Posted on 02/18/2008 9:57:49 AM PST by 50mm
To vomit, or not to vomit: That is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to dispose of one’s supper, or to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous equivocation, and take arms against a sea of fellows and colleagues, and by writing in opposition, reveal thoughts conceived in fraudulence.
Perhaps that sounds like so much gobbledygook to you, and no doubt, Shakespeare is flopping about in his coffin like a grounded catfish. Therefore, you may have some sense of my pent-up irritation, having endured as a witness to the systematic programming of my fellow citizens.
Conscientious, moral people have been played like a gypsy’s violin. You have been trained by repetitious exercise, like so many carpet-wetting puppies that now, without hesitation, spew the script that was written for you by power-lusting, left-wing democrats. I have watched this unfold from the beginning, unwilling to acknowledge a likelihood that these political whores could actually seduce the common-sense out of people I love and respect.
Yet here we are, in the midst of caucus mania. I now wear my naiveté like a loin cloth, embarrassed by my blind faith and horrified to contemplate the consequences this nation may endure. God help me, for my will to crawl under a rock and hide grows stronger each day.
Yes, common sense and reasoned thinking has been replaced by a simple mantra, practiced on the internet by multitudes of liberal, if not outright anarchistic malcontents; each given to an orgasmic desire to use the “F” word often and with malice.
Whether you say it precisely this way or not, the following is what you have purchased, in essence, as the wisdom of enlightened thinking: “F…” Bush, the “moron who lied” and now the “soldiers have died”, and “he did it for the oil to make his rich oil buddies even richer” and “he did it because Saddam tried to kill his father.”
So, despite the unified resolve we all felt and thought on that infamous September day, just seven years ago, the truth of the matter reveals that a large number of America’s people haven’t the intestinal fortitude to stand for anything. The fatigue of having our sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, mothers, fathers, co-workers, friends, and neighbors engaged in a very real war has a great many hollering uncle.
May I say that such a turn of thinking is just plain ignorant? Does that make you angry, that I might challenge your lack of stamina and scold you for it?
What follows is the truth, and if you have any sense left, you will consider what I have to say with your hackles down and your nostrils keenly sensitized to the odor that surrounds the lying, envious, power-lusting democrats who have had their way with you. Yes, you should indeed feel as if you have been drugged and sodomized, because that is not far off the mark from what they have done to this nation.
Truth #1: There has never been a war that “feels right.” War is hell, and the day we find ourselves in a war that we “want” to be in, is a day I never want to see.
Truth #2: There has never been a war that has not required sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, mothers, fathers, co-workers, friends, and neighbors to be in danger of dying or being horribly wounded. The fact that we all know someone who has been to Iraq once or twice or three times is not a reason to say that we should not be there, or that we should never have gone in the first place.
Truth #3: President Bush did not invent war. America has engaged in twelve conflicts since 1775 that could be recognized by the average citizen as a “war.” In that time, America has lost 656,041 military personnel in battle. Another 15,267 have died in-theater, but due to circumstances other than battle. Some 525,930 died while serving, but not in-theater. There have been 1,498,930 military personnel that have suffered non-mortal wounds. As painful and heartbreaking as it is, the Iraq/Afghanistan actions have been undertaken with an astoundingly low number of casualties, both dead and wounded.
Truth #4: Our actions in Iraq have caused a severe disruption to Osama bin-Laden’s al-Qaeda terror network, and their ability to organize and carry out more attacks on the United States and Israel. The war on terror cannot be fought and/or won in Afghanistan. Killing Osama bin-Laden would be gratifying, but would have little effect on ending the threat of continued terrorism aimed at Americans.
Are you enamored by the thought of a President Obama, or a President Hillary Clinton? Have you considered that both are committed to unencumbered abortion on demand? Have you been listening to the conversations, regarding the realities of abortion?
The Supreme Court upheld some state decisions to curtail the practice of partial birth abortion procedures. You know, of course, that in this procedure a baby is completely delivered (feet first) except for his or her head. Then the doctor places the point of his scissors at the base of the baby’s skull, and stabs a hole into the child’s skull. Finally, the suction tube is used to remove the baby’s brain, causing the head to “deflate.”
Barack had this to say (found on Obama’s campaign website) following the Supreme Court’s decision: “I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.”
Did you know that Hillary Clinton believes that Barack Obama is not “pro-abortion” enough, and that if Barack Obama is elected, abortion will be at risk in America? Does this settle okay with you, in your gut, as you visualize a perfectly formed baby, lying in ragged pieces on a stainless steel tray? You understand, don’t you, that this happens at the Planned Parenthood clinic down the street from your home, several times a day. Indeed, many early abortions result in bloody blobs of tissue in a jar, but until the moment they were vacuumed out of their mother’s womb, they were boys and girls.
As you curse the “F……” President Bush for making soldiers die in Iraq, and as you caucus in glee for Obama or Clinton because they will “end the suffering”, please note the following important numbers: Since the Revolutionary War through September of 2006, (about 230 years) a total of 2,693,128 American military men and women have been killed or have been non-mortally wounded. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, (about 33 years) there have been more than 48,000,000 children killed by legal abortion procedures in the United States.
Let me spell that out for you, just to make sure the warm fuzzies you have for Obama and Clinton get a firm grip on your guts. That was Forty-eight Million children that have been killed in the last 33 years. Many of them were fully formed and felt the agony of dismemberment (claims of no pain are not factual, and in fact, pain may actually be heightened due to the immature nervous systems).
Those terminated by partial birth procedures, medically known as: intact dilation and extraction (also referred to as IDX and intrauterine cranial decompression) and dilation and evacuation (D&E), had the sensation on their little feet of a Doctor’s tender touch, just prior to the jolt of having a surgical instrument jammed into the back of their little heads.
Think it through again… won’t you please?
the failure to protect the innocent, and the advocacy of it, surely must be the first mark of a despot, or a would-be despot.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Hitlery would certainly continue the baby-killing industry - Planned Abortion (If it's really Planned Parenthood, why don't any of their "patients" go there because they are trying to be parents?)
And Liberals call out troops baby killers!
I pray that the Lord will bless and protect these that were murdered. I also pray that he bring his full vengeance and wraith down upon on their killer's heads.
What a bunch of bullcrap. Millions of people, including myself, think such statements misleading and deceptive. There just isn't enough development of the brain of a fetus to make a person. There may be a heart beat, there may be nerves firing, etc. But that isn't enough a make a person.
I'm a conservative, but not a bleeding-heart conservative. People that talk about "murdered babies" are hoping that they can tug on my heart strings and manipulate me.
My head rules my heart on this. To me that's what being a conservative is about.
Well, speaking as a former fetus whose heart was beating and whose nerves were firing, I thank God that my mother thought I was a person and allowed me to be born.
And by the way, I was not a chicken fetus, or a cat fetus, or a dog fetus, but a HUMAN fetus. As were you, sir.
And that’s enough to make you a human being, AND a person.
People that talk about "murdered babies" are hoping that they can tug on my heart strings and manipulate me.
Looks like it's working. If you were certain of your position, maybe you wouldn't seem so angry.
Public policy must be based on facts, not on unverifiable metaphysical theories.
Your assertion that, in order to be a “person,” a human being’s brain must reach a certain stage of development, is a totally gratuitous, unverifiable claim.
The biological FACT, on the other hand, is that from conception, an individual homo sapiens exists, which is genetically distinct from the mother and the father, is alive and growing, and is, at every moment, progressing toward full development as an adult human being.
You are free to cling to your personal, metaphysical, religious notions about who is a “person” and who isn’t. But you are wrong to try to impose your religious views on others, as you are attempting to do when you say: “My personal religious view is that you are not a ‘person,’ therefore you die.”
You do the same thing by suggesting that, because a fetus is "genetically distinct from the mother and the father, is alive and growing, and is, at every moment, progressing toward full development as an adult human being", that the fetus is a person. You just don't have a courage to say it, though you imply it.
You bash me for using "unverifiable metaphysical theories", then have the nerve to sneak in your own theory.
At least have some balls and be honest about your position instead of being a hypocrite.
Dealing with shallow thinkers in makes me angry. I guess I expect too much of people, though.
That's enough? Really?
I think your standards are too low.
If there is a question of doubt as to when a person becomes a person, should we not err on the side of sparing the life of the person?
Since doctors can save the lives of children born prematurely at earlier and earlier ages, when then does the child become a "person", and how do we pinpoint that date? And if a child is "close" to that date, should we not err on the side of sparing a person?
Great post.
Freegards
A human fetus IS a person. It is a person at the stage of its life in which it is growing into a baby. Even YOU were a tiny fetus once, in the stage of growing. However, I'm not sure you grew into much of a person.
If you look up person in the dictionary, you'll see that it is defined as human.
If you look up human in the dictionary, you'll see that it is defined as pertaining to people.
If you look up fetus in the dictionary, you'll see that it is defined as the young after its own kind, and in the recognizable structure of its own kind.
A fetus is further defined as the unborn in the stage of life from the 8th week after conception to the moment of birth.
At no stage of its development is a human fetus not a person. It is a person because it is human.
Liberals “define” away their conscience - the unborn are not “fully human”, just like blacks were not back in the 1700’s.
If you ever get into an argument about whether a “fetus” is human, there is a handy set of arguing points out there called “SLED”.
http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7522
“There just isn’t enough development of the brain of a fetus to make a person.”
ah... so those with less brain development should be at the mercy of those with more brain development?
http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7522
“
Is a person’s value defined by his abilities, by what he can or can’t do? Do we forfeit our rights as human persons because we don’t have the capabilities others have? Do stronger, more capable, more intelligent people have more rights than others? Do human beings become disposable simply because at their level of development they are helpless, defenseless, and dependent? Human value transcends abilities or the lack of abilities.
“
I didn’t try to sneak in anything. I cited the PHYSICAL characteristics of the embryo/fetus/baby that make it clear that it is a living homo sapiens.
And it is homicide to kill ANY living homo sapiens.
I said nothing, and implied nothing, regarding whether ANY living homo sapiens is a “person.”
You, on the other hand, dismiss the PHYSICAL facts, and argue that the absence of “personhood”—a completely invisible, unverifiable “something,” whose absence or presence is invisible and unverifiable—is grounds for denying some homo sapiens the protection of the homicide laws.
I say simply that the totally gratuitous assertion that “personhood” is absent from some living homo sapiens is insufficient grounds to deny them the equal protection of the homicide laws.
People like mc6809e observe that larger, stronger people are able to kill smaller, weaker people.
They would like to ally themselves with the stronger, larger people, and would like the freedom to kill the smaller, weaker people.
So they construct arguments and slogans that provide cover for the killing they want to do. They are willing to corrupt any concept—such as “choice,” or “freedom”—and any institution—the Supreme Court, the medical profession, the Constitution—in order to keep up the killing.
It’s happened over and over in history. Whenever there is enough desire to murder lots of people, an ideology to “justify” it will be constructed.
Ultimately, it comes down to the Law of the Jungle. mc6809e is just one of those who wish to enjoy the freedom to live by the Law of the Jungle.
This is exactly why socialism is attractive to some. Those who seek power to control or kill others “institutionalize” this power through government.
I do agree with you that there's no need to exaggerate the facts on abortion in order to win the argument that liberals are clueless numbnuts...nor can we rewrite the constitution to force pregnant women or girls to continue an unwanted pregnacy...
Education, sonograms, and facts help tip the scale toward the pro-life position but emotionalism allows the liberal numbnuts to avoid the intelligent argument and label their opposition as religious numbnuts who distort facts to win.
Our silence and lack of action on the legalized killing of our posterity is tthe reason we have despots.
That's a big, broad brush statement. First of all, I know lots of people who aren't silent and aren't inactive. But we have to act within the law. And we have to change the laws. And it takes time. Generations, obviously.
I do agree that it is within our power to prevent despots from arising. In fact, it is our responsibility to.
He was aghast and tried to frame this barbaric practice as "a woman's right to choose". I motioned to my adopted four-year-old and asked him if that looked like a "choice" to him. I shared with him that she had been scheduled for destruction, but a loving family member was able to convince her mother to place her for adoption instead.
He tried to tell me that the contents of a womb were not really a person. I asked if he had ever seen photographs aborted babies. I asked if he could not reckon the broken, bloodied, dismembered little bodies as the murders of human beings. He got upset and asked me if I had any of those pictures, as if they were some sort of contraband. I told him I did not, whereupon he pursued asking where I had seen them. I asked him why this was important, and he implied to me that only dangerous radicals had possession of such photographs.
I asked him if he thought that the publishing of photographs from Auschwitz, Dachau and Treblinka was the work of dangerous radicals. I asked why the abortion industry is so reluctant to let people see the results of their handiwork.
He never answered my questions.
Instead, he started to wax philosophical about the "population crisis". I shared with him that killing must not be the answer to the "population crisis", if indeed there is one. Charles Dickens wrote about a man who was concerned about the "population crisis" in his time. Permit me to share a bit of that with you from the popular classic, "A Christmas Carol".
"Man," said the Ghost, "if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered what the surplus is and where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be that in the sight of heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. O God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!"
Finally he asked if I thought a fertilized human egg was fully human. When I replied in the affirmative, he rose up to leave saying that we had nothing more to discuss. He touted his Ph.D. credentials with an air that dismissed me as an ignorant rube.
I asked him why, then, the Federal Government imposes a fine of up to $5000 and up to a year in jail for the destruction of an eagle's egg, wilfull or not. He had no answer for this, so I suggested that perhaps the government considers the eagle's egg a prenatal eagle. And if that courtesy is extended to an eagle, why not to a human?
He left wishing me well and asserting my right to my opinions.
He never answered my questions.
But, Mr. Candidate, we are praying for you. We are praying that God would open your eyes to the holocaust being performed in the name of an ideology; an ideology that proclaims some people less human than others, just because they happen to be prenatal. We pray above all that God would open your heart to the salvation offered by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
And you do not need photographs provided by anti-abortion "radicals" to see how much of a little person the "contents of the womb" are.
You can watch the PBS special, "The Miracle of Life" for that.
I highly recommend it.
BDS is a fascinating new branch of an old mental illness: liberalism. I suspect it will take literally years to fade.
Here in the Atlanta area I see these afflicted morons each and every day.
Today I read a bumper sticker that said:
“The only Bush I trust is mine”.
When I read them, as I drive by I look at them so they FULLY understand that I’m perplexed how it is they were released from their mental hospital.
Too funny.
Who made you God?
For a god, you're sure ignorant of the basic facts of human DNA...
“delusional democrats: the warm fuzzies of infanticide.”
correction: psychotic democrats: the warm fuzzy of trying to play king herod.
Ping!
There is no "moment" of conception. There is a continuum or a process which has recognizable stages, but there is no moment.
The moment of conception is when the sperm penetrates the egg, creating a unique combination of DNA supplied by each parent. For believers, it is at this instant that the human soul is infused. What happens after conception is on a continuum, unless, of course, the mother chooses otherwise...
Thanks for the reply. An “instant” is also a matter of belief. There is nothing in the physical world that happens in an “instant”.
Funny, I never used the word “moment.”
Nevertheless, there IS a “moment” of conception. When the nuclei of the ovum and sperm cease to be distinct, and there begins to be a new nucleus which is genetically distinct from the nuclei of the cells off the bodies of either parent, then a new homo sapiens has begun to exist. AND, it begins to act in its own interest at that moment, sending out hormonal signals to the mother’s body for the precise purpose of eliciting from her body the responses necessary to create the most suitable environment for its well-being.
It has been in the interest of the Abortion Pill makers, in particular, to fudge the meaning of “conception,” because they have wanted—through sheer propaganda—to confuse it with implantation. Thus, they can claim that their Pill, which murders humans, doesn’t murder anyone because “conception”—i.e., implantation—hasn’t taken place.
True, there’s no scientific unit of time called the “instant.”
But there is such a thing as meaningless quibbling.
From the time you flip a light switch, to the time that the light bulb heats up sufficiently to enable you to read, do you tap your feet, twiddle your thumbs, have a cigarette?
“Though Mother & Father forsake me, the Lord will take me up’’
—Psalm 27:10
Or they have discovered that it’s just easier to latch onto an evil, facile, brainless cliché and go with the flow.
Can’t argue with you on that. Their defensive reaction to my question was quite a surprise to me.
You are right, I read your post quickly and added “moment” to what I read. But the reduction of conception to a singularity of some sort is a religious belief. Nothing wrong with that, but it should be recognized as such.
When, in your obviously brilliant and oh-so enlightened head, does a person become a person, then?
I never said anything remotely religious. I described a physical event. It can be seen happening through a simple microscope. I have seen it happen in countless educational films.
There is a time when it has not yet happened. There is a time--NOT LONG AFTER--when it HAS happened.
I never said anything about a "moment" or a "singularity." One thing is certain: The time it DOES take, and the actual, physical events that occur, provide proof positive that every act of procured abortion is a homicide. In simpler words: If you LOOK, you can SEE that, by the time of EVERY procured abortion, a living human body exists, and is deliberately destroyed. That's called a murder.
The assertion that anything I wrote is "religious" is preposterous. I haven't discussed anything that can't be seen through a microscope and photographed with a camera. Let me say it again: The assertion that anything I've written is "religious" is preposterous.
The real issue is: What motivates people to make preposterous assertions? I suggest that by far the most common motives are base ones, such as the desire to enjoy the liberty to kill people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
