Oh...it's not a 'baby' or a 'person' - it's just a FETUS...a clump of tissue!

[DKSuddeth]

enRIGHTenment

 

[dmp]

enRIGHTenment

]

Are you Raughing at me cuz I'm Asain?

 

[softwaremama]

They really did't have to include a pic of the fetus did they?

I agree that the photo tells it all. There are many people who refuse to look at what science (and this picture) is telling them. They won't look into the face of the abortion issue. They believe that the only thing that's important is the will of the pregnant woman, facts be damned.

Let's put religious and political issues aside on this issue. Stick to the facts. It's freakin' crystal clear that science continually disproves the case for abortion, but our culture ignores all facts. They'll let people harvest cells or fetal parts, umbilical cord blood (that is happening now) one day from aborted fetuses for transplant, genetic tinkering, you name it, yet they'll still say it's not a person, it's a mass of cells.

Remember, when abortion was legalized in what, 1973, there was no ultrasound, no fetal surgery, no stem cell research, and tiny fetuses, the one-pounders doctors routinely save today, died every day.

Well, EVERYTHING has changed, everything scientific, but stupidity reigns supreme. Nothing has changed. Nothing factual can influence these abortionists. What crap.

That little face says it all...as our buddy John Kerry would say "Bring it on!"

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There are different kinds of conservatives and liberals to be found: mainly political, fiscal, and social. Social liberal is pro-choice and social conservative is pro-life.

Conservatives can be found in both parties. Liberals can be found in both parties. Just depends on the type. You can even find some social conservatives in the Democrat party but it does appear they are becoming more and more a rare bird these days. It is more common to find social liberals in the Republican party who are also fiscal and/or political conservatives.

Social liberals are the scum of the earth in my opinion. You will find lots of them in the Democrat and Libertarian parties. I know there are exceptions, but most have no moral compass as they believe in relativism. They hide it under so-called personal freedom. If it feels good, do it. Abortion is just considered to be a nuisance or nasty aftereffect of their irresponsible pleasures. Human life is also a relative concept to them.

It won't stop with abortion either, as softwaremama pointed out. If these people take over, we can look forward to the the flagrant harvesting and selling of baby parts, unatural cloned babies, babies cultured in science labs to provide tissue and whatever else suits their sick agenda.

God bless the children.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Social liberals are the scum of the earth in my opinion. You will find lots of them in the Democrat and Libertarian parties. I know there are exceptions, but most have no moral compass as they believe in relativism. They hide it under so-called personal freedom. If it feels good, do it. Abortion is just considered to be a nuisance or nasty aftereffect of their irresponsible pleasures. Human life is also a relative concept to them.

It won't stop with abortion either, as softwaremama pointed out. If these people take over, we can look forward to the the flagrant harvesting and selling of baby parts, unatural cloned babies, babies cultured in science labs to provide tissue and whatever else suits their sick agenda.

God bless the children.

whats sad about this.....no, not sad....infuriating, about your stance is that you have lumped social liberalism into one huge mass of wrongness and insanity in your mind that don't care to see that there are different levels. That would be the equivalent of saying that ALL republicans view human life as a relative concept because you happily accept the brutal and savage deaths of innocent civilians in war and justify it as 'collateral damage' or a 'necessary evil'.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

whats sad about this.....no, not sad....infuriating, about your stance is that you have lumped social liberalism into one huge mass of wrongness and insanity in your mind that don't care to see that there are different levels. That would be the equivalent of saying that ALL republicans view human life as a relative concept because you happily accept the brutal and savage deaths of innocent civilians in war and justify it as 'collateral damage' or a 'necessary evil'.

No, I have NOT lumped all social liberalism into one "huge mass of wrongness" as you will please note that I said there are exceptions. We wouldn't have freed the slaves or given women the vote if we did not have "good" social liberalism. Those issues did not have at their core a moral depravity that only seeks the darkside of relativism and the underbelly of society. This dark form of social liberalism or nihilism is what is festering in our society today. You can see all sorts of examples if you just look.

What's REALLY sad - or infuriating - are the ignorant people who are duped by social liberals into thinking that abortions are OK. What a shock to this woman and her ex partner who, upon looking at the head of their child, realize that they actually killed a tiny human - not just a clump called a fetus.

War is also a very sad situation. Social conservatives only agree with killing in war because it comes down to if you don't kill the bad guys, they will kill you. Of course I am not saying that mistakes have never been made. Our political system operates only as good as the men running it.

Social conservatives do not like killing anymore than ---hmm, I was going to say social liberals, but that's just not true. Social liberals today are responsible for the killing of millions and millions of tiny babies. Not to mention older children. Not to mention they didn't seem to care much about the people Saddam was killing. And let's not even start with the socialistic regimes of the past. How social liberals can say they are against killing is beyond me. But it is their destruction of the innocents that really makes me angry.

 

[Bonnie]

I certainly, and all conservatives I know, do not happily accept the accidental killing of innocent people in a war,it is a tragedy, but it does happen in instances in which our country is protecting us or others from harm. That doesn't even compare to the total and brutal disregard for a helpless human baby who cannot defend itself, and has done nothing wrong to deserve death just because it's parents made a mistake and don't want to deal with it!!

Even in cases of rape it's not the babies fault!!!! There is adoption!!!
You can label it whatever you want, socialistic, conservative, liberal, open minded, justified, convenient, choice, progressive, tolerant............Bottom line is it is murder!!!!!!!!

 

[DKSuddeth]

No, I have NOT lumped all social liberalism into one "huge mass of wrongness" as you will please note that I said there are exceptions. We wouldn't have freed the slaves or given women the vote if we did not have "good" social liberalism. Those issues did not have at their core a moral depravity that only seeks the darkside of relativism and the underbelly of society. This dark form of social liberalism or nihilism is what is festering in our society today. You can see all sorts of examples if you just look.

What's REALLY sad - or infuriating - are the ignorant people who are duped by social liberals into thinking that abortions are OK. What a shock to this woman and her ex partner who, upon looking at the head of their child, realize that they actually killed a tiny human - not just a clump called a fetus.

War is also a very sad situation. Social conservatives only agree with killing in war because it comes down to if you don't kill the bad guys, they will kill you. Of course I am not saying that mistakes have never been made. Our political system operates only as good as the men running it.

Social conservatives do not like killing anymore than ---hmm, I was going to say social liberals, but that's just not true. Social liberals today are responsible for the killing of millions and millions of tiny babies. Not to mention older children. Not to mention they didn't seem to care much about the people Saddam was killing. And let's not even start with the socialistic regimes of the past. How social liberals can say they are against killing is beyond me. But it is their destruction of the innocents that really makes me angry.

You say that you didn't lump them all in, there are exceptions, yet throughout this post you consistently referred social liberalism with current depravity and moral relativism while only referring to past events in history as the only good times that social liberalism had. I've bolded where you've done that.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You say that you didn't lump them all in, there are exceptions, yet throughout this post you consistently referred social liberalism with current depravity and moral relativism while only referring to past events in history as the only good times that social liberalism had. I've bolded where you've done that.

There are all kinds of ways to play ostrich and stick your head in the sand. Especially on the banks of de Nile.

 

[DKSuddeth]

There are all kinds of ways to play ostrich and stick your head in the sand. Especially on the banks of de Nile.

never fails. thanks.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

never fails. thanks.

So what's your big point?

You obviously missed mine.

 

[ajwps]

Why not? To cover up the awful truth about abortions? Actually more pictures like this should be shown to the public so they learn the real truth about abortions.

Why do you think they call it "pro-choice" instead of "baby killing" which is the real truth of the matter? It takes the sting out of the issue, distances one from reality, makes one feel proud to have a "choice", and many young ignorant mothers are fooled and don't truely realize what they are really doing.

Just a "mass" of "fetal material"? Hardly.

How many millions of little bodies have been cut and torn from the bodies of women who have fallen under the political belief that they have the "right" to kill their own child? It is really too ghastly to contemplate.

From one who is on the Conservative Right.

Where in the world do you find evidence that a clump of cells is HUMAN life?

You seem to want to equate the beginning of human life from a political point of view and out of the moral right of each individual's free will choice.

You are going to have great difficulty legislating your personal beliefs on uterine cells and movement into some form of beginning into a 'life law' of the land.

Roe vs Wade simply took any legislation on this subject from the books and returned it to those who take responsiblity for what they do and not what you believe is correct.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The woman is taking medication to combat her liver failure, had had numerous radiological studies, in other words, her body is having a difficult enough time keeping her alive let alone tolerate the extra burden of pregnancy. Also, the combination of meds and radiation would likely have resulted in a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage anyways.

And the right-wingnuts condemn her for taking the rational course of action.

 

[ajwps]

The woman is taking medication to combat her liver failure, had had numerous radiological studies, in other words, her body is having a difficult enough time keeping her alive let alone tolerate the extra burden of pregnancy. Also, the combination of meds and radiation would likely have resulted in a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage anyways.

And the right-wingnuts condemn her for taking the rational course of action.

Actually that portion of the right-left-middle political self-righteous spectrum are so certain that HUMAN life begins at conception that they find a moral obligation to protect that which is not based on any scientific or religious evidence.

Pictures of aborted fetuses are no more ghastly than still born fetuses. Can any self appointed religionist tell the difference between either?

These self-appointed moralists would like to legislate their own gut perceptions into law.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Actually that portion of the right-left-middle political self-righteous spectrum are so certain that HUMAN life begins at conception that they find a moral obligation to protect that which is not based on any scientific or religious evidence.

Pictures of aborted fetuses are no more ghastly than still born fetuses. Can any self appointed religionist tell the difference between either?

These self-appointed moralists would like to legislate their own gut perceptions into law.

And the radicalized, paranoid segment of the jewish population puts a positive moral premium on any death of a non jew, so the racial/ethnic composition of society doesn't get "out of control".

 

[Bullypulpit]

Actually that portion of the right-left-middle political self-righteous spectrum are so certain that HUMAN life begins at conception that they find a moral obligation to protect that which is not based on any scientific or religious evidence.

Pictures of aborted fetuses are no more ghastly than still born fetuses. Can any self appointed religionist tell the difference between either?

These self-appointed moralists would like to legislate their own gut perceptions into law.

Faith-based medicine...

 

[Bullypulpit]

And the radicalized, paranoid segment of the jewish population puts a positive moral premium on any death of a non jew, so the racial/ethnic composition of society doesn't get "out of control".

Now you descend from RWN to anti-semite.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Now you descend from RWN to anti-semite.

You obviously haven't been reading the bulk of aj's post. My analysis is right on.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Faith-based medicine...

John kerry believes life begins at conception as well. Is he in this villified group? No, because he's a socialist, right bully?

 

[Bonnie]

From one who is on the Conservative Right.

Where in the world do you find evidence that a clump of cells is HUMAN life?

You seem to want to equate the beginning of human life from a political point of view and out of the moral right of each individual's free will choice.

You are going to have great difficulty legislating your personal beliefs on uterine cells and movement into some form of beginning into a 'life law' of the land.

Roe vs Wade simply took any legislation on this subject from the books and returned it to those who take responsiblity for what they do and not what you believe is correct.

Where in the world do you find it scientifically that it is not life? From everything I have read ont he subject there is not one scientist that will categorically state that it is not life!!!!
Additionally Roe Vs Wade was based on a lie, she was never raped!!! So technically the law is bogus in that it has no foundation! By the way the abortion industry is a multi billion dollar industry, so don't for a minute be fooled into thinking these really nice ladies from NOW and NARAL are in it for the good of womans free choice over her own body because that is bullshit!!!