Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't posting about liberals stealing money earmaked for children an issue involving children? In a liberal's opinion I can see how it wouldn't be, they couldn't care less if another liberal did it, it doesn't qualify as an issue at all. Michael Hussey just proved that by not considering the post anything other than an attack on liberals. In his twisted way of thinking kids come somehwere further down the list than protecting liberals that steal from them.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... every sperm is sacred. Yawn. Jeez, don't you guys ever let up?

S9 Yeah, yeah, yeah... every sperm is sacred. Yawn. Jeez, don't you guys ever let up?

See, you've proven the point. You are showing your total lack of regard for unborn babies. If libs cared for children they would protect the lives of the innocent unborn.

s9,

Are you really this stupid or do you just let a bunch of stupid people post under your name?

One person couldn't be that dense.

Paul, it is most definitely not just you.

Hey! I've got an idea! Why don't we all chip in and get s9's mother an abortion? (retroactive, of course) I mean, he seems so enamored of the "procedure", maybe he'd like to experience it first hand.

In the alternate timeline that s9's dad accidently created as a Time Police Officer back in 1982, s9 was aborted. Aborted by a race of Jewish Yetis out to annihiliate mankind with the help of alien Elvis and LSD zombies created from Army experiments.

Does that mean that s9 is the son of Jean-Claude Van Damme?

Or has Sue been spending too much time in the Time Cube?

No, fatman, more like Sherman, without the rugged, nerdy good looks or intellect.

fatman wrote:
Or has Sue been spending too much time in the Time Cube?

LOL!

good job. and good job for keeping on top of the oil-for-food scandal as well. now figure out where the $8.8 b-b-b-billion dollars "missing" from the iraq reconstruction fund went.

Here's a liberal standard: Why work hard when you can get a handout or steal? And what is easier than stealing from children?

Well, once the LIbEralS numbed society to kids having kids, it was really only a matter of time before they started being OK w/kids killing kids.

NOOO s9!! All sperm is NOT sacred...your's especially.

thank god the people posting here are minority extremeists. only livberal sperm is sacred. all right wing fags should be aborted.

So... Kevin is a child and he want you to write about his issues???

This thread has gotten silly. Sperm can't be aborted so I don't know what s9 is talking about.

Paul makes a good point that when we are talking about children's issues, can't the left think of a better thing to advocate than a young girl wanting an abortion? Wouldn't at least helping those in crisis pregnancies at least come before that?

I mean pro-life or pro-choice, in abortion there is no celebration here. There is no joy. We can all agree on that. Why must this be the number one concern of the left? For over 30 yrs abortions are as legal as ever.

We on the right are the only ones trying to make it rare.

Rightwingsparkle writes: Sperm can't be aborted so I don't know what s9 is talking about.

Did I say that sperm could be aborted? No.

You know full well what I was talking about. Don't pretend to be an idiot all of a sudden because you're caught on the wrong side of the argument.

Rightwingsparkle continues: Paul makes a good point that when we are talking about children's issues, can't the left think of a better thing to advocate than a young girl wanting an abortion?

Maybe if you actually knew what "the Left" says about children's issues— rather than the bullshit you're continually spoon-fed by the TopDownMedia™— you wouldn't have to ask stupid questions like this.

Rightwingsparkle concludes: For over 30 yrs abortions are as legal as ever. We on the right are the only ones trying to make it rare.

No and no. Almost since the very day Roe vs. Wade was decided, there has been a steady erosion of abortion rights in America— in response to persistent activism from those "on the right."

Right-wingers have consistently worked, in remarkable unity, for over thirty years toward the objective of overturning Roe v. Wade, eroding the precedent set in Griswold v. Connecticut, and generally turning back the clock on reproductive rights for women at every level of government. It is a damnable lie to deny the truth of this. What's more, it's a pointless lie— because nobody with any real power believes it.

When you frame the issue of abortion rights as an issue solely about the rights of "unborn children" to be free from "murder" at the hands of their own mothers, it sends a very clear message.

Right-wingers will never be satisfied merely with overturning Roe v. Wade. Once you are successful with that effort, you will not hesitate a single second to start working to criminalize abortion at all stages of pregnancy and maternal health circumstances in every state of the union. To deny this is to make an ass out of yourself.

How can you argue that abortion is the "murder of unborn children" and condone the legality of it under any circumstances?

You aren't trying to make it rare. You're trying to make it a capital offense. Stop talking about it as if you'd be totally satisfied if murdering children— while perfectly legal— was just something that only happened once in awhile, when it was like— you know— really necessary and all.

lin writes: If libs cared for children they would protect the lives of the innocent unborn.

Yeah? Tell it to your "lib" friends. I ain't one of 'em.

(It never ceases to amuse me that so many of the children in these comment forums seem to want to call me a "liberal" without really seeming to know what the word means. I'm no liberal, though I have several close friends who call themselves that. They wouldn't call me that, however...)

I don't even know what TopDownMedia is.

I never said I would be satisfied with the destruction of unborn children "once and a while."

I do want all unborn children protected. But I also realize the reality of the politics of it. My focus is and always has been helping women in crisis pregnancies.

My point was why can't that be your focus as well instead of your insisting on protecting a billion dollar industry that profits off the agony of women.

Rightwingsparkle writes: I never said I would be satisfied with the destruction of unborn children "once and a while." I do want all unborn children protected. But I also realize the reality of the politics of it.

Well, aren't you just a walking demonstration of the power of situational ethics to resolve any moral dilemma? You want children to be protected from murder, but you also "realize the reality of the politics" of criminalizing the murder of children.

Oh, that is just precious. It really is.

Rightwingsparkle continues: My focus is and always has been helping women in crisis pregnancies.

So the child murdering industry is so not your problem. Don't worry your beautiful mind about that. Somebody else will solve that problem for you— and with any luck, you won't have to be held responsible for any of the unpleasant blowback the solution might involve.

How convenient. Forgive me for not sharing your moral outlook on the subject. And you people call me a liberal...

I know its impossible to argue with moonbats like s9 cuz they are so comfortable in their ignorance but lets give it one more try.
Roe vs. Wade treated each trimester separately. Unrestricted abortion was permitted during the 1st. Abortion during the 2nd trimester required court permission. 3rd trimester abortions were not allowed unless the LIFE of the mother was in jeopardy. Roe vs. Wade was slowly changed by judicial decree to the point where the law of the land is abortion on demand. This has resulted in post-viability abortions (PVA), that is, abortions of fully viable CHILDREN! There were 12,000 non-theraputic PVAs in 2002.
I just want to hear s9 say 12,000 murdered children is the price he is willing to pay for "reproductive freedom".

KobeClan implores: I just want to hear s9 say 12,000 murdered children is the price he is willing to pay for "reproductive freedom".

You're going to be disappointed.

It's not my position that fetuses are children and that abortion— even "non-theraputic [sic] PVA"— is murder, so I don't regard your 12,000 abortions per year as a "price" to be paid for reproductive rights. I view them as the exercise of reproductive rights.

You should ask Rightwingsparkle what s/he thinks about the murder of thousands of children per year by a billion dollar industry, and how the "reality of the politics" associated with it allow for a complete disregard of the moral imperative to do something about it.

I'll say it again: if you frame the debate on the premise that fetuses are unborn children and abortion is murder, then you make an ass out of yourself if you don't then demand a world-wide unconditional ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. If you can't bring yourself to call for such a ban, and you continue to frame the debate with such language, then you are an ass, and you deserve to be viciously mocked for it.

dear s9,
Thank you for proving my point. I have 2 questions for you:
1) When does human life begin??
2) At what stage of human life would YOU grant legal protection to a fetus??
I await your moonbat answers with baited breath.
Hint: #1 does have an definitive answer.

KobeClan writes: Thank you for proving my point. I have 2 questions for you...

Oh, not this game again. Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

KobeClan queries: 1) When does human life begin??

Too late. It already began. Regardless of what you might erroneously think, anthropologists don't have a definitive answer for when human life began, but the prevailing theory is that Homo Sapiens diverged from other hominid species around 200,000 years ago.

KobeClan queries: 2) At what stage of human life would YOU grant legal protection to a fetus??

At the completion of live birth, of course.

KobeClan concludes: I await your moonbat answers with baited breath.

The word you were looking for was probably "bated" but that's okay— "baited" will do as well. Oh yeah, and using two question marks doesn't make a question any less stupid or its answers any more relevant to the discussion.

I can't believe this is what passes for intellectual discourse among the anti-abortion right wing.

Dear s9,
I used "baited' intentionally. It worked. I caught a very large moonbat. Again, thank you for proving my point. You are a IDB (intellectually dishonest buffoon). You are comfortable with your ignorance and unwilling to answer any question that will expose your lack of reasoned thought.
The idea that human life begins at birth gives you comfort. To admit the truth would probably be more than your tiny little brain could process. In order to accept abortion on demand, an honest person has to accept the cost, thousands of dead human beings. I'd like to think some day you'll have a BFO (blinding flash of the obvious) but thats a rare occurence with moonbats.

KobeClan continues: I used "baited' intentionally. It worked. I caught a very large moonbat.

Uh huh. Sure you did. By the way, I'm really not a very large moonbat. Small fry, really. I don't even have my own blog. You don't catch very many moonbats, do you?

KobeClan continues: In order to accept abortion on demand, an honest person has to accept the cost, thousands of dead human beings.

Oh, if that's what you're talking about, then Jeez man— how slow can you be? I'm well aware that abortion results in dead human fetuses— amongst other detritus and consequences.

Your point? (You did say you were trying to prove one.)

Or were you just trying to deflect attention away from the fact that your political alliance will not be satisfied until abortion, at all stages of pregnancy and under any conditions, is a capital crime? Come on, KobeClan... either step up and admit that you don't really believe abortion is child murder, or tell us when you think it's really necessary and acceptable to murder children.

Remember: Thou Shall Not Murder. Or have we finally outgrown the Ten Commandments?

Extra kippersnacks for KobeClan if he can catch the verb tense error in my post above.

Dear s9,
Very simple question. When does a human life begin??

KobeClan repeats: Very simple question. When does a human life begin??

That's a different question from the one you asked before.

When you changed the question from "when does human life begin??" to "when does a human life begin??" the semantic meaning of the question changed. By "a human life," I understand you to mean an individual personal experience. Prior to live birth, a fetus does not experience individual personality. At the completion of live birth: that's when an individual personal experience— what I understand you to mean by the phrase "a human life"— begins.

I suppose it's possible you have some other meaning of "a human life" in mind. You didn't explain yourself, so I had to make some assumptions. Forgive me if I mistook your meaning.

Now, moving back to the original topic... do you still want to avoid stepping up and explaining when and under what conditions you think murdering children is a necessary and sufficient policy.

Dear s9,
Its not really a hard question to answer. When does human life begin? It is a hard answer to face for someone like you. You know the answer, but you are unwilling to face the consequences of your beliefs. Its easy. Just repeat after me: The deaths of millions of human beings is the price we pay for reproductive freedom. Don't be an IDB. I reccommend you look in the mirror as you say it over and over: The death of millions of human beings is the price we pay for reproductive freedom. Try it and get back to me.

Dear s9,
Who cares what the cost is, right? Its not like human life has any value, right? So you shouldn't have any trouble dealing with the truth, right?
Just repeat over and over again: The deaths of millions of human beings is a small price to pay for reproductive freedom. You either believe it or you don't. If you believe it, be proud!

KobeClan writes: Just repeat over and over again: The deaths of millions of human beings is a small price to pay for reproductive freedom. You either believe it or you don't. If you believe it, be proud!

I'm not sure what you think that statement is supposed to signify, but from my perspective it isn't particularly hard to say. The phrase "human being" includes lots of wiggle room in its definition when applied to the context of the abortion debate, so it really doesn't take much out of me to say that the death of millions of "human beings" is— and pay particular attention here, because I'm going farther than you are asking me to go— a negligible "price" in the value equation associated with reproductive rights.

I can do this so easily because you aren't requiring me to equate "human beings" with individual personalities. But if you did that, then you would be undermining your own argument. Look, you're the one playing silly linguistic games here, not me. Why is it so difficult for you to say plainly what you mean?

I think I've played along with your pointless and irrelevant questions for quite long enough. If you don't answer the question I put to you in return for the answers I've given here to yours, I'm going to decide that you're unable to discuss the issue of abortion rights seriously.

Either step up and admit that you don't really believe abortion is child murder, or tell us when you think it's really necessary and reasonable to murder children.

Dear s9,
Thank you again for proving my point. The answer to question #1 is, of course, "at conception".
There is no single, correct answer to #2, since it is a question of opinion, not fact.
You might want to rethink your answer,though. Childbirth includes both the cutting of the cord and the delivery of the placenta. Under your answer, a legal abortion could be performed after the fetus has been completely removed from his mother's body. Thats probably not what you meant, but words do mean things.
I do have a third question. Is your soul really so dank and dark a place as your answer to #2 would tend to indicate? Just asking.
BTW, if you do believe in the concept of the human soul, when did you acquire one? If you don't believe in the human soul, than I think I know why you believe post-viability abortions are OK.

KobeClan writes: Under your answer, a legal abortion could be performed after the fetus has been completely removed from his mother's body.

Wrong. Placenta and umbilical cord tissue do not possess any capacity for experience of individual human personality.

KobeClan queries: BTW, if you do believe in the concept of the human soul, when did you acquire one?

How can I tell whether I even have one or not?

Look. This is getting really tedious. I keep answering your questions, but instead of answering mine in return, you keep posing new ones that have nothing to do with the topic.

You do remember the topic, yes? The topic was started because Paul remarked in the original post that— last he checked— abortion was the murder of children. I mocked him for his ridiculous "every sperm is sacred" nonsense, and cavalry of defenders came out to call me the extremist.

Apparently, a whole bunch of Wizbang! readers do not really believe that conservatives want to overturn Roe v. Wade and unconditionally make abortion at all stages of pregnancy grounds for a murder charge. I'm here to challenge that stupid stupid stupid belief. It's wrong in ways that only people who believe the physical reality of the Devil can understand.

Look, you're one of these people who thinks that "a human life," i.e. an individual experience of personality, begins at some miraculous point in time called "conception"— which you can't define with any accuracy— yet you can't bring yourself to admit you want abortion at all stages of pregnancy everywhere in the world made into grounds for a murder charge?

What the fsck is wrong with you people?

Dear s9,
This thread between you and me actually started when you made the false statement that McChimpBushHitler has been responsible for the erosion of abortion rights as granted by Roe vs. Wade. I correctly pointed out that abortion rights have slowly expanded to what we have today, abortion on demand throughout all 40 weeks of pregnancy. I also pointed out that this has resulted in 12,000 post-viability abortions