Quinn & Rose guest host Pintek on Obama: "[A] monster and a liar" who believes "if a woman chooses abortion, she's entitled to a dead body no matter what"
SUMMARY: On The War Room With Quinn & Rose, guest host Mike Pintek opened the show by saying, "You need to know that Barack Obama is a monster and a liar who would be very much at home in Communist China, where killing babies is an industry." Pintek went on to claim that Obama "believes so firmly in abortion, he is so radical in his support for abortion and infanticide that he believes that if a woman chooses abortion, she's entitled to a dead body no matter what."
On the August 21 edition of the syndicated radio program The War Room With Quinn & Rose, guest host Mike Pintek opened the show by saying, "You need to know that Barack Obama is a monster and a liar who would be very much at home in Communist China, where killing babies is an industry." Pintek went on to claim that Obama "believes so firmly in abortion, he is so radical in his support for abortion and infanticide that he believes that if a woman chooses abortion, she's entitled to a dead body no matter what." Pintek added: "Obama opposed bills that would have required medical attention be given to babies who somehow survived the killing fields of the abortion table and would have given the aborted baby legal rights."
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama opposed certain bills amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 while he was in the Illinois state Senate because he and other opponents of the bills said they would pose a threat to abortion rights and said they were unnecessary because Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bills.
The War Room With Quinn & Rose is a syndicated radio program based in Pittsburgh on Clear Channel's WPGB 104.7 FM. Talkers Magazine lists Quinn & Rose on its "Heavy Hundred." According to the show's website, it airs on 17 radio stations and XM Satellite Radio.
From the August 21 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room With Quinn & Rose:
PINTEK: You need to know that Barack Obama is a monster and a liar who would be very much at home in Communist China, where killing babies is an industry.
This is America's morning show. It's Quinn & Rose in the morning. They're on vacation. I'm Mike Pintek.
Barack Obama caught in a lie, and you know something stings when he has to lie about it. And it's so easily, easily refuted. What I'm talking about is -- let's go back to last weekend at the showdown at Saddleback, when Barack Obama and John McCain were individually asked when the moment of conception or the moment of life begins and when a fetus should have civil rights and human rights.
And Barack Obama said that the beginning of human life was above his pay grade. Kind of a weird answer, a puzzling answer, an evasive answer, until you realize why he said that. What he didn't want you to know is that he believes so firmly in abortion, he is so radical in his support for abortion and infanticide that he believes that if a woman chooses abortion, she's entitled to a dead body no matter what.
Back in the 2001, 2003 session of the Illinois state legislature, when he was a state senator, Obama opposed bills that would have required medical attention be given to babies who somehow survived the killing fields of the abortion table and would have given the aborted baby legal rights.
Not for nothing, and I am not for McCain, but his POW status and the things that happened to him...did happen. I can imagine that he would not want to talk about it.
It should not be a matter of discussion, nor derision for people. Unfortunatly it is.
I do respect McCain for his service, and for what he went through as a POW, I do not however want him for president for what he believes in or for the policies he holds.
I wrote this one just for you!
Where are those high ratings, they seem so hard to find
I tried to vote for you, but you have a closed mind
Whatever happened to your word?I wish I understood
It used to be so nice, it used to be so good So when you campaign, why do you always claim
P. O. W.?
The crap you tell me, nothing else can save me from
P. O. W.!
When you talk
How can I even try to go on?
When you talk
Though I try how can I carry on? You can’t recall what country that Iraq is near
How many homes you have, or the gas prices here
When someone calls out your B.S.
Coming clean is hard,
That’s why every answer, starts with your P.O.W. card! So when you campaign, why do you always claim
P. O. W.?
The crap you tell me, nothing else can save me from
P. O. W.!
When you talk
How can I even try to go on?
When you talk
Though I try how can I carry on?
So when you're near me, McCain can't you hear me
P. O. W.!
The words you tell me, nothing else can save me from
P. O. W.!
One more time
I don’t know if I can stand it?
Say one more,
Though I try I may just slit my wrist?
On the New York Throughway.
You don't see me complaining.
I thought that his guard wrote it in the dirt....
No, no...that's another one of his POW stories entirely. But he doesn't like to talk about that one either...
Well it is his card to play. There are many POWs that may resonate with his message whether you and I do or not.
It's the people acting like his service and what he went through that I have issue with.
Everything else is fair game to me, but I guess since my dad was captured and subsequently escaped that clouds my judgment on this issue.
Talk about that nutz on this show..Today, Radio Rose blew her Christian top and claimed that Obama was "WHORING HER SCRIPTURE". HER SCRIPTURE??? This happened about 1 1/2hrs into the show. Turned to their station about 7:30am and there she was preaching "her" bible. She didn't like his interpretation concerning Matthew. Of course, they then went into rants about Obamas' brother who they will send money to. And that Obama should be doing that. But these nutz mustn't have seen the interview with his brother who doesn't want or need his brothers help. He feels he is doing well and will get better. How dare Radio Rosary Rose preach to anyone? She gives to chartities but you always hear about it. The other lunatic Quinn the Sexual Harrasser said somewhere that "If you are a socialist, you are not a patriot"..other gems of wisdom for Quinne, "I ain't dyin' for no socialist"..whatever that means, he's a coward to begin with.
This program has more hate than Limbaugh and Ms. Christian Values is always hiding behind her views. And only her views. Nothing else counts. And their base is located in the Alabama part of Pa. and the Mississippi parts of Ohio.
This show should be mandatory for listening for all liberals in the morning. It makes you realize how insane these people are and you really get to laugh. Unfortunately, not at the jokes but at Rose and Quinny. I'll tune in tomorrow at 7:30am to get my jolt for the day. Besides, they get a kick out of being mentioned, not on MMFA, but anywhere..Listen in and enjoy.
"I ain't dyin' for no socialist"..whatever that means...
that means that whenever a democrat is president, they are traitors to the country.
Forgot to mention here ( did earlier) that McCain was a "tortured POW". Mentioned it at least three times.
I want to know, who sacrificed more...57,000 dead in Nam.....4400 dead in Iraq.....lost arms.... lost legs..... lost eyesight.....brain injuries and the list can also include the families of these soldiers...And the Righties want to talk about how much McCain sacrificed. He was honored by the military with his medals and give recognition to achieve his Senate seat. But please, he ENLIST in the military. Remember how the Cons always mention that our soldiers knew what they where in for because they ENLISTED. McCain ENLISTED,,,McCain ENLISTED. Did I mention that 57,000 died and McCain came home..not in a coffin.
One of my best friends died last year. He never really came home. He carried everything for thirty seven years and decided he couldn't carry the load any longer.
His name should be on the wall too.
I'm sure you know guys who should be there too Prince.
PFC. Morris died two months ago...never recovered completely from his wounds..and that was in Feb. 1970 when Moran and English died instantly.
Well it is his card to play. There are many POWs that may resonate with his message whether you and I do or not.
Lorelei, it's not his card to play. There were approximately 600 POW's, none using their POW status as a convenient excuse for any failings.
McCain uses it as a "special" qualification for president or an excuse for his failing to remember how many homes he owns or what car he drove or what he said the previous day. He cheapens the honor that all POW's deserve.
McCain's service to his country is honorable, it's just not a reason to vote for him or trust him.
Nobody is questioning whether or not John McCain was a POW. There are some questions about one of the things he claims happened to him.
It is a matter of discussion because he brings it up regularly, making it a matter of discussion. It is not a matter of derision -- his constant use of it as a way to avoid answering tough questions is, however, a matter of derision.
And Barack Obama said that the beginning of human life was above his pay grade. Kind of a weird answer, a puzzling answer, an evasive answer, until you realize why he said that.
Yeah. Couldn't possibly because it's utterly impossible for any human being to know with certaintly when life begins. Nah.
But I'm starting to see how this goes...
Democrat says something buth rational and reasonable = RADICAL
Republican says something radical, or outright ludicrous = REASONABLE. (or worse: PRINCIPLED!)
...he is so radical in his support for abortion and infanticide that he believes that if a woman chooses abortion, she's entitled to a dead body no matter what.
More of those liberal entitlements.Sorry, this meathead has left me pretty much unable to respond to any one thing he's said here. Seems to be the trend, they're so desperate they're just getting as crazy as possible, hoping some of the crazy slips through.
I think you're right, Col. They're throwing anything at the wall to see if it sticks, whether it makes sense or not. Unfortunately, I think there are some wingnuts out there who will believe anything; most people won't, but there are a few. I think their thinking is something like this: when you add up the various "few" that believe various lies they're spreading, it is no longer "few," enabling them to make a stronger showing against Obama. Fortunately, we're fighting back more this year than we have in the past, so their tactics aren't as effective. Let's hope this trend continues.
Couldn't possibly because it's utterly impossible for any human being to know with certaintly when life begins. Nah.
But, but... John McCain has confirmed that life begins at conception. Former POWs who have parlayed their capture into lucrative political careers are endowed with special insight and wisdom that allows them to fathom the unfathomable...except on mundane matters such as how many homes they own.
So what else is above his “pay grade”? The economy, dealing with terrorists, religious freedom? Kind of scary that a man who’s great claim to fame is that he is a “community organizer” is the dems choice for the president. Guess we have to up his pay grade and help him buy a clue!!
The economy, dealing with terrorists, religious freedom?
I know all of these are above the republicans pay grade.
Hey PoV, see if you can find one of your idols to answer this one for you:
Eight years ago the Republican Party decided that the man who may go down in history as the worst American President ever was more qualified for the job than McCain. So, in the past eight years, how has McCain become more qualified now than he was then?
I know! I know! Pick me! Pick me! [hand raised]
OK...:
He's become MORE LIKE the guy who will go down as the worst president in history!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/from-nuanced-to-principle_b_119810.html
"Most Americans actually disagree with John McCain on abortion, as they do on most of the issues that separate him and his Democratic rival. Polls show that only 30% of Americans believe all abortions should be illegal, and few support a return to the pre-Roe era. The majority -- including the majority of evangelical Christians, who made up Warren's audience -- think we should find some kind of "middle ground" on abortion. The reason is that most Americans are ambivalent about abortion. Virtually no one -- left, right, or center -- is comfortable with late term abortions except when the mother's life or health is in danger. The idea of aborting an 8-month-old fetus for convenience (something no one would really do, but it makes a great bogey man to push Democrats down slippery slopes) is deeply disturbing to the vast majority of Americans in a way that aborting a 10-week-old fetus is not.
Why? Because the concept of life is what cognitive psychologists call a "fuzzy set" -- a concept that doesn't have clear boundaries. Unconsciously, most people view a newly fertilized embryo as qualitatively different from a late-term fetus because it doesn't seem like a person. But the point at which a fetus seems to us more like a person than not is indeterminate.
Regardless of their conscious beliefs -- that life begins at conception or that life begins when a baby takes its first breath -- most people's feelings follow their unconscious perceptions. That's why early in pregnancy even most evangelical Christians find it morally repugnant to force a rape victim to bear her rapist's child, even though they may consciously believe that the fertilized egg is a life, whereas late in pregnancy most people aren't comfortable with abortion except in exceptional circumstances. In their guts, most people feel that Roe v. Wade got it about as right as we're going to get it -- which is why the vast majority of Americans don't want it overturned -- even if they can't articulate why."
Yup, that's about it.
So sorry, no more jack offs....har har.
Don't spill that seed on the ground.....
You know it addresses that very issue (what a pun) in the bible. Yes....and punishment is coming....for those that jack off, har.
Especially if you're in a library.
So sorry, no more jack offs....har har.
When you pry my cold dead fingers from.... well, you know !
You know Col. You very well might be going to Hell, or at least blind with hairy palms.
Get some burma shave......
Guns don't kill people - wankers kill people.
Really really tiny people. Millions of 'em. Every time you download pron, Col, it's like another holocaust. Maybe worse.
Nerzog,
I wonder why you question basic biology?
the sperm and egg each only have half the chromosones needed to provide human life.
Below is a more in depth explanation.
Each human cell (aside from red blood cells and gametes) contains a full set of 46 chromosomes. Clearly havoc would result if a sperm and egg cell each containing 46 human chromosomes were to fuse! Not only would the resulting offspring have 98 chromosomes in each cell but the number would keep on doubling with each successive generation. For this reason a process other than mitosis which produces cells with a diploid number of chromosomes is necessary to produce the sperm and egg cells.
The process by which the chromosome number is halved and chromosomes are sorted and packaged to be passed on to an organism’s offspring is called meiosis.
Each of the resulting reproductive cells, or gametes (sperm and egg), has only a single set of 22 autosomes plus a single sex chromosome, either an X or a Y. A cell with a single chromosome set is called a haploid cell.
By means of sexual intercourse, a sperm cell carrying one 23 chromosome set from the father reaches and fuses with an egg cell carrying a corresponding set of 23 chromosomes from the mother.
The resulting fertilized egg, or zygote, contains the two haploid sets of chromosomes bearing genes originating in both the maternal and paternal family lines.
As a human develops from a zygote to a sexually mature adult, the new combination of genes in the zygote are passed on with precision to all somatic cells of the body by the process of mitosis.
There's more. Interesting stuff>
http://www.contexo.info/DNA_Basics/Meiosis.htmOnan in the Bible has marital relations with his wife and then proceeds to "spill his seed" upon the ground because he does not want to conceive children. God struck him dead on the spot.
Struck dead, By Gawd!
I'm tellin' all ya'll, no more masterbating! No more abortions. No more contraceptions, by Gawd!
When gawd tells ya to populate the earth you better by gawd populate it!
heh, you are correct.
that seed was indeed suppose to impregnate his dead brothers wife, according to gods word.
Onan decided to spill it instead on her stomach, and GAWD killed him.
(more likely he "stroked" out and died from a massive heart attack)
Onan decided to spill it instead on her stomach...
Ooooh...I think I saw that video the other night while surfing the internets. Was she young and blonde...with a tattoo on her stomach? ;>)
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
Let the heathens spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God will make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found
(from the gospel according to Python)
They (the right wing) are getting more and more desparate everyday. Now that Obama has come back from his "exotic" vacation, they won't get so much traction. They had a week or so Obama free, so expect a little bump in the polls. Thats over now. The left is full on now.
Supposedly 20% of hillary supporters say they are going to vote for Grampy. I don't know if thats true. If it is, Hillary needs to show those people that sour grapes will send this country into the dark ages. We'll find out what "cut off your nose to spite your face" really means.
Well she did call for her supporters to work for Obama as hard as they worked for her!
If thats not saying I support Obama and you should too, then her "supporters" are not listening to her, nor are they supporting thier party.
I think these nutties that like to say that democrats wont vote for Obama because they wanted Hillary are saying it to try to help McCain, and it is just not true.
I wanted Hillary to win, but I will be voting for Obama.
We don't need 4 more years of republican rule!
Frankly, any Hillary supporter who falls for this crap is simply too stupid to be a Democrat, anyway.
lol, you'll get no arguement here.
Fortunately all the Dem's I know "ARE" smarter than the average bear and will not fall for that garbage.
Nerzog, With the exception of a very small percentage of Hillary supporters I expect the rest will vote for Obama.
But it may still take them a few more days/weeks to get on board.
A real story: My wife & a friend were out for a walk Saturday morning & stopped at a small store to get some bottled water. While they were waiting in line to pay, this guy walked in & said to the clerk [that he obviously was friendly with] "Did you hear Obama picked Biden instead of Hillary??" My wife said he sounded bummed out. The clerk, a woman, answered " Yeah I heard, no way I'm voting for him now!!" She sounded really pissed.
Now I'm sure there are a smattering of these folks around, but if the Republicans are hanging their hats on winning the election because of millions of disgruntled Hillary supporters, me thinks they are in lala land.
Ha! Now stop that Irony, you made me laugh & I don't think I'm supposed to find that funny.
Oh hell you know me, I laugh at most everything...even Coulter :-O
Jeter,
Obama gave away a sure victory by not picking Hillary.
There's still time for McCain to pick her! Wouldn't that be wild! :-)
AA,
Yeah I think if Obama had chosen Hillary it would have been a slam dunk, but I don't think Biden will hurt him. And I figure most Clintonites will come around & join the Obamabots.
Ha! Hillary & McCain, yup that would have been wild. Totally could never happen, but funny to think about.
And just about more exciting than anyone McCain might tap for VP.
Jeter,
I'm not so sure that Biden won't hurt Obama.
There are more than enough recorded quips by Biden that praise McCain and dis Obama for the Republicans to flood the airwaves from now until election day. He has said more silly things than Kerry and Gore combined!
Obama's mantra of "change" will ring hollow since he is bringing in a consummate Washington insider onto his ticket.
Biden failed miserably in his two Presidential runs. What make anyone think he can generate votes?
There are more than enough recorded quips by Biden that praise McCain
Hypothetical retort by Biden: McCain has flip-flopped on almost every issue near and dear to him including torture to pander to the far right. I can no longer in good conscience say that the once nonconformist (now right-wing conformist) is fit to be president. He's running for Bush's third term which would be a disaster for this country.
That's basically what Biden said in his speech on Saturday in Springfield, IL.
He did a pretty good job of picking on McCain - and mentioned more than once that we cannot afford more Bush policies under McCain.
Obama's mantra of "change" will ring hollow since he is bringing in a consummate Washington insider onto his ticket.
Obama and Biden are simpatico on virtually every issue so don't worry your pretty little head AA, the change mantra is not in danger.
Thanks for the head's up! :-)
You've made my point about the "change" Obama preaches are simply words.
You've made my point about the "change" Obama preaches are simply words.
What are you talking about? For the past thirty years right-wing ideology has dominated the political discourse. It's time for the country to return to it's progressive roots.
So you are saying that Biden's 30+ years in the Senate have not been a part of the same old discourse? How many years in that time have the Dems been the majority in the Senate and/or House? How many years were there Democratic Presidents?
What policies, besides getting out of Iraq, does Obama bring to the table that aren't the same old Democratic solutions that they have argued for and in many cases passed, in Congress?
So you are saying that Biden's 30+ years in the Senate have not been a part of the same old discourse?
That's exactly what I'm saying. The republicans have been in the majority most of that time and they were the ones pushing legislation. The Democrats have been in the backgound.
And just about more exciting than anyone McCain might tap for VP.
Speaking of McCain's VP, I found some suggestions.
Random Fetus
If McCain wants to show how serious he is about the notion that humans have human rights from the moment of conception, what better way than to make a fetus his VP
OR
Reagan’s Corpse
Anti-union, anti-gay, pro-apartheid, pro-America. The ultimate conservative, dead or alive. Prop up his shriveled corpse Weekend at Bernie’s style. Half of the Republicans probably don’t even know that he’s dead
Rudy Giuliani
Jesus gave him the power to singlehandedly protect the country after 9-11, but Giuliani enjoyscross-desssing a little too much, and he lived with gay roommates. He is also a fornicator who cheated on his wife.
Mitt Romney
Hmmm. He’s Christian…kinda. Conservative, yes, but even Christian conservative nutjobs think that his sect is too weird. On the plus side,his Church was openly racist until 1978. Way to hold out!
Tom Ridge
Pro choice…Next?
Bobby Jindal
He is of Indian descent, so to evangelicals, that means he is from the Middle East, and is therefore secretly Muslim. They are probably checking Jindal’s Passport to see if he is even in the country legally.
Joe Lieberman
Are you kidding? Pro choice, a Democrat, and he’s Jewish! You might as well stab baby Jesus with a sharpened dreidel.
This list was provided by http://wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com/
Yeah, not too many calls for an 8 month abortion now are there.
Peebs,
Not that I doubt you, but do you have a link to back up your 98% - 2% statistics.
I cannot speak for any other pro-lifers as to what they think when it comes to abortion, (other than it is wrong,) but I have stated my opinion, (backed by science,) that a new human life is formed at conception.
I am fully aware of the new person size when conceived. It seems illogical to me to grant "humanhood" status based on the size of the embryo/fetus/baby and/or age. Either it is a human being separate from it's mother or it isn't. Since it has it's own DNA, it has to be it's own human being.
AA. I don't have any one link. pretty much any non-partisan website will tell you that. And its not the SIZE, its the fact that its just a clump of cells. And also, why do YOU get to decide that life begins at conception? tell me where you get that from, other than that you just feel its true. I've read the Bible, and theres nothing in there about when life begins, other than when God breathes the "breath of life" into Adam. Which sure sounds like after birth to me.
Peebs,
Ok. You are not willing to support your contention. Got it. I'll just toss it off as hyperbole and no basis of fact.
I have no idea where you got the "one twin/two dna" story. I've never heard of it and no link supporting it.
So far you are zero for two.
As far as when a human life is formed, read this from Dr. Fritz Baumgartner, written in 2005. ( a quick google search for "scientific definition of when life begins" brings back about 495,000 hits. I took the first one.)
There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate.
There is no more appropriate moment to begin calling a human "human" than the moment of fertilization. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise, because it would be a degradation of factual embryology to say it would be any other moment. For example, some pro-abortion zealots and even, shockingly, some disingenuous physicians claim it is the moment of primitive notochord formation (nonsense!) or, even more absurdly, the moment of implantation. (It defies sanity to claim that the implantation of a developing blastocyst onto a uterine wall defines humanity more than does the completion of an entirely new DNA map, which defines a new organism's existence).
And to say that "size" is a determinant of humanity, of course, is an unscientific reason to deny an embryo his or her human status. In any event, it is an embryological reality, which no embryology textbook on earth denies, that at the moment of fertilization a new human being is formed.
http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html
ps. The illogic of "God as the biggest abortionist" is astounding but unsurprising.
By your reasoning, You might also argue that God is the biggest killer since everyone dies. Since God allows people to die, it must therefore be okay for anyone to kill anyone right?
Lore,
You bought a into a f false meme. The biggest mass murderers have been the atheists of the 20th century.
Are you arguing that the soul the determinate of who is a human being? Are you taking the metaphysical side to determine who and who is not a human being?
If you are and you do not know when the soul is imbued, then your argument falls apart. Since you do not know, and if having a soul means you are killing another human being, then how can you you argueit is okay to kill another human being simply because you do not know for certain that this embryo/fetus has not yet been given a soul?
What if you are wrong? What would God say about you killing that embryo/fetus that has a soul?
What if you are wrong?
And what if you are wrong? What if there is no God at all? Do you want to make criminals of normal women because of your religious beliefs. My point is that everything you argue ultimately gets down to religious beliefs. And, BTW, being schooled in the Catholic faith we were taught that it is man's soul that separates us from God's other creatures. But it begs the question as to whether we acquire that soul at conception or when we are born.
Irony,
I am not making the metaphysical argument. You are. I am making the scientific argument that human life begins at conception. A one celled human being, because they are a human being, should be granted the same rights as anyone else. Anything less is discrimination based on age, size, or the fact that this human being lives inside its mother. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent and defenseless human being.
I believe history will look back at pro-choicers as we look back upon slaveholders. People who denied other people their humanity and killed those babies because they did want the responsibility that came from conceiving those babies.
I am not making the metaphysical argument. You are. I am making the scientific argument that human life begins at conception.
I don't disagree with the facts about chromosomes but saying it is life is an opinion.
or the fact that this human being lives inside its mother.
It doesn't just live inside there.
I am making the scientific argument that human life begins at conception. A one celled human being, because they are a human being, should be granted the same rights as anyone else. (AA)
Barn, go look up "begging the question" again. I know I've explained it to you before, but it looks like you've forgotten again. And out of respect to scientists everywhere, please don't ever refer to your little troll-droppings as "scientific". Ever.
"I am not making the metaphysical argument. You are. I am making the scientific argument that human life begins at conception. A one celled human being, because they are a human being, should be granted the same rights as anyone else. Anything less is discrimination based on age, size, or the fact that this human being lives inside its mother. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent and defenseless human being."
Whatever happened to the "divine spark" you believed in? It's no longer about "souls", it's about "rights", for some reason.
There is no societal rationale here. There is no great need to have every pregnancy come to fruition, in fact overpopulation is something that needs to be prevented. Since you're not talking about souls, you're talking about genetic material. The phrase "one-celled human being" is an oxymoron, because potential human life is not a human being that has protected rights.
"I believe history will look back at pro-choicers as we look back upon slaveholders. People who denied other people their humanity and killed those babies because they did want the responsibility that came from conceiving those babies."
There is no comparison between enslaving people because of their skin color and a woman controlling her own damn life. If you knew what shame was, you wouldn't have let yourself say that.
Peebs,
I do not know. The point is that those stillborns die of natural causes.
I believe it is barbaric that we take our own young and kill them in the womb simply because the mother wants to have intercourse but does not want the responsibility for what it might entail.
All right, fine, for argument's sake, let's say you're right. A precious and unique little snowflake is created at conception.
Why does that little snowflake get to have more rights over my body than a born person does? No born person can use my body against my will; no born person is even legally allowed to touch my body against my will (that's assault).
So why should a clump of cells with no brain activity get to use my body against my will, when my own mother cannot compel me to donate a kidney or give blood even if it means her death if I don't comply? I mean, even if I'm dead and I didn't want my organs donated, a doctor can't just grab my liver and give it to someone else, even if my wishes mean that someone else will die.
So what makes a zygote so special that it has rights that even a born person does not have over me, even if I'm friggin' dead?
(Furthermore, if about 50% of all fertilized eggs are washed out during menstruation, what do you suggest I do with my used tampons and pads, which have a 50/50 shot of containing a "person"? Hold a funeral? Have some poor scientist pore over them to determine if a "person" has died and then get a certificate of stillbirth? 'Cuz that makes sense, if we're taking your assertion to its logical conclusion.)
:clap, clap, clap"
Wonderful!
8-)
Rinna,
It is simple biology. Yes there is another human being inside you. It didn't ask to be put there, you made that decision. So it is the innocent one. You on the other hand, helped create that new person and now you feel you can kill it simply because it is growing in your body for nine months?
You are irresponsibly shifting the blame for the embryo/fetus/baby trying to live as an assault on your body when you are the one who made it.
I find your dehumanization of the baby inside you by calling it a snowflake very telling.
You're completely missing the point. Why should a z/e/f have more rights over my body than any born person has? Why, just because I have a functioning uterus, do I have fewer rights to bodily autonomy than someone without one?
Do you also support mandatory blood donation, which takes far, far, far less time, money, and energy than carrying a pregnancy to term, and would save the lives of humans who are born, and thus whose personhood is not in question?
Do you likewise support mandatory organ donation, for the same reasons?
If not, why not? And if your answer is essentially, "Because no one can tell someone else what to do with their body," how is that any different than what I've been arguing about a pregnant woman's right to her body?
Do you have any idea what I'm talking about?
Okay, last attempt before I stop procrastinating on my work. You're relying on science to say that a person exists when sperm meets egg. The problem is, a person more of a philosophical concept than a scientific one.
Let's look at this from the other end: death. Science is really good at telling us which bodily processes end when, but it has nothing to say about when what makes a human a person has left the body. Take a person, a beloved relative if that's the only thing that will make it personal enough, whose body is technically still alive, but whose brain has ceased to function. Is that human body a person? I don't care what your answer is, just think about it. Think about how hard a decision it is for a family whose beloved father or brother or uncle is lying there, pulse beating, but with no brain, no mind left. And then tell me if you want the government interfering with their decision about whether or not to keep him on life support.
It's the same with the beginning of life. Science is really good about telling us which bodily processes start when--when the tail goes away, when the heart beats, when the nerves feel pain--but cannot tell us when that clump of human cells is a person. That line is different for every person. You've chosen conception. I choose the point at which the fetus is likely to have more than primitive brain activity--i.e., when it can think. Why should either of us get to decide for the other what constitutes a person? Why should it be the government's role to decide this issue?
(Finally, yes there people who have two sets of DNA, from absorbing another zygote in utero. They're called chimeras. Wiki should have some basics on the phenomenon.)
"Take a person, a beloved relative if that's the only thing that will make it personal enough, whose body is technically still alive, but whose brain has ceased to function. Is that human body a person? I don't care what your answer is, just think about it. Think about how hard a decision it is for a family whose beloved father or brother or uncle is lying there, pulse beating, but with no brain, no mind left. And then tell me if you want the government interfering with their decision about whether or not to keep him on life support."
AA believes that pulling the plug on someone like Terri Schiavo is murder, so forget about how any family members feel. He's a moral absolutist. You can lead that horse to water, but you can't make him think.
Excellent posts, by the way.
AA, It should tell you something that your Google of "scientific definition of when life begins" brought up a radical anti-abortion site as the first result. It's not a question scientists are debating. I realize the author in your link is a doctor, but he's writing as a wingnut.
Everybody knows that a sperm and an egg are alive, and when they join together, naturally they're alive. It's the question of when the status of "human being" is put on this little life form that has opinions divided.
And, yes, opinions are divided. As comforting as it might be to you yo say you have science on your side, you don't.The other side can't prove that a couple of cells is not a human being, and that's where it's probably going to stand.
Basically. there are two groups on this issue. Those who believe life begins at conception, and another group made up of people with varying opinions of when a human comes into being.
The biggest difference between the two groups is that the pro-choice side recognizes these differences, and respects them enough to allow for the most freedom, to let these divided groups make up their own minds on personal matters.
Your side wants to bring the government in to legislate your opinion on everybody, and you'll use any dishonest means necessary to do it.
Col.
If human life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? Are you sure it wasn't one minute before your arbitrary notion? What science to you rely on to make your claim of when personhood begins?
Once those embryos/fetuses/babies reach your defined age, is it then wrong to kill them?
Do innocent human beings have the right to be protected from being killed?
Or do you believe every woman has the right to kill their offspring as long as those offspring haven't met your artificial threshold as to what determines a human being?Do you agree with Lor, that one can kill a fully born baby just because it has yet to take it's first lungful of air?
If Lori can state unequivocally that she believes life begins with the baby's first breath, what's to say someone else argues that life begins with a baby's first word or first tooth?
The pro-abortion argument does not rest with science, but only devotion to "women's rights". It runs counter to all their talk about "helping the poor" and looking out for their fellow man.
ok, now you are just being ridiculous.
I never said you could "kill" a fully born baby.
You are just arguing to be arguing now.
Putting words in other peoples mouths.
Typical.
DON'T ATTRIBUTE "YOUR" FEARS TO THINGS I DID NOT SAY!
Lori,
You stated, a baby is not a human till it takes it's first breath did you not?
Does not a fully born baby who has yet to breathe fail your definition?
If not, please explain why my example is wrong and your definition is correct?
You stated, a baby is not a human till it takes it's first breath did you not?
Even if this was the case, that would not define a person's position on abortion.
If human life does not begin at conception, when does it begin?
The point at which the fetus no longer needs a host to survive. I personally wouldn't define life as anything before the first trimester.
This is a fetus at 12 WEEKS. the first trimester is just over 13 WEEKS.
Are you telling me that is NOT a Human Being? What would you call that life form?
The pro-abortion argument is a completely illogical and indefensible position. One must twist themselves into a pretzel in order to justify abortion.
Loonz,
A three week old baby needs a "host" to survive.
How long would it live without one?
No, No, No, No, No.
A three-week old baby is dependent upon others, true, but it is not dependent upon one particular other person. Almost anyone can give a three-week-old baby a bottle, a diaper change, affection, etc.
A fetus in utero, however, is completely dependent upon one, single, solitary individual for its survival, and more than that, it is completely dependent upon that person's body--her nutrients, her oxygen, her energy. A woman can't hand over a fetus to someone else's womb if she doesn't want it, or if the fetus is causing conditions that might kill her.
See the difference?
Prince,
Arguing for "pro-choice" rather than "pro abortion" is like trying to argue one is only a "little bit" pregnant. Even if you are not in favor of having abortions yourself, you are in favor of others being able to abort children in the womb.
Sorry if it offends. The pro-choice argument is simply a way to deflect the ugly reality that one is pro-abortion.
AA, As I already said, scientists don't argue about nonsense like this. You can pretend to have science behind you but it's all opinion.If you're down to the ridiculous hypothetical of somebody trying to kill a baby in the moment between birth and its first breath, you may be out of gas.
You believe a human being becomes that at conception. That's fine with me. I have no desire to try to change your opinion, that would be rude and futile.You should never be involved in having an abortion, I won't try to talk you into it.
Your not going to change my opinion. It's a subject I've thought about and talked about with others for many years and I know where I stand.The fact that you copied and pasted the mechanics of conception, what was basically a high school biology lesson, and found it enlightening makes it pretty clear that you're just getting up to speed on the science of the topic, after what I assume is many years of dogma.
Society has largely made a compromise on the issue, limiting late term abortions. If you believe the GOP really wants to make abortion illegal,you can go ahead and vote for them.You can also crusade to have laws changed to impose your ideology on others, you can go around trying to change people's minds. Good luck.
It's a subject I've thought about and talked about with others for many years and I know where I stand.
I'm so happy that your incredibly gifted mind has now been closed. If it's a high school biology lesson why can't you understand it?
Col.
For a moment I thought you were actually going to engage in a discussion like an adult. I was wrong.
Hey AA, doing your patented "drop in a day late and pretend you got something"?
Nice. What the hell are you even talking about? You're the only one here (aside from Noleft) who can't seem to get up to speed. You dishonest little troll, I can't believe I almost tried to have an adult discussion with you.
Peebs,
Where did I not provide a source? I gave a link at the bottom of my cut and paste.
Yes there is a debate. But the debate is not when science says life begins. That debate is over.
I still haven't seen you provide yours?
Here's another quote:
...We should be able to agree on “when life begins” since it is an undisputed empirical biological fact that can be found in any first year medical student’s embryology textbook that life begins at conception when the human sperm fertilizes the egg-called the process of “fecundation.” Any other arbitrary demarcation of “when human life begins” contradicts this scientific fact. There is no debate on “when human life begins.”
http://www.punditreview.com/2005/11/when-life-begins-is-not-debatable/
I could go on and on with examples and details but for the sake of brevity will stop here.
Please show me one scientific argument that says human life begins at some point other than conception.
k, I say it isn't.
I say it is not a baby till it is "born". Until it takes its first breath. DNA does not make a human...there is a lot more to it than that.
If you think otherwise then i suggest you stop taking meds that were made with the modified rice with "human dna" injected into is structure. Along with protesting the human dna being injected into other species of plants AND animals.
Just keeps expanding all the time, where do you draw the line?
Lor,
Simply ignoring the facts about when life occurs does not make your position legitimate. According to you a fully born, living baby is not a human being until the mucus is cleared from it's throat and it takes it's first breath. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are in the extreme minority. Most people here who argue for pro-choice do not go that far. (I know Obama does.)
I am not familiar with mice outfitted with human DNA. Do you have a link?
I am not arguing that living tissue is a human being because if it contains human DNA. Human hair has DNA. I do not consider a folicle a human being. I am speaking specifically of creating a new human being at conception.
I am not familiar with mice outfitted with human DNA. Do you have a link?
I am not arguing that living tissue is a human being because if it contains human DNA. Human hair has DNA. I do not consider a folicle a human being. I am speaking specifically of creating a new human being at conception.
Now that is funny, because mice have been injected with human dna, however I did not mention "mice". So you must know something about it since you DID mention it.
Do your own research, just google "rice" and dna, or rice and human dna, or for that matter, research tomatos outfitted with fish dna so they will last longer in the fridge. There are lots of things that have had "human" dna put in them, the rice in particular was done
You all want links but you don't want to learn by your selves. That would just be too much for ya huh?
here's another couple for ya you can look them up yourself:
UK scientists have applied for permission to create embryos by fusing human DNA with cow eggs.
Introduction of human DNA into mouse eggs by injection of dissected chromosome fragments
Lor,
Thanks for the links. I believe that one should support one's argument with one's own link rather than simply making a claim and then expecting others to do the work.
Having said that, the first link, as you can see, does not mean that having some chemical producing DNA that resides also in human beings, makes the tomato or a mouse a human being. We are in agreement there.
LOL, and i can see you did no research whatsoever. The human DNA was inserted in the rice so that it would "express" those chemicals.
(to conversations elsewhere, you like to make claims that are based in religion, not science. Then you try to make others think that it is based in science by introducing right wing websites that agree with you. You put words in peoples mouths they did not say.
Fact is, your religion is not the be all and end all in this debate, and, it NEVER will be. I respect your right to beleive as you do, but don't expect to convince me that you are the last word, or your bible is the last word. I have my own thoughts on the matter and they come through searching for the answers to my questions myself.
Like I said before, until GAWD comes down and whispers in MY ear that it is wrong, that is when I will believe it. Until then, you can keep your beliefs out of my uterus, my womb, and my body. If you want to save a fetus....go have one yourself. )
So thats my last word on this subject, thanks.
Lor,
You are changing the subject. I have not been arguing what God says in terms of right-to-life.
We are in agreement that we should protect the innocent human beings. We are in agreement it is wrong to kill the innocent human beings. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
When does one become a human being? That is the question. After all, we both agree that a human being becomes a human being at some point. I believe a human being is created at conception. You believe it is a human being only when it breathes.
Your argument is solely your opinion. There is no science to back it up and plenty to argue against it. My argument is based solely on science. There is never another moment in the growth of human being that one can say definitively and scientifically where there once was not a human, now there is. Any time after conception is simply a point in time of growth in the life of that human being.
Peebs,
You did not support your statistics with any link and still have not. A simple link or correction, if one can find the stats would do.
...I have stated my opinion, (backed by science,) that a new human life is formed at conception. (Barney)
I believe his screen name is Science101, but I guess you two would be on a first name basis.
;0) ;0) ;o) ;-) ;0)
Clever, very clever. :)
that a new human life is formed at conception.
BIRTHDAY! NOT CONCEPTION DAY!!!!!!!!!!
I think they've found the lie that they're going to run with. Like Gore the liar and Kerry the traitor, this one is open to all kinds of inflammatory language and it doesn't matter whether it's true, they know the media will fall in line and back it up. If it was just little weasels like Pintek, it wouldn't matter because it would only reach the dittoheads who don't want the truth and wouldn't believe the truth anyway. But this is going to be hammered daily by every major media outlet in the country right through November. If the media get around to debunking it at all, it won't be until after McCain's inauguration. The last two elections made it pretty clear how many uninformed voters there are, people who aren't willing to seek the truth. Without meaning to impugn people like Eric Alterman, the reality is that journalism in this country is dead, and journalists themselves are the only ones who can take back their profession. But the ones who would if they could are grossly outnumbered by those who entered the profession for the money to be made by destroying it. As predicted, without a Fourth Estate, the game is over. The Founders had the foresight to protect journalism from government, but they didn't protect government from journalism, naively assuming that journalists would have the integrity to do that themselves in exchange for Constitutional protection. They apparently didn't anticipate that a time would come when journalists would have to make a choice between integrity and money. As Lone Star observed in Spaceballs, they're not doing it for money ... they're doing it for a shitload of money, and that trumps everything.
Nerzog,
I just heard a quote today from the Biden treasury of quotes where he defended Cheney and said unequivocally that the world thought there were WMDs in Iraq.
I assume you think Biden was also lying.
Donald,
Are you saying Obama hasn't a chance?
I think you're correct... Maybe the extreme, irrational hard-line right wing kooks will keep it going, but I don't think it's selling like the former POW had hoped it would. I think most of us are in agreement that there's a fanatically dumb element of the voting population out there...but I think there are enough normal people who have started seeing through all the Republican bullshet.
Irony,
I think Obama's voting record shows how extreme his views actually are. He would not support a Born Alive Protection Act. It defies common sense to do so and is very stupid politically because he is now open to the charges that he is in favor of letting children who survived an abortion die through neglect.
He walked smack dab into that one. It is indefensible yet it is on his record. It doesn't say too much for his judgement and it says a lot about his ties to the abortion rights lobby.
Obama is a closet radical and he'll go down in flames as the Republicans hammer this home again and again. The Dems fell in lust with the guy before they knew he was simply a fast talker. :-)
"He would not support a Born Alive Protection Act."
There's no need for it. Infants (and everyone else) are protected by homicide laws. If babies are being neglected, you can call the police and they'll investigate. As far as I know, there have been no cases where a baby was neglected after a botch abortion. That Stanek character seems like a complete nutcase.
Loonz,
How would you know? Its not the sort of thing that is bragged about.
I found two in a very quick google search.
Here's one:
Enter your email address
to receive news from LifeNews.com via email.
Do you prefer to receive
news daily or weekly?
Daily Weekly
Do you favor or
oppose abortion?
Favor Oppose
Click here to make a PayPal donation to LifeNews.com!
Abortion Practitioner Accused of Killing Baby Born Alive After Botched Abortion
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 24, 2008
Tiller runs the Women's Health Care Services abortion center in Wichita, Kansas and often employs other abortion practitioners there on a part-time basis.
The incident saw Shelley Sella, a California abortion practitioner sometimes employed by Tiller, intentionally stab to death an infant born alive during an abortion.
In this case, former Tiller employee Tina Davis told OR staff that the incident took place sometime in the last two years. Davis informed the pro-life group of the baby's horrific death in April and the organization reported it to the Wichita Police Department.
The pro-life group also notified the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, which has confirmed that the case has been assigned to an investigator.
Sella reportedly splits her time with Tiller's abortion center, one in California, and smaller abortion centers across the country.
"Davis gave us a very specific eyewitness account about the incident," Operation Rescue president Troy Newman told LifeNews.com.
"We were told that the baby was 35 weeks gestation at the time of the abortion. The baby came out and was moving," he continued. "Sella looked up at Ms. Davis, then picked up a utensil and stabbed the baby in the left ribcage, twisting the utensil until the baby quit moving."
Newman said he hopes officials will investigate the incident as a murder case.
"At 35 weeks, there is no doubt about viability. This is murder in anybody's book," he said.
However, Newman acknowledged officials would have a tough time since the baby's body would have been incinerated at Tiller's on-site crematorium.
"Without a body, any murder case becomes more difficult," said Newman. "However, because of the brutality of this murder and the gravity of this charge, we are compelled to demand that Tiller's clinic be closed by the state until a full inspection and investigation can take place."
He also called for the medical board to temporarily suspend Sella's and Tiller's licenses while the investigation moves ahead.
Newman said his group has been able to independently confirm many of the details of Davis' account of the baby's death.
http://www.lifenews.com/state3342.htmlLordy, Lordy. I sure hope the repubs do NOT win this arguement.
Back in the day, before women had "the pill" and contraception of any kind was looked down on, my father's mother had 17 children.
Can you imagine the population explosion in America if the rightie tightie's have thier way? The women need to put thier feet down and tell these ahole's ok, buddy, no more sex! When women get the same rights as men then maybe you can get some.
If it were men that had the babies I bet thier tunes would change and fast.
If it were men that raised the child.....alone in a lot of cases....I bet it would change.
If all those men were made to support those un-aborted fetus' I bet it would change.
I bet if all those "pro-lifers" were made to shell out some dough in the form of taxes for every un-aborted fetus that a woman did NOT want, and they were forced to have, then the tune would change too.
Quinn & Rose guest host Pintek on Obama: "[A] monster and a liar" who believes "if a woman chooses abortion, she's entitled to a dead body no matter what"
And Mike Pintek is obviously dead from the neck up.
Obama thinks women are entitled to a dead body? What does that even mean? Most abortions take place when the fetus is a daub of cells. Or does a smear of human tissue constitute a "body"?
Does the right think this degree of hyperbole will get McCain elected? Seriously. Does a bloviating butter brain like Pintek honestly think any potential Obama voters will, upon hearing his charge of Obama supporting infanticide, believe him and switch their vote to fetus-hugger McCain? It's more likely his extreme position will scare a potential McCain voter toward Obama when they ask themselves, "Haven't I heard this sort of over-the-top invective before, and do I really want to support the voice of unreason?"
Randy