Kerry accepts Blood Money...BABY Blood...

[Patriot Heart]

<HR noShade SIZE=1> <!-- end option --><!-- leadin graphic -->http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/header_wnd.gif <!-- end leadin graphic -->

<HR noShade SIZE=1><!-- standing head -->COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY
<!-- end standing head --><!-- head -->Kerry accepting 'blood money'?
<!-- end head --><!-- deck -->3 infamous partial-birth abortionists give cash to Democrat
<!-- end deck -->

<HR SIZE=1>Posted: October 12, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern





<!-- byline -->
<!-- end byline --><!-- copyright -->© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com <!-- end copyright -->

<!-- begin bodytext -->Three abortion doctors who specialize in partial-birth abortions – two of whom actually advertise their willingness to perform the grisly procedure – are all contributors to John Kerry's presidential campaign. George Tiller and Warren Hern may be the only two abortionists in the U.S. who openly advertise that they perform third-trimester abortions, writes Douglas Johnson in the Weekly Standard. Johnson is legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.


The third doctor is Martin Haskell. Together, the three have contributed a total of $7,000 to help put Kerry in the White House.

"These contributions are worth scrutinizing because of what they reveal about John Kerry," writes Johnson.

"Although Haskell, Tiller, and Hern have been controversial figures for many years in national debates about late abortions (as anybody can ascertain by entering their names into Google), the Kerry campaign apparently readily accepted the contributions – money that might very well have originated in fees charged to perform partial-birth abortions or other late abortions." Despite his declaration that he thinks "life begins at conception," Kerry likely attracts dollars from abortionists due to his consistent record of voting against any restrictions on the procedure, Johnson writes.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40863

PH in OK

[Warlady]

I thought PBA is illegal now. Didn't Congress pass the ban?

[Patriot Heart]

I think some misguided spawn of the devil judges decided those laws didn't apply in their states? Maybe someone can clarify here
PH in OK

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=440 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=headlineblack style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 5px"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=440 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=headlineblack style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 5px">Judge Blocks Partial-Birth Abortion Ban</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storytext style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px">Wednesday, June 02, 2004


http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge Tuesday ruled that President Bush's Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (search (http://clickit.go2net.com/search?cid=307797&site=srch&area=is.clicktracking&shape=link&cp=info.foxnws&clickurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.foxnews.com%2Finfo.fo xnws%2Fredirs_all.htm%3Fpgtarg%3Dwbsdogpile&ext_qcat=web&ext_qkw=Partial-Birth%20Abortion%20Ban%20Act)) is unconstitutional and infringes on a woman's right to choose. The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood (search (http://clickit.go2net.com/search?cid=307797&site=srch&area=is.clicktracking&shape=link&cp=info.foxnws&clickurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.foxnews.com%2Finfo.fo xnws%2Fredirs_all.htm%3Fpgtarg%3Dwbsdogpile&ext_qcat=web&ext_qkw=Planned%20Parenthood)) clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half of all abortions in the United States.



U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's (search (http://clickit.go2net.com/search?cid=307797&site=srch&area=is.clicktracking&shape=link&cp=info.foxnws&clickurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.foxnews.com%2Finfo.fo xnws%2Fredirs_all.htm%3Fpgtarg%3Dwbsdogpile&ext_qcat=web&ext_qkw=Judge%20Phyllis%20Hamilton)) ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation Bush signed last year.
------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, as usually our ever liberal legislative judicial system has once again stepped in to protect a doctors right to kill.

For the rest of the article, Link Below:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121435,00.html


</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storytext style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px">




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Beowulf]

These decisions always coming out of Frisco too. Funny these judges put people on trial for murder yet support the murdering of children. I'll make this statement until the point is driven home, "Judges need to be elected officials."

And I'm not surprised that Kerry took this money. Definately an effort to have Kerry re-make this law in choice's favor. While he's at it, he needs to convert to Atheism and leave his Catholocism behind.

[kate]

i will never understand anyone who is pro-choice. And i will never understand anyone who votes for someone who is not pro-life.

[Golgo 13]

These people advocating a ban of the D&X procedure (or what has been demonized into 'Partial Birth' abortion) have little or no understanding as to why it's performed.

Firstly, lets clear up one big misconception. D&X is not an elective procedure. It is only performed under extreme medical complications like severe hydrocephalus (http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/hydrceph.html).

The alternative to D&X is cessarian. When a D&X procedure has to be performed, the fetus is not viable either way. The D&X procedure puts an end to the fetus' suffering quickly. A cessarian (being the only alternative other than to let both mother and fetus die) extracts the fetus from the mother via. a huge incision in the abdomen where it then suffers for several hours until it's body can no longer hold out and death *finally* puts an end to it's tortured existence.

A cessarian section is a major operation that poses huge risk to the mother of complication and infection. D&X procedure is employed due to it being a safer means to the same end.

So rather than put the mother at unnecessary risk, why not have this nonelective, medically necessary procedure availible for doctors to employ when necessary?

The misinformation most people seem to have in their heads is that a woman can get pregnant, wait 9 months, and then elect to have the baby sucked out of her on a whim. This is a patently false caricature of the actual procedure, is used as a proxy strawman argument to lobby support against a medically necessary practice, and just reflects the dishonesty of those that would push an agenda for this grand indictment of modern medicine.

The reality of the situation is this:

The only thing the ban does is limit surgeons' options and put mother's lives at additional jeopardy - The exact opposite of what pro-life values are supposed to accomplish.

I find it disheartening that politicians would constrict medically valid practices just so they could further their own personal political agendas.

Ah well. Tis' just another classic case of bureucracy taking precedent over the welfare of the people.

[Patriot Heart]

Golgo.:rolleyes: (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/misc.php?do=getsmilies#) You do not know what you are talking about. Period. MULTIPLE Obstetricians have confirmed there is NEVER a viable reason to do a partial birth abortion, delivering all but the head of a living infant and then piercing the skull and suctioning out the brain. NEVER a good reason. I can tell you from experience as an OB nurse, when a mother's life is in danger, a Caeserian Section is MUCH faster and safer than the time required in inducing a vaginal delivery, which is what must be done by some manner or another in order to deliver the body of the infant in partial birth abortions.

"The misinformation most people seem to have in their heads is that a woman can get pregnant, wait 9 months, and then elect to have the baby sucked out of her on a whim. This is a patently false caricature of the actual procedure, is used as a proxy strawman argument to lobby support against a medically necessary practice, and just reflects the dishonesty of those that would push an agenda for this grand indictment of modern medicine."

WRONG again, yes, they CAN carry the baby for many months and them decide "whoops, I don't want it after all, nor do I want anyone else to have it" and choose to have the elective procedure. Where do you get your damaged information, Planned UN Parenthood, or maybe NARAL (Nat'l Abortion Rights Action League)?? You are spouting the flawed information that the Left is so famous for. Explore the facts before saying such ridiculous things. I KNOW what I am talking about. Trust me, I KNOW.
PH in OK

[Wolfcounsel]

"i will never understand anyone who is pro-choice." --kate

Those people are not pro-"choice". They are pro-MURDER.

[DoctorDoom]

Firstly, lets clear up one big misconception. D&X is not an elective procedure. It is only performed under extreme medical complications like severe hydrocephalus.

The alternative to D&X is cessarian. When a D&X procedure has to be performed, the fetus is not viable either way. The D&X procedure puts an end to the fetus' suffering quickly. A cessarian (being the only alternative other than to let both mother and fetus die) extracts the fetus from the mother via. a huge incision in the abdomen where it then suffers for several hours until it's body can no longer hold out and death *finally* puts an end to it's tortured existence.The pro-abs have you by the gonads, kid.

Fact time...

"There are no medical circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion is the only safe alternative. We take care of pregnant women who are very sick, and babies who are very sick, and we never perform partial-birth abortions. . . . There are plenty of alternatives. . . . This is clearly a procedure no obstetrician needs to do."
-- F. Boehm, Dr. OB, Vanderbilt U. Med.

"There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial-birth abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother."
-- Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Dept. of Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago

"There is no literature that testifies to the safety of partial birth abortions. It’s a maverick procedure devised by maverick doctors who wish to deliver a dead fetus. Such abortions could lead to infection causing sterility."
-- Joseph DeCook, Fellow, Am. Col., Ob/Gyn, founder of PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth)

Johnson noted that in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, gave a series of well-publicized interviews in which he repudiated the claim that the partial-birth abortion procedure was used rarely and mostly in acute medical situations. He said those claims were merely a "party line," and were false. The truth, Mr. Fitzsimmons said, was that "in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus" (The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997). He estimated that 4,000-5,000 abortions annually are performed by the partial-birth method. That is a sizable fraction of all of the abortions performed in the fifth month and later.Press Release (http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/release011503.html)

The first mainstream reporter to investigate some of the distortions, also last September, was Ruth Padawer, thirty-five, of The Record, in Bergen County, New Jersey. She covers a "gender and society" beat she created four years ago.

Following is an interview with Padawer.

Q: How did your story on this debate get started?

A: The religion writer said, "I need a sentence or two to throw in just to explain what this debate is about." And I said, "I'll get back to you in a couple of hours." So I called various people on various sides of the issue, expecting to get different views about the merits of the D&X procedure, but I was overwhelmed by how different each side's take was on the very facts -- how often it occurred, when it occurred, why it occurred, the circumstances under which it occurred. I was very confused and motivated to find out more.

Q: Where did you start?

A: Because the governor [Christie Whitman] had said the procedure wasn't done in this state, I called a clinic in Englewood, New Jersey, just hoping they would know people in Manhattan who did it. I talked to one doctor who said that he didn't do it but that he knew of some people who did, and he'd get back to me. While I was waiting, I called another physician there who said, "I do them."

Q: Same clinic?

A: Same clinic. He told me he did it and all of his buddies did it -- including the first doctor I had talked to. So I was taken aback. This doctor gave me all the details, the circumstances under which he did it. Like everybody else I talked to afterwards, he said it was the procedure that he preferred and the procedure he would try first. In about half the cases, he was able to use it. He said it was quicker and safer for the woman, because it avoided going in with sharp instruments and poking around. He estimated that the clinic annually performed 3,000 to 5,000 late abortions -- after twenty weeks and no later than twenty-four weeks -- and that about half of those involved this D&X procedure.

Q: You talked to others?

A: I spoke to a high-level administrator there who was a physician also, and he answered the same way. His estimate was 3,000 abortions, half of them using this method. I talked to another doctor outside of New Jersey. They all had the same assessment of the women who wind up getting abortions beyond twenty weeks -- they are teenagers, people who are poor, people who have a lot of chaos in their lives.

Q: Your significant findings were . . .?

A: That these men were telling me that their clinic alone did at least 1,500 of these procedures a year. The pro-choice side was saying that only 500 were done nationwide. The second thing was that the pro-choice side was saying that the procedure was used only, or almost only, in the most dire medical circumstances, but the providers I spoke to in and outside of New Jersey all agreed that such cases were a small minority.Abortion: partial truths (http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/3/abortion.asp)

• Although usually used in the fifth and sixth months, the partial-birth abortion method is also used to perform abortions in the third trimester -- that is, the seventh month and later. In Kansas, the only state in which the law requires separate reporting of partial-birth abortions, abortionists reported in 1999 they had performed 182 partial-birth abortions on babies who were defined by the abortionists themselves as “viable,” and they also reported that all 182 of these were performed for “mental” (as opposed to “physical”) health reasons. See page 11 of this state report: www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/99itop1.pdf

• In a written submission to the House Judiciary Committee in June, 1995, the late Dr. James McMahon – who is considered to be the developer of the method – explicitly acknowledged that he performed such abortions on babies with no “flaw” whatever, even in the third trimester, for such reasons as mere youth of the mother or for “psychiatric” difficulties. Indeed, even at 29 weeks -- well into the seventh month -- one-fourth of the babies that McMahon aborted had no “flaw,” however minor. Moreover, McMahon’s submission showed that in a “series” of about 2,000 such abortions that he performed, only 9% were performed for “maternal [health] indications,” and of that group, the most common reason was “depression.”

• The Physicians’ Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) -- a group of over 600 physician-specialists (mostly in obstetrics, perinatology, and related disciplines) -- has spoken out to dispute claims that some women need partial-birth abortions to avoid serious physical injury. PHACT said: “We, and many other doctors across the United States, regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer these and other serious conditions. Never is the partial-birth procedure medically indicated. Rather, such infants are regularly and safely delivered live, vaginally, with no threat to the mother's health or fertility.” In September, 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said that “partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”

• In May, 1997, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (then H.R. 1122) was endorsed by the American Medical Association. In a letter to Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), AMA Executive Vice President P. John Seward, M.D., wrote, “Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.”Key Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/KeyfactsJune02.html)

Kid, until you actually research what you post, your credibility is zero.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Patriot Heart if you don't mind, let me lend my voice to yours against the distortions of one who does NOT know what s/he is talking about.

Firstly, lets clear up one big misconception. D&X is not an elective procedure. It is only performed under extreme medical complicationsOh really? Please refer back to the article ...
From the article: "Three abortion doctors who specialize in partial-birth abortions – two of whom actually advertise their willingness to perform the grisly procedure..."

Now, if this procedure is so RARE, why do the different doctors ADVERTISE their willingness and ability to perform the procedure? Wouldn't the medical professions who would be referring patients who "NEED" (and I use that term loosely) this procedure already KNOW these doctors perform this horrendous procedure? I would hardly think such a gruesome activity would need to be ADVERTISED if it wasn't a popular, readily available procedure. If this was a case of extreme medical complication(s), one wouldn't find their fingers walking through the yellow pages for a practitioner, would you think?

A cessarian (being the only alternative other than to let both mother and fetus die) extracts the fetus from the mother via. a huge incision in the abdomen ... Bull doo-doo! Have you ever HAD a cesarean section? Well I have ... in fact I have had two. My incision is about 6" long, and it took less than 8 minutes combined to deliver BOTH my son and daughter (2-1/2 years apart, separate C's).

A cessarian section is a major operation that poses huge risk to the mother of complication and infection. D&X procedure is employed due to it being a safer means to the same end.You don't say ... how about this?

Cesarean Section By: Bradley G. Goldberg, M.D.
Recent statistics indicate that 25% of all deliveries in this country are by cesarean section. This is the highest rate in recent history, and most experts agree that this number will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

There are several reasons why the rate is increasing . . . Another reason for the increase rate is that as technology advances, we are better able to detect conditions of the fetus that may be more amenable to cesarean delivery. Another notable reason is the current legal climate."

Link Below:
http://www.coffeewomenscenter.com/articles/cesarean_section.html

More C-sections than ever before are being performed ... many unnecessary, because the doctors are SCARED to allow their patients to deliver naturally for fear of legal ramifications. C-sections are considered to be QUICKER AND SAFER THAN natural childbirth.

The only one distorting the truth is the individual you see when you look in the mirror. Partial-birth abortion is an abonimation, and should be outlawed forever.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Both of our grandkids were born by Cesarian section. Our granddaughter because she would have been a breach birth and her little foot had actually started to come out of the birth canal. Our grandson was born by Cesarian section because of concern for the breaching of the scar tissue from the first one.

[Golgo 13]

Elective partial birth abortions are illegal in pretty much every state of the U.S.

Call around abortion clinics and see if you can find one that will do it electively. I'll bet you won't. This challenge has been taken before by another individual on a different message board, but she gave up after a half-year of attempting to find one with no success.

[Patriot Heart]

That is good news if true, Golgo, since it is a completely unnecessary procedure. However third trimenster abortions still occurr, using installation of highly concentrated urea solution after removal of a portion of the amniotic fluid, which produces a painful death as it burns the baby's skin and then causes the placenta to seperate resulting in suffocation of the infant. Evil has many options, unfortunately.
Patriot Heart in OK

[DoctorDoom]

Elective partial birth abortions are illegal in pretty much every state of the U.S.

Call around abortion clinics and see if you can find one that will do it electively. I'll bet you won't. This challenge has been taken before by another individual on a different message board, but she gave up after a half-year of attempting to find one with no success.If true, that's good, but then why are the baby-killers so obsessed with opposing laws that limit PBAs? Why did they almost immediately go to court to negate the law signed by President Bush?

Your arguments ring hollow. Back up your statements with verifiable evidence.

[Golgo 13]

If true, that's good, but then why are the baby-killers so obsessed with opposing laws that limit PBAs? Why did they almost immediately go to court to negate the law signed by President Bush?

Because there are scads of surgeons that want to have it as an option in severe cases, possibly? It's already legally defined as a nonelective procedure, so unless doctors are just killing babies in utero to get their rocks off, then there has to be a medically valid reason for the procedure to be employed.

That is good news if true, Golgo, since it is a completely unnecessary procedure. However third trimenster abortions still occurr, using installation of highly concentrated urea solution after removal of a portion of the amniotic fluid, which produces a painful death as it burns the baby's skin and then causes the placenta to seperate resulting in suffocation of the infant.

Yeah, see that is some bullshit. I think a woman should still have the right to choose before the fertilized egg develops a functional brain and becomes a seperate entity. But any abortion attempts after that point for nonmedical convenience purposes just inflicts pain and suffering when they try to do something like firebomb the fetus in the womb via. burning it to death with a saline solution. This isn't some microscopic blueprint for a potential human we're talking about here at this point, that's an actual feeling thinking viable baby.

[DoctorDoom]

Because there are scads of surgeons that want to have it as an option in severe cases, possibly? It's already legally defined as a nonelective procedure, so unless doctors are just killing babies in utero to get their rocks off, then there has to be a medically valid reason for the procedure to be employed.Sorry, lad, but your say-so is not evidence.

Yeah, see that is some bullshit. I think a woman should still have the right to choose before the fertilized egg develops a functional brain and becomes a seperate entity.Her right to choose ended when she chose to do the sexual act that resulted in pregnancy.

But any abortion attempts after that point for nonmedical convenience purposes just inflicts pain and suffering when they try to do something like firebomb the fetus in the womb via. burning it to death with a saline solution. This isn't some microscopic blueprint for a potential human we're talking about here at this point, that's an actual feeling thinking viable baby.Oddly enough, I agree with that.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Because there are scads of surgeons that want to have it as an option in severe cases, possibly? It's already legally defined as a nonelective procedure, so unless doctors are just killing babies in utero to get their rocks off, then there has to be a medically valid reason for the procedure to be employed.This statement confuses me. After having worked for doctors, I know that patient care and confidentiality is of the UTMOST importance. Accepting this, then, brings up a thought and a question. I know that between a patient and a doctor, if there were a legitimate reason (which I do NOT agree any exists, but for this scenario we will accept the premise) to perform a PBA, who would find out that would prosecute such a case and how, considering patient confidentiality laws, would they find out? Medical decisions made "in the heat and pressure of the moment" are a far cry from pre-scheduling and planning for this procedure -- if there is enough time for that, then there is plenty of time to do a C-section, which is quite a quick and efficient method of delivery.

If there is a need for this gruesome procedure, I STILL don't understand the necessity of ADVERTISING it ... most especially if it is the practice of last resort and extreme measures. If one is faced with a last resort or extreme case scenario (which would definitely occur spontaneously and quickly), I hardly see that there would be time to let one's fingers do the walking through the yellow pages or for comparison shopping.

AND, if this is merely a case of desiring not to find themselves embroiled in legal or criminal action for a "RIGHT" (for lack of better word) to use this procedure if deemed necessary, I don't see how one would have much of a case AGAINST the doctor for performing it even if it is banned IF it were a case of last resort or extreme measures -- which would certainly be able to be proven, if it is indeed a valid, preferable, and ONLY option.

I think a woman should still have the right to choose before the fertilized egg develops a functional brain and becomes a seperate entity.I would ask what is your definition of a "functional brian"? From the moment sperm and egg unit all things begin to function just exactly as they are programmed to do. All parts necessary for the brain are already there within those two combined cells. It is most certainly alive, as it begins to grow and change from the very millisecond of conception. I don't believe this qualifies as a valid refutation of the pro-life position.

As for the second part of your statement, the baby is most definitely a separate entity than the mother, again, at the moment of conception. Though it receives nurishment (as do ALL newborns) from its parent, it maintains separate blood type, separate heart and brain, separate arms and legs and brain functions. If you are asserting BIRTH is what creates a separate entity, then a pregnant woman whose child is killed (in utero) by a car accident or at the hand of another individual doesn't matter, and his/her life/death should not be used in a criminal proceeding against the offending individual.

I still see no refutation of the pro-life position.


But any abortion attempts (after that point for nonmedical convenience purposes)* just inflicts pain and suffering when they try to do something like firebomb the fetus in the womb via. burning it to death with a saline solution. This isn't some microscopic blueprint for a potential human we're talking about here at this point, that's an actual feeling thinking viable baby.With the exception of the underlined portion *(which should be removed), I agree completely with this statement. I would just add that once a egg and sperm unite, it is no longer a microscopic blueprint for a potention human either, it IS human life. It will never grow to be an elephant, a crocodile, or a lemur -- it IS ONLY human life.

[Sylvester Haze]

As far as effective smears against a presidential candidate go, that has to be one of the rock-bottom ones. Granting--for the sake of argument--that abortion doctors are evil little baby-eaters (and they aren't), if I had a dime for every fanatic, warmonger, bona-fide theocrat, or other nutjob who donated to any recent US political candidate's campaign... oh boy!

[DoctorDoom]

And if I had a buck for every lame, ignorant, irrelevant comment by a liberalunatic troll, I could buy Microsoft out of petty cash.

[Large_Al]

Sly Your are the perfect rebuttal to the pro-life arguement.

[DoctorDoom]

He's certainly a strong argument for retroactive abortion.

[Large_Al]

All those in favor say Aye!

[Patriot Heart]

Now Sylvester....jsut how fast would you be running to talk to a NYT reporter if you discovered President Bush's campaign had recieved money from...let's say...the Nazi Party, or someone of similar ilk? Hmmm? It would be huge news. The fact is the third trimester abortion kings see Kerry as their saviour. It's that simple.
Patriot Heart in OK

[Faithful_Servant]

The pro-abs have you by the gonads, kid.
Highly doubtful. It'll be a couple more years before they finally drop and give 'em something to get hold of.

[Faithful_Servant]

As far as effective smears against a presidential candidate go, that has to be one of the rock-bottom ones. Granting--for the sake of argument--that abortion doctors are evil little baby-eaters (and they aren't), if I had a dime for every fanatic, warmonger, bona-fide theocrat, or other nutjob who donated to any recent US political candidate's campaign... oh boy!Are you applying for the job recently left vacant by the unwilling departure of our beloved tlaloc? You know, the "village liberal" position. Your resume seems to be in order - pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-common sense, pro-democrat. Yup, I would say you are definitely on the short list for "village liberal".

You're right, abortionists (I won't sully the noble life-preservers that are doctors by referring these murdering POS as doctors) aren't baby-eaters, they just kill them and throw them into the bag for incineration.

[Golgo 13]

I would ask what is your definition of a "functional brian"? From the moment sperm and egg unit all things begin to function just exactly as they are programmed to do. All parts necessary for the brain are already there within those two combined cells.


Right. The genetic instructions for the assembly of a brain are present in an egg that has been fertilised, but the brain itself isn't there.

Everything I need to build a house is contained within a collection of germinated, planted tree seeds. The lumber isn't there for me to build a house, but in about 20 years or so it will be.

As for the second part of your statement, the baby is most definitely a separate entity than the mother, again, at the moment of conception.

There is no any single particular 'moment' of conception. When a sperm enters an egg, it's still a full 12 to 24 hours until it begins disseminating the genetic code and developing.


Though it receives nurishment (as do ALL newborns) from its parent, it maintains separate blood type, separate heart and brain, separate arms and legs and brain functions.

After the abortion has matured to a certain extent, yeah.


If you are asserting BIRTH is what creates a separate entity, then a pregnant woman whose child is killed (in utero) by a car accident or at the hand of another individual doesn't matter, and his/her life/death should not be used in a criminal proceeding against the offending individual.


No, birth doesn't create seperate entities, separate functioning brains do.

If someone is brain dead, then they are dead. They're gone. There's nobody home. It's just a piece of meat. When your brain is dead, you are beyond help. If scientists grew a new brain and stuck it in your body, or transplanted someone elses brain int your body, it wouldn't be you; it would be a seperate person entirely using your body.

So you can't be considered a living human if you don't have a working brain.

With the exception of the underlined portion *(which should be removed), I agree completely with this statement. I would just add that once a egg and sperm unite, it is no longer a microscopic blueprint for a potention human either, it IS human life. It will never grow to be an elephant, a crocodile, or a lemur -- it IS ONLY human life.

It's a would-be human. When the sperm goes into the egg, the code dissemination isn't an instant process, like I pointed out before.

A fertilized egg is a potential human and not a human itself. A fertilized egg is incapable of experiences of any kind. A fertilized egg has not a brain, central nervous system... nothing. It is just a mass of multiplying cells after code deconstruction.

A fertilized egg is a potential human just like a wooden frame is a potential house. There is an extremely large and signifigant difference between construction materials, early development, late development, and finished product.

[Sylvester Haze]

Now Sylvester....jsut how fast would you be running to talk to a NYT reporter if you discovered President Bush's campaign had recieved money from...let's say...the Nazi Party, or someone of similar ilk?

I wouldn't need to. The Republicans' close ties to Christian Reconstructionists, the oddball fundamentalists who want a bona-fide Old Testament theocracy, complete with stonings for homosexuals and nonbelievers--are not exactly the best kept secret in Washington. Neither are direct and proxy contributions to the Bush family and Republicans in general by Korea's Rev. Moon (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/sun-myung-moon/), one of the weirdest and craziest cult leaders around (and owner of the conservative Washington Times paper). He's made comments that match anything said by the Nazis (http://www.nypress.com/17/2/news&columns/signorile.cfm), and unlike them, theocrats are much more insidious, still capable of infiltrating politics en massse.

But this is neither here nor there, since abortion (unlike murder, theocracy, etc.) is nowhere near the evil some would imply.

[Large_Al]

Bwahahahhahahahahhaaa! Get out your tinfoil Beanies guys we have a real Looney Toon here.

Do people call you Sylvester the cat??

[nene]

Sylvester, that's some strong shit your on!

[Sylvester Haze]

That Christian theocrats as scary as the Taliban exist, that they're quite influential at the highest levels of the GOP, and that they lend monetary and other support to a variety of right-wing candidates and causes (including our illustrious President) is hardly speculation. But thanks for playing! We have a bunch of terrific consolation prizes for you, such as this expensive gilded spork from John Kerry's private collection.

[Naturalized-Texan]

:ignore: :tinhat: :trollhook

[Golgo 13]

That Christian theocrats as scary as the Taliban exist, that they're quite influential at the highest levels of the GOP, and that they lend monetary and other support to a variety of right-wing candidates and causes (including our illustrious President) is hardly speculation. But thanks for playing! We have a bunch of terrific consolation prizes for you, such as this expensive gilded spork from John Kerry's private collection.

Yeah, but it's not like anyone here is going to acknowledge that fact, much less accept it.

[Jeffrho]

So were "Christian theocrats" flying passenger airliners into buildings? Taking hostages and beheading them? Strapping on TNT vests and detonating them on busses and restaurants? Do "Christian theocrats" prevent women from having jobs, or voting? Beat them for walking out in the open not covered from head to toe in a shroud? Stone them to death for disobeying or dishonoring their husbands?

Try again, Sylvia.

[DoctorDoom]

Guys, I have an opportunity for you that's perfect for libs of your ilk!

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Dogpatch.jpg" border="1" /></center>

[Sylvester Haze]

Moving the goalposts a tad, are we Jeffrho? I said Christian theocrats, not Christian terrorists. (Still, not to ignore your point, both are quite equal in belligerence, once you account for social, economic and military differences; I see little difference between Bin Laden's wet dream, and the "Nuke Damascus!" sentiments you can find on this very board. But I digress)

With any luck, they'll never get an opportunity to do any of those things with government sanction. Like the Taliban, Christian theocrats are no longer in a position to force their brand of fundamentalist lunacy on the masses (although they, too, have ambitions). It's tough deciding whether Sharia or the Old Testament law Dominion Theonomists advocate is more archaic and brutal; Let's just say they both have their highlights.

[Jeffrho]

Moving the goalposts? Only in your feeble mind. You made the comparison between "Christian theocrats" and the Taliban. The Taliban were terrorist sponsors, or are you asserting that they were not? Lemme guess, they were just friendly 'ol boys (like Saddam)until the eeeevil U.S. went and invaded them for no valid reason - right? Which one of the actions I brought up in my last post that the Taliban didn't do or support?

You might want to see a doctor about your case of crainial-rectal inversion syndrome. It seems quite severe.

[DoctorDoom]

Do people call you Sylvester the cat??More likely it's Sylvester the Pussy.

[Faithful_Servant]

Sylvester Fog is more to the point. Deep, thick, obscuring fog. Fog so dense that no light can penetrate it. Fog that makes November in London seem dry and pleasant. Fog that allows no particle of truth in truth in. Fog so thick that it actually reduces the amount of O2 available for Foggy's poor anoxic brain cells.

[Sylvester Haze]

Moving the goalposts?

This conversation went something like this:

1) "You and your double standards; imagine your reaction if a Republican had Nazi supporters!"

2) "Republicans do have supporters who are, effectively, Nazis."

3) "Oh yeah? But they don't fly airplanes into buildings!"

That the Taliban were hiding terrorists doesn't debunk the facts I posted. Both they and the Dominionists are theocrats with goals that are downright horrifying, and I have no doubt whatsoever that in the dog-eat-dog world of Afghanistan, Christian despots would be as brutal. Perhaps they'd prefer burning at the stake to beheading, but that's about it. As I said, this won't change the fact that this is a fundamentally ridiculous way to attack a candidate, and (given the nutjobs the GOP is in bed with) you'd be throwing stones in a very fragile glass house, indeed.

[Apollo5600]

http://imagehost.vendio.com/preview/bo/bonnicay/.mids/PHBabySylvester.jpg

oooo them evil chwistians make me soo mad.

[DoctorDoom]

The astonishing thing is that this person no doubt actually believes the ignorant crap that he's posting. However, heathens never were very high on the intellectual ladder.

[Faithful_Servant]

This conversation went something like this:

1) "You and your double standards; imagine your reaction if a Republican had Nazi supporters!"

2) "Republicans do have supporters who are, effectively, Nazis."

3) "Oh yeah? But they don't fly airplanes into buildings!"

That the Taliban were hiding terrorists doesn't debunk the facts I posted. Both they and the Dominionists are theocrats with goals that are downright horrifying, and I have no doubt whatsoever that in the dog-eat-dog world of Afghanistan, Christian despots would be as brutal. Perhaps they'd prefer burning at the stake to beheading, but that's about it. As I said, this won't change the fact that this is a fundamentally ridiculous way to attack a candidate, and (given the nutjobs the GOP is in bed with) you'd be throwing stones in a very fragile glass house, indeed.Three words - GET NEW MEDS!

[Golgo 13]

The astonishing thing is that this person no doubt actually believes the ignorant crap that he's posting. However, heathens never were very high on the intellectual ladder.

I've never known fundamentalists to be very big on critical thinking and parsimony either.

[DoctorDoom]

I've never known fundamentalists who cared one iota about the ignorant opinions of immature, self-worshipping kids.

[Sylvester Haze]

You forgot to add, "Or anyone who thought differently than they did."

[DoctorDoom]

No, I didn't forget it, heathen. We're perfectly willing to listen to reasoned arguments, but you "freethinkers" have yet to offer one.

[Sylvester Haze]

Stubborn failure to acknowledge them doesn't mean we haven't posted them.

[DesertFox]

Christian Reconstructionists, the oddball fundamentalists who want a bona-fide Old Testament theocracy, complete with stonings for homosexuals and nonbelievers

Hard to believe anyone thinks this sort of animal is still around. That statement merely underscores what I've said for years, that liberals are emotionally crippled beings who live in the past. They can't get over the Salem witch burnings. They can't get over slavery. They can't get over Jim Crow. Anything that ever happened anywhere, to a liberal, is here forever and always to be feared. If there is nothing to fear -- which in America is pert-near always -- they make something up and paint it in the most lurid colors. Or they take demented acts by demented people as representative.

Superstition. That's what animates liberals.

[DoctorDoom]

Stubborn failure to acknowledge them doesn't mean we haven't posted them.You most certainly haven't, and I can't recall the last one, if ever there WAS one. It's like this, kid. You "intellectuals" register at FC, knowing very well that it's a conservative BB where the large majority of members are Christians. Are you here to debate? Hell, no. You're here to show us iggernit, Bible-thumping yahoos how wise and perceptive you are because you don't believe in God.

Y'all don't impress us. You've offered exactly zip that we haven't seen at least a dozen times before, but each of you has the illusion that you are presenting some utterly new and unique "argument" that will cause us to fall prostrate at your feet and issue hushed sounds of awe and worship for your dazzling, insightful contributions. In fact, you "freethinkers" evoke only one reaction:

<table align="center" bgcolor="600060" bordercolor="#CCCCCC" border="4" cellpadding="8"><tr><td><div align="center"><font face="Verdana" color="ffff80" size="7">ö<b> * Y A W N * </b>ö<font size="1" color="800000"><br>-</font></font></div></td></tr></table>

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/epap2A.gif"></center>