Friday, March 22, 2013

Let the Carnage Continue

Seven-year-old Daniel Barden, Killed on 14 December 2012
Harry Reid
If you frequent this site with any degree of regularity (You're forgiven you if you don't; I know you're busy) you've heard me say that I have not been a registered Democrat for nearly fifteen years. Occasionally I forget why I ever deserted them in the first place. Whenever this happens, an hour will not pass before they cheerfully remind me - as majority leader, Harry Reid, did this week when he blocked the vote on Diane Feinstein's proposed assault weapons ban from reaching the floor of the senate. His lame excuse? The votes aren't there. He was unwilling to shame anybody (including himself) into voting for it. The NRA is watching, you know. Political expediency is the watchword of the hour. The children don't matter - not in the least. Are you surprised? If you are you haven't been paying attention. Fuck the children. Fuck 'em all.

A little over three months ago, twenty little boys and girls - mere months out of infancy - and six of their protectors, were slaughtered like rancid swine in their first grade classroom; murdered in cold blood by some goddamned maniac with a small arsenal of rapid-fire killing machines. Enough is enough - wouldn't you think? Apparently not. Harry Reid - and too many Democrats to count - are beholden, like whores to their pimps, to the National Rifle Association. I knew that the carnage that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut on December fourteenth wouldn't be enough for the Republicans, but I truly believed that these worthless "Blue Dog Democrats" would finally get with the program. I was as wrong as I've ever been in my life. You live and learn, you know?

That's okay. Maybe in one-or-two months when the next massacre of innocents occurs (as it most definitely will occur) it will finally wake their sorry, clueless asses up - but I'm not counting on it. And let's not be naive enough to think that Newtown was some kind of horrible fluke. As our recent history has so cruelly and consistently demonstrated, what happened on December fourteenth will happen again before the year is out. It will happen more than twice. It could happen as many as four or five more times before we ring in the new year. In the years to come it will happen again and again and again and again....Get used to it.

As I write these words some demented, Adam-Lanza-wannabe is smoldering in his parents' basement, planning a kick-out-the-jams, copycat performance so vile and horrific it will render Newtown inconsequential. We might as well come face-to-face with the new reality of living in - What did they call it once upon a time? - "the land of the free"; a misnomer if ever there was one.  How "free" do you feel? Honestly.

What's the matter with Harry? Does his reelection in 2016 mean that much to him? Assuming he is reelected at all, when his next term begins in January of 2017 he will be seventy-eight years old. The chances are damned better than fifty percent that he'll be dead and gone by that happy day. Why not go out with a bang? (No pun intended). Why not be remembered as a statesman who did right by the most vulnerable among us; whose profile was the very definition of courage? Don't expect that kind of statesmanship from the likes of Harry Reid. OH, PERISH THE THOUGHT! To quote Theodore Roosevelt's description of another gutless pol of his generation, "He has all the backbone of a chocolate eclair." That would be too kind a description for Harry.

Do you understand why I left the Democrats so long ago? Any political party with a dithering old buffoon like Harry Reid at the helm is going to have certain issues that are too embarrassing and convoluted to even get into here. When a ship is going down fast, it's generally a good rule of thumb not to sit in your stateroom trying to analyze what the ship's sinking  means in the abstract. Your best bet is to run like mad out onto the deck, grab a lifeboat, and get the hell out of there while the getting is good. That's what I did as far as the Democrats are concerned. I've never regretted it. Not for a minute. That was one wretched vessel I wasn't about to go down with - thanks but no thanks.

We won't be able to place the blame for this nasty little situation solely at the feet of the GOP (as we who lean left love to do). There are plenty of candidates on both sides of the aisle eligible for this year's annual Cold Feet Awards.  At this hour the Republican party is in the process of committing suicide. Ten years from now they will only be a bad memory. The Democrats won't be too far behind them on the road to self-destruction and irrelevance. Count on it.

It's time to wind up the masquerade
Just make your mind up - the piper must be paid
The party's over
It's all over, my friend.... 

Emilie Alice Parker
In the meantime (very mean indeed) we really have to come face-to-face with the prospect of living in a nation in ruins. We need to understand that there are just too many people in this doomed country - too violent, too stupid, and too stone-cold crazy - to ever see the light of day. This is not a situation that can be cured overnight by some magical, sociological panacea. This is a condition that will take a century or more to remedy - if it is ever remedied at all. We might as well deal with it as best we can. We The People are diseased. Congress is an organized criminal enterprise. The media is beyond dysfunctional. The chickens are coming home to roost - and they're armed and dangerous.

GUNS! Guns galore, baby! GUNS FOREVER! Lots 'n' lots of little baby body parts!  Little boys 'n' girls, blown to smithereens -  to teeny weeny bits! Decapitated heads and limbs - severed forever by the force of the explosion from the hand of some homicidal half-wit with a serious attitude problem and way too much time on his hands. This is what happened in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. Have a look at the autopsy reports if you think I'm lying to you.


Leave it to our hired morticians to deal with the remnants and the carnage. We pay these people good money to clean up society's messes. We're gonna need a lot more of them in the years to come. Welcome to America. Enjoy your stay.

Their message has been received a little too loud and all too clear. You could not have missed it had you tried:

"Fuck the children. Fuck 'em all. Let the little bastards and bitches bleed torrents."

That - dear friends - is the true message that was transmitted to us this week not only by the Republicans (That was expected) but by Harry Reid and the Blue Dog Democrats. I'm so proud that I was once a member of that party. Really I am!  

Somewhere beyond the unknowable void, Eleanor Roosevelt weeps I'm sure. Now who wants to get good 'n' drunk with me this evening? Somebody? 


Tom Degan
Goshen, NY  


Bowling For Columbine
A film by Michael Moore

Moore's 2003 film on the killing field that America has become is essential viewing for anyone trying to understand where we are - and where we're going. It really is quite the delightful romp. Here is a link to order it off of
Bowling For Columbine
This is a film that should be seen by every breathing American. You can pick it up for  half-a-song. Seriously.

Happiness is a warm gun

John Lennon said that.

"I need a fix 'cause I'm goin' down."


At 4:32 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

Fuck'em all was the counter-culture's message in the 1960s. How right we were.....

At 4:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BLAME BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 8:13 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

"Fuck the children. Fuck 'em all. Guns galore, baby! GUNS FOREVER!"

How many of our children are murder legally in their mothers wombs each year?
Tom, you are such a hypocrite. If saving the lives of the children is as much of a concern as you claim, why not devote your energy to ending the method by which more children are murdered each year?
End legalized abortion now!

Or should your quote read as follows:
"Fuck the children. Fuck 'em all. Abortion galore, baby! ABORTION FOREVER!"

At 8:25 PM, Blogger charles moore said...

Tom, equally sad about the Newtown shooting is the fact that there are so many "truthers" who are denying that it happened and claiming that it was a government plot to take away their guns.

At 8:29 PM, Anonymous Will Jones said...

Chuck Morre, obviously abortion is a big issue with you, so much so that you can not stay focused on the fact that Tom's rant was about guns. If you are so committed to saving lives and such, how do you feel about war? And don't go saying that it is apples and oranges. Killing is killing regardless of the age or how it is done. How do you honestly feel about war?

At 8:51 PM, Blogger Jill said...

How anyone can look at the photos of those children and think their sorry-assSenate seat is more important is beyond my comprehension. I hate Harry Reid more than I ever hated George W. Bush. With Bush we knew always what we had.

At 9:02 PM, Blogger Laina27 said...

Hi Tom, just a public announcement...

since you mentioned Bowling for Columbine. Peace.

At 2:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will Jones,
I will share a quote with you from Tom's previous thread/rant.

"Morgan Thompson said...
Chuck Morre, you are like a broken record, a little Johnny One Note. The only thing you can write about is racism. No matter what the sibject is, it all boils down to acqusations of racism from you."

Will, what I hope would be obvious is my inability to understand how Tom and others are demanding guns be controlled in order to stop the killing of children, while at the same time lacking that same passion to stop the killing of children while in their mothers womb. Surely I am not the only one who sees that position at it's best, hypocritical and at it's worse an example of situational ethics. IE: "the greater good demands 55 million children be murdered in their mothers womb."

I also hope that I am not the first to tell you this, but Conservatives don't want to breath polluted air, drink dirty water, own slaves, and keep the poor, poor. Nor do Conservatives want war. Any more than liberals do.

To answer you question "how do I feel about war", my answer is not very good. Exercising the human right of self defense however, may include fighting a war. In war, both sides have ability to defend themselves. In abortion or in school massacres that is not the case. Just as the child in the womb has no way to defend it's self, the child in the class room is just as much at the mercy of the gun man as the child in the womb is of the abortionist.

As I have said before, I would gladly do away with the the 2nd Amendment, and the legalization of the death sentence in exchange for ending the right to abort. Think of the number of humans who would be alive or allowed to live, if that were to happen.

So far, no one posting here has supported this trade. This amazes me, as I've been told it was Conservatives that would never compromise! That we were too dogmatic in our beliefs. Almost Neanderthal in our capacity to reason.
Because of this I realize that those who believe the right to murder a human child while in its mothers womb is an example of liberty, freedom, open mindedness, compassion and fairness, are hypocrites.

And Morgan old buddy, hope you are reading this cause I have not once brought up race.

At 4:38 AM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

I am sorry to see Tom’s well-articulated Rant about gutless Harry Reid turn into a dream that abortions will be eliminated by just passing a law or a constitutional amendment.

If abortions are outlawed the affluent have the option, as they did prior to 1973, of going to another country for a medically-safe abortion. As for the rest we would often get a two-fer by outlawing abortions. The back alley abortions not only abort the fetus but often kill the pregnant women in the process. But that’s OK because the women were already born, just as the children in Columbine and Newtown were already born and we apparently forget about them quite easily. Besides those women are just people too poor to go to another country and are probably welfare queens.

Too bad we no longer have George Carlin to remind us that “Pre-birth we love ya, post birth you’re fuxked.” (sorry, this old geezer cannot even type those words)

Like it or not, abortions have been around for centuries and they are not going to go away by passing a law, any more than pot (remember “Reefer Madness”) and cocaine went away when we declared the “War on Drugs” and filled our prisons with non-violent “criminals.” Or perhaps it will go away as well as the Defense of Marriage Act” defended marriage by outlawing same-sex marriage. So how are those “Wars” going?

At 9:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forget Reid. Where the fuck is Obama? "I promise to use... whatever power this office may hold..." Yeah we know how much 'power' you have you lying thug. You can order the assassination of hundreds of terrorists overseas, but you can't pass a goddamn law to stop the weapons used by terrorists from being legal in this country. Obama was re-elected to deal with this shit. Instead he runs and hides in the Bahamas or whereever. The political cost is too high. Fuck the political cost! I live 15 miles from Webster, NY where two VOLUNTEER firefighters were gunned down in cold blood on Christmas Eve morning by a demented lunatic who should have been in prison for killing his grandmother. Apparently in NY that crime only gets you twenty-five years in prison, then they have to let you go. 'Cuse someone that twisted isn't likely to harm a fucking flea again. This is the biggest bunch of bullshit this week.

At 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...







At 12:59 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...


I just have to ask, the person in the cartoon you included in this RANT, is that supposed to be Michael Moore?

Here is why I ask:

Note to Morgan Thompson, please take notice that the person who brought up gun control and racism was a liberal, not me. Proves my point.

Still waiting for the true honest liberal who really wants to put an end to the killing of children to join me in being willing to remove the 2nd and end the death penalty in exchange for making abortions illegal.

Ron, I hope you realize that your argument that there will always be abortions so why make it illegal sounds very much like the NRA position that once guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

At 5:42 PM, Anonymous atomic johnic said...

Tom, if you step back into the past, you might remember kneeling in the basement of the Scotchtown Elementary school during air-raid drills. It seemed like we were being taught that someone wanted to drop an atom bomb on us. I think an outside observer could make a pretty good case that we were raised in a terrorist state controlled by a totalitarian government - and that it was all done on behalf of military industrialists in order to secure power and profit through the manufacture of a bunch of military hardware.

Of course, for this model to work, you would need an endless series of wars in order to keep a continual demand for new munitions. You would also kill a bunch of people to keep it real in order to maintain the population’s fear and emotional ties to the military activities that ostensibly are for one’s ‘protection’. Ah, the shaping of popular support, social engineering at its best...

A rational society would refer to someone who promotes this system as a psychopath - but alas, we are only human - and make exceptions in our descriptions of these people if they are turning a profit.

The unfortunate aspect of nuclear bombs is that igniting them poisons industrialists just as easily as anyone else, so stock rotation favors the use of conventional weapons.

Getting back to root causes of school violence, I think the media’s treatment of these atrocities is the biggest factor in promoting their occurrence. If we once again take the position of the outside observer and note that most major media outlets have close ties to the weapons sector and also see that these events have spurred huge expenditures of security and surveillance equipment and weapons, you might see some odd similarities with the past.

Anyway, good luck on the gun thing.

Memories. They make you nostalgic for the ‘good ol’ days’. Sigh...

At 7:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck Moore,
I know that I'm not going to change your mind but I'm not going to let your opinion stand unchallenged.

Babies are not aborted, fetuses are aborted. A fetus is not a baby because it is unable to live independently from the mother and is therefore not viable. It is not a baby until it is able to live independently. That clump of human cells has the potential of becoming a baby but, until its lungs have developed to the point where it can breathe on its own, it is not viable. Its worth does not exceed the value of a living, breathing woman.

I am so tired of you self-righteous bible-thumpers - yes, I am making an assumption about you - who think that women are too stupid, too frivolous, too short-sighted to be able to evaluate a situation and make the right decision for herself and her family and who think that a woman's only function is to be a baby-making machine and child caretaker. It's a difficult decision to make and it's one that only the woman herself can make with her doctor, and with her god, if she believes. What gives you the right to come between a woman and her god?

Are you familiar with what happened in Romania under Ceausescu when safe and legal abortion as well as birth control were unavailable? More than 9000 women died from botched abortions. Tens of thousands of children were abandoned in orphanages where they were warehoused and abused physically, mentally, and sexually. Why do you want to create a situation similar to that in the U.S.?

You've made it clear that you're against abortion. So, tell me what the punishment should be for a woman who has an abortion or who uses birth control. Should she be imprisoned? If so, for how long? Maybe you think she should be convicted of murder. In some states, a murder conviction results in the death penalty. If that's ok, then explain to me again how you are "pro-life".

If you really and truly want to minimize the number of abortions, as we all do, then actively support family planning and birth control. Somehow, though, I don't think that will fit into your mindset. It would require compassion and empathy for a living, breathing, independent, intelligent, thinking woman, qualities which I find all too lacking in forced-birthers such as yourself.

At 2:06 AM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

"A fetus is not a baby because it is unable to live independently from the mother and is therefore not viable." Many kids today would qualify as fetus, because they still live at home due to the effects of Hope and Change the last four years. Can a fetus out side its mother womb live without any help from it's mother? NO, so what is the last age a human fetus, now outside it's mother, were it would no longer be allowed to be aborted? 2 years old? 3 years old? 4 years old? Using your definition "unable to live independently from the mother and is therefore not viable" how do address late term abortions? Or partial birth abortions? Like the butcher in Philly is being tried on. Or can you known define what a premature birth is?
"Its worth does not exceed the value of a living, breathing woman" Aren't you making an assumption that in every case of abortion it is a choice between the mother or the human fetus? If a "HUMAN FETUS" is not aborted what does it become? A whale?

Your entire 2nd paragraph. Gee there sure must be a lot of heartfelt
thoughtful thinking going on in the brains of American women to have 55,000,000 aborted HUMAN FETUS in FORTY YEARS! What if anything have I said that would lead you to believe I think of females as you said I do? Nothing, it's just your way of getting around the ugly truth of what abortion is. It's the death of human in its most vulnerable part of its life. Should we "abort" senior citizens when they can no longer take of them selves? After all, many of them are just "lumps of cells".

Your 3rd paragraph...So, two wrongs make a right? Is the USA a socialistic dictatorship like Romania and now China? Do you really believe that if there were no abortions the USA would have the same problem with unwanted children with the same outcome?

Your 4th paragraph. I have never said anything about anyone being punished. That is a straw horse you are using to try to prove it is impossible to prevent abortions. Probably as impossible as it to prevent the crime of murder. So since murder can not be prevented should we make it legal?

Your last paragraph. I have been a registered foster parent with my state. The sole source of children I took in to raise until they were adopted was Bethany Christian Services. Bethany sole source of baby's is from mothers who do not want to murder the human fetus they are carrying but for reasons between them and their God, can not keep the HUMAN FETUS. I and my family have never been against birth control. Our kids were made aware of the methods different types of birth control. Again, because I have a solid belief that you disagree with, you want to believe I'm some sort of back woods hillbilly Bible thumper. How liberal of you.

In closing, from what you have said, am I safe to say you are not going to take me up on my idea that would save millions of humans each year, IE repeal of the 2nd Amendment, end of the death penalty, and an end to legal abortions?
Is the right to murder the human fetus while still in its mother's womb that important to you? That hundreds would die due to the death penalty, that thousands would die due to guns, and that millions would be murdered while still in their mothers womb?
How sick.

At 8:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok. Let’s try this again but it will be the last time because I don’t want to sidetrack any more from Tom’s discussion on guns.

My fault for not being explicit enough as to what independent means. By independent, I mean fetal viability, the stage of development where the fetus is capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus, or, in other words, to breathe on its own. (Modern tech can help with breathing but not before 23 weeks at the earliest.) Children 2-4 years old are not fetuses because they viable. Even your bible defines viability as the ability to breathe. Late-term abortions are based on threats to the life of the mother and/or the fetus; they are severely restricted by law and so uncommon. “Partial birth abortion” is a scare-tactic description for a legitimate medical procedure that prevents damage to a woman’s cervix and is used before the fetus is viable. Again, with both of these procedures, your side places less value on the mother’s life than on that of the fetus’s

No one denies that the fetus is human so your fetus:whale analogy is ridiculous. The question comes back to the viability of the fetus. Based on your statements, the continuing development of a non-viable group of human cells has precedence over the life of a living, breathing, independent woman. Therefore, again extrapolating from your definition, we should not be able to cut our fingernails or have a mole or appendix removed because they’re also living human cells. My statement is just as nonsensical as yours.

Yes, American women do think a lot about their decision. Yet many on your side trivialize women by stating that women undertake such a serious matter on a whim.

Abortion is not the death of a “human in its most vulnerable part of its life”, it is the death of group of non-viable human cells. Once they can breathe on their own, then they can have the same rights. If you are talking about euthanasia and senior citizens, then that is another discussion. However, involuntary euthanasia is wrong as that is murder.

It’s nice to see that you agree about Romania. However, why would you think that banning all abortions and making birth control unavailable – next on the right-wing hit list – in the US would not result in a situation similar to that in Romania or China?

No, I brought up the question on punishment because if you feel so strongly that abortion is wrong and should be completely outlawed, then it is necessary to think about what would happen to those women who do go ahead and have abortions. Because women will continue to have abortions, whether the procedure is legal or not. If you consider abortion murder and murder illegal, then, in those states where capital punishment still exists, the penalty for an abortion conviction in those states has to be death. If capital punishment does not exist, then how long should she be imprisoned for “murder”? How are these questions a straw horse?

Congratulations if you have worked as a foster parent. Yes, I did make an assumption about you because it seems that the majority of people against abortion are religious fanatics intent on imposing their religious views. The “backwoods hillbilly” addition, however, is your assumption, not mine.

I agree that something needs to be done about the gun problem and I am against the death penalty. However, the “hundreds who die due to the death penalty and the thousands who die due to guns” are already living, breathing, thinking, independent beings. How is it that their lives count the same as a non-viable group of living human cells yet more than the lives of viable women? The cells have the possibility of becoming living, breathing, independent beings but, as long as they need to be hosted in the mother’s womb in order to survive, they do not and should not take precedence over a woman’s life. Those who put the rights of a developing clump of non-viable human cells over those of a woman lack compassion and have placed their religious ideology before their humanity.

At 10:40 AM, Anonymous James said...

I guess Republican politicians want sex to be only for procreation which goes against the human condition.

At 11:50 AM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

Let's sum this up quickly.

"The question comes back to the viability of the fetus" Is that your entire argument for the continued legalization of ending the life of a human fetus? If mole or finger nail is left alone will it become a unique person? No, but a human fetus will. That argument has no merit.

Partial birth abortion, you seem to have forgotten about that, is it because you don't want to address it or is it because the "lump of cells" is viable but that cant be discussed because any infringement on the right to abort is forbidden? Is that your position?

You bought up the fact that some states would penalize the mother if they had an abortion. What is you position on laws that address the death of a "lump of cells" occurring during a criminal act? My belief is the person who performed the abortion is the criminal, not the woman or the "lump of cells".

You are against the death penalty, yet those on death row who will suffer it, are there only after a trial of their peers, appeals, and a code of law has been followed. Why is there not the same for the human fetus? Is it because they can not vote? Is it because they are an inconvenience to their mother? Sounds rather ego centric.

Are those who are anti death penalty religious fanatics intent on imposing their religious view?

Are those who want more gun control religious fanatics intent on imposing their religious view?

But those who are against the murder of human fetus are "religious fanatics intent on imposing their religious view.

Do you realize that in order to support your position, you have to convince your self that the act of abortion is the same as cutting a finger nail? How low and inhuman as a society have we sunk to even use that analogy?

At 1:48 PM, Blogger Brick1101 said...

I hate the comments thread on those murdered at Newtown was hijacked by the "abortion patrol". If there were pictures of the actual mutilated bodies for the world to see perhaps the outcome would have been different. It is just like dead soldiers; if you don't see evidence of them, they don't exist. There is a reason the flag draped coffins of the dead are not publicized.
I'm with you Tom... I'll buy the first round...

At 2:23 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"...if you don't see evidence of them, they don't exist."

You just crystallized the abortion issue in America perfectly.

FYI, you folks trying to argue against Chuck have no argument. He has already defeated the same 4-5 lame arguments that are ALWAYS brought forth in the discussion.

Furthermore, to the point of viability. How viable is a 1 year old apart from the care of another person (typically his/her mother)? Not viable at all. How viable is a 30 year old paraplegic absent the care of another? Not viable. How viable is a bed-ridden 78 year old absent the care of another? Not viable. The viability argument is no argument - it is a red herring at best - at worst a pretext for a hellish slippery slope...

At 4:44 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Funny how embryos are more important, or at the least, no different, than schoolchildren to religious fanatics. If your religion says a zygote is a person, or an acorn is an oak tree, fine.

We get it. I even respect how one could believe that.

Believe what you will.

But when you claim an embryo's rights supersede a woman's rights, don't bitch about the nation being unwilling to live under your dogma. What you believe is a woman, by nature, has fewer rights than a man, and that your "small government" should be in control of her uterus by mandating reproduction after fertilization.

This post was about the tragedy of young kids being murdered in school, and the cowards in Washington who do nothing about it. Equating that slaughter with terminating an organism with no nervous system is absurd.

If you want a soapbox condemning abortion, go start your own frickin blog. And while you're at it, condemn God for aborting through miscarriage.

Personally I oppose abortion, especially after the third month, but I oppose theocracy by those who wish to impose their religion in our schools and government more so.

It is un-American, by the founders' definition in our Constitution.

At 7:32 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

Dave said
"Funny how embryos are more important, or at the least, no different, than schoolchildren to religious fanatics."

What's sad is how abortion fanatics are so unbending when it comes to abortion rights than when offered a chance to repel the 2nd and end the death penalty in exchange for ending abortion legalization they refuse.

As I said before, liberals accuse conservatives of not bending or being willing to compromise. Yet who in this debate is the unbending, the uncompromising? A conservative has made a two for one offer, and there are no liberal takers! It just supports my observation that the goal of liberal gun control is not to save the children. Far from it! For if liberals really wanted to save children, they would demand an end to abortion and the 2nd Amendment.

It's not funny, it is almost like abortion is a religion to them, and Dave, for the record I have not once brought up theology or religion or quoted from the Bible or any religion's Holy Book in my posts. Further Dave while I applaud you for not supporting the abortion of human fetus after 3 months, I've got to ask you a question? What's so special about 3 months in the life cycle of the human fetus?

Brick1101.. Are you saying that if the world saw the results of the abortionist's tools the world would demand the act would stop? Because if you claim the reason wars continue and guns are not removed from our society is due to lack of visual evidence, then I would say show the photos of abortion, wars and gun crimes. They are ALL just as gruesome and egregious to the sensible mind.

If you haven't gotten my simple point by now, I'll say it again.
How can you be against the massacre of innocent young humans by a gun, but ok when the massacre is done by the knife, salt brine and vacuum of the abortionist? All I'm asking for is some consistency in your position.

At 9:19 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Guess what? Most liberals want to live in a world of no murder, no war, no capital punishment, and no need or desire for abortion.

Got that?

How can you be against the massacre of innocent young humans by a gun...

The question cannot be answered or asked properly without a mutual understanding of definition of terms. If the embryo is a person to the questioner, and its a gender-less, non-sentient embryo to the person being asked, the question is inadequate.

The question becomes the fallacy, "Begging the question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion...The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof"; in order to charitably entertain the argument, it must be taken as given "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".[5] One must take it upon oneself that the goal, taken as given, is essentially the means to that end.

Does this help? Or are you going to resort again to innuendo, name calling and accusations?

One suggestion, how about addressing the topic of the post for a change?

At 9:46 PM, Blogger edwin_ said...

Chuck Morre said...

"As I said before...." yes many many times

At 6:44 AM, Blogger Lydia said...

What a brave and true rant, Tom.

At 8:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This just has to be prevented if for no other reason than for the children!

At 1:08 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

The debate isn't about whether or not there should be abortions. if you're going to be honest about opposing Roe v Wade, what you're for is making medically safe abortions unavailable to poor women, because A) women are always going to seek abortion services for a variety of medical, personal, and financial reasons, and B)women who can afford it have always been able to get the best medical care.

At 2:00 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

DD -

Your assertions beg the question no less.

Are you asserting that YOU are a person? And, what is the significance of being a person - is it more than material? From whence does person-hood originate? And, from whence does the power to define personhood originate? From a 250 year old document and a 40 year old Supreme Court case?

Also, juxtaposition of another issue is a completely legitimate way to interact with a given issue. So, not overtly "speaking to the topic" is not necessarily "off topic".

At 3:28 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Your point is unclear.

And the person mentioned very often brings up abortion no matter the topic. And that is off topic obsession if there ever was such a thing.

People on the Right assert personhood for everything from embryos to corporations. That doesn't make it so.

Also, juxtaposition of another issue is a completely legitimate way to interact with a given issue. So, not overtly "speaking to the topic" is not necessarily "off topic".

Could this also be an example of "Begging the question"?

At 6:22 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...


Point was that, technically, begging the question can be asserted any time we bring in a priori assumptions - which is most always the case.

Oddly enough, to even assert the concept of "begging the question" begs the question. It assumes that our understanding of formal and informal logic is factual. Rather than begging the question, it is probably best for us to explore the each other's assumptions.

As you assert, the personhood (or non-personhood) of an unborn child at whatever stage of development is significant to the question. But... so is the concept of whether YOU are a person and what it means to be a person (thus my assertion that this argument isn't so irrelevant to the topic). If I can prove that you are merely a material existence, then what worth do you have and what impetus do I have to assign any value to you? Or to an 8 year old child for that matter? On what basis do we assign such value? (which I do of course) Logically, one would have to arrive at the conclusion that we assigning value based on metaphysical concepts? If so, where do we arrive at these? And where does this moment of discontinuity occur between the 8 year old and the unborn?

Important questions...

At 6:23 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

"women are always going to seek abortion services for a variety of medical reasons, etc"

Women are always going to commit murder for a variety of reasons, etc"

women are always going to break the speed limit for a variety of reasons, etc"

women are always going to use heroin fro a variety of reasons,etc"

women are always going to rob other people for a variety of reasons, etc"

women are always going to have sex with underage children for a variety of reasons, etc.

men are always going to commit rape for a variety of reasons, etc.

Since people are ALWAYS going to do these things anyway, for a variety of reasons, why have laws against doing them?
Because common sense tells us they are wrong. We don't need laws to tell us that ending the life of a human fetus is wrong any more than we need a law to tell us murder is wrong.

Dave, you often bring up the topic of the greedy rich people, so what's you point? I bring up abortion anytime some one is upset over the number of children murdered by guns and not just as upset over the murder of humans while in their mothers womb.

You want to end the discussion about abortion, get a bill through both House and the Senate and signed by the president into law either pro or con and 99% of the debate will stop. The peoples Representatives did not pass a law creating Roe v Wade, it was brought into law by 9 unelected people.
If the Pro Choice faction believes that they represent the majority view of Americans, and they want an end to this debate, they should work to make it the Law of the land, not the result of judicial fiat. The fact that they don't speaks volumes on what they know to be true. It would never become law.

And for the record, last thread I was accused of bringing up race on every topic. The thread before that I talked about life n death. Maybe the problem is some people have a difficult time reading things that make them uncomfortable. That is not my problem.

At 6:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today Sharpton said anyone who was opposed to Mayor BLOOMBERG'S gun control law was
"anti Semitic". Go figure.

. In July 1991, a controversy erupted when Leonard Jeffries, a professor at New York’s City College gave a speech blasting “rich Jews” for financing the slave trade and for controlling Hollywood so they could “put together a system of destruction for Black people.”

Sharpton rushed to defend Jeffries, and in the middle of the swirling controversy, declared, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”

A day after Sharpton made that comment, in August 1991, a Jewish driver accidently ran over a 7-year old black boy named Gavin Cato in Crown Heights, Brooklyn and an anti-Semitic riot broke out in which Jewish rabbinical scholar Yankel Rosenbaum was stabbed to death. Instead of calling for calm, Sharpton incited the rioters, leading marches in the streets that included chants of “No Justice, No Peace!” and “Kill the Jews!” At a funeral for the boy who had been run over, Sharpton said, “The world will tell us he was killed by accident. Yes, it was a social accident. … It’s an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights. … Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights.” For those unfamiliar, “diamond merchants” was a thinly-veiled reference to Jewish jewelers.

After an investigation, no indictment was made of the driver who had accidently run over Cato, and he left for Israel. Sharpton flew there in an attempt to “hunt down” the driver and hand him a civil law suit. According to the Daily News, at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, a woman spotted Sharpton and shouted, “Go to hell!” Sharpton yelled back: “I am in hell already. I am in Israel.”

At 7:20 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Good questions. Value is of course, relative. Too many humans are sociopaths who see no value in anybody's life, other than how they can be manipulated.

Rights, however, are defined by our constitution and laws.

And where does this moment of discontinuity occur between the 8 year old and the unborn?

It doesn't. Continuity is measured in stages. There are many stages between a zygote and an 8 year old child, just as there are stages between how we are functioning, and someone who is brain dead. If a zygote is a child to someone, it is by their definition. It is also imperative within their belief system to impose that definition on the rest of the country. This is where the law and courts come in.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court addressed the issue with terms like "viability" and consideration of balancing rights of the fetus and of the woman.

The debate is futile when the two parties cannot agree on a definition of terms. Then the debate becomes focused on conflicting definitions.

This is why the question I addressed was rhetorical or even loaded, instead of one honestly presented for an answer.

One side says defining a person requires a name, birthday, and gender, or even personality. The other says all a person requires is DNA....or a corporate charter. ;-)

Loaded questions from either side get nowhere and shouldn't expect an answer.

As it is, the majority of Americans are pro-choice, they don't think an embryo's rights supersede a woman's rights, and the Supreme Court has weighed in.

But it goes both ways. A woman has more rights than an embryo and a corporation has more rights (Free speech money) and less liability (for incarceration), than a human being.

We all have our disagreement on personhood, but that's how it is.

At 8:05 PM, Anonymous Sally Albright said...

Chuck Moore, you said:
"Still waiting for the true honest liberal who really wants to put an end to the killing of children to join me in being willing to remove the 2nd and end the death penalty in exchange for making abortions illegal."

Well, since none of those awful, misguided, heathen liberals seem to be taking you up on this, maybe you shoud get busy and do it yourself. Just think, it will give you a real purpose in life other than just making stupid comments about Tom's Rant. In fact, you seem to have such self righteous platforms, why don't you start your own blog? But then, you do seem to have a problem focusing on the topic under discussion.

At 11:17 PM, Anonymous Sally Albright said...

Gun control is for the little people, the unwashed, the common folk. Not for the elite tow faced liberal leadership.

Mayor Bloomberg also takes along a police detail when he travels, flying two officers on his private plane and paying as much as $400 a night to put them up at a hotel near his house; the city pays their wages while they are there, as it does whether Mr. Bloomberg is New York or not. Guns are largely forbidden in Bermuda — even most police officers do not use them — but the mayor’s guards have special permission to carry weapons. A spokesman for the Police Department declined to comment.

At 7:04 AM, Anonymous atomic johnic said...

Hey Chuck, here is someone 'people' who received a gift from the 'compassionate conservatives':

...apparently a bit of spent uranium can nip that viability argument in the bud.

At 8:51 AM, Anonymous James said...

Here is another gift from us to the world:

There is more to life than abortions.

At 9:34 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"Value is of course, relative."

Well, that makes it very simple, then. We all do as we see fit. And, none of us has any right to hold our opinion as having any more basis in fact or relevance to the issue than any other. Post-modern nailing Jell-O to the wall ;)

"It is also imperative within their belief system to impose that definition on the rest of the country."

That, my friend, occured 40 years ago - occurs every day. Just so happens that it wasn't my belief system that was imposed. So, in reality, where the rubber meets the road, it is not ME imposing anything - those who hold the anti-thesis to my opinion on the issue have imposed THEIR belief system. All the while screaming at me for desiring to impose mine. Do I honor the gov't of the US. Absolutely - to the point it doesn't violate God's law. At that point, we depart. At that point, their documents become irrelevent to me.

James, there is absolutely more to life than abortions. But, given the prolific nature and (if I'm right in my assertions) the heinous nature of the thing, it ranks very high in the list of crimes against humanity.

Also, all of those who are wishing to silence with the argument that we shouldn't worry only about abortion... The reason we aren't as agitated about the other stuff is WE HAVE LAWS AGAINST THE PRACTICES! We have laws against murder. The Geneva Convention has laws against torture. These laws are regularly broken and are ineffective to stop the crimes from happening. BUT, we have the laws on the books nonetheless, because they represent what we feel to be the moral code we should live by. As soon as we legalize the killing of 8 year olds, you better believe I'll be just as vociferous.

I'm done.

At 3:08 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I understand your feelings. Abortion is an emotional issue from all perspectives. I would not choose it, but it is not my choice to make.

While you dismiss my statement that value is relative, which I illustrated with a sociopath's perspective, the only absolute value you apply is your version of Sharia:

Do I honor the gov't of the US. Absolutely - to the point it doesn't violate God's law.

For now let's set aside the questions of "Who's God, what religion, and what laws, at what time, and what place?"

For some consensus, "God's law" says, "Thou shalt not kill", but it seems to apply only to the nameless unborn by all measure of passions invoked.

Some more relative values for consideration.

Killing a black teen in a hoodie for reacting to stalking by a racist redneck with a gun is ok.

Capital punishment is ok.

Wars based on lies are ok. Not by the Pope at the time mind you, but who cares, right?

Bush was the Deceiver Decider. He and his fellow war criminals go free, excused by the most vociferous anti-choice crowd.

These, my friend, are all example of relative values. Who cares about a bunch of dead soldiers, or even less, for innocent Iraqis?

Another case of relative value is what punishment would you impose on the desperate woman who embraces reproductive choice? Is the right of the embryo so paramount it justifies imprisoning a woman for life, or being executed? If it is the same as slaughtering school children, as you seem to indicate, then tell us.

Should the doctor be executed or imprisoned for life too? How many mature, living, breathing adult lives are to be sacrificed for the loss of an embryo?

What are the "values" of your side on this?

We never hear a peep about what punishment is appropriate for abortion should you have your way. We know some of you think it’s fine to gun down a doctor in church. Remember O’Reilly’s “Tiller the baby killer” and what happened? Is that ok with you?

Maybe we should just call the women witches and burn them? After all, that was "God's law" at one time, you know.

Your values are needed for this issue. What are they? What is the concept of justice for the termination of an embryo? Or is it relative to the stages of development, as the Supreme Court attempted to determine?

I know this issue can be emotionally draining and I understand if you care not to address my questions, but they are there for anyone to consider and answer, especially if they think this is relative to the original post.

At 5:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Freedom without virtue is anarchy.

At 11:13 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

DD –

Happy to engage in questions.

- Sharia law is a theocratic construct. I’ve never argued for a Christian theocracy in America. There’s a difference between asserting an absolute truth claim & arguing for it and implementing it by force. The truth will offend some, but I hope to never be offensive in how I do it. Again, ANY policy that is put in place pushes a belief system on someone – all 300,000,000 of us don’t see eye to eye on anything. The idea that Christians are the only ones pushing their believe systems is silly.

- 10 Commandments more specifically says “do not murder”. Without going into a long explanation, I think you understand the distinction.

- Capital punishment for murderers affirms the value of human life. Capital punishment is not “state-sanctioned murder”. It does bring out a very important parallel, though. The case is often made that the burden of proof is simply too great and the consequences of an error too great to risk the practice. Though I don’t think it necessarily precludes the right use of it, I think there’s some sound thinking to consider there. But, how much more so for abortion? Why do we not bat an eyelash at 1,000,000 abortions a year, when the same risks apply – and, in this case, to the most innocent and helpless among us? To those without a voice and without any legal advocate? Someone answer me. Why does this thinking apply in the capital punishment case argument and not in the abortion argument?

- To bring up 17th century witch burning is like me saying all left-leaning people are ELF supporters. That never represented Christian behavior any more than setting buildings on fire represents democratic liberalism. Nor does killing abortion doctors.

At 1:25 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

You may have never argued for a Christian theocracy in America, but that is exactly what Pat Robertson and his ilk are doing. When you assert “doesn't violate God's law” that could mean something different to almost all persons. Especially since abortion is not mentioned in the Bible. Abortion may be wrong, it may be vile, it may be immoral, but those still do not equate with gunning down schoolchildren in most people’s minds.

Capital punishment is not “state-sanctioned murder”. But aborting an embryo is murder? I don’t believe either assertion is an absolute truth.

Are you saying a state and its leaders are incapable of murder? I’m not sure the distinction is that clear. Because killing by the state, done fairly, or unfairly, in the name of justice, or war, makes no difference to the persons killed. War is murder on a vast scale by those who start them.

Maybe you disagree, but it becomes semantics. Like with personhood, or the difference between a schoolchild and an embryo. A schoolchild is a living, breathing, thinking, and feeling, person with a name, gender and personality. An embryo is not.

Is terminating an embryo exactly the same as gunning down school children? Is the “murder” of an embryo just cause for life imprisonment or execution of both the woman and doctor?

This question begs an answer. If you call it a crime, you should consider the punishment. Make your case.

To bring up 17th century witch burning is like me saying all left-leaning people are ELF supporters.

What is ELF? I don’t recall a whole lot of condemnation from religious conservatives over the murder of Tiller. I recall seeing support for it, though.

I’m not saying conservatives want to burn women as witches, am I? History is history. It was the equivalent of “God’s law” enforced through ignorance, cruelty, and religious zealotry.

I will, however, assert ignorance, cruelty, and religious zealotry are still factors in our culture, government and laws, just as you may assert the same for “godless” secularism. We do know which way the founders leaned.

At 2:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.

What was that about burning women?

At 3:16 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I see someone is all excited about "gotcha" questions over hypothetical "live birth abortions".

So how often does that happen?

Answer that please, otherwise your point is meaningless.

No, you don't answer real questions, do you?

What's your punishment for terminating an embryo? Burn the woman, you say?

If you don't have an answer, then why not shut up and go away?

Your refusal to answer proves you're not here to share information or suggestions, only to slime people who disagree with you.

That's all you hateful trolls care to do isn't it?

No wonder most Americans disagree with you.9239 duclurtc

At 12:56 PM, Anonymous Sal said...

Tom, Your insight is astute as usual. To my way of thinking, all the NRA does is make sure lots of guns are sold, the more the better. Gotta keep those profit margins up for the manufacturers. This is where I lay the blame. If they had any kind of moral core whatsoever they wouldn't be producing semi-automatics and clips with massave amounts of rounds for sale to the general public. The fact that they are exempt from lawsuits is so foul and corrupt it screams for attention, yet we seem to be plugging our noses. More attention should be focused on the manufactures. I'll bet if Wayne LaPiere (their pimp) had a grandchild at Newtown he would have been singing a whole different song. Manufacturers putting these death machines on the market for regular (well maybe not so regular) people to buy should be held accountable by law. Our country and its political systems have become so corrupt at this point they're reprobate.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home