Oh, spare me. All Romney has to do to prove Reid's a liar is to release the returns. Yet he doesn't. And you guys complaining about McCarthyism? Really? McCarthy was a Republican I do believe. And have you forgotten about Clinton being called a coke-dealing murderer? Hillary a lesbian adulterer who covered up Vince Foster's murder? The Gore lies, swiftboating, Obama the non-citizen socialist, Muslim, Manchurian candidate. Even your boy TJ posted stuff in here about Obama and gay sex with a dealer. Yet here you are complaining about a statement that is easily disproven by a simple release of information. That Romney does not release that info is more damning than anything Reid says.
Maybe he will wait a few years into his presidency to release them like Obama did with his birth certificate.
Only an idiot thinks a candidates tax forms are equivalent to what the birthers are asking for and college transcripts. Basso / CML - don't be idiots. Too late I guess.
TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973: 54,559,615 Years: 39 39*6=234 million children starved to death at the same time. That's only children. Not embryos. Children. Currently, one billion humans are food insecure. One BILLION. So yeah, factor in about as many lives as you save launching useless moral tirades that don't address the scientific consensus or legal framework surrounding Roe v. Wade (about zero more or less), then factor out the number of lives you take away by denying them precious grains through excessive meat consumption (about one or plus), and you may find yourself at a surprisingly negative "pro-life" score.
I told you to double check your abortion number. Why didn't you? You are limiting abortions to the USA numbers but including worldwide starvation.
Technically, zero people were killed by abortion. In the legal sense, and in the scientific sense. However, I raise you this moral quandary (en lieu of the side-stepping you did with regards to your responsibility to meat-eating) that doesn't involve you overturning legal and scientific consensus on its' head by declaring abortion murder. So, yes, tell me why criminalization is a good idea again? I don't think of abortions as good things, but I definitely don't think criminalization is remotely a good way to deal with it. Do you really think criminalization will reduce abortions that much? Or are we going to get sub-par procedures being done in the back of an alley? We saw this s**t with Prohibition and the War on Drugs, both roaring successes. Tell me how criminalization would work in this case, and not in any other case of managing strictly personal habits with heavy-handed government intervention.
Wait who is side stepping again? Check your numbers, be intellectually honest, don't "correct" my posts with false info anymore.
I'm not side-stepping anything. I saw one figure, I was wrong on it because I thought it was worldwide, but it was American. There you go. Now Casey, you still need to overturn the scientific and legal consensus on this figure before you can even begin to cite it as fact, and the fact remains that you could save more lives eating less meat than prattling on and on with a moral argument that comes nowhere near to even approaching the issue. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned based on you citing worldwide abortion figures, I'll tell you that much.
Thanks for admitting your total lack of common sense when you "corrected" my post. Much appreciated. I don't need to over turn anything on the figure because my post had an obvious qualifier with "If someone believes abortion is murder". I didn't go on and on about it, I simply countered the argument made in the post directly above mine.
Also, the cited figure is misleading, because even before 1973, historically speaking, there are some who can make the case that there were more abortions in the United States than after. Certainly, legalization may actually decrease abortions. http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html And decrease maternal deaths. http://www.ijgo.org/article/S0020-7292(98)00194-5/abstract
Casey, don't worry about it. Next time you pop into a topic about finance and ask what the Wall Street Journal is, I'll make sure to ridicule you even harder. Until then, if you're just here to score personal points (while failing to address empirical points), well...I guess there's a reason Roe v. Wade still stands, and will stand for the foreseeable future.
Oh noes! Guess what person who is now plotting my D&D demise, I was asking you for a source because with experience, nothing you say can be trusted. At all. In this thread I was polite as possible. PS I am pro-abortion as I have stated many times in this forum. (oops)
Haha, polite as possible. Well, you were until that snappy little rejoinder. And I don't have to look far to see your passive-aggressive politeness. But no worries, I think politeness is bulls**t anyways, especially because we don't know each other (and, it should be said, have no real cause to like each other) I'm not plotting your demise by any means. I just like to be a jerk to those who can handle it. Consider it a compliment, if anything. If you're not here to make a point, than what's the point of us talking, really? Until next time. Have a good day and all that good s**t.
Are you saying there are no pro-Life Democrats or Independents... or even that all Republicans are pro-Lifers? I know you bury the accusation in "tends to be" language.
I'm saying pro-life is a misnomer, because sadly, a lot of people who hoist the title proudly are doing a whole bunch of things to the contrary. In my defense, it's about as good of an assumption as the fact that most abortions are caused by "irresponsibility".
