Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby Gunnysway » Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:45 am

^^ That's gross... Parallels the conversation... but gross... :lol3:
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 2836
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell


Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:43 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: Why do you believe that you should NOT be able to sell your kidney? :huh:

Other than being a control-freak, what is the reason that you can give something away, but not take a penny for it? I'd like to hear that argument.

You honestly don't believe this would be one more HUGE step towards the oligarchic Plutocracy that the US is rapidly becoming? Whom do you feel would NEED to sell their kidney? Donald Trump, or a guy desperately attempting to keep his family fed and sheltered amidst a construed economic crisis? I can hear it now....."I propose we outlaw abortion, and use those persons that would have been aborted as "parts cars" for those who can afford to purchase their bodily parts. It's a win-win for everyone." Well, except perhaps for he that is now one-eyed, one-lunged, and has one kidney. Are their NO boundaries to this attitude that monetary success is what allows for the purchase of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Our medical and legal systems have most certainly adopted this tenet, but does it have to expand exponentially at every curve in the road?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:00 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:You honestly don't believe this would be one more HUGE step towards the oligarchic Plutocracy that the US is rapidly becoming?
No.

Glimmerjim wrote:Whom do you feel would NEED to sell their kidney? Donald Trump, or a guy desperately attempting to keep his family fed and sheltered amidst a construed economic crisis?
And would you not sell your kidney if that is what it takes to keep your family fed or would you rather that this option be taken away from you and your family starves? :huh:

Glimmerjim wrote:I can hear it now....."I propose we outlaw abortion, and use those persons that would have been aborted as "parts cars" for those who can afford to purchase their bodily parts.
That's only because you are a liberal and don't see those babies as human beings with the same right to life, liberty, and property as you. If you see them as human beings of equal value to yourself, you would stop hearing these gruesome thoughts about your fellow human beings.

But what is the liberal logic that says you can kill them, but not cut them up for parts?

Glimmerjim wrote:Are their NO boundaries to this attitude that monetary success is what allows for the purchase of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"
This is why liberals always harm everybody but the rich.

How many more people would agree that their organs can be used after their death if their family would receive financial benefit from it? You assume the market rate would be very high. I believe the supply would expand and the market rate would be fairly low. Some guy decided to ride a donor cycle and crashes and now his wife and kids get some financial benefit from his risky life style and many people get to live that would not have otherwise.

I see the market for organs being dominated by the organs from the deceased and the price not being high enough to induce a lot of healthy people to feel the reward is worth the risk, but who are you are I to ban them from freedom to make that choice for themselves.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:09 pm

I thought liberals wanted the government to keep their laws off of their bodies? Or maybe "out of the bedroom" is good, but "out of their bodies" isn't?

And speaking to the abortion point that GJ brought up, does it not logically follow that if the baby is "part" of the woman and not an independent being, then she could certainly sell the "mass of tissue" for garden fertilizer if she wanted to? Nobody ever accused a liberal of being logical, that's for damn sure.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:51 pm

assateague wrote: Nobody ever accused a liberal of being logical, that's for damn sure.

Simply because outside of themselves there is no one smart enough to determine. :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:05 pm

assateague wrote: I thought liberals wanted the government to keep their laws off of their bodies? Or maybe "out of the bedroom" is good, but "out of their bodies" isn't?

Wow. Do those who wish to keep the govt. out of their bedrooms benefit financially from this desire, with all the ramifications that anything monetarily driven creates?




assateague wrote: And speaking to the abortion point that GJ brought up, does it not logically follow that if the baby is "part" of the woman and not an independent being, then she could certainly sell the "mass of tissue" for garden fertilizer if she wanted to? Nobody ever accused a liberal of being logical, that's for damn sure.

AT. You're accusing liberals of a disconnect in logic, then you go on to support my position, that the legal ability to sell body parts should not be available due to many negative potentialities that would most surely arise. Such as the definition of a zygote/fetus/baby, whatever. No one ever accused a conservative of being logical, because the answer is too blatantly obvious.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:47 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Such as the definition of a zygote/fetus/baby, whatever.
Can you kill babies? The fact that you acknowledge that the difference is at a minimum not clear. Which way does a logical rational person error?

Option A - maybe you are killing a baby.

Option B - you are definitely not killing a baby.

Liberals - kill it and avoid the argument.

Conservative - do not kill babies.

Could this be any more blatantly obvious? If you don't know what it is and it may be a baby, do not kill it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't you want to avoid the many negative potentialities that would surely arise from killing babies? :huh:

Only in the liberal world is this a problem. You can't even figure out what a baby is. I guess that's because you are so smart :no:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:08 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:AT. You're accusing liberals of a disconnect in logic, then you go on to support my position, that the legal ability to sell body parts should not be available due to many negative potentialities that would most surely arise.



No, I'm accusing you of that disconnect because you say it's ok to kill it, but not sell it. Can I sell a booger on eBay? The answer is yes. To the liberal mind, what is the difference between a booger and the aftermath of an abortion?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:08 pm

assateague wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:AT. You're accusing liberals of a disconnect in logic, then you go on to support my position, that the legal ability to sell body parts should not be available due to many negative potentialities that would most surely arise.



No, I'm accusing you of that disconnect because you say it's ok to kill it, but not sell it. Can I sell a booger on eBay? The answer is yes. To the liberal mind, what is the difference between a booger and the aftermath of an abortion?

Really? I said that? Show me, please. I, personally, am most assuredly not saying that. Does it tend to be a tenet associated with the liberal? Absolutely. Do some conservatives practice it? Absolutely. I was simply showing the struggle at present to define stages and "permissable" abortion periods within those stages. The same response to you, Spinner. I don't have difficulties differentiating between those stages but it is obviously a major point of contention at this point in time when referring to abortion.
I was simply presenting a tongue-in-cheek hypothetical resulting from the ability to sell body parts. But it's always fun to see the pseudo-outrage of the conservative falling back on one of the only decent tricks in their dog and pony show. Thanks! :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:19 pm

Then just save me some time- are you against abortion?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Nov 13, 2013 6:55 am

Glimmerjim wrote:I was simply showing the struggle at present to define stages and "permissable" abortion periods within those stages.
If in doubt, what is the logical thing to do? Seriously, this seems so unbelievably obvious. Look at the insane lengths we go to because there may be (not proven) a very low risk of harm to children. And then compare that with the debate on abortion where the risk is 100% certain death (OK, there are botched abortions and maybe a few babies do not die). The argument that there is doubt is the excuse for continuing to kill the little bastards just because they don't want the little bastard. People do that with puppies and you will get people that want to crucify them, but do that with unborn babies and you may be a flipping hero to the same people that want to crucify the person that kills unwanted animals.

Glimmerjim wrote:I don't have difficulties differentiating between those stages
So then you can give a clear cut line where and why you drew that line. If you have no difficulties, enlighten us.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby waterfowlman » Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:01 am

This thread reminds me of why it really didn't really bother me to stay away from the CI for a year. :lol3: :lol3:
Thanks BDD2.
Rule Number One: Always use a sledge hammer to kill an ant.
User avatar
waterfowlman
SIR
 
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:35 pm
Location: Eastern Shore of Virginia

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:19 am

waterfowlman wrote:This thread reminds me of why it really didn't really bother me to stay away from the CI for a year. :lol3: :lol3:
Thanks BDD2.

If you don't like controversy, don't go the the controversial issues forum, but we can probably make that controversial :yes:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby waterfowlman » Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:52 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:This thread reminds me of why it really didn't really bother me to stay away from the CI for a year. :lol3: :lol3:
Thanks BDD2.

If you don't like controversy, don't go the the controversial issues forum, but we can probably make that controversial :yes:


HaHaHa
Controversy doesn't bother me at all. It's the bizzaro logic some folks use that bothers me. :lol3:
Rule Number One: Always use a sledge hammer to kill an ant.
User avatar
waterfowlman
SIR
 
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:35 pm
Location: Eastern Shore of Virginia

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:10 am

waterfowlman wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:This thread reminds me of why it really didn't really bother me to stay away from the CI for a year. :lol3: :lol3:
Thanks BDD2.

If you don't like controversy, don't go the the controversial issues forum, but we can probably make that controversial :yes:


HaHaHa
Controversy doesn't bother me at all. It's the bizzaro logic some folks use that bothers me. :lol3:

If not for that, there would be no controversy :thumbsup:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby vincentpa » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:03 am

waterfowlman wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:This thread reminds me of why it really didn't really bother me to stay away from the CI for a year. :lol3: :lol3:
Thanks BDD2.

If you don't like controversy, don't go the the controversial issues forum, but we can probably make that controversial :yes:


HaHaHa
Controversy doesn't bother me at all. It's the bizzaro logic some folks use that bothers me. :lol3:


Don't worry. Spinner can build up a strawman and knock it down with efficiency to prove he is right in any argument. His logic is impeccable, vis-a-vis that dastardly strawman that is.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:15 am

vincentpa wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:This thread reminds me of why it really didn't really bother me to stay away from the CI for a year. :lol3: :lol3:
Thanks BDD2.

If you don't like controversy, don't go the the controversial issues forum, but we can probably make that controversial :yes:


HaHaHa
Controversy doesn't bother me at all. It's the bizzaro logic some folks use that bothers me. :lol3:


Don't worry. Spinner can build up a strawman and knock it down with efficiency to prove he is right in any argument. His logic is impeccable, vis-a-vis that dastardly strawman that is.

Sorry I must have hurt your feelings Vince. Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby vincentpa » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:18 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:This thread reminds me of why it really didn't really bother me to stay away from the CI for a year. :lol3: :lol3:
Thanks BDD2.

If you don't like controversy, don't go the the controversial issues forum, but we can probably make that controversial :yes:


HaHaHa
Controversy doesn't bother me at all. It's the bizzaro logic some folks use that bothers me. :lol3:


Don't worry. Spinner can build up a strawman and knock it down with efficiency to prove he is right in any argument. His logic is impeccable, vis-a-vis that dastardly strawman that is.

Sorry I must have hurt your feelings Vince. Image



No, sometimes I tire of reading your strawman responses. You tend to work it in on far too many posts. I was too busy to respond to your last one on the Tea Party... fortunately. :hi:
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:22 am

vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
waterfowlman wrote:This thread reminds me of why it really didn't really bother me to stay away from the CI for a year. :lol3: :lol3:
Thanks BDD2.

If you don't like controversy, don't go the the controversial issues forum, but we can probably make that controversial :yes:


HaHaHa
Controversy doesn't bother me at all. It's the bizzaro logic some folks use that bothers me. :lol3:


Don't worry. Spinner can build up a strawman and knock it down with efficiency to prove he is right in any argument. His logic is impeccable, vis-a-vis that dastardly strawman that is.

Sorry I must have hurt your feelings Vince. Image



No, sometimes I tire of reading your strawman responses. You tend to work it in on far too many posts. I was too busy to respond to your last one on the Tea Party... fortunately. :hi:

Sure that's why the failed attempt to rip on me :lol3:

Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby vincentpa » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:34 am

No failed attempts here. Got you the last time on it, almost the same topic too.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:24 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:Such as the definition of a zygote/fetus/baby, whatever.
Can you kill babies? The fact that you acknowledge that the difference is at a minimum not clear. Which way does a logical rational person error?

Option A - maybe you are killing a baby.

Option B - you are definitely not killing a baby.

Liberals - kill it and avoid the argument.

Conservative - do not kill babies.

Could this be any more blatantly obvious? If you don't know what it is and it may be a baby, do not kill it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why don't you want to avoid the many negative potentialities that would surely arise from killing babies? :huh:

Only in the liberal world is this a problem. You can't even figure out what a baby is. I guess that's because you are so smart :no:

Sorry Spinner, but the differences betwen zygote/fetus/baby are quite simple and commonly accepted. Zygote = conception through embryonic stage, fetus = post embryonic stage through birth, and baby = post birth stage. I am not the one that has drawn these lines, nor am I the one that defined the distinction between popcorn and candy corn. In your world they are the same and some liberal has made this distinction to covertly justify a dastardly motive. Regarding the facetious "so smart", there is an old saying about glass houses, but I can't recall it at the moment.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:56 pm

assateague wrote:Then just save me some time- are you against abortion?

It depends on context and perspective. From a completely objective viewpoint of the consequences to society of unwanted children, I am not against abortion. From a more humanistic viewpoint, I am personally against it and would attempt to dissuade any family member from utilizing it. Would I outlaw the practice at this point in time? No.
My position demonstrates my conception of the major difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives see things in black and white, liberals see things in infinite shades of gray. In my opinion the liberal viewpoint promulgates thought, the conservative one suppresses it. Why consider a subject if one "knows" the definitive answer? One must not always have a personally non-disputable opinion on a subject to have a learned and considered position on it, regardless of what the typical conservative maintains.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:39 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Sorry Spinner, but the differences betwen zygote/fetus/baby are quite simple and commonly accepted. Zygote = conception through embryonic stage, fetus = post embryonic stage through birth, and baby = post birth stage. I am not the one that has drawn these lines, nor am I the one that defined the distinction between popcorn and candy corn. In your world they are the same and some liberal has made this distinction to covertly justify a dastardly motive. Regarding the facetious "so smart", there is an old saying about glass houses, but I can't recall it at the moment.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424
An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth.

So are you cool with killing human offspring?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/offspring

1 a : the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant : young, progeny
b : child


So a fetus is just another name for a child during one stage of its life.

Ever have a mother show you the sonogram of her fetus or is it always her baby? Granted you are in California, so maybe, but even there I doubt it.

Yep, it is their unborn child as the definition of fetus makes pretty clear regardless of the euphemism used to try and hide that fact.

Baby is not a medical term. It describes the unborn baby (fetus) through newborn baby (infant) through I guess toddler

Image

Glimmerjim wrote:I am not against abortion
I am not either, but there are limits. What are your limits? When in your opinion do you cross the line from a choice to a crime?

Glimmerjim wrote:Conservatives see things in black and white, liberals see things in infinite shades of gray.
So what are the shades of gray for killing babies? :huh: Child molestation? Rape? This is so idiotic, yet liberals think it makes them look smart.

Glimmerjim wrote:In my opinion the liberal viewpoint promulgates thought, the conservative one suppresses it.
So you are a thinker, yet you never express where you believe the line between choice and murder. From conception to birth to 18th birthday to middle age to retirement to so old you should just take a pill and save the resources for others is a continuum. Where has all this thought led you to conclude the line between choice and criminal activity exists?

Glimmerjim wrote:Why consider a subject if one "knows" the definitive answer? One must not always have a personally non-disputable opinion on a subject to have a learned and considered position on it, regardless of what the typical conservative maintains.
My whole point is that if you don't know where that line is. Do NOT take the risk of killing a baby :fingerhead:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:13 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Sorry Spinner, but the differences betwen zygote/fetus/baby are quite simple and commonly accepted. Zygote = conception through embryonic stage, fetus = post embryonic stage through birth, and baby = post birth stage. I am not the one that has drawn these lines, nor am I the one that defined the distinction between popcorn and candy corn. In your world they are the same and some liberal has made this distinction to covertly justify a dastardly motive. Regarding the facetious "so smart", there is an old saying about glass houses, but I can't recall it at the moment.

SpinnerMan wrote: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424
An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth.
So are you cool with killing human offspring?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/offspring

1 a : the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant : young, progeny
b : child


This is an example of the most convoluted logic I have run across in a while. You are posting a definition with a term you feel you need to define in order to make your point, then you post a definition of that term that disputes the original definition. In the first, the "unborn offspring' starts at the end of the eight week period, in the second the "unborn offspring" is simply defined as the "result of the reproductive processes..." Is not the embryo the result "of the reproductive processes..."? Progression from point A to point B in a debate should NOT require the use of trampolines or magician's top hats.

.

SpinnerMan wrote: Ever have a mother show you the sonogram of her fetus or is it always her baby? Granted you are in California, so maybe, but even there I doubt it.


Must you ALWAYS resort to sophomoric derogatories? It makes you look petty, and I know you are capable of expressing your opinions well without them.


SpinnerMan wrote: Baby is not a medical term. It describes the unborn baby (fetus) through newborn baby (infant) through I guess toddler

I think that goes without saying. Why introduce it? I believe that the pro-choice advocate does not use this term in this discussion as it is a romantic euphemism utilized to elicit sympathy in an objective discussion. Exactly like many PETA advocates use anthropomorphism and "cute and cuddlies" when railing about the brutality of hunting. It's far too transparent.


Glimmerjim wrote:Conservatives see things in black and white, liberals see things in infinite shades of gray.
SpinnerMan wrote: So what are the shades of gray for killing babies? :huh: Child molestation? Rape? This is so idiotic, yet liberals think it makes them look smart.

Exactly where does the idiocy reside in considering these circumstances in a discussion of pro-choice vs pro-life? Further, I do not believe that liberals have a patent on attempting to "look smart". Do you?
Glimmerjim wrote:In my opinion the liberal viewpoint promulgates thought, the conservative one suppresses it.


SpinnerMan wrote: So you are a thinker, yet you never express where you believe the line between choice and murder. From conception to birth to 18th birthday to middle age to retirement to so old you should just take a pill and save the resources for others is a continuum. Where has all this thought led you to conclude the line between choice and criminal activity exists?

First, you are stating that to be a "thinker", in your terms, one must have reached conclusions. The absurdity of this view is painfully obvious. Any attempts to mandate a certain position on everyone are indicative of a certainty of an a priori knowledge that renders debate as useless. I believe this subject is far from that position in the minds of the general populace.

Glimmerjim wrote:Why consider a subject if one "knows" the definitive answer? One must not always have a personally non-disputable opinion on a subject to have a learned and considered position on it, regardless of what the typical conservative maintains.


SpinnerMan wrote: My whole point is that if you don't know where that line is. Do NOT take the risk of killing a baby :fingerhead:

Please define, in a purely subjective manner, the inherent "risk" to society of not criminalizing abortion. That the society which condones it places a low value on human life? I believe that there are currently many more extreme indicators than abortion which demonstrate the direction we are heading on that particular subject.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Boone and Crockett Tea Party Points

Postby cartervj » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:23 pm

Hey, Canada might pass a law allowing one to do late term abortions, the ones after birth

then there is this
TALLAHASSEE, FL, March 30, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – If a child is born alive following a botched abortion, should the abortionist be required to try to save its life? According to a Planned Parenthood lobbyist, the child's right to life after birth should also be a matter of choice.

Alisa Lapolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified before the Florida House this week to oppose a law requiring abortionists to provide care for babies born alive during botched abortions in the most stark terms possible.

Rep. Jim Boyd, a member of the Civil Justice Subcommittee, gave ample warning that Planned Parenthood's position sounded callous and inhuman.

“It's just really hard for me to even ask you this question, because I'm almost in disbelief,” he said. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” Snow replied.

Rep. Daniel Davis later asked, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

Snow punted.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests