Rick Santorum Is Insane

[KarlMarx]

That's interesting Karl, but I still don't know how that increase relates to sex ed classes. There could be a myriad of reasons for the increase. You have yet to prove your claim.

Actually, it does. The argument for sex education is that without it, kids would be having sex outside of marriage, having kids out of wedlock etc.
In fact the graph shows a marked increase in out of wedlock births since the 1960. The graph shows no decrease in the incidence of out of wedlock births since the introduction of sex education (which happened in the 1960s/1970s). Therefore, sex education has not lived up to its stated objective.

And you have yet to show that sex education has not been the cause of the increase nor proven otherwise. Similarly, AIDS education for the past two decades has not slowed down the epidemic, in fact infection rates are up.

In your opinion. As I stated in my previous post to MM, there could be several, valid reasons for the procedure.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html

http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9313pb.asp

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2NhNWQ2YTAxNzdlZGUzMWQ4ZmQ3NjM3MmY1MWJjZWM=

From Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

The fetus may have hydrocephalus, where the head may expand to a radius of up to 250% of a normal skull at birth, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. If live birth is desired, the physician may drain the excess fluid in utero using a syringe, or a caesarian section with a larger than usual incision can be used.

It is not infanticide if it is done for the reasons I stated. You may not like it, and if you and your partner do not have to go through with it if she becomes pregnant. If you can show me data of people having hte procedure "for the sake of it", then I think that is a fair point by you. If you can prove it...

Already did, links above....

As I said, they need to prove mens rea. If the only reason a person attacked somebody else is because they are gay or black or white or whatever, that aspect can now be proven as an ingrediant in a charge. Before it couldn't.

Hate crime legislation violates the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause. This is the same argument that is used to justify homosexual sodomy as a right. My murderer should not receive less of a sentence than someone that murders a gay or black person.

Jews, Gypsies and Slavs were foetus's/unborn??? hhmmmm

Oh, that's the game.... they're not human because you say they are. Thanks for letting us know who you think you are, but I believe that position is already filled by the Creator of the Universe

So you think others shouldn't be able to pursue happiness if their actions have no affect on others? How...um...nice and tolerant of you....

They already have had an effect on others. Abortion has wiped out the lives of over 30 million people and violated their right to life per the 5th amendment. To legalize gay marriage as you'd like i.e. by judicial decree, is to violate the rights of voters in the states as given in the 10th amendment. Hmm... how nice and democratic of you. You see, the issue goes beyond a woman's "choice" and the choice of two gay people wanting the same benefits of marriage as everyone else. The issue is how they get those rights. Civil rights is not a zero sum game, you don't give rights to one segment of the population by diminishing the rights of another.

1) Who said Salon were fair and balanced? I said they had conservatives on its books 2) Who said Horowitz was the only conservative on their books? 3) Yeah, Fox aren't balanced, or fair.

You're entitled to your opinion. In my opinion, Fox News does far more to be balanced than the New York Times (remember Jason Blair) and CBS (remember Dan Rather)

Being illegal doesn't stop people being discriminated against.

and????? how do you propose to stop it? By forcing quotas on people? what makes you think people won't find ways around those? I can give an example of how forced busing to acheive integration in Boston Public Schools did nothing to acheive their goals, but increased racial tensions.

I love the revisionist history - especially by peolpe from the south and conservatives - that the civil war was not about slavery. And why did they try and cede from the union Karl? I know that different lifestyles and values were also an issue, but to say slavery was not the major issue is not only untrue, but bordering on the disingenuous IMO..

You love a lot of things revisionist, it seems.



The issue was essentially slavery, but the war between the States was triggered over the seccession of the Southern States. Lincoln's primary objective was to preserve the Union.(http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/html/greeley4.htm) In addition, the Southern States left the Union because Lincoln was voted in. That meant that the majority of States would have ratified an amendment to the Constitution that abolished slavery. Again, your original claim that the voters if left to themselves would not have ended slavery is specious and not supported by fact. Women's suffrage and emancipation were both accomplished by amending the constitution, not by judicial fiat.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your bargain is fatally flawed. It is too narrow in its parameters and you don't have a better answer other than don't perform it. Conservatives try and give off the impression that the procedure is performed by some devil with horns who love to murder, maim and kill. That is YOUR premise. A flawed, untrue and inflammatory one just so you can try and get a very weak point across. You use emotive language to try and make out these doctors to be animals and the mothers likewise. These procedures are NOT a matter of course, nor are they taken lightly. As I said, if you can come up with a better method Dr MM I'm all ears. The fact you are dodging and weaving and not answering speaks volumes. I would think there are several reasons the mother's life could be in danger, which is why the procedure is carried out. That and severe disabilities. So, I reiterate once again, and would love an answer, outside of NOT performing the act, what other method would you use? Because, you know, doctors etc would purposefully make it the most grusome and unpleasant experience they could, right?

It's too avoid murder charges, when the mother doesn't want the kid, but didn't get an abortion earlier. Avoiding murder charges is a very concrete and undeniable motivator. It's on YOU to provide YOUR justification for this barbarity. Can you do it?

 

[musicman]

Your bargain is fatally flawed. It is too narrow in its parameters and you don't have a better answer other than don't perform it. Conservatives try and give off the impression that the procedure is performed by some devil with horns who love to murder, maim and kill. That is YOUR premise. A flawed, untrue and inflammatory one just so you can try and get a very weak point across. You use emotive language to try and make out these doctors to be animals and the mothers likewise. These procedures are NOT a matter of course, nor are they taken lightly. As I said, if you can come up with a better method Dr MM I'm all ears. The fact you are dodging and weaving and not answering speaks volumes. I would think there are several reasons the mother's life could be in danger, which is why the procedure is carried out. That and severe disabilities. So, I reiterate once again, and would love an answer, outside of NOT performing the act, what other method would you use? Because, you know, doctors etc would purposefully make it the most grusome and unpleasant experience they could, right?

Well, there's DELIVERING THE BABY ALIVE - which it would be if its skull weren't ripped open and its brain sucked out.

Am I to understand that you're abandoning the indefensible assertion that there can be some medical reason - concerning the health of the mother - for delivering a baby's body, but not it's intact head? If so, I applaud your common sense. If not, I suppose I'll have to spend my finite resources of time and energy finding a link that you and I both know exists. And, I'm not going to do that until you give me the satisfaction of some reasoned guess as to why delivering a living baby would pose a danger to the mother's health. I'm getting too old for these bullshit games; you've got to bring something to the table, Dr Grump. I won't do the tedious work until you first give me my chuckle.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Anything, grump? Anything of substance? You're really such a ridiculous and immoral, lying moron.

 

[Abbey Normal]

 

[MissileMan]

http://www.poverty.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1788
Note that the graph shows that out of wedlock births have increased fastest amongst teens.

But this study makes no mention of a corrolation between sex education and the increase...here's what the study claims as causes:

Accounting for the Increase In Out-of-Wedlock Births

The rise in single motherhood is not confined to low-income women, says Blank. While more-educated women still have lower overall rates of unwed births, the percentage increase in unwed births among better-educated women is actually greater than among less-educated women. Blank list the following reasons for the overall increase in out-of-wedlock births:

- Changes in the probability a married woman will give birth. The fertility rate among married women has declined as family size has declined. This trend is particularly evident among black women. When married couples have fewer children, even if there is no increase in nonmarital births, the out-of-wedlock birthrate goes up. Blank finds that roughly one-third of the rise in out-of-wedlock births has been driven by the change in family size.
- Changes in the probability an unmarried woman will give birth. While married women's fertility has declined, single women's fertility has increased, according to Blank. The probability that a single woman will give birth is only slightly higher than 30 years ago and remains well below the birthrate for married women.
- Changes in the relative number of unmarried to married women in the population. Blank says that the main factor driving the increase in the number of births to unmarried women is the fact that the number of unmarried women has grown enormously. This is most apparent in women ages 20 and over.

Without anything to back it up, I could just as easily say that the increase in unwed mothers is due to the advent of color television.

 

[Avatar4321]

The decision in Roe determined nothing more than that the governmental interest in the pregnancy does not outweigh the right of the individual to determine her own choices.

Would you prefer that men had veto power?

The Constitution was created so that we could preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are the three main interests of government. The governments interest in preserving life should not be outweighed by a selfish womans choice to be irresponsible.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But this study makes no mention of a corrolation between sex education and the increase...here's what the study claims as causes:


Without anything to back it up, I could just as easily say that the increase in unwed mothers is due to the advent of color television.

The elite culture of our country is infected with the anti-family pro-death liberal meme. Poor people have family values, and are denigrated by the left. A poor single mother, not indoctrinated by the nazi death culture of the university has more morality, than even the married elitist, pro-death liberal.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution was created so that we could preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are the three main interests of government. The governments interest in preserving life should not be outweighed by a selfish womans choice to be irresponsible.

And what about the irresponsible man?

It has always seemed to me that the anti-choice movement isn't about "life", it's about punishment.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And what about the irresponsible man?

It has always seemed to me that the anti-choice movement isn't about "life", it's about punishment.

That's a pretty misguided perception, jillian. Why is it you can never factor in a baby's right to live?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why is it liberals like Jillian think what Santorum did was "insane"?

imo to liberals a preborn baby is just a "fetus". In their politically conditioned minds a "fetus" is considered to be pretty much an undeveloped mass of tissue or at least certainly not yet a human being per se. At least that's what they'd like young pregnant mothers and the rest of the public to think. So of couse taking home a preborn "fetus" to show the other children would be considered "insane" and "child abuse". Also since liberals are pretty much against the family unit in general, they also probably don't like the idea of a family grieving together for what they don't yet consider to be a family member. (forget about all the family preparation and anticipation of the expected arrival)

At 20 weeks old Santorum's baby already had arms and legs and a face with eyes, nose, and ears. A preborn at that age can even hear things outside the mother's womb and react to noises. The child also has a slight chance of surviving outside the womb. At 20 weeks (4 mos), although quite tiny, a preborn baby looks just like - can u believe it - a little baby.

Liberals don't want people (including themselves i think) to really know that.

 

[KarlMarx]

But this study makes no mention of a corrolation between sex education and the increase...here's what the study claims as causes:


Without anything to back it up, I could just as easily say that the increase in unwed mothers is due to the advent of color television.

Sooooo, why hasn't sex education prevented any of this? The whole purpose of sex education was to prevent unwanted pregnancies and stop the spread of venereal disease. It has accomplished neither one of those objectives. Sex education is a failure.

If sex education were a drug manufactured by a pharmacutical company, it would have been ordered off of the shelves by the FDA decades ago.

 

[MissileMan]

Sooooo, why hasn't sex education prevented any of this? The whole purpose of sex education was to prevent unwanted pregnancies and stop the spread of venereal disease. It has accomplished neither one of those objectives. Sex education is a failure.

If sex education were a drug manufactured by a pharmacutical company, it would have been ordered off of the shelves by the FDA decades ago.

Imagine, if you will, how bad the situation would be if not for sex ed. As for its comparison to a medication, an apt one, like medication, it only works properly if used as directed. Urban legends like "you can't get pregnant the first time", misinformation like "condoms don't really prevent the spread of STDs", and bad advice like "you don't need any knowledge of birth control and disease prevention, just say no" have all undermined the effort.

 

[KarlMarx]

Imagine, if you will, how bad the situation would be if not for sex ed. As for its comparison to a medication, an apt one, like medication, it only works properly if used as directed. Urban legends like "you can't get pregnant the first time", misinformation like "condoms don't really prevent the spread of STDs", and bad advice like "you don't need any knowledge of birth control and disease prevention, just say no" have all undermined the effort.

No, actually, I can't imagine it, because, honestly, I don't think it would be this bad if we hadn't had it in the first place.

I don't consider a program that manages to raise out of wedlock birthrates for white teens from less than 10% to almost 60% in thirty years and the out of wedlock birthrate for black teens to nearly 100% to be a success. . In fact, I don't consider to be a failure, either. I consider it to be an abysmal failure.

The mantra from liberals to justify their failures is always the same. Sure, it's a failure, but just imagine how bad it would be if we didn't squander all this money on these ineffective programs? I hardly think that the kids are listening to their teachers. After all, if they aren't doing too well on their SATs for subjects like Math and Science, by what miracle do you expect them to listen to their teachers for this sort of thing?

Frankly, the money could be better spent by getting the government out of what should be a parental responsibility. Now, I will give you this. If there are parents really want to have their kids exposed to sex ed (and I know there are), then let's get school vouchers legalized. Parents that want this sort of thing taught to their kids can enroll them in a private school that teaches it, those of us who don't can send them to a private school that doesn't. The same thing with school prayer, teaching Intelligent Design vs Evolution and so forth. These arguments would be entirely moot points if the government got out of the education business altogether and let the private sector school our kids. The most the government should do is determine standards, certifying schools, and that can be done at the state level. Schools can collaborate to find effective ways to provide a quality education for a reasonable cost and make money doing it. Imagine, no more Supreme Court determining what our kids are supposed to be learning, it boggles the imagination, doesn't it? Supreme Court judges can tend to more important matters, like coming up with new rights.... like the right of citizens to be free from government interference in deciding what is best for their children.

Politicians like Al Gore, the Clintons and most of Capital Hill send their kids to private schools. The reason is that they know that while they trust the Teachers' Unions to pay for their campaigns, they don't trust Teachers' Unions with their kids' education (and who said Hillary Clinton wasn't a good mom?). They know but don't want you to know an ugly fact .... public schools suck. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean never went to public school. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for Mr and Ms John Doe. Instead of arguing about how many condoms fit on the head of a penis, or arguing whether we should teach our kids whose image they made in, God's or Zippy the Chimp's, perhaps we ought to be figuring out how to make private schools affordable to the masses.

 

[MissileMan]

I don't consider a program that manages to raise out of wedlock birthrates for white teens from less than 10% to almost 60% in thirty years and the out of wedlock birthrate for black teens to nearly 100% to be a success. . In fact, I don't consider to be a failure, either. I consider it to be an abysmal failure.

You STILL haven't established cause and effect....like I said, at this point you might as well blame color TV. Your own source for these numbers makes NO mention of sex-ed....wonder why?

 

[Dr Grump]

In fact the graph shows a marked increase in out of wedlock births since the 1960. The graph shows no decrease in the incidence of out of wedlock births since the introduction of sex education (which happened in the 1960s/1970s). Therefore, sex education has not lived up to its stated objective.

It does show a marked increase since the 1960s. In 1960 the US population was 179 million.(http://www.mindspring.com/~hlthdata/dpop1960.html) Today it is almost 300 million. I would have expected it to increase. If you look at black teenage women you will see it has bottomed out since 1984. Also from your own link: It is important to note that the actual number out-of-wedlock teen births is not large, Blank writes. In 1990, less than 350,000 unwed teenagers gave birth, out of a total population of 8.5 million women between the ages of 15 and 19. In fact, these births accounted for less than 9% of the 4 million births in the United States.

And you have yet to show that sex education has not been the cause of the increase nor proven otherwise. Similarly, AIDS education for the past two decades has not slowed down the epidemic, in fact infection rates are up.

I'm not the one saying sex education has no benefits, you are, therefore it is for you to prove. Actually AIDS infections went down and then bottomed out, but seemed to have increased in Africa. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html

http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9313pb.asp

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2NhNWQ2YTAxNzdlZGUzMWQ4ZmQ3NjM3MmY1MWJjZWM=

From Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion
Already did, links above....

Not really. For a start they are very biased sites and they do not give independent links to varify their information. But let's say for the sake of argument they are correct, it still states that a great number are performed due to the mother's health and the child being physically or mentally disabled. It does also mention elective PBA's too, which I do not support.

Hate crime legislation violates the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause. This is the same argument that is used to justify homosexual sodomy as a right. My murderer should not receive less of a sentence than someone that murders a gay or black person.

As far as I know your murderer doesn't receive a lesser sentence. If there is the DP they get it no matter what the reason. And I ain't gonna explain mens rea to you again.

Oh, that's the game.... they're not human because you say they are. Thanks for letting us know who you think you are, but I believe that position is already filled by the Creator of the Universe.

Oh, and they are human because you say they are? So your opinion makes YOU the creator of the universe? As an aside, in case you didn't know, I don't believe in a creator, so to me that argument is vacuous. And when it comes to the abortion argument, those that are radical in being anti-abortion, 99.9% of the time, in my experience, are ultra-conservative/conservative Christians. As soon as religion is brought into the argument, you can see why people want the separation of church and state.

They already have had an effect on others. Abortion has wiped out the lives of over 30 million people and violated their right to life per the 5th amendment. To legalize gay marriage as you'd like i.e. by judicial decree, is to violate the rights of voters in the states as given in the 10th amendment. Hmm... how nice and democratic of you. You see, the issue goes beyond a woman's "choice" and the choice of two gay people wanting the same benefits of marriage as everyone else. The issue is how they get those rights. Civil rights is not a zero sum game, you don't give rights to one segment of the population by diminishing the rights of another.

I love how you try and use the "how dare you impose you will one me" argument to do EXACTLY that to others. Don't you see the hypocrisy? There are six billion people on this planet. 30 million more is here nor there. Maybe if the neocons realised that people like sex for the sake of it, including young adults and those in their late teens, and lightened up on the education aspects and didn't treat it as some dirty little act if done outside of marriage then a lot of those abortion wouldn't occur. I reiterate I saw a doco on Texas purity pledgers, whose pregnacy rate ended up higher than the norm.

The issue is how they get those rights. Civil rights is not a zero sum game, you don't give rights to one segment of the population by diminishing the rights of another.

If gays can marry how have your rights been affected one iota? You are no longer allowed to marry??

You're entitled to your opinion. In my opinion, Fox News does far more to be balanced than the New York Times (remember Jason Blair) and CBS (remember Dan Rather)

Of course I remember Jayson Blair. Let's just take one example and try and make it the norm, eh? And what happened to Blair? Oh, that's right he got fired. As for Dan Rather, he had a stellar career with the odd bump or two. Again, you treat the Bush story as if it was the norm. Got any more straws you want to clutch?

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm getting too old for these bullshit games; you've got to bring something to the table, Dr Grump. I won't do the tedious work until you first give me my chuckle.

And I'm getting too old for the "our whole world is a mess due to liberals" when both sides of the coin are to blame. For your argument to hold any validation you have to believe that these doctors are cruel, evil men/women who love to cause pain to others. You act like PBA's where "invented" to be as cruel as possible. You think doctors who discovered/used this procedure found easier ways but decided "oh fuck it, let's just make it as messy and as horrible as possible". Until you can at least be honest about that aspect of it, I ain't bringing anything to the table. Life's too short for inflammatory rhetoric with no substance. If I wanted that I could watch Hannity, Coulter, Springer and my all-time fav O'Reilly.

 

[Dr Grump]

Anything, grump? Anything of substance? You're really such a ridiculous and immoral, lying moron.

And you sir are a brilliant scholar with a moral compass that every human should aspire, coupled with a razor-sharp intellect and in-depth analysistic mind that makes Einstein look like lobotomised gorilla!

 

[KarlMarx]

It does show a marked increase since the 1960s. In 1960 the US population was 179 million.(http://www.mindspring.com/~hlthdata/dpop1960.html) Today it is almost 300 million. I would have expected it to increase. If you look at black teenage women you will see it has bottomed out since 1984. Also from your own link: It is important to note that the actual number out-of-wedlock teen births is not large, Blank writes. In 1990, less than 350,000 unwed teenagers gave birth, out of a total population of 8.5 million women between the ages of 15 and 19. In fact, these births accounted for less than 9% of the 4 million births in the United States.

The PERCENTAGE of births being out of wedlock births is not a function of increasing population. By your line of thinking, if the population doubles again, then, for instance, the percentage of black teens with out of wedlock births would be nearly 200%. That isn't possible.

The fact that the figure for black teens has "bottomed out" since 1984 is because it is close to 100%. It can't go up any further. That graph says that, since 1984, nearly ALL births to black teens have been out of wedlock.

If sex education were of no effect, the percentage to be the same, i.e. the curve would be flat. If it actually did its job, the percentage would decrease and the curve would tend downwards. In addition, if sex education was effective, then it would have reflected in the behavior of those children as adults. Again, out of wedlock births increased as a percentage among adults, too.

I'm not the one saying sex education has no benefits, you are, therefore it is for you to prove. Actually AIDS infections went down and then bottomed out, but seemed to have increased in Africa. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

No... AIDS infections are on the increase in the United States.

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/F...Epidemic-in-the-United-States-2005-Update.pdf

This link has a graph that shows that the number of new AIDS cases has stopped decreasing and is showing an increase.

Grump, I already provided proof, now it's up to you to show me otherwise. I have better things to do than to play your silly game.

NOt reall. For a start they are very biased sites and they do not give independent links to varify their information. But let's say for the sake of argument they are correct, it still states that a great number are performed due to the mother's health and the child being physically or mentally disabled. It does also mention elective PBA's too, which I do not support.

The only sites you will accept are those that will support your position. You haven't provided any proof to support your side of the argument, when I challenge you to do so, you tell me it's up to me to provide proof. I already have. Wikipedia isn't a biased site, either. It clearly states that in the case of hydroencephaly, a procedure exists to deliver the baby without killing it.

As far as I know your murderer doesn't receive a lesser sentence. If there is the DP they get it no matter what the reason. And I ain't gonna explain mens rea to you again.

So what is the purpose of being accused of a crime if there is no difference in sentencing?

Oh, and they are human because you say they are? So your opinion makes YOU the creator of the universe? As an aside, in case you didn't know, I don't believe in a creator, so to me that argument is vacuous. And when it comes to the abortion argument, those that are radical in being anti-abortion, 99.9% of the time, in my experience, are ultra-conservative/conservative Christians. As soon as religion is brought into the argument, you can see why people want the separation of church and state.

Well, the fact that you are an atheist doesn't really surprise me. Your argument that fetuses aren't human are eerily similar to those advanced by Hitler when he spoke of the Jews and of the slave owners in the antebellum South.

Back to my claim.Yes, they are humans. They have human chromosomes, they have human organs, they're born and become adult humans.

For your information, the "people" didn't bring about "separation of church and state". That is another case of judicial activism.

I love how you try and use the "how dare you impose you will one me" argument to do EXACTLY that to others. Don't you see the hypocrisy? There are six billion people on this planet. 30 million more is here nor there. Maybe if the neocons realised that people like sex for the sake of it, including young adults and those in their late teens, and lightened up on the education aspects and didn't treat it as some dirty little act if done outside of marriage then a lot of those abortion wouldn't occur. I reiterate I saw a doco on Texas purity pledgers, whose pregnacy rate ended up higher than the norm.

What leads you to believe that the documentary you saw wasn't biased? Any way, that is one instance. That doesn't mean that abstinence based education doesn't work.

I can come up with an example that did work

http://www.ncrhp.uic.edu/copcprojec...Abstinence Based Sexual Education Program.pdf

If gays can marry how have your rights been affected one iota? You are no longer allowed to marry??

Grump, read my post again. I said, that my right to VOTE on issues has been violated.

Of course I remember Jayson Blair. Let's just take one example and try and make it the norm, eh. And what happened to Blair? Oh, that's right he got fired. As for Dan Rather, he had a stellar career with the odd bump or two. Again, you treat the Bush story as if it was the norm. Got any more straws you want to clutch?

Blair was fired only after intense public pressure on the New York Times. The result of which was due to information about the whole affair from conservative media. Dan Rather had a history of reporting fiction for the sake of sensationalism.

http://www.jfkmurder.com/rather.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5324&R=EBF6A2D

 

[musicman]

And I'm getting too old for the "our whole world is a mess due to liberals" when both sides of the coin are to blame.

For partial-birth abortions???!!!

For your argument to hold any validation you have to believe that these doctors are cruel, evil men/women who love to cause pain to others.

Why? This is totally irrelevant nonsense, Dr Grump.

You act like PBA's where "invented" to be as cruel as possible.

They were "invented" to enable a mother and an abortionist to terminate a late-term pregnancy without facing infanticide charges, since technically, what is delivered is a corpse. I find the procedure appallingly cruel, but it was "invented' in order to allow very selfish people to tap dance around the law.

You think doctors who discovered/used this procedure found easier ways but decided "oh fuck it, let's just make it as messy and as horrible as possible".

Dr Grump, I must insist that, in the future, you debate me on the words I actually post.

Moreover, I find little to need to embellish a description of partial-birth abortion. Perhaps you can find a prettier way of relating what happens; if so, perhaps you should consider pursuing a career in mainstream jounalism. They are past masters as packaging and prersenting shit as filet mignon.

Until you can at least be honest about that aspect of it,

I defy you to show where I've been dishonest in any way.

I ain't bringing anything to the table.

Yeah - I've noticed that.

Life's too short for inflammatory rhetoric with no substance.

There is nothing unsubstantive about gruesome, willful murder. It's inflammatory as all hell, though - I'll admit. I just don't know of any cheerful, "let's keep this light, guys" way to describe it.

If I wanted that I could watch Hannity, Coulter, Springer and my all-time fav O'Reilly.

There's no disgrace in admitting you can't defend the indefensible, Dr Grump. Come on - try it. You wouldn't believe how liberating it is to just face the truth.