Republican Ideologically Motivated Policies Crashing and Burning

Right now, the differences between the two dominant political parties in this country couldn’t be more stark. Republican overreach and ideologically driven policies are crashing and burning all across the country.
The Travon Martin case in Florida has garnered national attention and outrage as well as the Republican law that enables a person to shoot a kid and ask questions later and walk away without even having the police collect forensic evidence.
We have the Susan G. Komen Foundation going down the tubes thanks to a Republican ideologue namedKaren Handelthat tried to defund Planned Parenthood.
We have Rush Limbaugh who is known more for dead air these days than paid sponsors. He has lost 90% of his sponsors in New York at this point.
Women all across the country are horrified by the Right-wing attacks on women’s health. Obama now has a 20 point lead over Romney in the all-important women’s vote.
Does anyone believe that they will ever learn? I know I don't

 

I changed my mind. I am just going to ignore your attempt to start a flame war. Have fun.

 

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.

 

Are you saying that I don't get to count on another ad hominem post from you? Darn! Because I always have so much fun ignoring your inability to make any kind of a logical argument while you pat yourself on the back smugly convincing yourself that you actually did.
And Coin, I told you HollysMom would be back. Everyone who grandstands an exit comes slithering back eventually. I've seen so many people in this forum ride their moral high-horse off into the sunset only to show up again riding the pony of shame. Even your holier-than-thou little epilogue following her departure was pure laughable gold and as it turns I was right all along. Too funny.

 

And here I thought you were describing your own liberal strategy. BTW, your definition fits your OP quite perfectly. Besides I thought you were ignoring me.

And I am still waiting to find out just what you think the Fibonacci sequence has to do with "Movie Quiz" math.

 

Your antics here certainly keep people coming back just for the entertainment value alone. HM was a voice of reason in this forum, silenced by you and sent packing by your inane schoolyard banter. I knew she'd drop in occasionally (she even said so before leaving). Unfortunately, she hasn't been an active participant ever since you saw fit to douse this forum with your phlegm-like spew. As you may have noticed, I'm not on this forum nearly as much as I used to be only because I no longer find you entertaining as you once were.​

You were once like the jester who tried, at least, to bemuse the courtiers with your attempts to understand the intricacies of the politics of kings.​

But, now you've morphed into an evil troll-like creature who doesn't so much entertain as annoy. I haven't decided if you remind me of a sympathetic character in a Victor Hugo novel or a scaly, fire-breathing monstrosity in a Ray Harryhausen movie that needs to be rocketed back to Uranus.​

Whatever it is, you long ago passed being a somewhat-reasonable, politically-(un)knowledgeable participant in this forum. That's the reason I rarely take the time to read your posts anymore. I skim them to see what sort of blather you're uttering, but other than that I glean nothing from your musings. Yes, you certainly entertained me at one time, but that time is long gone.​

​

​

​

 

...phlegm-like spew? ...evil troll-like creature? ...fire-breathing monstrosity in a Ray Harryhausen movie? Gotta say I'm impressed. No idea you had this kind of material in you. And to think that Moen is your Muse.

 

Sorry to hear that HM left. Enjoyed her posts. Hope she returns and just picks and chooses whom she wishes to dialogue with.

 

Yes women are under attack. Think of all of the female babies that have been murdered just over the past 24 hours. Google it and it will make any man with moral values sick to his stomach.

 

Yes Andy, we know! Everything comes down to abortion. We get it. I think it's call single issue voting and you seem to be the poster boy for it.
Get over it. Abortion was determined to be a legal, safe, medical procedure in the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 almost 40 years ago. The fact that you will never need an abortion for any reason certainly makes it a convenient position for you to take. Restricting other people's choices is just fine as long as your choices are never in question right? Would you react just as favorably to a law that said that you may only have one child? I seriously doubt it. It's just far too easy to force your point of view on others knowing that you will never have to be put in the same position they may find themselves in. If you like speaking for unborn children, then you should have no issues with me or anyone else making decisions for your kids and forcing those decisions down your throat right? The fact is that you have no right to speak for anyone else's children born or unborn. It's not your decision legally or otherwise.
Just one more republican ideologically motivated issue that your political party has been crashing and burning on lately. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
54,559,615
http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
This is up to January of this year. That is over fifty four million dead babies and getting close if not already over fifty five million dead babies since Roe Vs Wade. If a women does not want a baby with the man she is with then
1. She should not be with that man.
2. Make sure that they are practicing birth control.

Note: Abortion should not be considered as a birth control method and women who have been raped should not be factored into this.

Wanting to protect those who can not protect themselves is a major point that I am proud of.

 

He has not right to speak but you have the right to make decisions for someone else's children. ER! Who elected you god?

 

"She should not be with that man" Really? So a woman's only purpose is to have babies or go off into a corner and shut up? Really? If the same woman is the victim of incest, her birth control method fails, or if for any other reason she has a pregnancy that she does not want, it is your judgment that her choices should be dictated by the government? Really?
I think the only people that need protection here are the people that have other people dictating what they can do with their own bodies. How about if we decide that you're a mental defective and we have you sterilized for the protection of the human race? Is that OK too Andy? Because once you put yourself in charge of other people's welfare and make yourself judge, jury, and jailer, where does it stop? Let women decide for themselves. They clearly aren't as stupid as many men I have met that would pass sacrosanct judgment on them.

 

I personally couldn't care less if the woman wants to cut off her own hand. Or foot. Or pull out her own teeth with a pair of pliers. However, the human being growing inside her is a human life completely separate from that of the mother. So, when we're talking about a life that's not her own, do you believe it's not homicide when the mother makes the decision to terminate that life?

 

What I believe or do not believe is irrelevant. Homicide is a legal term. The law does not consider an abortion a homicide. Therefore I can conclusively state that I do not believe that a mother terminating a pregnancy, or a "life" as your put it, is a homicide.

 

I'll be more concerned about bringing more children into the world when we can feed the ones that are already here. 5 million children every year.

In round numbers there are 7 billion people in the world. Thus, with an estimated 925 million hungry people in the world, 13.1 percent, or almost 1 in 7 people are hungry.

The FAO estimate is based on statistical aggregates. The FAO first estimates the total food supply of a country and derives the average per capita daily food intake from that. The distribution of average food intake for people in the country is then estimated from surveys measuring food expenditure. Using this information, and minimum food energy requirements, FAO estimates how many people are likely to receive such a low level of food intake that they are undernourished.3

Undernutrition is a relatively new concept, but is increasingly used. It should be taken as similar to malnutrition. (It should be said as an aside, that the idea of undernourishment, its relationship to malnutrition, and the reasons for its emergence as a concept is not clear to Hunger Notes.)

Children are the most visible victims of undernutrition. Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year. Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year--five million deaths. Undernutrition magnifies the effect of every disease, including measles and malaria. The estimated proportions of deaths in which undernutrition is an underlying cause are roughly similar for diarrhea (61%), malaria (57%), pneumonia (52%), and measles (45%) (Black 2003, Bryce 2005). Malnutrition can also be caused by diseases, such as the diseases that cause diarrhea, by reducing the body's ability to convert food into usable nutrients.

According to the most recent estimate that Hunger Notes could find, malnutrition, as measured by stunting, affects 32.5 percent of children in developing countries--one of three (de Onis 2000). Geographically, more than 70 percent of malnourished children live in Asia, 26 percent in Africa and 4 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean. In many cases, their plight began even before birth with a malnourished mother. Under-nutrition among pregnant women in developing countries leads to 1 out of 6 infants born with low birth weight. This is not only a risk factor for neonatal deaths, but also causes learning disabilities, mental, retardation, poor health, blindness and premature death.

 

1. Around half of all abortions in this nation are girls. - Guess I am defending the right for females to live.
2. Democrats talk of a women's body and her rights as if the baby inside is her property. - Funny yet sad, democrats used to talk about slaves as being the property of slaveowners to do to as they see fit.
3. Democrats rave about Roe vs Wade and how abortion is law. - Funny yet sad, democrats used to talk about the rights of slaveowners and how it is their legal right until a Republican came along and led the movement to end it physicallly and legally.
5. Moen speaks of abortions as a way to control the world's population. - That is just plain sick and has shown how left wing liberalism has polluted the word liberal.

I see babies, others see brain stem dollars. Which one are you?

 

You're correct when you state that what you do or do not believe is irrelevant. Only the law is relevant. But, there are states who have laws against abortion in certain circumstances. Take New York for instance. NY law states:

ARTICLE 125--HOMICIDE, ABORTION AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 125.00 Homicide defined
Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, criminally negligent homicide, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree.

Let's also take a look at the law in your state of Illinois where, once again, your belief is irrelevant:

CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 510/) Illinois Abortion Law of 1975.


(720 ILCS 510/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 81-21)
Sec. 1. It is the intention of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois to reasonably regulate abortion in conformance with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court of January 22, 1973. Without in any way restricting the right of privacy of a woman or the right of a woman to an abortion under those decisions, the General Assembly of the State of Illinois do solemnly declare and find in reaffirmation of the longstanding policy of this State, that the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child's right to life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws and Constitution of this State. Further, the General Assembly finds and declares that longstanding policy of this State to protect the right to life of the unborn child from conception by prohibiting abortion unless necessary to preserve the life of the mother is impermissible only because of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and that, therefore, if those decisions of the United States Supreme Court are ever reversed or modified or the United States Constitution is amended to allow protection of the unborn then the former policy of this State to prohibit abortions unless necessary for the preservation of the mother's life shall be reinstated.

So, to contradict your earlier statement, the law certainly DOES consider an abortion a homicide.

 

I don't know what you think you are trying to say here but I am confident that at least neither do you. Nothing here supports anything outside of the Roe v Wade legal decision and it certainly doesn't make an abortion a homicide by any stretch of the imagination. You always did have trouble making a cohesive argument.

 

Uh, put your reading glasses on:

From New York:

Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child ...​

From Illinois:​

... the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child's right to life...​

​

​

​

​