Arkansas Blog

Now, if only you lefties would be opposed to killing BABIES too, THEN we'd have some common ground.

What do you mean? I steadfastly oppose our occupation of Iraq and the hundreds if not thousands of children we've killed there.

Abortion, Roland.

I REFUSE to listen to ANY preaching about "saving lives" of criminals, terrorists, Iraqis, whoever, from a person (or Party) that not just allows but SUPPORTS Abortion (1.2 MILLION last year)

Wedge issue? Hardly. I can't fathom how people can fight FOR things like the vaccuum known as partial birth, then turn around and have a vigil for the accused at Tucker.

If you ask me, i'm against ALL killing, but that's another story.

Nevertheless, no party line dems get to tell America what to believe about Iraq, capital punishment, etc, if they are pro-choice. Sorry.

Ref. Now, if only you lefties would be opposed to killing BABIES too, THEN we'd have some common ground.

GetReal! Look whose calling someone a killer -- prolifers promote a "mommie" killing philosophy for something yet to be developed as a human being. All under disguise of fanatical religions.

GetReal-

Against all killing? Ever eaten a juicy hamburger or grilled a chicken breast? If so, then you've killed, or at least supported someone who did kill through patroning your local butcher shop.

Oh? You're only against human killing, I see. Well, me too. I don't think anyone would support the senseless taking of human life (infanticide or innocents in war). However, the difference between you and I, GetReal, and the difference between you and most people that frequent this blog, is that we disagree over where life begins, which is a question that we will never fully be able to answer. Although, for me, life begins at birth. I don't think that a "fetus" and a "baby" are the same thing, which I'm sure you would take issue with. Unlike yourself, though, I'm not going to disqualify every thought you have on an issue (war, the death penalty, etc.), because we disagree over this question of life.

I will disqualfy all of your thoughts because you are a moron.

So "GetReal" lets talk about the killing of babies as you call it.

According to the Center for Disease Control, 1.3 million of that 1.7 million who were aborted were twelve weeks or less and were done so for medical reasons. This would indicate that those numbers (which incidentally are from 1995, which was eleven years ago) indicate 88% were done to save the life of the mother.

And for the record, us "LEFTIES" as you call us are not for killing babies. We believe the decision is left up to a woman and her doctor.

This is different from a hunter having the right to bear arms, or someone having the right to publicly promote their religion how again?

How is protecting personal choice of an individual wrong?

I once opposed strongly the death penalty, but I can think of a few people who deserve it.

Since no minds are likely to be changed, I hesitate to even get into the abortion discussion, but I do have a true story to relate. Here it is:

I once had a sister in law (long gone out of my life now) who was a total and complete Republican. Actually worked for the Party. She lived in Texas, and she hated Mexicans, blacks, Jews, you name it. She also was an anti-abortion rabid dog. I mean, you couldn't have a conversation with this woman without all of this crap being brought up. I avoided her at all costs when family reunions, funerals, etc., brought us into contact with each other.
On a hot night in Abilene, her 15 year old daughter was "raped" by a (gasp) black guy. He was 16. She didn't tell anyone about the "rape" until she turned up pregnant. Her mother - I'll call her "Hypo" could not wait to get the child on the table and get rid of the "little black bastard."

I have nothing else to add.

Hey, the kid is screamin' and the cat just peed on the rug.

Is it too much to...dammit, the cat is 'urpin chicken liver feast...

Man, just keep it down or get out of the house...

Abortion, Roland.
Posted by: GetReal

GetReal, if you're still around, I'm wondering about your position regarding sex education (teaching school-aged kids where babies come from). Do you support it?

Research shows kids who are taught about the birds and the bees have fewer unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, fewer abortions.

Preventing sex education directly leads to more abortions.

Hence my question.

I grew up witnessing adults leaning close and dropping their voices when uttering a phrase like "mixed-race" or some less neutral equivalent.

After a lifetime of worldly experience before returning here, I am shocked to observe that it still takes place. What did they call them in the 19th century? Mossbacks or something? They are in better shape here than Mr Ivorybill.

LOL, I remember when Pritt was pro-life.

AGAIN, how can a party want to:

SAVE THE RAPISTS, but
KILL THE BABIES?

(as for the 'when does life begins' debate - it begins at conception. otherwise you have a whole "zeno's paradox" type thing of breaking up time infinitely -- what i mean is, if life begins at 'birth', is the baby alive in the birth canal? "yes". ok. is it alive 5 minutes before the birth canal? "yes". ok. is it alive at conception? "i dont think so". ok, is it alive when it is kicking? "sure." ok, well is it alive when it's heart beats? "yes". ok, is it alive when its heart is formed but not beating? "hmm..." ok, is it alive when the mother's fluid and blood and nutrients are going through its veins as a 'surrogate heart' "well, i don't know." is it when the blood leaves the heart, or when the old blood comes back into the heart the first time? ".........")

**the point is, any time you say "ok ok, life begins AFTER conception" -- there has to be a point then, 1 second BEFORE when it is "not alive" and 1 second AFTER when it IS "alive". what other biological change happens between conception and birth? and, how can it be straight birth? so sitting in the vag, in the birth canal, getting pushed out, it's 'inanimate', but as it passes through the mother and sees human faces it's "alive"???? now THAT sounds like a fantasy. is it contractions? ok, well what about 1 second before contraction? what about 1/2 second, or 1/10.

seriously, google "zeno's paradox" and you'll understand the concept of breaking down the "spark" of life is crazy (and before you c orrect me and say that paradox is wrong, duh, i know, but that's motion, not life)

Because of that, a fetus is alive (otherwise you'd tell me the 'spark', and then prove to me why 1 second BEFORE the spark fetus=nothing and 1 second AFTER the spark fetus=alive), and because of the dem stance on supporting abortion (or at LEAST at LEAST on supporting the vaccum of partial birth), i WILL NOT be lectured to on "human life" by anyone pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-reproductive rights, or whatever euphamism you'd like to think up.

GetReal -- that spelling is "euphemism."

I will ask the question again....if the unborn is a child, why can't a tax deduction be claimed before birth?

I don't know, and I'm not sure that it can't be.. my question is:

If the unborn is NOT a child, why does the law (state and federal) try the murderers of pregnant mothers for TWO COUNTS OF MURDER?

(and, for kicks, neither of you answered the 'spark' problem, thus reaffirming the reality that life DOES begin at conception)

But, mull over the "2 murder charge" for "1 human" quandry too...

Capital punishment thread becomes a thread on the abortion debate.

GetReal, et. al.:

I'll provide a little (mostly irrelevant) background information and relate some personal experiences.

I am a married man with one precious child. We suffered two miscarriages before he came along. Life is precious, and I know it.

At a couple points in my life I've known people--indeed have been very close friends with people--who have faced pregnancies that were not planned or desired, and who chose to terminate the pregnancies. (You probably have to, whether or not you realize it.)

Just being friends and offering the kind of support true friends give to each other was enough for me to get an inkling of the gravity of the decision they had to make. I think abortion would be a terrible choice for me and my current family situation. But that's us. We're pretty stable.

You know as well as I do that there are as many sets of circumstances surrounding a pregnancy as there are stars in the sky. In fact, each one is unique.

So for me, I am sad when I hear that someone I know has had or is considering an abortion. My tangental experience has shown me that it's sad for just about everyone involved.

You see it as a matter of right and wrong; black and white.

I see it as wrong for me and my circumstances, but I'm not a teenaged girl, a rape victim, a woman carrying a child that does not stand a chance at anything resembling life, a pregnant woman who stands a good chance of dying if a pregnancy advances, and the list of unique circumstances goes on and on.

I see this as the most private of matters, and I do not believe that morality can be legislated. By virtue of my personal philosophy, I'm going to leave the judgement to God. I'm not about to take that on myself.

To my estimation, there are two prominent problems with the whole abortion debate:

A great deal of hypocrisy and a whole lot of passion that would be more nobly expended helping future babies that don't have a whole lot of hope.

hugh mann -- Go back to the LR Memories thread. I've put up some more downtown LR stuff. Let me know if it rings true to your memory.

I will ask the question again....if the unborn is a child, why can't a tax deduction be claimed before birth?
Posted by: Cato
------------------
Surely you jest - you expect tax laws to be fair, logical or rational?

If you give money to Katrina Relief, Inc. to be given to a Katrina victim, it's a tax-deductible contribution - If you give money directly to the Katrina victim, it's a nondeductible gift.

The money goes to the victim either way. Why the difference?

Just because Congress wrote the law that way, that's why.

If you die before December 31, you are still treated as a tax deduction for that year. Does that mean that, even though you are buried, you aren't really dead?

"If the unborn is NOT a child, why does the law (state and federal) try the murderers of pregnant mothers for TWO COUNTS OF MURDER?"

My guess is so 2 lawyers will have a job. Ya got your case here for potential chickens. If a farmer, or in this case a pregnant woman doesn't want her chick, they shut down production and there is no chicken. I say there is no chicken.

On the other hand if a farmer, or in this case a pregnant woman wants her chick and some yahoo comes along and kills her and the unborn chick...there's where you got your potential chickens, cause everyone but the bad guy was counting on having a real life chick born in the future. Born is another key word.

Lumber in a pile is not a house. Get it...I say, I say son...do ya get it?

Lots of things in life can be measured in the manner of potential chickens. Hope this helps.

While we're throwing out hypotheticals, for GetReal.

If abortion = murder, then does a miscarriage = manslaughter?

Once again, Republicans talk about what others are doing to hide what they are doing. Killing is wrong. It is always wrong (according to my Christian faith at least).

There is a difference between us not playing God in personal decisions, and us playing God in public decisions. Perhaps abortion is killing, but we know killing is killing. You'd think that would be an obvious distiction, huh?

Has anyone else wondered why the Gov. thinks it's ok to kill some murderers while letting other murderers go free? Forget the fact that killing goes against Christ's teachings. What about just simple fairness or justice?

Once again, Republicans talk about what others are doing to hide what they are doing. Killing is wrong. It is always wrong (according to my Christian faith at least).

There is a difference between us not playing God in personal decisions, and us playing God in public decisions. Perhaps abortion is killing, but we know killing is killing. You'd think that would be an obvious distinction, huh?

Has anyone else wondered why the Gov. thinks it's ok to kill some murderers while letting other murderers go free? Forget the fact that killing goes against Christ's teachings. What about just simple fairness or justice?

There is no logic in killing someone as punishment for killing someone. If it's wrong to kill, it's wrong for anyone to kill.

Some of you anti-abortionists are so busy screaming that life begins at conception, you ignore the Bible itself:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis 2 verse 7

So it's not a human until it's first breath. We don't recognize a person's soul as exiting the body until the breath leaves.

It's funny to me you right wingers constantly use science to prove "abortion stops a beating heart" and then viciously attack science when it comes to evolution.

I truly believe the right wing today is the real anti christ.

Well, I guess we could debate semantics when discussing the death penalty; however, I choose to look at it as legal consequence to a depraved, deliberate action. It doesn't matter to me whether crime is deterred, and it is not, or there is no logic in the punishment; if you do the crime, do the time, even if that 'time' is death. Davis needs to have the needle planted safely in his arm and allow the juices to rock him to sleep...

Oh, and while I'm at it...

I would assume that there are only two ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy absolutely:

1. Total abstinence from sex

2. Homosexuality

So, if the rightwing Republicans are REALLY about preventing abortion, they should be promoting homosexuality as a clear choice in the battle against abortion.

Spunkrat,

try quoting from the christian bible (aka the new testament)

thats why old testament rules such as 'dont go to the temple if you have blood discharges' don't apply to us -- we arent jews. jesus came and said "stop it with the legalism, you're missing the POINT - not rules, but LOVE" (read matthew 5, 6, or 7 to see the 'out with the old' concept)

Attack science when it comes to evolution? Most Christians agree that species change over time, duh, we see that. What we don't agree on is the creation of the world.

A big bang? Ok. Why did it 'bang'? Did it exist, and then 'bang'? If it existed without a bang, why did "it" suddenly feel the need to "bang"? --If there was no "it", just a "bang", does that mean there was an explosion without a bomb? A discharge without a load? Did the "IT" never exist? Who put the "it" there? What was there before "it"?

Nevermind the true creation, but the scientific aspects as well: why is the universe expanding at an INCREASING rate? (don't give me that 'cosmological inflation' crappy argument -- that simply says "um, crap, our math doesnt work, so lets pretend that the universe .. um, "DECIDES" to , um, "GROW", um "FASTER", for a time, and it it "DECIDES" to grow at a normal rate)

And though i LOATHE the "intelligent design" movement, they DO bring up a good point: the taller a girrafe's neck gets, the more leaves it can eat, the more likely tall ones survive, i get that, i see that. But what Intelligent design asks is "hey, SOME changes don't have an instant benefit. Unlike necks of plant-eaters, some things don't have INCREMENTAL advantages... so how did we get tat? How did 'species' go from having no heart to a 4-chambered pump? How did we go from a cell with no nucleus to one with a nucleus AND complex mitochondria?
The ID'ers (if you can call them 'scientists') liken it to a mousetrap - youhave to have a bunch of specific parts to make it work, without ONE, the mousetrap fails... therein lies the paradox. For COMPLEX things in life that CANNOT be broken down, evolution CANNOT say: i will build "A" in this generation, and give charateristics "B" and "C" in the next generations, because *THAT WOULD IMPLY A PLAN*

"Nature" or "Evolution" has no plan.

THerein lies the paradox.

There ARE serious questions about creation, and early evolution. Can I answer them? of COURSE NOT!

But can you?

Nope.

(But in the meantime, the more you foam at the mouth about "christians hating science", the more you drive people away from your beliefs, regardless of truth or not)

Well gosh, GetReal.

I was talking about abortion, not the "creation of the world."

Further, I would have quoted something from the New Testament that specifically and clearly dealt with the issue of aborting a fetus (or unborn child?), but I don't know of any. Perhaps you could point one out?

Also, if you are discounting the Old Testament, we'll have to throw out the entire creation story, so the debate on the big bang and the creation of the world would now be meaningless.

Paradox, anyone?

Haha, keep it up spunky.

NO one said i'm "throwing out" the OT. BUt you're using one of TWO creation stories (genesis 1 and genesis 2). Which one do you throw at me and why?

And I could still twist your 'breath of life' argument - the first humans (in Genesis) obviously weren't "conceived" but formed as adults, so i'd buy the beating heart/lungs message at the point of creation.

Anyways, which of the two genesis lines do you prefer?

Notice your utter silence to my deafening doubt in the face of 'big bang creation' and 'early evolution'. Your silence speaks for itself.

ANyhow, get your story straight before you (try to) pounce on me again.

You are a great example of why a little knowledge is more dangerous than none at all.

What do you mean? I steadfastly oppose our occupation of Iraq and the hundreds if not thousands of children we've killed there.

Then you would support war crimes trials against the US for its intentional bombing of cities during WWII that specifically targeted civilians? Please respond.

It may also interest you to note that in Judaism...from whence Christianity came, as well as in many of the Orthodox Eastern Christian faith communities, there is no concept of life at conception.

According to the Jewish faith, life begins when the head of the newborn is crowning during birth. Therefore, there is no debate of abortion or the emotional appeal of baby killing that some make.

Also, you can always spot a weak argument when all someone can use is emotional appeals and inflammatory language to try to sway opinion.

One more thing to the one who says they remember when I was pro-life....I am pro-life. So are those in the choice community. Everyone is pro-life....this is a decision about a person's right to choose.

Thanks Drew, for letting me know that... CHristians are different from Jews? Huh? Nice attempt at a point.

How about a liberal conserative compromise?

We will end the death penalty if you will end abortion.

Deal?

Thoughts?

Andrew you ruin all liberls credibilityand dirtyt any discusion when you enter it.Please leave you joke.

p.s. How's the moyors race?

Pritt

I once had a sister in law (long gone out of my life now) who was a total and complete Republican. Actually worked for the Party. She lived in Texas, and she hated Mexicans, blacks, Jews, you name it. She also was an anti-abortion rabid dog. I mean, you couldn't have a conversation with this woman without all of this crap being brought up. I avoided her at all costs when family reunions, funerals, etc., brought us into contact with each other.
On a hot night in Abilene, her 15 year old daughter was "raped" by a (gasp) black guy. He was 16. She didn't tell anyone about the "rape" until she turned up pregnant. Her mother - I'll call her "Hypo" could not wait to get the child on the table and get rid of the "little black bastard."

My god you are a joke. What a bull sh*t story.

I figured you would be in a mental institution by now.

Pritt what an interesting story.
Sister-in-law? What side? I know your brother I would like t ask him about that.

" I avoided her at all costs when family reunions, funerals, etc., brought us into contact with each other. "

Really, is this when you were a Republican?

That is odd. "long gone out of my life now" That had to be when you were a Republican right?
Now that does not make much sense does it?

It is a little off the subject, but what is going on with Win Noble these days, Pritt?

I was still waiting on the New Testament quote that specifically mentions abortion, GetReal. Let us know. ;)