in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Fox NY | Oookay: ‘Hologram’ to greet and guide travelers at N.Y. airports |
0 |
| John Nolte | 0 | |
| The Hill | Propaganda: HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law |
0 |
| CNN | 0 | |
| ABC News | Pushback: Swinging at Bain, Obama Ignores What Private Equity Is |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Red meat post of the day: Emotional liberals versus logical conservatives
I wonder how much hate email John Hawkins will receive after writing this piece:
It takes a lot more integrity, character, and courage to be a conservative than it does to be a liberal. That’s because at its most basic level, liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.
Going to war is mean, so we shouldn’t do it. That person is poor and it would be nice to give him money, so the government should do it. Somebody wants to have an abortion, have a gay marriage, or wants to come into the U.S. illegally and it would be mean to say, “no,” so we should let them. I am nice because I care about global warming! Those people want to kill us? But, don’t they know we’re nice? If they did, they would like us! Bill has more toys, money than Harry, so take half of Bill’s money and give it to Harry.
The only exception to this rule is for people who aren’t liberals. They’re racists, bigots, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc., etc., etc. They might as well just say that conservatives have “cooties” for disagreeing with them, because there really isn’t any more thought or reasoning that goes into it than that.
Now, that’s not to say that conservatives never make emotion based arguments or that emotion based arguments are always wrong. But, when you try to deal with complex, real world issues, using little more than simplistic emotionalism that’s primarily designed to make the people advocating it feel good rather than to deal with problems, it can, and often has had disastrous consequences. Liberals never seem to learn from this.
Why don’t they learn anything from failed liberal policies? Because there is nothing underpinning them other than feelings and so even when they don’t work, their good intentions are treated, by other liberals at least, as more important than the results of their actions.
Heh. Make sure to read it all.
I’m always amazed at how the left loves to take credit for ‘how great America is.’ You argue with one about how bad liberal ideas are for this country, and they’ll turn right back around and tell you how it was supposedly ‘liberal ideas’ that made this country so great.
Strangely, though, when you play along with their game, and in turn note that some of those same policies – like the “Great Society” programs of the 60s that were supposed to help the poor, decrease illegitimacy rates and disease when in actuality they increased poverty and illegitimacy rates (John noted the stats in his article), and had a disastrous impact on the family – and then ask them to acknowledge that some of their policies have been failures, they won’t accept responsibility for the part they played in it and try to blame conservatives.
Simple translation: all the good things in this country that happened were the result of liberal policies ‘for the people.’ Anything bad that happens is the result of ‘conservative interference.’ Liberals would rather ‘feel good’ about what they do and drone on and on about how they did it out of the goodness of their hearts rather than acknowledge that their ideas were wrong. That’s not a great recipe for learning from your mistakes, but then again, when you can’t acknowledge you’ve made a mistake, it’s not hard to understand why you wouldn’t ‘learn’ from it.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
He might get hate mail if his argument had any merit.
His depiction of liberal positions is grossly sophmoric parroting of one strawman after the other and he then ignores that the right’s position post 9/11 that has been emotionally based entirely on Fear.
But then what kind of logic can you expect from someone on the payroll of Duncan Hunter?
Cute ad hominem attack, not much substance. Proving John’s point.
Well ST does have a point and a very accurate one at that. Government subsides do create dependence. What ST fails to mention is the obsence amount of corporate welfare many Fortune 500 companies(one of which I am employed by) thet receive. I have to strongly disagree however with ST’S crack about the great society program’s of the 60′s. What would ST’S alternative to young woman who get knocked up the guy is a rolling stone and she can’t terminate the pregency if ST and other right-wingers had their way. So the poor young lady with always be confined to the bottom of the economic ladder with the added stress of raising a child.
Tommy,
First things first. The young lady should not be in bed with the young man before he marries her and commits to her support and the support of her children.
Second, the government should assist the woman in forcing the man to support his child.
Third, Abortion is not birth control and should never be mistaken as such.
Fourth, If the woman can not economically care for the child, the child should be put up for adoption. There are many childless couples who would and could care for such children except for government red tape and interferrance. IE. Racist Black Social workers objecting to placing a black child in a white home.
Fifth, the enabling by Liberals of irresponsible behavior. Tommy, you do that all the time.
PCD you can not legislate morality or individuals personal choices don’t forget what the Constitution guarntees…. life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. BTW An Abortion is a HUMAN RIGHT and it be protected as such.
Yeah, the “HUMAN RIGHT” to kill another human. Great point, tommy.
Well maybe it is my blue state liberal mentality that causes differences of opinion with some comments who post here but let me tell youse guys the way I see things. Does it make more sense that an adult such as myself can purchase firearms that can end the life of manty strangers and by the tool which will enable an individual to accomplish such a goal but yet a woman who wants to make a medical decision over her body and her choice whether to bring a life into this world is villified and the government under the 43 Admin is making that private decision harder to make? What say you ST. and no I am not being a smart ass on this one.
Hey, tommy in nyc, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States. I’ve read both documents many times and haven’t found the word “abortion” yet.
you think a child is a ‘medical decision’, tommy?
I can’t believe the 2nd Amendment is being compared to abortion for clearly birth control reasons.
A child is a human being ST a fetus is not and as an American who was raised a Catholic I do not recall anytime celebrating Jesus Christ’s conception. Sure as heck didn’t get any presents that day that’s for sure LOL.
tommy, how did you start out in life? As a fetus, right?
I love how the Other Ed kicks out an accusation, but doesn’t stick around to defend that accusation. You know what Other Ed, if the Clintoon admin would of sounded the alarm abit more maybe just maybe 9/11 would never had happened. Instead of being smart he was all about keeping people happy, well that happiness ended on 9/11, now it is time for some adult solutions to the problems we face.
Then there is Tommy telling us the right to stop a human life in the womb is a human right. He then defends this idiotic argument with the fact that the Constitution Guarantees LIFE!!!! Somehow Tommy comes up with how “you can’t legislate morality” in added defense to this undefendable position. Oddly enough Tommy forgets that there are laws against drinking and driving, there are laws against drinking in public, ya just can’t walk down the center of the street with a beer Tommy. Laws against lying, laws against prostitution, laws against….. Tommy All Laws are intended to make a moral people.
PCD then correctly destroys Tommys argument which I applaude any young woman who would do the right thing and give up her child instead of killing it. – Lorica
Tommy, your ideas greatly offend me. You think a person has a right to irresponsibly procreate and then the government is supposed to support that irresponsibility by taxing responsible people. You have life backwards. You punish the responsible people in the world and reward the irresponsible.
You also dislike the 2nd Amendment because it allows people to be able to fend off the irresponsible. You don’t like being told no, just like any irresponsible and immature child.
Here again Tommy could quite possibly be wrong. You see the Romans when they would tax collect and do a census would do it when the religious laws would mandate all people being in or around Jerusalem. The High Holy day in the Jewish calendar is the feast of the Passover is in the spring where Christ was cruicified. The other High Holy Day is the Feast of Tabernacles, which commemorates the giving of the law and the wilderness journey, it is in September. This also started the Jewish religious calendar. Now if Christ was born while on the road there is a VERY good possibility that it was the Feast in September, which if you go back 9 months lands you in December Tommy. So yes it is a very good possibility that we do celebrate Christ’s conception. – Lorica
Well first off to ST obvisiously every human beings starts out in the womb as a fetus no argument there. But what you are telling me is that that fetus has more rights than the tax-paying adult carrying it? Since you are a woman I find that attitude very suprising. PCD I do not mean o offend anybody but I’ll tell you what offends me. What offends me is that it is easier and cheaper to buy a firearm in this nation then it is easier for a citizen to make a private decision on whether or not to reproduce and abortions will run you a couple of hundreds of dollars for the procedure. That sure buiys a lot of shotgun shells for sure. Well Lorica while there is truth about celebrating Jesus’s the time frame in which you described generally speaking when an infact is 3months old I never gave a relative or a friend that is a female a gift confradulating her over the fact that she got knocked up a year earlier.
tommy wrote, “life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ”
Notice the constitution didn’t say life, liberty and the ability to make others pay for your stupid mistakes.
Through our compassion we have voted in so many programs to help people that people can make the dumbest decisions. Many people live pay check to paycheck now and extend credit cards knowing they do not have to be responsible for their idiocy. Having a rainy day fund or saving 10% for retirement – almost unheard of versus 100 years ago where people KNEW they should try to guarantee their ability to survive.
tommy wrote, “ a fetus is not ”
A fetus is not guaranteed life? It isn’t alive? Is it an inatimate object. Non-organic or organic but not alive as in dead flowers? A piece of material? SO then tommy why do EU countries have limits imposed on the 12th, 14th or 18th week of pregnancy and abortion? Should they remove those limits? It isn’t alive until the day it’s breathing through it’s lungs outside the uterus? What say you?
PCD said it much better than me, “You punish the responsible people in the world and reward the irresponsible.”
Taking away from those who save and invest and produce to fund people who are lazy and make bad decisions is surely backwards. Less irresponsible behavior would occur if the people realized the consequences of their behavior and that is why liberalism hurts people and produces more poverty while tough love conservatism creates more prosperity and has less people in poverty. EVERYONE is for a safety net for non-able bodied people and the elderly but that safety net is diluted by the fact that we have 100′s of programs devoted to people at or 185% above the poverty line (like WIC) and the poverty line is between $15,000 to almost $40,000 depending on how many people in your family. 100′s of programs is not an exaggeration. We have over 180 programs just devoted to people who are illiterate. If a new congress person proposes a new illiteracy program, people who vote against it are tagged by leftists as being for illiteracy and against literacy or education.
We seriously have a disease in this country called liberalism in my opinion. Our federal and state spending has gone up every year and in every category for over 6 decades due to irresponsibility by people and our suffocating compassion and demagoguing by the drive-by legacy press and the leftist politicians.
Everything I have said is in argument agreeing with John Hawkins. Because if people are targeted as being anti-environment or anti-education or against social security or whatever based on their attempts at reform or applying perspective then that is governing/legislating based on emotion not facts and perspective.
It takes hard work to not just REACT and actually do the due diligence and research an issue. Dennis Prager devoted a show to this topic once and on every issue the liberal position was based on emotions not the facts and big picture perspective.
A commenter without perspective talked about conservatives governing/legislating based on FEAR with the WOT. I’d argue that if you RESEARCH and knew the facts that the SMALL things that the President is doing in this GWOT are based on facts and are such SMALL policies in this GWOT and conservatives all over who have researched the threats that EXIST want tougher action. On EVERY issue Bush has taken the middle policy or action between conservatives and liberals and since conservatism is more centrist that means Bush is LEFT of center. He has increased spending a great deal, not taken action as great as we want on illegal immigration and not executed the GWOT as vigorously as we would like to have seen. Even the tax cuts were slight, phased in, and given an expiration date.
So in the end it comes down to cost of an abortion vs cost of a firearm. Got it.
What offends me is the fact that a 50+ inch true HD plasma TV costs many times more than both. And as part of the “pursuit of happiness” I believe the government needs to step in and provide federal dollars towards my pursuit of one.
tommy wrote, “But what you are telling me is that that fetus has more rights than the tax-paying adult carrying it?”
Who was arguing that the fetus should be able to abort the adult? And how does tax paying come into the argument. Do tax paying Americans have more rights?
To be BLUNT tommy your analogies suck. It costs more to amputate your toe than a box of shotgun shells. Your mind is a terrible thing to waste and you’ve WASTED it.
The cheapest lasik surgery costs more than a knife that you can plunge into somebody’s eye. These are DUMB statements tommy. I’m sorry about the bluntness here but maybe you should stop while you are ahead or apologize for making such silly statements…. We’ll forgive you.
Life is precious. That is OUR position.
Sister, Sister, Sister. First, I think it would be unfair to claim that “the left” (whoever they are) is trying to deny credit to the rest of the populace for making America great. Despite the popular conservative misconception that all liberals are de facto communists who hate private enterprise and hate America itself, mainstream American society has always been a partnership of liberals and conservatives alike. When I think of the signature events of the 20th Century, I think of WWI, the Great Depression and WWII, and how one measure of greatness was in overcoming those terrible tests. While it’s true that these challenges were fought and won under the leadership of Democratic presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, what idiot would claim that we could have prevailed without the contributions from every corner of society, including conservatives? Wasn’t Dwight Eisenhower a Republican? Hell yes, and a lot of Democrats revere him, especially in his role as Allied Commander.
I think that liberals do deserve a lot of credit for championing causes like ending child labor, the 8-hour work day, Social Security, Medicare, civil rights, etc. While perhaps it’s true that the initial approaches taken in welfare programs were counter-productive, this is a particularly difficult problem to solve, and we had to start somewhere. I think that the welfare reform that was undertaken during the Reagan and Clinton years has improved the success of those programs, though they are still far from perfect. Perhaps we (this society) can’t solve all of our problems overnight, but the point is to keep trying, be honest, and make changes as it becomes necessary. It’s not an option to turn our backs on society’s poor and dispossessed.
But it seems that if somone is trying to deny someone else credit here, it’s Hawkins. My goodness. It seems that liberals are nothing more than little children. That’s certainly a fair and well supported claim. To borrow a line from Lloyd Bentsen, “Well, Mr. Hawkins, I knew FDR. FDR was a friend of mine, and you’re no FDR!” Hawkins’ rant is a childish and mean-spirited one indeed.
Do tax paying Americans have more rights?
Hmmm…not a bad concept, kind of in line with the Athenian approach to democracy, only property owners had a vote. Hmmmm…..double hmmmm.
Tommy,
You keep demonstrating your immature, dysfunctional thinking. First off you are saying that a non-taxpaying woman has more right to everyone else’s money for being irresponsible than the responsible people that pay their taxes. (Kennedys and George Soros to name a few unresponsible people who hide their money off shore to keep it from the IRS.)
Again, tommy’s central theme, a baby has no rights until it can vote democrat. That responsible people have to support the irresponsible. That government is in place to punish the successful and reward the irresponsible and lazy. Is that It? Oh, yes, if you have something, tommy thinks that it is ok to take it from them because you won’t provide for yourself when it takes away from your sexlife and bong time.
Yeppers. How about only literate people who have a basic ability to comprehend what they read can vote !!
Then we’d get less emotion based voting – people using the race card to win or the “they are going to take away your social security card” to win would start losing….
Bak, it isn’t the SS Card, but welfare that the left and the losers are hysterical about losing. Without a welfare dependent populace, the Democrats don’t have a mob to vote for them or to storm GOP district offices with.
You know Baklava just made my argument for me with his statement ” Life is precious. That is our argument a human being walking,talking and knocking boots is a person. A fetus is not a person.period. Yet in the world according to Baklava the woman carrying the fetus has less say over her own body than what the government (if youse guys had your way) says??????!!!!!WTF!!!!!
Tommy,
shortsighted and emotional. You can’t face the fact that you want to force the irresponsible to be supported by the responsible. You wish to reward fallure and irresponsiblity. Maybe that explains why you root for the enemies of America and wish to see the terrorists win by pulling out our forces from the war on terror and surrendering to the terrorists just so long as you can smoke your bong.
tommy wrote, “A fetus is not a person”
That’s where we differ with you tommy. A fetus is alive. It is not just “material” or “matter”.
PCD I served honorably in the U.S.NAVE during Desert Storm so obviously I am not rooting for enemies of America to accomplish their goals. You know that’s the 2nd time you are trying to slam me just because we have different viewpoints. I also don’t use a bong. Damn youse right wingers need to gain a better grip on reality.
With this sort of logic we should take the right of the vote away from welfare recipients. LOL
Then Tommy she should have the good sense to know that if she has sex there is a good chance she will be come pregnent. If she wants a say over her body it is before she gives it to a man so they can procreate. – Lorica
tommy, Benedict Arnold was a veteran that served honorably in the Revolution before he tried to turn West Point over to the British.
Just tell me how defunding the armed forces is supporting them?
Edited. –ST
Well PCD sending young men and women into Sadr city to be greeted with IED’S isn’t my idea of supporting the troops. Maybe if the 43 Admin would’ve conducted the operation of this conflict compentantly we wouldn’t be in this position but oh I forgot if you know in lock step agreement with the neo-cons than you want the terrorists to win. Right? Spare me the BS it’s Friday.
Tommy,
You are so full of BS you can’t think, that is if the pot hasn’t totally destroyed your brain.
Sadr city needs to be cleaned out. If you surrendercrats would get out of the way, it would be cleaned out and Iran would have it’s nose oout of Iraq, but you want the Islamofascists to win in order to defeat Bush. To you a stable Iraq where the US won is a total defeat to you nanny-state loving, america haters.
Well PCD sending young men and women into Sadr city to be greeted with IED’S isn’t my idea of supporting the troops.
Where should troops be sent? Okinawa? Anywhere where there isn’t danger?
The Democrats want the military to wear yellow streaks down their backs just like the Democrats in Congress do.
You are a truly sorry S.O.B. PCD since March 03 the 43 Admin has had a blank check to conduct military operations in the ME. Since obviosly it hasn’t gone very successfully it is all of a sudden the “surrendercrats”fault. Who are you kidding man? Don’t you get dizzy tossing around all that spin?
Tommy you said “..the woman carrying the fetus has less say over her own body than what the government…” Well, I disagree with that, if you take that to the logical starting point, the woman could have said no to the very act that caused conception. That would be all the say in the world!! All she has to do is say no until she is ready for the consequences of her actions (please don’t let my lack of mentioning the male participant of the action mean that I let him off the hook, he is equally responsible).
But if she fails in her “say” why should the government and those who pay taxes and are anti-abortion have to pay for her failure in having her “say”?
Cripes.. if we follow Tommy’s logic the U.S. would have gotten out every war it has been involved in.
Look this discussion isn’t going anywhere first off and secondly I got a train to catch so I just want to wish ST a happpy holiday weekend. Talk to youse again Tuesday
This truly sickens me. The attitudes some people have on human life.
I have 2 children, 2 and 4, and to think people would
murderabort them because it is inconvienent timing, ect, is truly sickening.It is easier for people to justify the murder of children by saying they are a lump of flesh (nevermind that lump has arms, legs, eyes, mouths, can be seen suckling its thumbs, ect) or that they are a fetus.
I consider it murder, plain and simple. A child is in its development stage, but its easier to say hey its a lump of flesh or a fetus…it should be our RIGHT to kill it.
A right to kill an unborn child because of convienence most times. Because you had unprotected sex, or because you got drunk and couldn’t keep your pants on, ect.
Don’t spout the welfare of the mother might be in jeapardy arguement, that is a low percentage rate and if it is the case then it should be considered on a case by case basis.
Rape & incest, same thing, should be considered on a case by case basis.
Got drunk..have an abortion.
Don’t like condoms…have an abortion.
Like sleeping around…have an abortion.
I got an idea, have a hysterectomy if you are those three above.
Tell me this, if we don’t consider a unborn baby life, why are there laws that punish criminals who kill the unborn child of a mother in an attack?
Why is it mothers get pre-natal care for the well being of their unborn baby?
This topic really does make me incredibly angry, because of the ignorance and assinine ability of those persons who would take away life.
It is life, the baby has arms, legs, you can see and hear the heartbeat…and yet people want to regulate this as a right to be able to be disposed of, like clipping a toenail.
Emotional? Yes, I suppose in this instance I would be considered as, being a father, but tell me this, if you allowed these people who are so willing to snuff out the life of a baby, if you allowed them to see a 4D ultrasound (they are very clear and great), if they got to see the arms, even the eyes, their little hearts beating…would they be so quick to murder babies?
It is sickening when people place more value on pets than they do on the welfare of a child. Save a tree, kill an unborn child.
Tell me, when you hear the heartbeat, do you still consider it a fetus?
I don’t care if you believe in God or not, it is not religous reasons I believe in so strongly, it seeing and hearing LIFE that is growing in the womb that people so callously wish to think is their f*ckin RIGHT to do with as they wish.
Yes, now you can go on an on about the rights of the mother. So tell me, who sticks up for the rights of the child to live? It should be the mother, but if we let it be considered a right, or a form of birth control, all we do allow murder to be used as birth control.
If you get pregnant (aside from rape or incest), you should have a responsibility to that child. You should not be allowed to procreate (create babies) if all you plan to do is kill them because its an inconvienence, or will intefere in your way of life, or keep you from partying, or will give you stretch marks, or the other multitude of EXCUSES used ot kill an unborn child.
As I said, rape and incest are a different story and a different discussion on that part, but in all the rest, the mother should be responsible for the unborn baby.
You know, that silly thing the left seems to want to do away with…personal responsibility.
And you can rant and rave at me all you wish, but I am very firm in my thoughts on this. I have seen my daughter, and I have seen my son in the womb. I have felt them kick, I have heard their heartbeats….they aren’t fetuses, they weren’t lumps of flesh; they were my children growing and developing till they could emerge from the womb and survive.
Abortion is not a human right as only the mother can make the decision as whether to have an abortion and not the father. A father can not force a mother to have an abortion and can not prevent that mother from having one.
A ‘right’ can not extend to only one person and not another, like extending the ‘right’ to an abortion to the mother but not the father. That makes abortion a privilege and not a right.
You may not use a firearm to ‘end the live of many strangers’ as that is considered murder there are laws pertaining to this. There are legal limits on when someone is allowed to take another’s life. The only time legally you can EVER use a firearm to take another’s life is when the use of that firearm will result in your protection from the threating actions of another person. That’s called self-defense.
A fetus has all the genetic information (DNA) that you would find in an adult. Since DNA is widely used to positively identify an adult person, and an examination of DNA can also show whether that DNA is from a human or another life form, it would be easy to prove that a fetus is a human person by examination of their DNA.
Tommy,
Are you ever going to actually say something that makes sense? How do you define life? Does something have to be able to kick, think, cry, wiggle it’s toes? Did you know that “fetus” is Latin? Did you know that it means “baby”? Probably not, since, after reading a few of your posts, I can see that you are quite uneducated. A baby in the womb is no less alive than you or me. Are you aware that single celled organisms such as parameciums are considered to be alive? What do you believe the reason to be, that liberals such as yourself do not consider “fetuses” to be alive? Are you aware that premature babies, aka “fetuses” are considered to be alive until either their heart stops or there is no more brain function? I know two people that were born prematurely, one 2 and a half months early, the other 3 months early. According to your “argument” they weren’t alive till they were born. What’s the big difference between being inside the mothers uterus, and being outside? Answer: about 6 inches, depending on the mothers depth. If you want to be “scientific” about things, then you’re still wrong. According to new scientific studies/discoveries, baby’s are alive at the beginning of the 2nd trimester. Of course, I don’t agree with their assessment, but I also am not sure of what criteria they’re using to make this judgment. Who knows, maybe in a year or so, they’ll decide that baby’s are alive from conception on forward, just like I’ve always said. Science is a constantly changing environment after all.
Any questions that you need answered? I’m sure there will be.
awaiting your reply
“A fetus has all the genetic information (DNA) that you would find in an adult. Since DNA is widely used to positively identify an adult person, and an examination of DNA can also show whether that DNA is from a human or another life form, it would be easy to prove that a fetus is a human person by examination of their DNA.”
–Ray
I was really trying to stay out of this abortion debate. I really was. But I just have to throw in my 2 cents and then find a safe and quiet place to hide. Simply being a human cell does not make a human being. You can isolate many cells from the human body—such as fibroblasts or cancer cells—and grow them in a petri dish in a nutrient solution. They can be propagated forever this way. Each cell has a complete set of chromosomes and therefore the full complement of human DNA. The cells are very much alive, but none of these cells can be grown into a human being. By the same token, the full set of human DNA can exist in dead tissue, like dried blood, bone fragments, teeth, etc. You can get the same DNA profile from these non-living materials that you would from a live person. So human DNA alone does not equal a human being, nor the potential to develop into a human being.
The only people “greeting” young men and women with IED’s are the terrorists who wish to gain control of the civilian population through threats and intimidation. If the troops were not there, those same terrorists would continue to attack the population with even greater force without fear of reprisals.
It is foolish to assert that troops may only be assigned to areas that are free of violence. The military is trained to respond to threats and are there to protect the civilian population, something they do very well.
Would you suggest that it is foolish to have firefighters enter a burning building even though the threat to their lives is greater then allowing that building to continue burning until all available fuel is exhausted and the fire extinguishes itself? Firefighters are train to handle this type of danger and they do it well even though firefighters have been injured and killed while performing their duties..
Would you also assert that it is foolish for Police to face an armed and dangerous individual? After all, it would be much safer if the Police just allowed that individual to continue unobstructed.
Be realistic, we don’t send the military into safe areas, we send them into dangerous areas as they are trained to respond to that danger. Having served in the military myself, I understand that.
John Hawkins is correct when he states that “liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.”
For example: tommy in nyc has been using nothing but emotionalism in his arguments and has yet to show any real ability to use reason and logic in his statements. All the talk of ‘rights’ and how ‘silly’ something is compared to another shows this type of emotionalism. But he is right about one thing, it is his “blue state liberal mentality” which is to blame.
A fetus is not simply a collection of human cells since, if allowed to grow and mature naturally, a human adult will invariably be produced. The same can not be said of an individual cell or group of cells taken from a human body.
For example: It is impossible to take a cell from my body and implant it into the womb of a woman and expect another human do be produced. That would not happen. The woman’s immune system would attack and destroy that the cell as a foreign invader. This doesn’t happen with a fetus. Even if you could stop her immune system from attacking the cell, it would never grow into another human being or even into whatever organ you extracted the cell from.
It is possible to create a fetus outside of the human body, as with in-vitro fertilization, and implant it into the womb which would have the possibility of producing a human adult when mature, but that is not the same as extracting cells from the body and implanting them as you are creating a cell with different DNA from both the father and mother using in-vitro fertilization. You are, in fact, creating an embryo.
As you can see from the above examples, a fetus, or an embryo for that matter, is much more than a cell or group of cells that is found in the adult body. It is a complete individual that has not yet fully matured.
I would argue that Tommy and Bob are complete individuals that have not yet fully matured.
What boggles the mind is that the “feeling” party feels nothing on abortion….even late term abortion.
Where’s the it’s all for the children democrats…or is it only rhetoric when it helps “their” cause?
If we’re going to get into potentialities, Ray, then it’s hard to agree on a strict set of definitions. My own view is that a cell is what it is in the present time. If it has not matured into a fully-fledged human being (a fetus, a baby, or whatever), then in my view it’s just a cell. Cells don’t possess a nervous system, a brain, or any of that. That’s my own personal view. I don’t try to impose it on others.
But my earlier comment was just responding to the idea that human DNA—in and of itself—would somehow confer person-hood on a cell.
“reading nonsense,” you really should leave attempts at comedy to the professionals. You clearly have no knack for it.