AtomicBurrito: I mean why does the mother that spanks her child in public get child protective services called to her house and the overly religious mother that refuses to take care of her child and let whatever deity she prays to take care of her dying offspring get off so easy?

Do you know any mothers who spanked their children in public and had CPS called on them as a result? Because I sure as shiat have never heard of such a thing.

On the other side - do you know any parents who get in trouble/reported to CPS for denying their children medical treatment? You shouldn't have to think too hard to recall the mother/fat-kid debacle of a few weeks ago. In fact, there are many instances of parents facing criminal charges for this sort of stuff.

In short, I don't think you're paying close enough attention to be taken seriously making such statements. Sounds great as part of a ranty whine, but there is very limited basis in reality for your conundrum.

And I wonder how many have been killed by medical mishaps and misdiagnosis? See I can play that game, too.

I Said: SpeshilEdjukashin: See, there's this little thing called freedom of religion... It's a shame that activist judges don't believe in it anymore, because it is one of the main ideals that our country was founded on, and supposedly one of our "rights."

There are limits. Some churches have had legal issues because the parishioners are told to beat their children, even with the pastor/priest etc getting involved in the beatings. Is that ok bc it's a part of their religious practice?

/honestly, 274 isn't THAT many
//I know, I know, "one is too many", but 274 over that stretch of time is hardly some epidemic

this. I am sure more have been killed by vaccines or something good.

MadCat221: SpeshilEdjukashin: See, there's this little thing called freedom of religion... It's a shame that activist judges don't believe in it anymore, because it is one of the main ideals that our country was founded on, and supposedly one of our "rights."

Some Lefties only forget the first second part of the Freedom of Religion clause and concentrate on: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Righties disregard the whole thing. the first part, and concentrate on:

"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

FTFY.

/even quoted the First Amendment wrong, for shame!
//watches again from the center.

As long as you don't abort it as a fetus, feel free to abuse or neglect the resulting child in the name of religion.

BobtheFascist: So?

came here to say BFD! 7 a year? not that compelling.

zabadu: Again, zero. Cells are not babies.

PS: You might want to read a thread before posting. We've covered this.

Would you extend the "cells are not babies" stuff to a partial birth abortion? How about one scheduled for just a week before the mother's due date? Still just a wad of cells?

Let's get real here folks - abortion is killing a human life. Arguing cells vs humans makes you sound like an idiot. Let's move beyond this into the more important part... Regardless of the fact that abortion ends a human life, women have, and should continue to have, the right to affect whether that life is ever fully brought to fruition. It is, after all, their body and largely their creation.

Mr Rusty Shackleford: zabadu: Again, zero. Cells are not babies.

PS: You might want to read a thread before posting. We've covered this.

Would you extend the "cells are not babies" stuff to a partial birth abortion? How about one scheduled for just a week before the mother's due date? Still just a wad of cells?

Let's get real here folks - abortion is killing a human life. Arguing cells vs humans makes you sound like an idiot. Let's move beyond this into the more important part... Regardless of the fact that abortion ends a human life, women have, and should continue to have, the right to affect whether that life is ever fully brought to fruition. It is, after all, their body and largely their creation.

Viability.

zabadu: Viability.

If you have a point or retort, feel free to be verbose. Are you saying that fertilized embryos are not viable? Huh?

Mr Rusty Shackleford: zabadu: Viability.

If you have a point or retort, feel free to be verbose. Are you saying that fertilized embryos are not viable? Huh?

Not all of them -- and even those that eventually become viable, only do so after a period of time. There is no way you can be arguing a non-viable fetus is a human life. It might be a potential human life, but lots of things are potential, and never come to fruition.

zabadu: Yogimus: And how many kids were killed by abortion?

Again, zero. Cells are not babies.

PS: You might want to read a thread before posting. We've covered this.

What about the ones that George Tiller aborted in the third trimester that could have been viable outside the womb?

kleppe: zabadu: Yogimus: And how many kids were killed by abortion?

Again, zero. Cells are not babies.

PS: You might want to read a thread before posting. We've covered this.

What about the ones that George Tiller aborted in the third trimester that could have been viable outside the womb?

What about George Tiller? Pretty sure he was viable.

dung_beetle: And I wonder how many have been killed by medical mishaps and misdiagnosis?

but the mishaps and misdiagnosis have legal reputations, just as a parent who misdiagnosis (they think the medicine is payer)A child is held accountable.

Mr Rusty Shackleford: zabadu: Again, zero. Cells are not babies.

PS: You might want to read a thread before posting. We've covered this.

Would you extend the "cells are not babies" stuff to a partial birth abortion? How about one scheduled for just a week before the mother's due date? Still just a wad of cells?

Let's get real here folks - abortion is killing a human life. Arguing cells vs humans makes you sound like an idiot. Let's move beyond this into the more important part... Regardless of the fact that abortion ends a human life, women have, and should continue to have, the right to affect whether that life is ever fully brought to fruition. It is, after all, their body and largely their creation.



I will say this is a very good point, and I agree with this. I don't let my religious beliefs cloud the choice women must face in terms of abortion. As wrong as I think it is, I think women should have a choice in ending the life before it comes out (Course, I'd also wish instead of protests in front of abortion clinics, I'd love to see single men standing out front with signs saying "Pick me! I'd love your kids as my own!").

/are we not a complex series of cells derived from a simple fertilization of an egg by a sperm?

I figured the number would have been MUCH higher.

amanogowa: Not all of them -- and even those that eventually become viable, only do so after a period of time. There is no way you can be arguing a non-viable fetus is a human life. It might be a potential human life, but lots of things are potential, and never come to fruition.

You're missing something here. Women pursue abortion to terminate a pregnancy. A pregnancy requires a viable, growing embryo. Why would anyone get an abortion without an actual pregnancy at hand?

The fact that you may miscarry a healthy, viable embryo is irrelevant to the abortion and it's intentions, considering it is selected after an apparently viable pregnancy is already occurring.

Your body terminates the non viable ones on it's own, with very few exceptions.

People_are_Idiots: pwhp_67: See, there's this little thing called "revisionist history" where Christians live in this other reality. In that reality, the Founding Fathers were all devout Christians, probably Catholics, and they created this country for the Pope. That's why they were allowed to own slaves and keep women from voting: It's all in the Bible.

Someday our public school system will be more explicit when teaching history and some of this nonsense will go away...

Funny, I'm a Christian, and that definitely makes no sense....

PWHP_67 was trying to explain how our Founding Fathers weren't really Christian moralists as they are currently and mistakenly believed to have been. But lies repeated over and over again often become truths and PWHP_67 hopes that someday the children in our schools will be taught that our Founding Fathers were actually deists, atheists, and agnostics and believed religion had no place in the formation of America's new government. Especially after witnessing the religious persecutions in Europe during the 17th and early 18th centuries. However, they did recognize freedom to practice whichever religion you chose as a very important right.

Hope this helps clear up what he meant.

Great, now post the stats for the number of child deaths from getting the wrong medication from their doctor and allergic reactions.
Then post the number of kids that have died this year from just getting the flu vaccine.
I'd guess about 30,000 for this year alone.
Prayer has a much better record than the medical community when it comes to not killing children.

Mr Rusty Shackleford: amanogowa: Not all of them -- and even those that eventually become viable, only do so after a period of time. There is no way you can be arguing a non-viable fetus is a human life. It might be a potential human life, but lots of things are potential, and never come to fruition.

You're missing something here. Women pursue abortion to terminate a pregnancy. A pregnancy requires a viable, growing embryo. Why would anyone get an abortion without an actual pregnancy at hand?

The fact that you may miscarry a healthy, viable embryo is irrelevant to the abortion and it's intentions, considering it is selected after an apparently viable pregnancy is already occurring.

Your body terminates the non viable ones on it's own, with very few exceptions.

Right, I am not missing that.

Saying it is a viable human is different than a viable embryo. An embryo that cannot live without the mother is not a human any more than my hand is -- and it is fully the mother's choice to continue it or not.

People_are_Idiots: I will say this is a very good point, and I agree with this. I don't let my religious beliefs cloud the choice women must face in terms of abortion. As wrong as I think it is, I think women should have a choice in ending the life before it comes out (Course, I'd also wish instead of protests in front of abortion clinics, I'd love to see single men standing out front with signs saying "Pick me! I'd love your kids as my own!").

/are we not a complex series of cells derived from a simple fertilization of an egg by a sperm?

The world needs more religious people with opinions like your own.

zabadu: Mr Rusty Shackleford: zabadu: Again, zero. Cells are not babies.

PS: You might want to read a thread before posting. We've covered this.

Would you extend the "cells are not babies" stuff to a partial birth abortion? How about one scheduled for just a week before the mother's due date? Still just a wad of cells?

Let's get real here folks - abortion is killing a human life. Arguing cells vs humans makes you sound like an idiot. Let's move beyond this into the more important part... Regardless of the fact that abortion ends a human life, women have, and should continue to have, the right to affect whether that life is ever fully brought to fruition. It is, after all, their body and largely their creation.

Viability.

So, in this capacity you're using "viability" as "able to survive"?

I bet you can see where I'll take this.

pwhp_67: See, there's this little thing called "revisionist history" where Christians live in this other reality. In that reality, the Founding Fathers were all devout Christians, probably Catholics, and they created this country for the Pope. That's why they were allowed to own slaves and keep women from voting: It's all in the Bible.

Someday our public school system will be more explicit when teaching history and some of this nonsense will go away...

You can always help if you stop spreading lies yourself. Find a book while there is still time.

Hoopido: Great, now post the stats for the number of child deaths from getting the wrong medication from their doctor and allergic reactions.
Then post the number of kids that have died this year from just getting the flu vaccine.
I'd guess about 30,000 for this year alone.
Prayer has a much better record than the medical community when it comes to not killing children.

Not really. The medical community is still better at saving life than random chance -- that is the whole point of the medical community. If it wasn't, why would we be funding it?

Yay, this proves that even as we move toward a world with enough food, shelter, and access to medical care for everyone, evolution will still work. The stupid need to be weeded out somehow.

Mr Rusty Shackleford: amanogowa: Not all of them -- and even those that eventually become viable, only do so after a period of time. There is no way you can be arguing a non-viable fetus is a human life. It might be a potential human life, but lots of things are potential, and never come to fruition.

You're missing something here. Women pursue abortion to terminate a pregnancy. A pregnancy requires a viable, growing embryo. Why would anyone get an abortion without an actual pregnancy at hand?

The fact that you may miscarry a healthy, viable embryo is irrelevant to the abortion and it's intentions, considering it is selected after an apparently viable pregnancy is already occurring.

Your body terminates the non viable ones on it's own, with very few exceptions.

Holla' back if you ever get a tumor and let me know if you get it removed before or after it has metastasized. No point in having it removed beforehand, right?

GAT_00: SpeshilEdjukashin: See, there's this little thing called freedom of religion... It's a shame that activist judges don't believe in it anymore, because it is one of the main ideals that our country was founded on, and supposedly one of our "rights."

My religion says I get to shoot self-righteous asshats and that if I do, God is going to give me a medal. You're my next medal. Should I be prosecuted? By your logic, then no, I should not. Win/win, right?

Sorry, but being an asshole isn't a religion.

NoLiving: So in 35 from religious persecution. Sounds like a fair exchange to me.

So you believe in human sacrifice?

Hoopido: GAT_00: SpeshilEdjukashin:

Sorry, but being an asshole isn't a religion.

Dammut ! Why not ? I need a tax deduction. It's a political party isn't it?

bride_of_adam_cole: I Said: SpeshilEdjukashin:

/honestly, 274 isn't THAT many
//I know, I know, "one is too many", but 274 over that stretch of time is hardly some epidemic


THIS. Only 274. That's a low number for a time span of over 30 years.

It's impossibly low, it basically proves that prayer does work.

amanogowa: Saying it is a viable human is different than a viable embryo. An embryo that cannot live without the mother is not a human any more than my hand is -- and it is fully the mother's choice to continue it or not

Saying it can't live without the mother is a misnomer. If you hadn't gone out of your way to kill it, it almost certainly would've lived. This is not a egg that rolls out of a hen coop into the fox's jaws. We are mammals, remember? Our young grow inside of us until they are ready to live externally.

Either way, it was established long ago that embryos could live outside of the mother give the proper conditions. Again, this is a moot point and you missed the important part (which you say you got) - if you're getting an abortion, you already know your viable embryo has become a viable human. This is, after all, the basis upon which you make your decision to abort in the first place.

Your body is a closed system in this regard - if it's not rejected, it will stay inside of you. Saying it's not viable outside therefore it's not a human is absurd when the activity that brought it outside is the abortion itself.

Hoopido: bride_of_adam_cole: I Said: SpeshilEdjukashin:

/honestly, 274 isn't THAT many
//I know, I know, "one is too many", but 274 over that stretch of time is hardly some epidemic


THIS. Only 274. That's a low number for a time span of over 30 years.

It's impossibly low, it basically proves that prayer does work.

Or that the system works and these people are caught and corrected before they can do too much damage...

Or that evolution works and these folks are breeding themselves out of the gene pool.

and tens of thousands of kids died who were taken to Dr's who blew off their symptoms. Or they developed a staff infection in the hospital...or they removed their spleen and killed them when they left a shopvac in the hole...

Then of course there were a couple hundred kids roasted to death in minivans of 'progressive' professionals who left them strapped in the car seat and forgot them in 108 degree Dallas weather....


So, I'm not even religous, but the subby or the greenlight to make fun of faith was assinine.

To the subby, and Fark mods....a great big cockpunch from the fist of GOD!

logruszed: Holla' back if you ever get a tumor and let me know if you get it removed before or after it has metastasized. No point in having it removed beforehand, right?

Please paint the correlation between my statements and your retort. I'm sorry but it is not clear at all.

If I get a tumor, I intend to have it removed. So, what now?

Mr Rusty Shackleford: amanogowa: Saying it is a viable human is different than a viable embryo. An embryo that cannot live without the mother is not a human any more than my hand is -- and it is fully the mother's choice to continue it or not

Saying it can't live without the mother is a misnomer. If you hadn't gone out of your way to kill it, it almost certainly would've lived. This is not a egg that rolls out of a hen coop into the fox's jaws. We are mammals, remember? Our young grow inside of us until they are ready to live externally.

Either way, it was established long ago that embryos could live outside of the mother give the proper conditions. Again, this is a moot point and you missed the important part (which you say you got) - if you're getting an abortion, you already know your viable embryo has become a viable human. This is, after all, the basis upon which you make your decision to abort in the first place.

Your body is a closed system in this regard - if it's not rejected, it will stay inside of you. Saying it's not viable outside therefore it's not a human is absurd when the activity that brought it outside is the abortion itself.

If it was a viable human, why not just move it to someplace is is less inconvenient, or is actually wanted?

If a human does not desire to keep a portion of their body that they feel, and can be medically verified, to be detrimental to them, they have the right to remove it.

Until the fetus can live on it's own, it is no different than a tumor, or any other unwanted growth.

Mr Rusty Shackleford: logruszed: Holla' back if you ever get a tumor and let me know if you get it removed before or after it has metastasized. No point in having it removed beforehand, right?

Please paint the correlation between my statements and your retort. I'm sorry but it is not clear at all.

If I get a tumor, I intend to have it removed. So, what now?

So you feel it is OK for you to remove an unwanted collection of cells unable to live on their own? Why is it different just because the other person is female?

EsteeFlwrPot: She's getting a ton of money for making kids sick and taking advantage of American stupidity.

Wake me when she reaches Al Gore status.

schattenteufel: dognose4: How many has God healed in that time period?


ZERO

And how many has modern medicine killed in that time? 10, 20 million?

BobtheFascist: So?

this

Hoopido: schattenteufel: dognose4: How many has God healed in that time period?


ZERO

And how many has modern medicine killed in that time? 10, 20 million?

And how many has modern medicine saved?

You seem to like focusing on how many it hurt, ignoring the fact that medicine is a long shot better than random chance, no matter how you cut it.

amanogowa: If it was a viable human, why not just move it to someplace is is less inconvenient, or is actually wanted?

If a human does not desire to keep a portion of their body that they feel, and can be medically verified, to be detrimental to them, they have the right to remove it.

Until the fetus can live on it's own, it is no different than a tumor, or any other unwanted growth.

Why not move it? For the same reason that I don't remove the engine from my car when I drive it to the store - that is where it is intended to go by design. This has nothing to do with the "viability" of anything. Your brain won't work if I take it out and throw it in the bay... is it non-viable?

We're in agreement that abortion should always remain legal, I'm also in favor of partial birth abortion in all honesty. I do believe that arguments like your own discredit and do disservice to the pro-choice movement by making statements that seem absurdly stupid:

"Until the fetus can live on it's own, it is no different than a tumor, or any other unwanted growth."

Call it what you will, it's ending a human life, thus killing. That is the point. Your wants and desires with regard to what is inside of you do not alter this simple fact.

Hoopido: schattenteufel: dognose4: How many has God healed in that time period?


ZERO

And how many has modern medicine killed in that time? 10, 20 million?

How many has your god killed in that time, for that matter?

A quick google says he kills 2,426,264/year in the US alone.

We can go on, if you like.

amanogowa: So you feel it is OK for you to remove an unwanted collection of cells unable to live on their own? Why is it different just because the other person is female?

The fact that you continue to compare cancer/tumors to the precursors of human life is telling.

Either way, yes, I feel it is okay. I also feel it is okay for a woman to kill the human growing/developing inside of you. You did read my posts, right?

Mr Rusty Shackleford: amanogowa: If it was a viable human, why not just move it to someplace is is less inconvenient, or is actually wanted?

If a human does not desire to keep a portion of their body that they feel, and can be medically verified, to be detrimental to them, they have the right to remove it.

Until the fetus can live on it's own, it is no different than a tumor, or any other unwanted growth.

Why not move it? For the same reason that I don't remove the engine from my car when I drive it to the store - that is where it is intended to go by design. This has nothing to do with the "viability" of anything. Your brain won't work if I take it out and throw it in the bay... is it non-viable?

We're in agreement that abortion should always remain legal, I'm also in favor of partial birth abortion in all honesty. I do believe that arguments like your own discredit and do disservice to the pro-choice movement by making statements that seem absurdly stupid:

"Until the fetus can live on it's own, it is no different than a tumor, or any other unwanted growth."

Call it what you will, it's ending a human life, thus killing. That is the point. Your wants and desires with regard to what is inside of you do not alter this simple fact.

If it is a human life, it is a live. I never made the claim that my brain has it's own human life -- in fact, removing it would end a human life -- mine, so I fail to see how that comparison is supposed to work.

If you had a problem with your engine that was a detriment to your car as a whole, why not get it removed? Millions have broken engine parts removed each year -- and they don't transfer the title to the dump when they toss out the broken head gasket, either.

Mr Rusty Shackleford: zabadu: Again, zero. Cells are not babies.

PS: You might want to read a thread before posting. We've covered this.

Would you extend the "cells are not babies" stuff to a partial birth abortion? How about one scheduled for just a week before the mother's due date? Still just a wad of cells?

Let's get real here folks - abortion is killing a human life. Arguing cells vs humans makes you sound like an idiot. Let's move beyond this into the more important part... Regardless of the fact that abortion ends a human life, women have, and should continue to have, the right to affect whether that life is ever fully brought to fruition. It is, after all, their body and largely their creation.

Are you saying that an 8-cell blastocyst is the same as a full term baby? Granted that the blastocyst may become more complex over time however, 8 or 16 or 32 cells is not a crying, pooping, cooing baby. A baby may survive long enough to become an adult, but most us see the two as different. All humans eventually die, but we don't equate live humans with dead ones.

As for your horror over partial birth abortion, I am only aware of this being performed when circumstances of the pregnancy become dire. Sometimes things go terribly wrong during pregnancy. If you want to be outraged, blame god, not the procedure needed to save the mother.

amanogowa: If it is a human life, it is a live. I never made the claim that my brain has it's own human life -- in fact, removing it would end a human life -- mine, so I fail to see how that comparison is supposed to work.

Hmm, if it's not a human life, and not alive, remind me... why would you get an abortion?

(It's that same basic point again....)

Mr Rusty Shackleford: amanogowa: So you feel it is OK for you to remove an unwanted collection of cells unable to live on their own? Why is it different just because the other person is female?

The fact that you continue to compare cancer/tumors to the precursors of human life is telling.

Either way, yes, I feel it is okay. I also feel it is okay for a woman to kill the human growing/developing inside of you. You did read my posts, right?

I have read your posts -- and see you pretending to be supporting pro-choice, but then going around and doing damage in your 'defense'.

For the life of me the term for that escapes me.

/It's like saying I am pro affirmative action because those lazy darkies need assistance to compete with all us hard workers. Without AA them damn monkeys would never get an education and can never compete on equal footing.
//except in sports.

Sherman has been accused of being a cult

Typo?

RosettaStone: Are you saying that an 8-cell blastocyst is the same as a full term baby? Granted that the blastocyst may become more complex over time however, 8 or 16 or 32 cells is not a crying, pooping, cooing baby. A baby may survive long enough to become an adult, but most us see the two as different. All humans eventually die, but we don't equate live humans with dead ones.

As for your horror over partial birth abortion, I am only aware of this being performed when circumstances of the pregnancy become dire. Sometimes things go terribly wrong during pregnancy. If you want to be outraged, blame god, not the procedure needed to save the mother.

Listen, how about you go back and apply some reading comprehension to my posts. It will help you make more informed retorts.

First, I'm not against partial birth abortion. Why should I be? It's not my body.

Second, no (see? I never said anything remotely like that), and you don't get an abortion over an 8 or 32 cell blastocyst either. You get an abortion after you've determined you've got a human growing inside of you that you'd rather be dead than alive.

amanogowa:
I never made the claim that my brain has it's own human life -- in fact, removing it would end a human life -- mine.

. Well, we are all waiting ! Patiently.

ZipSplat: 275 OMG THATS SO MANY AMERICA SUX! 9 a yr! This issue is very pressing!

Do doubt. I killed more kids than that on the way to work this morning.