Author Topic: wtg pp (Read 2926 times)

-MZ- · « **Reply #45 on:** June 02, 2004, 03:34:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
50,000 military absentee ballots from our servicemen overseas were not admitted by the mostly Dem run Dept of elections in various counties. but why confuse anyone with facts.

Even if that was true, which it isn't, you're still short by around 450,000 votes.

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #46 on:** June 02, 2004, 03:40:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
As of 11-2003 53% of Americans want to keep the decision to abort or not in the hands of the mother and her doctor.

And just to pre-empt the lib-poll bashing
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

This was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. You know that left wing rag.. the WSJ.

As of 11-1998, over 50% of Minnesotans wanted Jesse Ventura as their governor.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #47 on:** June 02, 2004, 03:52:06 PM »

Why is it illegal for a woman to dump her newborn baby in the trash but legal for her to kill that baby 10 minutes before if she requested an abortion?

storch · « **Reply #48 on:** June 02, 2004, 03:52:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -MZ-
Even if that was true, which it isn't, you're still short by around 450,000 votes.

Just in Florida alone. Extrapolate that number halved by 50 States and the territories. And it is 100% true. But again why confuse you guys with facts?

And even if it weren't I thank God Almighty for Mr. Bush and his steady hand at the helm during these times. I shudder to think what would have happened to the nation after the homicide plane crashes by islamic terrorist on Sep. 11, 2001 had Mr. Gore won the election.

midnight Target · « **Reply #49 on:** June 02, 2004, 03:54:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why is it illegal for a woman to dump her newborn baby in the trash but legal for her to kill that baby 10 minutes before if she requested an abortion?

It isn't legal, but you knew that.

storch · « **Reply #50 on:** June 02, 2004, 03:55:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why is it illegal for a woman to dump her newborn baby in the trash but legal for her to kill that baby 10 minutes before if she requested an abortion?

Because in your first example she didn't contribute $295.00 to leftist doctors or planned nonparenthood allowing them to contribute $ millions to the DNC.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #51 on:** June 02, 2004, 03:55:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mathman
Do you even know why this is the case?

Because some people are sensitive to aspirin or may have bad drug intereactions. Basically even something as simple as aspirin may have serious health consequences that a young person may not always be aware of.

Thankfully abortions dont hurt anybody, and the procedure is foolproof.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #52 on:** June 02, 2004, 03:57:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
It isn't legal, but you knew that.

You mean the government placed evil restrictions on how late a woman can habe an abortion?

Do tell what is that limit?

flyingaround · « **Reply #53 on:** June 02, 2004, 04:07:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
There are two viable alternatives for defining when life begins: conception or birth. Any other standard would be arbitrary and capricious in practice. The hard core pro-choice camp knows this and that is why they are fighting so hard against the prohibition of PBA.

Actually LSB, you had the answer in your post and didn't know it.

Viability. That is the key.

When the unborn child can live outside of it's host, it IS a person. Non-viable infants cannot be persons because they cannot survive, despite all human efforts, outside of the womb. This criteria rests on a standard which is constantly changing: the capability of technology to sustain a child. The normal point of viability has been slashed by more than ten weeks in the last thirty years and may one day be the moment of conception.

vi·a·ble
adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

-Lute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers

Eagler · « **Reply #54 on:** June 02, 2004, 04:14:21 PM »

some of these responses are truely sad

no wonder the world is an overflowing septic tank...

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #55 on:** June 02, 2004, 04:18:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
How about this?

A parasite's rights do not supercede those of the host.

Now..THAT'S a troll!

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #56 on:** June 02, 2004, 04:27:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
so they stop becoming "parasites" once they are born?

Yes.

physically, an infant has everythig it needs to survive on its own, where true parasites don't. I wouldnt go as far as calling a ferus a parasite...but I'm not comfortable with calling it a person.

You can't be an alum until you've graduated:)

Shuckins · « **Reply #57 on:** June 02, 2004, 04:30:28 PM »

Well, let's see. By the second month of pregnancy the fetus has both a heartbeat and a brainwave. By the fourth month, it has control of movement in arms and legs. By the fifth month, it is sucking its' thumb.

The only thing it cannot do that a full-term fetus can do is breathe on its' own. It is evident then that it is a non-viable infant that cannot live outside of its host and therefore cannot be a person.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Mathman · « **Reply #58 on:** June 02, 2004, 04:31:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Because some people are sensitive to aspirin or may have bad drug intereactions. Basically even something as simple as aspirin may have serious health consequences that a young person may not always be aware of.

Thankfully abortions dont hurt anybody, and the procedure is foolproof.

Grun, on which side of the abortion issue do you think I stand?

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #59 on:** June 02, 2004, 04:45:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by flyingaround
Actually LSB, you had the answer in your post and didn't know it.

Viability. That is the key.

When the unborn child can live outside of it's host, it IS a person. Non-viable infants cannot be persons because they cannot survive, despite all human efforts, outside of the womb. This criteria rests on a standard which is constantly changing: the capability of technology to sustain a child. The normal point of viability has been slashed by more than ten weeks in the last thirty years and may one day be the moment of conception.

vi·a·ble
adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

-Lute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers

I will respectfully disagree with you. Indeed, I will posit that what you suggest is: (1) completely arbitrary; (2) unmeasurable, with any degree of certainty; and (3) bizarre and more than a little bit scary.

As to (1), what is so significant about viaiblity? As to (2), how do you determine in any given case, whether a child is viable at the point its (un)mother wants to abort it? As to (3), how can the threshold of life be such that it is constantly changing, depending upon the state of technology?! Surely, a child/mass of tissue is either a life or it is not and, just as surely, that determination does not depend on the state of anything other than the child/mass of tissue.