"Peacefully unaware that anyone wants to kill them"
I'm not in the habit of just copying someone else's post but the comment, 'Peacefully unaware...' hit me in the gut pretty hard.
Another surprise was the writers' surprising use of unvarnished truth...
Another surprise was the writers' surprising use of unvarnished truth...
"The doctor was not in the office at the time to legally kill the child before birth"
from the mind of... Eric | 8:53 PM
46 Comments:
You don't approve of abortions EL. We get it. What would you have happen though, for women that don't want to be pregnant? Should women be forced to carry embryos to term? Under criminal penalty?
They should exercise their freedom of choice by choosing to use protection-- before the act of passion! --hoping it works so they won't be required to carry to term, by law, the child they don't want.
Yes, abortion should be against the law. Abortion is murder... I'm not in the mood to be any nicer than that on this particular subject.
If that sounds harsh to you, imagine how I feel knowing a portion of my taxes go to fund such murders. Do women have the right to choose? They sure do-- They can choose to use protection, or keep their legs closed.
"Should women be forced to carry embryos to term?"
No. They should be required to carry children to term!
"Under criminal Penalty?"
Absolutely! It's a Crime against Humanity!
Absolutely Heartless!
The very idea that these poor women who, through no fault of their own, become infected with Embryos, should be forced to carry those tissue masses to full term!
You should be more compassionate toward these poor innocent women, who just happen to have gotten a bad case of Embryos, Lash...
ok EL let's take your suggestions a step further. Would you pay taxes for raising these unwanted children? What sort of penalties would you lay at the feet of the fathers? How would you expect the police to track women down who become pregnant?
You accuse "The Left" of wanting a communistic state, but your vision of a country in which the government forces women to carry children to term is beyond any leftist imaginings.
How would you feel if the government forced you to lug around a testicular tumor for 9-months?
Ben,
Sorry, dude, but your typical liberal approach to truth accomplishes nothing. The fact is that conservatives whop base their positions on logic rather than passion have correctly concluded that PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY plays a crucial part in the advancement and maintenance of a peaceful society.
Not only does the left defend the irresponsible behaviors of those who selfishly put undue burdens on their neighbors, it also encourages and defends the slaughter of the undeniably most innocent among us.
I'm comfortable with my anti-abortion, anti-leftist, anti-anti-American position. VERY comfortable!
While modern conservatives cautiosly seek progress, modern leftists seek to send America hurling off into uncontrolled, unchecked oblivion. That is certainly not progressive on the left's part!
"modern leftists seek to send America hurling off into uncontrolled, unchecked oblivion."
Daggone you, Daddio! You've uncovered our Hurl America Into Oblivion Plot! Curse your inscrutable mind!
Beyond question, it is quite impossible that a testicular tumor should one day cross the stage to receive its High School diploma.
It is not communistic to expect members of society to accept personal responsibility for their actions... it is in fact a core philosophical belief of the Progressive Left that these self-same members of society should NOT be made to take responsibility for their actions, because it is dear old Uncle Sam's job to take care of them and lift all those grievous burdens from their oppressed shoulders.
Government education from K to 12 and beyond, bends over backwards to instill into all those young skulls full of mush that it is governments job to take care of them... Personal responsibility only comes into play at tax time, or when paying ones debt to society when the vaguest of modern societal lines (in terms of the ambiguous, and subjective, nature of right and wrong being taught in Government schools today) have been crossed.
Communistic? The Left is so enamored of socialist programs; wealth redistribution, socialized medicine, bilking the rich and poor alike with oppressive tax rates-- despite the fact that communism has failed everywhere it's been tried. And how dare ANYONE speak out against one of the biggest social engineering projects on the Leftist agenda... Abortion.
Testicular tumor? Forced to carry it for nine months? Under socialized medicine? Probably longer!!!
Let's begin doing what you suggested with the terrorism problem in Lebanon and the greater Middle East... Let's educate the children of America about personal responsibility; abstinence programs in conjunction with the benefits of birth control. Let's teach these childrens that it's better to keep their legs closed until marriage, but if they can't manage that, protection is their best option because if they fail to use it, or if the protection fails-- only abstinence is 100% sure --they will have to bear nine months of "torture" and give their "mistake" an oportunity to make better choices for themselves than their mothers. And don't punish just the mothers-- that's hardly fair! Hit the fathers where it hurts too!
It's called "Personal Responsibility!" And it needs to be taught in tandem with showing them how to create an overwhelming sense of "Personal Self-Worth."
THAT is one answer to abortion. An answer that would work... in about 15-20 years. Change the way a society thinks, and you change that society as a whole.
Dan,
though the rest of us have long known my fore-stated fact about the modern leftist movement, I'm glad I was able to shed some light on it for you.
Cheers!
"it is in fact a core philosophical belief of the Progressive Left that these self-same members of society should NOT be made to take responsibility for their actions"
With this and the comment about the left using schools to instill the idea that it is the gov't's job to take care of them: Can you name one person who's said so, can you cite ONE source where someone you consider a Leftist has said what you've just said?
Also, with a testicular mass, the carrier had NO CHOICE in the matter; they did not actively place the cancerous cell within themseleves. Clearly with a pregnancy, one has an obvious choice: To not allow sperm within her body!
Such arguments are a fallacy of the pro-murder crowd.
A box of condoms with spermacide is cheap, and if one visits a Planned Parenthood (Pre-abortion, of course) they can receive birth control on a sliding scale for income. It is often cheap or free, thus eliminating the excuse for not preventing the pregnancy in the first place.
And as for unwanted babies? Perhaps cutting off social entitlements for welfare recipients who are rewarded for continuing to have children on the public dime, coupled with eliminating the OUTRAGEOUS legal costs surrounding adoption which bars many loving people from taking those children might help to defray the social burden.
BTW, ElAshley, thanks for the mention!
Here we go again with one of your requests, Dan!
Again, no single case has to be made--the philosophy of the left is apparent to anyone who cares to look at it critically.
It's the modern left's attitude, Dan. It's harmful to society!
"Here we go again with one of your requests, Dan!
Again, no single case has to be made--the philosophy of the left is apparent to anyone who cares to look at it critically."
Well, YOU may not think so, D, but I suspect Elashley be a bit more fair-minded than you. He may recognize that it is poor form to make a wild accusation without something to back it up.
I can easily offer a refutation to his assertion that the Left is out to "make" the gov't responsible for everyone: As one that y'all consider a "leftist," I've NEVER met anyone on the Left who wants gov't to make people not responsible for their actions.
Never. Not one.
Now, to be fair, that is only anectdotal. BUT, it is at least some evidence to back my claim. Elashley, on the other hand, only made a claim with no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
I suspect that Elashley will want to defend his assertion.
My assertion would be quite the opposite. The Left WANTS people to be acccountable. They WANT to see personal responsibility.
This is why the Left wants to see regulations that keep companies and individuals from polluting the air or water. Those actions are calls to responsibility. And, in the family care/abortion arena, that is why Liberals like social workers, who work to help people become independent and not needing gov't assistance but able to stand on their own.
Or, is Elashley's accusations of the Left only wanting people to NOT be responsible limited to the abortion issue? Looking back, maybe that's what he's saying (although the school thing he said sure sounds like he thinks it a core tenet of Liberalism to foster gov't dependence).
Nicely said, D.
"a core tenet of Liberalism to foster gov't dependence"
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!!!! Give that man a cupie-doll!
Oh, really, Elashley? You're just going to make an unsubstantiated wild claim? No evidence, just "everyone knows that liberals are in favor of irresponsibility"?
C'mon. You're better than that.
In truth Dan, there is no physical, tangible script. We both know that. But there is, as Daddio suggests, a pattern of behavior. Almost everything Dem's-- and Leftists by extension --support and defend point to a socialistic bent, an unhealthy bent to boot.
The Left supports and even celebrates a woman's right to kill an unborn child...
The Left refuses to look at a growing problem with Social Security when a Republican wants to do something about it, but has no qualms calling it a "disaster just waiting to happen" when a Democrat wants to do something about it.
The Left blames government, but not themselves --for almost every social ill. Government doesn't provide enough money for afterschool programs to keep the kiddies off the street; Gun control is the answer to violent crime; The rich get richer and the poor get poorer-- the Rich should be paying more taxes! [Oh! The evil, heartless Rich!!!] The rich should pay more in taxes because they can afford to pay more taxes. Or how about this one? The economy isn't faring all that well right now because of the Bush tax cuts, despite an extremely low unemployment, despite the fact that the DOW is currently sitting over 11,000 points and has for a while now; despite the fact that the there has been a consistent increase in tax revenues... Lower taxes and people spend and save more; pump more money into the economy provide more jobs, more opportunity.
I could go on...
The Left wants to tightly control everything done by everyone; an agency for this, a commission for that, and many of the programs the Left wants to enact have already been tried by other communist/socialist countries... and failed miserably.
Political Correctness is perhaps the biggest evil currently being foisted on this nation by the Left. Followed closely by the idea that religious faith was intended by our founding fathers to be denied a voice in the Public Square-- a belief that does not jibe with the way Religion was treated by government at the beginning of this nation, never mind that fact that the first amendment says the exact opposite of what "learned" members of the Liberal Left THINK the first amendment says. NO WHERE in the Constitution will you find the phrase, "Separation of Church and State" and yet children coming out of government schools believe it in there.
Children in government schools perform poorly when compared to other industrialized nations. We consistently rank low in all areas of academics.
I could go on...
But I'm getting tired pointing out the obvious.
Impress me with you artful dodging of those self-evident truths.
And don't think I don't see the problems on the Right! I don't overlook the shortcomings of those ideologues either. But support of Abortion is not among them. Taxing the shit out of the rich simply because they can afford to pay it isn't among them. Believing Social Security is just fine and dandy isn't among them. Believing the War on Terror is confined only to the hunt for Osama isn't among them.
I could go on....
Coming out to microphone to tell America that the Bush administration isn't doing enough to protect this nation against terrorists while offering nothing in the form of suggestions, a mere 8 months after coming out to a similar microphone to tell the nation, "We've killed the Patriot Act!" isn't among them....
Calling American soldiers, Marines, murderers without evidence, without due process, in the presense of the entire listening world isn't among them.
I could go on...
Publishing sensitive, secret government programs-- in effect telling the enemy how we are working to destroy them --isn't among them.
I could go on...
E, what you're doing is akin to me saying, "I know that Conservatives are really fascists. No, I've never seen them personally advocate fascism out loud, but it's evident from their actions.
After all, the RIGHT supports torture. They support overthrowing sovereign gov'ts, killing innocent people to do so.
Trying to make our nation a theocracy is perhaps the greatest sin of the right, oppressing those who disagree with them, probably wanting to tell them to 'love it or leave it,' or maybe just arrest them if they don't go along with the God as established by the state..."
You see my point? You're pointing to some actions taken by some liberals and saying that "This is what All Liberals think, despite what they may SAY..."
Perhaps you'd do better to offer some understanding of what you think core liberal tenets are and base it upon what liberals actually say they're for? This whole "reading liberals' minds based on the actions of some," is really poor reasoning.
I mean,
"The Left wants to tightly control everything done by everyone"
Can't the same be said for the Right? They want to say who can marry and who can't, who can drink and smoke what and what they can't smoke, etc, etc. At least when Liberals DO try to regulate stuff, they're trying to regulate to help people be personally responsible in ways that don't hurt others. The drinking and marrying stuff largely hurts no one but those involved and rarely are lives at risk, and so there is some reason for the regulation.
C'mon, E. I could go on, too.
" They want to say who can marry and who can't, who can drink and smoke what and what they can't smoke, etc, etc."--Danielsan
This is the most ignorant satement I've ever read from you, Dan!
It is apparent your assumptions about conservatives are VERY ideologically driven--to the point of pure fantasy!
Have you visited the "Sopt the Republicans" blog?
"Conservative" as a word means just what it says--to conserve while making progress! Conservatism is responsible progressivism. Modern liberalism is nothing more than debauchery covered with a veneer of goodwill--not progressive by any means!
The biggest fallacy you have swallowed, Dan, is the one that suggests conservatism is void of compassion. You accuse the right--as a WHOLE--of having no compassion whenever you are cornered in a debate--you've done it on several occasions (don't ask me to prove it--like in my previous statement, I don't have to--those who have witnessed it knows as well).
To make a suggestion like that is rediculous! And you well know it....I hope you do, anyway!
I don't have to go to any trouble to explain my generalizations about the left because every accusation I make against the left is GENERAL knowledge whether you want to deny it or not.
Liberalism as prescribed my modern liberals is regressive!
Modern Conservatism equals Conservative Progressivism.
Modern Liberalism wants to ride the horse headlong at breakneck speeds shouting "yee-haw" across un-mapped territory!
Conservative Progressivism--Conservatism rides atop the sturdy legged mule who picks his way carefully so that he may finish the journey in safety.
Claim 1: "The Left refuses to look at a growing problem with Social Security when a Republican wants to do something about it, but has no qualms calling it a "disaster just waiting to happen" when a Democrat wants to do something about it."
Truth 1: Currently in 2040 the SS fund will no longer be able to pay 100% of benefits. Instead from 2040 to 2080 they'll only be able to pay 74% of benefits. After 2080 the SS fund will be able to pay 70% of benefits. That's if nothing changes between now and 2040. If the economy grows faster than predicted. If people die faster than predicted. If the birth rate declines, the the 2040 and 2080 numbers move further out. It's happened before, in the 90's the exhaustion date was in the 20-teens.
Now to fix the SS fund so that it can pay 100% benefits for INFINITY we need to put in 13-trillion dollars sometime between now and 2040. All that info is from the 2006 Annual Report of the Board of the Trustees of the Social Security Administration.
During the Clinton administration Democratic senators, representatives, and media mouthpieces all called the Social Security problem a "Crisis"... and promptly did nothing.
George Bush calls the Social Security problem a "Crisis"... and Democratic senators, representatives, and media mouthpieces call him delusional, a liar, and promptly fall all over themselves to paint him in the worst possible light to ensure nothing is done... yet again.
It's called Hypocrisy.
Dan-- By the same standard, every Democrat who voted to fund the war is guilty of torture, rape, and murder. To say nothing of Democratic Facism; wishing to stack every federal court in the nation with "activist" judges who will allow foreign law to trump the Constitution.
And Oh, those evil Conservatives! Wanting to restore morality to a society fast losing its national identity!
All this from the lips of Liberals who vigorously defend the abomination of Partial-Birth Abortion.
Claim 2: "Government doesn't provide enough money for afterschool programs to keep the kiddies off the street."
Truth 2: A recent report calculates the potential national cost of ensuring developmental opportunities and supports for school-age youth (6-17) would be 144 billion dollars
annually. That is a cost of $2.55 per hour or $3,060 annually per youth. The resulting return on every dollar is a gain of $10.51 for every dollar invested. That's from National Institute on Out-Of-School Time 2006 Fact Sheet.
Claim 3: "Gun control is the answer to violent crime."
Truth 3: It happened just recently but maybe you've forgotten "Arrest Leads to Arsenal Inside SUV" Does anyone really need "38 weapons ranging from various high velocity assault rifles to 50-caliber sniper rifles and multiple handguns." The United States so far outranks other countries in the world when it comes to gun crimes that it's like a 9-11 attack every 3 months. We've tried the lock'em up approach to crime for the past half-century, and violent crime has grown faster than population growth, so what should we do. Does the right have an answer besides "Build more prisons."?
Claim 4: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer-- the Rich should be paying more taxes! [Oh! The evil, heartless Rich!!!] The rich should pay more in taxes because they can afford to pay more taxes."
Truth 4: "Compensation for top corporate CEOs grew by nearly 16 percent last year..." Did your pay increase by 16%? In 2004 CEO compensation grew by 41%. The rich are getting richer. Do you know what the average median income is? When you look at the US's average income you can see it grow year to year, and you might think people are getting richer. You'd be wrong. The average income is swayed by increasing CEO salaries. A better number to follow is the median income. That's the wage at which the number of people who make more is equal to those that make less. The Median income for men has barely budged since 1972. (For women the median income is slowly growing though it's still almost 15% less than men.) But inflation keeps the prices of staples such as bread, gas and milk climbing. So you see the poor are getting poorer.
Claim 5: "The economy isn't faring all that well right now because of the Bush tax cuts, despite an extremely low unemployment, despite the fact that the DOW is currently sitting over 11,000 points and has for a while now; despite the fact that the there has been a consistent increase in tax revenues... Lower taxes and people spend and save more; pump more money into the economy provide more jobs, more opportunity."
Truth 5: Well, EL, looking at the Dow as an indication of the health of the economy is unwise. All the Dow shows is the total market value of a few of the largest publicly traded companies on wall Street. Better numbers might be the Gross Domestic Product, the S&P or the afore-mentioned median income.
People save more;you're wrong. America's saving rate moved into negative numbers last year. People were actually spending more than saving. Another first since the 1920's. Credit debts are skyrocketing. Economic mobilty is stagnating. The consumer Price index is rising faster than inflation. If you cherry pick facts, you can make this administration and congress look like good steward of the economy. Stepping back and examining the full picture shows that they are only steering by the upper income bracket. If you want to know more about why tax revenues are increasing you might want to check out that bastion of liberalism The Wall Street Journal.
Even more about the Bush tax cuts-the Treasurey Dept. just completed a study on them to see if they have/would have any impact on the economy. Most expensive part of Bush's tax cuts was the cuts to the capital gains taxes. 70% of those tax cuts went to the top 2% of the country. 401K's like most of the middle-income earners invest in didn't qualify for those tax cuts. As for the economy overall sometime between 2015 and forever the economy will grow .07% if Bush's tax cuts are made permanent. That's not a continuous .07% growth. That's only one-time growth. The study does give the tax cuts credits for stimulating job growth. So that's a claim you can make truthfully. The other stuff...no.
Claim 6: "Children in government schools perform poorly when compared to other industrialized nations. We consistently rank low in all areas of academics."
Truth 6: [snark]You would rocket the US to the front of the class teaching children that Eve was formed from Adam's rib and some dust on the ground? [/snark] I can't find any data to support this claim. Not atThe National Center For Education Statistics or Childstats.gov. If you have something more than "I heard it on talk-radio" then post a link and we can discuss American education.
Claim 7: "Coming out to microphone to tell America that the Bush administration isn't doing enough to protect this nation against terrorists while offering nothing in the form of suggestions, a mere 8 months after coming out to a similar microphone to tell the nation, "We've killed the Patriot Act!" isn't among them...."
Truth 7: I'm sure you just weren't listening the day Neal Boortz praised the Dem's for their document "Real Security: Protecting America and Restoring our Leadership in the World". Start reading on page 2 under the heading Real Security. It's a joint document outlining real measures ALL Democrats support for actual Homeland security. It was released four months ago.
Oh yeah and about the Patriot Act. Well you know all those high profile terror plots that have been foiled recently: The Patriot Act provisions weren't needed to crack any of those cases. Don't be so quick to throw your liberties and privacies away for the illusion of security.
I've researched each of your claims. If you feel I'm wrong then you need to find links of your own. Preferably to minimally biased organizations. I didn't link to the NYTimes or other "moonbat" organizations. I linked to government agencies. Let's have a FACTUAL debate about these generalizations.
Back on the topic. I hope you realize that Roe v. wade is not going to be overturned. As John Roberts said in his confirmation hearing "It's settled law."
Your vision of a Christian extremist state, where OB/GYN doctors have to tell the police when a woman gets pregnant. So she can be checked up on 9-months later to see if she had a baby. It isn't going to happen either. So what's a middle ground where women have the right to choose, but abortion is minimized and discouraged? How do you feel about the new over-the-counter pill RU-486?
"Your vision of a Christian extremist state"
Sheesh! Who making generalizations now?
Wow. BenT, I AM impressed. This is exactly the best sort of response to answer crazy generalizations - facts. But who has the time to do such heroic work? YOU do! Way to go.
Okay, with some specific facts to counter your generalizations about what liberals want, can we agree to deal with specifics instead of generalizations?
I won't say that you, as a conservative, just want a fascist pseudo-Christian theocracy ("just like all conservatives - and we know it's True!"), if you won't make nutty statements like "all liberals want to do is tax and spend," or "all liberals want to foster gov't dependency."
Those are ALL just ridiculous generalizations made by people who'd rather demonize than discuss and are just not helpful in this already divided country.
(And actually, I won't make those statements even if you DO continue. I have no wish to demonize my brothers and sisters.)
Daddio said:
"It is apparent your assumptions about conservatives are VERY ideologically driven--to the point of pure fantasy!"
But Republicans (and many Dems) DO want to control who can marry. That's not fantasy. Spending their precious time working on a Gay Marriage ban that won't even pass speaks to this.
I don't get your point.
MY point is that the Republicans and Dems both have areas where they'd intrude on people's lives. The Reps tend to do this in the areas of marriage, sexuality, abortion and drugs. The Dems tend to do it in areas of environmental concerns and business concerns.
As to this statement:
"The biggest fallacy you have swallowed, Dan, is the one that suggests conservatism is void of compassion. You accuse the right--as a WHOLE--of having no compassion whenever you are cornered in a debate--you've done it on several occasions"
What mind-altering drugs are YOU on? I've never said that. I know you said "don't ask me to show it," but this is really just bizarre.
Help me out here, Elashley.
I'm pretty doggone sure that I've never accused "conservatives" of being devoid of compassion. It's these sorts of demonizing, truth-twisting instances that make dialog difficult in our already divided nation and world. C'mon. I'm a Christian, you're a Christian, what is this kind of attack about?
I'm more than glad to discuss with you what I've actually said, but I really can't debate things I haven't said, now can I?
Claim 8: "George Bush calls the Social Security problem a "Crisis"... and Democratic senators, representatives, and media mouthpieces call him delusional, a liar, and promptly fall all over themselves to paint him in the worst possible light to ensure nothing is done... yet again"
Truth 8: I think your mischaracterizing the SS debate. From my perspective last year's SS debate centered on the realistic feasability of George Bush's plan to privatize SS. There were several facts that swayed my decision. 1) Moving money SS funds into the stock market would not close the $13-trillion gap between SS's future payment obligations and future projected income. 2) To make the change from where current payees pay for current retirees to a system where current payees pay for future retirees would incur a changeover cost between 4-5 billion. That money would have to come from elsewhere in the federal budget. 3) I didn't see anyone discussing how the plan would help those that lose money in the stock market. Even though the stock market grows over the long-term; sometimes in the short-term the market decreases. How would those just about to enter retirement at these low points be addressed? 5) I saw no proposals for increases regulation in the securites industries. It's bad enough when telemarketers scam the elderly, I don't want to see Merril Lynch doing the same.
If the websites you read and the commentators you listen to painted left objections to Bush's plan as personal attacks, then you were misinformed.
Y'know, if the Dems would propose something, anything even coming close to their version of a solution, I would give you that argument... But the Dem's modus operandi is to malign and complain, and then do NOTHING.
Brooke, I'll give you that the majority of the Dems in office are do-nothings, as are not a small number of Republicans.
But given the choice between a do-nothing-but-complain and a legislator making BAD policy, I'll take the do-nothing-but-complain one every time.
Ideally, we'd elect folk with good plans for good solutions (see Dennis Kucinich, Carol Mosely Braun, Mark Hatfield back in the day...), but our system doesn't encourage the election of those sorts of folk.
"Ideally, we'd elect folk with good plans for good solutions (see Dennis Kucinich, Carol Mosely Braun, Mark Hatfield back in the day...), but our system doesn't encourage the election of those sorts of folk."
Praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord, indeed.
Who needs clean air or water, and end to our oil addiction, a more peaceable country and more honest politicians?
Dan, it has been said that people will follow even a bad leader, rather than exist in a vacuum. I think that to be true, for the most part!
Post a Comment
<< Home