A Conception's Right To Life

[samsara15]

I believe the problem began to ramp up in the sixties when moms were taken out of the home and placed in the workforce in greater numbers.

This helped make them more of a thinker ... and less of a feeler.

So, between kids being without their mom, and the mom they did get when she was available becoming less of a feeler, subtlties in disaffection began to creep into the home.

After a couple of generations of increasingly more of that, we now have a lot more affectively detached people running around.

But I'm hoping that someway we can correct this mistake in direction and make a u-turn to a return to traditional motherhood that should help reverse this sad situation and that people might once again be more ontologically based and utilitarian a distant third after an epistemological second, which reflects respect for the way we're made.

Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant?

Whoever said you had no respect for adult women, except as brood mares, hit the nail right on the head

 

[palerider]

Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant?

Whoever said you had no respect for adult women, except as brood mares, hit the nail right on the head

So in addition to denying the facts as they apply to abortion, are you also going to deny that women are, in fact, "wired" differently than men. Your barefoot and pregnant jab is really nothing more than a spiteful remark on a basic truth. The fact is that in general, women aren't happy in the work place basically because they aren't made for it. You can rail all you like, but you simply can't change biology. Your inability (or unwilingness) to face facts and come to terms with them speaks volumes about you.

 

[samsara15]

So in addition to denying the facts as they apply to abortion, are you also going to deny that women are, in fact, "wired" differently than men. Your barefoot and pregnant jab is really nothing more than a spiteful remark on a basic truth. The fact is that in general, women aren't happy in the work place basically because they aren't made for it. You can rail all you like, but you simply can't change biology. Your inability (or unwilingness) to face facts and come to terms with them speaks volumes about you.

Sara (my wife) was an active member of NOW in the 1970s, has always been an ardent supporter of abortion rights, and got a job, and later an MBA in Human Resources at JHU, as soon as our children were 12 or so.

Your inability to understand women's desires speaks volumes about you.

 

[Chip]

Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant? Whoever said you had no respect for adult women, except as brood mares, hit the nail right on the head

Erroneous. Irrelevant. Meaningless.

Here the pro-abortionist sophister, once again void of any rational topical relevancy, again futilely tries to assassinate the character of the pro-life messenger with another ridiculous ad hominem, wherein the pro-abortionist sophister, after wasting his valuable time searching all over for something to misuse, purposefully jumps to irrational conclusions regarding a quote the pro-abortionist sophister knowingly takes out of context, also conjuring up a false allusion alleged to have been said about the pro-life messenger that no one ever really said that the pro-abortionist sophister simply made up with which to bear false witness against the pro-life messenger.

The pro-life messenger presents a truthful scientific fact-based message for which the pro-abortionist sophister lacks anything even close to a rational valid refutation.

The pro-abortionist sophister obviously cannot live with the truthful, fact-based message regarding murderous abortion, murderous abortion which the pro-abortionist sophister actually supports!

So the pro-abortionist sophister, unable to refute the truth that he can't emotionally live with, is relegated to commiting irrelevant erroneous ad hominems against the pro-life messenger, ridiculously hoping that if he can slay the messenger then the message will go away.

Notice that the pro-abortionist sophister has to put all this effort into his futile failed attempts to slay the pro-life messenger simply because he, the pro-abortionist sophister can't handle emotionally the truth of the scientific fact that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.



Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[Chip]

Sara (my wife) was an active member of NOW in the 1970s, has always been an ardent supporter of abortion rights, and got a job, and later an MBA in Human Resources at JHU, as soon as our children were 12 or so. Your inability to understand women's desires speaks volumes about you.

Erroneous. Irrelevant. But revealing.

Here the pro-abortionist sophister, though still unable to post anything of a rational scientific on-topic nature, additionally jumping to a huge erroneous premise and conclusion in his second sentence, reveals a little bit about his codependency through his personal anecdote, a personal anecdote which, according to his second sentence, he actually erroneously thinks applies to "all" women.

Indeed, there is just about always a codependent nature in the relationship between pro-abortionist NOW women and the men in their lives, men who tend to codependently coddle their women's murderous pro-abortionist behavors in exchange for acceptance and personal favors. Sadly most of these women do indeed keep their man's pair in a drawer.

Sometimes the pro-abortionist man really isn't all that in favor of murderous abortion, but codependently senses that his NOW woman simply couldn't emotionally handle the truth of her murderous abortion experiences, and so he co-opts with her, posting vehemently in support of murderous abortion, thereby codependently coddling her feelings, not wanting her to feel any pain of the truthful reality of her murderous abortion acts out of his semi-unconcious fear that if she felt her pain she would then harm him in some way.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[samsara15]

Here the pro-abortionist sophister, though still unable to post anything of a rational scientific on-topic nature, additionally jumping to a huge erroneous premise and conclusion in his second sentence, reveals a little bit about his codependency through his personal anecdote, a personal anecdote which, according to his second sentence, he actually erroneously thinks applies to "all" women.

Indeed, there is just about always a codependent nature in the relationship between pro-abortionist NOW women and the men in their lives, men who tend to codependently coddle their women's murderous pro-abortionist behavors in exchange for acceptance and personal favors. Sadly most of these women do indeed keep their man's pair in a drawer.

Sometimes the pro-abortionist man really isn't all that in favor of murderous abortion, but codependently senses that his NOW woman simply couldn't emotionally handle the truth of her murderous abortion experiences, and so he co-opts with her, posting vehemently in support of murderous abortion, thereby codependently coddling her feelings, not wanting her to feel any pain of the truthful reality of her murderous abortion acts out of his semi-unconcious fear that if she felt her pain she would then harm him in some way.

Yep, Chip, you're just another wanna be cave man. How pitiful.

 

[Chip]

Yep, Chip, you're just another wanna be cave man. How pitiful.

Erroneous. Irrelevant. Yet, again, revealing.

Here the pro-abortionist sophister once again chooses not to post anything of a rational scientific relevant nature and instead chooses to continue his unprovoked futile string of error-based attempts at assassinating the character of the pro-life messenger via unjustified erroneous ad hominem in the irrational hope that by assassinating the character of the pro-life messenger, the fact-based truthful message the pro-life messenger presents will somehow miraculously lose its facts and truth and vanish in a puff of smoke.

It is rather revealing, however, that by choosing to falsely attempt to form a dualism between himself erroneously as a "warm modern sensitive guy" and the pro-life messenger erroneously as a "cold neanderthalistic unfeeling caveman", the pro-abortionist sophister pretty much thereby confirms his unhealthy codependent relationship with his NOW wife.

That the pro-abortionist sophister apparently thinks that codependency, very unhealthy by nature, is a "good" thing, supports his observed tendency to think that bad is good, a typical trait of most pro-abortionists.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[samsara15]

You've clearly shown us what you think about women, Chip. You see them as Breeding machines.

BTW, before I retired, I worked at a software engineering firm that had lots of female software engineers who held supervisory positions.

 

[palerider]

Sara (my wife) was an active member of NOW in the 1970s, has always been an ardent supporter of abortion rights, and got a job, and later an MBA in Human Resources at JHU, as soon as our children were 12 or so.

Your inability to understand women's desires speaks volumes about you.

Of course she has always been an ardent supporter of abortion rights. My bet is that she can't defend her position any better than you. People do all sorts of things trying to prove something to themselves or others. My wife was a career navy officer and now occupies a high place in the state government but if you ask her, she will tell you that if she had it all to do over and knew what she knows now, she would rather have spent all the hours and years that she could with our children, and practically any honest reasonably high powered woman will tell you the same.

Face it. Women are different than us. They can do most of the jobs men do but they do it at great emotional expense to themselves. Being able to do a thing and being made to do a thing are birds of entirely different feathers.

 

[palerider]

You've clearly shown us what you think about women, Chip. You see them as Breeding machines.

BTW, before I retired, I worked at a software engineering firm that had lots of female software engineers who held supervisory positions.

I have no particular psychological education, but even I can see through that pile of BS. I have a small farm in addition to my regular job and raise animals that are, in reality, breeding machines for a period of their lives. That is, they are brought to a stud and impregnated. The degree of your willingness to masturbate mentally speaks volumes about you personally.

 

[Dr.Who]

yes we do.

Barbarians.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yeah did'nt you know? We're lobbying the IOC to get it included into the 2012 Olympics as a guest sport! Instead of street mugging we're having baby bashing..............





just joking Crystal.......

My name-sake was accused of eating babies. You all must do all sorts of barbaric stuff to babies.

 

[palerider]

Barbarians.

My thoughts exactly. Although it is probably just one of the many inevetable consequences of socialized medicine. I guess they euthanize their old folks as well.

 

[samsara15]

Actually, I would welcome having the option of euthanasia available. For myself. Many older people would like to have that option. We think the peiople who deny it to us are barbarians.

The doctors in England asked for the right to kill disabled babies:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article625477.ece

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200503300755.asp

The Church of England called for it, as well:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article634486.ece

I would also welcome socialized medicine. If the US was a civilized nation, we would already have socialized medicine.

 

[top gun]

And yet, you are completely unable to support the opinion. You understand that it was decided based on an assumption that has since been proven wrong.

It's been fully adjudicated and the decision is in my favor... that's just a fact. You on the other hand are living on a pipe dream that someday it "MIGHT" change. It's a clear case of WHAT IS v. WHAT IS NOT.

Juvenile name calling? Trying to convince yourself and others that you aren't afraid of that bad ole palerider?

I'm simply saying you have clearly established yourself as a Clinic Creeper. As far as anyone being afraid of you... pleeeease! The women in here clearly take you to task and thump ya... let alone the men! And we're all quite sure you are neither big nor bad... just constipated

And yet you continue to use a red herring in a vain attempt to prove that two wrongs somehow make a right. It won't work because it isn't rational. There simply is no relationship between an individual being caught in the fog of war and a woman deciding to deliberately kill another individual. The fact that you can't grasp that really calls your intellect into question.

There's no "fog of war" goofball... LOL! It's a pre-strike estimate. It's the deliberate killing of the innocent for a conflicting purpose.

True, it is easy to read the text and it is easy to read that all men are endowed by their creator (when else but at the time of their conception?)

Come on you can't be this dense. That passage is saying God created mankind equal... not when individuals have sex and get pregnant.

Sorry guy, but that assertion is simply wrong and history bears me out. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 20, §§ 14, 16.

That's fine... but of course it has nothing to do with what was said in the Constitution in 1776. They didn't say conception because they didn't mean conception. There have always been cruel & controlling hypocritical Holy Roller anti-women's rights groups trying to push their religious agenda on others. That has nothing to do with what the Constitution says (or better put doesn't say) about abortion.

The founders were (unlike you) intelligent and articulate men. If they had meant that ones rights began at birth they would have said that all men are born equal.

No actually they would have said "at conception" if they had meant at conception. And as has been previously posted when they do speak directly to other rights they do say "all born in".

You lost this war almost 4 decades ago and you certainly can't win now in 2009 and beyond... accept it or continue to piss into the wind screaming at the ladies. Makes no difference me.