or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Occupy Member Creates FB Page Praising Philly Copy Killers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Occupy Member Creates FB Page Praising Philly Copy Killers

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

A disgusting, sub-human piece of slime created a graphic FB page (now taken down) "supporting" the killers of a Philly police officer.  After mass public outrage, the page was taken down (proud to be one of those who reported it).  The piece of crap even said that he wanted $2,000 to take it down, and that the entire thing was "a social commentary."   By the way, he also created a "Kill Mitt Romney" page, which the Secret Service is investigating.   

 

The point?  Well, I thought we should apply the the "Akin standard" here:  Clearly, this man represents Occupy.  Why will you not condemn Occupy and its Democrat masters?  Your silence is tacit approval.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 24

Someone COMPLETELY misunderstands the "Akin standard" and how it applies to the rest of the Republican party.  Your conclusion is utterly absurd.  If there's even a modicum of sincerity behind this thread, we are witnessing the ravings of someone who is hopelessly partisan and blind to logic and reason.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #3 of 24

How did Marv hack into BR's account?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

A disgusting, sub-human piece of slime created a graphic FB page (now taken down) "supporting" the killers of a Philly police officer.  After mass public outrage, the page was taken down (proud to be one of those who reported it).  The piece of crap even said that he wanted $2,000 to take it down, and that the entire thing was "a social commentary."   By the way, he also created a "Kill Mitt Romney" page, which the Secret Service is investigating.   

 

The point?  Well, I thought we should apply the the "Akin standard" here:  Clearly, this man represents Occupy.  Why will you not condemn Occupy and its Democrat masters?  Your silence is tacit approval.   

 

Certainly, if this guy is a senior member of the Democratic Party standing for the Senate.

post #5 of 24

The type of person who posts a death threats, via the internet of all means (!!!!!!) to presidential candidates or other secret service protected individuals are either complete idiots/morons, or under the influence of intoxicants, or doing so under instruction/order/reward to tarnish the organization with which they publicly identify. 

 

This incident *might* have been one of the army of numerous infiltrators that derailed Occupy Wall Street, so easily... although we will probably never know, as OWS had no vetting or screening procedures, no security and no proper organization. It was also set up to fail right from the start. 

 

Of course, nothing changes the underlying problems that prompted Occupy in the first place - serial crime and corruption in the financial sector which remains largely unpoliced, uninvestigated and unpunished. The love of money, materialism and jungle law capitalism is America's (current) religion, and to challenge such is regarded by mainstream society as blasphemy.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

....jungle law capitalism...

 

Huh?

 

Zoinks.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Someone COMPLETELY misunderstands the "Akin standard" and how it applies to the rest of the Republican party.  Your conclusion is utterly absurd.  If there's even a modicum of sincerity behind this thread, we are witnessing the ravings of someone who is hopelessly partisan and blind to logic and reason.

 

Akin is not a "senior" member of the GOP as muppetry claims, nor does his ridiculous statement about "legitimate rape" and "shutting that down" reflect the views of the Republican party.  His position on abortion, while being something you utterly disagree with, is not the issue here.  

 

And no, I wasn't actually serious.  But thanks for the personal attack, and for flying odd the handle.  It was somewhat amusing.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Someone COMPLETELY misunderstands the "Akin standard" and how it applies to the rest of the Republican party.  Your conclusion is utterly absurd.  If there's even a modicum of sincerity behind this thread, we are witnessing the ravings of someone who is hopelessly partisan and blind to logic and reason.

 

Akin is not a "senior" member of the GOP as muppetry claims, nor does his ridiculous statement about "legitimate rape" and "shutting that down" reflect the views of the Republican party.  His position on abortion, while being something you utterly disagree with, is not the issue here.  

 

And no, I wasn't actually serious.  But thanks for the personal attack, and for flying odd the handle.  It was somewhat amusing.  

 

I didn't claim that, but now that you mention it - what does it take to become a senior member of the party? Not just a seat in Congress obviously. Not membership of the Armed Services Committee, Budget Committee or Science, Space and Technology Committees either.  Republican Study Committee, Tea Party Caucus? Of course not. Will a Senate seat do the trick, or would he still just be a junior nutcase with nothing at all to do with the mainstream GOP? And what, exactly, is this about, if not his position on abortion? Yes, yes, I know - you were just kidding.

post #9 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I didn't claim that, but now that you mention it - what does it take to become a senior member of the party? Not just a seat in Congress obviously. Not membership of the Armed Services Committee, Budget Committee or Science, Space and Technology Committees either.  Republican Study Committee, Tea Party Caucus? Of course not. Will a Senate seat do the trick, or would he still just be a junior nutcase with nothing at all to do with the mainstream GOP? And what, exactly, is this about, if not his position on abortion? Yes, yes, I know - you were just kidding.

 

It's not a question of whether Akin has anything to do with the GOP.  Of course he did...he was and is the endorsed GOP candidate for Senate in Missouri.  The point is that his outrageously stupid comments are not indicative of the GOP platform on abortion.  The GOP/Romney/Ryan don't believe that a woman's body can tell the difference between pregnancies from rape vs. consensual sex.  They also have never used the term "legitimate rape."   Moreover, the entire GOP establishment denounced Akin's comments and told him to drop out of the race.  My comment on the Occupy member and his page was merely a humorous way to turn the tables.  Republicans could easily try to tie the Democratic party to all kinds of nutbaggery committed by their own.  But they typically don't, unless said positions came from leadership or high ranking members, like Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton(s), etc.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I didn't claim that, but now that you mention it - what does it take to become a senior member of the party? Not just a seat in Congress obviously. Not membership of the Armed Services Committee, Budget Committee or Science, Space and Technology Committees either.  Republican Study Committee, Tea Party Caucus? Of course not. Will a Senate seat do the trick, or would he still just be a junior nutcase with nothing at all to do with the mainstream GOP? And what, exactly, is this about, if not his position on abortion? Yes, yes, I know - you were just kidding.

 

It's not a question of whether Akin has anything to do with the GOP.  Of course he did...he was and is the endorsed GOP candidate for Senate in Missouri.  The point is that his outrageously stupid comments are not indicative of the GOP platform on abortion.  The GOP/Romney/Ryan don't believe that a woman's body can tell the difference between pregnancies from rape vs. consensual sex.  They also have never used the term "legitimate rape."   Moreover, the entire GOP establishment denounced Akin's comments and told him to drop out of the race.  My comment on the Occupy member and his page was merely a humorous way to turn the tables.  Republicans could easily try to tie the Democratic party to all kinds of nutbaggery committed by their own.  But they typically don't, unless said positions came from leadership or high ranking members, like Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton(s), etc.   

 

Fair enough - I agree there is plenty of nutbaggery on both sides.  But the separation is actually rather less than the GOP would like, since Ryan and Akin were co-sponsors of a bill (No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act) that, while not quite in the league of Akin's recent remarks, was very troubling, both in its intent and its reference to "forcible rape". I'm sure that you can see why this makes a lot of people nervous of the connection, and somewhat disbelieving of the currents attempts to distance the GOP from those sentiments. Especially with a significant segment of the party vociferously defending Akin.

post #11 of 24

SDW just won't acknowledge that the GOP isn't necessarily upset at Akin for his views but rather with being so transparent about what so many of them actually believe.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW just won't acknowledge that the GOP isn't necessarily upset at Akin for his views but rather with being so transparent about what so many of them actually believe.  

 

I'm sure there is a percentage of Republicans that have Akin's views regarding no exceptions for abortion. However I'm certain there are a much larger percentage of abortion supporters that support third trimester abortions and infanticide including Barack Obama himself.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 24

Democrats vs Republicans. Bloods vs Crips. Everton vs Liverpool. Protestants vs Catholics. My gang's better than your gang. My God's better than your God. Yeah, right.

 

Come ON people. Wise up.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Democrats vs Republicans. Bloods vs Crips. Everton vs Liverpool. Protestants vs Catholics. My gang's better than your gang. My God's better than your God. Yeah, right.

 

Come ON people. Wise up.

 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW just won't acknowledge that the GOP isn't necessarily upset at Akin for his views but rather with being so transparent about what so many of them actually believe.  

 

I'm sure there is a percentage of Republicans that have Akin's views regarding no exceptions for abortion. However I'm certain there are a much larger percentage of abortion supporters that support third trimester abortions and infanticide including Barack Obama himself.

 

I agree with your first statement, since it is espoused policy for sections of the party. I rather doubt that your second one is correct - but do you have any citations to support it?

post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW just won't acknowledge that the GOP isn't necessarily upset at Akin for his views but rather with being so transparent about what so many of them actually believe.  

I'm sure there is a percentage of Republicans that have Akin's views regarding no exceptions for abortion. However I'm certain there are a much larger percentage of abortion supporters that support third trimester abortions and infanticide including Barack Obama himself.

I agree with your first statement, since it is espoused policy for sections of the party. I rather doubt that your second one is correct - but do you have any citations to support it?

Sure. Obama has voted against bills which prevent infanticide. He has never voted to restrict abortion in any form or manner including late-term abortions. He has voted against bills whereby doctors would have to give support and care to babies born alive after an abortion attempt.

His record is the proof.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW just won't acknowledge that the GOP isn't necessarily upset at Akin for his views but rather with being so transparent about what so many of them actually believe.  

I'm sure there is a percentage of Republicans that have Akin's views regarding no exceptions for abortion. However I'm certain there are a much larger percentage of abortion supporters that support third trimester abortions and infanticide including Barack Obama himself.

I agree with your first statement, since it is espoused policy for sections of the party. I rather doubt that your second one is correct - but do you have any citations to support it?

Sure. Obama has voted against bills which prevent infanticide. He has never voted to restrict abortion in any form or manner including late-term abortions. He has voted against bills whereby doctors would have to give support and care to babies born alive after an abortion attempt.

His record is the proof.

 

OK - we clearly have very different ideas of both citations and proof, and I'm curious whether or not you know that you are grossly misrepresenting the infanticide issue by simply repeating the more extreme right-wing slant on this. Even the most cursory check into the history of the both the lllinois and draft Congressional born-alive bills (to which I assume you refer) debunks that assertion. Obama did both abstain and vote against the Illinois bill, not because he disagreed with that particular provision (or because, as was stupidly portrayed by some, he wanted doctors to kill live babies), but because it was already covered in other legislation and because parts of it contradicted existing law. It does provide a nice opportunity to attack, but does not that misuse of matters of historical record make you even slightly uncomfortable?

 

There are plenty of reasonable areas for Republicans to attack the current Democratic record; resorting to this kind of nonsense might appeal to the party base, but they are not going to win over many independents by insulting their intelligence.

post #18 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Fair enough - I agree there is plenty of nutbaggery on both sides.  But the separation is actually rather less than the GOP would like, since Ryan and Akin were co-sponsors of a bill (No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act) that, while not quite in the league of Akin's recent remarks, was very troubling, both in its intent and its reference to "forcible rape". I'm sure that you can see why this makes a lot of people nervous of the connection, and somewhat disbelieving of the currents attempts to distance the GOP from those sentiments. Especially with a significant segment of the party vociferously defending Akin.

 

The separation is enormous.  The position on abortion is not the issue.  There are many people who disagree with "no exceptions," but given Roe v. Wade, it's a moot argument anyway.   As for a significant segment of the party "defending Akin," whom would that be?  I heard NO Republican do so.  Every major GOP member and even the conservative media pushed him hard to drop out.  The nominee told him to drop out.  There's not much more than can do, can they?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

SDW just won't acknowledge that the GOP isn't necessarily upset at Akin for his views but rather with being so transparent about what so many of them actually believe.  

 

That depends on what "views" you are referring to.  If Akin doesn't favor exceptions as indicated, then sure...there are Republicans that agree.  But his comments on a woman's body and such?  Uh, no.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - we clearly have very different ideas of both citations and proof, and I'm curious whether or not you know that you are grossly misrepresenting the infanticide issue by simply repeating the more extreme right-wing slant on this. Even the most cursory check into the history of the both the lllinois and draft Congressional born-alive bills (to which I assume you refer) debunks that assertion. Obama did both abstain and vote against the Illinois bill, not because he disagreed with that particular provision (or because, as was stupidly portrayed by some, he wanted doctors to kill live babies), but because it was already covered in other legislation and because parts of it contradicted existing law. It does provide a nice opportunity to attack, but does not that misuse of matters of historical record make you even slightly uncomfortable?

 

There are plenty of reasonable areas for Republicans to attack the current Democratic record; resorting to this kind of nonsense might appeal to the party base, but they are not going to win over many independents by insulting their intelligence.

 

You really should read this.    

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Fair enough - I agree there is plenty of nutbaggery on both sides.  But the separation is actually rather less than the GOP would like, since Ryan and Akin were co-sponsors of a bill (No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act) that, while not quite in the league of Akin's recent remarks, was very troubling, both in its intent and its reference to "forcible rape". I'm sure that you can see why this makes a lot of people nervous of the connection, and somewhat disbelieving of the currents attempts to distance the GOP from those sentiments. Especially with a significant segment of the party vociferously defending Akin.

 

The separation is enormous.  The position on abortion is not the issue.  There are many people who disagree with "no exceptions," but given Roe v. Wade, it's a moot argument anyway.   As for a significant segment of the party "defending Akin," whom would that be?  I heard NO Republican do so.  Every major GOP member and even the conservative media pushed him hard to drop out.  The nominee told him to drop out.  There's not much more than can do, can they?  

 
 

 

I agree that the mainstream party has not supported him and my point was not a criticism of the GOP, but many conservative religious groups and the Missouri Tea Party have expressed support. My observation was that the lack of universal condemnation on the far right alarms many moderates whom the GOP needs to attract to win the next election.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

OK - we clearly have very different ideas of both citations and proof, and I'm curious whether or not you know that you are grossly misrepresenting the infanticide issue by simply repeating the more extreme right-wing slant on this. Even the most cursory check into the history of the both the lllinois and draft Congressional born-alive bills (to which I assume you refer) debunks that assertion. Obama did both abstain and vote against the Illinois bill, not because he disagreed with that particular provision (or because, as was stupidly portrayed by some, he wanted doctors to kill live babies), but because it was already covered in other legislation and because parts of it contradicted existing law. It does provide a nice opportunity to attack, but does not that misuse of matters of historical record make you even slightly uncomfortable?

 

There are plenty of reasonable areas for Republicans to attack the current Democratic record; resorting to this kind of nonsense might appeal to the party base, but they are not going to win over many independents by insulting their intelligence.

 

You really should read this.

 

I had read it. It supports my argument, so I'm not clear what your point is. On the infanticide issue, this is what it has to say:

 

 

Quote: From Obama and Infanticide: A Matter of Definition

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won’t try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."

 

The assertion that Obama is pro-infanticide is, in any case, so asinine and unbelievable that even if one were able to construe something he had said as meaning that, to make that argument just comes over as desperate sophistry, when, as I said, there are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to differ. It's a bit like continuing to assert that Apple is trying to patent rectangles.

post #20 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I agree that the mainstream party has not supported him and my point was not a criticism of the GOP, but many conservative religious groups and the Missouri Tea Party have expressed support. My observation was that the lack of universal condemnation on the far right alarms many moderates whom the GOP needs to attract to win the next election.

I had read it. It supports my argument, so I'm not clear what your point is. On the infanticide issue, this is what it has to say:

 

 

 

The assertion that Obama is pro-infanticide is, in any case, so asinine and unbelievable that even if one were able to construe something he had said as meaning that, to make that argument just comes over as desperate sophistry, when, as I said, there are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to differ. It's a bit like continuing to assert that Apple is trying to patent rectangles.

 

1.  There are always going to be extremists on both sides.  Other than some fringe elements, the condemnation was universal.  As for the Tea Party, you'd be hard pressed to show any real support.  

 

2.  I'm not arguing Obama supports infanticide.  He did refuse to support efforts to make such abortions illegal, however.  The reason is that he's radically pro-abortion and would not support anything that could lead to a fetus being legally considered a person at some point.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I agree that the mainstream party has not supported him and my point was not a criticism of the GOP, but many conservative religious groups and the Missouri Tea Party have expressed support. My observation was that the lack of universal condemnation on the far right alarms many moderates whom the GOP needs to attract to win the next election.

I had read it. It supports my argument, so I'm not clear what your point is. On the infanticide issue, this is what it has to say:

 

 

 

The assertion that Obama is pro-infanticide is, in any case, so asinine and unbelievable that even if one were able to construe something he had said as meaning that, to make that argument just comes over as desperate sophistry, when, as I said, there are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to differ. It's a bit like continuing to assert that Apple is trying to patent rectangles.

 

1.  There are always going to be extremists on both sides.  Other than some fringe elements, the condemnation was universal.  As for the Tea Party, you'd be hard pressed to show any real support.  

 

2.  I'm not arguing Obama supports infanticide.  He did refuse to support efforts to make such abortions illegal, however.  The reason is that he's radically pro-abortion and would not support anything that could lead to a fetus being legally considered a person at some point.  

 

I hope you are correct about the Tea Party.  Plenty of noise coming out of the Missouri branch though.

 

Not sure what you mean by "such abortions".  There are already laws in place governing abortion.  The desire to change those based on religious definitions of the beginning of life is understandable, but has no more legitimacy than any other point of view since the US is not (yet) a religious state.  Those who argue for freedom of religion would do well to reflect that it also implies freedom from religion.  Freedom of religion is exercised quite easily in this case - no one is required to have an abortion.  It does not empower those who feel that way to impose their views on abortion on others who feel differently.

post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I hope you are correct about the Tea Party.  Plenty of noise coming out of the Missouri branch though.

 

Not sure what you mean by "such abortions".  There are already laws in place governing abortion.  The desire to change those based on religious definitions of the beginning of life is understandable, but has no more legitimacy than any other point of view since the US is not (yet) a religious state.  Those who argue for freedom of religion would do well to reflect that it also implies freedom from religion.  Freedom of religion is exercised quite easily in this case - no one is required to have an abortion.  It does not empower those who feel that way to impose their views on abortion on others who feel differently.

 

By "such abortions" he means late term abortions. Opposition to them has nothing to do with religious definitions and has everything to do with science, understanding development and recognizing human rights. These laws attempt to address the gray areas previous laws did not and likewise to fill in the gaps.

 

Late term abortions, as ruled by the courts, must consider more than just the rights of the mother because the fetus has become viable by that stage. That is Jesus Juice talking or a burning bush. That is science being considered.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I hope you are correct about the Tea Party.  Plenty of noise coming out of the Missouri branch though.

 

Not sure what you mean by "such abortions".  There are already laws in place governing abortion.  The desire to change those based on religious definitions of the beginning of life is understandable, but has no more legitimacy than any other point of view since the US is not (yet) a religious state.  Those who argue for freedom of religion would do well to reflect that it also implies freedom from religion.  Freedom of religion is exercised quite easily in this case - no one is required to have an abortion.  It does not empower those who feel that way to impose their views on abortion on others who feel differently.

 

By "such abortions" he means late term abortions. Opposition to them has nothing to do with religious definitions and has everything to do with science, understanding development and recognizing human rights. These laws attempt to address the gray areas previous laws did not and likewise to fill in the gaps.

 

Late term abortions, as ruled by the courts, must consider more than just the rights of the mother because the fetus has become viable by that stage. That is Jesus Juice talking or a burning bush. That is science being considered.

 

We'll have to agree to differ. I think it's all about religious views and definitions - the strong divide in stance on this, as with other "socially conservative" agendas (such as opposing gay marriage), between the two parties correlates well with the divergence in religious belief. And I think that this is really hurting the GOP at the polls. It will, once again, be a major distraction in the election.  If Republicans stuck to traditional economic and foreign policy issues and stayed out of people's personal lives then I would expect them to win handily, even with a liability like Romney at the helm, but they scare away too many moderates with all this stuff, and the sad part, at least in my view, is that the grass roots of the party doesn't seem to recognize it.  

post #24 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I hope you are correct about the Tea Party.  Plenty of noise coming out of the Missouri branch though.

 

Not sure what you mean by "such abortions".  There are already laws in place governing abortion.  The desire to change those based on religious definitions of the beginning of life is understandable, but has no more legitimacy than any other point of view since the US is not (yet) a religious state.  Those who argue for freedom of religion would do well to reflect that it also implies freedom from religion.  Freedom of religion is exercised quite easily in this case - no one is required to have an abortion.  It does not empower those who feel that way to impose their views on abortion on others who feel differently.

 

"Such abortions" means live birth abortions and partial birth abortions.  And the pro-life people don't argue their case based on freedom of religion.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Occupy Member Creates FB Page Praising Philly Copy Killers