Rick Santorum Is Insane

[nt250]

She doesnt care. She knows that the article doesnt say play. She read it herself obviously. She has also had several of us point it out to her.

But she continues to use it. Why? I dont know. But its not intellectually honest.

Was Senator Santorums methods alittle unorthadox? yes. However, I hardly see how mourning and singing to a dead child equate to making his children "Play" with him. There is nothing wrong with holding a dead body in the mourning stage. Nor is there anything wrong with singing as part of the mourning process.

The fact is she dislikes his politics. But rather deal with anything he actually stands for she tries to twist things to discredit him. And whats incredibly sick about this is she is trying to use his dead child to do it.

Like I said earlier, it says more about her then Senator Santorum. Especially since most people here have no choice whether he is reelected or not. I do though. And he is staying.

Her subject says it all.

By the way, I read that Santorum is way behind in the polls.

 

[Dr Grump]

a. Sex education and AIDS education in public schools which is nothing more than a leftist attempt to promote their world view and introduce a deviant lifestyle with proven health risks as a "alternative lifestyle choice". Since sex education was introduced in this country, we've managed to increase out of wedlock births in this country by a factor of at least 10 and have experienced epidemics of venereal disease.

What is wrong with sex education? You think high school kids shouldn't be informed about sex? And why is it on a recent doco I saw on abstinance pledges in Texas that the rate of pregnancy and STDs amongst those kids taking those pledges was ABOVE the norm. Can you also give a link to show the correlation between teaching sex ed and increases in out or wedlock births and VD epidemics.

One of the cornerstones of liberalism "Roe vs. Wade" - in other words, the liberal elite has decided that the voters do not have the right to vote on abortion, instead, by judicial fiat, abortion is now legal. And partial birth abortion is defended to the last standing man by the abortion lobby. All that noise about Bush judicial nominees, the smearing of Justice Thomas by Anita Hill, the "borking" of Bork? That was all because of Roe v Wade.... how extreme is that?

No, you have the right NOT to have an abortion. You also have the right to HAVE an abortion. Both sides have their way. Nobody is forcing ANYBODY to have an abortion. As for the partial farce, what figures to have that partial birth abortions are ELECTIVE. I would say 1) they are rare and 2) they are done for very serious reasons - not frivolous. I am more than happy for you to prove me wrong.

d. Confiscatory taxes that mostly go to fund, social programs that the Left has dreamed up.

I agree, there is too much tax.

e. Hate Crime legislation - killing a person is a crime, but killing a black or a gay person is a REALLY big crime. Since when is a gay person or a black person better and of more worth than I am?

You are really stretching it here. The spirit of hate crime legislation is to let people know that it is NOT Ok to attack people due to their race or sexual orientation. It DOES cut both ways. If a gay person attacks a straight person due to their sexual orientation, they can be had up for a hate crime. Part of the hate crime ingredient in the legislation is that it has to PROVEN that part of the reason for the attack was due ot the race or sexual orientation. IOW, when a white person attacks a black person or vice versa it is not automatically a hate crime. Like any law, the ingredients have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

f. Gay marriage - well, if that isn't judicial activism and an attempt to get around the will of the people, I don't know what is. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ORDERED the Boston Legislative Branch to draft legislation making gay marriage legal in that state?!??!?! That is an outright abuse of power. The judicial branch cannot do that. And in California, where the voters had already gone to the polls and decided to keep gay marriage illegal, the Left does what? Ignore the will of the people, go ahead and perform gay marriage!

The constitution allows people to persue happiness, no? Why should a group of people not be allowed to due to the bigotry of others?

j. The liberal media - far from being fair, objective or anything close. When Fox News appears, a network that simply reports both sides of the story, not just the DNC approved version, liberals scream bloody murder.

Fox is hardly fair and objective, and the MSM is both conservative and liberal IMO. Conservatives, especially neocons, like to squeal loud and long about how liberal the media is, but it is not borne out by facts. I did read one report where two guys supposedly did a "comprehesive" survey. It took about 10 minutes to find more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. I think ALL media needs a kick up the butt...

l. Conservatives want to ALLOW prayer in schools, liberal MANDATE that it cannot be, because of a fictitious construct known as "separation of church and state". Leftist organizations have gone to court to prevent Bible Clubs from meeting on school grounds after hours, prevent prayer at High School commencements, mandate that Nativity scenes be removed from town halls, tablets of the Ten Commandments be removed from public buildings.... is atheism now the State Religion?

I agree some of this is OTT by the left. I think people should be allowed to pray in school. Those that want to pray, pray. Those that don't, don't. Can't see what the problem is. The left is playing into the conservative's hands IMO. Athism becoming the state religion? Doesn't even pass the giggle test. I am all for the ten commandments being on public buildings as long as parts of the Koran, Talmud etc are too...

j. Did I forget to mention, gender and racial based preferences for hiring, promotion, and admission into colleges? Some of which are federally mandated?

While I agree that sucks, there was a time when gender and race WERE an issue. I think that is almost gone now and legislation needs to be revised. In saying that, women STILL don't earn equal pay parity to men doing the same or similar jobs - well in the surveys I've seen.

m. Environmental policies that prevent managing forests and wildlife in environmentally friendly and level headed ways that have been pushed through by enviromental activists (or "whackos" as some like say) that have resulted in overpopulation of certain animal species and wildfires.

And if big corporations could show jsut a little give instead of take, take, take these "whackos' wouldn't have a case. But they don't. To corporations, greed is good/god. All that matters is the shareholders. If the guards can't be trusted to hold onto the keys to the madhouse, they better try a little introspection, no?

n. Suing, regulating and suing yet again over tobacco, too much fat in our food, too much alcohol, Red Dye #7, too much meat, too little fiber, too much sugar, too much transfat, not enough tofu, too much caffeine in our food.

That's fine, but why don't manufacturers just come clean about what they produce? There is a reason they fight things like mandatory labelling of food and it's not because they care about punters...

Jillian, it's one thing to have a cause that you're passionate about and willing to fight for. That is one thing that freedom allows. It's quite another to legally require everyone and their grandmother to support your cause and be subjected to your world view.

You mean like stopping abortion or not allowing gay marriage?

That isn't respecting the freedom of others to choose. Freedom means having freedom to make choices then taking responsibility for the consequences.

Cool, then you won't care if gays marry, right?

Other people are entitled to their opinions, they aren't entitled to yours.

Cuts both ways karl

Exercising my First Amendment right to disagree with the Left or the Right does not entitle you to ad hominem attack on my character. That is something the Left doesn't seem to get either. In my opinion, the Left's habitually tries to win an argument by digging up a disagreeable fact about the opposition. That's a piss poor way to win an argument, other people stop doing it about the 2nd grade.

I see daily attacks on the left all the time. It is not a one-way street. To try to say only ONE side does it, or that ONE side does it predominantly is not only false but disingenuous. Nobody is innocent.

 

[Abbey Normal]

AGAIN
If you find it insulting when jewish belief systems are challenged, It might behoove you to not challenge other religious practices. You don't get to have it both ways.

:rotflmao:

Be ready for this, my friend:

 

[Abbey Normal]

How do you equate expressing a farewell and singing songs "playing" with a dead baby? The man let his children say goodbye to their sibling to help them understand what was going on. If you think that means they were "playing" with the dead body then its you who has the problem. Because you are reading something into it that simply isnt there. And why? Because you want this man to lose an election. You are trying to use a dead mans child to soil his good name for political purposes. Now that to me is sick.

Wow. How sick and unsettling, Mr Santorum! Don't you prefer a good old fashioned lib-endorsed partial birth abortion? Cracking an infant's skull and sucking it's brains out; so stable, no gross factor there. So much better than all that insane cuddling of your infant.

P.S. This may be the single most mean and pathetic thread I have ever seen.

 

[Dr Grump]

P.S. This may be the single most mean and pathetic thread I have ever seen.

If that's the case you need to get out more...

 

[KarlMarx]

What is wrong with sex education? You think high school kids shouldn't be informed about sex? And why is it on a recent doco I saw on abstinance pledges in Texas that the rate of pregnancy and STDs amongst those kids taking those pledges was ABOVE the norm. Can you also give a link to show the correlation between teaching sex ed and increases in out or wedlock births and VD epidemics.

There is nothing wrong with sex education, except for the fact that it doesn't work. The number of out of wedlock births and increase in venereal disease over the past two or three decades is well known. Sex education was supposed to prevent that from happening, remember?

No, you have the right NOT to have an abortion. You also have the right to HAVE an abortion. Both sides have their way. Nobody is forcing ANYBODY to have an abortion. As for the partial farce, what figures to have that partial birth abortions are ELECTIVE. I would say 1) they are rare and 2) they are done for very serious reasons - not frivolous. I am more than happy for you to prove me wrong.

Abortions are not rare, over a million occur each year in this country alone. Abortions are done for sex selection, convenience and many other reasons, those are frivolous in my opinion. You misunderstood what I meant regarding the right to an abortion. Before Roe vs Wade, the voters of each state decided whether to allow abortion in their states. Roe vs. Wade took that right away.



I agree, there is too much tax.

You are really stretching it here. The spirit of hate crime legislation is to let people know that it is NOT Ok to attack people due to their race or sexual orientation. It DOES cut both ways. If a gay person attacks a straight person due to their sexual orientation, they can be had up for a hate crime. Part of the hate crime ingredient in the legislation is that it has to PROVEN that part of the reason for the attack was due ot the race or sexual orientation. IOW, when a white person attacks a black person or vice versa it is not automatically a hate crime. Like any law, the ingredients have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It was already illegal for a gay person to murder a straight person before hate crime legislation came along. All hate crime legislation does is create designated victim groups. It also opens up the possibility that more groups will eventually be cover by such legislation. How about short people? Blind people? And oh by the way, why aren't unborn infants covered by this legislation? I mean, if there ever were a group of people who can't protect themselves, it's the unborn.

The constitution allows people to persue happiness, no? Why should a group of people not be allowed to due to the bigotry of others?

No, the constitution does not allow people to persue happiness. The constitution of the United States describes how our government is to operate and enumerates the rights of its citizens. By the way, who determines bigotry? You? The Left? What about bigotry against Christians? Against whites? Against men?

Fox is hardly fair and objective, and the MSM is both conservative and liberal IMO. Conservatives, especially neocons, like to squeal loud and long about how liberal the media is, but it is not borne out by facts. I did read one report where two guys supposedly did a "comprehesive" survey. It took about 10 minutes to find more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. I think ALL media needs a kick up the butt...

Baloney. The MSM is not conservative. The New York Times and CBS are two good examples of the liberal slant in the media. The "facts" that you cite are from liberal think tanks, no doubt. At least Fox News hires reporters and contributors from both sides of the political spectrum. Their contributors includes journalists from the Weekly Standard, which is conservative, to NPR, which definitely is not.


I agree some of this is OTT by the left. I think people should be allowed to pray in school. Those that want to pray, pray. Those that don't, don't. Can't see what the problem is. The left is playing into the conservative's hands IMO. Athism becoming the state religion? Doesn't even pass the giggle test. I am all for the ten commandments being on public buildings as long as parts of the Koran, Talmud etc are too...

While I agree that sucks, there was a time when gender and race WERE an issue. I think that is almost gone now and legislation needs to be revised. In saying that, women STILL don't earn equal pay parity to men doing the same or similar jobs - well in the surveys I've seen.

It has been illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The disparities in pay between men and women are due in a large part to the fact that many women take time off for maternity leave. Many women work part time in order to raise children. People should be hired and promoted on the basis of merit alone.

And if big corporations could show jsut a little give instead of take, take, take these "whackos' wouldn't have a case. But they don't. To corporations, greed is good/god. All that matters is the shareholders. If the guards can't be trusted to hold onto the keys to the madhouse, they better try a little introspection, no?

Corporations aren't the problem. The wildfires in California a few years ago were due in large part to laws prohibiting forest management of state owned land. Dead trees and dead underbrush could not be cut down or removed because of environmental policies. That helped provide fuel for the wild fires. In Yellowstone national park and in other federally owned lands, deer populations have soared to the point that they have destroyed many trees and other part of the environment. Corporations had nothing to do with this. The fact is, that we have a much cleaner environment now than thirty years ago. Furthermore, countries with a high GDPs, e.g. our own have cleaner environments than poor countries, e.g. India and China. Economic prosperity seems to be the key to a cleaner environment. BTW... the biggest domestic terrorist organization are ELF and ALF (Environmental Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front). Both of these organization use terrorism to advance their far left environmentalist agenda.

You mean like stopping abortion or not allowing gay marriage?

Cool, then you won't care if gays marry, right?

Let's talk about a more fundamental right, the right of the citizenry to CHOOSE whether to allow these things. That's a right, too. And a right that is enumerated in the Constitution (you know, the docuement you think says people have a right to be happy?). If the citizenry of a state wants gay marriage, they would vote it in. That's how women got the vote. And yes, I do care if gays are allowed to marry, I just want my right to express my opinion where it matters most preserved, i.e. in the voting booth. I don't want an federally appointed oligarch who has no accountability (i.e. a judge) making that decision for me.

Cuts both ways karl

Right, tell that to a conservative that gets pelted with eggs at a university next time. The left does not tolerate dissent, it's history bears testimony to that.

 

[musicman]

Wow. How sick and unsettling, Mr Santorum! Don't you prefer a good old fashioned lib-endorsed partial birth abortion? Cracking an infant's skull and sucking it's brains out; so stable, no gross factor there. So much better than all that insane cuddling of your infant.

P.S. This may be the single most mean and pathetic thread I have ever seen.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Abbey Normal again...

...and that's a pity; this is a five-star post.

 

[Dr Grump]

There is nothing wrong with sex education, except for the fact that it doesn't work. The number of out of wedlock births and increase in venereal disease over the past two or three decades is well known. Sex education was supposed to prevent that from happening, remember?

And I asked you to back up your opinion by providing stats that show that the reason there are more out of wedlock births is due to sex education being introduced. BTW, while you're digging up your facts, is that out of wedlock increase in births per head of population or actual population since sex ed began? After all, in your initial post to Jillian you did say, and I quote "You have the right to voice your opinions, but by God, so do I and I do have the right to ask you to back up what you say with facts."

Abortions are not rare, over a million occur each year in this country alone. Abortions are done for sex selection, convenience and many other reasons, those are frivolous in my opinion. You misunderstood what I meant regarding the right to an abortion. Before Roe vs Wade, the voters of each state decided whether to allow abortion in their states. Roe vs. Wade took that right away.

I never said abortions were rare. I said "partial birth abortions"...big difference..

It was already illegal for a gay person to murder a straight person before hate crime legislation came along. All hate crime legislation does is create designated victim groups. It also opens up the possibility that more groups will eventually be cover by such legislation. How about short people? Blind people? And oh by the way, why aren't unborn infants covered by this legislation? I mean, if there ever were a group of people who can't protect themselves, it's the unborn.

Of course it was, but the legislation was more to do with people getting beaten up, not murdered. In order to make a charge stick you need prove the actus reas (the act) and mens rea (mental intention). I would suggest that part of the hate crime legislation is that part of the mens rea, or motive, is that you attacked somebody due to their gender, race, sexuality. The hate crime legislation is saying if you attack somebody for those reason we're gonna arrest you. I have no problem with that. Attacking somebody just for the sole reason of their race should be punished in a civilised society. Should a person be arrested for assault? Sure. But if some 20 year old hit some other guy because he felt up the 20-year old's girlfriend at a party I'd have more sympathy for him than if he hit somebody because they were black, white or green.

.I mean, if there ever were a group of people who can't protect themselves, it's the unborn.

Only if you believe they are human, and if you have that belief and you fall pregnant, don't have an abortion.

No, the constitution does not allow people to persue happiness. The constitution of the United States describes how our government is to operate and enumerates the rights of its citizens. By the way, who determines bigotry? You? The Left? What about bigotry against Christians? Against whites? Against men?

Any bigotry is bad. As for allowing to persue happiness, it is within the spirit of the constitution. And before you go off on a tangent about killing people making you happy therefore trying to prove my argument invalid, I would suggest that persuing happiness not at the cost of hurting others...

.
Baloney. The MSM is not conservative. The New York Times and CBS are two good examples of the liberal slant in the media. The "facts" that you cite are from liberal think tanks, no doubt. At least Fox News hires reporters and contributors from both sides of the political spectrum. Their contributors includes journalists from the Weekly Standard, which is conservative, to NPR, which definitely is not.

I totally disagree re Fox. I would find it one of most unbalanced, biased news organisations anywhere. I'm not saying the MSM is conservative at all, not just as liberal as conservatives would like to sell it. Most publishers and owners are conservative by a long shot. As for Fox hiring lefties, David Horowitz was a columnist for Salon (still could be), and most other outlets have conservatives on their books.

It has been illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The disparities in pay between men and women are due in a large part to the fact that many women take time off for maternity leave. Many women work part time in order to raise children. People should be hired and promoted on the basis of merit alone.

I agree with your last sentence, however I think the pay parity issue is a bit deeper than raising children and maternity leave....

Let's talk about a more fundamental right, the right of the citizenry to CHOOSE whether to allow these things. That's a right, too. And a right that is enumerated in the Constitution (you know, the docuement you think says people have a right to be happy?). If the citizenry of a state wants gay marriage, they would vote it in. That's how women got the vote. And yes, I do care if gays are allowed to marry, I just want my right to express my opinion where it matters most preserved, i.e. in the voting booth. I don't want an federally appointed oligarch who has no accountability (i.e. a judge) making that decision for me.

If the citizenry had the right to choose some states would not have outlawed slavery. When a group of people who have no impact on your life directly are marganalised, then it is bad law period. You may not like, but I don't like mint choc chip ice cream but I don't want it to be stopped being made. If everybody wanted legislation against things they didn't like, but had no affect on their lives, the world would be a shambles. You may not want a federally appointed oligarch to make that decision for you, but you sure don't mind making the decision for gay people do you?

Right, tell that to a conservative that gets pelted with eggs at a university next time. The left does not tolerate dissent, it's history bears testimony to that.

Like liberals never get their butts kicked...

 

[musicman]

As for the partial farce, what figures to have that partial birth abortions are ELECTIVE. I would say 1) they are rare and 2) they are done for very serious reasons - not frivolous. I am more than happy for you to prove me wrong.

Then start gettin' happy, Dr Grump. This "farce" - this gruesome procedure - is NEVER, EVER necessary for the "health of the mother". What possible harm would not crushing the baby's skull do to the mother? What is she being "protected" from - second thoughts? Feelings of (gasp) remorse? Maybe she's afraid the baby will BITE her on the way out (not that I'd blame him/her)?

No - the only reason for this ghastly practice is to ensure that what is delivered is - indisputably - a corpse, thus protecting mother and abortionist from charges of infanticide. So, in a way, I guess you're right. Wanting to avoid prison time for one's own murderous, self-centered "choices" would certainly be a "very serious reason"; not frivolous at all.

 

[KarlMarx]

And I asked you to back up your opinion by providing stats that show that the reason there are more out of wedlock births is due to sex education being introduced. BTW, while you're digging up your facts, is that out of wedlock increase in births per head of population or actual population since sex ed began? After all, in your initial post to Jillian you did say, and I quote "You have the right to voice your opinions, but by God, so do I and I do have the right to ask you to back up what you say with facts."

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.

I never said abortions were rare. I said "partial birth abortions"...big difference..

If you define partial birth abortion as one that occurs in the final trimester, relatively few occur (only several thousand). But, partial birth abortion is still legally sanctioned murder. The baby is viable at that point. There is no need for a partial birth abortion, period.

Abortion denies a person the right to life per the 5th amendment. There is no due process of law, the person is treated like the property of the mother (as in slavery). Defending partial birth abortion is indefensible, it is nothing more than infanticide.

Of course it was, but the legislation was more to do with people getting beaten up, not murdered. In order to make a charge stick you need prove the actus reas (the act) and mens rea (mental intention). I would suggest that part of the hate crime legislation is that part of the mens rea, or motive, is that you attacked somebody due to their gender, race, sexuality. The hate crime legislation is saying if you attack somebody for those reason we're gonna arrest you. I have no problem with that. Attacking somebody just for the sole reason of their race should be punished in a civilised society. Should a person be arrested for assault? Sure. But if some 20 year old hit some other guy because he felt up the 20-year old's girlfriend at a party I'd have more sympathy for him than if he hit somebody because they were black, white or green.

What does it matter? If I attack someone because they are gay or if they owe me money should make no difference. The act of attacking someone should be punished, not what they think.

Only if you believe they are human, and if you have that belief and you fall pregnant, don't have an abortion.

Using that logic, then the Holocaust didn't happen. After all, Jews, Gypsies and Slavs weren't human in the Nazis' eyes, either

Any bigotry is bad. As for allowing to persue happiness, it is within the spirit of the constitution. And before you go off on a tangent about killing people making you happy therefore trying to prove my argument invalid, I would suggest that persuing happiness not at the cost of hurting others...

No, the spirit of the constitution is not in happiness. It is limited government, if anything. The founders were convinced that government was, at best, a necessary evil and should be limited. That is why we have a three sided government, with checks and balances on each. In addition, the Founders gave us the Bill of Rights, which enumerated our rights. However, in the Tenth Amendment, the founders said that those rights not enumerated in that document are up to the voters in the states to grant or deny (like abortion and gay marriage).

I totally disagree re Fox. I would find it one of most unbalanced, biased news organisations anywhere. I'm not saying the MSM is conservative at all, not just as liberal as conservatives would like to sell it. Most publishers and owners are conservative by a long shot. As for Fox hiring lefties, David Horowitz was a columnist for Salon (still could be), and most other outlets have conservatives on their books.

David Horowitz may be a writer for Salon, but how does hiring one conservative make Salon fair and balanced, and Fox News does the same thing, even moreso, they aren't?

I agree with your last sentence, however I think the pay parity issue is a bit deeper than raising children and maternity leave....

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, that is the gist of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If women lag in pay, it isn't because they are being paid less than men for doing the same thing. That statement is based on the average pay for all women versus the average pay for all men. Women are not being excluded from jobs they wish to enter, they are simply not choosing to enter certain fields. The only thing that should be guaranteed is that women and men have the same opportunities, not whether the average pay for all women is exactly that of all men.

If the citizenry had the right to choose some states would not have outlawed slavery. When a group of people who have no impact on your life directly are marganalised, then it is bad law period. You may not like, but I don't like mint choc chip ice cream but I don't want it to be stopped being made. If everybody wanted legislation against things they didn't like, but had no affect on their lives, the world would be a shambles. You may not want a federally appointed oligarch to make that decision for you, but you sure don't mind making the decision for gay people do you?

A specious argument. The Civil War was fought primarily over the fact that the Southern States ceded from the Union, not over slavery. In addition, slavery was only abolished by Lincoln in Southern states. The 14th amendment, which was ratified by Congress after the Civil War, abolished slavery (the ratification process includes the requirement that the legislatures of 2/3 of the states vote for the amendment). So, in effect, the voters of the states did abolish slavery, by their duly elected representatives in the State legislatures.

 

[Avatar4321]

Her subject says it all.

By the way, I read that Santorum is way behind in the polls.

you hear that. But its not going to last. Casey hasnt even told anyone what he stands for.

 

[5stringJeff]

Now I wouldn't take the baby's body home with me, but I certainly understand Sen. Santorum's wanting to greive over the loss of his child, and wanting his children to understand the loss as well. Methodology, weird; intent, understandable.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Jillian, I have a whole list of things I'd do with your corpse before disposing of it. Wanna hear?:teeth:

jeff, I don't believe you dinged me on this. Get a sense of humor. WHy have you turned into such a knob?

 

[5stringJeff]

jeff, I don't believe you dinged me on this. Get a sense of humor. WHy have you turned into such a knob?

Defacing a corpse is funny?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Defacing a corpse is funny?

Quit being The Church Lady.

 

[5stringJeff]

Quit being The Church Lady.

I'm sorry... the bubble wrap must have slipped off.

Zoltan!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm sorry... the bubble wrap must have slipped off.

Zoltan!

Yes. Now put back on your uniform and go back to your position within the collective. Now repeat after me "RWA is always funny and classy.":rotflmao:

 

[Dr Grump]

Then start gettin' happy, Dr Grump. This "farce" - this gruesome procedure - is NEVER, EVER necessary for the "health of the mother".

You have evidence of this?

What is she being "protected" from - second thoughts? Feelings of (gasp) remorse? Maybe she's afraid the baby will BITE her on the way out (not that I'd blame him/her)?

I'd surmise that most of the time it is due to the baby having some severe disability or the doctor has determined it will not survive outside of the womb. I am willing to be proven wrong on this. Go for it.

No - the only reason for this ghastly practice is to ensure that what is delivered is - indisputably - a corpse, thus protecting mother and abortionist from charges of infanticide. So, in a way, I guess you're right. Wanting to avoid prison time for one's own murderous, self-centered "choices" would certainly be a "very serious reason"; not frivolous at all.

Again, prove your assertion. Anything else is just hot air.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

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.

If you define partial birth abortion as one that occurs in the final trimester, relatively few occur (only several thousand). But, partial birth abortion is still legally sanctioned murder. The baby is viable at that point. There is no need for a partial birth abortion, period.

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

Abortion denies a person the right to life per the 5th amendment. There is no due process of law, the person is treated like the property of the mother (as in slavery). Defending partial birth abortion is indefensible, it is nothing more than infanticide.

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...

What does it matter? If I attack someone because they are gay or if they owe me money should make no difference. The act of attacking someone should be punished, not what they think.

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.

Using that logic, then the Holocaust didn't happen. After all, Jews, Gypsies and Slavs weren't human in the Nazis' eyes, either.

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

No, the spirit of the constitution is not in happiness. It is limited government, if anything. The founders were convinced that government was, at best, a necessary evil and should be limited. That is why we have a three sided government, with checks and balances on each. In addition, the Founders gave us the Bill of Rights, which enumerated our rights. However, in the Tenth Amendment, the founders said that those rights not enumerated in that document are up to the voters in the states to grant or deny (like abortion and gay marriage).

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....

David Horowitz may be a writer for Salon, but how does hiring one conservative make Salon fair and balanced, and Fox News does the same thing, even moreso, they aren't?

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.

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, that is the gist of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If women lag in pay, it isn't because they are being paid less than men for doing the same thing. That statement is based on the average pay for all women versus the average pay for all men. Women are not being excluded from jobs they wish to enter, they are simply not choosing to enter certain fields. The only thing that should be guaranteed is that women and men have the same opportunities, not whether the average pay for all women is exactly that of all men.

Being illegal doesn't stop people being discriminated against.

A specious argument. The Civil War was fought primarily over the fact that the Southern States ceded from the Union, not over slavery. In addition, slavery was only abolished by Lincoln in Southern states. The 14th amendment, which was ratified by Congress after the Civil War, abolished slavery (the ratification process includes the requirement that the legislatures of 2/3 of the states vote for the amendment). So, in effect, the voters of the states did abolish slavery, by their duly elected representatives in the State legislatures.

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..

 

[musicman]

You have evidence of this?



I'd surmise that most of the time it is due to the baby having some severe disability or the doctor has determined it will not survive outside of the womb. I am willing to be proven wrong on this. Go for it.



Again, prove your assertion. Anything else is just hot air.

I'll be glad to, Dr Grump. Ample evidence exists. But first, I'd like to hear your best guess. There is no mysterious scientific juju at work here; just use your common sense. What conceivable medical situation could exist that would allow delivering all of a baby's body except its head - which must first be ripped open and collapsed by having its brain vacuumed out? Protecting the mother from a possible encounter with dandruff? What?