These Are The People Who Hate The Kochs

161 Comments

  1. Are you sure those respondents giggling about hanging ‘em high weren’t vengeful Taxed Enough Already movement supporters only pretending to be loony leftists, in the same way that loony leftist provocateurs pretended to be “T.E.A. Party” members? Really now, do you think that that clown in the red hat who says she wants to duel Glenn Beck, and states she carries a Glock, could be for real? Or maybe … Signe Waller, is that you?

  2. I can bring you numerous example of fake provocateurs from the right, and in fact, fake numerous things in general, sources, probably video, and let’s see what you can drum up, you desperate liar.

  3. And those people that are “suffering” and speaking out, are just the folks that are so bummed out “because there won’t be enough for the Mrs. to have here own private jet this month. After all, they had to put all that money into the T-patsies operation, to get those really foolish Roboticans to operate in the right fashion, and having just the right paint job on those buses wasn’t cheap, so, Mrs. Koch will have to wait til next month. So, ‘DAMN’ when quarterlies are due, it really sucks”.

  4. Don’t judge these “persons” too harshly, after all since the Reverend Wright retired they don’t get a regular weekly opportunity to openly spew hatred and worship evil. However, it might be prudent to deny any of these free-speech Democrats permission to buy a handgun, at least till after the next full moon.

  5. Funny you all are for the “tit for tat” when it comes to bombing people, but then, darn, it wasn’t even that truth that go us into the war, so your “tit for tat” outlook doesn’t count, when the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, men, women, children, babies, grandmothers, and grandfathers, and you don’t think that calling for some kind of judicial intervention into a war of aggression, “justified” by obviously numerous examples of fraud, and you all don’t blink, but when we on the Left show our righteous indignation, and it never has been more required, you come out with your nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah, which just shows the stench of your “value system”, and Roboticans is the most appropriate name for you all, because you claim to be about what’s right for humanity, and yet you lean in all directions which represent the filthy rich who own the airways, and you are such easy prey.

    By the way, the Koch brothers by their phony rhetoric facilitated the deaths of scores of thousands of Americans, because of their lack of medical coverage. Who are the ones around here that speak for America? Not you. You are for the fat cats that abuse our system for their own self interests, and you kiss ass. You’ve abandoned all independent thought.

  6. Hoagie, have you seen the movie, called, “The Constant Gardener” ? It speaks of drug companies using the Black populations in Africa as guinea pigs for toxic medical experiments. That kind of outrage is justified, unless of course you think he ought not be mad, which apparently you do. Shame on him for speaking against those that would do such things. If they were Americans, well, according to you, it must be okay.

  7. And let’s remember who have been the ones in history that have been killed, The Dems, by, who do you think?

  8. “Of course, DNW was on the right track when he asked, “Are you sure those respondents giggling about hanging ‘em high weren’t vengeful Taxed Enough Already movement supporters only pretending to be loony leftists?” After all, we know that our friends on the left would never actually wish violence on people just because they disagree with them

    Whatever is true in your citations is to be loudly condemned. These are leftie extremists; their misdeeds are not properly spread to the general American Left. Why didn’t you likewise include the atrocities by the rightie extremists. Consider this, as posted on a conservative web site:

    “In a later segment, co-anchor David Shuster interviewed Virginia Democratic Congressman Jim Moran and asked: “We know that threats to President Obama are up by like something 400% compared to the Bush administration. Is this putting our president in some sort of danger because of some wacko that will see this stuff and say, ‘oh, yes, it’s fascism and the way we dealt with Adolf Hitler was to try to kill him, so therefore, let’s do this with our president.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/08/07/msnbc-hosts-town-hall-protests-are-threat-obama-s-life#ixzz1DDRyGLdR

    Right, threats on Obama’s life are up about 400% compared to the Bush Administration. Whackos are not the purview only of the left.

  9. Consider this, as posted on a conservative web site:

    Very cute, Perry. Your only problem was you considered those of us on the right to be mind-numbed idiots. That conservative web site was quoting a MSLSD host, not agreeing with the demonstrably false claim that “threats to President Obama are up by like something 400%”. As usual, Perry, you reject context for your addle-brained agenda.

  10. And third, Perry, your “wacko” statement tied to Dana’s multiple links very clearly puts MSLSD hosts in the “wacko” grouping. Not that you meant to do that; you just couldn’t help yourself as you made your false accusations.

  11. I stand by my assumption, which is based on the ravings of right wing lunatic radio and TV hosts who regale their followers with highly inflammatory anti-Obama rhetoric.

  12. You can quote the Lefties that have said such things as we can cite the Righties that have said such things, but it the Righties that DO such things.

  13. but it the Righties that DO such things.

    Funny, that. You wackjob leftists have been pushing that meme for quite some time now. Practically every time someone makes a great violent splash, you wackjob leftist immediately scream “rightie dun it!” But when all evidence points to a leftist wackjob or a non-political wackjob (as is practically always the case), down the memory hole your asinine rants go.

  14. I keep thinking there’s something strangely familiar about that guy in the video. Is that you, Perry?

  15. John Hitchcock, you so successfully say nothing, you deserve an award. Who are the grand violent, reactive, nonthinking ones that so care for humanity that humans count for more than barely conscious fetuses? You lost that one. You don’t give a shit. Bombs are merely our celebration for the 4th of July, huh, Hitchcock? If they kill people that did nothing, but live in the middle east, so be it, not your problem. “God bless America”. Let the blood of others feed the beast. This is the America you defend. The values of our founders, not so much. You support the vampire of the military industrial complex, and your willing ignorance is the mental blood that feeds it. The real blood is of innocent Iraqis, Afghan’s, and US soldiers, who do the dying. You keep pledging allegiance to the propaganda arm of the defense industry, FUX and the like, and FUX is only one. But, applause to Judge Napolatino (I’m sure I got that spelling wrong) and Geraldo that dared speak out about the fraud of NIST, from Department of Commerce, (NIST did 911 investigation, they’re the organization, proven full of shit, regarding 9-11-01) and I take my hat off to them for having balls enough to speak out despite the common war mongering BS that FOX mostly is.

  16. Actually, capacity for comprehension, of John Hitchcock: … “blah, blah, blah, waaaaah!”

  17. I repeat:

    “In a later segment, co-anchor David Shuster interviewed Virginia Democratic Congressman Jim Moran and asked: “We know that threats to President Obama are up by like something 400% compared to the Bush administration. Is this putting our president in some sort of danger because of some wacko that will see this stuff and say, ‘oh, yes, it’s fascism and the way we dealt with Adolf Hitler was to try to kill him, so therefore, let’s do this with our president.”

    Are you one of these whackos from the right, John Hitchcock? Blubonnet has you well pegged:

    “If they kill people that did nothing, but live in the middle east, so be it, not your problem. “God bless America”. Let the blood of others feed the beast. This is the America you defend. The values of our founders, not so much. You support the vampire of the military industrial complex, and your willing ignorance is the mental blood that feeds it. The real blood is of innocent Iraqis, Afghan’s, and US soldiers, who do the dying.”

    Peace!

  18. Perry wrote:

    Right, threats on Obama’s life are up about 400% compared to the Bush Administration. Whackos are not the purview only of the left.

    Absolutely right: not all whackos are on the political left. But many of them are.

  19. Perry wrote:

    Are you one of these whackos from the right, John Hitchcock? Blubonnet has you well pegged:

    “If they kill people that did nothing, but live in the middle east, so be it, not your problem. “God bless America”. Let the blood of others feed the beast. This is the America you defend. The values of our founders, not so much. You support the vampire of the military industrial complex, and your willing ignorance is the mental blood that feeds it. The real blood is of innocent Iraqis, Afghan’s, and US soldiers, who do the dying.”

    Peace!

    At this point I should mention that Mr Hitchcock is a former Marine, and his daughter, who is in the Army, served a tour in Iraq.

  20. Dana, what does your response have to do with Blubonnet’s comment? Answer: Nothing!

    Although I honor John’s and his daughter’s service, I do not honor the policies and orders that put these military folks in harms way, in invading a sovereign nation, and in requiring them to kill innocent people who happen to get caught in the crossfire.

  21. and in requiring them to kill innocent people who happen to get caught in the crossfire

    Please show us where this “requirement” exists. Citation please!

  22. and in requiring them to kill innocent people who happen to get caught in the crossfire

    Please show us where this “requirement” exists. Citation please!

    Common sense: Since you did not serve in the military, Hube, let alone in combat, I don’t think your understanding of combat is very deep. Put a soldier in combat where there are civilians present, the soldier is required to protect himself and his buddies. Moreover, when suspicious activity is noted from the air, it can be required that action be taken. Label these the requirements of combat, requirements which obviously would not be present if unnecessary wars were avoided. These requirements are spelled out in the Rules of Engagement, about which every ‘friendly’ combatant has been educated. That’s my point.

  23. Perry’s distinction:

    if unnecessary wars were avoided.

    Translation: it’s much better to let the swarthier Caucasians live in slavery than it is to spill blood to free them.

  24. Common sense: Since you did not serve in the military, Hube, let alone in combat

    So? You didn’t serve in combat either now, did you? And your “point” said no such thing in your original comment. But that’s what you do, don’t you — make a stupid statement that you’ll only elaborate on when someone calls you out on it.

  25. Hube writes to Perry:

    So? You didn’t serve in combat either now, did you? And your “point”

    It’s interesting that when the habitually citation demanding Perry, is asked in turn for a citation, Perry resorts to citing his own notion of common sense as evidence.

    And no; after some weeks of standing on a flag draped soapbox waving his old fatigues and potato peeler around, he finally admitted that, no, he had never seen combat, much less killed a communist.

    There’s no reasoning with him.

  26. Perry writes:

    Why didn’t you likewise include the atrocities by the rightie extremists. Consider this, as posted on a conservative web site:

    “In a later segment, co-anchor David Shuster interviewed Virginia Democratic Congressman Jim Moran and asked: “We know that threats to President Obama are up by like something 400% compared to the Bush administration. Is this putting our president in some sort of danger because of some wacko that will see this stuff and say, ‘oh, yes, it’s fascism and the way we dealt with Adolf Hitler was to try to kill him, so therefore, let’s do this with our president.”

    What exactly is it you are claiming is an atrocity, Kyle Drennen presenting the transcript of Shill Shuster masquerading as a newsman?

  27. Common sense: Since you did not serve in the military, Hube, let alone in combat

    So? You didn’t serve in combat either now, did you? And your “point” said no such thing in your original comment. But that’s what you do, don’t you — make a stupid statement that you’ll only elaborate on when someone calls you out on it.

    Thanks for making my point, Hube, that you do not have a deep understanding of war. And yes, I was trained for combat.

  28. “What exactly is it you are claiming is an atrocity, Kyle Drennen presenting the transcript of Shill Shuster masquerading as a newsman?”

    Instead of countering the claim, you choose to attack the messenger. That’s mighty weak!

  29. Did you serve in combat, DNW. Did you even serve in the military? My sense is that you did not, as you feign the tough talk mantra.

  30. Thanks for making my point, Hube, that you do not have a deep understanding of war. And yes, I was trained for combat.

    Thanks for making MY point that

    1) Your initial point was purposely misworded so as to enact a falsehood, and
    2) proving you never saw combat but having to resort to claiming “I was trained for combat.”

    Pathetic.

  31. Oh gee, is Perry back to his hypocritical “stance” about serving? Is this like Perry lecturing us on the realities of the ‘hood — even though he’s never lived there — he purposely doesn’t go back since his parents moved him out?

    Pathetic.

  32. “Perry says:

    7 February 2011 at 11:13

    “What exactly is it you are claiming is an atrocity, Kyle Drennen presenting the transcript of Shill Shuster masquerading as a newsman?”

    Instead of countering the claim, you choose to attack the messenger. That’s mighty weak!”

    What exactly is it you were describing as a rightie extrimist atrocity?

  33. Perry’s distinction:

    if unnecessary wars were avoided.

    Translation: it’s much better to let the swarthier Caucasians live in slavery than it is to spill blood to free them.

    So we are justified to spill the blood of others by invading a sovereign country, is that it Dana? And you think ours was a moral act too, correct? I don’t think so, because we know now very well that we had ulterior motives. Moreover, you failed to mention that we were allied to the “slave” master Saddam Hussein not too many years before, thus supplying his oppression with weapons.

    As I’ve said on here many times, it is up to the natives to rise up against their oppressors, with our help from the outside if we so decide to support the uprising. After all, weren’t both our Revolutionary and Civil Wars fought by us without significant outside participation? What was wrong with that model?

  34. Hube says:

    7 February 2011 at 11:18

    Thanks for making my point, Hube, that you do not have a deep understanding of war. And yes, I was trained for combat.

    Thanks for making MY point that

    1) Your initial point was purposely misworded so as to enact a falsehood, and
    2) proving you never saw combat but having to resort to claiming “I was trained for combat.”

    Pathetic.”

    As part of a request for proof of his own so-called bona-fides and his manly standing to preform Internet interrogations, I once asked Perry how many communists he killed; and he became all indignant.

    Now, how many cig butts policed … how many potatoes peeled … might be questions he could answer. But I am not interested.

  35. Oh gee, is Perry back to his hypocritical “stance” about serving? Is this like Perry lecturing us on the realities of the ‘hood — even though he’s never lived there — he purposely doesn’t go back since his parents moved him out?

    Pathetic.

    Coming from you, Hube, who has not served, there’s your hypocrisy. The training I had gives me more understanding of combat than you could ever have, not to mention that any war, except those in self defense, is immoral, in my view.

  36. Oh gee, is Perry back to his hypocritical “stance” about serving? Is this like Perry lecturing us on the realities of the ‘hood — even though he’s never lived there — he purposely doesn’t go back since his parents moved him out?

    Pathetic.

    Coming from you, Hube, who has not served, there’s your hypocrisy. The training I had gives me more understanding of combat than you could ever have, not to mention that any war, except those in self defense, is immoral, in my view.

    DNW: As part of a request for proof of his own so-called bona-fides and his manly standing to preform Internet interrogations, I once asked Perry how many communists he killed; and he became all indignant.

    Now, how many cig butts policed … how many potatoes peeled … might be questions he could answer. But I am not interested.

    Oh but you are interested, DNW, in order to continue your nasty demonizations. Moreover, in spite of all your personal questions, you answer none, thus cowardly maintaining your anonymity, while attempting to crack the anonymity of others. What are you hiding, DNW, and why?

  37. Perry says:

    7 February 2011 at 11:39

    Perry’s distinction:

    if unnecessary wars were avoided.

    Translation: it’s much better to let the swarthier Caucasians live in slavery than it is to spill blood to free them.

    So we are justified to spill the blood of others by invading a sovereign country, is that it Dana? And you think ours was a moral act too, correct? I don’t think so, because we know now very well that we had ulterior motives. Moreover, you failed to mention that we were allied to the “slave” master Saddam Hussein not too many years before, thus supplying his oppression with weapons.

    As I’ve said on here many times, it is up to the natives to rise up against their oppressors, with our help from the outside if we so decide to support the uprising. After all, weren’t both our Revolutionary and Civil Wars fought by us without significant outside participation? What was wrong with that model?

    Tojo and others would certainly say nothing. But as we found out with Saddam and Kuwait, we eventually would up dealing with it anyway.

    So, Perry, freedom of the seas …

  38. “Perry says:

    7 February 2011 at 11:57

    Oh gee, is Perry back to his hypocritical “stance” about serving? Is this like Perry lecturing us on the realities of the ‘hood — even though he’s never lived there — he purposely doesn’t go back since his parents moved him out?

    Pathetic.

    Coming from you, Hube, who has not served, there’s your hypocrisy. The training I had gives me more understanding of combat than you could ever have, not to mention that any war, except those in self defense, is immoral, in my view.

    DNW: As part of a request for proof of his own so-called bona-fides and his manly standing to preform Internet interrogations, I once asked Perry how many communists he killed; and he became all indignant.

    Now, how many cig butts policed … how many potatoes peeled … might be questions he could answer. But I am not interested.

    Oh but you are interested, DNW, in order to continue your nasty demonizations. Moreover, in spite of all your personal questions, you answer none, thus cowardly maintaining your anonymity, while attempting to crack the anonymity of others. What are you hiding, DNW, and why?”

    All what “personal questions” Perry? If you dwell where you insinuate others ought to be mandated to live? I didn’t ask you for that information. You volunteered that you didn’t. I merely asked you why you were a hypocrite, not if.

    Now you keep adverting to physical courage too. And implying that you have demonstrated it through your period of enrollment or enlistment in the armed forces. But it does not appear from your own volunteered information that you actually saw anything in the way of active combat, or were even at risk for any such thing.

    What is it then, that you are claiming entitles you to the status of lion killer? Firing an M14 at a paper target?

    I have repeatedly told you that you may have the personal opportunity to try and interrogate me and wring out any answers you think yourself capable of compelling, for the asking.

    I have received no such requests from you to this point, old girl.

  39. I have repeatedly told you that you may have the personal opportunity to try and interrogate me and wring out any answers you think yourself capable of compelling, for the asking.

    I have received no such requests from you to this point, old girl.

    Can’t resist, can you DNW? By now I understand that that is your out-of-control nasty impulse.

    The only question you have ever answered is that your gender is male.

    I’ll ask this one again: Have you ever served in the military? In combat?

  40. Coming from you, Hube, who has not served, there’s your hypocrisy. The training I had gives me more understanding of combat than you could ever have, not to mention that any war, except those in self defense, is immoral, in my view.

    Indeed? I’ll keep that in mind the next time you spout off about something with which you have zippo personal knowledge, and I, quite a bit. And don’t DARE ask for a citation, hypocrite. Nevertheless, the ONLY reason you worded your “kill innocents” sentence the way you did was because you disagreed with the war. It was a cheap shot — actually a LIE — that our troops are “required to kill innocents.” Your subsequent “explanation” of what you meant totally changed the meaning of your previous comment.

    Oh, and “combat training” does not = “combat.” Just remember the Marines’ reaction to Lt. Gorman’s response about having combat experience:

    “How many drops is this for you, Lieutenant?”
    “Thirty eight… simulated.”
    “How many *combat* drops?”
    “Uh, two. Including this one.”
    “Sh**.”
    “Oh, man…”

    And you have zero, Perry. That really gnaws at your craw, don’t it? Kinda makes you a fake tough guy, don’t it? LOL

  41. Perry asked DNW:

    I’ll ask this one again: Have you ever served in the military? In combat?

    Apparently Perry thinks we ought to have a society like the one in Starship Troopers, where you could become a citizen only if you served in the military.

    Oddly enough, he voted for a man who had never served in the armed forces over a combat veteran.

  42. From an interesting link. Make the tally yourself.

    A delusional case seeking government employment …

    Charles Guiteau was born into what we would now term a “dysfunctional family”; his mother, father, sister, and many aunts and uncles had social eccentricities that made them polarizing figures to the public. For instance, his father, a strict disciplinarian who believed himself immortal, regularly beat Charles in order to cure his son’s speech impediment. His mother, meanwhile, was an invalid who rarely left the house and died when Charles was only seven years old. Many Guiteaus spent the last years of their lives in mental institutions, so the roots of Charles’s instability are easily understood. His own delusions of grandeur allowed him to believe that he had rightful claim to the presidency of the United States.

    Guiteau’s instability continued through his adolescence and into adulthood, as he began a brief but failed law career and entered politics. Convinced that he had earned an official post in James Garfield’s administration by writing a stump speech for the president (which he never actually delivered), Guiteau awaited a prestigious appointment.

    Next, a mentally ill Emma Goldman admirer acting on behalf of the little people:

    Czolgosz openly admitted to shooting McKinley, claiming that he had “done his duty” because no “one man should have so much service and another man should have none.” Czolgosz was tried in a New York court and found guilty. On October 29, 1901, Czolgosz stated before his execution in the electric chair that he “killed the president because he was the enemy of the people — the good working people,” and he refused to apologize for his crime.

    And Emma herself …

    “Throughout her detention and after her release, Goldman steadfastly refused to condemn Czolgosz’s actions, standing virtually alone in doing so. Friends and supporters—including Berkman—urged her to quit his cause. But Goldman defended Czolgosz as a “supersensitive being” and chastised other anarchists for abandoning him”

    Wiki

    Those damn Rich People

    Giuseppe … Zangara fired five shots from a roadside bench at a car carrying Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak and President-elect Franklin Roosevelt. While each of the bullets missed Roosevelt, Cermak was fatally wounded. …

    Interviewed after his arrest, Zanagara claimed that the reason for his crime was an intense hatred of presidents and the rich.

    He also stated that he had been suffering from intense pains in his abdomen for quite some time that had reportedly driven him insane. …

    POS Jimminy Carter adds his belated match to the fire…

    Under the belief that assassinating the U.S. president would aid the cause of Puerto Rican independence, Griselio Torresola and Oscar Collazo conspired to kill Harry Truman at the Blair House in Washington, D.C., during White House renovations.

    Torresola and Collazo planned to shoot their way into the residence, but as they approached the house from opposite directions a fierce gun battle broke out with authorities. Torresola was shot in the head and killed instantly while Collazo was shot in the chest and collapsed on the steps of the house, thus ending the brief shoot out. Three policemen were shot and one, Private Leslie Coffelt, later died from his wounds.

    Collazo was tried for the murder and was sentenced to death. One week before his execution was to take place, in 1952, President Truman commuted his sentence to life in prison. In September 1979, President Carter further commuted his sentence and Collazo was freed from prison. He died in his home in Puerto Rico in 1994. Collazo is the only attempted presidential assassin to die a free man.

    Lee Harvey Oswald … Fair Play for Cuba. No further comment necessary.

    And then another Progressive conscience is seen in action

    Samuel Byck, a furniture salesman, concocted a plan in 1974 to hijack an airplane and to fly it into the White House, killing President Richard Nixon. Byck was convinced that the U.S. government was conspiring to oppress the poor, and he openly blamed the president for the ills of society.

    Squeaky Fromme, Sarah Jane Moore, both already addressed previous to this … Loons or lefties

    Oh here’s one that Political Research Associates “Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers” have apparently managed to insinuate into the conventional wisdom collection on the right-winger side of the ledger. They ostensibly do this on the basis that Duran listened to a guy who followed Rush Limbaugh on the air, and that he had a bumper sticker about guns …

    Though why, given the old leftist lady who says she packs a Glock and wants to shoot Glenn Beck, Francisco Duran should be automatically considered “right-wing” ….

    “Using a Chinese-made, SKS 7.62 caliber assault rifle, Francisco Martin Duran, a hotel upholsterer from Colorado, fired twenty-nine shots at the White House on October 29, 1994. While many shots hit the White House, causing nearly $4,000 in damage, none came close to hitting the president, who was upstairs in the residence watching a football game. Duran’s rampage was stopped when two tourists tackled him as he was in the process of reloading his rifle.

    Duran’s apparent motive had been a series of on-the-air rants by Chuck Baker, a conservative talk show host in Colorado Springs, Colorado. In an article by Jeff Cohen and Norman Soloman …

    “Moments after the shooting, officials said, at least two passers-by wrestled Francisco Martin Duran to the Pennsylvania Avenue sidewalk, and two uniformed Secret Service agents leaped over the fence surrounding the White House grounds and subdued him. Richard Griffin, an assistant director of the Secret Service, said the suspect had fired 20 to 30 shots from the weapon, a semi-automatic rifle called an SKS, before being subdued. In May, President Clinton banned imports of the rifle. The motive for the attack was not clear, said Mr. Griffin, who added that Mr. Duran apparently had acted alone. Mr.Griffin said the attack was not being viewed as an attempted assassination. The police in El Paso County, Colo., where Mr. Duran lived in the Colorado Springs suburb of Security, said Mr. Duran’s wife had reported him missing on Oct. 1, a dayafter he left his home telling her that he was going to get equipment for target practice. Late today, Secret Service officers pored over a Chevrolet pickup truck with Colorado plates that was parked near the White House and bore bumper stickers denouncing Attorney General Janet Reno and opposing gun control. The Secret Service keeps records on people it regards as potential threats tothe President, but the agency has no file on Mr. Duran, Mr. Griffin said. He
    also said a broader check into Mr. Duran’s background was under way. Mr. Duran, variously identified as an upholsterer and a resort hotel worker, had not been charged with a crime by this evening.

    NYT

    Duran is now safely in jail and will probably remain there till the end of his sentence; unless Jimmy Carter is re-elected, and decides to free him.

    Oh and then there is Frank Corder who killed himself in a plane crash on the White House lawn. Friends said that he harbored no ill will toward the President and that he just wanted attention.

    Block quotes from Grand Valley website unless otherwise noted

  43. Nevertheless, the ONLY reason you worded your “kill innocents” sentence the way you did was because you disagreed with the war. It was a cheap shot — actually a LIE — that our troops are “required to kill innocents.” Your subsequent “explanation” of what you meant totally changed the meaning of your previous comment.

    Not a lie, as I qualified my comment, Hube, though I’m not surprised you don’t agree, as if I really care!

    In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have the blood of innocents on our hands. That you don’t acknowledge that, well that’s on you! And on combat, don’t put words in my mouth, Hube. I only claim to know more about that than you, who managed to avoid service because of an eye condition, or so you claim.

    Your constant bullying and personal insults peg you for what you are, which is obvious to discerning people.

  44. Dana Pico says:

    7 February 2011 at 12:51

    Perry asked DNW:

    I’ll ask this one again: Have you ever served in the military? In combat?

    Apparently Perry thinks we ought to have a society like the one in Starship Troopers, where you could become a citizen only if you served in the military.

    Oddly enough, he voted for a man who had never served in the armed forces over a combat veteran.

    Are you referring to Clinton or to Obama for president, or maybe even John Edwards?

  45. Apparently Perry thinks we ought to have a society like the one in Starship Troopers, where you could become a citizen only if you served in the military.

    No, Dana, the question is to demonstrate that DNW prefers rigid anonymity, whereas he has no compunction to pry himself, then to insult.

  46. “Perry says:

    7 February 2011 at 12:42

    I have repeatedly told you that you may have the personal opportunity to try and interrogate me and wring out any answers you think yourself capable of compelling, for the asking.

    I have received no such requests from you to this point, old girl.

    Can’t resist, can you DNW? By now I understand that that is your out-of-control nasty impulse.

    The only question you have ever answered is that your gender is male.

    I’ll ask this one again: Have you ever served in the military? In combat?”

    Again, Perry, you are presuming some mysterious connection that entitles you to consideration. On what grounds? You can’t even make a case that you are speaking from some kind of experience, although to exactly what the non-existent experience which you don’t have, might be relevant, is yet another mystery.

    I’ve already told you that we are not colleagues. You have already admitted that you want personal information in order to construct ad hominem arguments. And you are now – once again – revealed to be lacking even the slightest moral standing to make claims on me or to demand answers.

    So what gives with you? LOL

  47. Perry says:

    7 February 2011 at 13:15

    And your point is exactly what, DNW?

    It is Dana’s point that you supported someone with no military service for President; yet now carp about combat being a requirement for voicing an opinion on foreign policy.

    I am just not sure which of the three examples he is referring to as instances of your canting hypocrisy.

    It vaguely seems that you supported Edwards at one point. Though I do not recall if you said that you ever gave him a primary vote. Could be Hillary too I guess.

  48. Translation: it’s much better to let the swarthier Caucasians live in slavery than it is to spill blood to free them.

    Gee, I thought your troops existed only to defend America – isn’t that what you were telling us a few days ago?

    And let’s not forget that one of the people the US supports is noted for boiling dissidents alive.

  49. Perry says:

    7 February 2011 at 13:16

    Won’t answer the question, will you DNW?

    Sure I will. All you have to do is physically confront me and take it. LOL

  50. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have the blood of innocents on our hands. That you don’t acknowledge that, well that’s on you!

    What a joke you are. Here’s what your original comment said:

    Although I honor John’s and his daughter’s service, I do not honor the policies and orders that put these military folks in harms way, in invading a sovereign nation, and in requiring them to kill innocent people who happen to get caught in the crossfire.

    You didn’t note above what you later said:

    Put a soldier in combat where there are civilians present, the soldier is required to protect himself and his buddies. Moreover, when suspicious activity is noted from the air, it can be required that action be taken. Label these the requirements of combat, requirements which obviously would not be present if unnecessary wars were avoided.

    If you cannot see the essential difference, you really are thick.

    And BTW Perry — how many years did you teach? I know it was less than me, probably substantially less. Therefore, refrain from contradicting me on any matters educational … because I have so much more experience.

  51. “Gee, I thought your troops existed only to defend America – isn’t that what you were telling us a few days ago?”

    As Hoagie reminded you, if your coastal defense interpretation of our American rights to and limits of self-defense were taken seriously, you would either never have been born, or have grown up tending to some water buffalo as you sloshed around in an Imperial Japanese rice paddy.

  52. And let’s not forget that one of the people the US supports is noted for boiling dissidents alive.

    And let’s not forget that Phoeny and NZ supports sticking foreceps into a babies’ skulls, sucking out the brains, and then killing said babies.

  53. Hube,

    It seems that Hitch can’t get the local lefties to actually discuss the lefty loons on the video he embedded.

  54. Your constant bullying and personal insults peg you for what you are, which is obvious to discerning people.

    Yeah? Then ‘ya better get ready for it in person this Saturday if you insist upon keeping up the constant nonsense!

  55. Hube says:

    7 February 2011 at 13:48

    And let’s not forget that one of the people the US supports is noted for boiling dissidents alive.

    And let’s not forget that Phoeny and NZ supports sticking foreceps into a babies’ skulls, sucking out the brains, and then killing said babies.”

    New Zealand Progressives are to global politics what Amanda Marcotte is to the blogosphere; a joke.

  56. Hube, has the audacity to deflect, attempting to discredit me, but will he look at the evidence? Let’s see. My be it calling names is his only strategy. Logic? Zero.

    blu, you’re about as interesting as watching bread mold. ‘Nuff said.

  57. Blubonnet says:

    7 February 2011 at 13:56

    The arrogant and ignorant DNW, who has not done any combat time needs to see this…

    What I need to do is to refuse to engage leftist nutcases whose life is given meaning even if all they can manage to do is to stick their hands into the gearbox.

    [He says, as he goes off to perform one last check on deposits left by a couple of deluded corn-fed pseudo-sophisticates who think that their ironic poses constitute the pinnacle of intellectual achievement ...]

  58. It seems that Hitch can’t get the local lefties to actually discuss the lefty loons on the video he embedded.

    I pretty much didn’t expect the leftists around here to actually discuss the video. When they are presented with cold hard facts, they — Oh, look!!!! A shiny!!!!

  59. All you “pro-life” (cough) people, I assume your blather about the “baby”, you feel you know more than the medical establishment. You just hate it I know, when I bring professional journals, from JAMA, a prestigious medical journal, but you all poo poo professional journals in favor of your idealist BS, and the legal point in a pregnancy for an abortion hurts NO ONE, bring a baby into the world, then you might very well have hurt a child by being unable to properly care for the child, or create the psychological agony, the infant will live with for the rest of his or her life, by having to be given away, as well as the maternal mother enduring it…

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.short

    THIS is a deflective tactic to take away the reality in their (wing-nut) minds to avoid seeing the hundreds of thousands of dead men, women, children whose only “crime” was being in the middle east, whose verifiable humanity is not needed to be debated. But like the usual delusional way of seeing things, you don’t even regard them as real people, you MFs.

  60. Congratulations to Hube and DNW. They win the insult contest. Oh, there wasn’t an insult contest was there? In other words flipping shit, and ignoring verifiable reality is what they win in recognition. Regard for humanity and verifiable fact? Big fat zero.

  61. but you all poo poo professional journals in favor of your idealist BS,

    Nah, we just poo poo your feeble reading and/or comprehension skills, blu. From your link:

    Conclusions Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.

    Real MFs (your term) want to look the other way at all costs when it comes to abortion. Out of sight, out of mind, after all. But you fool no one. You’re no better, whatsoever, than those you condemn for starting wars in some far off land. Not one iota. Face it.

  62. Congratulations to blu for the “Inhuman Human of the Year Award.” She won this infamous distinction for

    1) pretending human fetuses aren’t human,
    2) pretending that killing innocent babies isn’t “really” killing,
    3) pretending that the psychological effects of killing an unborn baby is somehow “less” than that of actually having a child and giving it up for adoption,
    4) pretending that being caught in the crossfire of a war is “more innocent” than having done absolutely nothing other than having been conceived!

  63. Congratulations to Hube for not having figured out the moral difference between a fertilised cell and the woman carrying it…

    Idiot.

    Meanwhile:

    i, The majority of Americans support abortion rights – the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies.
    ii, The US supports dictaors who boil dissidents alive.
    iii, The US tortures prisoners to death.

  64. Congratulations to Hube for not having figured out the moral difference between a fertilised cell and the woman carrying it…

    Uh huh. “Fertilized cell” after 15 weeks? 20? 25? 30?

    Idiot.

    Meanwhile, a majority of those in the colonies once supported the institution of slavery.

  65. I decided it would be ok to blog in the middle of crying, so here I am attempting to type through my tears.

    We returned home last night after a month of traveling to tell others about our abortion story. As glamorous as that may seem, I’ve realized that no temporal reward replaces regret.

    And tonight, something hit me. I will never be able to do ANYTHING to make it better. Other decisions that I’ve made in the past, I can make those better. But I can’t get back the babies I killed. I can’t undo the fact that I can’t get pregnant again. When I lay my head down on the pillow, the truth is overwhelming.

    My home is now full of books about abortion, DVD’s of post abortive men and women, and buttons and posters that say “I Regret My Abortion”. I have conversations via phone and social media everyday about abortion. I’ve seen the faces of those on the frontlines and felt the brokenness of those who aren’t ready to “come out” yet.

    This is very real. I can no longer compartmentalize it as just something from my past.

    Some mornings I wake up with hope that somehow it was a bad dream…that four children, instead of two, will come running into my room, jump in bed with me, and demand breakfast in bed.

    I imagine Jesus weeping with me. He must be so sad when sorrow overwhelms me and His love seems to be hiding in its’ shadow.

    So, right now I’m reminding myself that He knew what He was getting into when He called me to this. He is not shocked by my tears. He knows I won’t quit.

    Kelly Clinger, former backup singer to Britney Spears

    Silent No More gives a face and proof that the absurd leftist claims that “abortion hurts NO ONE” is a downright filthy lie from the pit of Hell.

  66. Uh huh. “Fertilized cell” after 15 weeks? 20? 25? 30?

    Ah, so you’re saying that it is alright to abort a fertilised egg, but not a fetus when it reaches a certain size?

    i, Is it okay to abort a single fertilised cell, Hube?

    ii, IF NOT, doesn’t that mean you are stating that a single fertilised cell has as many human rights as the actual woman carrying it?

    iii, IF SO, then when does it become not alright to abort a fetus, Hube, and why?

    But we know you won’t even attempt to answer those questions honestly.

  67. The majority of Americans support abortion rights

    From Gallup:
    With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-life or pro-choice?
    2010
    Pro-life 47 percent
    Pro-choice 45 percent

    “Next, I’m going to read you a list of issues. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. How about abortion?”

    2010
    Morally acceptable 38 percent
    Morally wrong 50 percent
    Depends on situation 9 percent
    Unsure 3 percent

    The polling data puts the lie to NZT’s arsepull.

  68. This from the JAMA article, that Hube missed apparently…

    Evidence Synthesis Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.

  69. So, the drug addled mind of Brittany Spears fellow “musician” holds water for JH. She listened to a bunch of propagandized “pro-life” lies, and they have been caught on many occasions deliberately lying, got this young woman crying.

    Yet the stories of families getting blown up in the middle east leave JH unmoved.

  70. Hey, blu, do you support the idea to cut off Clarence Thomas’ fingers and toes and force-feed them to him? Do you support the idea to send Clarence Thomas back into the fields? Do you support killing Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny?

  71. Silent No More gives a face and proof that the absurd leftist claims that “abortion hurts NO ONE” is a downright filthy lie from the pit of Hell.

    John, I agree that this is the type of information that a woman considering abortion should see. The personal stories like this are far superior to the disgusting fear tactics which you have used in the past on here.

    As far as your claim that leftists promulgate that abortion hurts no one is a figment of your wingnut imagination, i.e., more made up stuff. I think we can all agree that the subject of abortion is a major issue to most people, independent of political leanings.

  72. As far as your claim that leftists promulgate that abortion hurts no one is a figment of your wingnut imagination, i.e., more made up stuff.

    Perry, I refer you to blu’s comment above, as those quotation marks you stripped out were put in there on purpose. Pulled directly from blu’s comment above.

    Now on to other questions for you, Perry.

    Do you support the idea to cut off Clarence Thomas’ fingers and toes and force-feed them to him? Do you support the idea to send Clarence Thomas back into the fields? Do you support killing Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny?

  73. And, Perry, you can quit accusing me of lying already. I have repeatedly shown that your accusations on that point are themselves lies.

    For whatever reason you chose to bring it up (deflection???)

    Proof positive you chose not to watch the video at the top, which was my entire article. You are commenting on an article where leftists were shown very clearly to support those positions. That was what the article was about. So if anyone’s doing any deflecting, and they are, it is the leftists who spew on this site.

  74. Hube threatens:

    Yeah? Then ‘ya better get ready for it in person this Saturday if you insist upon keeping up the constant nonsense!

    What an infantile threat this is, as if we are going to meet up on an elementary school playground ready to fight. Again, grow up Hube!

  75. And, Perry, you can quit accusing me of lying already. I have repeatedly shown that your accusations on that point are themselves lies.

    John, you were not accused of lying, but you were of making stuff up. There is a distinction!

    Moreover, you do not make a convincing case when you select several people (on your thread), label them as “leftists”, and then try to make out of that a generalized statement about leftists!

  76. John, you were not accused of lying, but you were of making stuff up. There is a distinction!

    A distinction without a difference. To make stuff up is to lie, plain and simple. There is no difference. Now, quit claiming I am lying since I have very repeatedly proven that you lied when you made that claim.

  77. Perry, I said it hurts no one. The fetus has no capacity until after the third month, to feel pain, or even acknowledge it’s own being.

    Yes, there are those that feel pain, like Kelly Clinger, who are big in the Jesus fan club, and listened to all the propaganda, after the effects of her rock and roll “career” with drugs (she admitted) and many other aspects of wild living, and yes, I’ll tell you that even women that have had their babies go through hormonal chaos, and cry at cartoons, for God’s sake.

    I’ll tell you what is sad, to see children growing up in environments that are unsuitable for them, and they live with abuses, and insufficient care, food, medical care, because some poor woman thought the right thing to do was bring her pregnancy all the way through, and letting that fetus become the baby, and so now has inflicted a life time of misery onto a human being, which will start through the first 18 years, and will leave its impact for the rest of his or her life. Showing responsibility requires what the potential child will live with.

  78. Perry, do you support the idea to cut off Clarence Thomas’ fingers and toes and force-feed them to him? Do you support the idea to send Clarence Thomas back into the fields? Do you support killing Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny?

    Quit hiding from the issue.

  79. Hube has shown he is emotionally at the developmental level of a junior high school bully. What and astonishing ass!

  80. Blubonnet, I understand exactly what you are saying. I do think the best solution is to counsel the pregnant woman with these Kelly Clinger-like stories, and propose carrying to term followed by adoption. There are countless examples of this approach having a very favorable outcome, long range.

  81. Quit hiding from the issue.

    My answers should be obvious to you by now, knowing that I am adamantly pro-life. I don’t see these questions being relevant to anything being discussed here.

  82. My answers should be obvious to you by now, knowing that I am adamantly pro-life. I don’t see these questions being relevant to anything being discussed here.

    Then answer the questions, because that is what the article is about. You know, that article where you on the left have been — Oh!!! A shiny!!!

  83. And you cannot be “adamantly pro-life” while at the same time supporting a woman’s “right to choose.” It is a logical impossibility, plain and simple.

  84. A distinction without a difference. To make stuff up is to lie, plain and simple. There is no difference. Now, quit claiming I am lying since I have very repeatedly proven that you lied when you made that claim.

    In other words, John, if I am making up a bedtime story and telling it to my granddaughter, I am lying to her, is that your understanding? There IS a distinction with a difference, correct?

  85. John Hitchcock, suggesting one duke it out physically shows not only ridiculousness, and a predisposition to violence, and childish mental and emotional position, it is also quite clearly narcissistic on Hube’s part. So, stop acting like there is anything worth defending on what he has to say. He’s vile.

  86. And you cannot be “adamantly pro-life” while at the same time supporting a woman’s “right to choose.” It is a logical impossibility, plain and simple.

    No, John, it is not a logical impossibility. I just don’t think I have the right to IMPOSE my position on a woman.

    And while we are on the pro-life subject, please don’t tell me that you are pro-life, because you are obviously not, not even close!

  87. Then answer the questions, because that is what the article is about. You know, that article where you on the left have been — Oh!!! A shiny!!!

    You’ve got my answer, John. Now I opt out of your silly game.

  88. John Hitchcock, suggesting one duke it out physically shows not only ridiculousness, and a predisposition to violence, and childish mental and emotional position, it is also quite clearly narcissistic on Hube’s part. So, stop acting like there is anything worth defending on what he has to say. He’s vile.

    Hube’s wasn’t actually a physical threat, Blubonnet, but a threat to continue with his rude behavior to me on here. So yes, I agree with you, it is vile! Who needs that?

  89. The majority of Americans support abortion rights

    CBS News Poll. Aug. 20-24, 2010. N=1,082 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    “Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted.”

    Generally
    available Available
    under
    stricter limits Not
    permitted Unsure
    % % % %

    8/20-24/10
    36 39 23 2

    36% + 39% = 75% who think abortion rights should be available. I did not say “pro-life”, moron.

    The polling data puts the lie to NZT’s arsepull.

    Not even close, liar.

    Two words for you, NZT: Dred Scott.

    Save, of course, that Dred Scott referred to slaves, not fetuses, and fetuses are not slaves.

    Let’s repeat that for the hard of thinking – fetuses are not slaves even if you use a strike to imply they are.

    Where’s the fetus equivalent of Frederick Douglass, PB?

  90. Perry says:

    “And while we are on the pro-life subject, please don’t tell me that you are pro-life, because you are obviously not, not even close!”

    While you are on the pro-life subject, did you ever answer Dana and describe the precise grounds for your personal objection to abortion? If so, can you link to it, or restate the grounds you gave for your personal disapproval?

  91. The last person I want legislating my vagina is a Robotican!!! I will do my own legislating of my own vagina. You don’t give a damn about life, other than exalting yourself in a fake moral superiority, whole cheering on as machine guns, compliments of the US burst open the heads, bodies, and homes, and hospitals of the middle-easterners in the way of Empirical acquisition. You eat the lies, the bovine feces, and call it freedom, you MFers.

  92. While you are on the pro-life subject, did you ever answer Dana and describe the precise grounds for your personal objection to abortion? If so, can you link to it, or restate the grounds you gave for your personal disapproval?

    DNW, I am pro-life on moral grounds, and that includes abortion; its as simple as that.

  93. Perry says:

    7 February 2011 at 17:29

    While you are on the pro-life subject, did you ever answer Dana and describe the precise grounds for your personal objection to abortion? If so, can you link to it, or restate the grounds you gave for your personal disapproval?

    DNW, I am pro-life on moral grounds, and that includes abortion; its as simple as that.

    What “moral grounds” as regards abortion? Are you saying abortion is immoral? If so, why is it immoral?

  94. Perry wrote:

    No, John, it is not a logical impossibility. I just don’t think I have the right to IMPOSE my position on a woman.

    Really? You would “IMPOSE (your) position” on health insurance on everybody, you would “IMPOSE (your) position” on taxes on everybody, you would “IMPOSE (your) position” on entitlement spending and stimulus plans and food salt content on everybody. You have even stated your support for conscription, which means you would “IMPOSE (your) position” on military service on everybody. Why, when you apparently believe that an unborn child really is a living human being, and you have been so adamantly pro-life as to say that we shouldn’t kill people even when it comes to liberating countries from tyranny, would you be unwilling to impose a somewhat difficult but nevertheless temporary burden on a woman to save someone else’s life?

  95. Dana, what part of our tyrannizing a country with bombs, machine gun fire, land mines, do you not understand? Darn, I like you, Dana, why are you so supportive of a nightmare imposed upon a population, and calling it a good thing? It’s crazy. Reclaim your own capacity for objectivity and regard for humanity. How many cases of proving the war was based on lies do you all need? How many dead Iraqis, and Afghanis need to pile up before you accept that horrific reality?

  96. In the Winter Soldiers’ hearings, I recall one soldier who went through Fallujah, and they warned everyone through fliers, etc, that they were coming in to destroy, and innocent people need to leave. (If they could, had transportation, etc.), and of course the “stronghold” they said was there, had the ability to leave, and the population that couldn’t were there left to endure it.

    Then, as the soldiers had to go through the town, after the blasting of all imaginable weapons including (Pentagon admitted it after denying it, since evidence based material came out) of using white phosphourous, which is virtual napalm, and of course the depleted uranium all over the middle east, causing deformities and cancer in unheard of levels.

    So, as the soldiers go through there, they see that there littering the streets, were bodies, more bodies, parts of bodies, civilians, because the ones fighting against our military left. One soldier says he remembered seeing a torso hanging from a sign, of a young boy.

    Dana, WE ARE TYRANNY.

  97. YOu can’t call the fetus anything, like “slave, or baby” because at fetus stage, neurological devolopment doesn’t start til AFTER SCIENCE calls it a baby.

  98. What an infantile threat this is, as if we are going to meet up on an elementary school playground ready to fight. Again, grow up Hube!

    I’m dead serious, Fossil. If I don’t pander to your outright bullshit hypocrisy here, WTF makes you think I’m gonna listen to it and not give it right back to you in person? If you don’t like it, maybe you can use some of that high-fallutin’ “combat training” you’re so proud of contrary to us “non-servers,” eh?

    And grow up? Dude, for a guy approaching triple digits, my 8 year old nephew is more mature, not to mention light-years less hypocritical, than you.

  99. YOu can’t call the fetus anything, like “slave, or baby” because at fetus stage, neurological devolopment doesn’t start til AFTER SCIENCE calls it a baby.

    Tell us blu, you lithium-guzzling nut — what is the difference between a “fetus” that is a couple weeks from birth that is partially extracted, has its skull pierced by forceps and its brains sucked out so as to be more easily extracted from the womb … and a “fetus” that is actually born, say, a week later?

  100. Reclaim your own capacity for objectivity and regard for humanity.

    This from one who says abortion is no big deal … what can anyone say to such garbage? Easy: that person isn’t part of humanity herself, that’s what.

  101. I missed nothing about your article, blu. What you missed was this:

    Conclusions: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.

    “Limited.” You know, like your cerebral capacity.

    But we know you won’t even attempt to answer those questions honestly.

    Inasmuch as you do not attempt to answer questions posed directly to you, honestly, Kiwi Pussy. Even I did answer it honestly, with a certificate from a polygraph tester, it wouldn’t make one iota’s difference to you. Because you don’t want honest answers … and especially ones that make you out to be a morally hypocritical pig.

  102. Hube, you ignorant bastard, the difference is consciousness. The only responses in the fetus were the same with pain as with any response, and the brain does not work in an infant, you self righteous, vile, buffoon!

    And your outrageous assumptions with nothing to back it up, notions about me personally only shows the despair in your ability for using logic successfully.

    Reread the article, and no GD way do I give your more credibility than the doctors that wrote that article.

  103. Even I did answer it honestly,

    But you won’t, as I so rightly predicted. You’re a joke.

    Those questions again which Hube is too cowardly to answer:

    i, Is it okay to abort a single fertilised cell, Hube?

    ii, IF NOT, doesn’t that mean you are stating that a single fertilised cell has as many human rights as the actual woman carrying it?

    iii, IF SO, then when does it become not alright to abort a fetus, Hube, and why?

  104. Context Proposed federal legislation would require physicians to inform women seeking abortions at 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the fetus. This article examines whether a fetus feels pain and if so, whether safe and effective techniques exist for providing direct fetal anesthesia or analgesia in the context of therapeutic procedures or abortion.

    Evidence Acquisition Systematic search of PubMed for English-language articles focusing on human studies related to fetal pain, anesthesia, and analgesia. Included articles studied fetuses of less than 30 weeks’ gestational age or specifically addressed fetal pain perception or nociception. Articles were reviewed for additional references. The search was performed without date limitations and was current as of June 6, 2005.

    Evidence Synthesis Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony.

    [retrieved from moderation - pH]

  105. The brain does not work in a fetus

    The brain does not work in a liberal. Two statements, equal level of fact.

    The brain does not work in a fetus (at the time of most abortions). The brain works in a liberals – in general, better than in wingnuts. PB is a liar.

    Three actual facts.

  106. Sometimes, I think I should apologize for my outbursts, and occasional foul language, but than I have to rethink to myself, why should I apologize for my rudeness that our position with being Pro-Choice and Pro-Life, and that our perspective, is to be congruous with pro-Life than Pro-Life is supposed to be supportive of, and science is the authority we look to.

    Science tells us that the neural status of the developing brain of a fetus, is no more than a consciousness, under 12 weeks, any more than an egg is a chicken.

    More facts, governments are not our daddies, and they severely take advantage of positions when they get to make wars, and benefit their families for generations to come, and alter the Constitution any ways he sees fit, and the almighty buck keeps getting passed between them. The irony is, no matter how obvious it is, your actual capacity to use otherwise operational means of cognition, you’ve abandoned in your allegiance to Institutions, who also, by the way like your money, and they play you so easily. You allow yourselves to be accomplicies to genocide.

    It’s probably just fine that I get mad about those things, if you ask me. I would not be normal if I was not. Having glasses on, in good light, in your heart and mind, and how can you be okay with bombing countries, with lies (from…please don’t make me paragraph a list of pieces of evidence of lies, because it would require at least a full screen).

    Why are you so afraid of listening to those soldiers, in the Winter Soldiers’ Hearings, which I left a link for? It scares the hell out of you, because it is factual, so, instead of facing the reality of what is more than obvious of any thinking person that looks at both sides on a discussion, and maintains objectivity throughout. YOU cannot. Why do so many of the video documentaries too frightening to look at. Just think how much fun it would be to make fun of me if you can honestly believe the government? You definitely would have to be one of the masses that THE AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, of whom are literally, and this is all quite verifiable, that our countries, been actually become a blatent criminal mafia, that just continued into Obama, more obvious than anyone with a thinking mind could recognize these obvious realities, genuine science, outside of Pentagon funding, declaring things, that any thinking person couldn’t deny, explosives were in all three buildings, and the whole damn world is taking note of what the hell this country has become. Nearly 90% of the country of Germany recognizes our government is not only lying to us, but sending fine people to die of which they profit, and run out networks, and you don’t believe me, because you are too frightened to start looking honestly at what has taken place, what is known as (as in scholastic terms, of which I, Blue, am not, However) Psyche Journals, er, I think. :[ SCADs are State Crimes Against Democracy. Please think of how many things we have done that other tyrants around the world have also done, which makes us not only amoral nation (are we?) which doesn’t mind dropping bombs on other nations when it is proven that many many many lies, and interconnected dirty dealing took place, if you ever took the blinders off. Mafia-like high office, government officials defense contractors, now with media as part of their ever growing peach pie they all eat off of. and they don’t mind because, the peachy deals just keeping getting peachier. They are F-ing war profiteers that mold your little perspectives. When are you going to start being honest with yourselves?

  107. The term I wanted to use, and got sidetracked, was “mass psychosis” is the proper term, from psyche professors. Your are there. Science all in, government pulled a hideous fast one on us, and most governments around the world go through such period. What are we going to do about it? Start wising up, and researching, and as usual maximum power is sought, and of course maximum dollars, follow the money, that controls the money. “It’s a party, and you’re not invited.” said George Carlin. You do most of the work, and they get to have the most fun, oh, and they also get the mmost money, and virtue is not necesarily an option in the way they play their games, and your sons and daughters, are fair game. You all concede. It’s about knowledge, and that’s it. I think we all need to start becoming aware, despite the sadness of realiziang we have horrid scoundrels that have been operating through the Pentagon, and the presidency of the United States. Sorry, but you all need to get it figured out. You are supporting a regime our country is now. I frankly am flabbergasted at the cowardice I’ve encountered among so many, who don’t even have enough balls to merely look at television footage of the day of …

  108. I’m dead serious, Fossil. If I don’t pander to your outright bullshit hypocrisy here, WTF makes you think I’m gonna listen to it and not give it right back to you in person? If you don’t like it, maybe you can use some of that high-fallutin’ “combat training” you’re so proud of contrary to us “non-servers,” eh?

    And grow up? Dude, for a guy approaching triple digits, my 8 year old nephew is more mature, not to mention light-years less hypocritical, than you.

    What hypocrisy is that, Hube? Oh, I know, if one does not agree with you, that’s hypocrisy!

    I’ll be happy to personally debate you on any issue, but fully expect you to be your usual obnoxious self, as well observed and noted on this blog. Instead of depending on your knowledge and intellect to support your positions, you lash out personally, and with outrageous language, at those with whom you disagree. Your behavior on here makes me wonder how you are in the classroom, a tyrant maybe? And yes, in spite of being in your 40′s, you still have some growing up to do in terms of deportment!

  109. What hypocrisy is that, Hube?

    LOL!! You want a list? It’d be as long as from Earth to Pluto, cretin.

    Once again (as everyone with half a brain already knows, which obviously does not include you), neither I, nor York, nor Hitch nor anyone else is more obnoxious here than yourself. You can chastise anyone and everyone else as much as you like, but the plain fact of the matter is that you’re just as personal in your attacks, just as obnoxious, but light-years more hypocritical. Yeah, I could pretend and debate/discuss all “nicey nice” with you this weekend. But I’m not a hypocrite in that regard. If you insist on being exactly as you are in this forum, I guarantee you — so will I. And if that displeases you, well ain’t that just too damn bad.

  110. Your behavior on here makes me wonder how you are in the classroom, a tyrant maybe?

    LOL … and your behavior makes ME wonder how you were in the classroom … a hypocrite maybe? Constantly “forgetful,” maybe? A little “slow,” maybe, where most of your students knew more than you and made you look foolish?

    Perhaps that’s why you vamoosed from the field.

  111. Perry wrote:

    No, John, it is not a logical impossibility. I just don’t think I have the right to IMPOSE my position on a woman.

    Really? You would “IMPOSE (your) position” on health insurance on everybody, you would “IMPOSE (your) position” on taxes on everybody, you would “IMPOSE (your) position” on entitlement spending and stimulus plans and food salt content on everybody. You have even stated your support for conscription, which means you would “IMPOSE (your) position” on military service on everybody. Why, when you apparently believe that an unborn child really is a living human being, and you have been so adamantly pro-life as to say that we shouldn’t kill people even when it comes to liberating countries from tyranny, would you be unwilling to impose a somewhat difficult but nevertheless temporary burden on a woman to save someone else’s life?

    Dana, first of all you are comparing apples and oranges: In one case you are talking about requiring the invasion the privacy of a woman and her body, in the other cases, you are talking about policies of governance that civil societies need to consider.

    Secondly, you are inconsistent, railing against what you call impositions on citizens, yet in favor of an imposition of the most personal kind on a woman.

    Finally, I don’t view health insurance, taxes, entitlement spending, stimulus plans, and military service as impositions, I view them as issues that civilized societies need to address for the satisfactory running of our nation.

    That you would consider all these issues as ‘impositions’ then positions you as one who has little desire to search for the balance which aims for a well run country. Instead, you set yourself off in an extreme position which if satisfied would result in social chaos, in my view.

    For example, you apparently have no problem with the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small minority, who then have the capability to effectively bribe our so-called leaders. So it’s hands off, let the most powerful become more powerful, is that it Dana? This makes no sense to me.

    Nor does it make any sense to me to deprive a woman of her choice, within the limits of current law. Moreover, you are fine with the anti-abortion, law-breaking terrorists who would force their beliefs on women, is that correct as well? Talk about ‘imposing’!

  112. Your behavior on here makes me wonder how you are in the classroom, a tyrant maybe?

    LOL … and your behavior makes ME wonder how you were in the classroom … a hypocrite maybe? Constantly “forgetful,” maybe? A little “slow,” maybe, where most of your students knew more than you and made you look foolish?

    Perhaps that’s why you vamoosed from the field.

    Knowing what I know now, I would have changed my course coverage and strategies somewhat, as I did frequently during my ten year teaching career.

    But you divert, Hube: I have to conclude about you, based on your behavior here and on your blog, that your behavior in your classroom must be inappropriately harsh. Is this true? Have you been called out by your department head, assistant principal, principal, and/or parents? Now be honest!

  113. Is this true? Have you been called out by your department head, assistant principal, principal, and/or parents? Now be honest!

    Nope!

    Y’see, you missed, as you so often do, what I’ve mentioned numerous times here and elsewhere, Fossil: Blogging/commenting is a catharsis, essentially, and nothing more. To associate it in any way with professional responsibilities and demeanor is just plain silly. Which is why you do it, of course.

  114. Nor does it make any sense to me to deprive a woman of her choice, within the limits of current law.

    Why not? Did it make any sense to deprive people of their property when slavery was still accepted practice? I mean, it was “the current law.”

    Moreover, you are fine with the anti-abortion, law-breaking terrorists who would force their beliefs on women, is that correct as well? Talk about ‘imposing’!

    Just like those dastardly anti-slavery, law-breaking terrorist abolitionists who forced their beliefs upon the South (primarily). Talk about “imposing!”

  115. What hypocrisy is that, Hube?

    LOL!! You want a list? It’d be as long as from Earth to Pluto, cretin.

    Once again (as everyone with half a brain already knows, which obviously does not include you), neither I, nor York, nor Hitch nor anyone else is more obnoxious here than yourself. You can chastise anyone and everyone else as much as you like, but the plain fact of the matter is that you’re just as personal in your attacks, just as obnoxious, but light-years more hypocritical. Yeah, I could pretend and debate/discuss all “nicey nice” with you this weekend. But I’m not a hypocrite in that regard. If you insist on being exactly as you are in this forum, I guarantee you — so will I. And if that displeases you, well ain’t that just too damn bad.

    I expected such a defense from you, Hube. You delude yourself. I don’t believe you could be “nicey nice” for more than a few minutes, because you don’t appear to have the self-discipline to overcome your basic attack and destroy instincts. We shall see! I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

    Now this discussion has gotten to be really silly, arguing about who is the most obnoxious, the most hypocritical, like a couple of teenagers. So go ahead, Hube, you can have the last word. I’m done with this!

  116. I expected such a defense from you, Hube.

    AKA “The Truth.”

    I don’t believe you could be “nicey nice” for more than a few minutes

    Says the biggest hypocrite I’ve ever known, let alone who can’t recall something he or someone else said/wrote a mere 5 minutes prior.

    Now this discussion has gotten to be really silly, arguing about who is the most obnoxious, the most hypocritical

    You are! LOL!

  117. Nor does it make any sense to me to deprive a woman of her choice, within the limits of current law.

    Why not? Did it make any sense to deprive people of their property when slavery was still accepted practice? I mean, it was “the current law.”

    Moreover, you are fine with the anti-abortion, law-breaking terrorists who would force their beliefs on women, is that correct as well? Talk about ‘imposing’!

    Just like those dastardly anti-slavery, law-breaking terrorist abolitionists who forced their beliefs upon the South (primarily). Talk about “imposing!”

    Hube, in my view, there is not an equivalency between depriving a slave owner of his ownership of slaves and depriving a woman of her choice, in my view. It is a given, by nature, that a pregnant woman must own her fetus, not so with a slave owner. Moreover, the rights of a fetus are not equivalent to the rights of a slave in the eyes of the law. A fetus is not yet a human being. Therefore, I reject your argument.

    When are you going to be equally as concerned about the death penalty, in which a human being is put to death by an irreversible act? What if there is a mistake of justice? Talk about hypocrisy, there’s another one of yours, Hube!

  118. It is a given, by nature, that a pregnant woman must own her fetus

    Why? She couldn’t have gotten pregnant without a man, right? With your view, I presume then you’re in favor of abolishing child support for fathers who may not want a child born that he sired, right?

    Moreover, the rights of a fetus are not equivalent to the rights of a slave in the eyes of the law

    You keep arguing “law.” Jim Crow was law. SLAVERY was law. Pathetically weak.

    When are you going to be equally as concerned about the death penalty, in which a human being is put to death by an irreversible act? What if there is a mistake of justice? Talk about hypocrisy, there’s another one of yours, Hube!

    Is this called “projection” — when your own morally repugnant stance on life/death causes you to place it upon others? Not to mention, your memory is beyond feeble. I’ve stated numerous times that I favor capital punishment ONLY if there is IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE of a crime such a murder. Or, if the accused desires death. Not to mention, of course, that, unlike yourself, I’d prefer to preserve 100% innocent life as opposed to that of some heinous butcher.

    One wonders how you can stand that view in the mirror…

  119. One wonders how you can stand that view in the mirror…

    Hube, you just plain cannot take part in a discussion or debate without making a personal attack, can you? I am really curious if you will be able to stifle your instincts in person, as a civil adult.

    It is a given, by nature, that a pregnant woman must own her fetus

    Why? She couldn’t have gotten pregnant without a man, right? With your view, I presume then you’re in favor of abolishing child support for fathers who may not want a child born that he sired, right?

    Of course the man should have rights too, but the woman by nature owns the fetus. And no, the man should be required to provide child support regardless.

    Moreover, the rights of a fetus are not equivalent to the rights of a slave in the eyes of the law

    You keep arguing “law.” Jim Crow was law. SLAVERY was law. Pathetically weak.

    Don’t we have to deal with current law? Of course we do!

    When are you going to be equally as concerned about the death penalty, in which a human being is put to death by an irreversible act? What if there is a mistake of justice? Talk about hypocrisy, there’s another one of yours, Hube!

    Is this called “projection” — when your own morally repugnant stance on life/death causes you to place it upon others? Not to mention, your memory is beyond feeble. I’ve stated numerous times that I favor capital punishment ONLY if there is IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE of a crime such a murder. Or, if the accused desires death. Not to mention, of course, that, unlike yourself, I’d prefer to preserve 100% innocent life as opposed to that of some heinous butcher.

    I note that you consider yourself to be the decider on moral issues. Have you considered that there might be a moral issue in depriving a woman the right to her choice?

    As far as your current take on the death penalty, I have not seen it here, but I’ll take your word for it.

    Is there such a thing as “IRREFUTABLE RIGHTS”?

    And finally you say this: “Not to mention, of course, that, unlike yourself, I’d prefer to preserve 100% innocent life as opposed to that of some heinous butcher.” That statement is inconsistent with what you just said. Which is it Hube?

  120. DNW says:
    7 February 2011 at 17:43

    Perry says:

    7 February 2011 at 17:29

    While you are on the pro-life subject, did you ever answer Dana and describe the precise grounds for your personal objection to abortion? If so, can you link to it, or restate the grounds you gave for your personal disapproval?

    DNW, I am pro-life on moral grounds, and that includes abortion; its as simple as that.

    What “moral grounds” as regards abortion? Are you saying abortion is immoral? If so, why is it immoral?

    Dana Pico says:
    7 February 2011 at 18:44

    Perry wrote:

    No, John, it is not a logical impossibility. I just don’t think I have the right to IMPOSE my position on a woman.

    Really? You would “IMPOSE (your) position” on health insurance on everybody, you would “IMPOSE (your) position” on taxes on everybody, you would “IMPOSE (your) position” on entitlement spending and stimulus plans and food salt content on everybody. You have even stated your support for conscription, which means you would “IMPOSE (your) position” on military service on everybody. Why, when you apparently believe that an unborn child really is a living human being, and you have been so adamantly pro-life as to say that we shouldn’t kill people even when it comes to liberating countries from tyranny, would you be unwilling to impose a somewhat difficult but nevertheless temporary burden on a woman to save someone else’s life?

    So has Perry ever said what the supposed moral grounds are that support his personal opposition to abortion?

  121. Blubonnet says:
    7 February 2011 at 19:59

    Dana, what part of our tyrannizing a country with bombs, machine gun fire, land mines, do you not understand? Darn, I like you, Dana, why are you so supportive of a nightmare imposed upon a population, and calling it a good thing? “

    It seems to me that he understood it and sympathized with the plight of the Kuwaitis and Kurds.

    Are you still upset over the “Highway of Death”?

  122. DNW asks:

    So has Perry ever said what the supposed moral grounds are that support his personal opposition to abortion?

    To start, morality is an individual concept, a belief, based on experience and knowledge, which enables one to differentiate between right and wrong. It then follows that experience and knowledge generate values which arise from culture, codes of conduct, customs and spiritual beliefs. My experience and knowledge teach me that abortion is wrong, thus immoral. Abortion, although technically not murder because a fetus is not a human being, nevertheless is tantamount to murder, because a fetus carried successfully to term becomes a human being at birth. Thus it follows that I would believe abortion to be immoral, with the qualification that if it comes to a decision on which life to save, the mother or the fetus, the mother is the obvious choice.

    I hope this helps, DNW.

  123. Of course the man should have rights too, but the woman by nature owns the fetus. And no, the man should be required to provide child support regardless.

    Very consistent, that. The woman owns the fetus, but the man must pay for it. Yeah, very consistent with the concept of “ownership.”

    Don’t we have to deal with current law? Of course we do!

    Sure. And just like the abolitionists fought for the rights of slaves, there are those who fight for the rights of unborn children.

    I note that you consider yourself to be the decider on moral issues.

    Yeah, let’s see … OK to abort an innocent unborn child, NOT OK to put to death a heinous murderer. Nothing to decide about that morality, eh?

  124. Of course the man should have rights too, but the woman by nature owns the fetus. And no, the man should be required to provide child support regardless.

    Very consistent, that. The woman owns the fetus, but the man must pay for it. Yeah, very consistent with the concept of “ownership.”

    It’s a question of responsibility, Hube

    Don’t we have to deal with current law? Of course we do!

    Sure. And just like the abolitionists fought for the rights of slaves, there are those who fight for the rights of unborn children.

    We agree!

    I note that you consider yourself to be the decider on moral issues.

    Yeah, let’s see … OK to abort an innocent unborn child, NOT OK to put to death a heinous murderer. Nothing to decide about that morality, eh?

    Who’s position is that? Not mine!

    .

  125. Science tells us that the neural status of the developing brain of a fetus, is no more than a consciousness, under 12 weeks, any more than an egg is a chicken.

    And it has no brainwaves before 25 weeks. No brain-waves means no chance of thinking. And abortion is legal in teh States to about 20 weeks.

    This is why Hube ran like a scared little coward when he was asked the following simple questions:

    i, Is it okay to abort a single fertilised cell, Hube?

    ii, IF NOT, doesn’t that mean you are stating that a single fertilised cell has as many human rights as the actual woman carrying it?

    iii, IF SO, then when does it become not alright to abort a fetus, Hube, and why?

    By now it’s becoming obvious what Hube’s position is, even if he’s too yellow to state it out loud:

    - A fertilised egg is “an innocent baby” and has full human rights.
    - It is never acceptable to abort a fetus, or even a fertilised egg. The rights of the fetus always trump the rights of the woman.
    - Human rights are predicated not on having a brain, but on having a “soul”, which a fertilised egg possesses.

  126. You got that right, PiaToR! And don’t forget that Hube has assigned himself to speak for everybody!!

  127. So, did you guys apologize to the egg you had for breakfast because you “killed” a chicken? It doesn’t have a chicken brain.

    A fetus at the time of a legal abortion does not have a consciousness more than a chicken.

  128. A chicken is far more evolved than a fetus. A fetus doesn’t have the capacity for brain function/pain.

  129. The racist calling for the lynching of Justice Clarence Thomas in the video is doing so in an open forum while being taped. He’s not showing the least bit of embarrassment at expressing a series of racist slurs at what he considers an uppity black man who has the effrontery to think differently from left-wing orthodoxy.

    That’s racism and bigotry on display. Take a close look and remember it well.

  130. Evidence Synthesis Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony.

    A LEGAL ABORTION (UNLESS THERE ARE SERIOUS MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS REQUIRING IT) IS 12 WEEKS.

  131. Again, I am in moderation, see comment above…er…not.. This being in moderation is much more advantageous to them than I.

  132. Ya’all ever wonder if Cass Sunstein is aligned with the defense department, he truly is defending myth. Do you know who Cass Sunstein is? Have you read his proposals to operate his propaganda ministry. hmmm. Explains alot, of the Robotican like behavior I so often encounter. You think I’m joking about Cass Sunstein, don’t you? Google up PSYWARS, if you have any independent brain cells, that might make a run for it, and jump onto a new thought, that would expand awareness instead of constrict it more, as is your Conservatives’ way of operating, thus you become the useful cattle, and allow innocent people to continue getting blown up, by your willful blindnesses.

    I was telling you to look at more information to then decide further. You can’t even do that. How rodent like! (Oh, yeah, God bless America, and all that, uh-huh.)

  133. The PJ Tatler has an observation on the issue, 2/8/2011.

    “So Much For Civility”

    “The silence of liberals is sometimes just as revealing as what they say. What would be the reaction if protesters at a Tea Party rally were heard saying the following about Attorney General Eric Holder?

    • He should be impeached and “put… back in the fields.”

    • We should “cut off his toes one-by-one and feed them to him.”

    • “I’m all about peace… but I would say torture” him.

    • “String him up… and his wife, too.”

    • “Hang him.”

    Of course, none of these vile, racist and violent things were said about Eric Holder at a conservative political rally. But they were said at a liberal protest affiliated with a Common Cause-sponsored conference on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision…”

  134. John, the severring of fingers and toes has been the doing of the Right. How many of our soldiers have lost body parts? Do you think they should be lied to? Do you think the ones perpetrating the lies, that were all on fraudulent claims, is uite serious, years onward, and these people still hold power and are with Obama continuing the conquests. Keeping their fingers in the pie, in which there is innocent blood. These are war profiteers that do it. Dana, I think you need to see this, because you are a good citizen, and I’m sorry if I have said anything lately that seems offensive. I think these things are really so important, don’t you know!

    http://rethinkafghanistan.com/videos.php

  135. Dana, this man speaks of history, and its correlation to our present place, “of tis of thee”.

    Don’t you recall the characteristic in history that, the state and media are now fused? Oh, that’s right, we are too, for those that look farther than face value, and scrutinize with science, but anyway, this man is brilliant, and anyone would benefit from a perspective of expanding one’s realization. Chris Hedges is brilliant….

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/recognizing_the_language_of_tyranny_20110206/

  136. Perry says:
    8 February 2011 at 11:43

    DNW asks:

    So has Perry ever said what the supposed moral grounds are that support his personal opposition to abortion?

    To start, morality is an individual concept, a belief, based on experience and knowledge, which enables one to differentiate between right and wrong. It then follows that experience and knowledge generate values which arise from culture, codes of conduct, customs and spiritual beliefs. My experience and knowledge teach me that abortion is wrong, thus immoral. Abortion, although technically not murder because a fetus is not a human being, nevertheless is tantamount to murder, because a fetus carried successfully to term becomes a human being at birth. Thus it follows that I would believe abortion to be immoral, with the qualification that if it comes to a decision on which life to save, the mother or the fetus, the mother is the obvious choice.

    I hope this helps, DNW.

    Oh there it is. My response is on the other thread as you know by now.

Comments are closed.