Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers


Thursday, August 21, 2008
Obama: Abortion Radical
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:01 AM
The audio and transcript are out of then Illinois Senator Obama's argument against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. (HT: Change and Experience and Guy Benson).

This should end the issue for even nominal Catholics and long-ago Evangelicals.  This is Obama defending his vote to deny newly-born babies care because their mothers had hoped to abort them.  (And if this audio exists from the Illinois Senate floor, what more will follow?)

The transcript:

April 4, 2002

Senator Obama: So – and again, I’m – I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?
Senator O’Malley: In – in the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing this procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child is actually born and is alive, and there’s an assessment – an independent assessment of viability by – by – by another physician at the soonest practical date – or, time.
Senator Obama: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think, as – as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being – that – that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, if – if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, than maybe this bill makes sense, but I – I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case – and – and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue – that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to try to make sure that they’re looked after. Thank you, Mr. President.


View in ascending order View in descending order
Militarybooks writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 9:14 AM
Swung two young people in our home
Two of my daughter's college classmates watchined clips of Obama calling the Right to Life people liars, and the subsequent debate that followed on Hannity and Colmmes last night. (My daughter is pro-life, conservative, and the founder of the Young Republican's Club where she attended high school.)

Both her friends (Obama "supporters") were shocked by his callousness, his obvious prevarications, etc. and by the time they left, were seriously impacted by Obama's position.

This is a major issue, and it will not go away.

--tps
http://www.savasbeatie.com
terri writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 9:21 AM
Add to that Militarybooks
that he was all over the place with his statement. It actually made no sense.
LauraG writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 9:36 AM
Hypocratic Oath Pt 1


Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

Lerxst writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 9:37 AM
The only person...
....misrepresenting Barack Obama's position on this issue is Barack Obama. The man is a soulless liar and getting more pathetically desparate by the day. The boy is toast.
LauraG writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 9:37 AM
Hippocratic (correction) Oath Pt 2
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.


Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.
NoDonkey writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 9:40 AM
Huh?
"This should end the issue for even nominal Catholics and long-ago Evangelicals."

This should end the issue for Protestants, jews, atheists and in general, human beings.

Obama is a enthusiastic proponent of infanticide.

If the Democrats manage to steal enough votes to put this clown in the White House, he will nominate Dr. Mengele for Surgeon General.
Lerxst writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 9:47 AM
Laura
It's a very short step from Hippocratic to hypocritic and Obama has very long legs.

LauraG writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 9:49 AM
With my two posts above I contend
that some of today's doctors have become barbaric, butchers. For the almighty dollar, they have sold their souls.

In my wildest dreams, I can not fathom that practice, or believe that anyone who could perform such a cold, callous act of merciless, cold-blooded murder because of inconvenience to the mother has a heart or a soul, or a conscience.

I have always tried to find the good in anyone I meet, but I have nothing but contempt in my heart for such a doctor who apparently has no respect for human life, much less the oath he/she took to defend it.

The lack of moraliry and goodness in this country is turning into a decay of which the smell will cover the land until it will be hard to take a deep breath.

God must surely be looking down and relegating those to a particularly hot place in hell when he returns. As far a cold, heartless Barack Obama, I have been telling you people he is an evil, agenda-driven man with no heart---only ambition to be the first black leader in America, and he will do or say anything to advance that hope. Let's stop the Socialist scum before it's too late by voting for ANYONE beside him. And may God help us find a way to stop this hideous act of murder on our unborn.
LauraG writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 10:05 AM
Kimberly you are one for the record book
I have read your insane posts before and ignored them as simply the ravings of a lunatic. But today, I am in a place where I think you should told that you are a snake. You slither around posting your vile rhetoric in defense of an evil, man who will destroy this country with his blind ambition of power if he's put into the white house and you are just too stinking stupid to see it. You and those in your same frame of mind need to be contained in a place where you can not interfere with people of any moral standards or ethics. I think you feed on the negative posts people leave for you because it seems the more people disagree with your ignornat prattle, the more you post it. Get this much clear, I, for one believe you are cold, callous, heartless, communist-agenda promoting cretin who has no life. Your lack of compassion for your fellow man, in this case (the defenseless fetuses of babys) shows a clear picture of your empty soul, and you disgust me as no other human other than Barack Obama has ever disgusted me. Why don't you go and crawl into a deep, dark hole and pull the dirt in over yourself?
LauraG writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 10:40 AM
Kimberly Abortion cannot be justified
nor can anyone who supports it, as you and others do, without giving up any and all compassion for the helpless, defenseless, and innocent unborn. I happen to find that appalling, and can not accept any feeble explanatin for it's existence. And For your information, I don't give a hoot about Mc Cain. I am an independant, not a Republican and will vote for Mc Cain only to keep the cretin Obama out of office. I just think that abortion, and anyone who supports it for those who want it done, as well as though who performm it are lower than dirt.
Lerxst writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 10:48 AM
Kimberly
For God's sake focus you stupid girl.
The topic is abortion. Not McCain, not war, not adultery. Stick to the damn topic and let's see you defend the idiot you think should run this country. I am with Laura. You can't debate your way out of a paper bag. You never address the topic in hand. You are an embarrassment to serious liberals.

You wanna play hardball then bring it on...me, Neo and a few others round here are up for the challenge any day you want it. But then again you can't stick to a point or even debate the issue at hand so I think we'd be wasting our time. You can't argue with a sick mind.

Craig writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 10:59 AM
Yuckk
All I can say about Obama is, how is this even possible. I mean in 2002 he probably was already thinking of running for president.

I am not a supporter but this one blows my mind. What was the guy thinking?

Col Bat Guano writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 11:21 AM
What's that sound??
"Hissssssss"

Hear it??

There it is again!!

"Ssssssssssssssssssssss"

I can't tell anymore if that's the Blow-up Messiah Doll losing air at an ever increasing rate or high pressure steam leaking out of the collective craniums of the leftists on this site like Kimberly. Kimmie, one word for ya: Decaf!

As Scotty woulda said: "Captain, she'll blow soon! I canna hold it together no more!!"

As Obama is "attacked" with the facts of his history, watch the usual whines about "swiftboating" et.al, get louder and louder.
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 11:34 AM
I Don't See It
Hewitt and most of the commenters here are acting as if Obama's statement quoted above is some kind of smoking gun, revealing clearly just what kind of person he is. I've read through the quote several times and I just don't see it. What exactly is he saying that's so terrible to you?

Could someone cut-and-paste the damning parts of the above quote? I'm not convinced that most of you, or indeed Hewitt, have actually read the quote with any care.
NoDonkey writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 11:52 AM
"Captain, she'll blow soon!"
Obama's been blowing the entire time, finally people are noticing just how much he blows.
SAM writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 12:02 PM
Mortal Wound
Dems didn't look closely enough at Obama on this. It's been out there for years. It won't go away. He's now on his fourth try at explaining this away. His problem is that he's stepped well beyond a defense of Roe v. Wade. This isn't abortion; it's infanticide.

Nice going Dems. Republicans have Obama by the nuts on this one. Who wants to vote for a ghoul? It's laughable to have Obama quoting Matthew 25 "the least of my brothers."

One problem in the story is that Hannity screwed up the presentation last night along with his panel. Colmes argued that infants who survived the procedure ALREADY were protected when, IN FACT, they were not. The sponsors of the bill that Obama torpedoed got a legal opinion from the Illinois attorney general's office specifically stating that there was nothing illegal with leaving these abortion-surviving infants to die in janitors' closets. That's precisely why the bill's sponsors sought the protections provided in the bill that Obama torpedoed. Unfortunately, Hannity and the conversative panelist were informed enough to shove Colmes words down his throat.

I hope the RNC is lining up Jill Stanek for a small speaking role at the convention. She's not a lawyer, but she speaks pretty intelligently on the issue. This is a big deal because Obama is on the wrong side of the fight for respecting the sanctity of life--Obama the Impaler.
mbabbitt writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 12:13 PM
Why this is a smoking gun
The reason why the audio and quote is a smoking gun rests, in my opinion, on three things: One, the way Obama considers that the effort to protect life puts a "burden on the attending physician" with the decision to call in another physician to see if the child is alive. Two, Obama considers the human being that is outside the womb as "that fetus, or child – however you want to describe it..." Notice the callous, clinical "it" pronoun. Finally, the third and most important point is Obama disregard for all of the evidence showing that aborting physicians have indeed ignored that the child is alive. This was the purpose of the Born Alive Act in the first place. This shows he has a willingness to turn a blind eye to a gruesome and documented reality. And why? Because it might impact the decision to abort. This is an amazingly cold and academic view of life. It exposes Obama as the ultimate abortion on demand ideologue. Smokin!
LauraG writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 12:25 PM
ABORTION OF HEALTHY FETUSES INFANTACIDE
Obama clearly supports the woman's right to choose to "kill" a healthy fetus because she doesn't want to be bothered with it, and the butcher's (Dr.s who abandon the hippocratic oath) right to "kill" it at the whim of that woman.

Killing an innocent, viable, helpless life is INFANTACIDE no matter how you slice it or try to defend it - period! And to not allow the aborted baby who lives despite the barbaric act of murder is despicable, unconscionable, and downright inhuman.

It is my personal opinion that the doctors who do it should burn in hell along with the woman who requests it.
Jorge writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 1:14 PM
Purple Lips Of Death

He's not called that for nothing.

+ + +
icaacster writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 1:15 PM
audio
…"they’re not just coming out limp and dead" – ooohh, that's cold, let's hear that audio.
hambones writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 1:25 PM
Munck
I hope you have read mbabbit and Laura's posts. The viability or lack thereof, of a baby is generally not what a doctor performing an abortion is concerned with. The bill he opposed was only addressing doctors who fail to kill the baby before it leaves the mother. Their original intent in the procedure was to kill.
Why on earth would you trust them to be a good arbiter of viability?

I know we are supposed to think that liberals are well intentioned, nice people with whom we just disagree with, but I'm with Laura on this one. Anyone that supports killing born, potentially viable babies and discarding them like trash is just horrible. I can't think of a good, or even marginal excuse for it.
LauraG writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 1:25 PM
Peeps aren't addressing infantacide
ideals of BHO. This subject is being mostly ignored. Way to go, folks! Keep your heads in the sand and let the evil dems continue to kill the innocent.
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 1:44 PM
mbabbitt 12:13 PM -- Weak Arguments
"One, the way Obama considers that the effort to protect life puts a "burden on the attending physician" with the decision to call in another physician to see if the child is alive."

But he says that the attending physician should be able to be counted on to preserve life. That is part and parcel of the Hippocratic Oath. He goes on to say that if they felt that the doctor would not do that, then maybe the bill makes sense. As I understand it, this is pretty much standard medical practice; we do not legally require a second doctor's opinion as to whether or not death has occurred.

This whole part boils down to whether or not doctors can be trusted to fulfill their oath. In general they are, but it may be that the anti-abortion fanatics refuse to do so in this particular set of circumstances. Obama accepts that possibility. Apparently the "Medical Society," whatever that is, is objecting to that view and to the legal requirement to get a second opinion where normal circumstances would not require it. I'd assume the Medical Society is a bunch of doctors. Obama seems to be quoting them with the "burden on the attending physician" stuff.

[Having trouble submitting -- splitting in two]
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 1:46 PM
mbabbitt 12:13 PM -- Weak Arguments
"Two, Obama considers the human being that is outside the womb as "that fetus, or child – however you want to describe it..." Notice the callous, clinical "it" pronoun."

So your argument here is entirely about his choice of pronoun? That's pretty thin. Its status as a fetus or child is exactly what is in question, so his description there makes sense.

"Finally, the third and most important point is Obama disregard for all of the evidence showing that aborting physicians have indeed ignored that the child is alive."

No, he explicitly mentions that possibility. It seems to me that if they're doing that, it's a matter for the medical ethics board and the police.

Of course, no one who's absolutely opposed to abortion under any circumstances is going to accept any of these arguments.
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 1:53 PM
hambones 1:25 PM
"I hope you have read mbabbit and Laura's posts."

Yes, and there's no point in arguing with either Laura or you. You're both fanatics, utterly opposed to abortion under any circumstances. You have the erronous idea that a fetus is a person, and there's no way I can talk you out of that definition.

However, I'd point out that in this quote, Obama is only repeating the arguments on both sides. You are objecting to the opinions of the Medical Society, whatever that is. The over-the-top condemnations of Obama have no justification in this quote, except for the fact that fanatics spew their hate at everyone in range. You're not convincing anyone.
eddie too writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 2:11 PM
Bob M.

what convinces you that the pre-born fruit of human sexual intercourse is not a human being?
spacekicker writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 2:21 PM
what I see here
is that he knew exactly what the terms of the bill were, that is, a bill to protect those aborted fetuses (that now have nothing to do with the patient aborting them) if showing signs of life should be saved. The audio and transcript shows he knew exactly what a NO would mean and yet...he did it anyway.

That's pretty messed up IMO
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 2:30 PM
eddie too 2:11 PM
"what convinces you that the pre-born fruit of human sexual intercourse is not a human being?"

It is not sentient, has no thoughts, no memories, no emotions, no self-awareness. There's no human personality and never was one, hence no human being.

It can be argued that as the fetus approaches birth, it develops some or all of these thing, though there is some evidence that self-awareness or sentience don't develop until a number of months after birth. I can't make judgments on that -- it's above my pay grade. However, I think there is one person who can, and who should be allowed to make it: the mother.
hambones writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 2:34 PM
Bob
When does a born baby get rights? That's what this issue was about. This style of abortion fully delivers the babies intact. They are generally too young to survive, but occasionally (10-20% of the time per Jill Stanek) they could at least have a shot.

I'm not a single issue, anti abortion extremist as you imagine. Life issues are important, but I do look at the total package. I don't call it murder if a baby is previable (it's still wrong), and if a mother's life is in real danger I think she should be able to save herself. That said, I can't imagine someone being so cold as to being okay with killing born babies who could make possibly make it. The Senate unanimously agreed that this is wrong.

Apparently you are as cold hearted as Obama and Princeton's famed supporter of infanticide Peter Singer.
hambones writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 2:39 PM
Wow
My last post was made without seeing Bob's response to eddie. He really does support Peter Singer's view of personhood that allows for killing of babies for some time into their post birth development.

Bob, I sincerely hope you don't die with a soul that cold and calloused. With your dim moral views, my guess is that you don't think there's much after this life anyway.
Elderscapes writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 2:47 PM
The subject is infanticide ---
not abortion.

Watch this link if you need assistance in understanding the difference:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo&eurl=http://www.a mericanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/obamas_swift_boat.html

Watch it. I dare you.

THEN review O's position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Bill.

eddie too writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 2:59 PM
Bob M.

how do you know when a human being becomes sentient?
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 3:26 PM
hambones 2:39 PM
"When does a born baby get rights?"

He gets the right to drink 21 years after birth, to vote 18 years, drive 16 years. Other rights, like the right to determine his own medical treatment, I don't know; the parents seem to retain that right into his teens.

"Bob, I sincerely hope you don't die with a soul that cold and calloused."

Not going to die with a soul at all; there's no such thing.

"With your dim moral views, my guess is that you don't think there's much after this life anyway."

In the sense you mean it, I don't think there's anything after this life. Your "dim" is a moral judgment, one which you don't have the knowledge or right to make.

eddie too: "how do you know when a human being becomes sentient?"

Ultimately, you don't. I have no reason to believe that you're sentient, for example. But I'll give you and any organism that can pass the Turing Test the benefit of the doubt.

There's actually a somewhat questionable test for sentience, involving recognizing yourself in a mirror. It's been used to suggest that great apes, dolphins, killer whales, and (strangely) magpies are sentient. It ruled out babies under the age of 18 months, dogs, and cats. That latter is why I find it questionable; I'm quite certain that several of our cats are sentient -- and malicious. Especially the one I've been having do our income taxes for the last few years.
hambones writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 3:40 PM
you forgot some
Does the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell? It seems to me that our founders thought that those were important ones to mention in the Declaration of Independance.

I may not be qualified to judge much, but I am quite certain that "dim" (as in not bright) is an apt description of your views about the morality of killing children. Apparently you think that until children get close to being potty trained, they are expendable. I think even BHO would rule out killing babies that have lived a couple of months outside of the womb.
eddie too writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 3:45 PM
Bob M.

OK, you do not know when a human being becomes sentient. I accept that.

Why should a mother be better able to determine whether a human being is sentient than someone else?

I understand now why you might support Obama. If you can make the case that an 18 month old human baby is not a human being, than you and Obama are soul mates (just my characterization of your relationship).

Your unwillingness to accept that being physically human is the only thing we can determine for sure, since a soul and sentience are beyond our abilities to determine, explains why you so desire to deny human rights to pre-born human beings. It is not uncommon for people to deny humanness to others based on some impossible to determine characteristic.
eddie too writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 3:50 PM
It is interesting that people like

Obama and Bob Munck believe you must earn your human rights. This certainly gives the appearance that they are not interested in unalienable rights.

I wish more people knew or realized that Obama thinks human rights are not unalienable but must be earned.

We have Bob Munck to thank for forcing us to see the real Obama clearly. Thanks Bob!!!
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 4:14 PM
hambones 8 3:40 PM
"Does the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell?"

Sure, and the founders said that "all men" had that right. We've had the sense to extend it (mostly) to "all men and women," but they most certainly didn't say "all human beings." Do four-year-olds have the right to liberty? Do naughty first-graders have the right to the pursuit of happiness? Definitely not in practice. "Life" squeaks through because killing human beings is clearly immoral (though you right-wingers certainly make a great many exceptions to that rule).

"Apparently you think that until children get close to being potty trained, they are expendable."

How do you come to that conclusion? Because I said infants may not attain sentience until 18 months? Remember, sentience was only one of the criteria I gave for being a human being. Babies clearly have memories, emotions, even a certain self-awareness where it differs from sentience. Remember, no one is sentient all the time; did you think I'd condone the killing of people who are asleep?

eddie too: "Obama and Bob Munck believe you must earn your human rights."

Where did I say anything about "earning" rights?

"Why should a mother be better able to determine whether a human being is sentient than someone else?"

I didn't say she was better at it, I said she and only she has the right to do so. We have many areas where the parents have the ultimate right to make decisions for their children, even if they really suck at it.
eddie too writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 4:25 PM
Bob M

I referred to "earn your rights" in the sense that being human as a result of biology is not enough to have those rights in your world. You must grow into those rights.

Why does only the mother have a right to determine when a human being is sentient?

What gives a mother the right to determine when another human being is protected by the law?

Also, you well know that parental rights are not absolute.
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 4:42 PM
eddie too 4:25 PM
"I referred to "earn your rights" in the sense that being human as a result of biology is not enough to have those rights in your world. You must grow into those rights."

In "my" world? Are you saying that in "your" world everyone should have the right to vote at birth, and that I'm being restrictive by insisting that they don't get it until they're 18? I don't understand your point there.

"Why does only the mother have a right to determine when a human being is sentient? What gives a mother the right to determine when another human being is protected by the law?"

I didn't really say, or at least didn't mean to say, either of those things. My opinion is that the mother has the absolute and sole right to decide when her unborn fetus should be treated as a human being. Some mother may decide that that happens at conception, another may say at six months after conception. My point is that while the fetus is part of her body, she gets to decide.

"Also, you well know that parental rights are not absolute."

But control over one's own body is, as long as you're not declared mentally incompetent. I believe that some states have laws against suicide, which strike me as both unconstitutional and crazy.
Randy writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 4:52 PM
Abortion is a losing issue
Do you people not realize that the majority of the country is pro-choice? Abortion is only an issue to you idiot Christians (see fossil record!), and even then I believe it is all a phony wedge issue. Hypocrisy!
eddie too writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 4:53 PM
Bob M,

if control over one's body were absolute, then a person should be able to eat, breathe or drink anything they want. Since a person cannot eat, breathe or drink anything they want, control over one's body is not absolute. Another example is that you cannot just command your finger to pull the trigger of a gun whenever you want.
LauraG writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 5:13 PM
Randy: Did you just crawl form the
bowels of the earth? Did you nurse a bottle filled with the vile contents of a sewer? Was your heart ripped from your chest and replaced with a block of ice?

I believe you to be a vile, uncaring, sub-human individual to the core; and it is my opinion that if you can even want to believe that the majority of the country is pro-choice that in and of itself renders you completely lacking of any intelligence whatsoever, and should be sufficient for having you committed to an asylum for life.

How people like you even rate having a place to stand on this earth is beyond me.
eddie too writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 5:13 PM
Randy,

if it is such a losing issue why is Obambi spending so much time trying to soften his position on abortion? Think before you type!!!
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 5:47 PM
Laura 5:13 PM
"Did you just crawl form the bowels of the earth? Did you nurse a bottle filled with the vile contents of a sewer?"

Wow! There's the response of a completely insane, nut-case fanatic. Right-to-life people must be proud to have a loon like that on their side.
Randy writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 6:06 PM
Laura
You are obviously a hate filled right wing religious wacko. NO ONE supports abortion!! Can't you nuts understand that?? It is a very simple issue. The government has no business in this area, it is a medical and private issue. Is that not a right wing position in the first place? Keep your religion to yourself and out of my government. Has the world not had enough bad decisions decided on religious wackery?
Lerxst writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 6:09 PM
Bob Munck
You said: "It can be argued that as the fetus approaches birth, it develops some or all of these thing, though there is some evidence that self-awareness or sentience don't develop until a number of months after birth."

So at what point is it still OK to kill the child....how many months after birth does it become a "human being" and gain the right not to be aborted?

Sentience: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought.

Explain to me why a baby reacts to being smacked immediately after birth by crying?

Sick.

Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 6:28 PM
Lerxst 6:09 PM
"Sentience: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought."

That's a much more restricted definition than the one I'm using. That's why I added the term "self-awareness" and mentioned the mirror test for sentience. Perhaps I should have added words like sapient, conscious, even awake. The idea is that there's a person in there, conscious of its own existence and of the fact that it's thinking. (Of course, that latter makes the definition of a human being/person circular.) You are sentient because you think of yourself as a person sitting there a couple of inches behind the bridge of your nose, observing the universe.

"So at what point is it still OK to kill the child."

Given that "child" means "young human being," never.

"how many months after birth does it become a "human being" and gain the right not to be aborted?"

My belief is that it becomes a human being no later than at birth and as much earlier as the mother says that it is.
mbabbitt writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 7:58 PM
Obama's supporters
You have to love the Hippocratic Oath argument. If that was really in effect there would practically no abortions as "Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest." says it all. It is a stupid argument and irrelevant for all practical purposes. Obama's intention is to remove all hindrances to a woman's ability to remove her punishment from Nature -- oh, I mean abort the child she is carrying. To defend Obama's extremism in this issue is to show that one has given up all objectivity. He cares for the mother, not for the "it", the impersonal blob of unwanted flesh that happens to have the inclination to live.
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 10:21 PM
mbabbitt 7:58 PM
"remove all hindrances to a woman's ability to remove her punishment from Nature -- oh, I mean abort the child she is carrying."

Suppose a 13-year-old is raped by her father, becomes pregnant, and scans show a congenital spinal defect that means that carrying the child to term would cripple her for life. Apparently you and McCain, and most certainly the Republican platform position on abortion, would demand that she bear that "punishment."

"To defend Obama's extremism"

No, sorry, that above is EXTREMISM. That GOP/McCain position is outright insane fanaticism.
Col Bat Guano writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 10:40 PM
Bob Munck sez
"Not going to die with a soul at all; there's no such thing."

So what's the point of your existence then? What would be the difference between some gangsta or perhaps Obama himself putting a bullet in you or cutting your head off respectively and me poisoning rats or squashing bugs? You really have no right whatsoever in objecting to either if your existence has no real purpose in the overall course of animal (not human according to you) events.
arch writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 10:40 PM
eddie
eddie too writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 3:50 PM
It is interesting that people like

Obama and Bob Munck believe you must earn your human rights. This certainly gives the appearance that they are not interested in unalienable rights.

I wish more people knew or realized that Obama thinks human rights are not unalienable but must be earned.

We have Bob Munck to thank for forcing us to see the real Obama clearly. Thanks Bob!!!


Arch says"

That is right eddie. Libtards have no understanding of unalienable rights. Just ask any one of them, what are rights and where do they come from? You will see what I mean by their answers. They don't even know the facts about the founding of our glorious nation and whence our virtues of freedom and liberty were originated. They only spout the libtard cannards taught at college campuses. Obammy is a prime example as you pointed out.
arch writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 10:51 PM
Bob Munck
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 10:21 PM
mbabbitt 7:58 PM
"remove all hindrances to a woman's ability to remove her punishment from Nature -- oh, I mean abort the child she is carrying."

Suppose a 13-year-old is raped by her father, becomes pregnant, and scans show a congenital spinal defect that means that carrying the child to term would cripple her for life. Apparently you and McCain, and most certainly the Republican platform position on abortion, would demand that she bear that "punishment."

Arch says'

Why do you worry about the wellbeing of the pregnant 13 year old girl then Munk? After all she has no soul anyway right? Let her die in childbirth or be crippled for life. Who cares? Certainly not you or your libtard ghoul associates. If you cannot care about the conceived human, you cannot care about the human being period. You sicken me with your arrogance on display and let me ask you why that would be?
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 11:05 PM
Col Bat Guano 10:40 PM
"So what's the point of your existence then?"

Ah, strong words from someone whose chosen name for himself is "feces of flying rats."

You apparently think that the only reason for anyone to exist comes after death, when that soul thing kicks in. Is that true? Have you really done nothing whatsoever in this life, and are only waiting to justify yourself by spending an infinite amount of time hanging around on clouds playing a harp (or however you visualize an eternity in "heaven").

If the only real point to your life comes after death, shouldn't you be giving serious thought to eating your gun (or whatever weapon the Guano clan uses)? Why continue to waste your time here? Embark on the next great adventure! (Warning: the christian heaven does not have Wifi, or indeed any broadband access at all; strictly AOL dialup. For ETERNITY!)
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 11:11 PM
arch 10:40 PM
"Obama and Bob Munck believe you must earn your human rights."

I didn't say that; 'eddie too' just made it up. It rather spoils your entire argument when you base it on things that are demonstratively not true.

"After all she has no soul anyway right?"

You value people only for their souls, and not because they're people? That's sad.
d'Brit writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 11:35 PM
A few points
"My opinion is that ...while the fetus is part of her [the mother) body, she gets to decide."

But it isn't 'part' of her body. The mother IS providing nutrients necessary to the growth and viability of the fetus, yes. But from the moment of conception, the baby at the cellular level is a separate entity.

So, your position becomes a case of the mother having the right to withdraw her 'support' if she decides to. Yet you do not support the right of a mother to do so AFTER birth, in spite of the fact that you deny the existance of the soul.

Therefore as sentience, self-awareness, thoughts, memories are too vague for a precise determinatio...your position rests SOLELY on the ability of the baby after birth to be 'independently' viable. Fine.

THAT appears to be the case with 10-20% of the botched abortions. Janek and the Chicago hospital agree on that range.

Given that rationale the following is noteworthy:

"My belief is that it becomes a human being no later than at birth"

Then logically you cannot support anything less than the attending physician doing everything in their power to save what was a fetus but is NOW a BABY in a botched abortion.

If after birth, whether wanted or not, whether a normal vaginal delivery or cesarean OR a botched abortion...once outside the mother it is a baby and deliberate withholding of medical care is BY YOUR logic, undeniably INFANTICIDE.

arch writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 11:40 PM
Munck
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 11:11 PM

You value people only for their souls, and not because they're people? That's sad.

Arch says:

Munck. What is truly sad is that you have no regard for human life. Advocating the death of human beings by other human beings is no virtue in species survival. Just ask the extinct species of the world how they would have done it better. Procreation is essential in survival last I heard. Maybe you know something I don't? Hmmmmm. Logic problem?
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 11:58 PM
arch 11:40 PM
"Maybe you know something I don't?"

Boy, there's a hole with no bottom.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 12:12 AM
Munck
Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 11:58 PM
arch 11:40 PM
"Maybe you know something I don't?"

Boy, there's a hole with no bottom.

Arch says"

Wow! What an argument to support your position. Maybe the hole is at the other end of the brain? Hmmmm, You are right about one thing though. A hole has no bottom!!
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 12:13 AM
d'Brit 11:35 PM
"But from the moment of conception, the baby at the cellular level is a separate entity."

No, it isn't. It's INSIDE her body. Do you know what the word "separate" means?

If by "at the cellular level" you're alluding to the fact that it has different DNA, so what? There are lots of things inside your body that have different DNA than you do. In fact, less than 10% of the cells in your body have "your" DNA, the DNA you'll pass on to your offspring.

"Yet you do not support the right of a mother to do so AFTER birth, in spite of the fact that you deny the existance of the soul."

At that point it's a human being. Do you really value human beings only for their souls?

"your position rests SOLELY on the ability of the baby after birth to be 'independently' viable. Fine."

I haven't said ANYTHING like that. In fact, a human baby is completely dependent for a very long time, longer than pretty much every other species.

"Then logically you cannot support anything less than the attending physician doing everything in their power to save what was a fetus but is NOW a BABY in a botched abortion."

Your "logically" seems to be based on the erroneous idea that an abortion is the same thing as a birth.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 12:24 AM
Munck
Say my friend. What may I ask, is the difference between a parasite and a developing human blastocyst? Does not their DNA have any significance? You have trodden on the path towards tyranny when it is the human who does the determining of right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you do not recognize the omnipotent Creator, then you have no respect for human life above the parasitic animal. Which is the correct survival enhancer for one's species, my friend?
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 12:48 AM
arch 12:24 AM
"What may I ask, is the difference between a parasite and a developing human blastocyst?"

I give up, what?

"Does not their DNA have any significance?"

Significance in what sense?

"You have trodden on the path towards tyranny when it is the human who does the determining of right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That has always been true. Are you claiming that the fact that the founders of the US were human means America is a tyranny?

"If you do not recognize the omnipotent Creator, then you have no respect for human life above the parasitic animal."

A leap of logic that defies description. Explain to me how the first part of that leads to the second.

"Which is the correct survival enhancer for one's species, my friend?"

The human population of the world is growing at about 1.2% per year, about 72 million people, which means it will double in 60 years. When abortion becomes so frequent that that growth rate goes negative, I'll worry.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 12:55 AM
Bob Munck
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 12:48 AM
arch 12:24 AM
"What may I ask, is the difference between a parasite and a developing human blastocyst?"

I give up, what?

Arch says:

I didn't imagine you knew. So I understand that you deem us all equal to parasites and not above. No surprise. Libtards are most often dense.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 1:07 AM
Bob Munck
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 12:48 AM

Arch said " Does not their DNA have any significance?"

Significance in what sense? said Munck


Arch says.

DNA is what makes every individual unique. Science has proven beyond a doubt, that a human DNA genome results in a human adult individual if not interfered with during development. A parasite's animal DNA genome results in a form of its own species and is unique to its species likewise. Elementary science my friend.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 1:16 AM
Munck

Arch said

"You have trodden on the path towards tyranny when it is the human who does the determining of right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Munck said"


That has always been true. Are you claiming that the fact that the founders of the US were human means America is a tyranny?

Arch says"

Not at all. The basis of fact are that the founders shed their human determination of rights and submitted the granter of unalienable human rights to the Creator in the Christian Bible. This is indeed historical fact my friend. This alone is the prime cause of the greatness of our nation and has resulted in the most freedoms and liberties afforded to human beings ever in the history of the world. Facts suck don't they?
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 1:17 AM
arch 12:55 AM
"So I understand that you deem us all equal to parasites and not above."

So you don't think that you're different in any way from a blastocyst? That your consciousness, thoughts, emotions, memories, relationships to others, everything that has happened in your life has no meaning and no value?

A human blastocyst is a tiny wad of about 80 cells; no nerves, no brain, no senses. There's more life in a single strand of your hair. About a million of them every day fail to attach to the wall of the uterus and die, and nobody cares.

When a blastocyst does attach, it essentially becomes a parasite on the host body.
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 1:23 AM
arch 1:07 AM
"Science has proven beyond a doubt, that a human DNA genome results in a human adult individual if not interfered with during development."

Not true. I suspect you don't know what the word "genome" means. Look it up.
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 1:25 AM
arch
What's with the sudden frequent interjections of "my friend?" Are you trying to make us think that you're old and senile?
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 1:33 AM
Munck
Arch said"

If you do not recognize the omnipotent Creator, then you have no respect for human life above the parasitic animal."

Munck said"

A leap of logic that defies description. Explain to me how the first part of that leads to the second.

Arch says"

Simple my friend. If we are not created, then we are not special, favored, and higher among the species. We are not the highest order of living organisms to ever exist as random selection would have it. Again facts defy your question. We are the highest living creature ever in the history of the world with no competition in mind or body amongst living creatures. We are the only species that can reason and know that we will ultimately die. Fact to ponder, we are special not by our own means but by something much higher than our human minds can imagine. Imagine that my friend.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 1:37 AM
Listen Munck
Listen my friend. Confusing the subject at hand is not productive. Listen and learn or remain ignorant by interrupting with inane libtard obfuscations
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 1:48 AM
Munck
Arch said.

"Which is the correct survival enhancer for one's species, my friend?"

Munck said

The human population of the world is growing at about 1.2% per year, about 72 million people, which means it will double in 60 years. When abortion becomes so frequent that that growth rate goes negative, I'll worry.

Arch says"

So you plainly advocate a plan that would worry you if it was implemented to its completion? I am sorry my friend that you would aspire to a dogma that would result in future problems to yourself and to your fellow human travelers. Now you see the logical error in your thinking as I have educated you. Live and learn my friend and face the facts of life on earth. Be well Munck and remember that it was good old Arch that told you so!!!
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:01 AM
Munck
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 1:17 AM
arch 12:55 AM
"So I understand that you deem us all equal to parasites and not above."

So you don't think that you're different in any way from a blastocyst? That your consciousness, thoughts, emotions, memories, relationships to others, everything that has happened in your life has no meaning and no value?

A human blastocyst is a tiny wad of about 80 cells; no nerves, no brain, no senses. There's more life in a single strand of your hair. About a million of them every day fail to attach to the wall of the uterus and die, and nobody cares.

When a blastocyst does attach, it essentially becomes a parasite on the host body.

Arch says"

Munck. Let me further educate you. Believe it or not, the fact remains that the soul, consciousness, thoughts, emotions, relationships to others, everything that will happened in your life, is present in the blastocyst if not before. If this is not true, then how can something come out of nothing? This defies the physical laws of nature. There must be a first cause to any event and if a human being and all it entails results from a blastocyst, then it must be in existence before full development occurs. You may not argue any further as QED. My friend.
B2slim writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:07 AM
"BORN ALIVE" is the issue

HOW:::: in the WORLD can the vicious slaughter of a "BORN ALIVE" baby save the MOTHER's life?

they are detached::::

Obama supports the vicious elimination of a "BORN ALIVE" baby:

He maintains that "OTHERS" must eliminate the "BORN ALIVE" baby because the Mother's original intent was to kill it before it was "SO CALLED BORN"

sick
demented
words have not been written to describe how evil the will to eliminate by whatever means a helpless baby who is alive because:
it is not perfect
it is not wanted
the original intent was to eliminate it before it was born:

IT IS a lie to suggest that to eliminate a "BORN ALIVE" baby is to save the mother's life:

They are both "INDEPENDENT" at that moment:

MaryStella writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:14 AM
Human Rights
When a baby gets Human Rights, is quite clearer than ever by the latest development of ultrasound technology.
The fact that human life begins at conception is a scientific one on the embryology testbooks backing, thus answering the scientific philosophical question when a baby gets human rights.
With the new utrasound machines, you can observe the development of the child, at the earliest of the baby's conception.
For the believers: Psalm 139 (13 - 18)
For thou didst knit me together in my mothers womb,
I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful,
Wonderful are thy works,
Thou knowest me right well;
My frame was not hidden from thee,
When I was being made in secret,
intricately wrought in the depths
of the earth,
Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance,
in thy book were written, every one of them,
the days were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them,
How precious to me are thy thoughts,
Oh God!

arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:25 AM
B2slim
B2slim writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:07 AM

They are both "INDEPENDENT" at that moment:

arch says"

You are most certainly on the right track. I would add that before that moment, the conceived human individual was present. In fact I believe that the full essence of the individual human life is present at conception or the physical laws of nature are not being followed. IF one believes that something cannot come out of nothing, then one must believe that the full individual is present at conception. To believe otherwise is to have a faith greater than the religious who also believe in miracles.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:28 AM
MaryStella
MaryStella writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:14 AM
Human Rights
When a baby gets Human Rights, is quite clearer than ever by the latest development of ultrasound technology.
The fact that human life begins at conception is a scientific one on the embryology testbooks backing, thus answering the scientific philosophical question when a baby gets human rights.
With the new utrasound machines, you can observe the development of the child, at the earliest of the baby's conception.
For the believers: Psalm 139 (13 - 18)
For thou didst knit me together in my mothers womb,
I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful,
Wonderful are thy works,
Thou knowest me right well;
My frame was not hidden from thee,
When I was being made in secret,
intricately wrought in the depths
of the earth,
Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance,
in thy book were written, every one of them,
the days were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them,
How precious to me are thy thoughts,
Oh God!


Arch says"

My God!!! Mary you are a prophet or a genius. God bless you for your input.
B2slim writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:38 AM
BORN alive can't "LIVE" ? U say ?

excuse me: have you been hiding under a rock:

Millions of Premature babies at all stages of development have lived full and productive lives:

Even 4 1/2 month term babies:

DO YOUR RESEARCH !
B2slim writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:48 AM
PRO choice is KEEP your pants on:

I do not object to birth control:

HOWEVER: the vicious slaughter of a "BORN ALIVE" baby because :
it is not perfect
unwanted
a planned elimination

is criminal, truly evil
even pro choice people shudder at the thought of such a monsterous act.

AND when you research every single part (gibberish over the entire debate) before, during and even after OBAMA's support of the elimination of a BORN ALIVE child, which he said cannot be called a person because the original intent was to eliminate it before it was born, and the lie was to save the mother's life: HIS POSITION is or "change" to "WAS" that It cannot receive any food, or life saving care:

THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE of all of his gibberish:
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:57 AM
B2slim
B2slim writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:48 AM
PRO choice is KEEP your pants on:

Arch says" Yep. Total choice.
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 10:54 AM
arch 1:33 AM
"If we are not created, then we are not special, favored, and higher among the species."

That's right; we're not.

"We are the highest living creature ever in the history of the world with no competition in mind or body amongst living creatures."

That's obviously false. Other species are faster, stronger, more agile, better adapted to their environment, exist in hugely larger numbers, and live in places where we wouldn't survive for a minute.

"We are the only species that can reason"

Obviously false. You must have had a pet at some time -- a cat or dog -- and seen it figure out how to get into a container or around a closed door. Put in a room with a stick and a bunch of bananas hanging out of reach, a chimp will quickly figure out how to get them. Gorillas and chimps have learned sign language.

Sure, we're BETTER at reasoning than other species, but that's just our specialty. The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.

"know that we will ultimately die."

A lot of people don't know this, think that they will live forever in some strange floating cloud.

"Fact to ponder, we are special not by our own means but by something much higher than our human minds can imagine."

You seem to have an extremely disparaging view of your own species. We've achieved what we have entirely by our own efforts, and should be proud of that.
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:01 AM
arch 1:48 AM
"So you plainly advocate a plan that would worry you if it was implemented to its completion?"

Utter nonsense. Do you really believe something that stupid, or are you just playing with words?

"Live and learn my friend and face the facts of life on earth. Be well Munck and remember that it was good old Arch that told you so!!!"

Ever hear the term "passive-aggressive?"
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:28 AM
arch 2:01 AM
"Believe it or not, the fact remains that the soul, consciousness, thoughts, emotions, relationships to others, everything that will happened in your life, is present in the blastocyst if not before."

So you don't think that we have free will? That everything we do, say, every decision we make, every thought we have comes prepackaged? There's nothing you can do that will change the preordained path of your life? It must be terrifying to be you, to know that you're helpless to determine your own future. On the other hand, it probably makes it easy to avoid tough decisions, knowing that all your decisions have already been made.

"If this is not true, then how can something come out of nothing? This defies the physical laws of nature."

Speaking as a recovering physicist, that's nonsense. Energy, matter, sounds, colors, huge amounts of stuff are pouring into us from all sides all the time.

"There must be a first cause to any event and if a human being and all it entails results from a blastocyst, then it must be in existence before full development occurs."

The cause-effect relationship breaks down in some ways with events on the quantum level. The universe is not a big machine with every future event already determined by the present configuration.

Are you actually trying to invoke the Laws of Thermodynamics to explain your theology? If so, doesn't it bother you that you're using them incorrectly?
Col Bat Guano writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:38 AM
Bob Munck
You are a sad, depressing person. As much as you will probably hate this, I've added you to our prayer list that you may find true joy in knowing an eternity with a Father that has always loved you.

BTW, my moniker is from my favorite character in "Dr. Strangelove."
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:50 AM
Col Bat Guano 11:38 AM
"You are a sad, depressing person."

At least I'm not a prevert.

"As much as you will probably hate this, I've added you to our prayer list"

Go ahead, knock yourself out.

'BTW, my moniker is from my favorite character in "Dr. Strangelove."'

Well, duh.
Col Bat Guano writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 12:12 PM
Bob Munck sez
"Go ahead, knock yourself out."

No sweat, my pleasure.
LauraG writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 12:20 PM
What's angry? Me. What is heartless? YOU
Randy writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 6:06 PM
Laura
You are obviously a hate filled right wing religious wacko. NO ONE supports abortion!! Can't you nuts understand that?? It is a very simple issue. The government has no business in this area, it is a medical and private issue. Is that not a right wing position in the first place? Keep your religion to yourself and out of my government. Has the world not had enough bad decisions decided on religious wackery?

ME: WHAT the hell?! No one supporsts abortion!!? You are the whacked out idiot here. If no one supports abortion, why the hell are there 4 million of them performed each year? I am pro life, and I do believe that life begins at conception, and I would cite the bible which says: God giveth life and God taketh it away." I believe that means that a doctor should not be allowed to rip a healty baby from the womb and destroy it because the so-called mother doesn't want it. The fetus which, if uninterrupted by a butcher for money, ie doctor(?) will eventually become a person (if given the chance) is not an 'IT.' Life begins when the egg is fertilized, and attached itself to the inside wall of the uterus and grows into a real-life baby.

And...if government has no business in this area why was Obama (a U.S. Senator) able to keep a baby who was aborted but lived from receiving medical attention?

And it's a private and medical decision? You think that any woman who allows herself to become preganant and decides to have it ripped from her body to die along with her doctor should actually have that right? The right to DESTROY a life that is innocent and helpless? Apparently you do and thedrefore I still maintain you are vermin. Live with it. Am I angry? you bet your a*s I'm angry with idiotit, heartless, cruel jerks such as yourself.

Randy writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 12:59 PM
Laura
Sorry but I do not base my life and world view on a "book" written 2000 years ago when the world was thought to be flat. Grow up!
eddie too writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 1:22 PM
Actually having an abortion is

a commercial decision between two parties who exchange items of value for service rendered. The idea that it is a private decision is totally erroneous.

The SCOTUS was completely wrong on Roe v. Wade. The U.S. Congress has authority from the U.S. Constitution to enact laws regulating commerce among the several states. Since obtaining an abortion is an act of commerce, the U.S. Congress, contrary to morons on the SCOTUS, has total authority to regulate any abortions that are obtained through the request or services of residents of two or more states.
d'Brit writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:48 PM
Clearing up misunderstandings
"from the moment of conception, the baby at the cellular level is a separate entity."

"No, it isn't. It's INSIDE her body. Do you know what the word "separate" means?"

I was civil, is there a reason why you felt the need to offend?

"If by "at the cellular level" you're alluding to the fact that it has different DNA, so what?"

I am NOT referring to DNA, as surrogate gestation disproves any need for shared DNA. However, the nature and activity at the cellular level is fundamental to the discussion.

From the MOMENT of conception the developing fetus is creating ITS OWN cells. The mother's body is ONLY providing the nutrients needed and the physical environment needed but in 'cellular' terms, the fetus is a separate entity. Ask any biologist if you need confirmation.
d'Brit writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:49 PM
Clearing up misunderstandingII
I said,"Yet you do not support the right of a mother to do so AFTER birth, in spite of the fact that you deny the existence of the soul."

"At that point it's a human being. Do you really value human beings only for their souls?"

IF souls DO exist, when it enters becomes the determination of personhood...but I mentioned it solely to point out that since you denied its existence AND you had already categorized sentience, thoughts, etc. as insufficient to determine the ONSET of personhood, all that was left was: "your position rests SOLELY on the ability of the baby after birth to be 'independently' viable."

"I haven't said ANYTHING like that. In fact, a human baby is completely dependent for a very long time, longer than pretty much every other species."

But you HAVE said EXACTLY that. It's IMPLICIT to your position. A baby's continued dependence is irrelevant TO THIS DISCUSSION. The point of which is, WHEN is a human being, a human being.

You have stated that it is when a fetus is 'born', meaning 'independent' viability.

FINE. My conclusion as to YOUR logic still holds:
"Then logically you cannot support anything less than the attending physician doing everything in their power to save what was a fetus but is NOW a BABY in a botched abortion."

d'Brit writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 2:49 PM
Clearing up misunderstandings III
"Your "logically" seems to be based on the erroneous idea that an abortion is the same thing as a birth."

It's YOUR 'logic', I am merely pointing out the consequence of your logic and here you ARE being disingenuous. Once the umbilical cord is cut and the BABY is breathing independently of its mother YOU have stated it's a HUMAN BEING.

Whether a botched abortion or a wanted child delivered naturally is IRRELEVANT to YOUR position. The mother's intention and the doctors failure to deliver the 'product' sought is IRRELEVANT as the fetus is NOW a BABY by your OWN admission. Therefore, to 'allow' the BABY to die is NOW INFANTICIDE!

You cannot logically escape the consequential conclusion of YOUR own logic.

Rather than a knee jerk denial, think it through. If you do, you will be compelled to either agree that your reasoning is in error, in which case you must disavow your basic premises OR acknowledge the unintended but necessary consequence of your rationale.

To do otherwise, is to reveal yourself to be intellectually dishonest. And if THAT is the case, why should we give your reasoning credence?
eddie too writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 3:03 PM
d'Brit,

wow, admirable postings all!!!
LauraG writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 3:20 PM
Randy GROW UP?!
because I believe in the bible and the sanctity of life? What a stupid argument! You know where you can go dontcha?
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 3:24 PM
d'Brit 2:49 PM
"Once the umbilical cord is cut and the BABY is breathing independently of its mother YOU have stated it's a HUMAN BEING."

Where did I say that? Please list the date and time of my comment that makes that statement.

You know, you can't just make things up, attribute them to me, and then argue against them. If nothing else, it makes you look really dumb when you lose that argument.
d'Brit writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 5:28 PM
dBrit 2:49
d'Brit 2:49 PM
"Once the umbilical cord is cut and the BABY is breathing independently of its mother YOU have stated it's a HUMAN BEING."

"Where did I say that? Please list the date and time of my comment that makes that statement.
You know, you can't just make things up, attribute them to me, and then argue against them. If nothing else, it makes you look really dumb when you lose that argument."

" Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 6:28 PM
(response to) Lerxst 6:09 PM"

"My belief is that it becomes a human being no later than at birth..."

When I said, ""Once the umbilical cord is cut and the BABY is breathing independently of its mother YOU have stated it's a HUMAN BEING." was IMPLICIT to the statement above, that you made YESTERDAY, on THIS thread. I am NOT making anything up. You simply refuse to acknowledge your OWN words and their IMPLICIT meaning.

Your repeated dissembling is a clear demonstration of intellectual dishonesty.

YOU are the one who is doing a fine job of making oneself out to be the fool.

Trollish behavior is boring and evidently you lack the honesty necessary for a civil discussion.
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 6:08 PM
d'Brit 5:28 PM
" Bob Munck writes: Thursday, August, 21, 2008 6:28 PM
(response to) Lerxst 6:09 PM"

"My belief is that it becomes a human being no later than at birth..."

And then I said:

"Your "logically" seems to be based on the erroneous idea that an abortion is the same thing as a birth."

I repeat, an abortion is not the same thing as a birth. Your logic is based on the assumption that it is.

"I am NOT making anything up."

You made up the whole part about "Once the umbilical cord is cut and the BABY is breathing independently of its mother ..." I've never even mentioned anything about umbilical cords or living independently of its mother.
d'Brit writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 6:54 PM
Enough with obfuscation and semantics
I am not arguing anything other than what YOUR reasoning logically IMPLIES.

Instead of rebuttal as to WHY the assertions I have made about YOUR logic are not valid, you argue semantics.

The assertion that "an abortion is not the same thing as a birth" is not the issue. Once the fetus is outside the mother and 'alive' and presumably breathing it is a BABY by YOUR own STATEMENTS.

You being purposely obtuse.

"You made up the whole part about "Once the umbilical cord is cut and the BABY is breathing independently of its mother ..."

You didn't have to say the specific words because they are IMPLICIT to your position. I was offering clarification.

A botched abortion leading to a living BABY alive, say a half hour after 'birth' (the reality of the fetus no longer being within the mothers body) is by definition one with the umbilical cord cut and the BABY breathing.

Your lack of specifics is irrelevant because those are defacto conditions of being 'alive'.

THAT is WHY I am not making anything up.

You continue to obfuscate, dissemble and argue irrelevant semantics.

THAT is the sign of intellectual dishonesty.

And that is the result of either fear or a competitiveness that disregards 'fair play' in the realm of intellectual discussion.

Either way it makes you unworthy of adult conversation. Perhaps you might come back when you're ready to put away 'childish things'.



MaryStella writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 7:37 PM
arch , as always,
Thanks, good friend.
God Bless you too.
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 8:08 PM
d'Brit 6:54 PM
"Once the fetus is outside the mother and 'alive' and presumably breathing it is a BABY by YOUR own STATEMENTS. ... A botched abortion leading to a living BABY alive, say a half hour after 'birth' ... is by definition one with the umbilical cord cut and the BABY breathing."

Notice that you had to put "alive" and "birth" in quotes. There's a reason for that, and you must realize it at some level. "By definition" is by YOUR definition, not mine.

I stated that my belief is that a fetus becomes a human being when it is born or earlier if the mother decides so. Conversely, if the mother decides to have an abortion, she is making the decision that the fetus is not a human being. Someone has to make that decision, and to my mind she is the only person with the standing, with the moral authority to do so. Not the doctor, not the (possible) father, not a judge, a politician in Washington, not you. That abortion is not a birth; the fetus doesn't automatically become a human being when it's outside the mother's body, because it wasn't born. IT WASN'T BORN.

[continued on next rock]
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 8:08 PM
d'Brit 6:54 PM

You postulate a situation where the fetus has been removed from the mother's body by an abortion and appears to be viable. Is that a horrible situation? Sure it is, it's ghastly. I would hope the mother would decide that it's a baby and to try to save it, but I don't get to make that decision. She does. People get into awful situations that we just can't imagine, and they make decisions that we just can't imagine. Nonetheless, I can't see that anyone has the right to take that decision away from her.

I guess another way to put it is that the fetus becomes a human being at birth, and the mother gets to decide if it was born and became a human or it was aborted and didn't.

It's the case in this country that we allow parents wide latitude in determining the medical treatment given to or withheld from their children. I see this as kind of an extension of that; if Christian Scientist parents can refuse treatment for a terminally-ill child, certainly a mother can refuse treatment for a fetus that she doesn't consider to be a human being. (Note that I don't agree that those parents should have that right; that's child abuse, of a human child, motivated by superstition. But they do.)

I believe that I'm being consistent in this, that I'm not "obfuscat[ing], dissembl[ing] and argu[ing] irrelevant semantics." You may not agree with my premises, but I believe that you're wrong in accusing me of illogic or intellectual dishonesty.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 8:39 PM
Munck
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 8:08 PM
d'Brit 6:54 PM

You postulate a situation where the fetus has been removed from the mother's body by an abortion and appears to be viable. Is that a horrible situation? Sure it is, it's ghastly. I would hope the mother would decide that it's a baby and to try to save it, but I don't get to make that decision. She does. People get into awful situations that we just can't imagine, and they make decisions that we just can't imagine. Nonetheless, I can't see that anyone has the right to take that decision away from her.

I guess another way to put it is that the fetus becomes a human being at birth, and the mother gets to decide if it was born and became a human or it was aborted and didn't.

It's the case in this country that we allow parents wide latitude in determining the medical treatment given to or withheld from their children. I see this as kind of an extension of that; if Christian Scientist parents can refuse treatment for a terminally-ill child, certainly a mother can refuse treatment for a fetus that she doesn't consider to be a human being. (Note that I don't agree that those parents should have that right; that's child abuse, of a human child, motivated by superstition. But they do.)

I believe that I'm being consistent in this, that I'm not "obfuscat[ing], dissembl[ing] and argu[ing] irrelevant semantics." You may not agree with my premises, but I believe that you're wrong in accusing me of illogic or intellectual dish

Arch says;

By your logic, then any mother can kill her child because she merely doesn't wish it to be a human entity. You are wrong to think this way Munck. The human exists at the moment of conception as every scientific peer reviewed study shows. One cannot merely wish it not to be so. Every existing human being began this way and your desire to have mere humans be the killers because of selfish wishes is offensive to civilized humanity.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 8:59 PM
Bob Munck
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:28 AM
arch 2:01 AM
"Believe it or not, the fact remains that the soul, consciousness, thoughts, emotions, relationships to others, everything that will happened in your life, is present in the blastocyst if not before."

So you don't think that we have free will? That everything we do, say, every decision we make, every thought we have comes prepackaged? There's nothing you can do that will change the preordained path of your life? It must be terrifying to be you, to know that you're helpless to determine your own future. On the other hand, it probably makes it easy to avoid tough decisions, knowing that all your decisions have already been made.

Arch says"

Munck. You did not listen to a thing I taught you. Instead you attack my verb usage and project meaningless life scenarios upon my character. This is typical of the closed minded libtards who obfuscate to avoid the reality of life. Think of it in this more simple manner. If murder is wrong because of its depriving one of their future, goals, and living experiences, then it is likewise wrong to deprive the blastocyst of its future, goals, and life experiences as it also has been proven to be a unique human being. The balstocyst is every bit a human being with a future than any living human being including yourself. It will never be the correct moral duty of other human beings to murder their own offspring at any stage of development for any reason what so ever barring one exception, self defense. To do so is illogical and immoral. What cannot you understand about this??
d'Brit writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 9:26 PM
RE: d'Brit 6:54
Finally, a substantial response.

OK if i understand you correctly you are modifying your prior position. I use modify rather than qualify because your prior statement was categorical.

"My belief is that it becomes a human being no later than at birth and as much EARLIER as the mother says that it is."(MY EMPHASIS)

Now your 'clarification' is that, that's what YOU believe but the prospective mother may decide otherwise...A point that was never in dispute.

BTW, I used 'alive' and 'birth' as methods of EMPHASIS, just as I do capitalization, for clarifications sake. NOT to beat you over the head or yell.

d'Brit writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 9:27 PM
RE: d'Brit 6:54 II
But to address the first of your two salient points:
“That abortion is not a birth; the fetus doesn't automatically become a human being when it's outside the mother's body, because it wasn't born. IT WASN'T BORN.”

You’re using semantics again. Of course it was ‘BORN’. Here is why: when two different mothers’ each want a baby and one is delivered vaginally and the other by cesarean, they are both ‘born’.

So the passage through the birth canal is irrelevant to being ‘born’. Each baby must take a breath of air to become ‘alive’ and independent from its mother and they each must have the umbilical cord cut.

Those same CONDITIONS would apply to any botched abortion where the fetus lives more than a few minutes outside the mother. Once alive outside the mother and breathing, the baby is now an independent entity. That is OBJECTIVELY true. It is TRUE whether the mother wants it to be or not.

The existential REALITY of a living, independent entity and its ACT of independently taking a breath, the necessary precondition for independent life is the determination of being born, because it ESTABLISHES that CONDITIONAL REALITY independent of the mothers’ desire OR intention.
d'Brit writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 9:28 PM
RE: d'Brit 6:54 III
So for you, being ‘born’ is a matter of the mother’s ‘intention’. As you say, “I guess another way to put it is that the fetus becomes a human being at birth, and the mother gets to decide if it was born and became a human or it was aborted and didn't.”

That subjective standard however is insufficient because her desire is inadequate in and of itself to stop the natural process. She MUST have assistance. Left unfettered the fetus will become a child regardless of her ‘desires’. Once the fetus is outside her body, her impotence in the face of existential reality is the demonstration of her subjective insufficiency.

The proof of this is that if someone else should offer sustenance to the baby, its continued existence and growth is independent of her desire or intention.

So for you, it is a moral judgment that the mothers’ desire for an abortion allows her the wherewithal to murder her child even after birth. To say otherwise is to either argue semantics or to be in a state of denial as to what you are actually asserting.

That is a subjective moral judgment at odds with nearly all of humanity’s moral judgment, which judges that to be infanticide. You are saying it is not a baby until the mother decides it is, even after the attainment of independent autonomy. Not only will few support you but logic cannot support your assertion that the mothers’ desire trumps existential reality.

Reality is NOT what we want it to be but what it IS irrespective of our subjective desire.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 10:03 PM
Bob Munck
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 10:54 AM
arch 1:33 AM
"If we are not created, then we are not special, favored, and higher among the species."

That's right; we're not.

Arch says"

Munck. It is much easier to pronounce your truth than to prove it, right?. Typical libtard response!!
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 10:12 PM
Munck be careful!
arch said

"If this is not true, then how can something come out of nothing? This defies the physical laws of nature."

Munck said
Speaking as a recovering physicist, that's nonsense. Energy, matter, sounds, colors, huge amounts of stuff are pouring into us from all sides all the time.

Arch says:

What kind of recovering physicist doesn't understand the fundamental laws of physics? Something can never come out of nothing my friend, unless it is supernatural. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Your insinuation and revelation of being a recovering physicist while making the statement above leads me to believe you a fraud or a liar.
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 10:29 PM
arch 8:59 PM
"By your logic, then any mother can kill her child because she merely doesn't wish it to be a human entity."

Wrong. By my logic, any woman can decide to prevent a fetus that she's carrying from being born. There's no child involved.

"it is ... wrong to deprive the blastocyst of its future, goals, and life experiences as it also has been proven to be a unique human being."

No, it has not. There's no such thing as "proven" in that situation. You are DEFINING a blastocyst as a human being, and I am not. You have no way to "prove" that your definition is true, and neither do I.

"What cannot you understand about this??"

I understand what you're saying perfectly well. I'm saying it's wrong because your definition of what makes a human being is wrong.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 10:33 PM
Munck
Arch said

"Fact to ponder, we are special not by our own means but by something much higher than our human minds can imagine."

Munck said

You seem to have an extremely disparaging view of your own species. We've achieved what we have entirely by our own efforts, and should be proud of that.

Arch says"

Munck. The founders of our constitution called upon divine intervention while composing and creating our constitution. I guess they had a disparaging view also? You are afforded the most freedom and liberty any nation has ever achieved by a group of founders that had a disparaging view of their own species then, right?
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 10:45 PM
arch 10:03 PM
Arch: "If we are not created, then we are not special, favored, and higher among the species."

Me: "That's right; we're not."

Arch: "It is much easier to pronounce your truth than to prove it, right?."

It's impossible to prove a negative. Let's see you prove that we're "special, favored, and higher."

Arch: "Something can never come out of nothing ... Matter can neither be created nor destroyed."

And it isn't. A blastocyst weighs maybe 100 nanograms, a newborn baby maybe 4 kilograms. That extra 3.99999..9 kilograms was ADDED TO IT by the gestation process.

You claimed that everything in the baby must have been present in the blastocyst because matter can be neither created nor destroyed. It isn't; it's added from outside.

The exact same things can be said about the energy in the blastocyst and baby and the information content of the blastocyst and baby, since energy and information likewise can be neither created nor destroyed. Your argument is wrong because it is not a closed system.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 10:57 PM
Munck has faith
Arch said:
"it is ... wrong to deprive the blastocyst of its future, goals, and life experiences as it also has been proven to be a unique human being."

Munck said:

No, it has not. There's no such thing as "proven" in that situation. You are DEFINING a blastocyst as a human being, and I am not. You have no way to "prove" that your definition is true, and neither do I.

Arch says:

Logic is on my side Munck. If a unique human individual is not present at conception then where did it come from? Something from nothing? I doubt it unless it is a supernatural event. See how faithful you are in that regard?
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:07 PM
Munck

Arch: "It is much easier to pronounce your truth than to prove it, right?."

It's impossible to prove a negative. Let's see you prove that we're "special, favored, and higher."

arch says"

Do I have to really do this? My God man!! look around you! I don't see dolphins constructing hospitals to care for their sick and wounded or chimpanzees or whales sending out probes to the fringes of space. I don't see the lesser life forms burying their dead loved ones with ritual now do I? Pleeeeez!!
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:13 PM
d'Brit 9:26 PM
"OK if i understand you correctly you are modifying your prior position."

I don't believe I am.

"Now your 'clarification' is that, that's what YOU believe but the prospective mother may decide otherwise."

No, in the abstract I believe what the mother believes, because she's the one who gets to decide. If, for example, she decides in her 18th week that this thing kicking her in the kidneys is a person and she's going to give birth to it, then she's right. If another woman decides in her 36th week that her fetus is not a person and that she's not going to give birth, I'd hate it because that's a terrible decision for her to have to make, but she's right too.

On the other hand, a delivered baby should be defined to be a human being because birth gives us a bright line that we can draw. It's something we can point to, something that's not a matter of opinion. It's the point after which the mother loses some rights; she can no longer refuse medical treatment of the infant, any more than Christian Scientists should be able to refuse treatment of their older children.

Again, I don't think I'm being inconsistent. Maybe just communicating badly.

"BTW, I used 'alive' and 'birth' as methods of EMPHASIS, just as I do capitalization, for clarifications sake."

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. My kingdom for comment support that allowed at least italics, bold, underscore, and block quote. It's not that hard; I implemented such in PHP 8-9 years ago.
arch writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:23 PM
Munck
Arch: "Something can never come out of nothing ... Matter can neither be created nor destroyed."

And it isn't. A blastocyst weighs maybe 100 nanograms, a newborn baby maybe 4 kilograms. That extra 3.99999..9 kilograms was ADDED TO IT by the gestation process.

You claimed that everything in the baby must have been present in the blastocyst because matter can be neither created nor destroyed. It isn't; it's added from outside.

The exact same things can be said about the energy in the blastocyst and baby and the information content of the blastocyst and baby, since energy and information likewise can be neither created nor destroyed. Your argument is wrong because it is not a closed system.

Arch says"

The entity known as the soul is present in the blastocyst. It has been in existence since the creation of the universe and is passed from human to human. The code of information locked inside the DNA builds the physical body that the energy of the soul inhabits, not the other way around. It is a closed system since the creation of the universe and all its matter and energy can never been destroyed
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:28 PM
arch 10:57 PM
"If a unique human individual is not present at conception then where did it come from?"

The uniqueness comes from the fact that two sets of DNA have been shuffled together, like shuffling two decks of cards where each deck is 100,000 cards.

Identical twins have identical DNA, because they result from a single fertilized egg splitting in two. Yet twins are DIFFERENT individuals. If "the whole human individual is present at conception," why don't identical twins live out their lives doing everything in unison? Why do they have different fingerprints and sometimes different sexual orientations?
d'Brit writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:40 PM
d'Brit 9:26
I agree as to comment support, it's basic.

I would be more amenable to your assertion that you are not modifying your position had you originally said that, " I believe what the mother believes..."

Again, what you actually said was, "My belief is that it becomes a human being no later than at birth and as much EARLIER as the mother says that it is."(MY EMPHASIS)

That is NOT the same but in any case, "a delivered baby should be defined to be a human being because birth gives us a bright line that we can draw." is a subjective standard.

By definition, a 'subjective' line is never a 'bright' line. Cesarean birth demonstrates this conclusively as essentially the same conditions apply in a botched abortion.

So your position comes down to the mothers' intent.

And again, you are not addressing the existential REALITY of a living, independent entity and its ACT of independently taking a breath, the necessary precondition for independent life.

And THAT is the determination of being 'born', by whatever 'method' because it ESTABLISHES that CONDITIONAL REALITY independent of the mothers’ desire OR intention."

Until you address that reality your position is subjective and personal which is fine but does NOT translate into your OR the mother imposing it upon what is NOW an INDEPENDENT entity, a BABY.
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:41 PM
arch 11:23 PM
"The entity known as the soul is present in the blastocyst."

Prove it. Show me a soul. Show me evidence of the existence of souls. Is a soul matter? If so, how much? Is it energy? What kind?

"It has been in existence since the creation of the universe and is passed from human to human."

OK, now you're getting out of religion and into science fiction. Are we going to run into Xenu and the Thetans here? (Hey, good name for a rock band.)

If souls are passed on to the next guy, what goes to heaven when you die? What if one guy is good, and the next guy to get the soul is bad; does the soul ultimately go to heaven or hell? How many souls are there in total, and what happens when we have more living people than souls?

What about identical twins? Sharing a single soul, or two get put into the original fertilized egg. What if it then doesn't split? What about identical TRIPLETS?

[Phui. There's already a band named Lord Xenu and the Thetans.]
Bob Munck writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 12:01 AM
d'Brit 11:40 PM
'I would be more amenable to your assertion that you are not modifying your position had you originally said that, " I believe what the mother believes..."'

But I don't believe what the mother believes; I don't believe either possibility. I'm like Schrödinger's Cat, neither believing yes nor believing no. The mother gets to collapse the waveform, not I. And, by the way, she gets to uncollapse it by changing her mind, and that doesn't change my belief at all, as I have none.

'"a delivered baby should be defined to be a human being because birth gives us a bright line that we can draw." is a subjective standard.'

Perhaps, but it's the least subjective that I can come up with. And the line is as bright as I can come up with.

"Cesarean birth demonstrates this conclusively as essentially the same conditions apply in a botched abortion."

Most of the conditions are the same, but one is an abortion and the other is a birth. (If the abortion is "botched" because, in your terms, the baby is alive, wouldn't allowing it to die 'fix' the error?)

"So your position comes down to the mothers' intent."

Well, sure.

"And again, you are not addressing the existential REALITY"

Reality is overrated.

Seriously, your botched abortion scenario is essentially a collision of the two parts of my definition. Maybe it's another Schrödinger's Cat; the fetus is neither a human being nor not a human being until the mother decides.

"Until you address that reality your position is subjective and personal"

Well, sure it is. How could it be anything else?

[I just like Schrödinger's Cat, that's all. I once explained it to a friend, and he was mad at me for YEARS.]
d'Brit writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 1:01 AM
Re: d'Brit 11:40
You don't need to explain Schrodinger's Cat, as I am familiar with it. But I would appreciate your explaining how you got the two little dots over the o...cut & paste?

Levity aside, once again you are being disingenuous. You've STATED what you believe, "My belief is that it becomes a human being no later than at birth and as much EARLIER as the mother says that it is."(MY EMPHASIS)

The fact that your personal belief is opposed to your opinion that the mother decides whether it is a human being is YOUR cognitive disconnect, not mine.

"Most of the conditions are the same, but one is an abortion and the other is a birth. (If the abortion is "botched" because, in your terms, the baby is alive, wouldn't allowing it to die 'fix' the error?)"

The 'conditions' are exactly the same, especially if the cesarean is a premie.

The abortion is 'botched' if the fetus emerges 'alive', breathes and is able with assistance, to survive outside the mothers' womb.

'Allowing' it to die is an act of murder and your rationalization would do any Nazi proud.

Given your rationale, I see no basis for any objection upon your part to using aborted fetus' skin for lamp shades...after all it is not human, right?

As for "Reality is overrated", on your deathbed I assure you, you will reassess that opinion.

"Until you address that reality your position is subjective and personal" "Well, sure it is. How could it be anything else?"

Rejection of the concept of objective reality in no way changes the existential reality... "yet, still it revolves" Galileo
Bob Munck writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 1:43 AM
d'Brit 1:01 AM
"how you got the two little dots over the o...cut & paste?"

You know it's an umlaut, right? On a PC, hold down ALT and type 0228 (numeric pad only).

"Levity aside, once again you are being disingenuous. You've STATED what you believe, "My belief is that it becomes a human being no later than at birth and as much EARLIER as the mother says that it is."(MY EMPHASIS)"

Yeah, it's actually worse than that. I stated in one post "in the abstract I believe what the mother believes" and less than an hour later "I don't believe what the mother believes..." with the Schrödinger's Cat stuff.

Well, they're kind of both true. The first is the best explanation I could come up with at the time, and the second is better. However, the second has the weaknesses that the reader might not know about Schrödinger or that he might know and hate it, like my friend. (He curses horribly whenever I mention it, so I do so often.)

"The 'conditions' are exactly the same, especially if the cesarean is a premie."

The PHYSICAL conditions are the same; the intent is different. Dare I say it, the MORAL conditions are different.
Bob Munck writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 1:44 AM
d'Brit 1:01 AM
"'Allowing' it to die is an act of murder"

I can't say much more than that I disagree.

"Given your rationale, I see no basis for any objection upon your part to using aborted fetus' skin for lamp shades...after all it is not human, right?"

That doesn't follow. A corpse isn't a human being either, but ewww.

Listen, we all have a strong instinct to protect infants; it's a major evolutionary trait. People will hurl themselves into a frozen lake in an attempt to save a drown child, even if it's obviously futile. That's why it's hard to talk rationally about it, because our gut responses aren't rational. Given that, I really do believe, in my head, that that product of a botched abortion must live or die at the mother's discretion. No one else can make the decision.

"yet, still it revolves"

Galileo was tackling an EASY problem.
arch writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 2:37 AM
Bob Munck
Bob Munck writes: Friday, August, 22, 2008 11:41 PM
arch 11:23 PM
"The entity known as the soul is present in the blastocyst."

Prove it. Show me a soul. Show me evidence of the existence of souls. Is a soul matter? If so, how much? Is it energy? What kind?

"It has been in existence since the creation of the universe and is passed from human to human."

OK, now you're getting out of religion and into science fiction. Are we going to run into Xenu and the Thetans here? (Hey, good name for a rock band.)

If souls are passed on to the next guy, what goes to heaven when you die? What if one guy is good, and the next guy to get the soul is bad; does the soul ultimately go to heaven or hell? How many souls are there in total, and what happens when we have more living people than souls?

What about identical twins? Sharing a single soul, or two get put into the original fertilized egg. What if it then doesn't split? What about identical TRIPLETS?

[Phui. There's already a band named Lord Xenu and the Thetans.]

Arch says:

Munck. You have such a closed mind. You are unimaginative and a bore. The soul is what you libtards seem to lack along with a logical brain. Could be because you don't acknowledge truth. Without the soul, a human being is only a libtard animal existing for no reason what so ever. (sound familiar?) The soul is the gift from the Creator which makes us in His likeness above all the species that exist. Since you self acknowledge that you have no evidence of the existence of the soul, then how can you be so sure of anything that you believe in that has no evidence? You seem to have faith in unproven miracles,( that we are in existence, suddenly appearing from nothing which defies the physical laws of nature), yet cannot accept the truth that makes Creation the only possible answer to the mystery. Maybe someday when I become senile with alzheimers, I will understand your logic but until then, I cannot.
Bob Munck writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 11:14 AM
arch 2:37 AM
"Munck. You have such a closed mind."

Can't answer any of my questions, can you Arch? You went off the deep end into loony-tune land with "[the soul] has been in existence since the creation of the universe and is passed from human to human" and now you're stuck with a position so stupid that Tom Cruise would giggle at it.

"Since you self acknowledge that you have no evidence of the existence of the soul, then how can you be so sure of anything that you believe in that has no evidence?"

Pure gibberish. The babblings of an idiot who realizes he has no arguments left. Time for you to slink away in defeat, Arch.
arch writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 4:50 PM
Careful Munck!!
Arch said
"Since you self acknowledge that you have no evidence of the existence of the soul, then how can you be so sure of anything that you believe in that has no evidence?"

Munck said
Pure gibberish. The babblings of an idiot who realizes he has no arguments left. Time for you to slink away in defeat, Arch.

Arch says;

Munck. My arguments still stand towering above your feeble intellect. I attempt to educate your primitive monkey mind and get nothing but vapidity in return. You have not refuted a single point I made but merely contradict men of straw you construct. Again Munck. Something cannot come from nothing, yet here you are claiming that humans are not human somewhere along the continuum of human life. You have committed a logical fault in thinking and I have clearly demonstrated it. Maybe you should do the slinking away in shameful defeat my friend. This forum is public accessible and all who read it will clearly see.
Bob Munck writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 5:37 PM
Repeating...
"[The soul] has been in existence since the creation of the universe and is passed from human to human."

OK, now you're getting out of religion and into science fiction. Are we going to run into Xenu and the Thetans here?

If souls are passed on to the next guy, what goes to heaven when you die? What if one guy is good, and the next guy to get the soul is bad; does the soul ultimately go to heaven or hell? How many souls are there in total, and what happens when we have more living people than souls?

What about identical twins? Sharing a single soul, or two get put into the original fertilized egg. What if it then doesn't split? What about identical TRIPLETS?

Answer a couple of these questions, Arch. I have more, after you do so.
arch writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 6:02 PM
Let ustry again Munck
Munck. You are missing the point and getting wrapped up in your own straw men. Now listen once again. Human life is a continuum from creation. If not we would not exist today. You have stated that a human being is not a human being somewhere along the continuum according to your arbitrary determination and can be exterminated as a non human by other humans. This is false and illogical. When do human beings ever break the continuum of life and survive to adulthood? Hence the human being and its entity-(soul) is present in a blastocyst. Otherwise something comes from nothing to become a human being. Jeeeez. My ten year old son can get this
Bob Munck writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 11:18 PM
Come on, Arch
Tell us more about a soul being passed from one person to the next as each one dies.

That's in complete, fundamental contradiction to Christian beliefs, you know.

Tell us where you got information that is completely opposite to the majority religion of this country.

"My ten year old son can get this"

Reads a lot of comic books, does he?
arch writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 12:13 AM
Poor Munck
Bob Munck writes: Saturday, August, 23, 2008 11:18 PM
Come on, Arch
Tell us more about a soul being passed from one person to the next as each one dies.

That's in complete, fundamental contradiction to Christian beliefs, you know.

Tell us where you got information that is completely opposite to the majority religion of this country.

"My ten year old son can get this"

Reads a lot of comic books, does he?

Arch says"

You just cannot focus on the flaw in your logic can you Munck. It must be embarrassing for you to have everyone read your desperate attempts to obfuscate the fact that you have been had by little old Arch on the abortion debate. I walked you through the logic of your mistake and you bit and got hooked through the gullet. My point about the soul being passed from human to human was the perfect bait for you shallow thinkers as you promptly stepped into it. Once again for all to read. The human being is a continuum from creation to death. If there is a soul then it exists in the continuum or it cannot be part of the physical laws of nature. Hence it is passed from one human being to a new human being in the continuum. I never mentioned anything about it being the same soul as each is a unique individual soul. That was your man of straw my friend. Now you struggle to ward off embarrassment at your demise. Abortion interrupts the continuum of human life and you somehow determine that it magically is not present while the murder is being done. The difference between your flawed argument and my accurate one is that I don't believe in magic.
arch writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 12:27 AM
jeeeez munck!
Arch said:

"My ten year old son can get this"

Munck said:
Reads a lot of comic books, does he?

Arch says"

Yep. and still knows the difference between right and wrong.
Bob Munck writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 12:51 AM
arch 12:13 AM
"Hence it is passed from one human being to a new human being in the continuum. I never mentioned anything about it being the same soul as each is a unique individual soul."

Those two sentences are contradictory. "It is passed..."

"[The soul] has been in existence since the creation of the universe"

Christianity makes a very clear statement that the soul does not exist before the body does. You are contradicting the teachings of Christianity.
arch writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 1:14 AM
Here we go again!!
Bob Munck writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 12:51 AM
arch 12:13 AM
"Hence it is passed from one human being to a new human being in the continuum. I never mentioned anything about it being the same soul as each is a unique individual soul."

Those two sentences are contradictory. "It is passed..."

"[The soul] has been in existence since the creation of the universe"

Christianity makes a very clear statement that the soul does not exist before the body does. You are contradicting the teachings of Christianity.

Arch says:

Why do you care that I contradict any religion in my logic Munck? Logic is plain logic and mine is superior to yours. You cannot redeem your logical flaw by erecting a scare crow upon separate subjects. This is exhibiting desperation on your part. Again, If the soul is not present from creation, then by your logic, it is magically foisted into existence somehow. Do you believe in magic Munck?
Bob Munck writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 1:05 PM
arch 1:14 AM
"Why do you care that I contradict any religion in my logic Munck?"

Because you're BASING YOUR ARGUMENT on religion. How do you know there's even such a thing as a soul? You know because it's part of your christian religious belief. How do you know that "god said thou shalt not kill?" Because it's in the bible. If you reject one of the major tenants of the faith, you cannot rely on other ones as given because you've said they can be called into question.

"If the soul is not present from creation, then by your logic, it is magically foisted into existence somehow."

You claim that all souls were created at the beginning of the universe by the creator. How is it any more or less magic to have it done then rather than now? If god could create a soul back then, why can't he do it now?
arch writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 10:15 PM
Munck
Bob Munck writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 1:05 PM
arch 1:14 AM
"Why do you care that I contradict any religion in my logic Munck?"

Because you're BASING YOUR ARGUMENT on religion. How do you know there's even such a thing as a soul? You know because it's part of your christian religious belief. How do you know that "god said thou shalt not kill?" Because it's in the bible. If you reject one of the major tenants of the faith, you cannot rely on other ones as given because you've said they can be called into question.

"If the soul is not present from creation, then by your logic, it is magically foisted into existence somehow."

You claim that all souls were created at the beginning of the universe by the creator. How is it any more or less magic to have it done then rather than now? If god could create a soul back then, why can't he do it now?

Arch says"

My logic is based upon no religion. It is based upon your tenets of discussion. You said it is acceptable to interfere with the continuum of human life by murdering it along the way and I said it is not. This is the crux of the argument and I have demonstrated to you, your flaw in reasoning. Your question above does not pertain to the crux of the discussion and my futile efforts to educate your mind have failed in that you concentrate on my literary examples to create the straw man. It is not acceptable behavior for human beings to murder their own species' offspring any time along their existence plain and simple, my friend.
Bob Munck writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 10:45 PM
arch 10:15 PM
"If the soul is not present from creation, then by your logic, it is magically foisted into existence somehow."

You claim that all souls were created at the beginning of the universe by the creator. How is it any more or less magic to have it done then rather than now? If god could create a soul back then, why can't he do it now?
Bob Munck writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 11:00 PM
arch 2:37 AM
"The entity known as the soul is present in the blastocyst."

Prove it. Show me a soul. Show me evidence of the existence of souls. Is a soul matter? If so, how much? Is it energy? What kind?
Bob Munck writes: Sunday, August, 24, 2008 11:21 PM
arch 10:15 PM
"It is not acceptable behavior for human beings to murder their own species' offspring any time along their existence"

The great majority of people think that it is. In fact, 83% of the US population believes that abortion is acceptable. Your own species disagrees with you.
arch writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 12:14 AM
Munck
Gallup Poll: Just 28 Percent of Americans Take Pro-Abortion Position.

Better adjust your statistics there Munck. You are inflating a percentage to shore up your losing argument. I am not going to debate unanswerable questions with you Munk. The Judeo-Christian Religion is faith based and science has been proving it more and more accurate as the the field of discovery advances. The main point of my debate has been to educate you to the logical path that deems abortion wrong and I have succeeded in presenting it in a way that is irrefutable in logic. You have not yet acknowledged that it is wrong to murder human life along its continuum and so I must consider you a detriment to the human race as most libtards are.
Bob Munck writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 12:35 AM
arch12:14 AM
"Gallup Poll: Just 28 Percent of Americans Take Pro-Abortion Position."

Percentages believing that abortion should be illegal under ALL circumstances:

10% Time Poll July 31-Aug. 4, 2008
14% Quinnipiac Poll. July 8-13, 2008
13% Pew Research June 18-29, 2008
16% ABC News/WaPo June 12-15, 2008
17% Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2008

If you're having trouble figuring this out, it means that THE REST, between 83% and 90%, believe that it's acceptable under some circumstances.

"The Judeo-Christian Religion is faith based and science has been proving it more and more accurate as the the field of discovery advances."

Examples? Links?
arch writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 12:55 AM
Munck
Bob Munck writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 12:35 AM
arch12:14 AM
"Gallup Poll: Just 28 Percent of Americans Take Pro-Abortion Position."

Percentages believing that abortion should be illegal under ALL circumstances:

10% Time Poll July 31-Aug. 4, 2008
14% Quinnipiac Poll. July 8-13, 2008
13% Pew Research June 18-29, 2008
16% ABC News/WaPo June 12-15, 2008
17% Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2008

If you're having trouble figuring this out, it means that THE REST, between 83% and 90%, believe that it's acceptable under some circumstances.

"The Judeo-Christian Religion is faith based and science has been proving it more and more accurate as the the field of discovery advances."

Examples? Links?

Arch says"

Munck. Your data is inaccurate. The polls you listed are not considering the right to self defense of the mother's life. A very prominent point indeed. Spinning polls to save your lost argument is futile. Why cannot you just acknowledge that abortion is just plain and simple wrong? It is the only rational thing you can do at this point to save what dignity you may have remaining. As far as links or examples to the above. I suggest the book by Fred Heeren, Show Me God. What the Message from Space is Telling Us About God. Searchlight Publications copyright 1995
Bob Munck writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 1:26 AM
arch 12:55 AM
"The polls you listed are not considering the right to self defense of the mother's life. ... abortion is just plain and simple wrong"

You're saying it's all right to perform an abortion when the mother's life is endangered? How can that be? The fetus isn't doing anything to endanger the mother; it's just existing and growing. You can't kill one innocent person to save another; you have to put a maximum effort into saving both of them.

"The Message from Space"? Is this anything like the passing of souls from one person to the next, another of your little sci-fi tales?
arch writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 10:56 PM
Munck
"The Message from Space"? Is this anything like the passing of souls from one person to the next, another of your little sci-fi tales?

Arch says:

I already said, "self defense of the mother"

Look up Heeren's book and read the forward. Heeren interviews the top world astro physicists and astronomers and reviews the past and present greats like Hubble, Einstien, Smoot,Hawking, Hoyle, Jastrow and many more giants in the field. This thinker has destroyed every argument you libtards have on the subjects vetted by ignorant libtards such as you are getting close to being. Munck. Before you speak, you should read a book.
Bob Munck writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 10:58 PM
arch10:56 PM
'I already said, "self defense of the mother"'

You're saying it's all right to perform an abortion when the mother's life is endangered? How can that be? The fetus isn't doing anything to endanger the mother; it's just existing and growing. You can't kill one innocent person to save another; you have to put a maximum effort into saving both of them.
arch writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 11:18 PM
Munck
Bob Munck writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 10:58 PM
arch10:56 PM
'I already said, "self defense of the mother"'

You're saying it's all right to perform an abortion when the mother's life is endangered? How can that be? The fetus isn't doing anything to endanger the mother; it's just existing and growing. You can't kill one innocent person to save another; you have to put a maximum effort into saving both of them.

Certain rare medical circumstances require the termination of the pregnancy to spare the life of the mother, such as ectopic attachment in the fallopian tube. In these type of cases, the embryo is a growing threat to the mother's very life, though innocent of wrongdoing of its own. In time, medical procedures may be able to correct this by surgery so that the embryo and the mother can survive. What is your point, Munck?
Bob Munck writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 11:54 PM
arch 11:18 PM
"What is your point?"

That you're contradicting yourself.
arch writes: Tuesday, August, 26, 2008 12:15 AM
Bob Munck
Bob Munck writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 11:54 PM
arch 11:18 PM
"What is your point?"

That you're contradicting yourself

Arch says"

I doubt it, but could you point out more specifically just how I did that. If you please?
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, August, 26, 2008 12:23 AM
Arch
"It is not acceptable behavior for human beings to murder their own species' offspring any time along their existence plain and simple, my friend."

"Certain rare medical circumstances require the termination of the pregnancy"
arch writes: Tuesday, August, 26, 2008 12:35 AM
Munck
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, August, 26, 2008 12:23 AM
Arch
"It is not acceptable behavior for human beings to murder their own species' offspring any time along their existence plain and simple, my friend."

"Certain rare medical circumstances require the termination of the pregnancy"

Arch says.

No contradiction there my friend. The embryo will never make it to term in the cases I know and the future development of the doomed embryo are a life threat to the mother. This is actually a pro life position as I choose life for the mother over a doomed embryo that will never naturally or scientifically make it to term. See the difference?
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, August, 26, 2008 12:45 AM
Arch
"The embryo will never make it to term in the cases I know"
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, August, 26, 2008 12:53 AM
Arch
"The embryo will never make it to term in the cases I know"

So abortion is acceptable when it appears that the fetus won't survive birth? Someone gets to DECIDE that the fetus is doomed? What if they're wrong? People make mistakes all the time. You're killing a person on the prediction that they will die sometime in the future. You're preempting god's will, taking life into your own hands and killing it.

You said: "It is not acceptable behavior for human beings to murder their own species' offspring any time along their existence plain and simple, my friend."

Now you're finding conditions where it IS acceptable behavior. It's not acceptable behavior, but sometimes it is. That's a contradiction.
arch writes: Tuesday, August, 26, 2008 1:29 AM
Munck
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, August, 26, 2008 12:53 AM
Arch
"The embryo will never make it to term in the cases I know"

So abortion is acceptable when it appears that the fetus won't survive birth? Someone gets to DECIDE that the fetus is doomed? What if they're wrong? People make mistakes all the time. You're killing a person on the prediction that they will die sometime in the future. You're preempting god's will, taking life into your own hands and killing it.

You said: "It is not acceptable behavior for human beings to murder their own species' offspring any time along their existence plain and simple, my friend."

Now you're finding conditions where it IS acceptable behavior. It's not acceptable behavior, but sometimes it is. That's a contradiction.

Arch says"

Ok I contradict myself on this matter. Let it be known that I make exception to kill doomed human embryonic life in the event that it threatens the life of the mother. I am a hypocrit and should be slinked away to the funny farm. Neo, give me the address to Shady Oaks. I hope they have an empty bed awaiting for me. I still maintain that it is pro life to protect the mother's life from a botched natural pregnancy. You win Munck! I will rethink my argument for later discussion and I apologize for my insults. Be well formidable one.
Sign Up to Post Your Comments Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.
 


Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 24 Minutes 45 Seconds Ago
Last updated 38 Minutes 36 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 21 Minutes 27 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 21 Minutes 47 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 22 Minutes 5 Seconds Ago
 

Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs

Blog Search



Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Townhall Blogs
Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Columns Columns
Your Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 December 2009
 November 2009
 October 2009
 September 2009
 August 2009
 July 2009
 June 2009
 May 2009
 April 2009
 March 2009
 February 2009
 January 2009
 December 2008
 November 2008
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

WOW
 Re: Authorities Say Terrorism To Blame For Christmas Plane Bombing In Detroit
  By Dose of Reality
Monkey Girl, Rachel, Lilly...
 Re: Authorities Say Terrorism To Blame For Christmas Plane Bombing In Detroit
  By Dose of Reality
careful
 Re: Stuff You Didn't Want This Christmas
  By mike
careful
 Re: This Christmas, 78% of Americans Identify as Christian
  By mike
axism
 Re: You Will Subsidize Abortion
  By NOTW
lilly
 Re: Authorities Say Terrorism To Blame For Christmas Plane Bombing In Detroit
  By mike
To Patriotic Chicagolander
 Re: Authorities Say Terrorism To Blame For Christmas Plane Bombing In Detroit
  By lilly
Not on No-Fly List
 Re: Authorities Say Terrorism To Blame For Christmas Plane Bombing In Detroit
  By lilly
Axe,
 Re: This Christmas, 78% of Americans Identify as Christian
  By Crispian
Axe
 Re: You Will Subsidize Abortion
  By BK
A terrorist incident??? No way, no how!!
 Re: Authorities Say Terrorism To Blame For Christmas Plane Bombing In Detroit
  By JAG CA
Axe
 Re: The Price of Freedom
  By BK
State of Emergency
 Re: Authorities Say Terrorism To Blame For Christmas Plane Bombing In Detroit
  By RockyMountainRob
JD
 Re: Authorities Say Terrorism To Blame For Christmas Plane Bombing In Detroit
  By Riders on the Storm
Axe: Pt#2
 Re: The Price of Freedom
  By BK
Axe
 Re: The Price of Freedom
  By BK
And when the hordes come, they'll
 Re: Authorities Say Terrorism To Blame For Christmas Plane Bombing In Detroit
  By cottoneyed
Once i knew that Mullah obama
 Re: Authorities Say Terrorism To Blame For Christmas Plane Bombing In Detroit
  By cottoneyed
Yup, the typical RW hate list...
 Re: Stuff You Didn't Want This Christmas
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene
Mikey
 Re: This Christmas, 78% of Americans Identify as Christian
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll