Capuano’s Breathtakingly Stupid Flip-Flop
by Brian Maloney, November 11th, 2009 at 11:41am
Just days after expressing elation over Martha Coakley’s baffling about-face on PelosiCare, rival Dem US Senate candidate Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) has inexplicably copied her move. It’s a breathtakingly stupid tactic that greatly undermines his credibility.
However, establishment Democrats are foolish to believe this “scores a big political point for the Coakley campaign”, since she began this dubious trend.
Instead, it merely makes the party look oddly indecisive on a signature issue for Democrats.
Most astounding: why Bay State Dems are focusing on taxpayer abortion funding as the deciding factor, rather than on the way PelosiCare will actually hurt Massachusetts.
Scott Brown should be jumping all over this.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
39 Comments Add your own
1. Charlie | November 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Never forget - abortion is a sacrament to the radical left.
Candidates oppose it at their peril if they’re in radically leftist states or districts - like Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Washington and Oregon - just to name a few.
It’s amazing that they support the right to kill babies 10 seconds before they’re born (think partial birth abortion), but would rightfully prosecute someone for doing it 10 seconds afterward.
The left wing elite marches in jack-booted lock step, waiting to crush anyone who doesn’t toe the abortion line - hence the remarkably stupid position taken by Capuano and Coakly.
Party of tolerance my a$$.
As to Coakly and Capuano, they’re either truly radical leftists who really believe in unrestricted abortion on demand - at taxpayer expense - or they’re cowards, afraid to take the principled stand.
Either way, I can’t wait to vote against them
2. Bob Schieffer | November 11th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Scott Brown has a “nuanced” position on abortion - he thinks it should be generally legal, but shouldn’t be govt paid. That seems quite reasonable, which is why he has no chance to win!
3. Cap'n Spackle | November 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Pelosi let Stupak get added in there solely to provide political cover to enough of those fringe moderate Democrats of conscience in Congress so that it would get passed (barely). Now the choice between socialism and “the right to choose” (to grind up inconvenient pregnancies) rears its head. I fully expect the stupid Republicans to somehow figure out a way to *#($ up this opportunity to stop this thing, though.
4. Medic | November 11th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Oh my God! The Democrats indecisive?????? Not when the so-called Commander-in-Chief CAN’T MAKE A DECISION ABOUT SENDING OR NOT SENDING TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN??????? Gee, coulda fooled me!
5. piratetoby | November 11th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
OMG, I don’t have the time for a decent post right now….however I’ll be back a bit later to momment.
In the meanwhile, look at the comments here. I’m assuming, although I could be wrong, that all these comment were posted by a human being WITHOUT a vagina? Yes?
Here’s my theory about men and their opinions on abortion and a women’s right to choose. Men are jealous of women and jealous of their bodies. Why? Here’s why: evolution gave women’s bodies the capacity for multiple orgasms, with out the need to reload. Males got stuck with the one shot.
Men who oppose a women’s right to choose haven’t dealt with their own “one shot” issue, so they take their pent up jealousy and use it against women- telling them what they can and can not do with their bodies.
I’ll be looking forward to comments on my theory.
6. Charlie | November 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
@Pirate. Let’s disassemble those points.
1. Possession of one set of genitalia or another has no relation to whether abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. It is a non sequitur.
2. Your opinions on jealousy is a ad hominem attack on those who have a different opinion than yours. Personal attacks say nothing about the merits of the argument.
So throw verbal bombs all you want. The facts remain - and facts are indeed stubborn things. So far, you have failed to address the issue at hand.
Here’s an example to consider.
If I were to forcibly abort a fetus from a mother without her consent, I would rightly be charged with murder *because that living, growing human baby has intrinsic value*.
But if the mother decides to kill it, our horribly flawed legal system says it’s OK.
See if you can figure out why the opinion of one person (mother) can remove the intrinsic value of the life of another (baby).
Genocide and slavery are two examples of this failed philosophy and recent centuries are replete with examples of the wreckage left behind by them.
And if it suddenly makes no sense to you to allow the opinion of one to define another as ‘not human’, you will have discovered one of the prime reasons why those who support an outright ban on abortion do so.
7. Sproket | November 11th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Toby or not Toby, If all the above men are so wrong, what the hell gives you the right to
talk about my vagina in any context or for any
rationale for theirs or your point?
8. Cap'n Spackle | November 11th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Great. Yesterday we were regaled with tales of great enemas past ♪♪I can see clearly now, I pumped the suds♪♪…
Now we hear about how men can’t have opinions about destroying fetuses because they only “shoot once”. I believe the applicable McPhee terminology is ‘wackadoodle’.
9. Jim | November 11th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I knew it, piratetoby is really a chick.
10. piratetoby | November 11th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Where to start….ok, I’ll work from the bottom up.
Jim: again, no plummage here.
Cap’n: men can have all the opinions they want, however they have NO RIGHTS when it comes to a woman’s decision regarding her own body. Even if he impregnanted her.
And, judging from Capuano’s flip-flopping, I’m not sure a man, regardless of how vehemently pro-choice they are, should have any say in the matter. Only a woman, as seen with Coakley, is truly capable of total conviction on this issue.
And Cap, like the “Warren Commission” my single shot theory is sorta tounge in cheek…..but then again there are layers of the human brain - sub-conscious, uncounscious, super-conscious yet to be explored, and my “multiple envy” theory may not be as wackadoodle as you thing.
Sproket: I don’t want to get any where near your vagina. What’s your question, anyway?
Charlie: I have no inclination to discuss this with you, only to say what you used as an example has NOTHING to do with a woman’s right to choose. You’re talking about a man committing a sexual assault on a woman. File that scenario under a CRIME.
And as far as a mother, as a person, having an opinion and why it matters? It’s because a fetus is not a BABY. And a woman’s opinion on what she’s gonna do with a fetus- allow it to grow inside her into a baby, or abort the cells that make up a fetus is entirely up to her. HER OPINION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT’S THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS.
Pardon any spelling and/or grammatical errors. This is not my computer and I’m not used to it, and can’t be bothered w/spell check.
11. Charlie | November 11th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Of course Pirate, you’re wrong.
The criminal who forcibly aborts the baby from that pregnant mother *might* be prosecuted for a sex crime (assuming the approach was vaginal, instead of a baseball bat to the belly), but he would absolutely be prosecuted for murder of the baby - or if you prefer the clinical term “fetus”, go ahead and use that.
No matter the label you choose, if the mother decides to kill it, it’s not a crime. If somebody else does it against her will, it’s murder.
That leads to the inescapable conclusion that the value of this human being’s life is determined by the opinion of somebody else.
And that subjective definition of what’s human and what’s not was exactly how Hitler justified killing kill Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, prisoners of war and others.
And how radical Muslims justify the killing of infidels (that’s you and me).
And how the Japanese in WWII decided that the Bataan death march was of no moral consequence.
When we allow human life to be devalued to no more than a “decision”, we have willfully joined the ranks of some of the most despicable people in human history.
No, I can see why you would choose to run from this debate.
Your position is either ill-considered or just plain evil.
12. Sproket | November 11th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Toby, I will reserve my question for my Doctor.
Thanx for asking though.
13. piratetoby | November 11th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Charlie: You’re kidding me, right? “Human” is NOT a subjective term. “Fetus” is NOT a subjective tern. “Baby” is NOT a subjective term.
A fetus is not a baby.
A baby is a human.
A fetus in NOT a human life.
I would NEVER run from this debate.
My position is neither ill-considered or EVIL ( are you kidding me?)
The argument you pose to back up your position is so ridiculous, it defies a rebuttal.
14. piratetoby | November 11th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Sproket: hopefully (for your Doctor) you’re able to articulate your questions better than you do here.
15. Charlie | November 11th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Pirate, you’re showing the first glimpse of catching on.
Human is not subjective. You’re exactly right. But if that fetus is not HUMAN life, what kind of life is it?
It’s not a dog. It’s not a fish. It is one and only one kind of life.
It is a HUMAN life. And human lives have intrinsic value - that is to say, human lives have value that can not be defined away by someone else.
The value is an inherent characteristic of the person, much like the heat of the sun inherent to it.
If my opinion is that the sun is cold and dark, that does not make it so. The inherent characteristics of “hot and bright” remains, regardless of my value judgment of “cold and dark”.
And the example I gave hardly defies a rebuttal. It demands one. It is a debate that is avoided by cowards because their arguments can not stand up when the facts are rationally considered apart from the emotion of “I want to do what I want to do, without regard to right or wrong”.
It comes down to this: If one person can decide that another person is not a human life, the logical outcome is that this “non-human” can be killed without moral or legal consequence.
That is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany, WWII Japan, the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the past (and current!) slave trade in Africa and countless other examples throughout history.
The enemy - or in your case, the “inconvenient life” - was declared to be “not human” and is allowed to be killed or enslaved without legal or moral consequence.
It happens even today in Sudan where the radical Muslim north kills, pillages and enslaves the remainder of the Dinka (non-Muslim) south.
So let’s get back to the example at hand.
If the mother decides to kill the baby - or fetus if your prefer - it’s legal and presumably, ethical.
If another person does it without her consent, it’s murder.
Either way the fetus / baby / human has had it’s life taken from it. Whether it’s a crime is dependent on one and only one question.
WHO killed it?
That is not a test we would apply to any other crime in society. A bank robbery is still a bank robbery whether it was committed by a biker gang, the Mafia or a punk kid with a drug addiction.
Over 50 million babies have been murdered in utero since Roe v. Wade was passed. If that’s not evil, I don’t know what is.
16. piratetoby | November 11th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
1. first answer to “what kind of life is fetus”…..a fetus is a member of the species of homo sapiens. the fetus is the first stage of development in utero of said species.
2. And whether or not it’s a crime (or as you state “murder”) to kill a fetus is dependant on more than one question. The crime varies from state to state, depends on the # of weeks of gestation, depends if the fetus died because the mother was murdered.
Frankly, Charlie, I could care less whether you think I’m opting out of this debate because I am wrong, or evil or whatever. You are a fucking nut job.
And regardless of your personal opinion of when a fetus becomes a baby, it’s of NO CONSEQUENSE. It so happens your ARE wrong, and if you can’t accept that from me, ask the US Supreme Court .
17. Charlie | November 12th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Perfect. Name calling and profanity. Now there’s a considered, substantive rebuttal.
Your attempts to parse the example to support the morality of abortion fail miserably.
For the sake of discussion, let me make it more precise. Perhaps it will clarify things for you.
It’s now 2 weeks prior to birth of what is going to otherwise be a healthy baby girl. Mom has named her Anna.
Example 1. Mother decides that it isn’t the right time for her to deliver Anna. She goes to abortion clinic and has a partial birth abortion. Baby Anna is dead.
There is, according to the law of the land, no crime.
Example 2. Same mother, same baby Anna. For reasons unknown, a person attacks that mother and cuts Anna out of her womb. Neither mother nor baby Anna survive.
According to the law of the land, the attacker is prosecuted for TWO murders - both mother and baby Anna.
Here is the salient point: Whether there is criminal prosecution (not to mention the moral implications) for Anna’s death depends on ONE thing only.
The opinion of the mother.
Let’s try to use some critical thinking here. Under this system, we allow one person determine whether another is to allowed to live.
This is blatantly wrong, and our laws need to be changed to reflect that reality.
And before you prattle on about the Supreme Court being the final and infallible arbiter of right and wrong, remember that the right to own slaves was legally protected in the USA until 1865.
The only conclusion then is to say that our laws are provably capable of coming to despicably wrong conclusions. The “right” to abortion on demand is one of them.
18. piratetoby | November 12th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Example #1: You’re wrong by stating after that ridiculous scenario that there, according to the law of the land, no crime committed.
Abortion clinics perform abortions, not any type of procedure that you’re referring to. If they did, then they would be charged with a crime.
If a woman, for some reason, 2 weeks prior to her due date wanted an earlier delivery, they would go to their OBY-GYN and see if they could be induced into labor early.
Your scenario is so off the wall. You think that a woman carrying a baby for 34 weeks would go to an abortion clinic 2 weeks before her due date for an early delivery?
Abortion clinics perform abortions within the legal guidelines. They are not in the early delivery business.
I used name calling for this reason: you haven’t a clue and it’s people like you, vociferous with their opinions which are based entirely moral judgments and clearly ignorant as to abortions, abortion clinics, and abortion law. If you want any intelligent debate, come up with an intelligent hypothetical.
I’d start with doing some research on abortion. The “right” to abortion on demand is restricted to fetuses, not babies.
19. Hoss | November 12th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Toby - you’re getting your ass handed to you here. The fact that you’re lashing out with ad hominem further proves this.
I’m fairly pro-choice, but the example charlie gives is valid and apt.
http://www.whnt.com/news/whnt-madison-pregnant-woman-death-charges-92309,0,6968912.story
What if this woman were on her way to the abortion clinic?
Like I said, I’m fairly pro-choice, but whether or not the fetus is a human life should NOT be an arbitrary decision, and yes - the father ABSOLUTELY has a say in the birth or non-birth of the fetus. If he has legal responsibility after birth, he has legal say before birth.
20. Cricket | November 12th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Did anyone get to hear the debate this morning? I only caught bits and pieces of the last half hour. Did anyone win the debate?
Where the hell is Brown? Is he waiting until the challenger is decided?
21. Charlie | November 12th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Pirate, you’re distorting the scenario I presented. I’ll be charitable and assume it’s unintentional.
Mom didn’t ask for an earlier delivery date for her convenience. She decided that she did not want Baby Anna, and decided to kill her through abortion.
At that late time in gestation, the “procedure” is called Partial Birth Abortion and it is quite legal in many parts of our great land.
The restrictions on this gruesome, murderous procedure at the Supreme Court level talk about the method of killing the baby, not the gestational age.
As a result, many doctors will inject Baby Anna with lethal drugs to kill her in utero, protecting them from prosecution.
This puts an even more fine point on the debate.
If you kill Baby Anna with by lethal injection instead of inserting scissors though her neck and cutting her brain stem (the usual method of partial birth abortion), there is no crime.
But by killing her through the scissors method, the Supreme Court could hold you criminally liable.
In what other scenario does the method of intentionally killing another (think gun / knife / poison / drop a piano on her head) determine whether the act is a crime?
This distinction is beyond ludicrous. And it reveals the evil of those who facilitate and perform these “procedures”.
So, the hypothetical is indeed REAL. And it is one that the radical left goes to extremes to defend.
So now that you presumably have a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the killing of Baby Anna, do you agree that it is an egregious and evil act - even though it was the mother who made it all happen?
And if you’re still clinging fast to the left-wing mantra of abortion on demand, I’ll ask you another question:
By what moral authority does anybody - mom or abortionist - take the life of Baby Anna?
22. Charlie | November 12th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
@Hoss - for what it’s worth, I used to be pretty ambivalent towards abortion on demand too.
Subconsciously, I think I was more focused on what I’d do if I ever got somebody pregnant. Abortion would certainly be an easy way out for me.
No shotgun weddings, no child support payments, no 18 years+ of responsibility. A nice and easy way out.
But it wasn’t until I really started to consider the issues honestly that the reality of the situation sunk in.
Once I did, I was faced with the only logical conclusion - that abortion really is *objectively* wrong, regardless of my former opinion or ruling of the Supreme Court.
It is the willful killing of another human being - and generally for the sake of convenience.
And that was a hard pill to swallow. Then again, growing up usually is.
23. piratetoby | November 12th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Charlie: Come back here when you have facts. Partial birth abortion is NOT given on demand, and is only performed when there is a medical condition that puts the mother’s life in danger and/or the unborn child will be born severly damaged.
Women CAN NOT walk into an abortion clinic at 8 months pregnant and get an abortion because she’s changed her mind about giving birth. That is not, does not happen and I challenge you to prove otherwise. That scenerio is murder and doctors are not in the murder business.
And it interesting when you explain to Hoss how you came to your opinions and feelings about abortion. Funny thing, it was all about you. Not once did you mention, or give any thought to the woman and how she might feel about having your child. Even though it is in her body for nine months.
Baby Anna? Please stop. I can not discuss this issue with you.
And Hoss, tell me your meaning of “fairly pro-choice”. There is no degree of choice. Your either for it (pro) or against it.
24. Hoss | November 13th, 2009 at 12:07 am
You’re making an emotional argument here, and that’s not right. If you’re going to argue absolutes (abortion is murder or it is not), you must - MUST - separate the emotion.
It’s the same as pro-lifers saying they’re against abortion because “God” or whatever said it’s wrong. No, God said murder was wrong. People have decided that a fetus is or is not a human, not God.
All the same, you cannot argue absolutes with emotion.
25. V | November 13th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Charlie;
Whether I agree with you or not (which I mostly do) I believe that your side of this discussion is one of the most well thought, polite and rational I have seen in a forum like this. I hope you don’t mind that I am going to copy it and may use parts of it in the future.
Pirate, I have disagreed with you in writing on I think only one occasion and I gave up because I realized that you just are not worth discussing anything with. Whether you like it or not, your ass is in fact being handed to you, and you are handling it like an 11 year old.
And, just so we are clear, “pro-choice” should really be termed “pro-abortion”.
As for Charlie’s conversion being “all about him”, conversions usually are. That does not mean he is wrong.
I think the most important point Charlie makes is that human life can not be defined by choice, no matter how badly you want it to be so.
26. Charlie | November 13th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Quoting Pirate: “That scenerio is murder and doctors are not in the murder business.”
I am glad to have you on board.
For further education, do some reading on Gonzales v. Carhart. (SCOTUS 2007 decision)
Here’s an excerpt from the outflow of that decision, taken from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/07/571 though some basic research will provide many other links as well.
Quoting: “Above all, it was important that “alternatives are available to the prohibited procedure.” What was never in question in Kennedy’s opinion, however, was the Roe-Doe-Thornburgh-Casey principle that whenever a woman seeks an abortion, no matter how far along in her pregnancy and no matter her reasons, she is entitled to have one by some method that is reasonably safe for her health.”
As stated earlier, the SCOTUS decision focused on the METHOD of killing Baby Anna. Not on the gestational age.
All this points to the absurdity of the current state of affairs.
No matter who kills Baby Anna or what method they use, she is still very much dead. Which goes back to the point you’ve been trying so hard to evade:
If an assailant kills Anna - crime.
If mom kills Anna by means of an abortionist - no crime.
That is prima facie evidence of an absurdly, devastatingly wrong legal decision.
You’re correct in observing that my previous thinking was badly flawed and all about me. I’ll add that it was spectacularly immature. Like I said, growing up is hard.
My thinking changed when I finally realized it wasn’t about me at all - it was about that new human life that I had created.
That life is by any definition the most innocent and helpless of any on earth.
And protecting the innocent and helpless is an irreducible, fundamental moral obligation.
27. Hoss | November 13th, 2009 at 9:54 am
by the way, my definition of “fairly pro-choice” is the following:
I think abortion is a horrible, barbaric action in almost all cases. You are ending life. There is no debate about that, a fetus is life. Is it human? Should it have all the same rights as born humans do? I don’t think so. Should it have none of those same rights? Again, no.
But, since I do not believe that a fetus is a human being (yet), I believe that the procedure to end this fetus’s life should probably be kept legal. I could make a rather convincing argument either way, but I tend to lean more pro-choice.
28. piratetoby | November 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
to V: “And, just so we are clear, “pro-choice” should really be termed “pro-abortion”.
That statement alone is enough for me to rule out any discussion with you. To be clear, no one is “pro-abortion”.
Hoss: “by the way, my definition of “fairly pro-choice” is the following: I think abortion is a horrible, barbaric action in almost all cases.”
The only part abortion plays in “pro-choice” is that it is an option. Abortion not pro-choice and pro-choice is not abortion.
Pro-choice is very simply a woman’s right to choose how she handles a pregnancy. Abortion, legal within a time frame (<90 days) is an option if she choose.
And someone posted me as being too emotional to discuss this rationally. If my posts appear to be emotional in any way, these “emotions” are not the result of the nature of the issue. The emotions kick in because I have a real problem with anyone discussing an issue of which they are woefully ill-informed and/or use hypothetical cases which have no credibility. Or are unable to consider how the woman might feel.
29. Hoss | November 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
toby - abortion is the very heart of the debate between pro-choice and pro-life, you can’t minimize it as simply “an option”, when it is, in fact, the entirety of the debate.
And all the same, whatever the reason, whenever you inject emotion into a debate, you start to lose. Charlie’s hypothetical cases are spot on: it’s a “choice” if the woman aborts the fetus, it’s “murder” if someone kills both the mother and fetus. Again I ask what if the woman is on her way to get an abortion and is killed by a drunk? Why is the drunk sometimes charged with two counts? Consistency cuts both ways sometimes.
And frankly, I couldn’t give two goddamns about how the woman feels. This issue is so far beyond “how some woman feels” that bringing it up pretty much automatically invalidates any input you add to the debate.
When debating whether a fetus is a human life or is not, you MUST separate the emotional aspect from it. Frankly, it’s amusing that you don’t see this. I thought you were smarter than this.
30. piratetoby | November 13th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Hoss:
“And frankly, I couldn’t give two goddamns about how the woman feels. This issue is so far beyond “how some woman feels” that bringing it up pretty much automatically invalidates any input you add to the debate.”
PERFECT! Why would you give a rat’s ass how the woman feel? I mean, we’re only taking about her body…..her own body……not your body. Why would a knuckledragger think any differently.
Now that I have your attention, read again why I’ve brought emotion into the debate.
THE EMOTION HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE FETUS/HUMAN LIFE DEBATE.
The emotion is anger. Anger that, as typical w/pro-life advocates, silly, pesky little things like FACTS are never used. Typically by men.
Amusing you say? Here’s the laugh riot, you don’t even play in the same league as I do when it comes to being smart.
Mr. “Fairly” Pro-Choice who’s all concerned about a few cells commonly referred to as a “fetus” yet readily admits giving less than 2 goddamns about the woman who’s body will be the home to said cells for the next nine months. Months that include: morning sickness, weight gain, mood swings, hormonal changes, abstinance from alcohol…..just to name a few.
Yeah, f**k how a woman feels. We’re men! We rule! We don’t have to endure pregnancy, so why should we care?
God, you are a true embarassment to men. I mean that in all sincerity. Real smart guy.
31. Jim | November 13th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
see, I told you Pirate is really a chick.
32. piratetoby | November 13th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Jim: I’ve been waiting for your last post. Two whole hours….what took you so long?
So your premise is, anyone who is so passionate about a woman’s right to choose is either a baby chick or a woman?
And Hoss, some closing words: do us all a favor and stay put on the Ponderosa. There is a rear end homonymous with your moniker waiting for you to go all Catherine the Great on it. Trust me, with your lack of compassion for women, no woman would be interested in you. No man would be either.
Giddyup
33. Marco | November 15th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Anyone catch Michelle McFake Hero the other night? She proclaimed that she would have signed up for the army the day after 9/11 but she is deaf in one ear so the Army wouldn’t take her.
34. Hoss | November 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Toby lost his shit!
Emotional decisions are usually the worst made. Good luck with all that!
35. piratetoby | November 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Hoss: If losing my shit means that I have written you and your thoughts and opinions off, then you’re right.
Emotion has nothing to do with my decision. A woman has a right to abort a fetus within the first 90 days of a pregnancy. Simple.
So, Hoss, I win. And you lose. And in the same spirit of you not caring how a woman feels when we’re talking about her rights in regards to her own body, I don’t care about you and how you feel. TOO BAD.
Good luck with all your moral arguments. The law supersedes them all.
36. Hoss | November 16th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I made no such moral arguments. It’s pretty funny to see you transpose other people’s opinions on me.
I said I was pro choice; that abortion should be legal. Yes, I used the modifier “fairly” in there, but that doesn’t negate it.
I find your vitriol and ad hominem both amusing and a little sad. But hey, such is life.
I guess we’re done here now, since all you’re doing is insulting everyone who disagrees with you. How very open minded of you!
37. Dr. Quincy, M.E. | November 16th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Can we get back to Mel Robbins voicing the ad for the day spa that offers enemas?
38. piratetoby | November 16th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
DOCTOR……they’re colonics, not enemas.
If they wanted to triple their business, they’d hire Mel to administer them.
39. V | November 18th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Sounds pretty much like you are pro-abortion to me pirate.
I think it is fairly simple:
You state you think a woman has a right to choose, yes? That choice has multiple facets.
The first is a choice whether to abort or not. To make that choice, you have to dehumanize the life living there and call “it” a fetus, zygote, or whatever term you pick. No reasonable person thinks it is okay to kill a child.
The second part of that choice is “rights”. By making a choice to abort you are saying that the life living in the womb has less of a right to live than the mother has to kill it.
The third is economic (not so simple). If the mother “chooses” that the baby is a life, and delivers, the father is bound to support because he “made his choice when he had sex”. The mothers “choice” is more important.
If the mother “chooses” to abort, the father has no right (despite making his choice by having sex) to keep his baby alive.
Charlie summed it up perfectly when he stated “that the value of this human being’s life is determined by the opinion of somebody else”.
You answered that “A FETUS is not a baby”. I submit that a fetus is in fact a human baby, deserving the same rights as any other human.
Read : http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_human_rights/Scientists_Attest_To_Life_Beginning_At_Conception.shtml
And: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed