Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Re: killing babies

February 23, 2013

In his op-ed piece “What would the babies say”, Bill O’Reilly “is puzzled that liberal people are so callous when it comes to aborting fetuses”....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(117)

jeanjae

Feb-25-13 3:50 PM

via-gr a

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jeanjae

Feb-25-13 3:49 PM

The same people who fight against access to contraception for women, have no problem with ****** and other such drugs for men.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Feb-24-13 1:09 AM

All anybody needs to do to see the idiocy and insensitivity of the left, read just one (if you can!) of hazyhughes' comment on here! Such insanity, inanity and general intellectual and moral dishonesty, depravity and inconsistency is unfortunately becoming more common.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-23-13 11:49 PM

"The important thing here is that abortion is murder, not a reproductive service."

The cow that someone killed so can enjoy a burger is more sentient than an embryo. Significantly so. It can feel pain, and fear, and is self aware. It probably even has a personality. An embryo is none of these things.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-23-13 11:44 PM

"I do not believe in abortion unless the life of the mother or fetus is in danger. I believe that abortion for convenience is murder"

If abortion "for convenience" is "murder", then so is an abortion for medical necessity.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-23-13 11:41 PM

"we should support things like requiring a the mother to view a sonogram"

You understand we're talking about a medical procedure, not a sales opportunity, right?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-23-13 11:41 PM

"That is why we should support things like requiring a the mother to view a sonogram prior to making the choice."

You're saying you want to FORCE a woman to pay for a medical procedure she doesn't want. Should she also have to get a facelift?

It's funny how many of the right have backpedaled on forcing a woman to pay to have the gestational age determined. Per the numbers I posted earlier today, and considering that a transvaginal ultrasound is required to determine gestational age in the first trimester, NINETY PERCENT of women seeking an abotion would have to literally pay to have a large penis shaped device jammed inside them, against their will. That would include rape victims, that would literally have to pay to be raped again, this time by the Republican party.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Feb-23-13 9:11 PM

"I believe that those who oppose abortion should put their efforts toward a logical, scientific rebuttal that will ring true with mothers who are considering the procedure, that would be more persuasive."--Nobud74

+++

That is why we should support things like requiring a the mother to view a sonogram prior to making the choice. It gives the mother additional information.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-23-13 7:19 PM

That's a bet you'd win, tedeaux.. at least as far as arguing goes. This issue is one in which I understand the conservative point of view and support it to a degree. There are a few conservative principles that I agree with, although the current crop of their respective representatives makes it unlikely that I'll support one with a vote anytime soon. But, that aside, by your reasoning, nothing is ever to be believed because of the resounding logic 'that's a lie'. There are laws and likely some level of oversight in place to enforce the hyde amendment as well as stupak putts. Can you offer anything at all verifiable to support your abortion funding claims? I'd even accept sean hannity as a source, rather than' I just know'.. you also didn't answer, it is for now a legal procedure, why should it not be covered? The law says it is not 'murder'..

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Feb-23-13 6:43 PM

Ms. Hopper, I enjoyed reading your letter and understand your position. I also agree with much of what you have to say with respect to our govt using the military in what I consider a carefree manner. I also believe that you are correct in your call for free birth control and that women, for the most part, do not entertain the option of abortion lightly. Abortion is the law of the land, we may not agree with it and we may speak out against it, but to have a vigorous and thoughtful discussion is good. The character assassination and childish name calling is not helpful.

I do not believe in abortion unless the life of the mother or fetus is in danger. I believe that abortion for convenience is murder, but I will defend the right to have it since it is the law of the land. I believe that those who oppose abortion should put their efforts toward a logical, scientific rebuttal that will ring true with mothers who are considering the procedure, that would be more persuasive.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

Feb-23-13 6:37 PM

Hard to argue with that logic Enigma....but I'm betting he will!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-23-13 6:27 PM

OK Buff, Your PP retort. You choose to believe the lies you want to believe. I can't change that so I won't try. They have given you what you judge to be a plausible explaination and you're going with it. Your choice and it's not the major point here anyway. The important thing here is that abortion is murder, not a reproductive service. It's interesting that people who claim to be all about scientific advances, refuse to see that since 1973 we have found that a fetus is a human being and not just a collection of cells. I would give up on this one too, but it's way more important than how the government wastes my money. This is about how our government allows, if not encourages, the waste of life.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-23-13 5:25 PM

And if it makes you feel better, feel free to substitute deductions for the word subsidies.. might very well be more accurate.. and, I'm sure it's just an oversight so I'll continue to remind you that you've completely dodged responding to my pp retort..

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-23-13 5:15 PM

Well, enigma, I just took another moment via google and found, on the heritage foundation web site no less, a lengthy article discussing the stupak pitts amendment, in effect since 96, that prevents federal insurance employee insurance from covering abortions. So why exactly to you believe this not to be correct? That aside, abortion is legal in the us.. What exactly is the problem with health insurance covering a legal medical procedure? The only basis is a moral objection.. but that does not trump the law. You oppose abortion because of your moral conviction, as is your right. Exactly like it is my right to oppose the specific subsidies given to the oil industry.. the hyde amendment and stupak pitts, I believe, support my contention.. what supports yours? Simply saying so isn't validation..

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-23-13 5:06 PM

I have a quick question. Why SHOULDN'T tax dollars go to pay for abortion? US tax dollars go to LOTS of things certain segments of the population don't like. Tax dollars go to fund wars, tax dollars go to fund the death penalty. Tax dollars even go to fund Social Security and Medicaid that many people oppose on moral grounds.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-23-13 4:35 PM

Buff, Really? Subsidies for oil companies? They don't exist. These are tax deductions that all corporations take, not subsidies. Not even close to the same thing. But your argument was that no tax money was spent on abortion and that is not true. Yes government health care has paid for abortions even after 1995. Now the government spends money on things that we don't want, and that will continue, but for them to lie to us about it is another matter. They lie when they say they don't pay for abortion and they lie when they say that oil companies get subsidies. I have a bigger problem with being lied to than I do just about anything else they do, because it's one thing to have a government whose actions you don't approve, it's quite another to have a government you can't trust.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Feb-23-13 3:21 PM

"After forcing a woman into motherhood...whether-or-NOT she's fully-prepared...it's you "moralists" who are MOST in-need of forgiveness."

+++

Yo Shaman!

Killing the unborn is immoral.

And yes, I am in need of forgiveness; you got that part right.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-23-13 1:36 PM

Hi again enigma.. regarding your federal health insurance covering abortions, I'm wondering if this is a recent development. I did a quick google search and read how the practice was outlawed by the new republican congress in 95, after decades out of power.. but nonetheless, your argument seems to be that you don't approve of your tax dollars going to support this action. You asked me to respond.. ok, the are activities my tax dollars support, like subsidies for oil co's, that I don't support or agree with. I guess that makes us even?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-23-13 1:24 PM

Perhaps so, enigma, I'm not an expert in federal healthcare policy despite the fact that I once was covered by one. However, by that logic I must point out the obvious which is that you also completely dodged my comment about pp. I'm sure it was just an oversight, so I'll remind you..

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-23-13 1:19 PM

Buff, You forgot to counter the fact that all government healthcare plans pay for abortion. I'm sure that was just an oversight, so I'll remind you. I don't think you'll find the same well orchestrated denials of that one. It's hard to deny something that is written into the policy.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-23-13 1:15 PM

"Now, let's see you compare that to the subject-at-hand...and, how abortion-financing fits your pool-scenario." - MrShaman

I already did there skippy. Perhaps you missed it. I know, I know, there isn't a Rachel Maddow video on you tube directing you to where to find it.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-23-13 1:07 PM

"Shaman, I don't know where you see a comparison. I made a statement "the prior 9 mos. aren't a cake walk" - Tgrammiex4

*

...In-response to the scenario I'd described.

That would qualify as a comparison.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-23-13 1:07 PM

Hi enigma.. perhaps you haven't heard but the claim by jon kyl on the senate floor was inaccurate, so much so that it was striken from the record. It's been widely reported.. and not refuted, to my knowledge, that 3% of what pp does pertains to abortion services. Any claim if ' yeah but if you believe that.. ' implies that everyone in pp is part of some sort of conspiracy as is everyone who provides any sort of oversight, and that everyone involved in this conspiracy has managed to stay silent. To say this strains credibility is an understatement..

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-23-13 1:00 PM

"Reeder says:

"Pro-life is only concerned with life before birth."

EXACTLY!

Let WOMEN decide what they do with their bodies and if they choose to give birth to and/or raise a child." - CitizenX

*

...AND, if legislation is required, RESTRICT such legislation/debate to those DIRECTLY-impacted by such legislation; the WOMEN in Congress...ONLY!!!!!

When the males, in Congress, start getting pregnant, they THEN would have a viable-opinion!!!!! Until then, they need to BUTT-OUT!!!!!!!!!!!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Feb-23-13 12:52 PM

"Yea Bufftrev1, that's like saying when you go swimming in the pool at the Y, and you accidentally swallow some water that you didn't ingest someone elses urine because they didn't directly pee in your mouth." - gavinf56

*

Limbaugh-"logic"; how quaint.

Now, let's see you compare that to the subject-at-hand...and, how abortion-financing fits your pool-scenario.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 117 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web