You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Regarding "the party of no", bad ideas should be rejected. Speaking of which, I still haven't heard how murdering a child after its already been born isn't an extremist position. If that's not the dictionary definition of murder, then what counts? Then we have the case of leftist clowns calling for the assassination of a high school student because he was wearing the wrong hat and was featured in a completely fake media circus event orchestrated for purely partisan political reasons. I guess our leftist extremists want to kill kids no matter what, but especially if they have the wrong political opinions. Beyond that, you should probably read what Democrats write about black people and minorities who don't follow the herd of lemmings off the ideological cliff. Nowhere is the Democrat Party's racist tendencies more blatantly and openly on display. For some strange reason, only the Republicans ever call them on this and the leftist media are often the ones instigating that racist behavior against conservative minorities.
I'll bet nearly anything that if a Democrat gets elected to office during the next election cycle that you, SpaceNut, and the media won't have one cross word to say about anything they do, even if their actions are just blatantly criminal. Sure, you might criticize such behavior after they leave office to give the appearance of being impartial, but that's as far as it will ever go.
Offline
Like button can go here
That was quite insultive as my wife and I have had a miscarrage in the first trimester.
We have also had a full term at birth death as well.
Do not presume to know what I would or would not do...Under any new president regarding there party affiliation as that does not go into any decision making on life.....
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceNut,
I think not. You're choosing to be offended over commentary regarding the recent "abortion after birth" laws that I made reference to. That's the problem with being perpetually offended by any idea that doesn't agree with your sensibilities. I never said anything about your wife. You don't need to be offended on anyone else's behalf, either.
Guess what? My wife has had a miscarriage, too. More than one, in point of fact. She was also told that she was incapable of having another child about a month before she became pregnant with our last child. Her solution to her miscarriages and brain tumor that was discovered later was not to preemptively kill the next child she bore on the chance that the child wouldn't be carried to term or wouldn't be the most perfect child ever born. Intentionally killing a child or not providing any medical care at all AFTER a child is born alive is as close to the dictionary definition of murder as we can get without the doctor outright delivering the "coup de grace" him or her self. If the mother doesn't want to take care of her child after the child is born, well, that's what adoptions are for. There are plenty of people who want children who can't have children.
All of our children were born premature. We didn't plan it that way, it just happened that way. The last child was born significantly premature as a result of my wife's craniotomy to remove her meningioma, followed by seizures and a stroke while she was pregnant with our youngest child. My wife's doctors wanted to know if she would be willing to murder our son to make their planned operation a little easier. She let them know exactly what she thought of that plan and sent them right back to the drawing board. Her doctor's next plan didn't involve intentionally murdering anyone and, strangely enough, mother and child are very much alive and well. My daughter very nearly did die at birth from a series of medical mistakes, by the outright admission of the doctor and nurses who delivered the child. And no, we didn't file a law suit. We paid $45,000 dollars just to take her home after her two week stay in NICU.
As it pertains to what you would or wouldn't think of a President who is a member of the Democrat Party, all I can do is review prior commentary on past Presidents who were members of the Democrat Party. You didn't have much to say about President Obama until after he was out of office. I can just admit to myself that I'm a political partisan and leave it at that. There's an absurd level of cognitive dissonance amongst the Democrats and yes, even President Trump himself, that should be as alarming as anything that's gone on during his administration or the previous two administrations.
I read an internet meme regarding "The Six Stages of Debugging" that I find entirely applicable to what's going on here:
1. That can't happen
2. That doesn't happen on my machine
3. That shouldn't happen
4. Why does that happen?
5. Oh, I see
6. How did that ever work?
Offline
Like button can go here
Miss read the sentence...which is in the first few lines..So I apologies...
"abortion after birth" laws...Sounds to me like that is murder to me as well.
I am sure the definition of birth is being questioned in the quest to abort.
I as well had several that were premature as well and the last 2 were in the nicu for a month plus for the other for each being premature of with the youngest being a 5 month baby.
Offline
Like button can go here
SpaceNut,
These new "laws" permit the mother to decide what to do with her child AFTER that child has passed between her legs and is kicking and screaming. You justify that to yourself however you wish. I didn't make that up for sake of argument. I think that's an unreasonable interpretation of Roe v. Wade, but other people have other opinions about this.
To me, this smacks of "eugenics" and all of these abortion laws are wildly disproportionately applied to poor minorities. My opinion of killing or convincing other people to kill their children is the dictionary definition of "evil". If we're convincing those people to kill their children because they're not white, that's profoundly racist. That's precisely what the nazis did, both to Aryan Germans who were born less than perfect and to people they considered to be the "untermensch", which would be anyone who wasn't Aryan. The nazi's racial theorist, Alfred Rosenberg, took that term from a book entitled "The Revolt Against Civilization", written by a kkk member named Lothrop Stoddard, who was a founding member of the American Birth Control League and close friend / supporter of Margaret Sanger whom she invited to join that organization. "The Birth Control Review" periodical published articles written by Ernst Rudin, who was the nazi's director of their racial hygiene program. As much as some of our leftists claim that they hate nazis, some of the laws they pass and blindly support are eerily reminiscent of what went on in nazi Germany and in early 20th century America, which was where those national socialists lifted their ideas from. If it's not apparent, I'm not a fan of their way of thinking. Maybe you should read more about what these people believe, because it's an eye-opener.
I'm sorry that your wife has had such a rough go of it. Anything that can happen, will happen, and yes, Murphy was an optimist. Anyway, I hope your wife and children are doing well.
Offline
Like button can go here
Where was that law passed?
Is it this one?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/outrag … ntil-birth
The bill would remove a number of restrictions currently in place regarding late-term abortions, including doing away with the requirement that two other physicians certify a third-trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman's death or impairment of her mental or physical health. The third trimester lasts until 40 weeks.
Trying to qualify the act by claims of death to the mother....
Once it breaths air, makes sound its murder even if its done cescerian birth...
Offline
Like button can go here
Does your "death rate" include abortions? Then it isn't a death rate.
RobertDyck,
No, it doesn't. Neither does Canada's crude death rate.
Some magic happens whenever a child leaves the womb and that little person magically leaps into existence... except now that little person doesn't leap into existence even after leaving the womb in some of our regressive states... if the mother decides she doesn't want the child after third trimester abortions wherein the child is either surgically cut up into smaller pieces for removal through the vagina, delivered by cesarean, or the natural vaginal delivery process. Those states can now just ask the mother if she wants to keep the child. If she says "no", then the doctors just don't feed the child or provide any other medical care and, well, nature takes over from there. That is precisely what one of these new late term abortion laws permits the medical providers to do.
What kind of person tells their medical provider to just let the child they just gave birth to starve to death because they decided that they don't want the child?
At that point, why not just put the child up for adoption?
After the child is born, at what age is the child legally a human being protected by our laws?
I find that highly suspicious. Religious fanatics try to claim abortion is murder. Here in Canada we had a viscous debate in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Most politicians learned not to touch that issue. Whatever you say, it's wrong. If a voter or reporter raises the subject, professional politicians change the subject or otherwise duck.
Here in Canada, abortion is not set in law. Instead the Canadian Medical Association set regulations as any other medical procedure. So no politician had to vote for or against. The rule is any woman can get an abortion in her first 20 weeks of pregnancy, no questions asked. However, after that abortion is only allowed if the mother's life is at risk.
10 years ago human life was defined as starting upon completion of a fully complete natural birth. Once born, the baby is a human being, killing it is murder, and allowing it to starve is "depriving the necessities of life". Either way anyone who does so is in deep trouble. Before birth the fetus is tissue, so abortion is not murder. I agree with this. During the previous administration some Conservative politicians changed the law so now it's less clear. An obvious attempt to outlaw abortion by a back-door means. I wish the current Canadian administration would repeal the change, set it back. It used to be clear.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2019-05-21 04:49:51)
Offline
Like button can go here
RobertDyck,
Well, at least we agree that starving a baby to death is murder. There are certain states here where even that level of depravity is now permissible by law. I never thought we'd share this practice of mistreatment of children not wanted by their mothers with communist China, but now we do.
Offline
Like button can go here
Religious fanatics try to claim abortion is murder
The fanatics are those who claim it isn't.
I can toss out a label to ignore what my opponents have to argue, too.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
Even the non-religious fanatic or Satanist can make that same claim.
What really is the issue is the defining of what is life?
When is it considered a being?
Offline
Like button can go here
Is any sort of religious belief required to also believe that wanton taking of human life is, at a minimum, unethical in nature and not something to boast about in internet venues?
Is it possible to understand how those who hold human life in high regard might also regard wanton killing as morally repugnant and inimical to a civilized society?
Despite valuing a defense apparatus so strong that our adversaries never test its might, I've never believed that we should start wars on a whim, either. In fact, I don't think one person should ever have that kind of power. It should always be the final resort, as it's basically a tacit admission of failure to resolve the dispute through other means.
I'm not entirely against the death penalty, but also believe it has a valid application in the most extreme of circumstances.
Is there any belief in a middle ground between allowing abortion at any time and for any reason and never allowing it at all?
Offline
Like button can go here
Some claim the "potential for life" makes abortion murder. But every male ejaculation produces 30 to 500 million sperm. Even if a baby is conceived, does the other 499,999,999 sperm constitute mass murder? A woman produces an ovum each month, if a baby is not conceived, is the woman guilty of murder? Of course not. So "potential" is irrelevant.
Some claim the fact a zygote (fertilized ovum) has a full set of chromosomes makes it a human. But every skin cell in your body also has a full set of chromosomes. Surface skin cells die every day, are they murder? If you lance a pimple, is that murder? Of course not. So having a full set of genes, or full set of chromosomes is meaningless.
Some claim once a heart starts to beat it's alive. But cattle have a beating heart. So do chickens, turkey, etc. Every time we eat meat, are we committing cannibalism? Are we contributing to murder of livestock? Vegans would say so. I don't think most people would agree. So a beating heart is irrelevant.
What makes humans different from other animals is our mind. Thinking, sentient conscious thought. In fact, once a person is clinically declared brain dead, that person can be chopped up for spare parts as an organ donor. If he/she has signed an organ donor card. The mind is a function of the cerebrum. That's the big part of the brain on top. The cerebellum is responsible for physical coordination. The hind brain is responsible for autonomic functions like regulating how fast the heart beats, controlling breathing, digestion, endocrine glands, etc. If the cerebrum is not functioning but the hind brain is, that person is still ruled to be brain dead. So the cerebrum is key to what is a human.
The cerebrum is not connected and not functional when a baby is born. Bones of the skull have not grown yet, the brain has not grown to its full size. In fact, bones of the skull float on the brain, perfectly moulding brain because the plates of the skull grown on the brain. But at birth, those bones have not yet formed. When a baby is born, the brain is squeezed, and squished through the birth canal. The hind brain is functional, some parts of the mid-brain functions, but the cerebrum is not connected together at all. The cerebrum has no axons or dendrites at birth. An axon carries a nerve signal from a brain cell to the next one(s). Dendrites receive signals, carrying those signals to the cell body. these are the interconnections that make the brain work. The cerebrum has absolutely no dendrite or axon connections at birth. The reason is any such connection would be ripped apart by the process of birth. Squishing the brain during birth would cause permanent brain damage. So the human brain connects the cells of the cerebrum together soon after birth. In the 1970s, this was confirmed to happen 3 months *AFTER* birth. However, modern 21st century technology has a few cases where interconnection of brain cells in the cerebrum was confirmed just 2 weeks after birth. But again, it's *AFTER* birth, because if there were any connections before birth, they would be destroyed by the process of birth. This means technically babies are born brain dead, but their brains become function soon after birth. I believe further technology will discover those connections begin even sooner after birth. It's the process of birth itself that triggers the brain to connect itself together.
This means a fetus is not a human before birth. A baby is a human right after birth. It's not magic, it's science.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2019-05-22 08:56:16)
Offline
Like button can go here
RobertDyck,
Let's apply that warped logic to other murderers. A shooter who achieves a decent T-box shot with their firearm of choice hasn't committed murder by such logic, either. Assault with a deadly weapon? Absolutely. Murder? Not possible. The person in question was clinically brain dead before final cessation of internal organ functions. After all, once the cerebrum has been separated from the rest of the brain, that person is clinically brain dead and no longer a sentient human being. If it's legal to cause the cessation of all other internal organ functions that make life possible after they're clinically brain dead, then that must apply equally to all people who are clinically brain dead, since that's the premise of your argument. The mental gymnastics that some people go through to prevent themselves from having to call a spade a spade is, well, mind-blowing.
Killing a perfectly viable baby is just plain wrong, in the same way that shooting someone in the head without very good cause is also just plain wrong.
By your own admission, you've never helped to create a child. Come back and talk to me about what you think and believe after you've helped to create one. Maybe your opinions on this matter won't change, but I seriously doubt it.
Edit:
Without realizing it, you've made the absolute best argument that I've ever seen for both more "gun control" and "abortion control", bar none. We have far too many people in this world who will use any justification, no matter how twisted, to get what they want. In this case, having sex without any moral duty to care for any children that those having sex voluntarily bring into this world. It's not the child's fault that the "parents" (I use that term very loosely in this case) can't behave with a modicum of responsibility.
Mission accomplished. You've made me rethink giving anyone the tools or authority to ever kill anyone else. That said, if our regressives are still intent on banning things that make murdering their fellow humans all too easy, then we'll start with banning the tools used by the greatest mass murderers first. In 21st century America, that "tool" is quite clearly "abortion".
Last edited by kbd512 (2019-05-22 07:25:07)
Offline
Like button can go here
Insulting me because I haven't had a child does not contribute to your argument. Terraformer objected to my use of the term "religious fanatic", but insulting me because I don't have a child is just as bad.
Comparing abortion of tissue before a functioning brain forms to murder with a firearm is obviously a false equivalency. You start with the assumption that human life starts when your prejudice claims it does, and claim anyone who disagrees is guilty of murder. That's circular logic. Just because some man wearing a dress in a pulpit says something, doesn't make it true. There, does that challenge your assumptions?
We're running into some areas that Liberals wouldn't like. You said "some people go through to prevent ... call a spade a spade"; you realize the term "spade" is an insulting term for a black person. And I just insulted a man wearing a dress. The science fiction convention I went to last weekend has a number of gay and transgender people. Becomes awkward when I have to worry whether some beautiful woman I want to hit on at the nightly party is lesbian. But you want to make a false equivalency with shooting someone, then I'll challenge those you appear to blindly follow.
Offline
Like button can go here
You are a fanatic, though. Only fanatics argue in favour of abortion, amirite.
Your argument is that, until a human being (and that is what we're talking about here - a living member of the human species) is conscious for the first time, it is acceptable to kill it; however, if it has awoken and then later become unconscious (say, because it is sleeping) it is *not* acceptable to kill them. The pro-life argument is that it is not acceptable to kill a human being, even if they are not yet conscious.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
RobertDyck,
I don't look down upon other people who choose not to have children, no matter what you believe. However, creating a human life and then snuffing it out, just because you can do it without legal consequence, is morally repugnant. In point of fact, it's quite clear that that's exactly how the law is being used, and mostly against minorities, which is doubly morally repugnant. The people doing this have been brainwashed into believing that they should be able to have sex without consequences. Well, guess what? Every decision in life has consequences. The fact that you took offense to the same line of reasoning you just spouted off, simply because it was applied to a slightly different situation with the same initial circumstances and end effect, demonstrated that quite effectively.
A human life is not "just tissue to be discarded at will", simply because the human in question isn't fully aware that they're about to be murdered by another human who doesn't value their life- at least to the extent that they extend the same courtesy to their children that their own mother showed unto them. If you actually believe in what you said, then the example I provided is very much equivalent to what you believe about human babies and shouldn't upset you in the slightest. An unconscious human adult is no different than a baby and every bit as helpless. If we shouldn't murder the adult, then we shouldn't murder the baby.
Word etymology games aside, I seriously doubt that Nicholas Udall ever met a person with skin pigmentation very much different than his own. Plutarch almost certainly never did. Therefore, I find it highly unlikely that your suggestion that I used some sort of racial slur holds any water. I never tire of the insinuations that people who don't share the view points of liberals (mostly just regressive in nature and stunningly illiberal, I think) are racist or bigoted or xenophobic.
Speaking of "ism's", most of the people getting abortions are poor and many also have a little more melanin in their skin than people like you and I, but don't let that stop you from encouraging them to murder their own babies. It always strikes me as a bit- what's that word our regressives love to call people, oh yes, RACIST, when these hoity toity liberal white women are shrieking like banshees about Republicans trying to prevent minorities from murdering their own babies and pretending that they actually care about them. I'm pretty sure that women the world over know how to not have children, should they decide that they don't want children. I guess demanding that adults be responsible is asking a bit too much. I call it the bratty teenager affliction. "I can do whatever I want, whenever I want to." Yeah, sure, kid. Just don't be too surprised if the rest of the world doesn't kowtow to every capricious demand you make of it.
Offline
Like button can go here
I didn't choose not to have children. I still want a child. That has become a problem: women my age are not of childbearing age, so I need a woman significantly younger than myself. I couldn't get a wife when I was that age, what are the chances of me finding one now? Sort of seeing someone now; her children are young adult, she's hoping her eldest daughter will have a child soon so she can be a grandmother. And she's younger than me. Aaaaaa!
I stand by my arguments. However, if a woman I was with got pregnant and demanded that I pay for her abortion, I would flatly refuse. I want a child so much that if this ever happened to me, I would demand she give me the baby. If she doesn't want it, then give the baby to me. If she finds that unreasonable, then she has to deal with it herself. Of course that's just theoretical. It's not as if I'm some sort of Casanova. I can count on one hand the number of women I've been with in the last 20 years.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2019-05-22 20:44:57)
Offline
Like button can go here
Offline
Like button can go here
Supreme Court Will Not Hear Bid to Revive Alabama Abortion
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected Alabama's request to resurrect the state's ban on a procedure commonly used in second trimester abortions, marking a win for supporters of abortion …
Georgia abortion providers file lawsuit challenging ‘heartbeat’ law
Offline
Like button can go here
Trump Administration Agrees to Delay Health Care Rule allowing medical workers to decline performing abortions or other treatments on moral or religious grounds while the so-called “conscience” rule...pertain to medical procedures such as abortion, sterilization and assisted suicide.
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1