.

The evaporation of support from democrats was purely political and shameful. Cheerleading for preemptive surrender as a means to gain power back. Harry Reid and his ilk should be tried and shot for treason.

Supporting the war in Iraq is a demonstration of how we value life and our will to remove those who hold it cheap.

Goddam, did you go to stupid school to get special training to be so stupid?

No need to answer. We already know you have sex with diseased whores.

One thing you can always count on from leftist idiots. They will ALWAYS rally to protect the most evil and condemn the most innocent.

And notice not ANY of you have had the balls to admit that this pretty much confirmed what the Homeland Security Office said…..about right wing extremists.
She was exactly right…..and you will never admit it. Partisan hacks.

Only a truly sick and twisted individual would decry the killing of one evil abortonist while ignoring the murder of thousands of innocent babies.

But from someone who purports to favor fact-based discussion this is awfully weak, glib, and bordering on cynical. In the first place, your criteria is highly subjective, not fact-based at all.

Well now, if the discussion is supposed to based on ideas, then we run into issues when you want to raise the white flag and stick to discussing what you determine as facts. Don’t we.

As I had said, you aren’t interested in debating ideas.

Debating an idea deals the precisely that. You don’t mind that a 6 year old child, (who has an ability of free will, and ability to articulate her desires and joys in life) is destroyed by bombs being dropped from the sky to kill a guy who is suspected of having something he doesn’t.

Yet, here you are quibbling about human life as it relates to the various stages of a fetus.

A woman who was raped by her father is impregnated with his child. By week 7 it is starting to appear as a tadpole shape and could quite possibly end up with several deformities as a result of interbreeding.

But that idea, the idea of the psychological damage the young woman, or possibly child would have to endure to give birth is lost on you, because you want to make a moral judgment about what this young woman should and should not do with her body and the developing fetus inside her.

If you recognize you are pregnant within 4 weeks, you then have 3 more to make a decision before your moral predicament becomes an issue.

You are trying to hang on to abortion as part of your partisan ideology, while trying to appear sensible and sensitive at the same time. But that compromise is no longer viable. Medical technology and our knowledge of human reproduction and gestation have moved well beyond your archaic compromises with morality.

Granted, in this display of emotion, you have offered an idea to debate, but nonetheless, you keep resorting to your version of the facts, which aren’t facts at all.

A fetus has a 50% chance of survival past 20 weeks if it is removed from the mothers womb. At all points of development the glob of goo is human life. But when it becomes a person, is the issue you seem to want to discuss.

There are so many different levels of development, where a fetus looks like a lizard in the womb at one stage, a glob of goo in another and in many stages, a human looking fetus.

In all cases, a bomb kills a complete human, complete with free will and life it has started to experience.

You haven’t said one word about your inconsistent view or your moral double standard.

Abortion is about removing fetuses and globs of goo….

This is a demonstration of how cheap the left holds life. It also displays the vapid mind of herpitized, who boasted right here on this blog that he had sex with 2 different diseased whores on 2 occasions.

What a totally stupid IDIOT!

…if the discussion is supposed to based on ideas, then we run into issues when you want to raise the white flag and stick to discussing what you determine as facts.

Once more your rhetoric exceeds your ability to put it to concise and cogent use. I have certainly raised no “white flag” nor is there any question that the facts I’ve presented are indeed factual. At least you have yet to successfully challenge any of my facts as pertains to human gestation. If you disagree, then by all means state which facts you disagree with and show me some evidence that my facts on the subject are wrong. But this looks more like a thinly-veiled attempt to weasel out of a debate that you already understand is lost to you… an obfuscatory retreat with the goal of changing the subject to something more suitable, and more winnable, than the question you yourself raised about when abortion is acceptable and how that determination should be made.

As I had said, you aren’t interested in debating ideas.

Yep… the transition from temerity to terra firma begins.

You don’t mind that a 6 year old child, (who has an ability of free will, and ability to articulate her desires and joys in life) is destroyed by bombs being dropped from the sky to kill a guy who is suspected of having something he doesn’t.

Since neither your comprehension nor your memory appear to reach the level of your vocabulary, let me repeat myself: It is presumptuous arrogance for you to tell me what I mind or don’t. You are neither clever enough nor wise enough to put words in my mouth. So stop trying. Your arrogance in doing so is unwarranted… unless, of course, you have a quote to offer to substantiate your assertion. And you haven’t.

The subject at hand, which you cavalierly raised, is as I’ve stated. If you see no prospect of winning this debate I quite understand, but please don’t expect to quibble your way out of defeat. I took issue with your basis for determining when an abortion is permissible, not (yet) with your attempt to draw a moral equivalence between my objection to abortion and my thoughts on war… thoughts of which you are ignorant. Stick to that subject at hand please. Or acknowledge that you have no facts at hand to support a glib opinion poorly and hastily expressed.

In new testaments, those who have been educated by people like me, and realized that they had moral inconsistencies and subsequently changed the wording, to permit their pet wars. But history is exactly that. The records show what the old testament indicated and the modern day bibles.

exodus 20:2-20:17

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 Do not have any other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work–you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

13 You shall not kill

14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

You are as phony as you are dense.

It’s always a twilight zone situation to see abortion supporters chide those who support war that takes out murdering dictators.

Those who are against abortion and in favor of war upon dictators = the goal is the same, namely, the protection of life. There is no moral dilemma here, because the goal and very often the result is the protection of life.

Where do the abortion supporters stand? Whether they realize it or not, they end up consistently standing on the side of death.

This is a cold dark universe where life, even if it is abundant throughout the universe, is few and far between. Viewed from that light, the ultimate evil is to be against life. Why not protect and encourage it? After all, you’re alive. It’s pretty damn hypocritical and evil to want life for yourself but deny it to others, all for the convenience to yourself.

“Hannitized” said, War with Iraq was a choice, and therefore avoidable.

That’s silly. EVERY war is a choice.

What’s sad is that it hasn’t even been established yet what motivated the attacker.

It probably was Tiller’s politics, but even so.

I am willing to accept the fact that he might have had no influence what-so-ever, but then again, maybe he had.

Yeah. And maybe you like to beat up old people.

You like to argue that the MSM is the cause of so much influence in the political world, until it your side that is responsible for outcomes.

So the next time some eco-terrorist blows up a car dealership, that’s on you right?

Since that’s the game we’re playing?

Pole Smoking Fashion Victim says what?

Everything you say across the board is meaningless as you’ve already established that you’re a monster worthy of public execution by an enraged mob by way of stating your desire to see America destroyed, your statement that cops deserve to be shot, your joking about ejaculating in an underage boy’s mouth, and we could go on for hours listing all your gems of dementia.

Therefore, whenever anyone quotes and rebuts you, it’s always pointless by definition. You can’t have an argument with an insane asshole like you because you’re not capable of intellectually being on the same page or even near the same field of battle.

You Dino are a hateful spiteful excuse for a hateful spiteful excuse for a human being.