We Finance Barbarism
- Thread starter BedellBrave
- Start date
57Brave
Well-known member
By allowing a person their constitutional right I am damned by infanticide.
Right
....
[in-fan-tuh-sahyd]
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1.
the act of killing an infant.
2.
the practice of killing newborn infants.
3.
a person who kills an infant.
....
Notice the absence of the word -- fetus --
Right
....
[in-fan-tuh-sahyd]
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1.
the act of killing an infant.
2.
the practice of killing newborn infants.
3.
a person who kills an infant.
....
Notice the absence of the word -- fetus --
sturg33
I
what the **** is wrong with you
acesfull86
Well-known member
A baby outside of the womb is an infant...is that up for debate?
sturg33
I
Leave it to the mother. Besides, you're a man - you're not allowed to say a mother can't kill her crying infant.
In fact, might as well expand that to kindergarden
sturg33
I
Dude - you literally said a crying baby, outside of the womb, should be allowed to be killed if the mother says so.
You're a loser - and that's really the nicest thing I can say about you. My best friend - who has been trying to conceive for 5 years with no luck, would beat the **** out of you. I'd love to see it
57Brave
Well-known member
I can read and am tired of overblown histrionics from Pro Lifers. Where they get to say whatever nastiness can come out of their mouths and condemn people of heinous crimes merely for not agreeing with them.
Who pronounced The Pro "Life" crowd the moral high ground ?
acesfull86
Well-known member
Because at some point the gray area becomes black and white. If someone wants to say a fetus after 3 weeks or 6 weeks or 15 weeks isn't a person, I think that's up for debate. A crying baby that's out of the womb is clearly a person.
Agreed.
We've reached the point in this thread where we aren't even talking about abortion anymore.
57Brave
Well-known member
never was
food for thought / discussion
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
What happened between 1964 and 1994?
A group of Republican strategists who had worked on Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign were worried. Goldwater had been soundly defeated, and the strategists feared that the base of the Republican Party -- primarily southern segregationists and the very wealthy -- was too narrow. So they set out to expand the base calling themselves the New Right. Goldwater was not part of the New Right.
One member of the New Right, Republican Strategist Paul Weyrich, founded the Heritage Foundation in 1973 -- a think tank to promote the ideas of the New Right. Weyrich also founded ALEC, The American Legislative Exchange Council in 1973 to coordinate the work of Religious Right state legislators. ALEC initially positioned itself as a counterweight to liberal foundations and think tanks, focusing on social issues like abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment, but became a magnet for corporate lobbyists.
ALEC gives business a direct hand in writing bills that are considered in state assemblies nationwide. Funded primarily by large corporations, industry groups, and conservative foundations -- including R.J. Reynolds, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute -- the group takes a chain-restaurant approach to public policy, supplying precooked McBills to state lawmakers. Since most legislators are in session only part of the year and often have no staff to do independent research, they're quick to swallow what ALEC serves up. In 2000, according to the council, members introduced more than 3,100 bills based on its models, passing 450 into law. Ghostwriting the Law, Karen Olson, Mother Jones, Sept.Oct. 2002
In 1979 Weyrich coined the term "Moral Majority." Their goal was to politicize members of fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches - a constituency that had been basically apolitical.
Not all members of fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches support the Religious Right, but those were the groups targeted by the New Right. And some members of churches outside of those mentioned support the Religious Right, while many other Christian leaders strongly oppose them.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0...=why right wing co-opted evangelicals&f=false
heard this conversation on CSPAN
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
why won't you guys tell me what research comes from the murder/body part pillaging/face ripping off/killing a beating heart or whatever scary way you want to describe the fetus is?
I have no idea, I don't really care at all.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
well, that doesn't help me and seems weird to not at least be curious what it is
There's this thing called Google.
Maybe you could enlighten us both, since you clearly care more than me.
I wouldn't mind knowing.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
This thread has been about as funny as a thread could be, except people's opinions here are sincere and the lies being spread actually hurt people. That's the sad part.
sturg33
I
care to join 57 on the "a crying baby isn't a human if the chord hasn't been cut" ledge?
and how are any opinions in this thread "hurting people"
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
No, because that's an asinine opinion to have.
But you're hurting people if you get rid of abortions. What are the odds that a child who's unwanted by his/her parents amounts to much of anything in the world? Seriously?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
The tragic mentality to have is that a bunch of men want to force women to come to term with something that's 100% reliant on that woman. It should be the woman's choice. Regardless. Men shouldn't be forcing women one way or the other.
ANd my point is clear. When the child can really survive outside of the womb that's when it's illegal unless the mother's life is in danger. Which right now seems to be about after 21 weeks. So lets say cut it off at 21 weeks. Anything before then is fine, anything after that the woman's life has to be in danger or there would have to be a really good medical reason to have an abortion at that point.