<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/25/abortion.protest.ap/index.html' target='_blank'>See for yourself</a>

MaumeeRocket Wrote:<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/25/abortion.protest.ap/index.html' target='_blank'>See for yourself</a>

:snore:

I'd favor late-term abortions bans, whereas after so many months into the pregnancy the fetus is already displaying a beating heart, brainwave activity, motor functions and can even sense its own mother's voice. Regardless of whether one is religious and believes there's a "soul" present or not, one would have to be completely in denial to not see there's a functioning human baby at this point. Not sure why the pro-choice crowd considers it a animal parasite on one side of the birth canal, but a human baby once it's passed onto the other side. This I don't get.

Earlier-term abortions, where the cells are in the early stages of materializing and multiplying, I'd side with the pro-choice crowd. Where the fetus is so underdeveloped, it's best to let someone make their own decision and live with the result. To be quite honest, I'm not sure what I'd do if I had gotten a girl pregnant in my younger days - despite taking all the precautions. I may have panicked. So with this, I can't support a ban on ALL abortions, otherwise I'd appear to be speaking out of both sides of my mouth. But if parents can't make a decision within the first couple months... then, sorry, it's too late.

Despite my agreement with a lot of their positions, it aggravates me to no end when elements of the pro-choice crowd try to paint the pro-life position as "sexist" or "misogynist", or assume the pro-life crowd is merely a segment of the (white male) radical religious right. No, I don't think questioning if another life is being harmed, pre-birth as it may be, is so absurd.

I may be okay with early-to-mid abortions being legal. But one thing I'm decidedly against is federal funding for abortions.

Reasonable post, Motown. Except that late term abortions are almost exclusively done as a medical procedure to save the mother's life. It is a non-issue cooked up by the religious right.

Very true, Odd. Late-term abortions are fortunately quite rare. And I also favor any and all procedures whereas the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Is she mad about something?

It's the Million Soccer Mom March.

A pro-abortion march is much like an anti-Iraq War rally. While I could agree with the main reason they are marching, I'd probably disagree with 99% of the unrelated topics they'd introduce into course of the afternoon. In the case of the major anti-war marches (which I caught on C-SPAN last year), the speech topics would consistently meander into pro-socialist preaching.

So those in favor of choice are by definition "baby killers"? Care to explain that one, anybody?

And what in the hell is pro-socialist preaching?

Killing a human being with a heart beat is wrong at any stage. Murder is Murder but im not your judge so do what you like. I wonder how may Martin Luther King's have been terminated because their mother made a mistake with her abusive boyfriend. There was 3,00 abortions in Toledo alone last year-frightening.

MaumeeRocket Wrote:Killing a human being with a heart beat is wrong at any stage. Murder is Murder but im not your judge so do what you like. I wonder how may Martin Luther King's have been terminated because their mother made a mistake with her abusive boyfriend. There was 3,00 abortions in Toledo alone last year-frightening.

But sending soldiers to kill and die, or possibly come home maimed and insane is okay by your standards?

So many of the anti-abortion crowd hates baby killing, but the same group loves it when our military kills babies in other countries. They also love it when all those coffins come to Dover with American flags draped over them.

Maumee, you said it. Killing is killing and one thing our soldiers do overseas is killing. Don't sugar coat it with all this empty rhetoric of Democratizing the region, or fighting for the advancement of values. Killing is killing and when we do it in a military capacity it is still killing--and consequently still wrong!

KlutzDio I Wrote:So many of the anti-abortion crowd hates baby killing, but the same group loves it when our military kills babies in other countries. They also love it when all those coffins come to Dover with American flags draped over them.

Do you really think the Pro-life crowd rejoices over the death of foreign babies/children?

Only a sick ******* would find joy in the death of innocent children.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Maumee, you said it. Killing is killing and one thing our soldiers do overseas is killing. Don't sugar coat it with all this empty rhetoric of Democratizing the region, or fighting for the advancement of values. Killing is killing and when we do it in a military capacity it is still killing--and consequently still wrong!

It would be a much better world if nobody had to pick up a gun or kill their unborn child. Killing is terrible no matter who does it. I dont support out troop being anywhere but here, but unfortunately the world dosent work like that. They have to be overseas and i will support them. Second i think if took a poll of all 130,000 men and women i dont think killing other peoples babies is high on their list, they want to come home and most of them realize they signed up for it and have to finish out their duty.

Coulter, Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly have all favored the killing of Arabs and have all rejoiced in our endeavors overseas, especially Coulter, with Hannity coming in second.

I can't remember the quote entirely, but Coulter wrote a column in Oct. of 2002 claiming we should invade their lands, kill their women and children, and whomever is left should be converted to Christianity.

Coulter took heat for these comments because she admitted to the New York Times in the summer of 2002 that she is not a Christian, a chain smoker, promiscuous, never served in the military, is divorced, and a reformed drug user.

Now to answer your direct question, Gray, why yes, the pro-Life crowd loves killing and death. They loved it whenever GW Bush didn't interfere in someone's execution--way back when GW Bush was screwing up Texas (before he began screwing up the country).

The Pro-Life crowd, for the most part, loves it whenever we send young, impoverished men and women overseas to be suicide bombers' fodder. We also love it when our military men and women drop death from above via of a B2. They equally get all jolly at the prospect of our sailers sending Tomahawks down on enemy women and children.

The pro-Life crowd loves the death and maiming of women and children so much, they've created a word to describe this act. Ever hear of "collateral damage?"

Then there's the usual killing of enemy combatants during warfare, and the Pro-Lifers have always loved war!

The Pro-Life crowd loves death and have usually always loved it.

My uncle, a former Marine officer (bombadier), claimed a recent terrorist attack at the Rose Bowl wouldn't be all that bad "because it would just kill a bunch of Michigan and California liberals and we're better off without the likes of them..."

So, I'm not being sick, the Pro-Life crowd is sick because they purport an agenda that they themselves do not fully support or believe in. Pro-Life really means Pro-Death and Pro-Violence.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Coulter, Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly have all favored the killing of Arabs and have all rejoiced in our endeavors overseas, especially Coulter, with Hannity coming in second.

I can't remember the quote entirely, but Coulter wrote a column in Oct. of 2002 claiming we should invade their lands, kill their women and children, and whomever is left should be converted to Christianity.

Coulter took heat for these comments because she admitted to the New York Times in the summer of 2002 that she is not a Christian, a chain smoker, promiscuous, never served in the military, is divorced, and a reformed drug user.

Now to answer your direct question, Gray, why yes, the pro-Life crowd loves killing and death. They loved it whenever GW Bush didn't interfere in someone's execution--way back when GW Bush was screwing up Texas (before he began screwing up the country).

The Pro-Life crowd, for the most part, loves it whenever we send young, impoverished men and women overseas to be suicide bombers' fodder. We also love it when our military men and women drop death from above via of a B2. They equally get all jolly at the prospect of our sailers sending Tomahawks down on enemy women and children.

The pro-Life crowd loves the death and maiming of women and children so much, they've created a word to describe this act. Ever hear of "collateral damage?"

Then there's the usual killing of enemy combatants during warfare, and the Pro-Lifers have always loved war!

The Pro-Life crowd loves death and have usually always loved it.

My uncle, a former Marine officer (bombadier), claimed a recent terrorist attack at the Rose Bowl wouldn't be all that bad "because it would just kill a bunch of Michigan and California liberals and we're better off without the likes of them..."

So, I'm not being sick, the Pro-Life crowd is sick because they purport an agenda that they themselves do not fully support or believe in. Pro-Life really means Pro-Death and Pro-Violence.

If you beleive that, you have just replaced JBR as the biggest nutjob in the place.

MaumeeRocket Wrote:

KlutzDio I Wrote:Maumee, you said it. Killing is killing and one thing our soldiers do overseas is killing. Don't sugar coat it with all this empty rhetoric of Democratizing the region, or fighting for the advancement of values. Killing is killing and when we do it in a military capacity it is still killing--and consequently still wrong!

It would be a much better world if nobody had to pick up a gun or kill their unborn child. Killing is terrible no matter who does it. I dont support out troop being anywhere but here, but unfortunately the world dosent work like that. They have to be overseas and i will support them. Second i think if took a poll of all 130,000 men and women i dont think killing other peoples babies is high on their list, they want to come home and most of them realize they signed up for it and have to finish out their duty.

So basically what you are getting at is you hate killing in general and you hate even more some people's rationalizations for unnecessary killings, i.e. abortion.

Abortion lovers rationalize their act of killing by claiming that the fetus is not really a life yet, or they can't care for the fetus, or the father took off so what's the point, or I'm too young to have a baby, or I can't get into my prom dress all big, fat and pregnant, or I can't get into my wedding dress all big, fat and pregnant.

In short, the abortion crowd rationalizes killing to absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

Likewise, soldiers rationalize unnecessary killings in a variety of ways.
1. Following orders, yet all U.S. servicemen and women have one superceding order that they can ignore or challenge any cleary unethical or immoral orders.
2. Killing these heathens (whether Japanese, German or A-Rabs) protects my family.
3. Killing Arabs overseas protects my individual freedom.
4. Killing Arabs overseas protects my country, nevermind the fact that the Iraqis were incapable of attacking the United States.
5. Killing Arabs or anyone who steps to me protects my nation's collective freedom.
6. Killing will land me that next stripe, or those Captain bars.
7. Killing will land me some medals so that way, one day I can be a big-wig at the local VFW chapter.
8. Why should I care about killing, let God sort them out!

And there are many other rationalizations for killing by our servicemen and women.

Key to this discussion are the rationalizations our leaders use that put our military personnel in the theatre that makes killing all the more possible. Those rationalizations are varied, yet many are the same as the ones our soldiers use to justify unnecessary killing.

So, what we have here Maumee is you disagree with rationalizing murder that absolves one of irresponsibility. Yet, at the same time you agree with many of the rationalizations our leaders use to murder. Many of the rationalizations for killing in the present two conflicts overseas were constructed to absolve our government of irresponsible actions due to past policies.

We propped up Saddam, we left the Afghanis high and dry after the Soviet pullout. We turned the blind eye to the Taliban, and we provided Saddam with the chemicals to gas and kill.

Likewise, we fund and provide Israel with their war machine. This is another irresponsible policy on the part of our government, and one day a big war will be rationalized in order to absolve us of responsibility in that matter.

If you guys think the Pro-Lifers really value human life, then it is you guys who are the real nutjobs!

KlutzDio I Wrote:

MaumeeRocket Wrote:

KlutzDio I Wrote:Maumee, you said it. Killing is killing and one thing our soldiers do overseas is killing. Don't sugar coat it with all this empty rhetoric of Democratizing the region, or fighting for the advancement of values. Killing is killing and when we do it in a military capacity it is still killing--and consequently still wrong!

It would be a much better world if nobody had to pick up a gun or kill their unborn child. Killing is terrible no matter who does it. I dont support out troop being anywhere but here, but unfortunately the world dosent work like that. They have to be overseas and i will support them. Second i think if took a poll of all 130,000 men and women i dont think killing other peoples babies is high on their list, they want to come home and most of them realize they signed up for it and have to finish out their duty.

So basically what you are getting at is you hate killing in general and you hate even more some people's rationalizations for unnecessary killings, i.e. abortion.

Abortion lovers rationalize their act of killing by claiming that the fetus is not really a life yet, or they can't care for the fetus, or the father took off so what's the point, or I'm too young to have a baby, or I can't get into my prom dress all big, fat and pregnant, or I can't get into my wedding dress all big, fat and pregnant.

In short, the abortion crowd rationalizes killing to absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

Likewise, soldiers rationalize unnecessary killings in a variety of ways.
1. Following orders, yet all U.S. servicemen and women have one superceding order that they can ignore or challenge any cleary unethical or immoral orders.
2. Killing these heathens (whether Japanese, German or A-Rabs) protects my family.
3. Killing Arabs overseas protects my individual freedom.
4. Killing Arabs overseas protects my country, nevermind the fact that the Iraqis were incapable of attacking the United States.
5. Killing Arabs or anyone who steps to me protects my nation's collective freedom.
6. Killing will land me that next stripe, or those Captain bars.
7. Killing will land me some medals so that way, one day I can be a big-wig at the local VFW chapter.
8. Why should I care about killing, let God sort them out!

And there are many other rationalizations for killing by our servicemen and women.

Key to this discussion are the rationalizations our leaders use that put our military personnel in the theatre that makes killing all the more possible. Those rationalizations are varied, yet many are the same as the ones our soldiers use to justify unnecessary killing.

So, what we have here Maumee is you disagree with rationalizing murder that absolves one of irresponsibility. Yet, at the same time you agree with many of the rationalizations our leaders use to murder. Many of the rationalizations for killing in the present two conflicts overseas were constructed to absolve our government of irresponsible actions due to past policies.

We propped up Saddam, we left the Afghanis high and dry after the Soviet pullout. We turned the blind eye to the Taliban, and we provided Saddam with the chemicals to gas and kill.

Likewise, we fund and provide Israel with their war machine. This is another irresponsible policy on the part of our government, and one day a big war will be rationalized in order to absolve us of responsibility in that matter.

Your problem is you think every conservative is Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, go talk to a normal person, your generalities will be greatly taken back. If your against all of this im sure the paleistians would gladly give you a belt so you can repeal the "evil" israelies, but first look at a map and see which country has no oil and has death threats against on a daily basis.

And on thought of Saddam and the Taliban, we are currently taking care of the mistakes of past administartions, so i mind you to not live in the past and be progressive.

First of all, Maumee, I don't think all conservatives are like Hannity and Coulter (etc.). Those are neo-conservatives, which are a completely different breed than say, real conservatives, like Chuck Hagel and John McCain.

A neo-conservative is one who is oppurtunistic and rides the wave of the great conservatism revolution the country has been experiencing for the past six or seven years.

In short, Hannity and Coulter, along with Rush and O'Reilly are not conservatives at all. They are just some hucksters trying to make a buck, and at least Coulter will admit as much to you.

We have several like them in goverment now, such as GW Bush and Tricky Dicky Cheney.

If you claim I should quit dwelling on the past, then perhaps you should forgive all those baby killers marching on Washington. Afterall, they've killed babies in the past and their march was in the past. You should be more progressive! :wave:

Countries without oil, or something else we might need (such as cheap, Indonesian child labor for Nike shoes) might hate us because we support some tyrannical leader(s) in their nation.

American favors democracy, but only for Americans. Should a nation be too far to the Left, then we toss democracy and self-rule to the wind and levy sanctions on that nation(s). Perhaps all of Latin America is a good example of this inconsistent foreign policy.

So, foreigners hate us for a variety of reasons, not just oil or resource raping. What we should do is quite p*ssyfooting around and just kill everyone, that way we'd be the only nation left and then our government could just worry about ridding the United States of the Left.

I thought the pro-war people justified their actions b/c they were killing murders.

Which is better, not to take a single life or to prevent many lives from being taken?

Why does no one mention the killing fields found in Saddam's regime?

Why does no discuss the torture rooms?

The pro-lifers "celebrate" this because it's bringing life to millions. The cost is the lives of hundreds, and no pro-lifers are celebrating that, except that some justice is being done.

The zeal that you interpret as "love of war" in reality is a zeal to accomplish this task as quickly as possible, and with as few lives lost as possible. That is precisely why pro-lifers get so hyped. No one wants to consider dragging on a war because they started off with a half-hearted effort.

Furthermore, things like "collateral damage" are not ignored. Pro-lifers mourn that. But in the history of war, no-one has ever kept this to a minimum, particularly at their own expense, like the US is doing. That says something as well.