published Sunday, March 31st, 2013

The ROE Boat

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

148
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
AndrewLohr said...

"Roe" herself joined the pro-lifers. Join her with us. If facing a problem pregnancy, call "Choices" at 267-7943; see if the pro-lifers listen and try to help.

"Roe" had lied about having been raped. Her female lawyers, instead of getting themselves pregnant and suing for the right to kill their babies, shoved "Roe" forward for a test case. The pro-aborti movement claimed thousands of U.S. women were dying annually from coathanger-quality abortions. That claim is false. They claim high quality treatment, yet throw dismembered babies in dumpsters. The Chattanooga abortuary killed at least one of its customers, and prolifers claim abortion deaths are underreported. And do feminists applaud the "choice" that has killed tens of millions of baby girls for being girls not boys, especially in China and India?

But facts such as the above tie in with or get thrown out by theories. Today we celebrate the resurrection from the dead of an abortion candidate with poor, unwed parents (they offered the Jewish sacrifice prescribed for poor people), who described himself as homeless (birds have nests but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head), and who was executed by the only superpower of that time, whose syringes must have been out of drugs that day--they nailed him to a cross, where it took him a few hours to die. Ouch. As you hold a well-deserved pity party for yourself, consider what he endured because he loves us--that's the Christian theory, whatever varieties of it different saints hold. (What different varieties notice tends to be worth noticing. When we get so satisfied with what WE notice that we ignore or deny what others have noticed, our pride hobbles us.)

And he didn't stay dead; check out the evidence. (I suppose "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N. T. Wright is the most thorough treatment, if you can read 800-page books). Let Easter remind you that Jesus' power as well as his love are unique claims. Did atheists Marx or Rand die for our sins and rise up alive on the third day? Did Mohammed or Buddha or Joseph Smith love us that much or show God's power at work that way? Nobody even says so. But we Christians rest on Jesus, on Jesus as described by these claims, and since this is true about Jesus it is safe to ignore Marx, Mohammed, Buddha & co, but dangerous to ignore Jesus who said "No man comes to [God] the Father except by Me." Whoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father. I've mentioned the four main options--Jesus, Islam, Atheism, and Buddhism/Hinduism. There's no way to avoid believing something, no way to avoid placing all your chips on one bet. Choose with care.

And since the only superpower de jour executed Jesus but God raised Him from the dead, God outranks the only superpower, and followers of God had better consider whether God favors everything currently fashionable. Fornication? Killing babies? Boasting of kindness for giving away other peoples' money? I have my doubts.

March 31, 2013 at 12:54 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Abortion is one issue where men should be denied the vote!

March 31, 2013 at 1:26 a.m.

... Except that, at least in this country, a large percentage of aborted fetuses are male. In any case, the destruction of human life is a human issue, regardless of gender. A choice which comes at the expense of an innocent human life is not a legitimate choice. Civil law is designed to restrict such choices.

Besides, few things have empowered the loser sperm-donors who take advantage of and then abandon the mother of their children than the (largely unregulated) unlimited abortion license created by Roe. Crisis pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, and many other support services are available to help women in such difficult situations. Few movements have been as detrimental to the health and well-being of women than the movement to legitimize this barbaric practice. Even Roe now acknowledges this and testifies of the way she was manipulated and used by lawyers in the case.

March 31, 2013 at 1:44 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Since abortions will happen, whether legal or back-alley, a better argument might be what is better for the women of America. Over-turning Roe vs Wade will not end abortion, it will only limit access to the poorest among us whose under nurtured children are the most likely to have lives needing public assistance and encarceration.

Legal abortion is a terrible decision to have to make, illegal abortion is a societal crime against women. Unwanted, unnurtured, and unloved children are the price society has to pay for their myopic religious morallity assertions. Unless society is willing to support, educate, and nurture EVERY unwanted child, then the abortion option becomes the more moral option.

March 31, 2013 at 2:10 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Andrew, whew, glad I don't subscribe to your vengeful deity. Sorry but I refuse to live my life in fear, servitude, and submission to a man made god. While you piously berate a woman's right to choose as murder based on your concept of a "loving God", perhaps you could explain your God's instructions regarding rape, murder, and slavery in the Old Testament. These were the things that he "favors", right?

March 31, 2013 at 2:45 a.m.
hambone said...

The shark fin coathangers are a nice touch Clay.

March 31, 2013 at 3:35 a.m.
alprova said...

It's very hard to overlook the fact that those who frequent this forum and are severely opposed to abortion are also guilty of expressing sentiment on a regular basis indicating that they are equally opposed to the Government spending for social programs that are used to support those in need.

Which issue is more important to them?

The estimated basic costs of raising a child from birth to adulthood are about $169,000 to a quarter of a million. This does not include the costs of putting a child through school and it doesn't begin to include providing them a dime towards the cost of obtaining a higher education.

In a perfect world, every adult would be responsible enough to take every precaution necessary to insure that every embryo was conceived in love, to dual parents, and to people with sufficient income to support the costs of raising a child.

But folks, we don't begin to live in a perfect world.

There are no easy answers and there never have been. Pro-lifers who are snug as a bug in their own life situation, with little to no cash flow problems, and a sense of religious superiority to boot, would like to think they have things all figured out, but then they are not forced to deal directly with the costs of raising children once they achieve the goal of assuring their birth.

I would be more amenable to joining forces with pro-lifers, if it were not for their constant moaning and groaning about the Government dispensing funds for social programs, their tendency to express rampant racial bigotry whenever the issue is broached for one minute, and their never-ending quests to blame "welfare queens" for staffing our nation's prisons with criminals.

You either have to be pro-life AND equally behind the Government providing the funds necessary to sustain the life of that child until he or she reaches a point where they are able to provide for themselves, or you have to be for some measure of preventing the birth of a child to those who can ill afford to raise one without the need for public assistance.

Thus, is the quagmire that pro-lifers never take the time to resolve in their own minds. If it's not their child, it's not their problem, but by golly, download that embryo regardless of a doggone thing.

Abortion should always be considered very carefully and it should always be a last resort, but I am one of many people who would never question, prevent, or discourage any woman from making that choice, if she deems it necessary.

Abstinence is a pipe dream. The Catholic Church is and always has been out of touch with reality and their own members, most of whom at one time or another have used birth control measures and like most all people, have had healthy sex lives behind closed doors.

Pro-choice people have no conflicts to deal with. They have always been far more rational and realistic when dealing with this issue, and apparently, that is not going to change any time soon.

March 31, 2013 at 5:49 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Jesus was a really late term abortion.

"If you're so pro-life, do me a favour: don't lock arms and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries." - Bill Hicks

Happy Zombie Jesus Day

March 31, 2013 at 6:42 a.m.
fairmon said...

Pro choice may evolve to no choice as a population control and economic initiative when those 2-3 generations forward we are indebting have to begin paying for all our current excesses. Who can say with an ever expanding centralized control government that it can't happen here?

March 31, 2013 at 7:39 a.m.

Nucanuck,

Your myopic atheistic morality assertion is laughable. Are you really under the delusion that there are fewer are unwanted, un-nurtured, and unloved children since the Roe fiasco? Or that Christianity is anything other than the primary caregiver for such children and their mothers? You live a sheltered life. Wake up. Sexual libertinism is the source of, not the solution to, all but very few unwanted pregnancies. Society’s willingness to support, educate, and nurture EVERY unwanted child is not advanced by the grisly devaluation of human life otherwise known as elective abortion. Far from it. It is a warped “morality” that considers such large-scale destruction of human life as moral.

March 31, 2013 at 8:08 a.m.
Yano said...

Around half of human embryos die naturally. Usually a woman doesn't even know - she just thinks her period was a few days late.

What kind of god would magically inject "souls" into so many doomed little embryos and then kill them?

Should the nation throw its resources into preventing this holocaust in our midst? Must we save every embryo, because each is one of 'em is a "person?"

Or is personhood a product of the mind, an activity of the brain, which is an organ that develops gradually? If personhood comes into being gradually, shouldn't our laws reflect that?

But, that doesn't satisfy the kind of absolutists who can only relate to the world in black and white, the kind of people who become fundamentalists, because phony authority is easier than actual thought.

March 31, 2013 at 8:16 a.m.

The eugenicist sentiments of fairmon and of the founders of the pro-abortion movement are far more of a threat to minorities and poor women than is Alpova’s bogeyman of the conservative religious miser. It is the social welfare programs of the left which are responsible for locking families, especially minorities, into the crushing, multi-generational cycle of poverty in America. It is liberals who give mere lip service to societal compassion. They preach generosity, but they are largely unwilling to part with their own resources for the benefit of the needy, as study after study has shown. They are content to lash out at the church – the primary institution willing to offer alternatives to their naïve, self-destructive, adolescent demand for unchallenged sexual promiscuity. The slaughter of millions of babies is the fruit. This is shameful for a society that purports to be civilized and enlightened. The liberal’s solution for the mother of an unwanted child is to either end his or her life or callously hand him or her over to the nanny state – a proven unfit mother if there ever was one. Pro-lifers, by contrast, continue to welcome such children into a more humane, far-sighted community committed to suffering with and lifting up those in distress. No institution had served the needs of the tossed aside fruit of pagan immorality in such a matter as has the church of the resurrected Christ. Long may it continue.

I predict a forum saturated the usual airing of the left’s blame-shifting, straw-man defenses for the immoral and inhumane practice of abortion-on-demand. Let the illogical justification for your secular fundamentalist positions proceed apace.

March 31, 2013 at 8:42 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Are you really under the delusion that there are fewer are unwanted, un-nurtured, and unloved children since the Roe fiasco?

Yes, in fact studies have shown that this may actually have happened.

No one likes abortion. But I have to agree with nuckanuck. Abortion did not begin with Roe, and it will not end if it is repealed. It was bad legislation, yes. But rich white women have been able to get safe abortions in hospitals (with their privacy intact) while poor women were at risk of death and sterilization by dangerous and illegal procedures.

As long as humans have been around there has been abortion. Reliable woman-controlled contraception has only been available since the 60's. When all unwanted and neglected children are adopted, when the earth's human population has stabilized, when women are no longer controlled or exploited or abused by men, when all women have access to pre-natal care, when all pregnancies are planned, and when all children are born into families that can care for them, THEN and ONLY THEN will this discussion make any progress.

Yes, I am a non-believer, but for those that believe, I think your bible defines life at first breath.

Pro-lifers, by contrast, continue to welcome such children into a more humane, far-sighted community committed to suffering with and lifting up those in distress. No institution had served the needs of the tossed aside fruit of pagan immorality in such a matter as has the church of the resurrected Christ. Long may it continue.

The record of the state of children in foster care says otherwise. I think pro-lifers are doing a pretty poor job.

March 31, 2013 at 8:45 a.m.

lkeithlu said that Roe “was bad legislation.” Um, I'm pretty sure Roe was a Supreme Court decision. Ah yes, the liberal’s confusion about the judicial and legislative functions of the respective branches of government – an essential presupposition underlying the judicial fiat of Roe.


Foster care programs are usually administered by the nanny state. Thank you for making my point about misguided bureaucratic responses to families in crisis. Happy Fertility Rites to all!!

March 31, 2013 at 8:57 a.m.
patriot1 said...

whats wrong....exactly, it was not legislated....it was based on a lie by the plantiff (Roe) saying that she had been raped when in fact she had not.

March 31, 2013 at 9:02 a.m.
dude_abides said...

whats_wrong_with_the_world egested... "I predict a forum saturated the usual airing of the left’s blame-shifting, straw-man defenses for the immoral and inhumane practice of abortion-on-demand. Let the illogical justification for your secular fundamentalist positions proceed apace."

Did you see where Boston College is threatening punishment for students caught handing out condoms?

You don't want sex education, you don't want birth control, you don't want to allow choice on abortion, you want to erase government assistance, then you cry when you're affected by crime. You really are what's wrong with the world.

March 31, 2013 at 9:10 a.m.
shen said...

patriot1, due to the stigma attached, it was not unusual for an unmarried sexually active woman who became pregnant in that time to lie and claim they'd been raped. Married women too, whose spouses were away for long periods of time, like military service, and the woman didn't want to admit to having an affair. You also had the 8lb and 10lb healthy babies being born prematurely at 6 and 7 months. hint: The babies weren't premature.

March 31, 2013 at 9:16 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

Birds of a feather: Bennett, the Chattanooga Times and Google: On Easter Sunday, Google is honoring the birthday of the late labor organizer Cesar Chavez by placing a Chavez portrait within the middle “o” of the Google logo that appears on the homepage of the popular search engine.

While Google frequently decorates its logo to celebrate various holidays and special events, it is unclear why the company chose specifically to honor Chavez’s birthday, instead of Easter Sunday.

Chavez co-founded the organization now known as the United Farm Workers union (UFW). He became an iconic figure in the labor movement, with his stature only increasing since his death in 1993.

HOW'S THEM AD SALES COMING, TIMES FREE PRESS?

March 31, 2013 at 10:03 a.m.
tifosi said...

Right Wing Conservatives are the biggest hypocrites. Stay the hell out my life and stop telling me how to live. Mind your own damned business.

March 31, 2013 at 10:09 a.m.
tifosi said...

Save the babies so that idiots with guns can kill them!

March 31, 2013 at 10:13 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Foster care programs are usually administered by the nanny state. Thank you for making my point about misguided bureaucratic responses to families in crisis.

The government steps in because individuals and the churches can't or won't.

March 31, 2013 at 10:24 a.m.
fairmon said...

Alprova goes berserk when I insist tax payer funded abortions should include sterilization but I am not alone in that belief. I would support a similar law for males that do not or are not able to pay child support. Arresting and incarcerating them is only temporary and doesn't prevent additional unsupported off spring and normally does not improve paying of child support.

March 31, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.
limric said...

Great job today Clay. This is a keeper.

For those posting here that read the bible and proffer from it that gays or abortion should be illegal , that's fine. But they should also take the time to read the constitution that says your religion doesn't get to make the laws in this country.

Separation of church & state. The vast majority of people seem to like that idea. It's a great thing. You should try to understand it too.

March 31, 2013 at 10:57 a.m.
Maximus said...

Today's doodle tells you a LOT about Clay Bennett. Clay, you are a sick, sick, peon of a man. You pick Easter Sunday to depict your disgusting personality with an abortion doodle. I'm sure your family is sooooo proud of you this morning. How about taking the rest of the year off, you little perv.

March 31, 2013 at 11:20 a.m.
Maximus said...

limric, you are very wrong and as bat crap crazy as your muse Hunter S. Thompson. In God We Trust and you can't do a damn thing about it. Ha! Ha! and Happy Easter!

March 31, 2013 at 11:25 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Maximus takes a swing at Clay and limric, but offers up not thought one. Long on self confidence, short on content.

March 31, 2013 at 11:55 a.m.
alprova said...

WWWTW wrote: "The eugenicist sentiments of fairmon and of the founders of the pro-abortion movement are far more of a threat to minorities and poor women than is Alpova’s bogeyman of the conservative religious miser."

But of course. You folks have it all figgered out.

"It is the social welfare programs of the left which are responsible for locking families, especially minorities, into the crushing, multi-generational cycle of poverty in America."

I'd love to read a concise, detailed argument complete with an outlining of what your alternative plan would be to magically transform the lives of someone in their position, that would make them all self-sufficient.

"It is liberals who give mere lip service to societal compassion."

Regardless of what you think, those you feel no compassion for, will never side with you for one second and that's simply a fact of life.

"They preach generosity, but they are largely unwilling to part with their own resources for the benefit of the needy, as study after study has shown."

Liberals, as studies also show, do not tend to be filthy rich, but they do pay taxes just like everyone else. We simply do not object to them being used to assist those in need, unlike most conservatives.

"They are content to lash out at the church – the primary institution willing to offer alternatives to their naïve, self-destructive, adolescent demand for unchallenged sexual promiscuity."

I see, and there's no such thing as good little Christian boys and girls slipping off for a little fun and accidentally conceiving a wee one, is there?

"The slaughter of millions of babies is the fruit. This is shameful for a society that purports to be civilized and enlightened."

And again, many religious people have had abortions too. They don't talk about it, or share it with others. It's society's little secret.

"The liberal’s solution for the mother of an unwanted child is to either end his or her life or callously hand him or her over to the nanny state – a proven unfit mother if there ever was one."

You obviously have all the answers, so let's hear some of them.

"Pro-lifers, by contrast, continue to welcome such children into a more humane, far-sighted community committed to suffering with and lifting up those in distress."

That's just about all you do. You put out the WELCOME TO EARTH sign, but basically they are on their own after that.

"I predict a forum saturated the usual airing of the left’s blame-shifting, straw-man defenses for the immoral and inhumane practice of abortion-on-demand."

Let's read about your plan to support the lives each year for babies born into the poorest of circumstances, who may not be wanted by the mother, and who are unplanned just about every single time.

I doubt that there is one single person who has posted on this issue, who is squeaky clean and morally superior.

March 31, 2013 at 12:38 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Alprova goes berserk when I insist tax payer funded abortions should include sterilization but I am not alone in that belief."

You're the only person I have ever encountered that has ever expressed it, so there's not many out there like you, that's for sure.

"I would support a similar law for males that do not or are not able to pay child support."

But of course you would.

"Arresting and incarcerating them is only temporary and doesn't prevent additional unsupported off spring and normally does not improve paying of child support."

Why not line them all up and shoot them?

March 31, 2013 at 12:42 p.m.
Maximus said...

nucanuck...me thoughts are you are a complete loser if you glean no content from the fact that Clay Bennett is an absolute pervert and limric is lost at sea. I really could care less what content or "thought" you are seeking but what we would all like is for Clay to get on I-75 and head North. The fact that Clay Bennett has such intolerance and lack of sensitivity to defame Easter a Christian holiday depicting "New Life" with a stupid pro abortion doddle, that anyone with junior high art skills could draw I might add, is proof positive and with clear "thought" and "content" that Clay Bennett is a lazy, jerk off, pot head, with huge mental illness issues regarding his military Daddy taking him to soooo many awful places as a child. Again, who puts that type of thing in their national personal profile but a loser victim seeking some form of sympathy from the over the top, emotional, I AM A VICTIM LOSER LEFT. I am certain that Clay, being so miserable living here in the Land Of The Free Because Of The Brave, wishes his Alabama red neck trailer trash Mother would have chosen abortion instead of giving birth to him. We would too Clay, we would too!

March 31, 2013 at 1:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

What type of protective headgear do you wear when you go outside? Probably a modified football, hockey, or bicycle helmet, right?

March 31, 2013 at 1:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Yano's post at 8:16 a.m. is an interesting conundrum for Christians to answer. I noticed posters like WWWTW didn't even address it.

Are miscarriages "holy" abortions? Do miscarried embryo's and fetuses have souls? More embryo's are miscarried than are aborted. Why aren't Christians protesting God for massacring so many babies?

March 31, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.
limric said...

It's quite possible that Mr. Bennett isn't a Christian there PeeWee. If so, why do you demmand he 'respect' Easter when you never show any on your part. There's a word for such behavior...hmm, I think it starts with an 'H'.

March 31, 2013 at 1:32 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Right Wing Conservatives are the biggest hypocrites. Stay the hell out my life and stop telling me how to live. Mind your own damned business." - tifosi

I'll drink to that! I get so sick of hearing the same crap, the same old inane, insane arguments from the rabid righties. America is the richest nation on earth and we really could be and should be a shining light for all the world to see, not because of our massive military and expensive, hi-tech weapons of war, but because we have the resources and the potential for being a nation that is truly enlightened, educated, prosperous (for all), civilized, and is the epitome of social justice. But we are stuck in this quagmire of do-nothingness and even back-pedaling because we have to contend with troglodytes with all the money and power who have NO sense of vision or empathy or fairness. They keep wanting to take us backward instead of forward and they worship either their god of money and greed or their god of retribution...or more often than not, both gods at once. We have to keep going round and round on this merry-go-round of insanity, debating the same things over and over and getting nowhere, and all the while we are sinking deeper and deeper in our own doo-doo. We have become a laughing stock because we are a nation filled with small-minded arrogant greedy gun-loving bastards who are mesmerized by some make-believe by-gone era of greatness, like the Gilded Age or the Wild West, that never really was so great to begin with, yet that is what they want take us back to.

BTW...happy easter. May the mythical jesus who is risen from his mythical tomb and ascended into his mythical heaven grant you eternal life or whatever it is you bible-thumping xtians hope to get out of your irrational belief and childish blind faith.

March 31, 2013 at 1:49 p.m.
Maximus said...

Easy123 and Pussyrickarooperv.....if we did not have those 10,000 lb. bombs, the nukes and the B2 Bombers what you think North Korea would do? "Prosperous for all"...so funny Rickaroo. Yea, there is a LOT of freedom in the collective...as for our weapons superiority over the world here is the quote..."If you want peace, stay prepared for war". Caesar As for Easter, our whole family went to Mass this morning. How about yours? Rickaroo you are right, you have no money, so shut it will ya. Barry and Michelle, wearing their designer suits could buy you several times over. You think they are driving "progressive" change and so called social justice. NOW THAT IS FUNNY I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYBODY SAYS! Rickaroo and Easy 123, two simple minded pawns that Obama takes all the way to the bank every day. Don't worry, we will take care of you. Just send us your money what little you have...........EAsy I think you ran out of lithium a long time ago. Time to make a trip to the VA....right?

March 31, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
Maximus said...

Rickaroo, Limric, and Easy 123...it just ocurred to me....are you three abused military brats like Clay The Doddler? I would not be surprised because your loser message is very similar to his trash. Can you imagine the body of work Clay Bennett is leaving behind. Will anyone care? No impact what so ever. If Clay is married can you imagine the Mama Cass nightmare that she is. Now that is fuuuuuuuny!

March 31, 2013 at 2:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maxmiusty,

"If you want peace, stay prepared for war". Caesar"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Caesar didn't say that.

"NOW THAT IS FUNNY I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYBODY SAYS!"

No, it's really not funny at all.

"Rickaroo and Easy 123, two simple minded pawns that Obama takes all the way to the bank every day."

Maxmiusty calling someone else "simple minded'. Oh, the irony.

"Don't worry, we will take care of you."

No, you won't. We will take care of you though.

"EAsy I think you ran out of lithium a long time ago. Time to make a trip to the VA....right?"

That must be it! Lithium is the medication you're on. How long have you been bipolar, Musty? I bet you wear a camouflage helmet given your constant use of Larry the Cable Guy quotes.

That "Vanderbilt" education you received was sh!t. LMFAO!

March 31, 2013 at 2:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

"it just ocurred to me....are you three abused military brats like Clay The Doddler?"

Did your mother have a lot of sex while she was pregnant with you? Because your mind is f*cked.

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

"I would not be surprised because your loser message is very similar to his trash."

You deeming someone else's words as a "loser message". Oh, the irony.

"Can you imagine the body of work Clay Bennett is leaving behind. Will anyone care? No impact what so ever."

You come here everyday to look at his work. Clay Bennett has a dense, complete body of work. The man's cartoons are award-winning. Bennett will make more impact with this cartoon alone than you will make in your entire life.

http://www.claybennett.com/about.html

"If Clay is married can you imagine the Mama Cass nightmare that she is. Now that is fuuuuuuuny!"

If you have ever been intimate with a woman, I can imagine that it was, in fact, your own Mama.

March 31, 2013 at 2:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"Pussyrickarooperv"

You are either 10 years old or mentally retarded. I can't help but point that out. Is everyone else seeing that? Are we all being "Punk'd" by Maximus?

I sincerely hope that, by some miracle, you haven't and will not be able to procreate, Maximusty.

March 31, 2013 at 2:34 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Maximus, you're an insignificant little twit. You are as loony as the con-man and joneses and some of the other wing-nuts who post here. What you say to me or about me personally has the same effect on me as a toy poodle barking somewhere in the distance. I'm not going to waste my time with you.

Here's a concise and simple message about Jesus the Sun (not Son) of God. I know that most Christians won't even look at this or will try to discredit it if they do choose to look at it, but for those with an open mind on the subject this little 3-minute video gives an easy to understand explanation of how Jesus has been made literal from what was originally something purely symbolic and should have stayed that way - symbolic.

March 31, 2013 at 2:35 p.m.
jesse said...

Max is playin you numbnuts like a $6 banjo!

He counting cadence and yall are humping down the grinder!

March 31, 2013 at 2:45 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Christ, jesse, you repost something Easy said 11 minutes prior, and come off like you've known some esoteric truth forever! Silly man.

March 31, 2013 at 3:01 p.m.
tifosi said...

Many Christians are America's version of the Taliban and making us all live by their version of Sharia law.

March 31, 2013 at 3:03 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Abortion is a personal issue between the aborter and her god, whomever or whatever that may be. She will have to answer for it. But it's not your or my business, unless the baby happened to be yours or mine. Otherwise, we should butt out.

March 31, 2013 at 3:05 p.m.
dude_abides said...

The only 'arse' Max kicks lives in his trailer.

March 31, 2013 at 4:57 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Abortion & school. A bit of comparing apples to oranges today eh Jonny Nutter?

March 31, 2013 at 5:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRosshole,

"And the military is one issue where women should be denied the vote."

You don't get it. Childbearing is exclusive to women. That's why nucanuck made that statement. The military and everything that it entails is not exclusive to men. Women can do every job within the military that men can. Thus, the two statements by yourself and nucanuck are not equivalent in any way. You're just a sexist pig. And you wonder why people believe in the Republican war on women?

"You can choose to kill your baby, and even get government assistance in doing it."

Wrong. One cannot get government assistance to have an abortion. Another WingNut myth.

"But ask for school choice and you are a wingnut hater, and you can’t get any government assistance."

You should be against government trying to compete with the private sector. You're a Republican. If the government started giving private school vouchers, etc., private school scholarship funds would be ruined! You're too stupid for your own good.

"Max keep kicking their fetid marxist arses."

See dude_abides response at 4:57 p.m.

"Choice is choice, MickeyRatsass."

MickeyRat said nothing about the choice, moron. He was talking about the subject of that choice. Learn to read, you dumb bastard.

"I am proud to be trailer park trash."

We can tell. Your lack of intelligence proves it.

"Unlike you arrogant leftwing obamist 1%'ers."

The only (supposed) "1%er" here is Maximus. And he's a WingNut dumbass just like you. Arrogant? You're the one trying to make up your own facts and pass them off as truth. That is the ultimate arrogance. And ignorance. But who's counting, right?

March 31, 2013 at 6:59 p.m.
alprova said...

Easy123 wrote: "The only (supposed) "1%er" here is Maximus."

I've got a thousand bucks that says that Maximus is not even close to being a thing he claims to be.

He, like Jon Ross, are totally off the charts, in terms of their views and the reasons they hold such views.

Maximus and Jon Ross believe themselves to be anonymous. They aren't and never have been.

Where's conservative? As the chief Bible thumper, you would think that he would be all over this one...

Ah...that's right...he can't use the Bible to make a case against abortion.

March 31, 2013 at 7:43 p.m.
degage said...

So Easy because jon is poor he is on you list of unenlightened? You have been on here advocating for the poor now you have made it clear you really don't care about Him or anyone else as long as they don't subscribe to your ideals. What a hypocrite you are.

March 31, 2013 at 8:01 p.m.
acerigger said...

IF Jon is poor,and he advocates voting for the party who wants to call a halt to programs which give assistance to people who Jon thinks doesn't deserve it because he and his ilk are constantly bombarded with right-wing propaganda asserting that those people are "moochers"and "takers",then,yes,he IS unenlightened

March 31, 2013 at 8:17 p.m.
degage said...

Ace, Easy advocates for the poor now he calls people that live in trailers in a trailer park TRASH. that is a hypocrite. Doesn't matter the weather Jon is poor or not Easy has made it clear what he thinks of people that don't have what he has. He thinks they are trash.

March 31, 2013 at 8:43 p.m.
Lr103 said...

joepulitzer said.. While Google frequently decorates its logo to celebrate various holidays and special events, it is unclear why the company chose specifically to honor Chavez’s birthday, instead of Easter Sunday.

A real Jesus would have been honored and proud that google chose such a modern day hero, true activist, and human rights fighter like Chavez. Chavez, the essence and epitome of everything Jesus of the Bible stood for. One that was actually inspired by the teachings of the biblical Jesus and whose actions were driven by his religious convictions for social justice. For Chavez, social reform was never external and he felt any success or accomplishments could only be obtained through his spiritual belief of The One who'd been crucified and risen.

So much hate from you rightwingNUTTERS. You don't even recognize your own hypocrisy.

March 31, 2013 at 8:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

"So Easy because jon is poor he is on you list of unenlightened?"

No, I have deemed him ignorant because he espouses proven lies and says things that are, in fact, ignorant. The things he says are incongruent with facts. The things he says are illogical. I don't know if the man is poor or not. However, I do know, from reading his posts, that he is egregiously ignorant.

"You have been on here advocating for the poor now you have made it clear you really don't care about Him or anyone else as long as they don't subscribe to your ideals."

I've done no such thing. I have made it clear that I despise ignorance. I don't care if anyone here "subscribes to my ideals". What I do have a problem with is ignorance and the acceptance and "pride" that most WingNuts tend to find in it. You, madam, are a liar.

"What a hypocrite you are."

Considering nothing you just said is accurate, no, I am not. You are the hypocrite. And, as of right now, you can throw "liar" into the mix as words that accurately describe you.

March 31, 2013 at 8:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

"Easy advocates for the poor now he calls people that live in trailers in a trailer park TRASH."

I never called anyone "trailer park TRASH", liar.

"that is a hypocrite."

False. I have done nothing hypocritical.

"Doesn't matter the weather Jon is poor or not Easy has made it clear what he thinks of people that don't have what he has. He thinks they are trash."

False. I have not said, nor do I espouse, anything you just attributed to me. I haven't called anyone trash and you cannot point to anywhere that would prove otherwise.

What does it feel like to be an abject liar? I've already established that you are a hypocrite and, apparently, that chapped your little behind so much that you had to resort to telling outright lies against me. Shame on you, degage. Shame, shame, shame.

March 31, 2013 at 8:58 p.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

I noticed you didn't chastise Maximus for his name calling. According to your logic, that means you agree with what he says.

You prove just how much of a hypocrite you truly are everyday, degage.

March 31, 2013 at 9:11 p.m.
degage said...

Easy, you are right ,you just agreed with jon when he posted He was proud to be trailer park trash, when you said " we can tell. your lack of intelligence proves it." Might as well said he was trash. You are a hypocrite. You see you made a statement when you said that, and we now can see through your hypocrisy.

I don't read max, he irritates me. the only time I read Jon anymore is when you and others post what he says as you did in you 6:59 post.

March 31, 2013 at 9:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

"you just agreed with jon when he posted He was proud to be trailer park trash"

No, I didn't. I said "We can tell.". I was referring to being able to "tell" that he was proud of being "trailer park trash" and I used his severe ignorance as proof that he would, in fact, be proud of being "trash".

"Might as well said he was trash."

Wrong. I never even implied that I agreed with him or stated that I thought he was "trash", liar.

"You are a hypocrite."

Wrong again. Nothing I have done is hypocritical. You are either a liar or you don't know what the word means. Which is it?

"You see you made a statement when you said that, and we now can see through your hypocrisy."

Wrong again. Nothing I have said is hypocritical and you can not logically prove otherwise.

"I don't read max, he irritates me."

More proof of how much of a hypocrite you are.

"the only time I read Jon anymore is when you and others post what he says as you did in you 6:59 post."

Even more proof.

You are a hypocrite and a liar, degage. You are easily exposed. The proof is there and you know it. That is why you have resorted to telling lies about me. Or you're just very dense. I wonder which one it is?

March 31, 2013 at 9:48 p.m.
Maximus said...

U.S. sending jets to South Korea. Stay frosty folks. Time for some good ole American exceptionalism. Tell me Rickaroo, how many jets is that piece of crap socialist utopia Canada sending? Hmmm. How many is France sending? How many is Cuba sending? America, the land of the free because of the brave and a very large defense budget. Rickaroo, you weak little dweeb with all your socialist dogma. Dude, socialism has failed in every corner of the world and always will. The American Constitution and the freedom it supports will continue to be the light of the world.

March 31, 2013 at 11:15 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximoron,

"Tell me Rickaroo, how many jets is that piece of crap socialist utopia Canada sending? Hmmm. How many is France sending? How many is Cuba sending?"

All of those countries have a higher life expectancy than the United States.

"Rickaroo, you weak little dweeb with all your socialist dogma."

I doubt you could even define "socialism".

"Dude, socialism has failed in every corner of the world and always will."

Not in China. Or Cuba. Or Vietnam. But no one has advocated socialism here. Another WingNut strawman.

"The American Constitution and the freedom it supports will continue to be the light of the world."

I thought Jesus was the "light of the world". Oh, how quickly they forget! Heresy!

March 31, 2013 at 11:50 p.m.
alprova said...

degage, you really need to look back at what transpired. Jon Ross referred to himself as "trailer park trash" and he apparently is proud if it too.

No one else referred to him or anyone else as such, or even agreed with the man.

Jumping all over Easy for any insinuation that he referred to anyone as "trailer park trash" really makes you look kinda silly.

You might should have stayed out of this one.

If you were so compelled to do some jumping, you really ought to have jumped on Maximus, who specifically referred to Clay Bennett's mom as "Alabama trailer park trash."

That one got flagged.

April 1, 2013 at 12:36 a.m.
alprova said...

Maximus wrote: "U.S. sending jets to South Korea. Stay frosty folks. Time for some good ole American exceptionalism. Tell me Rickaroo, how many jets is that piece of crap socialist utopia Canada sending? Hmmm. How many is France sending? How many is Cuba sending?"

But Sir, we have a socialist President. Aren't you just a little surprised that he would authorize such a move?

"America, the land of the free because of the brave and a very large defense budget."

Isn't it funny, the people who moan and groan about Government spending to see to it that the elderly, the sick, and children are not dying every day, have no issue whatsoever with national defense spending that has reached the $1.75 trillion mark per year?

Actually, it's not funny at all. It's sickening and disgusting, considering that all the little Tea Party wing-nuts flitting around in Washington are only concerned with gutting social programs to balance budgets.

"Rickaroo, you weak little dweeb with all your socialist dogma. Dude, socialism has failed in every corner of the world and always will. The American Constitution and the freedom it supports will continue to be the light of the world."

You poor pathetic twit. I'm a socialist with a thousand bucks that would just love to hand it over to you, free and clear, if you can prove yourself to be a thing you have claimed to be in this forum.

You and I both know that you're not and we also both know that you're going to keep on ignoring my posts.

So you get all giddy over the Government playing war games in South Korea, from the confines of your armchair, because that's about all you've got to your name.

You are simply incredible...literally and categorically.

April 1, 2013 at 12:57 a.m.
alprova said...

For the record, although I am vehemently opposed to the last two wars that the United States has been involved in, I am totally on board with any and all tactics taken to discourage Kim Jong Un from carrying out his threats to both South Korea and the United States.

Is the man stupid enough to carry out one of his threats?

I hope not, because a great many innocent people would die horrible and immediate deaths if he is that stupid.

There is a definite difference this time that cannot be ignored. Kim Jong Un is making direct threats against two sovereign nations, and South Korea has been a very staunch and devoted ally of the United States since the 1950's.

If South Korea is attacked, North Korea's leadership deserves to be selectively obliterated once and for all.

I have little doubt that contingency plans are being drawn up as we are pondering the issue.

April 1, 2013 at 1:12 a.m.

A failure to eliminate society’s problems is not the same as a failure to address, to make progress, or to alleviate them. You refuse to apply the standard of perfection you use for faith-based charities to other social service agencies. Using your own standards, why hasn’t massive spending on the War on Poverty eliminated poverty? Why didn’t the Roe regime eliminate child neglect or gruesome, unsanitary abortions? Live by our own standards.

The obvious cause of unwanted pregnancies is the promotion and practice of promiscuity and male philandering. It doesn’t really matter whether the practitioner happens to be a religious hypocrite or a typical secularist who believes that there are no serious consequences for irresponsible behavior. Both are acting on the same flawed premises and the outcome is the same. Both individuals are, by their actions, rejecting biblical chastity and embracing the lie that a shallow, promiscuous lifestyle is just another harmless choice that affects only them.

Your obsessive indignation over religious hypocrisy fatally clouds your ability to defend your own inconsistent positions and to recognize your own self-righteousness and judgmentalism. Irrespective of ideology, some people live consistently with their beliefs, others do not, and no one perfectly abides by their own moral standards. I have never professed otherwise. It is an illogical leap, though, to conclude that high moral standards are therefore worthless or counterproductive. The fact that people will continue to shack up does not mean that responsible adults should not warn them of (and hold them accountable for) the destructive consequences of their actions.

For the studies that prove that liberals are misers with their own money, but generous with the money they wish to confiscate from others, you’ll find multiple examples in my previous posts. Likewise for the data showing the overwhelmingly beneficial results of faith-based charities on our society and their relative effectiveness when compared with impersonal, bureaucratic programs. Maybe I'll have time to re-post them tomorrow.

April 1, 2013 at 1:23 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Maximus lives in a world of his own creation, wallowing in rumored, but non-existent American exceptionalism, flailing at socialists with only a hint of the meaning of the word, and actually believing that he has a clue about geo-politics and economics.

But we should forgive Maximus for being a blow-hard, he, like many, believes that his limited busness success was directly related to his talent level. While he might be clever, he has not had that cleverness on display on this forum, causing some to question the quality of the content of his diatribes.

To think other nations should also fly planes to Korea to provoke a war with North Korea is lunacy. The US has pushed harsh sanctions on North Korea, an act of war(?), and carried out joint war games near North Korea as further provocation. Flying B-2 bombers 15,000 miles round-trip in an attempt to bully a small country is just wrong-headed.

Will the sanctions push the North Koreans to fight back? Probably not, but none of this needed to happen. We can't convince or prevent nations from developing nuclear weapons when we are loaded to the gills with same. We haven't asked China, Russia India, Pakistan, Israel or NATO countries to give up their nuclear programs. Why should North Korea and Iran be treated differently?

The neo-con warriors would have America drain its remaining wealth militarizing the globe while stateside we are failing to invest in our own future.

Maximus, the big war is already underway and it is economic, not military. The US is spending in all the wrong ways and places if we hope to regain our competitive footing and halt the long-term decline that we find ourselves in.

April 1, 2013 at 1:28 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Al,

Demonizing countries and their leaders is standard operating proceedure when we have them in our sights for battle. Don't be too quick to judge North Korea and their new young leader. Provocations have been stepped up to test Kim. I suspect that we are looking to create a reason to over-turn the North Korean government, even if massive entropy is the result.

April 1, 2013 at 1:45 a.m.

lkeithlu said... for those that believe, I think your bible defines life at first breath.

(I present this only because you brought it up.)

“And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.” (Luke 1:41)

People in ancient times obviously didn’t know all that we know about fetal development, but Luke and the other biblical writers knew what everyone with common sense still knows: that the baby in a mother’s womb is not simply a disposable glob of tissue. A pre-born child is a still a human baby, albeit at an early stage of development, and he or she therefore deserves legal protection from elective termination.

April 1, 2013 at 2:05 a.m.
Easy123 said...

WWWTW,

It would seem that your god views all humans, in general, as "disposable globs of tissue". How many has your god killed in the Bible alone? How many miscarriages has your god overseen? How many has your god stricken with cancer or HIV/AIDS? How many children born deformed, still-born, with Down syndrome? While I do not believe your god is real, you do. How do you reconcile those many examples of "elective termination" by your god?

April 1, 2013 at 2:28 a.m.
alprova said...

WWWTW wrote: "A failure to eliminate society’s problems is not the same as a failure to address, to make progress, or to alleviate them."

Well Sir, the fact is that this nation's social programs do in fact, keep the problems in check. Is it ideal? No, but I fear what would happen if conservatives get their way and eliminate them.

"You refuse to apply the standard of perfection you use for faith-based charities to other social service agencies."

No I don't. The problem I have with faith-based charities are their propensity to require recipients to attend faith-based sermons in order to receive assistance.

"Using your own standards, why hasn’t massive spending on the War on Poverty eliminated poverty?"

Discrimination in hiring, the lack of affordable child care for the poor, and yes, there are those who milk the system for every free dollar they can get.

"Why didn’t the Roe regime eliminate child neglect or gruesome, unsanitary abortions?"

I honestly cannot remember the last time I read of a case of someone being harmed by an unsanitary abortion. Child neglect is a whole other issue.

"The obvious cause of unwanted pregnancies is the promotion and practice of promiscuity and male philandering."

People do not need to be encouraged to have sex. That Sir, is a natural God given desire and just about every human being is guilty of seeking it.

"It doesn’t really matter whether the practitioner happens to be a religious hypocrite or a typical secularist who believes that there are no serious consequences for irresponsible behavior. Both are acting on the same flawed premises and the outcome is the same. Both individuals are, by their actions, rejecting biblical chastity and embracing the lie that a shallow, promiscuous lifestyle is just another harmless choice that affects only them."

Have you read the Bible? People did not practice chaste lifestyles any more back then than we do now. You can believe whatever you wish, but the Bible is hardly an example to use to defend abstinence.

"Your obsessive indignation over religious hypocrisy fatally clouds your ability to defend your own inconsistent positions and to recognize your own self-righteousness and judgmentalism."

Sir, I tend to be quite consistent, hardly self-righteous, and judging is something every single one of us does on a daily basis.

April 1, 2013 at 3:03 a.m.
alprova said...

"Irrespective of ideology, some people live consistently with their beliefs, others do not, and no one perfectly abides by their own moral standards."

Ah...finally, some mutual ground.

"I have never professed otherwise. It is an illogical leap, though, to conclude that high moral standards are therefore worthless or counterproductive."

To that, I have never professed otherwise.

"The fact that people will continue to shack up does not mean that responsible adults should not warn them of (and hold them accountable for) the destructive consequences of their actions."

It's none of your business. That's where super-religious people always take the wrong off-ramp when coasting down the interstate of life. They are never content to live their lives according to their own standards. They feel the need to coerce others all the time to accept their particular platform of standards.

"For the studies that prove that liberals are misers with their own money, but generous with the money they wish to confiscate from others, you’ll find multiple examples in my previous posts."

Oh, I remember your posts very well. So what? There are very few wealthy liberals in this world compared to the number of wealthy conservatives that exist.

Not everyone who is charitable, brags about it.

"Likewise for the data showing the overwhelmingly beneficial results of faith-based charities on our society and their relative effectiveness when compared with impersonal, bureaucratic programs."

If those in need of assistance in this nation had to depend solely on faith-based charities, two-thirds of this nation would starve to death.

I don't often plug the Catholic Church at all, but that is one denomination that does it right. They are involved in providing for the needy without an ounce of proselytizing involved. It would amaze people to learn the things that they fund, often without any fanfare whatsoever.

Outside of that, the Catholic religion is extremely backwards and totally out of touch with reality.

April 1, 2013 at 3:03 a.m.
jen1972 said...

Okay, so everyone who has commented so far that does not and has not fostered or adopted an unwanted child, please delete your comment and shut your yap. Anyone left besides me?

April 1, 2013 at 8:46 a.m.
conservative said...

On the special day when we recognize the resurrection of our sinless Savior, Jesus Christ, and the hope of eternal life available to all who obey the Gospel by making Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior, Mr. Bennett draws this abomination celebrating a fictitious right for a mother to kill her unborn baby!

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him John 3:36 KJV

April 1, 2013 at 8:48 a.m.
Maximus said...

Don't have time to respond to all of you internet intellectuals this morning as I am leaving for a business trip to Europe $$$ but safe to say the poor people in this country, (we really don't have poor people in the U.S. as compared to the rest of the world, most have flat screens and cell phones), are much safer this morning because of our military and huge defense budget. As for Barry The Welfare Pimp, even that Marxist knows when to use military power, look down through history, at one time Russia had 100% taxation most of the dollars going to the military. Every good Marxist Socialist has a strong military. Come on guys, this stuff is easy and no one, I mean no one, is reading YOUR stuff for content or reference. Later losers, have a nice day in front of your screens doing nothing, meaning nothing.

April 1, 2013 at 8:49 a.m.
degage said...

Jen1972, You would most likely be the only one left. I don't know if you fostered or adopted but you should be commended.

April 1, 2013 at 9:05 a.m.
limric said...

There Should Never Be An Abortion!

If you don't want to have a child, DON'T GET PREGNANT! It is as simple as that!

If you don't want broken bones, DON'T GET IN A CAR WRECK! It is as simple as that!

You can avoid car wrecks by never being anywhere that a car can come in contact with your person.

You can avoid pregnancy by never being anywhere that a man can come in contact with your person (or you can be born a man and simply not worry about it).

Now, I really hope you think this is stupid. If you don't, no sense in reading on because I am going to talk about anti-freedom anti-choice anti-American anti-abortion logic (sic) and it's difficult to imagine anything more ridiculous than arguing over whether a person should have control over her own body. I am a traditional conservative (don't confuse me with a Republican). Real political conservatives believe in individual rights and a non-intrusive government (darn, I can't be a Democrat either). You can't be a conservative and argue that government needs to know everything you discuss with your doctor and control whether you have a child. If government has the power to tell you that you must continue a pregnancy, then it follows that government has the power to tell you that you can't. That would mean that government would have the power to require abortions (think China!). The argument about government power is central to the argument about abortion. It is an argument that will continue. It is an argument about whether a religiously driven government should be able to control every aspect of a person's life. It is an argument about whether the spirit and the word of our Constitution is any longer alive, but power of government argument is not what the abortion argument is really about.

The anti-abortion argument is a religious argument, period. In deciding who has the high ground, we simply need to decide if one interpretation of a religious ideology can be forced upon our nation as a whole and upon each and every one of its female citizens. If the answer is reasonably, "Yes." and we decide the evangelical right-wing should be the interpreters of freedom, then abortion is wrong and should be illegal. That, of course, comes at a price. The Taliban got that in Afghanistan and it is still running strong in Iran and many other countries. People in those countries are paying the price.

Cont.

April 1, 2013 at 9:10 a.m.
limric said...

"It's a child, not a choice". To believe that, you must have faith (faith: the abandonment of reasoned thought for which you get freedom from responsibility). You must have enough faith to deny science. Any reliable scientific text and legal definition of a viable fetus points to the absence of any signs of life (as attributed to determining whether any human is alive) in the first 20 weeks. The fetus is not considered viable until the 28th week.

I know! The argument is that it is still alive. But, when an adult dies of say, a heart attack, there are still living cells in the body for a long time. Should we not begin the burial process because, "It's alive"? Let's face it, the issue is never about science. It is about religion. It's about making people accept a religious point of view and making them live by it and ignoring the founding principles of this nation in the process.

When the founders of the Constitution set forth the Bill Of Rights, they argued long and hard about why the amendments were needed. It is more clear from their arguments than from the final words that the Bill Of Rights was always intended to provide for individual freedom. On of the clearest forms of that freedom was defined as the freedom of individual citizens and the country as a whole from religious intolerance (think intolerant people). Nothing is more fundamental to the Bill Of Rights than exclusion of religion. from the laws by which the people of the United States are governed. If we allow religious zealots to force religious beliefs into the laws of this country, we have abandoned our Constitution. Forcing religion. upon the citizens and the country is anti-American.

But, shouldn't I respect your religious beliefs? Why? I'd be an idiot to respect the beliefs of someone who has no respect for mine. I'd be beyond idiocy to respect a belief that says I should be put to death for exercising the freedoms guaranteed me by the Constitution. No! I don't and I won't respect your religious beliefs if you don't believe in freedom and science unless it is convenient. I will still support your right to believe and you may have my pity, but sorry Dudley, respect has to be mutual.

Cont.

April 1, 2013 at 9:13 a.m.
limric said...

We can debate abortion rights and religious power forever. We won't really resolve anything. In the end, the religious zealots will turn this country into another Iran (only with Christian stamped on the stationery) or they will just be an anti-American nuisance.

If the anti-freedom people win, there will still be abortion. Banning anything that people really need or want is futile. If we haven't yet learned that with guns and drugs, we really are a nation of idiots.

During the Vietnam Conflict some 50 thousand Americans died in Southeast Asia. Some data indicate that during that same time, more causalities can be attributed botched illegal (often self-induced) abortions than all the American causalities in Vietnam. If you are a typical anti-abortion zealot, you will probably rationalize that those women should be dead. If you are a reasonably compassionate human being, you will be saddened and you will want to see steps taken to ensure that innocent women in similar situations are never victimized again.

written by: Jenny Jerome

April 1, 2013 at 9:14 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....

Outside of that, the Catholic religion is extremely backwards and totally out of touch with reality.

alprova...You are now an expert on the catholic religion also? Your opinion, in this case, is without merit. Every denomination is certain they have it right and those preferring a non denominational church are confident of their rightness so to suggest you have the insight to accurately say a particular group is backwards and out of touch with reality is rather egotistical.

Very few large private charities or churches require attending services to receive help. However, if they do, so what, it is still better than a bloated high cost government program. The effectiveness would be exponentially better if the government would have qualifying criteria then allow tax payers to reduce taxes owed, not a deduction but reduced tax, by up to 20% for contributions to those charities. Of course the government would have to shut down several agencies.

April 1, 2013 at 9:21 a.m.
conservative said...

From the book of Jeremiah :

Now the word of the Lord came to me saying,

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

And before you were born I consecrated you;

I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:4-5

April 1, 2013 at 9:38 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "alprova...You are now an expert on the catholic religion also?"

When have I held myself up to be an expert on anything? I know a thing or two about the Catholic Church, for I was raised to be a Catholic.

From their insistence that you speak to a go-between God and his Son, to their unrealistic insistence that their clergy be chaste, to their opposition to birth control, the Catholic Church is a backwards religion.

"Your opinion, in this case, is without merit."

I seriously doubt that anyone but a die-hard Catholic would agree with you, but whatever...

"Every denomination is certain they have it right and those preferring a non denominational church are confident of their rightness so to suggest you have the insight to accurately say a particular group is backwards and out of touch with reality is rather egotistical."

Here's a newsflash for ya.' No denomination has it right. Each has some things right and some things wrong.

"Very few large private charities or churches require attending services to receive help."

So all those complaints from those who have attempted to seek assistance are totally unfounded?

"However, if they do, so what, it is still better than a bloated high cost government program."

I'm sorry, but we'll just have to disagree with that one. No one should have to submit to a sermon in exchange for receiving a little charity. Some people find it highly insulting.

"The effectiveness would be exponentially better if the government would have qualifying criteria then allow tax payers to reduce taxes owed, not a deduction but reduced tax, by up to 20% for contributions to those charities. Of course the government would have to shut down several agencies."

Churches, like all charities, skim off the top. A small minority of people are helped and others are turned away.

Like I stated earlier, if this nation's needy had to depend on faith-based charities to survive, two-thirds would die of starvation, freeze to death, or desperation crime would skyrocket.

April 1, 2013 at 10:14 a.m.
Leaf said...

If this were a contest I were judging based solely on the grammar and command of the English language that the individuals posting here display, the pro-choicers would defeat the pro-lifers.

April 1, 2013 at 10:23 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

What a curious thing to notice, Leaf! There are exceptions, of course. What I notice is when a position comes from a stance that is not grounded in absolutes, it has to be careful articulated and defended.

April 1, 2013 at 10:42 a.m.

alprova said...The problem I have with faith-based charities are their propensity to require recipients to attend faith-based sermons in order to receive assistance.

I can think of one or two small non-profits locally who do that, with dozens and dozens of counter-examples. I challenge you to name more than a couple who fit your description. Otherwise, you’ve raised yet another strawman.

I honestly cannot remember the last time I read of a case of someone being harmed by an unsanitary abortion.

It’s because you don’t pay attention to anything that challenges your narrow-minded views.I'll admit that the pro-abort media doesn't make it easy to find the information.

“Doctor Is Charged in Killing of Newborns” By Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times, January 19, 2011) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/us/20doctor.html?r=0 Inside the 'baby charnel house' by Dana Difilippo, phillynews.com February 4, 2011) http://www.philly.com/philly/news/year-in-review/20110120_Inside_the__baby_charnel_house.html “Worker admits cutting 10 babies at abortion clinic” By Maryclaire Dale, Associated Press Mar. 1, 2013) http://bigstory.ap.org/article/doc-disputes-killings-philly-abortion-clinic

Pro-choice groups knew firsthand of his flippant and dangerous treatment of women and babies and they did nothing about it. Nada. They still defend the policies which created such a nightmare.

Child neglect is a whole other issue.

Then address it.

April 1, 2013 at 10:53 a.m.

People do not need to be encouraged to have sex. That Sir, is a natural God given desire and just about every human being is guilty of seeking it.

Red herring for breakfast, eh? Sex itself, of course is natural. Casual sex may or may not be natural, but it is certainly unhealthy for society and for individuals and those responsible for training youth for adulthood (primarily parents, but others as well) should do more to make them aware of this. Only irresponsible morons can pretend that it is without adverse consequences. Abandoning your offspring is not natural and is extremely damaging for individuals and society. That was the point, and you know it, but chose another canard in lieu of a logical response.

Have you read the Bible? People did not practice chaste lifestyles any more back then than we do now. You can believe whatever you wish, but the Bible is hardly an example to use to defend abstinence.

You have a very thick head. Philandering was as plentiful in the ancient world as now, and the Bible records many examples of it. Duh. It, however does not endorse, casual sex and abandoning your children. Are you really incapable of seeing the distinction between recognizing the existence of something and endorsing it? Are you so blind as to not see the fact that you can learn from negative as well as positive examples? You are, second only to Easy123 or mountainlaurel, the densest person on this forum.

It's none of your business. That's where super-religious people always take the wrong off-ramp when coasting down the interstate of life. They are never content to live their lives according to their own standards. They feel the need to coerce others all the time to accept their particular platform of standards.

It is your business if it is your teenager and they become duped into believing that hooking up has no negative consequences. It your business if you are asked to assume the financial costs for raising illegitimate offspring, as you and other liberals demand that we do. Coercion is not the issue. Wise persuasion is the more effective course. Taxpayer-funded philandering. There’s your coercion. There’s the hypocrisy of your position.

If those in need of assistance in this nation had to depend solely on faith-based charities, two-thirds of this nation would starve to death.

You, sir, are uninformed and desperate. Substantiate your ridiculous claim.

April 1, 2013 at 10:54 a.m.

jen1972 said...Okay, so everyone who has commented so far that does not and has not fostered or adopted an unwanted child, please delete your comment and shut your yap. Anyone left besides me?

I have not personally adopted but I know many, many who have done so, and continue do so, ALL of them are pro-life. There are many on waiting lists to adopt, and yes, they are adopting the babies of poor and minority women. It wouldn’t be appropriate to identify them in an online forum, but if you are really interested, you can consult with any adoption attorneys or agencies to verify that your claims are baseless and desperate. Keep them coming, though. That’s your job.


Easy123 angrily sputtered something about God.

God can defend himself against those attributing to Him the effects of non-mechanistically perfect physical traits and processes, or worse, of deliberate human sins. God did not create humans as machines or robots. Man’s leap into sin affects the natural order as well as the moral order.

The issue at hand is civil law. Defending the lives of innocent unborn babies against humans who would snuff them out doesn’t await our ability to precisely know the mind of the Lord in the midst of life’s tragedies. Even pagans can figure out the injustice of it if they really tried.

I have concluded that you are obsessed with the idea of God. That is a very good place to be at this stage of your journey.

April 1, 2013 at 11:06 a.m.
Easy123 said...

WWWTW,

"Easy123 angrily sputtered something about God."

I didn't sputter, nor was it angry. You're deflecting.

"God can defend himself against those attributing to Him the effects of non-mechanistically perfect physical traits and processes, or worse, of deliberate human sins."

No, he cannot.

"Man’s leap into sin affects the natural order as well as the moral order."

And, if you believe in god as you do, your god's leap into sin affects the natural order as well as the moral order.

"Defending the lives of innocent unborn babies against humans who would snuff them out doesn’t await our ability to precisely know the mind of the Lord in the midst of life’s tragedies."

How do you know what is truly moral if your god actively commits "sins"? How do you know what is truly moral if your god is, in fact, a murderer? How can you reconcile that? You attribute human characteristics to god and claim to know his very nature, yet, when something you can't explain arises, you attribute it to not knowing the "mind of the Lord". Why is your god only mysterious when you cannot reconcile his actions or his ways?

"I have concluded that you are obsessed with the idea of God."

You've come to that conclusion erroneously. I'm obsessed with the search for truth.

"That is a very good place to be at this stage of your journey."

My religious journey has been over for many years now. My journey in search of real truth is only just beginning.

You still haven't answered my questions. And I have come to the conclusion that you are incapable of thinking objectively under any circumstance. You can't even answer a direct question.

April 1, 2013 at 11:41 a.m.

limric said... You can't be a conservative and argue that government needs to know everything you discuss with your doctor and control whether you have a child … It is an argument about whether a religiously driven government should be able to control every aspect of a person's life.

Canard. Who is saying this? Cite such an argument.

If government has the power to tell you that you must continue a pregnancy, then it follows that government has the power to tell you that you can't. That would mean that government would have the power to require abortions (think China!).

That is like saying that the government telling you that you must continue refraining from murder is the same as the government having the ability to require you to murder. In the real world, criminal and civil laws are necessary You can do better than that at defending your seemingly blind faith in libertarianism.

The anti-abortion argument is a religious argument, period.

Poppycock, period.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/9493237/Why_dont_atheists_oppose_abortion/ http://www.skepticink.com/atheistintermarried/2012/11/27/the-atheist-argument-against-abortion/

One of the clearest forms of that freedom was defined as the freedom of individual citizens and the country as a whole from religious intolerance (think intolerant people). Nothing is more fundamental to the Bill Of Rights than exclusion of religion from the laws by which the people of the United States are governed.

I noticed you didn’t quote from the First Amendment’s religious freedom provision. There are plenty of laws addressing religion. Research it. It is a vital part of the lives of the overwhelming majority of people throughout the world, certainly so in America throughout its history. The Bill of Rights forbids establishing any one of the individual states’ established religions as the national religion. The entire document is about the parameters of the national government’s authority as distinguished from that of the various state governments. The religion freedom provisions reflect that emphasis. As you note, it also forbids those irritated by someone’s religion from interfering with religionists’ freedom to publicly express and practice it with a great deal of freedom. It doesn’t even address irreligion. If the discussion of religion irritates you so much, most of Europe, sections of coastal North America, and any number of caves afford you an opportunity to never encounter them. In my own view, that’s a narrow world to occupy.

April 1, 2013 at 11:46 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

jen1972 said...

"Okay, so everyone who has commented so far that does not and has not fostered or adopted an unwanted child, please delete your comment and shut your yap. Anyone left besides me?"

With an attitude like that I wonder how difficult the life of any “unwanted child” could be made more so by you. You just had to get in that last self-important and self- righteous notice, didn’t you?

"A man must be both stupid and uncharitable who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side." ~Joseph Addison – remember that posting??

April 1, 2013 at 11:53 a.m.
conservative said...

You were a person before you were born.

For You formed my inward parts;

You wove me in my mother’s womb.

I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

Wonderful are Your works,

And my soul knows it very well. Psalms 139: 13-14

April 1, 2013 at 12:15 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Now, prove anything you just quoted.

April 1, 2013 at 12:22 p.m.
Handleit said...

I have read several of the opinions on this forum, and while most like to express their opinion they offer no real solutions. Mostly they want to bash each other. Well I have a suggestion. The religious groups that are such big proponents of pro life in this country should put their money where their mouth is. Instead of building huge churches why not take all that money and build orphan homes and shelters. By building places to help house these children saved from abortion, pro-life advocates can prove they are really sincere.

April 1, 2013 at 12:51 p.m.
Leaf said...

what's_wrong has some cogent arguments, but they are all from one perspective and with major prior assumptions. A tower of logic, built upon quicksand.

"The obvious cause of unwanted pregnancies is the promotion and practice of promiscuity and male philandering. It doesn’t really matter whether the practitioner happens to be a religious hypocrite or a typical secularist who believes that there are no serious consequences for irresponsible behavior. "

Thing one: "promiscuity and male philandering". - It takes two to tango, sister.

Thing two: "typical secularist who believes that there are no serious consequences for irresponsible behavior". You don't have to be religious to understand cause and effect. In fact, I would argue that the non-religious might have a better grasp of logic.

And that's the problem with discussing this issue, or religion. You can't argue with the faithful. You can point out that their faith is unsustainable without the weekly indoctrination sessions, but until they reject blind faith and embrace logic you're stuck.

April 1, 2013 at 12:53 p.m.
tifosi said...

Funny how the Presbyterian Church does not recognize a baby as being "saved" until it has been baptized. If it is still-born then they are not saved and do not go to heaven. Thus, the reason the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was founded. The CPC does recognize a baby as being "saved".

April 1, 2013 at 1:07 p.m.
timbo said...

whats_wrong......""promiscuity and male philandering"....could you be a little more sexist?

The problem is that you are wrong..almost all studies show a 10% difference in male and female fidelity. Women are catching up fast so using those terms shows some sort of personal baggage which colors your opinion.

April 1, 2013 at 1:17 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

"could you be a little more sexist?"

Pot meet kettle.

April 1, 2013 at 1:38 p.m.
Leaf said...

Handleit, you bring up an interesting point. I think it would be a good time to mention the Catholic church's many orphanages throughout the world and centuries. Of course, I would also like to point out their sordid history of systemic abuse, slave labor and rape in said orphanages.

In any case, even if you could guarantee a home of some sort for every unwanted child, you would still have women who don't want to or can't give birth for a variety of good reasons.

I don't see why the most of the same people who want the government to stay out of their gun safe want the government to control their womb.

April 1, 2013 at 2:20 p.m.
LaughingBoy said...

For the pro-abortion crowd, what is the difference in an abortion and killing off a one or two year old infant? It's the mother's choice and the infant can't survive on its own.

April 1, 2013 at 2:23 p.m.
LaughingBoy said...

Leaf, it's simple, there is more than one life involved. It's not just the mother.

April 1, 2013 at 2:27 p.m.
Leaf said...

Well, I'm off to Mars on a business trip in one of my BMW spaceships to make giant stacks of money $$$ in my undisclosed occupation. Later, you loser 99 percenters!

April 1, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
Leaf said...

Laughing boy, you say simple, I say simplistic. Tomato, Tomahto.

April 1, 2013 at 2:49 p.m.
timbo said...

I love the abortion "debate." Both sides are extreme. For the anti abortion crowd it is just murder. And to the pro-abortion crowd it is a war on women and the slippery slop to out-lawing abortion.

Both sides are using extreme examples to justify their positions. To a libertarian this is simple. Government has no business in my or your business. Simple.

How a anti abortion person could be against the morning after pill is beyond me.

How a pro abortion person could be against late term abortions is beyond me.

This will never be settled by the extremists. Neither side will ever be happy.

April 1, 2013 at 3:53 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Handleit said...

“I have read several of the opinions on this forum, and while most like to express their opinion they offer no real solutions. Mostly they want to bash each other. Well I have a suggestion. The religious groups that are such big proponents of pro life in this country should put their money where their mouth is. Instead of building huge churches why not take all that money and build orphan homes and shelters. By building places to help house these children saved from abortion, pro-life advocates can prove they are really sincere.”


You might try Google:

http://www.christianalliancefororphans.org/agencies-and-ministries/adoption/

There seems to be quite a bit of information for your review and it was very easy to find.

It’s common knowledge that orphanages and shelters for small children are the least desirable alternatives for their well being.

April 1, 2013 at 4:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

LaughingBoy,

"what is the difference in an abortion and killing off a one or two year old infant? It's the mother's choice and the infant can't survive on its own."

A fetus doesn't even have a heartbeat until 6-7 weeks gestations. There is a large difference between removing a clump of cells and murdering a living, breathing human.

A one or two year old can, in fact, survive by itself outside of the womb. A fetus up to about 20-22 weeks gestation cannot live outside of the womb.

It's simple human biology. Enlighten yourself.

April 1, 2013 at 4:15 p.m.
Leaf said...

I think it's pretty interesting how all the holy rollers I know who adopted went halfway around the world and waited for years to get an Asian or Russian baby, when there are plenty of local black babies to go around. But maybe that's just my perception.

April 1, 2013 at 4:26 p.m.
fairmon said...

Alprova said...Like I stated earlier, if this nation's needy had to depend on faith-based charities to survive, two-thirds would die of starvation, freeze to death, or desperation crime would skyrocket.

The option should not be limited to faith based charities plus there would be other charities, some new, that would qualify with a strict criteria. The governments are the most inefficient way to deliver most anything. Some few in congress are aware of this and are discussing the tax reduction option. I hope if they develop something it is better constructed than the AHCA which is still not complete.

April 1, 2013 at 4:36 p.m.
LaughingBoy said...

Easy, a 1 or 2 year old can't survive by him or herself any more than a fetus could. Enlighten yourself. If the child is unwanted and the mother makes the decision for financial or other reasons, why not just put the child out of misery? That's the 1 or 2 year old child.

April 1, 2013 at 4:38 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...Here's a newsflash for ya.' No denomination has it right. Each has some things right and some things wrong.

You should start your own church and then you would have it all right. Do you really think you have the knowledge to support such a conclusion?

April 1, 2013 at 4:45 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Ilove the abortion 'debate.' Both sides are extreme. For the anti abortion crowd it is just murder. And to the pro-abortion crowd it is a war on women and the slippery slop to out-lawing abortion." - timbo

In the first place, I don't know of any pro-CHOICE

April 1, 2013 at 4:46 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Rickaroo said...

“Here's a concise and simple message about Jesus the Sun (not Son) of God. I know that most Christians won't even look at this or will try to discredit it if they do choose to look at it, but for those with an open mind on the subject this little 3-minute video gives an easy to understand explanation of how Jesus has been made literal from what was originally something purely symbolic and should have stayed that way - symbolic.”


Wow! It’s amazing how threads like that can explain the mysteries of history.

It’s something like this:

In contemporary popular culture Kennedy becomes symbolic of Lincoln simply due to coincidence and a media crafted cult of personality. He may, someday in the future, become the figurehead of a somewhat strange, irrational, and mystical future religious movement.

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846

John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.

John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both were shot in the head.

Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre.

Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners.

Both successors were named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.

Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.

Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names are comprised of fifteen letters

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse. Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

A month before Lincoln was assassinated he was in Monroe, Maryland.

A month before Kennedy was assassinated he was in Marilyn Monroe.

April 1, 2013 at 4:55 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....I'm sorry, but we'll just have to disagree with that one. No one should have to submit to a sermon in exchange for receiving a little charity. Some people find it highly insulting.

Too insulting to accept the help? then do without. All charities are not faith based and require nothing. Why is it too insulting to attend a meeting but not to accept money confiscated from those that did not give it willingly but only to avoid being charged as a criminal? Our view of what the governments role should be is miles apart. I see the government writing the rules and processes and monitoring those charities to assure compliance. The hierarchy of government in all their endeavors is expensive and ineffective. Some are essential and can't be avoided but most are not necessary to achieve the desired results.

April 1, 2013 at 4:57 p.m.
mtngrl said...

LaughingBoy said...

"Easy, a 1 or 2 year old can't survive by him or herself any more than a fetus could. Enlighten yourself. If the child is unwanted and the mother makes the decision for financial or other reasons, why not just put the child out of misery? That's the 1 or 2 year old child."

A 1 or 2 yr old can however be raised by another mother. A fetus cannot. See the difference?

April 1, 2013 at 5:40 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Oops...I accidentally hit the submit button on my post and then I had trouble logging back on to the site.

As I was saying to timbo...

I don't know of any pro-CHOICE person who is PRO-abortion. I think that we all agree that an abortion is undesirable, to say the least. As far as your "slippery slope" statement goes, there are imagined slippery slopes and there are real ones. The bible-thumping, rabid righties really do have an agenda to literally STOP women from claiming any right over their pregnant bodies. The anti-abortion laws are getting stricter and stricter by the day and the number of functioning clinics that provide abortions have been reduced so drastically the past few years that they have become almost nonexistent in some states. There is not just a "slippery slope" toward making abortion illegal or impossible to obtain, there is a very real AGENDA among the self-righteous, hypocritical anti-abortion nuts to outlaw it entirely. They even admit that.

As for this comment from you: "How a pro abortion person could be against late term abortions is beyond me." So you are saying that if an abnormality is detected in the fetus that would jeopardize the mother's health or her life, then an abortion should not even be allowed then? Most anti-abortionists even want to outlaw abortions under any circumstances and at any time during the pregnancy. North Dakota just passed a law making it illegal for a woman to have an abortion past 6 weeks. Many women don't even know they're pregnant within the first 6 weeks! We are not on a "slippery slope;" we're on an anti-abortion roller coaster that goes only downhill.

April 1, 2013 at 5:43 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Jt6, your comparison is not the least bit relevant. Of course there is much more thoughtful study and research that one can and should delve into in order to come to an understanding of the mythicism of Christ. But I was simply offering that 3-minute clip to provide some highlights that might make some people think about it and then do some study on their own - for those who choose to think about it all, that is. I know that most people's minds are already made up on the subject, especially those Christians who would not be dissuaded from their beliefs, even if God thundered down from the sky that the Bible is just a bunch of hooey and there is no jesus who's gonna come down out of the clouds.

April 1, 2013 at 5:57 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Leaf said...

“I think it's pretty interesting how all the holy rollers I know who adopted went halfway around the world and waited for years to get an Asian or Russian baby, when there are plenty of local black babies to go around. But maybe that's just my perception.”


I think that may be a “simplistic” view point. Don’t you think so?

Many Blacks and White Progressives promote the view that black children may be harmed psychologically from being adopted and raised by white parents and that it is essentially cultural genocide. They also complained that white parents are being depicted incorrectly as the answer to social problems of troubled black kids. Many Blacks that were adopted by whites say they were cut off from their own racial identity and culture. In the past the National Black Social Workers Association condemned these adoptions and has only slightly eased their stance lately. As a result you can’t make blanket condemnations of white adoptive parents because they don’t seek to adopt black children at the level you think acceptable.

By the way did you notice that Putin has declared that gay couples can not adopt Russian babies? That makes him and the Russians almost as evil as white American holy rollers that won’t adopt black babies.

April 1, 2013 at 6:06 p.m.
Easy123 said...

LaughingBoy,

"Easy, a 1 or 2 year old can't survive by him or herself any more than a fetus could."

Wrong. A 1 or 2 year old can survive outside of the womb. All of their organs are developed. They can breathe on their own. The mother only feeds the child. On the other hand, a fetus CANNOT survive any significant amount of time outside of the womb. Those that do require significant medical care. Organs, especially the lungs, are not developed enough to sustain life.

"Enlighten yourself."

Seriously, enlighten yourself before you put your foot in your mouth again.

"If the child is unwanted and the mother makes the decision for financial or other reasons, why not just put the child out of misery? That's the 1 or 2 year old child."

Because the child is a living, breathing, sentient being. If you cannot see the difference between a fetus and a 1 or 2 year old child, then you have some sort of problem. The vast majority of abortions come before or around the time the fetal heart begins to beat. Do I need to explain the difference between a clump of cells with no heartbeat and a 1 or 2 year old or do you get the picture?

April 1, 2013 at 6:12 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "You should start your own church and then you would have it all right."

While I think I have a good grip on things, I am no closer to knowing it all than anyone else is.

"Do you really think you have the knowledge to support such a conclusion?"

No one does. It's all about faith. If we were to look at religion scientifically, it would be completely ruled as nothing but a farce.

April 1, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

mtngrl said...

“A 1 or 2 yr old can however be raised by another mother. A fetus cannot. See the difference?”


A “viable” fetus can be raised by another mother, so are you calling for no abortions after viability so that your position is consistent. After viability the baby can be taken as a live birth just as safely as an abortion. That way her health can be protected if the continuation of the pregnancy would endanger it and the baby could live. A win – win in my book and if she don’t want the baby it can be adopted by white parents if it is a white baby and blacks if a black baby and everyone will be happy and culturally secure.

April 1, 2013 at 7:14 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

“Stay the hell out my life and stop telling me how to live.”


You’re starting to sound like a small government Conservative. Now ain’t that a b!tch?

April 1, 2013 at 7:51 p.m.
dude_abides said...

RG3 said... "A win – win in my book and if she don’t want the baby it can be adopted by white parents if it is a white baby and blacks if a black baby and everyone will be happy and culturally secure."

Great! Too, if "it's" a racist pig in sheeps' clothing, "it" could be adopted by you! Win-win-win! Now, there's some viable consistency.

Maybe Putin should let the Iranians adopt Russia's children, since Ahmedinejad told us there are no gays in Iran. vyigratʹ-vyigratʹ

April 1, 2013 at 7:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6gR3hm,

"You’re starting to sound like a small government Conservative. Now ain’t that a b!tch?"

Actually, tifosi is sounding like the opposite of a small government Conservative. Small government Conservatives aren't really "small government". They love using government to legislate their morality on others. Now, THAT'S a bitch.

April 1, 2013 at 8:11 p.m.
degage said...

laughingboy, Easy is so right, a fetus up to 22 weeks can't survive outside the womb, and a 1 to 2 year old can survive (even if the mother doesn't want it ) with another willing to take care of it. Get real.

April 1, 2013 at 8:19 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Jttu_6qguRo3qhume... Welcome baque!

April 1, 2013 at 8:42 p.m.
Leaf said...

Jt6gR3hM said...

Leaf said...

“I think it's pretty interesting how all the holy rollers I know who adopted went halfway around the world and waited for years to get an Asian or Russian baby, when there are plenty of local black babies to go around. But maybe that's just my perception.”


I think that may be a “simplistic” view point. Don’t you think so?

Now Leaf is saying ... No. See, what I did was called an "observation." You could have said my opinion was founded upon a small sample set and not statistically significant, or you could have said it was anectdotal. However, it was not "simplistic." I know you were proud of the way you think you turned it around on me, but, sadly, you didn't know how to use the word "simplistic" in a sentence. I feel bad for you. Keep trying though. Better luck with that vocabulary next time.

By the way, the white couple I know who is raising a black child thinks that worn-out, thinly-veiled racist argument you repeated about taking a black kid away from their culture is bunk. And so does their well-adjusted intelligent kid. But that, of course, is merely anectdotal.

April 1, 2013 at 10:43 p.m.

Liberals are phonies and demagogues when they squeal that pro-lifers only care about babies inside the womb. Your fairy tales about being more compassionate and caring may bring you great comfort and self-satisfaction, but they are merely fairy tales. You are, in fact, tight-fisted phonies.

The facts:

“Democrats Vs. Republicans: Who's The Most Greedy?” (Investor’s Business Daily, Mon, Jan 30 2012) http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/012712-599290-democrats-like-giving-money-from-others.htm

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/Pages/Who%20really%20cares/WSJ%20review%2012-22-06.pdf

from Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide -Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Arthur C. Brooks:

“Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes

“Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%

“People who mistrust big government give more than those who rely on the government to take care of the poor. This includes giving and volunteering even to traditionally “progressive causes” such as the arts and the environment

“Conservative “red” states give away far more of their incomes than liberal “blue” states do

“Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists. This is not just because of giving to churches – religious people are 10 percent more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities

“Religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time. For instance, a religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person

“Religious people are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104403.html

April 1, 2013 at 11:38 p.m.
LaughingBoy said...

The 1 or 2 year old can't survive without constant care and supervision, I didn't think I needed to spell it out for the intellectuals on here but apparent I did. He or she is totally dependent on the parent, or preferably, parents. No one has given a good reason why a parent killing off an unwanted 1 or 2 year old is a Casey Anthony, and a parent killing off an unwanted unborn child is courageous and thoughtful.

April 1, 2013 at 11:52 p.m.
Easy123 said...

LaughingBoy,

"The 1 or 2 year old can't survive without constant care and supervision"

You're wrong. A child at that age can survive just fine with very little care and supervision. Confine the child to a small area and provide it food. The child will live on indefinitely. The fetus is not developed enough to breathe on its own, much less survive without significant medical care.

"I didn't think I needed to spell it out for the intellectuals on here but apparent I did."

You don't get it. A toddler can survive with very little care outside of the womb. A fetus CANNOT survive for any significant amount of time. The fact that you don't understand this after it has been explained to you over and over again is disconcerting. There are significant biological and physiological differences between a fetus and a 1 or 2 year old child. You are either exceedingly dense or you're being intentionally deceitful.

"He or she is totally dependent on the parent, or preferably, parents."

The only thing a 1 or 2 year old absolutely requires from the parents is food. The fetus typically can't even breath on its own. What part of that do you not understand? The fetus is incapable of living AT ALL outside of the wound.

"No one has given a good reason why a parent killing off an unwanted 1 or 2 year old is a Casey Anthony, and a parent killing off an unwanted unborn child is courageous and thoughtful."

I've given you several good reasons that any rational person would, at least, acknowledge. You just won't accept them and you continue to argue something that is verifiably false. You are patently ignorant of human biology and you lack the simple intelligence it takes to accept facts when they are presented to you.

April 2, 2013 at 12:13 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

My wife posted on Clay's facebook that this cartoon omitted to show the lady tossing her baby to the sharks.

And liberals throw taxpayers to the IRS sharks. To buy votes with expensive, inefficient programs. If food stamps were cut to a few cheap staples, the cost could be cut by three quarters. If public schools paid their students to leave, say $5000/yr to leave a $10,000/yr program, each student who leaveth leaves 5000 students who stay another dollar if the laws get written that way. Likewise voucherize retirement and health insurance. A small voucher to spend as I want may improve my life more than a big program with scads of bureaucrats. (40 years ago the Australian Department of Aborigines spend $1700 or so per Aborigine, of which the average Aborigine got $96 or so.)

As a state senator, Barack Obama voted in favor of letting abortuaries let babies accidentally born alive die.

US spending is around $4,500,000,000,000 a year, and defense is about 25% or 1.2 trillion or so, not 1.75? Not without waste, and not without good neglected targets (north Sudan's genocidocracy, anyone?)

Triune Jehovah favored rape, murder and slavery? Rape, no (and Constantine, the 1st Christian Roman emperor, was the first Roman leader to legislate against rape.) Murder, no: wars and executions, but not murder. Slavery, mostly with a six-year limit and slaves to be freed with provisions at the end of that: a rather different thing than what the old South did, even if the same word be used. (Doug Wilson and a black pastor have been blogging back and forth about this.)

April 2, 2013 at 1:31 a.m.
Easy123 said...

AndrewLohr,

"As a state senator, Barack Obama voted in favor of letting abortuaries let babies accidentally born alive die."

False.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/27/747511/gingrich-huckabee-obama-abortion/?mobile=nc

"Triune Jehovah favored rape, murder and slavery?"

Indeed.

"Rape, no (and Constantine, the 1st Christian Roman emperor, was the first Roman leader to legislate against rape.)"

Deuteronomy 22:28-29-

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

"Murder, no: wars and executions, but not murder."

What about the Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the 7 plagues of Egypt, killing of all the Egyptian first-born, murder of those that looked at the Ark of the Covenant? Not to mention cancer and all those other things invented by your god.

"Slavery, mostly with a six-year limit and slaves to be freed with provisions at the end of that:"

Not mostly. That passage in Exodus just referred to Hebrew slaves. The Bible promotes slavery and even advises masters how to beat their slaves.

"a rather different thing than what the old South did, even if the same word be used."

It wasn't different at all. Slavery is slavery.

Would you like to try again?

April 2, 2013 at 2:02 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.