The Family Research Center’s Tony Perkins asks Sen. Obama that fundamental question.

We know that even after hearing and seeing testimony Obama voted against an Illinois bill that would have given medical protection to living babies who surviv…

DanKenton on June 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM

The prodigal idiot returns.
How does it feel to be a stupid troll pussy?

DanKenton on June 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM

Maybe Peter Singer can answer some of your questions:

“We think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed.” The reason that Singer supports infanticide in such cases is not, as one might expect from a utilitarian, to put an end to the newborn’s suffering; as Singer himself repeatedly points out, in many of the cases in which he favors infanticide there is no physical pain or suffering of any kind involved. His stated reason, rather, is that such children have diminished prospects of eventually enjoying an adequate “quality of life”, in his words, and to allow them to live would take away resources from what Singer calls “normal” children. He therefore advocates killing “disabled” infants, if the parents so choose, and replacing them with “normal” ones. The terminology of “replacement” is Singer’s own; his philosophy “treats infants as replaceable”, in his words (Practical Ethics p. 186).

I trust that you, yourself are in good health, with no disabilities.

Hypochristian is merely a combination of the words hypocrite and christian. You may argue that it’s not a legitimate word because it’s not contained in any dictionary but I’m sure that hasn’t stopped you from using unique words of your own. Just a few years ago you couldn’t find the word McJob in the dictionary but today you can. It doesn’t make sense to you because you’re a christian who believes that his crap doesn’t stink and that no blemish can befall your holier-than-thou existence. You and your fellow death-worshipers sin without recourse because at some point in life you dipped you head in some toilet bowl and declared yourself saved. All the while, you preach to others on how morally vacuous their lives are because they haven’t found jeebus and the big book of bull.

Now, back to the fetus. If the unborn are actual, living people, why aren’t they counted in the census? Why aren’t they 9 months old when they’re born instead of 0? When they are aborted, why aren’t funerals held? Why can’t you take a tax deduction for them? And, if a fetus is aborted, does it automatically go to heaven or does it go to hell because it never accepted jeebus into its heart…I’ll let slide the baptism part since it was already covered in water….or does it have to be holy water?

DanKenton on June 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM

I have been respectful in my posts to you because, frankly, I thought you might be a little unbalanced. You have now removed all doubt. This little immature rant of yours proves that you have no logical, ethical, moral or theoretical stance. It’s just verbiage vomitus and not even good stuff. I am done responding to you.

There is no such word as hypochristian and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Hypochristian is merely a combination of the words hypocrite and christian. You may argue that it’s not a legitimate word because it’s not contained in any dictionary but I’m sure that hasn’t stopped you from using unique words of your own. Just a few years ago you couldn’t find the word McJob in the dictionary but today you can. It doesn’t make sense to you because you’re a christian who believes that his crap doesn’t stink and that no blemish can befall your holier-than-thou existence. You and your fellow death-worshipers sin without recourse because at some point in life you dipped you head in some toilet bowl and declared yourself saved. All the while, you preach to others on how morally vacuous their lives are because they haven’t found jeebus and the big book of bull.

Now, back to the fetus. If the unborn are actual, living people, why aren’t they counted in the census? Why aren’t they 9 months old when they’re born instead of 0? When they are aborted, why aren’t funerals held? Why can’t you take a tax deduction for them? And, if a fetus is aborted, does it automatically go to heaven or does it go to hell because it never accepted jeebus into its heart…I’ll let slide the baptism part since it was already covered in water….or does it have to be holy water?

Genius? I’m afraid I’m a bit overqualified for genius in your world. You hypochristians don’t set the bar very high. First off not every person executed on death row is guilt however, I know you bible-worshipers are just fine with the innocent being swept up with the guilty…like the 40,000+ dead civilians in Iraq? Are you weeping for them? Rationalize that you schmuck.

DanKenton on June 27, 2008 at 9:15 PM

There is no such word as hypochristian and I challenge you to prove me wrong. It doesn’t even make sense. That is my first point. Here is my second. A lot of prolifers are against the death penalty. I happen to be one of them. I am also a Christian. That pretty much shoots your theory. There is a link above to a website of antitheists who are prolife. That not only shoots your theory, it shoots the hell out of your theory. Next point, where was the compassion of people like you for all the innocent dying in Iraq before we went in? Tortured, maimed, raped, abducted, gassed, dismembered, you know, all that stuff. I swear I never heard a peep out of anyone.

Here is my last point, since you must equate the unborn with those on death row, let me say this. Before they got to death row, those men and women had the full measure of justice the US has to offer, including trials, retrials, appeals, court appointed lawyers, a jury of their peers, and a law established on religious doctrine…THOU SHALT NOT KILL…the same doctrine that applies to abortion as far as I am concerned, only the unborn child has none of the “rights” extended to the felon. Tell me, where is there justice in that?

He wouldn’t feel anything…he’d be dead.

Genius? I’m afraid I’m a bit overqualified for genius in your world. You hypochristians don’t set the bar very high. First off not every person executed on death row is guilt however, I know you bible-worshipers are just fine with the innocent being swept up with the guilty…like the 40,000+ dead civilians in Iraq? Are you weeping for them? Rationalize that you schmuck.

..but the polls seem to say that most of the US won’t support significant restrictions on abortion in at least the first three months.
jim m on June 27, 2008 at 4:28 PM

The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state’s legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health”, and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable (“except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”).

Now look at these statistics.

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]

* 71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other

The answer can usually be found in the first part of the first chapter of every biology textbook I’ve ever seen. Pasteur elegantly showed that life begets life. Putting aside the origin of life, life does not spring from non-life. Thus, the egg is alive, the sperm is alive. They combine to form a unique life. If the egg and sperm come from humans, they combine to form a unique human life. That’s grade school biology. Anything else is simply politics.

HOPE (above picture of unborn child)

CHANGE (above picture of abortionist knife)

Baby is a chubber :)

Dash on June 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM

YEP!
Babies crack me up as long as they have a fresh diaper, and they are aren’t crying. :}

Again, the idea that what a woman does with her own pregnancy is anyone’s business other than hers is beyond me. If you really think abortion is a sin, let God deal with it in the afterlife. On earth, it should be legal.

Enrique on June 27, 2008 at 10:58 AM

One of your more intellectually dishonest posts Enrique. If memory serves, you have already identified yourself as an atheist in several posts. There is no issue with a woman having control of her own body. The debate is over whether the woman has a right to end the life of an innocent and helpless human being.

Another Hypo-Chrisitian classic: Don’t kill a fetus because life is precious. Instead, kill teenagers and adults by the [Army] truckloads and, of course, anybody who doesn’t think our god is better than their god. Funny, I never see these clowns shed a tear for a death-row inmate. I guess only some lives are worth saving, huh?

DanKenton on June 27, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Wrong on so many levels, genius. That you would even consider humanely ending the life of a convicted murderer no different than tearing an innocent and helpless human being to shreds tells me all I need to know about you. Decency prevents me from even typing my opinion of you.

So, other than hating people like me from afar and praying to change minds (which doesn’t seem to have been successful), please tell me how you plan to win this battle? Pass laws making it illegal to have pro-choice views? Pass laws requiring companies to give preference to people with pro-life views? Making it illegal to cross state lines to have an abortion (probably unconstitutional to the extent it restricts an adult’s right to travel)? Have a civil war or what?

I sincerely mean this. What is your game plan?

Again, the idea that what a woman does with her own pregnancy is anyone’s business other than hers is beyond me.

Enrique on June 27, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Clearly.

Hope. Change. Future. That’s the answer.

And it’s all you need to know. And chant.

You can tell he’s used to handling babies.
baldilocks on June 27, 2008 at 11:41 AM

The only compassion he shows is for convicted murderers. Huh.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Huh?

baldilocks on June 27, 2008 at 3:03 PM

I think Azked thought you were making a sarcastic reference to DanKenton.

I guess only some lives are worth saving, huh?

DanKenton on June 27, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Finally people like you are getting it…
The innocent is more valuable then the one who wantonly kills.
If you had a choice would you choose the 4 year old, or the man who has brutally killed and disemboweled several people…or would you consider them equal.
And if since you brought up the Christians, do a little New Testament reading, it supports punishing the evil and protecting the innocent.
BTW, no exactly a new practice…although obviously foreign to you.

Again, the idea that what a woman does with her own pregnancy is anyone’s business other than hers is beyond me

But it is not hers exclusively anymore, the person inside now has a vested interest on whether they live or die. It is a partnership, one is fighting to live, the “woman” either assists, or kills.
If you truly believed in the individuals right to decide, you would allow that right to be exercised.
What you want is to decide whether someone lives or dies, based on the convenience to you. Life to a “woman” is based on how they feel, not on any right to live.
The worst analogy would be if a man felt like raping you, his feelings trumps your rights…
What a strange society that would be, dependent on whose ever in power to decide life and death…

You can tell he’s used to handling babies.
baldilocks on June 27, 2008 at 11:41 AM

The only compassion he shows is for convicted murderers. Huh.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Huh?

baldilocks on June 27, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Huh? is the correct response, sometime I just stare at a post, and try to wonder who would write such a strange thing. Sometimes I get dizzy…

Another Hypo-Chrisitian classic: Don’t kill a fetus because life is precious. Instead, kill teenagers and adults by the [Army] truckloads and, of course, anybody who doesn’t think our god is better than their god. Funny, I never see these clowns shed a tear for a death-row inmate. I guess only some lives are worth saving, huh?

DanKenton on June 27, 2008 at 11:19 AM

It is just and right to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. It is warped and twisted to punish the innocent and to protect the guilty (as liberals often do with their pro-abortion but anti-death penalty stances).

If you really think abortion is a sin, let God deal with it in the afterlife. On earth, it should be legal.

In the above statement, try replacing “abortion” with “murder”, or “rape”. Then you get an idea on how stupid the statement is.

ynot4tony2 on June 27, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Bingo.

As for when life begins, the answer is at conception, of course. One could argue about when life begins to have value, but life begins at the beginning and there simply is no other reasonable answer.

You can tell he’s used to handling babies.
baldilocks on June 27, 2008 at 11:41 AM

The only compassion he shows is for convicted murderers. Huh.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Huh?

You can tell he’s used to handling babies.
baldilocks on June 27, 2008 at 11:41 AM

The only compassion he shows is for convicted murderers. Huh.

Akzed on June 27, 2008 at 11:45 AMHuh?