Abortion

[Alaska Darin]

No, you are not correct. Bombing Pearl Harbor was not legal at the time.

So it was over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor?

I know plenty of people who have offered women going in to kill their child to adopt the baby from them, and they refused.

Making an offer on a sidewalk is probably the most effective tactic available.

 

How's about adopting all of the 250k+ kids currently sleeping in government beds every night as an act of good faith to further the agenda? Nah. We'll just stand out on the sidewalk with our picket signs and make hollow offers to perfect strangers while judging them and pretend we're furthering the cause.

[TakeYouToTasker]

How's about adopting all of the 250k+ kids currently sleeping in government beds every night as an act of good faith to further the agenda? Nah. We'll just stand out on the sidewalk with our picket signs and make hollow offers to perfect strangers while judging them and pretend we're furthering the cause.

As if the two have anything at all to do with each other. It's not an adoption drive, it's a drive to prevent the murder of the unborn.

[3rdnlng]

So it was over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor?

Making an offer on a sidewalk is probably the most effective tactic available.

 

How's about adopting all of the 250k+ kids currently sleeping in government beds every night as an act of good faith to further the agenda? Nah. We'll just stand out on the sidewalk with our picket signs and make hollow offers to perfect strangers while judging them and pretend we're furthering the cause.

Hell no.

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=animal+house+john+belushi+speech&FORM=VIRE8#view=detail&mid=AC18EF1E22BD1C64E871AC18EF1E22BD1C64E871

[Alaska Darin]

As if the two have anything at all to do with each other. It's not an adoption drive, it's a drive to prevent the murder of the unborn.

They do. The fact that you don't see the correlation is quite an indictment. Try solving the actual problems that are in front of you instead of something that's beyond a !@#$ing dream.

 

Good luck passing prohibition laws and getting the result you want. The consequences of your "solution" will be black market abortion clinics and a whole bunch of kids added to a system that already struggles to feed, clothe, and educate the ones that are already here.

 

I can see you parading around in a nice set of super hero spandex. Smartest Anti-abortion guy in the room.

[DC Tom]

As if the two have anything at all to do with each other. It's not an adoption drive, it's a drive to prevent the murder of the unborn.

 

How the hell do you think "prevent the murder of the unborn" [sic] is completely independent from the need to take care of those unwanted kids?

[B-Man]

I usually try to avoid getting involved in the abortion, or religion threads, as they most often degenerate into bias and clichés.

as is demonstrated by Darin and Tom's recent responses

 

I do think that I have a perspective that may be somewhat unique here on PPP.

 

As a Registered Nurse, and in particular a Nursing Supervisor at several smaller hospitals over the past three decades, I was required to attend any “Code Pink”, higher-risk deliveries, and, of course, the Pediatricians that I worked with decided that ALL deliveries were to be classified as “at risk”. So, consequently, I have been present and participated in (conservatively) over two thousand births.

 

Many, many of these births were pre-mature. Many of them survived, a few did not.

I have held a dead baby in my hands much to often to dwell on and I have been involved in support for grieving parents and family also.

Support for abortion, especially later term, is just a mystery to me.

 

This argument, that "we know better that they were aborted, because who would care for them" is the worst type of sophistry.

 

Just have the courage to say it is for convenience.

 

 

[meazza]

I usually try to avoid getting involved in the abortion, or religion threads, as they most often degenerate into bias and clichés.

as is demonstrated by Darin and Tom's recent responses

 

I do think that I have a perspective that may be somewhat unique here on PPP.

 

As a Registered Nurse, and in particular a Nursing Supervisor at several smaller hospitals over the past three decades, I was required to attend any “Code Pink”, higher-risk deliveries, and, of course, the Pediatricians that I worked with decided that ALL deliveries were to be classified as “at risk”. So, consequently, I have been present and participated in (conservatively) over two thousand births.

 

Many, many of these births were pre-mature. Many of them survived, a few did not.

I have held a dead baby in my hands much to often to dwell on and I have been involved in support for grieving parents and family also.

Support for abortion, especially later term, is just a mystery to me.

 

This argument, that "we know better that they were aborted, because who would care for them" is the worst type of sophistry.

 

Just have the courage to say it is for convenience.

 

 

 

Well said.

[DC Tom]

I usually try to avoid getting involved in the abortion, or religion threads, as they most often degenerate into bias and clichés.

as is demonstrated by Darin and Tom's recent responses

 

I do think that I have a perspective that may be somewhat unique here on PPP.

 

As a Registered Nurse, and in particular a Nursing Supervisor at several smaller hospitals over the past three decades, I was required to attend any “Code Pink”, higher-risk deliveries, and, of course, the Pediatricians that I worked with decided that ALL deliveries were to be classified as “at risk”. So, consequently, I have been present and participated in (conservatively) over two thousand births.

 

Many, many of these births were pre-mature. Many of them survived, a few did not.

I have held a dead baby in my hands much to often to dwell on and I have been involved in support for grieving parents and family also.

Support for abortion, especially later term, is just a mystery to me.

 

This argument, that "we know better that they were aborted, because who would care for them" is the worst type of sophistry.

 

Just have the courage to say it is for convenience.

 

 

 

That's a complete mischaracterization of my point. Which was: insisting that pregnancies should not be aborted, and claiming that the problem of caring for the unwanted babies is unrelated, is disingenuous. TYTT's post is basically saying that the old joke about Republicans believing that "life begins at conception and ends at birth" isn't actually a joke.

 

That's in no way a position on abortion. That's a position on a cowardly stance of "I'm against terminating pregnancies, but don't care about the resulting children."

[B-Man]

Why is Obama Picking on Nuns?

by Wesley J Smith

FTA:

The question of whether refusing to cover is sufficient complicity to pass the ”substantial burden” test of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is, I think, a legally debatable proposition.

Why is the Obama Administration–which shrugs off Sanctuary Cities’ blatant violations of statutory law–risking a political hit by implacably pursuing nuns who do wonderful and charitable work over birth control?

I believe that the Obamacarians are playing a longer game, that these cases are about abortion and assisted suicide as much as they are contraception.

Here’s my thinking: Using the uncontroversial-for-the-majority issue of contraception will allow courts to establish principles and parameters on when and how the government can violate religious beliefs in the health insurance context. Once those decisions are safely in place, –and once the Left gains control of the government as it did in 2009–Obamacare will be revised to require that abortion be provided free, in the same manner as it does contraception now.

That is, after all, a huge agenda item for the feminist left. After that, should many of the states legalize assisted suicide, we will see the same kind of mandate.

In summary, Obama is picking on nuns now so that more-objectionable-to-more-people coverage mandates can be imposed on religious objectors later.

But Wesley, what happens if the nuns shut down their work rather than yield their consciences to the government?

Win, win: The Left will howl at the supposed ”hatred,” but won’t mind a bit. They don’t want principled orthodox religious folk in the public square competing for hearts and minds.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

.

.

Edited July 15, 2015 by B-Man

[TakeYouToTasker]

They do. The fact that you don't see the correlation is quite an indictment. Try solving the actual problems that are in front of you instead of something that's beyond a !@#$ing dream.

 

Good luck passing prohibition laws and getting the result you want. The consequences of your "solution" will be black market abortion clinics and a whole bunch of kids added to a system that already struggles to feed, clothe, and educate the ones that are already here.

 

I can see you parading around in a nice set of super hero spandex. Smartest Anti-abortion guy in the room.

Or, perhaps I'll take on the problems that are important to me, rather than letting you substitute your own moral prioritization, because I like me way more than I like you, and I couldn't give two wet ***** about how you feel about the topic.

 

The truth is that existing children in need of adoption has no logical bearing on whether or not abortion is moral if you believe, as I do, that it is murder.

 

As you note, black markets will certainly emerge; but so what? Black markets emerge any time you make a law. Is your argument then that we should make no laws? You then note that state and federal systems struggle to support the abandoned children we currently have, and that may well be true, but it certainly doesn't justify murder.

 

As B-Man notes, for you this is nothing more a lazy "solution" because living children are an inconvenience to you; whereas for me, the reality of our throw away culture in which we've opted for the rationalization of the deaths of millions of innocents because it's easier than taking care of them is tragic, and as such, I argue against it.

Edited July 15, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Alaska Darin]

Or, perhaps I'll take on the problems that are important to me, rather than letting you substitute your own moral prioritization, because I like me way more than I like you, and I couldn't give two wet ***** about how you feel about the topic.

 

The truth is that existing children in need of adoption has no logical bearing on whether or not abortion is moral if you believe, as I do, that it is murder.

As you note, black markets will certainly emerge; but so what? Black markets emerge any time you make a law. Is your argument then that we should make no laws? You then note that state and federal systems struggle to support the abandoned children we currently have, and that may well be true, but it certainly doesn't justify murder.

 

As B-Man notes, for you this is nothing more a lazy "solution" because living children are an inconvenience to you; whereas for me, the reality of our throw away culture in which we've opted for the rationalization of the deaths of millions of innocents because it's easier than taking care of them is tragic, and as such, I argue against it.

Nah, you'd just rather introduce your morals on the entire society with no thought whatsoever for the long term consequences. Typical emotional zealot behavior. "It's murder." So's masturbation, if you want to keep peeling the onion. Maybe we can pass a law about that too and pretend we're accomplishing something that the flying spaghetti monster will favor.

 

I do like the introduction of the strawman on abandoning all laws. You've got a winning argument there. Stick with it.

 

The real tragedy is the average conservative can't make a correlation between the importance of taking care of the children we already have (this obviously includes you) and how doing so would significantly reduce the need for abortion in future generations while chipping away at the "throwaway culture" they like to harp so constantly about. Nah, we'll just pass a pretty much unenforceable law and build a **** ton more prisons for the inevitable crime wave we're going to end up with. Hey, at least it's a "Made in America" industry and something we can easily keep our world number one ranking, right?

 

Keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again and expecting a different result.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Nah, you'd just rather introduce your morals on the entire society with no thought whatsoever for the long term consequences. Typical emotional zealot behavior. "It's murder." So's masturbation, if you want to keep peeling the onion. Maybe we can pass a law about that too and pretend we're accomplishing something that the flying spaghetti monster will favor.

 

I do like the introduction of the strawman on abandoning all laws. You've got a winning argument there. Stick with it.

 

The real tragedy is the average conservative can't make a correlation between the importance of taking care of the children we already have (this obviously includes you) and how doing so would significantly reduce the need for abortion in future generations while chipping away at the "throwaway culture" they like to harp so constantly about. Nah, we'll just pass a pretty much unenforceable law and build a **** ton more prisons for the inevitable crime wave we're going to end up with. Hey, at least it's a "Made in America" industry and something we can easily keep our world number one ranking, right?

 

Keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

It's the absolute pinnacle of irony and hilarity that you would dare to accuse me of strawmanning in the above post.

 

Further, the fact that you have rationalized murder because the alternative is a difficult problem, says all I'd ever need to know about your lack of moral fiber. And yes, it is murder.

 

And no, it's not a religious position. The idea that innocent life should be protected is not rooted in religion. I simply believe, apparently unlike yourself, that individuals have a right to life until they have forfeited that right through their own decisions and actions. I also don't believe that law dictates morality, and that the arbitrary whims of individual women should decide where life begins on a case by case basis.

 

Just as law does not dictate morality, neither does convenience. Just because it's easier for you to support the termination of millions of unborn children than to work to solve difficult problems with solutions that don't include crushing human beings with tongs and ripping them apart with vacuums doesn't make it right.

 

No, the real tragedy is that with the morality you support, there is no end in sight to the "throw away culture". How could there be? When innocent human beings can be virtuously discarded, what can't be? When the fundamental Right to Life isn't honored, why rights will be?

 

Your answer is nothing more than, "kill them, because I'm too weak minded, weak willed, and weak spirited to deal with them."

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

That's a complete mischaracterization of my point. Which was: insisting that pregnancies should not be aborted, and claiming that the problem of caring for the unwanted babies is unrelated, is disingenuous. TYTT's post is basically saying that the old joke about Republicans believing that "life begins at conception and ends at birth" isn't actually a joke.

 

That's in no way a position on abortion. That's a position on a cowardly stance of "I'm against terminating pregnancies, but don't care about the resulting children."

 

Where have I expressed any opinion on the care of the children? I'll help you: I haven't. Rather, you're assigned me a position for your convenience.

 

Perhaps you'd like to inquire about my position?

 

If not, I'll thank you to at least stop assigning them to me in order to make strawmanning easier.

[Alaska Darin]

 

It's the absolute pinnacle of irony and hilarity that you would dare to accuse me of strawmanning in the above post.

 

Further, the fact that you have rationalized murder because the alternative is a difficult problem, says all I'd ever need to know about your lack of moral fiber. And yes, it is murder.

 

And no, it's not a religious position. The idea that innocent life should be protected is not rooted in religion. I simply believe, apparently unlike yourself, that individuals have a right to life until they have forfeited that right through their own decisions and actions. I also don't believe that law dictates morality, and that the arbitrary whims of individual women should decide where life begins on a case by case basis.

 

Just as law does not dictate morality, neither does convenience. Just because it's easier for you to support the termination of millions of unborn children than to work to solve difficult problems with solutions that don't include crushing human beings with tongs and ripping them apart with vacuums doesn't make it right.

 

No, the real tragedy is that with the morality you support, there is no end in sight to the "throw away culture". How could there be? When innocent human beings can be virtuously discarded, what can't be? When the fundamental Right to Life isn't honored, why rights will be?

 

Your answer is nothing more than, "kill them, because I'm too weak minded, weak willed, and weak spirited to deal with them."

I don't "support" abortion. I simply don't believe that the standard "let's pass a law and move on" is going to go anywhere other than making you and the rest of the zealots feel better about yourselves while you ignore the "fruits" or your politics. Based on historical context, you're wrong as hell. Whatever.

 

You can trumpet your moral superiority all you want. It fits your standard blowhardness quite well. Good for you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I don't "support" abortion. I simply don't believe that the standard "let's pass a law and move on" is going to go anywhere other than making you and the rest of the zealots feel better about yourselves while you ignore the "fruits" or your politics. Based on historical context, you're wrong as hell. Whatever.

 

You can trumpet your moral superiority all you want. It fits your standard blowhardness quite well. Good for you.

You're strawmanning again. As I just asked of Tom, perhaps you'd like to quote my position on the care of the children in question? Or perhaps my position on whether or not we should proceed exactly as we have in the past?

 

Oh, no? You can't?

 

That's because you weren't interested in an honest discussion. You simply wished to be quick to your soapbox in order to take swipes at every individual's right to life.

 

So, thanks to your own lack of quality, not only can I claim moral high ground, but I can also lay claim to being the only person in this conversation displaying any intellectual honesty.

 

/golfclap

Edited July 15, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Alaska Darin]

You're strawmanning again. As I just asked of Tom, perhaps you'd like to quote my position on the care of the children in question? Or perhaps my position on whether or not we should proceed exactly as we have in the past?

 

Oh, no? You can't?

 

That's because you weren't interested in an honest discussion. You simply wished to be quick to your soapbox in order to take swipes at every individual's right to life.

 

So, thanks to your own lack of quality, not only can I claim moral high ground, but I can also lay claim to being the only person in this conversation displaying any intellectual honesty.

I'm not interested in an honest discussion with someone who doesn't see a correlation between abortion and unwanted kids or the consequences of them? Yeah, I'm the problem.

 

Whatever, blowhard. Your tactics here aren't new or interesting. So feel free to claim the moral high ground. I don't give a flying **** about your opinion on anything because you've shown your true colors over and over again. You're like this board's Charlie Sheen. Winning.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

I'm not interested in an honest discussion with someone who doesn't see a correlation between abortion and unwanted kids or the consequences of them? Yeah, I'm the problem.

Another straw man. Or, maybe you really don't get it?

 

I'll spell it out for you:

 

I'm not interested in the correlation between abortion and unwanted kids or the consequences of them. That correlation, no matter how strong, doesn't justify murder.

 

You're claiming that it does, simply because the problem is challenging, and it's easier for you to endorse the death of children than to solve it.

 

You've already determined the value of their lives to be zero or less. I'm arguing to let them exercise their right to life, and to determine their life's own value.

 

Whatever, blowhard. Your tactics here aren't new or interesting. So feel free to claim the moral high ground. I don't give a flying **** about your opinion on anything because you've shown your true colors over and over again. You're like this board's Charlie Sheen. Winning.

It's not hard to claim moral high ground when you're arguing against someone who believes his own intellectual dishonesty and petulance some how stands up to an appeal to each individual's fundamental Right to Life.

 

My true colors? What are those, Darrin?

 

Run away, Darrin. It's your second strongest debate tactic after the introduction of logical fallacies has failed you.

Edited July 16, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

 

Where have I expressed any opinion on the care of the children? I'll help you: I haven't. Rather, you're assigned me a position for your convenience.

 

Perhaps you'd like to inquire about my position?

 

If not, I'll thank you to at least stop assigning them to me in order to make strawmanning easier.

 

You expressed an opinion that abortion and the care of unwanted children were unrelated. Which is what I addressed. I never said you stated ANY position on child care. Learn to read, dipshit.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

You expressed an opinion that abortion and the care of unwanted children were unrelated. Which is what I addressed. I never said you stated ANY position on child care. Learn to read, dipshit.

Oh, really? Did I? I'm pretty sure that I haven't, if one takes my statements within the context of my argument.

 

As to you taking the liberty of staking out my positions for me... Remember upthread when you said this:

 

That's a complete mischaracterization of my point. Which was: insisting that pregnancies should not be aborted, and claiming that the problem of caring for the unwanted babies is unrelated, is disingenuous. TYTT's post is basically saying that the old joke about Republicans believing that "life begins at conception and ends at birth" isn't actually a joke.

Do better. Edited July 16, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[FireChan]

They do. The fact that you don't see the correlation is quite an indictment. Try solving the actual problems that are in front of you instead of something that's beyond a !@#$ing dream.

 

Good luck passing prohibition laws and getting the result you want. The consequences of your "solution" will be black market abortion clinics and a whole bunch of kids added to a system that already struggles to feed, clothe, and educate the ones that are already here.

 

I can see you parading around in a nice set of super hero spandex. Smartest Anti-abortion guy in the room.

More lives? Oh no, please no.

 

That's a complete mischaracterization of my point. Which was: insisting that pregnancies should not be aborted, and claiming that the problem of caring for the unwanted babies is unrelated, is disingenuous. TYTT's post is basically saying that the old joke about Republicans believing that "life begins at conception and ends at birth" isn't actually a joke.

 

That's in no way a position on abortion. That's a position on a cowardly stance of "I'm against terminating pregnancies, but don't care about the resulting children."

Didn't he say the adoption of 250k kids in government beds has no bearing on if murder is justified?

 

I'd take life in a government bed over not living, but even if I wouldn't, no one else should get to make that choice for me.