More true cartoons

idabigbuck

Active Member
Messages
134
LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-07 AT 10:36AM (MST)[p]http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/User_files/4714e72e75bc6427.jpg

4714e8027ab71949.jpg

4714e82c7b9a1e35.jpg

4714e84f7c184ce4.jpg

4714e8677c5e2d68.jpg


Its fair chase, or its foul!
 
What Pro said




?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
I hunt. I fish. I own firearms. I support the Second Amendment with the same passion as I do the Fourth. And I'm proud to be a Democrat. But I guess according to Republicans that makes me a traitor in league with Osama bin Laden.
 
>I hunt. I fish. I own
>firearms. I support the Second
>Amendment with the same passion
>as I do the Fourth.
>And I'm proud to be
>a Democrat. But I guess
>according to Republicans that makes
>me a traitor in league
>with Osama bin Laden.

Why would you vote Democrat on a national level. The Dems are against everything you stand for?




?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-17-07 AT 04:45PM (MST)[p]I am not a single issue voter. Besides, not all Democrats are anti-gun or anti-hunting. I am a Democrat because that party more closely reflects my own views on economic, social, and foriegn policy issues. While I may agree with Republicans when it comes to Second Amendment or hunting issues, I strongly disagree with the GOP in most other areas.

Besides, I am of the opinion that it's a big mistake for Second Amendment and hunting advocates to put all their eggs in one basket. We need vocal advocates for these issues in BOTH parties.
 
No, I'm from Eastern Washington (though I now live on the wetside of the state). Most of my family is from Montana and I grew up hanging out in North Idaho. Unless one is simply willing to conform to the ideas or beliefs of those around him, geography need not be a consideration when it comes to political views. After all, even the reddest of states still has a great number of people who are blue.
 
"I am not a single issue voter. Besides, not all Democrats are anti-gun or anti-hunting. I am a Democrat because that party more closely reflects my own views on economic, social, and foriegn policy issues."

You are correct not all Democrats are anti hunting or anti gun. However as a party they are. The powers that be in the Dem party make the rules and in Washington if you want to get along you had better go along. Just look at the assinine laws they have passed suppressing gun ownership and look at how the Dem party has been taken over by enviro nuts who believe you are nothing more than a cold blooded murderer of animals. The most disturbing thing to me about the Dem party is it has been taken over by moveon.org. These are their words "When it comes to the Dem party we are taking it over. We have bought it and paid for it and it is ours." Now if that don't scare ya nothing will.
Economicly the Dems are anti capitolism and becomeing, if not already there, the scocialist party. They believe the government is the cure all. So dem economics means more and higher taxes. Why would you be for that?
On to scocial issues. The Dems are all about the abortion at any stage durring pregnacy. Yikes. They also pander to minorities in an oscene way by playing the race card, the welfare card, the class envy card. They promise minorities cradle to grave assistance. The Dems keep minorities down with their programs and welfare. The system they have devised is engineered to keep minorities on the dole and in the voting booth. I mean give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you have fed him for a life time. The Dem system is doing a HUGE diservice to the minority comunity. HUGE.

I know I will not change your mind but matbe get some to think about their choices and what they really mean. Now the republicans aint much better, but they are better non the less. I just refuse to vote for Democrats when they are bought and paid for by:
Abortion rights activist
PETA
Green Peace
Move on
Daily Kos
George Soros
Hollywood
Earth First
Eco Terrorist
National Coalition against gun violence
The party Osama said he wants in power
Animal Liberation Front
Planned Parrenthood
Animal rights watch
Chi Comms
and the list goes on and on and on. Every nut in this country votes Dem and that should tell ya something.



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
And another thing that is hurting minorities is unfettered access to abortion clinics, replacing the father with a welfare check, etc., is what the leftists idea of family values are.




?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
rooselk, there is no middle ground with this crowd. plan to argue non stop or just walk away. if you like to argue with goof balls it can be entertaining but make no mistake it's pointless. you sound like a good rational guy, I hope you stay around.

Case in point, 202 says access to abortion clinics is hurting minorities, and replacing a father with a welfare check is bad also. now think about it, half the time do they know who the father is? if they do will he step up and be a father? if the baby is born and the father won't support it and the mother can't who's going to pay to raise it if the state won't pony up? what a stupid statement, 202 wants the kid born no matter what but doesn't want to pay.
 
"And another thing that is hurting minorities is unfettered access to abortion clinics, replacing the father with a welfare check, etc., is what the leftists idea of family values are".

So Hunt' your for murdering an inocent child, wow!... oh wait a to be politically correct, an embryo abortion, my bad.
 
We've beat this to death but yes, I'm for abortion rights.


Why don't we compromise? I'll say force the woman to have the unwanted child, and you and 202 pay all the bills? with this deal the republican in me can ban abortion and assert my values over women, and the dem in me gets someone else to pay for it. I like it.

If you don't like it or don't want to foot the bills then leave well enough alone.

Yes, there really are unwanted pregnancies and women who can't afford to raise those kids. reality, what a concept.
 
Dude, I have 'middle ground' on abortion, I say I am more in the 'middle' than the 'pro-choice' crowd. Here's why, I believe an abortion is okay when rape, incest, or the mothers health is at stake. 'Pro-choice' folks believe it is okay to MURDER an unborn child for ANY/ALL reasons, many even support partial-birth MURDERS, that is NOT 'middle ground'.

Then you make 202's point on the fatherless minorities, in your world, and that of fellow liberals, personal responsiblity is a foreign concept. Just KILL the babies, society be damned, right? I try to never be 'middle of the road', that is agood place to get ran over.

PRO
 
" Case in point, 202 says access to abortion clinics is hurting minorities, and replacing a father with a welfare check is bad also. now think about it, half the time do they know who the father is? if they do will he step up and be a father? if the baby is born and the father won't support it and the mother can't who's going to pay to raise it if the state won't pony up? what a stupid statement, 202 wants the kid born no matter what but doesn't want to pay."

You made my point Dude. Thanks and you did'nt even know you did it. Typical. I hope you are glad your mother was pro LIFE. But then again as miserable as you sound on MM you may not.

So you like the solution we have now where people can go around and have as much sex as they please with whom ever they please and not worry about contraception cause they can just go down to the corner abortion shop and kill the child and be right back out there sexing it up with the next guy. Nice Dude. Just your kind of world, no consequences, no ones fault, if it feels good do it, to hell with everyone it all about me, me, me.

There are 1000's of folks that are begging to adopt babies Dude.

As far as paying for them it sits a heck of a lot better with me to spend my taxes on protecting the unborn and raising the born than it does beer, cigertes and on demand abortions for people of low character.

You are wrong Dude, wrong, wrong, worng!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
I think both parties suck and neither represent anyone but extremes in their party. Extremist on either side wield the power and set the agenda.

The dems used to be a party that cared about social justice now they just care about power and maintaining it.

The repubs used to be the party of smaller government and now they just care about power and maintaining it.

If you look at red or blue states there are a lot of people of both colors in every state. We are not nearly as divided as both the media and politicians are saying. The politics of division benefits both parties.

Having said all that I still cannot vote for Hillary and so far no Republican seems worthy of a second look so I guess I will wait until election day to decide which is the lesser of two evils.

Gun control is still a wish of most democrat leaders maybe not at the local and state level but at the federal level it is.

Nemont
 
Nemont I agree with all of that.

202, again you're trying to shove your values down other throat. if your insane theory that women would just say no if they though abortion was not an option would fix everything why doesn't it work where abortion isn't an option? getting pregnant is a biological function, not some miracle that can't be duplicated. get of this devine intervention thing, monkees and rats do it too.

Why do you always think I'm so unhappy? just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm unhappy, it just means I'm not an idiot. along with everything else that's good in my life not agreeing with people like you makes me happy. I can read your post every day and be thankful I'm not like that, unlike you I don't live with any hostility or hate. that's what truly makes one unhappy.
 
Wrong again Dude I am merely pointing out to you and the vast plurality of America and MM that your values are screwed up. You say you are not full of hate yet you are ready willing and able to do in an innocent life based on monetary value. If that is not a screwed up set of moral values than I don't know what is.

Biological function, no sh_ t Sherlock, and like I said before there are consequences for your actions. Here again is where your morality is screwed up. Acording to you there should not be consequences for your actions. Hello brainiac, just one more reason why on demand abortion is WRONG and it is terring appart minorities.

Hostility and hate.................and who is the one that believes killing babies is OK here?...............hmmm.

Who is the one that will vote for Hillary just to piss off his conservative relatives.

Who is the one that goes into a twisted monkey fit whenever one of us MMers mentions God.

Who is it that every chance he gets slams the President of the united states and calls him stupid, nazi, ect. ect....

Who is it on this board that has absolutly no respect for the brave young men and women that are fighting and dying in Iraq so he can come on MM and bash them.

Yea Dude no hate at all on your part.



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
idabigbuck, your cartoons gave me a good laugh, thanks, not sure why people get so serious, thanks !!!
 
Maine school to offer contraceptives. I guess this is OK with you too Dude!

Thu Oct 18, 9:46 AM ET

PORTLAND, Maine - After an outbreak of pregnancies among middle school girls, education officials in this city have decided to allow allow one school's health center to make birth control pills available to girls as young as 11.

King Middle School will become the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available, including birth control pills, patches and condoms. There are no national figures on how many middle schools provide such services. Most middle schoolers range in age from 11 to 13.

"It's very rare that middle schools do this," said Divya Mohan, a spokeswoman for the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care.

Portland's three middle schools reported 17 pregnancies during the last four years, not counting miscarriages or terminated pregnancies that weren't reported to the school nurse.

The Portland School Committee approved the plan, offered by city health officials, on a 7-2 vote Wednesday night. Whether the prescriptions would be offered this school year or next wasn't immediately clear.

King is the only one of the three schools with a health center, primarily because it has more students who get free or reduced-price lunch, said Lisa Belanger, who oversees Portland's student health centers.

Five of the 134 students who visited King's health center during the 2006-07 school year reported having sexual intercourse, said Amanda Rowe, lead nurse in Portland's school health centers.

Committee member Sarah Thompson, also the mother of a King eighth-grader, supported the policy, even though it made her "uncomfortable."

"I know I've done my job as a parent," Thompson said. "(But there) may be a time when she doesn't feel comfortable coming to me... (and) not all these kids have a strong parental advocate at home."

Chairman John Coyne opposed the change, saying the roles of social agencies and public schools have blurred over the years. "At some point there needs to be a clearing of the gray lines," he said.

The other "no" vote Wednesday night came from Ben Meiklejohn, who said a parental consent form, which allows students to receive any kind of treatment at the school health center, does not clearly define the services being offered.

Some opponents cited religious and health objections.

"We are dealing with children," said Diane Miller, a former school nurse said. "I am just horrified at the suggestion."

Another opponent, Peter Doyle, said he felt the proposal violated the rights of parents and puts students at risk of cancer because of hormones in the pill.

Supporters said a small number of students at King are sexually active, but they need better access to birth control.

"This isn't encouraging kids to have sex. This is about the kids who are engaging in sexually activity," Richard Veilleux said.

Condoms have been available since 2000 at King's health center. While students need parental permission to be treated there, the treatment itself is confidential under state law.

At King, birth control prescriptions will be given after a student undergoes a physical exam by a physician or nurse practitioner, Belanger.

Nationally, about one-fourth of student health centers that serve at least one grade of adolescents 11 and older dispense some form of contraception, said Mohan, whose Washington-based organization represents more than 1,700 school-based centers nationwide.

A high school in Topeka, Kan., stopped providing free condoms to students Wednesday after district officials learned of the month-old program. The district has a policy against providing contraceptives.


?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
I gues this is OK in your world too Dude!!!

Kansas Planned Parenthood Clinic Charged With Providing Unlawful Abortions...

Oct 17, 5:08 PM (ET)

By ANDALE GROSS

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - A Planned Parenthood clinic was charged Wednesday with providing unlawful abortions and other crimes by a county prosecutor who had engaged in a high-profile battle with the clinic when he was Kansas attorney general.

Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline charged the Overland Park, Kan., clinic with 107 counts, 23 of them felonies. Besides 29 misdemeanor counts of providing unlawful late-term abortions, the clinic is charged with multiple counts of making a false writing, failure to maintain records and failure to determine viability.

Case documents have been sealed, according to a court order. The first hearing is set for Nov. 16.

Kline's office did not immediately comment on the charges.

Peter Brownlie, Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri's president and chief executive officer, said Wednesday that the group hasn't had any contact with the district attorney's office but has heard rumors for months that Kline, an abortion opponent, was planning to file criminal charges.

"I've heard nothing at all about specific charges that have been filed," Brownlie said. "We always provide high-quality care in full accord with state and federal law."

As for allegations that Planned Parenthood performed illegal late-term abortions, Brownlie said its clinic doesn't perform any abortions past the 22nd week of pregnancy.

Attorney General Paul Morrison previously reviewed all of the allegations upon which Kline's criminal charges are based and found no wrongdoing, Morrison spokeswoman Ashley Anstaett said.

"We are skeptical that these charges have any merit, and we continue to wonder how much politics influenced Mr. Kline's decision to file these charges," Anstaett said.

Planned Parenthood, Kline and Morrison are embroiled in another lawsuit pending before the Kansas Supreme Court. Planned Parenthood sued Kline, and Morrison later successfully intervened on the state's behalf.

Documents in that case remain sealed as well, and neither Kline nor Planned Parenthood have discussed it, but Morrison warned Planned Parenthood's attorneys in June that Kline appeared to still have access to copies of patient records he had obtained as attorney general. Morrison said those records were forwarded from the attorney general's office to the district attorney's office a few days before Kline left the attorney general's office.

As attorney general, Kline fought for two years to get abortion records from the Overland Park clinic and a Wichita clinic operated by Dr. George Tiller. He said he was investigating whether clinic doctors performed illegal abortions and failed to report suspected child abuse; the clinics alleged he was on a "fishing expedition."

Portions of the sealed documents were leaked to Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, who discussed them in a segment where he interviewed Kline days before Kline lost his re-election bid in November. Kline has denied being the source of the leak.

Kline filed charges against Tiller in December, while he was still attorney general, but a judge threw out the case, saying Kline didn't have the jurisdiction to file it.

In June, Morrison filed charges against Tiller that Morrison described as technical violations. Morrison said he found no wrongdoing at the Planned Parenthood clinic.

Morrison, an abortion-rights supporter, was a Republican serving as Johnson County district attorney when he became a Democrat to challenge Kline, a Republican, for the attorney general job. After Morrison won, local GOP activists picked Kline to take Morrison's old job




?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
202 I'm flattered you care so much about my opinion, the law is the law, legal abortions are legal, illegal abortions are against the law, what do you want me to say or do about it? I'm all for legal abortion rights and all the whining and crying in the world isn't going to shame me one bit.

The school with birth control pills seems a bit much to me, but I guess abortions are better? either way you're going to gripe. prevent unwanted pregnancies or abort them, that's your choice. or you can pretend it doesn't happen, that works too, just leave the rest of us out of your fantasy world so we can tend to reality.
 
202typical,

Thank you for the lesson in right wing rhetoric. While you didn't say anything that I haven't heard before, ad nauseam, I will nonetheless give you a A+ for effort because hitting all the talking points is not as easy as it might appear.

However, just to let you know, for every out-of-the-mainstream group or individual that you claim is somehow associated with the Democratic party I can name at least two that are with the GOP (starting with Pat Robertson). Likewise, while you can use the word "socialist" to describe Democrats I can just as easily use the word "fascist" to describe Republicans. Even so, in the end where does all of that get us? I know for a fact that you will never be able to persuade me to change my political views and I seriously doubt that my arguments will cause you to change yours. But if it makes you somehow feel more manly to engage in lib bashing then have at it, that's fine with me. Personally, I think I'll stick to hunting topics and leave you righties to play in your politcal sandbox.
 
dude wrote: "The school with birth control pills seems a bit much to me, but I guess abortions are better? either way you're going to gripe. prevent unwanted pregnancies or abort them, that's your choice. or you can pretend it doesn't happen, that works too, just leave the rest of us out of your fantasy world so we can tend to reality."

I have a better option, tell ELEVEN year old kids sex is NOT okay! What a freakin concept. Heaven forbid we should teach kids they are capable of saying NO and being in control of ones urges, that would just be silly wouldn't it?

I hear people say there is no real difference between Demos and conservs. I say just look at San Fran, that is what the demos would love the whole country to be like in their Utopia.

PRO
 
I agree 100% that at 11 years old is insane to imagine they're being active, at 11 I don't think I even knew what the game was about. but the fact is they are, telling them no will do about as much good as my parents telling me not to drink until I was 21, that worked like a charm.

We have a problem, your solution is denial, if denial doesn't prevent pregnancy then what? until you can fix the problem let those trying to deal with the aftermath use any recourses available. the pill seems like a poor choice to me because of STD's, but who am I to say.

Do unmarried young republican girls ever get pregnant? if they do this is a non partisan issue so get off it.
 
Of course 'republican girls' get pregnant, what an assinine question. The point you fail to grasp is that the Sp's condone, hell they down right encourage, sex at these young ages. Kids, yes even smart republican kids, are vulnerable to peer pressure and when the 'norm' is to have sex, the end result is STD's, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, all of which increase the likelyhood of that teenager living in poverty for her entire life. That is a major social problem that is encouraged and endorsed by the SP's like the Maine school board that just passed this insane policy. Having standards does NOT require perfection, it requires trying to live to those standards which makes that person striving for those standards a better person. The major problem I have with SP's is they have NO standards and believe you can merely blame those with standards and call them hypocrites.

PRO
 
You make no sense, if good repulican girls get pregnant you say it's the dems fault. if you don't listen to dems why do your kids? can you bring yourself to admit that no matter how hard we try kids are not going to always do as they're told? drugs, drinking, speeding you name it. you blame the dems for this yet republican families have the same problem, what a cop out.

How does birth control or an abortion increase the likelyhood of a girl living in poverty for the rest of her life? call me crazy but I'd think an unwed teenage mother living on welfare might have a tougher life ? you think? you're so set on your " values " and your hate for any dem or person who doesn't think like you that you deny basic reality. look at the Catholic church sex scandals, if those people can't control themselves how do you expect to convince a bunch of hormonal teenagers to follow the path you set? get real or leave the real world out of your delusions.

Were you hit on the head and forgot about what you did as a kid? or maybe you were a goody two shoes kid? or a nerd? I remember quite a bit, except for when I was drunk and much of it wouldn't have pleased you. get this, my folks told me not to do it too? imagine that. reality, what a concept.
 
You read fuzzy! Cuz you make no sense when trying to repeat what I said or implied. Makes for a good laugh though.

First, I hate only pedaphyles and rapists. Libs are SP's are not hated, just scorned/mocked.

Second, if you don't see the correlation between INCREASED sexual activity of teenagers with the MANY signals from 'adults' telling them that sex is good and healthy and normal, then you are clueless! Increased sexual activity increases the chance of pregnancy, which greatly increases the odds of living in poverty! How can you deny that?

I know what I did as a teen, and I know what the kids with no DIRECTION and values did, that is why I teach my kids values and give them direction! It INCREASES the odds of them waiting to be sexually active until they are older. That is what a RESPONSIBLE parent does, teach their kids right from wrong. It does not mean that they will be 'saints', but it sure improves the likelyhood of it happening.

PRO
 
Ok , I agree good parenting goes a long long way towards keeping kids out of trouble, but it doesn't gaurantee success. what about the times it fails? tough luck honey? you're a 12 year old mom like it or not? that may be your answer but don't cram it down the rest of our throats.

I'm not going to argue that giving 11 year old gilrls the pill is a good idea, there are other methods that are not only safer for the kids but probably would not make them quite as likely to think they're home free, maybe, maybe not that's just my thoughts on it. if you were in the hood that this idea is being thought about maybe you'ld understand, that I can't say for sure but it's also possible.

Of all the dumb subjects we've debated this has to be the dumbest. if you can still tell me that parents can just tell their kids not to have sex and if the liberals say sex is bad then we'll no longer need birth control or abortions then we may as well stop here. my cousin got knocked up in a Catholic school at age 16, get a grip this is real life not a Disney special.
 
Pro you know this but Dude is so far left he is off the chart. There is no arguing with him or making a point because he will simply ramble on and on.

Hdude is very obvious a product of the 60's and free love, if it feels good do it generation. No consequenses for your actions. The generation that brought us over 500 STD's with their free love crap, 6 million abortions a year and the Clintons. By the way dude your extreem example of the 12 year old knocked up is hardly even close to .000001% of the reasons given for abortions. The top answer for having abortions is "inconvienience" Of course that does not bother you one bit now does it Dude. Screw and kill, screw and kill. Its all about me, me, me right Dude








?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
huntindude,
Questions for you.
Some of the logic you use to justify abortion is that the mother doesn't want them and/or can't afford them. So what if a mother has children that are already born and doesn't want them or can't afford them. Should she be able to kill them? Your going to say that's not the same thing. I am going to ask what is different? Be specific. Just saying any idiot can figure that one out is not specifics. Give me specifics. Example one is in the womb the other is not, etc...
 
Murder is murder, the only difference is how one 'justifies' it. Killing a defenseless unborn HUMAN is okay to the left, executing a rapist/mass murderer is some how "in-humane", go figure!

PRO
 
Why don't you guys go to a country where what you consider murder isn't legal? why should I spend my time trying to convince you the law is correct? the courts and the people have spoken, end of story forever I hope. the list of deveopled countries that don't allow abortion is short but you always have the Muslim states to fall back on. off you go and don't let the door hit you in the butt.


202, so far off to the left? I'm in the center, as far to the right as you are the center just seems left.
 
The people have NOT spoken, that is why Roe v Wade is bad law, the activist courts decided it, the 'people' were NEVER given an option to make it legal/illegal. I do NOT base right and wrong on the "rest of the world". Killing innocent HUMANS is wrong, regardless of what other countries 'allow'. That is why I truly believe you are nowhere near the 'center', because you believe how popular an issue is makes it wrong or right, that is a VERY liberal viewpoint. Just because you are in line with the 'main-stream' press does NOT make you "in the center", it makes you in line with Al Gore, Rosie O'Donnell, and Michael Moore, and they are nowhere near the "center". Having convictions does not make someone way 'right', it just means they have a moral compass. How does the song go, "you have to stand for something or you will fall for anything."

Roe v Wade is one of the WORST laws every put into effect, ironically, it was put into play by BY-PASSING the legislative branch of the Government and TOOK away states rights! Another blantant example of how the libs do NOT believe in the rule of law, unless it is in complience with their viewpoint, otherwise they find ways like using activist judges to get their way, the will of the people and the constitution be DAMNED!

PRO
 
Man I thought I was going to have a clean logical debate.
Well, let's see, so your saying because it's legal it's ok. What happens if tomorrow there is enough people to change the laws. Will you change your view? Of course not. That arguement is full of holes.
I think you know where I was going with this so I will spell it out.
Most people will not argue that it is "wrong" to kill another human being. That is not the arguement (please confirm so we can get past this arguement).
What is the arguement is when does an embryo become a living "human"/"person". Is this a fair statement of what the root of the arguement is? If you agree well then we can move on.
I say at the time of conception. When do you think it does and what are the specific facts that back your arguement up?
 
"Roe v Wade is one of the WORST laws every put into effect, ironically, it was put into play by BY-PASSING the legislative branch of the Government and TOOK away states rights! Another blantant example of how the libs do NOT believe in the rule of law, unless it is in complience with their viewpoint, otherwise they find ways like using activist judges to get their way, the will of the people and the constitution be DAMNED!"

Well said Pro. The only way the Left can win is through the activist courts legislating from the bench which is not what they are suposed to do. Right now the court is 50, 50 libs to conservatives. There are a couple of judges that will roll off or die in the next presidency which is one more reason to vote Republican so we can get honest judges that simply STRICTLY interpret the constitution. Abortion is absolutly a states right decision not a Fed decision.



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
I'm not a doctor and I'm not going to play one, for the most part late term abortions are illegal so I'm going to say that's the point at which an embyro becomes a human being.

If you're not OK with that then change the law, good luck because the new Gallup poll says 81% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in MOST circumstances, and only 35% believe Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned. wow I'm really a nut job huh? or is everyone crazy but you?

202 said something true for a change, your only hope is a stacked deck in the Supreme Court and even with that they're not quick to reverse past bench decisions. it's very doubtful a republican will win the whitehouse in '08 but even if they should it will be Giuliani, the only republican I'd vote for in '08. women are safe from you sticking your nose in their business for some time, I love it when self righteous busy bodies following too close get thier toes mashed.
 
> I'm not a doctor and
>I'm not going to play
>one, for the most part
>late term abortions are illegal
>so I'm going to say
>that's the point at which
>an embyro becomes a human
>being.
>
> If you're not OK
>with that then change the
>law, good luck because the
>new Gallup poll says 81%
>of Americans believe abortion should
>be legal in MOST circumstances,
>and only 35% believe Roe
>Vs. Wade should be overturned.
>wow I'm really a nut
>job huh? or is everyone
>crazy but you?
>
> 202 said something true for
>a change, your only hope
>is a stacked deck in
>the Supreme Court and even
>with that they're not quick
>to reverse past bench decisions.
>it's very doubtful a republican
>will win the whitehouse in
>'08 but even if they
>should it will be Giuliani,
>the only republican I'd vote
>for in '08. women are
>safe from you sticking your
>nose in their business for
>some time, I love it
>when self righteous busy bodies
>following too close get thier
>toes mashed.
>
>

First let's clarify the name calling. I haven't called anyone any names. I haven't made any assumption about you, but it looks like you have about me.
Now let's get back to the debate. If I'm reading you right since its legal your stance is that, that makes it right? If that is not what you are saying then we agree just because it's a law doesn't make it right and you can skip the next part. If that is what you're saying, then what about when slavery was legal. Is that your same view? Tough and those who helped to change it were "self righteous busy bodies"? I can say with some certainty that there are laws that you do not agree with and don't just "go along" with them and because of that you agree with my statement above, "Just because it's legal doesn't make it right". I will concede that in this particular case you believe abortion is right whether it is legal or not. Let's move on.
I did not see where you stated whether you believed it was not right for someone to kill another human being.
I'll ask again, do you believe it is wrong for someone to kill another human being? You may think that I am trying to trap you, but I am trying to narrow down what we specifically disagree on and what we agree on. No sense debating points we both agree on.
I will help you out. I believe that it is ok to take the life of another human being if that person has knowingly and consciously taken the life of another and has been found guilty with a fair trial in a court of law.
Your turn; when is it ok to take the life of another human being?

Now the next question will actually help you and make my argument tougher to prove. Is it ok to kill something that is living? I will start, yes as long as it is not a "human being". I know you will agree with at least the first part because you like me hunt animal.

So, making some assumptions to the above questions and how you would answer them, the only question we do not agree on is when does an embryo become a "human". (It is living from the time of conception. No doctor or scientist will argue that. The argument is when does it constitute a "human being"). One thing that disturbed me about your response above is that you said "I'm not a doctor and I'm not going to play one, for the most part late term abortions are illegal so I'm going to say that's the point at which an embryo becomes a human being.". Now I am making assumptions here so correct me if I am wrong, but give specifics, you are not sure when the embryo is a "human" but you agree that it "may" be late term. If there is a possibility that it may be a human and you are advocating "killing" it (this is based on the assumption that you do not advocate the killing of human beings) wouldn't that call into question your own "ethics"?
See without specific I have to make assumptions and of course I will make them to back up my view. So, give me specifics that back up your argument. To summarize here are the questions you need to answer.
1) Do you advocate the killing of a human and if so when?
2) When does an embryo become a human? Or maybe you will change your answer and say babies are not human until they are born. If this is the case please give specifics on what is the difference between the two that makes one human and the other not human.


One more point if we do determine that the embryos are human, fifty percent of them are women. What was it you said "women are safe from you sticking your nose in their business for some time,". What about those women's rights? In my mind I am fighting for women's rights. Only those women can't voice their opinion yet. I bet you give them a few years and they would love tell debate women's right with you. Who knows maybe one of them will be the first women president. Wow, I could say I helped make it possible for a woman to be president. Don't you believe that all women should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just like you?
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-22-07 AT 06:14PM (MST)[p] I don't agree with you but I'll give you credit you state your case better than any of your chronies and better than myself also.

There are several points you don't deal with here, but I'll start with capitol punishment. yes, I believe in capitol punishment, I actually think it's under used.

When does an embryo become a baby? I've had some experience with this in cattle but not humans, so I'll stick with what the law determines as late term for my bench mark.

I think a major difference between you and myself is I see the world as over populated, I'll bet you don't. at the risk of being hammered on why do we need more people today? we keep curing illness, prolonging life and feeding the hungry so where does our population control come from? if we are over populated why force some unwilling mother to ruin her life to bring another welfare baby into the world?

Now we have your young single mother with an unwanted child holding her back, I suppose you advocate more and better social services to raise and educate both mother and child right?

We can argue this forever, but in the end it comes down to personal opinion and the law. you sound well educated and probably have a good life, where does your right come from to force an unwilling mother to give up whatever she has to to raise a child she doesn't want? maybe she'll end up a crack head welfare bum because she didn't have the same chances you did. I can promise you one thing, if I were a woman pregnant with a baby I didn't want I wouldn't let anyone tell me what to do with my body, there are drugs at the local feed store that would abort me and I'd damn well use them, I suspect many women would do the same by whatever means they had at their disposal. it's not your call and it's not mine, we are a land based on law decided by the majority of it's people. it's hard to argue with that.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Oct-22-07
>AT 06:14?PM (MST)

>
> I don't agree with you
>but I'll give you credit
>you state your case better
>than any of your chronies
>and better than myself also.
>
>
> There are several points you
>don't deal with here, but
>I'll start with capitol punishment.
>yes, I believe in capitol
>punishment, I actually think it's
>under used.
>
> When does an embryo become
>a baby? I've had some
>experience with this in cattle
>but not humans, so I'll
>stick with what the law
>determines as late term for
>my bench mark.
>
> I think a major difference
>between you and myself is
>I see the world as
>over populated, I'll bet you
>don't. at the risk of
>being hammered on why do
>we need more people today?
>we keep curing illness, prolonging
>life and feeding the hungry
>so where does our population
>control come from? if we
>are over populated why force
>some unwilling mother to ruin
>her life to bring another
>welfare baby into the world?
>
>
> Now we have your young
>single mother with an unwanted
>child holding her back, I
>suppose you advocate more and
>better social services to raise
>and educate both mother and
>child right?
>
> We can argue this forever,
>but in the end it
>comes down to personal opinion
>and the law. you sound
>well educated and probably have
>a good life, where does
>your right come from to
>force an unwilling mother to
>give up whatever she has
>to to raise a child
>she doesn't want? maybe she'll
>end up a crack head
>welfare bum because she didn't
>have the same chances you
>did. I can promise you
>one thing, if I were
>a woman pregnant with a
>baby I didn't want I
>wouldn't let anyone tell me
>what to do with my
>body, there are drugs at
>the local feed store that
>would abort me and I'd
>damn well use them, I
>suspect many women would do
>the same by whatever means
>they had at their disposal.
>it's not your call and
>it's not mine, we are
>a land based on law
>decided by the majority of
>it's people. it's hard to
>argue with that.


Huntindude,
You are correct that I have left out several points. There is a reason and that is my argument is going to be based on your answers to two questions and your specific points that back up your argument.
1) Do you think it is wrong to kill a human? I think we both agree on this issue. Capitol punishment is ok. One more thing I will add is it is ok in self defense (this is a whole debate in itself).
2) When does an embryo become a ?human?? I will make an assumption that you agree an embryo at one point becomes a ?human?, but when exactly and please give the specific criteria that make it ?human?. Your previous answer ?late term? seems vague and lacking specific facts that support it.
Without your answers to these questions and the specific facts to support them we cannot debate this issue any further.


Now let me address your comments above.
1) Population control: You will get no argument from me about the world being overpopulated and that we need to do something about it. What I will disagree about is that abortion is a viable solution to this problem. If the answers to the two questions I listed above were ?Yes, it's wrong to kill a human?, for reasons other then ones previously stated, and an embryo is a human at the time of conception then case closed, it's wrong. However if your reason is that the embryo is not a human and therefore allows abortion to be an option for population control then we are back to the unresolved argument above. When does an embryo become human and what is the supporting facts/points/specifics (you choose the correct word) that back your argument/view/point (you choose the word)? I strongly caution you on using methods like this for population control, because once you start with this then it's easy to move to the next step. An example of this would be China. No argument that China has a population problem and needs to do something about it, but what? They have a law that you can only have one child so many families that depend on their children?s help with manual labor to survive are killing their babies if they are a girl. This is after they are born. Is this acceptable? What do you think this does for women?s right?
2) Unwanted welfare baby: There are two parts to this A) Unwanted ? Are you saying that killing a child is ok if they are unwanted? Once again I think your answer hinges on your answer and supporting facts to question number two above. If based on the fact aborting an embryo is killing then your logic would allow the killing of a child any age if the mother didn't want them. If it's not then we need to stick to resolving question number two. B) Welfare ? Are you saying that it is ok to kill children if their parents are on welfare? I think I can reasonably say no that is not what you are advocating. Correct?? Once again this leads us back to resolving question number two.
3) Availability of social programs ? Are you saying that killing a child based on the availability of a social program to support them determines whether it is acceptable or not? Once again I think I can reasonably say no that is not what you are saying. Correct?? This leads us back to resolving question number 2.
4) Personal opinion ? Does determining whether to kill a child hinge on personal opinion? I don't think it does and I think I can say I have been trying to use logic and facts to state my argument not personal opinion. I think if we keep going on this point it will once again lead us back to resolving question number two. As far as my personal opinion I will share that at the end of this thesis (LOL).
5) Economic status ? Are you saying that it is ok to kill the babies of the poor/economically challenged/lower social class (you pick the wording)? Once again I bet if we pursued this we would end up back at the need to resolve question number two.
6) Women?s rights ? I think this definitely hinges on resolving question number two. If my answer to question number two is correct then killing an embryo is murder and approximately half of them are women and this would unquestionably be infringing on there right not only as a women but as a human being. The right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
7) Law ? Do you agree that every law that is in place is ?correct? and ?ethical?? I think I can answer for you and say ?no?. Once again that would eventually lead us back to the need to resolve question number two. If I am not and you do agree with every law then, what about in Muslim countries where it is legal to kill your wife if you think she is not a virgin when you consummate the marriage? Is this just? Where are women?s rights here?
8) Majority ? Are you saying that if the majority of the people believe one way then it makes it right? If this is the case then your logic would compel you to change your mind every time the majority changed it. What about Hitler. The majority of German?s did not disagree with him so does that make him correct? Maybe we have to go to the global level. I bet the majority of the world hates the US and sees terrorism against us being justified. Is terrorism against the US just? Guess what? Question number two.


I think I have done a good job of logically arguing my point with facts. If I have missed any points/fact/specifics please state them and I will address them.



Now I will give you my personal feelings on this matter. Warning! I will ramble on here so read on if you dare, but it will give you insight into why I am so passionate about this issue. Hey, it might even give you some ammo to use against me.
I am the 7th child of 8. My dad is and was a lousy father and provider (If you told me that a father who doesn't take care of his kids should be killed, I would have a serious personal moral dilemma on my hands. LOL). Needless to say my mom got no support from him and therefore resorted to other means, welfare. I remember as a kid getting glowering stares when I purchased a candy bar with food stamps. It wasn?t until later when society enlightened me that I felt the shame I ?deserved?. We lived in the ghetto (race has nothing to do with your economic status. I am white.), we were on welfare, I ate free lunch, we got free cheese, when ever someone would move we ?dumpster dived? to retrieve anything that they might have throw away that we could use. This included the dumpster behind commercial establishments. Kinney?s Shoes was one. They would throw away shoes that they did not sell. We use to get most of our shoes this way. That is until they caught on to us and starting slashing them. They were standing there laughing at us when we discovered what they had done. I think I was about 12 when the shame hit me. I stopped eating ?free? lunch and I went to great lengths to hide where I lived. I would either walk home which took about two hours or I would ride the bus and get off at a different stop. I would then sneak back to the ghetto, my home. I got a paper route and used the money to buy clothes that would not tip people of to my social status. Needless to say I was a child that society did not want and could not support and felt the shame that went along with that. I should have been aborted per some of your arguments and the society majority. The only reason I wasn?t was my mother chose not to.
I have in my house right now a 3 month old girl and a 2 year old boy that are not mine. They are my wives nephew?s kids. He got a divorce and ended up with them because the mother didn't want them. When she left she took the car and bragged how she got the better end of the deal. The car ended up getting reposed and when it did she cried. What the Chuck???? He is in the Navy and is in no position to take care of them financially or physically, hence we have them. They (the babies) are unwanted and lack the financial resources to provide for them. By your standards and societies they should have been aborted. I tell you what, come to my house hold one of them in your arms look them in the eyes and tell me if you still feel they should have been aborted. They were a mistake and a drain on society. Bull puckey. They are human beings and are victims in this circumstance and deserve to live more so then their parents. You would have a better chance at convincing me that the parents should be aborted/killed.


I know what most are thinking. I seriously need some counseling. Well, I will not because that is what the majority believes.
 
jmcenulty very touching story. I commend you for taking those kids.

Well stated argument and I could not agree more. What happens with abortion is it cheapens the sanctity of life. Over time folks become calous like Hdude. Then they hide behind arguments like population control to justify their low moral standards. Sickening really.
Another point is that once it is lawful if gives women an out moraly. "Hell its leagal hence it must be moraly OK, right." Especially young girls fall into this trap. Roe v wade is one more way in which Godless progressives are eroding our scociety.

Now that Hdude has thrown in his extreeme argument about the 11 year old girl rape victim I suspect he will move on to the mentaly ill or deformed children. So we should abort these kids as well I supose. Yea they don't deservre to live........OH look I'm God and I decide who gets a chance to live and who does not.





?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
JM it sounds like you took lemons and made lemonade and that's great, you're a good writer and it's obvious you're no dumby and that's why you've done well. what if your mom had been a dumby or not cared for you as she did? if more people were able to handle the situation as your did my argument would have less merit. money isn't the whole picture, the social aspects and the fact a girl is pysically able to concieve before she can mentally handle it play in.

There is no way either of us can prove our point no matter how long we argue because this is based on opinion, I think the rights of the living mother are more important than an early term pregnancy. if either one of us had been aborted do you think we'ld care? it's no different than not being concieved in the first place. nobody is advocating forced abortion on anyone, just the right to do so. as a male telling a woman she's going to have a baby like it or not because that's my opinion on the matter seems ludicris to me. can you give me one reason other than your opinion why either one of us have the right to force a female to have an unwanted child? one reason other than " I think..." , I've stated reasons why not.

There is no way to settle this, if there was you'ld just accept the law of the land and we wouldn't be debating it. so again it comes down to opinion, and again the law is on my side, that may sound like an easy out but it's the truth.

I'm headed up the hill for elk camp this morning so I'm not ignoring you if you were reply to this. 202, even if I were going to be here I would ignore you.
 
Very telling that you veiw an unborn PERSON as just something that will take up space on the planet, and your false assertion that the world is overpopulated is an excuse to kill these PEOPLE. How disgusting and vile.

PRO
 
Why thank you dude I take that as a compliment.

?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,
 
> JM it sounds like you
>took lemons and made lemonade
>and that's great, you're a
>good writer and it's obvious
>you're no dumby and that's
>why you've done well. what
>if your mom had been
>a dumby or not cared
>for you as she did?
>if more people were able
>to handle the situation as
>your did my argument would
>have less merit. money isn't
>the whole picture, the social
>aspects and the fact a
>girl is pysically able to
>concieve before she can mentally
>handle it play in.
>
> There is no way either
>of us can prove our
>point no matter how long
>we argue because this is
>based on opinion, I think
>the rights of the living
>mother are more important than
>an early term pregnancy. if
>either one of us had
>been aborted do you think
>we'ld care? it's no different
>than not being concieved in
>the first place. nobody is
>advocating forced abortion on anyone,
>just the right to do
>so. as a male telling
>a woman she's going to
>have a baby like it
>or not because that's my
>opinion on the matter seems
>ludicris to me. can you
>give me one reason other
>than your opinion why either
>one of us have the
>right to force a female
>to have an unwanted child?
>one reason other than "
>I think..." , I've stated
>reasons why not.
>
> There is no way
>to settle this, if there
>was you'ld just accept the
>law of the land and
>we wouldn't be debating it.
>so again it comes down
>to opinion, and again the
>law is on my side,
>that may sound like an
>easy out but it's the
>truth.
>
> I'm headed up the hill
>for elk camp this morning
>so I'm not ignoring you
>if you were reply to
>this. 202, even if I
>were going to be here
>I would ignore you.


I think I can say that I have given more than just my opinion and my argument can stand on logic and facts alone. I have given you several reasons why a woman should not be allowed to an abortion on demand, it's murder for one. An embryo/fetus is a living human being with the same rights as you and I to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness regardless of physical development, intelligence, social or economic status. I have also systematically refuted the logic supporting each of your points. ?Just accept the law? In one of your points you point out that you don't just go along with the majority alluding to the fact that your decisions are based on logic not status quo. I have stated examples where laws are not always ethical just because they are laws. I invoke that your higher level of thinking can be applied here. One of the great things about America is that every one can legally protest injustices even if it's contrary to the law of the land. This is how abortion became legal. If the law changes again in favor of Prolife would you change your mind and go along status quo simply on the fact that is was the law? I don't think so and if you did I would have to question your intelligence. One more thing before I get off my soap box and that is you said 85% of Americans are in favor of abortion. I bet that most of them do not think of embryos/fetuses as living human beings and if they were presented with facts that proved they are human beings they would change their opinion. The innocent unborn children have no voice of their own that is why I must continue to deliver their message.

Now on a personal note, I do not ?hate? you for your opinion. I do believe you are misinformed just as you think I am. I bet if we met and discussed other things that we believe in we would have a lot in common and could be great friends. No two people in this world agree on every issue. I hope your hunting trip is a success and when you get back I look forward to the story and pics. I promise I will not drag this issue into that forum.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom