Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
“ST. PAUL, Minn. - A Minnesota dentist who killed a well-known, protected lion while on a hunt in Zimbabwe...”Planned Parenthood's practices are legal and ethical; killing a protected animal is neither.
An embryo/fetus is not a "baby."
Consequently this thread fails as a false comparison fallacy.
He had a valid license to take a lion.
Maybe you libs should have been more vigilant getting the word out, "Hands up, don't shoot."
Obviously, Cecil didn't hear you.
I agree with you if that's how you feel about life that you don't perceive. It does not answer the question about when do start and end giving the right to life. Which is what abortion is about no matter how much you want to triumph the women's right to choose. We could do wonderful things with research on brain dead people, the severely autistic, the people we sentence to death, and even the elderly and demented and social burdens... That does not make it right. Not without consent, and there is no way you can argue for the mothers right to consent to that since after third trimester most consider it taboo, and the father gets no say in the matter. If you want it (abortion) be consistent, but dehumanizing is a very dangerous slope that we are all guilty of one way or another. To do it to the point of ending life, you loose the justification to keep yoursHonestly I didn't want to post anything on this story bc it's ridiculous that it has captured the attention of the world. Absolutely ridiculous considering there are thousands child sex slaves for Isis... But if this guy baited and killed any other lion, we would have no fucking clue that this happened. But I saw this topic and thought, if Margaret Sanger had her fully documented, proven and admitted way (I want to emphasize that) Dr. Martin Luther King probably never been born. Have fun talking about your distractions people
This is not about Margaret Sanger. Yes, she was an evil bitch. But Planned Parenthood is not about genocide. In fact, abortion is only a small part of what PP does. But abortion is legal. The women went seeking an abortion. PP did not go out recruiting pregnant women. And once the abortion was performed, should they have thrown the fetus in the incinerator when lives could be saved with its organs and tissues?
Machine-gunning pigs from a helicopter is how real men do it!This despicable slob hunter reminds me of Ted Nugent - who also has several wildlife violations.
I agree with you if that's how you feel about life that you don't perceive. It does not answer the question about when do start and end giving the right to life. Which is what abortion is about no matter how much you want to triumph the women's right to choose. We could do wonderful things with research on brain dead people, the severely autistic, the people we sentence to death, and even the elderly and demented and social burdens... That does not make it right. Not without consent, and there is no way you can argue for the mothers right to consent to that since after third trimester most consider it taboo, and the father gets no say in the matter. If you want it (abortion) be consistent, but dehumanizing is a very dangerous slope that we are all guilty of one way or another. To do it to the point of ending life, you loose the justification to keep yoursHonestly I didn't want to post anything on this story bc it's ridiculous that it has captured the attention of the world. Absolutely ridiculous considering there are thousands child sex slaves for Isis... But if this guy baited and killed any other lion, we would have no fucking clue that this happened. But I saw this topic and thought, if Margaret Sanger had her fully documented, proven and admitted way (I want to emphasize that) Dr. Martin Luther King probably never been born. Have fun talking about your distractions people
This is not about Margaret Sanger. Yes, she was an evil bitch. But Planned Parenthood is not about genocide. In fact, abortion is only a small part of what PP does. But abortion is legal. The women went seeking an abortion. PP did not go out recruiting pregnant women. And once the abortion was performed, should they have thrown the fetus in the incinerator when lives could be saved with its organs and tissues?
Machine-gunning pigs from a helicopter is how real men do it!This despicable slob hunter reminds me of Ted Nugent - who also has several wildlife violations.
How are they dead, and what is your definition. This is where your argument loses it's consistencyI agree with you if that's how you feel about life that you don't perceive. It does not answer the question about when do start and end giving the right to life. Which is what abortion is about no matter how much you want to triumph the women's right to choose. We could do wonderful things with research on brain dead people, the severely autistic, the people we sentence to death, and even the elderly and demented and social burdens... That does not make it right. Not without consent, and there is no way you can argue for the mothers right to consent to that since after third trimester most consider it taboo, and the father gets no say in the matter. If you want it (abortion) be consistent, but dehumanizing is a very dangerous slope that we are all guilty of one way or another. To do it to the point of ending life, you loose the justification to keep yoursHonestly I didn't want to post anything on this story bc it's ridiculous that it has captured the attention of the world. Absolutely ridiculous considering there are thousands child sex slaves for Isis... But if this guy baited and killed any other lion, we would have no fucking clue that this happened. But I saw this topic and thought, if Margaret Sanger had her fully documented, proven and admitted way (I want to emphasize that) Dr. Martin Luther King probably never been born. Have fun talking about your distractions people
This is not about Margaret Sanger. Yes, she was an evil bitch. But Planned Parenthood is not about genocide. In fact, abortion is only a small part of what PP does. But abortion is legal. The women went seeking an abortion. PP did not go out recruiting pregnant women. And once the abortion was performed, should they have thrown the fetus in the incinerator when lives could be saved with its organs and tissues?
Except the fetus is not autistic, old, demented, a social burden or even brain dead. They are dead. I perceive life quite accurately. But the only life that is relevant in this discussion is the life that can be saved by the donated organs and tissues. This is not about abortion. This is about what happens to the remains of the aborted fetus.
How are they dead, and what is your definition. This is where your argument loses it's consistencyI agree with you if that's how you feel about life that you don't perceive. It does not answer the question about when do start and end giving the right to life. Which is what abortion is about no matter how much you want to triumph the women's right to choose. We could do wonderful things with research on brain dead people, the severely autistic, the people we sentence to death, and even the elderly and demented and social burdens... That does not make it right. Not without consent, and there is no way you can argue for the mothers right to consent to that since after third trimester most consider it taboo, and the father gets no say in the matter. If you want it (abortion) be consistent, but dehumanizing is a very dangerous slope that we are all guilty of one way or another. To do it to the point of ending life, you loose the justification to keep yoursHonestly I didn't want to post anything on this story bc it's ridiculous that it has captured the attention of the world. Absolutely ridiculous considering there are thousands child sex slaves for Isis... But if this guy baited and killed any other lion, we would have no fucking clue that this happened. But I saw this topic and thought, if Margaret Sanger had her fully documented, proven and admitted way (I want to emphasize that) Dr. Martin Luther King probably never been born. Have fun talking about your distractions people
This is not about Margaret Sanger. Yes, she was an evil bitch. But Planned Parenthood is not about genocide. In fact, abortion is only a small part of what PP does. But abortion is legal. The women went seeking an abortion. PP did not go out recruiting pregnant women. And once the abortion was performed, should they have thrown the fetus in the incinerator when lives could be saved with its organs and tissues?
Except the fetus is not autistic, old, demented, a social burden or even brain dead. They are dead. I perceive life quite accurately. But the only life that is relevant in this discussion is the life that can be saved by the donated organs and tissues. This is not about abortion. This is about what happens to the remains of the aborted fetus.
What about the act of aborting a fetus or causing the death of any other human without consent, when does that become wrong?How are they dead, and what is your definition. This is where your argument loses it's consistencyI agree with you if that's how you feel about life that you don't perceive. It does not answer the question about when do start and end giving the right to life. Which is what abortion is about no matter how much you want to triumph the women's right to choose. We could do wonderful things with research on brain dead people, the severely autistic, the people we sentence to death, and even the elderly and demented and social burdens... That does not make it right. Not without consent, and there is no way you can argue for the mothers right to consent to that since after third trimester most consider it taboo, and the father gets no say in the matter. If you want it (abortion) be consistent, but dehumanizing is a very dangerous slope that we are all guilty of one way or another. To do it to the point of ending life, you loose the justification to keep yoursHonestly I didn't want to post anything on this story bc it's ridiculous that it has captured the attention of the world. Absolutely ridiculous considering there are thousands child sex slaves for Isis... But if this guy baited and killed any other lion, we would have no fucking clue that this happened. But I saw this topic and thought, if Margaret Sanger had her fully documented, proven and admitted way (I want to emphasize that) Dr. Martin Luther King probably never been born. Have fun talking about your distractions people
This is not about Margaret Sanger. Yes, she was an evil bitch. But Planned Parenthood is not about genocide. In fact, abortion is only a small part of what PP does. But abortion is legal. The women went seeking an abortion. PP did not go out recruiting pregnant women. And once the abortion was performed, should they have thrown the fetus in the incinerator when lives could be saved with its organs and tissues?
Except the fetus is not autistic, old, demented, a social burden or even brain dead. They are dead. I perceive life quite accurately. But the only life that is relevant in this discussion is the life that can be saved by the donated organs and tissues. This is not about abortion. This is about what happens to the remains of the aborted fetus.
It is perfectly consistent. An aborted fetus is dead. It is without life. No heartbeat, brain waves or other signs of life.
Once that has happened, what should be done with the remains? Should they be thrown in an incinerator or donated?
What about the act of aborting a fetus or causing the death of any other human without consent, when does that become wrong?How are they dead, and what is your definition. This is where your argument loses it's consistencyI agree with you if that's how you feel about life that you don't perceive. It does not answer the question about when do start and end giving the right to life. Which is what abortion is about no matter how much you want to triumph the women's right to choose. We could do wonderful things with research on brain dead people, the severely autistic, the people we sentence to death, and even the elderly and demented and social burdens... That does not make it right. Not without consent, and there is no way you can argue for the mothers right to consent to that since after third trimester most consider it taboo, and the father gets no say in the matter. If you want it (abortion) be consistent, but dehumanizing is a very dangerous slope that we are all guilty of one way or another. To do it to the point of ending life, you loose the justification to keep yoursThis is not about Margaret Sanger. Yes, she was an evil bitch. But Planned Parenthood is not about genocide. In fact, abortion is only a small part of what PP does. But abortion is legal. The women went seeking an abortion. PP did not go out recruiting pregnant women. And once the abortion was performed, should they have thrown the fetus in the incinerator when lives could be saved with its organs and tissues?
Except the fetus is not autistic, old, demented, a social burden or even brain dead. They are dead. I perceive life quite accurately. But the only life that is relevant in this discussion is the life that can be saved by the donated organs and tissues. This is not about abortion. This is about what happens to the remains of the aborted fetus.
It is perfectly consistent. An aborted fetus is dead. It is without life. No heartbeat, brain waves or other signs of life.
Once that has happened, what should be done with the remains? Should they be thrown in an incinerator or donated?
To use anti-life logic, it's not wrong that they're doing that, and they're not doing that anyway. You can't kill someone if you don't consider them to be alive, and it's not murder if you simply decide they don't have a right to continue living.What about the act of aborting a fetus or causing the death of any other human without consent, when does that become wrong?
Nixon was a great president and capable leader. Obama, as a leader, sucks donkey dicks.I'm 64, shyttehead. Were you born yesterday? Nixon was the most corrupt president ever, and Obama is squeeky clean except for total bs from our idiot RW.Franken? Because he was a comedian, and it was a joke and he made it well known that it was sarcasm, dingbat dupe.I think the point was more about the media priorities, and the swaying of the public by giving preference to one over the other.
Here is an example:
How many know that Donald Trump said, McCain was not a hero? Why is that? The media told you.
How many of you knew that Al Franken said McClain was not a hero? Why is that?
We are eviscerating a man who killed an animal. That is BIG news.
We are financing clinics that sell baby parts. That is big news.
Al Franken in 2000 satirized McCain s war hero status - CNNPolitics.com
Hillary did nothing that all earlier gov't officials didn't do. Having her own server was good security as it turns out. The whole thing is total bs and there is NO EVIDENCE SHE DID ANTHING WRONG THAT SHE NEEDS TO COVER UP. What a ridiculous pile of crappe, hater dupe.
If you think all Nixon did was cut that tape, you're nuts. He subverted the constitution and ruined many lives. Unlike this BS IRS "scandal", for example, he had the IRS illegally audit his "enemies" and make bs charges against them, etc etc etc.
Franken? Because he was a comedian, and it was a joke and he made it well known that it was sarcasm, dingbat dupe.I think the point was more about the media priorities, and the swaying of the public by giving preference to one over the other.
Here is an example:
How many know that Donald Trump said, McCain was not a hero? Why is that? The media told you.
How many of you knew that Al Franken said McClain was not a hero? Why is that?
We are eviscerating a man who killed an animal. That is BIG news.
We are financing clinics that sell baby parts. That is big news.
Al Franken in 2000 satirized McCain s war hero status - CNNPolitics.com
Hillary did nothing that all earlier gov't officials didn't do. Having her own server was good security as it turns out. The whole thing is total bs and there is NO EVIDENCE SHE DID ANTHING WRONG THAT SHE NEEDS TO COVER UP. What a ridiculous pile of crappe, hater dupe.
If you think all Nixon did was cut that tape, you're nuts. He subverted the constitution and ruined many lives. Unlike this BS IRS "scandal", for example, he had the IRS illegally audit his "enemies" and make bs charges against them, etc etc etc.
OMG. You're common core aren't you! Obama makes Nixon look like a ray of sunshine.[/QUOTE
Living is being alive. Think about it.To use anti-life logic, it's not wrong that they're doing that, and they're not doing that anyway. You can't kill someone if you don't consider them to be alive, and it's not murder if you simply decide they don't have a right to continue living.What about the act of aborting a fetus or causing the death of any other human without consent, when does that become wrong?
Bush stole the presidency twice and got away with it. Obama does whatever he wants at home or abroad with little to no mainstream resistance. The Alabama GOP can burn down homes and attempt to murder whistleblowers with impunity. The Democrats literally have people defending an organization that pretty much only exists to murder babies. What did Nixon do? He utterly failed to convince the Commies he was a warmongering sociopath with a death wish then got humiliated and run out of office for failing to carry out a simple burglary. He couldn't hold a candle to modern politicians. I'm not saying he was any less corrupt. He was just, well, complete shit at corruption.Nixon was a great president and capable leader. Obama, as a leader, sucks donkey dicks.
Obama could have video taped him shooting Cecil th Lion in Central Park and Holder wouldn't issue him a minor trading ticket. Corruption fills that regime.NO ONE in his administration has been indicted for anything, or for that matter ACCUSED of anything by reputable sources. YOUR sources are a joke.Nixon was the most corrupt president ever, and Obama is squeeky clean except for total bs from our idiot RW.
I will grant you that America's Kenyan "president" does sound rather "squeeky" when he plays at being tough with Iranians and other assorted enemies of our nation.
Unbelievable lol. A-hole greedy idiot Pubs and brainwashed functional morons like you CAN'T be led.Nixon was a great president and capable leader. Obama, as a leader, sucks donkey dicks.I'm 64, shyttehead. Were you born yesterday? Nixon was the most corrupt president ever, and Obama is squeeky clean except for total bs from our idiot RW.Franken? Because he was a comedian, and it was a joke and he made it well known that it was sarcasm, dingbat dupe.I think the point was more about the media priorities, and the swaying of the public by giving preference to one over the other.
Here is an example:
How many know that Donald Trump said, McCain was not a hero? Why is that? The media told you.
How many of you knew that Al Franken said McClain was not a hero? Why is that?
We are eviscerating a man who killed an animal. That is BIG news.
We are financing clinics that sell baby parts. That is big news.
Al Franken in 2000 satirized McCain s war hero status - CNNPolitics.com
Hillary did nothing that all earlier gov't officials didn't do. Having her own server was good security as it turns out. The whole thing is total bs and there is NO EVIDENCE SHE DID ANTHING WRONG THAT SHE NEEDS TO COVER UP. What a ridiculous pile of crappe, hater dupe.
If you think all Nixon did was cut that tape, you're nuts. He subverted the constitution and ruined many lives. Unlike this BS IRS "scandal", for example, he had the IRS illegally audit his "enemies" and make bs charges against them, etc etc etc.
Franken? Because he was a comedian, and it was a joke and he made it well known that it was sarcasm, dingbat dupe.I think the point was more about the media priorities, and the swaying of the public by giving preference to one over the other.
Here is an example:
How many know that Donald Trump said, McCain was not a hero? Why is that? The media told you.
How many of you knew that Al Franken said McClain was not a hero? Why is that?
We are eviscerating a man who killed an animal. That is BIG news.
We are financing clinics that sell baby parts. That is big news.
Al Franken in 2000 satirized McCain s war hero status - CNNPolitics.com
Hillary did nothing that all earlier gov't officials didn't do. Having her own server was good security as it turns out. The whole thing is total bs and there is NO EVIDENCE SHE DID ANTHING WRONG THAT SHE NEEDS TO COVER UP. What a ridiculous pile of crappe, hater dupe.
If you think all Nixon did was cut that tape, you're nuts. He subverted the constitution and ruined many lives. Unlike this BS IRS "scandal", for example, he had the IRS illegally audit his "enemies" and make bs charges against them, etc etc etc.
OMG. You're common core aren't you! Obama makes Nixon look like a ray of sunshine.[/QUOTE
Then why involve yourself in the conversation? You should know where this conversation logically ends up. and I know it ends up at a double think dilemma, unless you are consistent with your beliefs. In that case Germany was justifiable to euthanize their mentally challenged as social fiscal burdensWhat about the act of aborting a fetus or causing the death of any other human without consent, when does that become wrong?How are they dead, and what is your definition. This is where your argument loses it's consistencyI agree with you if that's how you feel about life that you don't perceive. It does not answer the question about when do start and end giving the right to life. Which is what abortion is about no matter how much you want to triumph the women's right to choose. We could do wonderful things with research on brain dead people, the severely autistic, the people we sentence to death, and even the elderly and demented and social burdens... That does not make it right. Not without consent, and there is no way you can argue for the mothers right to consent to that since after third trimester most consider it taboo, and the father gets no say in the matter. If you want it (abortion) be consistent, but dehumanizing is a very dangerous slope that we are all guilty of one way or another. To do it to the point of ending life, you loose the justification to keep yours
Except the fetus is not autistic, old, demented, a social burden or even brain dead. They are dead. I perceive life quite accurately. But the only life that is relevant in this discussion is the life that can be saved by the donated organs and tissues. This is not about abortion. This is about what happens to the remains of the aborted fetus.
It is perfectly consistent. An aborted fetus is dead. It is without life. No heartbeat, brain waves or other signs of life.
Once that has happened, what should be done with the remains? Should they be thrown in an incinerator or donated?
Good question. And it would make an excellent discussion. But it is not the issue in this case.
Then why involve yourself in the conversation? You should know where this conversation logically ends up. and I know it ends up at a double think dilemma, unless you are consistent with your beliefs. In that case Germany was justifiable to euthanize their mentally challenged as social fiscal burdensWhat about the act of aborting a fetus or causing the death of any other human without consent, when does that become wrong?How are they dead, and what is your definition. This is where your argument loses it's consistencyExcept the fetus is not autistic, old, demented, a social burden or even brain dead. They are dead. I perceive life quite accurately. But the only life that is relevant in this discussion is the life that can be saved by the donated organs and tissues. This is not about abortion. This is about what happens to the remains of the aborted fetus.
It is perfectly consistent. An aborted fetus is dead. It is without life. No heartbeat, brain waves or other signs of life.
Once that has happened, what should be done with the remains? Should they be thrown in an incinerator or donated?
Good question. And it would make an excellent discussion. But it is not the issue in this case.
Then why involve yourself in the conversation? You should know where this conversation logically ends up. and I know it ends up at a double think dilemma, unless you are consistent with your beliefs. In that case Germany was justifiable to euthanize their mentally challenged as social fiscal burdensWhat about the act of aborting a fetus or causing the death of any other human without consent, when does that become wrong?How are they dead, and what is your definition. This is where your argument loses it's consistencyExcept the fetus is not autistic, old, demented, a social burden or even brain dead. They are dead. I perceive life quite accurately. But the only life that is relevant in this discussion is the life that can be saved by the donated organs and tissues. This is not about abortion. This is about what happens to the remains of the aborted fetus.
It is perfectly consistent. An aborted fetus is dead. It is without life. No heartbeat, brain waves or other signs of life.
Once that has happened, what should be done with the remains? Should they be thrown in an incinerator or donated?
Good question. And it would make an excellent discussion. But it is not the issue in this case.
