JUDE Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I thought we were talking about the tragic deaths of innocents. I guess I'm not the only one who can rationalize. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 For that matter I could argue your misplaced anger and the energies that go along with it would be better spent volunteering in Iraq to help rebuild rather than posting on a message board. Yes, he should go die so that you can make more money. Typical Bushie attitude. If you are such a fan of Bush's policies, than why don't you go fight? Oh that's right, fighting and dying so that you can make money is the job of poor people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 So, a partial birth abortion, a procedure that makes up about 0.17% of annual abortions, one this is usually reserved only in cases where the mothers health or the viability of the fetus is in question, is the moral equivalent of civilian deaths resulting from a war waged under false pretenses - where the initiator of the war was in no way threatened? Oh well, I didn't realize partial birth abortions were rare. That fact makes them less gruesome. And before the partial birth abortion ban was passed, the law did not say that they could only be performed if the mother's health or fetus' (i.e. premature baby in this case) viability were in question. And are you OK with civilian casualties as long as the war was waged under true pretenses? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 JUDE is truly a master baiter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 So, a partial birth abortion, a procedure that makes up about 0.17% of annual abortions, one this is usually reserved only in cases where the mothers health or the viability of the fetus is in question, is the moral equivalent of civilian deaths resulting from a war waged under false pretenses - where the initiator of the war was in no way threatened?And where was congress, the media, the public when this was being decided? Oh, right, busy making sure they didn't get caught on the wrong side of the war ("Your call, W!") I'm no fan of W, but there's plenty of blame to go around for our problems. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Yes, he should go die so that you can make more money. Typical Bushie attitude. If you are such a fan of Bush's policies, than why don't you go fight? Oh that's right, fighting and dying so that you can make money is the job of poor people. Poor people or 1st/2nd generation immigrants. I don't want anyone to die but I'm not going to stop living my life to it's fullest by letting myself become overpowered by empathy either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 And are you OK with civilian casualties as long as the war was waged under true pretenses?I think the world is better off with the allies having won WWII (despite what happened in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.) than if those civilians hadn't died. We can argue whether those bombing campaigns were necessary or even useful, but I'm sure lots of civilians died in many other "needed" bombing raids. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 JUDE is truly a master baiter.You say that like it's a bad thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Let me be the one to say that this thread is really something. I think I've earned that right, thank you very much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I agree that it's night and day, but I'm guessing we disagree on which is which. And just out of curiosity, why are you outraged at a baby inadvertently killed in a bombing campaign but not one intentionally killed by a partial birth abortion? Because the vast amount of partial birth abortions take place for the reasons I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 And where was congress, the media, the public when this was being decided? Oh, right, busy making sure they didn't get caught on the wrong side of the war ("Your call, W!") I'm no fan of W, but there's plenty of blame to go around for our problems.Congress voted to allow Bush to act prudently in regard to Iraq and the perceived threat of WMD as commander in chief based on the case created by the administration. He acted ... poorly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Oh well, I didn't realize partial birth abortions were rare. That fact makes them less gruesome. And before the partial birth abortion ban was passed, the law did not say that they could only be performed if the mother's health or fetus' (i.e. premature baby in this case) viability were in question. And are you OK with civilian casualties as long as the war was waged under true pretenses? Are you O.K. with both mother and baby dying when one could be saved? Both abortion and war are tough issues with plenty of collateral damage. We can't predict that someone would act in the best interests of all at all times. We have an obligation as a society to hope for the best. If someone abuses either situation, they should be held accountable -- and, based upon Christian beliefs, they will be. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Are you O.K. with both mother and baby dying when one could be saved? No. Both abortion and war are tough issues with plenty of collateral damage. We can't predict that someone would act in the best interests of all at all times. We have an obligation as a society to hope for the best. If someone abuses either situation, they should be held accountable -- and, based upon Christian beliefs, they will be. Except it's not "collateral damage" with abortions. Those that are killed in abortions are not merely accidental deaths as a result of the means used to achieve some other ends -- their deaths are the ends. I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Oh well, I didn't realize partial birth abortions were rare. That fact makes them less gruesome. And before the partial birth abortion ban was passed, the law did not say that they could only be performed if the mother's health or fetus' (i.e. premature baby in this case) viability were in question. True, but that is because law or no law, there was never really any need to differentiate given that next to no partial term abortions took place that did not involve either the health of the fetus, or the mother. And are you OK with civilian casualties as long as the war was waged under true pretenses? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Poor people or 1st/2nd generation immigrants. I don't want anyone to die but I'm not going to stop living my life to it's fullest by letting myself become overpowered by empathy either. Your soul shines brightly. Pfft, who needs empathy? It is ruining my existence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 No. Except it's not "collateral damage" with abortions. Those that are killed in abortions are not merely accidental deaths as a result of the means used to achieve some other ends -- their deaths are the ends.Slippery slope. an unjust war begs what *isn't* collateral damage. It's like driving through a crowd of people to kill the person who killed your child. Neither is a black/white issue is the point. To save one person at the cost of another is tragedy. But to let both die, based on the principles of someone not directly involved, would be a bigger tragedy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 get all of this shit out of my goofing off thread!!!! jagoffs! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 get all of this shit out of my goofing off thread!!!! jagoffs!d'oh! goof away! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I totally think Bush is one of the more entertaining political figures of the last 20 years, and he would probably crack my top 5 "Presidents to go out drinking with" list. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I totally think Bush is one of the more entertaining political figures of the last 20 years, and he would probably crack my top 5 "Presidents to go out drinking with" list. you mean 'Top 5 Presidents to go out drinking the blood of slaughtered innocent children from a golden challace paid for by halliburton with'? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Congress voted to allow Bush to act prudently in regard to Iraq and the perceived threat of WMD as commander in chief based on the case created by the administration. He acted ... poorly. This is the part that slays me. Democrats who voted for it in congress don't have to assume any blame because of this reasoning. Beautiful. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 get all of this shit out of my goofing off thread!!!! jagoffs!Would it be appropriate to refer to someone as an ignorant fucking bigot in this thread, if I'm sorta kidding? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 you mean 'Top 5 Presidents to go out drinking the blood of slaughtered innocent children from a golden challace paid for by halliburton with'? You forgot to reference Hitler. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sunken mountain Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I think the world is better off with the allies having won WWII (despite what happened in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.) than if those civilians hadn't died. We can argue whether those bombing campaigns were necessary or even useful, but I'm sure lots of civilians died in many other "needed" bombing raids. to the American people who fights in Europe for our liberty. Just curious:you use "Republican" like an insult? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.