Oh, I would be biased in a very big way! Please, Mrs. Clinton, don't let the mean Doctor suck me out of my mommy, in pieces. Heck yeah I would be biased!

Kind of like a organizational personality test. I can dig it.

So you are willing to let a few children go, for the sake of equity?

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

No, I get it... Really, I don't. But that's okay. You tried. I am just too dumb. I guess. So I will just gaze at your awesome upside-down cross and wonder about why anyone would affiliate themselves with the enemy of all man kind. Really... I am just an ignorant evangelical. Gonna blindly vote for Mike Huckabee, cuz he doesn't want to kill kids inside their mommies.

But that's just me. I am silly that way. But you go on there Mr. Devil, sir... Go about your business of making evil flourish in the world for your own entertainment. Don’t mind me. I will sit here and quake in fear of your awesome power. (Lord, who can stop him now...?)

Don't hurt me... or curse me... or do something bad to my cat... please. Cuz, you are the devil... and stuff... gosh...

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

Hijak-

To some(everyone if you look closely) Lucifer granted wisdom to mankind..even if his intent was nefarious(which it was)..you can't say it was such a bad deal.

In many respect Lucifer is the Christian version of the Titan Prometheus.

In Iraq there is an amazing people who worship the "Peacock God" or Melek Taus....who is basically Lucifer or Shaitan.



Good article on them-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/wiraq219.xml

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Oderint dum metuant"
"Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

I am not. You argue a law to prevent abortion is expressing one's conscience. I am also. That is not my point. The point being made, if you began to think with more logic and less conscience, about the repercussions of such a law; which is the good of the nation. Think ahead, as tomorrow may add; not before, retreating to perfect. Creating a law to prevent abortion would siphon time and money toward the issue and away from others. Meaning, our children will be born free, but they will not recieve adequate medical, education, social security, and the list goes on. Eventually, the standard of living decreases, and a society remains within which the status quo is depressed, poorer, and overpopulated. This takes a very long time, but it will occur. With the advent of modern medicine, disease and famine do not curb populations today as in the past, only war and artificial means will do so. Nature will always find another way, and so she has.

So your argument is not with me, but with those who have gone before. Those who have advocated your possessions above your community. Look around at what you have, that is the substance which guides America today, sadly enough, we must protect and defend her still, and what she stands for, or we cease to exist.

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

theyre not devil worshipers, theyre just another religion from what i read in your link.

heres a vid of an "honor killing," apparently you get stoned to death for associating with muslims if youre part of this sect.


crazy.

__________________

That the baby can survive outside the womb and respond to stimuli means nothing more than that the baby can survive outside the womb and respond to stimuli. I didn't say "viability" is arbitrary - I said the chosing of this as an abortion criterion is arbitrary. One might as well say if alpha brain waves appear at five months, THAT's the cutoff point, or if fingers appear at two months, THAT's the cutoff point. Picking some stage of fetal development and saying that's the cutoff point is completely arbitrary, minus any supporting ethical reasoning, or medical argument as to when life begins, and with you, it's always "minus".

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

when the unborn is viable its no longer necessary to abort - its practical. your argument that life begins at conception is unfounded. where do you get this idea from? christianity? where?

__________________

That it's not necessary to abort at "viability" says nothing at all about whether or not a pre-viability fetus is a live human being - which is the issue.

I didn't make any such claim - you're hallucinating. Also I am an agnostic - I get my ideas from reason and ethics. To save it least SOME wasted back and forth with you, I will state my perception:

It is not known when a fetus may be considered a live human being, although it certainly is alive, and is of the species homo sapiens, after fertilization. The "cutoff point", if any, that might permit abortion, is not known. Lots of arbitrary "points" have been suggested, uninformed by any convincing supporting argument. That should be determined by a serious debate by philosophers, ethicists, constitutional law experts, and medical scientists from BOTH sides, in a public and thorough debate. That debate has never taken place, because the USSC in Roe v. Wade short-circuited any real debate with a judicial fait accompli, in one of the worst reasoned decisions in the history of the USSC. It was if the referee declared a winner before the contest began. Having gotten what they wanted with no effort, the pro-aborts were not interested in any real national debate, but rather focussed on preventing any whittling away of the abortion right, largely by pro-abortion slogans and politicking. I, however, think that it is certainly a reasonable conjecture that the fetus is a live human being (after all, all agree that it becomes one), and therefore until a REAL national debate of the kind that I desctibed above resolves the issue, prudent public policy should be to prohibit almost all abortions.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

well they worship THE Devil..
the grand Cheese.
the Big L...
The One.



But he's repented...according to them.

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Oderint dum metuant"
"Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

its only the issue for your side. a starting point for life cant really be determined, so its pointless.

when life begins is irrelevant because it cant be known. you could say the exact same about sperm - certainly alive and of the same species. the cut off point is known as viability, because its the only practical solution. youre not looking for a solution if your applying subjective opinion to determine that an abortion is never okay.

"BOTH sides"

haha. only those who view the situation scientifically can be trusted with an objective decision. the others would simply claim to know something they couldnt possibly know. supposing it did come down the the beginning of life, people who come to conclusions before conducting any tests cant be trusted. its like asking for both sides of the creationism/evolution debate to be heard, as if thats fair. one is based on reality, the other is pure conjecture.

roe v wade wasnt worst reasoned. it made the best possible decision based on the available information. yes, its reasonable to consider a fetus to be alive, but the same could be said of many stages of human life in its distinct forms, which is why thats a pointless argument.

fact cant be determined by debate, only by observation.

__________________