Rep. Trent Franks compares torture to abortion.
Rep. Trent Franks compares torture to abortion.
Spencer Ackerman writes that, during today’s House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on torture, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) offered an “an intellectually stimulating comparison of torture to abortion.” Franks questioned why the committee isn’t concerned about abortion, even though he claims some abortion techniques purportedly torture the woman:
FRANKS: And not once during this term have we even considered the personhood and protection of unborn children. And yet last Congress, we had a bill before the Congress that said that, if torturous techniques were used to abort a child, that the mother would be offered anesthetic for the child. And most of the members of this committee that voted on that voted against it, against allowing anesthetic for procedures that, if done to an animal, would be illegal.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
That GOPer fool must be forced to resign from the Congress!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pmStrawman
November 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pmthe repub mantra… People only matter if they aren’t born yet…
November 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pmHow dare he equate medical procedures of abortion to acts of torture. He is trying to compare two things that have NO comparison.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:27 pmDude. Ever had a spinal biopsy? Gone through physical therapy? burn therapy? Don’t even go there.
They should ALL be forced to resign. The Reps for coming up with these stupid stalling tactics and the Dems for not impeaching the weasels in charge.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pmI’m from Arizona and we know Trent is not only a fool but real wingnut. And, he’ll get re-elected time and time again because the Right wants his voice. We don’t have public supported mental health any longer so there’s no place to put these folks. Help!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:29 pmIf a woman prisoner of war was aborted against her will, then that would be torture, but women having abortions in hospitals are not torture.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:30 pmSwordsbane > medical procedures of any kind are not pleasant. If any of those procedures are done to force confessions, then it’s torture.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThis kind of reminds me of the flap over the recent Eagles album. Critics were claiming that the album was “anti-American” because there were no songs on it condemning middle eastern radicals beheading Americans.
That made a number of people go “HUH??? What does that have to do with anything?”
Now we have a congressman attempting to inject abortion into a discussion about torture. Why not inject gun control into the discussion? Health care? Prayer in school? Gay marriage? Comparison of torture to any of these might make as much sense as comparing torture and abortion — in other words, “HUH??? What does that have to do with anything?”
November 8th, 2007 at 3:35 pmMakes me think of a movie where the guy used a dentist drill to force out information. He drilled into a tooth without novacaine, so that becomes a torture procedure.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:36 pmWhat the hell does abortion have to do with waterboarding? If you want to go there why is abortion terrible but sending 3856 Americans to die in a foreign country just fine. Oh that’s right
there were wmd.
This administration always trying to confuse the issue, well it won’t work anymore too many are waking up.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pmI don’t believe in violence. But if some other Committee member had gotten up and punched Franks in the face several times, I’d have donated for his bail money and his re-election campaign.
But I still don’t believe in violence.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:39 pmOK, that does it. We have to resort to illogical logic. There needs to be a fast-spreading rumor that waterboarding is a favorite sexual activity of homosexuals. THAT would get it banned in a hurry.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:39 pmMarathon Man – Dustin Hoffman
“Is it safe?”
November 8th, 2007 at 3:43 pmSwordsbane > medical procedures of any kind are not pleasant. If any of those procedures are done to force confessions, then it’s torture.
Comment by Jay Randal — November 8, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
My point exactly. He only wants us to equate torture with proceedures HE’S against. It becomes stupid when you inlcude anything else. Okay… well… MORE stupid.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:46 pmThe proposed law that was defeated, “anesthetic for the fetus”, was a backdoor move to pass a law that cements the concept that the unborn child feels pain, thus making the procedure even more abhorrent and equated to the life of a born child.
Abortion in the 2nd and 3rd term is *extremely* rare, and when performed, are almost always done for health reasons. I don’t know the details of the procedure, but it only makes sense that it would be performed in the least distressful manner possible to avoid complications further endangering the mother.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:46 pmNah, torture doesn’t always kill. Huge difference right there.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:47 pm0Fer KreistSakes.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:48 pmExcept that a woman may (still) CHOOSE to have an abortion. My understanding is that very few people voluntarily undergo waterboarding.
Perhaps our foreign policy would look a bit difference if the entire Administration and anyone overseeing “interrogation policy” were to experience it first had.
Cowards.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:48 pmBut I still don’t believe in violence.
Comment by kindness — November 8, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
It exists, really it does.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:49 pmMy older Sister would have said that boy is obstinate!
I would have said he also said his strawman need to be restuffed.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pmAnonymouse
Except that a woman may (still) CHOOSE to have an abortion. My understanding is that very few people voluntarily undergo waterboarding.
0% of Fetus’s choose abortions.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:51 pm.
Ahh…
Refreshing to see that even Congress has TROLLS in their Committee’s.
A hearing on torture and he wants to make it about abortion.
LOL
What a F-ing TROLL.
.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pmGetting an abortion is a choice. Being tortured is not. The chooser faces whatever “torture” they endure by choice. The person being tortured does not do so of their free will.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pmTender Chicken
The chooser faces whatever “torture†they endure by choice. The person being tortured does not do so of their free will.
A woman chooses to have an abortion. A fetus is not aborted of their free will.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:55 pmfreak
November 8th, 2007 at 3:56 pmUm… WHO is forcing women to undergo abortions?
Wasn’t the whole point of the debate to allow women to choose?
How much of a point-misser does one have to be in order to be declared ineligible to serve in Congress?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:58 pmAnonymouse
Except that a woman may (still) CHOOSE to have an abortion. My understanding is that very few people voluntarily undergo waterboarding.
0% of Fetus’s choose abortions
I didn’t CHOOSE to have morons like this running my life for the last eight years, but it happened. The worst thing you can say about abortion is that it is the best of a bunch of bad choices, and there are far worse alternatives for the child, and the mother/parents.
Torture is illegal, and waterboarding is torture. End of story. If it wasn’t, the Republicans would be saying that. They aren’t. They’re trying to but it in a gray area that shouldn’t be defined. If they say “No it’s not torture.” then they have to let everyone do else do it to US citizens, military personell and politicians (and catch hell from the public) If they say “Yes, it is torture.” then they have to stop doing it.
This “I’m not sure” mumblings everyone is doing is bullsh*t. Take a f**king stand one way or the other, and do it under oath.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:59 pmA woman chooses to have an abortion. A fetus is not aborted of their free will.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 8, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
When you figure out a way to allow a fetus to express “free will”, you let us know, mmmkay?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pmA woman chooses to have an abortion. A fetus is not aborted of their free will.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 8, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
A fetus is a conglomeration of cells and lacks “free will”.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pmSqueege, name a single function that a fetus performs as an exercise of “free will”?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:08 pmMaybe now the Attorney General elect will issue a statement denying that abortion is “not torture,” and we will be spared any more attacks on roe v. wade.
“Against abortion? What, you want the terrorists to win!?”
November 8th, 2007 at 4:09 pmSo is he against Torture? Then he shouldn’t have a problem with this bill. Or is this his, “since we are allow abortions, we should allow torture” argument? That means he is Pro-torture.
I personally think this is ridiculous to pass a bill. We already know that torture is illegal. Does this mean we have to specifically ban EVERY method of torture now?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:09 pmHonest to God, these people are stupid.
If I used their “reasoning,” that would mean that every time I pick at a hangnail, I’m torturing poor, defenseless, voiceless skin cells….
*eyeroll*
November 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pmralph the wonder llama
Squeege, name a single function that a fetus performs as an exercise of “free will�
Kicking
November 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pm36 – BS, Squeegee.
Single celled animals have tails that whip. That has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of “will” – it has to do with simple muscle contractions.
Try again.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:16 pmDuring what stage of development does kicking occur? How does this correlate with the frequency of abortion for reasons other than medical emergency?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:17 pm:Shakes Head: tries to type some intelligent response to this stupid comparison. :Shakes Head: tries to type intelligent response to the stupid comparison. :Shakes head: gives up.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:18 pmFetal Psychology
# By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. By the end of the second trimester it can hear.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:22 pm# Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams.
# The fetus savors its mother’s meals, first picking up the food tastes of a culture in the womb.
# Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of Mom and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it.
# Even a premature baby is aware, feels, responds, and adapts to its environment.
“The fetus savors its mother’s meals”
November 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pmthat sounds totally scientific.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 8, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Seems that unless I am misreading this, none of these developmental achievements except the first carries any linkage to when? Still no effort has been made by you to lonk these events with data relative to the frequency of abortions by developmental period. The frequency of later term pregnancy which are terminated for reasons other than those identified by medical experts suggests that this is not birth control but a private and unfortunate event.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:29 pm42 – he probably got that crap off some random right wing “science” blog.
*eyeroll*
November 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pmdbadass
Still no effort has been made by you to lonk these events with data relative to the frequency of abortions by developmental period.
Why do I have to? As long as they are occurring while still a fetus, it fits into my argument, unless you’re going to break it down into different trimesters/weeks at which point you’re moving into a semantics argument.
The frequency of later term pregnancy which are terminated for reasons other than those identified by medical experts suggests that this is not birth control but a private and unfortunate event.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pmAh, well as long as it’s private and unfortunate, it’s ok then? Seems to me torture is also normally done in private and is unfortunate, so it’s ok also now?
0% of Fetus’s choose abortions.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 8, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
And 0% choose to be born into an abusive family
And 0% choose to be born hungry
And 0% choose to be born into a “christian” faith, or a “mulsim” faith
And 0% choose to abort themselves before they are born.
And your batting 0%.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:33 pmLeftside Annie
he probably got that crap off some random right wing “science†blog.
I gave you a link. And I got it from doing a Google search for:
November 8th, 2007 at 4:33 pmfetus intelligence
Squeege, name a single function that a fetus performs as an exercise of “free will�
Kicking
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 8, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Where’s your evidence that kicking by a fetus is an act of free will?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:33 pmFetal Psychology
# By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. By the end of the second trimester it can hear.
# Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams.
# The fetus savors its mother’s meals, first picking up the food tastes of a culture in the womb.
# Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of Mom and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it.
# Even a premature baby is aware, feels, responds, and adapts to its environment.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 8, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
All of which come after the 2nd trimester, when abortions are no longer performed except as an emergency measure. Back under the bridge for you.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:35 pmNature Rules
0% of Fetus’s choose abortions.
And you’re missing my point. The person being tortured does not (normally) choose to be tortured. The fetus being aborted does not choose to be aborted.
While TP’s explanation says that Frank’s is talking about the woman being tortured by the procedure, his quote refers to using anesthetic for the child, from the snippet they are giving it would appear that he is referring to the Fetus getting tortured during the process, not the mother. So everyone bringing up that ‘a mother choices to get an abortion, people being tortured don’t get a choice’ are missing the point of Frank’s comment.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:37 pmThe right wingers are experts at torturing logic.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:38 pmThe frequency of later term pregnancy which are terminated for reasons other than those identified by medical experts suggests that this is not birth control but a private and unfortunate event.
Ah, well as long as it’s private and unfortunate, it’s ok then? Seems to me torture is also normally done in private and is unfortunate, so it’s ok also now?
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 8, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
I don’t remember saying it was okay. I believe I said it was a unfortunate (read tragic) but in some case appropriate medical procedure which like all medical procedures is within the privacy rights of the patient. Just out of curiousity, where are you ate with say the question of the familial rights to terminate life of the terminally ill? I personally have seen both sides of the abortion question and feel strongly that these yese (unfortunate) events are almost always in the best interest of all parties including the severely impaired fetuses.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:39 pmdbadass
November 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pmwhere are you ate with say the question of the familial rights to terminate life of the terminally ill?
I have no issues with it.
Squishy I would have more understanding of your argument if you and your buddies cared about the fetus after it was born.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pmI have no issues with it.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 8, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
So I am forced to wonder if the taking of the life of a comatose individual without their consent can be a respected and difficult private family decision how can the taking of a potential human be less valid if it is being done for difficult but valid reasons?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pmI gave you a link. And I got it from doing a Google search for:
fetus intelligence
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 8, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
I repeat: he probably got that crap off some right wing “science” blog.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pmswordsbane
All of which come after the 2nd trimester, when abortions are no longer performed except as an emergency measure.
My understanding was that most states allowed late term abortion regardless of the reason, perhaps I’m wrong.
dbadass
November 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pmI believe I said it was a unfortunate (read tragic) but in some case appropriate medical procedure which like all medical procedures is within the privacy rights of the patient.
True, but Franks wasn’t talking about the legality of abortion, he was talking about the legality of allowing anesthetic to be used on the fetus so it wouldn’t feel anything during the process.
Of those countries that keep records, the one with the LOWEST Abortion rate is the Netherlands, followed closely by Belgium. These countries have excellent sex education, family planning, and health care systems run by the government. America, with its just say no, abstinence only mentality should be ashamed of itself.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pmAnd you’re missing my point.
No, your point was not missed. Franks is trying his best to move the goalposts and change the argument. The hearing is on torture and more specifically waterboarding and it’s legality and use in the US. If this question were brought up after the Geneva Conventions and before 911 then there would be no “debate” because the “debate” was settled – waterboarding IS TORTURE. Bush has allowed waterboarding and is desperate to have it not viewed as illegal. Franks is just another lost soul who is trying to protect Bush.
Equating abortion with torture is not helpful. The republicans will bring out the abortion issue for next years election ONLY to gain votes. Torture being used by Americans is abhorrent. There are reasons for torture being illegal.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:53 pmLeftside Annie
I repeat: he probably got that crap off some right wing “science†blog.
Well I can’t disprove a negative, so believe what you will.
dbadass
So I am forced to wonder if the taking of the life of a comatose individual without their consent can be a respected and difficult private family decision how can the taking of a potential human be less valid if it is being done for difficult but valid reasons?
Well once again, Franks argument seems to be based off of how it is performed, not if it should be performed. If taking the life of a comatose individual involved caving in their head and sucking out their brain, I would assume that anesthetics, at the very least, would be used regardless of if the comatose person was able to feel or not.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pmAccording to this site..
http://www.tennesseerighttolife.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_abortion_statistics.htm
There are 1,300,000 abortions a year, and ninety-three percent (93%) are for birth control.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pmYup, Can’t see any possibility of any agenda at that site!
November 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pmAbortion IS a tragic event, especially for the pregnant mother.
VERY FEW WOMEN would choose it as a method of “birth controlâ€.
According to this site..
http://www.tennesseerighttolife.org/ human_life_issues/ human_life_issues_abortion_statistics.htm
There are 1,300,000 abortions a year, and ninety-three percent (93%) are for birth control.
Comment by bitblt — November 8, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Wow… and you got that off a completely unbiased site too.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pmOh, and for the record, I think getting statistics off an abortion-rights site is equally stupid.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:01 pmSite notes the source of the estimates.
Site also has a dead link to
United States Abortion Statistics
November 8th, 2007 at 5:07 pmNote: For more information concerning US abortion statistics, visit the Centers for Disease Control at http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/surv_abort.htm.
That stat about which I curiosity but have never seen is this: How many abortions were performed because some man insisted on it or threatened to abandon the woman?
This question echoes a famous ProLife bumper sticker: “Who loves abortion? Irresponsible Men!â€
November 8th, 2007 at 5:10 pmWhat logic!
Because you don’t like apples, you can’t like oranges?
agghhh the minds of the neocontheocrats…are a tad garbled and otherwise non functioning.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:15 pmAnd do you think that Bush got HIS girlfriend as “birth control�
I’d like to know that too. Would Bush have gotten pregnant without her? :)
November 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pmHow utterly Pavlovian of these Reichers – !
They’re practically frothing on command these days.
Pretty soon, all anyone will have to do is ring a bell, and any Repube within earshot will froth at the mouth.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:26 pmPretty soon, all anyone will have to do is ring a bell, and any Repube within earshot will froth at the mouth.
Comment by Leftside Annie — November 8, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
At least that would be entertaining.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:30 pmThis probably the dead link
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm?s_cid=ss5511a1_e
Report is extremely detailed and involved. Tables are down several pages.
Link site above shows
November 8th, 2007 at 5:31 pm93% for birth control
3% for fetal abnormalities
3% for mother’s health
1% of rape or incest
This probably the dead link
http://www.cdc.gov/ mmwr/ preview/ mmwrhtml/ ss5511a1.htm?s_cid=ss5511a1_e
Report is extremely detailed and involved. Tables are down several pages.
Link site above shows
93% for birth control
3% for fetal abnormalities
3% for mother’s health
1% of rape or incest
Comment by bitblt — November 8, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
And waterboarding is STILL torture AND ILLEGAL regardless of abortion statistics.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:36 pmbitbit-This question echoes a famous ProLife bumper sticker: “Who loves abortion? Irresponsible Men!â€
Comment by bitblt
bitbit- Who do I see on the ProLife picket lines?; Mostly men with seemingly a need to control women.
On the 93% who receive abortions for birth control. It would be interesting to see a socioecomic breakdown; the reason given by the patient (other than a checkbox), like “my boyfriend took off after he heard”, or “I can’t take care of a child”.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:41 pmAnyway, I dislike abortion and do not support it, but, as a man, I have no want or desire to see women’s health addressed by anyone otherthan a doctor (free of government dictate).
using this argument, the congressman would have to argue that childbirth itself is akin to torture.
why do red states have higher abortion rates per capita, wingnuts?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:43 pmAnyway, I dislike abortion and do not support it, but, as a man, I have no want or desire to see women’s health addressed by anyone otherthan a doctor (free of government dictate).
Comment by leftcoast — November 8, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
That’s about how I feel. My personal view is that it’s a decision that both parties (potential mother and father) to make the decision, then it is the womans job to inform the doctor of the decision. If the father wants to get the hell out, then it’s up to the mother, but no where in there should the government step in and say “You HAVE to do it THIS way”
November 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pmThere are 1,300,000 abortions a year, and ninety-three percent (93%) are for birth control.
Comment by bitblt — November 8, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
And out of that 93%, how many are women who use NO method of birth control at all, but figure on having an abortion every time she gets pregnant? And how many are women who employed some method of birth control but it didn’t work, or she used it improperly?
Seriously, we can bat this kind of statistical data about abortions around all night, but I think the point of the thread is Trent Franks trying to compare the abortion debate with the waterboarding debate — and the two are very different. The ONLY similarity is that in both arguments, each party has formulated an argument that fits their ideology. And that’s true of practically every partisan debate on Capitol Hill.
The key thing about the waterboarding debate is that Bush desperately needs to keep waterboarding from being considered torture because otherwise his administration could be culpable for illegal activity. And all the abortion debate in the world won’t change that. It might distract from the inevitable, but not for long.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pmSeriously, we can bat this kind of statistical data about abortions around all night…
November 8th, 2007 at 6:00 pmComment by missmolly — November 8, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
I agree. And to add, I would rather see more comprehensive research conducted. You cannot address the issue without it.
Constucting his argument using the strawman argument of waterboarding was disengious of Franks. It appears Bush’s minions are attempting to protect him and stooping to the lowest form of argument.
81 – Leftie – of course they are.
Why should today be different…?
November 8th, 2007 at 6:12 pm2 words for this asshat: Mental Pygmy.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pmThis probably the dead link
http://www.cdc.gov/ mmwr/ preview/ mmwrhtml/ ss5511a1.htm?s_cid=ss5511a1_e
Report is extremely detailed and involved. Tables are down several pages.
Link site above shows
93% for birth control
3% for fetal abnormalities
3% for mother’s health
1% of rape or incest
Comment by bitblt — November 8, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Well, please point out WHICH table gave you those “statistics”. I went through ALL 19 tables and not a single one offered a “reason for abortion”.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:32 pmThe tables did, however, show that less than 12% of all abortions take place after the 12th week, with less than 2% taking place after the 21st week.
Okay, so turn the global warming argument on its head too – how many lives are at risk? Shouldn’t the life vs. business argument be extrapolated out to a numerical value of lives vs. profit. What is it? Why aren’t the pro-lifers vetting this out?
November 8th, 2007 at 8:59 pmEquating abortion with torture is not helpful.
Comment by Nature Rules — November 8, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
No one equated abortion with torture. He simly said those concerned about the suffering of terrorists should be equally concerned with the possible suffering of an unborn child.
——
using this argument, the congressman would have to argue that childbirth itself is akin to torture.
Comment by lonesomerobot — November 8, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Hmmm, perhaps that is why women are offered anesthetic, unlike the unborn baby who is being killed. ;)
November 9th, 2007 at 12:52 amHmmm, perhaps that is why women are offered anesthetic, unlike the unborn baby who is being killed. ;)
Comment by upright left — November 9, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Yes, and let’s have it sign a consent form while we’re at it. You rightards get more insane every minute.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:59 amHmmm, perhaps that is why women are offered anesthetic, unlike the unborn baby who is being killed. ;)
Comment by upright left — November 9, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Yes, and let’s have it sign a consent form while we’re at it. You rightards get more insane every minute.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 9, 2007 @ 12:59 am
And libbie loons get better and better at avoiding a point. Good job, lefty. ;)
November 9th, 2007 at 1:07 am>Hmmm, perhaps that is why women are offered anesthetic, unlike the >unborn baby who is being killed. ;)
Shut up and stop pretending like you give a d@mn about whether a living being feels pain. If you did, you people would be trying to use sexual education and birth control (including the morning after pill), to try to reduce the rate of abortion. but you’re fighting all these things with the same fervor you do procedures that allegedly cause pain to human life. its because your main interest in limiting abortion is controlling womens sexuality, which is why you fight any plan, pill, or procedure that might give women more reproductive choice than just being babymakers..
November 9th, 2007 at 8:20 amIf you fetus-humpers so worried about creatures feeling pain, would you encourage women to have abortions as quickly as possible so as to nip the thing in the bud before it has nerve endings or a consciouness? you need both, you know, and I dont think any of you eggheads are going to try to argue that an embryo has both these things…
November 9th, 2007 at 8:21 amhow many of your fetus huggers support the use of the morning after pill, which gets rid of any potential embryos before they coudl be developed enough to feel any pain..?
November 9th, 2007 at 8:26 amShut up and stop pretending like you give a d@mn about whether a living being feels pain. If you did, you people would be trying to use sexual education and birth control (including the morning after pill), to try to reduce the rate of abortion. but you’re fighting all these things with the same fervor you do procedures that allegedly cause pain to human life. its because your main interest in limiting abortion is controlling womens sexuality, which is why you fight any plan, pill, or procedure that might give women more reproductive choice than just being babymakers..
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 9, 2007 @ 8:20 am
Sorry to disappoint ya, chocky, but I’m all for birth control and sex education that parents have the opportunity to approve beforehand and that tells kids that many people oppose extramarital sex on moral grounds. Kids should be discouraged from becoming sexually active along with the birth control, not told “we know you are going to do it anyway.” I don’t see a lot of hope for a child being raised by someone who wanted to kill him before he was born. I just think pro-abortion folks need to own up to the policy they support. Admit you are killing an inconvenient child. It’s the responsibility that goes along with the right to kill your own child. ;)
November 9th, 2007 at 9:14 am“fetus-humpers”
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 9, 2007 @ 8:21 am
The words of a true humanitarian. ;)
——-
how many of your fetus huggers support the use of the morning after pill, which gets rid of any potential embryos before they coudl be developed enough to feel any pain..?
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 9, 2007 @ 8:26 am
As long as aborton is legal, I have no problem with RU-486, but pharmacists should have the choice of whether or not they will dispense it. ;)
November 9th, 2007 at 9:20 amWhen you kill these babies, it isn’t torture. Torture is providing pain to someone without death. What the left is doing to babies is actually murder since you kill most of the babies. Some do make it past the attemted murder so those are torture survivors.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:35 amHow can anyone be for murdering babies that can feel pain anyways? It is very brutal. Much more brutal then waterboarding terrorists.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:36 am>As long as aborton is legal, I have no problem with RU-486.
Why do you have a problem with RU-486 in any case? It doesnt kill anything that can feel pain….
November 9th, 2007 at 9:54 am>How can anyone be for murdering babies that can feel pain anyways?
I support abortion rights, but I’m not for what you suggest. I think every step should be taken to make sure that any abortion that occurs does so before the fetus has both nerve endings and any consciouness. You agree Rodger Dogder? Dont you think RU-486 is a good solution?
November 9th, 2007 at 9:56 am>How can anyone be for murdering babies that can feel pain
> anyways? It is very brutal.
Does killing a pregnant woman with a bomb dropped from a plain count as “murdering babies” rodger?
November 9th, 2007 at 9:58 am>but pharmacists should have the choice of whether or not they will >dispense it. ;)
businesses shouldnt have the right to hire people who fullfill thier contracts and do the job they’ve been hired to do?
November 9th, 2007 at 10:00 am>As long as aborton is legal, I have no problem with RU-486.
Why do you have a problem with RU-486 in any case? It doesnt kill anything that can feel pain….
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 9, 2007 @ 9:54 am
Since you have no idea what an unborn child feels, I’ll let my statement stand. At what point do pro-abortion folks who want a child consider their pregnancies to be important? Do they have to get to the third trimester before it is of any significance? At what point in the pregnancy would they grieve over a miscarriage? Certainly not before the child is capable of life outside the womb. Otherwise, they must just consider it a lump of cells. I hope there is no hypocrisy in this matter on the part of pro-abortionists. ;)
November 9th, 2007 at 10:13 am>but pharmacists should have the choice of whether or not they will >dispense it. ;)
businesses shouldnt have the right to hire people who fullfill thier contracts and do the job they’ve been hired to do?
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 9, 2007 @ 10:00
Of course they do, as long as they don’t infringe on the religious freedoms of their employees. People have the right to refuse to be an accessory murder. ;)
November 9th, 2007 at 10:17 am>Since you have no idea what an unborn child feels.
Right, I have no idea what a plant feels either. Nice dodge. I simply know that there is no scientific basis for arguing that an embryo has any ability to feel or be conscious of pain, or any other sensation, for that matter. You know there ARE biological explanations for why we feel pain, and the structures which give rise to those phenomena have not yet formed at the embryonic level. Period.
> At what point do pro-abortion folks who want a child consider their >pregnancies to be important?
A bit of a silly question. As with any opinion held by a group of people, I’m sure it varies from person to person. All I know is the closer to conception you get, the less and less strength any of the “its a child” arguments hold.
I just think the fact that even when presented with birth control choices that dont result in anything possibly feeling pain, most of you guys whine and complain just as loudly, is very telling of your true beliefs. Its because this issue isnt about “killing children” at all. You guys dont care how many children with nerve endings and families who will grieve for them you kill in iraq, because saddam was a bad man. Keeping women occupied as baby factories is the way you pepetuate your warmongering, conquering culture.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:25 am>Of course they do, as long as they don’t infringe on the religious freedoms >of their employees
Uhm, dude.. you DO know that private companies have no legal obligation to take thier employees religious belifs into account, do you? Does a hindu expect to keep his job at a butchers if he wont handle cow meat? Does trojan condoms have to start selling some other product because they hire a catholic? what you are suggesting is absurd.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:28 am>People have the right to refuse to be an accessory murder. ;)
And if you’re so warped that you equate snuffing out a clump of cells with killing a human being, you have the right to get a job as something other than a pharmacist, or get a job with an employer who conforms to your moral beliefs.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:30 am>Since you have no idea what an unborn child feels.
“Right, I have no idea what a plant feels either.”
Sorry, bud, but a child is not a plant. Period.
——
> At what point do pro-abortion folks who want a child consider their >pregnancies to be important?
“A bit of a silly question.”
Not silly at all, in fact, quite pertinent. If it’s just a collection of cells when you want to kill it, yet you get excited about it when you want it, makes one a hypocrite. And we all know how libs hate hypocrisy. ;)
——
Keeping women occupied as baby factories is the way you pepetuate your warmongering, conquering culture.
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 9, 2007 @ 10:25
I understand that believing this makes it ok for you to support killing babies. Hey, I’m glad you need something like this. Makes you more human, bud. ;)
November 9th, 2007 at 10:34 am>but a child is not a plant. Period
a clump of cells is not a child. period.
to claim an unfeeling, unknowing, faceless, formless lump of cells is a human being truly degrades what it means to be human. but then again, degradation is what you people do best.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:38 amplease explain the difference between a sperm about to fertilize and egg, and a sperm that has just fertilized an egg? quanitfy it. explain what makes one “a child” and the other “just a clump of cells”. neither will ever become anything more without the support of a host. at this point, both are just “potential”, nothing more
So upright cleft, do you consider fertility clinics who throw away unused embryos to be commiting murder? yes or no?
November 9th, 2007 at 10:39 amexplain what makes one “a childâ€
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 9, 2007 @ 10:38
A child is what is growing in it’s mother’s womb before it is ripped or scraped out, bud. ;)
November 9th, 2007 at 10:43 am>A child is what is growing in it’s mother’s womb before it is ripped or >scraped out, bud.
No, its not. Its merely potential. I might fail to grow naturally. Heck, RU-486 doesnt scrape or rip. Your logic is entirely circular. At what point of the sperm penetrating the egg do you think it becomes a sacred child? Right when the sperm hits the egg? When its pentrated the surface? When exactly? Heck, why I am I asking, you didnt even answer my question about whether fertility clinics were mass murderers, whose garbage cans were like mini-concentration camps?
November 9th, 2007 at 10:47 amhttp://www.americanfertility.com/faqs/5.php
“On approximately the seventh day following fertilization, the embryo develops chorionic villi, which are special protrusions on its surface that enable it to attach, or implant, in the lining of the uterus. ”
It doesnt even attach to its mothers womb until the 7th day..until then, its just a possible pregnancy..not even a certain one…so its ok if we get rid of it before it MIGHT attach to its host, right?
November 9th, 2007 at 10:50 amOf course, the right-tards can’t defend thier absurdist “save the embryos” argument, if we follow the cascading trainwreck they call “logic” to its ultimate yet absurd conclusion, we end up depicting parents who want children but need the help of fertility clinics to conceive as being accessories to mass murder, since they provide the embryos, many of which are inevitably discarded after one is successfully implanted.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:59 amIs anyone here ok with elective abortion once the baby can feel the pain of it death? I honestly want to see who is ok with that.
As for the morning after pill. I am 100% ok with it. I do think we need to allow business’ and their employee’s the option of not giving it out based on their personal beliefs however. Either way, it should be legal and I am fine with it as long as we don’t force anyone to sell it.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:03 am>As for the morning after pill. I am 100% ok with it.
Shocking. I must say, you are the exception rather than the rule amongst your ilk. I congratualte you for having some degree of consistencey to your beleifs. However, I would like you to understand that the people who you side yourself with,for the most part, do not posses such consistency. Perphaps you can help do something to change that.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:07 am>Is anyone here ok with elective abortion once the baby can feel the pain >of it death? I honestly want to see who is ok with that.
For myself, I’m not ok with it. It makes me uncomfortable to think about, but I wont go so far as to say that in some circumstances, it might be for the best. If you argue its never acceptable to cause the painful death of innocent life, for the greater good, then you’d never go to war. Should we ever go to war, knowing it will cause the painful death of innocents?
November 9th, 2007 at 11:09 am#118 War and Abortion are really completely different topics. I believe going into Iraq was completely wrong. While I say that, I also think it would be a horrible mistake to retreat from Iraq right now. We detroyed Iraq and leaving the Iraqi’s now would only make a bad problem worse IMO. We created that mess, we should clean it up. That the only fair solution IMHO.
As for abortion. The only time it would be ok to murder a baby that can feel the pain is in defense of the mother’s life. In that situation, it should be only legal once you provide pain meds and anesthia to the innocent child.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:27 amTHESE RIGHT WINGERS ARE INSANE. It’s that simple. Or are they? What is really behind this “right to life” movement is (a) keeping women barefoot and pregnant, consequently powerless, and (b) keeping those babies being producted on the assembly line of production. After all when the American population is 400 million or 500 million, it will clearly be a source of very, very cheap labor.
Kathleen (aka – blueseahorse)….
November 9th, 2007 at 11:51 am#120 If the story you say is true, it is sad that Bush also murdered a baby. Since this is only a story pushed by larry Flynt and he never really advanced it since the lady in question never confirmed it, the story seems questionable at best. Either way, I certainly don’t support anyone that would do such an act. Besides, what your point anyways? Do you support Bush for the abortion since you are pro abortion? I guess that makes me against bush and you for Bush. ODD!!
November 9th, 2007 at 12:07 pm#123 I did google it. All the articles are based on Larry Flynt’s account. I have yet to see this lady actually confirm this story which seems very fishy. Sounds like a fun lefty conspiricy pushed by Hustler. Larry Flynt at least made some headlines but no one would push this story since there isn’t a confirmation from the Lady in question.
Also I never said I was pro torture. Where did you get that from anyways?
November 9th, 2007 at 12:25 pmPredictions of the next 911 by a Professional Geologist.
http://www.H2onE2.com Glacial Respiration, Conceptual Ring of Ice, The End of Linear Western Religion
A Geological Exploration of an E2 Earthen Planet And the H2 Human Species
Author: B Billy Marse, Professional Geologist
Brief Description:
http://www.H2onE2.com is an exploration of the universe, geology, climate, biology, humans, psychology, folklore and ancient structures to uncover the beginning and disclose the end of linear western religion. The true DaVinci Code behind the bible is not a supreme spiritual power but a scientific record of climate change described as Glacial Respiration. The Greek philosophers originated the practice of communicating a hidden idea or message in the short story format, as a metaphor. In the bible, metaphors conceal historic climate change within the fanciful stories. The theory of Glacial Respiration explains the myth behind the Holy Grail, structures such as the Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island and is the knowledge that was collected in the Jewish Ark of the Covenant.
The environmental changes of Glacial Respiration determine all biological evolution and can explain why higher forms of intelligent humans developed. Further, Glacial Respiration releases the secret hidden by the Knights Templars, Masonic Order and all religions. Uncovers an advanced Blue-Blooded semi-industrial Atlantian Civilization that was built and destroyed many times over for the last million years. The book ends with an explanation of how linear western religion will be physically ended and describes the construction of the doomsday device capable of fulfilling its own self defining prophesy, “Revelationsâ€. H2onE2 is a mind-expanding experience that stimulates the soul, instinct, intellect and is an almanac to the past, present and future of humanity. Rise, awaken and evolve into H3 human consciousness.
The discovery:
November 9th, 2007 at 4:56 pmAs a Professional Geologist, I attempted to link the Dust Bowl/Great Depression to a pre-glacial condition or mechanism and ended up writing the book H2onE2. I felt that there was a strong connection between the Dust Bowl and transition back into Glacial Winter. I did notice that my professors scientifically crumbled every time I mentioned the relationship. I could not go back in time or locate indisputable proof. The proof came from understanding all educational disciplines including history and theology. I soon discovered that all religious text both eastern and western continually described significant climate change conditions relating to Glacial Respiration. For years I fought off mixing science and religion until I discovered that the origins of all religions were founded or created to help humans psychologically survive the harsh earthen environment. Without reason I soon accepted that the world’s complicated religions were the same. This came true and I continued to write and discover. Everything came into place as though I was unlocking a 10,000-year-old puzzle. I also realized this puzzle was opened before I discovered it, by someone else, some other group. If so, further understanding of this knowledge might be extracted from significant historical events. Lastly, this is the vital information needed to make future predictions.
jymkujkyuk
>A child is what is growing in it’s mother’s womb before it is ripped or >scraped out, bud.
No, its not. Its merely potential. I might fail to grow naturally. Heck, RU-486 doesnt scrape or rip. Your logic is entirely circular. At what point of the sperm penetrating the egg do you think it becomes a sacred child? Right when the sperm hits the egg? When its pentrated the surface? When exactly? Heck, why I am I asking, you didnt even answer my question about whether fertility clinics were mass murderers, whose garbage cans were like mini-concentration camps?
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 9, 2007 @ 10
Sorry for the delay in responding to ya, bud. You explained exactly when the “sacred child” is formed. (Curious that you disparage children like that.) Disposal of embryos is killing children. Unfortunately, it is legal in this country. I’ve noticed that some libs don’t like to apply the same standards to children they want and children they don’t want. I can see why you need to believe that a child isn’t a child until it’s able to live outside the womb, since you want to be for abortion. Did the time in which abortion should be allowed change for you as medical advances made it possible to save babies at earlier stages of gestation? But, why is it so important for you to believe that pro-lifer’s views are based upon subjugation of women rather than the life of a child? Do you have to do that to try to elevate your beliefs? Make it ok to kill babies since the other side just wants to keep women down? I know that nothing anyone says will stop you from clinging to your false impressions, but you can’t say you haven’t been told that you are wrong. Most people who oppose abortion are good, decent people who struggle with the issue knowing the situation an unwanted child will be born into. Some people, unlike you, are uncomfortable deciding in so cavalier a manner which children are worthy of life and which aren’t. I’m awfully glad you are comfortable making that decision. ;)
November 11th, 2007 at 9:19 am