Abortion

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, Mare, Mare...your tone is so malicious and vicious. No need for that.

Gipper, Gipper, Gipper, maybe you should read Pale's posts. His bifurcated, aluminum-doghair approach deserves a generous application of the HOP gum-dipped, radial ply, shock-fortified, double-tapered, steel reinforced, all-weather rubber hose.

 

[Gipper]

Gipper, Gipper, Gipper, maybe you should read Pale's posts. His bifurcated, aluminum-doghair approach deserves a generous application of the HOP gum-dipped, radial ply, shock-fortified, double-tapered, steel reinforced, all-weather rubber hose.

Mare, Mare quite contraire...I must side with the Mr. Pale...

You have claimed that the worldwide holocaust referred to as abortion has had little impact on population. Do you have facts to support this conclusion? And, is murdering the unborn justified because it reduces population??? Oh how repugnant, but then baby murder is more than repugnant.

Many of the world’s nations are not birthing enough babies to replace their populations. This is a fact. Most of Europe is this way. Russia and Japan are in big trouble.

I have a solution to overpopulation. Let’s execute all convicted murderers and rapists. Then make abortion illegal. Deal?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, Mare quite contraire...I must side with the Mr. Pale...

You have claimed that the worldwide holocaust referred to as abortion has had little impact on population. Do you have facts to support this conclusion? And, is murdering the unborn justified because it reduces population??? Oh how repugnant, but then baby murder is more than repugnant.

Many of the world’s nations are not birthing enough babies to replace their populations. This is a fact. Most of Europe is this way. Russia and Japan are in big trouble.

I have a solution to overpopulation. Let’s execute all convicted murderers and rapists. Then make abortion illegal. Deal?

World population is still rising, some places are having losses but overall we're still expanding insanely. The number of abortions versus the number of live births is still small in comparison, small enough that it's not stopping the population increase. Initially I was speaking just about the US, but Pale came up with unidentified numbers that were obviously not about just the US.

No place did I say that abortion was a good thing.

 

[Gipper]

World population is still rising, some places are having losses but overall we're still expanding insanely. The number of abortions versus the number of live births is still small in comparison, small enough that it's not stopping the population increase. Initially I was speaking just about the US, but Pale came up with unidentified numbers that were obviously not about just the US.

No place did I say that abortion was a good thing.

There you go again me dearest progressive friend. Making wild accusations with no basis in fact.

I believe world population growth is around 1-2%. Now, is that "...expanding insanely...?" I think not.

You progressives believe that population growth will put stress on our limited resources and result in castrophic wars. Yes? This is a false theory. Because our resources are not limited and wars will result because totalitarians want war.

Now lets focus on what is really the problem...our loss of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by progressive authoritarian dictators.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There you go again me dearest progressive friend. Making wild accusations with no basis in fact.

The strange thing is that we have not yet determined whether I am a "Progressive" or not. First I suspect that we should define the word.

I believe world population growth is around 1-2%. Now, is that "...expanding insanely...?" I think not.

You progressives believe that population growth will put stress on our limited resources and result in castrophic wars. Yes? This is a false theory. Because our resources are not limited and wars will result because totalitarians want war.

Now lets focus on what is really the problem...our loss of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by progressive authoritarian dictators.

Your political diatribe aside, a 0.6% increase yearly will double the population in about 117 years (Canada), a 4.8% yearly growth rate will double the population in about 14 years (Afghanistan). http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/populationgrow.htm
Even 1-2% is too great a rise in population when millions are dying for lack of clean water and adequate food. The argument that it is just distribution problems and not population that causes these deaths is irrelevant, we shouldn't breed more until we can care for the people that are already here.

We live on a finite globe, benthic and pelagic fisheries are depleted all over the planet, we're cutting forests--especially rain forests--faster than they can be replaced, mountain-top coal mining is doing vast harm in the eastern US by polluting water supplies and destroying watershed ecosystems. The idea the we can expand our numbers infinitely on a finite globe is incorrect.

Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, were all those countried attacked by a totalitarian regime with a progressive authoritarian dictator?

Why do you want more people? Don't we have an adequate supply already?

 

[Gipper]

The strange thing is that we have not yet determined whether I am a "Progressive" or not. First I suspect that we should define the word.



Your political diatribe aside, a 0.6% increase yearly will double the population in about 117 years (Canada), a 4.8% yearly growth rate will double the population in about 14 years (Afghanistan). http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/populationgrow.htm
Even 1-2% is too great a rise in population when millions are dying for lack of clean water and adequate food. The argument that it is just distribution problems and not population that causes these deaths is irrelevant, we shouldn't breed more until we can care for the people that are already here.

We live on a finite globe, benthic and pelagic fisheries are depleted all over the planet, we're cutting forests--especially rain forests--faster than they can be replaced, mountain-top coal mining is doing vast harm in the eastern US by polluting water supplies and destroying watershed ecosystems. The idea the we can expand our numbers infinitely on a finite globe is incorrect.

Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, were all those countried attacked by a totalitarian regime with a progressive authoritarian dictator?

Why do you want more people? Don't we have an adequate supply already?

Oh Mare...Oh Mare...Oh Mare....if you are NOT a progressive I am NOT a conservative. Please don't be coy with me honey pie.

Your entire post is progressive 101. First, 1-2% is not insane and can easily be sustained, but only if capitalist systems are used.

Many nations in Africa were exporting food products 100 years ago. Today it can't produce enough for its population. Why?

Those wars you mention do not fit the progressive view that over population will lead to castrophic wars. Like say, a nuclear war. But, your use of those wars do point to your progressive tendencies.

Why do I want more people??? WTH kind of question is that?

Why do progressives always want to curtail liberty and control people?

How odd? Progressives are all about promoting the sex act, but the consequence of the act, must be terminated to save the planet.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Oh Mare...Oh Mare...Oh Mare....if you are NOT a progressive I am NOT a conservative. Please don't be coy with me honey pie.

Your entire post is progressive 101. First, 1-2% is not insane and can easily be sustained, but only if capitalist systems are used.

Many nations in Africa were exporting food products 100 years ago. Today it can't produce enough for its population. Why?

Those wars you mention do not fit the progressive view that over population will lead to castrophic wars. Like say, a nuclear war. But, your use of those wars do point to your progressive tendencies.

Why do I want more people??? WTH kind of question is that?

Why do progressives always want to curtail liberty and control people?

How odd? Progressives are all about promoting the sex act, but the consequence of the act, must be terminated to save the planet.

You don't make a lot of assumptions, do you? You still haven't defined what you mean by "progressive", which is not surprising I guess. Coy, schmoy, I know what I am, but I've little idea what you are calling me.

I'm trying to curtail liberty or control people? I'm not the one trying to take away a woman's right to choice. In fact I don't think I posted ANYTHING about taking any liberty from anyone.

I just asked about the wars we've started to see if you would call them "progressive" wars. I've never said that overpopulation would lead to nuclear war, you seem to have me confused with someone else.

Maybe those African countries have overpopulated themselves to the point that they cannot feed all their people. It's weird too that you assume that I don't want more people when my major concern is feeding the ones we now have rather than promoting more who will then likely starve.

No, 1-2% is way to high a rate for our numbers to be rising, we can't build infrastructure quickly enough for that kind of increase.

Grandma Soderquist once observed that there were a lot more horse's asses in the world than horses. You wouldn't seem so much like one if you would simply address the things I write and stop trying to make me some kind of spokesperson for your "progressive" group.

 

[ktucan1]

Are you a Pro-Lifer?

That is the question and I look forward to hear some great responses from both the left and the right. Enjoy the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryiUBIiN4xE

 

[AgainstTheMachine]

Re: Are you a Pro-Lifer?

I am pro life when it comes to defending the right of an unborn life to live.

However; So long as it is a CLEAR and CUT & DRY 100% FACT (not 99%) that a pregnancy will in deed KILL the host life - I personally speaking have NO PROBLEM with ridding the Host Life if it's detrimental growth.

Also - there must be a full and complete responsibility of the host life to have done what must be accepted as FULL & COMPLIANT responsibility for their own well being first and foremost.

In other words ... if the doctor says if you get pregnant - you will die
... and the people involved FAIL to REASONABLY prevent the pregnancy - then it should be the condemnation of the host life to risk its own life for the fetus.

IN SIMPLE TERMS:
If you can NOT be responsible for your own life and the life of an unborn - pay the price.

If you lack the ability to PROTECT YOURSELF - what makes it acceptable to destroy the potential future of another growing existence
when you demonstrate a lack of acceptance for your own well being - what makes your well being more important than the one you want to destroy?

It is rather likely that the life that is saved at the risk of your poor judgement will have a better ability to make well thought out decisions unlike the host.

 

[Gipper]

Re: Are you a Pro-Lifer?

That is the question and I look forward to hear some great responses from both the left and the right. Enjoy the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryiUBIiN4xE

If one is pro-life and pro-capital punishment, then you are a hypocrite. Is that what you are claiming?

I could not disagree more. I am both pro-life and pro-capital punishment.

You have it backwards. Those who believe in baby murder and against capital punishment are hypocrites. Kill the truly innocent, but protect the vicious. Now that is really screwed up.

 

[ktucan1]

Re: Are you a Pro-Lifer?

I am pro life when it comes to defending the right of an unborn life to live.

However; So long as it is a CLEAR and CUT & DRY 100% FACT (not 99%) that a pregnancy will in deed KILL the host life - I personally speaking have NO PROBLEM with ridding the Host Life if it's detrimental growth.

Also - there must be a full and complete responsibility of the host life to have done what must be accepted as FULL & COMPLIANT responsibility for their own well being first and foremost.

In other words ... if the doctor says if you get pregnant - you will die
... and the people involved FAIL to REASONABLY prevent the pregnancy - then it should be the condemnation of the host life to risk its own life for the fetus.

IN SIMPLE TERMS:
If you can NOT be responsible for your own life and the life of an unborn - pay the price.

If you lack the ability to PROTECT YOURSELF - what makes it acceptable to destroy the potential future of another growing existence
when you demonstrate a lack of acceptance for your own well being - what makes your well being more important than the one you want to destroy?

It is rather likely that the life that is saved at the risk of your poor judgement will have a better ability to make well thought out decisions unlike the host.

I'll go straight to the point then. Should a woman and her doctor be prosecuted for performing an Abortion and what punishment should they face if found guilty? It's a legit question and I would like to hear your answer because this question as well as this issue gets a lot of people in bind as to how to answer it accurately while at the same time make sense of it.

 

[ktucan1]

Re: Are you a Pro-Lifer?

If one is pro-life and pro-capital punishment, then you are a hypocrite. Is that what you are claiming?

I could not disagree more. I am both pro-life and pro-capital punishment.

You have it backwards. Those who believe in baby murder and against capital punishment are hypocrites. Kill the truly innocent, but protect the vicious. Now that is really screwed up.

Actually it's not backwards at all because like the old saying goes you can't have your cake and eat it too. I know some liberals want it both ways just like conservatives but you can't have it that way. I mean to claim Pro-Life and at the same time be for capital punishment goes against Christian Dogma in accordance with the gospels in relation to Jesus Christ. You ever heard the expression Turn the other cheek in regards to your enemies? At the same time all life is precious but there lies the delima. A baby life's is always precious but like the video states what if the person on Death Row is actually innocent of a crime and we execute him or her anyways?(I know what your thinking, it's a very small percentage that innocent people in this country get executed, but it still happens)Would we have a conscious afterward or just accept it and say we'll try harder next time to make sure the person we execute is actually guilty before we have any reasonable doubt. I'm pro-life and against the Death Penalty but I accept it because in the end the people decide what punishment to dish and our justice system has safe guards in place to make sure that all avenues of recourse are looked at before someone goes to the gallows. The same can be said about Abortion. As long as Roe v. Wade still stands then I too will respect the law as well. Even though I think its wrong. I'll still respect it.

 

[Gipper]

Re: Are you a Pro-Lifer?

Actually it's not backwards at all because like the old saying goes you can't have your cake and eat it too. I know some liberals want it both ways just like conservatives but you can't have it that way. I mean to claim Pro-Life and at the same time be for capital punishment goes against Christian Dogma in accordance with the gospels in relation to Jesus Christ. You ever heard the expression Turn the other cheek in regards to your enemies? At the same time all life is precious but there lies the delima. A baby life's is always precious but like the video states what if the person on Death Row is actually innocent of a crime and we execute him or her anyways?(I know what your thinking, it's a very small percentage that innocent people in this country get executed, but it still happens)Would we have a conscious afterward or just accept it and say we'll try harder next time to make sure the person we execute is actually guilty before we have any reasonable doubt. I'm pro-life and against the Death Penalty but I accept it because in the end the people decide what punishment to dish and our justice system has safe guards in place to make sure that all avenues of recourse are looked at before someone goes to the gallows. The same can be said about Abortion. As long as Roe v. Wade still stands then I too will respect the law as well. Even though I think its wrong. I'll still respect it.

Well you assume I am a Christian, which is a very good assumption. I believe many non-Christians are also against baby killing. So, not only are Christians against baby murder. But, I do agree that my Christian faith tells me to turn the other cheek, but I can't. Call me a sinner. Its okay.

And, I do not abide by or respect the baby murder law and I do what I can to change the law. Many Americans (Dems) accepted and repected the law of slavery. Just like many Americans (Dems) accept and respect the baby murder law.

And please name one person in the last 50 years executed by the state who was innocent?

 

[AgainstTheMachine]

Re: Are you a Pro-Lifer?

I'll go straight to the point then. Should a woman and her doctor be prosecuted for performing an Abortion and what punishment should they face if found guilty? It's a legit question and I would like to hear your answer because this question as well as this issue gets a lot of people in bind as to how to answer it accurately while at the same time make sense of it.

Good question! Let me break down what I see as reasonable with the understanding that I am NOT a doctor who has sufficient background in anatomy. Just so you know that some analogies are are purely speculative with insufficient understanding to the actual structure of them thar innards

Should a woman and her doctor be prosecuted for performing an Abortion

as I think it should be (strictly my own personal opinion) ... If it is not a medically verifiable detriment to a womans life and well being - it needs to be treated as murder - perhaps second degree (not a life sentence) it is worse than Michael Kamrava, Nadya Suleman's doctor, who who may be charged with gross negligence charges for his actions.

Like I told my wife when she was pregnant - if i need to make a choice between her or the baby .... BYE BABY!
... and to have a son to carry on my name is a major BIG DEAL in our family tradition.

However; in our situation - we were not trying to get out of a mess that would have been a hassle and a bother for some barely committed party animal.

To me my wife is irreplaceable - where as a baby can be attempted again or even if need be - one can be adopted if the possibility of child birth is lost.

In MOST Pro Life cases it isn't the rescue of a womans life that is the issue

the issue is - THE DISREGARD OF A LIFE DUE TO PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

There is a need for a FAIL SAFE trigger to prevent the abuse of fetal murder brought on by a flagrant disregard for anything but the act of screwing like some alley cat's.

I have 2 fertile cat's (a male & female) ... and the other day - dude grabbed her by the neck (to get some tail) while she was feeding the babies ... he pulled her right out from where the babies were feeding on her.

I expect people to be better than THAT!

sad to say - too many people are NOT better than that - we need to slow down social deterioration - it has spread into every corner of society with more and more people disregarding the social structure and values which separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

[AgainstTheMachine]

You don't make a lot of assumptions, do you? You still haven't defined what you mean by "progressive", which is not surprising I guess. Coy, schmoy, I know what I am, but I've little idea what you are calling me.

I'm trying to curtail liberty or control people? I'm not the one trying to take away a woman's right to choice. In fact I don't think I posted ANYTHING about taking any liberty from anyone.

I just asked about the wars we've started to see if you would call them "progressive" wars. I've never said that overpopulation would lead to nuclear war, you seem to have me confused with someone else.

Maybe those African countries have overpopulated themselves to the point that they cannot feed all their people. It's weird too that you assume that I don't want more people when my major concern is feeding the ones we now have rather than promoting more who will then likely starve.

No, 1-2% is way to high a rate for our numbers to be rising, we can't build infrastructure quickly enough for that kind of increase.

Grandma Soderquist once observed that there were a lot more horse's asses in the world than horses. You wouldn't seem so much like one if you would simply address the things I write and stop trying to make me some kind of spokesperson for your "progressive" group.

Instead of SPLITTING HAIRS on the Gipper's post ... catch the LAST LINE - it speaaks volumes

How odd? Progressives are all about promoting the sex act, but the consequence of the act, must be terminated to save the planet.

​

You can't see that?