Capturing the Language to Assure Liberal Dominance
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, May 23, 2007

A misleading recent headline in the New York Times demonstrated the way that the left abuses the language to cement its continued control of our public discourse.

Under the banner “EVOLUTION OPPONENT IS IN LINE FOR SCHOOLS POST” reporter Cornelia Dean declared: “The National Association of State Boards of Education will elect officers in July, and for one office, president-elect, there is only one candidate: a member of the Kansas school board who supported its efforts against the teaching of evolution.”

The headline and the lead sentence conjure up the image of a prairie populist, perhaps bearing pitchfork and clad in Bib overalls, denying the existence of dinosaurs and opposing any suggestion that the work of creation required more than six literal days. The sophisticates who read America’s Journal of Record no doubt scanned this alarming article with considerable head-shaking and tsk-tsking at the knuckle-dragging yahoos who populate Red State flyover country.

If anyone bothered to read the article in its entirety, however, they ultimately would discover that Kenneth R. Willard, the school official in question, in no way qualified as “an evolution opponent.”

During his service on the Kansas school board he and his conservative colleagues merely fought “to change the state’s science standards to allow inclusion of intelligent design” by local school districts. Voters later rejected the conservative majority, but neither Mr. Willard nor the other members of his faction ever attempted to block schools or school districts from educating students about Darwinism. Contrary to the newspaper’s alarming report, they in no way launched “efforts against the teaching of evolution.”

As he explained later in the same article, the embattled candidate for president of the National Association of State Boards of Education merely “thought students should be taught about challenges to the theory of evolution, like intelligent design…‘Some people are mindless about their attacks on anyone questioning anything Darwin might have said.’”

The use of loaded phrases like “evolution opponent” and “efforts against the teaching of evolution” deliberately conjure up scary images of the Scopes Trial, “Inherit the Wind,” and religious fanatics who want to keep young minds ignorant and pliable. The Scopes controversy of 1924 actually involved a government ban on any mention of evolution in the classroom; ironically, liberals today desire a government ban on any questioning of evolution in the classroom. It’s leftists, not conservatives, who mirror the Tennessee fundamentalists of eighty years ago by attempting to stifle a teacher’s freedom of speech.

The deployment of explosive and dishonest language has become an increasingly common tactic in today’s most polarizing cultural and political battles.

Whenever conservatives work for state or federal constitutional amendments to reinforce the existing definition of male-female marriage, for instance, leading newspapers and TV networks describe such efforts as “gay marriage bans.” A simple declaration affirming marriage as “a union between one man and one woman” bans no private behavior whatever, but rather underlines the policy under which government grants its strongest endorsement to one specific type of relationship. A restatement of the traditional basis for marriage amounts to a “gay marriage ban” no more than existing marriage laws constitute an “incest ban” or a “ban on interspecies relationships.” Defining one sort of union as uniquely approved doesn’t mean that another sort of connection is specifically forbidden, or banned.

In a similar vein, nearly all major press outlets have stopped using the phrases “pro life” or “pro choice” to describe the opposing positions on the abortion issue. The most common phraseology now centers on “abortion rights” --- as in, “Rudy Giuliani offends GOP orthodoxy with his support for abortion rights” or “Mitt Romney once supported, but now opposes, abortion rights.” Such outrageously unfair language ignores the fact that no pro life candidate or advocate would ever say “I oppose abortion rights” – since they don’t believe that abortion constitutes a genuine “right” in any sense.

If a newspaper suggested that Senator Chuck Schumer opposed “Second Amendment rights” or “gun owners’ rights” the New York Democrat would have legitimate grounds for complaint: he describes himself as “pro gun control” not “anti gun rights.” If those who favor more restrictions on firearms generally avoid designation as opponents of any sort of rights, why is it appropriate to characterize pro-lifers as foes of “abortion rights”? After all, gun rights actually appear, explicitly, in the text of the Constitution whereas “abortion rights” rely on the famous (and gaseous) “emanations of penumbras” that Justice William O. Douglas first conjured out of his fertile imagination in 1965.

The cunning and consistent employment of various misleading phrases (“evolution opponent”, “gay marriage ban”, “opponent of gay rights,” “opponent of hate crimes protection,” “foe of stem cell research,” “opponent of abortion rights”) help to tip the scales in ongoing debates. So do the glowing terms frequently trotted out to encourage many items on the liberal agenda, such as “universal health care” (how could anyone oppose such a worthy concept?), “fighting global warming” (the alternative seems to be either doing nothing or actually encouraging this horror) or even “the fairness doctrine.” (Why would cranky conservatives object to the idea of “fairness”?).

On every issue, language matters. Yes, it makes a difference whether you describe the Bush tax changes of 2003 as “across the board cuts” or “tax cuts for the rich.” By the same token, “affirmative action” or ”diversity guidelines” always prove more popular than “quotas” or “race-based preferences” – though all four phrases describe virtually the same thing. No one likes the idea of “death taxes,” but “inheritance taxes” sound far more appropriate. “Welfare” sounds suspect and wasteful but “social service safety net” has a reassuring, compassionate ring. And of course no one in the current debate on illegal immigration seems to endorse “amnesty” while even many conservatives believe that “earned legalization” remains the most just and sensible course.

In a sense, the new press tendency to invoke biased, left-leaning terminology reflects the work of Berkeley linguist George Lakoff, who has argued for years that “progressives” (a much better word than “liberals”) must take control of the language in order to roll back the ideological victories for the right. He pointed to the way that conservatives used phrases like “tax relief” (implying that taxes are indeed a burden, rather than a privilege or a duty) and “partial birth abortion” (emphasizing that the child is half born in the process of its termination) to bring the public in line with their point of view. According to numerous reports, the top national strategists who helped the Democrats sweep the Congressional elections of 2006 took careful note of Lakoff’s theories and recommendations.

Conservatives should consider a similar re-evaluation of our phraseology to reinvigorate our side of ongoing debates, at the same time that we contest manifestly slanted descriptions like “pro” and “anti abortion rights.”

Even when it comes to a minor controversy over an insignificant position like “President of the National Association of State Boards of Education,” we suffer when the nation’s leading newspaper to characterize, without protest, an advocate of open classroom discussion as an “evolution opponent.” If right-wingers allow themselves to be characterized in such forbidding, Jurassic terms then we, too, run the risk of permanent extinction.

Conservatives should consider a similar re-evaluation of our phraseology to reinvigorate our side of ongoing debates, at the same time that we contest manifestly slanted descriptions like “pro” and “anti abortion rights.”


Or statements like "Pro Choice = Pro Murder".

Well William Jennings Bryan did say :
" If we have to give up either religion or education,we should give
up education. " - Contribution,The Commoner,Jan.1923

And Former Secretary of Education,who is on right now,care of
Salem Communication is Bill Bennett.

Here is a list of what Education needs according to Dr.Bennett {has PhD}:

- Competency testing for Teachers
- Performance-based pay
- Holding Educators accountable for what children learn.
- An end to Tenure.
- A national examinanation to find out exactly how much children know.
- Parental choice of schools.
and here's a very interestink One :
May I done qualify
- Opening the teaching profession to knowledgeable individuals who
have not graduated from " schools of education ".

Bennett is a smart guy.


Well William Jennings Bryan did say :
" If we have to give up either religion or education,we should give
up education. " - Contribution,The Commoner,Jan.1923

And Former Secretary of Education,who is on right now,care of
Salem Communication is Bill Bennett.

Here is a list of what Education needs according to Dr.Bennett {has PhD}:

- Competency testing for Teachers
- Performance-based pay
- Holding Educators accountable for what children learn.
- An end to Tenure.
- A national examinanation to find out exactly how much children know.
- Parental choice of schools.
and here's a very interestink One :
May I done qualify
- Opening the teaching profession to knowledgeable individuals who
have not graduated from " schools of education ".

Since the choice is always between not killing the unborn child and killing it and since the pro-choice people always opt for killing the unborn child...............pro-choice = pro-murder. You can try to sugar coat it all you want but that is what it boils down to.

Since the choice is always between not killing the unborn child and killing it and since the pro-choice people always opt for killing the unborn child...............pro-choice = pro-murder. You can try to sugar coat it all you want but that is what it boils down to.

A blastocyst is not a "child." "Unborn" or otherwise. :rolleyes:

Bennett is a smart guy.

There's a very keen strategem at play in Education.leftists know
full well the advantage of manipulation.So,they concentrate their
efforts,rigorously at Our Kids,from K thru 12,having tried to sow
secular seeds of Liberalism,and then another Full Metal Jacket
blast in Higher education or College.
Most major University is literally nuthin but Liberal Tenured Profs,
just chompin at the bit to transform 18 yr. olds into little
Michael Moore's.Which can be difficult,considering Moores Heft.
Both of stature and bloated Polemic.

Many liberals love to sugar coat things. Still truth is truth.

Truth does not change. Pro-Choice = Pro-Murder


Since the choice is always between not killing the unborn child and killing it and since the pro-choice people always opt for killing the unborn child...............pro-choice = pro-murder. You can try to sugar coat it all you want but that is what it boils down to.

Many liberals love to sugar coat things.


Many conservatives love to twist the facts to impugn the character of those who balk at being forced to remain pregnant and carry an unwanted fetus to term.

Still truth is truth.

Truth does not change. Pro-Choice = Pro-Murder

Main Entry: mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Once again for those who would force a woman to bear a child she does not want and/or cannot or WILL NOT care for:

A blastocyst is not a "child" - unborn or otherwise. It is a collection of 40-150 cells, and it is simply impossible "murder" one.

Because, you know, it's not a person.



Good ol' pro-lifers. Love the blastocyst, but who gives a crap what happens to the unwanted child once it's born? :rant:

Many conservatives love to twist the facts to impugn the character of those who balk at being forced to remain pregnant and carry an unwanted fetus to term.

Once again for those who would force a woman to bear a child she does not want and/or cannot or WILL NOT care for:

A blastocyst is not a "child" - unborn or otherwise. It is a collection of 40-150 cells, and it is simply impossible "murder" one.

Because, you know, it's not a person

Good ol' pro-lifers. Love the blastocyst, but who gives a crap what happens to the unwanted child once it's born? :rant:

Perhaps she should have thought about that before she got pregnant. If you become pregnant, you automatically have responsibility for the life that grows inside you. The only way I would condone abortion is if the woman was raped, was a victim of incest, or her life was in imminent danger.

Perhaps she should have thought about that before she got pregnant. If you become pregnant, you automatically have responsibility for the life that grows inside you. The only way I would condone abortion is if the woman was raped, was a victim of incest, or her life was in imminent danger.
how is any of that...except for the mother's life being in danger, the child's fault?

we don't punish sons for the sins of the father, why punish a daughter for a whim of her mother? a whim often regretted, BTW.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1541543.htm

Many conservatives love to twist the facts to impugn the character of those who balk at being forced to remain pregnant and carry an unwanted fetus to term.





Once again for those who would force a woman to bear a child she does not want and/or cannot or WILL NOT care for:

A blastocyst is not a "child" - unborn or otherwise. It is a collection of 40-150 cells, and it is simply impossible "murder" one.

Because, you know, it's not a person.



Good ol' pro-lifers. Love the blastocyst, but who gives a crap what happens to the unwanted child once it's born? :rant:
everyone is someone else's child. from the point of conception, everything short of personal experience that makes a person unique, even the personality type, is set.

how is any of that...except for the mother's life being in danger, the child's fault?

we don't punish sons for the sins of the father, why punish a daughter for a whim of her mother? a whim often regretted, BTW.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1541543.htm

If a woman was under any of those circumstances its her choice to do as she wishes. If she was raped and got pregnant, its her choice to keep the baby or not. If she was an incest victim, its her choice what to do. Granted she has a 50/50 shot at having a healthy baby in that case. If her life would be in danger by having a baby, then I think the mother should take precedence. A woman getting pregnant under any other circumstances is also her choice. Unless possibly contraception failed, which does happen, and I could possibly understand an abortion in those circumstances as well. What I am against however, are women who get knocked up and just decide to end a life for no good reason. If they can't keep their legs shut, the need to live with the consequences of that, and take responsibility for thier child.

Hows that for pro choice hmmm.

Phyrex,

If the mother's life is in danger that is one thing. You are weighing the life of the mother against the life of the unborn child and that of the mother trumps that of the child.

If a woman is raped or if the pregnancy is the result of incest the woman's life is not in danger. She would rather not have the child and that is understandable. However, the life of the child outweighs the desire of the mother to not be pregnant under particular circumstances. The child should not be sacriced to make the mother feel better.

If a woman was under any of those circumstances its her choice to do as she wishes. If she was raped and got pregnant, its her choice to keep the baby or not. If she was an incest victim, its her choice what to do. Granted she has a 50/50 shot at having a healthy baby in that case. If her life would be in danger by having a baby, then I think the mother should take precedence. A woman getting pregnant under any other circumstances is also her choice. Unless possibly contraception failed, which does happen, and I could possibly understand an abortion in those circumstances as well. What I am against however, are women who get knocked up and just decide to end a life for no good reason. If they can't keep their legs shut, the need to live with the consequences of that, and take responsibility for thier child.

Hows that for pro choice hmmm.
i think we can agree that most of todays problems come from major decisions being entered into lightly.

However, the life of the child outweighs the desire of the mother to not be pregnant under particular circumstances. The child should not be sacriced to make the mother feel better.

Excuse me, but there is no child. 95% of abortions remove a collection of a few hundred cells from a woman's body. It's called a blastocyst.

But let's go past that, shall we? If you had your way, most women would be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. What do you think will happen to the millions of unwanted children when these women are forced to give birth? Do you think these women will be caring, excellent mothers that will provide a warm loving home, or do you suppose there might be the slightest possibility that they'll hate being forced to become a parent, and that their hatred will be directed back at the child they never wanted in the first place? Is that the (pitifully sad) life you want for these children?

Do you think all these children will be given up for adoption? If so, how do you plan to house, feed, clothe, and educate these children for 18 or so years? We've already got too many kids up for adoption as it is, and none of them are having a grand old time of it. Foster home after foster home, state-run homes, orphanages, being treated like nameless nobodies. Is that the (lonely, unhappy) life you want for these children?

And who's going to pay for it all? YOU? The person that insisted the child be born should have some responsiblity, don't you think? Shall we drop all the unwanted babies at your doorstep?

We hear all the time about young mothers who are too frightened to tell anyone about their pregnancy, so they hide it. When the infant is finally born, they smother it and throw it away, or try to flush it down a toilet... Is that the (hideously brief) life you want for these children?

Like I said, pro-lifers love the blastocyst but don't give a bloody damn about the child. :rant:

Since the choice is always between not killing the unborn child and killing it and since the pro-choice people always opt for killing the unborn child...............pro-choice = pro-murder. You can try to sugar coat it all you want but that is what it boils down to.


Um like god is a mass murderer and serial killer.

Lets not sugar coat things now.

Many liberals love to sugar coat things. Still truth is truth.

Truth does not change. Pro-Choice = Pro-Murder

I just still cannot get over it.

The truth is the truth to you only when you want it to be.

murdering little children either born or unborn which god did both yet you refuse to call him a murderer??

who is sugar coating here.

Since the choice is always between not killing the unborn child and killing it and since the pro-choice people always opt for killing the unborn child...............pro-choice = pro-murder. You can try to sugar coat it all you want but that is what it boils down to.
Pro-choice people ALWAYS opt for killing the fetus? Are you serious? I'm pro-choice, as in I believe that abortion should be legal. However, I would probably not get an abortion myself. Unless my own life was in danger or I knew that the baby had some incurable debilitating illness, I would not be able to justify it to myself. Therefore I would NOT choose to kill the unborn child. So I suppose you can continue calling me "pro-murder", but I thought I'd explain myself.

Perhaps she should have thought about that before she got pregnant. If you become pregnant, you automatically have responsibility for the life that grows inside you. The only way I would condone abortion is if the woman was raped, was a victim of incest, or her life was in imminent danger.

Ok if a woman kills the fetus the father goes to prison too for letting her doing.

SHE DIDN"T FUCKING GET PREGNANT ON HER OWN.

I say if she doesn't want the fetus the father has to take it or face neglect and abondoment.

Pro-choice people ALWAYS opt for killing the fetus? Are you serious? I'm pro-choice, as in I believe that abortion should be legal. However, I would probably not get an abortion myself. Unless my own life was in danger or I knew that the baby had some incurable debilitating illness, I would not be able to justify it to myself. Therefore I would NOT choose to kill the unborn child. So I suppose you can continue calling me "pro-murder", but I thought I'd explain myself.

They consider you an accomplis to murder because you allow it to happen by not voting against it.:mad:

If a woman was under any of those circumstances its her choice to do as she wishes. If she was raped and got pregnant, its her choice to keep the baby or not. If she was an incest victim, its her choice what to do. Granted she has a 50/50 shot at having a healthy baby in that case. If her life would be in danger by having a baby, then I think the mother should take precedence. A woman getting pregnant under any other circumstances is also her choice. Unless possibly contraception failed, which does happen, and I could possibly understand an abortion in those circumstances as well. What I am against however, are women who get knocked up and just decide to end a life for no good reason. If they can't keep their legs shut, the need to live with the consequences of that, and take responsibility for thier child.

Hows that for pro choice hmmm.

That is so fucking sexist it is sickning and the man has absolutly nothing to do with it sticking his dick up her to got off. It is his sperm that got her pregnant yet your blaming the woman for the whole thing. It is just as much the responsibility of the man to keep it in his pants as the woman to keep her legs closed but when a woman gets pregnant the man can always walk away.

Again I think that if a woman does not want he child the father is forced to raise the child or face prison time for abandoment and neglect of both the mother and fetus.

[QUOTE=F. de Marzipan]We've already got too many kids up for adoption as it is, and none of them are having a grand old time of it. Foster home after foster home, state-run homes, orphanages, being treated like nameless nobodies. Is that the (lonely, unhappy) life you want for these children?

Yet we have all these folks running to China and Africa to adopt a child. I still can't understand that one. If the pro-life crowd gets their choice, we will have no alternative, except to start up the state run orphanages, again. That and the back alley abortions of the 50's. Guess there are not enough of us around who remember those "good old days".

Again I think that if a woman does not want he child the father is forced to raise the child or face prison time for abandoment and neglect of both the mother and fetus.What if he doesn't want it either? Does he still get prison time, and the woman a free pass?

well the woman was forced to carry the baby for 8 months. I say he has to keep the baby for 8 months after it is born. then he can choose to give it up.

I think that is fair

or how about this. Wearing a sign for 8 months saying
"I got a woman pregnant and did not want to take care of my responsibilities so I opt to kill the baby so i can live a free life without burden"

That and the back alley abortions of the 50's. Guess there are not enough of us around who remember those "good old days".

You bring up an excellent point.

How many women will die because they are being forced to give birth to children they don't want and won't care for?

You bring up an excellent point.

How many women will die because they are being forced to give birth to children they don't want and won't care for?

People don't understand, abortions did not start with Roe v Wade, nor will they end should that decision be changed.

you are obviously not a woman and never had to carry a baby for 8 months. The morning sickness, the tireness not the mention the fact that if you do not have a man around people begin to talk about you being knocked up. Do you realize that your organs get smashed all the way up to your chest to make room for the fetus. Do you have any idea how that feels!!?? barely being able to role out of the bed in the morning, having to go to the bathroom 5 times a minute not to mention the hosptal bills of constantly going to the doctors to get a needle in your ass. The birth alone cost 3,000 dollars or more. THe man how ever has absolutly nothing to bare. Just walk away and pretend it didn't happen. They do not have to sign the birth certifate or be humilatied in facing the fact that they cannot afford or emotionally take care of this child. NO it is all the mothers burden to live your whole life knowing you gave away and abondoned your child.
Men have no room to talk about abortions until they have actually carried a child alone without any help and face the responsibility of raising a child on thier own and living 8 months in misery of carrying the fetus they should keep thier mouth closed about the subject.

If men had to carry and give birth to children there would be no debate on abortion. It would be perfectly acceptable thing to do.

Phyrex,

If the mother's life is in danger that is one thing. You are weighing the life of the mother against the life of the unborn child and that of the mother trumps that of the child.

If a woman is raped or if the pregnancy is the result of incest the woman's life is not in danger. She would rather not have the child and that is understandable. However, the life of the child outweighs the desire of the mother to not be pregnant under particular circumstances. The child should not be sacriced to make the mother feel better.

Why is the mother's life more important than the "child's"?

You could never justify this with two actual, living people.

you are obviously not a woman and never had to carry a baby for 8 months. The morning sickness, the tireness not the mention the fact that if you do not have a man around people begin to talk about you being knocked up. Do you realize that your organs get smashed all the way up to your chest to make room for the fetus. Do you have any idea how that feels!!?? barely being able to role out of the bed in the morning, having to go to the bathroom 5 times a minute not to mention the hosptal bills of constantly going to the doctors to get a needle in your ass. The birth alone cost 3,000 dollars or more. THe man how ever has absolutly nothing to bare. Just walk away and pretend it didn't happen. They do not have to sign the birth certifate or be humilatied in facing the fact that they cannot afford or emotionally take care of this child. NO it is all the mothers burden to live your whole life knowing you gave away and abondoned your child.
Men have no room to talk about abortions until they have actually carried a child alone without any help and face the responsibility of raising a child on thier own and living 8 months in misery of carrying the fetus they should keep thier mouth closed about the subject.

If men had to carry and give birth to children there would be no debate on abortion. It would be perfectly acceptable thing to do.

Actually, you could make a case for the opposite. Since women are the ones who get pregnant, they have a conflict of interest when debating abortion. They might be less concerned if it's right or wrong and just more concerned if they can give themselves an out incase they have an "oops".

I think less abortions would happen if the man would commit. They lie to you and say they "love" you and will do anything for you but then you get pregnant and they are like "get the fuck away from me". I have never had this happpen to me lucky all my kids fathers stuck around until we both parted ways but so many woman are not so lucky. Taking the pill is hard on some woman and does increase the chance in developing cancer and men refuse to wear a condomn because they claim it does not feel as good. It is both the man and the womans fault that the pregnancy occurs accept in cases of rape and incest but 90 percent of the time woman pay the price and the humilation of being stuck with the choice of abortion or living in poverty or the humilaition and guilt of giving the child up.

I think the men who get the woman pregnant need to be hunted down and face the facts with the woman. He needs to be forced to sign the brith cerificate so people know he shurked his responsibility. Maybe a woman should wear a shirt with his picture on it with the title" deadbeat father" maybe even post it on the internet.

Somehow men need to face the responsibility for thier actions of impregnating a woman then dumping her and the kid.

either wear a condom or get prosecuted when they dump their responsibilitys after they commit the action of sex.

Many liberals love to sugar coat things. Still truth is truth.

Truth does not change. Pro-Choice = Pro-Murder

Many conservatives like to use emotionally charged terms inaccurately in an attept to make a point. Your statement "Pro Choice = Pro Murder" is wrong on its face. Murder is a legal term that is defined as "the unlawful killing of another". Since abortion is legal in this country, it cannot be "murder". You can believe it's immoral, wrong, or even disgusting, but you'll have to change the law before it becomes murder.

Excuse me, but there is no child. 95% of abortions remove a collection of a few hundred cells from a woman's body. It's called a blastocyst.

But let's go past that, shall we? If you had your way, most women would be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. What do you think will happen to the millions of unwanted children when these women are forced to give birth? Do you think these women will be caring, excellent mothers that will provide a warm loving home, or do you suppose there might be the slightest possibility that they'll hate being forced to become a parent, and that their hatred will be directed back at the child they never wanted in the first place? Is that the (pitifully sad) life you want for these children?

Do you think all these children will be given up for adoption? If so, how do you plan to house, feed, clothe, and educate these children for 18 or so years? We've already got too many kids up for adoption as it is, and none of them are having a grand old time of it. Foster home after foster home, state-run homes, orphanages, being treated like nameless nobodies. Is that the (lonely, unhappy) life you want for these children?

And who's going to pay for it all? YOU? The person that insisted the child be born should have some responsiblity, don't you think? Shall we drop all the unwanted babies at your doorstep?

We hear all the time about young mothers who are too frightened to tell anyone about their pregnancy, so they hide it. When the infant is finally born, they smother it and throw it away, or try to flush it down a toilet... Is that the (hideously brief) life you want for these children?

Like I said, pro-lifers love the blastocyst but don't give a bloody damn about the child. :rant:


Fran,

It seems that since some of these children might not have ideal lives your solution is to simply kill them all. The mothers might be angered by having to raise them so we should abort them. It might cost money so we should abort them. They might have to be adopted so we should abort them. They might have to go into foster care so we should abort them. The mothers just might commit infanticide so we should abort them. The children if born might have less than ideal lives so lets abort them.

Kind of drastic, don't you think.

First off, your assumptions are just that, assumptions. One of your assumptions is that people are not willing to pay for raising these children. You make the further assumption that I am not willing to pay for these children and snidely suggest they be placed at my doorstep. Guess what, Fran, many children have been placed at both my parent's and my doorsteps. My parents took in many, many foster children and were twice voted foster parents of the year for Suffolk County, New York. They also adopted an unwanted child. I grew up knowing that foster and adopted children can be loved and have good lives. Just this last Sunday I had one of my foster brothers and my adopted brother over for a barbecue. My foster brother is 62 years old and he and I consider ourselves just as much brothers as if we had the same parents. The same goes for another foster brother and a foster sister as well as my adopted brother.

In my own case I married a widow with three children and I love those three as much as I love the child my wife and I had together. Maybe you don't have the ability but there are many of us who can unconditionally love a child we did not physically bring into the world.

Right here in Allforums we have a poster who is a foster child soon to be adopted into a loving family. He has expressed his joy in life on many occassions. Do you really think he would have been better off had he been aborted?

I am really sick and tired of the selfish excuses given for abortion; it is the woman's body, a child will be disruptive to life's plans, I want to go to school, I am just starting a new job, I didn't want to be pregnant, I don't want any more kids. This is not just a puppy we are talking about. It is a human being. People should stop being so cavelier about killing the unborn.

Many conservatives like to use emotionally charged terms inaccurately in an attept to make a point. Your statement "Pro Choice = Pro Murder" is wrong on its face. Murder is a legal term that is defined as "the unlawful killing of another". Since abortion is legal in this country, it cannot be "murder". You can believe it's immoral, wrong, or even disgusting, but you'll have to change the law before it becomes murder.
************************************************** **

Where did you get that.That " Many Conservatives like to use
emotionally charged terms inaccurately " ?

That happens to be a Hallmark trait of Liberals.
They are THE First to use words like " Racist" and " Homophobe ".
Or terms like " Racially insensitive " .
A Liberal feels that will automatically stymie further debate.
Just call-out someone as Racist.
To prove my assertion,Dennis Prager and David Horowitz have written
essays,even books on this Political dilemma.
The Dilemma of Liberals squelching debate by use of irrefutably
negative terms in order to shut up Conservatives.
They did it to Bill Bennett when he spoke of Pregnancy rates among the poor,They did it to Mel Gibson when he used a Jewish slur.
They did it to Michael Richards when he got peeved at a couple
Hecklers at The Comedy Store,during his act.
They did it to Imus.
Literally,Sharpton and Jackson are admitted Liberal Democrats.
They virtually LIVE by the threat of Boycott and calling others
Racist.
I just Proved how wrong you are about Conservatives.
Give me a SPECIFIC example of a Conservative using emotionally
charged verbage.?

The Left demands Tolerance,yet when they're Agenda is questioned,
We all see how Tolerant of free speech they are.

Guess what, Fran, many children have been placed at both my parent's and my doorsteps. My parents took in many, many foster children and were twice voted foster parents of the year for Suffolk County, New York. They also adopted an unwanted child. ... there are many of us who can unconditionally love a child we did not physically bring into the world.

Yes, Frogger. We've covered the fact that you/your family took in children they did not create themselves. That's wonderful and to be lauded. Good on you and your family.

However, there are approximately 1.3 million abortions performed annually in the United States. How many families like yours would it take to adopt 1.3 million new children every year? Do you think that many exist? And if they do, why do we have so many kids in foster care today?

According to the AFCARS Report (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System Report), there are over half a million children in the U. S. currently in foster care. The fact is, we can't find loving homes such as yours for half a million kids right now.

We already know that you disagree with abortion. What we don't know is your plan to care for the millions of additional children that banning abortion would bring into the world each year.

Care to enlighten us?

How does God murder little children?

When does God say that life is perfect, and no one will die in tornados exc?

I thought you don't believe in God. How can god murder if He does not exist?

You can't have it both ways.


I just still cannot get over it.

The truth is the truth to you only when you want it to be.

murdering little children either born or unborn which god did both yet you refuse to call him a murderer??

who is sugar coating here.

Maybe if people would not caually have sex, these problems woould not exist.

If people would take responsibility for their own mistakes, this might be a better place to live.



However, there are approximately 1.3 million abortions performed annually in the United States. How many families like yours would it take to adopt 1.3 million new children every year? Do you think that many exist? And if they do, why do we have so many kids in foster care today?

According to the AFCARS Report (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System Report), there are over half a million children in the U. S. currently in foster care. The fact is, we can't find loving homes such as yours for half a million kids right now.

We already know that you disagree with abortion. What we don't know is your plan to care for the millions of additional children that banning abortion would bring into the world each year.

Care to enlighten us?

How does God murder little children?

When does God say that life is perfect, and no one will die in tornados exc?

I thought you don't believe in God. How can god murder if He does not exist?

You can't have it both ways.

Read your bible please I am tired of repeating that part.

God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 2 Kg.2:23-24

When god killed the first born of egypt for not letting go the jews.

and this little saying.
5 You may not go down on your faces before them or give them worship: for I, the Lord your God, am a God who will not give his honour to another; and I will send punishment on the children for the wrongdoing of their fathers, to the third and fourth generation of my haters;

Murdering children for the sins of thier parents is barbaric and savage but I am sure you will find some excuse as why this ok.

Maybe if people would not caually have sex, these problems woould not exist.

If people would take responsibility for their own mistakes, this might be a better place to live.

Yes, and if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting for some reasonable/workable ideas on how all these unaborted children will be taken care of....

Where does God promise that life is perfect, and no one will ever die?

Do you believe that God exists?




Read your bible please I am tired of repeating that part.

God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 2 Kg.2:23-24

When god killed the first born of egypt for not letting go the jews.

and this little saying.
5 You may not go down on your faces before them or give them worship: for I, the Lord your God, am a God who will not give his honour to another; and I will send punishment on the children for the wrongdoing of their fathers, to the third and fourth generation of my haters;

Murdering children for the sins of thier parents is barbaric and savage but I am sure you will find some excuse as why this ok.

I do not know if he exist or not. If he did he is a murder and I wouldn't follow him if he doesn't exist I still do not follow him what difference does it make. What matters is that millions of followers of this god claim he is an ethical being. They are sadly mistaking.

Read your bible please I am tired of repeating that part.

God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 2 Kg.2:23-24

When god killed the first born of egypt for not letting go the jews.

and this little saying.
5 You may not go down on your faces before them or give them worship: for I, the Lord your God, am a God who will not give his honour to another; and I will send punishment on the children for the wrongdoing of their fathers, to the third and fourth generation of my haters;

Murdering children for the sins of thier parents is barbaric and savage but I am sure you will find some excuse as why this ok.

yeah...yeah...yeah God is either just a figment of our Imagination or
full of a bag of tricks.But then,how do you Atheists confront the
Great Thinkers,of more than 2 Millennia who have given huge amounts
of deep thought to a Creator or Supreme Being.
I tink it's magnificiently proveable to assert that many a Philosopher
or Theologian,had spent FAR More actual time thinking over the
Mysteries of Faith,God and Creation,than any contemporary mortal.
You are Mortal,I presume.

" Reason is a light that God has kindled in the soul."
" Beauty is the gift of God. "
-- Aristotle

edit: wrong thread, rofl.

how do you Atheists confront the
Great Thinkers,of more than 2 Millennia who have given huge amounts
of deep thought to a Creator or Supreme Being.
I tink it's magnificiently proveable to assert that many a Philosopher
or Theologian,had spent FAR More actual time thinking over the
Mysteries of Faith,God and Creation,than any contemporary mortal.
You are Mortal,I presume.

I think it's terribly sad that they spent all that time noodling over fairy tales instead of figuring out how to help solve the troubles of man.

Why is the mother's life more important than the "child's"?

You could never justify this with two actual, living people.

If your wife were to have a baby but you found out a few months in that she had a 50/50 or better chance of dying during child birth, what would you do?

And Warrior, gestation for humans is 9 months, not 8. You said 8 two or three times.

That is so fucking sexist it is sickning and the man has absolutly nothing to do with it sticking his dick up her to got off. It is his sperm that got her pregnant yet your blaming the woman for the whole thing. It is just as much the responsibility of the man to keep it in his pants as the woman to keep her legs closed but when a woman gets pregnant the man can always walk away.

Again I think that if a woman does not want he child the father is forced to raise the child or face prison time for abandoment and neglect of both the mother and fetus.

Ok, the man has plenty to do with it, and is he gets a woman pregnant he should be a man and do whats right. Perhaps I was a little one sided in my statement. However it's ultimately the womans responsibility in the end.

yeah I am mortal. I think I am beginning to understand your style now. it took me a while but I was able to understand this post. Yeah I am sure that humans do not spend as much time contemplating god as they use to back the day of Aristotle with all our media and entertianment.
I mean god could exist I never said that he absolutly does not but I am pretty sure that the bible version especially old testiment is not what god is about.
I personally think if there is a god he has more important things to worry about then our counting our souls and punish us for not following some laws. A being massive enough to design the Universe just doesn't care about peon on the planet earth. He/she/it/them wouldn't need or worship or praise or thanks or any human concept like that.

I think I'll weigh in on this...

Abortion.. always a tricky subject. I'm sure people assume that I am "pro choice = pro-murder" being a conservative.. but let me knock you off your stereotypical high horse and tell you that's not how it is.

Abortion argument is based on a bunch of things we don't know.

1. If the body has a spirit, when does that spirit enter the body, thus becoming a person.
2. If the body has no spirit, when does it become a person while inside the mother's womb.

It's all gray area. People always get side-tracked but the fact of the matter is we don't know these things.

No, my own personal beliefs, which have nothing to do with what was said above, are as follows.

- I believe in spirits.. i think we have a soul. I think that when I die, I will look down and see my dead body, and go to heaven (or at least i hope lol). Therefore, I think if you have a third-trimester abortion.. it's murder, even second trimester.. the hard part becomes the very conception. I think that if you concieve a child, and you use the "day after pill".. that is not murder. It's not even abortion, because you will never know either way. However, I would say a few weeks in, when you miss your period ladies.. anything after that is an abortion, and in my opinion has a spirit, waiting to be "pushed" into the real world LOL.

- I think that if a woman is raped or had incest... she should be able to choose if she wants to keep the baby, that is, with the current system we have. Perhaps if the woman were to get some incentive from churches, lobbyist groups, or even the government, she would go through with having the baby, not have to keep it, and a "life would be saved"... so to speak.

And warrior.. your rant on "what men do" makes it sound as if you have some horrific stories on the subject... please try to keep your own happenings out of your decision making on what is right and wrong...

Fran,

It seems you wish to absolve the mothers and fathers of all responsibility for their own children. You ask what will happen to children if we don't allow them to be killed in the womb. How about their parents raise them. I know that is a novel idea in today's day and age but there was a time when people took responsibility for their actions rather than foisting their children on the state.

The vast majority of abortions are for reasons of convenience; I don't want a kid now, I am going to school, I don't like the father of the kid, children cost money, I am saving for a new house, I just got a new job, I like to travel and a host of other frivolous reasons. The solutions is far too often, kill the kid or dump him on society's doorstep. It is hardly ever, "I'll do the right thing and raise the child."

Sometimes children are orphaned and the state has to care for them, sometimes parents are unfit and the state has to care for their children but abortions are not performed on only unfit people. Abortions are performed on selfish people, people who value their own selfish desires more than the life of an unborn child.

I have absolutely no sympathy for such people. Abortion is murder. Once in a great while it is a murder because the mother's life is in danger or the child is severly handicapped but most times it is a murder committed for no other reasons than selfishness and convenience.

yeah I am mortal. I think I am beginning to understand your style now. it took me a while but I was able to understand this post. Yeah I am sure that humans do not spend as much time contemplating god as they use to back the day of Aristotle with all our media and entertianment.
I mean god could exist I never said that he absolutly does not but I am pretty sure that the bible version especially old testiment is not what god is about.
I personally think if there is a god he has more important things to worry about then our counting our souls and punish us for not following some laws. A being massive enough to design the Universe just doesn't care about peon on the planet earth. He/she/it/them wouldn't need or worship or praise or thanks or any human concept like that.

GooT ~ ! Cuz basically i dint comprehend a lick of that babble of
yourn.It shorely must take an awfull lot of NOT thinkin to come up
with the drool you spout off in no time at all.
Which is how long it takes to debate yer ilk.

yes foolsworth. Of course.

If your wife were to have a baby but you found out a few months in that she had a 50/50 or better chance of dying during child birth, what would you do?

I'd want her to have an abortion in a heartbeat. But, I'm pro-choice so it's not a tough decision for me at all.

My point was that Frogger keeps on insisting that a fetus is a person, but he would value the life of the mother over that of the "child". According to Frogger, abortion is murder. It's irrelevent if the mother's life is in danger or not, it's either always murder or it's never murder.

The fact is, if you allow a "fetus" to continue normally, the fetus will most likley become a born baby. So it is murder if you kill it.


I'd want her to have an abortion in a heartbeat. But, I'm pro-choice so it's not a tough decision for me at all.

My point was that Frogger keeps on insisting that a fetus is a person, but he would value the life of the mother over that of the "child". According to Frogger, abortion is murder. It's irrelevent if the mother's life is in danger or not, it's either always murder or it's never murder.

if killing a fetus is murder so is killing a dog.

Oh, how many dogs do you know that have grown up to be people.

I know Evakian has dated a few dogs in his life, a few pigs too but that is a different tale (tail).:lolhit:

No see. Animals don't have souls. God put them here so the people could get all the Murder, Rape and Torture out fo thier system and be nice to other humans. Animals are God's divine gift of punching bags of flesh for humans. Hard day at work, just kick the Dog, don't yell at your kids. Hurting things with souls is a sin. Everything else is free game.

Oh, how many dogs do you know that have grown up to be people.

I know Evakian has dated a few dogs in his life, a few pigs too but that is a different tale (tail).:lolhit:

Fetus's have no human consciousness and is why they are not catorgerized with rights just as a dog has no human consciousness.

You can only call it murder after it has developed a brain far enough to reach consciousness.

Capital punishment is the only case where someone should kill a living fetus, person, or animal.

If I ever see anyone purposly hurting an animal, or person, they will have to explain it to a glock.


if killing a fetus is murder so is killing a dog.

um so euthinizing dog is murder to save it from suffering?

If I ever see anyone purposly hurting an animal, or person, they will have to explain it to a glock.

So you're against any killing that isn't done by you. Convenient, I'll give you that. :)

Where did you get that.That " Many Conservatives like to use
emotionally charged terms inaccurately " ?

*taps skull*


I just Proved how wrong you are about Conservatives.

No, you went on a rant about liberals.


Give me a SPECIFIC example of a Conservative using emotionally
charged verbage.?

Just one?

Ok, if you insist.


Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.---President G.W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002


The Left demands Tolerance,yet when they're Agenda is questioned,
We all see how Tolerant of free speech they are.

Who said anything about denying you free speech? You're free to use emotionally-charged language, and I'm free to point it out when you do.

I guess it's like a Father explaining Sex {birds & Bees} to his
sexually curious Teenager.I doubt he's gonna talk of the pure
delight that MOVES most to get their horny bone tapped.
I also doubt said Father is gonna cut to the chase and just let
their curious Teen,watch as Mom & Pop slowly demonstrate
an Organism.
Unless one is from Boulder,Co.
Ya'see in Boulder,the Principle,Superviser and Teacher of a school
practically did just that.Explaining that Lifestyle choices are perfectly
acceptable in this day & age,w/o nearly the consequence that
some warn of.And that Experimenting with Booze,Drugs,done in a
controlled environ,is a good thing.Not that Martha Stewart sanctions.
But nary a Liberal,seems too upset,either.
Again,I just proved how silly and Emotionally-charged a Liberal can git.
Regardless of where and when the horny bone rears it's head.
----- " Makin things Right " ----- Haggar pants

hmm you got a pretty funny view of libs. LOL

The fact is, if you allow a "fetus" to continue normally, the fetus will most likley become a born baby. So it is murder if you kill it.

You think and killing something that you refered to as an "it" is murder? When was the last time you called a person an "it"?

The fact that you and Frogger both call abortion murder but then try to justify it in certain cases shows that you both acknowledge that a fetus is not the same as a human.

You think and killing something that you refered to as an "it" is murder? When was the last time you called a person an "it"?

The fact that you and Frogger both call abortion murder but then try to justify it in certain cases shows that you both acknowledge that a fetus is not the same as a human.
do you have another gender-neutral pronoun that you've been hiding from the rest of us?

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.---President G.W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002





thanks for the reminder:thumbs:

that's what the American Al-Queda is warning us of.

do you have another gender-neutral pronoun that you've been hiding from the rest of us?

"The baby" or "the fetus" would have worked.

There's a very keen strategem at play in Education.leftists know
full well the advantage of manipulation.So,they concentrate their
efforts,rigorously at Our Kids,from K thru 12,having tried to sow
secular seeds of Liberalism,and then another Full Metal Jacket
blast in Higher education or College.
Most major University is literally nuthin but Liberal Tenured Profs,
just chompin at the bit to transform 18 yr. olds into little
Michael Moore's.Which can be difficult,considering Moores Heft.
Both of stature and bloated Polemic.

I think what happens is that education in itself LEADS to "liberal" thinking. (but I'm not sure what you call "liberal"). The whole point of education is so an individual can think for him/herself and not be told what to think by the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore or whatever.

Also its interesting that you bring up Michael Moore. You will find that most "liberals" will honestly say they agree with some things Moore says and not agree with others. That is from EDUCATION!! On the other hand, the CONS will bend over backwards trying to defend the likes of Rush Limbaugh and will AGREE with EVERYTHING and ANYTHING he says. In terms of Rush Limbaugh, I am sure there are liberals out there who can find something that Limbaugh says that they agree with.

So, Education indeed leads to "freethinking" (and I don't mean Freethinker on these boards)

You think and killing something that you refered to as an "it" is murder? When was the last time you called a person an "it"?

The fact that you and Frogger both call abortion murder but then try to justify it in certain cases shows that you both acknowledge that a fetus is not the same as a human.

What wouid YOU call a " Fetus ".
When does a fetus become Human.?
The Catholic Church says a Fetus is Human at the moment of
conception.Got it thar Anti-Zygote Billygoat.

an the catholic church is the absolute authority on these subjects? I mean something with no brainwaves is not a human. What makes us apart from animals is our human consciousness. When does the fetus develope human consciousness?? definitly not until the 2nd trimester until then it is fair game.

What wouid YOU call a " Fetus ".
When does a fetus become Human.?
The Catholic Church says a Fetus is Human at the moment of
conception.Got it thar Anti-Zygote Billygoat.

OK that clears it up for me!!
(catholic church also at one time said the earth is the center of the universe when there was scientific evidence of it not)

"The baby" or "the fetus" would have worked.
not pronouns:lolhit:

What wouid YOU call a " Fetus ".
When does a fetus become Human.?
The Catholic Church says a Fetus is Human at the moment of
conception.Got it thar Anti-Zygote Billygoat.

My belief is that a soul does not die if a body dies. Our spiritual being is our true being...our more natural state. Has anyone here ever read about Edgar Cayce? I believe in spirituality. What I am getting to is that a soul will not enter a fetus if it will not continue. In the spiritual state it is known.... a soul will not enter the vessel / vehicle that will not continue to birth.

http://www.near-death.com/cayce.html

What wouid YOU call a " Fetus ".
When does a fetus become Human.?
The Catholic Church says a Fetus is Human at the moment of
conception.Got it thar Anti-Zygote Billygoat.

For me, a fetus becomes human when it gains consciousness.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with this? We don't live in Vatican City.

not pronouns:lolhit:

Awesome prank, Farva.

I think what happens is that education in itself LEADS to "liberal" thinking. (but I'm not sure what you call "liberal"). The whole point of education is so an individual can think for him/herself and not be told what to think by the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore or whatever.

Also its interesting that you bring up Michael Moore. You will find that most "liberals" will honestly say they agree with some things Moore says and not agree with others. That is from EDUCATION!! On the other hand, the CONS will bend over backwards trying to defend the likes of Rush Limbaugh and will AGREE with EVERYTHING and ANYTHING he says. In terms of Rush Limbaugh, I am sure there are liberals out there who can find something that Limbaugh says that they agree with.

So, Education indeed leads to "freethinking" (and I don't mean Freethinker on these boards)

That may be how some view our Education process.But that is absurd,
even on it's face.The FIRST order of business for Education is to have
little children LEARN.Thinking comes way later.AFTER a child has Learned
enough,either by ROTE and Phonics.The same with simple numbers & Math.
And then study to know facts of History,Geography amd Science.
Biology is probably one of THE most important classes one will take in
High School.It requires NO thinking.Just Learning.
Math requires some thinking to organize numbers in a way that
makes sense to us.
As far as your Liberal portrayal,It is MY expert firsthand experience to
say that " honesty " really isn't in the archival word library of ANY Liberal.
In point of fact, " honesty " is of as much value to a Lib as Green Moon cheese is to an avid French Gourmand.

OK that clears it up for me!!
(catholic church also at one time said the earth is the center of the universe when there was scientific evidence of it not)


and the Catholics just waved thier hand and did away with limbo for babies who have not been baptized. I mean you know they just decide one day poof it does not exist and all those babies go to heaven now.

Wow that puts and ease to my mind.

For me, a fetus becomes human when it gains consciousness.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with this? We don't live in Vatican City.

OH OK got to check outside to see if hell froze over....

I competely agree with you!! That is absolutely amazing a 1 in a million shot.

and the Catholics just waved thier hand and did away with limbo for babies who have not been baptized. I mean you know they just decide one day poof it does not exist and all those babies go to heaven now.

Wow that puts and ease to my mind.

Hmm,You may have a point.You whine like a Baby,most the time.
I don't suppose you remember someone reading :
- Days of Whine and Limbo - at beddie time as a kiddie.

OH OK got to check outside to see if hell froze over....

I competely agree with you!! That is absolutely amazing a 1 in a million shot.

It was only a matter of time until you got on the right side of an argument with me! :cool:

That may be how some view our Education process.But that is absurd,
even on it's face.The FIRST order of business for Education is to have
little children LEARN.Thinking comes way later.AFTER a child has Learned
enough,either by ROTE and Phonics.The same with simple numbers & Math.
And then study to know facts of History,Geography amd Science.
Biology is probably one of THE most important classes one will take in
High School.It requires NO thinking.Just Learning.
Math requires some thinking to organize numbers in a way that
makes sense to us.
As far as your Liberal portrayal,It is MY expert firsthand experience to
say that " honesty " really isn't in the archival word library of ANY Liberal.
In point of fact, " honesty " is of as much value to a Lib as Green Moon cheese is to an avid French Gourmand.

Wow, I'm glad you are not running the school system. Learning and thinking go hand in hand. The whole point of LEARNING these things like History, Geography, Science etc. is to THINK for yourself based on these facts. I am very sad to see that you don't want kids to think. THEREIN LIES THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT. THE RIGHT DON"T WANT YOU TO THINK!!!

Can we hear from some Biologists on these boards in reference to Foolsworth claim that it requires no thinking.

Wow, I'm glad you are not running the school system. Learning and thinking go hand in hand. The whole point of LEARNING these things like History, Geography, Science etc. is to THINK for yourself based on these facts. I am very sad to see that you don't want kids to think. THEREIN LIES THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT. THE RIGHT DON"T WANT YOU TO THINK!!!

Can we hear from some Biologists on these boards in reference to Foolsworth claim that it requires no thinking.

Man Oh Boy are you thick.
Makes for the perfeck liberal.
Look up the word THINKING and you'll find that it " involves manipulation
of information,as when we form concepts,engage in problem solving,
reason and make decisions.Thinking is a higher cognitive function and
the analysis of thinking processes is part of cognitive psychology."
Kids aren't making decisions in Grade school.When they study simple
math,there is only ONE correct answer.
When they study History,Geography they have to study and complie
information.Not Manipulate Information.
That comes AFTER a child has compiled Information.
That is entirely what's wrong with Today's Education.
Kids are doing far worse in Math,and simple study courses like History
and Geography.Kids are far more attune at thinking about ways to
skip school,make excuses and escape the consequence of bad behavior,
lack of Studying or Learning.
I suppose you thing our current Education system is doing wonders with today's kids? NOT !
In my day the Nuns dint tolerate ANY thinking.You sat in yer desk and
learnt what the Teach {nun} instructed.
There was No debating or Free association of thought.
Where did you drudge up that lame crap.?
I guess Bill Clinton probably gave off that impression.

Come on man,

Do you really think the left wants us to think?

If we disagree, some on the left will try to shut us up. Just wait to see

what they try to do with the fairness doctrine.

The left can't win at talk radio. The fairness doctrine will insure that the hosts must give equal time to the left on their show. This will destroy talk radio, because the show will not work.

The way I look at it is, they are opinion shows, and you can listen or not listen. The government doesn't need to get involved.


Originally Posted by MeskDXB
Wow, I'm glad you are not running the school system. Learning and thinking go hand in hand. The whole point of LEARNING these things like History, Geography, Science etc. is to THINK for yourself based on these facts. I am very sad to see that you don't want kids to think. THEREIN LIES THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT. THE RIGHT DON"T WANT YOU TO THINK!!!

Can we hear from some Biologists on these boards in reference to Foolsworth claim that it requires no thinking.

Do you really think the left wants us to think?


Well, the left wants college to be free. The left wants everyone to have access to higher education so they can lift themselves out of poverty.

The right wants colleges to be expensive and profitable. The right wants a large class of working poor so they can have cheap labor. Education doesn't lend well to a compliant class of working poor who have no choice but to work for pennies.

Remember a common running theme for Conservatives, from supporting slavery to opposing civil rights to supporting NAFTA and CAFTA, has always been trying to maintain access to cheap labor.

As the Conservative author Robert Kiyosaki wrote in Rich Dad, Poor Dad, (paraphrasing) "if someone is stupid enough to work for pennies that is their problem, not the employers."

Fran,

It seems you wish to absolve the mothers and fathers of all responsibility for their own children. You ask what will happen to children if we don't allow them to be killed in the womb. How about their parents raise them. I know that is a novel idea in today's day and age but there was a time when people took responsibility for their actions rather than foisting their children on the state.

The vast majority of abortions are for reasons of convenience; I don't want a kid now, I am going to school, I don't like the father of the kid, children cost money, I am saving for a new house, I just got a new job, I like to travel and a host of other frivolous reasons. The solutions is far too often, kill the kid or dump him on society's doorstep. It is hardly ever, "I'll do the right thing and raise the child."

Sometimes children are orphaned and the state has to care for them, sometimes parents are unfit and the state has to care for their children but abortions are not performed on only unfit people. Abortions are performed on selfish people, people who value their own selfish desires more than the life of an unborn child.

I have absolutely no sympathy for such people. Abortion is murder. Once in a great while it is a murder because the mother's life is in danger or the child is severly handicapped but most times it is a murder committed for no other reasons than selfishness and convenience.

You're focusing on the whys and wherefores, Frogger. And that's all very nice, but the devil is always in the details.

In the REAL world, if abortions were outlawed, there would be millions more unwanted children brought into the world. Do their lives not matter to you?

I'm still waiting for some reasonable/workable ideas on how all these unaborted unwanted children will be taken care of.... because if you had your way, those children would be born, and then would HAVE TO be taken care of somehow. Right?

At this point, you're still in the "Love the zygote, don't give a crap about what happens to the child" stage.

Tell us how you'd handle it, please. If you have no reasonable, workable response to this, I can only assume that you're living in fantasyland and I (and everyone else) can then dismiss your argument in its entirity.

:rolleyes:

Some posters are posting when THEY think the unborn child actually becomes a person. They do this in the same post in which they say the Roman Catholic Church should not say when an unborn child becomes a person. Am I the only one who sees the hypocricy in this?


Since we don't know when the unborn child becomes a person, some of us believe it happens at conception, some at the beginning of the third trimester, some in other cultures at the time of the child's first birthday, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? Wouldn't it be better to no abort what may not yet be a person than to risk aborting what already is a person?

You're focusing on the whys and wherefores, Frogger. And that's all very nice, but the devil is always in the details.

In the REAL world, if abortions were outlawed, there would be millions more unwanted children brought into the world. Do their lives not matter to you?

I'm still waiting for some reasonable/workable ideas on how all these unaborted unwanted children will be taken care of.... because if you had your way, those children would be born, and then would HAVE TO be taken care of somehow. Right?

At this point, you're still in the "Love the zygote, don't give a crap about what happens to the child" stage.

Tell us how you'd handle it, please. If you have no reasonable, workable response to this, I can only assume that you're living in fantasyland and I (and everyone else) can then dismiss your argument in its entirity.

:rolleyes:

Who the hell are you to tell me I am in the love the zygote, don't give a crap about what happens to the child stage? I happen to care a lot about what happens to the child, perhaps more than you do. Perhaps you should be more concerned about what stage you are in and less concerned about what stage I am in.


I've already said what I would do had I the power to make the decisions but I will reiterate it.

I think we all have a responsibility to take care of society's children. Unlike adults, children can not take care of themselves so they sometimes need the rest of us to help care for them.

I have given of both my time and my money to help care for unwanted children and I am willing to give more of both if need be. I have already walked the walk. As far as I know all you have done is talk the talk. I could come to the conclusion that you are in the kill the unborn child but ignore him once he is born stage.

No child should ever have to go to bed hungry, cold or afraid of the future. While I do not believe in giving help to adults who can but do not help themselves helping children is a different matter entirely. Maybe we should convince some of the movie stars to adopt closer to home rather than going to Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe to find a child. Perhaps we should increase the pay given to foster parents and screen those foster parents more closely. Perhaps we should offer incentives to people to adopt children, especially special needs children. There are lots of things we can do but to solve the problem by killing the unborn shouldn't be one of them.

Who the hell are you to tell me I am in the love the zygote, don't give a crap about what happens to the child stage? I happen to care a lot about what happens to the child, perhaps more than you do. Perhaps you should be more concerned about what stage you are in and less concerned about what stage I am in.


I've already said what I would do had I the power to make the decisions but I will reiterate it.

I think we all have a responsibility to take care of society's children. Unlike adults, children can not take care of themselves so they sometimes need the rest of us to help care for them.

I have given of both my time and my money to help care for unwanted children and I am willing to give more of both if need be. I have already walked the walk. As far as I know all you have done is talk the talk. I could come to the conclusion that you are in the kill the unborn child but ignore him once he is born stage.

No child should ever have to go to bed hungry, cold or afraid of the future. While I do not believe in giving help to adults who can but do not help themselves helping children is a different matter entirely. Maybe we should convince some of the movie stars to adopt closer to home rather than going to Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe to find a child. Perhaps we should increase the pay given to foster parents and screen those foster parents more closely. Perhaps we should offer incentives to people to adopt children, especially special needs children. There are lots of things we can do but to solve the problem by killing the unborn shouldn't be one of them.

You're still talking in platitudes. We're all still waiting for your plan to feed, clothe, house and educate 1.3 million unwanted children every year.

Please be specific.

1. Where will the money come from?

2. Who is going to bring all these unwanted children into their homes for 18+ years? Besides you, I mean.

You are still assuming that all the children who would not be aborted would wind up in orphanages. You completely discount the fact that once they are born their parents will love and care for them.

You still haven't retracted your nasty statement that I don't care about living children.

You are still all too willing to punish the unborn children because they might have less than perfect parents.

You seem to have very little faith in people. You seem to see it as an either or situation. Either you kill the unborn or they will be doomed to lives of horror.

Perhaps you should speak to some people who have been in foster care or who have been adopted and ask them if they would rather have been aborted.

um he has very low faith in people because the right keeps trying to cut social programs like headstart, welfare and medicaid and medicare. You don't even want to take care of the kids that are here today I can't image another 3 million or so. No everyone can adopt in America there simply are not enough parents in america for all those who are not being aborted.

I will be more than happy to do away with abortion if the lives of those unwanted children are garenteed to have all the financail support and love they need to grow up a happy healthy individual.

I say we tag each kid that is saved from abortion and put into the system and we pay extra tax to fund a project just for them to garentee they have a good life or at least a shot at it in this world.

I am talking about class A education all the way through college and loving adults in their lives even if they are not their parents.

I would say we should at maybe 8 percent to our taxes for the program on a sliding scale of course the more wealthy pay more than the poor.

Some posters are posting when THEY think the unborn child actually becomes a person. They do this in the same post in which they say the Roman Catholic Church should not say when an unborn child becomes a person. Am I the only one who sees the hypocricy in this?

Someone asked me when I thought a fetus becomes human. It's a legit question pro-choicers must answer. Secondly, I never said the Catholic Church should or shouldn't say their opinion on the matter, I was questioning the relevence. They're free to make any opinion they wish, but when it comes to determining policy in America; the Catholic Church's opinion is irrelevent.

But hey, at least you're being honest with what I actually said. :rolleyes:

It's a legit question pro-choicers must answer.
1. brain activity - doesn't start happening till 3rd trimester. Our memories and expirience and our ability to take them into account is what makes humans different from animals. Someone without brain activity is considered legally dead (as would almost all rational beings).
2. Can it survive without the mother. Now technology pushes this forwards at all times but I'm using it in terms of without technology.

I think the current abortion laws are good.
1st trimester - all choice
2nd trimester - substantial reason
3rd trimester - not without endangerment to the mother.

You completely discount the fact that once they are born their parents will love and care for them.

Oh, really? You KNOW this? This is true of every woman who ever carried a child to term that she did not want in the first place? This would be still be true if women were actually forced, by law, to carry a child to term that they did not want in the first place?

Then explain this:

Mother jailed for trying to kill newborn
A maid has been sentenced to three years in jail for attempting to kill her newborn by putting her in a plastic bag and dumping it in a garbage container.

And this:

Couple charged with drowning newborn
SOMERVILLE, N.J., May 29 (UPI) -- A judge must decide whether a New Jersey couple charged with drowning their newborn grandson in the toilet should be tried together. Investigators say the couple's 16-year-old daughter delivered a full-term, 5-pound baby in their house Dec. 11, 2005. The McCabes, who allegedly left the baby in the toilet for two hours, are charged with aggravated manslaughter.

And this:

Baby survives icy night in pit latrine
A newborn baby boy survived a night of icy horror in a cradle of human waste after being thrown into a pit toilet, allegedly by his mother after she had given birth to him.

And this:

Police Say Infant Found In Toilet Was Born Alive
The newborn girl found submerged in a toilet at a Long Island courthouse was born alive, the police said yesterday. An autopsy determined that the 6 pound, 19-inch infant was born alive, said a Nassau County Police spokesman, Sean O'Donnell.

There are hundreds more examples. These are just the first few that came up when I went to Google News and searched for "newborn in toilet." I didn't Google "children starved" or "child kept in cage." I haven't the time. Why don't you check it out for yourself?

You still haven't retracted your nasty statement that I don't care about living children.

Oh, you probably care about the ones you know. But you're advocating that millions of women every year should be forced to give birth to and raise children they don't want. I can't believe you're foolish enough to believe that these women "will love and care for them once they are born." All you seem to care about is that these women MUST give birth. After your precious zygote is brought to term, you ignorantly insist that it will be loved and well cared for in every instance. Too many people don't do that now, and abortion is legal.

You're dreaming, friend. Either that or you're a fool.

You are still all too willing to punish the unborn children because they might have less than perfect parents.

And you're still living in a fantasyland, where people who are forced, by law, to have and keep an unwanted child will somehow miraculously love that child and raise it well and properly to adulthood.

You seem to have very little faith in people.

And you have far too much. If your version of parenthood were even remotely true, how do you explain all those newborns that are thrown in toilets? How do you explain all those that are smothered? How do you explain all those that are locked in cages or closets for years at a time? How do you explain all those that are starved by their "loving" parents?

Here's one now... And, oh LOOK. It's a FOSTER PARENT abusing children that were WANTED!

Woman starved and beat children
A FOSTER mother was found guilty yesterday of subjecting three young children to a "horrifying catalogue of cruel and sadistic treatment".

Eunice Spry, 62, routinely beat, abused and starved the youngsters in her care between 1986 and 2005. The devout Jehovah's Witness forced sticks down the children's throats and made them eat their own vomit and rat excrement. As punishment for misbehaving, she would beat them with sticks on the soles of their feet and force them to drink washing up liquid and bleach.

How about this set of foster parents?

Foster Parents Get 25 Years For Starving Child
BROOKSVILLE, FLA---Lori and Arthur “Tommy” Allain will have a long time to think about starving a 10-year-old foster child in their care.

The couple, convicted last month of aggravated child abuse and child neglect have each been sentenced to 25 years in prison plus 20 years of probation by Hernando County Circuit Court Judge Jack Springstead.

When the child was finally removed from their home in May 2004 by the Department of Children and Families, she weighed 29 pounds. She had testified against her foster parents, holding a stuffed toy, relating how the couple had locked her in her room and didn’t feed her.

Tommy Allain, 49, and wife, Lori, 48, claimed that the girl had an eating disorder and possibly fetal alcohol syndrome. But doctors disputed that and said she was malnourished, dehydrated and 60 pounds underweight.

Ooh, MORE foster parents who abuse their adopted children!

Jon Phillips and Sarah Berry Starve Child to Death: Seven-Year-Old Weighed only 30 Pounds
Jon Phillips, 26, and Sarah Berry, 21, were arrested in the death of a seven-year-old boy and are being charged with first degree murder. Paramedics were called in to resuscitate the boy who was in cardiac arrest. He later died at the hospital. Police told reporters that the boy weighed about 30 pounds and appeared to be malnourished.

The boy and his sibling were placed with Phillips and/or Berry, and officials are declining to release the boy’s name because they’re trying to locate his family. The boy’s younger sibling was taken by child protective services, placed with another foster family, and is receiving extensive services.

So not only do we have another Denver-area child abuse story about someone starving a little kid to death, but this time it’s by people who went through a supposedly thorough process to become foster parents.

There are plenty more examples of foster parents abusing their adopted children. Am I getting through to you?

You seem to see it as an either or situation. Either you kill the unborn or they will be doomed to lives of horror.

No. I'm happy to concede that some of these unwanted children will not have horrible parents that starve and beat them, but I'm not foolish enough to think that even half will have the type of life you and your family provided for your adopted kids, and I'm smart enough to realize that some will have nasty, short, brutish lives that will end in horrid deaths.

Why force people to have babies they don't want when there is a very real chance that even ONE will be treated this way? Are YOU willing to take the responsibility for all those that will have horrible lives and even more horrible deaths? Because such awful things WILL happen to these kids. They happen every day, right now, when abortion is legal.

Finally, in spite of the very real chance these unwanted children will have miserable lives and many will die, even at the hands of FOSTER parents, I see that you still have no answers for the logistics of the matter.

1. Where will the money come from?

2. Who is going to bring all these unwanted children into their homes for 18+ years? Besides you, I mean.