A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Conservative65]

Testimony of Brenda Pratt Shafer, RN - eye witness to partial birth abortions

I could see the baby. I could see the heartbeat. And the doctor wanted me to stand right beside him, because he wanted me to see everything there was about partial-birth abortion. So I stood there. He went in, guided by ultrasound. He took a pair of forceps and went in and turned the baby because it wasn't in this position at the time. He found a foot and he pulled the baby's foot down through the birth canal, bringing it down and grabbed another foot, and literally started pulling the baby out, breech position, feet first. And he kept pulling it down, and I'm seeing this baby come pulled out of the mommy, his butt, his chest, and then, he delivered both these arms. And the lady's in stirrups, just like you have a baby or just like you're having an ob/gyn examination. And the baby, the only thing that was supporting the baby was the doctor was holding it in with his two fingers, holding the neck so the head was just inside the mommy.

And the baby was kicking his feet, hanging there, moving his little fingers and his little arms. I couldn't believe -- I don't know what I thought killed it in three days, but he was moving and I kept watching that baby move. And I kept thinking to myself, this isn't happening and I thought I was going to pass out. And I kept telling myself, I'm a professional, I can handle this, you know, this is right, this is supposed to be, and I supposed to handle this, I'm a nurse. He then took a pair of scissors and jammed them into the back of the baby's head. And the baby jerked out, like a startle reflex, like a baby does if you throw him up a little bit and he jumps. And then the baby was real rigid. The doctor then opened up the scissors to make a hole. He took a high powered suction machine with a catheter and stuck it in that hole and suctioned the baby's brains out. And the baby went completely limp.

And I have seen that in my mind a thousand or more times, of that baby, watching the life just drain out of it. And like I said before, I've seen babies die in my hands, I had people die in my hands. But it wasn't anything like seeing that vision of watching this abortion. And I almost threw up all over the floor. I was literally just breathing and saying, "Don't throw up, don't throw up, you're gonna be embarrassed if you do this." So I tried not to.He pulled the head out, he cut the umbilical cord and threw it in a pan, and delivered the placenta and threw it in the same pan, he covered it up and took it out.

Well, this mommy wanted to see her baby. And the doctor told us ahead of time, he said, "Try to discourage her from seeing the baby." He doesn't like that. But she had the right to see it. So they cleaned it up and we cleaned her up, and we walked her out of the operating room, and took her to a room and handed her the baby.

The mother held her dead baby in her arms...

...She held that baby in her arms and she screamed and prayed to God...to forgive her, and for that baby to forgive her, and she held it and rocked it, and told him that she loved him. And I looked in that baby's face, and he had the most angelic perfect face I've ever seen, and I just kept thinking, he's an angel now, he's in heaven. And I couldn't take it. In all the years I've been a nurse, [for the first time] I lost it. And I pardoned myself and excused myself and I ran to the bathroom and I cried and prayed.

Oh! I agree with you completely. Which is why I fully support restricting late-term/partial birth abortions to health concerns. So, we're on the same page then? Late Term elective abortions are a "no-no", while what a pregnant woman does with a non-viable fetus is entirely her own business. See? If we can work together we can all find some common sense common ground.

At what point does it become viable? How many weeks?

 

[Conservative65]

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

Sure, just as soon as you folks reduce spending to only those areas provided for in the Constitution. Deal?

Like we have said, the only one's whining about how their taxes are spent are you fake conservatives. so, you don't get to use the "Why don't you pay for them" argument. Because we are paying for them. And we are doing so without being whiny little bitches about it.

By the way, only provided in the Constitution would also defund Homeland Security, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the CIA, among others. I guess you don't think the government should be able to protect itself from enemies foreign, and domestic, huh? Hell of a patriot you are...

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

But you still thinking paying something that is required is the same as doing it without being told. They aren't the same. You do realize that you can help those you claim to care about and not involved the government, don't you?

 

[Conservative65]

Well..... my parents are both extremely conservative... and I myself was adopted. And my parents founded a church, and they have always promoted adoption. Many in my parents conservative church adopted.

And that proves that only conservatives are willing to do that? I know many liberals that adopt, too, and are willing to help the poor besides supporting programs that do that.

Dave Thomas founder of Wendy's, was a massively conservative person, and he was adopted, and he of course started the Dave Thomas foundation for adoption.

Geez, now you've listed two people who have adopted and are conservatives....I guess in your mind that settles it, only conservatives adopt. Bwahahaha.

The Gift of Adoption Fund charity was stated by Christian fundamentalists. I would assume.... they were likely conservative. I don't meet many people described as fundamentalists, that are left-wing liberals.

Maybe because you aren't looking in the right places? Many of the so called fundamentalists that push archaic ideas and call themselves Republicans have taken Christianity to a new level....one they've created themselves, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. There are many true Christians that don't agree with the archaic rules Republicans are trying to push....and that doesn't make them any less Christian.

And, my point was that it wasn't just "conservatives" that were doing the adopting. Maybe if you had followed the whole conversation instead of just jumping in and offering your sophomoric responses (as if I had said that conservatives "never" adopt) you would have understood that.

Now as for proving all adopt is one group or another... good luck. I doubt there are any numbers either way.

Which, if you had read my previous comments you would have understood that I was trying to point that out. Instead, you named a few conservatives that have adopted. Logic is not your strong suit.

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

But you said each citizen should pay for the government of the nation. When are the half that pay nothing in income taxes going to do what YOU say they should do?

 

[Chuz Life]

Testimony of Brenda Pratt Shafer, RN - eye witness to partial birth abortions

I could see the baby. I could see the heartbeat. And the doctor wanted me to stand right beside him, because he wanted me to see everything there was about partial-birth abortion. So I stood there. He went in, guided by ultrasound. He took a pair of forceps and went in and turned the baby because it wasn't in this position at the time. He found a foot and he pulled the baby's foot down through the birth canal, bringing it down and grabbed another foot, and literally started pulling the baby out, breech position, feet first. And he kept pulling it down, and I'm seeing this baby come pulled out of the mommy, his butt, his chest, and then, he delivered both these arms. And the lady's in stirrups, just like you have a baby or just like you're having an ob/gyn examination. And the baby, the only thing that was supporting the baby was the doctor was holding it in with his two fingers, holding the neck so the head was just inside the mommy.

And the baby was kicking his feet, hanging there, moving his little fingers and his little arms. I couldn't believe -- I don't know what I thought killed it in three days, but he was moving and I kept watching that baby move. And I kept thinking to myself, this isn't happening and I thought I was going to pass out. And I kept telling myself, I'm a professional, I can handle this, you know, this is right, this is supposed to be, and I supposed to handle this, I'm a nurse. He then took a pair of scissors and jammed them into the back of the baby's head. And the baby jerked out, like a startle reflex, like a baby does if you throw him up a little bit and he jumps. And then the baby was real rigid. The doctor then opened up the scissors to make a hole. He took a high powered suction machine with a catheter and stuck it in that hole and suctioned the baby's brains out. And the baby went completely limp.

And I have seen that in my mind a thousand or more times, of that baby, watching the life just drain out of it. And like I said before, I've seen babies die in my hands, I had people die in my hands. But it wasn't anything like seeing that vision of watching this abortion. And I almost threw up all over the floor. I was literally just breathing and saying, "Don't throw up, don't throw up, you're gonna be embarrassed if you do this." So I tried not to.He pulled the head out, he cut the umbilical cord and threw it in a pan, and delivered the placenta and threw it in the same pan, he covered it up and took it out.

Well, this mommy wanted to see her baby. And the doctor told us ahead of time, he said, "Try to discourage her from seeing the baby." He doesn't like that. But she had the right to see it. So they cleaned it up and we cleaned her up, and we walked her out of the operating room, and took her to a room and handed her the baby.

The mother held her dead baby in her arms...

...She held that baby in her arms and she screamed and prayed to God...to forgive her, and for that baby to forgive her, and she held it and rocked it, and told him that she loved him. And I looked in that baby's face, and he had the most angelic perfect face I've ever seen, and I just kept thinking, he's an angel now, he's in heaven. And I couldn't take it. In all the years I've been a nurse, [for the first time] I lost it. And I pardoned myself and excused myself and I ran to the bathroom and I cried and prayed.

Oh! I agree with you completely. Which is why I fully support restricting late-term/partial birth abortions to health concerns. So, we're on the same page then? Late Term elective abortions are a "no-no", while what a pregnant woman does with a non-viable fetus is entirely her own business. See? If we can work together we can all find some common sense common ground.

At what point does it become viable? How many weeks?

Viability is a red herring in the abortion debate for dozens of reasons.

A zygote (for example) would never survive to the embryonic stage if it was not a "viable" zygote. An embryo would never make it to the fetal stage of its life if it too were not "viable."

The Supreme Court (in Roe) bastardized the meaning of the word "viable" to imply that it only means "able to live - OUTSIDE the womb."

And look at how long they have gotten away with that shit.

 

[Conservative65]

And that proves that only conservatives are willing to do that? I know many liberals that adopt, too, and are willing to help the poor besides supporting programs that do that.

Geez, now you've listed two people who have adopted and are conservatives....I guess in your mind that settles it, only conservatives adopt. Bwahahaha.

Maybe because you aren't looking in the right places? Many of the so called fundamentalists that push archaic ideas and call themselves Republicans have taken Christianity to a new level....one they've created themselves, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. There are many true Christians that don't agree with the archaic rules Republicans are trying to push....and that doesn't make them any less Christian.

And, my point was that it wasn't just "conservatives" that were doing the adopting. Maybe if you had followed the whole conversation instead of just jumping in and offering your sophomoric responses (as if I had said that conservatives "never" adopt) you would have understood that.

Which, if you had read my previous comments you would have understood that I was trying to point that out. Instead, you named a few conservatives that have adopted. Logic is not your strong suit.

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

Czernobog states that he believe EACH citizen has the responsibility of funding the government of the nation yet justified how it's OK that some don't. Which one is it? He won't answer.

Again, you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. That, or you're a liar. How about you go back and read what I actually wrote.

YOU said EACH citizen has the responsibility of funding the government of the nation. Those are YOUR words. When are the half that don't pay the income taxes that fund the nation going to start paying?

I pay my fair share. Do you think those paying nothing yet still benefiting from living here are paying a fair share?

 

[Divine Wind]

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Pot calling the kettle black. So far you haven't answered my question honestly either. You've dodged, insulted and beat around the bush. Your choice. My choice is to call you a hypocrite for doing it.

BTW, answering a question with a question is typical pussyfooting liberal bullshit.

WTF is a "regressive sodomite enabler"?

What Monica did to Bubba was sodomy.

Definition of SODOMY
anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;also : copulation with an animal

Why did you ask a question you already knew the answer to?

BTW the short answer is the commiecrat party.

I know the definition of sodomy, but had never heard of nor do I know what you mean by "regressive sodomite enabler". Now worries. If you don't know either or don't want to answer straightforwardly and honestly, you don't have to do so.

Which party is pushing all these gay/transgender issues and enabling these sodomites and mentally ill people?

Sometimes it's appropriate to answer a question with a question, to show the person that answer is right in front of them. But since you've displayed an utter lack of understanding I'll be happy to spell it out for ya.

Democrats/liberals/progressives or what ever they call themselves at the moment are just plain old regressives. They want to take us back to the good old days of FDR and beyond to establish a superstate system that tells everyone what and how to think, and live, all the way down to what toilets we can use and who can come in with us, to what constitutes a person. They tell us right is wrong, wrong is right and deviant behavior is normal, then they try to force people to abandon personal beliefs and morals and associate with people they find repulsive. So simply calling them what they are, Regressive sodomite enablers, is a just and appropriate moniker for them. Any more questions?

Bullshit. It's fucking dishonest. You've been proved a liar, false accusers and now a bullshitter.

 

[Czernobog]

Cute cartoon. Completely dishonest, and unconnected with reality, but cute...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No it's not...but you can keep telling yourself lies!

I'm a progressive. Please post where I once endorsed women having unfettered access to abortion of viable fetuses?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

How can anyone logically believe that abortion is NOT taking life?....The DNA of that fetus or UNBORN HUMAN is different that the mothers, making it a second entity. The mother is only the host in the matter of human extension!

Don't change the subject. Demonstrate where I ever supported what your asinine cartoon implies, or admit that your broad brushing of "liberals" - implying all, or even a majority of liberals, as espousing that absurd position is simply dishonest.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It is?????...I presume you're an advocate for PP!

Planned Parenthood’s Honesty: Admitting Post-Birth Abortions Okay

So what? Just because I happen to think planned parenthood provides valuable services does not mean that I, necessarily, agree with every position that every bone of their spokespersons might say, and to suggest that I, or anyone, did is absurd.

I have been quite clear in my position. Please indicate where I have ever advocated what your stupid cartoon implies I advocate, or admit that it is dishonest.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Who said we are anti choice....the woman chooses to have sex. If she chose not to have sex she would not need to murder the baby.

If we can make abortion what it is...murder....she should go to jail.

Okay. And when are you going to start refusing to support political candidates who publicly endorse your position - including imposing punishments on women who seek abortion?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Who said we are anti choice....the woman chooses to have sex. If she chose not to have sex she would not need to murder the baby.

If we can make abortion what it is...murder....she should go to jail.

Also. . . what CHOICE do the pro-aborts allow for the child involved in an abortion to make?

NONE!

You can't get any more anti-CHOICE than a pro-abort is.

Brilliant analysis, except for the part where a non-viable fetus is not a child.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

BTW you didn't answer my question.

That's because your question is irrelevant, and implies an accusation that was never made. No one claimed anyone wasn't paying their fair share. We claimed that you fake conservatives were incapable of paying your fair share without whining like little bitches about it.

Why would I respond to a question that had no basis for being asked?

Your problem is you think paying something that is required is the same as doing it voluntarily. It isn't. If you truly cared about the poor people you claim to care about, you wouldn't involve the government or taxes. You'd find them and support them leaving the government out of it. Why can't you do that IF you truly care?

So, you want all of the benefits of being part of this society, but none of the responsibilities; you want to pick, and choose which portions of our society are worthy of your assistance.

...aaand we're the monster....

Riiiight....

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Testimony of Brenda Pratt Shafer, RN - eye witness to partial birth abortions

I could see the baby. I could see the heartbeat. And the doctor wanted me to stand right beside him, because he wanted me to see everything there was about partial-birth abortion. So I stood there. He went in, guided by ultrasound. He took a pair of forceps and went in and turned the baby because it wasn't in this position at the time. He found a foot and he pulled the baby's foot down through the birth canal, bringing it down and grabbed another foot, and literally started pulling the baby out, breech position, feet first. And he kept pulling it down, and I'm seeing this baby come pulled out of the mommy, his butt, his chest, and then, he delivered both these arms. And the lady's in stirrups, just like you have a baby or just like you're having an ob/gyn examination. And the baby, the only thing that was supporting the baby was the doctor was holding it in with his two fingers, holding the neck so the head was just inside the mommy.

And the baby was kicking his feet, hanging there, moving his little fingers and his little arms. I couldn't believe -- I don't know what I thought killed it in three days, but he was moving and I kept watching that baby move. And I kept thinking to myself, this isn't happening and I thought I was going to pass out. And I kept telling myself, I'm a professional, I can handle this, you know, this is right, this is supposed to be, and I supposed to handle this, I'm a nurse. He then took a pair of scissors and jammed them into the back of the baby's head. And the baby jerked out, like a startle reflex, like a baby does if you throw him up a little bit and he jumps. And then the baby was real rigid. The doctor then opened up the scissors to make a hole. He took a high powered suction machine with a catheter and stuck it in that hole and suctioned the baby's brains out. And the baby went completely limp.

And I have seen that in my mind a thousand or more times, of that baby, watching the life just drain out of it. And like I said before, I've seen babies die in my hands, I had people die in my hands. But it wasn't anything like seeing that vision of watching this abortion. And I almost threw up all over the floor. I was literally just breathing and saying, "Don't throw up, don't throw up, you're gonna be embarrassed if you do this." So I tried not to.He pulled the head out, he cut the umbilical cord and threw it in a pan, and delivered the placenta and threw it in the same pan, he covered it up and took it out.

Well, this mommy wanted to see her baby. And the doctor told us ahead of time, he said, "Try to discourage her from seeing the baby." He doesn't like that. But she had the right to see it. So they cleaned it up and we cleaned her up, and we walked her out of the operating room, and took her to a room and handed her the baby.

The mother held her dead baby in her arms...

...She held that baby in her arms and she screamed and prayed to God...to forgive her, and for that baby to forgive her, and she held it and rocked it, and told him that she loved him. And I looked in that baby's face, and he had the most angelic perfect face I've ever seen, and I just kept thinking, he's an angel now, he's in heaven. And I couldn't take it. In all the years I've been a nurse, [for the first time] I lost it. And I pardoned myself and excused myself and I ran to the bathroom and I cried and prayed.

Oh! I agree with you completely. Which is why I fully support restricting late-term/partial birth abortions to health concerns. So, we're on the same page then? Late Term elective abortions are a "no-no", while what a pregnant woman does with a non-viable fetus is entirely her own business. See? If we can work together we can all find some common sense common ground.

At what point does it become viable? How many weeks?

According to medical professionals - you know, that science you've been insisting I'm ignoring - between the 23rd to 25th week.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

And that proves that only conservatives are willing to do that? I know many liberals that adopt, too, and are willing to help the poor besides supporting programs that do that.

Geez, now you've listed two people who have adopted and are conservatives....I guess in your mind that settles it, only conservatives adopt. Bwahahaha.

Maybe because you aren't looking in the right places? Many of the so called fundamentalists that push archaic ideas and call themselves Republicans have taken Christianity to a new level....one they've created themselves, just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. There are many true Christians that don't agree with the archaic rules Republicans are trying to push....and that doesn't make them any less Christian.

And, my point was that it wasn't just "conservatives" that were doing the adopting. Maybe if you had followed the whole conversation instead of just jumping in and offering your sophomoric responses (as if I had said that conservatives "never" adopt) you would have understood that.

Which, if you had read my previous comments you would have understood that I was trying to point that out. Instead, you named a few conservatives that have adopted. Logic is not your strong suit.

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

But you said each citizen should pay for the government of the nation. When are the half that pay nothing in income taxes going to do what YOU say they should do?

And that is a lie. How about you go back, reread my post, and can quote what I actually posted.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

Lemme help you out by reposting the part of my post that you absolutely did delete, that answered your question:

I know...I know...you, and several others are going to leap in saying that it affects "the baby's life". Except there is no baby; there is only a fetus, which is, at best, a potential person. You'll forgive me if I am more concerned with the freedom of choice of an actual person than I am of a potential person.

This is sheer nonsense and not supportable with biology or science. You're jumping all around with various words that have specific meaning. A fetus isn't a "baby" it's a fetus. Just like a "baby" isn't a teenager. These are simply words we use to describe various phases of human life. An embryo, a fetus, an infant, a newborn, a baby, a toddler...etc. They are ALL human beings from the moment of conception.

"Personhood" is nonsense. It has no testable, observable or measurable aspect in Science. It is an arbitrary word you created to distinguish what you wish to consider human life and what you wish to disregard as human life. There is never anything added to a fetus or embryo to make it into a "person" ...it's simply a matter of time in which to develop various characteristics. So I totally reject your argument for "personhood" on the basis of it not being scientific.

For the most part, Personhood is a legal construct. Though "persons" and personhood most surely existed before they (we) were defined by laws.

So, I agree with much of what you said. However, I disagree with your claim that personhood is not or can not be scientific.

The legal definition for a natural person is simply "a human being" and science is very well capable of finding, determining and identifying what is and what is not "a human being."

Isn't it?

Science says a human being exists whenever the fertilized egg reproduces a cell. That is, point of conception. It also defines when a human being is an "embryo" as opposed to a "fetus" and there are clinical requirements used. But "personhood" isn't even a real word, much less a scientific classification. It is purely an arbitrary and subjective philosophical concept.

I still disagree.

The legal definition for a natural person is "a human being. " Therefore even scientifically, any human being of ANY age or stage of development would meet that legal definition.

This has been the very basis (that the libtards can not refute) in our fetal homicide laws.

You're disagreeing with my not having an opinion regarding "personhood" when it comes to the clinical definitions of science and biology, but you admit this is a legal designation. I am not making any argument regarding "personhood" or when/if a human becomes a "person" because it has no place in a scientific discussion of when a human being is a human being.

We already know, through science and biology, a living human organism in state of being and existence (i.e.; a human being) happens whenever a fertilized sperm & egg cell reproduce a cell. That makes it a legitimate living organism at that point. At no other point in it's existence does it become anything other than what it is... a living human being. Everything that happens to it from that point is simply developmental. It will develop organs and a nervous system, a brain, sentience, etc.

"Personhood" is a made up word so that some people can use to push their agenda. The criteria for "personhood" is not scientific, it is philosophical. You cannot tell me what physical ingredient a fetus is missing that prevents them from being "persons". You CAN give me a host of abstract and subjective criteria like "when it develops a thought..." but if we use THAT criteria, about half the USMB message board is disqualified from being "persons" on this basis alone. So we HAVE to stick to the physical, biological and scientific terminology that we can test, observe, measure and evaluate.

 

[OKTexas]

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Pot calling the kettle black. So far you haven't answered my question honestly either. You've dodged, insulted and beat around the bush. Your choice. My choice is to call you a hypocrite for doing it.

BTW, answering a question with a question is typical pussyfooting liberal bullshit.

Why did you ask a question you already knew the answer to?

BTW the short answer is the commiecrat party.

I know the definition of sodomy, but had never heard of nor do I know what you mean by "regressive sodomite enabler". Now worries. If you don't know either or don't want to answer straightforwardly and honestly, you don't have to do so.

Which party is pushing all these gay/transgender issues and enabling these sodomites and mentally ill people?

Sometimes it's appropriate to answer a question with a question, to show the person that answer is right in front of them. But since you've displayed an utter lack of understanding I'll be happy to spell it out for ya.

Democrats/liberals/progressives or what ever they call themselves at the moment are just plain old regressives. They want to take us back to the good old days of FDR and beyond to establish a superstate system that tells everyone what and how to think, and live, all the way down to what toilets we can use and who can come in with us, to what constitutes a person. They tell us right is wrong, wrong is right and deviant behavior is normal, then they try to force people to abandon personal beliefs and morals and associate with people they find repulsive. So simply calling them what they are, Regressive sodomite enablers, is a just and appropriate moniker for them. Any more questions?

Bullshit. It's fucking dishonest. You've been proved a liar, false accusers and now a bullshitter.

So I guess my description applies to you, too bad, so sad. Deal with it. BTW dipstick, "accusers" is a plural term and it's inappropriate to apply it to a single person. Feel free to carry on in your regressive sodomite enabling ways.

 

[Czernobog]

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Pot calling the kettle black. So far you haven't answered my question honestly either. You've dodged, insulted and beat around the bush. Your choice. My choice is to call you a hypocrite for doing it.

BTW, answering a question with a question is typical pussyfooting liberal bullshit.

I know the definition of sodomy, but had never heard of nor do I know what you mean by "regressive sodomite enabler". Now worries. If you don't know either or don't want to answer straightforwardly and honestly, you don't have to do so.

Which party is pushing all these gay/transgender issues and enabling these sodomites and mentally ill people?

Sometimes it's appropriate to answer a question with a question, to show the person that answer is right in front of them. But since you've displayed an utter lack of understanding I'll be happy to spell it out for ya.

Democrats/liberals/progressives or what ever they call themselves at the moment are just plain old regressives. They want to take us back to the good old days of FDR and beyond to establish a superstate system that tells everyone what and how to think, and live, all the way down to what toilets we can use and who can come in with us, to what constitutes a person. They tell us right is wrong, wrong is right and deviant behavior is normal, then they try to force people to abandon personal beliefs and morals and associate with people they find repulsive. So simply calling them what they are, Regressive sodomite enablers, is a just and appropriate moniker for them. Any more questions?

Bullshit. It's fucking dishonest. You've been proved a liar, false accusers and now a bullshitter.

So I guess my description applies to you, too bad, so sad. Deal with it. BTW dipstick, "accusers" is a plural term and it's inappropriate to apply it to a single person. Feel free to carry on in your regressive sodomite enabling ways.

Just out of curiosity: what does sodomy have to with abortion?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Divine Wind]

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Pot calling the kettle black. So far you haven't answered my question honestly either. You've dodged, insulted and beat around the bush. Your choice. My choice is to call you a hypocrite for doing it.

BTW, answering a question with a question is typical pussyfooting liberal bullshit.

I know the definition of sodomy, but had never heard of nor do I know what you mean by "regressive sodomite enabler". Now worries. If you don't know either or don't want to answer straightforwardly and honestly, you don't have to do so.

Which party is pushing all these gay/transgender issues and enabling these sodomites and mentally ill people?

Sometimes it's appropriate to answer a question with a question, to show the person that answer is right in front of them. But since you've displayed an utter lack of understanding I'll be happy to spell it out for ya.

Democrats/liberals/progressives or what ever they call themselves at the moment are just plain old regressives. They want to take us back to the good old days of FDR and beyond to establish a superstate system that tells everyone what and how to think, and live, all the way down to what toilets we can use and who can come in with us, to what constitutes a person. They tell us right is wrong, wrong is right and deviant behavior is normal, then they try to force people to abandon personal beliefs and morals and associate with people they find repulsive. So simply calling them what they are, Regressive sodomite enablers, is a just and appropriate moniker for them. Any more questions?

Bullshit. It's fucking dishonest. You've been proved a liar, false accusers and now a bullshitter.

So I guess my description applies to you, too bad, so sad. Deal with it. BTW dipstick, "accusers" is a plural term and it's inappropriate to apply it to a single person. Feel free to carry on in your regressive sodomite enabling ways.

Translation: I can't refute you, so I'm going to go all Grammar Nazi on you, dipstick. Take that!!!

I know I'm doing good when extremely partisan idiots on both ends are pissed off at me.

 

[Boss]

According to medical professionals - you know, that science you've been insisting I'm ignoring - between the 23rd to 25th week.

I disagree. You are misusing the term "viable" and applying arbitrary meaning.

viable - capable of working successfully; feasible.

From point of conception the fetus is "viable" and only a "viable" fetus could require an abortion procedure. Any fetus that isn't capable of working successfully or feasible will degenerate and be expelled by the host organism. If it has already attached itself to the wall of the uterus, it may require a procedure to remove it but that's not an abortion.

You are using the liberal SCOTUS opinion of "viable" which is the law but it's incorrect. SCOTUS opinions have been incorrect many times... slaves are property... women don't have voting rights... minorities can be discriminated against.... corporations are people... etc. And IF the argument here is whether or not the SCOTUS upholds abortion, I think that argument was settled in Roe v. Wade a long time ago. If that is your debate point, then you win.

 

[Divine Wind]

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.

Pot calling the kettle black. So far you haven't answered my question honestly either. You've dodged, insulted and beat around the bush. Your choice. My choice is to call you a hypocrite for doing it.

BTW, answering a question with a question is typical pussyfooting liberal bullshit.

Which party is pushing all these gay/transgender issues and enabling these sodomites and mentally ill people?

Sometimes it's appropriate to answer a question with a question, to show the person that answer is right in front of them. But since you've displayed an utter lack of understanding I'll be happy to spell it out for ya.

Democrats/liberals/progressives or what ever they call themselves at the moment are just plain old regressives. They want to take us back to the good old days of FDR and beyond to establish a superstate system that tells everyone what and how to think, and live, all the way down to what toilets we can use and who can come in with us, to what constitutes a person. They tell us right is wrong, wrong is right and deviant behavior is normal, then they try to force people to abandon personal beliefs and morals and associate with people they find repulsive. So simply calling them what they are, Regressive sodomite enablers, is a just and appropriate moniker for them. Any more questions?

Bullshit. It's fucking dishonest. You've been proved a liar, false accusers and now a bullshitter.

So I guess my description applies to you, too bad, so sad. Deal with it. BTW dipstick, "accusers" is a plural term and it's inappropriate to apply it to a single person. Feel free to carry on in your regressive sodomite enabling ways.

Just out of curiosity: what does sodomy have to with abortion?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It's a Pree-version!

 

[Czernobog]

According to medical professionals - you know, that science you've been insisting I'm ignoring - between the 23rd to 25th week.

I disagree. You are misusing the term "viable" and applying arbitrary meaning.

viable - capable of working successfully; feasible.

That's not the medical definition of viable, and I think you know it. Thus any opinions you arrived at from your incorrect use of the medical term viable is meaningless.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Who said we are anti choice....the woman chooses to have sex. If she chose not to have sex she would not need to murder the baby.

If we can make abortion what it is...murder....she should go to jail.

Also. . . what CHOICE do the pro-aborts allow for the child involved in an abortion to make?

NONE!

You can't get any more anti-CHOICE than a pro-abort is.

Brilliant analysis, except for the part where a non-viable fetus is not a child.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Child
(chīld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chĭl′drən)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.<-----------
b. An infant; a baby.

3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.


Care to show me where it says ANYTHING about "viability" (sic?)